Morning In Obama's America
Listening to President Barack Obama's State Of The Union speech tonight, I couldn't help but think that he's been waiting a long time to give such a speech, and he was happy to finally be giving it. Finally he could speak of the economy without having to hedge his language. Finally, he could unleash his inner optimism once again.
This is, of course, a personal reaction. I have no real idea of how anyone else saw Obama's speech tonight, and prefer to instead write down my own snap reactions before trolling the news media for other responses. So, come tomorrow morning, I could be the odd man out, propounding an opinion few others share. It has certainly happened before, in both directions (where I've been too optimistic or too pessimistic, and the conventional wisdom moves in the opposite direction). But then again, that's the chance you take when offering up snap reactions.
I'm going to start with some overall observations here before I get down to individual items in Obama's speech, and then close with a brief reaction to Joni Ernst's Republican response speech. Oh, and one caveat: I didn't take the time to download the prepared speech text, so I'm going on my own hastily-jotted notes for all of the quotes below. If there are minor errors between what is written here and what was exactly said, they are all mine. Just to let you know in advance.
General impressions
Obama gave what I would call a thematic speech. He hit broad themes rather than getting too bogged down in what most call the "laundry list" aspect of State Of The Union speeches. The broad themes I heard were: optimism, "middle class economics," and American values. He hit each of these in a number of ways, and did an excellent job of tying them all into one single narrative that people could easily relate to.
The other big takeaway from the speech for me was that Obama was finally freed up to toot his own horn a bit -- something that all presidents do to some extent or another, but something that Obama hasn't done as successfully as he did tonight. Three things allowed him to now do so: the improvement in the economy, the improvement in Obama's public opinion polling numbers, and the fact that he will not face any more elections until the end of his term (when there will be another Democrat leading the momentum of the party, from the campaign trail). One can't help but wonder whether, if the economy had made more improvement roughly six months ago, Obama couldn't have spoken out like this and perhaps not been clobbered so badly in the 2014 midterms. For far too long, Democratic candidates have been told by consultants: "Don't appear too cheerful about the improving economy, people will think you're out of touch with reality." Obama, tonight, signaled the end of that era, as he proudly touted his own accomplishments as well as the American economy's accomplishments in the past six years. He seemed freed up to finally talk up the economy, to put this another way.
Obama seemed entirely comfortable with the speech he gave. The cadence was perfect for his way of orating, and he seemed incredibly relaxed for such an important speech. Or maybe "relaxed" isn't really the right word, since at times he did get very energetic. He seemed in his element -- that might be a better way to put it. We saw the old Obama from the campaign trail rather than the President Obama with the carefully-parsed phrases we've seen in other State Of The Union speeches.
Obama also seemed feisty giving the speech. If you had been in a coma for six months and woke up to hear Obama speak tonight, you'd have a hard time believing how rough the midterms were for him. This is not a seventh-year president who is desperately arguing for his own relevance, the way some have had to do in the past. This is a re-energized Obama who has seen his approval rise ever since the midterms, with each bold proposal he makes.
Deep down, of course, Obama knows that most of his congressional agenda simply isn't going to happen. Tonight's speech has been called by many (me included) as nothing more really than the first draft of the Democratic Party platform for the 2016 election race. It's more aspirational than expecting results any time soon from a Republican-held Congress. This is likely one reason Obama chose not to follow the usual "laundry list" format such speeches usually conform to. Everyone knew all the proposals Obama has put forward already, since he leaked them all in advance. So he didn't need to outline them tonight, or get lost in the wonky policy weeds. This allowed him to instead talk about values and why doing these things was the right agenda for the country.
Obama not only leaked his agenda ahead of time, he also put the text of the speech online, so people could follow along if they wished. Before he began, from the expectations the White House had set, I was looking for Obama's equivalent of the Reaganesque "Morning in America" -- sunny optimism and a cheerful, bright future for America. This is precisely what we heard from the president tonight.
Specific impressions
The speechwriters really deserve a lot of credit for this speech, because it fit Obama's natural speaking style so well. He was downright folksy at times, using phrases (like "screwed up") that people don't generally expect in a presidential speech at this level. Several of these phrases stuck out, such as his opening "Tonight, we turn the page," which harkened back to stump speeches he gave when originally running for president. "The shadow of the crisis has passed and the state of the Union is strong," also stood out.
Obama made a solid case for optimism about the future, and pointed out in several different ways that his opponents have now been proven completely wrong in their doom-and-gloom naysaying. All the ugly things Republicans predicted have just not come true -- over and over again.
The overall framework of Obama's speech was based on one woman's story about her own family. Obama returned again and again to what the woman wrote to him, and her own personal struggle. This served to humanize what Obama was saying in general, and was a pretty good oratorical frame to put around his message. "Her story is our story" is really where Obama both began and ended his speech.
Obama had a pretty rousing and impressive list of the economic achievements we've now reached, and closed with a folksy: "This is good news, people!" He immediately defended his legacy so far and point-blank told Republicans that if they tried to dismantle it, "I will veto." This point was forcefully made more than once during the speech, in fact. Again, not exactly a president in decline.
One phrase that occurred at least five or six times was "middle class economics," which I easily predict is going to soon become a Democratic mantra. Look for this phrase to be everywhere in the 2016 campaign, in other words. Obama also returned, in various ways, to closing his arguments for each issue with "It's the right thing to do."
Obama, twice (once intentionally, once as an ad lib we'll get to in a moment) truly challenged the Republicans sitting in front of him. The first occasion was on the minimum wage, where he tossed down the "You try living on it" challenge.
Obama's timing throughout the night was near-perfect, only having his words swallowed by applause on a few occasions, and only stumbling over his delivery once or twice in a minor way. Joe Biden, of course, was even looser than the president, and while his wife was being given an Obama shout-out, stood up and blew her a kiss. Way to go, Joe!
Obama, quite rightly, didn't spend a whole lot of time on his tax reform proposal, since he had already leaked the details and since Republicans are never going to go along with raising taxes on the uber-wealthy anyway. Obama did chide Republicans (and Democrats, for that matter) on not doing their job in sending him an authorization to use military force on the Islamic State radicals. Obama made a solid case that his foreign policy moves have been the right ones, and have proven his naysayers wrong, but he really hit his stride when speaking of Cuba, saying: "A policy that was long past its expiration date. When what you're doing doesn't work for 50 years, it's time to try something new." He ended his foreign policy section with another veto warning, on further Iran sanctions.
Obama tore one Republican argument to shreds, taking direct aim at the "I'm not a scientist" line that several prominent Republicans have used to hide behind while endlessly delaying any action on global warming. This was perhaps the biggest (planned) snarky moment during the whole speech, in fact.
As Obama rounded the last corner and headed for the homestretch, he began to get downright inspirational. He tied his own record to his overarching American values theme, and really swung for the fences in a number of ways (such as: "It is not who we are. It is time to close Gitmo" and summing up American values as "That's what makes us exceptional.").
At the very end of the speech, he even took on two groups just as icing on the rest of the feisty cake. The first singled out were cynical pundits, who have complained that Obama hasn't singlehandedly gotten rid of partisan bad feelings in Washington. Obama tossed it right back at them, saying "I still think the cynics are wrong," before showing (there is no real other political term to appropriately use, here) some downright Reaganesque cheery optimism. While doing so, he blatantly tried to influence the Supreme Court justices in the audience in his rousing support for the movement the country has made on marriage equality.
Almost at the very end of the speech, the funniest moment happened (one you'll probably see on tomorrow's news, that's my guess). Obama was in the midst of making a plea for comity from Congress (this fit into his whole "the cynics are wrong" idea), and he pointed out "I have no more campaigns to run." There was a small burst of enthusiastic applause from the Republican side of the aisle that Obama clearly didn't expect. This got a round of laughter from the crowd, but then Obama knocked it out of the park with his off-the-cuff response: "I know, 'cause I won both of them" which got an enormous round of applause from the Democratic side of the aisle. Good to know Obama can still handle unexpected heckling so well!
Obama wrapped up his hour-long speech by pivoting right back to the personal story of the woman and her family's struggles, putting the conclusion into the context of the entire country: "We too are a tight-knit family."
Then, on his way out of the room, President Obama provided another clip you'll see again (this time, likely on late-night comedy), as he personally signed a guy's necktie. That was the perfect casual end to a speech that Obama clearly had a lot of fun delivering.
The Republican response
I'm glad I didn't leave the room for the Republican response, because it was over so fast it would have been easy to miss. The entire response was only nine minutes long, and about five of those were taken up with Joni Ernst competing for the "I was born in a log cabin" prize, it seemed. I guess her entire Senate campaign must've been pretty much centered around a "Gosh, I'm jes' folks" theme, because we heard about her little-girl shoes wrapped in bread bags, the dirt on her parents' and grandparents' hands, and how nice the town Ernst grew up in was.
There were only two other sections of the speech, each only a few minutes' long. The first was a seriously gloomy portrayal of where America now stands and what we can expect in the near future. This isn't that unusual, since it has been the Republican playbook pretty much since Obama took office. However, it sounded remarkably tone-deaf after Obama's speech. Rather than optimism seeming out-of-touch, Ernst's pessimism instead seemed remarkably out of step with all of the positive news of the past few months. One can't help but wonder if Republicans are going to continue to ignore any good news for the next two years, in fact. I mean, of course Ernst saved her biggest doom-and-gloom language for Obamacare (that's also to be expected), but Ernst didn't have a happy thing to say about much of anything else (although I do give her stylistic credit for opening her speech with a very polite "it's important to hear different points of view" comment about Obama's speech).
Ernst saved her doomiest gloom for what she had to say about terrorism, though. OK, I get it, she has served with distinction in the military. So being rah-rah about both the military and veterans is pretty much expected. Even so, the tone of her strident anti-terror stance was still a bit jarring.
But what was truly stunning about Ernst's speech was how content-free the entire thing really was. She attempted to make the case that "America has sent a new Republican majority to Washington to get some things done," but she couldn't really name many specific items on their agenda, even in passing. The Keystone pipeline was about the most specific proposal she had, which is pretty small-time stuff for a State Of The Union response. She did whip through a generic list of stuff the Republican Congress will attempt, but it was incredibly short and quick. Maybe it was just her delivery, I'm not sure (her delivery was better than some notable Republican failures, such as Bobby Jindal, but wasn't anywhere near "ready for prime time" quality, even so). Ernst's list of Republican priorities: repeal and replace Obamacare (without specifying what she'd replace it with, of course), stop Obama's executive overreach (without specifying what she'd do on any particular issue he's been overreaching on, of course), balance budgets, fight cybercrime, say mean things to Iran, and pass every "pro-life" bill Republicans could possibly manage, so Obama can veto them all.
That's it? That's all Republicans have got, in response to Obama laying out what will essentially become the Democratic Party platform for 2016? Republicans seem destined to choose pessimism over optimism and doom-and-gloom over morning in America. And they hate Obamacare a whole bunch. Oh, and Joni Ernst comes from such humble beginnings it'd be easy to picture a log cabin as her family's homestead.
That's pretty much all I took away from Ernst. Not much, in other words, delivered in nine short minutes.
OK, those are my snap reactions to the speeches tonight. What are yours?
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Yea, I punked out.. The SOTU was WAY past my bedtime..
Lemme digest the recaps and I'll get back on it..
Michale
My first impressions??
This was a SOTU that catered solely and completely to Democrats...
But, here's the thing..
Obama isn't just the POTUS for Democrats...
He is supposed to be a POTUS for *ALL* Americans, not just Democrats...
If he continues to govern as if the country is only made up of Democrats, the Democrat Party will have a real rough time in 2016...
Worse than the time they had in 2014...
Michale
OK, after digesting the speech, I can sum it up in two words.
TONE
and
DEAF
It's as if the 2010 and 2014 midterms never happened. CW himself commented on the same thing..
The American people has unequivocally told Obama and the Democrats to work WITH Republicans.. The American people even made it so Democrats HAVE to work with Republicans by giving the Republicans the biggest majority in almost 100 years...
Obama's response??
A liberal laundry list that he KNOWS will never make it thru Congress...
This wasn't a "turning of the page".. This was nothing more than going back to the beginning of the book that began 6 years ago and starting over...
But with a GOP that has immensely more power than it did in 2008 the ending of this particular story is going to be quite different..
Ya'all go on and on about how the GOP is against everything Obama does..
That's because everything Obama does is bad for the country.. It's the GOP's DUTY to oppose Obama..
It's EXACTLY what they were hired to do...
Michale
As for Ernst's response...
The best thing about it was, while Obama spoke to Democrats only, Ernst spoke to AMERICANS..
She spoke to AMERICANS' concerns about low wages and the rich getting richer and the poor and middle class getting poorer..
She spoke to AMERICANS' concerns about the declining of US prestige around the world and the threat that a "defeated" Al Qaeda and a new IS represents...
Most of all, Ernst spoke to AMERICANS who are sick and tired of politicians on BOTH sides of the aisle putting Party before Country..
Obama spoke to Democrats only....
Ernst spoke to Americans...
That's the night in a nutshell....
Michale
2014 was the planet's warmest year on record. Now, one year doesn't make a trend, but this does – 14 of the 15 warmest years on record have all fallen in the first 15 years of this century.
Complete and utter bullshit...
I simply CANNOT let such bullshit pass uncommented..
"When it comes to 2014 and the other “hottest year” candidates, 2005 and 2010, the observed temperature difference was smaller than the margin of error by a factor of five. Therefore it is impossible to conclude from our analysis which of 2014, 2010, or 2005 was actually the warmest year."
-Berkeley Earth
Do you know what the difference in temp was between 2014 and the next hottest year??
.02 degrees..
TWO HUNDREDTHS OF A DEGREE
In science, which I KNOW ya'all adhere to, that is statistically insignificant..
There has been no statistically significant warming of the planet in the last 20 years. THIS despite tons and tons MORE CO2 being dumped into the atmosphere...
So, why isn't the temperature rising commiserate with the dumping of CO2 into the atmosphere??
If ya'all are the people of science ya'all claim to be, you would have to be honest and answer that question thusly..
"We don't know"...
And, since we don't know, does it make any logical sense to go mucking around guided by sheer ignorance??
The facts are this, people..
Human beings are unlikely to do anything meaningful to reign in CO2 output insofar as public policy is concerned. Anything humans DO about CO2 output will be to serve a POLITICAL agenda and will have absolutely no impact on the planet's climate.
But, if ya'all want to do your part...
Quit smoking..
ANYTHING... :D
Quit flying. Quit driving...
And if the Left is really REALLY serious about combating CO2 emissions, then their choice is clear..
The Left needs to quit exhaling....
Lemme know how that works out... :D
Michale
"OK, those are my snap reactions to the speeches tonight. What are yours?"
I didn't watch, but while channel-surfing, I did happen to catch that "I'm not a scientist, either" line with the Orangeman in the background. I liked that a lot, but I only saw that 30 seconds.
"I'm not a scientist, either" line with the Orangeman in the background.
I find it hilarious that a guy who is allegedly against racism, would reduce a man to the color of his skin... :D
It's funny.. Really.. :D
Michale
"A Better Politics is one where we debate without demonizing each other; where we talk issues, and values, and principles, and facts, rather than ‘gotcha’ moments, or trivial gaffes, or fake controversies that have nothing to do with people’s daily lives."
-Barack Obama
So, does that mean the Left won't be calling Republicans "terrorists"??
Or "arsonists"??
Or "hostage takers"??
Or "criminals"??
Yea.... I'll believe THAT when I see it.. :^/
Michale
"Middle class" in slogans sounds like the new way of saying screw the poor. Almost all of the rich consider themselves "middle class".
"Middle class" in slogans sounds like the new way of saying screw the poor. Almost all of the rich consider themselves "middle class".
Troo...
The problem is that Democrats have been spouting the "Warriors For The Middle Class" mantra for 6 years now..
And yet, the Middle Class and the poor have gotten POORER and the rich have gotten richer...
With "warriors" like Democrats, who needs Republicans??
Michale
Obama during the SOTU Speech..
" And many of you have told me that this isn’t what you signed up for – arguing past each other on cable shows, the constant fundraising, always looking over your shoulder at how the base will react to every decision."
Obama immediately after the SOTU Speech..
"I hope you're excited about the agenda I laid out tonight for 2015. Now it's time to get to work.
Let's go -- make a monthly contribution to support Democrats now:
https://I.Am.A.Hypocrite.org
Thanks,
Barack Obama"
This is exactly why it's impossible to take Obama seriously when calls for bi-partisanship and "working together"...
He talks out both sides of his ass more than any POTUS in memory...
Michale
I have heard that, when it comes to the subject of violently deranged Islamist extremism and the global threat its adherents present, the Obama administration is reluctant to call a spade, a spade.
Last night confirmed that, in spades.
He referred to "terrorists", "terrorists who threaten America", "... we stand united with people around the world who've been targeted by terrorists" and he spoke of the "bankrupt ideology of violent extremism". The closest he came to decribing the real threat was his use of a safe acronym.
It would be laughable if he weren't discussing a very serious issue. After the part of his SOTU speech last night that dealt with foreign policy, not to mention his actual foreign policy, it is seems that President Obama doesn't take the threat of violently deranged Islamist extremism very seriously. Which goes a long way toward explaining why he didn't make the trip to Paris.
Liz,
I just fell in love with you right here and now!!! :D
Seriously, though. Yer absolutely right... Obama et al go out of their way to sugercoat and white wash the extremist islamic connection to terrorism...
I honestly don't understand why.. Nothing really explains it satisfactorily..
Michale
File this under:
And you want to be my latex salesman?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/20/ted-cruz-video_n_6512668.html
The last time I saw anybody this stiff, the audience filing by was remarking "he looks so natural."
Michale,
I honestly don't understand why.. Nothing really explains it satisfactorily..
It's nothing short of political cowardice and very similar to the journalistic cowardice on display throughout the Western media since the Charlie Hebdo attack on the freedom of expression and what it means to be a democracy.
Michale,
I honestly don't understand why.. Nothing really explains it satisfactorily..
It's nothing short of political cowardice and very similar to the journalistic cowardice on display throughout the Western media since the Charlie Hebdo attack on the freedom of expression and what it means to be a democracy.
Okay, let me rephrase that, entirely:
Michale,
I honestly don't understand why.. Nothing really explains it satisfactorily..
It's nothing short of political cowardice and very similar to the journalistic cowardice on display throughout the Western media since the attack by the violently deranged Islamist extremists on Charlie Hebdo and the freedom of expression and what it means to be a democracy.
It would be nice of comment #15 and #16, along with this one, could just disappear ... :)
The Official Response to the State of the Union Speech is a thankless task. A "fresh face" is asked to deliver a short speech that is bound to sound generic and half baked. The President gets all the majestic trappings. The fresh face gets something that looks vaguely like a private library or law office.
This is a losing game. Republican or Democrat, it doesn't matter. Why does anybody volunteer? Or do they draw lots?
Complete and utter bullshit...
I simply CANNOT let such bullshit pass uncommented..
The only thing here that is complete and utter bullshit is your understanding of science. Rather than a highly select excerpt from the Berkeley Earth paper, how about reading the Actual Paper [berkeleyearth.org (pdf)].
I know, I know you, don't read stuff like this and only copy and paste quotes from conservative publications who have done the disingenuous excerpting for you as there is the risk might learn something...
I just fell in love with you right here and now!!! :D
It'll pass ... within 10 comments, probably. :)
The only thing here that is complete and utter bullshit is your understanding of science. Rather than a highly select excerpt from the Berkeley Earth paper, how about reading the Actual Paper [berkeleyearth.org (pdf)].
By all means.. Go ahead and post anything relevant to my point that refutes the point...
I double dog dare ya.. :D
Michale
It's nothing short of political cowardice and very similar to the journalistic cowardice on display throughout the Western media since the attack by the violently deranged Islamist extremists on Charlie Hebdo and the freedom of expression and what it means to be a democracy.
No matter HOW you say it, yer dead on ballz accurate...
It'll pass ... within 10 comments, probably. :)
Naw, it's gonna take at LEAST 30 comments!! :D
Michale
I would also like to point out that NASA's own RSS Satellite data disputes the claim that 2014 was the hottest year on record..
Further, once REAL scientists started showing how NASA and NOAA are totally frak'ed in the head, they admitted that they are only 38% sure that 2014 was the hottest year on record..
Which means Obama's claim is 62% likely to be complete and utter bullshit... :D
Michale
This is the part where you come back with that totally bullshit claim that 97% of scientists agree that humans are causing the planet to warm... :D
Once again, I double dog dare you..
It's amazing how many claims by the disciples of the Human Caused Global Warming faith are discovered to be complete and utter bullshit...
"Fascinating"
-Spock
:D
Michale
By all means.. Go ahead and post anything relevant to my point that refutes the point...
Couldn't read the paper, eh? Thought that was asking too much.
2014 was nominally the hottest year on record from this organization with the data set they used. They used data from the Hadley Center in the UK.
Obama probably went from NASA data confirmed by NOAA. Different measuring data. Different organization. Different level of confidence. Different margin of error. Applying the Berkeley Earth margin of error to another organization's measurements does not work.
Second, the paper, if you had bothered to read it, only lists a top ten hottest years but if you look at the combined temperature graph, you will see in fact that 14 of the last 15 hottest years on record are within the first 15 years of this century.
So, your accusation of complete and utter bullshit is it's self complete and utter bullshit...
I would also like to point out that NASA's own RSS Satellite data disputes the claim that 2014 was the hottest year on record..
Actually if you read the paper I linked to and to which you quoted, you would find out that the atmospheric temperature was only the 4th highest in history. But total global temperature is a combination of atmospheric and ocean temperatures. And 2014 was a very hot one for the ocean.
This is the part where you come back with that totally bullshit claim that 97% of scientists agree that humans are causing the planet to warm... :D
Once again, I double dog dare you..
No, this is just the point where I point out your inability to read...
But I digest...
Let's take the mike over to Democrat Senator Bob Menendez and see what he says about Obama's statements regarding Iran's nuclear program..
“The more I hear from the administration and its quotes, the more it sounds like talking points that come straight out of Tehran. And it feeds to the Iranian narrative of victimization, when they are the ones with original sin, an illicit nuclear weapons program going back over the course of 20 years that they are unwilling to come clean on. So I don’t know why we feel compelled to make their case”
Senator Menendez, tell us how you REALLY feel.. :D
I have to wonder if Obama's attitude about allowing Iran nuclear weapons is somehow tied to his reluctance to call islamic terrorism...
Michale
Actually if you read the paper I linked to and to which you quoted, you would find out that the atmospheric temperature was only the 4th highest in history.
Actually, 6th, but what do facts matter, eh??
The simple fact is, there is no imminent catastrophe because of the planet's climate...
That is something we have all agreed on..
Obama is just fear-mongering...
And 2014 was a very hot one for the ocean.
Only 38% sure of that.. :D
As usual, you can nitpick all ya want..
But the simple fact is, these so called "scientists" are only 38% sure that 2014 was the hottest year on record..
Hardly sufficient to mention in a SOTU speech... Unless, of course, one WANTS to fear-monger based on shoddy pseudo science...
Michale
Actually, 6th, but what do facts matter, eh??
I'll with 4% unless you can back that up.
Only 38% sure of that.. :D
Again, something you have not backed up.
But the simple fact is, these so called "scientists" are only 38% sure that 2014 was the hottest year on record..
Lots of spewing crap and no backing up... Big yawn there...
Again, something you have not backed up.
I didn't think I had to... But, if you insist..
The Nasa climate scientists who claimed 2014 set a new record for global warmth last night admitted they were only 38 per cent sure this was true.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2915061/Nasa-climate-scientists-said-2014-warmest-year-record-38-sure-right.html
I don't know why I bother. You'll never concede that I am right and you'll always believe exactly the opposite of what I say, so....
Lots of spewing crap and no backing up... Big yawn there...
No, big grin and big LAUGH here. :D
Michale
As a result, GISS’s director Gavin Schmidt has now admitted Nasa thinks the likelihood that 2014 was the warmest year since 1880 is just 38 per cent. However, when asked by this newspaper whether he regretted that the news release did not mention this, he did not respond. Another analysis, from the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project, drawn from ten times as many measuring stations as GISS, concluded that if 2014 was a record year, it was by an even tinier amount.
BIG grin...
BIG laugh.. :D
Michale
BIG grin...
BIG laugh.. :D
Big yawn.
Do you know where they got this big admission? In the brief [ncdc.noaa.gov] put out by NASA and NOAA on the study and in at least the NOAA study. Haven't read the full NASA study yet. Why do you link to a tabloid instead of a real source? Afraid of learning something?
But I do find it interesting that you leave out that NOAA put the chances at 48%. Any reason for that?
The actual NASA/NOAA study has 2014 being the warmest on record by a highest percentage than any other year by a reasonably high margin.
A far cry from "Complete and utter bullshit..."
I don't know why I bother. You'll never concede that I am right and you'll always believe exactly the opposite of what I say, so....
I'm still waiting for that day...
Michale [4] -
She spoke to AMERICANS' concerns about low wages and the rich getting richer and the poor and middle class getting poorer..
OK, so what did she say? What did she propose to do about the rich getting richer and the poor and middle class getting poorer? What is the GOP plan? As far as I can see (so far, to be fair, they might come up with one eventually...), it doesn't exist.
The GOP just took both houses of Congress. Where is their big agenda? What are they going to do? They can't even agree among themselves. The next two years are going to be interesting, that's for sure. How long will it be before Boehner and McConnell get into a shouting match over who is obstructing the other's agenda? I'd give it about three months, personally.
We shall see, we shall see...
:-)
[7] -
I find it hilarious that a guy who is allegedly against racism, would reduce a man to the color of his skin... :D
The difference is that for Boehner, orange is a lifestyle choice, not something he was born with. Heh.
dsws [9] -
That is an excellent point. Something like 95%-plus Americans consider themselves "middle class". I think it's actually code from Democrats for "we won't go after people making $100-500K per year, since you folks are such nice people and are the biggest political donor class."
But you're right to be concerned, I think.
LizM [12] -
On another subject, did you see Biden blow a kiss to his wife? He's a classy act, I have to say. I had to smile when I saw this, last night. Way to go, Joe!
:-)
TheStig [14] -
Thanks for the Ted Cruz link, saves me the trouble of posting it! And I got a big laugh out of
The last time I saw anybody this stiff, the audience filing by was remarking "he looks so natural."
:-)
LizM [18] -
Sorry, but then I'd have to renumber all these answers!
But I bring it up, because maybe (just MAYBE, mind you) I might be thinking of working on some sort of fix to the laughably broken "preview comment" button. No promises, and it might take awhile, but I know it'd be a lot more useful if people could preview, so it's on my list...
TheStig [19] -
A few years back, maybe 2009 or 2010, there was one Republican who had a brilliant idea that I'm really kind of surprised nobody else followed. He gave his response in his state's statehouse chamber, packed with fellow Republicans. They provided a similiar (if diminished and totally partisan) audience feel to the speech. I thought it was good theater at the time, and predicted (one that hasn't come true yet) that others would copy the format, because it did tend to get rid of the awkwardness of "I'm standing in this room in front of a few flagpoles" feel of the responses.
But then, the more I think about it, maybe it was the Republican governor of Virginia who did this, who I believe is now in federal prison. Maybe that's one reason why nobody's copied him, I dunno... I can look it up if anyone's interested.
OK, that's it for now. Gotta write today's column...
-CW
OK, I piqued my own curiosity, and looked it up. Yep, it was the felon. This is from 2010's year-end awards column:
On the Republican side, the Best Political Theater this year will (in my opinion) set a political trend for the future. In response to President Obama's "State Of The Union" speech, Governor of Virginia Bob McDonnell was slated to give the official "response" speech. Someone bright in the governor's office had an absolutely brilliant idea -- instead of setting the "response" speaker in some boring office or some flag-draped quiet library, put him in the State Capitol -- in front of a live, cheering audience. To the best of my knowledge, this is the first time anyone's done so in the history of these response speeches. My guess, though, is that this will not be the last time it is staged this way.
For good reason -- McDonnell was able to humanize the whole speech with the adoring crowd, and the floor of the Virginia House of Delegates is almost as impressive (if smaller) than the floor of the United States House of Representatives. By giving the response speech the same backdrop of an impressive speaking hall and an audience cued to applaud at certain points, McDonnell totally changed the course of State Of The Union responses forever. Which is why he wins our second Best Political Theater award, here. Setting his speech the way he did was sheer political genius.
-CW
CW,
OK, so what did she say? What did she propose to do about the rich getting richer and the poor and middle class getting poorer? What is the GOP plan? As far as I can see (so far, to be fair, they might come up with one eventually...), it doesn't exist.
She has as much "plan" as Obama and the Democrats have..
The same "plan" that Obama and the Democrats have been trying for 6 years.. And FAILING...
So she wasn't big on specifics...
Most Americans can forgive general "details" over specifics that are ALWAYS spouted, but NEVER realized...
We shall see, we shall see...
Yes, we shall see..
So, doesn't it behoove ya'all to give this new Congress the same benefit of the doubt you gave previous Congress'es???
The difference is that for Boehner, orange is a lifestyle choice, not something he was born with. Heh.
It's still skin color... Regardless of whether it's natural or not...
What's next?? We start slamming people for red hair?? :D
The point is, Obama's SOTU was clearly designed to get the juices flowing of the Democrat Party...
Which completely gives lie to Obama's claim that the is ready to be a POTUS for ALL Americans....
Bashi,
Do you know where they got this big admission? In the brief [ncdc.noaa.gov] put out by NASA and NOAA on the study and in at least the NOAA study. Haven't read the full NASA study yet. Why do you link to a tabloid instead of a real source? Afraid of learning something?
But I do find it interesting that you leave out that NOAA put the chances at 48%. Any reason for that?
The actual NASA/NOAA study has 2014 being the warmest on record by a highest percentage than any other year by a reasonably high margin.
A far cry from "Complete and utter bullshit..."
38% is pretty Complete And Utter Bullshit to me..
I know, I know. Your partisan ideology won't allow you to concede the point..
I understand.. It's OK...
Michale
"who I believe is now in federal prison"
Not yet! These convicted holier-than-thou Republican gangster bosses don't go straight to jail. For some reason they get a month or so to run amok despite the damage they've already inflicted on America.
Chris,
Biden puts a smile on my face on a fairly regular basis, actually. :)
And, he's been a class since I began following his career, circa 1987. After being vice president for six years, I had dared to hope that more people would have recognized that.
As for the preview thingy, I don't know how to break this to you but, you have one that works already! I just have to use it more often. Too quick on the trigger finger, or something ...
What you don't have and what would be nice is the option of editing a post once it has already been posted. Something to consider when you win the lottery. Heh.
John From Censornati [39] -
You're right. Mea culpa. "who I believe is now headed for federal prison."
Heh.
:-)
-CW
Michale -
OK, even without details, WHAT was Ernst's plan? What is she or the GOP going to do? Even just an overview, or a general description?
I'm not slamming her, understand, I am slamming YOUR comment. I'll even throw it open. What Republican -- any Republican -- has ANY plan or ANY one single detail designed to address "AMERICANS' concerns about low wages and the rich getting richer and the poor and middle class getting poorer."?
Anything... anything... toss out any idea you wish.
Because from where I'm sitting, the GOP's got nada. Zilch. A big fat goose egg.
Please, enlighten me further on the secret Republican plan to fix wage inequality and the uber-wealthy.
As you would say: "Beuhler? Beuhler?" (probably spelled that wrong...)
-CW
38% is pretty Complete And Utter Bullshit to me..
I know, I know. Your partisan ideology won't allow you to concede the point..
I understand.. It's OK...
Then please enlighten me to a warmer year than 2014...
Chris,
Yeah, I saw the blown kiss. It was vintage Biden.
Nothing to say about the president's reluctance to call a spade a spade?
LizM [43] -
I'm not entirely sure what the whole "call a spade a spade" debate is about. From my perspective, it seems to be a complaint by Republicans that Obama won't use forceful language about terrorists in his comments, as opposed to the realpolitik question of Obama actually killing them. Personally, I don't consider the debate all that valid, because I consider it a question of semantics.
Obama's done more drone strikes against terrorism suspects or targets than Bush ever did. Concrete results, in other words. But the GOP can't stop complaining about the propagandistic aspects of Obama's tactics. I don't see this as particularly relevant, myself.
If Obama's blowing more terrorists up (with the attendent civilian unintended collateral damage), it's hard for me to see the GOP's point about what language he uses to talk about the whole situation, personally.
But I did like Biden's performance during the SOTU...
:-)
-CW
Michale -
Further evidence of the GOP "gang who couldn't shoot straight" aspect of their takeover of Congress:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/01/21/abortion-bill-in-flux-as-female-gop-lawmakers-raise-concerns/
Seriously? They couldn't have figured this open before now? Wow... Keystone Kops indeed...
What the heck IS their agenda? Do THEY even know, at this point?
:-)
-CW
What the heck IS their agenda? Do THEY even know, at this point?
And yet...
Apparently the American people are completely and utterly OK with that as they just gave the GOP the biggest majority they have ever had in almost 100 years...
That has got to count for something...
The problem with the Democrats is that they just have the same old same old plan that they have NEVER followed thru on..
"Help the middle class!!!"
With any more "help" from Democrats, the middle class is going to disintegrate...
Michale
I'm not entirely sure what the whole "call a spade a spade" debate is about. From my perspective, it seems to be a complaint by Republicans that Obama won't use forceful language about terrorists in his comments, as opposed to the realpolitik question of Obama actually killing them. Personally, I don't consider the debate all that valid, because I consider it a question of semantics.
Obama is, apparently unable to recognize the problem.
If one can't recognize the problem, then how is one expected to address the problem??
Let me ask you this..
What is wrong with saying "Islamic terrorists"??
The White House is on record as saying that they don't have ANY problem with the label itself..
So, why can't they apply it??
Either there is an ulterior motive in not applying the "accurate" label...
Or Obama simply doesn't see it as a problem.
Either way, it doesn't bode well..
Michale
Then please enlighten me to a warmer year than 2014...
Based on what NASA and the NOAA has said, it could be 2010, 2014 or 2005.. There is a 38% chance it COULD be 2014..
But according to the Satellite RSS, it's none of those..
One also has to take into account the proclivity of these so-called "scientists" to make grandiose proclamations, only to have to recant them later when REAL scientists who actually do, yunno, SCIENCE and not PR crap, point out the boneheaded mistakes made by these so-called "scientists"...
The simple fact is, there are more unknowns than there are knowns..
And the other relevant fact is that ALL the predictions made by the so-called "scientists" have been wrong.. Even if 2014 has been the hottest year in the 174 year record (whooop dee sheeetz) it's STILL many MANY degrees cooler than the Human Caused Global Warming fanatics predicted..
"These are the facts. And they are undisputed."
-Captain 'Smilin' Jack Ross, A FEW GOOD MEN
Michale
Further evidence of the GOP "gang who couldn't shoot straight" aspect of their takeover of Congress:
O M G The GOP is pushing their agenda in Congress!!!
Who would have thunked it!!!?? :D
It's a very similar set of circumstances to when Democrats ignored the American people and the priorities of the American people (WE WANT JOBS!!! WE GOT DUNSEL CARE!!) and pushed the Dem Party agenda in the form of TrainWreckCare which was not and never has been a priority of the American people...
Remember.. Two sides.. Same corrupt and self-serving coin..
Michale
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/01/21/abortion-bill-in-flux-as-female-gop-lawmakers-raise-concerns/
Seriously? They couldn't have figured this open before now? Wow... Keystone Kops indeed..
If Dems want to pursue the "WAR ON WOMEN" crap, by all means. It worked out so awesomely for them the last time. :D
Where IS Mark Uterus these days?? :D
"Michale!!! NO!!!!! NO GLOATING!!! BAD MONKEY!!! BAD!!!!"
Sorry.. :^(
hehehehehehehehe
Michale
Chris,
This is most decidedly NOT about semantics.
It's about knowing who it is you are dealing with and how best to deal with it.
Drone strikes!? Sure, let's have more of those!
A new AUMF authorization against ISIS!? You gotta be kidding me.
Chris,
Incidentally, I'm not repeating a Republican talking point here, not by a long shot!
The Republicans complain about this without understanding why it is a problem. Don't put in their obtuse camp.
Don't put ME in their obtuse camp!
Based on what NASA and the NOAA has said, it could be 2010, 2014 or 2005.. There is a 38% chance it COULD be 2014..
In other words, flip a three-sided coin and you will hit the warmest year on the 174 yr record...
Yea.. THAT'S science!! :^/
"Good day, Mr Sheepsbutt!!"
"That's Ramsbottom."
"Ehe, oh yea like THAT's any better.."
-DESPICABLE ME
:D
Michale
M - 5 and so on down the line
Your basic argument is a straw man. The 2014 Global Mean Temp (GMT) was the highest ever recorded, but since the GMT is calculated from roughly 3000 stations, there is a margin of error of about +/- .1C. for any given yearly GMT. The 2014 GMT error bars don't overlap any GMT error bars earlier than the 1980s - all the way back to 1880. Only a statistical novice would actually compare means this way, since it's unrealistically conservative (= too likely to reject a genuine up or down trend).
Individual years aren't that important, it's the trend that's important, and the magnitude of the trend.
http://publicradio1.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/updraft/files/2015/01/NOAA-Anomalies.png
The GMT trend 1880 to 2014 is up. The GMT of all years prior to the mid 1930s are below the grand mean of the GMT years 1880 - 2014. The GMT of all years past the mid 1970s are greater than the GMT grand mean 1880-2014. Between the mid 1930s and the mid 1970's, some GMT are below the grand mean, some above, in the ratio of approximately 1 to 2.
The fact that 14 of 15 greatest GMT occur in the last 15 years of the 1880-2014 interval is striking. Suppose all the fluctuation in GMT is simply due to random noise. The probability of any given GMT being in the top 15 would be roughly .111 = (15/135) where 135 is the total number of yearly GMT in the 1880-2014 interval. What are the odds that 14 or more of the highest GMT fall in just the last 15 years? The binomial distribution says 5.80 ^ -13. The skeptics' null hypothesis that this is just random noise doesn't appear remotely likely.
Statistical significance does not necessarily equate with scientific importance. The biggest GMT is only about 1 degree higher than the grand average GMT since 1880. That doesn't sound like much, but the GMT is affected by latitude, altitude, season, hemisphere and continental factors to name a few things. GMT is an indicator, like taking your temperature. Normal core body temp is 37C, take it up just 1C and you notice very unpleasant bodily effects that should drive you to take action before things get worse. That's what makes indicators useful, a small change indicates trouble before it becomes a disaster.
Finally:
"And if the Left is really REALLY serious about combating CO2 emissions, then their choice is clear..
The Left needs to quit exhaling...."
Thanks for pointing out your complete ignorance about about carbon partitioning. This reply is long enough already.....
Re 55
Typo in P 4. That probability of N >= 14 was supposed to be in exponential notation:
5.80 * 10^-13.
Based on what NASA and the NOAA has said, it could be 2010, 2014 or 2005.. There is a 38% chance it COULD be 2014..
From where you got the 38%:
Chance of year being hottest
------NASA-------NOAA----
2005---38%--------48%
2010---23%--------18%
2014---17%--------13%
Now you throw the word logic around a lot, try using it to figure out what year is most likely to be the hottest on record.
But according to the Satellite RSS, it's none of those..
Total global temperature is a combination of air and sea temperature to which the RSS satellite only measures one...
And the other relevant fact is that ALL the predictions made by the so-called "scientists" have been wrong..
No, it just proves you have no inclination to even try and understand climate models. Depending on the parameters, some have been quite accurate as I have provided links to in previous threads...
it's STILL many MANY degrees cooler than the Human Caused Global Warming fanatics predicted..
Which model and parameter set are you talking about? Many were wrong because they were too conservative. The models predicted ocean rise levels and global mean temperature below what actually happened.
Doh! Chart above got two years reversed..
Chance of year being hottest
------NASA-------NOAA----
2014---38%--------48%
2010---23%--------18%
2005---17%--------13%
Suppose all the fluctuation in GMT is simply due to random noise.
Being random doesn't have to mean that each year is statistically independent of the year before. The deniers tend to say it's "natural fluctuation", and compare it to the medieval warm period. The idea can roughly be modeled by saying that there are several independent random variables. One affects each year's weather independently. The next picks a new value every 2.6 years, independent of the previous value. The next does so every 11 years. Then there's one that does it every 29 years, and one that goes every 122 years. (The numbers are arbitrary, of course.) Fifteen years ago, the every-29-years random variable drew a high number, and we've had a block of warm years.
The skeptics' null hypothesis ...
No such thing. You can have an unquestionable tenet, that you try to fit the phenomena onto by any means necessary. Or you can have hypotheses that you evaluate according to the evidence. But you can't really have both.
TS,
Individual years aren't that important, it's the trend that's important, and the magnitude of the trend.
Apparently, individual years are important enough for NASA and the NOAA to scream hysterically and are important enough to mention in Obama's SOTU...
But I agree with you. Individual years are not important..
I only mention it because of Obama's BS crap...
Thanks for pointing out your complete ignorance about about carbon partitioning. This reply is long enough already....
So, getting the entirety of the Left to quit smoking? That'll help???
Have at it.. :D
Bashi,
Total global temperature is a combination of air and sea temperature to which the RSS satellite only measures one...
Yet both NASA and NOAA are on record as saying the Satellite data is more accurate..
Once again, saying whatever supports their crazy agenda..
Which model and parameter set are you talking about? Many were wrong because they were too conservative.
And yet, you haven't been able to come up with ONE prediction that was accurate BEFORE the fact...
Funny how that is, iddn't it. :D
The models predicted ocean rise levels and global mean temperature below what actually happened.
Yea?? And I can say, "It will rain in the month of January" and when it does, I can say I accurately predicted that based on science..
But you and I both know that it was a fool's prediction...
If one is general enough, one can predict ANYTHING accurately..
But when it comes to predictions like x number of degree rise or x number of inches sea rise and ice caps melting away and no snow anywhere and himalayas ice free etc etc, the Human Caused Global Warming fanatics have ALWAYS be completely and unequivocally WRONG....
There has NEVER been an accurate prediction..
NEVER.. NADA... ZILCH...
Michale
CW [44]
I'm not entirely sure what the whole "call a spade a spade" debate is about.
Really? It sounds crystal clear to me: Muslim=terrorist and terrorist=Muslim, and Obama won't say so because secretly he is a Muslim=terrorist.
When scientists, REAL scientists, have a theory that is constantly and unequivocally being proven WRONG at every juncture, REAL scientists... Those scientists not concerned with PR or billions in grant money, usually alter their theory to fit reality..
But not the Human Caused Global Warming fanatics.
Those so-called "scientists" alter reality to fit the theory..
Michale
Really? It sounds crystal clear to me: Muslim=terrorist and terrorist=Muslim, and Obama won't say so because secretly he is a Muslim=terrorist.
No one said MUSLIM=TERRORIST...
Well, except you..
But it is simply undeniable that there are islamic terrorists....
To deny that is to, once again, deny reality...
Michale
Or you can have hypotheses that you evaluate according to the evidence.
The problem is the Global Warming religious fanatics evaluate the evidence according to the hypotheses...
Michale
The entire Human Cause Global Warming debate around here can be summed up quit succinctly..
I am about ALL the science..
Ya'all are only about the science that supports the agenda...
Michale
If this is too boring of a subject, we can always talk about Tom Brady's balls... :D
Michale
"I'm one of those Republicans who thinks we are getting warmer and that we contribute to that." - Willard "Weathervane" Rmoney (RINO)
DWS - 60
"Being random doesn't have to mean that each year is statistically independent of the year before."
Quite so, but I was only trying to address the question of whether the trend of GMT was upward in the 1880-2014 period or the null hypothesis of something else. Without using sophisticated curve fitting/interpolation techniques (Bayesian Inference, Kriging, GLM, Fractal Interpolation etc.) that are unfamiliar to most readers of a political blog. (Readers can correct me if my assumption is wrong).
Part of my argument is purely descriptive, the fact that the early GMT are all lower than the Grand Mean, the late years are all higher, and the middle are mixed. That's a signature of an upward trend. I also included a simple nonparametric test of examining how likely it is that 14 of the 15 hottest GMT are all found in the last 15 years of the data set. Very very not very likely, more evidence of the upward trend 1880-2014 is not a statistical fluke.
I think that's enough rigor to answer M's comments about the 1880-2014 data and still be comprehensible to CW.com readers.
So, you are saying that the GMT has been trending upward since 1880...
Now, I am just a knuckle-dragging ground-pounder, but the question that comes to MY mind is....
What was causing the GMT to trend upwards between 1880 and 1930??
Are the other factors in play??
Michale
I mean, call me silly...
But it seems to me that if the Left is going to blame industrialized humans for the rise in global temps, the Left is honor-bound to show that the global temps NEVER rose except for when industrialized humans were present..
Because if the Left CAN'T show that, then that introduces a flaw, a GLARING flaw, in the reasoning...
Wouldn't you agree??
Michale
We can still talk about Brady's balls.. :D
Michale
I mean, call me silly...
OK, you're silly :D
But it seems to me that if the Left is going to blame industrialized humans for the rise in global temps, the Left is honor-bound to show that the global temps NEVER rose except for when industrialized humans were present..
Because if the Left CAN'T show that, then that introduces a flaw, a GLARING flaw, in the reasoning...
Uh...no. The temperature is constantly changing up and down as are CO2 levels (in a geologic time frame) and they do directly correlate. It's the rate of change not the act of changing that is the problem. There have been a few rapid increases in CO2 levels and corresponding increase of global temperature that have been found. Typically during periods of highly active volcanoes. One, the Permian Mass Extinction happened quite quickly (less than 20,000 years) and as the name states, it did not go well for living creatures at the time...
We can still talk about Brady's balls.. :D
Uh...I'll leave that subject for you to study and get back to me. On second thought, you don't really need to get back to me on it.
M - 70
"Are the other factors in play??"
Oh my yes, many of them cyclical. See
Second try, M -70
"Are the other factors in play??"
Oh my yes, many of them cyclical. See Climate oscillation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_oscillation
"What was causing the GMT to trend upwards between 1880 and 1930??"
A trend doesn't imply smooth. Combine a bunch of different oscillations and you get complex waveforms. The trend wiggles, but it's still a trend up.
Bashi handled the logical mystery of M - 71.
Bashi,
Uh...no. The temperature is constantly changing up and down as are CO2 levels (in a geologic time frame) and they do directly correlate.
Yes they do.. Ice core samples clearly show that high temps beget larger CO2 concentrations. Not versie vicie..
Ergo, the LOGICAL conclusion would be that CO2 concentrations do NOT produce higher temps but rather that higher temps produce CO2 concentrations..
There have been a few rapid increases in CO2 levels and corresponding increase of global temperature that have been found
Right.. But the high temps came first. THEN came the CO2 levels.
This is what ice core samples have shown..
Uh...I'll leave that subject for you to study and get back to me. On second thought, you don't really need to get back to me on it.
Heh
TS,
Second try, M -70
"Are the other factors in play??"
Oh my yes, many of them cyclical. See Climate oscillati
OK, great..
So, it's POSSIBLE that the Human Caused Global Warming crowd is wrong..
It's POSSIBLE that other factors are in play and that human's effect on climate is non-existent to negligible..
Right??
Michale
The temperature is constantly changing up and down as are CO2 levels
But according to the Human Caused Global Warming crowd, the CO2 levels are going up and up... They predicted that means the temp would go up and up..
But the temp has NOT gone up and up..
Another glaring flaw in the theory...
Uh...no.
Uh... yes.. If there are other factors that produce high temps besides human kind, then that belies the claim from the Human Caused Global Warming group that humans are the ONLY possible culprit to Global Warming..
It's a flaw in the theory replete with flaws..
Michale
So, it's POSSIBLE that the Human Caused Global Warming crowd is wrong..
It's POSSIBLE that other factors are in play and that human's effect on climate is non-existent to negligible..
Right??
"It's OK. You can say it. They already know.."
-Joe Pesci, MY COUSIN VINNY
:D
Michale
Yes they do.. Ice core samples clearly show that high temps beget larger CO2 concentrations. Not versie vicie..
That science is currently in flux. They have found that the air bubbles to which CO2 is measured actually rises a bit as the ice layers compact. But yes it currently looks like warming increases CO2 levels. Natural fluctuations in solar output and changes in earth orbit cause the heating and CO2 is released. But it's not the pure one way street you would like it to be.
Ergo, the LOGICAL conclusion would be that CO2 concentrations do NOT produce higher temps but rather that higher temps produce CO2 concentrations..
It might be logical if you went out of your way to not understand anything else about the science involved. A really basic grade school level science experiment that you can do at home will prove that higher CO2 concentrations will increase temperatures.
Right.. But the high temps came first. THEN came the CO2 levels.
This is what ice core samples have shown..
The ice core samples go back about 800,000 years. The Permian Mass Extinction happened 252 million years ago...
But according to the Human Caused Global Warming crowd, the CO2 levels are going up and up... They predicted that means the temp would go up and up..
But the temp has NOT gone up and up..
Another glaring flaw in the theory...
They are going up, just not as fast a some parameter sets of some models predicted.
Uh... yes.. If there are other factors that produce high temps besides human kind, then that belies the claim from the Human Caused Global Warming group that humans are the ONLY possible culprit to Global Warming..
It's a flaw in the theory replete with flaws..
This is your assertion and has nothing to do with the science. There are many different sources that cause heating and cooling fluctuations. We understand them to the point of having a good idea about how much change each can have on global temperature levels. None of those explain the level of temperature rise we are experiencing.
So, it's POSSIBLE that the Human Caused Global Warming crowd is wrong..
It's POSSIBLE that other factors are in play and that human's effect on climate is non-existent to negligible..
Right??
It's possible, but extremely unlikely. On the level that it is POSSIBLE ISIS and Al Qaeda might lay down their arms and all go home to start businesses and have babies. But should we make all our military and national security decisions on that assumption? It would certainly save the country a lot of money...
That science is currently in flux.
WHAT!!!!! It's not "settled".. :D
Funny how the "science" that supports Human Caused Global Warming is "settled"...
But the REAL science that disproves Human Caused Global Warming is "in flux"...
The coincidence is amazing.. :D
It might be logical if you went out of your way to not understand anything else about the science involved. A really basic grade school level science experiment that you can do at home will prove that higher CO2 concentrations will increase temperatures.
Knuckle-dragging Ground-pounder...
Remember?? :D
They are going up, just not as fast a some parameter sets of some models predicted.
Not going up as fast as ANY and EVERY model predicted...
It's possible, but extremely unlikely.
Given the amount of science, REAL science, not PR/Agenda Driven science, that disproves the Human Caused Global Warming, it's a LOT more than "extremely unlikely"...
The simple fact that there has not been any significant warming for almost 2 decades is sufficient to prove that..
And round and round we go.. :D
Michale
M - 77
It's POSSIBLE that other factors are in play and that human's effect on climate is non-existent to negligible..
Possible, but unlikely given the current body of evidence. Rather than reinvent the wheel, I'm going to hand you over to the Union of Concerned Scientists Global Warminq FAQ ....Why does CO2 get most of the attention?
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/global-warming-faq.html#bf-toc-1
Possible, but unlikely given the current body of evidence.
It's only unlikely if you ignore ALL the scientific evidence that refutes the theory...
If one considers *ALL* the evidence and not just the evidence that supports the theory, unlikely becomes a HELLUVA lot more likely..
Human Caused Global Warming is a political issue.
NOT a scientific issue..
Michale
The simple fact that there has NEVER been an accurate prediction from the Human Caused Global Warming crowd is ALSO sufficient to indicate that "unlikely" is not the correct word to use...
I won't even bother mentioning the total bullshit statement that "97% of Scientists agree" blaa blaaa blaa blaaa...
The science is FAR from settled... Anyone who doesn't acknowledge that is no different than those who claimed that "science" proved the earth was flat was settled and that the earth was the center of the universe..
Michale
Michale
Union of Concerned Scientists Global Warminq FAQ
Are those the 97%???
I mean, honestly..
If the "science" is so accurate and compelling...
Why does the group have to make shit up???
Michale
M - 85
What is your source for your oft repeated 97% of scientists remark? Me thinks I detect a "near quote" = factoid=misinformation=bs.
What is your source for your oft repeated 97% of scientists remark? Me thinks I detect a "near quote" = factoid=misinformation=bs.
Are you kidding me??
You don't recall how the mantra "97% of scientists agree that humans are causing global warming" BS was spewed to hell and back from everyone from Al Gore to Obama??
That is, of course, until it was discovered that it was a total bullshit claim..
Michale
M-87
Gore and Obama are just quoting, or misquoting some other source. Who are the primary sources you disagree with, who you say G and O support? The people who gathered the data about the scientists, analyzed the data, calculated the purported 97% result, published the data in a peer reviewed journal, with a methods section outlining how they gathered and analyzed the data? A reputable secondary source, be it newspaper, magazine, or electronic would cite the primary source, whether they supported the 97% figure, disagreed with it, or remained neutral.
Scientific consensus gets built or falls apart in the peer review process, as documented in peer reviewed journals. Everything else is politics or its ugly sibling public relations, which lives in the basement and feeds on fish heads.
Are you playing politics or science? Or are you just beating a drum in an echo chamber?
CW-
Looks like 4 comments are stuck in the pipe.
Woot!! :D
Michale
In anticipation of your claims..
In 2013, John Cook, an Australia-based blogger, and some of his friends reviewed abstracts of peer-reviewed papers published from 1991 to 2011. Mr. Cook reported that 97% of those who stated a position explicitly or implicitly suggest that human activity is responsible for some warming. His findings were published in Environmental Research Letters.
Mr. Cook's work was quickly debunked. In Science and Education in August 2013, for example, David R. Legates (a professor of geography at the University of Delaware and former director of its Center for Climatic Research) and three coauthors reviewed the same papers as did Mr. Cook and found "only 41 papers—0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent—had been found to endorse" the claim that human activity is causing most of the current warming. Elsewhere, climate scientists including Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir J. Shaviv and Nils- Axel Morner, whose research questions the alleged consensus, protested that Mr. Cook ignored or misrepresented their work.
Yea, looks like I got one whisked away to NNL myself..
Michale
Who are the primary sources you disagree with, who you say G and O support?
See comment #91
Are you playing politics or science? Or are you just beating a drum in an echo chamber?
That's just the point that you don't seem to want to get..
Human Caused Global Warming (Yet The Planet Is Getting Colder (Ask The Northeast)) *IS* politics and is *NOT* science...
Michale
Bashi and I have agreed that Human Caused Global Warming is not the imminent planet-destroying human kind annihilating catastrophe that the fanatics like to claim it is..
Would you agree with that as well??
Assuming so, here's an interesting take..
http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/my-life-as-a-climate-lukewarmer.aspx
While I disagree with the author as to the culpability of human kind, as I agree with ya'all on that point, the whole point of the article is the fanaticism of the Human Caused Global Warming religion...
You should read that article because it explains PERFECTLY why Human Caused Global Warming is NOT science..
It's politics, pure and simple. It's all about money and control..
Has nothing to do with science..
Michale
The funny thing is, as that above article states, is that there is no record of anyone on the sceptic side of the argument wanting to silence a proponent..
There are oodles and oodles of facts that show so-called "scientists" and others on the proponent side of the argument wanting to silence ANYONE who doesn't toe the Party/Agenda line..
That right there should tell you the "validity" of (or in this case, the lack thereof) the proponent's argument.
Michale
You should read that article because it explains PERFECTLY why Human Caused Global Warming is NOT science..
It's politics, pure and simple. It's all about money and control..
Has nothing to do with science..
And that article sums up perfectly *MY* argument with you and Bashi and those who believe as you do...
Michale
To clarify, it's the whole "SCIENCE IS SETTLED" bullshit adopted by the Human Caused Global Warming proponents..
Science... TRUE science is never "settled"..
If someone believes that science is "settled", it ain't science..
It's religion. It's faith..
Faith in believing that you already know all that is possible to know..
"God said it. I believe it. That settles it."
-Mantra of the religious fanatic.
"Al Gore said it. I believe it. That settles it."
-Mantra of the Human Caused Global Warming fanatic
The similarity is undeniable..
Michale
Joshua,
If you are still reading this commentary..
The article above mentions the argument that you mentioned to me previously. The Higher Authority argument..
I understand now what you are trying to say.. I don't agree that it's pertinent to the discussion/debate WE were having..
But I now, at least, understand what you were trying to say..
Michale
M - 91
"Scoop of chocolate, scoop of vanilla. Don't waste my time." City Slickers
You cut and paste an editorial from the WSJ. You don't read the original source material, you just cherry pick factoids you like concerning opinions you agree with. You are banging a drum in an echo chamber. Just like the WSJ wants you to, because they know most people are too lazy to fact check.
With a few key words in Google you can access the letter by Cook et al. on line, without pay wall.
Then you actually have to read the text and examine all the charts and figures.
Cook et al. are very explicit about the criteria used to classify abstracts as: supporting anthropogenic climate change, taking no position, or refuting the position. Abstracts were evaluated in terms of the criteria in two ways. The first was a panel of independent reviewers, the second by the authors of the papers themselves.
There was very little difference in the results from the two methods of evaluation. About 65% of the papers take no position, about 32% support the position, and 2% refute it. Among those papers taking a position, explicit or implied about 97% supported the position that human activities affect climate change. Bias of independent vs author evaluations was trivial. Legates et al. didn't mention this when they called foul.