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
Monday, February 6. 2017
That was quite a game last night, wasn't it? Commenter at Gateway:
Shameless Super Bowl Clicks -- Banned Super Bowl Commercials, Better Than Un-Banned
Today's real headline: Climate “Science” Rocked By Another Scandal
A conservative social worker! (Is that even possible?)
College pledges to hire professors based on skin color, mandates social-justice workshops
Corporate Executives Play Politics At Their Company's Peril
Boycott the boycotters
Milo Yiannopoulos Tested Progressives—and They Failed
How much of the political future are today’s riots costing the left?
This Border Town Already Has a Wall—and It Doesn’t Work - Smugglers
THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION’S DARK VIEW OF IMMIGRANTS
Report: Sanctuary Cities Received $27 Billion From Feds Each Year - 1 in 5 city residents in Los Angeles are illegal immigrants
Errors From The Press Are Piling Up In The Opening Weeks Of The Trump Administration
The Disgusting Media Double Standard Between Obama and Trump
AP FACT CHECK: Pelosi lacks facts to back up Trump criticism
Lockheed Credits Trump as Price Per Jet Falls in Latest F-35 Batch
Repealing Obamacare Proving To Be Harder Than GOP Thought
The Trump administration pulls the plug on official Islamophilia.
Is Justin Trudeau ‘Trumpable'?
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
Regarding corporate involvement in politics, Michael Jordan said it best when asked for an opinion on a controversial issue: "Republicans buy sneakers too."
These high minded yet bone headed CEOs would do well to remember that.
Are you baiting us, now? Regarding the supposed quote from former state senator Mary Carlson, "truthorfiction" reports that it is false. She did introduce some gun control legislation and subsequently lost her reelection. You live closer to her area so you should know better than I.
Sorry, the Mary Ann Carlson quote is a fabrication. She is anti-gun, but never made the statement attributed to her.
Why would it matter whether its true or not? As long as people believe that a liberal would say something that crazy -- and there are libtards that insane -- then there's another public relations tool to use against gun confiscation.
Stop any notion of playing fair.
re That was quite a game last night, wasn't it?
A good postmortem at Bleacher Report:
The Patriots played like champions, making all the plays they needed to, to win.
Best comment I heard was....haven't seen a lead that big blown since Hillary lost the election.
I agree that a wall is not likely to have much effect on drugrunning. I'm not sure that was ever the point. Nor do I expect that it will stop all illegal immigration. Maybe not even most of it. A reduction would be fine.
Re the gun control poster, I would be suspicious of that. They do have people in favor of more control, but they know too many people with guns who aren't criminals to make a claim like that one. It was Howard Dean who said "This is Vermont, where even liberals have 2-3 guns."
Today's real headline: Climate “Science” Rocked By Another Scandal
On the Mail on Sunday article on Karl et al., 2015: "The 'whistle blower' is John Bates who was not involved in any aspect of the work."
Exactly why group-think consensus is dangerous and inappropriate. It's why the AGW community is so hostile to outsiders and scientists who express traditional skepticism.
It took an outsider to identify these errors that were willfully hidden by the climate "scientists".
In the mean time, the data stubbornly don't support the models!
DrTorch: It took an outsider to identify these errors that were willfully hidden by the climate "scientists".
That's funny. Independent scientific studies support the original findings, but it takes an "outsider" with no direct experience of the research talking to a scandal sheet to expose the truth.
mudbug: Just curious. Who funded these independent studies?
Some are universities research institutes, some are government research centers, some are independent. The data and methods are publicly available, and rely on more than innuendo and hyperventilation. The primary confirming data is coming from ARGO. See, for instance, Hausfather et al., Assessing recent warming using instrumentally homogeneous sea surface temperature records, Science Advances 2017.
Argo: Argo is a global array of 3,800 free-drifting profiling floats that measures the temperature and salinity of the upper 2000 m of the ocean. This allows, for the first time, continuous monitoring of the temperature, salinity, and velocity of the upper ocean, with all data being relayed and made publicly available within hours after collection.
I don't see why I should have any more faith in the data and conclusions from university research institutes (most likely funded by government grants) or government research centers than greenies do in studies or researchers they claim are funded by oil companies (and often times, maybe most, are not) and for the same reason. They have a vested interest in the result.
mudbug: I don't see why I should have any more faith in the data and conclusions from university research institutes (most likely funded by government grants) or government research centers than greenies do in studies or researchers they claim are funded by oil companies (and often times, maybe most, are not) and for the same reason.
One shouldn't put too much confidence in any single result. Scientific confidence comes from multiple researchers (often in different countries, cultures, and political systems), using various methodologies, reaching the same or similar conclusions. Any single researcher might be corrupt or deluded or otherwise wedded to a result. But the more independent data-sets and methods reach the same conclusion, the more confidence we can assign to the conclusion. For instance, someone might say that the surface data is unreliable, but that doesn't explain why satellite data shows the same trend in temperature anomaly.
At some point, the conclusion becomes "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent."
mudbug: They have a vested interest in the result.
Actually, scientists typically make their names by overthrowing the ruling paradigm, not by confirming it. That's why so many crackpots pop up in science. Think about it. It must be easy to overthrow the Theory of Relativity — It's been done hundreds of times!
Generally scientists do make their names by "overthrowing the ruling paradigm" but this subject is hashed out in the political and legal sphere as much or maybe more than the scientific sphere. The darling of the AGW crowd, Michael Mann is suing people who disagree with him. That's not part of the scientific method I learned in school.
mudbug: this subject is hashed out in the political and legal sphere as much or maybe more than the scientific sphere.
The policy debate does take place in the political sphere, but the scientific debate occurs in scientific journals and conferences. However, one can't have a reasonable discussion of policy while ignoring the scientific findings.
mudbug: The darling of the AGW crowd, Michael Mann is suing people who disagree with him.
Mann was purportedly accused of fraud, and is suing for defamation, not for a scientific disagreement.
NOAA (Land/Ocean): 0.162 ±0.033 °C/decade
UAHv5.6 (Lower Troposphere) 0.154 ±0.063 °C/decade
One wonders why pick 1977 as the starting point? Why not pick 1934? Never mind the fact that you used NOAA data which we can all agree is false data. Why did you pick 1977 to compare with today to get your stats? This is the definition of cherry picking, pure and simple. Without it you have nothing. In 1977 and even before the 97% consensus of climate scientists was that we were entering another mini-iceage. They were wrong of course the earth was doing what it has always done and that is to have cycles, long and short cycles that sometimes combined to create higher highs or lower lows and sometimes worked against themselves to create milder highs and lows. These same exact cycles created the California droughts of the previous 4-5 years and are right now creating the California floods. Does anyone here actually think that wasn't going to happen?? Seriously while the California droughts were making headlines didn't we all say it would reverse itself and we would be reading about floods and mudslides and snow so deep that people couldn't get to work and in some cases couldn't get out of their homes? And we all know that in a few years California will experience drought again and wildfires. After all in between earthquakes isn't this the normal headline for California. But the warmies like to use this stuff on the low information types with short memories to "prove" their "hot/cold, wet/dry" theory of "global warming/AGW/climate change". This Spring when the snow pack melts and the spring rains combine to test the Sacramento river levies Zach and his fellow left leaning Marxist/socialist buddies will claim it is all caused by climate change or something and if we just tax enough and just pass enough regulations we can slow it or something...
SweetPea: Why not pick 1934?
Um, because there were no satellite microwave sounding units in 1934.
SweetPea: In 1977 and even before the 97% consensus of climate scientists was that we were entering another mini-iceage.
That is incorrect. There was never a consensus concerning global cooling. There are two anthropogenic forcings; aerosols, which cool the climate, and greenhouse gases, which warm the climate. It was clear early on that greenhouse gases would overwhelm the effect of aerosols over the long run.
SweetPea: Seriously while the California droughts were making headlines didn't we all say it would reverse itself
Actually, the winter of following a strong El Niño was expected to bring much needed rain.
"because there were no satellite microwave sounding units in 1934."
LOL The real reason is that if you picked 1934 as your starting point and 2016 as the end point we would have had AGC or global cooling. That is the nature of data from a chaotic system in that there will always be a starting point and ending point to measure that will prove whatever you want to prove. But the trick is to pull off the fraud quickly and get the prize and get out before the data trips you up. That is where the warmies failed. That is why NOAA and NASA had to make up data and change historical data. But it is too late, everyday more and more people see the AGW fraud for what it is.
"There was never a consensus concerning global cooling."
Duh! Of course there wasn't just as there is no consensus today on AGW. You would have been smarter to not touch that quote Captain Obvious.
"Actually, the winter of following a strong El Niño was expected to bring much needed rain."
So much rain and so much cold and snow that if it had been warming you would have used the word "apocalyptic" to describe it. But in fact it is "normal", just as the drought they experienced was normal and everyone over 50 that has been paying attention has seen these cyclical droughts and apocalyptic rains in California many times. It is classic West coast weather.
SweetPea: LOL The real reason is that if you picked 1934 as your starting point and 2016 as the end point we would have had AGC or global cooling.
No. If you read the thread, you would see that we picked the range so that we could examine how the surface temperature records are supported by the satellite temperature records.
As for the trend from 1934 to 2016, you are incorrect. The trend is NOAA: 0.099 ±0.015 °C/decade.
You had falsely claimed there was a consensus about global cooling.
SweetPea: Of course there wasn't just as there is no consensus today on AGW.
That is incorrect. The vast majority of scientists and published research support anthropogenic global warming.
"we picked the range so that we could examine how the surface temperature records are supported by the satellite temperature records."
And I'm sure it had nothing to do with the fact that the cooling cycle peaked in 1977.
"As for the trend from 1934 to 2016, you are incorrect. The trend is NOAA: 0.099 ±0.015 °C/decade."
Is that the original temperature records or after NOAA "adjusted" the temperature record???
"The vast majority of scientists and published research support anthropogenic global warming."
That is because speaking out against it will get you fired and the publications do not allow contrary theories.
SweetPea: And I'm sure it had nothing to do with the fact that the cooling cycle peaked in 1977.
Z: "For instance, someone might say that the surface data is unreliable, but that doesn't explain why satellite data shows the same trend in temperature anomaly."
Then we provided the relevant data. By the way, the surface temperature anomaly is flat from 1934 to 1977, not negative.
SweetPea: Is that the original temperature records or after NOAA "adjusted" the temperature record???
Which brings us back to our original comment.
Z: "For instance, someone might say that the surface data is unreliable, but that doesn't explain why satellite data shows the same trend in temperature anomaly."
SweetPea: That is because speaking out against it will get you fired and the publications do not allow contrary theories.
There's nothing to publish. There is no significant research that contradicts anthropogenic global warming.
Why do people argue with robot(s)? It's even less sensible when you realize that the local infestation of Z-bot(s) has been proved completely wrong on both global warming and, as it puts it, 'economics'.
Yup, in a previous thread - and in a previous attempt to falsely partisanize the nature of money itself - the Z-bot(s) got so twisted around it banged up against it's lowest-level, line 10, code/routine/whatever it is and returned a YOU HANDWAVING NON_TOPICAL BASTARD YOU I WILL NOTE NOTABLY line of DOS-grade retortery that had us in stitches. The thing looked like that lightbulb readout from that movie with the conversation between Matt Broderick and WOPR, the nuclear computer. Hahaha.
And you know what's really silly? Being non-sentient, robot(s) don't know they're wrong. That's right folks, the bot(s) can no more recognize their error(s) than they can reprogram themself(s) to correct. Yet somehow even WOPR realized the only way to win was to not play. WOPR is actually smarter than 'bot(s)-arguers.
It is to laugh(s).
Why argue with him/her/it?
Because I love seeing him/her/it rationalize, backtrack, dodge and spin. Perhaps not everyone reading his/her/it's comments knew that 1977 was the peak of the cold cycle so I pointed that out and watched him prevaricate. Perhaps not everyone knows that we have multiple weather cycles some long and more or less predictable and some short and that they overlap and create the highs and lows that the warmies like to use as "proof" of AGW or something. And most certainly not everyone knows that the scientific journals have jumped the shark and are no longer scientific but political and consistently refuse to publish anything contrary to the AGW meme. It is useful to poke the monkey and see that the monkey throws his shit when he is angry. This prevents you from thinking that the monkey is friendly or can be befriended. Zach lies, he supports and defends a lie. I enjoy pushing him to the point where his lies are obvious to everyone. It is better than to simply allow his lie to go unchallenged.
SweetPea: Perhaps not everyone reading his/her/it's comments knew that 1977 was the peak of the cold cycle so I pointed that out and watched him prevaricate.
No. You suggested we used the date 1977 for an ulterior purpose, when, as is clear from context, it was because that was the start of the satellite record (actually 1978), which was to be compared to the surface record.
As for the trend before that date, here's the surface trend from 1900-1977:
NOAA: 0.051 ±0.015 °C/decade
It's your time...
Actually, there's more to it than that. The right, as the vague, ostensible culture it mostly is, has surrendered an entire nation to madness. It took time too, but how it happened matters. It happened in such a way as to indict that right and expose it as left-leaning.
The right can no longer even identify what conservatism is, and having elected the pig in a poke Trump is, is perfectly poised for the final defeat in its long line of willing capitulations.
How this relates to AGW is this: Codependency to the left's various heaps of bullshit is still codependence. Giving the damn things air is helping them perpetuate, propagate, and progress. Now you're arguing against something that has a clear history of criminality and fraud while this week rightists introduced the Prez to just a modified version of a carbon tax. The justification is that, like Repeal and Replace, a carbon tax done right is politically sensitive. Correct. Bipartisan.
Actually it's capitulation, the same capitulation you agree to every time you return home after work to your abusive alcoholic spouse and agree to inhabit the same space for another 24 hours. Oh, s/he's not so bad...
The right is simply the left after 20 or so years. The right, as the cultural manifestation I noted, can't even do politics, and in the rare exception where it does manage to jam a stick in Leviathan's spokes, never, ever does so foundationally. That's because it's wrong on really major issues, stuff it actually defends as conservative while its actually deeply progressive.
The din of AGW liars is its own tactic and goal. Eventually we'll forget about the legislation of 1913, ditto the Johnson era, about Roe, about Social Security, and about how AGW was founded by fraud.
John Bates "Former principal scientist of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) lab at the National Climatic Data Center."
So, sure Zachriel, the guy knows nothing. Just some jabroney hanging around a street corner trying to make trouble. No need to pay any attention when a guy like that says something is amiss.
Assistant Village Idiot: So, sure Zachriel, the guy knows nothing.
Of course he knows something. However, "any single researcher might be corrupt or deluded or otherwise wedded to a result. But the more independent data-sets and methods reach the same conclusion, the more confidence we can assign to the conclusion."
Bates is quoted as saying "They had good data from buoys. And they threw it out and 'corrected' it by using the bad data from ships." That is demonstrably incorrect, which used weighted data, actually giving greater weight to the buoys (based on degree of error variance in the data-sets).
Bates is also quoted as saying, "The reason for the failure is unknown, but it means the Pausebuster paper can never be replicated or verified by other scientists." In fact, the results have been replicated and verified by other scientists.
I am absolutely positively sure that I could stop the illegal immigration and the smuggling at the border. Our problem is we give it a lick and a promise and a dash of political correctness and then once the spotlight is off we do little. I guarantee you I could stop it.
"and in the real world no fence or wall is likely to stop them."
The purpose of a fence or wall is to limit areas of crossing and/or slow crossing so that those riding the fence line can more effectively stop crossings. And more effectively respond to breaches.
But it is true a fence or wall is unlikely to stop them if there is no defense of the wall. We see this historically with both Hardrian's wall and Offa's dyke in Britain or Danevirke in Germany.
Of course a wall cannot stop all illegal immigration, but that is not a good enough reason NOT to build a wall. In certain places, a wall will make it very very hard to cross. And it will make the Border Patrol's job a heck of a lot easier. In addition to a wall, I'm imagining more futuristic guarding of the border using pressure devices, drones, etc.
Also would LOVE for the wall to have a walkable area on top for guards to use. With guard towers able to look out and see the trouble coming.
It is no surprise that communist groups fund the anarchists and fascists that use terror to shut down free speech on college campuses. There is also a very close relationship between these groups and the mayor of Berkeley and the police department. Technically this is a conspiracy to commit crimes; arson, assault, property damage, denial of civil rights. Where is the ACLU? Why doesn't the MSM report on these connections and collusions? In a different news story one commentator has demanded prosecution of these antifi-fascist terrorists. But of course the police had a no-arrest order so none of the perps were arrested or identified. In many ways this is like the old South where thugs attacked blacks while the police stood by and did nothing. There is a striking similarity in that in the old South the politicians and police were Democrats and in the New California the politicians and police are Democrats. I guess you can't teach an old donkey new tricks.
Regarding commercials .
"the case of Audi and Budweiser and others in 2017, they're merely trying to show they're safe space snowflake global cry babies, ..."
Ah but that fails even so. A local 'feminist man' (yes, worse than you could possibly imagine) went off on a facebook screed about how the Audi commercial was demeaning to women.
Even SJWs can't win in SJW land, what makes these companies believe they can?
RE Trump Is Right: Silicon Valley Is Using H-1B Visas To Pay Low Wages To Immigrants
To see how this works, note that most Silicon Valley firms sponsor their H-1B workers, who hold a temporary visa, for U.S. permanent residency (green card) under the employment-based program in immigration law. EB sponsorship renders the workers de facto indentured servants; though they have the right to move to another employer, they do not dare do so, as it would mean starting the lengthy green card process all over again.
this is not true, the employee can start working for the new employer without waiting for approval. the "indentured servant" argument is false.
so, what's the point of lying here? there are enough reasons to revamp the H1B visa without this kind deceit.
giving wrong information helps the libtards.
Worked out of Nogales for quite some time. Thirty years ago it was easy to walk across the border to Nogales Mexico to get something not available...maybe some tequila or some authentic food at one of the cafes. Now-a-days not so much...just too much hassle. Worked in the desert about 8 miles from the border--in Arizona--and every few days we would see mules (human) packing 25 kilo bales of weed heading north. We would notify the Border Patrol and they would try to intercept--sometimes successfully. Often the mules would dump the bales and run and then the border patrol would burn the bales. Not many jobs where you have the Border Patrol on speed dial.