«

»

Lock Those Elbows

One thing we learned in 2008, the Obama machine, that accumulation of believers that craft the image then put that image out to the folks through various media venues, is formidable. And given what an empty suit he has turned out to be (turned out? OK, always has been) the presentation deserves even more accolades. The 2012 machine will have more cogs dedicated towards destroying the opposition. Hope and Change won’t work this time around, nor will running on results or a record of achievement, the primary effort will focus on making their guy look good by means of comparison, and Rick Perry has gotten their attention big time.

I have cautioned in the past about falling in love with candidates, all have warts, a crazy uncle or two, and several frat stories involving alcohol, loose women and maybe a barn yard animal (hopefully no video) and I’m certainly not 100% satisfied with the current GOP crop, but I’m liking some things I’m hearing about Perry, like this:

For some reason my buddy Melissa never told me she had this video of Gov. Rick Perry teaching me to shoot his Ruger last year (the one he shot the coyote with!). This is just too cool. I’ll say this about Gov. Perry. He is a down to earth guy. It wasn’t just me that he taught to shoot his gun that day. It was about 6 or 7 other Texas bloggers. I’ve had quite a few opportunities like this with the Governor because he is so willing to be with us regular folks.

Yes, she jerked the trigger, gotta work on that, but since Perry was instructing her under the guise of personal protection, not target shooting, the idea is to put the bad guy down and not put 3 in the “ten” ring. The Ruger is a nice little weapon for a girl, easily carried in a purse, but with the guy (I assume her husband) give him a man’s gun, a Glock 19 at least, or my preference, the Glock 20.

A Second Amendment guy, proficient at the shooting range, a nice foundation for any conservative platform. Perry is not there yet, some tweaking wrt his fundamentalism is needed, but there’s time to work on that.

I’m trying to picture in my mind Obama at the shooting range, hilarity would reign. If he shoots like he throws a baseball, maybe a squirt gun would be better.

96 comments

No ping yet

  1. Seattle Outcast says:

    Since Obama has nothing to run on this time around, expect “All Racism, All The Time” to be the theme.

    All you crackers out there are just a pack of racists, the only way to prove you aren’t is to vote for the black guy…

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

      
  2. CM says:

    some tweaking wrt his fundamentalism is needed, but there’s time to work on that.

    How does that work, other than just denying it?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  3. Rann says:

    Generally by pointing out that his ability to govern has more to it than “God told me to do it”, if “God told me to do it” ever entered into it in the first place. More than a few Republican politicians acknowledge that while they have strong beliefs on certain subjects, that it is not necessarily possible or prudent to attempt to force those beliefs through in some fashion.

    However, it is ultimately impossible to “tweak” his “fundamentalism”, as there’s been a PR spin decades in the making that has essentially made the words Republican and Fundamentalist interchangeable in the minds of many, and has moved on to adding Extremist to that list. Perry has actually been sued for merely attending a prayer meeting, by a group whose justification was basically “He shouldn’t be allowed to be religious! It’s wrong!”

    I’m sure Perry would find his time better suited to holding up the mirror to the multitude of bad policy and bad decisions made by his opponent than tilting at the windmill of “proving” he’s not Wacko Godboy Templar of Christland to, ahem, bitter atheists clutching their Darwin fish and copies of The God Delusion.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  4. Monolith says:

    some tweaking wrt his fundamentalism is needed, but there’s time to work on that.

    How does that work, other than just denying it?

    Hey look! CM’s taking an irrelevant point from the post to harp on for the rest of the thread. That never happens.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      
  5. Mook says:

    You’re absolutely right SO.. the Democrats are preparing to race-bait like hell in the coming Presidential election because they have nothing else to stand on. In fact it’s already started – Team Obama sent out attack dog Jesse Jackson a few days ago screaming that the Tea Party should be called “the Fort Sumter Tea Party that sought to maintain states’ rights and slavery.”

    It’s a despicable ploy, but many Dems who “want” to believe in Obama will fall for it.. The media will give credence to their lying premise that the Tea Party is racist, while refusing to discuss Rev. Wright or Obama’s DoJ coverup on black panther voter intimidation in Philadelphia.

    Like Congresswoman Maxine Walters last week about the Tea Party – We can go “straight to hell”

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  6. richtaylor365 says:

    How does that work, other than just denying it?

    George Bush, a pious and devote man of God himself, managed to avoid most “religious” pitfalls by being honest and upfront. Perry has to prepare himself for questions about abstinence teachings in sex ed. classes, about evolution and science, about AGW, even his stance on the death penalty will be scrutinized.

    Considering that this is still a center right nation and most Americans still believe in God, his religious views in of themselves will not put people off, but he will need to explain and defend them within the confines of that church/state separation.

    A savvy Christian could play right into the needs of the times, themes like a work ethic, individual responsibility, equal opportunities for all, all clear and defined biblical tenets. And there is even stuff there to hook your average progressive, things like taking care of the sick, poor, and needy, treating your neighbors like yourself, and being a good steward towards the planet, one of God’s greatest creations. Religious views can be an advantage or a detriment depending on how they are played.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  7. Kimpost says:

    It was a valid question. Instead of being an ass, why didn’t you follow Rann’s lead voicing your opinion?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

      
  8. Rann says:

    Considering that this is still a center right nation and most Americans still believe in God, his religious views in of themselves will not put people off, but he will need to explain and defend them within the confines of that church/state separation.

    This is true enough. I think Perry is very well-prepared from a standpoint of being able to do the job, but he currently seems ill-prepared to convince everyone else of his aptitude. (A common problem for many Republican candidates, whereas Democrat candidates flip those two. Obama being Exhibit A.)

    Religious views can be an advantage or a detriment depending on how they are played.

    Also true, another lesson Democrats have learned very well. Most savvy Democrat candidates tend to treat religion like they do the military or the private sector… as something convenient to snort at or decry when you need a certain kind of points, and a useful weapon to be wielded when you need a different sort of points.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  9. Rann says:

    I kinda have to agree with Kimpost. You know that Alex is probably the only person on the site more eager to kick CM in the ass than I am, but even I think this was a little ridiculous. Rich brought up something amidst making his other points, CM discussed that point. Other than diving into a discussion of the “criticism of Obama is racist” discussion again, there’s not a lot to hash out on the subject.

    Discussing Obama’s challenger’s fundamentalism or perception thereof is currently a valid topic of conversation, so just leave it be. If he starts pulling any of his other tricks, then feel free to smack him over it, but otherwise, let’s not turn this into yet another of those threads.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  10. CM says:

    Looks like Jackson read this Salon piece:
    http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/08/02/lind_tea_party

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  11. CM says:

    I don’t think a theory that all Republicans are tarred as fundamentalists (was McCain in the last election?) is relevant in this case. Perry IS a fundamentalist.

    More than a few Republican politicians acknowledge that while they have strong beliefs on certain subjects, that it is not necessarily possible or prudent to attempt to force those beliefs through in some fashion.

    Yep fair point. Haven’t heard Romney issuing a state decree to pray for rain!

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  12. CM says:

    he currently seems ill-prepared to convince everyone else of his aptitude.

    I think that’s the problem. Perry is firmly on record being anti-science. Not just with climate change, he also equates homosexuality with alcoholism.

    These are big bold no-compromise positions. Not really tweakable.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  13. CM says:

    What was the point of the post that we SHOULD be discussing instead Monolith? That the Obama campaign is looking for information about potential oponents? What is there to say about that? How is it even remotely a surprise at all? Why wouldn’t he be doing so?
    I think you’ve just outted yourself as a troll.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

      
  14. Mook says:

    AGW needs to be called out for the Anti-science dogma that it is and I think Perry is just the man for the job. Pro-science advocates need to point out that AGW is not science, it’s an unproven theory which is falling apart at the seams with computer models that won’t match measured temperatures and a growing string of frauds and cherry-picked manipulated data behind it. 600 degree temps in Lake Michigan!

    Perry needs to aggressively go after AGW cultists and tyrants pointing out the bullcrap that it is

    Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

      
  15. Rann says:

    Haven’t heard Romney issuing a state decree to pray for rain!

    The Prayer Police must be slacking off, then, because I haven’t had a visit from them to check that I have my bible handy and what its mileage re: rain is. (Pretty lucky, since I don’t have one.)

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  16. CM says:

    Which pro-science advocates? People who are pro-science tend to prefer science over ridiculous conspiracy and mass fraud narratives (i.e. your list of nonsense) which are irrational and illogical.

    Perry needs to aggressively go after AGW cultists and tyrants pointing out the bullcrap that it is

    I hope he does, that sure will be entertaining!

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4

      
  17. West Virginia Rebel says:

    Well, Romney is now apparently turning “crazy” on AGW. For my own part, I do think some of it is caused by people, but more of it is probably natural (the Sun has been pointed to as a partial cause) and I certainly don’t believe in nannystating or government-subsidized boondoggles as a solution.

    I really wish that this would be the year where gay rights, abstinence, and evolution, a non-issue if there ever was one, wouldn’t be on the Republican purity list, but unfortunately these are still regarded as part of the GOP litmus test for a “Real” conservative. My problem is when guys like Perry, who might otherwise be a decent candidate and even a good President, start pandering out of the sides of their mouths to this wing of the GOP base.
    West Virginia Rebel recently posted..Obama’s Katrina?My Profile

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  18. CM says:

    Well, Romney is now apparently turning “crazy” on AGW.

    Yep sad to see Romney backtracking. Just last month he said “I think it’s important for us to reduce our emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases that may well be significant contributors to the climate change and global warming that you’re seeing.”

    His position seems to be melting faster than Arctic ice. Now:

    “Do I think the world’s getting hotter? Yeah, I don’t know that but I think that it is,” he said. “I don’t know if it’s mostly caused by humans.”

    “What I’m not willing to do is spend trillions of dollars on something I don’t know the answer to.”

    Perhaps it’s his new slogan: “Vote for me. Why? I don’t know!”

    Hopeless.

    For my own part, I do think some of it is caused by people, but more of it is probably natural (the Sun has been pointed to as a partial cause) and I certainly don’t believe in nannystating or government-subsidized boondoggles as a solution.

    Well your opinion bears little relationship to the body of scientific knowledge on climate change which is very solid and gets stronger all the time. Is your opinion on the science affected by the last part of your sentence perhaps?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

      
  19. Mook says:

    Manns Hockey stick has been proven to be a scam and emails have shown that he manipulated the data to get the outcome he wanted. The polar bear scientist? Oh, he’s been suspended and under investigation for fraud in his studies.

    IPCC climate models are way off base in predictions of real-world climate data. The IPCC has had to make numorous admissions of false conclusions in their report because they knowingly used agenda driven environmental groups.

    Several of the 2,000 scientists that the IPCC says has signed on to their conclusions and participated in the study actually filed studies that were either neutral or in conflict with the IPCC studies and that the majority of the ones that did agree with it only agreed with small parts of the entire study.

    The American Academy of Sciences does not represent all scientists or ever a majority. Actually only about 20%

    The very idea that any definitive cause vs. effect of CO2 has been “proven” is absurd. Everything we find about the AGW scam indicates it is a massive fraud. Not just mistakes or honest error. Criminal fraud.

    I cannot see how honest people still assert that AGW is scientific. It’s anti-science cultism. That Perry is challenging their fraud demonstrates Pro-Science bonafides. Please stop peddling this anti-science fraud as anything that’s “proven”. It’s an unproven theory at best, likely outright fraud on a huge scale.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      
  20. CM says:

    Manns Hockey stick has been proven to be a scam and emails have shown that he manipulated the data to get the outcome he wanted.

    All nonsense. No fraud has been found. The hockey-stick has been joined by numerous others all showing the same thing. No fraud has been found. Where are you getting this all from? Denier blogs? Have you looked any further?

    The polar bear scientist? Oh, he’s been suspended and under investigation for fraud in his studies.

    Not true apparently.

    The United States Government says Arctic biologist Charles Monnett has been suspended over how he awarded a polar bear research project to the University of Alberta, not for his earlier scientific work detailing drowned polar bears.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10742539&ref=rss

    IPCC climate models are way off base in predictions of real-world climate data.

    The opposite is true.

    The IPCC has had to make numorous admissions of false conclusions in their report because they knowingly used agenda driven environmental groups.

    You’re just repeating garbage from a blog. There were no meaningful errors in the 2007 IPCC report. Some material from environmental groups was included (where there was no other information about specific areas) in the section of the report that looks at impacts and mitigation, but that’s completely different from the science-behind-climate-change section.

    Several of the 2,000 scientists that the IPCC says has signed on to their conclusions and participated in the study actually filed studies that were either neutral or in conflict with the IPCC studies and that the majority of the ones that did agree with it only agreed with small parts of the entire study.

    IPCC studies? There are no IPCC studies as such. The IPCC reports are an update of the latest science. Where did the IPCC claim that all scientists involved agreed with every part of it? In the end the report is extremely conservative, as it was written by groups and all within the group had to sign off.

    The American Academy of Sciences does not represent all scientists or ever a majority. Actually only about 20%

    Ok, sure.

    The very idea that any definitive cause vs. effect of CO2 has been “proven” is absurd..

    There is no mathematical proof, but we can say with a very high significance level that the effects we see in the climate cannot be attributed to any other forcings. Attempting to argue it’s caused by forcings that are physically impossible is absurd.

    Everything we find about the AGW scam indicates it is a massive fraud. Not just mistakes or honest error. Criminal fraud.

    Utter nonsense. It’s all simply a collection of accusations and inneundo.
    A fraud on that scale would also be logistically impossible.

    I cannot see how honest people still assert that AGW is scientific. It’s anti-science cultism.

    Given the strength of the science the only people indulging in fantasy and cultism are those who deny it all. It takes a tremendous amount of faith to believe that such a massive fraud (which would require a massive conspiracy) is even remotely possible. It’s irrational and illogical.

    That Perry is challenging their fraud demonstrates Pro-Science bonafides.

    Right.

    Please stop peddling this anti-science fraud as anything that’s “proven”. It’s an unproven theory at best, likely outright fraud on a huge scale.

    I never used the word proof. This isn’t a mathematical equation.
    Tell me, is there any other area of science (or life) where you side against 98% of experts in the field?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

      
  21. Mook says:

    IPCC studies? There are no IPCC studies as such.

    You should educate yourself before spouting off without a clue what you’re talking about.

    No. 4, December 2007

    The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) new Summary for Policymakers (SPM) of its Synthesis Report (SR) should be taken with several chunks of salt.[1] The summary itself is a political document that downplays assessments of uncertainty from the scientific reports written by the main body of the IPCC, which themselves are far more subjective than the IPCC would have one believe. Equally important, both the IPCC’s summaries and main reports omit much contrary evidence. In several cases, the SR disagrees with the reports on which it is based, and it fails to take account of cautionary publications in the scientific literature that were available early enough to have been incorporated into the SR.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  22. CM says:

    Perry:

    I think there are a substantial number of scientists who have manipulated data so that they will have dollars rolling into their projects.

    That’s an astonishing accusation for a public figure to make without proof, let alone evidence. Why has he not been asked to provide the proof/evidence?
    Anyone who knows actual scientists knows that they don’t do things for the money. Indeed, it’s quite safe to say very few become scientists if money is among the top things they are interested in. In fact, virtually nothing is more important to a scientist than his or her professional reputation, which can be maintained only by doing research that can be reproduced by others.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

      
  23. Mook says:

    There is no mathematical proof, but we can say with a very high significance level that the effects we see in the climate cannot be attributed to any other forcings.

    Any other ‘forcings’? Oh really? And you speak with such confidence as if you have knowledge about what you write.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

      
  24. Mook says:

    That’s an astonishing accusation for a public figure to make without proof, let alone evidence. Why has he not been asked to provide the proof/evidence?

    What are you talking about? Many/most pro-AGW “scientists” have published their studies based on grants or funding on the public’s dime or AGW biased sources. That ‘revelation’ is only astonishing to those who haven’t been paying attention to the funding sources. If public funds selectively choose pro-AGW “studies” over studies which contradict AGW, what could that mean, other than bias and fraud?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  25. CM says:

    Um, yeah, that confirms what I said. It’s a summary of the body of science. What you’ve linked to is about the summary of the summary.

    Why on earth would I “educate” myself about climate science by reading an obviously horribly biased right wing political blog? Or by reading what the American Enterprise Institute said in 2007 about a subject about which they have no inherent objectivity whatsoever?

    This sums it up nicely:

    The GOP is stampeding toward an absolutist rejection of climate science that appears unmatched among major political parties around the globe, even conservative ones.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

      
  26. CM says:

    Any other ‘forcings’? Oh really? And you speak with such confidence as if you have knowledge about what you write.

    Wow, could you written anything more meaningless?

    Tell me, is there any other area of science (or life) where you side against 98% of experts in the field?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

      
  27. Mook says:

    Um, yeah, that confirms what I said

    No it doesn’t, it directly contradicts what you said. Here is what you wrote verbatim

    IPCC studies? There are no IPCC studies as such

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  28. CM says:

    You need to establish:

    1. That “public funds selectively choose pro-AGW “studies” over studies which contradict AGW”.
    2. That “pro-AGW studies” are fraudulent.

    Much like Perry you seem to working backwards from your already-determined opinion and fear of what it means.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  29. Mook says:

    Sun’s solar activity, to name one? Since you claim there are no other “forcings” which could effect the earth’s climate. That example is enough to discredit your claim.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  30. CM says:

    The IPCC reports summarise studies (the body of scientific research). They don’t undertake their own research/studies. There are no IPCC studies as such.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

      
  31. Rann says:

    Anyone who knows actual scientists knows that they don’t do things for the money.

    haha oh wow

    Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

      
  32. CM says:

    This is what I wrote:

    …the effects we see in the climate cannot be attributed to any other forcings.

    I thought it was blatantly obvious, but when I say “the effects” in that statement I’m referring to the effects beyond natural variation.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  33. CM says:

    Ok bad wording – they don’t become scientists for money is what I meant. Sorry.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  34. Mook says:

    You need to establish:

    1. That “public funds selectively choose pro-AGW “studies” over studies which contradict AGW”.

    I can’t definitively “prove” it, but I can demonstrate that that’s likely what’s happening now

    Easterbrook said most of the federal funds so far have been spent on what he terms “political science,” which aims to find a manmade cause of global warming when there are any number of ways to investigate the causes of temperature change. These are political motivations rather than purely scientific reasons, he said.

    Government funds approved for predetermined conclusions

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  35. HARLEY says:

    Yes, she jerked the trigger, gotta work on that, but since Perry was instructing her under the guise of personal protection, not target shooting, the idea is to put the bad guy down and not put 3 in the “ten” ring. The Ruger is a nice little weapon for a girl, easily carried in a purse, but with the guy (I assume her husband) give him a man’s gun, a Glock 19 at least, or my preference, the Glock 20.

    we we really need a good ol gunpost to REALLY get the dander up here.
    I prefer a 1911, the 230grn hollowpoints speak with authority.
    Then again, would consider this.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  36. Mook says:

    Some scientists, perhaps most, do it for the money for sure. What do you mean that no scientist it for the money? Please cite your source as you are prone to insist of others. Of COURSE many do it for the money and you’re a fool to believe otherwise.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  37. CM says:

    You believe that a quote from a geologist professor in an awful Fox News story equates to a demonstration that it’s “likely what’s happening now”? Sorry, but you need to do a hell of a lot better than that.
    What you’ve got is money being poured into scientific study of our planet and it’s climate. But because the results always come back re-confirming a theory that you don’t like, you (and others) simply try to pretend that it works backwards. Sure it’s a narrative, but if you have no evidence, it’s meaningless and just makes you look crazy.

    Easterbrook is the guy who claimed that global cooling would start in 2001. Of course, nothing of the sort has happened.

    Easterbrook is not just wrong, he is playing fast and loose with the data. He was caught red-handed using a doctored graph in a 2007 conference (see http://bit.ly/goEkd3) and in subsequent articles and talks. Easterbrook not only edited these graphics to change the information they contained, but did so in order to minimize the evidence of recent global warming. This is, at the very least, academic malpractice. More recently (12/28/10) he incorrectly labeled a graph of temperatures for the previous 10,000 years to claim that most of these years were warmer than present. His “current temperature” was really 1855 and not the much warmer present day. He was notified of his mistake but refuses to issue a retraction (see http://bit.ly/dW6BOk). A good scientist corrects and learns from mistakes, but this seems foreign to Easterbrook

    http://sciblogs.co.nz/hot-topic/2011/01/15/don-easterbrook%E2%80%99s-academic-dishonesty/

    Ironic that this is a guy you’re relying on when you claim that others are engaged in fraud.

    There’s no shortage of ‘climate science research money’ available from industry groups. If anyone could come up with science that started undoing all the overlapping strands of AGW theory they’d be given all the funding they needed and more. If scientists wanted to get rich, that’s what they’d do.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

      
  38. Mook says:

    Another pet peeve of mine is the type of people claiming to be AGW “scientists”. Many/most have degrees in fields such as statistics or biology with no background in applied physics, and little or no “real world” experience outside of their govt. paycheck. Most are making money extrapolating data with insufficient scientific explanations as to how and why they arrive at their extrapolations. It’s bullcrap on a massive scale

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      
  39. CM says:

    http://halfdone.files.wordpress.com/2007/03/usb-cannon-beauty-shot.jpg

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  40. CM says:

    Scientists get into science for the money? I’ve never heard that accusation of any scientist other than those involved in climate science – why is that?

    Anyway, it’s your narrative and you’re free to believe it if you like. If you’ve got evidence I’d love to see it. Even that by itself wouldn’t prove anything.

    Again, you need to establish:
    1. That “public funds selectively choose pro-AGW “studies” over studies which contradict AGW”.
    2. That “pro-AGW studies” are fraudulent.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

      
  41. Mook says:

    Ironic that this is a guy you’re relying on when you claim that others are engaged in fraud.

    I’m not relying “solely” on Easterbrook as my previous posts demonstrate, although I think he’s far more credible than the charlatans who are pushing the AGW fraud

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  42. CM says:

    Another pet peeve of mine is the type of people claiming to be AGW “scientists”.

    Can you provide some examples?

    Many/most have degrees in fields such as statistics or biology with no background in applied physics, and little or no “real world” experience outside of their govt. paycheck.

    The anti-govt thing is shining through again I see. You do realise that when you keep saying it, but you have no evidence to support any of what you say, it comes across as a pure ideological narrative?

    Most are making money extrapolating data with insufficient scientific explanations as to how and why they arrive at their extrapolations.

    How much money are they making? Does extrapolating climate science data make them more money than they’d get in any other area of science? Working as a scientists for private industry (e.g. the oil industry) would pay less?

    It’s bullcrap on a massive scale

    So far you’ve not been able to support anything you’ve claimed.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

      
  43. CM says:

    Who else are you relying on to demonstrate that it’s all fraud?

    Where is the evidence that Mann has engaged in fraud?

    Again, you’re providing nothing other than an unsupported narrative.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

      
  44. Mook says:

    How much money are they making? Does extrapolating climate science data make them more money than they’d get in any other area of science?

    Too much, much more than other areas of science thanks to the politicization of AGW

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      
  45. richtaylor365 says:

    Curious, just wondering if I wrote a post about which breed of dog licks his balls more, or the propensity of chimpanzees to use the same finger to both scratch his butt and pick his teeth, if somehow these could get turned around and massaged into another AGW discussion. Not complaining, mind you, I’m glad CM found someone else to play with in that sand box, if he is happy then I’m happy, carry on.

    we we really need a good ol gunpost to REALLY get the dander up here.
    I prefer a 1911, the 230grn hollowpoints speak with authority.

    Much like the brand of whiskey you drink, we each have our favorites, and present company also plays a role in what we bring out. I know Browning guys, H&K guys, even S&W guys (talk about obstinate) but nothing says simplicity and reliability like a Glock.

    Some things in life every father needs to teach his son; the two elements needed for proper sight alignment, how to drink scotch, and how to unsnap a bra with one hand (without her knowing it).

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      
  46. Mook says:

    Where is the evidence that Mann has engaged in fraud?

    Fraud. Willful manipulation of the data. It’s been well established.. It’s dishonest of you to pretend otherwise. Same info from MANY other sources beyond that link

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

      
  47. CM says:

    You link doesn’t provide information what the vast bulk of climate scientists earn. Only “university lecturers and professors” and postsecondary public sector atmospheric, earth, marine, and space sciences teachers. Where are the actual climate scientists? What a terribly misleading piece that is (as pointed out in the comments section).

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  48. CM says:

    Rubbish. I’m well aware of the accusation. It only exists on political blogs. There’s a good reason that nobody reputable in the science community pays it any attention, and that’s not because of conspiracy, it’s because the accusations have no merit.
    The Hockey Stick and Mann have been independently investigated and vindicated more times ( 3 in the U.K., 2 by Penn State, the EPA, the NOAA IG) than any other facet of climate science or any other climate scientist.
    The most recent (last week): http://www.nsf.gov/oig/search/A09120086.pdf

    Recent Studies Vindicating the Hockey Stick:
    1.Temperatures of North Atlantic “are unprecedented over the past 2000 years and are presumably linked to the Arctic amplification of global warming” — Science (2011)
    2.GRL (2010): “We conclude that the 20th century warming of the incoming intermediate North Atlantic water has had no equivalent during the last thousand years.“
    3.JGR (2010): “The last decades of the past millennium are characterized again by warm temperatures that seem to be unprecedented in the context of the last 1600 years.”
    4.Human-caused Arctic warming overtakes 2,000 years of natural cooling, “seminal” study finds (2009)
    5.Unprecedented warming in Lake Tanganyika and its impact on humanity (2010)

    On the other hand, here’s a detailed look at how accurate Don Easterbrook’s prediction was. It’s awe-uninspiring.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

      
  49. CM says:

    ;-)
    All dogs lick their dogs more than they used to because they get more sweaty with the increase in temperatures. As climate change reduces the food availability for chimpanzees a high proportion are increasingly using the same hand to supplement the shortfall.

    It is actually vaguely relevant as climate change is a litmus test for politicians and Perry is about as extreme as it gets. His fundamentalism probably wouldn’t let him have any other possible stance on the issue, irrespective what the strength of the evidence was. The strength of the evidence is more than likely irrelevant to him, as it is to many people who live their life according to a rigid ideology. The more rigid the ideology, the more they strive to make things fit it (rather than adjust their thinking).

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

      
  50. Mississippi Yankee says:

    ANNND… the topic is changed Surprise Face here!

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      
  51. Mississippi Yankee says:

    HARLEY, although not an auto have you seen this .357.

    Chiappa Rhino

    ” Wimmins could shoot this gun”

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  52. hist_ed says:

    AAAAAAARRRRRRGHHHHHHH!!!!! CLIMATE CHANGE DEBATE!!! FUUUUUUUUUCCCCCKKKKKK!!!!!!!

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

      
  53. hist_ed says:

    You’re just compensating for the size of your penis. Real men with large dicks shoot .22.

    Uhhh, but seriously, have you seen this: http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/7866

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  54. CM says:

    Instead of ‘climate change’ perhaps we should call it Voldemort.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  55. CM says:

    Quick run away run away! Burn the scientists with the Keynesians! Pray, let us get back to what Michelle Obama is wearing!

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

      
  56. Mississippi Yankee says:

    That “big boned” woman is on va-ca and might be in a swimsuit. I don’t need to see that sh*t. Eye bleach is at a premium in Mississippi this time of year.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  57. HARLEY says:

    After the shitty attitude the importer MKS gave to customers about Chipppa’s plans to put RFD tags inside the guns, im not so inclined to gt one.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  58. Mississippi Yankee says:

    Thanks for the heads up.
    The condescending press release was typical European arrogance.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  59. HARLEY says:

    Ill have to read that later, but yes shot placement is truly key, as is the ability of the bullet to decelerate and deliver maximum kinetic energy to the target. The article doesnt seem to indicate, in its data, the difference between FMJ’s or hollowpoints….. it refers to it, but doenst seem to break down which is more effective.
    I just prefer the 45. a good solid hit, makes a nice big hole that is difficult to patch up quickly.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  60. HARLEY says:

    Much like the brand of whiskey you drink, we each have our favorites, and present company also plays a role in what we bring out. I know Browning guys, H&K guys, even S&W guys (talk about obstinate) but nothing says simplicity and reliability like a Glock.

    I have no problems with Glocks, though i find the Glock fans to be a tad, obtuse.LOL
    NOW if you really want obstinate, Sig Whores, like my buddy, can really get annoying.
    Personally i like the Glock, and am looking to get a G 22 some time soon, but i really like my Springfield XD 9mm tactical.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  61. sahrab says:

    You do realize your entire argument, in regards to the thread subject, is as substantive as a “Grammar Nazi?”

    So he said study, instead of report on a study. The gist of his point was still valid. Wonder why you didnt address that¿

    Instead of sitting in the corner laughing like beavis while jacking off to frog porn, because you “Just showed them”, why dont you add something to the discussion instead of arguing over meaningless points so you can falsely inflate your feeling of self worth¿

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

      
  62. Mook says:

    Michael “hide the decline” Mann.

    Global temperatures declining since 1998 although man-made CO2 levels rose? No problem, just “smooth out” data which doesn’t fit the narrative and claim that it’s science.. and on and on it goes

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  63. sahrab says:

    I’m with you, except i prefer a Sig. I dont, nor never have, liked the Glocks, maybe due to having larger hands, but they never feel comfortable when shooting them.

    Now give me a HK USP Expert in .45, with the double stack magazine, talk about a beefy friggin gun. But with 13 rounds (12+1) it is noticably heavier

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  64. Rann says:

    Okay, seriously, do you never get tired of looping everything back to the same damn topic?

    You can’t even blame Alex this time!

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  65. sahrab says:

    Sig Whores, like my buddy, can really get annoying

    Damn should have read ahead before posting

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  66. Mook says:

    Easterbrook’s predictions don’t look any worse than those of the IPCC It’s really quite straightforward – temperatures that IPCC predicted to continue trending upwards have failed to cooperate with the computer models.. in fact, they’re below the lowest-end of even the most conservative of their predictions.

    If science and facts mattered, AGW cultists would have been marginalized already.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  67. richtaylor365 says:

    I realize the protagonists don’t need any impetus from me, but, ah oh, it appears the science is not settled after all.

    This has significant implications for climate science because water vapour and clouds play a large role in determining global temperatures. Tiny changes in overall cloud cover can result in relatively large temperature changes.

    ——–

    Climate models will have to be revised, confirms CERN in supporting literature (pdf):

    “[I]t is clear that the treatment of aerosol formation in climate models will need to be substantially revised, since all models assume that nucleation is caused by these vapours [sulphuric acid and ammonia] and water alone.

    The work involves over 60 scientists in 17 countries.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  68. Rann says:

    Okay, seriously, could we get like… a pinned topic on the front page that just says “CLIMATE CHANGE” in the subject and the body consists of nothing but “All climate change discussion goes here”? And then make making more than a single comment about climate change in any other topic a bannable offense?

    Because god dammit…

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  69. hist_ed says:

    I hear ya’. Big holes are better than small holes, all other things being equal. Alas, for me, all other things aren’t. I take a realistic view of my shooting skills and like the idea of at least 15 rounds in a gun (one of these days I am going to get a Kel Tec .22 mag with the 30 round clip-bet I can shoot 5 rounds of that as fast and more accurately than 2 9mm or .45). Though punching 7 or 8 .33 holes in a single shot is my number one preference for stopping something.

    I just gotta practice more. No time, no time . . .

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  70. HARLEY says:

    Now give me a HK USP Expert in .45, with the double stack magazine, talk about a beefy friggin gun. But with 13 rounds (12+1) it is noticably heavier

    SWEET……………………………………

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  71. HARLEY says:

    (one of these days I am going to get a Kel Tec .22 mag with the 30 round clip

    I so want one of those so bad, but right now KEL-TEC, has recalled them all to replace the barrels, with a different twist rate, the old ones were key-holing , and KEL-TEC did not what that to tarnish their rep.
    I would not rely of the PMR-30 as a primary self defense weapon, but as a back-up or a for the hell of it s gun , i would have to say , fuck yeah.
    I got 1,100 rounds of 22 mag waitingfor the day i get one of those babys..

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  72. HARLEY says:

    No worries man , im a bit of a Ruger , 1911, and AR whore…

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  73. HARLEY says:

    agree..
    BTW is it Climate change or global warming?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  74. Mississippi Yankee says:

    The most fun hand gun I own is a FN 5.7. It comes with three 20 round clips and the after-market 30 rnd clips are just as reliable. 5.7X28mm.
    The hollow point ammo runs a little higher though.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  75. hist_ed says:

    I can’t do DA only in an auto. I am fine in a revolver (I love shooting old school .38s), but there is some psycho-block-if it is an auto loader.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  76. hist_ed says:

    I so want one of those so bad, but right now KEL-TEC, has recalled them all to replace the barrels, with a different twist rate, the old ones were key-holing , and KEL-TEC did not what that to tarnish their rep.

    Shit, hadn’t heard of that. I am also jonesing for their 14 round 12 g. Or maybe a Saiga. Dammit I just need maybe, 5 or 6 more guns. You’d think my wife would understand. The zombies might be coming and they are a great inflation hedge. Higher priority than diapers anyway.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  77. hist_ed says:

    Much like the brand of whiskey you drink

    Fuckin’ A Laphroaig is it. All the rest is nice, but it’s just baby scotch.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  78. hist_ed says:

    It’s Global warming when its getting hotter. It’s climate change when its getting cooler or staying the same.

    Really thought, when in history hasn’t the climate changed? And what is the optimum temperature of the Earth?

    Ohhhhhhhhhh FUUUUUUUUCKKKKKK OHHHHH SHIIIIIITTTTTTT GODAMMMITTTT CUNT MOTHERFUCLER!!! CLIMAAAAAAATTTTEEEE CHAAAAANNNNGEEEEEE GLOBAAAAAAALLLL WARMIIIIIINNNNGGGG
    FUUUUUUUUUUCCCCCCKKKK!!!!!

    Oh yeah, if you look at history. Generally, warmer is better for us humans. Just a thought.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  79. HARLEY says:

    Yeah they sound like a riot to shoot.
    What i REALLY want is the Sagia 12 shotgun that is converted to a SBS.
    Missouri gun laws change at teh end of the month , so that all i have to do is pay the federal Tax Stamp on the SBS, and its all mine.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  80. HARLEY says:

    Shit, hadn’t heard of that. I am also jonesing for their 14 round 12 g. Or maybe a Saiga. Dammit I just need maybe, 5 or 6 more guns. You’d think my wife would understand. The zombies might be coming and they are a great inflation hedge. Higher priority than diapers anyway.

    Same thing here, but my wife doesn’t seem to understand my logic.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  81. HARLEY says:

    Hmm that is very odd.. oh well more guns for me…

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  82. HARLEY says:

    we basically only have 2 options, warmer or cooler.
    I prefer the warmer,longer growing sessions more varied weather, not freezing my ass off…

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  83. HARLEY says:

    makers mark, or Bushmills… jack or Jim in a pinch.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  84. HARLEY says:

    Story on the recall.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  85. hist_ed says:

    I likes me some Maker’s. Can’t drink Irish though. Makes me barf. Probably me English Imperialist ancestors. Jack rocks, but Old Grandad is my favorite bourbon.

    It all pales though, behind real scotch. I’ll sell my soul for a nice little Lapgroiag spigot in my kitchen. Nectar. Liquid gold. Smokey sunshine. Ahhhhhhhhhhhh.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  86. CM says:

    Wonder why you didnt address that¿

    He’d need to provide some examples.

    why dont you add something to the discussion instead of arguing over meaningless points so you can falsely inflate your feeling of self worth¿

    You need to be aiming that at the people making unfounded (or proven false) accusations and insinuations.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  87. CM says:

    Mook, the only people you’re fooling with that are those who aren’t paying attention. Climate isn’t determined by three or four years of temperatures (2006-2008). That’s pure cherry-picking. Nobody who knows anything about climate knows that the increase in temperature isn’t going to be linear. Three years don’t invalidate a linear tend line not scheduled to end until 2030.

    IPCC Report 1990 [1]:

    “Based on the IPCC Business as Usual scenarios, the energy-balance upwelling diffusion model with best judgement parameters yields estimates of global warming from pre-industrial times (taken to be 1765) to the year 2030 between 1.3°C and 2.8?C, with a best estimate of 2 0°C This corresponds to a predicted rise from 1990 of 0.7-1.5°C with a best estimate of 1.1C. ” My bold.

    Fig 1 clearly shows that temperatures are rising and the data is entirely consistent with the IPCC predictions.

    See also:
    http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Nature/rahmstorf_etal_science_2007.pdf

    The models by the IPCC are more accurate than anything that the “deniers” have modeled for.

    You’re just going to skip over Easterbrook’s fraud though I see.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  88. CM says:

    Sorry Rann but if you look closely you’ll find that I very rarely start the discussion.
    One of the reasons I do find them interesting thought is that the topic is a key litmus test for conservatives/liberatarians. It provides an indication of whether they their political beliefs are able to adapt to science, evidence, reality, etc, or whether they simply hold rigid dogmatic ideological views and reject everything that doesn’t suit.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  89. CM says:

    Look at what the actual science says about all that. It ain’t good. The negative impacts of global warming on agriculture, health, economy and environment far outweigh any positives.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  90. HARLEY says:

    more fear mongering… mankind did well in a more primitive state.
    yes there are consequences, but a return to a new ice age, would be horrifying.

    besides Who are you or anyone to say that this climate that we are experiencing, is the correct one?..
    Its frigging joke.
    now i have no problem with switching out coal for nuclear power and reducing our overall carbon footprint, but i am opposed to radical changes in our economic and social system that the nutzso are calling for.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  91. Mook says:

    The models by the IPCC are more accurate than anything that the “deniers” have modeled for.

    Hilariously ignorant statement, but one that the AGW cultists tend to repeat – the “deniers” aren’t claiming that they can predict climate.. they claim that AGW “science” is unproven bullcrap. They don’t NEED a model because they aren’t the ones making extraordinary claims and predictions.. too many unaccounted for variables in the AGW models, which is why they’ve been demonstrable failures to predict temperatures.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  92. hist_ed says:

    Liberals/socialists are, of course, ideologically flexible in all circumstances, adapting only practical solutions to the world’s problems.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  93. CM says:

    Right, the deniers don’t need to be accurate, they adhere to no standards (let alone professional) whatsoever. The can cherry-pick all day long (you’re not going to address that at all?). They don’t need to publish anything when they can put it on a blog.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  94. CM says:

    You’ve outted yourself well and truly with your 1998 claim. Nobody considering this issue objectively engages in such obvious cherry-picking.

    Like Hal says in the other thread, you’ve clearly not understood what Mann actually did and why it was meaningless.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  95. CM says:

    I claimed no such thing. I’m sure there are similar litmus tests for liberals/socialists.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  96. CM says:

    How exactly is it fear-mongering Harley?
    What is the relevance of ‘primitive state’? Why would we actively choose to make our lives significantly more difficult?
    Who is advocating that a “return to a new ice age” as an alternative?

    besides Who are you or anyone to say that this climate that we are experiencing, is the correct one?..

    Considering how everything about our society is structured, the climate we’ve been experiencing over the last 100 or 150 years would obviously be the optimal one. Not sure what you mean by ‘correct’.

    but i am opposed to radical changes in our economic and social system that the nutzso are calling for

    Can you give us some examples?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      

Comments have been disabled.