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.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Tuesday, April 3. 2012
James Delingpole: Global Weirding: the new Big Lie
When Scientists Choose Motherhood - A single factor goes a long way in explaining the dearth of women in math-intensive fields.
Knish: Utopia's Free Lunch
From Hugs to Hand-Wringing: Watching the Legal Left Freak Out at the Supreme Court
Spengler: What do Republicans Want?
If you think he's on the right track, send him a couple of bucks. He's gonna need it, because he is up against every spare goverment union dollar in the country.
French Voters to Establishment: Apres Nous Le Deluge
Another Teen Shot in Sanford – But No Need to Get Upset, the Shooter Was Black
Is the Globe Warming? Or Just Your City?
New UK Met Office global temperature data confirms that the world has not warmed in the past 15 years.
Obama crowd suggests Romney is naive for not trusting Russia
Manipulating Death: The Nation’s Grievance Industry - The truth, progress ... none of it matters to the hustlers.
U of Oregon makes their press release disappear (or tried to)
Tracked: Apr 03, 07:18
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
the world has not warmed in the past 15 years.
And yet the AGW alarmists still bitterly cling to their false data and alarmist views.
Sad isn't it?
We’re 4 Years Away From Laser Guns on Ships
And about ten years from having rail guns. WOOT!!!
Bird Dog: New UK Met Office global temperature data confirms that the world has not warmed in the past 15 years.
It just cooled two degrees in Moscow over the last hour! Global cooling!!
By cherry-picking, all you do is confuse noise with trend. (1998 was an El Niño year.)
We can remove ENSO, volcanic aerosols, and solar variations to get a better idea of the trend. See,
Foster & Rahmstorf, Global temperature evolution 1979–2010, Environmental Research Letters 2011.
"Adjusted Data", heh. I'd like to know how they determined the effect of aerosols, as that is a rather infamous fudge factor. I'm sure aerosols have an effect, but I don't believe it has been settled what it is, how it varies with composition, or even the sign. However, I'm glad that someone in the AGW crowd is following up the suggestion in the CRU e-mails to use aerosols to save the data.
chuck: I'd like to know how they determined the effect of aerosols, as that is a rather infamous fudge factor. I'm sure aerosols have an effect, but I don't believe it has been settled what it is, how it varies with composition, or even the sign.
Wigley et al., Effect of climate sensitivity on the response to volcanic forcing, Journal of Geophysical Research 2005.
Looks to me like they assumed a linear trend in temperature due to CO2 forcing and used it to determine the effect of the ENSO index (not ENSO itself). I think that makes the ENSO index a fudge factor.
The Multivariate El Niño Index is independently derived from COADS (Comprehensive Ocean-Atmosphere Data set), which includes continuous measurements of sea-level pressure, surface zonal and meridianal wind component, sea surface temperature, surface air temperature, and cloudiness.
Your link is highly uninformative (presenting a chart with no caption or other explanation), but from what you post I detect a tautology: remove the natural causes that may influence climate, and claim the residual proves man is responsible for global warming. In other words, if the facts don't support your biases, then bias the "facts." The rules of Liberal science certainly work in strange ways.
Agent Cooper: Your link is highly uninformative (presenting a chart with no caption or other explanation)
A citation was provided. Here it is again: Foster & Rahmstorf, Global temperature evolution 1979–2010, Environmental Research Letters 2011.
Oh yes - let's discuss Dr. Tom Wigley of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) and the University of East
Anglia/Climatic Research Unit. Let's talk about his nasty habit of attempting to have PhDs removed or revoked from those who disagree with him. Let's discuss his various emails in the Climategate scandal where he openly discusses "hide the decline". Let's talk about Wigley's habit of having his work "peer" reviewed by a special panel of like minded minions. Let's talk about his refusal to release the data sets he used (paid for by the tax payer) and the methodology used to massage that data. Let's talk about his connections to the overt "management" of his supposed "research" he presented in the paper you so generously provided Chuch.
Let's do talk about this climate scientist who is perpetrating one hell of a scam on the world.
You sure do pick some winners to "prove" your points.
'Another Teen Shot in Sanford – But No Need to Get Upset, the Shooter Was Black"
Not so fast.
Are we sure the shooter wasn't a white black?
I don't understand that "When Scientists Choose Motherhood" article. Of course I know that the need or desire to take off time for childbearing in the crucial 20s creates a problem for young women pursuing tenure, but it's at least as great a problem in every other professional field -- and yet STEM careers remain dominated by men in a way that, say, Big Law (with its even greater partner-track grind) does not. The conflict with childbearing can't be the whole story.
As others have pointed out, Liberals and Dems have enthusiastically applauded the "unelected" Supreme Court whenever in the past it has ruled in favor of causes they supported. With equal enthusiasm, Conservatives and Repubs have fumed over an "activist" Court that has ruled against causes they favored, warning their political opponents that such reliance on the SCOTUS could come back to haunt the Left. Now that has come to pass. The Repubs are relishing the possible payback, accusing the Dems of hypocrisy. Not to be left behind in the war of words (since that is the position from which he prefers to lead), Barack Obama now has the gall to accuse Conservatives and Repubs of hypocrisy. Pot, meet kettle. Obama is apparently taking lessons in plagiarism from his beclowned VP, Joe Biden: the Repubs have long accused the Dems of hypocrisy, so now Obama steals their script word for word and accuses them of hypocrisy? Does the Smartest Man in the Room ever have an original unscripted idea of his own?
Agent Cooper dear ... you ask if Obama ever has an original unscripted idea of his own?
For an interesting $$ connection between Big Pharma and Obamacare, see near the end of:
The rest of the article is enlightening, too, at it connects some (only some) of the dots among the players in O's administration.
And another one bites the dust:
"Another Teen Shot in Sanford – But No Need to Get Upset, the Shooter Was Black"
85-year old Nancy Strait and husband Bob Strait, age 90, were unavailable for comment.
Cruise on by the NBC website, there is (if you can find it) a apology for editing the audio 911 tape on the Zimmerman/Martin incident in such a way as to incriminate Mr. Zimmerman as a racist.
Specifically, the originally aired (edited) tape had him saying to the 911 dispatcher,
“He’s up to no good…he’s black” But the original police recording went more like this,
“(Zimmerman: He’s up to no good, he’s wandering back and forth and looking around…Police Dispatcher: Sir, what is he? Latino? White? Black?…Zimmerman ( in answer to the question): He’s Black.”
On ABC, they have amended their analysis of the video tape taken after the incident, their first report stated that NO Physical Injuries could be seen on George Zimmerman that indicated a self-defense struggle. NOW their correction states that a enhanced video does show such injuries.
My problem with both “corrections” is that unbiased local reporting of the 911 tape and the video had it right in the first place. Since the 911 tape and video would undoubtedly be released in the unedited version, sooner or later, why distort the truth?
I believe that the answer to that is both of these Democratic Apologists know quite well that too many people who hear the first report will never change their mind, even if they listen to the corrections or follow-up stories. That is why the push is on to shut this story down, get it off the front pages and the top of the news. There is an old saying,”A lie is halfway round the world before the truth has got its boots on.” So if the race ends before the truth is booted and spurred, the lie wins. That is what is happening now.
That and more. If a liar can force a little bit of time between the lie and the truth, in that little bit of time things might happen that may take on lives of their own, regardless of the sweet correction of the original.
Those acts of anger real or feigned, that happen because of the lie, create 'true' damage that causes 'true' rage and 'true' reaction.
That's why the lie made it to the top ten of the sin list, the Ten Commandments.
Pity that between God and Moses, they couldn't find a way to word the 11th Commandment; Thou shalt not swallow the falsehoods of the faux-rightheous, or If the Democratic Snake opens its mouth, cut off its head.
OK, no violence, are nougies on its head all right?
Cancer treatments: search Stanley Burzynski,MD, PhD for a documentary on his fight with the FDA to bring a non-toxic treatment to the forefront. I know people who have gone through his protocol and are very healthy four and five years later.
FDA = your tax dollars at work
I believe in Global Weirding! I've seen The Proof! Much of it is at East Anglia U.
Barack Obama does the Michael Jackson Moonwalk?
"Ultimately I am confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress," Mr. Obama said in the Rose Garden appearance.
"The point I was making is that the Supreme Court is the final say on our Constitution and our laws, and all of us have to respect it, but it's precisely because of that extraordinary power that the Court has traditionally exercised significant restraint and deference to our duly elected legislature, our Congress. And so the burden is on those who would overturn a law like this," Mr. Obama said.
Is he walkin' it back? Of course, the "threat" (or insult) has been unleashed and cannot be taken back. This is what Progressives do, they utter the smear and then claim they were "misunderstood" or their words were "taken out of context." Pardon me if anyone was offended by my words, they say, blaming the audience rather than the speaker.