Tuesday morning links

re Record Drop In Global Temperatures As El Nino Warming Ends

Well . . .

That's because:

1) truthy

2) fake news site

3) temperature takers employed by Big Oil

4) Temps haven't been 'adjusted' yet.

5) Cooling conclusion drawn by eeevil climate skeptics/deniers. People who should be imprisoned or killed.

Did I miss anything?

Gotta go throw another log on the fire. Getting cold in here.

#1 feeblemind on 2016-11-29 09:50 (Reply)

feeblemind: 4) Temps haven't been 'adjusted' yet.

Satellites don't measure temperature directly, but radiances in various frequency ranges. The data has to be adjusted for changes in orbital position of the satellite and various other effects, in order to derive an estimated temperature. In other words, the data has to be adjusted before temperature can ever be inferred.

QUOTE:

Record Drop In Global Temperatures As El Nino Warming Ends

First mistake: The data isn't global temperatures, but temperatures in the lower troposphere over land. That is the expected pattern after an El Niño. However, pointing to the cyclical change doesn't explain why this El Niño was warmer than any previous El Niños on record.

QUOTE:

Dr Schmidt also denied that there was any ‘pause’ or ‘hiatus’ in global warming between the 1998 and 2015 El Ninos. But on its website home page yesterday, Nasa featured a new study which said there was a hiatus in global warming before the recent El Nino

The article didn't provide a link to the NASA story, but it is probably referring to Study Sheds New Insights Into Global Warming Trends, which is still on NASA's front page. The study indicates a slowdown in warming, but not an actual "hiatus". This slowdown ended over the last few years.

QUOTE:

Mr Trump’s science adviser Bob Walker said he was likely to axe Nasa’s $1.9 billion (about £1.4 billion) climate research budget.

Of course he did. If you close your eyes, then it goes away.

QUOTE:

Chart of Temperature Over Land

Take a look at the chart. Now compare the graph to the zero-line, the average of 1978-1998. What do you see?

#1.1 Zachriel on 2016-11-29 10:37 (Reply)

What I see:

1-Equivocation fallacy

2-A news article (as opposed to academic journal) that repeatedly states that the Earth's climate system is not well understood or measured. Consensus claims are meaningless, and the extrapolations asserted are unfounded and unscientific, albeit they are truthy.

3- An unfounded insult, nothing related to science

4- A unsubstantiated chart published by a questionable newspaper, accompanied by all sorts of heartstring tugging pictures. Rhetoric not dialectic.

I'm happy to go on, as showing the fallacies of your comments is an easy exercise.

#1.1.1 DrTorch on 2016-11-29 13:33 (Reply)

DrTorch: Equivocation fallacy

That's right. The linked article is entitled "Record Drop In Global Temperatures" but bases the claim on inferred tropospheric temperatures over land. The linked article also conflates "hiatus" with "slowdown".

DrTorch: A news article (as opposed to academic journal)

While NASA's article refers to the academic study, the linked article relies on out-of-context quotes, and a misunderstanding of the basic science.

DrTorch: A unsubstantiated chart published by a questionable newspaper, accompanied by all sorts of heartstring tugging pictures.

The linked article provided the image, but you are correct. They should have provided a source. Was it UAH 6 Beta?

#1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-11-29 13:49 (Reply)

You just knew you were going to hear from good ole Zach with that post. The boy just can' help himself. Always has to have the last word. He is amusing at times if not predictable. Zach the horse is dead stop beating it.

#1.2 Randy Ginsberg on 2016-11-30 04:26 (Reply)

QUOTE:

Question the Conventional Wisdom about College Degrees ... This suggests that recent efforts to encourage more individuals to pursue college (President Barack Obama said that all Americans should have at least some postsecondary education) may be misguided.

Obama calls for focus on vocational training

#2 Zachriel on 2016-11-29 10:18 (Reply)

I note that was nearly 5 years ago. What's Obama done about it?

#2.1 Sam L. on 2016-11-29 14:29 (Reply)

Sam L: I note that was nearly 5 years ago.

It was a response concerning the misrepresentation of what Obama meant by education past high school, which includes vocational training.

Sam L: What's Obama done about it?

His proposals died in Congress.

#2.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-11-29 14:35 (Reply)

Thanks to Obama's anti-American policies we had another "immigrant" attack at OSU. Who could have predicted this? But indeed many predicted it and this is just the beginning. It is likely that many of the violent muslim refugees will continue their violent jihad beliefs and you and your family will be their targets. This was easy to prevent, in fact it took considerable effort and considerable amounts of your tax money to make it all possible. This is all the result of the confluence of interests of : 1. Obama who wanted to poke America in the eye. 2. Activists groups who resettle these refugees and get paid exceptionally well to do so. 3. The UN and globalist elites who intend to "unamericanize" America to dilute their power and perhaps even paralyze America in the future.
They are winning! Americans are losing. It is all by design and intent. And you are an intolerant racist xenophobe if you speak against it.

#3 IdahoBob on 2016-11-29 10:28 (Reply)

Hard thing to think about, but you are spot on. We are being invaded, with no hope or thought of assimilation. The left will not stop, they will align with any sort of evil, to destroy America.

#3.1 B Hammer on 2016-11-29 10:45 (Reply)

even Merklel may deport non-assimilators.
But Ohio's Governor Kasich, who welcomed and imported radical somalis, can't figure out what motivated the Ohio State terrorist. Maybe with more study, Kasich will conclude it was Global Worming", or allowing a conservative speake on campus that was the justifiable cause.

#3.2 jaybird on 2016-11-29 11:44 (Reply)

QUOTE:

Democrats, Not Trump, Racialize Our Politics

• Trump: "When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."

• Trump, about Muslim Gold Star family: "If you look at his wife, she was standing there. She had nothing to say. She probably, maybe she wasn’t allowed to have anything to say."

• Trump: Judge is biased because "He's a Mexican."

• Trump's business used "C" on rental applications to denote "coloreds" in order to avoid renting to blacks.

• Trump: "They don’t look like Indians to me".

• Trump: “And isn’t it funny. I’ve got black accountants at Trump Castle and Trump Plaza. Black guys counting my money! I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes every day.”

• And, of course, Trump spent years trying to delegitimize the first African American president by questioning his citizenship.

#4 Zachriel on 2016-11-29 10:49 (Reply)

Trump, what a mensch!

#4.1 Jim on 2016-11-29 11:04 (Reply)

Too bad half the stuff you posted are falsehoods and the rest exaggerations based on the left's idea of what is 'politically incorrect' to say.

1) There is ZERO evidence that Donald Trump mandated or knew anyone was writing "C" on an application for an apartment. It was VERY common in the 70s for these types of cases to come to court. Did not mean guilt.

2) The judge IS of Mexican descent. There is nothing racist about saying so. Is it racist for me to say that Judge Ito was Japanese? This is a Democrat tool for making people appear racist who aren't. Not buying it.

3) the line about not wanting blacks to count his money...do you not check Snopes? Here is what they say about that quote:

"That source is a book written by a disgruntled former employee of Trump Plaza Hotel & Casino, John R. O'Donnell, and neither the statement nor the sentiment behind it has been corroborated elsewhere."

4) Need I go on???

#4.2 MissT on 2016-11-29 11:14 (Reply)

MissT: It was VERY common in the 70s for these types of cases to come to court.

Yes, it was very common, sadly. His business was trying to circumvent the laws against racial discrimination.

MissT: The judge IS of Mexican descent.

Yes, though not a Mexican. The judge was born in Indiana.

MissT: There is nothing racist about saying so.

It is racist to say someone of Mexican descent can't be fair because "He's a Mexican."

MissT: Is it racist for me to say that Judge Ito was Japanese?

Perhaps not, but it would be racist to say he can't be fair because "He's Japanese."

MissT: the line about not wanting blacks to count his money...do you not check Snopes?

"The stuff O’Donnell wrote about me is probably true," Trump said.

#4.2.1 Zachriel on 2016-11-29 12:45 (Reply)

It is racist to say someone of Mexican descent can't be fair because "He's a Mexican."

That wasn't what was said. So, you have misrepresented Trump's statement.

Obama provided a certification of live birth from the State of Hawaii in 2008, when he ran for president.

SweetPea: then he provided them and each one was proved to be a fake.

That is false

Another truthy comment, but alas, you're wrong. The birth certificate that was provided did not match others from that era and location (Did you ever look into that? I'll wager you didn't. It's called research. You find it much easier to parrot comments you prefer, instead of validating them.) moreover an analysis of the digital image file showed it was photoshopped.

#4.2.1.1 DrTorch on 2016-11-29 13:38 (Reply)

DrTorch: That wasn't what was said.

In an interview with the Wall Street Journal, Trump said the judge had “an absolute conflict” in presiding over the litigation given that he was “of Mexican heritage”. Then when given a chance to walk back his statement, he said "He’s a Mexican. We’re building a wall between here and Mexico... I think that's why he's doing it {giving rulings against Trump}."

DrTorch: The birth certificate that was provided did not match others from that era and location

Huh? The certification of live birth provided in 2008 is a new document provided upon request, whereby the State of Hawaii certifies that the original birth certificate is on record. As a matter of policy, Hawaii ceased providing copies of the original when the system was computerized.

#4.2.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-11-29 14:05 (Reply)

"Trump spent years trying to delegitimize the first African American president by questioning his citizenship."

Who's fault is that??? Obama used a dead man's SS #. Who does that? Illegal aliens do that. Obama declined to provide any legal birth certificate then he provided them and each one was proved to be a fake. The entry into the Hawaiian newspaper of his birth (which anyone can do regardless of where they are born or even if they are a human) was full of obvious false statements (the address where his mother lived, the name of the hospital where he was born...). Who does that. Most of us know where we are born, our parents are not confused about where we are born or where we live. The likely reason for these 'mistakes' is simply that Obama's grandmother posted the birth notice BECAUSE Obama's crazy mother did indeed go to Kenya for his birth and his grandmother realized what a mistake that was (Obama's mother's entire life was a series of mistakes). Obama's mother, due to the job she held iin Hawaii, had access to SS # information and could have easily found the SS # of a dead person to give to Obama AND she had the reason to do so. Obama himself stated numerous times that he was NOT born in America and that he WAS a foreigner UNTIL (like his grandmother) he suddenly realized how important it was that he claimed to be American. To this day he has NOT provided legitimate proof that he is American. I have to do this for an I-9 and my passport but Obama can not do it.

I ask those of you legitimate natural born citizens out there who have used a dead man's SS# or whose birth notice included phony addresses to write in and let us all know how common this is. Perhaps it is more common than I think.

#4.3 SweetPea on 2016-11-29 11:35 (Reply)

SweetPea: Who's fault is that???

Trump's.

SweetPea: Obama used a dead man's SS #.

That is false.

SweetPea: Obama declined to provide any legal birth certificate

Obama provided a certification of live birth from the State of Hawaii in 2008, when he ran for president.

SweetPea: then he provided them and each one was proved to be a fake.

That is false.

Bitherism today. Birtherism tomorrow. Birtherism forever!

#4.3.1 Zachriel on 2016-11-29 12:49 (Reply)

Obama spent millions to make sure his records remained unavailable to the press. He has sealed:
His Occidental college records
Columbia college records
Columbia thesis paper
Harvard college records
Selective service records
Medical records
Illinois state senate records and schedule
law practice client list
certified copy of original birth certificate
the signed embossed certificate of live birth
His baptism record.

Why???

#4.3.1.1 SweetPea on 2016-11-29 16:41 (Reply)

SweetPea: Obama spent millions to make sure his records remained unavailable to the press.

Most of the records were not "sealed" by Obama, but are private records by nature. He has provided his tax returns, as well as his birth certificate.

#4.3.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-11-29 16:51 (Reply)

Obama records

COLLEGE RECORDS
These aren’t sealed; Obama hasn’t released them, and schools aren’t allowed to release any student records to reporters or the public.

SELECTIVE SERVICE
Obama’s registration is public. Daniel Amon, public affairs specialist with the Selective Service, confirmed to the media that he registered for the draft at a post office in Hawaii

MEDICAL RECORDS
Obama has done what other presidents have done and released results of his physical exams, as reported by numerous media outlets.

STATE SENATE RECORDS
These are all public.

LAW FIRM CLIENTS
Citing client confidentiality, Obama has not released a list of clients he represented

BIRTH CERTIFICATE
Obama’s short- and long-form birth certificates have been released

#4.3.1.1.2 Zachriel on 2016-11-29 16:55 (Reply)

Whew! I feel better now. The records aren't "sealed", he just hasn't released them. He did spend millions to not release them but don't we all??? His Aunt in Kenya did say numerous times that she was present at his birth but after getting a 55" TV she now denies it. (Just kidding, she didn't get a TV, whatever he bribed her with is unknown/not released.)

#4.3.1.1.2.1 SweetPea on 2016-11-29 17:44 (Reply)

SweetPea: Whew! I feel better now. The records aren't "sealed", he just hasn't released them.

That's a significant different. The latter implies a court action.

SweetPea: He did spend millions to not release them but don't we all???

It doesn't cost a nickle to keep your private records private. However, Obama did release his tax returns, and his physicals, which were of legitimate public concern.

#4.3.1.1.2.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-11-30 10:05 (Reply)

Are you so uninformed that you don't know Obama spent millions for lawyers fees to keep his incriminating records 'unreleased'. Sounds like court action to me.

#4.3.1.1.2.1.1.1 SweetPea on 2016-11-30 10:21 (Reply)

SweetPea: Are you so uninformed that you don't know Obama spent millions for lawyers fees to keep his incriminating records 'unreleased'.

You might want to provide a citation, so we know what you are talking about.

#4.3.1.1.2.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-11-30 10:37 (Reply)

Folks, remember that you're debating a robot. A robot that's never been programmed for unbiased output. This is for a reason. And it's why to never expect reason from it.

#4.4 Ten on 2016-11-29 11:41 (Reply)

Zach baby,
Do you disagree that Mexico and Cuba dump their criminals and mentally ill across the border? It is cheaper for them to do this than take care of the problems themselves.

Do you disagree that drug gangs and drugs come from mexico across our obama-porosified border?
Do you disagree that rapists and murderers are exported from mexico (repeatedly such as the case of Kathryn Steinle) in large numbers?

Maybea good way to stop this scourge of drugs and criminality exported to the US from mexico is for our Justice Department and president to secretly give automatic weapons to the drug gangs so the drug gangs can more easily shoot our Border Patrol Officers and mexican politicians !!! That's the ticket !!

#4.5 jaybird on 2016-11-29 12:09 (Reply)

jaybird: Do you disagree that drug gangs and drugs come from mexico across our obama-porosified border?

Do you disagree that U.S. dollars and guns flow into Mexico into the hands of criminals that threaten the Mexican people?

#4.5.1 Zachriel on 2016-11-29 12:51 (Reply)

And we have a straightforward red-herring fallacy, as z can't really accept the facts given to her, so she deflects to a different discussion.

But what is AMAZING, is that she actually brought up Fast and Furious, the criminal activity endorsed by the BHO administration!

Seriously? That's exactly why people want BHO out of office.

#4.5.1.1 DrTorch on 2016-11-29 13:47 (Reply)

DrTorch: That wasn't what was said.

In an interview with the Wall Street Journal, Trump said the judge had “an absolute conflict” in presiding over the litigation given that he was “of Mexican heritage”. Then when given a chance to walk back his statement, he said "He’s a Mexican. We’re building a wall between here and Mexico... I think that's why he's doing it {giving rulings against Trump}."

DrTorch: The birth certificate that was provided did not match others from that era and location

Huh? The certification of live birth provided in 2008 is a new document provided upon request, whereby the State of Hawaii certifies that the original birth certificate is on record. As a matter of policy, Hawaii ceased providing copies of the original when the system was computerized.

#4.5.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-11-29 13:59 (Reply)

Sorry. Wrong sub-thread.

#4.5.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-11-29 14:06 (Reply)

DrTorch: And we have a straightforward red-herring fallacy

No more a red herring than jaybird's comment, which attempted to defend Trump's suggestion that most Mexicans are criminals because some Mexicans are criminals. The vast majority of Mexicans come to the U.S. to work.

#4.5.1.1.2 Zachriel on 2016-11-29 14:09 (Reply)

DrTorch: But what is AMAZING, is that she actually brought up Fast and Furious

No. Guns were flowing into Mexico long before Fast and Furious, which was an attempt to trace that flow of guns. Drugs flow north, while guns and money flow south.

DrTorch: That's exactly why people want BHO out of office.

Obama is at 53% approval.

#4.5.1.1.3 Zachriel on 2016-11-29 15:26 (Reply)

So you don't believe Fast and Furious sent guns to Mexico, despite ample evidence and documentation.

Denier.

#4.5.1.1.3.1 DrTorch on 2016-11-29 15:46 (Reply)

DrTorch: you don't believe Fast and Furious sent guns to Mexico, despite ample evidence and documentation.

You might want to read more carefully.

The ATF allowed guns to go to Mexico. The ATF operations were an ill-fated attempt to trace the movement of guns from the U.S. into Mexico. However, the movement of guns and cash both predates and postdates operations Fast and Furious and Wide Receiver.

#4.5.1.1.3.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-11-29 15:53 (Reply)

Zach that is a bold faced lie. The purpose of fast and furious was to send guns from America to Mexico so that when people were killed with those guns the left/communist (like you) could crow about all the guns going from America to Mexico and therefore we need stronger anti-constitutional gun control. It was never about tracking guns, duh! If it had been about tracking guns then they would have actually tracked them, again duh! They never tracked them, they never intended to track them, it was all about anti-constitutional left wing communist like yourself trying to destroy our constitutional republic.

#4.5.1.1.3.1.1.1 IdahoBob on 2016-11-30 10:25 (Reply)

IdahoBob: The purpose of fast and furious was to send guns from America to Mexico so that when people were killed with those guns the left/communist (like you) could crow about all the guns going from America to Mexico and therefore we need stronger anti-constitutional gun control.

There have been multiple investigations of the ATF gun-walking investigations, including by Congress and the Inspector General's office, and they have all found that it was a law enforcement operation gone awry.

#4.5.1.1.3.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-11-30 10:45 (Reply)

They way it was planned there was never any possibility it could ever go "wry". It was always going to fail to meet it's claimed objectives. It was always about generating bad press for the 2nd amendment. It isn't over. We will learn more about this.

#4.5.1.1.3.1.1.1.1.1 IdahoBob on 2016-12-01 19:26 (Reply)

If it feels true ...

#4.5.1.1.3.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-12-02 09:31 (Reply)

QUOTE:

Hillary posed real conflicts of interest... As Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton accepted millions of dollars in bribes from foreign dictators (Saudi Arabia, for example) and the like disguised as donations to the Clinton Foundation, a tax-exempt corporation disguised as a charity.

Because money for fighting HIV is just the same as Trump suggesting to foreign leaders that they could help him out with his zoning problems in their countries, or at least stay at one of his luxury hotels rather than that of his competitors.

Because money to fight malaria is just the same as Ivanka Trump hawking the bracelet she wore when she attended a press interview with the president, and sitting in with official meetings with foreign leaders, so they know who to go to in order to curry favor with the future President.

No difference.

#5 Zachriel on 2016-11-29 10:56 (Reply)

Because the chance to fight malaria and HIV is what gets Saudi Arabia out of bed every morning!

#5.1 Bill Carson on 2016-11-29 11:33 (Reply)

Bill Carson: Because the chance to fight malaria and HIV is what gets Saudi Arabia out of bed every morning!

Saudi Arabia gave about $10 million for the Clinton Presidential Library, about the same they gave for the Bush Presidential Library. They gave very little to the Clinton Foundation after that, none during Clinton's term as Secretary of State.

#5.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-11-29 12:56 (Reply)

From http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/jul/07/fact-checking-donations-clinton-foundation/ ...

"However, thanks to the laws protecting donor identities, we can’t confirm these amounts independently. Everyone has to work with the level of disclosure that the foundation agreed to in that memorandum of understanding, and the memorandum doesn’t include any mechanism to check or enforce disclosure other than the foundation’s own willing compliance."

In other words, we'll have to take the Clinton's word on it. Truthy.

#5.1.1.1 Bill Carson on 2016-11-29 23:09 (Reply)

Bill Carson: In other words, we'll have to take the Clinton's word on it.

You are overlooking two salient points. One, the Clinton Foundation does officially report donors, and in this case, the amount is between $10-25 million. That puts limits on the claim. The other point is that the Bush Library Foundation isn't required to report any of its donors whatsoever, but that the Saudis have confirmed the gift of $10 million. That means anonymous sources can and have donated to the Bush Library, some while Bush was still president, while donors to the Clinton Library and Foundation are publicly identified. Which donors do you think are more likely to have undue influence?

Now, let's look at your claim again:

Bill Carson: Because the chance to fight malaria and HIV is what gets Saudi Arabia out of bed every morning!

Donating to presidential libraries gets Saudi Arabia out of bed in the morning — but at least they do it publicly.

#5.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-11-30 09:58 (Reply)

In any case, if Saudi Arabia donated more than the $10 million designated to the Library Fund, then it would have gone for one of the other Clinton initiatives, such as the fight against HIV.

#5.1.1.1.2 Zachriel on 2016-11-30 10:12 (Reply)

"In any case, if Saudi Arabia donated more than the $10 million designated to the Library Fund, then it would have gone for one of the other Clinton initiatives, such as the fight against HIV."

I've struck a nerve, haven't I? You know as well as I do that Saudi Arabia couldn't give a flying fuck about directly fighting HIV (nor, most likely, malaria), but you've got to wave your hands furiously to make that seem to be the case.

"You are overlooking two salient points. One, the Clinton Foundation does officially report donors, and in this case, the amount is between $10-25 million. That puts limits on the claim. The other point is that the Bush Library Foundation isn't required to report any of its donors whatsoever, but that the Saudis have confirmed the gift of $10 million. That means anonymous sources can and have donated to the Bush Library, some while Bush was still president, while donors to the Clinton Library and Foundation are publicly identified. Which donors do you think are more likely to have undue influence?"

I'm not overlooking a thing. A. Hillary was running for President in 2016 and Bush was/is out to pasture, so your assertions about Bush and his library are as useful here as is the fact I own a hat. B. No independent source has confirmed what the Clinton Foundation did with up to a maximum of $15M from Saudia Arabia. They may have spent the excess between $0 and $15M on anything (even on fighting HIV and malaria), but we don't know for sure, so you should not pretend otherwise.

#5.1.1.1.2.1 Bill Carson on 2016-11-30 15:21 (Reply)

Bill Carson: You know as well as I do that Saudi Arabia couldn't give a flying fuck about directly fighting HIV (nor, most likely, malaria)

Of course they do.

Bill Carson: Bush was/is out to pasture, so your assertions about Bush and his library

Bush's Library Foundation received anonymous donations even while he was president.

Bill Carson: No independent source has confirmed what the Clinton Foundation did with up to a maximum of $15M from Saudia Arabia.

The Clinton Foundation files publicly available annual reports, which are audited by PricewaterhouseCoopers, so we do know how money donated to the Clinton Foundation is spent.

#5.1.1.1.2.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-11-30 17:16 (Reply)

"Of course they do. "

Don't just wave your hands: show me the official position of the Saudi Arabian government on both HIV and malaria. Show me the public (or private) pronouncements by the Saudi Arabian government to the effect that the donations they made were made specifically to fight HIV and malaria.

"Bush's Library Foundation received anonymous donations even while he was president. "

Irrelevant. And Bush's susceptibility to Saudi influence does not excuse Hillary's. And it's certainly possible for one to revile Hillary for being for sale to the Saudis while at the same time being alarmed at George Bush's former/current closeness (or being "for sale", if you wish) to the Saudi regime, no? And again, that was as germane to the 2016 election as any other extremely non-germane thing.

"The Clinton Foundation files publicly available annual reports, which are audited by PricewaterhouseCoopers, so we do know how money donated to the Clinton Foundation is spent."

Which is why "we" have not yet shared it with "us" and continued to wave "we's" hands. And again, you only know that Saudi Arabia gave between $10M and $25M to the Grafton Foundation and in spite of that uncertainty you KNOW exactly on what that Saudi Arabian money was spent. Please show me your math!

#5.1.1.1.2.1.1.1 Bill Carson on 2016-11-30 17:35 (Reply)

Bill Carson: Don't just wave your hands: show me the official position of the Saudi Arabian government on both HIV and malaria.

QUOTE:

NEW MOMENTUM IN THE ARAB AIDS RESPONSE OPENS DOORS FOR CHANGE
The Arab region is breaking new ground in its actions on HIV and AIDS. “The increasing number of HIV infections and AIDS-related deaths indicate the importance of developing a clear roadmap for the Arab region with achievable goals” said Dr. Ziad Memish, Deputy Minister for Public Health of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. He pledged the commitment of Saudi Arabia to continue its leadership in the development of the Arab AIDS Initiative, launched by the Arab Ministers of Health in October 2011, to scale up the HIV response at regional and national levels to achieve the targets set in the 2011 United Nations Political Declaration on HIV/AIDS.

At a meeting convened by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, under the auspices of the League of Arab States and supported by UNAIDS, governmental and non-governmental representatives recognized the need for urgent action as MENA is one of only two regions where the epidemic continues to grow.

Bill Carson: And Bush's susceptibility to Saudi influence does not excuse Hillary's.

We're pointing out that the Clinton Foundation provides far more information than required by law, and that anonymous donations to a sitting president are far more concerning than named donations made while the Clintons were out of power.

Bill Carson: Which is why "we" have not yet shared it with "us" and continued to wave "we's" hands.

The plural of "your" is "your".

Revealing the names of donors is not required under law, but the Clintons provided that information when she became Secretary of State. As for expenditures, that is provided in annual IRS filings, which, as noted, are audited by PricewaterhouseCoopers, so we do know how money donated to the Clinton Foundation is spent.

#5.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-11-30 20:16 (Reply)

"NEW MOMENTUM IN THE ARAB AIDS RESPONSE OPENS DOORS FOR CHANGE"

So then the Saudis would have equally loudly come out and said that they were donating to the Clinton Foundation to fight HIV, right? And yet you have offered no evidence from either the Saudis or the Clinton Foundation that Saudi Clinton Foundation donations went to fight AIDS. I asked for this evidence from you above, and yet you have not provided it.

I'll admit I was incorrect in saying that Saudi Arabia was uninterested in HIV (it's an international scourge - everyone is interested in it at some level), but until you prove otherwise, I maintain that the Saudis were buying influence with their Clinton Foundation donations, not tackling HIV, or otherwise they would have been singing about it from the rooftops (e.g., "NEW MOMENTUM IN THE ARAB AIDS RESPONSE OPENS DOORS FOR CHANGE") in regard to their donations. How does funding a presidential library fight HIV? Why not give the money directly to researchers? Why be coy about fighting HIV if that's part of what you're ponying up for?

"We're pointing out that the Clinton Foundation provides far more information than required by law, and that anonymous donations to a sitting president are far more concerning than named donations made while the Clintons were out of power."

Adding detail to that which is irrelevant (to equal effect you could delve into Lyndon Johnson's conflicts of interest), though clearly voters were much more concerned with Hillary's donations than Bush's, no? I mean, how many times was Hillary elected President? Bush managed it twice, despite all of that "concern".

"As for expenditures, that is provided in annual IRS filings, which, as noted, are audited by PricewaterhouseCoopers, so we do know how money donated to the Clinton Foundation is spent."

No YOU don't know how the money was spent because you would have provided the details HERE if you did, along with the math I asked for. Repeating "audited by PricewaterhouseCoopers" doesn't cut it. Provide the details of that audit and the associated math. Or you can keep waving your hands.

#5.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1 Bill Carson on 2016-11-30 22:17 (Reply)

Bill Carson: So then the Saudis would have equally loudly come out and said that they were donating to the Clinton Foundation to fight HIV, right? And yet you have offered no evidence from either the Saudis or the Clinton Foundation that Saudi Clinton Foundation donations went to fight AIDS.

It would be good for their public image. However, YOU are the one claiming they made other donations beyond that provided for the Clinton Library.

Bill Carson: I asked for this evidence from you above, and yet you have not provided it.

You asked "show me the official position of the Saudi Arabian government on both HIV and malaria." We provided the information about the Saudi governments efforts on HIV. We left the question about malaria as an exercise for the reader.

Bill Carson: I maintain that the Saudis were buying influence with their Clinton Foundation donations

Of course they received influence. They received influence when they donated to the Bush Library. They received influence when they donated to the Clinton Library. It's networking. It's legal. And it's how large charities work.

Bill Carson: though clearly voters were much more concerned with Hillary's donations than Bush's, no?

Sure. Because the political right is much more susceptible to propaganda at this point in history. Consider the tangle of conflicts presented by Trump, yet the Congress has little interest in investigating them.

Bill Carson: No YOU don't know how the money was spent because you would have provided the details HERE if you did

Here's an overview.

Here's the auditor's report and 990s.

#5.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-12-01 10:06 (Reply)

"Bill Carson: I asked for this evidence from you above, and yet you have not provided it.

You asked "show me the official position of the Saudi Arabian government on both HIV and malaria." We provided the information about the Saudi governments efforts on HIV. We left the question about malaria as an exercise for the reader."

Not quite - I asked for a little bit more than that (read above). Here's what I also asked for:

"Show me the public (or private) pronouncements by the Saudi Arabian government to the effect that the donations they made were made specifically to fight HIV and malaria."

You didn't provide these specifics. Nor do either the overview or report you provide. I gave you an exercise: provide specifics and calculations - an accounting - regarding Saudi Arabian funding of HIV and malaria causes via the Clinton Foundation and you failed to do so. Because you don't know.

"Sure. Because the political right is much more susceptible to propaganda at this point in history. Consider the tangle of conflicts presented by Trump, yet the Congress has little interest in investigating them. "

Best laugh I've had in years! Please come talk to me once the political left becomes susceptible to reality! Not gonna hold my breath!

#5.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Bill Carson on 2016-12-01 12:04 (Reply)

Bill Carson: "Show me the public (or private) pronouncements by the Saudi Arabian government to the effect that the donations they made were made specifically to fight HIV and malaria."

You're the one claiming Saudi Arabia made donations beyond donations to the Clinton Library fund, contrary to statements of the Clinton Foundation. You claim they did because reporting is only provided within ranges, but provide no evidence that they did, in fact, donate significant funds beyond that.

Bill Carson: Please come talk to me once the political left becomes susceptible to reality!

The term "reality-based community" was applied to the left by a political operative in the Bush Administration. Now, there is certainly fake news bought into by the left, but it has much less currency than on the right. For instance, the Republican President-Elect claims without substantiation that millions of ineligible people voted in the last election.

#5.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-12-01 15:53 (Reply)

"I gave you an exercise: provide specifics and calculations - an accounting - regarding Saudi Arabian funding of HIV and malaria causes via the Clinton Foundation and you failed to do so. Because you don't know."

Still no specifics or calculations, but plenty of truthy, logically inconsistent hand waving and obfuscation. Sad.

And still, you don't know.

#5.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Bill Carson on 2016-12-02 00:56 (Reply)

Bill Carson: Still no specifics or calculations

You are the one suggesting Saudi Arabia made contributions beyond those for the Clinton Library. It's not our job to tell you how phantom contributions were spent.

We do know how the Clinton Foundation spends its money, though. That breakdown is provided in the Foundation's annual IRS filings, which, as noted, are audited by PricewaterhouseCoopers

#5.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-12-02 09:13 (Reply)

illegal alien and other vote fraud.

President obama urges illegal aliens to vote, says no consequences...

Pew Research says vote fraud

our cute little hamster robot says there is no vote fraud whatsoever, even in the big Dem city machines.
Who to believe, Zach who claims to be the King of Jupiter, or my own lying eyes?

#6 jaybird on 2016-11-29 11:50 (Reply)

jaybird: says there is no vote fraud whatsoever

We never said such a thing. Please try to read more carefully.

#6.1 Zachriel on 2016-11-29 12:57 (Reply)

bd, I used to love this site.

No longer thanks to Zackie-Baby. He interrupts the home and style and welcome feeling that attracted me to the diverse opinions and intellect you have attracted over the years.

#7 jma on 2016-11-29 13:04 (Reply)

jma: He interrupts the home and style and welcome feeling that attracted me to the diverse opinions and intellect

Diverse opinions? The blog advertises itself as "inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist", but we find skepticism and centrism rare therein.

However, out of respect for you, we'll tone it down on new threads for a few days, so you can enjoy having your preconceptions reinforced.

#7.1 Zachriel on 2016-11-29 13:11 (Reply)

Yes, I agree. The paid Soros talking head, is a pain, and they don't even live in America. I know it is hard, but maybe, if all of us would ignore her propaganda, she would go away. Don't respond to her!

#7.2 B. Hammer on 2016-11-29 14:02 (Reply)

good plan, Hammer. I'll try it, and stop coming to the site if it stays so annoying.

#7.2.1 jaybird on 2016-11-29 14:20 (Reply)

OUR PURPOSE

is not to persuade or discuss, not even to defend the undefendable, but to destroy site like this.

And we're winning.

#8 The Reflexive Liberal on 2016-11-29 13:16 (Reply)

Yes, not a quality job, but all the little bits and bobs do add up.

#8.1 Sam L. on 2016-11-29 14:34 (Reply)

We don't have to be quality. Zack doesn't have to know what he's talking about -- and he doesn't. You'll have noticed he never directly responds, never reads his own sources, consistently makes up facts out of thin air. All he has to do is provide 2/3s of the posts for any thread and we win. We can barely get through his work ourselves. Why would anyone want to come to Zack's Farm?

That's the point.

#8.1.1 The Reflexive Liberal on 2016-11-29 15:08 (Reply)

"Obama is at 53% approval."

And on the strength of that Hillary is President-Elect and the Democrats retook both the House & Senate.

#9 Bill Carson on 2016-11-29 23:15 (Reply)

Bill Carson: And on the strength of that Hillary is President-Elect and the Democrats retook both the House & Senate.

That wasn't the question raised, but whether people want Obama out of office. He's term limited, so he couldn't run for reelection, but his approval number indicates majority support.

#9.1 Zachriel on 2016-11-30 10:01 (Reply)

"That wasn't the question raised"

I answered a far more important one.

#9.1.1 Bill Carson on 2016-11-30 14:57 (Reply)

I mean, the proles love the guy so much they elected someone whose gonna go hammer & tongs on his worthless legacy. If that ain't overwhelming support, then I don't know what is!

#9.1.2 Bill Carson on 2016-11-30 15:02 (Reply)

"who's"!!!

#9.1.2.1 Bill Carson on 2016-11-30 15:04 (Reply)

Maggie's Farm

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Tuesday, November 29. 2016