http://nation.foxnews.com/paul-ryan/2012/09/25/ryan-compares-obama-nfl-replacement-ref

Give the guys a break.. They are doing the best that they can under very trying and stressful conditions..

They're working stiffs... Leave 'em alone!

Michale.....

If he had put it the way you put it that would've been fine - but, as you said, he put it so "ineptly" that he completely missed the whole point!

What, again??

This is like the 10th, 12th time you have said this...

:D

Michale.....

You really are losing it if you quote my posts that actually PROVE my point and totally demolishes yours.. :D

Michale.....

Yes a minimum federal tax on the poor will fix things. I suggest he switches parties if he trully believes this. Idiot.

I read it more as seizing the opportunity to remind most Americans that Romney wants to raise their taxes so his billionaire friends can pay less. Sales tax, property tax, and payroll tax aren't enough for Republicans. They want low-income people to pay income tax too -- all so the top bracket can be cut again and again, and capital-gains rates can be zeroed out. The more we're all reminded of that, the better. Even if it's kind of ineptly done some of the time.

Lolol I mean come on. You contradict this statement about 50 posts back several times, you:

So, while I think ALL polls are shit and have little if anything to do with reality, I would at least consider giving more credence to the ones that are supported by other facts followed by:

The unskewed polls DO have supporting facts. All of Obama's bonehead moves and statements the last couple weeks.

Whatever, there is no point discussing this with you because anything supporting Obama is automatically wrong/part of the liberal media bias in Michale world...

Once again, you change the facts to fit your argument.

I am on record multiple times as saying that ALL polls are shit.

It's you who constantly chat up the polls that you agree with and denigrate the polls you don't agree with...

I can only imagine if Romney was doing well in the polls or makes a resurgence how this will change your mind instantly. Yawn.

There is no evidence to suggest my mind will change because of a poll change..

That's what you do...

ALL polls are shit. I have had this exact same attitude for the last 5 years, as anyone on here can attest to..

Michale.....

Sure I know what you mean and I get he is just playing politics. But having to take anything out of the playbook of birthers/Fox is starting to bring yourself down to their level (in the filthy mud) - obviously not quite since birthers are a whole other level of crazy bigots. I'd say there are cleaner ways of getting your point across without engaging in petty, childish tactics.

Michale,
Yes we know, polls that don't agree with your biased view of the world must be biased/useless. We get it. The RCP Average probably isn't accurate, even though it has shown itself to be very accurate in the last 10 years. I can only imagine if Romney was doing well in the polls or makes a resurgence how this will change your mind instantly. Yawn.

:D

Michale.....

Once again, you are ignoring reality..

I have ALWAYS acknowledged that *THE* GOP candidate was flawed. I have never claimed anything else.

But, and this is documented fact, YOUR candidate is 10 times more flawed than the GOP candidate..

And THAT is why YOUR candidate is going to lose..

Dukakis supporters quoted polls. He lost.

Kerry supporters quoted polls. He lost.

Carter supporters quoted polls. HE lost.

Mondale supporters quoted polls. HE lost.

Clinton supporters quoted polls. SHE lost..

You seeing the pattern???

Let me say this really slow, so as to aid in your comprehension...

POLLS.... DON'T.... MEAN.... SHIT.......

The fact that you ONLY quote polls that say what you want to hear is proof positive of this...

Michale......

hehehehehehehehehehehehehe

Regardless of your politics, THAT was funny!! :D

Michale.....

Kudos on the quote. :D

And I'll let you have the last word on it.

"Just for that, I'll let you have the last word"
"Thank you."
"You're welcome"
-M*A*S*H

:D

Michale...

While those are all good questions, I think you missed why all Americans should be pissed at that comment..

"Surfing a 30 foot wave in Waimea is cool, dating a super model is cool. THIS is not cool!!!"
-Lt Col John Shepard, STARGATE: ATLANTIS, The Last Man

The idea that the brutal murder of our Ambassador and 3 of our citizens is simply a "bump in the road" indicates that Obama has a mindset that all Americans would find disgusting and appalling..

Now, if Obama simply misspoke, then that's one thing. Then he should state so...

As far as your points go, as I said, they are very good questions..

This entire Libya debacle would seem to put to rest the claims of the Left that Obama is some kind of Foreign Policy wunderkind...

Michale.....

Regardless of what the reasons or diplomacy underpinning this thing, "bump in the road" needed to go below the fold until the news cycles naturally re-bury it. Here's how that's going to be done:

"Obama May Do Social Security Reform During Lame Duck Session, Senate Democrats Worry"

Honestly, I don't know what to make of this. The time line puts the attack at around 6 EST the night of the 11th, the confirmation of the deaths in the late evening, and the interview was the morning of the 12th.

There's a lot of questions here:

Why did the 60 Minutes guy not bring up the fact that a US ambassador had been killed?

Why did the President not bring it up?

Why did the administration continue to refuse to embrace the reality of the attack?

Why did the US use surrogates (aka Libyans) to hit the terrorist base when there are a lot of Recon Marines a short helicopter ride away (they have a different acronym for the units; the 'new' units don't have battalion flags featuring skulls with three bullet holes in them like the Recons')

There's something here we don't know...

With all due respect, Sen. Reid doesn't have to apologize. He was the Designed Troll.

He did what every good troll does and, BTW, took a play right out of the Birther Handbook (Fox Edition): yell something preposterous at the top of your lungs, and continue to yell it. While it will fade into the background noise with the public, there's a chance that the other side will get sick of it or worried about it sticking, and actually try to refute it.

If you do that, you've done just what the Troll set out to accomplish, which is put whatever it is back center stage, where they can start to pick at the edges, try to make you look like a jerk or a crook for not responding sooner, and burn up a couple of your news cycles.

I hate to say it, but there's no honor here, in either camp; it's campaign politics. Harry Reid is among the best journeyman politicians alive; it's why he has his job.

Well, I stand corrected. I'll drop it though.

Just one last quote ...

Judging by the pollution content of the atmosphere, I believe we have arrived at the late twentieth century.
--Spock, The Voyage Home

Americans are abandoning Obama in droves..

But, keep quoting those useless polls..

Right up until election day, if you want..

It will just make my last laugh all the more enjoyable... :D

Michale......

RCP Average is pretty accurate!

What happened to the President's record being so bad?? Apparently the 'President's record is bad' means continuing to politicize the killing of a US Ambassador and bringing up more 14 year old videos... So Rush/Fox/Romney/Michale have really reached desperation point.

Yer kidding, right???

If I have to explain it, it's clear you would NEVER understand...

I think Michale believes Global Warming is just part of the liberal media conspiracy in America

Nope.. I think it's a blatant attempt to use biased psuedo-science to TRY and be relevant in a country and a time when people are sick and tired of this kind of crap...

The "THE SKY IS FALLING" crap gets REALLY old, REALLY fast...

Especially since NOT ONE SINGLE prediction, NOT ONE SINGLE model has EVER come to pass...

NOT ONE.....

In fact, many of the models and predictions have been LAUGHINGLY disproved.. Himalayan Ice Free Mountains anyone??? Polar Bears nearing Extinction anyone?? Mount Killamanjaroo No Snow anyone?? Robins in Canada anyone? And so on and so on and so on....

What is so amazing is that after ALL the bum calls, after ALL the bogus claims, after ALL the outright fraud, there are actually people who STILL buy into the Human Caused Global Warming (Yet The Planet Is Cooling) con...

I guess PT Barnum was right...

This is all I am going to say about that subject tonight.. Hopefully for the rest of this commentary...

Michale....

David,
I think Michale believes Global Warming is just part of the liberal media conspiracy in America (and the world). It's the same on most issues: evidence in support = liberal media bias; evidence against = the truth!

Speaking of ad hominem attacks....

Seems to be that's all we see, rather than address the FACTS of how OUR President can refer to a terrorist attack that kills OUR Ambassador and OUR fellow Americans as a "bump in the road"...

Do I need to bother pointing out how ya'all would have reacted if a GOP President had said something so completely and utterly insensitive and cold??

Michale.....

I am also constrained to point out that I DON'T use these tactics.. At least not in the Human Caused Global Warming (Yet The Planet Is Cooling) debate.

In fact, those tactics seem to come from ya'all, when ya call into question the veracity and integrity of those scientists who dispute the Human Caused Global Warming (Yet The Planet Is Cooling) theory..

As far as debating about the incompetence of Obama??

Yea, sometimes... :D

Michale.....

Yer excellent at the KillThemWithKindness tactic, David!!! :D

Actually, I don't much care about the economy.

I have "an overwhelming desire to face the end of the world"... :D

I just don't like to be played for a fool..

Ironically enough, this explains both my animosity to Obama AND to the ridiculous Human Caused Global Warming (Yet The Planet Is Cooling) theory...

Speaking of the end of the world, did you catch the season premiere of REVOLUTION??

Looks pretty promising, but I have a bad feeling it might go the way of TERRA NOVA

A great show, with great potential, but just too expensive...

Michale.....

Believe it or not, michty, I give Michale a lot more credit than this.

I believe Michale thinks that any attempts to deal with global warming are going to hurt our economy. This seems to be his underlying motivation.

I don't believe this is true, but I can see why he thinks this.

If my assumption is correct, we now know what he's fighting for.

I also believe that Michale excels at tactics of war. I will include psychological tactics here as well.

The battle is lined up, he knows what side he's on, now the only purpose is to defeat the enemy.

Towards this end he uses (quite skillfully, I might add) tactics such as liberal baiting and ad hominem attacks to fight the good fight.

I say all this out of respect because I think most liberals misjudge conservatives. They tend to think that conservatives somehow don't get it. On the contrary, I think Michale is extremely smart. I've learned never to underestimate his intelligence.

I think Michale has simply made the calculation that if he uses these tactics, he will win.

And he's quite a skilled tactician.

It's just quite ironic because I don't feel as if I'm in a fight. At least not with Michale.

-David

Geee, color me surprised.... :D

Michale.....

Today, they are laughed at..

50 years from now, today's scientists will also be laughed at.. :D

Michale......

So predictable....

Michale....

It's like trying to convince a religious person that there is no god... (There isn't, by the bi..)

They have their beliefs and absolutely NO amount of facts or science will dissuade them...

Ya think I would learn.... :D

Michale.....

http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2012/0730/Prominent-climate-change-denier-now-admits-he-was-wrong-video

I'm sure it's sincere.

But sincere isn't science.

I haven't seen any peer reviewed science which has been accepted by the scientific community as valid which disproves the theory.

This is how science works. People publish theories and they are peer reviewed by other scientists and tested for validity and only once they've been accepted by the scientific community are they judged credible.

The deniers typically find a Ph.D., pay them to say something denying the science, and then claim that it's science.

Here's my favorite example ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-AyDtD6sPA&feature=player_embedded#at=28

Sounds convincing on the surface, no?

The theory of global warming has been around for a long time and the scientific community has had many, many chance to review and evaluate it. It's been refined over the years and expanded on, but I haven't seen any refutation pass the scientific community test.

-David

p.s. BTW- TENS of THOUSANDS of scientists ... LOL ... that's a good one. Where do you get this stuff?

THAT's the problem.

You don't BELIEVE the science that SHOWS that the theory may be incorrect...

Therefore, you will never have to question your own beliefs...

The science that disputes the theory is JUST as valid and JUST as sincere as the science that supports the theory. Probably a LOT more sincere...

But, since your view is that any science that disputes the theory CANNOT be "real" science, you will never have to consider that you MAY be wrong...

Like I said, it's a self-fulfilling prophecy of delusion...

It's like a thousand years ago, people believed that the world was flat.

Any "science" that disputed that theory WASN'T "really" science, so the delusion persisted..

It was only when people started to wake up and think, "hmmmmm... Maybe the original science was flawed" that progress is made..

That's where we are with the Human Caused Global Warming (Yet The Planet Is Cooling) theory..

TENS of THOUSANDS of scientists are saying, "Hmmmmm Maybe the original science is flawed"...

And we will soon evolve out of this current scientific "theory" which is, in the here and now, more politics than science....

Now... How about them bumps in the road??? :D

Michale.....

It's unequal based on scientific criteria.

The same could be said for you, my friend.. :D

If the science shows me a theory is incorrect, I'm more than willing to advance with the science.

Newton was pretty good and all, but Einstein, that guy was a genius :)

-David

Michale.....

It's only un-equal, based on the limited criteria..

IE:

No REAL science would claim that the Human Caused Global Warming (Yet The Planet Is Cooling) theory would be false.

Therefore, ANY science that MAKES that claim CANNOT be "real" science..

Rule #1: A =! B...
Rule #2: If A = B refer #1

It's a self-fulfilling delusion that has absolutely NOTHING to do with science and everything to do with dogmatic law..

You'll never be convinced, Michale. Of that, we know.

The same could be said for you, my friend.. :D

The difference is, I can concede that I *could* be wrong..

Can you do the same?? :D

Michale

No, it's not.

It's like scientists saying that in 30 years, something which has been around for millions of years will be disappearing and may very soon no longer be there.

You're talking politics.

I can't be. I'm not angry :)

By your own admission, you're the angry one talking politics.

If it were TRUE science then the science that DISPROVES the theory of Human Caused Global Warming (Yet The Planet Is Cooling) would be given equal weight to the science that SUPPORTS the Human Caused Global Warming (Yet The Planet Is Cooling) theory.

If there were equal evidence, science would give the arguments equal weight.

But there's not.

Science doesn't give equal weight to conservative vs. liberal arguments. Only our news does.

But this is becoming a circular discussion.

You'll never be convinced, Michale. Of that, we know.

So I'll leave you to your Al Gore liberal hating.

-David

"It's a bump in the road.."
-President Barack Obama

Let the spin begin...

Michale.....

I think I just pee'ed myself, I laughed so hard at this comment.. :D

While I would agree with you if you had said that a political element should NOT be found in science, it's completely naive to think that there is no politics in the "science" of Human Caused Global Warming (Yet The Planet Is Cooling)..

Human Caused Global Warming (Yet The Planet Is Cooling) is the EPITOME of Policy Based Evidence Making...

If it were TRUE science then the science that DISPROVES the theory of Human Caused Global Warming (Yet The Planet Is Cooling) would be given equal weight to the science that SUPPORTS the Human Caused Global Warming (Yet The Planet Is Cooling) theory...

As evidenced by this thread, it's clear that such is not the case...

Ergo, Human Caused Global Warming (Yet The Planet Is Cooling) is politics.. NOT science...

Michale.....

Personally, I don't think of them as battleground states. I think of them as battleSHIP states. The USS Arizona was among the first ships sunk in WWII, and the surrender of Japan was signed on the deck of the USS Missouri.

To me, battleground is OH and FL. Put them (or the equivalent electoral BTUs) outside of the margin of bickering, put the ground game in place to ensure the turnout, and Nate Silver can get to baseball while there's still time.

Okay, that's it. I used lunch as a procrastination, but now there's none left.

And yet.. The ice caps are STILL there...

That's like me saying, "In 30 years, it's going to rain"...

Now, what are the odds that, in 2042, it's going to rain??? :D

Shit, I'll be 80 years old!! :D

It would simply change the economy. There would likely be more opportunity in alternative energies and things like cleaner manufacturing. And less opportunity in dirtier technologies.

And it's just as likely, with human nature being the way it is, that it WOULDN'T be the utopia you envision...

And what if you're wrong???

50 years ago, a new ICE AGE was the big scare.. What if actions were taken BACK THEN to heat the planet??

Even if we DID have the technology to affect climate (which we don't), we don't have enough solid facts to go futzing around with the climate..

Honestly, I'm not quite sure what you're so angry about when it comes to this discussion.

The beauty of science is that it doesn't get angry.

Because you are not talking science..

You're talking politics....

And politics ALWAYS makes me angry...

"Mr McGee. Don't make me angry.. You wouldn't like me when I'm angry."
-Dr David Banner

:D

Michale.....

I would agree with this, as far as it goes..

There isn't anyway to safely transport alternative forms energy to those who need it..

But what about provisioning so that those who don't NEED to transport it can utilize alternate forms of energy???

When one considers the hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars that has been spent on lawyers and lobbying for the Human Cause Global Warming (Yet The Planet Is Cooling) theory, just imagine how better utilized that money COULD have been..

I have been looking into this. A completely independent (yet grid-tied) solar powered system for my home is going to cost around $30K.. That's in today's market..

Now, imagine if those hundreds of billions of dollars generating hot air would have been put towards equipping qualified homes with solar power systems..

Not only would this have put a HUGE dent in our national energy consumption, it would have ALSO funded further R&D that would make such systems CHEAPER and more effecient...

Now THAT's a program that EVERYONE on the planet could get behind...

Everyone except the lobbyists and the laywers and the Al Gores and the Richard Bransons...

You see my point??

If Human Cause Global Warming is such a dire threat as the Hysterical Left wants us to believe it is, why spend billions TALKING about it?? Why not spend those billions DOING something about it???

Michale.....

-David

I believe they predicted the melting of the polar ice caps. 30+ years ago. Quite impressive at the time.

But if ya tell me that the world is going to end so we MUST destroy our economy so as to make the likes of Al Gore and Richard Branson richer?

The trap you're falling into here is the argument that dealing w/ global warming would destroy the economy.

It would simply change the economy. There would likely be more opportunity in alternative energies and things like cleaner manufacturing. And less opportunity in dirtier technologies.

I don't see this as a bad thing. And I'm not sure why you have to bring Al Gore into it - unless it's to introduce that political element which isn't found in the scientific community.

If we frame the discussion as we need to expand alternative energy sources to get off the Oil Addiction, I all for it.

Me too!

Honestly, I'm not quite sure what you're so angry about when it comes to this discussion.

The beauty of science is that it doesn't get angry.

-David

There is simply NO POSSIBLE way that humans can destroy the planet..

NO.... POSSIBLE.... WAY.....

Michale......

HA. And liberals complain by nature, too. And undecideds, probably, even if only because Honey Boo Boo might be pre-empted by election coverage in November.

So who does that leave? Ghandi and Mother Theresa. And they're both dead. Good news for the blogs, though.

I can agree with your >0% theory, but consider this..

Postulate a scenario where there is a 3% chance that mankind will destroy the planet in the next thousand years by pollution and ozone depletion, unless something is done..

BUT...

The something that must be done has a 90% chance of utterly destroying the world economies in a matter of years......

"What do you do?? What DO you do??"
-SPEED

Hay, you wanted to play the "what if" game, not me... :D

Michale....

- Romney is ahead on average in North Carolina

Update: He's not ahead on average in NC anymore. Oh dear. Romney isn't ahead in any battleground State now. Only Missouri and Arizona (for those counting these as battleground States).

This is one where I'm probably going to go way against the house here. The fact is that there is no store of easily, safely transportable energy that carries anything close to the BTU content of oil. Except for one source: electricity.

But there are problems with electricity.

While you can transport it, most requirements for mechanical power are mobile. So you have the "extension cord" problem, or the battery net efficiency - translating to productive efficiency - problem.

Second, unlike the release of the power of "ancient sunlight" in oil, you have to generate electricity. Which poison are you going to choose to do that?

The last thing I want to do is get into a "peak oil" discussion. But everybody, from fracking wildcatters to academic futurists, can agree on the fact that the world is way past the peak of NET recoverable energy (energy recovered less energy cost to recover it), and, thus, way past the peak of CHEAP energy.

So, in my mind, the planet is going to have to continue to rely - not exclusively, but fundamentally - on oil. We will continue to see, and be forced to absorb, increases in costs, in environmental damage, in market force rationing of products, in changes in social organization, and in economic competition for resources.

These will be, in various guise and with various stalking horses, at the center of the political debate for the rest of this century.

You can debate the probability all you like, but if there is a >0% chance that something human caused will cause considerable damage to the planet or potentially destroy the planet then I'm always going to vote on the side of taking measures to stop it.

Add in the fact that fossil fuels are finite and we'll have to stop using them at some point anyway, that makes the decision to stop using then now even easier...

http://www.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeedpolitics/hillary-clinton-aide-tells-reporter-to-fuck-off

Looks like someone in the Obama Administration is a tad touchy about the BS the Administration has been spewing.. :D

Michale.....

I think the problem these days is a flood of polling, with some conducted by true pros and others, not so much. A good polling org will constantly check self-identification. Rasmussen and Gallup conduct a check on an ongoing basis. Rasmussen posts theirs monthly; Gallup, every six months, or so.

As for Likely Voters, there are all different systems for identifying who's most likely to show up on election day. Some pollsters build up a pool of respondents, whom they put through a pretty thorough questionnaire about their voting record, dating back six or eight years. And then they do the questionnaire a second time, a couple of weeks later, to see if the respondent gives the same answers, which goes far in eliminating phonies from the pool. There are all sorts of tricks of the trade. It just depends on how good the polling org is, and how dedicated they are to building a good reputation for accuracy.

As for cellphones, all good polling orgs have addressed that problem in one way or another. One way is that same pool method, where the org just asks the respondent for their cell phone number in the screening phase and they build a cell-user database from it. And any good, reliable polling org, who publishes their polling results, will include at least some kind of description regarding their methodology. They don't give all their trade secrets away to the competition, in the process, but the reader gets to know that they have a system in place, and a percentage of accuracy is usually included.

And the final check of a pollster's accuracy, of course, is election day results, and exit polls. If a pollster calls it, within the MoE, year after year, that's a reliable pollster. Some have even called it within a fraction of a percentage.

The trick is to take the time to read the actual polls (provided the pollster even provides them) and check for over-sampling, using Rasmussen's or Gallup's surveys as a guide — and also to bear in mind that the "undecideds" generally break for the challenger. Add that in if you want a clearer sense of who's actually ahead. That's why they always say that if an incumbent isn't pulling over 50%, they're in trouble.

So the water heats up, the cap doesn't re-form as deeply nor as expansively, so next year...

That's kinda my position...

If ya frame this discussion as pollution is bad and we need to combat that, then I am there..

If we frame the discussion as we need to expand alternative energy sources to get off the Oil Addiction, I all for it......

But if ya tell me that the world is going to end so we MUST destroy our economy so as to make the likes of Al Gore and Richard Branson richer???

Scrooo that.....

Michale.....

The science is in dispute.

This claim is supported by the fact that, in the 20-30 (more??) years that the Human Caused Global Warming (Yet The Planet Is Cooling) theory has been the cause celebre' of choice, not ONE model, not ONE prediction has turned out to be accurate...

HUNDREDS of BILLIONS of dollars have been bandied about, put into ALL this "research" and NOT ONE SINGLE MODEL has panned out.

NOT ONE SINGLE PREDICTION has *ever* come true..

On the other hand, there have been DOZENS and DOZENS of theories, predictions and models that have been proven COMPLETELY and UTTERLY false. Some of them LAUGHABLY so....

Given ALL of these FACTS, I find it hard to believe that ANYONE with more than two brain cells to rub together would buy into this theory...

Ya see why I really want to change the subject??? :D Because this discussion turns me into MORE of an arrogant prick than any other. If that's possible.. :D

Michale....

"The first is that the one percent growth per decade in the Antarctic pales next to the much faster 15.5 percent drop per decade in the Arctic. They aren’t even in the same ballpark."

"Not only that: while the sea ice bordering Antarctica has been growing slightly, the massive ice sheets that sit directly atop the frozen continent are shrinking, at an accelerating rate."

"Still, if the planet is warming, how can the sea ice be expanding in the waters surrounding Antarctica in the first place? Keeping in mind that it isn’t expanding by much, scientists offer several possible explanations. One is that there’s been more precipitation in recent decades (which itself could well be due to global warming). That puts a cap of relatively fresh water atop the denser, saltier water below, and in winter, when that top layer cools, it stays on top rather than mixing with the warmer water underneath, thus encouraging the growth of ice.

Another factor may be the ozone hole that opens up at this time every year over the South Pole. Ozone loss tends to cool the upper atmosphere — an effect that percolates down to the surface."

But I'm sure you'll come up with some other "scientific" explanation ... :)

-David

Because the oceans are big and there are two hemispheres over which to integrate the termperature gradients.

Actually, I had a bet - which I lost - with a climate denier this year. It was that there would be NO connected polar ice below 80N, west of 20W, by Sept 21. I lost it only because the cap didn't release in the Queen Elizabeth islands, at about 120W.

The arbiter of the bet were these NOAA reports, taken at 3-day intervals : http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/ml/ocean/sst/anomaly.html

It was close enough that we're probably going to be in for a doozy of a winter as the jet stream snakes to nearly north-south alignments.

Did humans cause this? I don't know. Ask the politicians. All I know is that it ain't good.

Oh bullcarp...

The hell it ain't...

But that's a discussion best left alone.. :D

p.s. BTW, if the planet is cooling, how come the arctic ice cap is melting?

p.s. If the planet is warming, how come the ANTarctic Ice Cap is growing??

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/forget-the-melting-arctic-the-sea-ice-in-antarctica-is-growing-skeptics-say-15032

:D

Like I have always said.. I can match you one for one all day long...

That's why it's common knowledge amongst those WITHOUT an agenda that that the *theory* of Human Caused Global Warming (Yet The Planet Is Cooling) IS in dispute..

Even amongst scientists.. ESPECIALLY amongst scientists...

But, like I said, this is probably a discussion best saved for another place and time..

Please... :D

Michale.....

Exactly my point. This theory isn't controversial in the scientific community.

Only in the political one.

-David

p.s. BTW, if the planet is cooling, how come the arctic ice cap is melting?

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Ra14mEm1Gmk/TcDEKdHModI/AAAAAAAABE4/OrVJTehVoSc/s1600/arctic_ice-melting.jpg

My reasoning exactly..

As you so illustriously point out, there are many many many MANY ways that polls can go wrong and very very very VERY few ways that polls can get it right..

NO ONE has ever gone broke betting on the fallibility of polls...

As is clear from the depth of discussion here, poll results can and are used as a motivating force to add to the stew of the suasion.

I just LOVE your word usage.. :D

"She doesn't even have a Sega! She's such a troglodyte."
"Cruel. But good word usage."
-Jurassic Park II

:D

Michale.....

Add presentation-induced bias to those ("Given how much the President has damaged national security...") and the science of sampling and statistics become an exercise overlain (overlaid? I'll be laid in my grave before I ever know for sure) with sampling variations that can be of a magnitude greater than the true, but unknowable, population difference.

The first will never go away; the second problem might.

The third is the meat and potatoes of partisan hacks, and often deliberately sought out by the campaigns. As is clear from the depth of discussion here, poll results can and are used as a motivating force to add to the stew of the suasion.

Me: " if the poll fits in with your biased view of the world ('Obama is an evil usurper'), you'll give it more credence"

Michale: "The unskewed polls DO have supporting facts. All of Obama's bonehead moves and statements the last couple weeks."

Lolol well played.

http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/09/elizabeth-warrens-law-license-problem/

Scott Brown will win the election..

Michale......

So, we're back to this again..

Gallup?? Rasmussen??

i.e. if the poll fits in with your biased view of the world ('Obama is an evil usurper'), you'll give it more credence lolol

Nope.. That's just icing on the cake..

If the polls have supporting facts, THEN I *might* give them a smidgen more credence....

The unskewed polls DO have supporting facts. All of Obama's bonehead moves and statements the last couple weeks. The report that an Obama rep is scouting a new house in Hawaii for occupancy in Jan of 2013, because of Team Obama's internal polling.

This is called supporting evidence.. Being a trained investigator, I look at ALL the available evidence, not just evidence that backs up what I want to believe..

Like SOME people around here. :D

Michale.....

And *I* can find polls that "prove" my statement is completely true..

I didn't find a single poll, I used the average of polls as I always do.

The difference between you and me is that I think ALL polls are shit but you think only the polls that say what you don't like are shit... :D

I'm sure you're just saying this to wind me up and you're not completely blind to every word I've written so I'll let it pass. The funny thing is it's not me who believes this but you, quoting you from [80]:

"So, while I think ALL polls are shit and have little if anything to do with reality, I would at least consider giving more credence to the ones that are supported by other facts."

i.e. if the poll fits in with your biased view of the world ('Obama is an evil usurper'), you'll give it more credence lolol.

And *I* can find polls that "prove" my statement is completely true..

Once again, you (inadvertently, I am sure :D) prove my point about how polls are shit...

The difference between you and me is that I think ALL polls are shit but you think only the polls that say what you don't like are shit... :D

Once again showing who is REALLY biased and who isn't.. :D

Michale.....

Michale [80] right on cue That's why I don't believe ANY of the polls. Because they are not supported by factual reality.

Now we know why Obama doesn't like to do interviews with REAL reporters..

He's constantly sticking his foot in his mouth...

Michale.....

But the polls show a net GAIN for Romney

Uhm nope, actually the opposite happened. Here is the Obama lead from RCP - as you can see pre 47%gate (which was Sept 17th) it was decreasing then post 47%gate it begins to increase again:
- Sept 12 - +3.5
- Sept 15 - +3.1
- Sept 18 - +2.8
- Sept 21 - +3.5
- Sept 24 - +3.7

Just like most news services seem too afraid of offending the Left so they report a controversial scientific theory (Human Caused Global Warming Yet The Planet Is Cooling) as fact...

No matter HOW you try to evade, the simple fact is, it works BOTH ways...

You have ONE MSM outlet that obviously skews Right.

The rest of the MSM skews Left..

Yet, the ONE that skews Right STILL gives more air time to Leftys than ALL the other MSM outlets give to the Right *combined*...

Michale....

This morning he sort of alluded to wishing this wasn't such a tight race, so he could get down to baseball.

That's kinda my point. Michty quotes polls that say it ISN'T a tight race.. Some polls say it's a tight race, some polls say it's NOT a tight, in favor of Obama.

Yet, NONE of the polls (sans the unskewed polls) are supported by other facts..

That's why I don't believe ANY of the polls. Because they are not supported by factual reality..

Romney makes a (according to the Hysterical and not so Hysterical Left) HUGE gaffe that the Left claims will DEVASTATE Romney..

But the polls show a net GAIN for Romney..

Obame scrooes the pooch repeatedly, yet NONE of it is reflected in any polls except the unskewed ones..

So, while I think ALL polls are shit and have little if anything to do with reality, I would at least consider giving more credence to the ones that are supported by other facts...

Michale.....

This idea of "fair and balanced" in the news (a conservative idea, btw) goes like this:

The news should accurately report in equal portions the opinions of both Democrats and Republicans.

So if Democrats report "blue" and Republicans report "red," the news should be exactly purple.

This is, unfortunately, the type of news which has led to so ignorance in the U.S. This is the type of news responsible for some 20% of Americans thinking Barack Obama is a Muslim.

I believe the news should be able to call poppycock when things are poppycock.

A great example is this idea of Intelligent Design. No serious scientist believes in it. Yet to be "fair" to Republicans, it is reported as the Republican counterpoint to the scientific theory of evolution.

Balderdash!

And the news should be able to report this. Sadly, most news organizations seem too afraid of offending conservatives (or more likely their corporate advertising sponsors) to do much actual investigative reporting.

I mean, why bother, when you can just print the latest Britney Spears gossip and attract more readers?

-David

I like Nate's analysis too. You should also check out the Princeton Election Consortium at http://election.princeton.edu/ - there is also a little mini-feud between him and Nate that you can sometimes see a little hint of in some of his blogs!

Nate Silver over at fivethirtyeight as a discussion of this very issue this morning, with all results back to FDR.

I generally defer to Silver's aggregation for my daily fix of polls. He's also very good with the March basketball tourney. Particularly if you bet over-under on the games ;-) This morning he sort of alluded to wishing this wasn't such a tight race, so he could get down to baseball.

Lol nope. I mean I did put the part where I didn't do this in caps but I'll try it in caps, bold and italics to see if you get the msg: EVERY SINGLE POLLSTER Try reading my comment again and maybe reading this part!

What do you say about THOSE polls, michty?

I'd say calling them 'unskewed' when all they've done is taken polls and skewed them is lololol! Especially since they are using RASMUSSENS methodology to unskew them... Rasmussen, which says registered Republican voters are at an ALL TIME HIGH with a 4 point lead over Democrats when polling methodology has for years been that Democrats have an edge in registered voters. So yeh definitely not biased at all. I love how they even believe Fox's polls need to be 'unskewed' too!

Recent history is replete with know-nothing polls...
But NOW the polls are accurate?

Nope again you completely misunderstand polls. Polls are going to show various things at various stages, that is natural - polls are subject to change. And the person who is ahead just now in the polls isn't going to win 100% of the time obviously.

But let me put it this way: no candidate who has a lead in the polls the size Obama does this close to the election has EVER lost before. In fact, only Clinton/Reagan have had a lead this large at this stage in prior elections (Obama 2012 is even ahead of Obama 2008)...

Of course this doesn't mean Obama will win; it does make him odds on favourite (more than 2-1 favourite by most estimates)

Polls had Dukakis winning over Bush Sr

Polls had Kerry winning over Bush Jr

Polls had Clinton winning over Obama...

Recent history is replete with know-nothing polls...

But NOW the polls are accurate??? :D

Michale......

What do you say about THOSE polls, michty??? :D

Michale.....

Of course.. You see, *I* am consistent..

Polls are crap because they can be skewed by the biases of the poll creators/takers...

It's like having a drug addict run tests on pain medication.. The inherent and unavoidable bias makes the tests utterly useless..

In shorter terms, is the GIGO principle..

Garbage In, Garbage Out..

The simple fact that you ignore the polls you DON'T like and only quote the polls you DO like simply proves my point...

Michale.....

- In the national polls just now EVERY SINGLE pollster shows an Obama lead. Every single one. Even Rasmussen(!).
- In the State-wide polls, Obama is ahead among EVERY SINGLE POLLSTER in Ohio, Virginia, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Nevada.
- Obama is ahead on average in Florida, Iowa, New Hampshire, Colorado but not ahead in every poll released.
- Romney is ahead among EVERY POLLSTER in Missouri, Arizone.
- Romney is ahead on average in North Carolina.

Now lets say the polls are well off and ALL the ones where Obama is ahead on average go Romney (Florida-Colorado listed above). Guess what? Romney still loses. This is why Romney is around 15-30% to win this election by most analysis. The general consensus is that Romney needs to destroy Obama in the first debate to reverse this kind of a deficit in 6 weeks...

But I expect you to now resort to your 'but I don't trust polls/all the polls are biased' argument now...

Typical ploy...

Resort to sarcasm when the FACTS (and the polls) are against you. :D

No comments about how the polls are leaning, michty?? You sure have plenty to say when the polls say what you want to hear...

When they paint a different picture, all you have is sarcastic hyperbole...

Why IS that??

Michale......

That says it all.....

Michale......

Ya gotta wonder if THESE are the polls Team Obama has been seeing that prompted Obama to start preparing his Hawaii retirement home.. :D

Michale.....

Another poll I am sure ya'all are going to hate.. :D

Michale.....

"RELEASE THE HOUNDS!"
-Montgomery Burns

Let the howling commence!! :D

Michale.....

As I pointed out yesterday, the result of Romney’s “really bad week” was that Romney had gone from 5 or 6 points behind in Gallup, to essentially tied.

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/09/23/skewed-and-unskewed-polls/

That's the point I have been trying to make.

The Independents and NPAs by and large *agree* with Romney's assessment of the electorate...

Despite claims from the Left (Hysterical and Otherwise) that the revelation hurt Romney, it's clear from the sentiment that the revelation actually HELPED Romney..

This, of course, assumes you put any faith in polls.. :D

Michale.....

Errr, that would be healthY discussions.. :D

Michale.....

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-refers-israel-concern-over-iran-noise_652967.html

It's "nice" to see that our President and Iranian President Achmedjihadist are on the same page as far as their disdain for Israel. :^/

Seriously, though. While I don't think for a minute that Obama and Achmedjihadist are actually of the same mind about Israel (one wants Israel completely destroyed and the other just wants Israel to shut up and know her place) it IS disconcerting to see both leaders use the same tone and word to describe Israeli concerns..

Bibi is not going to be none to happy to see this, that's for sure...

Frankly, we (the US) don't DESERVE any loyalty from Israel, considering. Yea, I know, I know. All the billions in aid and weapons don't amount to a hill of beans if we allow so much daylight between us and Israel on issues related to her very survival...

Michale.....

To his credit, John McCain was calling it a coordinated terrorist group attack almost immediately, and someone else (I don't recall who) pointed out that demonstrators rarely bring rocket propelled grenades to demonstrations.

Yea, it's hard to imagine how the Administration could hope to float the spin that this was simply a protest gone wrong...

From DAY ONE, it was obvious this was a planned highly coordinated attack..

What sealed it for me was learning that there was an initial attack, then a follow-up attack at the Safe House.. That kind of attack takes detailed planning and top secret intel...

At least in that case, the neo-cons had an agenda that (in their minds) would justify a false flag accusation. State Dept in this case: I don't see it.

It wasn't State's agenda, it was the Administration's.. Much like the underwear bomber, the White House didn't want to be seen as allowing a terrorist attack. It doesn't fit the spin..

While I support the President, you won't get unquestioned fan-boy defenses out of me. I hold several failings or repudiations of this administration to be egregious; not the least of which being in the area of financial markets reform and missed opportunities for economic recovery under the excuse of, or fear of, fragility of the financial system.

Many on here say the same. To be fair, I am sure it's (probably) even true...

But it just seems to me that no one wants to air their Obama grievances.. I am not talking about the petty crap like Obama doesn't slam down the GOP enough, etc etc..

I am talking about the real meat and potatoes stuff like Obama assassinating American citizens w/o due process or how Obama has increased domestic civilian surveillance a hundred-fold...

Stuff that I KNOW that most everyone here really REALLY dislikes about Obama, but they are afraid to espouse.. Even when invited or prompted to.. What are Weigantians afraid of???

It would actually be ironic... If anyone WOULD post such acidic comments, it would force me to actually DEFEND Obama!! :D Imagine that!! :D

Your "yea that looks bad" is a perfect example of what I am talking about.. It shows that A> I am not crazy (always a plus for me :D) and 2> that you actually have a brain that can think outside dogmatic ideology..

To very important aspects to health discussions... :D

Before I forget: not directly related to the election, but to be filed under the political principle "Empires Abhor a Vacuum":

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/china/2012-09/23/c_131868282.htm

Which illustrates the folly of pulling out of Afghanistan so precipitously..

The Left is always obsessed with getting our troops home. They rarely stop to consider the danger of the Vacuum Principle...

Iraq is a perfect example...

"Good talk."
-Dr Rodney McKay, STARGATE:ATLANTIS

:D

Michale....

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/china/2012-09/23/c_131868282.htm

I'll take your assessment at face value, and then say, (in the immortal words of Chauncey Gardner): I understand.

Among the circles and trials of hell, I believe there are these: for those fallen but rational, an eternity of either non-stop Fox and Friends, or alternatively, or perhaps alternating, Larry O'Donnell. This, because while yet alive, too much of either will cause most of us to begin to doubt our sanity and turn our moods to surly.

While I support the President, you won't get unquestioned fan-boy defenses out of me. I hold several failings or repudiations of this administration to be egregious; not the least of which being in the area of financial markets reform and missed opportunities for economic recovery under the excuse of, or fear of, fragility of the financial system.

To his credit, John McCain was calling it a coordinated terrorist group attack almost immediately, and someone else (I don't recall who) pointed out that demonstrators rarely bring rocket propelled grenades to demonstrations.

It reminds me of the evening of 9/11 (though not in gravity, of course), when Gen. Wesley Clark was publicly calling it Al-Quida, even while the neo-cons were calling to beseech him to get behind the "Saddam" meme.

At least in that case, the neo-cons had an agenda that (in their minds) would justify a false flag accusation. State Dept in this case: I don't see it.