«

»

Weekend Roundup

As of tonight, I am on the other side of the world. Actually, most people would say I blog like someone on from a completely different world. But in this case, it’s literally true: I’m back in Australia. As a result of preparations and travel, I’ve missed the biggest news stories of the week. So I’ll go through them quickly in a weekend roundup form to hopefully start a few (well-reasoned) fights.

….

First, Indiana became the latest right-to-work state over fierce labor union opposition. Ever so slowly, the unions are losing their grip on power. Watch out for Mitch Daniels come 2016. That guy has President written all over him.

….

Eric Holder continues to lower the bar for attorneys general. His latest statement is that he will crack down on Operation Fast and Furious. Actually, he will crack down on OFF whistleblowers. This man’s allegiance to government power should be a much bigger story.

….

The latest jobs report is out. Not only did job creation numbers blow by expectations, but December and November numbers were revised upward. All told, 300k jobs were added in multiple sectors, including manufacturing, and the unemployment rate is down to 8.3%. It’s been many years since we had a jobs report that solid.

Now, the total unemployment number — which accounts for people who have given up looking for work — has only fallen a little. But it has fallen … a little. This is ceasing to be a blip and starting to look like a resurgence. It’s not near strong enough. But it’s hopeful. We’ll know things are really getting better when job creation numbers rise and the unemployment rate also rises. That will tell us when people are rejoining the labor force.

….

I don’t have a lot of interest in the spat between the Komen Foundation and Planned Parenthood over the former pulling funding from the latter because of abortion, then reversing that decision. I do however, think Josh Barro has a legitimate point: Planned Parenthood supporters need to quit pretending that abortion is only incidental to PP’s mission and function. They are one of the largest abortion providers in the nation, it is a huge part of their budget and anyone who has been to a clinic can not but notice how big a part abortion is of what they do.

The Planned Parenthood defenders are throwing out a statistic that abortions are only 3% of Planned Parenthood’s services. That may be literally true, but it’s comparing apples to watermelons. An abortion is a far more involved and expensive procedure than a breast cancer screening or a birth control consultation. By way of illustration, a surgeon may do see a patient ten times for follow-up of a single surgical procedure. But only an idiot would claim that surgery is only 10% of what a surgeon does.

People who support Planned Parenthood do so, in part, because of their abortion services. If Planned Parenthood ended abortions tomorrow, their support would shrink, at least a little. You can not both support Planned Parenthood because someone needs to provide abortions and then turn around and claim abortion is only a small part of what they do. Agreeing with this doesn’t make you pro-life or anti-woman or anti-choice or even anti-Planned-Parenthood. It makes you connected with reality.

….

Finally, the CBO released their latest projection, which is for a $1.1 trillion deficit this year (believe it or not, that’s down by several hundred billion from the peak) and more trillions over the next decade. They also project that the economy will weaken as tax hikes and spending cuts kick in. Color me very skeptical on that last part. The CBOs models are rigged a certain way. And that way is of dubious accuracy.

80 comments

No ping yet

  1. HARLEY says:

    some more on Fast and Furious…

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  2. Poosh says:

    Fast and what now?

    Not a word about this over the pond…..

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  3. Poosh says:

    CBS just told me employment is getting peachy in the US.
    Poosh recently posted..DAVID MITCHELL IS ACTUALLY A COMPLETE MORONMy Profile

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  4. hohokiss says:

    I got a temp job updating/troubleshooting networks and infrastructure in local US govt offices that highly paid “professionals” installed over decades. They got $20-$30/hr, I get $12, pre-tax, as a measly subcontractor. Oh, and “bring your own tools” Its quite frankly the worst quality in workmanship and ethics I’ve seen anywhere on earth, Nigeria included.
    Not a single cable is run straight or labeled properly, theres permanent persistent flood damage caused by bad ceilings and bad management, etc. The “cardboard ethic” is what Euros call the generic quick fix made in USA, “lets gob it together out of cardboard and screw it, we’re outta here, off to McDonalds for lunch. Heres yer ‘warranty’ pal hahahahahahahahahahahaahah”

    It could be fixed, but that would take some real time, money and dedication. Good Luck finding any of that anymore, pal hahahahahahahahahah

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5

      
  5. Seattle Outcast says:

    It’s called “good enough for government work”, and that’s what you get for your tax dollars.

    Go ahead, try and fire one of those incompetent bastards. In ten years they’ll still be working there, with a raise….

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  6. Section8 says:

    Someone has nothing better to do than flame the USA, yet refuses to leave apparently. Either he’s too stupid to know how, or no one else will take him. Hoho reminds me of Forest Gump. Claims to have done everything, but comes across as too dumb to tie his own shoe, much less provide anything of substance.

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

      
  7. Section8 says:

    Also over the weekend, Apparently the UN’s Responsibility to Protect doesn’t really matter regarding Syrians. I’m guessing pro UN supporters are outraged at the double standard and selective foreign policy. Just like they’re pissed about reports out of Haiti where UN officials have abused the citizens, including chiid rape, or the fact that the UN refuses to take a hint of responsibly for the cholera that was spread there through UN mismanagement. Just as long as they don’t piss on some dead Taliban I suppose..

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  8. Kimpost says:

    The UN fails the Syrians because of the failure of the security council, and their veto powers. If it were up to me there would be no veto. I would take it away from all members. Not just from Russia and China, but for US too. My guess is that most countries would agree, except for those with veto powers. Fucking hypocrites, the lot of them.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  9. CM says:

    Agreed Kimpost. It’s ridiculous.
    It is one of the issues being looked at in terms of reform.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reform_of_the_United_Nations_Security_Council#Veto_reform

    Can’t see them giving it up.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  10. Section8 says:

    Ok, but who vetoed this time around regarding Syria? We won’t see thousands of comments in this thread regarding how China and Russia fucked up, we’ll see the whole fucked up. Why? Personally, I don’t think shit should be done over there, but that’s just my opinion, America, France and Britain are all for it apparently. Can we get a fucking Russia and China out of it? Or is it only fucked up America when the time comes they vote or don’t vote for a certain item?

    And how about Haiti (and this is only one example)? I think spreading disease and not owning up to it, as well as citizen abuse, including child rape is a problem don’t you? Why it should make the allies question why they’d want to be a part of such organization don’t you think?

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

      
  11. Seattle Outcast says:

    The only way the UN can be reformed is by just getting rid of it; it generally serves no useful purpose and sucks up money like Paris Hilton on a shopping spree. When it does do something useful it is by sheer accident.

    On a regular basis it gives us such winners as the fully-discredited and entirely embarrassing IPCC, a forum for dictators and nutjobs to give speeches, troops that engage in rape when they aren’t generally being useless, retarded tax plans to be used for “global governance”, a push for world-wide gun control, and the forthcoming push for an envirotard dictatorship to promote “sustainability”.

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

      
  12. hohokiss says:

    Someone has nothing better to do than flame the USA, yet refuses to leave apparently

    Where in yer Constitution does it say “love it or leave it as per Section8, proud American patriot, everyone else is just homos and colored people needing to STFU and/or leave”? Do show me sometime in your preciously scant leisure time.
    The topic here is unemployment, not you and Forrest Gump. The US economy is in the shitter, 100% justifiably so – its attitude snide and cynical, the quality of its work abysmal, and if it were legal I would, in fact, take some pics of this absolute garbage I’m having to fix for a pittance to upload and then gloat over online. A la:
    “Laws be damned, screw them, eh.”
    “Screw you. Take yer Commie ways and fuck off to Russia already”
    Theres no excuse for such crud, and it needs to be mentioned. This is a free country.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6

      
  13. Section8 says:

    Amen SO

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  14. Section8 says:

    Where in yer Constitution does it say “love it or leave it as per Section8, proud American patriot, everyone else is just homos and colored people needing to STFU and/or leave”?

    It doesn’t say love it or leave it, but based on the rules as a whole it gives you the right to leave if you are so unhappy, genius. I’ll stick by my too stupid comment, as you’ve demonstrated justification for it with that response. As far as throwing race and sexual preference, I disagree with your assertion that gays and minorities inherently hate this country, but if that belief suits you that’s fine. Seems like you’re stereotyping though. Gays and minorities, simply a tool for people like you when you run out of arguments. Standard procedure, and pathetic.

    The topic(s) by the way are numerous subjects in the weekend round up, you chose to post how you got a job (congratulations), and then proceeded to bitch about it. Waste of time. Perhaps demonstrate your ignorance and bitterness elsewhere.

    Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

      
  15. hohokiss says:

    Theres this saying “If it looks like shit, smells like shit, and feels like shit …” and this pertains to the current job I hold. Thing is, I’m the youngest guy in the bunch by 3 years and all the old timers can’t wait to tell me how I’m in a world shit. How nothings like it used to be. Of course, their experiences in telecom are automatically better than anything I could have ever done cuz – they just are. Thats where their bitching about Obama and sundry minorities comes in.
    Thing is a lot of this crap workmanship was perped during the Bush years so theres no excuse, beings how “Excuses are like assholes..” etc

    So instead of looking for a real job maybe I should opt for disability. Thats what this sad circus smells like. We already gave at church. And I have you as the automatic authority on most things, having declared me insane etc. on right-thinking. Thats pretty darn official.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

      
  16. Seattle Outcast says:

    I personally don’t think you’ve ever held a job that didn’t come with a paper hat and a nametag — your prose comes off as that of a college student attempting to act older and more experienced.

    Also, if you act in real life the way to do online you’d be fired the first day from anyplace that wasn’t ACORN.

    Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

      
  17. Miguelito says:

    hoho reminds me a lot of my Aunt, who’s essentially the family black sheep.

    She’s never held a job for even 2 years AFAIK (She’s 50 I believe) and was always fired. It was, of course, NEVER her fault. Always someone out to get her, someone made her the fall guy/gal, someone else was threatened by her genius, whatever. A few years ago she started having vision problems and kept refusing to see a doctor, despite my grandparents (they’re big enablers of hers) offering to even pay to keep her from having major issues. Eventually she finally goes, now it’s too late and she’s classified as legally blind. She was, and I shit you not, giddy at the prospect of actually having a real excuse to get disability and never have to worry about working again.

    I think I actually worked more in my life by the time I hit 30 then she has even to this day. Never was a home maker either so that’s not why.

    I swear she milks the hell out of her vision issues too. She acts like she can barely see enough to walk around, tries to get people to help her and and gets out of doing much of anything. Yet magically can see things on the TV or when someone hands her something she wants. Everyone sees it too… except the grandparents of course. Who still believe she drinks “water” in her glass all the time.

    I have a co-worker to recently moved to take over our Texas office’s IT work and he’s been legally blind due to glaucoma for something like 15 years. He can’t drive (I used to give him rides nearly every day since he lived right along my route), can only see enough to work due to using large monitors with huge fonts and high contrast settings, and he’s one of the hardest workers in the group.

    2 sides of the same coin.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  18. hohokiss says:

    You come across exactly as advertised (here and abroad).

    What I would like to see is arguments on various topics, without the bullshit. By bullshit I mean namecalling, feigned innocence, 50 comments a day, etc. THIS GOES FOR AUTHORS AS WELL. Stop picking fights with commenters.
    Just, I don’t know, in general, for everyone: STOP BEING SUCH UNBELIEVABLE CUNTS ALL THE GODDAMNED TIME. Is that really so fucking hard?

    Aye, I sure hate to bring it up anon, but this just like a commenter is typically treated over at youtube all the goddamned time, as well. Dislike a video and respond to it critically/negatively, as youtube explicitly encourages and supports (and users signed their noble names under in agreement)

    We’re not asking for the kind of respect reserved for nuns, the elderly, and brain surgeons. We mean don’t abuse the site. We encourage free speech and defend everyone’s right to express unpopular points of view. But we don’t permit hate speech (speech which attacks or demeans a group based on race or ethnic origin, religion, disability, gender, age, veteran status, and sexual orientation/gender identity).

    and immediately the all-American jihad goes off with virtually nothing but generic, vulgar putdowns, name-calling and racist remarks in “defense” of their idols and rich culture; it just don’t cotton to no stinking gay rules when it comes to heavy metal mania, #$%^& eh. gobless Umurka!

    I’m talking about the shit job market and attitudes in the US, boss men acting like rank amateurs, they don’t have proper tools, skills or equipment or etiquette to run their jobs, don’t communicate, call people back, don’t lead from the front… the list goes on. But what do I know – Umurka offers a $10/hr job, could we bring our own tools, own car, oh, and the commute is 2x 88 miles per day, no per diem, overtime or gas allowance, mind you. Times are just tough, thanks to Obama.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

      
  19. hohokiss says:

    hoho reminds me a lot of my Aunt, who’s essentially the family black sheep.

    She’s never held a job for even 2 years AFAIK (She’s 50 I believe) and was always fired. It was, of course, NEVER her fault. Always someone out to get her, someone made her the fall guy/gal, someone else was threatened by her genius, whatever

    lol Aye, thats my work history right there. Americans laugh at them sissy Masters Certificates that take ca. 7 years to obtain in, say, sissy old socialist Germany – 3 year apprenticeships, journeymens exams, masters schools. Can’t open a bidness w/o one over in Commieland. Hell, Bubba go to Home Depot and buy hisself a wrench an’ hes a plumbing professional, don’t need to gay old certificate, gis check out the quality of his work. Took him all of one week to understand all about electricity, too.
    I worked at Nortel for almost 9 years and the last CEO who finally ran it into the ground was an American, so yeah, I blame him for our getting laid off and him making off with a fat bonus. Before that I owned my own business for another 8 years, telling generic Bubbas – 25 year-olds with, in their own words, “30 years experience ” – to do it right or fuck off.
    All that aside, the US still has a shit job market, and I have stories to tell about it

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

      
  20. CM says:

    it generally serves no useful purpose and sucks up money like Paris Hilton on a shopping spree. When it does do something useful it is by sheer accident.

    Feeding 90 million people in 73 countries: not useful, waste of money, and sheer accident.
    http://www.wfp.org/our-work

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

      
  21. CM says:

    fully-discredited and entirely embarrassing IPCC

    Link?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4

      
  22. CM says:

    troops that engage in rape when they aren’t generally being useless

    So you must also think this of the US Armed Forces too then?
    Or perhaps you’re just grossly exaggerating?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

      
  23. CM says:

    forthcoming push for an envirotard dictatorship to promote “sustainability

    Yeah because sustainability is such a retarded and outdated concept. If only we could turn the clock back to proper plunder and rape, everything would be so much better.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

      
  24. CM says:

    Perhaps demonstrate your ignorance and bitterness elsewhere.

    Yeah, this place is reserved for ignornance and bitterness about the United Nations.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

      
  25. hohokiss says:

    I recently heard rumor a rumor that a well-established US company was hiring contractors to do their work for the US govt, although they’d both allegedly signed some agreement long ago that contractors weren’t to be used, and which likely had a reason or two – stuff like “quality”, “accountability” and, heck, maybe even plain old “fairness”, “minimum wage”. the usual clunky govt socialist-like ideas. That stuff tries to creep in everywhere and bog everything down, so until Romney or Paul are finally elected president, the best thing is to simply ignore those damn govt contracts that can’t and won’t mean eff all to true Americans. And once Romney or Paul are finally elected president, said old written agreements won’t mean crap anymore, anyhoo, cuz theres gonna be a new sheriff in town and anyone (still) looking for a handout is gonna have to turn elsewhere for charity.
    True Americans who truly care about their country will most proudly accept such jobs at their prospective employers’ terms because this will benefit everyone involved, and teach the govt a lesson that, yes, contractors can and will work for less.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

      
  26. Kimpost says:

    Ok, but who vetoed this time around regarding Syria? We won’t see thousands of comments in this thread regarding how China and Russia fucked up, we’ll see the whole fucked up. Why?

    I dunno. Perhaps because this is a US blog, primarily focusing on US policies? I’m not afraid of saying that China and Russia fucked up. Hell, I’d say that they generally do that 1000 times more often than US ever does. We don’t focus on that because we’re all in agreement.

    Personally, I don’t think shit should be done over there, but that’s just my opinion, America, France and Britain are all for it apparently. Can we get a fucking Russia and China out of it? Or is it only fucked up America when the time comes they vote or don’t vote for a certain item?

    I’m for tougher sanctions. No regime should be allowed to do whatever they want regardless of what that is, just because said regime calls it internal affairs. Crimes against humanity aren’t internal affairs, or they shouldn’t be. Fuck Russia and China for using their veto-powers on this.

    And how about Haiti (and this is only one example)? I think spreading disease and not owning up to it, as well as citizen abuse, including child rape is a problem don’t you? Why it should make the allies question why they’d want to be a part of such organization don’t you think?

    What about Haiti? There were corruption, fraud and waste. But there were also lot’s of good help. Abuse is never ok, but it sometimes happens. UN soldiers have raped civilians just as US soldiers have. As long as we punish the perpetrators as well as work on possible underlying structural problems leading to abuse, then we are doing what’s right. Like Abu Ghraib shouldn’t be allowed to define the US military, rapists in the UN shouldn’t be allowed to render an entire organisation worthless.

    Anyway, scrap the UN and chances are somewhere around 100% that humanity would form another UN. Which would be yet another bloated organisation largely funded by the rich(er) countries of the world. That organisation would occasionally criticise the hands that feeds it and (some) people in those rich feeder-nations would render that organisation useless and ungrateful while calling for it to be scrapped…

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      
  27. AlexInCT says:

    CBS just told me employment is getting peachy in the US.

    While they have no money to pay for any of it, many states and even the federal government, are projecting the need for lots of welfare state supporting employees. That’s the “hope & change” Obama promised us. See BS, as usual, thinks this kind of news is great because they can now say Obama and the left’s policies are creating jobs! Most Americans realize these jobs are needed because the lefts policies have devastated the productive sector.

    I also just heard this morning that we can for all intent disregard the current unemployment numbers because the statisticians that calculate it for some ungodly reason have decided that another one million people, now bringing the total up to almost 5 million, have left the work force/stopped looking for work. Now, while it is blatantly obvious to me that a lot of people are saddling up & ridding the welfare state bandwagon, this decision to not count so many people ends up being bad news any way you play it. Either we have that many freeloaders content to just let others pay for them to stay home and do nothing good, or we have statisticians outright fudging numbers to help the crooks in charge lie about how bad things are. I think it is a lot of both. The losers in the media and the democrat party can keep telling everyone that things are getting better, but those of us not sucking at the tax payers tit and working in the real world – or better yet, not working and unable to work because there is nothing despite the lies to the contrary – know better.

    The only thing that is getting “better”, is the degree to which they lack any shame shilling for these amateurs. And by better I mean they feel less and less constrained or guilty about carrying the water for idiots and lying about things getting better when nothing can be further from the truth.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

      
  28. balthazar says:

    When did CM become a spam bot? Wait never mind, he always was one, my bad.

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

      
  29. Seattle Outcast says:

    Employment is getting so good (unemployment, minus the people that have just given up, is only about double what it would be for a vibrant economy) that my wife was able to find a job after looking for one a mere 11 months.

    So much better than when it came looking for her on a constant basis, even when she was employed or on vacation.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  30. Seattle Outcast says:

    Feeding 90 million people in 73 countries: not useful, waste of money, and sheer accident.

    Except that UN money going to feed those people is frequently, hell it’s almost SOP, appropriated by the local criminals and warlords that were starving those people to begin with. That anyone is fed is an accident.

    If you wanted to feed the starving people of the world you’d be better served by performing killing off the perpetrators of the world’s ethnic cleansings, “land reforms”, etc.. Once an object lesson was made of what happens to such people you can then do more than just feed the victims of such oppression.

    Not surprising your a big believer in the red herring that is called sustainability, you haven’t even figured out that AGW is a complete fraud…..

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  31. CM says:

    Except that UN money going to feed those people is frequently, hell it’s almost SOP, appropriated by the local criminals and warlords that were starving those people to begin with.

    Link?

    Not surprising your a big believer in the red herring that is called sustainability, you haven’t even figured out that AGW is a complete fraud…..

    Well I’ve yet to even hear an argument against the concept of sustainability. Let alone a good one. I’ve also yet to see any evidence that “AGW is a complete fraud”. Or how the fraud could possibly work.

    Employment is getting so good (unemployment, minus the people that have just given up, is only about double what it would be for a vibrant economy) that my wife was able to find a job after looking for one a mere 11 months.

    The ‘people who have given up’ component is certainly important to consider. But the ‘new jobs added’ stat (243,000 in Janurary) is also important.
    Congrats to your wife for finding work, that’s good news.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  32. Seattle Outcast says:

    CM, I’m going to post a picture online of my junk and start linking to that. As I’ve explained previously, I don’t have the time or the motivation to keep a library of links for everything I’ve read over the last three decades.

    If you want to play that game, go ahead, I’ve got better shit to do than engage in pointless game of “my link refutes your link”. Not only have I seen enough of that crap in general, your version of it is particularly pointless.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      
  33. Xetrov says:

    This

    Since 2007, the percent of the population that either has a job or is actively looking for one has fallen from 62.7 percent to 58.5 percent. That’s millions of workers leaving the workforce, and it’s not because they’ve become sick or old or infirm. It’s because they can’t find a job, and so they’ve stopped trying. That’s where Luce’s calculation comes from. If 62.7 percent of the country was still counted as in the workforce, unemployment would be 11 percent. In that sense, the real unemployment rate — the apples-to-apples unemployment rate — is probably 11 percent. And the real un- and underemployed rate — the so-called “U6″ — is near 20 percent.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  34. CM says:

    CM, I’m going to post a picture online of my junk and start linking to that. As I’ve explained previously, I don’t have the time or the motivation to keep a library of links for everything I’ve read over the last three decades.

    If you want to play that game, go ahead, I’ve got better shit to do than engage in pointless game of “my link refutes your link”. Not only have I seen enough of that crap in general, your version of it is particularly pointless.

    Fine, but don’t expect me to just buy your vague unsupported responses (written as if it were ‘fact’) to my comments then. Why comment at all? If you can’t support it, it’s just a lazy drive-by.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4

      
  35. CM says:

    Xetrov, the consequences of long-term unemployment (in terms of people giving up because they’ve been unemployed too long) are one of the major factors in why I don’t think Governments have any choice but to try and assist as much as possible during such huge recessions. Persuing the ‘let the chips fall where they may’ route could very well have devastating consequences, with many many more workers unemployed for so long that their options and chances of future employment are substantially reduced. The problems go way beyond the individual – it’s the social and economic problems it causes to wider society. The cumulative isolation. It reduces the availablility and quailty of the workforce when things do pick up.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  36. AlexInCT says:

    Well I’ve yet to even hear an argument against the concept of sustainability. Let alone a good one.

    That’s because as usual you don’t want to hear one. Nobody here is arguing against sustainability. As someone with an engineering background however, you know people that have to work within the realms of reality, wishing for it isn’t enough. And having a government that clearly has an ulterior motive and a nasty agenda mandate it, is insulting. Using the pretense of sustainability to do more failed social engineering should be grounds for lynching.

    I’ve also yet to see any evidence that “AGW is a complete fraud”. Or how the fraud could possibly work.

    After the mountains of evidence on how big of an unscientific effort this consensus science has been based on and all the criminal behavior the people pushing AGW have been caught in CM, this kind of fervent belief, bordering on the fanatical, with no room for even the slightest tinge of doubt, smacks of the same kind of faith people that worship someone other than Gaia/Marx/The State, get ridiculed for. Religious fanaticism, whether it is in the name of some guy in the sky, or Marx’s idea of government controlled society, all ends up the same way: badly.

    And how the fraud works has been explained, in great detail, by a lot of people, yet, since there is no other way to describe this kind of fanatical commitment for it, your faith remains unshaken. The simplest way to put it is to ask yourself how “social justice” and “wealth redistribution”, the core solution sought by people that want to control energy, tax its usage by the peasants, and create dependencies on government for expensive energy, but which then in turn have personal carbon foot prints the size of a small city themselves, will ever solve any real problem. When you can’t square the solution with the supposed problem, most people start wondering if there is more to the issue than they have been told.

    Of course, if you are one of those driven by the whole “social justice” and “wealth redistribution” agenda in the first place, I see how you are compelled to argue that you can not even see how fraud could possibly be involved. After all, the only people that could be engaged in fraud are the ones that oppose the “wealth redistribution” & “social justice” schemes. They care about money! That the people working to bring us “social justice” and “wealth redistribution”, whether it be through the AGW scam or otherwise, seem to all be getting rich working the machine, and stand to get even more power and wealth if they actually succeed, never factors in.

    BTW, welcome to my world SO!

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  37. JimK says:

    SIDEBAR – Note the somewhat reasonable tone here, with a slight bit of ‘tude from SO. Let’s keep it right about here as far as the BS goes, cool?

    Let’s not turn this into yet another attempt to sling shit at each other. Cool? Cool cool cool. /abed

    We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming.
    JimK recently posted..The perils of the urban suburbMy Profile

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  38. AlexInCT says:

    Xetrov, the consequences of long-term unemployment (in terms of people giving up because they’ve been unemployed too long) are one of the major factors in why I don’t think Governments have any choice but to try and assist as much as possible during such huge recessions.

    So they cause the problem, then exacerbate it with their policies that are supposed to “fix” it, and then should become even bigger and more involved? Sounds like you are suggesting that drug dealers should be involved in “helping” addicts beat their addiction, CM. Most people wouldn’t feel inclined to give the people making things worse, even more involvment in the cycle.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  39. Seattle Outcast says:

    Fine, but don’t expect me to just buy your vague unsupported responses (written as if it were ‘fact’) to my comments then. Why comment at all? If you can’t support it, it’s just a lazy drive-by.

    Here’s the thing: If it’s my opinion, I generally state that. If it is a conclusion I’ve arrived at after reading god knows how many articles on the topic, I’ll let you know that too. If it’s something I know from personal experience, I typically preface it that way.

    In case you haven’t noticed, most people here don’t play the link vs link game very often. It’s open comment season, and with a few exceptions, most people are extremely familiar with the subject material – we don’t need to be lectured, which is what you come off as doing. If you want to get into detailed analysis/rebuttal of your responses, frequently the people to do that here are ones you don’t like all that much as they’re tired of what is generally seen as disingenuous BS on your part and cop a lot more attitude that I do.

    Anyway, here’s my honest assessment of someone that always wants to play link wars: you can’t think for yourself, analyzing large amounts of data (much of it conflicting, lots of it bullshit) and synthesize your own position/answer. I quite frequently don’t need a link to back up my position – I’m perfectly capable of doing the analysis on my own on for a large number of subjects.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      
  40. Xetrov says:

    Xetrov, the consequences of long-term unemployment (in terms of people giving up because they’ve been unemployed too long) are one of the major factors in why I don’t think Governments have any choice but to try and assist as much as possible during such huge recessions. Persuing the ‘let the chips fall where they may’ route could very well have devastating consequences, with many many more workers unemployed for so long that their options and chances of future employment are substantially reduced. The problems go way beyond the individual – it’s the social and economic problems it causes to wider society. The cumulative isolation. It reduces the availablility and quailty of the workforce when things do pick up.

    I don’t necessarily disagree with you on your reasoning. My point of posting the article was more to say that the Government is just calling it a recovery despite all of the evidence to the contrary. Even the CBO is saying we are screwed in the short term when it comes to employment numbers recovering. Taking millions out of the workforce, and calling it a ‘recovery’ is disingenous at best. Not that I would expect much else from politicians.

    I would say that the Government getting out of the way (less taxes, less regulation) would do immensely more for Employment than the Fed trying to hire their way out of the recession.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      
  41. Dave D says:

    I love how CM thinks that “link = fact”. That is precious…..

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  42. Seattle Outcast says:

    Nobody here is arguing against sustainability. As someone with an engineering background however, you know people that have to work within the realms of reality, wishing for it isn’t enough. And having a government that clearly has an ulterior motive and a nasty agenda mandate it, is insulting. Using the pretense of sustainability to do more failed social engineering should be grounds for lynching.

    Thanks for putting that out there. It’s not that the goal isn’t noble, it’s that the program is a stalking horse by the Marxist/environmentalist movement for “global governance” by the UN.

    I’ve also yet to see any evidence that “AGW is a complete fraud”. Or how the fraud could possibly work.

    You might want to check out a few websites that actively debunk AGW (Watts Up With That and Climate Depot will give you a good starting point) and actively look into the climategate emails. As for how it works, surely you’ve heard of “cap and trade” and “carbon credits” and how Al Gore has made himself into a billionaire heavily investing in such programs?

    The particularly funny thing is that Gore’s “documentary” has been demonstrated to be so riddled with errors that the UK courts had to rule on it as being essentially worthless.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      
  43. CM says:

    That’s because as usual you don’t want to hear one. Nobody here is arguing against sustainability. As someone with an engineering background however, you know people that have to work within the realms of reality, wishing for it isn’t enough.

    I’m not sure where you determined I had an engineering background. I don’t.
    I don’t want to hear an argument against sustainability? Where do you get that from? I’d LOVE to hear one. I completely agree 100% that it has to work within the realms of reality.

    And having a government that clearly has an ulterior motive and a nasty agenda mandate it, is insulting.

    So even though sustainability might be a good idea, the baby must inherently get thrown out with the bathwater? Surely dealing with the specifics of how sustainability is put into practice makes more sense.

    Using the pretense of sustainability to do more failed social engineering should be grounds for lynching.

    So it can never be discussed or incorporated into anything, simply because of the possibility that it could be a vehicle for socialism? Do you realise how awfully paranoid that sounds?

    After the mountains of evidence on how big of an unscientific effort this consensus science has been based on and all the criminal behavior the people pushing AGW have been caught in CM,

    You keep talking about all this evidence, but where is it?
    Which criminal behaviour? Who?
    Again, why would those accusations means anything to me? I wouldn’t expect to be able to suggest anything without supporting it. I’d expect someone to force me to support such accusations. Otherwise, they’re meaningless.

    this kind of fervent belief, bordering on the fanatical, with no room for even the slightest tinge of doubt,

    There is plenty of doubt. If there wasn’t, we wouldn’t still be figuring stuff out. But the fundamentals are well understood, and have been for some time.

    smacks of the same kind of faith people that worship someone other than Gaia/Marx/The State, get ridiculed for. Religious fanaticism, whether it is in the name of some guy in the sky, or Marx’s idea of government controlled society, all ends up the same way: badly.

    As I’ve explained previously, it’s your position that’s based on faith. You have faith that AGW is just the result of a big conspiracy and fraud. You can’t actually demonstrate it with evidence, or in a way that makes sense. Whereas I, and most other people, rely solely with the evidence (what we can understand ourselves) and the professional opinions of the leading experts (on all of it). We also rely on the scientific process, which is inherently spectical.
    So you have it precisely backwards, for that simple reason.

    And how the fraud works has been explained, in great detail, by a lot of people,

    I’ve never seen it explained. And I’ve looked. I’ve spent thousands of hours looking.

    The simplest way to put it is to ask yourself how “social justice” and “wealth redistribution”, the core solution sought by people that want to control energy, tax its usage by the peasants, and create dependencies on government for expensive energy, but which then in turn have personal carbon foot prints the size of a small city themselves, will ever solve any real problem.

    When it comes to climate change effects on my kids/grandkids/great-grandkids, I couldn’t give a toss about “social justice” and “wealth redistribution”. Where there is a problem is an entirely different issue to what could be done about it, if anything, and whether some people might try to use it as a way to force their political opinions.

    When you can’t square the solution with the supposed problem, most people start wondering if there is more to the issue than they have been told.

    There’s a big difference between “wondering if there is more to it” and what you’re doing.

    Of course, if you are one of those driven by the whole “social justice” and “wealth redistribution” agenda in the first place, I see how you are compelled to argue that you can not even see how fraud could possibly be involved.

    Again, I don’t see the relevance. If there is a problem, then there is a problem. The laws of physics don’t care much about social justice or wealth redistribution. I’m sure you find in engineering that the calculations involved in determining bridge strength isn’t particularly relevant to how it’s funded, or how many poor people might drive over it. Assuming that someone simply acknowledges the science (and finds the accusations an insinuations to be without substance time and time again) simply because of their politicial opinion would be insulting if it wasn’t so blatantly and laughably sad and obvious.

    After all, the only people that could be engaged in fraud are the ones that oppose the “wealth redistribution” & “social justice” schemes. They care about money!

    Straw man.

    That the people working to bring us “social justice” and “wealth redistribution”, whether it be through the AGW scam or otherwise, seem to all be getting rich working the machine, and stand to get even more power and wealth if they actually succeed, never factors in.

    Into whether there is a problem? No, and nor should it. Why does it factor in for you?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  44. CM says:

    So they cause the problem, then exacerbate it with their policies that are supposed to “fix” it, and then should become even bigger and more involved?

    As usual, we seem to be at complete cross-purposes.
    As you know I (along with most people, and pretty much all economists) don’t agree that the financial meltdown was solely the fault of public sector. I would certainly agree that they paid their part, but I’ve not seen a reputable analysis that concludes that it’s all the Government’s fault. I also never suggested that assisting people through the worst of times would “fix” anything, I’m referring to easing the population through the worst of the pain. No permanent solutions or fixes in stimulus packages (much of which can be temporary tax relief). I’m not sure why you got the wrong end of the stick there.

    Sounds like you are suggesting that drug dealers should be involved in “helping” addicts beat their addiction, CM. Most people wouldn’t feel inclined to give the people making things worse, even more involvment in the cycle.

    Obviously this makes no sense given the above.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  45. CM says:

    Here’s the thing: If it’s my opinion, I generally state that. If it is a conclusion I’ve arrived at after reading god knows how many articles on the topic, I’ll let you know that too. If it’s something I know from personal experience, I typically preface it that way.

    I’m really surprised to see you write that. It’s not my experience. E.g.

    The only way the UN can be reformed is by just getting rid of it; it generally serves no useful purpose and sucks up money like Paris Hilton on a shopping spree. When it does do something useful it is by sheer accident.

    On a regular basis it gives us such winners as the fully-discredited and entirely embarrassing IPCC, a forum for dictators and nutjobs to give speeches, troops that engage in rape when they aren’t generally being useless, retarded tax plans to be used for “global governance”, a push for world-wide gun control, and the forthcoming push for an envirotard dictatorship to promote “sustainability”.

    That would seem to suggest the opposite.

    In case you haven’t noticed, most people here don’t play the link vs link game very often.

    It doesn’t have to be a game. The only links game I’ve noticed is when people link to something as if it’s evidence but the link either doesn’t support the point, and in some cases supports the opposite.

    It’s open comment season, and with a few exceptions, most people are extremely familiar with the subject material – we don’t need to be lectured, which is what you come off as doing. If you want to get into detailed analysis/rebuttal of your responses, frequently the people to do that here are ones you don’t like all that much as they’re tired of what is generally seen as disingenuous BS on your part and cop a lot more attitude that I do.

    So what you’re saying that this is supposed to be an echo chamber. No additional information is required. Facts are already known, opinions have already been formed, and this is just the place to say ‘yep’ when someone else calls Obama a socialist.
    What’s the point? If you’re completely adverse to having your comments questioned, what do you get out of it? Is it really some sort of support group?

    Anyway, here’s my honest assessment of someone that always wants to play link wars: you can’t think for yourself, analyzing large amounts of data (much of it conflicting, lots of it bullshit) and synthesize your own position/answer.

    I don’t even agree with your premise that I’m wanting to play ‘link wars’ (whatever that actually means).

    I prefer the opposite theory though – people who are full of generalisations and vagueness and narratives and memes and accusations and insinuation and never any evidence or documented support generally have such long-held ingrained positions that they don’t want to open themselves up to inquiry.

    I quite frequently don’t need a link to back up my position – I’m perfectly capable of doing the analysis on my own on for a large number of subjects.

    So you’re just here with others that also know-everything-already to do what exactly? Bitch about people like me?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  46. CM says:

    I don’t necessarily disagree with you on your reasoning. My point of posting the article was more to say that the Government is just calling it a recovery despite all of the evidence to the contrary.

    Have they actually called it a ‘recovery’? They may have, I just might have missed it.

    Even the CBO is saying we are screwed in the short term when it comes to employment numbers recovering. Taking millions out of the workforce, and calling it a ‘recovery’ is disingenous at best. Not that I would expect much else from politicians.

    True. They can more easily play up the jobs created than the unemployment rate (because of those that have given up looking for work, as has been noted here). One good jobs being created doesn’t make for a recovery though (like a poor month doesn’t make for a recession), so I’d be surprised if anyone was going so far as to claim it. However, as you say, we shouldn’t expect much from politicians.

    I would say that the Government getting out of the way (less taxes, less regulation) would do immensely more for Employment than the Fed trying to hire their way out of the recession.

    If they had not intervened with stimulus spending (and tax relief), what do you think would have happened? People were already losing their jobs. Do you think the umployment rate would not have gotten so high without any intervention? In a significant global crash, where does the demand come from for goods and services?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  47. CM says:

    I love how CM thinks that “link = fact”. That is precious…..

    Where do you even begin in order to reach that conclusion?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

      
  48. JimK says:

    CM Wrote:

    There’s a big difference between “wondering if there is more to it” and what you’re doing.

    You like to argue semantics, so let’s do that for one moment.

    Alex isn’t “doing” anything different than wondering. He’s speculating, offering opinion and making assertions, just like you are, on a blog. None of this is action as any reasonable person would describe it. If hyperbole is bad simply because you’re not the one engaging in it? There’s a word for that. I’ll leave it to you to figure out which one.

    No one has ever said it any better than Ice Cube: You better check yo self before you wreck yo self.

    Or as another guy (sorta) recently said, be the change you want to see on the blog.
    JimK recently posted..The perils of the urban suburbMy Profile

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  49. CM says:

    Thanks for putting that out there. It’s not that the goal isn’t noble, it’s that the program is a stalking horse by the Marxist/environmentalist movement for “global governance” by the UN.

    It’s your opinion. But sustainability is more than just about the UN. Anyone, or any government, at any level, can make decisions about the use of resources around the concept of sustainability. So what’s the point of rejecting the whole concept?

    You might want to check out a few websites that actively debunk AGW (Watts Up With That and Climate Depot will give you a good starting point) and actively look into the climategate emails.

    Thanks. I’ve spent many many years looking at precisely those sites, and looking into both Climategate releases and the associated analysis in depth. Most of what is posted on WUWT can be debunked within an hour. Climate Depot is primarily a depository of blog-science dressed up to look like actual science. The climategate emails were the perfect opportunity to find smoking-gun evidence of a supposed fraud or coverup, but there was nothing. The worst that could be said was that some people failed in their duty to respond to some information requests (because they knew they were being subjected to an orchestrated bombardment campaign, which they simply did not have the resources to deal with).
    Again, I’ve spent thousands of hours and I’m yet to see any evidence that “AGW is a complete fraud”. Or how the fraud could possibly work. I’d certainly welcome anything pointing me to the fraud, and how it works. When I say “anything” I mean something with some substance. Not just a repetition of the accusations and insinusations.

    As for how it works, surely you’ve heard of “cap and trade” and “carbon credits” and how Al Gore has made himself into a billionaire heavily investing in such programs?

    No I’m talking about the scientific fraud which enables the financial enrichment. Where is the scientific fraud? As the theory has many many legs and is saturated with supporting evidence from a whole host of angles, where is the intricate explanation of how it’s all garbage?
    The issue of what to do about climate change is obviously irrelevant once the fraud is established.

    As far as I can tell, Gore is being criticised for putting his money where his mouth is. The guy isn’t a politician, he can’t make rules. He’s essentially a lobbyist.

    The particularly funny thing is that Gore’s “documentary” has been demonstrated to be so riddled with errors that the UK courts had to rule on it as being essentially worthless

    That’s certainly not an accurate summary of the Dimmock v Secretary of State for Education and Skills decision (in fact that reads like a WUWT analysis). The judge (not a climate scientist) determined that there were 9 ‘errors’, however these weren’t errors in the usually meaning of the word -they were simply things that could have been worded slightly differently so that there was no issue over the point being understood with 100% accuracy. I.e. Gore said some things that were supported by evidence, but there may be other opinion that differed, so it should be made clearer. That was nine out of thousands. He concluded that the documentary accurately reflected the science. There were just some amendments needed to be made to the guidance notes.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  50. CM says:

    You like to argue semantics, so let’s do that for one moment.

    More often it’s not semantics at all. It’s people (like Alex) suggesting I said something that I didn’t.

    Alex isn’t “doing” anything different than wondering. He’s speculating, offering opinion and making assertions, just like you are, on a blog. None of this is action as any reasonable person would describe it. If hyperbole is bad simply because you’re not the one engaging in it? There’s a word for that. I’ll leave it to you to figure out which one.

    No, Alex and I are not even remotely close in terms of what and how we post. Alex is consistently pre-emptively abusive, constantly asserts things he knows not to be true (particuarly with respect to what someone else has said), and regularly makes unsupported accusations and insinuations and presents them as a premise to go off on an ideological rant saying the same thing he’s already said 100 times already. He also almost never answers questions.
    Where have I engaged in hyperbole? Even if you can find one or two examples, it’s Alex’s MO. So it’s not even a remotely accurate comparison.

    In this example Alex suggests he’s “wondering if there’s more to it”. Bollocks. He’s actually coming out and making accusations and insinuations and pretending it’s a fact that fraud and conspiracy is involved. Any reasonable person would ask for evidence. What kind of person goes around making all manner of claims without any ability to back them up?

    EDIT: When I say “what you’re doing” I mean on this blog. “What you’re presenting”. Not what he’s actively doing outside the blog (firebombing scientist’s homes or whatever).

    No one has ever said it any better than Ice Cube: You better check yo self before you wreck yo self.

    That makes no sense given the above.

    Or as another guy (sorta) recently said, be the change you want to see on the blog.

    Again, that makes no sense to me. I try hard to engage honestly and politely. Most others here just couldn’t give a shit (and don’t even hide it) and yet you’re specifically addressing me here.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  51. Section8 says:

    I dunno. Perhaps because this is a US blog, primarily focusing on US policies? I’m not afraid of saying that China and Russia fucked up. Hell, I’d say that they generally do that 1000 times more often than US ever does. We don’t focus on that because we’re all in agreement.

    Ok fair enough. I appreciate the straightforward answer, as long as that holds true in when discussing topics. I’ll take your word on it though. CM, not so much.
    Chat long enough, and he’ll work hard to blur the line, even between the US and Taliban as he did a few weeks ago, all the while claiming he wants civilized conversation. No thanks.

    What about Haiti? There were corruption, fraud and waste. But there were also lot’s of good help. Abuse is never ok, but it sometimes happens. UN soldiers have raped civilians just as US soldiers have. As long as we punish the perpetrators as well as work on possible underlying structural problems leading to abuse, then we are doing what’s right. Like Abu Ghraib shouldn’t be allowed to define the US military, rapists in the UN shouldn’t be allowed to render an entire organisation worthless.

    So far, the UN still refuses to accept any responsiblity for the cholera spread there by UN peacekeepers, despite scientific reports pointing to the UN. The “they do it too” (comparing now to the US) argument wasn’t valid in comparing 9/11 or the actions of the Taliban in general in the pissing incident, which no one stated they shouldn’t be punished, saying they should be punished wasn’t good enough. To say the Taliban is far worse wasn’t an acceptable retort, so why the “they/you do it too” argument now, and why not the uproar to the ongoing behavior the way the US has received it? Let’s be honest, at the end of the day it’s about picking sides. I’ve said it here a million times. The “atrocities” are just talking points.

    Sure, if we were given an inch to claim any of our misdeeds were a few bad apples, I’d side with you, but the UN is the light of truth and all things good, so what’s the deal? Why do they get a mile for their fuckups? Turning a blind eye is the only reason. And I mean the only reason.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  52. hist_ed says:

    The judge (not a climate scientist) determined that there were 9 ‘errors’, however these weren’t errors in the usually meaning of the word -they were simply things that could have been worded slightly differently so that there was no issue over the point being understood with 100% accuracy.

    Wow, that is really wishfull thinking there. First, while the judgement identified nine errors that were enough to make the film political propaganda the judge said that the nine were not necessarily all the errors in the film.

    Now lets examine the things that “could have been worded slightly differently so that there was no issue over the point being understood with 100% accuracy.”

    Al Gore asserted that the glaciers of Kilimanjaro were melting because of global warming. The judge said this had not been established and most scientists thought that local climate was the cause.

    Gore said that Lake Chad was getting smaller because of AGW. The judge said that evidence showed that other factors were likely the cause (in fact, Lake Chad has been getting smalelr since the early 19th century).

    Gore said that glaciers in either Antarctica or Greenland would melt soon, raising ocean levels by 20 feet. Judge found that such melting would only take place over several thousand years.

    Gore said that low lying Pacific islands were already being inundated forcing evacuations; the judge said there was no evidence of any evacuations.

    Gore said that polar bears were drowning because AGW was getting rid of polar ice. The only scientific study document 4 bears that drowned in a freak storm. The study itself cautioned that broad conclusions could not be drawn because of this single incident. The population of polar bears has increased by around 400% in the last few decades.

    There is no evidence that Hurricane Katrina was caused by or made worse by global warming. The horrific damage and loss of life occurred because of human idiocy-the Corps of Engineers tried to strengthen New Orleans levees years before, but envirotards sued to stop the work. Thanks Greenpeace!

    The judge also said that Gore’s big “aha” moment with 650,000 years of world temperatures and carbon levels did not demonstrate an exact correlation between carbon levels and temperatures.*
    Coral bleaching, mosquitoes, the ocean conveyor, etc. All points made by Gore that are bullshit.

    It is interesting that the judge cited the IPCC’s reports on AGW to refute several of Gore’s points. The IPCC MUST BE LYING TO CONCEAL THE TRUTH! (they are, just in a different way)

    Keep in mind that the British government was arguing for Gore’s movie. Gore did not have to hire a law firm, he had the full legal might of the Queen’s government fighting for him (the government lawyers admitted more than once that there was no evidence for some of Gore’s assertions).

    CM, how’s about you rephrase Gore’s assertions in away that make them factual and actually align with the judge’s ruling?

    And the judge did not conclude that the film was generally supported by science. He ruled that is was political advocacy.

    * This is my favorite moment from the film. Y’all remember the two graphs? Usually, when you are graphing two sets of data over the same time period and you want to compare them, you use one graph and overlay the data, right? Ever wonder why Gore doesn’t do that? Turns out that Gore’s own data show that in the majority of cases over the last 650,000 years, CO2 increases follow temperature increases, not the other way around.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      
  53. CM says:

    Ok fair enough. I appreciate the straightforward answer, as long as that holds true in when discussing topics. I’ll take your word on it though. CM, not so much.
    Chat long enough, and he’ll work hard to blur the line, even between the US and Taliban as he did a few weeks ago, all the while claiming he wants civilized conversation. No thanks.

    Fuck you, I did no such thing.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  54. AlexInCT says:

    I’m not sure where you determined I had an engineering background. I don’t.
    I don’t want to hear an argument against sustainability? Where do you get that from? I’d LOVE to hear one.

    Please tell me you where kidding or trying to take a pot shot at me. I am the one with an engineering background, in case you forgot. My point was that your attempt to use sustainability – word that IMO is meaningless because it has been hijacked to basically cover the real plans of the collectivists – to justify your support for the AGW “social justice” cum “wealth redistribution” agenda, smacks of a cheap trick. Especially since you indirectly, again, imply anyone that is against AGW must be against sustainability. My point was that as an engineer I am all for sustainable energy. Nuclear is the future. The other rot technologies the watermelons push are not even close to being sustainable. And without heavy subsidies and mandates to force these on people, they would be dead.

    I completely agree 100% that it has to work within the realms of reality.

    Sorry dude, but you could have fooled me. People that continue to believe in communism and its offspring are not very grounded in reality. The ones that are abandoned it.

    So even though sustainability might be a good idea, the baby must inherently get thrown out with the bathwater? Surely dealing with the specifics of how sustainability is put into practice makes more sense.

    If the bathwater is poisonous acid, and the baby is a really bait to trap the foolish and force them to tolerate the poisonous acid until it is too late, absolutely yes. Sustainability is just the new buzz word watermelons use to hide their agenda behind. The OBVIOUS end goal of team AGW has ALWAYS been “wealth redistribution” and “social engineering”. The other stuff is just a means to an end, used to draw people dumb enough to let the left control the argument into making themselves look like the bad guy. I have repeatedly pointed out that I would take the whole AGW issue seriously the moment it was divorced from the collectivist politics and end goals. If the AGW cultist where really about sustainability they would be pushing nuclear without exclusion. Spare me the side talk about the risks of nuclear. It’s more deflection.

    So it can never be discussed or incorporated into anything, simply because of the possibility that it could be a vehicle for socialism? Do you realise how awfully paranoid that sounds?

    Absolutely not what I said CM. In fact, I wish we could have an honest discussion about sustainable energy for a change. The problem is that this is not happening and won’t happen until the AGW cultists are squashed and out of the equation. What we have is the left pushing marginal technologies on us and forcing us to pay for it as part of a greater agenda, saying this is because they want sustainable energy, then really pushing their social engineering agenda.

    You keep talking about all this evidence, but where is it?

    Oh it is out there. It has been linked. Others all seem to know about it. The only person that continues to pretend otherwise is you. And when it is linked in you ignore it, then when you can’t do that anymore, dismiss it outright because of either the source or the fact that the dissertation isn’t long enough. BTW, you now have more people calling you on this issue. My favorite was the comment about you thinking that a “link = fact”. Dave D’s only mistake was that he didn’t say “link to lefty talking point =fact”, because links to things that you don’t agree with seem to be excluded from being factual.

    Which criminal behaviour? Who?

    Go read the people that are not making excuses for the crooks and the unscientific behavior they engaged in that the East Anglia e-mail dumps you constantly want to tell us disproved anything about what your church teaches.

    Again, why would those accusations means anything to me?

    Exactly!

    I wouldn’t expect to be able to suggest anything without supporting it.

    You seriously could have fooled me. BTW, you do understand the concept that even though I do not present you with any proof of gravity or that our planet goes around our sun it doesn’t suddenly make us all float off the planet or cause the planet to shoot off into space, right? Most people also don’t need detailed and deep proof of either the existence of gravity or our heliocentric solar system every time the subject comes up. That you constantly demand it so you can dismiss what you don’t like says more about you than it does about the people you so casually dismiss because they don’t provide you with oodles of links and a dissertation. Note that even when that was done you dismissed it because of the source or pretended it was not offered.

    I’d expect someone to force me to support such accusations. Otherwise, they’re meaningless.

    Most of what you say is so, and the stuff you link to, to support it, is meaningless as well.

    There is plenty of doubt. If there wasn’t, we wouldn’t still be figuring stuff out. But the fundamentals are well understood, and have been for some time.

    Sorry but I don’t buy your sudden admission of doubt. In fact, I think it is bogus, just like these fundamental you claim are “well understood” are bogus. If these fundamentals where so well understood, there wouldn’t be a need for a scientific consensus, and these hucksters would not have had to make up evidence, destroy evidence, or be so secretive about what they are doing. That is the stuff that should have caused the most doubt.

    As I’ve explained previously, it’s your position that’s based on faith. You have faith that AGW is just the result of a big conspiracy and fraud. You can’t actually demonstrate it with evidence, or in a way that makes sense.

    Are you telling me that the fact that EVERY solution to this faux problem that the church of AGW pushes basically being some kind of massive social engineering scam, isn’t a dead giveaway? You do remember the “Cap & Tax” battle, right? What about the EPA’s new powers to regulate a lot of money for friends of the watermelon movement? Blaming me for your refusal to see these things is sad.

    Whereas I, and most other people, rely solely with the evidence (what we can understand ourselves) and the professional opinions of the leading experts (on all of it). We also rely on the scientific process, which is inherently spectical.
    So you have it precisely backwards, for that simple reason.

    That gave me a good laugh man. That laughing however only lasted until I remembered that people like you have pissed on the scientific process and massively damaged the credibility of the scientific process. BTW, did you hurt yourself writing about the scientific process being skeptical when your church labels anyone that dares point out that no dissension is tolerate against the “scientific consensus” and that anyone that dares to question it or point out the numerous and obvious flaws, discrepancies, and falsehoods, is immediately labeled a denier and heretic?

    I’ve never seen it explained. And I’ve looked. I’ve spent thousands of hours looking.

    You missed your call: should have gone into standup comedy man. More comedy gold. Mehtinks the reason you didn’t find it was because you didn’t want to. Not because it wasn’t out there to be found.

    Again, I don’t see the relevance. If there is a problem, then there is a problem.

    Finally some honesty! You do not want to see the relevance.

    The laws of physics don’t care much about social justice or wealth redistribution.

    Then why don’t you find issue with the fact that every dammed solution is a social engineering one, not a technical one?

    I’m sure you find in engineering that the calculations involved in determining bridge strength isn’t particularly relevant to how it’s funded, or how many poor people might drive over it.

    First off, this is a terrible example. Calculating bridge strength is based on indisputable physics and millennia of experience. We have computer models that predict stress and load so accurately that we can model the bridge and test it with such certainty that it almost looks like child’s play. AGW on the other hand has none of that. It is based on the worst kind of pseudo-science. And most people can clearly see that we lack any real understanding of the mechanisms and process that affect climate change. The models we use are crap, always producing the same effect regardless of against what time period and they are tested, and we now even know they where rigged to do that. You would have been more accurate comparing AGW against astrology. They have more in common.

    Also, pray tell, why is the entire end goal of the AGW movement, if you will allow me to steal your own line, about how many poor people might drive over it? The UN has consistently told us that this is about spreading the worlds wealth equally – with them doing it so they can steal as much of it as they can, I bet – so anyone pretending that the social engineering end goal is not true loses the argument by default. Cost also ALWAYS matters. If you can’t afford it you shouldn’t build it. We have forgotten that. That’s why the world’s economy is at death’s door. Also, how likely are you to think it is a wise investment & good idea to build a bridge that crosses the Atlantic considering the alternatives? And I am certain you would balk like hell if while trying to do the calculations for your bridge some charlatan came over and told you to be specifically worried about the single small car that would cross it while ignoring the 4 train and heavy load lanes it also must support. Because that’s a close analogy to the nonsense by the people pushing CO2 while ignoring water vapor.

    I don’t even agree with your premise that I’m wanting to play ‘link wars’ (whatever that actually means).

    Of course you don’t! And the problem is with the rest of us that all have come to that conclusion for whatever reason.

    I prefer the opposite theory though – people who are full of generalisations and vagueness and narratives and memes and accusations and insinuation and never any evidence or documented support generally have such long-held ingrained positions that they don’t want to open themselves up to inquiry.

    Oh that was priceless, even for you CM? Which side is the one that has labeled anyone questioning them as heretics and deniers? Which side regularly impugns the character of anyone that does work they don’t like, denying them access to the peer review process? Which side, instead of looking at the science, dismisses the findings they don’t like, by pointing out it came from evil moneyed interests with an agenda, as if they don’t have even more money and an even bigger agenda of their own, huh? Who is telling me that I am the one that lacks curiosity and respect for the scientific process when they just made one of the most ridiculous statements possible (the one about spending thousands of hours looking and finding nothing that disputes the dogma you cling to)?

    I am tired of arguing in good faith with the AGW cultists. I have spent a lot of time doing so, and the result is always the same. People that have no clue about the scientific process, or respect for it, tell me how much more rational and logical their fanaticism to this social engineering cause is, after dismissing evidence that, at a minimum, should have caused serious doubt in them.

    Bleh, I think I am done. You can dismiss me, throw in a few links to double down, and pretend that you are actually driven by reason and logic when it is so obvious you are driven by faith. My point is well made. Thank you for helping do so.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  55. Miguelito says:

    This is my favorite moment from the film. Y’all remember the two graphs? Usually, when you are graphing two sets of data over the same time period and you want to compare them, you use one graph and overlay the data, right? Ever wonder why Gore doesn’t do that? Turns out that Gore’s own data show that in the majority of cases over the last 650,000 years, CO2 increases follow temperature increases, not the other way around

    .
    That same oft-touted data/graph has always been a sore point of mine too. When they are overlaid it does seem pretty obvious that you can’t claim causation.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  56. CM says:

    Wow, that is really wishfull thinking there. First, while the judgement identified nine errors that were enough to make the film political propaganda the judge said that the nine were not necessarily all the errors in the film.

    The judge did not say that at all. As I said, he purposely called them ‘errors’.

    Mr Downes produced a long schedule of such alleged errors or exaggerations and waxed lyrical in that regard. It was obviously helpful for me to look at the film with his critique in hand.

    In the event I was persuaded that only some of them were sufficiently persuasive to be relevant for the purposes of his argument, and it was those matters – 9 in all – upon which I invited Mr Chamberlain to concentrate. It was essential to appreciate that the hearing before me did not relate to an analysis of the scientific questions, but to an assessment of whether the ‘errors’ in question, set out in the context of a political film, informed the argument on ss406 and 407. All these 9 ‘errors’ that I now address are not put in the context of the evidence of Professor Carter and the Claimant’s case, but by reference to the IPCC report and the evidence of Dr Stott.

    So he was only persuaded that nine of the alleged errors were relevant for the purposes of the argument.

    http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2007/2288.html

    Even those nine were arguable (e.g. the court may have failed to consider the nuance of causality. Most scientists agree that CO2 caused major temperature increases, but it wasn’t the initiating cause, or forcing mechanism. As such the lag time is irrelevent. The film was therefore not contradicting the mainstream scientific view).

    Now lets examine the things that “could have been worded slightly differently so that there was no issue over the point being understood with 100% accuracy.”

    Al Gore asserted that the glaciers of Kilimanjaro were melting because of global warming. The judge said this had not been established and most scientists thought that local climate was the cause.

    The Kilimanjaro glacier may or may not be disappearing due to global warming, but it is making other tropical glaciers disappear. So while he could have picked a better example, it doesn’t affect his argument.

    Gore said that Lake Chad was getting smaller because of AGW. The judge said that evidence showed that other factors were likely the cause (in fact, Lake Chad has been getting smalelr since the early 19th century).

    Global warming may have been one contributing factor, but it certainly wasn’t a clear cause-effect.

    The United Nations Environment Programme says that about half of the lake’s decrease is attributable to human water use such as inefficient damming and irrigation methods. The other half of the shrinkage is due to shifting climate patterns. Anada Tiega of the Lake Chad Basin Commission blames climate change for 50 to 75 percent of the water’s disappearance.

    http://edition.cnn.com/HEALTH/blogs/paging.dr.gupta/2007/06/climate-change-and-diminishing-desert.html

    So some of it is due to human use, but it is wrong to say that global warming has been ruled out as a cause.

    Gore said that glaciers in either Antarctica or Greenland would melt soon, raising ocean levels by 20 feet. Judge found that such melting would only take place over several thousand years.

    Gore does not say that the sea level would rise 7 metres in the immediate future, though he says that such a rise is a possibility (without specifying the timeframe).

    The IPCC report said that the ice sheets will melt if warming is sustained over millennia, but does not rule out it happening sooner:

    Recent satellite and in situ observations of ice streams behind disintegrating ice shelves highlight some rapid reactions of ice sheet systems. This raises new concern about the overall stability of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, the collapse of which would trigger another five to six metres of sea level rise. While these streams appear buttressed by the shelves in front of them, it is currently unknown whether a reduction or failure of this buttressing of relatively limited areas of the ice sheet could actually trigger a widespread discharge of many ice streams and hence a destabilisation of the entire West Antarctic Ice Sheet. Ice sheet models are only beginning to capture such small-scale dynamical processes that involve complicated interactions with the glacier bed and the ocean at the perimeter of the ice sheet. Therefore, no quantitative information is available from the current generation of ice sheet models as to the likelihood or timing of such an event.

    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-10-2.html

    Gore said that low lying Pacific islands were already being inundated forcing evacuations; the judge said there was no evidence of any evacuations.

    Gore’s statement is badly worded, since it could be understood to to be saying that entire countries have been evacuated rather than some of the residents. But there is evidence of evacuations:

    Seeing themselves as climate refuges some Tuvalans are already leaving their islands, moving their communities to higher ground in a new land. … Fala and Suamalie, along with international environmental activists, argue that Tuvaluans and others in a similar predicament should be treated like refugees and given immigration rights and other refugee benefits. This tiny nation was among the first on the globe to sound the alarm, trekking from forum to forum to try to get the world to listen. New Zealand did agree to take 75 Tuvaluans a year as part of its Pacific Access Category, an agreement made in 2001.

    http://www.loe.org/shows/segments.html?programID=06-P13-00013&segmentID=6

    It would have been better if he had said that it was a possible rather probable result of continued warming.

    Gore said that polar bears were drowning because AGW was getting rid of polar ice. The only scientific study document 4 bears that drowned in a freak storm. The study itself cautioned that broad conclusions could not be drawn because of this single incident. The population of polar bears has increased by around 400% in the last few decades.

    There were storms before 2006, but they didn’t drown bears. The bears drowned in the 2006 storm because they had to swim further because of global warming.

    http://desmogblog.com/attack-on-gore-s-film-countered-polar-bears-are-drowning-due-to-melting-ice

    Also see:
    http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/polar-bears/will-polar-bears-survive

    There is no evidence that Hurricane Katrina was caused by or made worse by global warming. The horrific damage and loss of life occurred because of human idiocy-the Corps of Engineers tried to strengthen New Orleans levees years before, but envirotards sued to stop the work. Thanks Greenpeace!

    Gore does not ascribe Katrina to global warming. Katrina is used as an example of the damage that stronger hurricanes could do and of the consequences of ignoring warnings from scientists.

    Anthropogenic warming by the end of the 21st century will likely cause hurricanes globally to be more intense on average (by 2 to 11% according to model projections for an IPCC A1B scenario). This change would imply an even larger percentage increase in the destructive potential per storm, assuming no reduction in storm size.

    http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes

    The judge also said that Gore’s big “aha” moment with 650,000 years of world temperatures and carbon levels did not demonstrate an exact correlation between carbon levels and temperatures.*

    Gore does not assert that there is an exact fit, but rather that:

    The relationship is very complicated. But there is one relationship that is more powerful than all the others and it is this. When there is more carbon dioxide, the temperature gets warmer, because it traps more heat from the sun inside

    Which reflected the scientific consensus.
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/the-lag-between-temp-and-co2/

    Coral bleaching, mosquitoes, the ocean conveyor, etc. All points made by Gore that are bullshit.

    Coral bleaching: The Judge was wrong. The IPCC report actually states:

    Late 20th century effects of rising temperature include loss of sea ice, thawing of permafrost and associated coastal retreat, and more frequent coral bleaching and mortality.

    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch6s6-es.html

    It is interesting that the judge cited the IPCC’s reports on AGW to refute several of Gore’s points. The IPCC MUST BE LYING TO CONCEAL THE TRUTH! (they are, just in a different way)

    Why is that interesting? What else would be better to use? As outlined, he doesn’t seem to have gotten it all correct.

    Keep in mind that the British government was arguing for Gore’s movie. Gore did not have to hire a law firm, he had the full legal might of the Queen’s government fighting for him (the government lawyers admitted more than once that there was no evidence for some of Gore’s assertions).

    Gore’s movie wasn’t on trial. What was being argued was whether the film violated section 406(1)(b) of the Education Act 1996, or alternatively was contrary to section 407. Obviously it was up to the Government to defend their use of the film in that context. So not sure why you think this means anything.

    CM, how’s about you rephrase Gore’s assertions in away that make them factual and actually align with the judge’s ruling?

    A different word choice here or there would have done it. On most of them the Judge was either wrong, or the matter was arguable.

    And the judge did not conclude that the film was generally supported by science. He ruled that is was political advocacy.

    From the judgement:

    It is now common ground that it is not simply a science film – although it is clear that it is based substantially on scientific research and opinion – but that it is a political film, albeit of course not party political. Its theme is not merely the fact that there is global warming, and that there is a powerful case that such global warming is caused by man, but that urgent, and if necessary expensive and inconvenient, steps must be taken to counter it, many of which are spelt out.

    I.e. nobody was denying that Gore was selling an argument. The issue was whether that argument was biased and therefore in breach of the relevant sections of the Education Act. In the end, before the judgement, the Government had made some changes to the Guidance Note.

    From the judgement:

    There is no longer therefore any need for relief in respect of the film otherwise than as accompanied by the present Guidance Note. Mr Chamberlain submits that, even without the changes, the Defendant was not in breach of ss406 or 407. Mr Downes submits, as set out in paragraph 12 above, that the breach of s406 is irremediable, by virtue of the simple sending to schools of the film, irrespective of any accompanying Guidance Note, and in any event does not accept that the amendments to the Guidance Note are sufficient to comply with any palliative under s406 or duty under s407.

    I am satisfied that, with the Guidance Note, as amended, the Defendant is setting the film into a context in which it can be shown by teachers, and not so that the Defendant itself or the schools are promoting partisan views contained in the film, and is putting it into a context in which a balanced presentation of opposing views can and will be offered.

    So Dimmock failed. He didn’t want the film shown at all. The judgement was that it can be shown, after some amendments were made to the accompanying Guidance Notes.

    * This is my favorite moment from the film. Y’all remember the two graphs? Usually, when you are graphing two sets of data over the same time period and you want to compare them, you use one graph and overlay the data, right? Ever wonder why Gore doesn’t do that? Turns out that Gore’s own data show that in the majority of cases over the last 650,000 years, CO2 increases follow temperature increases, not the other way around.

    Historically, global warming events at the end of ice ages have not been triggered by rises in atmospheric CO2 concentrations. However, this does not disprove that CO2 warms the atmosphere and that rising CO2 emissions have caused warming.

    What seems to have happened at the end of the recent ice ages is that some factor – most probably orbital changes – caused a rise in temperature. This led to an increase in CO2, resulting in further warming that caused more CO2 to be released and so on: a positive feedback that amplified a small change in temperature. At some point, the shrinking of the ice sheets further amplified the warming.

    Anyway, debunking Gore does not disprove anthropogenic global warming.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

      
  57. CM says:

    Please tell me you where kidding or trying to take a pot shot at me. I am the one with an engineering background, in case you forgot.

    I misinterpreted what you meant when you said:

    As someone with an engineering background however, you know people that have to work within the realms of reality, wishing for it isn’t enough.

    My apologies.

    My point was that your attempt to use sustainability – word that IMO is meaningless because it has been hijacked to basically cover the real plans of the collectivists – to justify your support for the AGW “social justice” cum “wealth redistribution” agenda, smacks of a cheap trick.

    AGW is based on science, not a concept of how to use resources, or what do (“social justice” “wealth redistribution”) based on the ever-increasing mountain of climate change science evidence. AGW stands or falls irrespective of whether ‘sustainability’ is discussed.

    I consider the issue of sustainability at work each and every day. Nothing to do with climate change.

    Especially since you indirectly, again, imply anyone that is against AGW must be against sustainability.

    I’m just responding to what is being said. It’s only ever spoken about here in very negative terms.

    My point was that as an engineer I am all for sustainable energy. Nuclear is the future. The other rot technologies the watermelons push are not even close to being sustainable. And without heavy subsidies and mandates to force these on people, they would be dead.

    How do you factor nuclear industry subsidies into your thinking there?

    Government subsidies to the nuclear power industry over the past fifty years have been so large in proportion to the value of the energy produced that in some cases it would have cost taxpayers less to simply buy kilowatts on the open market and give them away, according to a February 2011 report by the Union of Concerned Scientists.

    http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_power/nuclear_power_and_global_warming/nuclear-power-subsidies-report.html

    In the United States, the federal government has paid US$74 billion for energy subsidies to support R&D for nuclear power ($50 billion) and fossil fuels ($24 billion) from 1973 to 2003. During this same timeframe, renewable energy technologies and energy efficiency received a total of US$26 billion.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies#Allocation_of_subsidies

    Sorry dude, but you could have fooled me. People that continue to believe in communism and its offspring are not very grounded in reality. The ones that are abandoned it.

    Why are they relevant? It’s not compulsory to be a communist to consider sustainability as a sensible idea. It’s even possible to be a capitalist and support the concept. Or have no fixed political views at all.

    If the bathwater is poisonous acid, and the baby is a really bait to trap the foolish and force them to tolerate the poisonous acid until it is too late, absolutely yes.

    That would be absolutely rejecting the concept of sustainability. I thought you just said you didn’t reject it. Which is it?

    Sustainability is just the new buzz word watermelons use to hide their agenda behind.

    That’s weird. I’ve been studying and working in the field since 1992.

    The OBVIOUS end goal of team AGW has ALWAYS been “wealth redistribution” and “social engineering”.

    That’s not OBVIOUS at all. Who are “Team AGW”?
    It IS possible to consider the science before considering whether anything can be done, and if so, what. Given that it IS possible, your premise is fundamentally flawed on its face.

    The other stuff is just a means to an end, used to draw people dumb enough to let the left control the argument into making themselves look like the bad guy. I have repeatedly pointed out that I would take the whole AGW issue seriously the moment it was divorced from the collectivist politics and end goals.

    It is if you want it to be. Stop reading right-wing blogs and start reading source material instead. Consider the science on it’s own merits.

    If the AGW cultist where really about sustainability they would be pushing nuclear without exclusion.

    You’d be a very small minority advocating putting all the chickens in one basket. And anyway, almost without exception, the people doing the science don’t push anything.

    Absolutely not what I said CM. In fact, I wish we could have an honest discussion about sustainable energy for a change. The problem is that this is not happening and won’t happen until the AGW cultists are squashed and out of the equation.

    An easy way to “squash them” would be to demonstrate how it’s all a massive fraud and a conspiracy, and how everything can be explained by an alternative theory. There is a significant amount of fame and money sitting and waiting there for the person or people who can do it. Guess we’ll have to keep waiting.

    What we have is the left pushing marginal technologies on us and forcing us to pay for it as part of a greater agenda, saying this is because they want sustainable energy, then really pushing their social engineering agenda.

    Ah well, look how much you’ve spent in the last 50 years helping out the nuclear and fossil fuel industry. Just reduce their subsidies and you’ll pay no more than you did before.

    Oh it is out there. It has been linked. Others all seem to know about it.

    Must be on that other internet I don’t have access to ;-)

    The only person that continues to pretend otherwise is you.

    And Hal, and Kimpost. And virtually the entire scientific world.

    And when it is linked in you ignore it,

    Nope, sorry, that doesn’t sound like me. If it was there, I’d remember it. Must have just been some denier garbage-de-jour.

    then when you can’t do that anymore, dismiss it outright because of either the source or the fact that the dissertation isn’t long enough.

    I’ve never dismissed anything because of the source. I’ll take the source into account when assessing the contents. But it’s usually easy to go elsewhere and check anyway. So dismissing the source isn’t high on my priorities as it’s rather pointless.
    I’ve never dismissed anything because something “wasn’t long enough” either. I think what you mean is that I don’t accept something because you said it was so.

    BTW, you now have more people calling you on this issue.

    What issue?

    My favorite was the comment about you thinking that a “link = fact”. Dave D’s only mistake was that he didn’t say “link to lefty talking point =fact”, because links to things that you don’t agree with seem to be excluded from being factual.

    Yeah that was genius that one. Despite the fact that I’ve never said any such thing. Anyway, I thought it was bad to dismiss something because of the source? Isn’t that what you just said?
    You’ve found yet another level of woefulness.

    Go read the people that are not making excuses for the crooks and the unscientific behavior they engaged in that the East Anglia e-mail dumps you constantly want to tell us disproved anything about what your church teaches.

    There was no criminal behaviour found. So what are you talking about? Failing to respond to an information request isn’t unscientific behaviour.

    Exactly!

    I’m glad we agree: it’s pointless to make unsupported claims to people that you know aren’t just going to believe everything you say, particularly when you’ve a pattern of being wrong.

    You seriously could have fooled me.

    Well I have then.

    BTW, you do understand the concept that even though I do not present you with any proof of gravity or that our planet goes around our sun it doesn’t suddenly make us all float off the planet or cause the planet to shoot off into space, right?

    I have no reason to ask you to explain gravity of provide proof of it. Why would I expect you to explain it to me? It’s not a matter of opinion.

    Most people also don’t need detailed and deep proof of either the existence of gravity or our heliocentric solar system every time the subject comes up.

    I’ve never asked for any sort of proof about either.

    That you constantly demand it so you can dismiss what you don’t like says more about you than it does about the people you so casually dismiss because they don’t provide you with oodles of links and a dissertation.

    I don’t dismiss, I ask for proof evidence. If I typed garbage opinion as fact, I’d expect someone to ask me to back it up. Actually, most here would probably just abuse me because they’re not very tolerant of anyone with a different opinion (outside a narrow spectrum). But anyway I would hope they’d ask for supporting evidence. That would be the obvious and polite alternative to abuse. Or dismissal. However if I failed to provide any, they’d be right to think I’m either just making shit up for shits and giggles, or continually fooling myself (i.e. with some serious reality/denial issues).

    Note that even when that was done you dismissed it because of the source or pretended it was not offered.

    Which example are you referring to?

    Most of what you say is so, and the stuff you link to, to support it, is meaningless as well.

    OH. MY. GOD. Only someone under the age of 16 would write that as a response. Seriously.

    Sorry but I don’t buy your sudden admission of doubt.

    You mean you didn’t understand it.

    In fact, I think it is bogus, just like these fundamental you claim are “well understood” are bogus. If these fundamentals where so well understood, there wouldn’t be a need for a scientific consensus,

    There isn’t a ‘need’ for one. The fact that almost everyone and every organisation is in agreement on the fundamentals is an indication that they are well understood. It reflects the agreement on the understanding of the basics. The uncertainties are about details.

    and these hucksters would not have had to make up evidence, destroy evidence, or be so secretive about what they are doing. That is the stuff that should have caused the most doubt.

    Nobody has made up evidence, or destroyed evidence. And the science is the least secretive it’s ever been. If you’ve got evidence to the contrary, I’d be happy to look at it.

    Are you telling me that the fact that EVERY solution to this faux problem that the church of AGW pushes basically being some kind of massive social engineering scam, isn’t a dead giveaway?

    First you’d need to explain who this ‘church’ is made up of before I can even start to answer that question. Almost no scientists are involved in providing solutions.

    You do remember the “Cap & Tax” battle, right? What about the EPA’s new powers to regulate a lot of money for friends of the watermelon movement? Blaming me for your refusal to see these things is sad.

    I’m sorry that you are sad. This ignores that I actually said though – it’s your position that relies entirely on faith. You’re working your way back from the end that you most fear, so that you figure out what you think you need to stop. For some reason the validity of the science (the beginning) is irrelevant to you. By that stage you have no option but to dismiss it as fraud and conspiracy, no matter how crazy and insane that is in reality.

    That gave me a good laugh man.

    I’m glad that you’re happier now after your recent sadness.

    That laughing however only lasted until I remembered that people like you have pissed on the scientific process and massively damaged the credibility of the scientific process.

    Oh ok. Can you please explain how I have personally “pissed on the scientific process” etc? If you’re going to respond with “I said like you, not you”, then what do you mean?

    BTW, did you hurt yourself writing about the scientific process being skeptical when your church labels anyone that dares point out that no dissension is tolerate against the “scientific consensus” and that anyone that dares to question it or point out the numerous and obvious flaws, discrepancies, and falsehoods, is immediately labeled a denier and heretic?

    Did I hurt myself? No, I’m typing on a keyboard. Oh I see, you’re being 13 years old. Ok.
    Your question isn’t any better. I’d rather deal with substance. Or which you appear to have none. Again.
    In reality, there are many many ongoing discussions and debates within the scientific community on a host of climate change areas. New findings update and replace old findings. Again if anyone is able to come up with a paper which destroys the theory and provides an alternative which explains what we know, they’ll be famous and rich. The funding is all there. There are journals out there that will publish it. There won’t be any stopping it.

    You missed your call: should have gone into standup comedy man. More comedy gold. Mehtinks the reason you didn’t find it was because you didn’t want to. Not because it wasn’t out there to be found

    .

    I’ve found plenty of “this will be the final nail in the coffin for global warming” claims on those sites, but strangely they always turn out to be garbage (like Watts’ temperature station claims). And usually the main denier points are just rehashed stuff that was debunked 2 years before. It doesn’t actually take long to start seeing the same old arguments put up as though they are the ‘truth’ and ‘the final nail’. Obviously these people never actually look any further than right-wing denier sites. The site ‘Skeptical Science” has almost all the claims (and 173 arguments) laid out with all the scientific papers and rationale to explain why they are garbage.
    Again, if it was out there I’m pretty sure someone would have been able to put a scientific paper together about it, and the scientific community could then have a good back-and-forwards on the details.

    Finally some honesty! You do not want to see the relevance.

    I’m sure you know you’re being dishonest there. Or do you honestly not understand?

    Then why don’t you find issue with the fact that every dammed solution is a social engineering one, not a technical one?

    Define ‘technical ones’ because I see plenty.
    Anyway what’s that got to do with the laws of physics not caring about wealth redistribution? When you design a bridge, do you have to take into account your political affliations when determining what load it can handle? Would you get accused of desiging substandard and unsafe bridges in areas that vote heavily Democratic? Why wouldn’t you get accused of that? How do you separate your politics from your work? How can we be sure that you’re been professional, and haven’t just been serving the interests of your politics?

    First off, this is a terrible example. Calculating bridge strength is based on indisputable physics and millennia of experience. We have computer models that predict stress and load so accurately that we can model the bridge and test it with such certainty that it almost looks like child’s play. AGW on the other hand has none of that. It is based on the worst kind of pseudo-science. And most people can clearly see that we lack any real understanding of the mechanisms and process that affect climate change. The models we use are crap, always producing the same effect regardless of against what time period and they are tested, and we now even know they where rigged to do that.

    Much of climate science is indisputable physics, or hard research. The greenhouse effect has been known for over a century.
    Models only form a small part of it, and they’re actually pretty good, and still getting better all the time.

    Certain wind currents are notoriously difficult to simulate, and calculating regional climates requires an unaffordably high resolution. Phenomena that scientists can’t yet quantify, like the processes by which glaciers melt, or the self-reinforcing cycles of thawing permafrost, are also poorly represented. However, not knowing everything about the climate doesn’t mean scientists know nothing. Incomplete knowledge does not imply nonexistent knowledge – you don’t need to understand calculus to be able to say with confidence that 9 x 3 = 27.

    Also, history has shown us that when climate models make mistakes, they tend to be too stable, and underestimate the potential for abrupt changes. Take the Arctic sea ice: just a few years ago, GCMs were predicting it would completely melt around 2100. Now, the estimate has been revised to 2030, as the ice melts faster than anyone anticipated

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/how-do-climate-models-work.html

    You would have been more accurate comparing AGW against astrology. They have more in common.

    Not at all. That’s obvious hyperbole.

    Also, pray tell, why is the entire end goal of the AGW movement, if you will allow me to steal your own line, about how many poor people might drive over it?

    Ah, what now? For a start, I don’t speak for the AGW movement. Secondly, the ‘end goal’ would be to retain a sustainable liveable planet for as long as possible. Thirdly, you seem to have confused this with the example fo the bridge.

    The UN has consistently told us that this is about spreading the worlds wealth equally

    They’ve told you that AGW is about spreading the worlds wealth equally? You must be getting a different newsletter to me.

    – with them doing it so they can steal as much of it as they can, I bet – so anyone pretending that the social engineering end goal is not true loses the argument by default.

    See above.

    Cost also ALWAYS matters.

    Of course it does. That’s one of the central and fundamental issues to consider. If there is going to be considerable warming down the road, and we’re currently making it worse, then if we can stop doing that now, it’s going to save us considerable cost later. We won’t need to spend nearly as much money adapting if we can mitigate. It’s cheaper to keep maintenance up on a bridge than to let it fall into the water and build another one. What you seem to be advocating is that we shouldn’t be doing maintenance, as that’s just a front for stealing maintenance money from the population. Not only that, you’re suggesting the people looking at the state of the bridge are only ever going to say it needs money because it funds them. So because they’re only ever going to say that, we shouldn’t ever believe them. Thus no maintenance. It would be better to potentially let the bridge fall down, no matter what the cost, than to risk falling for some sort of possible maintenance-swindle. To me that’s irrational and illogical.

    If you can’t afford it you shouldn’t build it.

    And if doing nothing costs considerably more down the road, it makes more economic sense to do something sooner. Basic economics.

    Also, how likely are you to think it is a wise investment & good idea to build a bridge that crosses the Atlantic considering the alternatives?

    I don’t understand the analogy. Are you suggesting taking steps to try and mitigate futher effects from climate change (now, while we can still determine a rate and degree at which to do it, before our hand is forced) is akin to building a bridge across the Atlantic?

    And I am certain you would balk like hell if while trying to do the calculations for your bridge some charlatan came over and told you to be specifically worried about the single small car that would cross it while ignoring the 4 train and heavy load lanes it also must support. Because that’s a close analogy to the nonsense by the people pushing CO2 while ignoring water vapor.

    Climate scientists don’t “ignore” water vapour. They are very aware of it’s existence.
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas-intermediate.htm

    If you can’t afford it you shouldn’t build it. We have forgotten that. That’s why the world’s economy is at death’s door. Also, how likely are you to think it is a wise investment & good idea to build a bridge that crosses the Atlantic considering the alternatives? And I am certain you would balk like hell if while trying to do the calculations for your bridge some charlatan came over and told you to be specifically worried about the single small car that would cross it while ignoring the 4 train and heavy load lanes it also must support. Because that’s a close analogy to the nonsense by the people pushing CO2 while ignoring water vapor.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  58. Xetrov says:

    Awesome. Another thread gets dragged into GW. Just like old times at Moorewatch.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  59. Seattle Outcast says:

    Is anyone bothering to read CM’s posts? I know I’m not really looking at anything more than four or five sentences – too much work to hear the same old blah, blah, blah….

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  60. Miguelito says:

    Not the multiple multi-page diatribes.. no.

    To be fair, I don’t read Alex’s similarly lengthy rants either.

    I like spirited debate in blogs, but the old TL;DR bit does still kick in from time to time.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  61. CM says:

    Awesome. Another thread gets dragged into GW. Just like old times at Moorewatch.

    Actually the discussions were mostly constrained to a couple of threads. Which is why one was 89 pages…
    You can blame Seattle Outcast for starting it this time.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

      
  62. CM says:

    I like spirited debate in blogs, but the old TL;DR bit does still kick in from time to time.

    Unfortunately there’s really nothing of substance being debated. So they’re not worth reading.
    We can’t even get to the beginning of discussing substance. But then that’s obviously not by accident.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  63. CM says:

    That same oft-touted data/graph has always been a sore point of mine too. When they are overlaid it does seem pretty obvious that you can’t claim causation.

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm

    This isn’t contentious amongst scientists. We know why conditions were the way they were in the past. Just as we know why conditions are different today, with CO2 acting as a forcing instead of its usual feedback to temps.
    But I would agree that nobody can claim causation without explaining how and why though. A graph by itself isn’t sufficient.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  64. Xetrov says:

    Actually the discussions were mostly constrained to a couple of threads. Which is why one was 89 pages…

    It was 82 pages actually. And you personally mentioned, or quoted the words “Climate Change” in 63 different threads, and “Global Warming” in 85 different threads, on such wide ranging topics as “the beauty of socialized health care” to “The theoretical impeachment question…..” to “Soldiers and marines – frustrated and fearful” all the way to “Kosovo Splits from Serbia”. Whether you were just bantering with Jabba or whatever, my statement still stands. Knock the GW shit off, nobody cares that you can provide links for 82 pages, and you aren’t changing anyone’s mind on the subject by doing so. It’s one of the things that killed off MW, IMO.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      
  65. working_man says:

    Wow. Let’s start debating torture again, because threads like this are the exact definition of it. See you guys in another year or two

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  66. Seattle Outcast says:

    You can blame Seattle Outcast for starting it this time.

    NO, we can blame YOU.

    I merely pointed out that AGW was yet another fraudulent POS pushed out by the UN, you decided you had a new topic and ran with it.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  67. JimK says:

    Sometimes I think it must be really hard being your own Mary Sue.
    JimK recently posted..The perils of the urban suburbMy Profile

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  68. Seattle Outcast says:

    Isn’t that a “Gary Stu” in this instance?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  69. CM says:

    It was 82 pages actually. And you personally mentioned, or quoted the words “Climate Change” in 63 different threads, and “Global Warming” in 85 different threads, on such wide ranging topics as “the beauty of socialized health care” to “The theoretical impeachment question…..” to “Soldiers and marines – frustrated and fearful” all the way to “Kosovo Splits from Serbia”. Whether you were just bantering with Jabba or whatever, my statement still stands.

    I’ll bet if you look at each thread it wasn’t me that started it (either the thread on that topic, or the discussion in that topic). It was also over 6 years or so.
    Sometimes it was merely mentioned as an aside in a piece I quoted.
    E.g. http://moorewatch.right-thinking.com/index.php/forums/viewthread/1797/P25/#37241

    So I don’t think your raw stats mean anything.

    Knock the GW shit off, nobody cares that you can provide links for 82 pages, and you aren’t changing anyone’s mind on the subject by doing so. It’s one of the things that killed off MW, IMO

    I didn’t just provide links for 82 pages. That’s a ridiculous statement.

    If people don’t want to talk about it, they could stop saying stupid shit about it. Really, it’s disingenous for people to have a go at me when they throw it out like red meat. People who don’t want to discuss it shouldn’t mention it.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

      
  70. CM says:

    NO, we can blame YOU.

    I merely pointed out that AGW was yet another fraudulent POS pushed out by the UN, you decided you had a new topic and ran with it.

    And I merely asked for some evidence.
    And yet you’re unwilling to defend your position. Mostly because you probably realise you can’t.

    Nothing is easier than throwing out silly statements and then refusing to defend them. Any monkey can do that..

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

      
  71. CM says:

    Sometimes I think it must be really hard being your own Mary Sue.

    Probably still better than living with constant cognitive dissonance though.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

      
  72. Seattle Outcast says:

    Still doing that chicken, I see…..

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  73. JimK says:

    Did you guys all know that I am never wrong? Also, I have a perfect cock. And I shit money.
    JimK recently posted..The perils of the urban suburbMy Profile

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      
  74. Seattle Outcast says:

    And yet you’re unwilling to defend your position. Mostly because you probably realise you can’t.

    Aside from you bad spelling, the stupid is getting pretty strong over there. Get off your high horse and realize that this blog isn’t your personal debating forum and/or lecture podium. The various issues and positions on AGW have been hashed out and debated to death many times previously. Just because you show up late for the discussion doesn’t mean we are all going to repeat ourselves for your sake.

    I’ll give you the short version:

    1) You and two other people are still buying into into AGW
    2) Everybody else is calling it a fraud
    3) Nobody really wants to get into it again
    4) You don’t know when to quit

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      
  75. AlexInCT says:

    Did you guys all know that I am never wrong? Also, I have a perfect cock. And I shit money.

    My lawyer will be contacting you for stealing my lines. Not cool dude. BTW, my cock is also really big. Some chicks get scared.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  76. Dave D says:

    Did you guys all know that I am never wrong? Also, I have a perfect cock. And I shit money.

    CM would have provided at least three links for that post……just sayin’……..

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  77. Seattle Outcast says:

    He shits money, but it’s nothing but low denomination Drachma notes….

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  78. JimK says:

    Just so everyone knows, I just deleted a comment from hoho, something about which he has been warned.
    JimK recently posted..The perils of the urban suburbMy Profile

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      
  79. hohokiss says:

    I’ll bet doing so created another 500,000 jobs, gobless Umurka.

    I got lucky today cuz I managed to keep my new job; while another guy who started with me who hadn’t been assigned a project quickly enough got canned again after all of 4 days. To hell with that jerk, eh, hes probably just a whiner, always gotta be right, its always everyone elses fault but his, etc. Survival of the fittest. Love it or leave it.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

      
  80. hist_ed says:

    Oh shit, I helped bring on the AGW thing, didn’t I? Crap, sorry guys, didn’t think.

    If I respond with a single sentence, do you think CM can keep his response under 5000 words?

    My sentence: I was not trying to debate AGW again, just Gore’s film and the court case; you’re lengthy defense does not convince me that a film presented with scientific certitude wasn’t a propaganda piece filled with distortions.

    Whew.

    Is anyone bothering to read CM’s posts? I know I’m not really looking at anything more than four or five sentences – too much work to hear the same old blah, blah, blah….

    I gutted through the first one because it was a response to me. Other wise I tend to have a two or three paragraph limit.

    Hey Jimk, maybe that’s an idea, limit post to a certain number of character? Not even sure if I think its a good idea, but . . .

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      

Comments have been disabled.