We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Good toons. But that lady wouldn't be interested in silk sheets, candles, and Barry White CDs. More likely, a stainless steel gurney, fluorescent kleig lights, a Red Guard choir on the sound system singing "Ode to the Great Helmsman", and a stop-watch duct-taped to a clipboard.
--well, since they haven't yet figured out a way to make the taxpayers pay someone to be in love with us, the civil clinical sex entitlement (Nurse Diesel with an artificial rose clamped between her teeth, showing up at your door in a hemp negligee, ready for her compulsory servicing) is inevitable --
An even better comment on the hypocrisy of Liberals: replace the 2010 couple with a pair of gay men or a pair of gay women, repeating the same balloon from the 1960s hippy couple. How times and the Left's notions of "freedom" have changed, from being anti-statists to committed statists, from challenging The Man to being The Man. As the ad says, This is your brain on drugs. They're not just the Lost Generation, but a Generation of Losers.
Look at the first graph... These are the public graphs for GISS for global average temperature, and this is just such a graph, is it not?
No, it is not. It's a graph of the temperature *anomaly*.
Robert Brown: I don’t even know how to compute an average surface temperature for the 1/2 acre plot of land my own house sits on, today, right now, from any single thermometer sampling any single location.
By taking many measurements, the random effects of those measurements are minimized according to the Law of Large Numbers. If you scatter thermometers about, you could test your apparatus by predicting temperatures at intermediate points. If your predictions tend to be accurate, then your apparatus is providing useful information. You can also test your apparatus by selecting random subsets of the data. The more observations you make, the more accurate your results will tend to be.
More important, if all the thermometers show increasing temperature, then there is a good chance the overall temperature of the plot of land is increasing.
The one-day thirty-degree swing is a feature of Texas Springtime. The upswing 30 under the sun, the downswing 30 under the moon. If the first six hours after sunrise rises from 40 to 70 degrees, that's 75%, i think. Then at that same rate and direction, the next six would see 122 degrees, next six 213 or so, and at the end of the final six of 24 hours, the temp would be an unseasonably warm 362 degrees. The 13th hour, we would have all died. Just one little several-hour rotation stall and --zap --we who lived a half million years and created language and writing and built the pyramids and split the atom and flew to the moon, -phfffft! --shake n baked! I don't like it --i'm gonna start keeping an eye on that rotation. Lessee, my 25' Stanley tape measure --where is that thing --
buddy larsen: If the first six hours after sunrise rises from 40 to 70 degrees, that's 75%, i think.
6%. You should convert to degrees Kelvin.
buddy larsen: Then at that same rate and direction, the next six would see 122 degrees, next six 213 or so, and at the end of the final six of 24 hours, the temp would be an unseasonably warm 362 degrees.
If climatologists were simply extrapolating from a short term trend, then your argument would make more sense.
--actually no argument there at all --just an algore parody of small sorts --assume a change of any sort, then drive logic to where it always goes, that is to the absurd, and then depend on the reliable fraction to melt down past their pants pockets, so their wallets will fall out.
Juan Paxety ... Sometime in the past fifteen years when my back was turned, unskilled NEA trained English teachers decided to eliminate adverbs, [too complicated] and the difference between 'lay' and 'lie' ['there I was, laying on the beach']. [Whom were you laying?]
If you want to see them used correctly, you'll need to read books written by Englishmen and printed in England. Lay, in the sentence above, is a wrongly used active verb which takes a direct object. If we're talking about people, or books, the guy "laying" on the beach should be "lying on the beach" unless he's busily and actively making love to his girlfriend.
I could go on, but I think that Bird Dog won't let me bore you all again. We keep the OED around at our house to remind us that somewhere in the world there are still folks who care about our beautiful language, like that charming crazy lady in England who wrote "Eats, Shoots and Leaves". She goes about her daily round with chalk in her pockets so she can correct the more outrageous mistakes which are made on signs she encounters in Britain.
And if you haven't read "Eats, Shoots and Leaves," borrow it from your local library. It will give you a chuckle.
What the Frankfurt School essentially does is draw on both Marx and Freud in the 1930s to create this theory called Critical Theory. The term is ingenious because you’re tempted to ask, “What is the theory?” The theory is to criticize. The theory is that the way to bring down Western culture and the capitalist order is not to lay down an alternative. They explicitly refuse to do that. They say it can’t be done, that we can’t imagine what a free society would look like (their definition of a free society). As long as we’re living under repression – the repression of a capitalistic economic order which creates (in their theory) the Freudian condition, the conditions that Freud describes in individuals of repression – we can’t even imagine it. What Critical Theory is about is simply criticizing. It calls for the most destructive criticism possible, in every possible way, designed to bring the current order down. And, of course, when we hear from the feminists that the whole of society is just out to get women and so on, that kind of criticism is a derivative of Critical Theory. It is all coming from the 1930s, not the 1960s.