"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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Michale

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.

Michale

Looks like 4 comments are stuck in the pipe.

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?

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

What is your source for your oft repeated 97% of scientists remark? Me thinks I detect a "near quote" = factoid=misinformation=bs.

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

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

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

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

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

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..

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..

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...

Right??

"It's OK. You can say it. They already know.."
-Joe Pesci, MY COUSIN VINNY

:D

Michale

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

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

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

"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.

"Are the other factors in play??"

Oh my yes, many of them cyclical. See

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.

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...

Michale

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

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

"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.

Michale

I am about ALL the science..

Ya'all are only about the science that supports the agenda...

Michale

The problem is the Global Warming religious fanatics evaluate the evidence according to the hypotheses...

Michale

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

But not the Human Caused Global Warming fanatics.

Those so-called "scientists" alter reality to fit the theory..

Michale

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.

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

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.

Chance of year being hottest
------NASA-------NOAA----
2014---38%--------48%
2010---23%--------18%
2005---17%--------13%

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.

Typo in P 4. That probability of N >= 14 was supposed to be in exponential notation:

5.80 * 10^-13.

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.....

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yeah, I saw the blown kiss. It was vintage Biden.

Nothing to say about the president's reluctance to call a spade a spade?

I understand.. It's OK...

Then please enlighten me to a warmer year than 2014...

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

You're right. Mea culpa. "who I believe is now headed for federal prison."

Heh.

:-)

-CW

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.

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.

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?

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

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

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

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...

BIG grin...

BIG laugh.. :D

Michale

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

Lots of spewing crap and no backing up... Big yawn there...

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..

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??

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

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. 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...

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...

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

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

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

By all means.. Go ahead and post anything relevant to my point that refutes the point...

I double dog dare ya.. :D

Michale

It'll pass ... within 10 comments, probably. :)

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...

This is a losing game. Republican or Democrat, it doesn't matter. Why does anybody volunteer? Or do they draw lots?

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.

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.

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.

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."

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

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.

" 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.

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