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
Thursday, March 21. 2013
Sorry, greenies. Polar Bears are thriving.
I was dumped after sex: was I wrong to do it?'
The lady advice columnist suggests she might need therapy for wanting to wait for sex a few weeks with a new date. I'm sure the fellows would heartily agree...
I am deeply offended by the new cult of microaggression.
Child Services, Police Descend on Home After 10-Year Old Poses with Hunting Rifle
Why Do Economists Urge College, But Not Marriage?
How does a local eye doctor make this kind of dough?
In Cyprus, Europe Sets a New Standard for Stupidity
Media Losing Their Freedom Without A Fight In Britain
Attracting sports teams does a city no good
As Calif. Drowns in Debt, Group Advocates For Free Healthcare for Illegals
Republicans Must Show Support for Hispanic Dreams
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
Bird Dog: Sorry, greenies. Polar Bears are thriving.
Glad it confirms your preconceptions, but it is not accurate. Any population count for the 1960s is inaccurate. Modern research indicates that of 19 subpopulations, only one is increasing, three stable, nine decreasing, and there's not enough data on the rest.
The biggest threat is loss of habitat. Polar bears require sea ice to hunt, and the summer extent of Arctic sea ice has diminished significantly in recent years.
Remember a thousand years ago, what's now called the Medieval Warm Period, when the earth was warmer than it is today, to the point where the Vikings colonized and grew crops in Greenland, and how such famed explorers as Henry Hudson wrote about the "great skeins of geese" making Greenland and Iceland their summer breeding grounds?
I'm sure you do.
According to Wikipedia, polar bears have been around for about 150,000 years.
Now please explain how these poor, delicate creatures managed to survive all those previous warm periods, but now they're certain to go extinct because of your neighbor's SUV.
As for the link you left, you still don't get it, do you? Providing a link to a site whose entire purpose is to bolster your side of the argument means less than nothing. As I noted the last time you tried this, any site with the word ".gov", "ipcc", "kyoto", "copenhagen", "oslo", etc, as part of the link probably doesn't mean dick, the same way your using a HuffPo piece to prove a political point doesn't mean dick.
I gather you're simply used to left-wing sites, where hyperbole is king, "truth" is simply a matter of bending the readers' will with fancy words, and facts be damned.
We're not like that on this side of the fence.
Also, are you really claiming that you and your ilk are smarter than the august researchers at Harvard University?
You have to admit, that's quite a claim.
Dr. Mercury: Remember a thousand years ago, what's now called the Medieval Warm Period, when the earth was warmer than it is today, to the point where the Vikings colonized and grew crops in Greenland, and how such famed explorers as Henry Hudson wrote about the "great skeins of geese" making Greenland and Iceland their summer breeding grounds?
Well, actually not. Warming during the Medieval Period was not uniform, and was largely offset by cooler temperatures elsewhere. Greenland benefited from changes in the Gulf Stream, bringing warmer tropical waters. See D'Andrea et al., Mild Little Ice Age and unprecedented recent warmth in an 1800 year lake sediment record from Svalbard, Geology 2012.
Nevertheless, polar bears can survive current temperatures, but global temperatures are expected to continue to rise, with the consequent loss of habitat.
Dr. Mercury: Providing a link to a site whose entire purpose is to bolster your side of the argument means less than nothing.
Yes, "scientists" doing, like, "research", and collecting, you know "data", about "stuff".
Expected by whom and by how much? The previous hyped expectations have been proven wrong.
Recent research has pegged warming at about 2-5°C with a most likely value of about 3°C, per doubling of CO2. This has been established by a variety of methodologies. Here's a review article, Knutti & Hegerl, The equilibrium sensitivity of the Earth’s temperature to radiation changes, Nature Geoscience 2008.
Cause/effect? Is the earth warming because of increased CO2 or is the CO2 increasing because as the earth warms?
And, what's so wrong with a bit of warming? The cost/benefit analysis seems to me to favor warmer versus cooler.
The scam is the hyped projections of a hockey stick like ramp of temperatures which is proving to be totally bogus.
Embrace the warm. The vegetation loves the CO2.
phil g: Cause/effect? Is the earth warming because of increased CO2 or is the CO2 increasing because as the earth warms?
CO2 is a greenhouse gas. This warms the planet, which increases atmospheric water vapor. The question at this point is the degree of amplification due to the water vapor.
phil g: And, what's so wrong with a bit of warming? The cost/benefit analysis seems to me to favor warmer versus cooler.
A bit of warming probably is beneficial. Unfortunately, that's not what scientists are projecting.
phil g: The vegetation loves the CO2.
Yes, but they will only reduce global warming by about 0.3°C per doubling of CO2. See Bounoua et al., Quantifying the negative feedback of vegetation to greenhouse warming: A modeling approach, Geophysical Research Letters 2010.
Time 4 another survey...2 see how many MF's (Maggie's Farmers) think ZA drinks Coke?
Just a thought...
Talk about confirming preconceptions.
There's nothing in this except a press release by a group that wants attention for their preferred belief.
People who don't understand logic and empiricism shouldn't comment on science.
From the citation, "The Polar Bear Specialist Group is composed of researchers and managers representing each of the five circumpolar nations that signed the International Agreement for the Conservation of Polar Bears of 1973." You can click through for information about specific populations, and the methodology.
BD - This 'sister state' meme is really getting kind of eerie! Here's the fourth installment. When it gets to 10, I'll collect them in a single post so the entire world can see how similar these two great states are.
"As Calif. Drowns in Debt, Group Advocates For Free Healthcare for Illegals"
Then you turn around and there's this:
As Connecticut Drowns in Dept, Group Advocates For Free Diapers for Moms
For good or ill, the parallels between our two native states is just amazing! Long live CT and CA, sister states forever!
Hey, of course. If We the People are going to act like chumps and give away our money to anybody who loudly claims a hardship, event the new arrivals who have contributed nothing to the greatness of the USA are going to stick their hands out for a piece of the free American Pie.
The in-state tuition and health care for illegals is "free stuff" for votes, simple as that. YOU allowed it to happen. You either vote for your party right or wrong so that they know they can depend on you no matter what they do OR you don't vote or even worse vote for candidates who can never win as a protest and thus your vote is meaningless to politicians. Until and unless we vote against these anti-American politicians they will continue to pander to and give away "free stuff" to those who will reward them with votes. Quid pro quo.
Cyprus: A credible threat from the government and EU to take depositors' money. Would it be rational to leave money in such a bank? Only to a "true believer" cult member, I suspect.
GB press: Maybe not.
Human Events: Differences in red and blue states. Still, we should have immigration restrictions as tough as Mexico's.
Nation of Nannies: When did NYC residents become such wimps? I remember when it was a given that they took no shht from no body.
Melgen's money, have you looked at the mark up on prescription lenses and designer frames? combine that with an affluent patient base that wants a pair of glasses for every occasion , you could have a real money machine then of course there's writing scripts for latisse, botox to smooth those crows feet, a little plastic surgery, a little creative book work (IRS says he owes $11M to over 3 years).
Re: the California Endowment campaign, why can't they fund raise and establish their own clinic? Though don't have any problem with the County Health Department providing free treatment for TB, VD and other communicable diseases.
Regarding the police/DCFS visit to the home after they posted their 10-year old holding a rifle on Facebook:
1) DCFS is required by law to investigate all complaints.
2) The cops go along to protect the DCFS people from violent assaults.
Consider this a new version of SWATting someone - instead of making a bogus call to the cops to get the SWAT team to show up at their door, you make a bogus child abuse call. Which is illegal, but how are they going to catch you?
Here's what you've got to understand. The police, and We the People want them to be this way, are trained to project and use their "apparent" authority to control you, to get you to accede to searches and other actions for which they have no legal authority.
You have to be polite and stand firm. The police work for you. The bureaucrats they are escorting are sent from the "multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance". You are the King in the USA. No you may not come in. No I will not come out. Leave my property and come back with a warrant. Now.
Well, we don't know the specifics of the complaint but it is reported to be that someone reported the picture of a child holding a firearm on Facebook. An investigation would include, bringing up and examining the photo. Then determining, that yes, it was a child and yes they were safely holding a firearm and that such action was not illegal or was it endangering the child, assuming they had no evidence the photo was taken without parental knowledge. Even in the case of the latter, a reasonable action would be simply to inform the parents of the photo's existence.
Attempting to bluff entry into the home (without a warrant), demanding the occupant open a safe, demanding to verify the non-legally require "registration" of the firearms was totally inappropriate. There was no evidence a child was endangered or harmed. Not evidence of illegality. No reason for a state actor to even visit the home much less attempt to force entry by threat of government force. And yes, the bringing of the police officer was an attempt to imply threat of government force.
I know it's going to make me unpopular, but a police bluff is almost always appropriate. It makes it easier to catch the bad guys (because bad guys are usually stupid). That's why, if you're not one of the bad guys, it's important to stand your ground, and politely but firmly with all your kingly sovereignty let them know you will not be buffaloed. Even go meta and let them know you know that they are doing what they have been trained to do, even though they have no lega authority to do it. They are trying to get your voluntary (?!) consent to their request. And you do not consent.
In this instance it wasn't the police who were attempting the unlawful entry but the "social worker". Had the officers had legitimate reason to believe a child was in danger, I'm certain they would either have been active in the meeting or come back with a warrant. As such, the social worker should be terminated and the agency prohibited by law from lying about their authority.
The only real issue with police bluffing is some start be believe that refusal is probable cause. Many cops aren't that smart about the law, that is why courts created "qualified immunity" to cover police ignorance of the law. Also, some officers, bluff while exhibiting signs of aggression then lie in affidavits and in testimony.
Jeff Foxworthy had the advice for dealing with the police. Treat them like your wife when she questions you, stick to simple yes or no answers until you figure out what you are being accused of.
BTW, this is a very good reason not to have children. Having children exposes you to government action against you without probably cause and a curtailment of many of your constitutional liberties. Or at least harassment in the form of government agent incompetence or malfeasance.
"When did NYC residents become such wimps? I remember when it was a given that they took no shht from no body."
NYC has become white minority in the last year or so.
The time you talk about is long gone.
Re: Offence at microaggression. So sorry BD, your opinion does not count, as you are a cisgendered hegemon and therefore not a member of an officially approved victim group.