New Study: US Weather Stations Not Biased Toward Warming

Environment • Views: 7,245

Former TV weatherman Anthony Watts has been engaged in an ongoing attack on the reliability of the US network of surface weather stations, claiming that poor placement of the stations has resulted in data that’s biased toward the warm side. Watts set up the website SurfaceStations.org to coordinate photographic evidence of problem stations, and many climatologists have applauded Watts for demonstrating the need to improve the nation’s weather monitoring system.

Typical problems identified at surfacestations.org include stations situated near the exhaust of air conditioning units, in asphalt parking lots, and on hot rooftops.

But is Watts correct when he claims that problems with the stations caused a warm bias? Jeff Masters of Wunder Blog reports on a new study from the National Climatic Data Center concluding that the problems identified by Watts and his investigators are real, all right — but that the badly situated stations tend to have a bias toward cooler temperatures: Poorly sited U.S. temperature instruments not responsible for artificial warming.

While Watts’ publication by the Heartland Institute is a valuable source of information on siting problems of the U.S. network of weather stations, the publication did not undergo peer-review—the process whereby three anonymous scientists who are experts in the field review a manuscript submitted for publication, and offer criticisms on the scientific validity of the results, resulting in revisions to the original paper or outright rejection. The Heartland Institute is an advocacy organization that accepts money from corporate benefactors such as the tobacco industry and fossil fuel industry, and publishes non-peer reviewed science that inevitably supports the interests of the groups paying for the studies. Watts did not actually analyze the data to see if taking out the poorly sited surface stations would have a significant impact on the observed 1.1°F increase in U.S. temperatures over the past century. His study would never have been publishable in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

Fortunately, a proper analysis of the impact of these poorly-sited surface stations on the U.S. historical temperature record has now been done by Dr. Matthew Menne and co-authors at NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). In a talk at last week’s 90th Annual Meeting of the American Meteorological Society, Dr. Menne reported the results of their new paper just accepted for publication in the Journal of Geophysical Research titled, On the reliability of the U.S. Surface Temperature Record [PDF]. Dr. Menne’s study split the U.S. surface stations into two categories: good (rating 1 or 2) and bad (ratings 3, 4 or 5). They performed the analysis using both the rating provided by surfacestations.org, and from an independent rating provided by NOAA personnel. In general, the NOAA-provided ratings coincided with the ratings given by surfacestations.org. Of the NOAA-rated stations, only 71 stations fell into the “good” siting category, while 454 fell into the “bad” category. According to the authors, though, “the sites with good exposure, though small in number, are reasonably well distributed across the country and, as shown by Vose and Menne [2004], are of sufficient density to obtain a robust estimate of the CONUS average”. Dr. Menne’s study computed the average daily minimum and maximum temperatures from the good sites and poor sites. The results were surprising. While the poor sites had a slightly warmer average minimum temperature than the good sites (by 0.03°C), the average maximum temperature measured at the poor sites was significantly cooler (by 0.14°C) than the good sites. As a result, overall average temperatures measured at the poor sites were cooler than the good sites. This is the opposite of the conclusion reached by Anthony Watts in his 2009 Heartland Institute publication.

Figure 2. Annual average maximum and minimum unadjusted temperature change calculated using (c) maximum and (d) minimum temperatures from good and poor exposure sites (Menne 2010). Poor sites showed a cooler maximum temperature compared to good sites. For minimum temperature, the poor sites were slightly warmer. The net effect was a cool bias in poorly sited stations. The dashed lines are for stations ranked by NOAA, while the solid lines are for the stations ranked by surfacestations.org.

Andrew Revkin has more, including comments from Anthony Watts: On Weather Stations and Climate Trends.

Jump to bottom

662 comments
1 jamesfirecat  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 11:34:11am

Yay, finally someone makes a math error that makes Global Warming look more reasonable!

I guess by the law of averages it was bound to happen sooner or later...

2 brookly red  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 11:38:37am

Either way it's pretty sad if the government can't even take the temperature correctly...

3 Ojoe  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 11:42:48am

Given that carbon dioxide constitutes about 1/3000 of the atmosphere, how does the adjustment of this trace part have such a big effect in a system with many other hugely bigger factors?

I have wondered about the science behind that particular conclusion - big effect from a trace part - for a while now.

4 Charles Johnson  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 11:45:43am

re: #3 Ojoe

Given that carbon dioxide constitutes about 1/3000 of the atmosphere, how does the adjustment of this trace part have such a big effect in a system with many other hugely bigger factors?

I have wondered about the science behind that particular conclusion - big effect from a trace part - for a while now.

A good article on this at Skeptical Science: Are humans too insignificant to affect global climate?

5 Racer X  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 11:48:46am

It's all a diversion form the real problems we are facing.

Squirrel!

6 jamesfirecat  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 11:50:54am

re: #2 brookly red

Either way it's pretty sad if the government can't even take the temperature correctly...

Please you want to know sad, at the moment we'd be more accurately be able to "tell" if its going to rain tomorrow by flipping a coin then by listening to the local weather station.

[Link: www.cracked.com...]

7 Walter L. Newton  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 11:52:23am

Errors are good sometimes.

8 brookly red  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 11:54:50am

re: #6 jamesfirecat

Please you want to know sad, at the moment we'd be more accurately be able to "tell" if its going to rain tomorrow by flipping a coin then by listening to the local weather station.

[Link: www.cracked.com...]

I guess it is somewhat harder to predict future events then to record those that have already happened...

9 MandyManners  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 11:55:39am

re: #8 brookly red

I guess it is somewhat harder to predict future events then to record those that have already happened...

I knew you were gonna' say that.

10 brookly red  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 11:55:46am

re: #7 Walter L. Newton

Errors are good sometimes.

especially if you are try to steal second base...

11 sattv4u2  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 11:56:08am

re: #9 MandyManners

I knew you were gonna' say that.

And I knew you SAID that!

12 sattv4u2  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 11:56:40am

re: #10 brookly red

especially if you are try to steal second base...

who's on first!?

13 brookly red  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 11:57:37am

re: #12 sattv4u2

who's on first!?

Wabbit Season...

14 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 11:57:50am

re: #3 Ojoe

Given that carbon dioxide constitutes about 1/3000 of the atmosphere, how does the adjustment of this trace part have such a big effect in a system with many other hugely bigger factors?

I have wondered about the science behind that particular conclusion - big effect from a trace part - for a while now.

This is a very good question.

Please permit me what may seem like a snarky answer but is really actually the point. A very trace amount of cyanide can kill you. A very trace amount of lead if moving quickly enough can kill you.

I am not saying that to be mean at all. The point is that certain systems are, for whatever reasons very sensitive to certain things. Your cells are constructed in such a way that they get energy from an electron transport cycle that goes on in their mitochondria, and cyanide disrupts that. A very small amount will kill you by making it so that your cells can not get energy.

By the same token, CO2 is really good at trapping IR radiation. This is just the way it is constructed, further, our sun puts out a very large amount of IR. When IR hits many organic molecules, and water for that matter, it can cause them to vibrate. that is what it means to get hot. All heat is molecular vibration. The other thing that can happen is the IR gets reflected back into space.

What CO2 does, because of its construction is trap and re radiate IR that had already been reflected. It traps on the way in also, but it is the tstuff that gets trapped on the way out that is the point. the CO2 re-radiates the IR and sends it back down. where it can have another chance of getting caught downstairs and warming whatever it hit up.

It may seem odd that such a trace amount could be that effective, but again, some systems are very sensitive to small things, and if you do the math, t becomes really clear that this trace amount of CO2 can do quite a lot.

15 Racer X  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 11:59:23am

Your politicians in action:

Pelosi's climate air farce

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is leading a large delegation on at least two Air Force jets to Copenhagen for the climate summit -- where participants harshly condemn the use of jet airplanes for the high amounts of CO2 they emit.

"This may be the largest congressional delegation I have ever heard of," said a source at the 89th Air Wing stationed at Andrews Air Force Base of the trip to the UN summit, which is increasingly being criticized as a farce.

Using her authority as speaker, Pelosi reserved at least two jets based at Andrews AFB to fly her and her delegation to Denmark for the final days of the two-week conference.

But Republicans on Capitol Hill and the 89th Air Wing source said Pelosi actually reserved five planes to carry a delegation that includes as many as 24 Democrats and six Republicans.
At a time when Democrats are grappling with a host of major issues from health-care reform to the financial crisis, Pelosi planned yesterday to clip short the workweek to make the climate summit.

"Climate change is a religion for them, so there was no way they were going to miss this," said one top GOP aide. "This is their Hajj."

A Democratic source insisted that the delegation would be using just two planes but would not specify further.

While the final manifest remained in flux late yesterday, it was said to include more than two dozen members of Congress, several spouses and committee staffers.

Rep. Charles Rangel (D-Harlem) was among those planning to go because of his duties as chairman of the House Ways & Means Committee, a staffer told The Post.

"We all know that Charlie Rangel is a big fan of subsidizing his vacation with taxpayer money, but the truly offensive aspect of this is Nancy Pelosi's decision to bring the corrupt Harlem Democrat along for the ride," said Republican spokesman Ken Spain.

The 89th Air Wing's biggest planes are the military versions of the Boeing 757 and the Boeing 737.

The 757 carries 45 passengers and costs more than $10,000 per hour to fly, according to Air Force figures.

The roundtrip cost to Copenhagen and back for the C-32A would cost taxpayers $160,000.

The 737 carries 26 passengers and costs about $7,500 per hour of flight time, bringing the costs of a Copenhagen jaunt to $120,000.

The smaller Gulfstreams hold 12 passengers apiece, but only the Gulfstream V has the range to reach Copenhagen from Washington without refueling. It costs more than $4,300 per hour to fly, bringing that taxpayer tab to more than $68,000 for a weekend in Copenhagen.

These figures do not include the cost of keeping the planes and flight crews on the ground in Copenhagen.

16 Big Steve  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 11:59:33am

Regardless of the direction of the bias, only 71 out of a total of 525 (13.5%) being "good" is, in of itself, rather concerning.

17 Walter L. Newton  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 11:59:36am

re: #14 ludwigvanquixote

Hi Ludwig, long time no see... got a call on the Bat Phone? How are you doing?

18 Walter L. Newton  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 11:59:58am

re: #15 Racer X

Denier.

19 Walter L. Newton  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 12:00:16pm

re: #16 Big Steve

Regardless of the direction of the bias, only 71 out of a total of 525 (13.5%) being "good" is, in of itself, rather concerning.

Errors are good.

20 Racer X  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 12:02:30pm

re: #18 Walter L. Newton

Denier.

Yes I am.

When someone says says our congress people are doing good for the country I deny that assertion.

21 MandyManners  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 12:02:37pm

re: #15 Racer X

How much booze will she take? Dewars? Makers?

22 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 12:03:13pm

re: #2 brookly red

Either way it's pretty sad if the government can't even take the temperature correctly...

Yes, but this is also bullshit with statistics. We are talking overall about a very very small error, that is being sensationalized. The trend to warming is huge, even in the worst fever dream of the possible errors of the weather stations either way, the trend to warming is absolutely clear and above the error bars.

This is all like the sensationalist reports of eating x gives a 10% more chance of catching y. If y is something that only effects 10 out of 100,000 people and now a new study shows that 11 out of 100,000 get y if they eat x, there is indeed a 10% increase, however, the overall trend is still that only about 1 in 10,000 get y.

23 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 12:04:22pm

re: #17 Walter L. Newton

Hi Ludwig, long time no see... got a call on the Bat Phone? How are you doing?

Good to see you too Walter. I have been super busy of late. I love posting here, but real world must sometimes intrude for long periods.

24 Racer X  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 12:05:06pm

re: #21 MandyManners

How much booze will she take? Dewars? Makers?

I'm sure they were all toasted to the gills on that trip.

25 Aceofwhat?  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 12:06:15pm

re: #15 Racer X

Yep. We were joking during the "counting I's" thread that maybe Obama should have said "we" instead.

Well, when Pelosi says "we" need to reduce our carbon footprints, she should be saying "you rubes". Because the Exalted San Fran One certainly isn't concerned about it...

26 brookly red  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 12:07:01pm

re: #22 ludwigvanquixote

Yes, but this is also bullshit with statistics. We are talking overall about a very very small error, that is being sensationalized. The trend to warming is huge, even in the worst fever dream of the possible errors of the weather stations either way, the trend to warming is absolutely clear and above the error bars.

This is all like the sensationalist reports of eating x gives a 10% more chance of catching y. If y is something that only effects 10 out of 100,000 people and now a new study shows that 11 out of 100,000 get y if they eat x, there is indeed a 10% increase, however, the overall trend is still that only about 1 in 10,000 get y.

so I take it your not concerned about y?

27 Achilles Tang  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 12:07:27pm

re: #3 Ojoe

Given that carbon dioxide constitutes about 1/3000 of the atmosphere, how does the adjustment of this trace part have such a big effect in a system with many other hugely bigger factors?

I have wondered about the science behind that particular conclusion - big effect from a trace part - for a while now.

I was thinking of that recently and imagined the following somewhat simple analogy, given that CO2 is known to absorb infrared radiation frequencies, whereas it is "transparent" to others.

Take an invisible vertical tube that holds 3000 stacked marbles. 2999 of them are transparent to all radiation and one, randomly placed, is opaque to infrared only.

Now cover the entire surface with such vertical tubes standing next to each other and it is not hard to imagine that, even though there is only 1 in 3000 opaque marbles in the whole, seen from above or below the effect is essentially the same as if there was a complete blockage to infrared radiation.

28 SixDegrees  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 12:08:56pm
Dr. Menne’s study split the U.S. surface stations into two categories: good (rating 1 or 2) and bad (ratings 3, 4 or 5). They performed the analysis using both the rating provided by surfacestations.org, and from an independent rating provided by NOAA personnel. In general, the NOAA-provided ratings coincided with the ratings given by surfacestations.org. Of the NOAA-rated stations, only 71 stations fell into the “good” siting category, while 454 fell into the “bad” category. According to the authors, though, “the sites with good exposure, though small in number, are reasonably well distributed across the country and, as shown by Vose and Menne [2004], are of sufficient density to obtain a robust estimate of the CONUS average”.

How well distributed are the bad sites?

I think a better experiment would be to do measurements in the same general location as the "bad" sites, with equipment placed so as to overcome the difficulties that wind up classifying the bad sites as "bad." This isn't difficult in most cases: the objections involved siting measurement stations too close to buildings, near large thermal masses, near possible sources of artificial heat, and so on. In other words, go measure what the delta actually is at enough stations to guarantee statistical significance.

This would give actual measurements of what bias may exist, and of how large it may be. I'd trust it more than the "epidemiological" approach taken in this paper

29 jamesfirecat  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 12:10:16pm

re: #8 brookly red

I guess it is somewhat harder to predict future events then to record those that have already happened...

When all of our scientific equipment just barely predicts things more accurately then pure zippidy doo dah luck, clearly we need to work harder...

30 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 12:11:42pm

re: #26 brookly red

so I take it your not concerned about y?

IN that case no. But be careful about my point. The point is that there are all sorts of ways to lie with statistics by not giving the full story.

Another case that is exactly the same, and applies to the weather stations perhaps more obviously is say 90 out of 100 get y while by eating x 91 out of 100 get y.

The warming trend is the 90 out of 100, a huge signal. The errors at most would change it to 89 or 91 out of 100. In that case you can conclude two things immediately.

1. Y is a really big problem on its own.

2. What ever x does to mitigate or aggravate y is not very big at all and almost certainly not the point.

31 Racer X  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 12:12:00pm

re: #25 Aceofwhat?

Yep. We were joking during the "counting I's" thread that maybe Obama should have said "we" instead.

Well, when Pelosi says "we" need to reduce our carbon footprints, she should be saying "you rubes". Because the Exalted San Fran One certainly isn't concerned about it...

I am thoroughly disgusted with our politicians, the whole lot. I think 536 people off the street could do no worse that these morons over the past 40 years.

32 Digital Display  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 12:12:05pm

re: #22 ludwigvanquixote

Yes, but this is also bullshit with statistics. We are talking overall about a very very small error, that is being sensationalized. The trend to warming is huge, even in the worst fever dream of the possible errors of the weather stations either way, the trend to warming is absolutely clear and above the error bars.

This is all like the sensationalist reports of eating x gives a 10% more chance of catching y. If y is something that only effects 10 out of 100,000 people and now a new study shows that 11 out of 100,000 get y if they eat x, there is indeed a 10% increase, however, the overall trend is still that only about 1 in 10,000 get y.

Miss Ya dude!

33 The Left  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 12:13:37pm

re: #23 ludwigvanquixote

Good to see you too Walter. I have been super busy of late. I love posting here, but real world must sometimes intrude for long periods.

Good to 'see' you! You have been missed! :)

34 williwonka  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 12:14:13pm

re: #19 Walter L. Newton
So because the poorly located sites showed cooler tempertures than the correctly located sites we are to believe that this proves that global warming exist and that the data were biased in favor of cooling? No! Please, it might mean that the poor locations resulted in the readings not being as cold as they would have been if properly located.

I can see why Charles is disenchanted with the right, but the left is just as bad if not worse.

35 brookly red  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 12:14:30pm

re: #30 ludwigvanquixote

Re: IN that case no. But be careful about my point. The point is that there are all sorts of ways to lie with statistics by not giving the full story.

I hear you...LOL I work in advertising.

36 Walter L. Newton  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 12:15:53pm

re: #34 williwonka

So because the poorly located sites showed cooler tempertures than the correctly located sites we are to believe that this proves that global warming exist and that the data were biased in favor of cooling? No! Please, it might mean that the poor locations resulted in the readings not being as cold as they would have been if properly located.

I can see why Charles is disenchanted with the right, but the left is just as bad if not worse.

You must be new here?

37 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 12:16:02pm

re: #29 jamesfirecat

When all of our scientific equipment just barely predicts things more accurately then pure zippidy doo dah luck, clearly we need to work harder...

Only it does vastly better than that. You are falling for the sensationalist crap that the MSM wants you to fall for.

Think about it like measuring your weight.

For almost all purposes, knowing your weight to within a pound is sufficient.

If you are 350 lbs and 5'8", you are morbidly obese. If getting on a better scale told you that you are 349 lbs and 11.325 oz, you would still be morbidly obese. By the same token, if you got on a really basd scale and it was off by as much as 5 lbs and it told you that you weighed 348 lbs +/- 5 lbs, you would still be morbidly obese. The thermometers on the weather stations are good to within a fraction of a degree. That is more than sufficient to show the trend quite clearly.

38 Achilles Tang  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 12:16:36pm

re: #15 Racer X

There is truth in there for sure, but whenever I see these types of figures ($10,000 per hour for example) I wonder what they include. Everything except fuel, landing charges, and prorating maintenance materials would be incurred whether the plane flew or not (the crew, capital costs etc are not incurred only when it flies).

39 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 12:16:47pm

re: #32 HoosierHoops

re: #33 iceweasel

Missed you guys too. I am sorry for my absence, but I really have been swamped at work.

40 Pacific moderate  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 12:17:03pm

I'm wondering whether it matters if these stations are placed too close to artificial heat sources. What's important is whether there's an overall warming TREND, not whether the baseline at a particular station has been 2 degrees too hot or cold over a 30 year sample set. Conversely if you have an artificial heat source, might that (ironically) mask an atmospheric warming trend that you'd otherwise detect? I don't see how Watts' points could be taken to undermine the evidence for AGW. What am I missing?

41 Digital Display  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 12:20:05pm

re: #39 ludwigvanquixote

re: #33 iceweasel

Missed you guys too. I am sorry for my absence, but I really have been swamped at work.

Missed you..I move to Singapore in Oct...I'm storing my shit back home in California this fall..Pretty bad when you have to give your car keys to the old man.. Dude might drive it..Revenge is sweet for him

42 MandyManners  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 12:20:13pm

re: #38 Naso Tang

There is truth in there for sure, but whenever I see these types of figures ($10,000 per hour for example) I wonder what they include. Everything except fuel, landing charges, and prorating maintenance materials would be incurred whether the plane flew or not (the crew, capital costs etc are not incurred only when it flies).

The fuel is a MAJOR cost.

43 Aceofwhat?  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 12:21:22pm

re: #37 ludwigvanquixote

i totally agree. the rub is that if you use the same logic in other situations, you'll be surprised who jumps on you.

i made the same point about abortions - go to the gov't statistics website, and you'll find that deaths related to abortions and deaths related to live births (once you control for age, etc.) are both so infinitesimal that, statistically speaking, the correct pronouncement is to say "both an abortion and a birth procedure, assuming average risk assessments in either case, are incredibly safe and neither is statistically safer than the other".

However, that led to some misgivings. We'd all do well to mind the difference between error and meaningful error, no matter what the subject...

44 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 12:21:26pm

re: #41 HoosierHoops

Missed you..I move to Singapore in Oct...I'm storing my shit back home in California this fall..Pretty bad when you have to give your car keys to the old man.. Dude might drive it..Revenge is sweet for him

Singapore sounds like a glorious adventure. I am a bit jealous. Particularly since I am stuck in my lab all the time these days.

45 Achilles Tang  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 12:22:04pm

re: #34 williwonka

So because the poorly located sites showed cooler tempertures than the correctly located sites we are to believe that this proves that global warming exist and that the data were biased in favor of cooling? No! Please, it might mean that the poor locations resulted in the readings not being as cold as they would have been if properly located.

I can see why Charles is disenchanted with the right, but the left is just as bad if not worse.

Huh? (several huhs)

46 brookly red  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 12:22:47pm

re: #42 MandyManners

The fuel is a MAJOR cost.

/what do you think can drink more in an hour, a 757 or a Congressional delegation with an open bar?

47 Achilles Tang  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 12:23:33pm

re: #42 MandyManners

The fuel is a MAJOR cost.

No doubt, but does it take close to $10,000 per hour for a 757?

48 Aceofwhat?  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 12:23:37pm

re: #40 Pacific moderate

it MIGHT not make a difference. but this stuff is sorta important. The better idea is to collect data that, as much as possible, is protected from outside influence. then we don't have to have these discussions in the first place.

control is very important...there is enough error inherent in any enterprise. minimizing it is always the proper step, when remotely possible.

49 Big Steve  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 12:23:50pm

re: #37 ludwigvanquixote

Only it does vastly better than that. You are falling for the sensationalist crap that the MSM wants you to fall for.

Think about it like measuring your weight.

For almost all purposes, knowing your weight to within a pound is sufficient.

If you are 350 lbs and 5'8", you are morbidly obese. If getting on a better scale told you that you are 349 lbs and 11.325 oz, you would still be morbidly obese. By the same token, if you got on a really basd scale and it was off by as much as 5 lbs and it told you that you weighed 348 lbs +/- 5 lbs, you would still be morbidly obese. The thermometers on the weather stations are good to within a fraction of a degree. That is more than sufficient to show the trend quite clearly.

However, the Mann graph is considered significant and it is showing a 0.2 degree rise on the famous hockey stick portion of it. So in this case fractions of degrees are meaningful.

50 MandyManners  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 12:24:05pm

re: #46 brookly red

/what do you think can drink more in an hour, a 757 or a Congressional delegation with an open bar?

No open flames around either.

51 Stinky Beaumont  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 12:24:17pm

re: #34 williwonka

I can see why Charles is disenchanted with the right, but the left is just as bad if not worse.

Who said anything about "right" or "left?"

It's not "leftists" who published this new report on weather stations -- it's a scientific study.

52 brookly red  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 12:24:22pm

re: #47 Naso Tang

No doubt, but does it take close to $10,000 per hour for a 757?

that would include salaries I guess?

53 MandyManners  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 12:24:33pm

re: #47 Naso Tang

No doubt, but does it take close to $10,000 per hour for a 757?

Beats me. Maybe they'll including the cost of food and booze into the calculation.

54 MandyManners  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 12:24:53pm

be

55 sattv4u2  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 12:25:09pm

taking and break but willbe lurking,,, gotta set up the early evening feedsre: #53 MandyManners

Beats me. Maybe they'll including the cost of food and booze into the calculation.

And hookers ,,,,, don't forget the hookers!

56 Digital Display  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 12:25:16pm

re: #44 ludwigvanquixote

Singapore sounds like a glorious adventure. I am a bit jealous. Particularly since I am stuck in my lab all the time these days.

We have wanted to open a logistics Center in China for years..It's just to difficult.. We are opening a place in the trade free Zone in Singapore to service the Chinese Market...I think it's a 3 year gig

57 MandyManners  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 12:25:36pm

re: #52 brookly red

that would include salaries I guess?

Military gets paid no matter what.

58 MandyManners  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 12:25:56pm

re: #55 sattv4u2

taking and break but willbe lurking,,, gotta set up the early evening feeds

And hookers ,,, don't forget the hookers!

They're taking spouses.

59 bubba zanetti  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 12:26:08pm

re: #27 Naso Tang

Heck, spray paint a window with a little black paint, and compare the mass of the window glass to the paint.

Or compare the mass of insulation to the rest of the mass of your house. Compared to all of the mass of the foundation and framing it's a small amount.

Yet the deniers seem to be convinced that when they upgrade their insulation and their power bill goes down, it's because the power company is systematically misreading the meter.

60 Aceofwhat?  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 12:26:16pm

re: #56 HoosierHoops

We have wanted to open a logistics Center in China for years..It's just to difficult.. We are opening a place in the trade free Zone in Singapore to service the Chinese Market...I think it's a 3 year gig

either way, they're probably already mucking around in your systems!

61 jamesfirecat  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 12:26:18pm

re: #34 williwonka

So because the poorly located sites showed cooler tempertures than the correctly located sites we are to believe that this proves that global warming exist and that the data were biased in favor of cooling? No! Please, it might mean that the poor locations resulted in the readings not being as cold as they would have been if properly located.

I can see why Charles is disenchanted with the right, but the left is just as bad if not worse.


You might want to take down that straw man you just put up about how this "proves" global warming or you're gonna have a hell of a time sweeping the floor.

62 sattv4u2  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 12:26:36pm

re: #58 MandyManners

They're taking spouses.

the hookers are taking their spouses? No WONDER it's getting costly!

63 Aceofwhat?  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 12:27:09pm

re: #61 jamesfirecat

You might want to take down that straw man you just put up about how this "proves" global warming or you're gonna have a hell of a time sweeping the floor.

but don't burn it...the particulates are as bad or worse than the CO2//

64 MandyManners  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 12:27:19pm

re: #62 sattv4u2

the hookers are taking their spouses? No WONDER it's getting costly!

Oh, dear me.

65 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 12:27:30pm

re: #15 Racer X

I really hate these little snark reports about the cost of transporting dignitaries.

It costs money to fly the president or congress critters of either party. That is just the nature of the beast. Both parties need to get where they are going and both parties snark at the other one for going as a cheap shot that is ultimately meaningless.

Both parties abuse their privileges.

But worse than that is that both parties try to send the message that of course the trip is a waste of money because the trip itself was pointless.

The GOP would have you falsely believe that AGW is not real. So they make a false storm about people actually wanting to do something about it.

Great show for the anti-science morons of the GOP.

66 sattv4u2  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 12:27:53pm

re: #63 Aceofwhat?

but don't burn it...the particulates are as bad or worse than the CO2//

Give the StrawMan to the Flying Monkeys ,, THATS always fun to watch!!

67 jamesfirecat  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 12:28:02pm

re: #37 ludwigvanquixote

Only it does vastly better than that. You are falling for the sensationalist crap that the MSM wants you to fall for.

Think about it like measuring your weight.

For almost all purposes, knowing your weight to within a pound is sufficient.

If you are 350 lbs and 5'8", you are morbidly obese. If getting on a better scale told you that you are 349 lbs and 11.325 oz, you would still be morbidly obese. By the same token, if you got on a really basd scale and it was off by as much as 5 lbs and it told you that you weighed 348 lbs +/- 5 lbs, you would still be morbidly obese. The thermometers on the weather stations are good to within a fraction of a degree. That is more than sufficient to show the trend quite clearly.

I was referring to the f***ed up ability to predict rain that was mentioned in the cracked article when I was talking about situations in which our advanced instruments are more or less as good as flipping a coin, not measuring global temperatures.

68 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 12:28:18pm

re: #49 Big Steve

However, the Mann graph is considered significant and it is showing a 0.2 degree rise on the famous hockey stick portion of it. So in this case fractions of degrees are meaningful.

Ummm why not look at the data? We have already warmed by more than .2 degrees in the last few decades.

69 brookly red  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 12:28:53pm

re: #59 bubba zanetti

Heck, spray paint a window with a little black paint, and compare the mass of the window glass to the paint.

Or compare the mass of insulation to the rest of the mass of your house. Compared to all of the mass of the foundation and framing it's a small amount.

Yet the deniers seem to be convinced that when they upgrade their insulation and their power bill goes down, it's because the power company is systematically misreading the meter.

you would make a great shortstop with a stretch like that...

70 Achilles Tang  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 12:29:06pm

re: #42 MandyManners

The fuel is a MAJOR cost.

I did a google. Seems that something like 8000lbs/hr is a number to use and I can imagine that jet fuel costs at least $1 per pound, so I guess that the $10,000 per hour is mostly fuel.

71 Aceofwhat?  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 12:29:41pm

re: #65 ludwigvanquixote

they "need" to go to Copenhagen? Hi. I'm teleconferencing. Have we met?

Easy with the ranting. Nothing is as anti-science as an idiot who can't use a videoconferencing machine. Pols who are extremely concerned about AGW would do well to lead by example, and asking that they do so is not a concern to be blithely brushed aside.

72 jamesfirecat  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 12:29:57pm

re: #51 Stinky Beaumont

Who said anything about "right" or "left?"

It's not "leftists" who published this new report on weather stations -- it's a scientific study.

Please, everyone knows that Science is in the tank for Liberalisim!

73 sattv4u2  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 12:32:11pm

re: #65 ludwigvanquixote

I really hate these little snark reports about the cost of transporting dignitaries.

Would these be the same "dignitaries" that rail against the excesses in big business (PRIVATE big business, at that) the same big businesses that have by and large gone the TELECONFERENCING route instead of managers being flown in from all over the world to a meeting in the home ofice headquarters!?!?!

74 Aceofwhat?  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 12:33:14pm

re: #73 sattv4u2

I really hate these little snark reports about the cost of transporting dignitaries.

Would these be the same "dignitaries" that rail against the excesses in big business (PRIVATE big business, at that) the same big businesses that have by and large gone the TELECONFERENCING route instead of managers being flown in from all over the world to a meeting in the home ofice headquarters!?!?!

or perhaps the same 'dignitaries' who talk about how much more we could spend on local matters if we weren't funding such a large military effort. do as i say, not as i do...

75 Digital Display  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 12:33:37pm

re: #60 Aceofwhat?

either way, they're probably already mucking around in your systems!

Nay..Our security is world class..We run 802.1x on the switches so your port get's shut down with MAC authorization.. Plus you have to have a Cert issued from one of our Cert servers... You don't have the right PVK key? Sorry about your luck..Pain in the ass..But nobody gets in our Network

76 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 12:33:54pm

re: #71 Aceofwhat?

re: #73 sattv4u2

And yet, I never heard you guys bitch about a GOP person not teleconferencing.

Further you have got to be kidding. Real politicking gets done face to face no matter who is doing it. That is why we have summits in the first place.

77 sattv4u2  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 12:35:16pm

re: #75 HoosierHoops

Nay..Our security is world class..We run 802.1x on the switches so your port get's shut down with MAC authorization.. Plus you have to have a Cert issued from one of our Cert servers... You don't have the right PVK key? Sorry about your luck..Pain in the ass..But nobody gets in our Network


Theres a 16 year old in moms basement somewhere that disagrees with you !!!

///

78 brookly red  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 12:35:31pm

re: #73 sattv4u2

I really hate these little snark reports about the cost of transporting dignitaries.

Would these be the same "dignitaries" that rail against the excesses in big business (PRIVATE big business, at that) the same big businesses that have by and large gone the TELECONFERENCING route instead of managers being flown in from all over the world to a meeting in the home ofice headquarters!?!?!

well I guess that answering to stockholders and answering to taxpayers are 2 different things after all...

79 Aceofwhat?  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 12:35:58pm

re: #76 LudwigVanQuixote

re: #73 sattv4u2

And yet, I never heard you guys bitch about a GOP person not teleconferencing.

Further you have got to be kidding. Real politicking gets done face to face no matter who is doing it. That is why we have summits in the first place.

The GOP isn't bitching at you to have a smaller carbon footprint. Is that distinction not blindingly obvious? It's the hypocrisy I'm railing against.

And you have got to be kidding. If real politicians want to make real reductions in greenhouse gases, then they can figure out how to do real politicking via videoconference. It's the least challenging aspect of this whole topic.

80 sattv4u2  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 12:35:59pm

re: #76 LudwigVanQuixote

re: #73 sattv4u2

And yet, I never heard you guys bitch about a GOP person not teleconferencing.

Further you have got to be kidding. Real politicking gets done face to face no matter who is doing it. That is why we have summits in the first place.

then why do their spouses "faces' have to be there !?!?!

81 SixDegrees  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 12:36:23pm

re: #47 Naso Tang

No doubt, but does it take close to $10,000 per hour for a 757?

Fuel, cost of employees, amortized cost of the airplane and it's maintenance, cost of insurance...

Doesn't sound too out of line to me, without actually bothering to look up figures.

82 MandyManners  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 12:37:06pm

re: #73 sattv4u2

I really hate these little snark reports about the cost of transporting dignitaries.

Would these be the same "dignitaries" that rail against the excesses in big business (PRIVATE big business, at that) the same big businesses that have by and large gone the TELECONFERENCING route instead of managers being flown in from all over the world to a meeting in the home ofice headquarters!?!?!

KORPORASHUNS R EEEBILLL

83 Racer X  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 12:37:07pm

re: #65 ludwigvanquixote

I really hate these little snark reports about the cost of transporting dignitaries.

It costs money to fly the president or congress critters of either party. That is just the nature of the beast. Both parties need to get where they are going and both parties snark at the other one for going as a cheap shot that is ultimately meaningless.

Both parties abuse their privileges.

But worse than that is that both parties try to send the message that of course the trip is a waste of money because the trip itself was pointless.

The GOP would have you falsely believe that AGW is not real. So they make a false storm about people actually wanting to do something about it.

Great show for the anti-science morons of the GOP.

WTF?

I am pissed off at all of our inept congress critters. Your response exemplifies the politicization of the whole Global Warming issue.

Nice job.

Oh, and Copenhagen was a complete and utter failure. AND waste of taxpayer money.

Again, nice job.

84 subsailor68  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 12:37:48pm

re: #73 sattv4u2

I really hate these little snark reports about the cost of transporting dignitaries.

Would these be the same "dignitaries" that rail against the excesses in big business (PRIVATE big business, at that) the same big businesses that have by and large gone the TELECONFERENCING route instead of managers being flown in from all over the world to a meeting in the home ofice headquarters!?!?!

Hi sat! Just to bolster your point, a number of years ago I did a series of videotapes at the J.C. Penny studio near Dallas. The major point of the facility IIRC was to use video to bring buyers from regional stores programs on the new lines, what was coming out for next season, etc. It was a very, very cool way to trade info, without the cost of physically bringing the buyers to headquarters - or sending reps out to each store/region.

And, when I was running the broadcast ops at the hospital network, we routinely aired (later on in HD) operations by leading surgeons, with other surgeons simply viewing (and communicating questions) the procedure at their own hospitals. Also very cool.

85 sattv4u2  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 12:37:48pm

re: #82 MandyManners

KORPORASHUNS R EEEBILLL

and don't you forget it, missy!!

86 Walter L. Newton  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 12:37:55pm

re: #83 Racer X

WTF?

I am pissed off at all of our inept congress critters. Your response exemplifies the politicization of the whole Global Warming issue.

Nice job.

Oh, and Copenhagen was a complete and utter failure. AND waste of taxpayer money.

Again, nice job.

And you expected what?

87 MandyManners  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 12:37:56pm

re: #81 SixDegrees

Fuel, cost of employees, amortized cost of the airplane and it's maintenance, cost of insurance...

Doesn't sound too out of line to me, without actually bothering to look up figures.

Military personnel get paid whether they go or not.

88 MandyManners  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 12:39:13pm

re: #85 sattv4u2

and don't you forget it, missy!!

*guffaw*

89 Racer X  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 12:39:17pm

re: #76 LudwigVanQuixote

re: #73 sattv4u2

And yet, I never heard you guys bitch about a GOP person not teleconferencing.

Further you have got to be kidding. Real politicking gets done face to face no matter who is doing it. That is why we have summits in the first place.

I AM bitching about both sides. It was a waste of time and money for everyone.

But by all mean, keep politicizing global warming.

90 SixDegrees  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 12:39:43pm

re: #70 Naso Tang

I did a google. Seems that something like 8000lbs/hr is a number to use and I can imagine that jet fuel costs at least $1 per pound, so I guess that the $10,000 per hour is mostly fuel.

Well, assuming the fuel is roughly as dense as water, at 8 pounds per gallon that would be $8.00 per gallon - far more expensive than gasoline. And I certain jet fuel is cheaper than gasoline, probably more like one or two bucks per gallon.

Still a significant cost, to be sure, but not close to the total.

91 allegro  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 12:39:54pm

re: #83 Racer X

Oh, and Copenhagen was a complete and utter failure. AND waste of taxpayer money.

What do you feel it did not accomplish that it should have?

92 Racer X  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 12:39:58pm

re: #80 sattv4u2

then why do their spouses "faces' have to be there !?!?!

Zing!

93 Walter L. Newton  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 12:40:10pm

re: #83 Racer X

WTF?

Oh, and Copenhagen was a complete and utter failure. AND waste of taxpayer money.

Bullshit. They got non-binding agreements from all sorts of countries including the United States.

94 Aceofwhat?  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 12:40:11pm

re: #87 MandyManners

Military personnel get paid whether they go or not.

you still have to account for the cost, because they'd be doing other work if they didn't go.

now of course that isn't true in every case, but those little assignments can add up in any organization, so it's actually more accurate in a technical sense to go ahead and bill their time to the trip. if you don't, it's essentially like saying that they don't have anything better to do so they might as well do this.

95 Walter L. Newton  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 12:40:59pm

re: #91 allegro

What do you feel it did not accomplish that it should have?

Binding agreements, that's what I would have liked to see.

96 SixDegrees  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 12:41:20pm

re: #87 MandyManners

Military personnel get paid whether they go or not.

True, but for the duration of the flight, at least, it's reasonable to assign it to the cost of operations.

97 Aceofwhat?  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 12:41:25pm

re: #91 allegro

What do you feel it did not accomplish that it should have?

i wasn't aware that it accomplished a damn thing. so perhaps educating me otherwise would be a more logical place to start?

98 Racer X  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 12:41:38pm

re: #86 Walter L. Newton

And you expected what?

The bigger question is - what did the congressional delegation expect? Supposedly it was all bout "jobs". Bullshit.

My expectations were low, and they exceeded them wildly.

99 Racer X  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 12:42:18pm

re: #93 Walter L. Newton

Bullshit. They got non-binding agreements from all sorts of countries including the United States.

Heh.

100 Walter L. Newton  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 12:42:54pm

re: #99 Racer X

Heh.

Roger...

101 Digital Display  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 12:43:20pm

re: #77 sattv4u2


Theres a 16 year old in moms basement somewhere that disagrees with you !!!

///


The beauty of 802.1x is that it confirms your machine's MAC address to the Cisco Port on the Network.. If you can get past that.. You need a Cert issued by one of our servers..With a Private 128 bit encrypted key issued by another server..otherwise we don't talk..And if you some how can bust all that..There are dozens of geeks sitting in cubes waiting for your ass...

102 allegro  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 12:43:31pm

re: #97 Aceofwhat?

i wasn't aware that it accomplished a damn thing. so perhaps educating me otherwise would be a more logical place to start?

I wasn't the one who called it a complete failure. Just looking for some support for that assertion.

103 Syrius  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 12:43:47pm

Does this mean the Heartland Institute is going to publish something on how the Earth is cooling based on this data? I can't wait to see the spin!

104 sattv4u2  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 12:43:53pm

re: #97 Aceofwhat?

i wasn't aware that it accomplished a damn thing. so perhaps educating me otherwise would be a more logical place to start?

yes it did. Non of us would have said one word about it if the meeting had never happened ,,,

umm,,, huh ?!?!?!?!

105 MandyManners  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 12:44:54pm

re: #94 Aceofwhat?

you still have to account for the cost, because they'd be doing other work if they didn't go.

now of course that isn't true in every case, but those little assignments can add up in any organization, so it's actually more accurate in a technical sense to go ahead and bill their time to the trip. if you don't, it's essentially like saying that they don't have anything better to do so they might as well do this.

This is their duty.

106 Aceofwhat?  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 12:45:05pm

re: #102 allegro

I wasn't the one who called it a complete failure. Just looking for some support for that assertion.

backwards. good logical reasoning begins with proving that X exists. it's much harder to prove that X does not exist.

the support for the assertion is that we see no evidence of success. i welcome proof of its existence, if you have any.

107 sattv4u2  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 12:45:16pm

re: #101 HoosierHoops

The beauty of 802.1x is that it confirms your machine's MAC address to the Cisco Port on the Network.. If you can get past that.. You need a Cert issued by one of our servers..With a Private 128 bit encrypted key issued by another server..otherwise we don't talk..And if you some how can bust all that..There are dozens of geeks sitting in cubes waiting for your ass...

Okay then ,,, a 17 YEAR old!!
//

108 Racer X  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 12:45:19pm

I just did a quick Google. The majority opinion is Copenhagen was a total failure, and a demonstration of hypocrisy of epic proportions.

FAIL.

109 Charles Johnson  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 12:46:44pm
110 Racer X  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 12:46:55pm

I enjoy mocking both the right and the left as much as the next guy. That includes mocking the deniers, as well as the globally warmed delusional.

111 brookly red  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 12:47:02pm

re: #108 Racer X

I just did a quick Google. The majority opinion is Copenhagen was a total failure, and a demonstration of hypocrisy of epic proportions.

FAIL.

well couldn't we think of it as an educational experience...

112 sattv4u2  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 12:47:05pm

re: #108 Racer X

I just did a quick Google. The majority opinion is Copenhagen was a total failure, and a demonstration of hypocrisy of epic proportions.

FAIL.

I just did a quick google

ELVIS HAS LEFT THE BUILDING

113 Aceofwhat?  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 12:47:07pm

re: #105 MandyManners

This is their duty.

then we have to increase the costs.

example - if they spend half of their year on trips like this, and the other half of their year being unproductive, then their cost per trip is double, because the six months of trips is justifying the other six months' pay to wait for the next trip.

make sense?

114 sattv4u2  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 12:48:24pm

re: #113 Aceofwhat?

then we have to increase the costs.

example - if they spend half of their year on trips like this, and the other half of their year being unproductive, then their cost per trip is double, because the six months of trips is justifying the other six months' pay to wait for the next trip.

make sense?

Ahhh ,,, you're trippin'!

115 allegro  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 12:48:25pm

Seems to me that one will never reach a destination if one never starts on the trip. I always saw Copenhagen as at least taking a first step to discussing the problem on a global scale. I think a lot was learned from it, if only where various nations stand on the issue and what the next step might necessarily be.

116 Aceofwhat?  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 12:48:37pm

re: #105 MandyManners

i've done waay too much resource allocation justification in past jobs!!

117 brookly red  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 12:49:18pm

re: #113 Aceofwhat?

then we have to increase the costs.

example - if they spend half of their year on trips like this, and the other half of their year being unproductive, then their cost per trip is double, because the six months of trips is justifying the other six months' pay to wait for the next trip.

make sense?

well if they were productive just think about what THAT would cost us...

118 Achilles Tang  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 12:49:32pm

re: #90 SixDegrees

Well, assuming the fuel is roughly as dense as water, at 8 pounds per gallon that would be $8.00 per gallon - far more expensive than gasoline. And I certain jet fuel is cheaper than gasoline, probably more like one or two bucks per gallon.

Still a significant cost, to be sure, but not close to the total.

Yeah, I should have continued my math, but on the other hand if they tank up in Denmark the return trip will probably cost 3 times as much as going there.

119 sattv4u2  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 12:49:42pm

re: #115 allegro

Seems to me that one will never reach a destination if one never starts on the trip. I always saw Copenhagen as at least taking a first step to discussing the problem on a global scale. I think a lot was learned from it, if only where various nations stand on the issue and what the next step might necessarily be.

I could have told you (and them) where "various nations" stand on the issue

120 MandyManners  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 12:49:46pm
121 Aceofwhat?  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 12:50:14pm

re: #115 allegro

Seems to me that one will never reach a destination if one never starts on the trip. I always saw Copenhagen as at least taking a first step to discussing the problem on a global scale. I think a lot was learned from it, if only where various nations stand on the issue and what the next step might necessarily be.

All items for which a summit is quite unnecessary. I don't have to meet you in some Scandinavian country to figure out where you "stand" on an issue.

122 sattv4u2  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 12:51:03pm

re: #121 Aceofwhat?

All items for which a summit is quite unnecessary. I don't have to meet you in some Scandinavian country to figure out where you "stand" on an issue.

But you couldn't do it "face to face"!

123 Racer X  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 12:51:03pm

re: #111 brookly red

well couldn't we think of it as an educational experience...

I'm sure that is how it will be spun.

The U.S. economy is in shambles. 1.4 Trillion dollar budget deficit. 14 Trillion dollar debt. For a bunch of our representatives (left and right) to fly off to Copenhagen with no clear plan to accomplish their objectives was ree-fucking-diculous.

If they were private sector they would all have been fired for this stunt. Total failure.

124 brookly red  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 12:51:35pm

re: #123 Racer X

I'm sure that is how it will be spun.

The U.S. economy is in shambles. 1.4 Trillion dollar budget deficit. 14 Trillion dollar debt. For a bunch of our representatives (left and right) to fly off to Copenhagen with no clear plan to accomplish their objectives was ree-fucking-diculous.

If they were private sector they would all have been fired for this stunt. Total failure.

well you & I learned a lot...

125 Aceofwhat?  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 12:51:48pm

re: #115 allegro

Seems to me that one will never reach a destination if one never starts on the trip. I always saw Copenhagen as at least taking a first step to discussing the problem on a global scale. I think a lot was learned from it, if only where various nations stand on the issue and what the next step might necessarily be.

in addition, their express purpose for the summit was to get something done, not to start on a journey, as you say. It's eminently fair to evaluate someone against their own published agenda.

126 Racer X  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 12:51:56pm

re: #112 sattv4u2

I just did a quick google

ELVIS HAS LEFT THE BUILDING

He took 5 military jets and flew to Copenhagen to boost their hooker economy?

127 MandyManners  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 12:52:29pm

re: #122 sattv4u2

But you couldn't do it "face to face"!

In bed.

128 sattv4u2  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 12:52:35pm

re: #126 Racer X

He took 5 military jets and flew to Copenhagen to boost their hooker economy?

And introduce them to peanut butter and banana sammiches!

129 Aceofwhat?  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 12:52:44pm

re: #126 Racer X

He took 5 military jets and flew to Copenhagen to boost their hooker economy?

well, he IS a hound dog...

130 sattv4u2  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 12:52:45pm

re: #127 MandyManners

In bed.

marry me!

131 Racer X  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 12:52:51pm

re: #119 sattv4u2

I could have told you (and them) where "various nations" stand on the issue

A 5 minute phone call would have accomplished the same exact thing.

132 MandyManners  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 12:52:58pm

re: #123 Racer X

I'm sure that is how it will be spun.

The U.S. economy is in shambles. 1.4 Trillion dollar budget deficit. 14 Trillion dollar debt. For a bunch of our representatives (left and right) to fly off to Copenhagen with no clear plan to accomplish their objectives was ree-fucking-diculous.

If they were private sector they would all have been fired for this stunt. Total failure.

Ah but, we CAN fire them.

133 MandyManners  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 12:53:27pm

re: #128 sattv4u2

And introduce them to peanut butter and banana sammiches!

Fried.

134 Aceofwhat?  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 12:53:40pm

re: #127 MandyManners

In bed.

You're like a mongoose with that thing...absolutely spectacular timing;)

135 sattv4u2  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 12:53:50pm

re: #131 Racer X

A 5 minute phone call would have accomplished the same exact thing.

I could have done it with a 5 minute phone call, with four minutes and thrity seconds to spare

136 Racer X  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 12:53:55pm

re: #124 brookly red

well you & I learned a lot...

LOL!

Yes we did.

Our congress is filled with morons. But we also knew that already didn't we?

137 Achilles Tang  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 12:54:22pm

re: #59 bubba zanetti

Heck, spray paint a window with a little black paint, and compare the mass of the window glass to the paint.

But then someone will say that since CO2 is heavier than air, it will all lie on the ground and do nothing in your analogy.

138 sattv4u2  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 12:54:26pm

re: #133 MandyManners

Fried.

Not right now, I'm at work

But if you want too we can toke up later!!

139 Racer X  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 12:54:47pm

re: #132 MandyManners

Ah but, we CAN fire them.

Today?

140 SixDegrees  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 12:55:01pm

re: #123 Racer X

I'm sure that is how it will be spun.

The U.S. economy is in shambles. 1.4 Trillion dollar budget deficit. 14 Trillion dollar debt. For a bunch of our representatives (left and right) to fly off to Copenhagen with no clear plan to accomplish their objectives was ree-fucking-diculous.

If they were private sector they would all have been fired for this stunt. Total failure.

They had objectives?

Other than free transportation for a European shopping extravaganza?

I would love to see two simple numbers provided by these folks. 1) How many hours were you there? 2) How many hours did you spend in meetings and discussions directly related to the conference?

I will guarantee, with no prior knowledge, that the ratio won't be flattering.

141 MandyManners  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 12:55:23pm

re: #130 sattv4u2

marry me!

Can you do this?


142 MandyManners  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 12:55:41pm

re: #134 Aceofwhat?

You're like a mongoose with that thing...absolutely spectacular timing;)

It's a gift.

143 sattv4u2  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 12:55:41pm

re: #132 MandyManners

Ah but, we CAN fire them.

Problem is ,,, most of 'us' like their own rep. It;s the OTHER guy/lady thats an idiot

144 NJDhockeyfan  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 12:55:50pm

Hello my scaly friends. An AGW thread. Have the fireworks started yet?

145 MandyManners  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 12:56:13pm

re: #139 Racer X

Today?

Patience. It's a virtue.

146 Racer X  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 12:56:25pm

re: #140 SixDegrees

They had objectives?

Other than free transportation for a European shopping extravaganza?

I would love to see two simple numbers provided by these folks. 1) How many hours were you there? 2) How many hours did you spend in meetings and discussions directly related to the conference?

I will guarantee, with no prior knowledge, that the ratio won't be flattering.

I'd like to see one significant accomplishment that justified the expense. Just one. Anyone? I may have missed it.

147 sattv4u2  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 12:56:42pm

re: #141 MandyManners

Can you do this?

[Video]

Do what ,,, link to a movie scene?? why yes ,, yes I can!!!

/

148 Racer X  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 12:56:56pm

re: #145 MandyManners

Patience. It's a virtue.

In bed.

149 Aceofwhat?  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 12:57:34pm

re: #141 MandyManners

Can you do this?

[Video]

not in bed!

150 brookly red  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 12:57:37pm

re: #143 sattv4u2

Problem is ,,, most of 'us' like their own rep. It;s the OTHER guy/lady thats an idiot

let's see what happens in November, shall we?

151 subsailor68  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 12:58:28pm

Hmmm....looking at the posts above, it appears the approximate cost of putting these people on the planes to Copenhagen cost around $350K. Okay, but here at home these people - on both sides - have run up a deficit of $1.7 trillion and a debt of $14 trillion.

Hell, let's just keep 'em flying around rather than sitting in Congress. Cheap at twice the price!

;-)

152 MandyManners  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 12:58:28pm

Hoist by my own.

153 Digital Display  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 12:59:33pm

From now on UN Climate change Conferences should be held in NYC at the UN building..
Central locale..The influx of money would help New Yorkers..It is the Media Center of the world....Good Grief UN..Go world class

154 Aceofwhat?  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 12:59:51pm

Where's HHoops? Indiana has no business leading Illinois with 4min left...

155 Daniel Ballard  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 1:00:19pm

re: #30 ludwigvanquixote

Ludwig, I recall a post of yours about methane and permafrost. I lost the link, but there was a finding that methane is beginning to exhaust as it thaws. This link looks at the cause as unanswered. But it did make me recall your post, and the tipping point implications.

If the methane increase is already underway as a result of thaw, we would already be past an important tipping point. This link looks more damning.

156 Racer X  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 1:00:28pm

I'm sorry if I ran Ludwig off - I think he really is a smart guy and I value his opinion. But there is no denying the epic failure of Copenhagen. And the hypocrisy.

The failure of the AGW crowd to effectively manipulate public opinion to their side is a travesty. A tragedy. er, a bummer, man.

157 brookly red  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 1:00:38pm

re: #153 HoosierHoops

From now on UN Climate change Conferences should be held in NYC at the UN building..
Central locale..The influx of money would help New Yorkers..It is the Media Center of the world...Good Grief UN..Go world class

no thank you.

158 sattv4u2  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 1:01:49pm

re: #150 brookly red

let's see what happens in November, shall we?

Point was,,, i'm happy with mine (John Linder ,,, 7th district ,, Georgia)

Not sure who yours is, but I'll bet Brooklyn has a "D". Do you really think (s)he'll be voted out!?!?

159 Aceofwhat?  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 1:01:56pm

re: #156 Racer X

I'm sorry if I ran Ludwig off - I think he really is a smart guy and I value his opinion. But there is no denying the epic failure of Copenhagen. And the hypocrisy.

The failure of the AGW crowd to effectively manipulate public opinion to their side is a travesty. A tragedy. er, a bummer, man.

yep. Charles' post contains nothing with which i disagree, but agreement on the basic theory of AGW and the wisdom of what we're currently doing about it are two completely different things. it's not necessary to defend the latter in an attempt to protect the former...

160 ulmsey123  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 1:03:09pm

The current cooling trend is all part of warming.
A temperature gauge next to a heat source will tell us its getting colder.
Higher taxes and more government will spur on economic growth.
The Detroit Lions have been heading in the right direction and will make it to the play-offs next season.

Hey! This is fun!

161 Digital Display  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 1:03:16pm

re: #157 brookly red

no thank you.

Nope..I want everybody there...Perfect venue and lots of cash for the city...

162 MandyManners  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 1:03:31pm

re: #153 HoosierHoops

From now on UN Climate change Conferences should be held in NYC at the UN building..
Central locale..The influx of money would help New Yorkers..It is the Media Center of the world...Good Grief UN..Go world class

Plenty of hookers.

163 NJDhockeyfan  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 1:04:27pm

re: #141 MandyManners

Can you do this?

[Video]

Hi Mandy!

Can you do this?

164 brookly red  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 1:04:33pm

re: #158 sattv4u2

Point was,,, i'm happy with mine (John Linder ,,, 7th district ,, Georgia)

Not sure who yours is, but I'll bet Brooklyn has a "D". Do you really think (s)he'll be voted out!?!?

probably not but NYC also has Wall st. things can change...

165 jamesfirecat  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 1:04:43pm

re: #136 Racer X

LOL!

Yes we did.

Our congress is filled with morons. But we also knew that already didn't we?

Since no one else has said it...


Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.
- Mark Twain, a Biography

166 MandyManners  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 1:05:10pm

re: #163 NJDhockeyfan

Hi Mandy!

Can you do this?

[Video]

I useta'.

167 sattv4u2  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 1:05:30pm

re: #160 ulmsey123

Thanks for the chuckle!

168 Aceofwhat?  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 1:05:43pm

re: #160 ulmsey123

que?

169 sattv4u2  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 1:06:32pm

re: #168 Aceofwhat?

que?

up is down, down is up

(S)he was making a funny

170 Aceofwhat?  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 1:08:54pm

re: #169 sattv4u2

up is down, down is up

(S)he was making a funny

thanks. it was my density.

171 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 1:08:56pm

re: #156 Racer X

I'm sorry if I ran Ludwig off - I think he really is a smart guy and I value his opinion. But there is no denying the epic failure of Copenhagen. And the hypocrisy.

The failure of the AGW crowd to effectively manipulate public opinion to their side is a travesty. A tragedy. er, a bummer, man.

You didn't run me off. I have like I said lots of stff to do. However, to respond to your comments...

AGW is political as it is because of the GOP denial machine. The GOP has made denying the science a party plank. Good little GOP drones everywhere get all indignant about how evil liberals are telling them that they need to change their lifestyles for the greater good. We all know of course that doing anything for someone other than oneself is against everything the GOP stands for. Curiously of course, addressing AGW saves themselves as well but that would require them learning the science.

As to the failure at Copenhagen...

One of the biggest things that made it a failure was the fact that the US could not guarantee any treaty that we would agree to actually being ratified. That is partially the fault of weak, disorganized and fractured Dems, who are suject to their wn special interests, and mostly the fault of the GOP swearing up and down to kill any such treaty.

Many will talk about the tactics of Russia and China at that conference as well. Those are big and damning flaws. However, if anything was to get done, someone needed to lead, and the GOP made certain that we could not.

172 Racer X  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 1:10:55pm
173 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 1:11:15pm

re: #109 Charles

About the Heartland Institute.

I haven't been here in a bit... I see I can't upding you for reminding people about how the GOP politicized this.

174 sattv4u2  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 1:11:16pm

re: #171 LudwigVanQuixote

someone needed to lead, and the GOP made certain that we could not.

ummm,,, the GOP ain't in charge

haven't really been since 2006

Bush was a lame duck since 01/06
but you knew that!

175 Aceofwhat?  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 1:12:10pm

re: #171 LudwigVanQuixote

Good for us. It was bullshit. Developing countries have contributed as much to the warming trend through particulate emissions as developed countries have contributed through co2 emissions. Obscuring their role in things isn't good for anyone.

And we can't "lead" when we know others aren't going to follow. You really think that if we lead, Russia and China will follow? That's all they're waiting for?

Really? I mean, really?

176 Racer X  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 1:12:45pm

re: #171 LudwigVanQuixote

I disagree about the whole blame Bush, er, GOP.

I think it was a failure all the way around. No denying that.

177 Walter L. Newton  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 1:13:48pm

re: #171 LudwigVanQuixote

AGW is political as it is because of the GOP denial machine.

Yes... all these articles about problems with the scientific process, procedure and protocol are because of the GOP...

[Link: www.dailymail.co.uk...]

[Link: www.timesonline.co.uk...]

[Link: news.bbc.co.uk...]

[Link: www.telegraph.co.uk...]

... and mostly the fault of the GOP swearing up and down to kill any such treaty.

Sorry, if you didn't notice, the left still had a majority when they were in Copenhagen.

178 Varek Raith  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 1:13:56pm

I seem to be approaching albusteve's posistion AGW. It's happening, but we'll never to jack squat about it.

179 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 1:14:18pm

re: #174 sattv4u2

someone needed to lead, and the GOP made certain that we could not.

ummm,,, the GOP ain't in charge

haven't really been since 2006

Bush was a lame duck since 01/06
but you knew that!

And yet there still needs to be a majority to get things passed in the senate and the GOP is still there... But you knew that too. You also seem to forget the convieniently the years of antiscience propaganda that the GOP has put out convincing people falsely that there is no problem. But you knew that too. One of the things that has always been difficult in debating with you is your one sided willfull blindness. The GOP is the party that denies this science. THis is very very well established. They go to very great legnths to kill anything to do with it. This is also very well established.

180 Aceofwhat?  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 1:14:40pm

re: #177 Walter L. Newton

yep. there's that, too.

181 NJDhockeyfan  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 1:14:44pm

re: #166 MandyManners

I useta'.

Oh mama!

182 ryannon  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 1:15:01pm

re: #120 MandyManners

sunrise sunset

183 Walter L. Newton  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 1:15:01pm

re: #178 Varek Raith

I seem to be approaching albusteve's posistion AGW. It's happening, but we'll never to jack squat about it.

Not if the scientist don't get out of the business of politics and stop catering to big money and special interest.

184 Aceofwhat?  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 1:16:12pm

re: #179 LudwigVanQuixote

that can be true without implying that we have to accept bullshit solutions in order to "lead".

185 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 1:16:29pm

re: #176 Racer X

I disagree about the whole blame Bush, er, GOP.

I think it was a failure all the way around. No denying that.

It was a failure all the way around. The Dems are, like I said, weak and disorganized. If they had the discipline of the GOP they could have forced a number of good things through. However, they are weak and fractured. They GOP however is unified in preventing any meaningful legislation on AGW.
re: #177 Walter L. Newton


Thank you for making my point. A bunch of conservative driven MSM articles put out by the right wing propaganda machine, illustrates the seriously horrible history that the right has in warring on science.

186 Digital Display  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 1:16:33pm

re: #162 MandyManners

Plenty of hookers.

I lived in Hawaii from 89-91.. I swear to gawd I have never seen so many hookers in my life..300 of us flew over there from Mare Island with our families and I swear this is true.. At 5am at the local coffee shop there were the most beautiful woman in the world..All us guys driving to work at Pearl in the Van were just like..OMG did you just see that?
I have never been with a hooker..But my God I have never seen such beautiful woman in my life...And all that i drank coffee with..Such good people..And if I looked like that and could make 5 grand a night and pay for Harvard..F*ck you..
*wink*

187 SixDegrees  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 1:16:38pm

re: #174 sattv4u2

someone needed to lead, and the GOP made certain that we could not.

ummm,,, the GOP ain't in charge

haven't really been since 2006

Bush was a lame duck since 01/06
but you knew that!

No, no, no - you don't understand. The Democrats only control the White House, the House of Representatives, and until recently only had a supermajority in the Senate.

That makes failures the Republican's fault.

Do you get it now, or do I have to explain it to you again? And withhold your kimchi?

188 Van Helsing  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 1:16:53pm

Using policy papers from WWF is not helping convince me of the quality of work that went into AR4.WWF again

189 sattv4u2  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 1:17:25pm

re: #179 LudwigVanQuixote

And yet there still needs to be a majority to get things passed in the senate and the GOP is still there

"Still there"
A) ,,, the dems have a majority in BOTH houses (as well as a willing President0. They do not need ONE Repub vote

"Still there"
B) sounds as if you're in favor of abolishing the GOP! "still there', like a stain on the carpet ,, or a nasty neighbor ,,
nice!!

190 Varek Raith  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 1:17:53pm

re: #183 Walter L. Newton

Not if the scientist don't get out of the business of politics and stop catering to big money and special interest.

Please, we'll never get China or Russia or India to do anything. Like I said, we (we, as in the World) won't do a damn thing.
...Apologies for the cynicism.

191 Walter L. Newton  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 1:18:05pm

re: #185 LudwigVanQuixote

Thank you for making my point. A bunch of conservative driven MSM articles put out by the right wing propaganda machine, illustrates the seriously horrible history that the right has in warring on science.

And there is absolutely no truth in those articles?

192 Aceofwhat?  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 1:18:29pm

re: #190 Varek Raith

Please, we'll never get China or Russia or India to do anything. Like I said, we (we, as in the World) won't do a damn thing.
...Apologies for the cynicismaccuracy.

ftfy!

193 sattv4u2  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 1:18:51pm

re: #187 SixDegrees

No, no, no - you don't understand. The Democrats only control the White House, the House of Representatives, and until recently only had a supermajority in the Senate.

That makes failures the Republican's fault.

Do you get it now, or do I have to explain it to you again? And withhold your kimchi?

I think a bigger rock smashed against the side of my skull may be in order

194 Aceofwhat?  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 1:19:25pm

re: #185 LudwigVanQuixote

the telegraph, daily mail, and bbc are right wing news propaganda?

195 Racer X  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 1:19:45pm

re: #177 Walter L. Newton

Sorry, if you didn't notice, the left still had a majority when they were in Copenhagen.

Blame Bush. Blame the GOP.

That whiney-assed excuse is getting old.

Perhaps it's because Democrat agenda sucks? Policies are bad and people don't want them? Poor influencing skills? Nah.

Blame Bush!
Blame the GOP!
Party of NO!

196 Walter L. Newton  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 1:19:58pm

re: #194 Aceofwhat?

the telegraph, daily mail, and bbc are right wing news propaganda?

Well, if they will publish material like that, they must be :)

197 Racer X  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 1:21:38pm

re: #185 LudwigVanQuixote

I thought there were several members of the GOP who supported GW? Bush bought it. Newt jumped on board. McCain too. Did they all flip back?

198 Van Helsing  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 1:21:59pm

re: #178 Varek Raith

I seem to be approaching albusteve's posistion AGW. It's happening, but we'll never to jack squat about it.

If the AGW crowd was that concerned with the immediacy of the problem they'd be advocating real solutions (nukes and tidal) instead of not ready for base load technologies such as wind and solar. And of course the brilliant cap and trade solutions that are working out so well for the EU.Denmark

199 jamesfirecat  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 1:22:23pm

re: #195 Racer X

Blame Bush. Blame the GOP.

That whiney-assed excuse is getting old.

Perhaps it's because Democrat agenda sucks? Policies are bad and people don't want them? Poor influencing skills? Nah.

Blame Bush!
Blame the GOP!
Party of NO!

So there's no truth to the "Party of No" thing when they been fillibustering every single chance they get?

200 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 1:22:28pm

re: #189 sattv4u2

And yet there still needs to be a majority to get things passed in the senate and the GOP is still there

"Still there"
A) ,,, the dems have a majority in BOTH houses (as well as a willing President0. They do not need ONE Repub vote

"Still there"
B) sounds as if you're in favor of abolishing the GOP! "still there', like a stain on the carpet ,, or a nasty neighbor ,,
nice!!

Umm so you again forget the years of poisoning the truth in the public mind done by the GOP?

Ummm again you forget that that the Dems are fractured and weak, and that the GOP has taken advantage of this to prevent meaningful AGW legislation. The GOP is pretty damned unified against the science, and unfortunately, they are still a shrill voice in the hill.

Still there?

Do things like truth and facts eve penetrate for you? Does the fact that there is a history here that your party played a big role in mean anything?

If people understood the science and actually cared about the consequences, there would not be issues. It takes the callous and short sided greed of both parties to do nothing, but it takes the willful arrogant blindness and evil shortsighted view of immediate personal gain of the GOP to deny there is a problem at all.

201 Racer X  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 1:23:11pm

re: #189 sattv4u2

. . . . sounds as if you're in favor of abolishing the GOP!

You're getting warmer!

202 allegro  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 1:23:23pm

re: #198 Van Helsing

If the AGW crowd was that concerned with the immediacy of the problem they'd be advocating real solutions (nukes and tidal) instead of not ready for base load technologies such as wind and solar.

Did you watch the SOTU? Obama specifically addressed the need for nuclear energy. Never mentioned wind and solar at all.

203 NJDhockeyfan  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 1:23:25pm

re: #191 Walter L. Newton

And there is absolutely no truth in those articles?

They were created in a secret office and sneaked in to the left-wing MSM by Rovian moles. Didn't you hear?

204 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 1:24:45pm

re: #194 Aceofwhat?

the telegraph, daily mail, and bbc are right wing news propaganda?

Well the telegraph is totally right wing as is the Daily Mail. The Beeb, like all stupid MSM tries to show a "controversy" where there is none.

The fact that these are all false reports with bno basis in actual science - from the MSM, and not actual data, or actual science seems to have been missed here. If you honestly question the science then read the science. All procedures, methods and error analysis are *always* exhaustively covered in any paper. Why not read those and actually know what is being talked about?

205 sattv4u2  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 1:24:46pm

re: #200 LudwigVanQuixote

the Dems are fractured and weak, and that the GOP has taken advantage of this

TRANSLATION

WWWWHHHHHAAAAAAAAA

Geez Ludwig. The dems are 'fractured and weak" SO i'll blame the GOP!

I'm broke and not good looking, so i'll blame the rich handsome guy for getting the hot chick!

206 Aceofwhat?  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 1:25:18pm

re: #198 Van Helsing

If the AGW crowd was that concerned with the immediacy of the problem they'd be advocating real solutions (nukes and tidal) instead of not ready for base load technologies such as wind and solar. And of course the brilliant cap and trade solutions that are working out so well for the EU.Denmark

i had a dog...and his name was BINGO

207 NJDhockeyfan  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 1:25:29pm

re: #199 jamesfirecat

So there's no truth to the "Party of No" thing when they been fillibustering every single chance they get?

What did the GOP fillibuster? I haven't been following the news lately. Please get me up to date.

208 Racer X  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 1:25:31pm

re: #200 LudwigVanQuixote

Umm so you again forget the years of poisoning the truth in the public mind done by the GOP?

Ummm again you forget that that the Dems are fractured and weak, and that the GOP has taken advantage of this to prevent meaningful AGW legislation. The GOP is pretty damned unified against the science, and unfortunately, they are still a shrill voice in the hill.

Still there?

Do things like truth and facts eve penetrate for you? Does the fact that there is a history here that your party played a big role in mean anything?

If people understood the science and actually cared about the consequences, there would not be issues. It takes the callous and short sided greed of both parties to do nothing, but it takes the willful arrogant blindness and evil shortsighted view of immediate personal gain of the GOP to deny there is a problem at all.

Hee hee hee!

You crack me up dude.

The GOP is so all-powerful and so evil! We just cannot crack their super-secret code. Dammmit! Foiled again.

Weak.

209 Van Helsing  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 1:26:30pm

re: #202 allegro

Did you watch the SOTU? Obama specifically addressed the need for nuclear energy. Never mentioned wind and solar at all.

True. He did. He also qualified it with 'safe' nuclear plants.
This is the same guy who touted 'clean' coal and then made a statement along the lines that a company can build a coal plant, but the regulations will bankrupt them.

210 Racer X  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 1:26:37pm

re: #205 sattv4u2

Geez Ludwig. The dems are 'fractured and weak" SO i'll blame the GOP!

I'm broke and not good looking, so i'll blame the rich handsome guy for getting the hot chick!

ROFLMAO!

211 Walter L. Newton  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 1:26:38pm

re: #200 LudwigVanQuixote


[snip]

If people understood the science and actually cared about the consequences, there would not be issues. It takes the callous and short sided greed of both parties to do nothing...

[snip]

To bad the people involved in the science don't care about the science and are more interested in greed.

What has also almost entirely escaped attention, however, is how Dr Pachauri has established an astonishing worldwide portfolio of business interests with bodies which have been investing billions of dollars in organisations dependent on the IPCC’s policy recommendations.

And by the way, Pachauri, chairman of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, is not even a scientist.

212 Aceofwhat?  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 1:27:26pm

re: #204 LudwigVanQuixote

Well the telegraph is totally right wing as is the Daily Mail. The Beeb, like all stupid MSM tries to show a "controversy" where there is none.

The fact that these are all false reports with bno basis in actual science - from the MSM, and not actual data, or actual science seems to have been missed here. If you honestly question the science then read the science. All procedures, methods and error analysis are *always* exhaustively covered in any paper. Why not read those and actually know what is being talked about?

i don't question the science. i question the prescriptions. why are you incessantly defending the latter as if it has any bearing on the former? Insisting that the US was in any way instrumental for the failure at Copenhagen makes as much sense as projecting an ice age in the next 40 years. For some reason you have them inextricably linked, at the expense of your other arguments.

213 allegro  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 1:27:55pm

re: #209 Van Helsing

True. He did. He also qualified it with 'safe' nuclear plants.

You would prefer an unsafe one?

214 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 1:28:08pm

re: #195 Racer X

No this isn't blame Bush now, though he certainly tried his best to kill the science and wasted eight valuable years where we could have done something about AGW. Right now it is more blame Palin, Rush, Beck, Inhofe and all the other anti-science cretins of the GOP for continuing to spread their cancerous lies.

This blog amongst many many other sources has spent a really long time detailing the GOP's war on science it's slide into the madness of the far right. You should not blame the messenger for telling the simple and well established truth.

215 Racer X  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 1:28:37pm

re: #211 Walter L. Newton

To bad the people involved in the science don't care about the science and are more interested in greed.

What has also almost entirely escaped attention, however, is how Dr Pachauri has established an astonishing worldwide portfolio of business interests with bodies which have been investing billions of dollars in organisations dependent on the IPCC’s policy recommendations.

And by the way, Pachauri, chairman of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, is not even a scientist.

WHAT?!?

You mean, people promoting AGW are PROFITING from it?

I am shocked. Shocked!

216 Walter L. Newton  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 1:28:45pm

re: #204 LudwigVanQuixote

Well the telegraph is totally right wing as is the Daily Mail. The Beeb, like all stupid MSM tries to show a "controversy" where there is none.

The fact that these are all false reports with bno basis in actual science - from the MSM, and not actual data, or actual science seems to have been missed here. If you honestly question the science then read the science. All procedures, methods and error analysis are *always* exhaustively covered in any paper. Why not read those and actually know what is being talked about?

At least you don't make a convoluted argument about these articles... just a naive one.

217 Aceofwhat?  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 1:28:49pm

re: #202 allegro

Did you watch the SOTU? Obama specifically addressed the need for nuclear energy. Never mentioned wind and solar at all.

A fact for which I heard nothing but universal praise here.

218 sattv4u2  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 1:29:01pm

re: #204 LudwigVanQuixote

AND ,,,
BTW ,,,

Please tell me who the 1st 'politician" was who POLITICIZED this issue!?!?!

219 Digital Display  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 1:30:21pm

Concerning John Wall of Kentucky Basketball.. He is a special College player..
I don't project him the pro's as a point..He just doesn't have the length and will get shut down by the big fast guards in the NBA..Guards like Kobe will just destroy him... Can Wall be a number 2 shooting guard?

220 NJDhockeyfan  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 1:31:39pm

re: #215 Racer X

WHAT?!?

You mean, people promoting AGW are PROFITING from it?

I am shocked. Shocked!

I never knew that.

/Oh, wait

Al Gore could become world's first carbon billionaire

221 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 1:31:48pm

re: #205 sattv4u2

the Dems are fractured and weak, and that the GOP has taken advantage of this

TRANSLATION

WWWHHHAAA

Geez Ludwig. The dems are 'fractured and weak" SO i'll blame the GOP!

I'm broke and not good looking, so i'll blame the rich handsome guy for getting the hot chick!

No you really are not seeing what is being said at all are you. You refuse to see... so I will break it down in simple terms that you might not be able to ignore as easily.

The GOP does everything they can to kill the science and have for years. This is very well documented. The Dems did not have enough support to ratify a treaty without GOP support. The GOP made it clear that they would do everything in their power to kill any AGW agreement.

This is after years of spewing false propaganda and out and out lies about the science.

They are much much more to blame.

Even thought there is plenty of blame to go around, and yes, as I said three times now, but reading comprehension was never strong in political discussion when someone is saying un-cared for truths, the Dems are fractured and weak. They could not do it on their own. They needed the support of the GOP. The GOP gave no support at all. They denied the science to a man.

222 Van Helsing  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 1:32:10pm

re: #213 allegro

You would prefer an unsafe one?

I'm just concerned about what his definition of 'safe' would be. I think the current plant designs are just fine and the operating records prove that as well. New designs are even safer and more efficient.

Again, it's a trust issue I have with Obama. Since he's in charge of the regulatory authorities that define what 'safe' is...

223 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 1:32:54pm

re: #216 Walter L. Newton

At least you don't make a convoluted argument about these articles... just a naive one.

Walter, there is nothing naive about saying that to examine science you must look at the actual science. You are claiming that somehow anything in the MSM is more reliable than the actual journals. That is not just naive, it is stupid.

224 NJDhockeyfan  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 1:33:05pm

re: #209 Van Helsing

True. He did. He also qualified it with 'safe' nuclear plants.
This is the same guy who touted 'clean' coal and then made a statement along the lines that a company can build a coal plant, but the regulations will bankrupt them.

He sure did.

Obama Tells SF Chronicle He Will Bankrupt Coal Industry

225 Walter L. Newton  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 1:33:41pm

re: #221 LudwigVanQuixote

You're High Priest Dr Pachauri is really smelling like shit lately, isn't he?

226 jamesfirecat  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 1:34:14pm

re: #207 NJDhockeyfan

What did the GOP fillibuster? I haven't been following the news lately. Please get me up to date.

For starters they fillibustered the Helathcare bill in the Senate voting as a party minus the one guy who couldn't make it.

They almost voted lock step to fillibuster the stimulus package except for Collins (Maine); Snowe (Maine); Specter (Pa.), and one of those three is now a Democrat.

30 of them (a solid 3/4ths of the GOP in the Senate at the time) voted against the idea of letting women sue the men who rapped them rather than let the companies they both worked for force them to go through arbitration.


It is because of their holds that we didn't have a director of the TSA at the time of the Underwear bomber.

It is because of their holds that we didn't have a Surgeon general during the Swine Flue outbreak.

The worst thing about the fillibuster however is that its a subtle weapon, they've been promising to fillibuster everything and so rather than waste there time bringing up bills that 55 or so of them support the democrats need to spend time horse trading with their blue dogs and Liberman to make sure they'll go along with it before they bring any issue to the senate floor. So you don't see the GOP actually fillibustering "THAT" many things because they just hang the threat over the Democrats head to force them to play nice so that by the time it comes to the Senate floor we've got sixty votes lined up, they can refrain from fillibustering and be all "what us obstructing the legislative process? I don't know what you mean!"

How is that for a start do I need to dig up the graphs to show how use of the fillibuster has spiked recently?

227 allegro  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 1:34:55pm

re: #222 Van Helsing

I'm just concerned about what his definition of 'safe' would be. I think the current plant designs are just fine and the operating records prove that as well. New designs are even safer and more efficient.

Again, it's a trust issue I have with Obama. Since he's in charge of the regulatory authorities that define what 'safe' is...

My take on it was that by saying "safe" he was assuring those who remember the catastrophic events at formerly unsafe nuclear power plants, that safe nuclear energy is now possible and should be embraced. I have no reason to read anything more than that into it.

228 jamesfirecat  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 1:35:05pm

re: #213 allegro

You would prefer an unsafe one?

Yeah, because then we'd all get superpowers!

229 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 1:35:20pm

re: #218 sattv4u2

AND ,,,
BTW ,,,

Please tell me who the 1st 'politician" was who POLITICIZED this issue!?!?!

That would be the right wingers who falsely attacked Gore, whose science was accurate. The only flaw in his argument was not being more precise about CO2 lag and lead times in different epochs. No there is nothing political about reporting the science - whomever does it. It was the GOP that decided to make it into a circus.

230 Racer X  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 1:35:34pm

re: #214 LudwigVanQuixote

No this isn't blame Bush now, though he certainly tried his best to kill the science and wasted eight valuable years where we could have done something about AGW.

Funny, it sure sounded like it to me.

Right now it is more blame Palin, Rush, Beck, Inhofe and all the other anti-science cretins of the GOP for continuing to spread their cancerous lies.

Evil geniuses, the whole lot!

You should not blame the messenger for telling the simple and well established truth.

Yes I agree. I told the truth that Copenhagen was a total failure, then got jumped on for making that point. Sorry if the truth hurts.

231 sattv4u2  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 1:35:35pm

re: #219 HoosierHoops

Concerning John Wall of Kentucky Basketball.. He is a special College player..
I don't project him the pro's as a point..He just doesn't have the length and will get shut down by the big fast guards in the NBA..Guards like Kobe will just destroy him... Can Wall be a number 2 shooting guard?

Kobes' a hybrid. Better to compare Walls potential to truer point guards, like Derrick Rose and Rajon Rondo

232 Aceofwhat?  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 1:35:41pm

re: #223 LudwigVanQuixote

Walter, there is nothing naive about saying that to examine science you must look at the actual science. You are claiming that somehow anything in the MSM is more reliable than the actual journals. That is not just naive, it is stupid.

defending someone who right now is the definition of "conflict of interest" is not just naive, it is stupid.

one can acknowledge that there are roaches in the room without condemning the apartment.

233 Walter L. Newton  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 1:35:48pm

re: #223 LudwigVanQuixote

Walter, there is nothing naive about saying that to examine science you must look at the actual science. You are claiming that somehow anything in the MSM is more reliable than the actual journals. That is not just naive, it is stupid.

I'm not talking about AGW. I'm talking about the players in the science. Address the facts...

It is remarkable how only very recently has the staggering scale of Dr Pachauri’s links to so many of these concerns come to light, inevitably raising questions as to how the world’s leading ‘climate official’ can also be personally involved in so many organisations which stand to benefit from the IPCC’s recommendations.

So far you won't.

234 NJDhockeyfan  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 1:36:38pm

re: #221 LudwigVanQuixote

The GOP does everything they can to kill the science and have for years. This is very well documented.

Link?

The Dems did not have enough support to ratify a treaty without GOP support. The GOP made it clear that they would do everything in their power to kill any AGW agreement.

The Dems control both houses. They can pass anything they want to. What the hell are you talking about?

Let me save you a lot of effort in endless explanations...

IT'S GEORGE BUSH'S FAULT!

235 Walter L. Newton  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 1:37:37pm

re: #229 LudwigVanQuixote

That would be the right wingers who falsely attacked Gore, whose science was accurate. The only flaw in his argument was not being more precise about CO2 lag and lead times in different epochs. No there is nothing political about reporting the science - whomever does it. It was the GOP that decided to make it into a circus.

Address the facts Ludwig...

(BBC) Just this week, for instance, there were two pieces of published research in Science and Nature suggesting that the very worse effects of climate change may have been overestimated.

236 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 1:37:39pm

re: #225 Walter L. Newton

You're High Priest Dr Pachauri is really smelling like shit lately, isn't he?

My high priest? Walter what bullshit are you talking about now?

God, I do not miss you being an idiot sometimes. Read the damn papers and look at the data. We don't have priests in science. We have the facts and the data. The facts and the Data are damning beyond doubt at this point. For months I have pleaded with you to actually learn the science. You still steadfastly refuse to look at it. I know this is the case, because no reasonable person who looks into the data is says anything other than AGW is real.

237 Aceofwhat?  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 1:38:07pm

Apropos of nothing, i love watching snowboarding races. There's a much higher probability of crash on every jump.

239 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 1:39:09pm

re: #230 Racer X

Yes I agree. I told the truth that Copenhagen was a total failure, then got jumped on for making that point. Sorry if the truth hurts.

Copenhagen was a total failure.

That truth is going to hurt your children and grand children a lot more than it will hurt me or you. If you had your head on straight you would not see this as a victory for your side or a defeat of mine. It is a global tragedy that millions will suffer for.

240 jamesfirecat  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 1:39:40pm

re: #234 NJDhockeyfan

The Dems control both houses. They can pass anything they want to. What the hell are you talking about?

Let me save you a lot of effort in endless explanations...

IT'S GEORGE BUSH'S FAULT!

The Dem's "supermajority" in congress always included one man who actively campaigned against the current president and his policies.

Please remember this fact when you expect them to be able to impose their liberal views on the American Nation with lock step efficiency

In fact you should probably never expect lock step efficiency from the democrats, we're the Keystone Cops of political parties, we mean well but...

241 Walter L. Newton  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 1:39:51pm

re: #236 LudwigVanQuixote

My high priest? Walter what bullshit are you talking about now?

God, I do not miss you being an idiot sometimes. Read the damn papers and look at the data. We don't have priests in science. We have the facts and the data. The facts and the Data are damning beyond doubt at this point. For months I have pleaded with you to actually learn the science. You still steadfastly refuse to look at it. I know this is the case, because no reasonable person who looks into the data is says anything other than AGW is real.

AGW is real... some of the players are questionable. I want them gone. I want the money and politics in AGW science gone.

Don't you?

242 NJDhockeyfan  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 1:40:42pm

re: #236 LudwigVanQuixote

God, I do not miss you being an idiot sometimes.

Didn't take long for the personal insults to start flying, did it LVQ?

243 sattv4u2  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 1:40:44pm

re: #221 LudwigVanQuixote

the Dems are fractured and weak. They could not do it on their own. They needed the support of the GOP.

Perhaps it's you tjhat has the problem with comprehension

In that the dems are 'fractured', perhaps it's the ones that are AGAINST what you're pushing and siding with the Repubs in a BIPARTISAN FASHION so we son;'t go down the road of cap and trade and capitulationg to third world countries who pollye at a far greater rate than the industrial nations

244 jamesfirecat  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 1:42:05pm

re: #243 sattv4u2

the Dems are fractured and weak. They could not do it on their own. They needed the support of the GOP.

Perhaps it's you tjhat has the problem with comprehension

In that the dems are 'fractured', perhaps it's the ones that are AGAINST what you're pushing and siding with the Repubs in a BIPARTISAN FASHION so we son;'t go down the road of cap and trade and capitulationg to third world countries who pollye at a far greater rate than the industrial nations

I think I disagree with you, but it's hard for me to say with so many spelling errors, I'm normally pretty lax about that thing, but dude there's no edit button here, take the time to read over what you've written before you post!

245 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 1:42:19pm

re: #238 Walter L. Newton

Address the facts Ludwig...

Earlier this week, Britain's chief scientific advisor, Professor John Beddington, called on climate scientists to be more honest about the uncertainties of global warming.

OK so there is another biased POS article from the right, in which case a scientist decided not to give his raw data over to some engineer who knew nothing of the science and was working for a political front group to discredit the very research the scientist was working on.

OK, perhaps he should he given over the raw data, and let some amateur asshole cherry pick it and distort it.

Or perhaps the amature political asshole should just read the papers with the error analysis like everyone else.

246 Van Helsing  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 1:42:24pm

Don't you think Hansen and his giant dice may have had anything to do with setting the circus-like tone of the climate debate? Roll 'em

247 sattv4u2  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 1:42:42pm

re: #240 jamesfirecat

The Dem's "supermajority" in congress always included one man who actively campaigned against the current president and his policies.
Please remember this fact when you expect them to be able to impose their liberal views on the American Nation with lock step efficiency

In fact you should probably never expect lock step efficiency from the democrats, we're the Keystone Cops of political parties, we mean well but...


He campaigend against ONE 'policy". He didn't like Obamas approach to the war on terror

he still caucuses and votes the majority of the time WITH the dems

but nice try!

248 Racer X  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 1:43:07pm

re: #239 LudwigVanQuixote

Copenhagen was a total failure.

That truth is going to hurt your children and grand children a lot more than it will hurt me or you. If you had your head on straight you would not see this as a victory for your side or a defeat of mine. It is a global tragedy that millions will suffer for.

LVQ. sigh. I do not see it as a victory that Copenhagen failed. I see it as a total epic failure. It was a failure before it even began. The leadership in America, and the entire world, is weak. They are powerless. GW is coming. Hard. We all need to get used to it, and quit pretending we can make it all better.

249 Walter L. Newton  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 1:43:34pm

re: #239 LudwigVanQuixote

Copenhagen was a total failure.

That truth is going to hurt your children and grand children a lot more than it will hurt me or you. If you had your head on straight you would not see this as a victory for your side or a defeat of mine. It is a global tragedy that millions will suffer for.

Address the facts Ludwig... looks like we now have problems in Chapter 13 in the IPCC Working Group II report... problems in Chapter 10, now problems in Chapter 13... what chapter next?

"Up to 40% of Amazonian forests could react drastically to even a slight reduction in precipitation; this means that the tropical vegetation, hydrology and climate system in South America could change very rapidly to another steady state, not necessarily producing gradual changes between the current and the future situation," it observed.

"It is more probable that forests will be replaced by ecosystems that have more resistance to multiple stresses caused by temperature increase, droughts and fires, such as tropical savannas."

Closer inspection reveals that the authors referenced for this work are, in fact, an expert linked to environmental group WWF and a green journalist.

250 Aceofwhat?  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 1:44:05pm

re: #239 LudwigVanQuixote

Copenhagen was a total failure.

That truth is going to hurt your children and grand children a lot more than it will hurt me or you. If you had your head on straight you would not see this as a victory for your side or a defeat of mine. It is a global tragedy that millions will suffer for.

The point is that the next time someone calls for a similar summit, some of us want to oppose it without being told that we don't "believe the science". The summit was always a bad idea. Getting developing countries to stop burning shit is a better idea.

251 Aceofwhat?  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 1:44:52pm

re: #245 LudwigVanQuixote

OK so there is another biased POS article from the right, in which case a scientist decided not to give his raw data over to some engineer who knew nothing of the science and was working for a political front group to discredit the very research the scientist was working on.

OK, perhaps he should he given over the raw data, and let some amateur asshole cherry pick it and distort it.

Or perhaps the amature political asshole should just read the papers with the error analysis like everyone else.

arguments against transparency will only ever hinder the progression of this or any other science.

252 Walter L. Newton  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 1:45:55pm

re: #245 LudwigVanQuixote

OK so there is another biased POS article from the right, in which case a scientist decided not to give his raw data over to some engineer who knew nothing of the science and was working for a political front group to discredit the very research the scientist was working on.

OK, perhaps he should he given over the raw data, and let some amateur asshole cherry pick it and distort it.

Or perhaps the amature political asshole should just read the papers with the error analysis like everyone else.

So, public data should not be made public. Only the High Priests of Science should be allowed to have data.

Old, old argument you make there... some of the most amazing discoveries in science have been made by non-professionals... you sound scared.

253 Bagua  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 1:46:39pm

re: #204 LudwigVanQuixote

Well the telegraph is totally right wing as is the Daily Mail. The Beeb, like all stupid MSM tries to show a "controversy" where there is none.

That is nonsense, while the Telegraph is associated with the conservatives, it is also fully on board with the AGW Alarmism, as is the leader of the Tory party. In fact, we call it the Daily Scarygraph because of the constant climate alarmism. The only exception is a couple of opinion writers who are sceptics, however, they are more than balanced by opinion writers who are warmists.

The Beeb is basically the propaganda wing of the UN's IPCC.

Stop posting lies to fit your warmist propaganda. Anyone familiar with those news outlets knows the truth.

254 jamesfirecat  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 1:47:06pm

re: #247 sattv4u2

He campaigend against ONE 'policy". He didn't like Obamas approach to the war on terror

he still caucuses and votes the majority of the time WITH the dems

but nice try!

He gave a speech supporting John McCain at the Republican National Convention.

There was talk of him being McCain's VP if it wouldn't have screwed him over with the far right base.

He cacuses with the democrats because if he did it with the Republicans he'd have no real power in the senate, as a "democrat" he gets to play king maker games forcing us to bend over backwards to give him what he wants like killing the public option.

His WIFE works for the insurance industry [Link: www.associatedcontent.com...]


So I'm sure Joe wouldn't mind doing something that might put an end to the virtual monopoly his spouse's employers enjoy at the moment....

255 Walter L. Newton  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 1:47:16pm

re: #251 Aceofwhat?

arguments against transparency will only ever hinder the progression of this or any other science.

It's the same way that Scientologist attempt to keep their material out of the public hands.

256 Walter L. Newton  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 1:47:52pm

re: #253 Bagua

That is nonsense, while the Telegraph is associated with the conservatives, it is also fully on board with the AGW Alarmism, as is the leader of the Tory party. In fact, we call it the Daily Scarygraph because of the constant climate alarmism. The only exception is a couple of opinion writers who are sceptics, however, they are more than balanced by opinion writers who are warmists.

The Beeb is basically the propaganda wing of the UN's IPCC.

Stop posting lies to fit your warmist propaganda. Anyone familiar with those news outlets knows the truth.

I don't think he is fooling anyone on this thread... except maybe himself.

257 jamesfirecat  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 1:48:12pm

Gonna go eat dinner be back in 30, later lizards.

258 Walter L. Newton  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 1:48:23pm

re: #253 Bagua

P.S. Do you have a Bat Phone too? :)

259 Pacificlady  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 1:48:28pm

Stick a thermometer in ____________ (insert country of choice) and take Earth's temperature.

260 sattv4u2  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 1:48:35pm

re: #254 jamesfirecat

He cacuses

tsk tsk tsk ,, spelling

I don't think I know what your post means now!!

261 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 1:49:22pm

re: #232 Aceofwhat?

You now, I don't know the latest smear story, I don't care what it is either. I am sure you guys can dig up a bunch of smears on this one scientist. They might occasionally be true, though historically they are nothing more than lies and smears. However, science is made up of data from numerous people. Look at the data. It is not cooked. It is not false. Look at it. The whole point of numerous independent investigators is to take out any conflict of interest. Yet rather than looking at the science and reasoning it out for yourselves, you would rather waste time debating about the latest gossip individual scientists.

It is very tiring.

262 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 1:49:50pm

re: #248 Racer X

LVQ. sigh. I do not see it as a victory that Copenhagen failed. I see it as a total epic failure. It was a failure before it even began. The leadership in America, and the entire world, is weak. They are powerless. GW is coming. Hard. We all need to get used to it, and quit pretending we can make it all better.

We could actually mitigate it if we acted now. That is the terrible irony.

263 Van Helsing  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 1:50:43pm

re: #260 sattv4u2

He cacuses

tsk tsk tsk ,, spelling

I don't think I know what your post means now!!

He earned that shot. Waist high, over the plate...

264 Aceofwhat?  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 1:51:55pm

re: #262 LudwigVanQuixote

We could actually mitigate it if we acted now. That is the terrible irony.

not without the rest of the world. that is the terrible truth. so we should do what we can, but insofar as it does not put us at a disadvantage to those who are doing nothing.

265 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 1:52:08pm

re: #253 Bagua

That is nonsense, while the Telegraph is associated with the conservatives, it is also fully on board with the AGW Alarmism, as is the leader of the Tory party. In fact, we call it the Daily Scarygraph because of the constant climate alarmism. The only exception is a couple of opinion writers who are sceptics, however, they are more than balanced by opinion writers who are warmists.

The Beeb is basically the propaganda wing of the UN's IPCC.

Stop posting lies to fit your warmist propaganda. Anyone familiar with those news outlets knows the truth.

My alarmist propaganda? Ummm care to read the IPCC report carefully or any of the papers I bring? No of course not... you would rather call it names and spread ignorance.

How can a scientific plea to look at the actual data be unscientific?

I really don't know why you are so against the facts, I stopped caring a long long time ago. Look at the science, demonstrate you understand it, or shut up when those of us who actually are in the field are talking.

266 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 1:52:29pm

re: #264 Aceofwhat?

not without the rest of the world. that is the terrible truth. so we should do what we can, but insofar as it does not put us at a disadvantage to those who are doing nothing.

Which is why we need to lead.

267 allegro  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 1:52:38pm

For a scientist to turn data over to one who has no intent to examine that data in good faith, but rather to pick out pieces in order to use the data to either publicly discredit the research, with dishonest claims an unscientific public would have no way to understand, is indeed unwise. It has nothing to do with "transparency" as the term is being used here. That data is fully transparent to those who have the means, and desire, to verify it and build upon it in their own research.

268 Aceofwhat?  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 1:52:59pm

re: #261 LudwigVanQuixote

A lead IPCC player is not just another scientist. The science can be sound, but if we can't trust those charged with turning the science into recommendations, then you're a fool to be unconcerned.

269 Van Helsing  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 1:53:04pm

How many different ways has this Rutan been debunked/discredited?

Honestly curious.

270 Aceofwhat?  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 1:53:51pm

re: #266 LudwigVanQuixote

Which is why we need to lead.

Not to where others will not follow. We need to wean ourselves off of fossil fuels, become more sustainable, etc. At Copenhagen, "lead" meant "payoff". I need you to define your terms better.

271 Aceofwhat?  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 1:55:04pm

re: #267 allegro

For a scientist to turn data over to one who has no intent to examine that data in good faith, but rather to pick out pieces in order to use the data to either publicly discredit the research, with dishonest claims an unscientific public would have no way to understand, is indeed unwise. It has nothing to do with "transparency" as the term is being used here. That data is fully transparent to those who have the means, and desire, to verify it and build upon it in their own research.

Data is either proprietary or public. Anything in between is cagey.

272 suchislife  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 1:55:33pm

re: #226 jamesfirecat

Small correction about the rape thing: I think it was just voting that the government won't give contracts to companies that contractually forbid their employees to sue if they are raped by employees of that same company.

273 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 1:55:53pm

re: #252 Walter L. Newton

So, public data should not be made public. Only the High Priests of Science should be allowed to have data.

Old, old argument you make there... some of the most amazing discoveries in science have been made by non-professionals... you sound scared.

ONly the high priests of science, and yet I am the one who is called insulting...

Walter, don't be stupid.

Raw data is meaningless without understanding the instruments that took it. It is meaningless without the context of the error analysis. It is preciesly because the people doing the work know the instruments they used - and report on them and the error analysis in the papers that you read the journals. It is because of this that any freedom of information act BS is just BS from a biased request to begin with.

If you cared at all about science you would realize this.

274 sattv4u2  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 1:56:07pm

re: #263 Van Helsing

He earned that shot. Waist high, over the plate...

thanks

I wasn;t going to


(who am I kidding ,, of COURSE I was!!)

275 allegro  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 1:56:41pm

re: #271 Aceofwhat?

Data is either proprietary or public. Anything in between is cagey.

Not entirely. Data can be public within a scientific peer realm, but not public in a general sense.

276 Aceofwhat?  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 1:58:13pm

re: #265 LudwigVanQuixote

You invited that one. Saying that the telegraph and bbc are posting anti-warming propaganda is just unnecessary. You can reasonably disagree about the importance of the conflict of interest that Patchauri (or whatever his name was) entered into, but your excessive rhetoric will only drive people farther away from your other points.

277 allegro  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 1:58:32pm

re: #273 LudwigVanQuixote

Raw data is meaningless without understanding the instruments that took it. It is meaningless without the context of the error analysis. It is preciesly because the people doing the work know the instruments they used - and report on them and the error analysis in the papers that you read the journals. It is because of this that any freedom of information act BS is just BS from a biased request to begin with.

This.

278 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 1:59:07pm

re: #277 allegro

This.

?

279 Aceofwhat?  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 1:59:40pm

re: #273 LudwigVanQuixote

that the data is useless without the proper perspective is not a reason to withhold it. quite the contrary, in fact.

280 allegro  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 1:59:43pm

That was what I was trying to explain. You did it so very well.

281 Obdicut  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 1:59:44pm

re: #278 LudwigVanQuixote

"This" means "I agree with this".

282 Aceofwhat?  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 2:00:34pm

re: #275 allegro

Not entirely. Data can be public within a scientific peer realm, but not public in a general sense.

sorry, i meant in this case. the UK government agreed with me, too.

283 Walter L. Newton  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 2:01:13pm

re: #273 LudwigVanQuixote

I'm not insulting you. I'm insulting Pachauri. I've never called you stupid or anything like that. I think you are highly intelligent. But you know that.

284 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 2:01:30pm

re: #276 Aceofwhat?

Any report on the science that would rather smear an individual scientist rather than look at the actual science collected by hundreds of thousands of researchers world wide is garbage and not worth the paper it was printed on.

For the 50th time, science is about data and measurements. The data is in. The mechanisms are sufficiently well understood to conclusively say there is a very very big problem. Talking about anything else is gossip and a distraction and a dangerous one at that.

285 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 2:02:06pm

re: #280 allegro

That was what I was trying to explain. You did it so very well.

Thank you very much. I really am heartened when people get it.

286 Walter L. Newton  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 2:04:18pm

re: #284 LudwigVanQuixote

Any report on the science that would rather smear an individual scientist rather than look at the actual science collected by hundreds of thousands of researchers world wide is garbage and not worth the paper it was printed on.

For the 50th time, science is about data and measurements. The data is in. The mechanisms are sufficiently well understood to conclusively say there is a very very big problem. Talking about anything else is gossip and a distraction and a dangerous one at that.

Would you conduct yourself the same way as Pachauri?

287 Racer X  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 2:04:31pm

"We Democrats are so much smarter than those stupid right-wingers!"

It must kill you guys, I mean absolutely destroy you, to be thwarted at every turn on a daily basis by the stupid evil, all-powerful GOP.

Sucks to be Dem.

288 Walter L. Newton  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 2:05:13pm

re: #284 LudwigVanQuixote

Any report on the science that would rather smear an individual scientist ...

[snip]

Which individual scientist are you talking about?

289 allegro  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 2:05:23pm

re: #285 LudwigVanQuixote

Thank you very much. I really am heartened when people get it.

I spent most of my career in science research in a field that much of the public gets very emotional about. I've had my work twisted by cherry-picked data by those with an agenda. Yes, I do get it.

290 Aceofwhat?  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 2:05:48pm

re: #284 LudwigVanQuixote

Any report on the science that would rather smear an individual scientist rather than look at the actual science collected by hundreds of thousands of researchers world wide is garbage and not worth the paper it was printed on.

For the 50th time, science is about data and measurements. The data is in. The mechanisms are sufficiently well understood to conclusively say there is a very very big problem. Talking about anything else is gossip and a distraction and a dangerous one at that.

dismissing clear conflict of interest issues at the highest level of a UN commission is dangerous.

i truly care about the science, which means i will pour my derision and scorn on the poor fools who pollute the conclusions with their conflicts of interest, and to do otherwise is dangerous. it's precisely because of the distraction that we should condemn the individual, lest those who are not as educated on the science mistake us for whitewashers.

291 Walter L. Newton  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 2:06:58pm

re: #289 allegro

I spent most of my career in science research in a field that much of the public gets very emotional about. I've had my work twisted by cherry-picked data by those with an agenda. Yes, I do get it.

Then you must also understand that some of the process, procedure and protocol of the IPCC is certainly been called in question, and with for valid reasons?

292 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 2:07:12pm

re: #283 Walter L. Newton

I'm not insulting you. I'm insulting Pachauri. I've never called you stupid or anything like that. I think you are highly intelligent. But you know that.

Walter,

I don't think you are stupid. I actually rather like you even when you make me crazy. I think you get so wrapped up in whatever point you are trying to make that you lose sight of the real issues and then, once backed into a corner, say really stupid things.

It is really stupid to think that raw data is the subject of FOI to begin with. You do not have a right to just look at my notebooks or files. You could be trying to scoop me. But this is even worse than that. It is a meaningless request made only for political reasons by someone who would not use the data in good faith, and without an intimate understanding of the apparatus and methods could not use it in good faith even if he wanted to.

You have the right to read what I publish.

293 allegro  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 2:08:29pm

re: #291 Walter L. Newton

Then you must also understand that some of the process, procedure and protocol of the IPCC is certainly been called in question, and with for valid reasons?

It's outside of my field so I can't comment on the specific issues.

294 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 2:09:14pm

re: #293 allegro

It's outside of my field so I can't comment on the specific issues.

You really are a scientist! What field are you in? Are you a biologist?

295 allegro  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 2:09:49pm

re: #294 LudwigVanQuixote

You really are a scientist! What field are you in? Are you a biologist?

I am.

296 Walter L. Newton  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 2:10:28pm

re: #290 Aceofwhat?

dismissing clear conflict of interest issues at the highest level of a UN commission is dangerous.

i truly care about the science, which means i will pour my derision and scorn on the poor fools who pollute the conclusions with their conflicts of interest, and to do otherwise is dangerous. it's precisely because of the distraction that we should condemn the individual, lest those who are not as educated on the science mistake us for whitewashers.

Ain't good enough. You have to accept everything, hook, line and sinker. Accept the science, then you have to accept every person, scientist and organization behind it, no matter what their sins, no matter what their flaws.

If people like Ludwig get their way, the whole of this science will go south if people like Ludwig continues to allow the process to become polluted with the likes of Pachauri.

Sometimes, they way Ludwig argues AGW, I wonder who's side is he really on?

False flag player?

297 Aceofwhat?  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 2:11:09pm

re: #292 LudwigVanQuixote

your continued defense of the indefensible distracts from the established science. the govt of the UK said they were wrong to withhold the information. whether their motives were noble is an unnecessary question as a result.

they should have made the data public because their law required them to. see? admit it and then we can move on to agreeing about the science.

disagree and it only makes me wonder whether i can trust you to call a spade a spade on this or any other topic.

298 sattv4u2  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 2:11:27pm

re: #293 allegro

It's outside of my field so I can't comment on the specific issues.

In general, shouldn't processes, procedures and protocols ALWAYS be subject to open questioning?

299 Walter L. Newton  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 2:12:06pm

re: #297 Aceofwhat?

See my... re: #296 Walter L. Newton... makes me wonder?

300 allegro  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 2:12:28pm

re: #298 sattv4u2

In general, shouldn't processes, procedures and protocols ALWAYS be subject to open questioning?

By peers who understand the methodology, absolutely.

301 jamesfirecat  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 2:12:33pm

re: #272 suchislife

Small correction about the rape thing: I think it was just voting that the government won't give contracts to companies that contractually forbid their employees to sue if they are raped by employees of that same company.

Okay you're probably right, still it's not the kind of thing the government should have been doing and I can't understand why anyone would for logical reasons vote against it at the moment.

Can any of you explain it to me?

302 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 2:13:24pm

re: #290 Aceofwhat?

Dismissing hundreds of thousands of data sets that say that there is a problem based on unproven allegations against one scientist is what is dangerous. Like I said, don't know this particular story, and I don't care. Someone said something nasty about a scientist. Go figure, since the average person will not look at the actual science it is easier to try to kill the messenger. I really don't care what the story is about this guy or what you think he is accused of or who is doing the accusing. The chances are very great that with a little digging it is a non-story. Even if it is a story and it is worst than the worst fever dreams of this guy's malfeasance, it does not do away with the hundresds of thousands of data sets that actually measure reality.

Any science discussion that does not begin and end with the data is not science. It is only masturbation.

303 Walter L. Newton  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 2:14:06pm

re: #300 allegro

By peers who understand the methodology, absolutely.

Well, if you have been keeping up with the articles that have been linked to, it's peers who are questioning data and information in the AR4, not engineers or cab drivers.

304 jamesfirecat  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 2:14:56pm

re: #274 sattv4u2

thanks

I wasn;t going to

(who am I kidding ,, of COURSE I was!!)

What can I say? I've got a huge vocabulary and only know how to spell a quarter of the words in it. For the most part I obey the little red lines, which of course means I make mistakes when I think one correctly spelled word means the same as another correctly spelled word.

Want to address my point on how Liberman is hardly a reliable democrat?

305 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 2:15:01pm

re: #297 Aceofwhat?

OK fine, what is this terrible indefensible thing? I'll address it, since it clearly is bugging you. But then when that is done... please look at the real data and understand that stories like the ones you are binging are brought in order to try to cloud the realities of that data.

306 Walter L. Newton  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 2:15:10pm

re: #302 LudwigVanQuixote


[snip]
Like I said, don't know this particular story, and I don't care.
[snip]

You sound more like a right wing religious nut than a scientist.

307 allegro  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 2:15:18pm

re: #303 Walter L. Newton

Well, if you have been keeping up with the articles that have been linked to, it's peers who are questioning data and information in the AR4, not engineers or cab drivers.

I have not disputed otherwise.

308 Aceofwhat?  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 2:15:29pm

re: #299 Walter L. Newton

See my... re: #296 Walter L. Newton... makes me wonder?

it's like someone who sticks up for Michelle Bachmann because they're worried about discrediting established conservative principles. I can be a William Buckley fan and still think she's crazier than an insomniac bat.

Same applies here...

309 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 2:17:01pm

re: #276 Aceofwhat?

You invited that one. Saying that the telegraph and bbc are posting anti-warming propaganda is just unnecessary. You can reasonably disagree about the importance of the conflict of interest that Patchauri (or whatever his name was) entered into, but your excessive rhetoric will only drive people farther away from your other points.

The BBC has broadcasted anti-warming propaganda. [Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

And two contributors of the documentary disavowed it. These are dishonest people who made this thing who are attacking science in the name of greed.

Facts are never "unnecessary". There is no excessive rhetoric to pointing out simple facts.

310 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 2:17:13pm

re: #306 Walter L. Newton

You sound more like a right wing religious nut than a scientist.

And that is not insulting?

Walter, get a grip. I am saying that the only thing that matters is the data and the evidence. You steadfastly refuse to talk about such things, yet, you feel qualified to pontificate on the subject none the less. Yours are the actions of a right wing religious fanatic.

311 Van Helsing  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 2:17:31pm

re: #302 LudwigVanQuixote

Any science discussion that does not begin and end with the data is not science.

Why then, would they not be more forthcoming with the raw data, explain any adjustments made to it, and the processes used to draw the line between that data and their conclusions?

312 Walter L. Newton  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 2:17:43pm

re: #308 Aceofwhat?

it's like someone who sticks up for Michelle Bachmann because they're worried about discrediting established conservative principles. I can be a William Buckley fan and still think she's crazier than an insomniac bat.

Same applies here...

You know it does, I know it does, but what I have found out about groups in general, when you own the room, what's good for the goose is not necessarily good for the gander.

Hypocritical I know, but it happens all the time. What I don't understand is how folks who play that game thinks that they are not as obvious as a yellow umbrella at a funeral? (name that film reference)

Smart doesn't equate to common sense.

313 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 2:20:05pm

re: #311 Van Helsing

Any science discussion that does not begin and end with the data is not science.

Why then, would they not be more forthcoming with the raw data, explain any adjustments made to it, and the processes used to draw the line between that data and their conclusions?

Ummm they are... what do you thing the methods and proceedures portion of their papers is all about?

314 Aceofwhat?  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 2:20:10pm

re: #302 LudwigVanQuixote

hundreds of thousands of data sets are built. step 1
the data is analyzed and reported on. step 2
recommendations about what to do next are proposed. step 3

When the guy in charge of step 3 is dirtier than a pig in shit, it doesn't invalidate step one or two. But if you don't care, it sure invalidates your ability to say anything that anyone else wants to hear.

Of course, i'm oversimplifying the steps, but this is a blog after all. Bear with me.

Sigh. How anyone can care so much about the analysis but not give two shits about the recommendation is unfathomable to me.

315 Aceofwhat?  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 2:20:47pm

re: #309 WindUpBird

The BBC has broadcasted anti-warming propaganda. [Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

And two contributors of the documentary disavowed it. These are dishonest people who made this thing who are attacking science in the name of greed.

Facts are never "unnecessary". There is no excessive rhetoric to pointing out simple facts.

Fine. It doesn't make the bbc a bastion of rightist propaganda to be dismissed out of hand. (as suggested by Ludwig)

316 Walter L. Newton  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 2:20:52pm

re: #310 LudwigVanQuixote

And that is not insulting?

Walter, get a grip. I am saying that the only thing that matters is the data and the evidence. You steadfastly refuse to talk about such things, yet, you feel qualified to pontificate on the subject none the less. Yours are the actions of a right wing religious fanatic.

And you steadfastly refuse to address any of the other issues, which are process, procedure and protocol, which we have proof enough of some of the problems.

So, a stalemate.

Oh, by the way, you keep ignoring my statements, because it would destroy half of your arguing base, but I don't deny AGW or the science.

317 sattv4u2  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 2:21:13pm

re: #304 jamesfirecat

What can I say? I've got a huge vocabulary and only know how to spell a quarter of the words in it. For the most part I obey the little red lines, which of course means I make mistakes when I think one correctly spelled word means the same as another correctly spelled word.

Want to address my point on how Liberman is hardly a reliable democrat?

Who said he was a 'reliable democrat"? Your original post made it sound as if he was the second coming of Karl Rove. What I stated, accurately, was that he was at odds with one very (to him) important issue with the Obama campaign. That was (and continues to be) the war on terror

Past that, I again accurately stated he
A) caucuses with the DEMS
B) holds DEM positions in committees
C) votes for the most part along with the dems

You've been 'addressed"!

318 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 2:22:02pm

re: #314 Aceofwhat?

hundreds of thousands of data sets are built. step 1
the data is analyzed and reported on. step 2
recommendations about what to do next are proposed. step 3

When the guy in charge of step 3 is dirtier than a pig in shit, it doesn't invalidate step one or two. But if you don't care, it sure invalidates your ability to say anything that anyone else wants to hear.

Of course, i'm oversimplifying the steps, but this is a blog after all. Bear with me.

Sigh. How anyone can care so much about the analysis but not give two shits about the recommendation is unfathomable to me.

OK so what makes him dirtier than pig shit? I am afraid to ask... Further, if we are reduced to discussing step 3, then we are not talking science any more anyway, we are talking politics.

319 Aceofwhat?  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 2:22:21pm

re: #305 LudwigVanQuixote

OK fine, what is this terrible indefensible thing? I'll address it, since it clearly is bugging you. But then when that is done... please look at the real data and understand that stories like the ones you are binging are brought in order to try to cloud the realities of that data.

for the last time, stop equating data and recommendations. it's starting to progress from annoying to deliberatly obtuse.

320 Walter L. Newton  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 2:22:49pm

re: #314 Aceofwhat?

hundreds of thousands of data sets are built. step 1
the data is analyzed and reported on. step 2
recommendations about what to do next are proposed. step 3

When the guy in charge of step 3 is dirtier than a pig in shit, it doesn't invalidate step one or two. But if you don't care, it sure invalidates your ability to say anything that anyone else wants to hear.

Of course, i'm oversimplifying the steps, but this is a blog after all. Bear with me.

Sigh. How anyone can care so much about the analysis but not give two shits about the recommendation is unfathomable to me.

When it moves from being a science to a religion for some people. Or when the political and monetary benefits out weight any transparent true science.

321 Varek Raith  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 2:22:51pm

re: #318 LudwigVanQuixote

OK so what makes him dirtier than pig shit? I am afraid to ask... Further, if we are reduced to discussing step 3, then we are not talking science any more anyway, we are talking politics.

Which is why nothing will ever be done about AGW. Nothing.

322 sattv4u2  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 2:23:35pm

re: #300 allegro

By peers who understand the methodology, absolutely.

Sorry ,,,, but that sounds a lot like politicians investigating the wrong doings of politicians

I would think you would want someone outside, without an agenda to have a look

323 Aceofwhat?  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 2:23:43pm

re: #318 LudwigVanQuixote

OK so what makes him dirtier than pig shit? I am afraid to ask... Further, if we are reduced to discussing step 3, then we are not talking science any more anyway, we are talking politics.

exactly. we were talking politics, and then you came in and said "stop questioning the science". then i spent the last hour trying to get you to realize that we weren't.

324 Aceofwhat?  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 2:23:59pm

re: #318 LudwigVanQuixote

OK so what makes him dirtier than pig shit? I am afraid to ask... Further, if we are reduced to discussing step 3, then we are not talking science any more anyway, we are talking politics.

read Walter's links.

325 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 2:24:25pm

re: #316 Walter L. Newton

And you steadfastly refuse to address any of the other issues, which are process, procedure and protocol, which we have proof enough of some of the problems.

So, a stalemate.

Oh, by the way, you keep ignoring my statements, because it would destroy half of your arguing base, but I don't deny AGW or the science.

Walter, the procedures for any experiment are very clearly discussed in the papers that reported it. So is all the error analysis, and if you ever read an actual paper, you will see that this section is usually the largest discussion of any experimental paper.

Since you are not talking about a specific paper or finding, you have not brought up anything to adress. This is not a stalemate at all. This is you refusing to even play the game. Don't think that your weak slurs and pseudo arguments constitute an equal side. You have brought nothing.

326 Aceofwhat?  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 2:26:14pm

re: #325 LudwigVanQuixote

didn't you refuse to read the links he posted? makes your complaint sorta weird, imho. just sayin'.

327 Walter L. Newton  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 2:26:19pm

re: #318 LudwigVanQuixote

OK so what makes him dirtier than pig shit? I am afraid to ask... Further, if we are reduced to discussing step 3, then we are not talking science any more anyway, we are talking politics.

Well...

Although Dr Pachauri is often presented as a scientist (he was even once described by the BBC as “the world’s top climate scientist”), as a former railway engineer with a PhD in economics he has no qualifications in climate science at all.

...and...

What has also almost entirely escaped attention, however, is how Dr Pachauri has established an astonishing worldwide portfolio of business interests with bodies which have been investing billions of dollars in organisations dependent on the IPCC’s policy recommendations.

These outfits include banks, oil and energy companies and investment funds heavily involved in ‘carbon trading’ and ‘sustainable technologies’, which together make up the fastest-growing commodity market in the world, estimated soon to be worth trillions of dollars a year.

Today, in addition to his role as chairman of the IPCC, Dr Pachauri occupies more than a score of such posts, acting as director or adviser to many of the bodies which play a leading role in what has become known as the international ‘climate industry’.

...or...

The chairman of the leading climate change watchdog was informed that claims about melting Himalayan glaciers were false before the Copenhagen summit, The Times has learnt.

Rajendra Pachauri was told that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment that the glaciers would disappear by 2035 was wrong, but he waited two months to correct it. He failed to act despite learning that the claim had been refuted by several leading glaciologists.

...and sometimes...

Asked whether he had deliberately kept silent about the error to avoid embarrassment at Copenhagen, he said: “That’s ridiculous. It never came to my attention before the Copenhagen summit. It wasn’t in the public sphere.”

However, a prominent science journalist said that he had asked Dr Pachauri about the 2035 error last November. Pallava Bagla, who writes for Science journal, said he had asked Dr Pachauri about the error. He said that Dr Pachauri had replied: “I don’t have anything to add on glaciers.”

and the beat goes on...

328 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 2:26:57pm

re: #319 Aceofwhat?

for the last time, stop equating data and recommendations. it's starting to progress from annoying to deliberatly obtuse.

I would never do that.

I have not done that. I have been saying over and over again that the data that support AGW are overwhelming and sound. If you want to debate recommendations then do so, but make your points about the recommendations - and specific ones at that and do not try to jump on the discredit AGW bandwagon. Further don't conflate the science with the politics yourself.

329 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 2:27:11pm

re: #287 Racer X

"We Democrats are so much smarter than those stupid right-wingers!"

It must kill you guys, I mean absolutely destroy you, to be thwarted at every turn on a daily basis by the stupid evil, all-powerful GOP.

Sucks to be Dem.

You have a party that is united and has loyalty requirements, versus a very loose coalition of interests that fight. Pretty logical that the party with one message is better at staying on message than the party of the circular firing squad. I'm used to being around people who disagree constantly. I don't join tribes.

But this isn't a football game to me. Hopefully it isn't to you. I don't treat politics the way schools treat rivalries. I don't root for dems because it's my tribe, I look at voting records, see what policies politicians want to enact, and whether I agree with them. And currently, that means Democrats, because on average, they don't demonize me because of who I have sex with, they don't deny established science, they don't racebait constantly, they don't pander relentlessly to populism and superstitious nonsense about cosmic entities. If the Republicans left these people behind, if they started to pay more attention to what Buckley wanted and less to what lunatics want, I'd vote for more Republicans. There are plenty of Dems I wouldn't touch with a stick. And there are Republicans who I would vote for for president, if they could get past the populist loons in the primary. I've voted for Oregon republicans, because Oregonians don't stand for this garbage, and Oregon Republicans generally make sense, even if I don't always agree with them.

The Democrats are a shoddy, corrupt, dishonest and disorganized party that can barely agree on anything. And sadly, they're the best party we have.

330 jamesfirecat  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 2:27:43pm

re: #317 sattv4u2

Who said he was a 'reliable democrat"? Your original post made it sound as if he was the second coming of Karl Rove. What I stated, accurately, was that he was at odds with one very (to him) important issue with the Obama campaign. That was (and continues to be) the war on terror

Past that, I again accurately stated he
A) caucuses with the DEMS
B) holds DEM positions in committees
C) votes for the most part along with the dems

You've been 'addressed"!

What do you you make of point of fact "D"

D) Liberman threatened to filibuster the public option unless his demands were met.

There's no point in having a sixty vote "supermajority" if one of your own is willing to help start a fillibuster against you.

331 Walter L. Newton  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 2:27:51pm

re: #325 LudwigVanQuixote

Walter, the procedures for any experiment are very clearly discussed in the papers that reported it. So is all the error analysis, and if you ever read an actual paper, you will see that this section is usually the largest discussion of any experimental paper.

Since you are not talking about a specific paper or finding, you have not brought up anything to adress. This is not a stalemate at all. This is you refusing to even play the game. Don't think that your weak slurs and pseudo arguments constitute an equal side. You have brought nothing.

I have mentioned Chapter 10 and Chapter 13 of the AR4 in this thread, and supplied links to my comments about those sections and the mistake contained with in those sections.

You know this, you are being vague on purpose. Are you really a Obdicut sock puppet?

332 Pythagoras  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 2:27:59pm

Hey, anyone want to discuss the actual topic of this thread?

Watts responds here:

[Link: wattsupwiththat.com...]

333 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 2:28:38pm

re: #327 Walter L. Newton

OK, so since I never heard of him before, and since he is not worth discussing as a scientist, what does this have to do with anything? As I keep saying, and it seems to fall on deaf ears... what does this have to do with the realities of AGW?

334 allegro  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 2:28:46pm

re: #322 sattv4u2

Sorry ,,, but that sounds a lot like politicians investigating the wrong doings of politicians

I would think you would want someone outside, without an agenda to have a look

Hard data, i.e. facts, are far from being the same thing as politics. Science is not opinion. Someone "outside", for example a reporter, who does not have the education or knowledge to understand the methodology or how a conclusion came to result from the data collected, is not one to verify the quality of the data collection or conclusion.

335 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 2:30:07pm

re: #326 Aceofwhat?

didn't you refuse to read the links he posted? makes your complaint sorta weird, imho. just sayin'.

Yes because it is a side show and his topics keep bouncing around. The only point, which I am getting tired of saying is look at the data.

336 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 2:30:38pm

re: #315 Aceofwhat?

Fine. It doesn't make the bbc a bastion of rightist propaganda to be dismissed out of hand. (as suggested by Ludwig)

They broadcasted.

anti-AGW.

propaganda.

It's a fact. It's significant, because the BBC has a lot of credibility. If Nightline broadcasted a demonstrably false documentary, it'd be taken seriously. They broadcasted lies and propaganda from industry, and distorted the contributions of scientists which appeared in the documentary.

I don't know what Ludwig said, I'm not his manfriday. I'm just addressing the facts.

337 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 2:31:15pm

re: #331 Walter L. Newton

OK Walter, and what are you procedural irregularities then... Be specific yourself. Further, I warn you not to back yourself into another corner. I grow weary of pseudo scientific nonsense.

338 Varek Raith  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 2:31:52pm

re: #336 WindUpBird

They broadcasted.

anti-AGW.

propaganda.

It's a fact. It's significant, because the BBC has a lot of credibility. If Nightline broadcasted a demonstrably false documentary, it'd be taken seriously. They broadcasted lies and propaganda from industry, and distorted the contributions of scientists which appeared in the documentary.

I don't know what Ludwig said, I'm not his manfriday. I'm just addressing the facts.

Not to mention the BBCs 'reporting' on Israel. The BBC is shit, for all I care.

339 Walter L. Newton  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 2:31:56pm

re: #333 LudwigVanQuixote

OK, so since I never heard of him before, and since he is not worth discussing as a scientist, what does this have to do with anything? As I keep saying, and it seems to fall on deaf ears... what does this have to do with the realities of AGW?

He's the fucking director of the IPCC... Dr. Rajendra Pachauri. Your comment above must be satire or sarcasm or something, because if you are honestly telling me that you know nothing of Dr. Rajendra Pachauri?

Are you sure you don't want to rescind that statement above?

340 Aceofwhat?  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 2:31:59pm

re: #328 LudwigVanQuixote

I would never do that.

I have not done that. I have been saying over and over again that the data that support AGW are overwhelming and sound. If you want to debate recommendations then do so, but make your points about the recommendations - and specific ones at that and do not try to jump on the discredit AGW bandwagon. Further don't conflate the science with the politics yourself.

wrong, sorry. we were talking about the politics and you keep talking about data sets. therefore, refuting people by saying that the "data is sound" is a straw argument.

i believe in the overall analysis of AGW. frankly, i've said it so often in this thread that i'm going to start to look for smaller words to say it with if you don't quit telling me that i'm denying or discrediting the basic science.

341 Aceofwhat?  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 2:32:58pm

re: #336 WindUpBird

They broadcasted.

anti-AGW.

propaganda.

It's a fact. It's significant, because the BBC has a lot of credibility. If Nightline broadcasted a demonstrably false documentary, it'd be taken seriously. They broadcasted lies and propaganda from industry, and distorted the contributions of scientists which appeared in the documentary.

I don't know what Ludwig said, I'm not his manfriday. I'm just addressing the facts.


No, you addressed a post of mine that was related to what Ludwig said. Either read all the way back or refrain, s'il te plait!

342 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 2:33:18pm

Off to make some arts, I could spend all day on the AGW stuff but Ludwig, for all people loathe him, has more knowledge of the subject than anyone else here. Or maybe that's why people loathe him, I notice in a controversial subject discussion on the internets, when someone is strident and not always nice, AND has an obvious and clear mastery of the material that eclipses everyone else in the discussion, that makes people really mad!

343 Aceofwhat?  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 2:33:50pm

re: #334 allegro

Hard data, i.e. facts, are far from being the same thing as politics. Science is not opinion. Someone "outside", for example a reporter, who does not have the education or knowledge to understand the methodology or how a conclusion came to result from the data collected, is not one to verify the quality of the data collection or conclusion.

or a railway engineer?

344 Walter L. Newton  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 2:34:12pm

re: #337 LudwigVanQuixote

OK Walter, and what are you procedural irregularities then... Be specific yourself. Further, I warn you not to back yourself into another corner. I grow weary of pseudo scientific nonsense.

You won't read the articles, the links, you don't know who, Dr. Rajendra Pachauri is... and you call this pseudo scientific nonsense?

345 Aceofwhat?  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 2:34:47pm

re: #342 WindUpBird

Off to make some arts, I could spend all day on the AGW stuff but Ludwig, for all people loathe him, has more knowledge of the subject than anyone else here. Or maybe that's why people loathe him, I notice in a controversial subject discussion on the internets, when someone is strident and not always nice, AND has an obvious and clear mastery of the material that eclipses everyone else in the discussion, that makes people really mad!

when accused of denying the science because i was participating in a political discussion, i get mad. so, there's that.

346 sattv4u2  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 2:34:58pm

re: #330 jamesfirecat

What do you you make of point of fact "D"

D) Liberman threatened to filibuster the public option unless his demands were met.

There's no point in having a sixty vote "supermajority" if one of your own is willing to help start a fillibuster against you.

May as well include the OTHER dems who had 'demands" that were met for their votes
Nelson
Landriue

347 Aceofwhat?  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 2:35:28pm

re: #336 WindUpBird

heh. updinged for 'manfriday'. just caught that. good stuff-

348 Aceofwhat?  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 2:36:14pm

re: #337 LudwigVanQuixote

OK Walter, and what are you procedural irregularities then... Be specific yourself. Further, I warn you not to back yourself into another corner. I grow weary of pseudo scientific nonsense.

if the IPCC director isn't important, how can you complain that "enough isn't being done" on this subject?

come on.

349 Pythagoras  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 2:37:24pm

re: #342 WindUpBird

Off to make some arts, I could spend all day on the AGW stuff but Ludwig, for all people loathe him, has more knowledge of the subject than anyone else here. Or maybe that's why people loathe him, I notice in a controversial subject discussion on the internets, when someone is strident and not always nice, AND has an obvious and clear mastery of the material that eclipses everyone else in the discussion, that makes people really mad!

Don't assume. I'll bet there are plenty of real, published experts who don't bother to post here because they know the issue will really be decided elsewhere.

350 allegro  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 2:37:58pm

re: #340 Aceofwhat?

wrong, sorry. we were talking about the politics and you keep talking about data sets.

I believe this is where the discord in this thread originates.

therefore, refuting people by saying that the "data is sound" is a straw argument.

On the contrary, that the overall body of science is sound is the very point. It is the politics and denial of that sound science that LVQ has an issue with, I believe.

351 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 2:37:58pm

re: #339 Walter L. Newton

He's the fucking director of the IPCC... Dr. Rajendra Pachauri. Your comment above must be satire or sarcasm or something, because if you are honestly telling me that you know nothing of Dr. Rajendra Pachauri?

Are you sure you don't want to rescind that statement above?

Believe it or don't Walter, I didn't recognize his name. But you are right, I do remember him now that you have reminded me of his post. Why? Because the UN is a political body and I deal with other professional scientists all the time and read their papers.

As I have kept saying over and over and over, read the actual science. Look at the actual papers. Politics is politics and it is not science. To be honest, if he hadn't have made a name for himself in the news, I never would have heard of El-Baredi either.. But you know what, not giving a damn about El-Baredi does not mean not knowing about nuclear physics. It means you don't care about political wonks.

So once again and for the final time, look at the damn data and the damn papers.

Furthermore, I have been shouting for over a year now that the IPCC report was toned down at the hands of the politicos at the UN. So if anything, you are rightly bringing up that putting politicians or political appointees in positions of science is a bad thing.

352 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 2:39:08pm

re: #344 Walter L. Newton

You won't read the articles, the links, you don't know who, Dr. Rajendra Pachauri is... and you call this pseudo scientific nonsense?

Walter, I just asked you... Further I have been shouting about the issues with IPCC watering down the facts for over a year here. your games are old and tiresome.

353 Bagua  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 2:41:35pm

re: #352 LudwigVanQuixote

... your games are old and tiresome.

Speaking to a mirror?

354 Aceofwhat?  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 2:41:45pm

re: #350 allegro

On the contrary, that the overall body of science is sound is the very point. It is the politics and denial of that sound science that LVQ has an issue with, I believe.

No, you misunderstand (again). If I say "copenhagen was a joke" and you say "but the overall body of science is sound", it's a straw argument because i never said it wasn't sound.

That's not what was actually said...i'm just trying to be clear so i used a fictitious example. We were not saying that the science wasn't sound, so replying that it is is a non-sequitur.

355 jamesfirecat  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 2:41:57pm

re: #346 sattv4u2

May as well include the OTHER dems who had 'demands" that were met for their votes
Nelson
Landriue

You're making my point for me, the democrats don't have the sense of party unity that the Republicans seem to be dispalying at the moment which is why a sixty vote "super majority" was an illusion as there were a couple of blue dogs who were more interested in themselves than the democratic agenda...

356 Aceofwhat?  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 2:43:04pm

re: #352 LudwigVanQuixote

Walter, I just asked you... Further I have been shouting about the issues with IPCC watering down the facts for over a year here. your games are old and tiresome.

We are rightly concerned about a conflict of interest. Go yell at someone else about data sets, we weren't questioning them.

357 sattv4u2  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 2:43:29pm

re: #355 jamesfirecat

You're making my point for me, the democrats don't have the sense of party unity that the Republicans seem to be dispalying at the moment which is why a sixty vote "super majority" was an illusion as there were a couple of blue dogs who were more interested in themselves than the democratic agenda...

And you're making MY point for ME

In that the dems can't agree, perhaps it's the dems that DISagree that are working with the repubs in a BIPARTISAN fashion to kill bad legislation!

358 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 2:43:34pm

re: #353 Bagua

Speaking to a mirror?

No, seems to be a wall sometimes... but he is at least not out to start crap like for the sake of it you are.

359 Walter L. Newton  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 2:44:31pm

re: #351 LudwigVanQuixote


[snip]
So once again and for the final time, look at the damn data and the damn papers.
[snip]


So once again and for the final time, look at the damn articles and the see what the people who represent AGW are doing to the science.

360 Bagua  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 2:45:10pm

re: #258 Walter L. Newton

P.S. Do you have a Bat Phone too? :)

You must be psychic Walter, note I've blued my nic.

361 Walter L. Newton  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 2:45:27pm

re: #352 LudwigVanQuixote

Walter, I just asked you... Further I have been shouting about the issues with IPCC watering down the facts for over a year here. your games are old and tiresome.

No, you won't read the articles, so, you don't know, they are not about water down the facts, they are about watering up the facts.

362 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 2:46:13pm

re: #350 allegro

On the contrary, that the overall body of science is sound is the very point. It is the politics and denial of that sound science that LVQ has an issue with, I believe.

Absolutely. It is also a distraction. By focusing on one guy in the AGW camp so to speak, they spread the false idea that the whole body of data is flawed and find a convenient way to ignore it.

If they want to discuss policy then the first thing to do is look at the facts so that sound policy can be discussed. Yet it never gets to that point. It always devolves into hinst smears, allegations and talking about anything other than the actual science and what might be needed to address it.

363 Aceofwhat?  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 2:47:09pm

re: #362 LudwigVanQuixote

do you really think that is what i am doing, after all of my "on the contrary posts"?

364 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 2:47:30pm

re: #361 Walter L. Newton

No, you won't read the articles, so, you don't know, they are not about water down the facts, they are about watering up the facts.

Aha, so you are saying that facts are watered up are you? OK then again I wish to point to the actual papers and journals. You miss the point entirely Walter that your links unless they are journal papers are meaningless.

Get some real science and we will talk.

365 Bagua  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 2:47:32pm

re: #362 LudwigVanQuixote

Absolutely. It is also a distraction. By focusing on one guy in the AGW camp so to speak, they spread the false idea that the whole body of data is flawed and find a convenient way to ignore it.

One guy? LOL, it is the entire hockey team!

366 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 2:48:58pm

re: #363 Aceofwhat?

do you really think that is what i am doing, after all of my "on the contrary posts"?

No not you. I must apologize that there are many people to talk to here and I was more addressing the foolishness of Walter and the unneeded snarks lies and distortions of Bagua.

367 Walter L. Newton  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 2:49:03pm

re: #364 LudwigVanQuixote

Aha, so you are saying that facts are watered up are you? OK then again I wish to point to the actual papers and journals. You miss the point entirely Walter that your links unless they are journal papers are meaningless.

Get some real science and we will talk.

AR4 is not real science.

368 Aceofwhat?  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 2:49:13pm

re: #364 LudwigVanQuixote

Aha, so you are saying that facts are watered up are you? OK then again I wish to point to the actual papers and journals. You miss the point entirely Walter that your links unless they are journal papers are meaningless.

Get some real science and we will talk.

The arrogance is as tiresome as it is overwhelming. We read each others' links as a courtesy. And recent news, being recent, necessarily won't have made it into a journal yet.

It's depressing to have to explain that out loud.

369 Walter L. Newton  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 2:50:10pm

Ot-

Official ABC release video. The first NEW footage of season six LOST material... the actual first 4 minutes of the season opener (with annotations by Doc Arzt's)... This is not considered spoilers, since it is officially released from ABC. And if you are a fan, you will not be surprised by what is revealed... and over all, nothing we didn't already figure is shown here.

So... if you don't want ANY info before Tuesday night, don't go here.

[Link: www.docarzt.com...]

370 allegro  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 2:51:10pm

re: #362 LudwigVanQuixote

Absolutely. It is also a distraction. By focusing on one guy in the AGW camp so to speak, they spread the false idea that the whole body of data is flawed and find a convenient way to ignore it.

Agreed. The conversation devolves into forcing the science into a defensive posture to correct misused data to explain the body of work in a way that most don't care to understand. And scientists rarely have the skill or interest in doing so.

If they want to discuss policy then the first thing to do is look at the facts so that sound policy can be discussed. Yet it never gets to that point. It always devolves into hinst smears, allegations and talking about anything other than the actual science and what might be needed to address it.

That's more fun.

371 jamesfirecat  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 2:51:25pm

re: #357 sattv4u2

And you're making MY point for ME

In that the dems can't agree, perhaps it's the dems that DISagree that are working with the repubs in a BIPARTISAN fashion to kill bad legislation!

The fact that the Dem's won Nelson over with what ammounts to a bribe makes it pretty clear that his bottom line has less to do with what is good or bad legislation and more to do with... well his bottom line.

372 Aceofwhat?  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 2:51:45pm

re: #366 LudwigVanQuixote

No not you. I must apologize that there are many people to talk to here and I was more addressing the foolishness of Walter and the unneeded snarks lies and distortions of Bagua.

thanks. then i'll apologize in turn if some of my posts seemed strained, although i think it's arrogant not to at least keep up with AGW news, even when part of it is about mistakes.

acknowledging and condemning looney conservatives strengthens my standing as a conservative who claims to be sane and balanced. I recommend the same approach for both of us as people who believe that the body of data supporting AGW science is sound. It can only strengthen your position to admit that occasionally a scientist or official was not behaving as they ought to.

373 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 2:52:36pm

re: #365 Bagua

One guy? LOL, it is the entire hockey team!

I find it very interesting that you used to hold up the IPCC report as evidence of my "alarmism" when I pointed out the flaws of its science that came in from political wrangling... now you are dismissing the whole thing... Unlike you Bagua - or Walter, I have actually read it. Further, I have read the original papers that it draws from.

Now you could if you were honest, but you are not, read those papers before opening your mouth.

You could if you were honest, but you are not, look at the actual data.

However, you are going to go on a lying and distortion fest soon. Just remember that in this case, you are doing it by shooting down your former arguments.

Of course that level of consistency of thought is not to be expected from you. You are, after all, an idiot and a consistent liar.

374 sattv4u2  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 2:53:04pm

re: #371 jamesfirecat

The fact that the Dem's won Nelson over with what ammounts to a bribe makes it pretty clear that his bottom line has less to do with what is good or bad legislation and more to do with... well his bottom line.

And the fact that they have to bribe people to come on board says the merits of the legislation can'rt stand on it's own

375 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 2:53:16pm

re: #370 allegro

That's more fun.

And actually useful.

376 Aceofwhat?  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 2:53:46pm

Thanks for the discussion, everyone. I'm going to scoot over and check out Adobe pr0n...

377 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 2:55:04pm

re: #368 Aceofwhat?

The arrogance is as tiresome as it is overwhelming. We read each others' links as a courtesy. And recent news, being recent, necessarily won't have made it into a journal yet.

It's depressing to have to explain that out loud.

Ace, respectfully, if it is not journal science, or at the very least produced by actual scientists, it is not a link that is worth debating in the context of questioning the science. This is very basic.

OK, if you want to debate something scientific, bring science. If you don't, you haven't brought a damn thing.

378 Walter L. Newton  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 2:55:18pm

re: #373 LudwigVanQuixote

I find it very interesting that you used to hold up the IPCC report as evidence of my "alarmism" when I pointed out the flaws of its science that came in from political wrangling... now you are dismissing the whole thing... Unlike you Bagua - or Walter, I have actually read it. Further, I have read the original papers that it draws from.

Now you could if you were honest, but you are not, read those papers before opening your mouth.

You could if you were honest, but you are not, look at the actual data.

However, you are going to go on a lying and distortion fest soon. Just remember that in this case, you are doing it by shooting down your former arguments.

Of course that level of consistency of thought is not to be expected from you. You are, after all, an idiot and a consistent liar.

I've read AR4. The Cambridge edition, which I think is only 975 or so pages, and the supplemental material (4 papers I think) is missing. I have the just under 100 page document.

Honest question...

So, the AR4 is flawed, is that what you are claiming?

379 Walter L. Newton  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 2:57:14pm

re: #377 LudwigVanQuixote

Ace, respectfully, if it is not journal science, or at the very least produced by actual scientists, it is not a link that is worth debating in the context of questioning the science. This is very basic.

OK, if you want to debate something scientific, bring science. If you don't, you haven't brought a damn thing.

The process, procedure and protocol problems I am addressing are about the AR4. And the problems I am address are with some of the data included, and the director and a number of other problems that seem to have arisen with the IPCC.

Are you telling me this is not material produced by actual scientist?

380 jamesfirecat  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 2:57:17pm

re: #374 sattv4u2

And the fact that they have to bribe people to come on board says the merits of the legislation can'rt stand on it's own

Can't stand on its own by whose point of view? The point of view of the guy who only wants money? The point of view of the guy who came up with a new reason for why he didn't like it every month?

The point of view of the people who said that presenting a government alternative to for profit healthcare was akin to the holocaust?

Sometimes how well a bill does has less to do with how good the bill is and more to do with the personalities of those voting over it.

381 sattv4u2  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 2:58:39pm

re: #377 LudwigVanQuixote

if you want to debate something scientific, bring science

OR ,,, you could just ask some kid what he thinks!!

UN climate change panel based claims on student dissertation and magazine article

[Link: www.telegraph.co.uk...]

382 allegro  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 2:59:46pm

re: #380 jamesfirecat

Sometimes how well a bill does has less to do with how good the bill is and more to do with the personalities of those voting over it.

Excellent summation.

383 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 3:05:29pm

re: #378 Walter L. Newton

I've read AR4. The Cambridge edition, which I think is only 975 or so pages, and the supplemental material (4 papers I think) is missing. I have the just under 100 page document.

Honest question...

So, the AR4 is flawed, is that what you are claiming?

The AR4 was the subject of a great deal of political wrangling at the hands of the US, China, Russia and India. The end result was a vastly watered down report that most of the scientific community was furious at.

I am somehow shocked that you don't remember when I was arguing that point with you and Bagua and Salamantis for that matter.

There are a lot of good and true things in the report. It is mostly correct, however the predictions have their language very strongly mitigated to make things sem not as bad as they are for political reasons.

One prime example that I went on over and over again about was the non-linear melts in Greenland and Antarctica. As a result sea level rises are dramatically underrepresented because that was not included at all.

Methane bogs were also underrepresented.

Further, Ocean anoxia and death of photo synthesizers in the oceans was also not properly accounted for. There is no watering up since these effects are each cataclysmic on their own and they were not properly accounted for.

Furhter, I have linke dozens of papers on each of these topics here. Charles has posted videos that adress each of these topics here. For someone who has claimed to have read the report, and has been keeping up with the science, you rather foolishly forget dozens of things that I know you have seen here, because you commented on those posts whene you were still defending IPCC as "the real science" and the other information as "alarmist."

It gets very, very old Walter.

384 Bagua  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 3:05:45pm

re: #373 LudwigVanQuixote

I find it very interesting that you used to hold up the IPCC report as evidence of my "alarmism" when I pointed out the flaws of its science that came in from political wrangling... now you are dismissing the whole thing... Unlike you Bagua - or Walter, I have actually read it. Further, I have read the original papers that it draws from.

Correct Ludwig, I fully acknowledge that I used to accept the IPCC AR4 as credible and that was my position. That has changed as the new evidence has emerged. Unlike you, I read things, absorb new facts and modify my positions when I find new information to contradict my views. You however, just circle the wagons and shout down and insult your opponents.

Now, you say you've "read the original papers" so you must be referring to all the WWF and Greenpeace agiprop that the AR4 is riddled with.


Of course that level of consistency of thought is not to be expected from you. You are, after all, an idiot and a consistent liar

You are talking into a mirror again you alarmist phony.

385 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 3:06:08pm

re: #381 sattv4u2


if you want to debate something scientific, bring science

OR ,,, you could just ask some kid what he thinks!!

UN climate change panel based claims on student dissertation and magazine article

[Link: www.telegraph.co.uk...]

Or you could bring science and say something useful... But you are not capable of that and you never have been.

386 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 3:07:30pm

re: #384 Bagua

You are talking into a mirror again you alarmist phony.

See there we go again with the lies and distortions... No Bagua, I meant all the journal papers I consistently link to... Why not read and grow and look at the actual science for once?

387 jamesfirecat  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 3:07:49pm

re: #382 allegro

Excellent summation.

Well lets see how sattv4u2 feels about it...

388 Bagua  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 3:08:27pm

Ludwig's idea of 'science' is anything that fits his preconceived warmest beliefs. So any video, MSM article, propaganda from Greenpeace or WWF is 'science' as long as it fits his position.

389 sattv4u2  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 3:09:36pm

re: #0 LudwigVanQuixote

Or you could bring science and say something useful... But you are not capable of that and you never have been.

For your next birthday, request a sense of humor!

390 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 3:10:39pm

re: #388 Bagua

Ludwig's idea of 'science' is anything that fits his preconceived warmest beliefs. So any video, MSM article, propaganda from Greenpeace or WWF is 'science' as long as it fits his position.

That again would be a lie and a distortion Bagua, my idea of science is peer reviewed journal papers with the data and error analysis present. As to my pre-concieved notions, not at all. The science does not change. Only you live in a world of relativism. Wishing the world were different does not make it so.

I dismiss your drivel the same way I dismiss those fools who deny evolution or claim that the Sun orbits the Earth. You are just as wrong and pissy as they are.

391 allegro  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 3:10:51pm

re: #388 Bagua

Ludwig's idea of 'science' is anything that fits his preconceived warmest beliefs. So any video, MSM article, propaganda from Greenpeace or WWF is 'science' as long as it fits his position.

Entirely uncalled for. Every LVQ post I have read is contrary to the insulting position.

392 Bagua  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 3:12:43pm

re: #386 LudwigVanQuixote

See there we go again with the lies and distortions... No Bagua, I meant all the journal papers I consistently link to... Why not read and grow and look at the actual science for once?

No one spreads as more lies and distortions here than you Ludwig. You are not trustworthy as you are too caught up emotionally in your belief system. If you could admit mistakes when pointed out you would have some credibility, but as it stands, you are no more credible as a 'scientist' than Al Gore, Pachauri, Phil Jones or Bozo the Clown.

And your "liar, liar, pants are on fire" routine is old hat, you need to think up some new insults.

393 sattv4u2  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 3:13:58pm

re: #2 jamesfirecat

Well lets see how sattv4u2 feels about it...

What,,, that thwere are political deal made?

There have been since our founding fathers sat in rooms debating what would be in the constitution

That good bills are sometimes not enacted and bad bills are/ Again, been happening forever..

That all stated, my original points (re; Lieberman) stands

394 Walter L. Newton  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 3:14:09pm

re: #388 Bagua

Ludwig's idea of 'science' is anything that fits his preconceived warmest beliefs. So any video, MSM article, propaganda from Greenpeace or WWF is 'science' as long as it fits his position.

Kind of like the AR4.

395 Bagua  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 3:14:28pm

re: #391 allegro

Entirely uncalled for. Every LVQ post I have read is contrary to the insulting position.

If he is going to come here calling everyone 'idiot', 'fool' and 'liar' then Ludwig will have to accept some barbs back at him.

And yes, my point stands as I have witnessed Ludwig upholding non-scientific works as the incontestable truth as long as they fit his agenda.

396 Walter L. Newton  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 3:16:15pm

re: #391 allegro

Entirely uncalled for. Every LVQ post I have read is contrary to the insulting position.

You mean every Ludwig post is insulting. Fixed that for you. Notice that it's only Ludwig that uses terms like "stupid" to refer to others who have issues with his points.

But I guess you agree with his language choices.

397 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 3:16:18pm

re: #392 Bagua

No Bagua not at all.. once again, not that you will read it, here is some real science.

This is not for your benefit, however there are lizards who know things like math and basic physics and can make something of it.

[Link: www.pnas.org...]

398 jamesfirecat  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 3:17:45pm

re: #393 sattv4u2

What,,, that thwere are political deal made?

There have been since our founding fathers sat in rooms debating what would be in the constitution

That good bills are sometimes not enacted and bad bills are/ Again, been happening forever..

That all stated, my original points (re; Lieberman) stands

Lets try and do this on a point by point basis.

I'm trying to explain why the four months of Democratic supermajority didn't get as much done as some of us liberals would have liked and why it would have been foolish of us to expect them to run roughshod over the Republicans just because they supposedly had the votes.


For example...


I feel that Liberman was biased against the idea of healthcare reform from the start because of his wife's connections to the insurance industry.


Your thoughts?

399 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 3:18:05pm

re: #395 Bagua

If he is going to come here calling everyone 'idiot', 'fool' and 'liar' then Ludwig will have to accept some barbs back at him.

And yes, my point stands as I have witnessed Ludwig upholding non-scientific works as the incontestable truth as long as they fit his agenda.

No I am calling you an idiot because you say stupid things. I am calling you a fool because you started shit unescessarily, and I am calling you a liar, because you lie. I am not an alarmist and AR4 despite all of its flaws is not a piece of Greenpeace propaganda. It was watered down. The evidence you claim to have looked at (which was also a lie, you never looked) clearly shows that.

400 allegro  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 3:18:56pm

re: #396 Walter L. Newton

But I guess you agree with his language choices.

I find the language choices of many here, including yours, to be disagreeable at times. I am more interested in the content.

401 Bagua  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 3:18:57pm

re: #394 Walter L. Newton

Kind of like the AR4.

One key example, there are several others in prior threads, most before Allegro joined so Allegro may not have read those. Ludwig has also quoted a lot of good science, and about 90% - 95% of his science posts are accurate and valuable. The problem is with that 5% that is over the top and alarmist when he is on these emotive manic binges.

One rat turd spoils even a gourmet meal. I've often pleaded with Ludwig to stop all the insults and anger, and stick to the science, not the alarmism, but I've had no success.

402 Walter L. Newton  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 3:19:01pm

re: #398 jamesfirecat

Lets try and do this on a point by point basis.

I'm trying to explain why the four months of Democratic supermajority didn't get as much done as some of us liberals would have liked and why it would have been foolish of us to expect them to run roughshod over the Republicans just because they supposedly had the votes.

For example...

I feel that Liberman was biased against the idea of healthcare reform from the start because of his wife's connections to the insurance industry.

Your thoughts?

The left is chicken shit to do anything. They have everything and can't do jack with it. No one is going to let them have it all again. 2010 is a wash for them. Next question.

403 Walter L. Newton  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 3:19:46pm

re: #400 allegro

I find the language choices of many here, including yours, to be disagreeable at times. I am more interested in the content.

No you're not, or else you would read the links and articles and address them. Don't lie to me.

404 sattv4u2  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 3:19:47pm

re: #396 Walter L. Newton

You mean every Ludwig post is insulting. Fixed that for you. Notice that it's only Ludwig that uses terms like "stupid" to refer to others who have issues with his points.

But I guess you agree with his language choices.

You misunderstand. him calling youy "stupid" is just his way of encouraging you to do better!!

yeah ,,, thats it !

405 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 3:20:54pm

re: #401 Bagua

One key example, there are several others in prior threads, most before Allegro joined so Allegro may not have read those. Ludwig has also quoted a lot of good science, and about 90% - 95% of his science posts are accurate and valuable. The problem is with that 5% that is over the top and alarmist when he is on these emotive manic binges.

One rat turd spoils even a gourmet meal. I've often pleaded with Ludwig to stop all the insults and anger, and stick to the science, not the alarmism, but I've had no success.

Ahhh the Bagua two step - first you get on the thread spewing insults and then you claim to be reasonable. You go on to say that I am overly alarmist, when everything I say is backed by a journal paper - oh and the fact that I am actually a physicist in the field, while you bring nothing but allegations.

The only rat turd is you.

406 sattv4u2  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 3:21:01pm

re: #398 jamesfirecat

They don't need a "super majority" to pass legislation

your thoughts!?!?

407 Walter L. Newton  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 3:21:43pm

re: #399 LudwigVanQuixote

One doesn't need science to prove you are overly alarmist, your hyperbole, ad hominem attacks, waffling on answering certain questions or certain parts of a question, never actually discussing facts and figures (simply linking to others research) and your whole dismissal of the entire body of scientist who don't agree with you and your fellow believers, that all speaks of a overly alarmist gnostic.

Alarmist is a state of mind, not a scientific state.

408 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 3:21:50pm

re: #404 sattv4u2

You misunderstand. him calling youy "stupid" is just his way of encouraging you to do better!!

yeah ,,, thats it !

No actually I said I rather like him and that he says stupid things when he feels backed into a corner.

IN the mean time, this is not about me, onc again... how about looking at the data?

409 jamesfirecat  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 3:22:10pm

re: #402 Walter L. Newton

The left is chicken shit to do anything. They have everything and can't do jack with it. No one is going to let them have it all again. 2010 is a wash for them. Next question.

Hey we managed to pass a stimulus bill that was only 1/3rd tax cuts!

Also would your opinion change if the house manages to pass the senates bill which is then signed into law by the president?

410 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 3:22:22pm

re: #407 Walter L. Newton

One doesn't need science to prove you are overly alarmist, your hyperbole, ad hominem attacks, waffling on answering certain questions or certain parts of a question, never actually discussing facts and figures (simply linking to others research) and your whole dismissal of the entire body of scientist who don't agree with you and your fellow believers, that all speaks of a overly alarmist gnostic.

Alarmist is a state of mind, not a scientific state.

So what things have I said about AGW that are hyperbole? You have made an allegation, now support it.

411 jamesfirecat  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 3:22:34pm

re: #406 sattv4u2

They don't need a "super majority" to pass legislation

your thoughts!?!?

What do they do if they're legislation gets fillibustered then?

412 Bagua  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 3:23:37pm

re: #399 LudwigVanQuixote

No I am calling you an idiot because you say stupid things. I am calling you a fool because you started shit unescessarily, and I am calling you a liar, because you lie.

How amusing, LOL.


I am not an alarmist and AR4 despite all of its flaws is not a piece of Greenpeace propaganda. It was watered down. The evidence you claim to have looked at (which was also a lie, you never looked) clearly shows that.

Obviously you have not read the document or checked its citations or you would indeed find Greenpeace frequently quoted as a source with the same standing as actual peer reviewed papers. You are behind the curve on this one my friend.

413 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 3:24:09pm

re: #403 Walter L. Newton

No you're not, or else you would read the links and articles and address them. Don't lie to me.

Which part of in a science discussion when you don't bring science it doesn't count did you miss? This is what I mean by stupid Walter.

414 allegro  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 3:24:26pm

re: #403 Walter L. Newton

No you're not, or else you would read the links and articles and address them. Don't lie to me.

I have not disputed any of your claims as to the politics of IPCC. I have said clearly that this is outside of my field and have thus made no comments.

WTF basis do you have to claim I am lying?

415 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 3:25:25pm

re: #412 Bagua

You know it is not worth bickering with you.

Like I said, real science requires looking at actual papers and doing the analysis. I gave you an excellent link to a Proceedings of the National Academy. Why not look at that?

416 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 3:26:14pm

re: #414 allegro

I have not disputed any of your claims as to the politics of IPCC. I have said clearly that this is outside of my field and have thus made no comments.

WTF basis do you have to claim I am lying?

The basis that he says stupid things when backed into a corner.

417 Bagua  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 3:27:00pm

re: #405 LudwigVanQuixote



The only rat turd is you
.

Well there's the difference between you and me, I am referring to the mistakes in the AR4 as turds, not you. But you are making egregious personal insults. The worst I will say is that you are overly emotional and an alarmist in thought and behaviour, but other than that, you are a human being and I won't demonise you, that's your MO.

418 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 3:27:22pm

Walter, what have I said that is hyperbole? Seriously... you are aware that when I provide the data and the mechanisms to even upsetting things it is not hyperbole? So seriously what have I said that is hyperbole?

419 bubba zanetti  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 3:28:07pm

re: #137 Naso Tang

But then someone will say that since CO2 is heavier than air, it will all lie on the ground and do nothing in your analogy.

Good thing we don't live on the ground, huh?

420 Walter L. Newton  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 3:28:13pm

re: #410 LudwigVanQuixote

So what things have I said about AGW that are hyperbole? You have made an allegation, now support it.

"I am not an alarmist and AR4 despite all of its flaws is not a piece of Greenpeace propaganda. It was watered down. The evidence you claim to have looked at (which was also a lie, you never looked) clearly shows that."

Watered down? That's hyperbole. Most of the current trouble of the IPCC and AR4 is that they have overstated their claims by a long shot. And you attempt to say they didn't go far enough, it's watered down, that's hyperbole.

Unless you don't think the AR4 is good science, then you may be correct and I offer an apology.

Your call.

421 sattv4u2  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 3:28:35pm

re: #411 jamesfirecat

What do they do if they're legislation gets fillibustered then?

Filibusters have, can, and will be broken. There are at least two repub senators that are fence sitters. Work them

They also have the nuclear option. All the dems need is a SIMPLE majority for that. They Do have that ,, no !?!?!

CAVEAT ,,, the 'nuke option" takes balls!

So ,,,, if the leg is THAT important, i'd go nuclear! Wouldn't you?

422 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 3:30:07pm

re: #417 Bagua

Well there's the difference between you and me, I am referring to the mistakes in the AR4 as turds, not you. But you are making egregious personal insults. The worst I will say is that you are overly emotional and an alarmist in thought and behaviour, but other than that, you are a human being and I won't demonise you, that's your MO.

Oh stop it, you started out by calling me an alarmist phony and discrediting the entire AR4 as Greenpeace propaganda. You are are too stupid to even make consistent insults. And still you have yet to adress a sinngle finding... Calling something a name does not count Bagua, you have to actually back it up with data and evidence. That you can not do or refuse to. And yes it makes you a rat turd. But what really makes you a rat turd is that you lack the courage of your convictions. Rather than call names and stick to them, in an honest way, you then try to make yousrelf seem reasonable. It is vwery tiring. I despise you for such cowardly behavior as much as I despise your lies and your slurs. It makes you a total jerk.

423 Bagua  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 3:31:03pm

re: #415 LudwigVanQuixote

You know it is not worth bickering with you.

Like I said, real science requires looking at actual papers and doing the analysis. I gave you an excellent link to a Proceedings of the National Academy. Why not look at that?

Correct, which is why the IPCC AR4 is proving to contain a great deal of non-science, it co-mingled the science in with the agiprop from activist groups like WWF and Greepeace.

The IPCC AR4 needs to be set aside, and the chairman needs to be replaced if the AR5 is to have any credibility. Preferably, it should be shut down as all UN programs are full of fraud and distortions.

Perhaps we agree now, can you accept that?

424 Walter L. Newton  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 3:31:31pm

re: #414 allegro

I have not disputed any of your claims as to the politics of IPCC. I have said clearly that this is outside of my field and have thus made no comments.

WTF basis do you have to claim I am lying?

You said you are only interested in content. I have been talking (and only talking) about the flawed science, politics and money that has swirled around the oh so revered IPCC and their High Priest Pachauri, that's the only content I have been talking about.

Have you read the four articles I linked to?

425 SixDegrees  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 3:32:52pm

I see we have yet another thread dominated by irrational manic behavior.

At least the crashes and subsequent absences are coming closer together.

[yawn] I think the baboons are nearly finished with their rewrite of Hamlet. I think I'll go check.

426 Bagua  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 3:34:10pm

re: #422 LudwigVanQuixote

. And yes it makes you a rat turd. But what really makes you a rat turd is that you lack the courage of your convictions. .

Nonsense, I'll not debate with people who make such ridiculous and egregious insults. Your behaviour does not warrant the effort required for serious debate. It is childish and I can't be bothered to join you in such schoolyard games.

427 Walter L. Newton  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 3:34:16pm

re: #422 LudwigVanQuixote

You are an alarmist phony. Yawn. Yes, I stepped down to your level and called you a name. How base of me.

428 sattv4u2  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 3:34:40pm

re: #425 SixDegrees

I see we have yet another thread dominated by irrational manic behavior.

At least the crashes and subsequent absences are coming closer together.

[yawn] I think the baboons are nearly finished with their rewrite of Hamlet. I think I'll go check.

Say HEY to Bonzo for me!

((oh ,, wait ,, he was a monkey ,,,nevahmind!!)

429 Bagua  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 3:35:08pm

re: #425 SixDegrees

I see we have yet another thread dominated by irrational manic behavior.

At least the crashes and subsequent absences are coming closer together.

You have hit the nail squarely on its head.

430 allegro  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 3:36:48pm

re: #424 Walter L. Newton

But I guess you agree with his language choices.

This was your comment I was replying to. Which is what you WERE talking about.

I have been talking (and only talking) about the flawed science, politics and money that has swirled around the oh so revered IPCC and their High Priest Pachauri, that's the only content I have been talking about.

This I did not address because, as I have said, it is outside of my field and it was not part of the post I was responding to.

431 jamesfirecat  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 3:38:27pm

re: #421 sattv4u2

Filibusters have, can, and will be broken. There are at least two repub senators that are fence sitters. Work them

They also have the nuclear option. All the dems need is a SIMPLE majority for that. They Do have that ,, no !?!?!

CAVEAT ,,, the 'nuke option" takes balls!

So ,,, if the leg is THAT important, i'd go nuclear! Wouldn't you?

Do you know what the Nuclear option is/was?

The Nuclear option was brought about for situations relating to placing judges on the supreme court, not for getting laws passed, and even then the idea has never been implemented.

For good or for bad if we use the Nuclear option that will in turn make the Senate a land of 50 votes plus vice president and while that's fun while you're in power Democrats god bless their cowardly little souls never have the thought of what they'll do when they're out of power far from their minds, even if they rarely even have the guts to make use of the fillibuster when they're out of power.

Secondly if Olympia Snowe is so much of a fence sitter why exactly did only vote for it on a commite where her vote for it wouldn't matter, and then go on to she fillibuster the bill the first time it went through the senate as a whole? The bill has no public option, and no co pay both of those were amputated just to get Liberman on board, what is left that the Republicans can find so objectionable?

Thirdly are you suggesting that in a situation when there are 59 democrats and 41 republicans its fair that the most moderate republican in the senate gets to decide what passes and what doesn't? Especially when every republican has to worry about appearing moderate these days for fear some teabagging lunatic will primary them come November?

Fourthly, I'll give you the democrats don't have balls, or at least Harry Reid doubtlessly doesn't, otherwise we would have used reconcillation on this sucker from the get go, but apparently Obama didn't want to look like he was jamming legislature down the nation's throat through obscure legal rules. So instead we get to have the entire shebang held up by a little bit more than 2/5ths of of the Senate whoopie!

432 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 3:38:33pm

re: #420 Walter L. Newton

"I am not an alarmist and AR4 despite all of its flaws is not a piece of Greenpeace propaganda. It was watered down. The evidence you claim to have looked at (which was also a lie, you never looked) clearly shows that."

Watered down? That's hyperbole. Most of the current trouble of the IPCC and AR4 is that they have overstated their claims by a long shot. And you attempt to say they didn't go far enough, it's watered down, that's hyperbole.

Unless you don't think the AR4 is good science, then you may be correct and I offer an apology.

Your call.

OK so you really do refuse to look at the science given you by me, and by Charles and others and as was the subject of many threads. I repeat.

One prime example that I went on over and over again about was the non-linear melts in Greenland and Antarctica. As a result sea level rises are dramatically underrepresented because that was not included at all.

Methane bogs were also underrepresented.

Further, Ocean anoxia and death of photo synthesizers in the oceans was also not properly accounted for. There is no watering up since these effects are each cataclysmic on their own and they were not properly accounted for.

Here are some papers to back those assertions up (By the way Walter and Bagua, that is how it is done, we bring evidence from actual sources, data and such, real science, not foolish proclamations without support).

[Link: www.pnas.org...]
[Link: www.pnas.org...]
[Link: www.pnas.org...]
[Link: www.ltrr.arizona.edu...]

433 Bagua  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 3:39:33pm

NDTV report that scientists have found that the Himalayan Glaciers are actually expanding, in direct contradiction to the doomsday forecast by the IPCC.

The head of the IPCC, Dr. Pachauri, the man described as the worlds leading Climate Scientist attacked this as "Voodoo Science" and "Arrogance". He sounds a lot like Ludwig. But with one major difference, Pachauri has acknowledged his mistake and apologised, something Ludwig is incapable of.

434 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 3:40:10pm

re: #427 Walter L. Newton

You are an alarmist phony. Yawn. Yes, I stepped down to your level and called you a name. How base of me.

No Walter, you are calling names without evidence... Like I said, you claim that I said alarmist and false things. I have just posted the actual science that backs me up. This is a concept you seem incapable of grasping. Science is about facts.. Why not look at them rather than calling names and being silly?

435 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 3:41:52pm

re: #433 Bagua

Uhhh Bagua, I have bnot said anything false, all you have done is call names and make slurs... anytime you wish to point out a single thing I have ever said about AGW that was hyperbole or incorrect, please bring it up. You mght notice the four papers that I just posted that contradict you r earlier false claims and lies. OK? Look at the science, talk about the science or shut your ignorant mouth.

436 sattv4u2  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 3:42:53pm

re: #431 jamesfirecat

Nice rant ,, but misses the point

Whether you want to call it 'nuclear option" or 'reconciliation' or "patty cake" there ARE remedies to filibusters

437 Bagua  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 3:44:39pm

re: #434 LudwigVanQuixote

Wrong, neither I not Walter has every challenged any actual science, we are commenting on the IPCC AR4 mistakes, the implications of the CRU leak, and other legitimate points you wish to dodge as they challenge your beliefs.

It is like talking with a missionary, it all comes back to your beliefs, not the science.

It is a waste of time to try to debate points of fact with you Ludwig, you disqualify yourself with all the personal insults and anger. I wouldn't waste my time.

It is boring and unpleasant to try to have a sensible debate with a manic fanatic.

438 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 3:48:43pm

re: #437 Bagua

Really, you camt by calling names and trying to discredit the science overall.

You also have claimed that I am alarmist and unscientific and continue to refer to me in religious trems so that any science I bring can be dismissed. You then have the balls to shift the goalposts yet again when countered. Look any sensible person can look at your childish games and see them for what they are.

It got old ages ago.

Read the actual papers and talk actual science or shut up.

Let help.

If you have a problem with a finding you say somehting like:
This finding of x can not be accurate because of the following things... and then you bring data to back it up. Just calling it or others names doesn't count. Calling names and then pretending to be a reasonable voice of science without any sciene you bring at all is just pathetic. Your are arguments are laughable and your intellect is incapable of even seeing why it is so pathetic. Bring science or shut up.

439 jamesfirecat  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 3:49:44pm

re: #436 sattv4u2

Nice rant ,, but misses the point

Whether you want to call it 'nuclear option" or 'reconciliation' or "patty cake" there ARE remedies to filibusters

Nuclear option is for judges, reconciliation is for budgets and what to fund, not for health care, we had that debate back during Clinton.

Find me proof that there's a way for 59 senators to get a healthcare bill passed in the senate in the face of 41 who are intent on fillibustering...

440 Walter L. Newton  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 3:50:27pm

re: #437 Bagua

Wrong, neither I not Walter has every challenged any actual science, we are commenting on the IPCC AR4 mistakes, the implications of the CRU leak, and other legitimate points you wish to dodge as they challenge your beliefs.

It is like talking with a missionary, it all comes back to your beliefs, not the science.

It is a waste of time to try to debate points of fact with you Ludwig, you disqualify yourself with all the personal insults and anger. I wouldn't waste my time.

It is boring and unpleasant to try to have a sensible debate with a manic fanatic.

Like I said before, it's become a religion with Ludwig. People who got religion don't care about the flaws and fallacies of their co-believers, or if there are believers among them who are bringing shame on the congregation, none of that matters, critical thinking goes right out the window.

It's hard to distinguish Ludwig from the religious right.

441 allegro  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 3:50:50pm

re: #437 Bagua

Wrong, neither I not Walter has every challenged any actual science, we are commenting on the IPCC AR4 mistakes, the implications of the CRU leak, and other legitimate points you wish to dodge as they challenge your beliefs.

If LVQ's "beliefs" are founded within a large body of sound scientific evidence of the reality of AGW that you seem to claim to embrace, what does LVQ have to "dodge" in regards to IPCC implied mistakes? Are you discounting that body of evidence?

442 Bagua  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 3:50:53pm

re: #438 LudwigVanQuixote

Again, Ludwig, if you ever learn to debate without all the anger and the insults I'll be happy to engage. Until that time, I'll just laugh at your behaviour.

443 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 3:50:56pm

PIMF

re: #438 LudwigVanQuixote

Really, you came by calling names and trying to discredit the science overall.

You also have claimed that I am alarmist and unscientific and continue to refer to me in religious trems so that any science I bring can be dismissed. You then have the balls to shift the goalposts yet again when countered.

Look any sensible person can look at your childish games and see them for what they are.

It got old ages ago.

Read the actual papers and talk actual science or shut up.

Let me help.

If you have a problem with a finding you say somehting like:
This finding of x can not be accurate because of the following things... and then you bring data to back it up. OK that is how it works... Just calling it or others names doesn't count. Calling names and then pretending to be a reasonable voice of science without any sciene you bring at all is just pathetic. Your arguments are laughable and your intellect is incapable of even seeing why it is so pathetic. Bring science or shut up.

444 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 3:51:16pm

re: #441 allegro

If LVQ's "beliefs" are founded within a large body of sound scientific evidence of the reality of AGW that you seem to claim to embrace, what does LVQ have to "dodge" in regards to IPCC implied mistakes? Are you discounting that body of evidence?

Of course he is.

445 sattv4u2  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 3:51:49pm

re: #439 jamesfirecat

Nuclear option is for judges, reconciliation is for budgets and what to fund, not for health care, we had that debate back during Clinton.

Find me proof that there's a way for 59 senators to get a healthcare bill passed in the senate in the face of 41 who are intent on fillibustering...

And again, you do what has always been done in the past. You work 2 of the '41' to side with breaking the filibuster

Lets turn it around. Would you rather filibusters were deemed unconstitutional or illegal !?!?

446 Walter L. Newton  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 3:53:03pm

re: #439 jamesfirecat

Nuclear option is for judges, reconciliation is for budgets and what to fund, not for health care, we had that debate back during Clinton.

Find me proof that there's a way for 59 senators to get a healthcare bill passed in the senate in the face of 41 who are intent on fillibustering...

You miss the point. The left had it's chance and they blew it. Not the GOP, not Bush, but the current majority blew it. Plain and simple. And reconciliation could be used to pass this, read up a little before you put your foot in your mouth.

447 sattv4u2  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 3:53:54pm

re: #446 Walter L. Newton

You miss the point. The left had it's chance and they blew it. Not the GOP, not Bush, but the current majority blew it. Plain and simple. And reconciliation could be used to pass this, read up a little before you put your foot in your mouth.

They have three more years to blame Bush

After that, they can start blaming the next President!

448 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 3:54:44pm

re: #442 Bagua

Again, Ludwig, if you ever learn to debate without all the anger and the insults I'll be happy to engage. Until that time, I'll just laugh at your behaviour.

In other words you have nothing. You started with the names Bagsy... So again, bring the science or shut up.

It's very simple.

For instance Walter claimed that AR4 was watered up. I provided four papers (I could provide many, many more) from actual scientists from reputable sources with the data and the mathematics to back up my claims about it being watered down.

Incidently, if it was watered down, that destroys your false claim about the whole thing being Greenpeace propaganda as well.

But you are too stupid to see that.

So again for the thousandth time, if you have something that I said that you think is false, bring it, and then I will show you the references.

449 jamesfirecat  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 3:55:23pm

re: #446 Walter L. Newton

You miss the point. The left had it's chance and they blew it. Not the GOP, not Bush, but the current majority blew it. Plain and simple. And reconciliation could be used to pass this, read up a little before you put your foot in your mouth.

If Reconcliation could be used to pass Healthcare bills why did Senator Robert Byrd insist that it couldn't back under Clinton.

I'm not arguing that the Democrats didn't miss a chance, I'm explaining why they missed their chance, because there were people like Liberman and Nelson who were ready to fillibuster one of their own parties central ideas.

450 jamesfirecat  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 3:55:48pm

re: #447 sattv4u2

They have three more years to blame Bush

After that, they can start blaming the next President!

You mean like how everyone blames 9/11 on Clinton?

451 Walter L. Newton  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 3:56:02pm

re: #444 LudwigVanQuixote

Of course he is.

Is all the "settled science" in the AR4 peer-reviewed? I ask this because you, in the past, have made such a firm case for accepting peer-reviewed data only.

452 Walter L. Newton  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 3:56:38pm

re: #449 jamesfirecat

If Reconcliation could be used to pass Healthcare bills why did Senator Robert Byrd insist that it couldn't back under Clinton.

I'm not arguing that the Democrats didn't miss a chance, I'm explaining why they missed their chance, because there were people like Liberman and Nelson who were ready to fillibuster one of their own parties central ideas.

Then what does the GOP have to do with any of this?

453 sattv4u2  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 3:57:10pm

re: #450 jamesfirecat

You mean like how everyone blames 9/11 on Clinton?

yup ,, just like that (only BDS is WAY worse)

look ,, behind that tree ,, it's ROVE


SHIT ,, over there ,, it's Cheney!!

YIKES ,,, Condi is in that helicopter!!!

454 jamesfirecat  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 3:57:24pm

re: #445 sattv4u2

And again, you do what has always been done in the past. You work 2 of the '41' to side with breaking the filibuster

Lets turn it around. Would you rather filibusters were deemed unconstitutional or illegal !?!?

I'd rather that we keep the filibuster legal, but I think that it needs to be reworked slightly.

For example, every week that a party has been fillibustering, the number of votes needed for cloture decreases by one.

Does that sound fair? I figure that two and a half months should be plenty of time for the minority to make their voices heard and inform people about the issues and why this bill is a bad idea....

455 Walter L. Newton  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 3:58:34pm

re: #450 jamesfirecat

You mean like how everyone blames 9/11 on Clinton?

Everyone. You don't really mean to use an all inclusive word like that, do you. Or are you actually telling me everyone blames Clinton for 9/11? You need to be much more careful in the wording you use, makes you look a little narrow-minded.

456 jamesfirecat  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 3:59:53pm

re: #452 Walter L. Newton

Then what does the GOP have to do with any of this?

The GOP's unprecidented use of the fillibuster is what is forced the democrats to play these horse trading games with the more conservative members of their party/Liberman.

So basically the GOP created a situation in which the Democrats were much more likely to fail by moving the goal posts from simple majority rule to supermajority rule.

While I'll admit that's a fine way to keep the other party from enacting its agenda, it's no way to run a country in the long run if you ask me...

457 Bagua  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 4:00:13pm

re: #441 allegro

If LVQ's "beliefs" are founded within a large body of sound scientific evidence of the reality of AGW that you seem to claim to embrace, what does LVQ have to "dodge" in regards to IPCC implied mistakes? Are you discounting that body of evidence?

Much of my views are predicated on threads that preceded your registration, if you go back and read those you will see where I am coming from. It involves hundreds of posts, and as I've said, it applies to < 5% of his statements.

Science relies of careful scrutiny and honest attempts at falsification, the circling of the wagons, dismissing any critics as "deniers" and "Voodoo" and such does not advance the science, it retards it.

Beyond that we rely on each other to show a minimal level of civility. It is boring and a waste of time to debate with some-one who calls those who disagree with him so many names with such rapidity and repetition. We all slip and snap from time to time, myself included. But once we have descended to name calling it indicates the end of the conversation, only Ludwig demands to then continue the conversation as he believes himself infallible.

458 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 4:00:32pm

re: #451 Walter L. Newton

Is all the "settled science" in the AR4 peer-reviewed? I ask this because you, in the past, have made such a firm case for accepting peer-reviewed data only.

The AR4 is a very large rambling and politicized document that draws on many different sources. If you had read it like you claimed to have carefully, you would be able to tell what came from a peer reviewed paper and what didn't. Further if you read those papers, you will clearly see how the language of AR4 watered them down.

Debating about AR4 is not the point if you want to get at the science. Reading the actual science is.

459 Walter L. Newton  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 4:01:14pm

re: #449 jamesfirecat

If Reconcliation could be used to pass Healthcare bills why did Senator Robert Byrd insist that it couldn't back under Clinton.

I'm not arguing that the Democrats didn't miss a chance, I'm explaining why they missed their chance, because there were people like Liberman and Nelson who were ready to fillibuster one of their own parties central ideas.

Please do a little research before you talk...

And the reluctance of Senate leaders and the White House to strongly embrace even at this late date the "reconciliation" approach to improving the relatively weak Senate bill as a way to ensure House passage prompted even some centrist Senators to say that health reform is "on life support." At the same time, some powerful Senate Democratic leaders, such as Budget Chairman Sen. Kent Conrad, remain open to the approach of using majority rule to pass key elements of a stronger bill.

[Link: inthesetimes.com...]

460 Bagua  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 4:01:21pm

re: #451 Walter L. Newton

Is all the "settled science" in the AR4 peer-reviewed? I ask this because you, in the past, have made such a firm case for accepting peer-reviewed data only.

You made a typo Walter, the Science is Scuttled.

461 jamesfirecat  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 4:01:28pm

re: #455 Walter L. Newton

Everyone. You don't really mean to use an all inclusive word like that, do you. Or are you actually telling me everyone blames Clinton for 9/11? You need to be much more careful in the wording you use, makes you look a little narrow-minded.

I was being sarcastic at the time by playfully pointing out that Democrats aren't the only ones who like to blame the opposite party's preceding president for when things go bad regardless of who is truly at fault.

I was over generalizing to absurd conclusion to make a point.

462 sattv4u2  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 4:01:47pm

re: #454 jamesfirecat

For example, every week that a party has been fillibustering, the number of votes needed for cloture decreases by one

Punish them for doing their jobs!! Novel idea! Why didn't James Madison (et al) think of that!!

463 Walter L. Newton  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 4:02:25pm

re: #456 jamesfirecat

The GOP's unprecidented use of the fillibuster is what is forced the democrats to play these horse trading games with the more conservative members of their party/Liberman.

So basically the GOP created a situation in which the Democrats were much more likely to fail by moving the goal posts from simple majority rule to supermajority rule.

While I'll admit that's a fine way to keep the other party from enacting its agenda, it's no way to run a country in the long run if you ask me...

How can you be "forced" to do anything when you had a majority?

464 Walter L. Newton  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 4:03:29pm

re: #460 Bagua

You made a typo Walter, the Science is Scuttled.

There certainly is going to be some changes in the IPCC, and that can only be for the betterment of science.

465 suchislife  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 4:03:51pm

re: #438 LudwigVanQuixote

Since I'm dispensing wise advice tonight: It's nice to see you back, though I don't think we've interacted much before, please don't burn yourself out over two people in a blog community of so many and leave again.

466 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 4:03:58pm

re: #457 Bagua

Civility or a grasp of the science or a willingness to talk science is something you have never shown. You came out swinging and when that was not well received you retreated to trying to sound like a wounded party. This is what you always do. You are such a coward Bagua. People despise your mealymouthed name calling and two stepping because you are just that slimy.

So again, look at the science. I know I keep saying it, but one time it may penetrate. I have posted five links here from journals that back my assertions. Care to look at them? Of course not.

Idiot. And unlike you, I am very clear about where people stand with me. I despise you and your lies.

467 Bagua  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 4:04:03pm

And please note: MeanBat downdings are like candy to me.

468 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 4:04:38pm

re: #460 Bagua

You made a typo Walter, the Science is Scuttled.

That is an example of a lie and a distortion. I know you think that is clever, but then again you would not know science if it bit you.

469 Walter L. Newton  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 4:05:08pm

re: #463 Walter L. Newton

How can you be "forced" to do anything when you had a majority?

I love the progressives us of the word "forced." I see it a lot. When they can't manage to accomplish something on their own, when they run out of entitlement options, when they actually have to face reality, then they whine that they were "forced."

Such childish tactics.

470 Bagua  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 4:05:35pm

re: #464 Walter L. Newton

There certainly is going to be some changes in the IPCC, and that can only be for the betterment of science.

There is no question about that. Once the politicians, activists, and those with blatant conflicts of interests are removed, the result will be very healthy to the actual science.

471 jamesfirecat  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 4:05:48pm

re: #459 Walter L. Newton

[Link: inthesetimes.com...]

But that's using "reconciliation in order to give the relatively weak bill the senate ends up passing more funding rather than create something entirely new.

It'd be like how at the start social security was only available to men. You give it more money so now it has more money to give out so it can help women pay for their golden years as well.


I guess this could be scene as parsing legal hairs, but hey what's congress for if not doing exactly that?

472 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 4:06:07pm

re: #465 suchislife

Since I'm dispensing wise advice tonight: It's nice to see you back, though I don't think we've interacted much before, please don't burn yourself out over two people in a blog community of so many and leave again.

Thanks... and I won't leave - or rather I didn't. I really do have a lot of work, and I have been trapped in the lab day and night for some weeks now.

473 Walter L. Newton  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 4:07:15pm

re: #471 jamesfirecat

But that's using "reconciliation in order to give the relatively weak bill the senate ends up passing more funding rather than create something entirely new.

It'd be like how at the start social security was only available to men. You give it more money so now it has more money to give out so it can help women pay for their golden years as well.

I guess this could be scene as parsing legal hairs, but hey what's congress for if not doing exactly that?

It's not parsing anything. You said they can't use "reconciliation" and you are plain old wrong.

Stop moving the target, you said it.

474 Walter L. Newton  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 4:07:39pm

re: #472 LudwigVanQuixote

Thanks... and I won't leave - or rather I didn't. I really do have a lot of work, and I have been trapped in the lab day and night for some weeks now.

I thought you were writing a grant?

475 jamesfirecat  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 4:08:10pm

re: #469 Walter L. Newton

I love the progressives us of the word "forced." I see it a lot. When they can't manage to accomplish something on their own, when they run out of entitlement options, when they actually have to face reality, then they whine that they were "forced."

Such childish tactics.

So what adjective should I use?

The Democrats want to pass a bill. They need 60 people to over come a fillibuster which the Republicans have made clear they'll do. The Democrats have about 55 senators who they know are willing to vote for cloture and five who are on the fence. Thus the Democrats must win over those five people's votes for cloture if they want to get the bill passed.

If the alternative between winning Nelson/Liberman's support is not getting a bill passed how would you describe the situation the democrats were in?

476 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 4:08:39pm

re: #470 Bagua

There is no question about that. Once the politicians, activists, and those with blatant conflicts of interests are removed, the result will be very healthy to the actual science.

Which you continue to refuse to look at. The most insulting thing about listening to your drivel as a professional scientist is that you actually have the chutzpah to present yourself as someone who knows jack or shit about physics or whatever you talk about. It is offensive for someone who actuall spent years learning actual science and working hard and professionally on a deep and complicated topic to listen to some arrogant ass like you present himself as someone who knows something when you are incapable of even the most basic parts of a science discussion. The insult is that you even open your mouth.

477 sattv4u2  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 4:08:52pm

re: #473 Walter L. Newton

It's not parsing anything. You said they can't use "reconciliation" and you are plain old wrong.

Stop moving the target, you said it.


I like skeet shooting. I've ben having a good time

478 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 4:09:02pm

re: #474 Walter L. Newton

I thought you were writing a grant?

That was last time. Now I have to actually do the work :)

479 Bagua  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 4:09:05pm

re: #474 Walter L. Newton

I thought you were writing a grant?

No doubt Ludwig works for Greenpeace or some other activist group.

480 jamesfirecat  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 4:09:20pm

re: #473 Walter L. Newton

It's not parsing anything. You said they can't use "reconciliation" and you are plain old wrong.

Stop moving the target, you said it.

Let me clarify.

You can't use reconciliation to create government run healthcare where there was no government run healthcare before.

I'm not trying to move the goal posts I'm just trying to make sure we both understand each other.

481 Bagua  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 4:10:33pm

re: #476 LudwigVanQuixote

Nonsense. You are an activist, not a scientist. I know the difference even if you have others fooled.

482 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 4:10:39pm

re: #479 Bagua

No doubt Ludwig works for Greenpeace or some other activist group.

NO I do not. That is another example of a lie and a slur. Now, really, care to talk about the science? Of course not. That would require you having some evidence to back your nonsense up.

Make no doubt Bagua, I despise you.

483 Obdicut  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 4:10:59pm

re: #481 Bagua

Bagua the interwebs psychic strikes again!

484 Bagua  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 4:11:23pm

re: #477 sattv4u2

I like skeet shooting. I've ben having a good time

For real? That is my favourite hobby at the present.

485 Walter L. Newton  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 4:11:49pm

re: #475 jamesfirecat

So what adjective should I use?

The Democrats want to pass a bill. They need 60 people to over come a fillibuster which the Republicans have made clear they'll do. The Democrats have about 55 senators who they know are willing to vote for cloture and five who are on the fence. Thus the Democrats must win over those five people's votes for cloture if they want to get the bill passed.

If the alternative between winning Nelson/Liberman's support is not getting a bill passed how would you describe the situation the democrats were in?

Unorganized, eating their own, incapable of leading, a sorry assed bunch... forced implies inability... they had the ability to pass this, they couldn't do it, no one forced them to fail.

486 Bagua  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 4:11:57pm

re: #483 Obdicut

Bagua the interwebs psychic strikes again!

Hi Obdicut,

Here to show your loyalty again?

487 jamesfirecat  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 4:12:03pm

re: #462 sattv4u2

For example, every week that a party has been fillibustering, the number of votes needed for cloture decreases by one

Punish them for doing their jobs!! Novel idea! Why didn't James Madison (et al) think of that!!

Well Madison died in 1836 and the first Fillibuster was in 1837. So close!

488 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 4:12:15pm

re: #481 Bagua

Nonsense. You are an activist, not a scientist. I know the difference even if you have others fooled.

Bagua, if you knew the science, you would be alarmed too. However you do not. Go on with the insults.

I think I have answered in depth more science questions here for people than I can easily remember. People here know that my credentials are real. What we do not know is where you get off claiming to know anything.

489 Obdicut  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 4:12:56pm

re: #486 Bagua

What is a question that makes no sense, Alex?

490 Walter L. Newton  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 4:13:04pm

re: #480 jamesfirecat

Let me clarify.

You can't use reconciliation to create government run healthcare where there was no government run healthcare before.

I'm not trying to move the goal posts I'm just trying to make sure we both understand each other.

And I linked you to information that says they can... it was a pro-leftist article, what the fuck more do you want... did you read it?

491 sattv4u2  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 4:13:26pm

re: #487 jamesfirecat

Well Madison died in 1836 and the first Fillibuster was in 1837. So close!

Or not
One of the first known practitioners of the filibuster was the Roman senator Cato the Younger. Circa 60 BC

492 Walter L. Newton  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 4:13:27pm

re: #483 Obdicut

Bagua the interwebs psychic strikes again!

I don't quite understand what you are saying?

493 allegro  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 4:13:38pm

re: #476 LudwigVanQuixote

I

t is offensive for someone who actuall spent years learning actual science and working hard and professionally on a deep and complicated topic to listen to some arrogant ass like you present himself as someone who knows something when you are incapable of even the most basic parts of a science discussion.

Oh, current personalities aside, I fought this for 30 years. Big reason I retired, along with the increasing RR home-schooled students who felt competent to "confront" me with creationist arguments in 101. Enough.

494 jamesfirecat  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 4:13:40pm

re: #485 Walter L. Newton

Unorganized, eating their own, incapable of leading, a sorry assed bunch... forced implies inability... they had the ability to pass this, they couldn't do it, no one forced them to fail.

Okay how about we agree on the following.

Harry Reid and several of the other democrats in the Senate are spineless smucks?

495 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 4:13:40pm

re: #486 Bagua

Hi Obdicut,

Here to show your loyalty again?

NO, he is another one who is unimpressed with your lack of scientific knowledge or ability to address facts.

Come on Bagsy, please, what is false about anything I have said, or about the papers I brought... give it a try...

496 Walter L. Newton  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 4:14:13pm

re: #494 jamesfirecat

Okay how about we agree on the following.

Harry Reid and several of the other democrats in the Senate are spineless smucks?

Thank goodness for that.

497 Obdicut  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 4:15:02pm

re: #492 Walter L. Newton

On what grounds is Bagua asserting that Ludwig is not a real scientist and instead is an activist?

Any grounds of fact, or..?

498 Aye Pod  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 4:15:32pm

re: #492 Walter L. Newton

Walter - I replied to you on the overnight thread. I suggest you read it. If you have anything to say, please reply on that thread so as not to derail this one off topic.

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

499 jamesfirecat  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 4:16:01pm

re: #491 sattv4u2

Or not
One of the first known practitioners of the filibuster was the Roman senator Cato the Younger. Circa 60 BC

So the Framers of the US constitution should have realized that a harmless bit of information they put in about how each house shall determine its own rules for debate (which taken by itself makes perfect sense) could be used based on an example from the Roman Empire to lead to the establishment of a situation where it takes a 2/3rd supmajority to get things done in the upper house?


Well at least they thought ahead enough and made it clear that you had to be a US citizen to be in the Senate so nobody ended up electing a horse...

500 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 4:17:18pm

re: #493 allegro

I

Oh, current personalities aside, I fought this for 30 years. Big reason I retired, along with the increasing RR home-schooled students who felt competent to "confront" me with creationist arguments in 101. Enough.

Exactly.

It just gets old. You spend years of your life studying something, and the morons aren't even arguing the hard stuff. They don't know what we would expect a competent 8th grader to know and yet somehow we are the arrogant ones for "oppressing" them with things like facts and numbers.

When I started posting here I was so uber polite to everyone, even the idiots. But after about a year of posting the same truths again and again. The same facts again and again and gettting called names and being faced with the same BS over and over, I have had enough.

Guys like Bagua are just little web trolls. They are fools and deserve to be called on it. If more scientists did this then the idiots might be shamed into silence rather than falsely believing that their flawed ignorance is the equal of someone who actually earned his or her stripes.

501 Bagua  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 4:17:20pm

re: #483 Obdicut

Bagua the interwebs psychic strikes again!

And no, not psychic, rather I base my opinion on hundreds of posts by Ludwig, most of which preceded your arrival here by several months.

I believe you, that you work making educational software/toys for children as it rings true. I used to believe Ludwig that he was a 'scientist', but after numerous long chats I've come to the conclusion that he is a activist and internet blowhard, as have several real scientists I have run his more hysterical comments by. At best he is a graduate student, though that appears more unlikely by the day. Unless Ludwig presents proof to the contrary by positions stands and appears quite sound.

For my part, I don't make claims as to my professional qualifications, experience and field of research as I choose to remain anonymous.

502 jamesfirecat  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 4:18:31pm

re: #496 Walter L. Newton

Thank goodness for that.

I personally curse that fact rather than celebrate it, bu as we're on opposite sides of the "aisle" I won't begrudge you finding joy in the ineptitude of your enemies.

503 suchislife  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 4:19:16pm

re: #486 Bagua

This is something I noticed earlier, in another context. Agreement with the other side or disagreement with your position (that other context was not about you, obviously) is automatically attacked as based on nothing but "loyalty", which makes people reluctant to stand by your opponent, even if they agree with him. That's pretty mean.

504 Bagua  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 4:20:12pm

re: #495 LudwigVanQuixote

Come on Bagsy, please, what is false about anything I have said, or about the papers I brought... give it a try...

As I say Ludwig, until you learn to debate with civility, I'll not engage you. I have in the past, and it always ends in your resort to insults and anger. Very boring.

505 Obdicut  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 4:20:14pm

re: #501 Bagua

Then point to a single mistake that Ludwig has made on the science.

By the way, since we've got your attention, can you explain, finally, what the fuck you meant when you claimed that most of the major banks were Jewish-owned?

506 sattv4u2  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 4:20:41pm

re: #502 jamesfirecat

I personally curse that fact rather than celebrate it, bu as we're on opposite sides of the "aisle" I won't begrudge you finding joy in the ineptitude of your enemies.

See,,, thats what bugs me most about the left/liberal/"progressive" take on it

You think we're "enemies" as opposed to people with differeing opinions

507 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 4:20:42pm

re: #501 Bagua

And no, not psychic, rather I base my opinion on hundreds of posts by Ludwig, most of which preceded your arrival here by several months.

I believe you, that you work making educational software/toys for children as it rings true. I used to believe Ludwig that he was a 'scientist', but after numerous long chats I've come to the conclusion that he is a activist and internet blowhard, as have several real scientists I have run his more hysterical comments by. At best he is a graduate student, though that appears more unlikely by the day. Unless Ludwig presents proof to the contrary by positions stands and appears quite sound.

For my part, I don't make claims as to my professional qualifications, experience and field of research as I choose to remain anonymous.

So in other words, rather than debate the science I bring, you would rather make allegations about me and not discuss the science... How scientific.

Umm you have been challenged. Name one thing I have said thaty is hyperbole scientifically and I will bring the papers that back me up. and an explanation of why they are correct.

As to whether or not you believe I am an actual physicist or not Bagsy it matters not at all. What matters is that you get challenged on your shit a dozen times and can never bring the goods.

So once again, rather than skulking like you do, bring some science or shut up.

508 Bagua  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 4:22:27pm

re: #503 suchislife

That's pretty mean.

It is intentional, Obdicut never agrees with anything I say and is always on the attack. That is unique here. I find that dishonest as there is no one else here who is so adversarial on every issue.

509 Bagua  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 4:23:26pm

re: #505 Obdicut

Don't lie and distort Obdicut, it is beneath you.

510 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 4:23:47pm

re: #504 Bagua

As I say Ludwig, until you learn to debate with civility, I'll not engage you. I have in the past, and it always ends in your resort to insults and anger. Very boring.

Ohhh bullshit. You started the insults, everyone can see that Now you claimed I am an alarmist phony and that talk with hyperbole... ok back that up. What have I claimed that was false?

Let's be scientific about this shall we?

If I am a fake, you have some evidence yes?

Look you can insult all you want, but you never talk actual science. You are just a douche and no longer worth my time. You have had all the opportunity in the world to catch me in a hyperbolic statement. If you had one you would have brought one.

So no you got nothing.

But we knew that.

IN the mean time, Really, there are five excellent papers for you to try to read. Give it a go.

511 sattv4u2  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 4:24:07pm

re: #498 Jimmah

Just an observation from the cheap seats

Many of us would like to see you and ICE ignore Sharm, and conversley Sharm ignore you and ice!

512 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 4:24:55pm

re: #508 Bagua

It is intentional, Obdicut never agrees with anything I say and is always on the attack. That is unique here. I find that dishonest as there is no one else here who is so adversarial on every issue.

Ohhh poor bagua....

Seriously, if you had any substance to what you wrote it might be different.

Poor poor Bagua, my heart bleeds for you.

513 Aye Pod  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 4:26:45pm

re: #511 sattv4u2

Just an observation from the cheap seats

Many of us would like to see you and ICE ignore Sharm, and conversley Sharm ignore you and ice!

Well tell your sad little friends to stop griping about it then - that's all you have to do. We are not the ones who keep dragging it up - but if it is dragged up - we'll answer it.

514 Bagua  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 4:27:09pm

re: #511 sattv4u2

Just an observation from the cheap seats

Many of us would like to see you and ICE ignore Sharm, and conversley Sharm ignore you and ice!

Splendid suggestion, I concur.

And I shall return to gazing at Ludwig* until he decides to debate with civility.


*and anyone else who is only interested in attacking and arguing. I am interested in good debate and the honest exchange of ideas from which I can learn. Now these schoolyard games.

515 jamesfirecat  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 4:27:21pm

re: #506 sattv4u2

See,,, thats what bugs me most about the left/liberal/"progressive" take on it

You think we're "enemies" as opposed to people with differeing opinions

I used "enemies" just because I my mind was running on autopilot and I was trying to find a way to update the old saw Napoleon had about "Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake." Or at least had it bouncing around in the back of my head.

I don't consider anyone on LFG my enemy.

That said, its not like the liberals are the only ones who ever take that kind of rhetoric too far, like this gem [Link: theplumline.whorunsgov.com...] and he isn't just some blogger in his college dorm!

I guess the take home story is that both sides can get too wrapped up in the game....

516 allegro  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 4:27:44pm

It would be helpful, and much more interesting as well as advance the issue, if we could refrain from personalities and get back to the subject on a more rational note.

517 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 4:27:46pm

re: #501 Bagua


For my part, I don't make claims as to my professional qualifications, experience and field of research as I choose to remain anonymous.

Or because you have none... You see the way you prove you know science is to talk science.

You never do. Talking science means bringing data and evidence. You never do. Talking science means understanding basic science. I doubt you could manage basic calculus let alone read a real physics paper.

So prove yourself at least worthy of the discussion. Back up a single one of your false claims about the science.

518 suchislife  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 4:28:03pm

re: #506 sattv4u2

See,,, thats what bugs me most about the left/liberal/"progressive" take on it

You think we're "enemies" as opposed to people with differeing opinions

re: #469 Walter L. Newton

I love the progressives us of the word "forced." I see it a lot. When they can't manage to accomplish something on their own, when they run out of entitlement options, when they actually have to face reality, then they whine that they were "forced."

Such childish tactics.

I'm starting to see the problem. You both keep using the word progressives. I don't think it means what you think it means.

519 Bagua  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 4:28:37pm

re: #517 LudwigVanQuixote

Yawn...

520 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 4:28:48pm

re: #514 Bagua

Splendid suggestion, I concur.

And I shall return to gazing at Ludwig* until he decides to debate with civility.

Until you decide to enter another thread just to insult me, like you did here. Do you really think anyone is fooled by you?

521 sattv4u2  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 4:29:23pm

re: #513 Jimmah

Well tell your sad little friends to stop griping about it then - that's all you have to do. We are not the ones who keep dragging it up - but if it is dragged up - we'll answer it.

i've stated as such

just never to the three main participants

Now I have to one! I will make sure I make the suggestion to Sharm and ice next we 'meet'

522 jamesfirecat  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 4:29:34pm

re: #515 jamesfirecat

I used "enemies" just because I my mind was running on autopilot and I was trying to find a way to update the old saw Napoleon had about "Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake." Or at least had it bouncing around in the back of my head.

I don't consider anyone on LFG my enemy.

That said, its not like the liberals are the only ones who ever take that kind of rhetoric too far, like this gem [Link: theplumline.whorunsgov.com...] and he isn't just some blogger in his college dorm!

I guess the take home story is that both sides can get too wrapped up in the game...


Oh for the flying spaghetti monster's sake work link work!


[Link: theplumline.whorunsgov.com...]

523 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 4:30:44pm

re: #519 Bagua

Yawn...

Don't yawn, others realize you never bring any scientific substance too. You've been openly challenged here. Your excuses for not rising to it are only damning you as one who doesn't know what he is talking about. It's really obvious.

524 sattv4u2  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 4:31:16pm

re: #518 suchislife

hence my use of the all encompassing left/liberal/"progressive. I don't know exactly where jamesfirecat falls in that trio, but i'm sure it's within it

525 suchislife  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 4:31:36pm

re: #508 Bagua

I don't think you understood my point. I didn't mean you were mean to Obdicut. I was saying you're using a rhetorical trick that I find unacceptable in an honest debate. And I'm starting to feel really bad about being so mild because ultimately it often means that other people here fight my fights and get attacked for it.

526 sattv4u2  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 4:33:18pm

re: #515 jamesfirecat

I guess the take home story is that both sides can get too wrapped up in the game...

Yet you're the one that introduced the 'enemies" phrase. In that some idiot righty blogger did (I'm assuming thats what you linked ,, I care not to look) has nothing to do with the discourse bewteen Walter, you and myself

527 jamesfirecat  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 4:33:43pm

re: #524 sattv4u2

hence my use of the all encompassing left/liberal/"progressive. I don't know exactly where jamesfirecat falls in that trio, but i'm sure it's within it

Hell I'm somewhere in that trio and to me its a distinction without a difference like "cop/police officer/constable".

528 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 4:33:47pm

re: #525 suchislife

I don't think you understood my point. I didn't mean you were mean to Obdicut. I was saying you're using a rhetorical trick that I find unacceptable in an honest debate. And I'm starting to feel really bad about being so mild because ultimately it often means that other people here fight my fights and get attacked for it.

He thinks his little rhetorical tricks are clever. Just call him on his nonsense and be done with.

529 sattv4u2  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 4:35:13pm

re: #527 jamesfirecat

Hell I'm somewhere in that trio and to me its a distinction without a difference like "cop/police officer/constable".

That was my reason for using it ,, and my explanation to suchislife

530 jamesfirecat  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 4:36:05pm

re: #526 sattv4u2

I guess the take home story is that both sides can get too wrapped up in the game...

Yet you're the one that introduced the 'enemies" phrase. In that some idiot righty blogger did (I'm assuming thats what you linked ,, I care not to look) has nothing to do with the discourse bewteen Walter, you and myself

The link was United States SENATOR Orrin Hatch saying that using reconciliation to alter the senate's version of the healthcare bill if it is passed by the house would lead to "war".

531 suchislife  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 4:36:44pm

re: #524 sattv4u2

That was a joke. I should have said: that's really absurd. Every political group has people acting like that, and people who don't. Either you just mean "the others, who I don't agree with", or you must always ask, how influential are these people right now within that political camp, are there any others one might work with, and then bring some facts to back this up. Your descriptions work very well for movements who have been taken over by the whiny zealots, and right now, that's the right wing, sorry to say.

532 Aye Pod  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 4:37:47pm

re: #521 sattv4u2

Mention it to those who very unwisely brought it up and lied about it - that would be you, mandy, and six degrees, not to those who merely defended themselves against this garbage.

So take your own advice and butt the fuck out.

533 sattv4u2  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 4:37:51pm

re: #530 jamesfirecat

The link was United States SENATOR Orrin Hatch saying that using reconciliation to alter the senate's version of the healthcare bill if it is passed by the house would lead to "war".

Did he call the other side of the aisle his enemies?

534 suchislife  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 4:39:16pm

re: #533 sattv4u2

Please stop this. It's perfectly obvious that jamesfirecat has treated the ones he engaged with like people he disagrees with. You're getting hung up on a word.

535 sattv4u2  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 4:40:08pm

re: #532 Jimmah

Mention it to those who very unwisely brought it up and lied about it - that would be you, mandy, and six degrees, not to those who merely defended themselves against this garbage.

So take your own advice and butt the fuck out.

And a hardy FUCK OFF to you too. I stated (correctly0 that I witnessed a flame war one night. I mentioned no names. Sharms was the subject of the discussion ( as in ,, where's Sharm been) and I did NOT say who the arguing was with

oh ,, and did i mention ,,,, FUCK OFF !?!?!

536 Bagua  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 4:40:14pm

re: #525 suchislife

I don't think you understood my point. I didn't mean you were mean to Obdicut. I was saying you're using a rhetorical trick that I find unacceptable in an honest debate. And I'm starting to feel really bad about being so mild because ultimately it often means that other people here fight my fights and get attacked for it.

You have a valid point. But when the other party is so consistency adversarial on every single topic, one suspects that they are out to attack, not debate, thus they merit that "rhetorical trick". But all other time, yes, I agree with you.

537 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 4:41:11pm

re: #536 Bagua

You have a valid point. But when the other party is so consistency adversarial on every single topic, one suspects that they are out to attack, not debate, thus they merit that "rhetorical trick". But all other time, yes, I agree with you.

Ummm still waiting for you to prove you know anything about the topic...

Pathetic.

538 sattv4u2  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 4:41:37pm

re: #534 suchislife

Please stop this. It's perfectly obvious that jamesfirecat has treated the ones he engaged with like people he disagrees with. You're getting hung up on a word.

I answering posts aimed at me. That IS what we do here ,, no !?!?!

I see no hostility between James and myself. Only disagreemnet on some things

539 suchislife  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 4:42:27pm

re: #536 Bagua

Well I did mention that this is something I was already thinking about in another context, and thus I was very ready to see it. But thanks!

540 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 4:42:49pm

OK all it's been fun playing but I got to jet and get some stuff done. Be well.

541 jamesfirecat  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 4:43:31pm

re: #533 sattv4u2

Did he call the other side of the aisle his enemies?

No but I'd argue...

Well what I'd argue I realize that it's "he said she said" even when one of us is a blogger and the other is a senator that still doesn't make it right, just like how Ried's comments wouldn't make it okay for republican bloggers to start making "Negro" comments.

What do you think is an reasonable "penance" for taking my political views too far and forgetting that the other side is made up of human beings who are only trying to do what they think is the right thing as well?

In the future I'll be careful to always stick with "opponent" rather then "enemy" so what should I do to make amends for my recent mistake?

542 Bagua  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 4:43:36pm

re: #537 LudwigVanQuixote

Ludwig, I am ignoring you for reasons I have made clear. You are unable to debate things civilly, as you have proven in thread after thread. Should you have a change of heart, then I will be happy to engage with you. Otherwise, I'll just gaze at your antics.

543 Aye Pod  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 4:45:00pm

re: #535 sattv4u2

And a hardy FUCK OFF to you too. I stated (correctly0 that I witnessed a flame war one night. I mentioned no names. Sharms was the subject of the discussion ( as in ,, where's Sharm been) and I did NOT say who the arguing was with

oh ,, and did i mention ,,, FUCK OFF !?!?!

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

There you go, LIAR. You lied by saying sharmuta simply said 'Hi' and then called us trolls (if not us then who the fuck were you talking about) simply for defending ourselves against her bullshit.

Go fuck yourself, you craven piece of shit.

544 Bagua  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 4:46:08pm

re: #539 suchislife

Well I did mention that this is something I was already thinking about in another context, and thus I was very ready to see it. But thanks!

Well, you made a good point. In general the tone here tends to get distorted from time to time and it seems that we lose sight of the importance of honest and civil debate and just start attacking the other side with rhetoric. Thus I endorse and support your position on this and I am making an effort to avoid such behaviour myself.

545 Bagua  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 4:47:38pm

re: #543 Jimmah

Chill Winston

546 sattv4u2  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 4:49:54pm

re: #541 jamesfirecat

No but I'd argue...

Well what I'd argue I realize that it's "he said she said" even when one of us is a blogger and the other is a senator that still doesn't make it right, just like how Ried's comments wouldn't make it okay for republican bloggers to start making "Negro" comments.

What do you think is an reasonable "penance" for taking my political views too far and forgetting that the other side is made up of human beings who are only trying to do what they think is the right thing as well?

In the future I'll be careful to always stick with "opponent" rather then "enemy" so what should I do to make amends for my recent mistake?

No 'amends" needed for me. If I use a word you think inflammatory, I hope you call me out on it. if you do it in another chat we have, i'll call you on it

NOW ,,,, how either of us respond, THATs the rub

FOR INSTANCE ,,,, If I call you a name ,,, thats on ME ,,, how you respond ,, thats on you

i.e.,,, I take FULL and TOTAL responsibility to my response in 535

547 Aye Pod  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 4:49:59pm

re: #545 Bagua

Yes, Bagua, I'm sure you'd be perfectly chilled to be on the receiving end of this bollocks, and then called a troll for exposing it for the pack of lies that it is.

548 suchislife  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 4:51:03pm

re: #538 sattv4u2

Ok then! Disagree away! Sorry for butting in. The truth is, the hostility that sometimes bubbles up here sort of overwhelmed me tonight. See you all later, be excellent to each other, or if not, that's ok, too.

549 sattv4u2  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 4:51:35pm

re: #543 Jimmah

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

There you go, LIAR. You lied by saying sharmuta simply said 'Hi' and then called us trolls (if not us then who the fuck were you talking about) simply for defending ourselves against her bullshit.

Go fuck yourself, you craven piece of shit.


Thanks for finding that. As stated, i mentioned no NAMES

AND ,,, if you consider yourself a troll, thats a YOU problem, not a ME problem

550 Obdicut  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 4:53:01pm

re: #544 Bagua

By the way, here's your quote that I'd like you to explain:

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

And you said:

Goldman Sachs, Bear Stearns, Morgan Stanley, Lehman Bros., Chase, most of the big names involved are Jewish owned.

Can you explain why you said that?

551 Bagua  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 4:53:17pm

re: #547 Jimmah

I'm just saying keep your cool mate. Sometimes it is a good suggestion to just let things go in a personal dispute, whether one is right or wrong.

552 Aye Pod  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 4:53:29pm

re: #549 sattv4u2

Thanks for finding that. As stated, i mentioned no NAMES

AND ,,, if you consider yourself a troll, thats a YOU problem, not a ME problem

We were the only people you could possibly have been referring to - and you can't even be honest about that.

Pathetic.

553 Bagua  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 4:55:01pm

re: #550 Obdicut

Don't be a troll Obdicut, you are better than that. When you go into attack mode you start twisting things.

554 jamesfirecat  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 4:56:25pm

re: #546 sattv4u2

No 'amends" needed for me. If I use a word you think inflammatory, I hope you call me out on it. if you do it in another chat we have, i'll call you on it

NOW ,,, how either of us respond, THATs the rub

FOR INSTANCE ,,, If I call you a name ,,, thats on ME ,,, how you respond ,, thats on you

i.e.,,, I take FULL and TOTAL responsibility to my response in 535

Ehh I consider myself pretty good about avoiding Ad hominem attacks aimed directly at the person I'm arguing with, since there's nothing to be gained from them, the goal is to try and convince the other guy you're right not show off how big a dick you can be over the internet.

That said apparently I need to watch my tongue, well my fingers a little bit better about the implications of the words they type.

We're all reasonably friendly here on LGF (though I have to be careful not to type LFG a mistake I've made a few times in the past) and I'll admit there have been times I've given up my ideas after learning the details of the other side (trials in New York for KSM is a bad idea not because of terrorists risk to me but because it's a stupid way to piss money down the drain and we already do enough of that) and I hope every so often I've managed to win some ground for my side on other issues as well.

Once again to bring up a metaphor I used before, LGF is like boxing, you throw hard blows but it should be done in a gentelmanly manner with respect for certain rules and conventions, like helping the other guy find his teeth between rounds...

555 Obdicut  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 4:56:27pm

re: #553 Bagua

I posted your post in its entirety. It was in response to this post:

Yeah, because, like, um, the majority of all bankers a brokers are, you know...of that OT persuasion.

Not.

Who are you and what have you done with the real Bagua?

You made the claim that most of the big-name banks are Jewish owned. Can you explain why you've made such an astonishingly false claim?

556 sattv4u2  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 4:58:18pm

re: #554 jamesfirecat

LGF is like boxing, you throw hard blows but it should be done in a gentelmanly manner with respect for certain rules and conventions, like helping the other guy find his teeth between rounds...

I've enjoyed sparring with you

No need to help me find my teeth ,, just call me GUMMY!

557 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 5:01:46pm

re: #542 Bagua

Ludwig, I am ignoring you for reasons I have made clear. You are unable to debate things civilly, as you have proven in thread after thread. Should you have a change of heart, then I will be happy to engage with you. Otherwise, I'll just gaze at your antics.

Ohh I just had to step back and see f you would be the coward you always are...


It's very simple Bagua, you claimed that I have spoken hyperbole and distortions about AGW... back up your assertions with facts and science the way I do consistently. You can not do that because you do not know the science. Your attempts to now claim that you are somehow above a fray you atarted are remarkably pathetic and fool no one. Bring the science or forever be known as the lying fraud you are.

558 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 5:02:52pm

re: #555 Obdicut

I posted your post in its entirety. It was in response to this post:

You made the claim that most of the big-name banks are Jewish owned. Can you explain why you've made such an astonishingly false claim?

Ohhh I didn't know he was going into that old smear too.... I would love to see where he gets his facts on that. Particularly sincce it is the sort of lie that has gotten many Jews killed.

Bagua, explain yourself.

559 Bagua  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 5:03:13pm

re: #555 Obdicut

I posted your post in its entirety. It was in response to this post:

You made the claim that most of the big-name banks are Jewish owned. Can you explain why you've made such an astonishingly false claim?

No Obdicut, I did not make that claim, you are lying, and acting like a troll by twisting words from a long dead thread. It is ugly.

560 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 5:03:57pm

re: #553 Bagua

Don't be a troll Obdicut, you are better than that. When you go into attack mode you start twisting things.

Then explain yourself asshole. If you have made that claim I want to hear why, and it pisses me off a lot more than your lies about AGW.

561 Bagua  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 5:04:08pm

re: #557 LudwigVanQuixote

The only "lying fraud" here is you Ludwig.

562 Obdicut  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 5:04:16pm

re: #558 LudwigVanQuixote

It was in the context of defending Rush Limbaugh, as you can see if you read the thread.

re: #559 Bagua

How is simply posting what you said twisting your words, Bagua?

Anyone can see, by following the link I provided, that you simply said that.

563 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 5:04:47pm

re: #561 Bagua

The only "lying fraud" here is you Ludwig.

Answer the question. If I am a fraud prove it. But honestly it is past that. What is this about Jewish owned banks?

564 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 5:06:34pm

re: #562 Obdicut

It was in the context of defending Rush Limbaugh, as you can see if you read the thread.

re: #559 Bagua

How is simply posting what you said twisting your words, Bagua?

Anyone can see, by following the link I provided, that you simply said that.

Repugnant. And in typical douchebag fashion he tries to two step.
Bagua you are despicable.

565 Bagua  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 5:06:37pm

re: #562 Obdicut

It was in the context of defending Rush Limbaugh, as you can see if you read the thread.

re: #559 Bagua

How is simply posting what you said twisting your words, Bagua?

Anyone can see, by following the link I provided, that you simply said that.

You are making a selected excerpt and twisting it to fit your attack and defamation agenda. It is a very dishonest and despicable tactic.

You are obviously trolling and trying to rile up Ludwig.

566 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 5:07:18pm

re: #565 Bagua

You are making a selected excerpt and twisting it to fit your attack and defamation agenda. It is a very dishonest and despicable tactic.

You are obviously trolling and trying to rile up Ludwig.

I already disliked you. Explain yourself or you will be simply hated.

567 Walter L. Newton  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 5:07:37pm

re: #550 Obdicut

By the way, here's your quote that I'd like you to explain:

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

And you said:

Can you explain why you said that?

Becuase he first said this... if yo would have linked to the thread of comment between Bagua and Cato, it would make sense... (even if you do or don't agree with the sentiment)

re: #1241 Bagua

Make no mistake that Obama's populist attacks on 'Bankers' and 'Wall Street' has very definite anti-Semitic innuendo.

568 Walter L. Newton  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 5:08:19pm

re: #566 LudwigVanQuixote

I already disliked you. Explain yourself or you will be simply hated.

WOw... the High Priest of AGW is going to hate someone?

569 Varek Raith  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 5:08:33pm

Whoa, now, I would kindly suggest that you all take a step back and cool off!

570 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 5:09:19pm

re: #568 Walter L. Newton

WOw... the High Priest of AGW is going to hate someone?

Walter. Call me a high priest again and I'll hate your stupid ass too. You used up the patience I have for you today. Let the douche explain for himself.

571 Obdicut  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 5:09:21pm

re: #567 Walter L. Newton

How does that make his incredibly false, idiotic claim that most of the major banks are Jewish-owned any more reasonable, Walter? Please explain.

572 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 5:09:56pm

re: #571 Obdicut

How does that make his incredibly false, idiotic claim that most of the major banks are Jewish-owned any more reasonable, Walter? Please explain.

It doesn't. Walter is butting in with nonsense where he should have the sense to stay out.

573 Walter L. Newton  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 5:10:56pm

re: #571 Obdicut

How does that make his incredibly false, idiotic claim that most of the major banks are Jewish-owned any more reasonable, Walter? Please explain.

Fact is fact. There is nothing wrong with who owns a bank or not, is there. Doesn't bother me, seems to bother you though. And the High Priest Ludwig.

574 Obdicut  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 5:11:17pm

re: #573 Walter L. Newton

Dude, are you ALSO claiming that those banks are mostly jewish-owned?

575 Bagua  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 5:11:59pm

re: #566 LudwigVanQuixote

Ludwig, if you are really interested, go back and read the thread. I was arguing against antSemitism and made clear that I have campaigned against antiSemitism my entire life.

If you wish to twist my words in order to unfairly demonise me as the troll Obdicut is doing, then that is on your conscience, not mine.

Obdicut, what you are trying to do is very dishonest and transparent. It is called Lashan Hara, look that up and get back to me.

576 Walter L. Newton  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 5:12:13pm

re: #570 LudwigVanQuixote

Walter. Call me a high priest again and I'll hate your stupid ass too. You used up the patience I have for you today. Let the douche explain for himself.

Alright my mistake, you aren't even nearly a High Priest... more like an eunuch.

577 sattv4u2  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 5:12:21pm

re: #570 LudwigVanQuixote

Walter. Call me a high priest again and I'll hate your stupid ass too. You used up the patience I have for you today. Let the douche explain for himself.

That'll show him!

Walter will be reduced to a mere shell of a man!

(gggeeezzz)

578 Walter L. Newton  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 5:13:21pm

re: #577 sattv4u2

That'll show him!

Walter will be reduced to a mere shell of a man!

(gggeeezzz)

I'm shaking in my boots.

579 sattv4u2  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 5:13:51pm

re: #578 Walter L. Newton

I'm shaking in my boots.

You wear boots when you're in pajamas !?!?!

580 Walter L. Newton  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 5:13:56pm

re: #574 Obdicut

Dude, are you ALSO claiming that those banks are mostly jewish-owned?

I don't understand what you are talking about?

581 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 5:13:59pm

Bagua, you disgust me.

I despised you before, but this shit about Jewish owned banks is over the line. I detest you and will detest you always.re: #573 Walter L. Newton

Fact is fact. There is nothing wrong with who owns a bank or not, is there. Doesn't bother me, seems to bother you though. And the High Priest Ludwig.

Walter if you ever start dealing in facts, then we'll talk. Perhaps you care to explain Jewish owened banks next to your assertions that the Nazis were leftists. Those two falsehoods together paint you in a bad light. I would prefer to think that you are just some old fool with his pride in a dander. However you are too stupid to see how evil the shit is that you are talking about here. For that you are contemptible and pathetic. Fuck you. And yes, don't talk to me again you are on the same shit list as the douche, but for different reasons.

582 Obdicut  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 5:14:25pm

re: #575 Bagua

If anyone reads the thread, they'll see you defending Rush Limbaugh's comments that were criticized by the ADL, while making the claim, unvarnished, that most of the major banks are Jewish-owned.

583 Bagua  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 5:15:04pm

re: #581 LudwigVanQuixote

You are an ugly dishonest person Ludwig.

584 Walter L. Newton  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 5:15:08pm

re: #579 sattv4u2

You wear boots when you're in pajamas !?!?!

Hey, keep the webcam stuff off LGF or I'll cut your connection. And remember, I promised to let you see the dog when he does that weird thing with the stuff bunny rabbit.

585 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 5:15:30pm

re: #575 Bagua

Ludwig, if you are really interested, go back and read the thread. I was arguing against antSemitism and made clear that I have campaigned against antiSemitism my entire life.

If you wish to twist my words in order to unfairly demonise me as the troll Obdicut is doing, then that is on your conscience, not mine.

Obdicut, what you are trying to do is very dishonest and transparent. It is called Lashan Hara, look that up and get back to me.

Bagua, for the sake of decency I will read the thread, but for you to even come out with the name Loshan Ha Ra given the context is bad news. If you did say that and Obdicut is right I will never forgive you.

586 Obdicut  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 5:15:50pm

re: #580 Walter L. Newton

Do you believe that the major banks are mostly jewish owned, as Bagua claimed?

587 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 5:16:13pm

re: #578 Walter L. Newton

re: #577 sattv4u2

Yeah fuck both of you.

588 Walter L. Newton  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 5:16:14pm

re: #581 LudwigVanQuixote

Yawn. You really are a mess. You blow your whole cover as a "scientist" just by acting more like a frustrated child.

589 Walter L. Newton  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 5:16:39pm

re: #586 Obdicut

Do you believe that the major banks are mostly jewish owned, as Bagua claimed?

Now it's ALL major banks. Nope.

590 Decatur Deb  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 5:16:48pm

re: #569 Varek Raith

Whoa, now, I would kindly suggest that you all take a step back and cool off!

It has to burn out. We lose interesting commenters this way.

591 sattv4u2  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 5:17:17pm

re: #587 LudwigVanQuixote

re: #577 sattv4u2

Yeah fuck both of you.

Thanks,,, but Waters tits aren't big enough for my tastes


You, on the other hand, continue to act like a boob! what are you doing later??

592 Walter L. Newton  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 5:17:40pm

re: #587 LudwigVanQuixote

re: #577 sattv4u2

Yeah fuck both of you.

That's telling em Ludwig. Now, try a little bum talk, let them know who's boss. Tell them to sod off, those nasty wankers.

593 Obdicut  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 5:17:58pm

re: #589 Walter L. Newton

Okay. So how on earth are you defending Bagua's claim that they are?

Here is what he said:

Goldman Sachs, Bear Stearns, Morgan Stanley, Lehman Bros., Chase, most of the big names involved are Jewish owned.


It is a completely false claim; all those banks are publicly-traded. None of them are 'Jewish-owned'.

594 Walter L. Newton  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 5:19:26pm

re: #593 Obdicut

Okay. So how on earth are you defending Bagua's claim that they are?

Here is what he said:

It is a completely false claim; all those banks are publicly-traded. None of them are 'Jewish-owned'.

I don't understand what you are saying? See, I can use your obtuse tactic all night too. I learned the game from you.

595 Walter L. Newton  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 5:20:16pm

re: #591 sattv4u2

Thanks,,, but Waters tits aren't big enough for my tastes

You, on the other hand, continue to act like a boob! what are you doing later??

Actually they are... I sort of got man boobs...

596 sattv4u2  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 5:21:02pm

re: #595 Walter L. Newton

Actually they are... I sort of got man boobs...

I'll still bank on Ludwig being a bigger boob!

597 Bagua  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 5:21:58pm

re: #582 Obdicut

If anyone reads the thread, they'll see you defending Rush Limbaugh's comments that were criticized by the ADL, while making the claim, unvarnished, that most of the major banks are Jewish-owned.

I was making the point that I saw populist attacks on bankers and Wallstreet to have antiSemetic undertones because there are several prominent investment banks on Wall Street which are Jewish owned, such as Lehmans, Glodman Sachs, Bear Stearns, and others. I later corrected myself to remove Morgan Stanley and add others.

I also noted that they always seem to focus on the Jewish owned banks such as Goldman Sachs and ignore the non-Jewish owned which are in the majority. Thus attacking the fat cats on wall-street and the greedy bankers is a dogwistle for antiSemitism in my book. We saw a similar thing in politics were the Left would demonise the so called Neo-cons, and would always name the Jewish ones and ignore those that were not.

When people make such attacks I see that as playing to antisemitism. That is my view and I supported it on that long thread. For you to distort that into my being antiSemitic to satisfy your urge to attack me on this unrelated thread is ugly and dishonest.

598 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 5:22:29pm

re: #592 Walter L. Newton

Walter you are a total asshole I know you think you are clever, but I assure you I will be ignoring your pathetic and stupid little insetrions from now on. You are just a pathetic and crazy old coot who doesn't know when to shut up and doesn't know when to but out.

Now Bagua, I have read that exchange.

IN your defense, you are opposed to antisemitism - or so you say.

Of course you bring and ancient antisemitic smear brought up again by no less than Limbaugh, as the basis of your argument. Jews have never owned most banks. Most of the big banks are not Jewish owned and for that matter even those founded by Jews have not been Jewish owned for a very long time.

You dare to bring Loshan Hara as something against Obdicut when defending not only vile Loshan Ha Ra that was directed against the people for centuries, but of the sort that that has gotten thousands killed.

You are a total piece of shit.

599 Walter L. Newton  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 5:23:21pm

re: #598 LudwigVanQuixote

Walter you are a total asshole I know you think you are clever, but I assure you I will be ignoring your pathetic and stupid little insetrions from now on. You are just a pathetic and crazy old coot who doesn't know when to shut up and doesn't know when to but out.

Now Bagua, I have read that exchange.

IN your defense, you are opposed to antisemitism - or so you say.

Of course you bring and ancient antisemitic smear brought up again by no less than Limbaugh, as the basis of your argument. Jews have never owned most banks. Most of the big banks are not Jewish owned and for that matter even those founded by Jews have not been Jewish owned for a very long time.

You dare to bring Loshan Hara as something against Obdicut when defending not only vile Loshan Ha Ra that was directed against the people for centuries, but of the sort that that has gotten thousands killed.

You are a total piece of shit.

The word is "butt" not "but?"

600 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 5:23:34pm

re: #594 Walter L. Newton

I don't understand what you are saying? See, I can use your obtuse tactic all night too. I learned the game from you.

No you were always an obtuse idiot. I can;t believe you were stupid enough to get into this one. You are pathetic.

601 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 5:23:49pm

re: #599 Walter L. Newton

The word is "butt" not "but?"

Fuck you.

602 Obdicut  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 5:23:55pm

re: #597 Bagua

Those banks are not Jewish-owned! What the fuck don't you understand about that?

You are repeating something that anti-semetic conspiracy theorists believe!


[Link: www.nyse.com...]

That's Goldman Sachs stock symbol. It's publicly traded.

603 Bagua  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 5:24:17pm

re: #585 LudwigVanQuixote

Bagua, for the sake of decency I will read the thread, but for you to even come out with the name Loshan Ha Ra given the context is bad news. If you did say that and Obdicut is right I will never forgive you.

If you have any honesty Ludwig, then you will not make such a false charge against me. What Obdicult is attempting to do here is tremendously dishonest.

I see your response now Ludwig, you have reached a new low, even for you.

604 sattv4u2  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 5:24:50pm

re: #601 LudwigVanQuixote

Fuck you.

In the BUTT or in the BUT !?!?!

605 Walter L. Newton  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 5:25:21pm

re: #604 sattv4u2

In the BUTT or in the BUT !?!?!

That was butthurt... he didn't even see it coming.

606 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 5:25:51pm

re: #603 Bagua

If you have any honesty Ludwig, then you will not make such a false charge against me. What Obdicult is attempting to do here is tremendously dishonest.

I see your response now Ludwig, you have reached a new low, even for you.

No dickwad. You use Hebrew and Jewish law to defend yourself for saying a vile slur against Jews that has caused countless deaths. Fuck you always and sideways and Walter too for not being sensible enough to know what he was dealing with. I hate both of you. Understand that. I hate you both.

607 sattv4u2  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 5:26:16pm

re: #605 Walter L. Newton

That was butthurt... he didn't even see it coming.

I'll send him one of those pool blow up ring life savers so he can sit on it in his "lab'

608 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 5:26:18pm

re: #604 sattv4u2

In the BUTT or in the BUT !?!?!

And you are nothing but a pathetic gadfly. despicable as always.

609 sattv4u2  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 5:27:17pm

re: #608 LudwigVanQuixote

And you are nothing but a pathetic gadfly. despicable as always.

Happy to be useful!

610 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 5:27:24pm

re: #607 sattv4u2

I'll send him one of those pool blow up ring life savers so he can sit on it in his "lab'

And seriously go fuck yourself. asshole.

611 Bagua  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 5:27:47pm

re: #606 LudwigVanQuixote

I hate both of you. Understand that. I hate you both.

Yes, you are full of blind hatred and anger Ludwig, that is well established.

612 sattv4u2  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 5:28:08pm

re: #610 LudwigVanQuixote

And seriously go fuck yourself. asshole.

C'Mon ,,,, give me a little smooch first. i like foreplay!

613 Obdicut  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 5:28:53pm

re: #612 sattv4u2

Do you care that Bagua is repeating a complete lie that's is often repeated by antisemitic groups?

614 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 5:30:19pm

re: #611 Bagua

Yes, you are full of blind hatred and anger Ludwig, that is well established.

No not blind. I see you very clearly. I know full well that you didn;t think you were being anti-semitic. I know full well that you have a thousand rationalizations for your nonsense. However, you clearly as always never look at facts. Through your careless speech - which is a major part of Loshan Ha Ra, how dare you bring that up - you spread harmful falsehoods as if they were facts and then become offended when called on them. You are shameless and despicable. I hate you asshole. I will continue to hate you. It is not blind. You deserve it.

615 sattv4u2  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 5:31:03pm

re: #613 Obdicut

Do you care that Bagua is repeating a complete lie that's is often repeated by antisemitic groups?

Do you care that I wasn't involved in this, and I wasn't involved in the original, so i have no idea what the context was?

SWINGANDAMISS ,,,, STRIKE ONE

616 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 5:31:15pm

re: #612 sattv4u2

C'Mon ,,, give me a little smooch first. i like foreplay!

After a slur that has killed thousands of my people you talk like that? You are a pathetic shit. You deserve a beating.

617 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 5:31:50pm

re: #615 sattv4u2

Do you care that I wasn't involved in this, and I wasn't involved in the original, so i have no idea what the context was?

SWINGANDAMISS ,,, STRIKE ONE

Yet I did just read it, and I am clearly furious about it, and you can't help but mix in. You are a total asshole.

618 Bagua  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 5:32:44pm

re: #602 Obdicut

Those banks are not Jewish-owned! What the fuck don't you understand about that?

You are repeating something that anti-semetic conspiracy theorists believe!

[Link: www.nyse.com...]

That's Goldman Sachs stock symbol. It's publicly traded.

Marcus Goldman and Samuel Sachs founded the firm, Sidney Weinberg took over in 1930. All of whom are Jewish, and very noble and charitable men. Everyone familiar with WallStreet knows that it is a historically a prominent Jewish company, as was Lehmans Bros., Bear Stearns, Schwab and others.

On the other side of the divide were banks like Morgan Stanley who were considered Wasp banks. In recent years those divisions have become much less as Morgan Stanley opened up to Jewish executives and GS also acquired non-Jewish executives.

You obviously know little about WallStreet and are making a pathetic and dishonest attack by distorting my words and views.

619 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 5:33:53pm

re: #618 Bagua

Marcus Goldman and Samuel Sachs founded the firm, Sidney Weinberg took over in 1930. All of whom are Jewish, and very noble and charitable men. Everyone familiar with WallStreet knows that it is a historically a prominent Jewish company, as was Lehmans Bros., Bear Stearns, Schwab and others.

On the other side of the divide were banks like Morgan Stanley who were considered Wasp banks. In recent years those divisions have become much less as Morgan Stanley opened up to Jewish executives and GS also acquired non-Jewish executives.

You obviously know little about WallStreet and are making a pathetic and dishonest attack by distorting my words and views.

And Bank of America? What about the Bank of England or the Swiss banks or the Japanese central Bank?

Asshole.

620 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 5:35:06pm

re: #618 Bagua

Just shut up. You are worthless.

621 Obdicut  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 5:35:49pm

re: #618 Bagua

Dude:

It's a publicly-traded company. It's not Jewish owned. Trying to claim that you meant it was a 'historically Jewish' company in the light of what you said is so transparently dishonest i'm amazed you'd even try it.

You said this:

there are several prominent investment banks on Wall Street which are Jewish owned, such as Lehmans, Glodman Sachs, Bear Stearns, and others. I later corrected myself to remove Morgan Stanley and add others.

I also noted that they always seem to focus on the Jewish owned banks such as Goldman Sachs and ignore the non-Jewish owned which are in the majority.

It's right there. How can you attempt to deny that you said it?

622 littleugly  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 5:36:03pm

re: #566 LudwigVanQuixote

I already disliked you. Explain yourself or you will be simply hated.

The Human Resource department in the organization that needs scientists such as Ludwig on their payroll is sorely lacking.
This individual should not be allowed to disect a frog, much less get near a petry dish

623 sattv4u2  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 5:36:18pm

re: #617 LudwigVanQuixote

Yet I did just read it, and I am clearly furious about it, and you can't help but mix in. You are a total asshole.

Not "total"

I have an elbow!

624 Obdicut  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 5:36:46pm

re: #622 littleugly

Like a furious guppy rising from the deep.

625 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 5:36:57pm

re: #622 littleugly

The Human Resource department in the organization that needs scientists such as Ludwig on their payroll is sorely lacking.
This individual should not be allowed to disect a frog, much less get near a petry dish

It's Petrie dish asshole. And that is biology. I do physics and this does not concern you.

626 Bagua  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 5:38:06pm

re: #619 LudwigVanQuixote

And Bank of America? What about the Bank of England or the Swiss banks or the Japanese central Bank?

Asshole.

You miss the point and are twisting my words in your hatred and rage. I am talking about Wall street, not Switzerland or England.

You are showing great hostility and avarice in making slanderous accusations.

You are acting like a Kapo, not a mench.

627 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 5:38:23pm

re: #622 littleugly

The Human Resource department in the organization that needs scientists such as Ludwig on their payroll is sorely lacking.
This individual should not be allowed to disect a frog, much less get near a petry dish

Ohh and one of the class of 2004 while we are at it. Go back to the other blog where lunatics like you are appreciated.

628 Obdicut  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 5:39:42pm

re: #626 Bagua

You are acting like a Kapo, not a mench.

How goddamn dare you.

629 Varek Raith  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 5:40:23pm

Wow, just fucking, wow...

630 Walter L. Newton  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 5:40:32pm

re: #625 LudwigVanQuixote

It's Petrie dish asshole. And that is biology. I do physics and this does not concern you.

And physics is not climatology, no more than a railway engineer with a PhD in economics, Dr Pachauri, should be heading the IPCC, which sets the climate change agenda for the scientist of the world.

631 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 5:40:34pm

re: #626 Bagua

You miss the point and are twisting my words in your hatred and rage. I am talking about Wall street, not Switzerland or England.

You are showing great hostility and avarice in making slanderous accusations.

You are acting like a Kapo, not a mench.

You actually just called me a Kapo? You really should never talk to me again.

If you are a Jew, you would be ashamed. So you are not. And yet you talk like that? I can't believe you said that. You should be banned for that.

632 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 5:42:25pm

re: #630 Walter L. Newton

And physics is not climatology, no more than a railway engineer with a PhD in economics, Dr Pachauri, should be heading the IPCC, which sets the climate change agenda for the scientist of the world.

Walter you are not needed in this conversation. Physics has a lot to do with it. If this were a different conversation, I would try to educate you. But trying to educate you is tiring and I have something else to deal with right now, so disappear like a good little meaningless creature.

633 Walter L. Newton  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 5:43:28pm

re: #632 LudwigVanQuixote

Walter you are not needed in this conversation. Physics has a lot to do with it. If this were a different conversation, I would try to educate you. But trying to educate you is tiring and I have something else to deal with right now, so disappear like a good little meaningless creature.

LOL.

634 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 5:44:01pm

re: #633 Walter L. Newton

LOL.

Like I said, meaningless.

635 Bagua  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 5:44:11pm

re: #628 Obdicut

How goddamn dare you.

You are the one attacking your fellows with avarice and hatred, it is the behaviour of a Kapo.

And no, Ludwig, it is you who should be ashamed for trying to twist my words to demonise me as an antiSemite as Obdicut is doing. That is exactly the behaviour of a Kapo,

Obviously I am also Jewish, as are many here. To attack me as an antiSemite is blind hatred. If anyone should be banned, it is you.

636 Walter L. Newton  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 5:46:28pm

re: #634 LudwigVanQuixote

Like I said, meaningless.

Like I said... LOL.

637 Obdicut  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 5:46:56pm

re: #635 Bagua

I haven't even accused you of antisemitism. I've said you're repeating a lie that is often said by antisemites. I'm saying you're carrying their water, when you lie, repeatedly, and say that that Goldman Sachs-- or any of the banks you mentioned-- is Jewish-owned. That is a lie, and one that is used to support the myth of Jewish conspiracy and control.

Your attempt to claim that you didn't say it is appalling: It's right there. I can quote it again, if you need.

638 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 5:47:20pm

re: #635 Bagua

You are the one attacking your fellows with avarice and hatred, it is the behaviour of a Kapo.

And no, Ludwig, it is you who should be ashamed for trying to twist my words to demonise me as an antiSemite as Obdicut is doing. That is exactly the behaviour of a Kapo,

Obviously I am also Jewish, as are many here. To attack me as an antiSemite is blind hatred. If anyone should be banned, it is you.

Yet you have no connection to the past or the people. Otherwise you would not pull that out on a fellow Jew. That makes you even more despicable. You are detestable even more now. Please don't call yourself Jewish again Bagua, it brings down the people. You are a pathetic lying, worthless bit of scum. Never talk that way. Never talk to me. Never get involved with me. Never comment to me. Just fuck off.

639 Walter L. Newton  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 5:47:58pm

re: #638 LudwigVanQuixote

Yet you have no connection to the past or the people. Otherwise you would not pull that out on a fellow Jew. That makes you even more despicable. You are detestable even more now. Please don't call yourself Jewish again Bagua, it brings down the people. You are a pathetic lying, worthless bit of scum. Never talk that way. Never talk to me. Never get involved with me. Never comment to me. Just fuck off.

Go take a bath.

640 sattv4u2  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 5:48:18pm

re: #633 Walter L. Newton

You're not "needed"

Death Panel !?!?!

641 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 5:48:43pm

re: #637 Obdicut

I haven't even accused you of antisemitism. I've said you're repeating a lie that is often said by antisemites. I'm saying you're carrying their water, when you lie, repeatedly, and say that that Goldman Sachs-- or any of the banks you mentioned-- is Jewish-owned. That is a lie, and one that is used to support the myth of Jewish conspiracy and control.

Your attempt to claim that you didn't say it is appalling: It's right there. I can quote it again, if you need.

No I read it. He's one of those Jews who thinks he knows something about his past, but is too wrapped up in his own BS to be even basically sensitive to his own history ory what will make him a pariah with other Jews. Just truly ignore him. He can look up cherem.

642 Walter L. Newton  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 5:49:02pm

re: #640 sattv4u2

You're not "needed"

Death Panel !?!?!

Aaagggghhhhhh...

Supper time, got to go eat some of my fellow tribe members...

643 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 5:49:30pm

re: #639 Walter L. Newton

Go take a bath.

Walter, you really don't know when to quit. Go be despicable elsewhere.

644 Obdicut  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 5:50:46pm

re: #641 LudwigVanQuixote

Yep. I can't stomach another moment of this.

Have a good night.

Shalom.

645 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 5:51:12pm

re: #644 Obdicut

Yep. I can't stomach another moment of this.

Have a good night.

Shalom.

You too my friend.

646 Bagua  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 5:54:07pm

re: #637 Obdicut

Do a little research Obdicut, those are prominent Jewish firms, something a Jew should be proud of, especially as they were famous for being charitable. Bear Stears in particular had an unwritten rule that its executives had to give a certain share of their income to charities, about 40% of which went to Israel and Jewish charities. The community lost a major source of charity when they blew up.

These facts are distorted and used by antisemitism, which is why I was taking offense to attacks on bankers and Wall-Street which I see as having antisemitic implications. Especially in Europe and historically. Go to any anti Semite sewer on the internet and you will see this prominently displayed. They even go after the Rockefellers because of their alleged Jewish heritage, despite the fact they don't identify as such.

But you seem to prefer to twist my words to demonise me. That is very ugly on this particular subject.

647 Bagua  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 5:56:13pm

re: #644 Obdicut

Yep. I can't stomach another moment of this.

Have a good night.

Shalom.

You introduce uglyness and a slanderous attack on your fellow and then slink away with the word "Shalom"?

Troll.

648 Bagua  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 6:00:22pm

re: #638 LudwigVanQuixote

Please don't call yourself Jewish again Bagua, it brings down the people. You are a pathetic lying, worthless bit of scum.

You are not a pleasant person Ludwig, you really should look into your heart and try to find out where all this hatred and anger comes from. It is not normal or healthy.

649 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 6:07:28pm

re: #648 Bagua

You are not a pleasant person Ludwig, you really should look into your heart and try to find out where all this hatred and anger comes from. It is not normal or healthy.

My heart does not appreciate the lies, slanders and corruptions of scum like you. Cherem. This is the last I will speak to you.

650 littleugly  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 6:13:56pm

re: #627 LudwigVanQuixote

Ohh and one of the class of 2004 while we are at it. Go back to the other blog where lunatics like you are appreciated.

Ludwig, 2004 was when registration was required, but you knew that.
Are you implying that anybody posters before are 'persona non grata'?

#625 Ludwig

"It's Petrie dish asshole. And that is biology. I do physics and this does not concern you".

Woops, let me rephrase;

The Human Resource department in the organization that needs scientists such as Ludwig on their payroll is sorely lacking.
This individual should not be allowed to in any way disrupt, bully,distract or influence.

Petri

651 Aye Pod  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 6:17:08pm

re: #627 LudwigVanQuixote

Ohh and one of the class of 2004 while we are at it. Go back to the other blog where lunatics like you are appreciated.

He's been there for a good while, Ludwig.

652 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 6:18:30pm

re: #650 littleugly

No but someone with a karma of six and 100 posts in all that time is usually a sock. And we both know you are one so eventually you'll get banned too, particularly when you quote the Rodent or the other losers there. Tell him I love his psychopathic genocidal delusional self very much when you talk to him next :)

Love and kisses troll

653 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 6:18:58pm

re: #651 Jimmah

He's been there for a good while, Ludwig.

Of course he has.

654 jotalot  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 6:19:11pm

re: #504 Bagua

As I say Ludwig, until you learn to debate with civility, I'll not engage you. I have in the past, and it always ends in your resort to insults and anger. Very boring.

I don't find insults and anger boring. This is like accidentally hearing your neighbors arguing over the fence...and then being real quiet 'til they finish. *reads like mad to catch up and make sense of it all*

655 Aye Pod  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 6:25:51pm

re: #653 LudwigVanQuixote

Of course he has.

Yep. Last time I saw it here he was defending torture and bitching about iceweasel in the usual giveaway fashion. Everything else I've seen from it also screams out "I am the resurrected sock of a banned troll who now posts on 2.0".

656 Pythagoras  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 6:29:52pm

re: #591 sattv4u2

Thanks,,, but Waters tits aren't big enough for my tastes

You, on the other hand, continue to act like a boob! what are you doing later??

ROTFLMAO! I don't know; it just had timing. I was trying to catch up on this thread and that line hit me just right. Glad to see some folks don't take this too seriously.

Thanks for a good laugh in the middle of all the silliness.

657 littleugly  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 6:55:12pm

re: #655 Jimmah

Yep. Last time I saw it here he was defending torture and bitching about iceweasel in the usual giveaway fashion. Everything else I've seen from it also screams out "I am the resurrected sock of a banned troll who now posts on 2.0".

LOL, I had not gone back to that thread.
Iceweasel did exactly what I wanted her to do, backed down.
You are being disengenous, my comments thrashing her stands are there for all to see, I just facilitated her way out of her talking point situation, which apparantly holds no water for it is not even mentioned by the most vile anti-Americans.
It was just a favor.

658 Bagua  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 7:03:35pm

re: #649 LudwigVanQuixote

My heart does not appreciate the lies, slanders and corruptions of scum like you. Cherem. This is the last I will speak to you.

Referring to human beings as "scum" is dehuminising. To do so based upon a slanderous distortion is particularly odious. That you are so passionate about a scientific theory that you would engage in such behaviour is simply bizarre.

What Obdicut did is dishonest and troll behaviour, he was waving a red flag in front of a bull knowing Ludwig would react hysterically. He played Ludwig like a fiddle.

This thread sets a new low for attack based conduct and drags the forum down.

659 Aye Pod  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 7:05:03pm

re: #657 littleugly

LOL, I had not gone back to that thread.
Iceweasel did exactly what I wanted her to do, backed down.
You are being disengenous, my comments thrashing her stands are there for all to see, I just facilitated her way out of her talking point situation, which apparantly holds no water for it is not even mentioned by the most vile anti-Americans.
It was just a favor.

Do yourself a favour and go back to your usual cesspit haunt.

660 littleugly  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 8:13:44pm

re: #659 Jimmah

Do yourself a favour and go back to your usual cesspit haunt.

I take your statement as a threat.

GAZE, until further notice.

661 The Left  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 9:41:10pm

re: #657 littleugly

LOL, I had not gone back to that thread.
Iceweasel did exactly what I wanted her to do, backed down.
You are being disengenous, my comments thrashing her stands are there for all to see, I just facilitated her way out of her talking point situation, which apparantly holds no water for it is not even mentioned by the most vile anti-Americans.
It was just a favor.

Please. You are completely full of shit. I in no way 'backed down', and your comments were purest rubbish, consisting primarily of one stawman arguments and several random insults.
Troll.

662 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Jan 31, 2010 2:11:25am

re: #506 sattv4u2

See,,, thats what bugs me most about the left/liberal/"progressive" take on it

You think we're "enemies" as opposed to people with differeing opinions

Oh lord, if you're trying to tell me that's a uniquely left-liberal approach, I won't believe you.


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
Why Did More Than 1,000 People Die After Police Subdued Them With Force That Isn’t Meant to Kill? An investigation led by The Associated Press has found that, over a decade, more than 1,000 people died after police subdued them through physical holds, stun guns, body blows and other force not intended to be lethal. More: Why ...
Cheechako
Yesterday
Views: 32 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
A Closer Look at the Eastman State Bar DecisionTaking a few minutes away from work things to read through the Eastman decision. As I'm sure many of you know, Eastman was my law school con law professor. I knew him pretty well because I was also running in ...
KGxvi
Yesterday
Views: 87 • Comments: 1 • Rating: 1