Thursday morning links

Quicksearch

Blog Administration

Open login screen

RSS Readers

Thursday, January 5. 2017

Boudreaux: The Lament of the Merely Decent Economist

KATZ: The World Needs More Men - Not Boys. Not Social Justice Indoctrinated College Weenies. Men.

Animals: The Wilding of America

Yes, we have lots of bears

Georgia Tech Climatologist Judith Curry Resigns over 'the CRAZINESS in the field of climate science.'

David Brooks Seems Pretty Upset That Trump Does Things Different Than Other Elected Leaders

David has always lacked testosterone. That's why he was hired.

The Ideological Reasons Why Democrats Have Neglected Local Politics - After losing many races in 2016, the party is looking to regain power outside the federal government. But in many ways, it’s not set up to make that change of emphasis.

New from Detroit: The $15 minimum wage is racist

Ted Kennedy Secretly Asked The Soviets To Intervene In The 1984 Elections

Carter, Democrats Asked Soviets to Stop Reagan

The Buster The Boxer Parody

Broken: The Sickening, Stale, and Worn Out Narratives of the Left:

Instead of picking apart mistakes by Trump, let's focus on the damage the Democrats have done. It's legion. In the guise of economic "fairness," they gave us the worst economic recovery since World War II. They simply ground to a standstill our economic engine, causing massive unemployment and a job market that gives no hope to Americans for the future. They ruined our alliances and fed our enemies under a horrifyingly stupid, feckless president and secretary of state. They laid the groundwork for ISIS to become a power and were virtually useless in dealing with that organization. They destroyed our borders under the idea that it is racist to have them, flooding us with illegal aliens who don't care a whit about American values of the past, and they steal from our kindness. They were on the way to destroying health care, paving the way for massive government control of doctors, insurance companies, and yes, us as patients. The evidence is in: Obamacare was a failure. They lied to get it passed, they lied to keep it, and they are lying about how good it is now. Thankfully, most people understand they now have a pig in the poke that costs a ton, and they can't use it. They corrupted our bureaucracies in Washington, destroying the faith the American citizens had in their government.

They did a lot more damage than this short list, but the point is that they ruined everything they touched.

Make the Inaugural Celebrity-Free!

In Departure from Obama, Trump Picks Qualified Ambassador to Japan

Obama's failures are Trump's opportunities

Three Bungled Stories On Russian Meddling All Demonstrate The Same Big Mistakes

Poll: Majority of Democrats Think Russia Manipulated Vote Totals

The lies work

PEOTUS TRUMP Knocks DNC For Cheating for Hillary During Debates

Julian Assange: Media Is Colluding with Democrat Party in America

Congress! Listen Up, Hollywood is Talking Here

Almost 1,000 Cars Torched Around France On New Year’s Eve: Government Insists It ‘Went Particularly Well’…

To Fix the Department of the Navy - Kill the Mabus Legacy

Palestinians face budget cuts after sharp fall in foreign funding

Posted by Bird Dog in Hot News & Misc. Short Subjects at 06:48 | Comments (60) | Trackbacks (0)

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

QUOTE:

Almost 1,000 Cars Torched Around France On New Year’s Eve: Government Insists It ‘Went Particularly Well’…

"This wouldn't happen in Europe", some of my cosmopolitan liberal buddies used to tell me in the midst of complaining about the many failings of their own country, the U.S.

Given that (with apologies to Blackadder), I'm hoping the following finds its way into the EU "crest" (or "mission statement"):

Europe: Fucking the Dog Thoroughly Since Well Before the U.S was a Gleam in the Postman's Eye.

#1 Bill Carson on 2017-01-05 08:08 (Reply)

15 days left.

#2 JJM on 2017-01-05 08:24 (Reply)

It can't come soon enough.

#2.1 mudbug on 2017-01-05 10:05 (Reply)

QUOTE:

Poll: Majority of Democrats Think Russia Manipulated Vote Totals

Which is false, of course, even though the U.S. Intelligence Community has determined that Russia did interfere with the U.S. elections through illegal hacking and disclosure. (To be generous, some Democrats may have been tripped up on the phrasing "tampered with vote tallies", conflating that with interfering with the campaign, which plausibly changed the election result.)

Meanwhile, YouGov also has found that a majority of Trump voters falsely believe that Russia did not interfere in th election campaign, that millions of illegals voted, that Obama was not born in the U.S., and that Iraq had active WMD when the U.S. invaded.

#3 Zachriel on 2017-01-05 10:19 (Reply)

All we know for sure is that someone released emails taken from high level Democrats through computer hacking methods and that the affected parties never contested the legitimacy of the emails, only that their private thoughts and opinions were being revealed.

So whomever did the hacking, and the Russian involvement is conjecture by the US Intelligence Community as the released report had few facts, manipulated the US elections by promoting transparency and revealing the true nature of Democrats to the voters.

What kind of democracy is it when the voters are informed?

#3.1 JK Brown on 2017-01-05 11:03 (Reply)

JK Brown: All we know for sure is that someone released emails taken from high level Democrats through computer hacking methods

We know that the hacks were by Russians with close ties to the Kremlin and that they intended to interfere with the U.S. election.

JK Brown: only that their private thoughts and opinions were being revealed.

It turns out that private thoughts and political strategy, not to mention millions of dollars in opposition research, are protected by law. Basically, you're ratifying foreign interference in U.S. elections.

#3.1.1 Zachriel on 2017-01-05 11:20 (Reply)

The hacks were illegal and if they can, they should prosecute those who did the illegal acts.

But it isn't an international incident. Nor was this manipulation of the election as releasing false information or false reporting is.

#3.1.1.1 JK Brown on 2017-01-06 10:25 (Reply)

JK Brown: The hacks were illegal and if they can, they should prosecute those who did the illegal acts.

The perpetrators are outside the reach of U.S. law.

JK Brown: But it isn't an international incident.

Of course it's an international incident. The Russians have not only interfered in the U.S. election, but have interfered in the political processes of much less mature democracies, such as in Eastern Europe, threatening the stability of the region.

#3.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2017-01-06 10:48 (Reply)

ever since I taught you the word "conflate" you've been using it constantly. its no longer fresh. word.

everyone knows you people can't accept getting bitchslapped stupid in the election and are still in total denial and, frankly, let the excuse-mongering never slow down.

because sure as shi'ite, you'll lose more in '18.

#3.2 Will Bithers on 2017-01-05 12:04 (Reply)

I just hate it when someone interferes with an election by illegally disclosing completely true information. How are we supposed to run elections in that kind of context? It's a dagger in the heart of democracy.

I realize the damage was negligible, because no one learned much of anything new about Podesta, Clinton, etc., but it's the Russians' evil state of mind that really matters, and apparently that's brand-new, because they never wanted to hurt us before.

So I think this is a big, big story that should occupy 100% of our attention. Anyone who disagrees is ratifying something or other.

#3.3 Texan99 on 2017-01-05 12:47 (Reply)

Texan99: I just hate it when someone interferes with an election by illegally disclosing completely true information. How are we supposed to run elections in that kind of context?

The hacks involved private information, strategic planning, and the information in such communications are protected by law. Divulging only one side is inherently unfair. Having a foreign government do so in order to interfere with the electoral process is a threat to U.S. sovereignty.

It's hard to imagine even a few years ago that so many Americans would ratify foreign meddling in their elections. But there you are.

#3.3.1 Zachriel on 2017-01-05 13:03 (Reply)

russians meddling russians meddling russians meddling scratch russians meddling russians meddling russians meddling scratch

#3.3.1.1 Will Bithers on 2017-01-05 13:50 (Reply)

It's also hard to imagine that so many Clinton supporters would ratify meddling in the election debates, and use this Russian story to distract themselves and everyone else from the humiliation of making that tactic public, but there you are.

#3.3.1.2 Texan99 on 2017-01-06 10:17 (Reply)

The irony here is that the DNC did tamper with the vote by registering and allowing/encouraging illegal aliens to vote. They continue to tout the meme that Hillary won the popular vote but fail to mention that without those three million illegal votes Hilary would have lost that as well. Not to mention the votes in Detroit where clearly the Democrats were up to their dirty tricks to steal the election. That the left even dare shine any light on stolen elections is both laughable and ironic.

#3.4 GoneWithTheWind on 2017-01-05 13:31 (Reply)

GoneWithTheWind: hey continue to tout the meme that Hillary won the popular vote but fail to mention that without those three million illegal votes Hilary would have lost that as well.

What is your evidence that 3 million votes were cast illegally?

#3.4.1 Zachriel on 2017-01-05 14:05 (Reply)

Just because none of us can produce enough evidence to make you happy doesn't mean it hasn't happened. When our govt finally busted Al Capone, it wasn't for the murders that I have no direct evidence of, nor the bribery of judged, cops and others that I have no evidence of. No, when they put him behind bars they did it for tax evasion. I haven't seen the evidence myself, but I am confident it exists. If you are trying to say that because none of us here can prove 3 million illegals voted, it is just truthy and didn't happen, you are free to believe that. I don't.

#3.4.1.1 Dangerous Dean on 2017-01-05 20:13 (Reply)

Dangerous Dean: Just because none of us can produce enough evidence to make you happy doesn't mean it hasn't happened.

You didn't provide any evidence to evaluate.

#3.4.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2017-01-06 09:10 (Reply)

Neither did the FBI and CIA. Nothing. In fact now we find out that they didn't even have access to the DNC computers. The ONLY thing the FBI and CIA have provided is a headline. NO PROOF. Nothing.

That the Russians and everyone else, is hacking the U.S. is known and not in dispute. That Russia hacked the DNC and gave what they found to Wikileaks is pure speculation. That the Russians knowingly and effectively hacked or affected our election is pure speculation for political purposes. The very fact that these high level directors of critical federal departments have chosen to inject themselves into this political farce demands that they be fired/impeached. This is nothing less than a coup attempt and one of the worst though out ideas I have seen recently. My god if these high level managers of critical federal departments cannot do a better job than this what else have they screwed up and not told us about.

#3.4.1.1.1.1 GoneWithTheWind on 2017-01-06 12:18 (Reply)

GoneWithTheWind: Neither did the FBI and CIA. Nothing.

The U.S. Intelligence Community has recognized expertise in the field. They are supported in their conclusions by many different independent cybersecurity experts. Contrary to your claim, some of the details are known publicly.

#3.4.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2017-01-06 12:24 (Reply)

QUOTE:

Obama's failures are Trump's opportunities ... The president is correct that the largest issue in the election was the Obama legacy: the 125 percent increase in federal debt

The high debt is largely due to the Great Recession inherited from the previous Republican Administration.

QUOTE:

while the national work force shrank by 10 percent

That's not correct. The active civilian labor force has only dropped about 1%, from 101 million to 100 million. The civilian labor force participation rate was 65.7% when Obama took office, and is now 62.7%, a decrease of about 4½%. Much of this change is structural, as the baby boomers move into retirement, and as the young stay longer in school. There are also still residual effects from the Great Recession.

QUOTE:

the shameful Iran nuclear and sanctions giveaway

The money received by Iran was legally their money, and the U.S. had to return it at some point.

QUOTE:

the slavish adherence to the most alarmist versions of the faddish climate apocalypse

The reality of anthropogenic climate change is strongly supported by the scientific evidence. Earlier mitigation will be less expensive, and reduce permanent environmental damage.

#4 Zachriel on 2017-01-05 10:38 (Reply)

Z: The active civilian labor force has only dropped about 1%, from 101 million to 100 million.

Oops. Scratch that. The employed population in Jan 2009 was 142 million, and 152 million in Nov 2016, a significant increase in numbers.

http://www.dlt.ri.gov/lmi/laus/us/usadj.htm

#4.1 Zachriel on 2017-01-05 10:58 (Reply)

QUOTE:

The reality of anthropogenic climate change is strongly supported by the scientific evidence.

Wait, is someone challenging the reality of climate change? And science is a process, the evidence would be better if it was objective.

What is challenged is the claim that the anthropogenic climate change, nee global warming, is likely to enter a self-reinforcing feedback loop rather than be mitigated by other dependencies in the very complex atmospheric, terrestrial, and oceanic systems that make up the climate, i.e., long-term weather trends, we experience. Also, if global warming were to occur, whether the benefits, such as increased food production, greening of current desert areas, etc., might not outweigh the costs.

You statement fails the application of critical thinking as it simply states that there is evidence that anthropogenic climate change is occurring in a reality. We are in the world, we function in the atmospheric, terrestrial and oceanic system that make up climate, our actions will change that climate to some extent just as all motion, physical and chemical processes, expenditures or non-expenditures of energy will impact the climate and there for change it.

Your statement devolves down to the acceptance that humans are part of the natural world based on something other than faith.

#4.2 JK Brown on 2017-01-05 11:17 (Reply)

JK Brown: What is challenged is the claim that the anthropogenic climate change, nee global warming, is likely to enter a self-reinforcing feedback loop rather than be mitigated by other dependencies in the very complex atmospheric, terrestrial, and oceanic systems that make up the climate, i.e., long-term weather trends, we experience.

Not sure what you think is meant by a "feedback loop". How the heat is redistributed is highly complex, but the basic physics of warming are fairly straightforward, as the Earth can only gain or lose heat radiatively.

JK Brown: Also, if global warming were to occur, whether the benefits, such as increased food production, greening of current desert areas, etc., might not outweigh the costs.

That is also subject to scientific investigation. And while moderate warming may be beneficial, warming of 2-4°C will be detrimental. Sure, there will be winners and losers. Are you okay with the losers moving to your country?

JK Brown: You statement fails the application of critical thinking as it simply states that there is evidence that anthropogenic climate change is occurring in a reality.

Um, we linked to NASA above, which provides a summary of the evidence.

#4.2.1 Zachriel on 2017-01-05 11:26 (Reply)

"Earth can only gain or lose heat radiatively."

not true, but what do you care about science?

#4.2.1.1 Will Bithers on 2017-01-05 19:42 (Reply)

You missed the whole point. Your statement:

"The reality of anthropogenic climate change is strongly supported by the scientific evidence."

Sounds good but is without substance if critical sense is applied.

All it says is that scientific evidence supports that "reality" that humans are a part of the Earth system and therefore human activity has an impact on longterm weather patterns (climate).

Humans move through the air, thus disturbing air movement patters. Humans generate heat, thus warming the air surrounding them. Humans sweat and respirate water, thus altering the H2O content of the air. Humans convert oxygen in the air into CO2 which is then expelled, thus change the chemical make up of the air mixture.

Thus we see, the reality of anthropogenic climate change is strongly supported by scientific evidence.

As I said, your statement is without substance. It is true, but trivial.

#4.2.1.2 JK Brown on 2017-01-06 10:45 (Reply)

See comment below.

#4.2.1.2.1 Zachriel on 2017-01-06 10:55 (Reply)

"The reality of anthropogenic climate change is strongly supported by the scientific evidence."

There is indeed a cyclical global warming. It is the 33rd cyclical global warming since the last ice age. In between each cyclical global warming was a cyclical global cooling the most recent one was named the little ice age. However there is zero "evidence" of it being caused by human activity and zero proof that modifying human activity will in any way mitigate the current cyclical global warming OR prevent the next cyclical global cooling.

What is going on is a money and power grab by the left. They are using the predicted and known cyclical warming data to misinform and scare a general public who are for the most part science challenged. Have you noticed that every proposed "fix" to the global warming involves either a tax or a legislative shift in power to the global elite. And that only the left/socialist/communist seem to favor these "fixes".

Sadly for the AGW scam the global warming this cycle just wasn't warm enough. Not nearly as warm as the Medieval warming of the 11th century or the 3rd century. Even coming down from the rather deep cooling of the little ice age hasn't been as dramatic as hoped for and worse the largest warming occurred before fossil fuel use had increased dramatically and long before CO2 was as high as it is today. But these honest and trustworthy scientists had a "fix" for that problem too; adjust the historic record to make it seem cooler in the 30's and distort the current record to make it appear that the warming has continued unabated. But of course that is what they do; liars lie.

There is no way to know if Zach and many others on the left really believe the AGW scam and are simply stupid or if they are part of the conspiracy and are not stupid but instead dishonest, but I'm not sure it matters. Either way they are useful idiots or dishonest idiots.

Is it warmer today than it was in 1850 when the little ice age ended? of course and good thing too because it is doubtful that we could support 7.2 billion people on earth if the climate hadn't warmed. Is it cooler today than it was in the mid 1930's? Absolutely, a lot cooler. But no worries NOAA has erased all that data and they have refused to testify before conngress and have ignores subpoenas from congress for their data and emails. Why would they do that unless they have something to hide???

#4.3 GoneWithTheWind on 2017-01-05 13:50 (Reply)

GoneWithTheWind: There is indeed a cyclical global warming.

What will those climate scientists discover next!?

GoneWithTheWind: However there is zero "evidence" of it being caused by human activity

That is incorrect. Indeed, the study of those previous cycles helps us understand the current warming trend.

#4.3.1 Zachriel on 2017-01-05 14:11 (Reply)

If you believe either side of this issue is 100% right and you are not a climate science expert, you are basing your choice on your own bias.

As Scott Adams said, "Pick a side. Either money influences opinions on both sides or it doesn't."

#4.3.1.1 tnxplant on 2017-01-05 15:28 (Reply)

tnxplant: If you believe either side of this issue is 100% right and you are not a climate science expert, you are basing your choice on your own bias.

We base our opinion on expert opinion, as well as the weight of the evidence.

tnxplant: As Scott Adams said, "Pick a side. Either money influences opinions on both sides or it doesn't."

That sort of nihilism would imply that scientific progress is not possible, but that is clearly not the case.

#4.3.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2017-01-05 15:49 (Reply)

What is "expert opinion"? The expert opinion of today becomes a ridiculous supposition in the future. There are too many unknown factors. Scientific certainties of the past are constantly undergoing revision based on new technologies that were previously inconceivable. It is arrogant to presume that the theories of today are the final word. As for "evidence", how can anyone possibly know the evidence is not slanted to prove a preconceived result?

I am not saying that human activity has no effect on the environment. Of course it does. But to what degree? We don't currently have an accurate way to measure that. Models are flawed. And what regulatory changes will be worth the cost to humanity? We really don't know. Some may be useful, but we should proceed with caution. I know I don't have the answers and am wary of those who think they do. As always, cui bono?

#4.3.1.1.1.1 tnxplant on 2017-01-06 11:31 (Reply)

tnxplant: What is "expert opinion"?

A valid scientific field connects to many other fields of study. This lends strength to conclusions and extends the ability of scientists to understand phenomena. For instance, climate science overlaps with physics, atmospherics, oceanography, dendrology, planetology, even botany. Climate scientists collect data from many sources, such as weather, satellite, ocean, ice, and studies of other planets.

tnxplant: The expert opinion of today becomes a ridiculous supposition in the future.

The Relativity of Wrong

tnxplant: It is arrogant to presume that the theories of today are the final word.

They aren't the final word. Science is always tentative. That's why scientists, including climate scientists, work to gather more data, including from the Atmosphere, Satellites, Ocean, and Ice

tnxplant: As for "evidence", how can anyone possibly know the evidence is not slanted to prove a preconceived result?

Of course there biases in science. As Douglas Adams said, “The fact that we live at the bottom of a deep gravity well, on the surface of a gas covered planet going around a nuclear fireball 90 million miles away and think this to be normal is obviously some indication of how skewed our perspective tends to be.” However, our confidence in scientific conclusions comes from overlapping methodologies, types of evidence, and the interrelationship between different fields.

tnxplant: But to what degree?

While changes to regional climates is a very complex question, the question of global warming is somewhat simpler. The Earth can only gain or lose heat radiatively. CO2 is a greenhouse gas and a doubling of CO2 will directly warm the surface by about 1°C. The warmer atmosphere can then hold more water moisture, which is also a greenhouse gas. This effect is called climate sensitivity. There are a variety of measures of climate sensitivity, including studies of volcanic eruptions, ice ages, and radiation budget measurements, and they indicate a climate sensitivity of 2-4°C per doubling of CO2.

tnxplant: And what regulatory changes will be worth the cost to humanity?

Earlier mitigation will cost less, and result in less overall ecological damage. The key thing is that the energy infrastructure gets replaced every 50 years or so anyway, so updating it now makes a lot of sense.

#4.3.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2017-01-06 11:57 (Reply)

Z: CO2 is a greenhouse gas and a doubling of CO2 will directly warm the surface by about 1°C. The warmer atmosphere can then hold more water moisture, which is also a greenhouse gas.

By the way, the greenhouse effect has been known for more than a century, derived from basic physics. See Arrhenius, On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground, London, Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science 1896.

#4.3.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2017-01-06 12:15 (Reply)

Ahhhh! The dreaded CO2. And yet we have had 19 years of no warming and all the while the CO2 relentlessly increased. Hmmmmm! What's is wrong with this theory???

#4.3.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 GoneWithTheWind on 2017-01-06 12:20 (Reply)

GoneWithTheWind: The dreaded CO2. And yet we have had 19 years of no warming and all the while the CO2 relentlessly increased.

That is incorrect. For the last 19 years, HADCrut4 is showing +0.136°C/decade, while NOAA is showing +0.164°C/decade.

#4.3.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2017-01-06 12:27 (Reply)

The Gang of Z, #4: "QUOTE:
Obama's failures are Trump's opportunities ... The president is correct that the largest issue in the election was the Obama legacy: the 125 percent increase in federal debt

The high debt is largely due to the Great Recession inherited from the previous Republican Administration."

Which The Won did nothing to alleviate, and borrowed and spent more money.
We had eight years of the Annual tour of The Summer Of Recovery.

I don't believe anything else you wrote, as well.

#5 Sam L. on 2017-01-05 11:06 (Reply)

Sam L: Which The Won did nothing to alleviate, and borrowed and spent more money.

When Obama took office, the deficit was about 10% of GDP. It is now about 3% of GDP. Trump has proposed $6 trillion in tax cuts, along with $1 trillion in infrastructure spending.

#5.1 Zachriel on 2017-01-05 11:28 (Reply)

Way to cherry pick statistics to suit your argument.

But you are wrong. The deficit was officially pegged at about $587 billion (depends on where you get your data from). But it was smoke and mirrors the total amount added to the national debt in 2016 was well in excess of $1 trillion. Obama in his 8 years racked up $10 trillion in debt. THAT is his legacy. We will all pay for this terrible mistake (both the debt and electing Obama). It is unsustainable and an economic collapse is unavoidable. It will likely happen during Trump's presidency but it will be Obama's "Great Depression".

#5.1.1 GoneWithTheWind on 2017-01-05 23:44 (Reply)

GoneWithTheWind: The deficit was officially pegged at about $587 billion (depends on where you get your data from).

Bush's last budget proposal resulted in a $1.4 trillion deficit. This was largely due to the Great Recession, which resulted in lower tax receipts, higher automatic expenditures, and the TARP bailout. Only about $0.2 trillion of that was spending added by Obama, for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

Meanwhile, Trump has proposed $6 trillion in tax cuts, along with $1 trillion in infrastructure spending.

#5.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2017-01-06 09:16 (Reply)

IT WAS BUSH'S FAULT!!! Perfect! If there is ever any doubt that someone is blowing smoke if they say it was Bush's fault then you know they got nothing.

The Democrat congress held back most of that extra spending until Obama entered office so he could dole it out to Democrat cronies. The crisis was SOOOOO bad that the Democrats decided to hold up the allocation of that spending until Democrats could control it. Did you forget that?

Obama ran up $10 trillion in national debt in 8 years. Not Bush. Not Trump. OBAMA!!!

Obama's failed presidency was epic in it's failure. It is likely that we are facing an economic collapse that will make the great depression like a Sunday school picnic because of Obama's epic failed presidency. Would you jump out of a plane with a parachute that Obama packed?? Well effectively that is what all Americans have done. The dirty deed was already done we just haven't hit the ground yet.

#5.1.1.1.1 GoneWithTheWind on 2017-01-06 12:29 (Reply)

GoneWithTheWind: The Democrat congress held back most of that extra spending until Obama entered office so he could dole it out to Democrat cronies.

Huh? No. The extra spending was due to automatic stabilizers, such as unemployment payouts, the TARP bailout, and the Stimulus package. Only the last was added to Bush's budget.

GoneWithTheWind: Obama ran up $10 trillion in national debt in 8 years

Sure. That's what happens when you break your economy. There has been record long job growth, and deficits are around 3%, so the economy is basically sound, quite unlike when Obama took office.

#5.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2017-01-06 12:43 (Reply)

Re: Broken. I kept a list of what all of American seem to be, according to the Democrats.

"The ‘anti’ and ‘never’ Thump people (mostly [b]Democrats)]/b] don’t seem to know that this kind of rhetoric is one of the things that woke America up. They seem to think that calling the electorate: "racist, misogynistic, xenophobic, homophobic, islamophobic, fascist, morons, knuckle draggers, liars, Nazi, Hitler and stupid (not to mention deplorable)" would get a lot of people to vote for their candidate".

#6 oolioo (Link) on 2017-01-05 11:08 (Reply)

QUOTE:

"racist, misogynistic, xenophobic, homophobic, islamophobic, fascist, morons, knuckle draggers, liars, Nazi, Hitler and stupid (not to mention deplorable)"

That's just their way of saying sinner without appearing to associate with pietists of historical religions.

#7 JK Brown on 2017-01-05 11:21 (Reply)

“One of the big suggestions that I have for Democrats as I leave … is how do we do more of that ground-up building?” the president told NPR in December. “What I’m interested in is just developing a whole new generation of talent.” Never has before. His interest has been himself. I doubt he has any idea of how to actively go about this. Grandiose ideas, almost certainly.

The $15 minimum wage is racist: "So how does racism come into the equation? Because, as the editors recognize, cutting down job opportunities for people in that age group with few to no real word job skills under their belts disproportionately affects minorities. (Emphasis added)" Which should be obvious to all but those pushing the $15 minimum wage.

Palestinians face budget cuts after sharp fall in foreign funding:
Bummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmer I mean, they only spend money on killing Jews and blowing up Jews and buses and cars and trucks and buildings.

#8 Sam L. on 2017-01-05 11:30 (Reply)

“What I’m interested in is just developing a whole new generation of talent.”

That's why there are so many potential candidates in their 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s, in the Democratic party's wings.

#8.1 JK Brown on 2017-01-06 10:49 (Reply)

RE In Departure from Obama, Trump Picks Qualified Ambassador to Japan

I believe this is normal across party lines. There's the professional foreign service who actually run the embassy, and political rewards like ambassadorships.

#9 Will Bithers on 2017-01-05 12:07 (Reply)

RE New from Detroit: The $15 minimum wage is racist

read the actual editorial the word "racist" is never used and it takes a very conservative position.

not reading articles or mislabelling them is something I expect from zachriels, not a conservative blogger like Hot Air.

#10 Will Bithers on 2017-01-05 12:14 (Reply)

Actually, if you read the second to last paragraph of the Hot Air article, Mr. Shaw admits just that - it's not actually racist. He is just trying to stay one step ahead of the reactionary left. Thanks to your comment, I am glad I read the editorial. We need more voices pointing out the sheer lunacy of a $15 dollar an hour minimum wage. Minimum wage should be zero.

#10.1 B Hammer on 2017-01-05 14:13 (Reply)

minimum wage is, in fact, zero. if someone's not employed, his wage is zero.

#10.1.1 Will Bithers on 2017-01-06 01:14 (Reply)

Everyone knows NASA and NOAA "correct" old temperatures down and new temperatures up in order to support the official "global warming" narrative.

#11 Ray on 2017-01-05 13:26 (Reply)

Ray: Everyone knows NASA and NOAA "correct" old temperatures down and new temperatures up in order to support the official "global warming" narrative.

Don't know about "everyone", but scientists have studied the temperature record in detail, and have made adjustments both up and down, depending on the cause. This is all published in scientific papers, so you would have to address those findings specifically, rather than wave your hands in the general direction. Here's an overview:

Understanding Adjustments to Temperature Data

#11.1 Zachriel on 2017-01-05 14:09 (Reply)

truthy.

meaning biased and fraudulent.

#11.1.1 Will Bithers on 2017-01-05 18:34 (Reply)

You have linked to this site before. This is what I find to be the key paragraph: "Nearly every single station in the network in the network [sic] has been moved at least once over the last century, with many having 3 or more distinct moves. Most of the stations have changed from using liquid in glass thermometers (LiG) in Stevenson screens to electronic Minimum Maximum Temperature Systems (MMTS) or Automated Surface Observing Systems (ASOS). Observation times have shifted from afternoon to morning at most stations since 1960, as part of an effort by the National Weather Service to improve precipitation measurements."

In other words, so much has changed, sometimes very radically, that they have no base line left. So let us adjust numbers, but always adjust them in support of our agenda.

#11.1.2 B. Hammer on 2017-01-05 18:58 (Reply)

B. Hammer: You have linked to this site before.

They are a group of scientists and mathematicians who have independently analyzed climate data.

B. Hammer: This is what I find to be the key paragraph: "Nearly every single station in the network in the network [sic] has been moved {or otherwise changed} ..."

That's correct. Scientists typically use homogenization where they identify discontinuities in order to create a complete record. How they do this can typically be found in the methodology section of the relevant scientific papers.

However, homogenization isn't the only method to determine trends. Berkeley Earth started with the raw data, and used a new statistical framework that doesn't rely on homogenization. See Rohde et al., Berkeley Earth Temperature Averaging Process, Geoinformatics & Geostatistics 2013.

B. Hammer: In other words, so much has changed, sometimes very radically, that they have no base line left.

Scientists can determine trends from incomplete and inconsistent data, and you will find such methods in nearly every field of science.

B. Hammer: So let us adjust numbers, but always adjust them in support of our agenda.

In other words, because you have no specific objections, and reject the findings a priori, climate scientists must be corrupt.

Like all valid scholarly fields, climate science interacts with related fields. The basics of greenhouse warming are supported by basic physics, for instance.

#11.1.2.1 Zachriel on 2017-01-06 09:07 (Reply)

Yes, exactly, they are currupt. It is a scam. Read the Hockey Stick Allusion

#11.1.2.1.1 B Hammer on 2017-01-06 09:36 (Reply)

B Hammer: Yes, exactly, they are currupt.

Sure. Because thousands of scientists working in different cultures, under different political systems, using different methodologies, often in completely different fields of study, because how else to rectify that you have no specific objections, and reject their conclusions a priori. Why, they must be corrupt! It's the only answer!

#11.1.2.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2017-01-06 09:50 (Reply)

Hac-z:

I voted for Trump. Swear on a stack of Bibles I did. Had it not been for the Rooshin e-mails I would have voted for Hillary.

Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-hah...

#12 tennesseered on 2017-01-05 19:21 (Reply)

I thought 'The Wilding of America' was going to be about the blax

#13 bgarrett on 2017-01-06 06:34 (Reply)

Animals: The Wilding of America:

Saw a nice buck just a couple blocks from center city Philly a couple weeks ago. Probably a 6 point.

A pair of coyotes hunting in an empty lot in Evansville some years ago. Also a big one next to our city pool this summer.

Bears are becoming a nuisance. And bobcats are becoming common too, but I've only seen them in the forest so far.

I always remind the kids that there is far more wildlife and that water and air are much cleaner than when I was a kid. They get a little worried by the dishonest scare tactics they see in school and in movies.

#14 forest on 2017-01-06 06:43 (Reply)

JK Brown: Humans generate heat, thus warming the air surrounding them. Humans sweat and respirate water, thus altering the H2O content of the air. Humans convert oxygen in the air into CO2 which is then expelled, thus change the chemical make up of the air mixture.

Animal respiration is carbon neutral. The carbon humans exhale into the atmosphere comes from plants (or animals that eat plants) that fixed carbon from the atmosphere (excluding the greenhouse gases humans use to produce and transport food in the modern economy). The problem is that humans are taking carbon which has been sequestered in the Earth for millions of years, and rapidly releasing it into the atmosphere. This is increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, causing the surface to warm.

#15 Zachriel on 2017-01-06 10:52 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email	(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications. Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u], [url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here. Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications. To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above: BBCode format allowed
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

Maggie's Farm

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Thursday, January 5. 2017

Thursday morning links