Tuesday Night Open Mic for Tuesday August 11, 2009

Open Mic 1Well, a fortunate thing to have open mic tonight. I am getting a late start on this after a three hour conversation about politics with my 15 year old son. First, it isn’t often that you see a 15 year old actually want to spend time hanging out with his dad, which my son thankfully still does. And tonight he asked me to explain to him how the American political system is supposed to work. So we had a lengthy discussion on liberty, freedom, and the difference between how government was supposed to work and how it has ended up working. Tomorrow he is going to explain to me how he interprets the constitution and its principles. That should be an interesting conversation! He is taking classes in government this year and I want him prepared to challenge and critically think about what he is taught. But enough about my extremely satisfying night… On to Open Mic!

Advertisements

Comments

  1. USWeapon Topic #1

    The Recession is Over? From a Fox News Article:

    Is the recession over? Economists polled by the Wall Street Journal say yes, and they suggest that’s a big reason why Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke should stay.

    The Journal reports that the experts are overwhelmingly in favor of President Obama asking Bernanke to stay on for another four-year term when his current term ends Jan. 31. Bernanke has been a key figure in the government’s efforts to reverse the country’s economic meltdown, a role that has earned him some criticism but also praise for handling of the crisis.

    Read the rest of the article here: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/11/report-economists-say-recession-want-bernanke-stay/

    I have to throw the BS flag on this opinion from the “experts” (When supposed brilliant minds like Krugman are spewing hateful garbage about how the health care opposition is driven by racism, I throw out the term brilliant and experts as proper adjectives). All of the sudden the recession is over? Because unemployment dropped a tenth of a percent? When that number is not representative of true unemployment anyway?

    And if the recession is over, how much did Bernanke have to do with it? And if it is over with only 10% of the supposed stimulus money spent, it certainly doesn’t seem to support the notion given by Congress and the White House that it was necessary in order to save us all from certain doom. Given all the BS we are seeing that the 10% spent thus far was actually spent on, I would venture to say that far less than that 10% was actually spent effectively.

    • I believe that we might have slowed down a little but no way I believe we are out of the clearing with the recession. My thoughts have always been, this manufactering jobs that have been lost. Are they ever coming back? If not, that is not being accounted for. Plus for the people who have lost their jobs and are unable to find new positions, how long before they are in trouble of losing their homes, cars etc.

    • Mission Accomplished.

      Rasmussen Poll says 42% now favor Obamacare. Not what I would call a mandate.

    • They have to say something to pick Obama’s flagging approval rating don’t they. Bernanke’s poularity is Obama’s popularity.

      I too, fling the BS flag!

    • Black Flag says:

      Careful!!!

      A recession is the contraction of economic output – but economic output is a merely someone’s measurement.

      Economic output includes government spending. If the government, by inflation, increases spending, this will – by definition – increase economic output.

      An ending of a recession due to government spending is a heralding of massive inflation.

      Out of the pot and into the fire…..

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        Case in point:

        In the 2nd quarter (during which the economy “only” contracted by 1%), federal government spending was up by 11%, and state and local government spending was up by 2.4%.

        Also, misleading unemployment numbers:

        Unemployment was “only” up by 247,000 this past month, and the “unemployment rate” DROPPED to 9.4%. However, the number of unemployed people whose benefits expired (so they are no longer counted as “officially unemployed” rose by nearly 103,000. In addition, the number of people “no longer seeking employment” and therefore not counted among the “officially unemployed” rose by 637,000.

        These numbers should scare you.

        • esomhillgazette says:

          As my Daddy has told me since I was knee high to a short grasshopper, “you cannot spend your way out of debt”.

          If an old country ridgerunner like my daddy knows that, you’d think those morons in Government would too. That’s why I believe that they DO know that.

          • Black Flag says:

            Ah, Esom, you missed a core and key point.

            The Government is not the same as a person.

            It is a consistent mistake of many people to place upon government the same constraints that they, as real people, have.

            Your Daddy cannot print money.

            Government can.

            Your Daddy, if he did not pay his debts, went bankrupt and would have lost all his assets.

            Governments who do not pay the debts do not lose their assets. They simply print money with a different color and start all over.

            Governments can spend their way out of debt – by inflating away your wealth.

            • v. Holland says:

              Isn’t the eventual outcome the same-it’s just slower? Or not?

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

                The government will not lose its assets by inflating away their own debt. The main problem is, if they choose to inflate their way out of debt, a loaf of bread may well cost you $36,000.00, which is what BF means when he says they will inflate away your wealth.

                So, in the end, the government will keep ITS assets, but you will lose yours as surely as if you had gone bankrupt.

            • esomhillgazette says:

              Ah, but no I didn’t BF! I know that the bastards can just print more money, but that’s just putting off the inevitable.

              Whether you call it spending your way out of debt, or inflating the economy, it’s still the same thing in my eyes and the eyes of millions of Americans. It’s the destruction of our economy and country.

              When, as Peter say’s, it causes us to lose all we have and we are sold out by our jackasses, uh, Government, it still means they did not spend their way out of debt. They will have given or sold us away like slaves.

              However, I’m sure somebody, somewhere will make a profit from won’t they?

    • Sorry USW….have to take exception to the word “expert” and its usage. You used it in conjunction with economists and Washington. To my knowledge, none exist.

      Bernanke had nod nothing to do with this excpet help cause it…my unqualified opinion. However, I did some research on other recessions/depressions and we are right on schedule to start coming out of them on our own. The stimulus has not helped any, as far as I can see…

      So, here I am on the sidelines throwing the same flag.

  2. USWeapon Topic #2

    Karl Rove Innocent? I don’t think so. From a Fox News Article:

    New light has been shed on former White House political adviser Karl Rove’s role in the ouster of a U.S. attorney in New Mexico, one of nine prosecutors fired in a scandal in 2006 over political interference with the Justice Department, according to transcripts of closed-door testimony released Tuesday.

    Harriet Miers, then White House counsel, said in testimony June 15 to House Judiciary Committee investigators that Rove was “very agitated” over U.S. Attorney David Iglesias “and wanted something done about it.”

    Read the rest of the story Here: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/11/white-house-e-mails-rove-deeply-involved-attorney-firings/

    I have to again throw the BS flag when Rove says that he had nothing to do with it. Let’s be real here. Rove is a brilliant strategist. Anyone who can get Bush elected the second time knows what he is doing. But he is arrogant and it is clear that the administration he lead exerted a lot of pressure and control in areas that they should have had no business in (not that this makes them different than any other administration).

    So when I hear him claiming he had no role in the firing of US Attorneys, I immediately say bull. When these email indicate that the White House was clearly involved and he tries to claim that politics have nothing to do with it, I again throw an additional flag and back him up another 15 yards and assess a loss of down as well.

    The question is does the White House have any business having a say in whether the US Attorneys that they appoint are removed? Or are these types of boundaries completely meaningless in today’s political world?

    • I agree completely with this one. I have always believed that Rove had his hands right in the dirt on this one. My bs alert goes off when I hear him talking about his role in any of this.

    • The boundaries to which you refer were torn down by Clinton/Gore.

      They will be hard to reestablish.

      Bush was better in terms of total govt manipulation, meaning he interfered much less in low level personell decisions. I was surprised by the US Attorney fiasco becasue it was out of character. But bottom line, they removed these folks for their own reasons, whatever those were.

      I find the whole debate quite funny. These folks server “at the pleasure of the President” yet the President supposedly can’t fire them for any reason he/she wishes?

      Politicians can’t fire other politicians for political reasons?

      Like I said, very funny.

      • Sorry US, I’m with JAC, its media hype.

        Last night, Fox News’ Brit Hume kicked off his show by criticizing the media for “news stories reporting that the Bush administration had considered firing all 93 U.S. attorneys across the country [that] failed to mention that that is exactly what Bill Clinton did soon after taking office back in 1993.”

        http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2007/03/14/publiceye/entry2571144.shtml

        “is customary for a President to replace U.S. Attorneys at the beginning of a term. Ronald Reagan replaced every sitting U.S. Attorney when he appointed his first Attorney General.

    • This is a tempest in a teapot. Presidents can and have fired US Attorneys for a wide variety of reasons. In fact, no reason is required to be given.

      Were politics involved in the firings? Maybe. So what? Political appointees such as US Attorneys are often fired for political reasons. The reasons we have heard about — the attorneys were not prosecuting crimes the President thought should be prosecuted — are not as bad as firing them because they were prosecuting the President’s friends.

      How about the current Attorney General quashing prosecution of Black Panthers for polling place violations? That seems worse to me.

      • I agree with JB here. Unfortunately, it was said that they serve ar the pleasure of the President. You plays the game you pays the price.

        All President’s do the same. It’s wrong. But they still do.

      • I’ve never even understood why this was considered a big deal except that it’s a way of trying to keep the Bush Adm’s issues in the spotlight and away from what is going on.

        If they serve “at the President’s pleasure” or whatever the language is, of course, they will be removed for political reasons. Duh!

        I wouldn’t think the current Adm or DOJ would even want comparisons to start happening, but they will if they continue to pursue this path. They’ve already done so much “for political reasons”, including those mentioned already, the AG firings, the Black Panther dismissal, the Chrysler bankruptcy handling, etc. etc.

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        Your comments about the Philadelphia polling issue require you to make assumptions you cannot back up. Those close to the issue said when it happened that it was a non-issue.

        • Ray, out of curiosity, why do you take the stance that you do in this issue? I do not think that the live video was doctored and I can show you law where it was illegal what they did. Can you show me where it was not?

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          Who, precisely, are “Those close to the issue” and by what measure do they declare it to be a “non-issue”?

          • Ray Hawkins says:

            The people in that voting district, the DA office, the mayor, the Phillie Phanatic……….

  3. Watched Glenn Beck today.

    What do you all think about the folks who are advisors that Obama has surrounded himself with?

    I have been told in the past that the mark of a leader is how he arranges his staff and how their individual attributes affects the leaders decisions.

    • I didn’t see the Beck piece talking about it, but I have to say that the President has shown me nothing in terms of proper selection of people to surround himself with. You simply have to look at choices like Sebelius, Geithner, Holder, and the 12 lobbyists he hired after issuing a Presidential Order stating it was illegal to do so. If he is the smart fox people like to make him out to be, these appointments that he has made thus far are either too smart for me to understand, or are proof that he isn’t that smart after all.

      • I have no doubt Obama is smart, very smart. But he is also an arrogant ideologue, even more arrogant than most Presidents and less pragmatic. Arrogance will be his downfall.

        Either that or he is completely misreading the mood of the electorate. This possibility seems less likely.

      • When the man hires an avowed Communist and ex-convict as a Czar, he is not very smart. I think he is more clever and has more cunning than being actually smart. That smooth talking doesn’t hurt him either.

        Sometimes he seems pretty smart, other times he seems like a moron.

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          ESOM – I assume you are referring to Anthony Van Jones? I could find nothing to objectively corroborate your statements. Help me out please.

          • esomhillgazette says:

            I don’t remember his name. His “green” czar. He himself has declared himself a communist.

            • Ray Hawkins says:

              Esom – are you just repeating something you ‘heard’ or ‘saw’ on another right leaning blog? I tried to find proper attribution of what you state and could not find it which makes me think its more hit and run tactics from the right. I truly try and understand what points you make but half the time I’m not sure if you’re basing your opinion in fact or if you’re regurgitating rhetoric you picked up from other things you read. Help me out here.

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      I think (a) most of the jury is still out but (b) many of the appointees (e.g.Aneesh Chopra, Paul Volcker, Admiral Dennis Blair, George Mitchell, Richard Holbrooke, General Scott Gration) are all excellent at providing a solid supporting cast.

  4. USWeapon Topic #3

    Militia Groups on the Rise Because Obama is Black? From an ABC News Article:

    Militia groups with grips against the government are regrouping across the country and could grow rapidly, according to a group that tracks such trends.

    The stress of a poor economy and a liberal administration led by a black president are among the causes for the recent rise, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center. Conspiracy theories about a secret Mexican plan to reclaim the southwest are also growing amid the public debate over illegal immigration.

    Read the rest of the story here: http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=8307935

    I see this as yet another MSM attempt to scare people into believing that any attack on the policies of this administration are linked to race, ignorance, and “conspiracy nuts”. I am not a fan of the Southern Poverty Law Center, which may have at one time been a legitimate group. Now they have become much like the NAACP and ACLU, constantly dogging conservative groups and remaining mute on issues regarding the left. For example, despite listing the new Black Panther Idiots as a hate group, they said NOTHING about their voter intimidation in Philadelphia or Eric Holder’s decision to drop all charges against them for what was a crime caught on tape! I guess they were too busy relentlessly hounding Lou Dobbs.

    Again I have to say I am growing quite weary of every form of dissent in this country being automatically linked to racism. Groups are starting up all over the place because people are starting to get fed up with an out of control government, but it is far more effective to claim the problem is that these people simply hate Obama because he is black. Every single person on the left using this tactic is officially a coward and a piece of shit in my book. Sorry for the bluntness, but this is disgusting and as low class as it gets.

    • While traveling through Michigan I was specifically looking for signs of the Militia folks.

      Having lived in Idaho and Montana I know how to read the signs.

      Only saw one I was pretty sure would be a member. Was surprised there was so little evidence visible as I have been told that is where the movements followers went to escape the feds relentless hunt in Idaho and Montana.

      I am guessing they are there but are beign more careful about advertising.

      Right now, at this very point in our history I am hopeful they remain out of site and out of mind.

      Best sign spotted along the very long road…………”I am an American by choice”. Proudly displayed on a fence under an American flag. I wanted to stop and talk, but it was a narrow winding road and I had many cars riding my bumber.

      • JAC,

        I think this allegation of increased Militia activity is part of the set up. I get the feeling Obama and thugs are preparing the battlefield, meaning, telling their suporters that racist right wing militias are gearing up to make trouble. That way, when the govt. goes on the military offensive against conservatives and other political opponents, Obama supporters won’t be surprised by it, or object to it. Maybe the HSA report that was ‘leaked’ in February, is part of the preperation? Liberals already believe that anyone who opposes what Obama is doing, is a racist right winger. Now, the government is making reports that ‘right winger militias are getting busy. So what’s the next logical step here?

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      Your logic equilibrium must be off –

      “I see this as yet another MSM attempt to scare people into believing that any attack on the policies of this administration are linked to race, ignorance, and “conspiracy nuts”

      The article does nothing of what you are insinuating. There is a real threat out there with respect to right-wing leaning militias that have as their core, extreme hate towards liberals and/or racism.

      And to the Philadelphia incident – there is more than one side to the story: http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/politics/A_Black_Panther_yes_Intimidation_no.html or http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/11/04/man-asked-to-leave-philly-polling-place/

      I wish you’d hurl equally hateful epithets towards anyone equating the current POTUS and administration w/ Nazi Germany. There are plenty of POS’ on this site and the Conservative Media that support and advocate and promote such an angle which is sickening.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        The Nazi Party was the People’s Socialist Party of Germany. The current POTUS is advocating nationalization of banks, the auto industry, and healthcare, and is advocating other socialist programs. Hence, when people equate the current POTUS with Nazi Germany there is some similarity in that respect.

        The Nazi Party also is equated with aryan supremacy/racial purity and a desire to take over other lands through the use of military power. I see less of a similarity between the current POTUS and Nazi Germany in those respects.

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          The entire underlying principle for Hitler was racially motivated – to suggest downfield policy positions are similar because they seem or appear Socialist is not accurate. It is also inaccurate to state he advocates nationalization as you so state.

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

            Ray,

            If he does not advocate nationalization as I so state, why are there so many examples of him already doing precisely that?

            Just because he says he is doing so “reluctantly” does not negate the fact that he HAS in fact done it.

          • Ray, my man, you live close to me…..we really have to talk. I refuse to believe that you really think the way you do. You cannot possibly defend your statement:

            “It is also inaccurate to state he advocates nationalization as you so state.”

            However, I will be open to listen without interruption.

            • Ray Hawkins says:

              D13 – I reject the notion that he has stated a desire to Nationalize the banks, auto industry and healthcare (I guess some folks would lop about anything in here). We can wrangle over defining nationalization – I would take it to mean ownership, budget authority, all matters of decision making. Healthcare may come closest to this. Other industries we have bailed out ~ this is more problematic and a result of the ‘don’t ask don’t tell’ manner in which funds were spilled into these companies to prop them up w/o a robust exit plan of when any government involvement would be removed. The “notion” of nationalization is a “product of” not a “premise”.

              • Ray, I’m certain you are better informed than I, and I can’t spend the rest of the day on this topic, but are you remembering this?

                GM Chief to Resign at White House’s Behest
                Obama Pushes General Motors and Chrysler to Slim Down, Make More Concessions
                Video
                Tough Deadlines for Chrysler, GM
                The White House says neither General Motors nor Chrysler submitted acceptable plans to receive more bailout money, setting the stage for a crisis in Detroit that would dramatically reshape the nation’s auto industry.
                » LAUNCH VIDEO PLAYER

                TOOLBOX
                Resize
                Print
                E-mail
                Yahoo! Buzz
                Save/Share +
                Share this Article:
                ad_icon
                COMMENT
                0 Comments
                COMMENTS ARE CLOSED
                Your browser’s settings may be preventing you from commenting on and viewing comments about this item. See instructions for fixing the problem.
                Discussion Policy
                CLOSE
                Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain “signatures” by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.
                Who’s Blogging
                » Links to this article
                By Peter Whoriskey
                Washington Post Staff Writer
                Monday, March 30, 2009; Page A01

                http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/29/AR2009032900708.html

              • hmmm. no video attached, not sure what’s up with that, please disregard that part…

              • Ray Hawkins says:

                CSM – I don’t know that I am better informed – I have a lot to learn. Wagoner’s resignation was more symbolic than tactical – at least that is the way these “clean sheet” approaches usually work. Making deeper strategic changes can take months in a monolithic company like GM. If the entire Board and Senior Leadership team was turned over then I cry foul.

              • fair (and accurate) assessment… the headline and its implications disturbed me at the time, which is why it came to mind when I read your response… Your range of knowledge always impresses me — especially in light of the fact that you have a newborn in the house. How is he, starting to take an interest in his surroundings? Lucky you! c

              • Ray Hawkins says:

                He is a very tall boy – and has recently discovered he has hands. Every day I am just amazed at him. My reading has curtailed some what – nights where I could rest in bed next to the sleeping wife and baby and read for hours usually results in me quickly dozing off with a book resting on my chest.

                Make no mistake that I am deeply troubled by our continued entanglement financially with these large companies – especially in light of many of the banks that took money and still have not done much with the so-called toxic assets. I am “waiting to exhale” and hoping I don’t pass out.

          • Ray:

            “The entire underlying principle for Hitler was racially motivated”

            You are so wrong. He had problems with Jews and it show in his early writings and in Mein Kampf. But that was not the underlying principle.

            If it were the Gypsies, mentaly retarded and physically handicapped would not have paid the same price. And they were in fact the first in line.

            No one can get done what the Nazi’s got done based on hatred of one race and nothing else.

            • Ray Hawkins says:

              The purity of his own race was not the underlying principle of what led him down that path? So what was it then? They didn’t just hate one race or culture.

        • Peter B,

          Don’t forget Obama’s sitting in Rev. Wright’s church for 20 years. The honorable Rev Wright, is a preacher of Black Liberation Theology. I believe there are slight racial overtones to be found in BLT. So, if racial hatred can be used to manipulate part of the electorate, why not do it if you’re a follower/beleiver of the theology? And Ray, don’t try to tell me Obama didn’t know what was being preached there. He couldn’t be THAT clueless, and if he really is, then he should be removed from office NOW.

          http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/08/is_obama_a_closet_conehead.html

          • Ray Hawkins says:

            Cyndi – this is an area you will get some agreement from me and one I wish someone would have sought some candid answers on when Obama was a candidate. I will offer that even as I go to Church (Lutheran) – I need not agree with everything said/stated/offered – I say this as I recognize that Martin Luther not only authored The Ninety-Five Theses but also an especially hateful text called “Von den Juden und Ihren Lügen” or “The Jews and their Lies”. I do not believe Wright ‘all of a sudden’ turned radical – something tells me he was preaching in his style for YEARS. So what say POTUS of this?

            • Wow! I can’t believe we’re in agreement 😉 LOL.

              I too, wish this had been further explored in the campaign, but as with most things Obama, it was whitewashed by a speech. Its not too late for this to be examined. All it requires is for his supporters to DEMAND it. Of course, they’ll be labeled racist right wingers, but they’ll have plenty of company.

              What in BLT you do find agreeable? I haven’t found anything, but I confess, I haven’t attended any sermons. But from what I’ve read, seen on TV, and gleened from those swayed by it, I believe those who believe it, have been done a great disservice.

              I still don’t accept that Obama didn’t know what was being said in that church. My position is that he KNEW about it and stayed because, either he’s a true believer, or he planned on using the contacts and theology to advance his agenda. I’m not sure which one is more dangerous. I guess the one I fear most is using it to further his agenda. That has some serious implications as to his true nature.

      • You are becoming like a broken record Ray. Every article I publish you simply say I am making this stuff up, I have no logic, or there is no merit. The article doesn’t say any of this stuff? Read it again without your bias. Think about how an average American sees what is in the article. The article clearly attempts to link any anti government sentiment to Timothy McVeigh. The article clearly says that groups are on the rise and lists one of the reasons as “a black president”. The article clearly points out a conspiracy theory about Mexico. The article does what it was intended to do, make people believe that those who dissent against what government is doing right now fall into one of three groups: racists, conspiracy theorists, or stupid. That you miss that point baffles me.

        As for the your last paragraph, it isn’t politicians and big name MSM news networks using the nazi symbol to characterize people. Yet those politicians and big media types are the low life scum using the word racist in every other sentence to characterize all the dissent against the plans of this administration. I don’t need to write entire articles on the wrongness of using a nazi symbol to protest the President. We have the speaker of the house and the MSM covering it quite well, do we not?

        And there is a gigantic difference Ray, in a citizen using a nazi symbol because they feel that is what Obama is doing, and the entire political system using racism claims as a weapon. Individual citizens can be blown off as loons, but politicians and the MSM control the masses. That makes their use of racism claims far worse in my book, because they actually influence people, as evidenced by your position. The idiot with a nazi sign doesn’t influence the people standing beside him on the sidewalk, let alone 4 million people who read an article on MSNBC.

        As for the Panther incident. I saw the video. So did you. And I know you are too smart to even try to make the claim that they were not attempting to intimidate people out there. So I am unsure why you are even attempting to make such a claim. You or I may not be intimidated by them Ray. But those two black men in militant uniforms standing there with a billy club in their hands ARE intimidation. Don’t let your political leaning cloud your judgement. Those two didn’t need to say a word or hit anyone. Their presence alone intimidates some. And that was the purpose. If you can’t admit to something as simple as that, I have to say I would be quite disappointed in your ability to judge things realistically.

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          You know as well as I do that most all the Conservative Media is latching on to this Nazi teet – they have a huge readership/following as even evidenced by postings today. What they have done is SICKENING. The idiot is not the lone person holding a nazi sign – it is conservative pundits who play to millions upon millions of ears that Obama hates white people or that Obama is “like a Nazi”.

          You’re flat wrong about the article – the entire premise of the article are extremist groups and thought the collect and organize and pose a real, observable, defined threat. You’re reading into because of the very notion you cling to that the non-conservative media sees any anti-government protest as violent, fringe, or dangerous – simply not true.

          In case you are wondering, 1221 Fairmount Avenue sits right on the edge of North Philadelphia and is heavily dominated by minorities and is an area notorious for crime – what your eye may see as intimidating is seen by others as protective. No one claimed intimidation and the issue was dropped.

  5. Before I go to work, like to say that despite this reports stupid reasons for these militia groups “regrouping”, seems to me the “militia groups” have never gone away. The left can’t handle the truth, which is most of us want to be left alone by government, which just isn’t happening as of late.

    I’m just gald they use militia groups, instead of Bloods or Crypts or anyother gangs that are armed and have been active for years. I guess it’s OK with the left that they control parts of cities in this country. But when the white conservatives arm up, look out for the racist, ingnorant rednecks who plan on protecting themselves and their small communities.

    Shame on them, because it is them who are ignorant to te reality of this “militia” movement.

    G!

    • Its funny they say there is an increase in militia groups, but that violence from those groups is still down from the 1990’s.

    • I don’t doubt for a second the New Black Panthers are arming themselves but they’ll have a long way to go before they’ve caught up to the Nation of Islam. Oh that’s not the militia groups they’re talking about?

    • Maybe these Militia groups are getting ready for the big collapse of the Country’s Government and the economy. If so, they’re no different from a lot of the rest of us. Does that make me a militia member? If so, I’m gonna call mine the Esom Hillbilly National Guard. We’ll use my Don’t Tread on Me flag as my Colors.

  6. Have not found a report yet, but this morning on Fox & Friends, they had a segment on the ACLU suing for praying in school, on behalf of two students.
    A principal asked the athletic director to say a blessing before eating during a benefit lunch, where no students were present. They say the school is forcing prayer on the students.

  7. Sometimes they just hand them to you. This is from a favorite of mine http://masterresource.org/:

    President-elect Obama’s new science advisor, John Holdren, was concerned about global cooling too. In Ecoscience: Population, Resources, and Environment (1977: p. 686), Paul Ehrlich, Anne Ehrlich, and Holdren stated:

    “Many observers have speculated that the cooling could be the beginning of a long and persistent trend in that direction—that is, an inevitable departure from an abnormally warm period in climatic history.”

    The Ehlrichs and Holdren also gave voice to cooling alarmist Reid Bryson, who said this in his essay in their edited book of essays published in 1971, Global Ecology:

    “I believe that increasing global air pollution, through its effect on the reflectivity of the earth, is currently dominant and is responsible for the temperature decline of the past decade or so.”

  8. Lou Holtz for Congress? Heck yeah!

    Here’s some news that ought to make any Arkansan proud – Lou Holtz might run for a seat in Congress.

    You heard me right – he may run as a Republican and challenge central Florida incumbent U.S. Rep. Suzanne Kosmas, a Democrat.

    http://naturalhawg.blogspot.com/2009/08/lou-holtz-for-congress-heck-yeah.html

    • Actually I heard he already changed his mind and is staying put in the college football studio.

  9. Black Flag says:

    TexasChem
    Carry Over

    You could just as easily look at that principle (You shall not murder) and interpret it as (You shall not kill) from a scientific viewpoint BF.

    But we cannot interpret it that way. We kill animals and plants to survive – it is required. It would be perversely inconsistent for the God (Universe) to make a law against killing, and than for us to survive, have to break the His law. Why would He create us that way?

    So it cannot be an exclusion to kill – but to murder; a killing of innocent human life.

    Hence some viewpoints relating that commandment to “natural law”.

    Newton’s third law: law of reciprocal actions For a force there is always an equal and opposite reaction: or the forces of two bodies on each other are always equal and are directed in opposite directions. Or simply put: for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. 🙂

    While there many attempts to try to explain this natural law in all its manifestations, the problem sometimes happens is that in the simplification, certain misunderstandings occur.

    The thinking that if I act, I cause an opposite action is not correct. Doing good does not make evil – doing evil does not make a good demonstrates this fallacy.

    Newtons Law is simply this: “Conservation of Momentum”. Energy is transferred from one body to another body in contact.

    My beliefs that were TAUGHT to me; keep me from committing murder. Point is: whether you are willing to believe it or not our societies belief in not committing murder does stem from judeo/christian beliefs that were TAUGHT throughout history.

    If you were TAUGHT, someone else had to figure it out. If you figured it out for yourself, you arrive at the same point.

    For myself, as part of my own journey (by which I purposely disassembled the paradigms that surrounded me), I discarded all religious dogma in its entirety. There was far too much internal inconsistencies and it simply would take a lifetime to sort out the reasoned parts from the mass of irrationalities because – they were too interconnected; much like a Gordian knot.

    By this effort, I found that many of things that we are ‘taught’ are wrong and immoral.

    However, how does a person know the difference between an authority teaching us a truth and an authority teaching us a lie? If we hold a paradigm that the authority is always right, we as a person are in deep trouble – we will embody a lie to be as dear as a truth.

    Therefore, I discarded authority as a proof of anything.

    As far as morality, I achieved it the other way – if a religious dogma happened to be consistent with my spirituality, then it was ‘ok’ – if it didn’t, I ignored it. No book or man claiming authority is valid to disprove or prove any moral.

    So I built up my moral principles from the root. If by accident you were taught essentially the same thing, that’s ok too. Good accidents sometimes happen, too.

    The root of the principle comes from the Law of Mutuality.

    • v. Holland says:

      the best laid plans of mice and men

    • If electricity comes from electrons, does morality come from morons?

      • Black Flag says:

        No, that would be moron-ity. And yes, moronic ideas come from morons.

        Morality comes from moralists

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          But BF, by your argument, electricity should be called electronity, no?

          • Black Flag says:

            Well, moronity is not a word – the word is “moronic”.

            Electra is the root of electricity and electron.

            Moral is the root of morality and moralist.

            Moron is the root of moronic and morons.

            English fun, though, we can add whatever three letters to the end of words

    • Mr. Black Flag, you have a paradoxical conflict here.

      You state;

      “I discarded all religious dogma in its entirety”

      Then, you state;

      “if a religious dogma happened to be consistent with my spirituality, then it was ‘ok’”

      Which will it be? You either belive in religious dogma or you do not.

      Religion is commonly referred to as “Faith”. The reason for that is simply because you must have faith that your chosen religion is the correct one and has the correct interpretations within its writings.

      I have heard that a man without religion is a man without faith.

      Would that be you?

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        A man without religion is not necessarily a man without faith. Religions are man-made structures. Not a single one of them is actually “right”, for no man can completely comprehend the mind of God, assuming the existence of such an entity. Most religions, like governments, are an attempt to control people.

        However, it is perfectly possible to have faith, even if you do not espouse any particular religion.

      • How is that paradoxical? If I know “A” to be true, and Tom Cruise also believes “A” to be true, then I will agree with him as far as that goes, but no farther. I don’t believe “A” because of Tom’s agreement (not because it is his “dogma”), as he could change his mind at any time (or not) and it wouldn’t affect me at all.

        Personally I have no religion, but I have a lot of faith. I have faith in certain people to behave in certain ways. I have faith that the laws of nature will not change arbitrarily. I just have no faith in mythological beings or events.

        The saying you relate was obviously made up by someone who vastly overestimates the importance of religion.

  10. This is about the recession.

    If the recession is over, then explain to me why our unemployment rate here in Nevada is up to 14% as of a couple weeks ago? People here in Reno are still having trouble finding jobs.

    Although, they are in the planning stages of building a new Walmart here close to the Grand Sierra Resort, and they said that should bring in 300 jobs. Not sure when they plan on the actual building phase.

    • I think they define a recession as a downturn in the economy for three consecutive quarters, so one positive quarter breaks that cycle. That does not mean the economy has recovered. Its mainly media spin, they bemoaned slow GROWTH under Bush, and praise slow LOSSES under Obama.

    • Black Flag says:

      The industrial capacity of the USA is currently at about 65%.

      This means, without any capital spending, the USA could grow at rates, cumulative, to over the current demand by 50% (100-65=35 ….35/65~=1/2 or 50%) before a single new investment needed.

      That is huge.

      Where is that kind of growth going to come? I don’t know either.

  11. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    http://www.newsmax.com/stossel/obama_healthcare_/2009/08/12/246879.html

    Very good article demonstrating exactly what people like me, BF, and JAC are talking about when we say that the mega-corporations are the PRODUCT of big government, and are often in bed with big government.

    When people like Ray or Chris D. rail against big corporations, they need to realize that they should be railing against big government which eliminates competition and eliminates a free marketplace, thus enabling big corporations to exist.

    In a free market, nothing could ever become “too big to fail”.

    • I wonder how long Stossel will stay at ABC – doesn’t seem to be a good match.

      • I have had the same thought, he’s been on Beck a few times lately. I also looked on ABC for his segment on healthcare in Canada & the UK, but could not find it. The have a ton on their anti-gun story, but little on Stossel, except his picture, making him their token conservative.

        • Black Flag says:

          Exactly. He fills ABC’s need to “show the other side”.

          Stossel is a Netizen buddy of mine. A few years ago, after a number of posts I made on his blog, he contacted me via email, and gave his private phone number and personal email.

          We chat occasionally about some topics regarding my peculiar opinions about freedom.

          He has turned into quite an anarchist himself!

          He often expresses, most privately, his immense frustration of working with ABC. Many of his stories are dropped by the “Powers that be”. Considering the few we see, one can imagine some of the stuff he has discovered.

          But he also realizes he is one of the very, very few that has access to Mainstream that can offer such a point of view. So his sticks it out.

          • “Peculiar”

            Your word, not ours.

            Thanks for the inside information; it helps to know some of the good guys are still out there.

        • Stossel isn’t a conservative. He is a libertarian. It is just when compared to the left-socialists of ABC, his obvious difference makes him appear “conservative” (right-socialist) by comparison.

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

            The media likes to try to lump the conservatives and the libertarians together. This is a combination of them having no idea what they are talking about and/or intentional misinformation.

            The vast majority of conservatives are still Statist (hence right-socialist).

  12. OK, time for someone to report me to the White House.

    Propose this in 2009:

    START A BILL TO PLACE ALL POLITICIANS ON SOCIAL SECURITY

    —————– —————–

    SOCIAL SECURITY:

    (This is worth reading. It is short and to the point.)

    Perhaps we are asking the wrong questions during election years.

    Our Senators and Congresswomen do not pay into Social Security and, of course, they do not collect from it.

    You see, Social Security benefits were not suitable for persons of their rare elevation in society. They felt they should have a special plan for themselves. So, many years ago they voted in their own benefit plan.

    In more recent years, no congressperson has felt the need to change it. After all, it is a great plan.

    For all practical purposes their plan works like this:

    When they retire, they continue to draw the same pay until they die.
    Except it may increase from time to time for cost of living adjustments…

    For example, Senator Byrd and Congressman White and their wives may expect to draw $7, 800,000.00 (that’s Seven Million, Eight-Hundred Thousand Dollars), with their wives drawing $275, 000..00 during the last years of their lives.
    This is calculated on an average life span for each of those two Dignitaries.

    Younger Dignitaries who retire at an early age, will receive much more during the rest of their lives.

    Their cost for this excellent plan is $0.00. NADA!!! ZILCH!!!

    This little perk they voted for themselves is free to them. You and I pick up the tab for this plan. The funds for this fine retirement plan come directly from the General Funds;

    “OUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK”!

    From our own Social Security Plan, which you and I pay (or have paid) into, every payday until we retire (which amount is matched by our employer), We can expect to get an average of
    $1,000 per month after retirement.

    Or, in other words, we would have to collect our average of $1,000 monthly benefits for 68 years and one (1) month to equal Senator Bill Bradley’s benefits!

    Social Security could be very good if only one small change were made.

    That change would be to

    Jerk the Golden Fleece Retirement Plan from under the Senators and Congressmen.. Put them into the Social Security plan with the rest of us

    Then sit back…..

    And see how fast they would fix it!

    If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of awareness will be planted and maybe good changes will evolve.

    • LOI, where did you get this? Don’t want to plagerize but would like to send it on.

      • And hey, if this is your own research, my apologies for implying you got it somewhere.

        • Email from a former IBM VP. Very smart guy. It ask it to be forwarded to as many as possible. Saw nothing to offend in your question, and have fairly thick head, er skin.

    • And don’t forget that they only have to serve a couple of terms to collect.

      They don’t have to put in 30 years like other federal employees.

      Retirement pay for elected officials is the first thing eliminated by the VDLG!

    • Black Flag says:

      But what change are you demanding?

      The unfunded liability of SS is $74 TRILLION….

      If you demand it to be “fixed” you are asking for an inflation explosion that is inconceivable. Put this into perspective. The entire GDP of the USA is $30 trillion a year.

      The entire economic output of the nation, and I mean everything…. for two years…..simply to ‘catch up’.

      There, simply, is no such thing as a ‘fix’! It is economically impossible – short of destroying the economy.

      There is only one choice – and trust me, this is exactly what will happen – is abandonment.

      Therefore, if you have parents or grandparents who are dependent on SS, you must work today to mitigate the disaster they will be facing.

      Prepare to have your parents move in with you. Are you ready?

      • Black Flag says:

        PS: The estimated ‘dead’ date is 2013-2017. That was before the economic meltdown.

        It may happen faster, now that there are far less incoming monies funding the entitlements. ….

        If you want to see how bad the drop off of tax receipts of the government, see this chart:

        http://static.businessinsider.com/~~/f?id=4a81bb5fb1d2ce024ba01a3f

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          Social Security is outright theft in any case. The government did not collect money from every individual, put it in a government insured savings account yielding interest, and then pay that money (including the interest) back to each individual that paid into the system.

          The government took the money that was paid into Social Security, spent it on whatever they felt like, and are now taking your money and mine today in order to help “pay back” those that have already paid into the system all their working lives and are now “entitled” to “get their money back”.

          You would be better off putting the money that you currently put into Social Security every month into a low-yielding certificate of deposit at the bank. Inflation would kill you but at least you would have SOME of your own money left when you retire rather than having to rely on the government stealing someone else’s money in order to pay back what you gave the government which they then proceeded to spend on WHATEVER….

  13. And some have argued that tort reform would have little effect on health costs.

    Widow of First New York City Man to Die From H1N1 Flu Plans to Sue City for $40 Million

    In a notice of claim filed on Tuesday, Wiener’s widow, Bonnie Wiener, accused the city of failing to adequately control the H1N1 outbreak and failing to inform Wiener that he had come in contact with individuals who tested positive for the H1N1 flu.

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,539065,00.html

      • Kathy, very interesting.

        Other areas of waste identified in the PricewaterhouseCoopers report included up to $493 billion related to risky behavior such as smoking, obesity and alcohol abuse,

        Question, in a free market society, should an insurance company charge more, or refuse to cover the above lifestyle choices?

        If not, why do the rest of us have to pay for this. Convicted drug users get treated at our expense, yet they broke the law in abusing their bodies.

        • “Question, in a free market society, should an insurance company charge more, or refuse to cover the above lifestyle choices?”

          If they want to, sure, but there is no “should” or “shouldn’t”. They will decide which price structure profits them the most. There could then be other insurance complanies that could cater to the people who feel they are being overcharged by the ones who do this. This is what “free market” means.

    • Black Flag says:

      Tort reform is pointless – it would distort an already distorted “justice” system.

      Do not worry about these bizarre lawsuits.

      They get press because they are bizarre.

      Because they are bizarre, very rarely do they actually receive any credibility in court.

      • My kids still ask to put a band-aid on every little bump, even when there is no cut. It makes them feel better. Tort reform would make me feel better, therefore, if not addressed, I will whine and throw a temper tantrum until this is done, or I’m sent to my room.

        How about at the same time, we address our distorted justice system, where looser pays for frivilous lawsuits. No more million dollar cups of hot coffee.

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          A very fitting analogy LOI 🙂

          Many years ago I witnessed a 2 year old fall from a 2nd story apartment window, only to get up and walk away. When asked why he removed the screen from the window and fell out, he litteraly responded that he wanted to see if he could fly.

          There was no screaming or crying involved in this incident. (And yes, he was taken to the hospital as a precautionary measure!)

          I also saw the same 2 year old fall and scrape his knee, and he screamed bloody murder until he had his band-aid.

      • But the city will settle for something less than the perceived break even point of defending the city.

        Thus bad litigation behavior begets more bad litigation behavior.

        Reform is needed, but not until after the basic structure and forming principles are addressed. Otherwise we are asking the Fox to help us build the new hen house, not just watch over it.

        • I like that answer better than the Flags, but think its more realistic to fix what we can, when we can. A fix to the legal system might be what brings about addressing the ledgeslative system. They pass laws that the constitution and bill of rights will not allow, but an activist court
          endorses.

        • Black Flag says:

          JAC,

          I do not think the city would settle. It creates a precedent of surrender.

          Bizarre lawsuits are rarely settled. Almost every one of them doesn’t even make it to the docket.

          Because the MSM rarely reports a followup with the same zeal as the initial bizarreness, most People are left with the impression that such cases actually make it.

          • That will depend on whether the case is complete lunacy and the record of the courts in the area.

            In California the city will settle as it will cost more to go to court, even if they win. They can not retrieve their court costs. Plus the jury in CA would probably find in the plaintiff’s favor. Handing themselves a 40 million dollar tax bill.

        • And when did a city or country become responsible for the flu? Can we sue for colds and hayfever?

          “accused the city of failing to adequately control the H1N1 outbreak” So every time someone dies from the flu, we can blame whatever city we happen to be in? Just avoid Calif., you’ll get an IOU.

          According to the city health department, 47 people have died in the outbreak in New York City.

          “Tort reform is pointless – it would distort an already distorted “justice” system.”

          So 47 times 40 million, that’s a lot even to my wife.

        • v. Holland says:

          I thought one of the main reason for tort reform was the horrendous price of malpractice insurance.

  14. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    Freedom is the most valuable commodity that any individual possesses, yet far too many of us are not only accepting of the fact that our freedom is taken away, we are also stupid enough to accept the fact that we are charged various fees for the privledge of having our freedom taken from us.

    We rationalize this acceptance in many ways… most often by accepting the premise that it is all for “the greater good”.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      I love it when I post something like this and it goes without a response for quite a while. After about 1 hour I figure I just hit on an absolute truth, or I said something so wacko that no one had any idea how to respond.

      Perhaps sometimes it is for both reasons… 🙂

      • It was just too profound to add anything!

      • Speaking for myself, I don’t have the patience to spend much time one the computer. I am only now reading here………….thus my ‘late entry’. I totally agree with you that it’s about freedoms being eroded. Personally I don’t believe in a ‘greater good’. I believe in lighting the candle in my corner of the world.

    • Ain’t no such critter as “the greater good”. If it harms individuals, then it adds up to a lot of harm when you expand it to cover a lot of individuals. The only way to help everyone is to stop meddling.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        Thanks Kent,

        It is impossible to eliminate human suffering, and generally attempts to do so simply spread the suffering around and increase the severity.

    • Black Flag says:

      The core difficult many people have in understanding freedom is that freedom is an “is”, not an “it” – it is a verb not a noun.

      Because of this confusion, People attempt to institutionalize freedom – and attempting to covert an ‘is’ to an ‘it’, believe some ‘force’ is needed to maintain it – thus, they call on government as that force to ‘protect my freedom’.

      Grasp hold of the truth of freedom – it is by action not by place that it exists!

  15. Black Flag says:

    Two major entrepreneurial tycoons, in the multibillion-dollar league, with worldwide interests, speaking not for attribution, agree that the worst is yet to come. America has to reinvent itself for the 21st century, but this won’t happen before another big credit-rattling shock. Millions of jobs are not coming back, they said.

    They were speaking about the current global financial and economic crisis. Another humongous credit crunch is on the way, they believe, and the current optimism is simply a pause before another major downward slide. Unemployment, they forecast, will climb from the low to the high teens. A pledge to limit tax increases to those making more than $250,000 a year is a pipe dream. Someone has to pay the health piper. Major social dislocations are on their horizon for 2010.

    Both global entrepreneurs believe Israel will resolve its existential crisis by bombing Iran’s key nuclear facilities later this year. One thought Gulf Arabs would be secretly delighted and that Iran’s much vaunted asymmetrical retaliatory capabilities would fizzle as the theocracy imploded. The other could see mayhem up and down the Gulf, the Strait of Hormuz closed, and oil at $300 per barrel.

    These guys are respected and the scenarios are credible.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/aug/10/doomsday-pros-and-cons/print/

  16. Black Flag says:

    Concerned in Michigan
    Carry over

    Would you please help me understand your definition of “natural law”? Here are some I found when I Googled it:

    rule or body of rules of conduct inherent in human nature and essential to or binding upon human society

    I’m not in agreement with the definition – it is too rigid and attempts to apply aspects of Human Law into its nature.

    I’d drop all of the sentence after and inclusive of the “and….”, leaving ….

    “rule or body of rules of conduct inherent in human nature”

    Natural law or the law of nature (lex naturalis) is a theory that posits the existence of a law whose content is set by nature and that therefore has validity everywhere. …

    I’m Ok with that.

    general principles of law applicable to all societies; became a fundamental concept of the Roman empire’s legal system; related to Stoic ethical theory.
    https://www.mountdesales.net/data/files/news/ClassroomLinks/Foundations_Unit__Key_Terms.doc

    Generally, yep.

    A theory that has been tested many thousands of times and found always to be true, eg, the law of gravity.
    http://www.mhhe.com/biosci/pae/glossaryn.html

    Ok with that one

    set of principles which govern human interactions, which are built into the structure of the universe, as opposed to being imposed by human beings.

    Good with that one.

    a statement that expresses generally observed behavior

    Ok, too.

    Tthey are all generally the same thing with a different articulation.

    If “Now they simply pull a gun and shoot you. They place no value on human life. They will kill you for a pair of sneakers or a fur lined coat.” is true, how do we instill in such persons a value for human life? If the Law of Mutuality is about respecting life and these “thugs” do not, is it possible to somehow create that respect within them?

    No, no, no NO!

    The Law of Mutuality is NOT about respecting life.

    It says “What I do to you, gives YOU the right to do to me!”

    If I punch you, you have a right to punch me.

    What is derived from the LoM is that if I do not like to get punched, I better not go around punching others.

    If you are a guy who cares less about getting punched then you might go around punching at will.

    The LoM derives two parallel paths (that is, they never intersect): (1) freedom or (2) government.

    (1) If I do not impose upon you, you have no right to impose upon me. If no one imposes upon you, you are free. From me to be free, I must allow you to be free.

    (2) I will impose upon you, and you can try to impose upon me. We’ll let whomever is the most violent and the strongest win. “Right of Might”.

  17. I'm learning! says:

    JAC – nice to see you back! I have been missing for several days too due to vacation (but I didn’t even leave my state)and am finally catching up on all the posts. Since it’s open mic night, tell us a little about your trip! Since you left the Rockies and landed in Michigan, did you pass through MN on the way?

  18. Black Flag says:

    Concerned in Michigan

    Would you please help me understand your definition of “natural law”? Here are some I found when I Googled it:

    rule or body of rules of conduct inherent in human nature and essential to or binding upon human society

    I’m not in agreement with the definition – it is too rigid and attempts to apply aspects of Human Law into its nature.

    I’d drop all of the sentence after and inclusive of the “and….”, leaving ….

    “rule or body of rules of conduct inherent in human nature”

    Natural law or the law of nature (lex naturalis) is a theory that posits the existence of a law whose content is set by nature and that therefore has validity everywhere. …

    I’m Ok with that.

    general principles of law applicable to all societies; became a fundamental concept of the Roman empire’s legal system; related to Stoic ethical theory.

    Generally, yep.

    A theory that has been tested many thousands of times and found always to be true, eg, the law of gravity.

    Ok with that one

    set of principles which govern human interactions, which are built into the structure of the universe, as opposed to being imposed by human beings.

    Good with that one.

    a statement that expresses generally observed behavior

    Ok, too.

    They are all generally the same thing with a different articulation.

    If “Now they simply pull a gun and shoot you. They place no value on human life. They will kill you for a pair of sneakers or a fur lined coat.” is true, how do we instill in such persons a value for human life? If the Law of Mutuality is about respecting life and these “thugs” do not, is it possible to somehow create that respect within them?

    No, no, no NO!

    The Law of Mutuality is NOT about respecting life.

    It says “What I do to you, gives YOU the right to do to me!”

    If I punch you, you have a right to punch me.

    What is derived from the LoM is that if I do not like to get punched, I better not go around punching others.

    If you are a guy who cares less about getting punched then you might go around punching at will.

    The LoM derives two parallel paths (that is, they never intersect): (1) freedom or (2) government.

    (1) If I do not impose upon you, you have no right to impose upon me. If no one imposes upon you, you are free. From me to be free, I must allow you to be free.

    (2) I will impose upon you, and you can try to impose upon me. We’ll let whomever is the most violent and the strongest win. “Right of Might”.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      The main problem is that 99.999% of all people cannot possibly understand how society would work under (1) rather than (2). They only understand the possibility of (2) because that is all they have ever been taught.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        And NO, NO, NO… (1) does not always automatically degenerate into (2)!

    • Alert in Michigan says:

      “No, no, no NO!” – (I think I’ve just been yelled at by Black Flag. :))

      “The Law of Mutuality is NOT about respecting life.
      It says “What I do to you, gives YOU the right to do to me!”
      What is derived from the LoM is that if I do not like to get punched, I better not go around punching others.”

      Sort of like “Do unto others what you want them to do unto you?”

      Black Flag, I think I better understand what you are trying to say as far as the LofM. But while I respect your position, I don’t believe most people(whether with or without religion) can actually live that out. A few (such as you and others with a very strong set of core personal convictions/ethics/morals) may be able to truly act that way. But, at the risk of being negative, I don’t think that is a practical M.O. for most people. (oh, if only it was so…)

      – Alert (formerly “Concerned”) in MI

      • Really? Just about everyone I know lives this way all the time. Even those I know who spout aggressive nonsense don’t live the way they preach, or no one would associoate with them.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        The “feeling” that you have that the majority of the populace could not possibly live this way shows that the government has indeed taught you well.

        I am sure that you know many people, most of whom are essentially good people, and these are the people that you choose to associate with. I am sure that you also know some bad apples, and, being aware that they are bad apples, you avoid them as much as possible.

        Is government necessary to ensure that you associate with people who live by this rule and do not associate with people who do not live by this rule, or are you capable of making that determination on your own?

        With or without government, the bad people are not going to go away, but you seem to be under the illusion that government is necessary to control the bad people.

        Government does a terrible job of controlling bad people. It does a much better job of controlling good people that have been convinced of the necessity of government’s existence. Good people that are convinced that government is necessary will give government the authority it needs to control them.

        Bad people have no such illusions about government generally.

      • Black Flag says:

        Sort of like “Do unto others what you want them to do unto you?”

        Sorta?

        Like, exactly!

        Him who coined the phrase, as well as thousands of other philosophers across time, societies, continents and history….

        …sorta makes it the Golden Rule.

        Black Flag, I think I better understand what you are trying to say as far as the LofM. But while I respect your position, I don’t believe most people(whether with or without religion) can actually live that out. A few (such as you and others with a very strong set of core personal convictions/ethics/morals) may be able to truly act that way. But, at the risk of being negative, I don’t think that is a practical M.O. for most people. (oh, if only it was so…)

        I, like Kent, emphatically disagree.

        It is in fact a tiny minority that acts in contrary to the Golden Rule. We find most of those that do in government or in maximum security jails.

        • occasionally(ok, rarely and only when the gods smile) it turns out that those who behave contrarily in the first move to the second 😉

      • Alert in Michigan says:

        I went away for a little while to process what Peter, Kent, & BF have said. And I have to agree that my earlier position is wrong. When I was writing that earlier, my pessimistic thoughts were going down some other rabbit trails that muddied my final comment. “It is in fact a tiny minority that acts in contrary to the Golden Rule.” As I sit back and ponder that, I realize that in my experience you are correct.

        “I am sure that you know many people, most of whom are essentially good people, and these are the people that you choose to associate with. I am sure that you also know some bad apples, and, being aware that they are bad apples, you avoid them as much as possible.”

        True. Actually, I seek out the “good apples” and do try to avoid the “bad apples” as much as possible.

        Thanks for being patient with me as I seek to understand and to learn.

        • I’m full of patience, and other stuff as well. And you seem to be one of those “good apples” I’d enjoy sharing a campfire with. I suspected as much. 😉

          • Alert in Michigan says:

            Thanks. 🙂

            I think I am just part Mama Bear right now, trying to figure out how to protect my cubs (4 boys age 4 & under) from whatever calamity (or calamities) may be coming. Can’t prepare for everything, but ignoring wisdom isn’t good, either.

            Campfire. Sounds good. Haven’t spent too much time around a campfire since 4-H & church camps growing up.

            There are LOTS of good apples around. 🙂

  19. Being that it is Open Mic I reckon it is time to share my adventures to Michigan with ya’all.

    First, I want to thank everyone who offered suggestions of places to see and things to do. Due to circumstances I was unable to do few as I will now explain.

    JAC, lil JAC and Spousal Unit Leader departed in the Gypsie Wagon mid Saturday and camped the first night along the Missouri River at Fort Benton, Montana. Near here is where Lewis and Clark gave up the big boats. It is where the paddle boats from down river could get no farther upstream. A little sleepy town that was once the transportation hub for the northwest and canada.

    We traveled what we call the Hi-line most of the way east. This is called US Highway 2 by other folks. North eastern Montana was beautiful in a Charlie Russel kind of way. Mtns far off with rolling plains and river breaklands in between. You could here the ghosts of the buffalo stampeding across the plains. I was pleasantly surprised to find more of the same in western North Dakota. Although the breaklands diminished as the Missouri heads south from here.

    It was here, just inside N. Dakota that I discovered I had left/lost my wallet somewhere in MT earlier in the day. The credit cards I had planned to use for fishing trips etc were of course in the wallet. As was the identification needed to get into Canada, which I thought we might do once in Minnesota. The decision at this point was do we backtrack almost 400 miles and then dead head to Michigan or do we press on. Spousal Unit Leader had her credit card and we had some cash so we decided to go east. Besides, I absolutely hate down time and backtracking.

    Second night of camp was Minot, N.D.. Where a nice mechanic at the Ford garage discovered my supposed broken headlight was just a disconnected plug. He took care of it for nothing but a greatful thankyou and handshake. Stayed on US 2 until Bemidji, Minnesota then headed north. Observation from Minot to here. Flat…very, very, very, flat. Next Camp was near Upper Red Lake. It was here that the weather changed. The heat and scattered thunderstorms turned into a general cold rainy front. But my short streak of bad luck changed as well.

    A farmer had found my wallet sitting on top of a gas pump. He had tried to call me at the number in the wallet but we were not getting cell coverage along the way. The gentleman got on the internet and googled my name. He did not find me but did find my son, who shares my name. Son finally got ahold of me, I called farmer and sure enough he had the missing wallet. He told me he didn’t trust the look of the folks at the gas station so didn’t leave it with them. He also didn’t trust the sheriff or state police as he has had problems with them, things dissapearing and such. So he took it home with him and then spent the time to chase me down directly. He lived about 150 miles from the gas station so it was a good thing we didn’t take the backtracking option. As we had no address where we were going I asked that he mail it to my home, which he did. So now the stress of dealing with a lost wallet was gone but we still had to deal with the credit card problem.

    Broke camp and headed north, then took the northern most route east once we hit the Rainy river. Spent a few hours at Voyageurs National Park. The nice lady there didn’t mind me grilling her on the history of the area, starting with the Ice Age. She only had to get back up once. She being in here 20’s looked a little shocked when I left with a “thank you Mam for all your time”.

    We wanted to cross over to check out Lake of the Woods but without ID we stayed along the Rainy. This is one place we have put on our possible places to return to. The weather had turned cold and rainy so the idea of canoeing the boudary waters or rainy lake system was short lived. But the area is beautiful and chocked full of the kind of history one can dive into, if that is their thing.

    From there we stayed as north as we could until we hit Lake Superior. Next camp was a few miles west of the lake. Next day travelled a little north towards Boundary Waters but turned around because everything looked the same as where we had been. So we hooked back up with US 2 at Duluth. Then skirted the northern edge of Wisconsin and left US 2 to head north into the U.P. of Michigan. Observation here was that the forests of northern Wisconsin and the U.P. are much more productive than those in Minnesota. More species as well.

    Next camp was a site next to a little lake, called Twin Lakes C.G., where we met two wonderful retired folks who had been west and knew the areas where we had lived. They had been going to move west years ago but got high centered in the U.P.. They loved it there and had long given up plans of moving west.

    Cut through the heart of the U.P. then headed south to hit I 75 just north of the Makinac Toll Bridge. As promised it was a most impressive structure. Observation here, I am constantly impressed with the ingenuity and determination of mankind to conquer barriers to his movement and progress. From the history of the fur traders to the modern settlements. It is all a testament to the courage and determination of our ancestors.

    Spent the next night at the Harbor Springs camp ground on the shores of Lake Michigan. At day break the next day I decided to take a swim in the big lake. I quickly discovered the phenomenon that Csm had mentioned near Traverse City. Soon after swimming a ways into the lake I suddently found myself aground. A large sandbar that extended about 100 yards. So I went wading until it ran out. Then waded back to where I could swim to shore. It was here that I learned about Petosky Stones as I had to ask some fella who was obviously looking for something along the shore line.

    We were now at our intended destination and spent the next three days in the Harbor Springs, Harbor View area. Got to see my daughter perform twice at the dinner theater at the big resort there. Met tons of wonderful and friendly folks. On my daughters day off we went back north and crossed to Makinac Island where we spent some time exploring. But much was spent sitting inside the Butterfly House just enjoying the exotic little critters. As a student of western history I was very taken with the fact that this was the place where the men who started the Rocky Mtn fur trade got there big start.

    Next day we drove to Traverse City to put Spousal Unit Leader on a plane, back to work she had to go. Was going to head south if Cubs were in town but they weren’t, so headed back north, crossing into the U.P. and catching U.S. 2 around the lake. At this point I have a couple hundred dollars in cash and my wife’s credit card to get home on. Sorry Peter, but that killed any chance of a fishing trip. The weather wasn’t exactly cooperating anyway. Csm, didn’t get to wade at the point in Traverse City but as I said I did experience it some in micro scale. That sand bar thing is something. I am guessing it has to do with a combination of bedrock formations and the effect of ice sheets in the winter. Maybe one of you can explain it, but I have never seen sandbars so expansive and located so randomly around a body of water that big. I saw them on the west side as I travelled west along US 2.

    Next camp was at Escanaba, Michigan. Made camp at sunset and watched an almost full moon rise above Lake Michigan, while looking almost due east to where my daughter would be just beginning to dance in another dinner show. Needless to say there was a little melancholy involved in the scene. Next day was a long one as I dead headed west, looking for gas stations that would take a credit card without a signature (wife’s). This may sound easy until you start looking for diesal pumps. Many of them don’t have card readers.

    Finally left Highway 2 for good at a little town called Norway where I picked up U.S. Hwy 8 all the way to St. Croix Falls. We crossed the St. Croix River just as an old Mississippi River paddle boat was making its way upstream to the bridge. Observation here, beautiful drive and the forests of U.P. and northern Wisconsin are very productive along with the farmland. Good folks abound. A water salesman from Norway gave us free samples when he saw the plates on the truck. Said he hoped to get west someday.

    By the way, son and I had lunch at an old Frostie (not actual name) where girls are still taking food out to cars and putting the trays on windows. We had cheeseburgers and mugs of fresh rootbeer. Memories of times gone by shared with one’s child. Too bad he couldn’t understand the connection but he sure did like that root beer.

    Passed through Twin Cities then picked up I 94 for the long haul home. Observation here, drivers around twin cities are some of the most agressive and dangerous I have ever experienced. Not as rude as places in Calif. but more dangerous. After having been around so many wonderful and engaged people it was strange watching all those Zombies driving by and cutting me off, never seeming to notice me or anything else around them. Further confirming my belief that large cities are a blight on the human mind.

    Upon reaching Fargo, N.Dakota almost ran out of gas looking for a diesal pump of anykind. They must have sign ordinances there that don’t allow stations to display their products in a way that is visible from the highway. Was planning on staying here but was so unimpressed and frustrated with the gas search that we pressed on to Jamestown, N.D. for the next camp. Rolled into camp as the sun was setting and a full moon rose over the prairie/farmland. Sunrise to sunset, a long day but could have been longer, if it were late June. Met a wonderful young family from Montreal here who had been travelling since the end of June. They had taken the northern route west and were headed home. I told them of my desire to take the Yellowhead and other routes east next time. They felt the scenery was much better on the US side of the “midwest”.

    Next day headed to Bozeman, Montana where we made our last camp. I knew I could reach home from there with only one more long day. It was still cloudy, cold and raining. So I didn’t get a good view of my beloved Rocky Mtns until the next morning. But once I did, I knew I was home. Not at my house, but home.

    The rest was uneventful except for the beauty along the way. The south/central part of Montana was as green as I have ever seen for the first of August. As I pulled into the driveway the odometer turned over at a little under 4,300 miles for the trip.

    Most pleasant surprise: The western half of N. Dakota was quite beautiful, going both east and west. The breaklands in the Roosevelt Park in S.W. N.Dakota are very impressive. It was greener here than the eastern most part of Montana, even though the areas are adjacent.

    Most impressive: The Great Lakes. Them are some really damn big lakes. The Rockies would make a great backdrop but even they would look puney next to those lakes. But it would improve the scenery a little.

    Noteworthy for the anal historian: We were tickled by finding so many of the names of places in the west in the towns and sites along the way. Montana, northern Idaho and eastern Washington were settled primarily by folks moving from Michigan, Minnesota and N. Dakota. We had always noticed the connection through family names, fair haired folks, and some accents, but it was interesting seeing the same names on little towns in N. Dakota, northern Minnesota, Wisconsin and even Michigan.

    As I had hoped by travelling east, one can actually begin to see the historical connections of this great country from one side to the other. Having been raised in the west the stories until now have been just that, stories. I now have visions of real places and a sense of how it fits together and how absolutely challenging it all was. I also have a different perspective of how those immigrants in wagons felt when they hit the prairie.

    I alway thought they said “Oh my god, look at that vast expanse of nothing”. Now I think they may have had a since of relief. After battling through the thick forests and fighting the bogs and swamps and large rivers along the way they might have said “Thank god, it looks like smooth sailing for awhile.” Either way, they were some very tough folks and their journey west is even more impressive to me, now that I have passed over some of the same lands as many of them. They stand as a testiment to what we once were.

    Final comment: I was saddened by not being able to go fishing on the great lakes or check out the big wade at Traverse City. Between the weather and wallet things changed big time. Had I not lost the wallet we may still be travelling. I had planned to head south and maybe even farther east. Then hit the upper Snake River for some fly fishing on the way home.

    The up side is that I have a very good excuse to return to see and do some of the things I missed. And next time, I will take the time to stop along the way to visit those who wish. Who knows, my daughter may be back at that dinner show next year, then I’ll have to make the trip for sure.

    And for the curious, my wallet was waiting for me when I got home. Today I am sending a thank you note and money to the farmer to cover his mailing expense, and a little extra to cover perhaps a six pack or two of cold ones.

    Best wishes to all and may the sun shine brightly on the path before you.
    JAC

    • What a fun trip – thanks for sharing!

      • Jac,

        It really says something about all the trouble a stranger went to to return your wallet. Maybe the country has more good people than bad.
        Never been up that way, the grand canyon is a must see, but is so huge, its hard to comprehend.

        Glad you are home safe & sound.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      JAC,

      Glad you got to see Norway, MI. I have relatives in that town that I have not seen in almost 30 years. You reminded me that I need to head up that way and reconnect.

      In June of 2010 (about the middle of the month) I get to head to central Minnesota with my family for my 20th college reunion. After that we plan on heading to the Badlands and Black Hills. Will be my 3rd time camping in that area, but my first with my kids. They will be 4 and 6 next summer and should love it.

      If I have enough time, I hope to make it over to Yellowstone (finally!) while I am in the neighborhood, but that may have to wait for another trip… we will see….

      • I'm learning! says:

        Just curious – where in central MN? I’ve never been to Indy. Our son has – national FFA convention last fall. He loved it and is going back again this fall.

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          I went to college in Northfield. The one with all of the smart people… not the one with all of the Iowegians 🙂

          • I'm learning! says:

            I know Northfield. My 2nd cousin went to college there. I’ve been to the school a couple of times. Nice looking campus. I grew up no more than 1 1/2 drive south and a little west of there. And still spend a lot of time with some family in Faribault. The MN/Iowa rivalry does continue on still though! Enjoy the black hills. It’s been a few years, but I love it out there too!

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

            For those of you who do not know, Northfield, MN (population about 10,000) has TWO colleges (both of which are actually quite good) and there is quite a rivalry between them (though it is generally very good-natured).

            Hence the reference to the smart people vs. the Iowegians.

      • Peter:

        I was impressed with that little town and would like to spend some more time around there as well.

        We got a kick out of the fact we travelled through Finland and Norway on the trip. But I couldn’t find Sweden anywhere.

        Make sure you keep me posted on your trip to the Black Hills. I’m thinking possible Rendevous at say a campground at Devil’s Tower. Not far from the monumnents.

        JAC

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          JAC,

          When I am in the Black Hills, I camp in Custer, SD.

          For some reason there is a magical bubble around Custer so that there are no flies, mosquitos, spiders, ants, or any other insect pests in that little area, which makes for FABULOUS camping.

          I will try to let you know when I will be headed that way… hopefully we can meet up somewhere while I am in the neighborhood.

          Check out the website for Broken Arrow campground in Custer. Last time I was there it was fifteen bucks a night for a tent-camping site, and they had a nice “clubhouse” (for lack of a better word) with indoor showers and toilets, and a great-room where all the campers would get together late in the afternoon for ice cream and cocktails (a bizzare, but interesting combination :))

    • I'm learning! says:

      JAC,

      You got to see some of the best of MN (except for the twin cities). Rainy Lake is on my list of vacations to take. My husband’s sister and her family and we are considering renting a houseboat there for a week someday. The boundary waters is great for canoeing, otherwise yes, it is just pretty much the same as what you see from Bemidji on. That part of your trip sounds like last summer’s vacation – Itasca state park, south of Bemidji, then off to Lake Vermillion – a little north of the iron range, a little south of the boundary waters (Ely). My husband & I went on a little getaway a few years ago leaving our son at summer camp about 40 miles south of Duluth and went through northern WI and the UP of Michigan and spent 3 days on Mackinac. Then we drove down to Ludington, took the car ferry across Lake MI and drove from Manitowoc, WI back to get our son at camp. That was the best trip I had since our honeymoon through SD, WY, MT and ND (which I loved Roosevelt park on that trip – been thinking of pulling the camper there to visit again someday).

      I just have to ask, the “Frostie” you ate at, was that in Taylor’s Falls? That is one of my all time favorite places to camp – Interstate State Park right on the St. Croix River. We are there at least once a year! I really don’t know if I could get used to the mountain driving in your part of the world. Never been crazy about standing next to something that just drops down elevation wise a long way. But we have a lot of God’s Country just in a few hours from my house!

      • Learning:

        The Frostie/Frost Top/or Frost something?? was on the Minnesota side of the river at St. Croix Falls. Next to a miniature golf place. As you cross the river on US 8 you turn right onto State Hwy 95 north to Almelund. Guess I didn’t see the name on the west side of the river so it may be one and the same. Big Mug of Rootbeer sign turning round and round next the road.

        We did in fact cover some of the same turf, including Ely. Which is also the name of a town in eastern central Nevada, by the way. We were surprised at the size and nature of Ely as the dot on the map was the same as other smaller towns. Reminded us a little of White Fish, MT or Jackson, WY with the western town tourist motif, if you know what I mean.

        Sounds like the makings of a Rendevous at the Roosevelt park. Keep in touch on that one. Have Gypsie Wagon will travel.

        I would say do the houseboat on Rainy Lake for sure. I am definitely going to try and get back to that part of MN and spend some quality time exploring, both sides of the line (Canada/USA).

        Would also like to return to Makinac, in the less crowded season.

        Best to You and Yours
        JAC

        • I'm learning! says:

          That would be Taylor’s Falls. My son and his cousins go mini golfing there when we are up camping.

          I have a friend that is in the Navy in Japan. He finally (in his mid-40’s) found the woman of his dreams and got married. She is Japanese. When she found out he was from MN, she was so excited because she saw a show on Voyagers and always wanted to go there. Funny thing is he didn’t know where that was. So I am thinking once he is retired and back in the Midwest, we need to do a house boat trip with them too (but for some reason after almost 25 years in the navy, he don’t have much interest in vacations involving water – go figure!)

          If you stay on Mackinac, it is very nice in the evenings. There are much fewer tourists, and the shops and tourist things stay open. We could bike around without worrying about hitting anyone! I love the Fort on Mackinac too. We stayed at a B&B almost next to it.

          Speaking of the term “Rendezvous”, do you like going to them? I have been more and more interested in attending them. We plan on going to a big one in October about 150 miles away. Right now I like talking to the people as they cook. I bought our first Dutch oven almost 2 years ago. And now own a couple and constantly cook and bake in them when I camp.

          When we went your way, we drove through the Big Horns. Had to stop in this little town of Frannie, WY, because my husband lived there for about a year after high school. Then went through Billings and back to MN through ND. It was a fun trip. I had never been that way before.

          Best Wishes to you and your family!

          • Learning:

            You should try to track down a Park Service office for the Park and have them send you some maps.

            There are many campsites within the park, on the various islands, that are only accessible by boat in the summer. So the houseboat or another large boat with camping is another option.

            You got to do it. We would of had we not been on a schedule to get to Michigan.

            They also snowmobile or x-country ski into the same camps in the winter, right over the lake/river. But that is not my cup of tea.

            Good luck and have fun with the rest of the summer.
            JAC

    • JAC, welcome back. I worked the ski season one year when I was a kid and the Rockies can steal your heart, but (as I failed miserably to convince a native that winter) the flat lands have their own beauty, and I am glad you saw it. I will look into Lake Michigan’s sandbars, I’ve never researched the geology and am pleased for the excuse to do so – I suspect glacial involvement, but I really don’t know. You didn’t say if you got a Petosky stone or not, if you didn’t, I picked up a few at the last rock show — cheap in the silent auction — I’d be happy to get one of them to you. c

      • Csm

        The Petosky stones were quite abundant just off shore. So I guess I didn’t think it was that big of deal. The fella looking did have one that was quite nice in its symetry.

        A nice lady at the campground told me that if you wade just off shore at the campground and use a kitchen strainer you can gather up dozens in minutes. You go just past the cobble along the shore where you first hit sand but before the sand bar begins. So next time your up that way you can give it a try and see if it works.

        Appreciate the offer but I have several boxes of rocks and sea shells from trips with the kids when they were young.

        I did find a piece of the coral by itself that had been rounded by the waves. Must have been dislodged from the base stone. Kept that instead of the whole stone.

        I’m curious what you come up with on those sand bars. Funny the things some of us notice.

        You and Peter were for sure right about the beauty of N. Michigan. If just it had some real mountains…LOL.

        The Best to you and yours
        JAC

    • We go shopping in Minot ND all the time. Folks there are equally relaxed as us here in Saskatchewan.

  20. Ray Hawkins says:

    Very disconcerting to hear talk of the pending collapse in commercial mortgages expected in 2010 – 2011. Where do we go from here? Sheesh!

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/12/elizabeth-warren-talks-to_n_257488.html

    • They have a name for it that involves a very hot climate and woven containers made of straw or grass.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      When Huffingtonpost finally starts discussing a problem we have been talking about here for quite a while, be VERY AFFRAID! You KNOW the problem is SO HUGE that no one can plausibly deny it any longer.

      I see that they are also bringing up the fact that the banking system has already gone back to exactly the way it was (I assume that they attribute this to their defiance of the government, even though we all know that isn’t really what went on here), and I see that they are talking about the lack of jobs in spite of the supposed recovery (which we all have been talking about for weeks as well).

      I am sure that they don’t agree with many of us on this site as to WHY all of these things are happening, but at least they finally agree with us that they ARE happening, which is at least a start I guess… 🙂

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        Peter – weird eh? But remember – it was on Scarborough’s show on MSNBC rather than Olbermann or Mathews or someone else. At least Joe has the chutzpah to have Pat B as a regular.

  21. Ray Hawkins says:

    And people were wondering when, where and how this dipshit from Alaska would show up again? This is why Healthcare reform will likely not take hold – the Palin-Zombies hear crap like this and think it is the truth: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/10/palin-backs-off-death-pan_n_255317.html

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      Yeah, she had to come off of the “death panel” claim… the bill doesn’t actually say “death panel”, it says “end of life care counseling.”

      It will be interesting to see how big of a difference there really is between one thing and the other if Obamacare passes. I am sure (at least until the cost over-runs become HUGE) that end of life care counseling will be fairly benign.

      Once the cost over-runs do become HUGE, death panel will probably be more accurate.

      I just hope that 15 years from now we aren’t all looking back and saying, “Damn, Palin was RIGHT!”

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        Well – I think death panel nonsense is nonsense. And I don’t think reform will pass.

        • Ray,

          “I think death panel nonsense is nonsense.” Today, I agree with you. Obama, Franks and the extreme left all advocate single payer, but did not try to push that at this time. It seems there are areas that are designed to be expanded upon at a later time. I will agree it was unwise for Palin to make those remarks, and I will remember them to her dis-advantage. But your “dipshit” remark costs you points as well.

          PS, Sara sent me a history on beer I posted below. Hope your day is going well.

  22. Speaking of healthcare,

    Who says working in a hospital can’t be
    fun……Actual writings from hospital charts:

    The patient refused autopsy.

    The patient has no previous history of suicides.

    Patient has left white blood cells at another
    hospital.

    She has no rigors or shaking chills, but her husband
    states she was very hot in bed last night.

    Patient has chest pain if she lies on her left side
    for over a year.

    On the second day the knee was better, and on the
    third day it disappeared.

    The patient is tearful and crying constantly. She also
    appears to be depressed.

    The patient has been depressed since she began seeing
    me in 1993.

    Discharge status: Alive but without permission

    Healthy appearing decrepit 69-year old male, mentally
    alert but forgetful.

    Patient had waffles for breakfast and anorexia for
    lunch.

    She is numb from her toes down.

    While in ER, she was examined, x-rated and sent home.

    The skin was moist and dry.

    Occasional, constant infrequent headaches.

    Patient was alert and unresponsive.

    Rectal examination revealed a normal size thyroid.

    She stated that she had been constipated for most of
    her life, until she got a divorce.

    I saw your patient today, who is still under our car
    for physical therapy.

    Both breasts are equal and reactive to light and
    accommodation.

    Examination of genitalia reveals that he is circus
    sized.

    The lab test indicated abnormal lover function.

    Skin: somewhat pale but present.

    The pelvic exam will be done later on the floor.

    Patient has two teenage children, but no other
    abnormalities.

    • A man was walking down the street when he was accosted by a particularly dirty and shabby-looking homeless man who asked him for a couple of dollars for dinner.

      The man took out his wallet, extracted ten dollars and asked, “If I give you this money, will you buy some beer with it instead of dinner?”

      “No, I had to stop drinking years ago,” the homeless man replied.

      “Will you use it to go fishing instead of buying food?” the man asked.

      “No, I don’t waste time fishing,” the homeless man said. “I need to spend all my time trying to stay alive.”

      “Will you spend this on greens fees at a golf course instead of food?” the man asked.

      “Are you NUTS!” replied the homeless man. “I haven’t played golf in 20 years!”

      “Will you spend the money on a woman in the red light district? instead of food?” the man asked.

      “What disease would I get for ten lousy bucks?” exclaimed the homeless man.

      “Well,” said the man, “I’m not going to give you the money. Instead, I’m going to take you home for a terrific dinner cooked by my wife.”

      The homeless man was astounded. “Won’t your wife be furious with you for doing that? I know I’m dirty, and I probably smell pretty disgusting.”

      The man replied, “That’s okay. It’s important for her to see what a man looks like after he has given up beer, fishing, golf, and sex.”

      • Hi LOI

        I see you’re at it again with the jokes. I love the ones with the patients charts. Thanks for the laugh, I’ve been a little crabby today, that helped.

        Judy

    • LOI

      “Rectal examination revealed a normal size thyroid.”

      Only the “long arm of the law” could accomplish such a feat.

      See, Govt health care will work.

      OTFLMAO
      Those were goodn’s
      JAC

    • Beer/Wheel

      Humans existed as members of small bands of nomadic hunter/gatherers. They lived on deer in the mountains during the summer & would go to the coast and live on fish and lobster in winter.

      The two most important events in all of history were the invention of beer and the invention of the wheel. The wheel was invented to get man to the beer. These were the foundation of modern civilization and together were the catalyst for the splitting of humanity into two distinct subgroups: Liberals and Conservatives.

      Once beer was discovered it required grain and that was the beginning of agriculture. Neither the glass bottle nor aluminum can were invented yet, so while our early human ancestors were sitting around waiting for them to be invented, they just stayed close to the brewery. That’s how villages were formed.

      Some men spent their days tracking and killing animals to BBQ at night while they were drinking beer. This was the beginning of what is known as the “Conservative movement.”

      Other men who were weaker and less skilled at hunting learned to live off the conservatives by showing up for the nightly BBQs and doing the sewing, fetching and hair dressing. This was the beginning of “the Liberal movement”. Some of these liberal men eventually evolved into women. The rest became known as ‘girliemen.’

      Some noteworthy liberal achievements include the domestication of cats, the invention of group therapy and group hugs, and the concept of Democratic voting to decide how to divide the meat and beer that conservatives provided.

      Over the years conservatives came to be symbolized by the largest, most powerful land animal on earth, the elephant. Liberals are symbolized by the jackass.

      Modern liberals like imported beer (with lime added), but most prefer white wine or imported bottled water. They eat raw fish but like their beef well done. Sushi, tofu, and French food are standard liberal fare.

      Another interesting evolutionary side note: most of their women have higher testosterone levels than their men. Most social workers, personal injury attorneys, journalists, dreamers in Hollywood and group therapists are liberals. Liberals invented the designated hitter rule because it wasn’t “fair” to make the pitcher also bat.

      Conservatives drink domestic beer. They eat red meat and still provide for their women. Conservatives are big-game hunters, rodeo cowboys, lumberjacks, construction workers, firemen, medical doctors, police officers, corporate executives, Marines, athletes and generally anyone who works productively. Conservatives who own companies hire other conservatives who want to work for a living.

      Liberals produce little or nothing. They like to “govern” the producers and decide what to do with their production. Liberals believe Europeans are more enlightened than Americans. That is why most of the liberals remained in Europe when conservatives were coming to America. They crept in after the Wild West was tame and created a business of trying to get MORE for nothing.

      Here ends today’s lesson in world history. It should be noted that a Liberal may have a momentary urge to respond to the above, before simply giggling and forwarding it. A Conservative will be so convinced of the absolute truth of this history that it will be forwarded immediately to other “true believers.”

    • OMG – healthcare reform needed????

  23. Black Flag says:

    TexasChem

    Who taught you what is right?

    How do you know that your actions would be deemed right in society?

    Initially, my parents.

    Finally, myself.

    I do not measure my actions by what society may or may not believe.

    As I’ve said, so much of the paradigm of society is contradictory and is evil. I therefore would never use agreement by society as a measure of any ‘good’.

    I KNOW I am right because my action is consistent with my core belief.

    The only evil that can exist is an action that contradicts the Universe. If my core belief is in alignment with the Universe, and if I remain consistent with that belief, I am right. If I act contradictory to my core, I am wrong.

    I do not measure my right or wrong by the outcome!

    Many times, acting in evil can create success. Often, acting in good leads to one’s death and destruction.

    However, over the generations of humanity, acts of evil tends to have massive outcomes of disaster, and acts of good tends to have massive outcomes of success and prosperity.

    Therefore, regardless of concern of outcome, one must act immutably in alignment to one’s core beliefs – regardless of the threat of failure or the promise of success.

    Concerned in Michigan

    I agree with your analysis. Self preservation is very motivating. And if someone believes they have nothing to live for, what motive do they have to avoid killing/murder?

    None.

    But that exists in the current paradigm, too. We read weekly of some insane person slaughtering people and then himself.

    No society can prevent insanity.

    The best we can do in society is not legitimize insanity, especially if it calls itself “government”.

    As Eckhart Tolle stated, “If government was diagnosed like a real person, the United States government would be declared pathologically criminally insane.”

  24. I have a question….please tell me I am reading this wrong. Several years ago the Feds passed a portability act for health insurance and in it was that if you had a pre-exsisting condition and had insurance then there could be no waiting period for exsisting conditions coverage.
    Well under the “new” healthcare plan it reads like I can go without coverage for 20 years then when I am diagnosed with cancer I can go get a health policy and they have to cover me 100%. Is this correct????
    My thinking is…lets not insure our homes…when they catch fire call the insurance people and tell them we want coverage because our house is on fire. How can an insurance company make money? They would go broke asap because people won’t buy insurance until they are sick. Please tell me I am missing something here.

    • Black Flag says:

      You are missing nothing.

      Socialist Health Care will implode into an expensive system of no care.

  25. Black Flag says:

    “For the 2006 elections, the Department of Defense launched a Web-based voting system for overseas military personnel and American expatriates. The system cost more than $830,000; 63 people used it to vote.”

    ~ Discover Magazine, November 2006, “20 Things You Didn’t Know About … Elections”

    Without a means to measure economic value (profit/loss), government can never know if a service has value or not.

  26. Hello everybody

    Pulled this off of a site called onenewsnow.com. Don’t know if anybody saw this, thought I’d put it up.

    _________________________________________________________________
    A Republican-oriented political action committee says if ObamaCare can be defeated, the rest of President Barack Obama’s radical agenda can also be derailed.

    During the August recess, Democratic lawmakers have found themselves in the unusual position of seeing their efforts to push the Obama healthcare agenda challenged by ordinary citizens, whom they have described as “angry mobs.” In addition, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-California) accused town hall protestors of “carrying swastikas” and being “un-American” in the way they are voicing their opposition.

    Republicans have seized on the protests as evidence of a lack of public support for President Barack Obama’s healthcare overhaul. Scott Wheeler, executive director of The National Republican Trust Political Action Committee, says ObamaCare is definitely in trouble.

    Scott Wheeler (NRTPAC)”He is in trouble. The fact that they could not push it through [before the August recess] — if we derail his agenda on this healthcare bill, it will be a great success for the American people, and it will also put him in a very bad position to get more of his big-government agenda through,” he believes. “And so this is the best way we can slow down this outrageous socialist agenda.”

    According to Wheeler, polls show significant majorities are now afraid of Obama’s healthcare agenda.

  27. Here is another article I found about Obama’s health care plan.

    _________________________________________________________________

    It’s socialized medicine vs. the private sector. How does the former match-up to the latter? Well, by way of an ill-advised postal services analogy, our inspired physician-in-chief has gaffed upon the answer: “UPS and FedEx are doing just fine,” he observed, “It’s the post office that’s always having problems.”

    Priceless – From the mouths of libs…

    Speaking of “Federal Express:” Was there ever any doubt as to why the left’s government takeover of healthcare absolutely, positively had to be there overnight? Dr. Obama, Nurse Nancy and the rest of the congressional candy-stripers recognized that if Americans had a chance to actually vet this medical monstrosity, they’d rise-up against it.

    Oops. We have — and we have.

    But despite a nose-dive in support, the Democratic Party’s ObamaCare Kamikazes refuse to pull-up. Instead, they’re unloading both barrels, hell-bent on sinking the U.S.S. Free Market and taking our liberties, quality of care, and American exceptionalism down with it.

    Pelosi has disgracefully implied that town-hall goers who question this radical experiment in socialized medicine are Nazis. And in an August 10 USA Today op-ed, she and Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD) shamelessly labeled those same heartland patriots – many of whom are senior citizens – as “un-American.”

    But what is “un-American” is this socialist piece of Euro-trash being peddled as “healthcare reform.” This is not the “hope and change” America envisioned while punching Obama’s chad last November. He and liberals in Congress have betrayed their nation’s trust.

    At nearly 1,100 pages, even the president admits he hasn’t read H.R. 3200 – the House version of the bill – and supporters like Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) have ridiculed the very idea that anyone would.

    Well, some of us are reading it – silly as we may be.

    Liberty Counsel’s Washington, DC, staff has compiled a comprehensive bullet-point summary of the bill. It’s gone viral and Americans are arming themselves with the information it provides. They’re taking it to town-hall meetings around the country and are respectfully, but firmly holding their representatives’ feet to the fire.

    “What Americans Need to Know About the Healthcare Takeover” provides a link to both an overview of H.R. 3200 and the full text of the bill so that people can verify for themselves the overview’s accuracy. This is democracy in action and it’s making the left mouth-foaming furious.

    ObamaCare is fatally flawed on numerous levels, but, for now, let’s focus on just a few:

    First, despite ludicrous denials by both an increasingly partisan AARP and a “snitch on your comrade” White House, pages 424, 425, and 426 of the plan do, in fact, mandate compulsory government “end-of-life” consultations for seniors who have “not had such a consultation within the last 5 years.”

    According to the bill, these consultations “shall include…an explanation by the practitioner of the continuum of end-of-life services and supports available, including palliative care and hospice.” (Or, as President Kevorkian put it, instruct you that: “Maybe you’re better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller.”)

    Again, these are mandatory consultations. The word “shall” is a legal term of art that means – for lack of a better word – “shall.” Notwithstanding White House and AARP claims to the contrary, “shall” does not mean “may,” “can” or “have the option to.”

    So, in the interest of candor and for the sake of clarity, let’s call ObamaCare’s mandatory “end-of-life counseling” what it truly is: “End-your-life” counseling. Better yet, let’s call it the “Useless-Eaters-Get-Out-of-the-Way-and-Just-Die-Already” provision.

    Next, we have Sec. 163, pages 58–60, which – whether you like it or not – grants federal bureaucrats full access to both your private medical records and personal bank account for automatic fund withdrawals. You read that right…

    Here’s how it works: In order to “standardize electronic administrative transactions,” the government issues you a handy-dandy “machine-readable health plan beneficiary identification card” to “enable electronic funds transfers” from your private bank account.

    But lest you worry about having to deal with any of those pesky “choices” or confusing “decisions,” Uncle Sam promises to “be authoritative, permitting no additions or constraints for electronic transactions.”

    Got that? Our “authoritative” federal government will not permit you to place any “constraints” on its access to your bank account. (Yea! Big Brother’s got your back! How could anyone be opposed this kind of government coddling? One question, though: Will Uncle Sam pick-up our “non-sufficient funds” fees?)

    And then there’s the “Health Benefits Advisory Committee.” This lovely government-appointed panel of bureaucrats is to consist of “medical and other experts” who get to “recommend covered benefits.”

    Other experts? What in the Rahm Emanuel is that supposed to mean?

    Grandma neither wants – nor can she survive – a liberal Democrat-appointed, “one-size-fits-all” panel of distinguished experts in the field of “other” deciding what medical services she will or will not be allowed to receive. We’re not numbers on a page, Mr. President. We’re people.

    But this brings us back to the aforementioned threat of “standardization.” As with every socialist nation that has adopted its own version of ObamaCare, standardized, universal healthcare, is – and always will be – an abysmal “healthcare rationing” failure. It’s no longer you and your doctor deciding what’s best for you and your family; it’s Big Brother.

    Keep in mind; we’ve only covered three provisions here. H.R. 3200 is nearly 1,100 pages of wonderfully ambiguous little nuggets just like these, which grant the government unlimited loopholes to do whatever it pleases with your life and well-being.

    Where’s my America?

  28. And yet another one.

    ________________________________________________________________

    Healthcare reform – no place for racial quotas
    Jim Brown – OneNewsNow – 8/12/2009 8:50:00 AMBookmark and Share

    medical icon stethoscopeA former attorney with the Justice Department says the House healthcare bill pushes hospitals, medical schools, and other recipients of federal dollars to meet racial and ethnic quotas.

    The Washington Times reported this week that four members of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights want President Obama and Congress to rewrite some “little-noticed” provisions of the healthcare bill that factor in race when awarding billions of dollars in contracts, scholarships, and grants. In its letter outlining the request, the Commission quotes a Harvard medical researcher who said the notion that bridging the health status gap by expanding the number of minority physicians and providing culture-related training is “grounded in hope more than science.”

    Concurring with that stance is Roger Clegg, president and general counsel of the Center for Equal Opportunity. He says it is ridiculous — and unconstitutional — for medical schools and hospitals to weigh skin color or ethnic background when admitting students or hiring doctors.

    Roger Clegg”Of all the professions where people are least likely to care about the person’s skin color and are most likely to want simply the best-qualified person working on them, it would have to be healthcare — it would have to be doctors and nurses,” says Clegg.

    The Center spokesman contends that few people are concerned about the “color” of their doctor. “If he’s about to cut you open, we just want to make sure that he’s got the best training possible and he’s the best-qualified person possible,” he offers.

    Clegg argues most Americans believe society has “long since reached the point where we ought to be putting race and ethnicity behind us and just hiring the most qualified people.” Clegg says the racial preference provisions in the healthcare bill are just another example of the politically correct, left-wing ideology promoted in the entire bill.

    • Medical school already weigh skin color and ethnic background when admitting students. It’s hard to imagine that they could make it more unfair than it already is.

      • Hi Jennie

        Hey a while back you said your husband was doing 5 years in specialty for medical school, and I happen to tell my son who is in pre-med right now, anyway, he wanted to know what kind of specialty takes 5 years to do. He was curious, and I haven’t seen you here for awhile, and since I saw you, I thought I would ask, and pass it along to my son.

        Thanks
        Judy

        • It’s actually a six year residency. He’s doing plastic and reconstructive surgery.

          • WOW! My son is seriously thinking of going in ER when he gets through. He was thinking of going into pediatrics, but he said he didn,t think he could handle if anything happened to babies and little kids, he’s quite partial to kids, just loves them.

            Then he was thinking of going into just GP, but that didn’t thrill him too much either. His first thought was to go into Cardiology, but he changed his mind on that. So n ow, he’s pretty sure he wants to go into ER work. Like he said, you deal with everything.

            He has a cousin who is a doctor, and he told my son that he would change his mind at least 20 different times, and he was right. His cousin also works in the ER, and he said he’s seen so much stuff, your head would be spin, but he loves it.

            Thank you for answering, and I will pass that along to my son.

            Judy

  29. Black Flag says:

    http://alleyinsider.psmessage.com/newsletter/4/anaglm9Vy7wt7bV9coV4342jdVtrqVyo1sf

    (Hope you guys can see this graph)

    Home Prices Collapsing Even Faster

    • And they say the recession is over, what a laugh. We couldn’t sell our house if our lives depended on it. I take that back, only if we sell it for half of it’s worth.

      • Black Flag says:

        Hold on to it if you can, as long as you do not have variable mortgage.

        If your mortgage is fixed rate for a term at least 10 years, you can be assured that inflation will pay off your debt.

        • We had a variable one, but now it’s at a fixed rate, but I can’t remember at what percent it’s at. Oh!, we don’t plan on going anywhere just yet, we’ll probably be here for at least another 10 years or so. We’ve been here for 19 so far. We had our house payment lowered last month, so that helps anyway. Hey $300 is $300, right.

          • Black Flag says:

            It means this:

            Over 30 yr. amortization, you saved yourself $126,634

            That is not chump change! That’s almost another house for cash!

            Nice going!

            • Alrighty, Let me tell you how much we paid for our house 19 years ago. We paid $122,000.00 for it, paid cash because of what we got for our house in Burbank.

              We had no house payments, thenn the deals came in from Jim’s older brother. We refinanced our house, bought into a building which is where the lab that we work at is. We also had an ownership in his twins analysis business. Okay, things were going pretty good for awhile, then after awhile, we refinanced our house again because we needed to make some repairs.

              Long story short BF, we refinanced several times after that because of personal problems, not between us, but between his brothers and a bunch of other crap that went along with it.

              Jim and and twin got into an argument, he quit working for his brother for almost a year, his brother bought out his share of the business, and the lab. He didn’t want anything to do with them for awhile. Things were going alright, but then we hit some really bad times. His brother begged him to come back, he did, but he stipulations on the deal. Things are fine now, Jim is the VP of operations and things are really going good for the lab. Heck, it makes about $300,000 to about $500,000 a year, so were not hurting for money, yet.

              So we thought we would try and sell our house a few years ago, no bites. Okay, we waited for a bit, then put it back up on the market. No bites. We decided to just chuck the whole idea of selling, and decided to stay here. Last year our house was worth $350,000, now it’s worth is $168,000. That’s one of the reasons why we’re staying here for now. If, and when the market goes back up, we might consider trying again to sell. We want to downsize because we don’t need the size of house we have now. It’s just me, Jim and my mom that lives here. Our boys don’t live here anymore, and it’s a lot of upkeep we don’t need or want anymore.

              We’re hoping that maybe next year, we can find something else. Don’t want no condo, we want a smaller place where we can relax in our old age.

              I think I told you before about how we were going to sell our house and got shafted by the bank we were going though. Anyway, that took a toll on us and put us behind in things

              • Hey, where did the rest of my comment go? Great, now I can’t remember everything I said to you BF, somehow it got cut off, I wasn’t done yet.

              • Black Flag says:

                Well, don’t be afraid to think out of the box.

                Perhaps a family might want to trade houses or condos….

                …but, anyway, it seems you have a good head on your shoulder, so I don’t think you have to worry – batten down the hatches and ride out the storm.

              • Plan on doing just that. And thanks for the compliment BF.

  30. Black Flag says:

    Thoughtful Quote:

    Everyone likes to say Hitler did this” and “Hitler did that”. But the truth is Hitler did very little.

    The evil actually done, from the death camps to WW2 was all done by citizens who were afraid to question if what they were told by their government was the truth or not, and who because they did not want to admit to themselves that they were afraid to question the government, refused to see the truth behind the Reichstag Fire, refused to see the invasion by Poland was a staged fake, and followed Hitler into national disaster.

  31. Black Flag says:
    • Nice car BF. That will sell for about the same price as that new Chevy Volt that’s suppose to come out 2011, and if I understand, the price tag on that will be about $40,000. That’s suppose to get something like 200 miles to the gallon if I’m not mistaken.

      • They’re already using bogus math for the Volt’s mileage figures. Its over a 50 mile round trip of which 40 miles is done on battery which is indeed its all electric range. While the actuality of the generator’s output in powering the big armature has yet to be released, I’m doubtful its any better than 10 miles per gallon. That makes a Volt useless save for neighborhood jaunts.

        The Chinese have had a 200KM (120mile) mini cab which is in fact all electric since 2007. Their lithium ion tech and industrial park is incredibly well developed. Just ask the Japanese.

    • My first car was electric.

      • Hi Kent

        What kind was that?

        • Sebring-Vangard Citicar. If this works, here is a picture of me standing beside it.

          • It worked, but I have to say, I’m sorry Kent, but that is one of the ugliest cars next to the smart car I’ve seen. How old were you there?

            • Yep. Ugly, but fun. I used it like a jeep, and drove it through the woods. No clearance at all, but I just drove around rocks and stumps. BUT it also taught me that electric cars are gonna hafta be a LOT better before people are gonna put up with them. I was 16 or 17 in that picture.

              • What do you think about those smart cars? My brother in law has one, and he thinks it’s the greatest thing since sliced bread.

                He’s a big guy, but there is room for him and only one other person that can fit in it. Not much room for safety there if you ask me. No back en what so ever for groceries or anything. he has to put the passenger seat down, just to fit anything larger than a grocery bag in. I wouldn’t have one of them. I like to have car around me, especially since I was hit a couple months ago on the passenger side. Creamed the whole right side of my car and I have a 1995 Chevy Lumina. Good running car for me.

              • BTW, if I don’t answer for a while, it’s because I’m talking with my sister on the phone. Haven’t talked with her for a few days. Just thought I’d let you know.

              • I’ll answer below

  32. Hey BF, when you read my statement above and it doesn’t make sense to you, I’m sorry, but for some reason, it got all twisted up, but I hope you’ll get the gist of it.

    Judy

  33. Judy S.- I wouldn’t want a smart car. I wear pants with a 40″ inseam and I need leg room. Also, cars that are very low to the ground are terrible for me to get in and out of. It would be easier to just sit on the ground, so I wouldn’t need to maneuver around the steering wheel and seat. And I always wear a hat and I insist on head (hat?) room, too. I haven’t sat in one, but looking at the pics, I don’t think one would suit my needs very well. I see several putting around this area, though.

    • Black Flag says:

      MPG is a weird measure for a electric car – so, if you really see how they figured it out for the Volt, it is a measure of fuel used in the first 40 miles – which is all on electric, then after that it drops significantly since you’re now using gas.

      The price point is way too high – it simply doesn’t pay to buy an electric/hybrid today. Batteries are a problem – they don’t do well when its too hot or too cold. They don’t like to be heavy drained, or recharged 1,000 times. And they are brutally expensive and hard on the environment to make.

      BUT – electric is the way to go one day….

      The Tesla would be only my ‘play car’ – a $100,000 sports car that is just cool. I would buy it simply ’cause its unique.

      • Alert in Michigan says:

        It would be quite a car.

        I wonder how we’d buckle four government-mandated child car seats into it?

      • When I went to the DMV to “register” MY electric car (a disgusting concept, but that’s another issue) the pinhead behind the counter kept asking how many cylinders it had and I kept saying “None, it is electric”. That wasn’t an option. She wouldn’t drop it. Then she kept asking “diesel or gasoline?” and I kept explaining “Neither, it is electric”. My pink slip ended up saying it was fueled by “gas” and had X number of cylinders (I can’t remember how many they typed in). I used to show that to people to show how idiotic government employees are. And that was before I was very anarchistic.

        • That’s the DMV for you. My ex-daughter in law works for the DMV, and I told her how the people that work there don’t seem to understand English too well. And it was English speaking people that worked there.

    • Black Flag says:

      AND in buying a car – you have to remember….

      #1 cause of death – doctors. Stay away from doctors.
      #2 cause of death – cars.

      If you know my history, you also know why I bought my current car for my wife and child.

      It is one of the heaviest cars on the road (4500lbs), has a full roll cage, airbags in the doors, side windows and front, and crush-crumble zones in all four quadrants.

      It has 5 shock-absorbers per wheel, computer controlled acceleration and braking, and dual disk brakes per wheel.

      It’s top speed is 162mph, though the fastest I’ve gotten up to was 158 (indicated).

      It will survive almost any crash with anything less then a train or semi-trailer.

      • I love all this hype on their new cars and the govt goin to make us buy em.

        40 miles leaves me just 5 miles short of the next town. Then who am I going to beg an electric charge from when I get there?

        And what about the next 125 miles to the next town which is my actual destination. When I arrive I must ask my dear friend to allow me to hook up to his outlets. Wonder how much it will cost him to have me come for a day to fish?

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        BF,

        I survived a head-on crash with a semi in snowy weather on US40 near Hayden CO a few years ago. Was driving a standard 2003 Dodge Durango. Me and the semi were both going about 35-40mph when we hit.

        The paramedics said the smartest thing I could have done was to hit the semi head on… all my safety features worked as intended. I broke my left leg immediately below the knee because it hit the dashboard right where the on/off switch for the headlights was, and I broke my right foot because it got wedged between the brake and accelerator pedals at a funny angle and broke 3 of the bones in the foot. If it weren’t for the bad placement of the headlight switch and the bad luck of my foot slipping off the brake on impact and wedging itself beween the pedals I could have walked away from the accident. As it was, I ended up in a wheelchair for 8 weeks, since I couldn’t put weight on the right foot OR the left leg. Gives one a new appreciation for being able to stand and walk, that is for sure!

        Everyone always asks me how I had the foresight to hit the semi head-on, and I just tell them, “Well, the last thing to go through my mind as I was sliding on the snowy/icy mountain road was ‘do I try to swerve to the right and probably hit the mountain, do I try to swerve left and probably go over the cliff, or do I try my damndest to hit that semi dead-on?'” I knew that hitting the mountain or going over the cliff were bad options, and I knew that getting hit by the semi at ANY kind of an angle was going to be disasterous, so by God I AIMED RIGHT FOR HIM!

        I am sure the driver of the semi was totally freaked out 🙂

    • That made me laugh when you said you might as well sit on the ground. You must be pretty tall then in order to have a 40 inch inseam, what about 6″4″ or there about’s? I see quite a bit of those cars around here in Reno too. You couldn’t pay enough to have one of those death traps. Don’t waste your time looking at them, they’re nothing if you ask me. Who would want to drive a half a car anyway.

      My husband had a 99 corvett until he hit a wet spot on the freeway and hydroplaned into a wall about a month and a half ago. Yea, we like to wreck our cars a lot,LOL. He’s out looking for another one, but can’t find one that he really likes. Hey, he’s 62, has a pony tail, and no teeth, except for false ones. He’s an old Vietnam vet , and always wanted a vet. Had it for 3 years until that happened. Totally smashed up the back end.

      I’m keeping my car for as long as I can. Had the right side pretty much fixed up, and all I want to do now is get a fresh coat of paint. It’s a kind of dark blue, but I want it darker. Hey, as long as it runs and gets me back and forth to work and around town, that’s all I need really. I don’t need a new one, at least not right now.

      • I’m about 6’3″. My torso isn’t as long as my legs. My daughter had a Saturn that I had to fold myself into some bizarre origami shape in order to get into it. Someone darted out of a parking lot and made getting a different car necessary about a year ago. Her newer car is only slightly better.

        • Oh, that’s funny, I can just picture you getting all twisted up just to get into a car.

        • I had to give up my dream of being an astronaut because in the early 70’s you had to be under 6 feet to hook a ride to space.

          I think those old NASA engineers went to work for the auto industry because the only thing I can comfortably sit in is a pickup truck or suburban, which is of course just a fancier truck.

          Kent, your the opposite of one of my best friends. We are exactly the same height but I have a 36″ inseam and he has a 30″ inseam. He can’t buy shirts that stay tucked in but the man has balance one can only dream of. Hate flyfishing with him because he can just scoot along while I am always catching myself to keep from falling in.

          • So, you’re saying I can blame my extraordinary klutziness on my long legs? That’s good to know.

            I have a ’95 Chevy Blazer that is pretty comfy for me, but at 216,000+ miles, and me as an owner, its days are numbered and I’m not sure what I’ll end up with next. I bought it new back when I could afford to do such things.

            • Kent, I had a 92 blazer that had @265k miles when it finally died. I sold it for scrap and got enough to replace the desktop without taking it out of the house’s cash. That chevy has a few more miles on it and might give you a prize at the end 😉 c

            • Higher center of gravity. The legs are complicet in the crime but center of gravity is the real culprit.

              Adding mass to the legs will help greatly. But then one goes through pants much more often (wear out the inseams).

              There is a hidden cost to all benefits.

              Hope all is well with you today.
              JAC

  34. Alert in Michigan says:

    I have read a few things recently on secession and have questions. If the U.S.A. was to split up somehow into nation-states or whatever, who would be responsible for the debt we now hold? What happened when the U.S.S.R. split up?

  35. Well guys, I’m calling it a night. BF and Kent and Alert, as always,it’s been a pleasure.

    Have a good night all.

    Pleasant dreams.

    Judy

  36. Black Flag says:

    Alex

    RE: USSR breakup

    It was/is still being figured out. Russia took most of it, but also demanded all the weapons systems and nukes. Ukraine held on to some nukes and a lot of infrastructure, and I believe is on a “payment plan”.

    But good question – I’ll try to find some real details.

  37. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    There seems to be a great deal of confusion on the part of some people as to exactly what anarchy is. There are essentially 2 forms of anarchy.

    In one form, a person says, “I am going to do what I want to do when I want to do it because I want to do it and to hell with everyone else!”

    This is a child’s anarchy. It usually persists even to the age of about 25-30 for most people. For some people, it persists for their entire life.

    This is why so many people equate anarchy with “lawlessness”. The child-anarchist doesn’t give a damn about who he hurts in the process of getting what he wants, he just does what he feels he must in order to get what he wants.

    The second form is SOMEWHAT similar to the first, with a very important difference. In the second form, a person says, “I am going to do what I want to do when I want to do it because I want to do it, but ONLY IF my actions do not negatively effect (impose upon to use BF’s words)another.” This is the adult version. There is no need for any laws other than the important ones (i.e. the natural ones).

    In any society, you are going to have people that never grow up enough to get beyond version 1. However, a society of people living under version 2 has plenty of ways of dealing with the people that never get beyond version 1 without the need for an over-arching governmental authority.

    As a lot of us have pointed out, bad people are going to exist regardless of the structure of society. Is the mere existence of bad people sufficient reason to allow the existence of a bad form of societal organization that treats everyone like children and/or bad people?

    Many of you are still convinced that it is necessary for everyone to be treated like a child or a bad person in order to control the people that are actually behaving like children or bad people, but I think that slowly more people are realizing that freedom may indeed be a better path.

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      I think you are over-simplifying Anarchism – I was always taught it hedged at least partially on varying degrees of individualism – as BF answered me earlier – in his view an anarchist does believe in notions of private property ownership – others see it as yet another way for control to be exerted over the person (in order for property to be private someone must define it as so) – this is why I often think of pure anarchism as more approaching pure communism (small ‘c’ not big “C”). 🙂

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        Ray,

        I suppose in its “purest” form it would resemble so-called “small-c” communism. Libertarians tend to approve of private property ownership and ownership of wealth because property ownership is a right. I am sure that we could have a very interesting discussion on how it is possible to own property without violating the rights of others, but it can be done.

        As to “varying degrees of individualism” I am not quite sure what you are getting at. We are all unique and distinct individuals, there can be no “varying degrees”.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        I find “over-simplification” to be a bizzare phrase.

        Most people seem willing to admit that the simplest answer is quite often the correct answer, yet most people seem to indicate a strong preference for complication by accusing others of “over-simplification”

        🙂

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          Peter – I am just acknowledging that of the 25 or so self-proclaimed anarchists I have run into / engaged none seem to have the same views on a majority of issues – which perhaps speaks to why it isn’t a unified effort (pun intended – can an anarchist movement really be organized and still be anarchist?).

          • You need to remember that nihilists who only wish to destroy frequently call themselves “anarchists”. This would be like me calling myself an ostrich because I walk on two legs. Just because they say it doesn’t make it true. They don’t usually have any philosophical objection to “rulers”; they just want their own rulers, usually some form of socialist, in power. They also have more of an objection to “rules” of any sort, whereas anarchists realize that rules are not the problem.

            • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

              Kent,

              I disagree slightly. Rules are not necessarily the problem, but rules can be the problem if they are arbitrary, capricious, and encourage the imposition of one man over another.

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

            See my follow-up to Black Flag #42.

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

            Ray,

            Pick any random 25 people that you run into/engage and see if they all agree on a majority of issues regardless of the label they put on themselves (or allow to be put on them).

            What you will find is that 25 people that label themselves as democrats will probably agree on a majority of issues, and if you try to label yourself a democrat but then insist on disagreeing with those 25 on a majority of issues, they will get mad at you.

            Try the same thing with people that label themselves as republicans and you will get the same results.

            Try the same thing with 25 socialists, and you will get the same results.

            Try the same thing with 25 REAL anarchists, and they won’t have any problem with you disagreeing with them and still labelling yourself as an anarchist as long as your views do not support imposition on others through illegitimate rules.

            If you disagree with someone on an issue and their first reaction is anger, it is generally because they have accepted “dogma” and are convinced of their belief regardless of what facts you present them with. This is why I personally believe that AGW has become a religion. If someone truly believes in AGW, regardless of how many facts you present them with to the contrary, all they will do is get angry with you or call you names. They will not attempt to discuss the issue with you rationally, because in their mind, your attempted refutation of their position using factual evidence is blasphemous.

  38. Black Flag says:

    PapaDawg

    Mr. Black Flag, you have a paradoxical conflict here. You state; “I discarded all religious dogma in its entirety”

    Then, you state; “if a religious dogma happened to be consistent with my spirituality, then it was ‘ok’”

    Which will it be?

    You either belive in religious dogma or you do not.

    Ah, Papa – please note the change of your wording replacing mine.

    I said “consistent with my spirituality” where you changed it to be “believe in dogma”.

    They are wholly two unique concepts.

    I have not begun to ‘believe’ anything – if you believe in holy ghosts and God, and I know ‘God’ exists (since I can prove it), I do not need to ‘believe’ in your dogma to share your belief in God.

    You happened into the theory of God by accident, whereas I proved it – but whether you got there by design or accident, you’re still standing on the “God” thing beside me. I don’t need to hold onto the dogma of holy ghosts.

    Religion is commonly referred to as “Faith”. The reason for that is simply because you must have faith that your chosen religion is the correct one and has the correct interpretations within its writings. I have heard that a man without religion is a man without faith. Would that be you?

    “Faith” is the territory that those who cannot reason retreat to.

    The Universe is wholly consistent.

    Therefore, the Universe is 100% reasoned. There is not one thing in reality that cannot be proven within the Universe.

    While we may not understand all things of the Universe, we know 100% that the things we do understand can be proven.

    If there are mysteries, it is merely the occurrence that we have not yet understood them. Mystery is not an appearance of ‘faith’.

    I know God exists, because I can prove it.

    It would be bizarre, actually, to not be able to prove the existence of God. If God created the Universe, and made all things provable, why in the heck would He make himself contradict the essence of his own creation, the Universe, by making himself unprovable?

    God is infinitely and perfectly reasoned. Thus, such an unreasonable situation simply could not exist.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      BF,

      Would it be accurate to say that in your view the universe essentially IS law, because it is reasoned, ordered, and proveable?

      If that is the case, then would you also say that those in favor of laws which are not natural laws but are instead arbitraty laws most likely would support the view that the universe is chaos and that they somehow have the magical ability to create order from this chaos by the power of their own (obviously considerable) will?

      I myself would rather support the position that even though I do not understand everything in the universe, it is at least POSSIBLE TO BE UNDERSTOOD because it is reasoned, ordered, and proveable. To believe that the universe is chaos naturally leads one to want to “follow” someone who seems to have more knowledge of the universe. However, if the universe is truly chaos, it is not logically possible for one person to possess more knowledge of it than another.

  39. Black Flag says:

    PeterB in Indianapolis

    Wow~!

    Every accident I’ve had as a driver has never been my fault – 100% fault to the other drivers – because in every incident, I’ve been stopped!

    1) Stopped at a light behind a semi, and he decided to back up for reasons unknown. While I was leaning on my horn, the trailer rolled up over my car right up to the front edge of my windshield, crushing the vehicle. He finally noticed the trailer was tilting badly and stopped. My beautiful sports car – Mazda RX-7, Special Edition, Black (of course), with my after-market add-ons of twin turbo-chargers, and high performance necessities – crushed to death!

    2) Stopped at a highway construction. Driver of truck behind was busy talking to his passenger and rammed me at full speed. My beautiful luxury Chrysler collapsed with the rear bumper ending up 12 ins. from the back of my head. Not a scratch on me, though.

    3) Stopped at a red light. An elderly man was (again) talking to his passenger and at the last second saw the red light. His lane was clear, but he wouldn’t be able to stop in time before entering the intersection so he swerved into my car. My beautiful Dodge Magnum got creamed in the right-back quarter panel. I traded that one in and bought another. He made the right choice after making a big mistake – he probably would have killed someone otherwise….

  40. Black Flag says:

    PeterB in Indianapolis

    A man without religion is not necessarily a man without faith. Religions are man-made structures. Not a single one of them is actually “right”, for no man can completely comprehend the mind of God, assuming the existence of such an entity. Most religions, like governments, are an attempt to control people. However, it is perfectly possible to have faith, even if you do not espouse any particular religion.

    Religion is institutionalized spirituality.

    Like institutionalized freedom -limited government- (and almost all institutions), the purpose is overt control over the freedom and/or minds of the people. It is a centralization of power.

    Institutions create ‘group think’ – and promote a belief that individuals no longer matter and that the institution, itself, is primary and most important. Submission and sacrifice of one’s self in favor of the institution is demanded.

    It is vital for humanity to recognize how institutions pervert their lives and work hard to free themselves from them.

  41. Black Flag says:

    Ray

    “can an anarchist movement really be organized”

    Depends on your definition.

    Freedom is a personal act. I cannot ‘force’ you to be free. Nor can I demand you act in a ‘particular way’ to prove that you are free.

    Freedom is no imposition. If I go left and you go right, according to you we are ‘disorganized’. However, we are both FREE.

    I am an ‘anarchist’ because of definition – like Kent – I hold that no man has a right to rule over me.

    I know I hold different thoughts and he does different things then I.

    But we are ‘brothers in humanity and freedom’ because he does not impose upon me nor I upon him.

    It may be that the maximum extent of our ‘unified effort’ or ‘movement’ maybe our efforts in removing imposition, but beyond that, it would be incredibly inconsistent of men of freedom to demand that other free men stand at attention and salute us as their Commanders in Chief!

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      To follow up on this, there is not a NECESSARY contradiction between freedom and organization.

      I, as a free man, can choose to associate with whom I will, and other free men can choose to assoicate with me (or not). If enough free men choose to associate and to participate together towards the achievement of a common goal (cooperation), then we may indeed form an “organization” to further the progress towards that common goal.

      It is not necessary that all of us believe the exact same things or even support the exact same things, because the “organization” would be there as a support structure to further our cooperation towards the common goal which we all shared and would not have anything to do with anything else.

      It is not necessary for an “organization” to become a monstrosity which suddenly attempts to set forth arbitrary rules which the organization then demands be followed by its members.

      • Black Flag says:

        Nice color of black you have for a flag now-a-days, Peter!

        🙂

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          BF,

          It isn’t all the way black yet, but I am working at it. If the good ole red white and blue truly did stand for freedom and liberty, I would fly it proudly instead of black… 🙂

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        The moment an organization sets forth arbitrary rules which it then expects to be followed by all of its members, the organization becomes a government.

        • Only if the members do not have a real choice to leave the organization.

          And perhaps therein lies a potential key to solving the dilemna of how to cage the beast.

          If the ultimate sovereigns are given authority to NOT PARTICIPATE then govt must keep them happy in order to maintain its legitimacy, i.e. cash flow to support its jobs.

          Thinking, thinking, thinking…..

      • And I would submit that any “movement” or “ogranization” which claims it is working to restore our Liberty but in fact includes other goals is probably a contradiction in itself.

        Free men can decide to organize to support Freedom and Liberty as a common (meta-value). They all share this one value. But the minute a goal is included that is not accepted by all, then the group is no longer a group of like minded men.

        The point here is that truly successful movements surrounding liberty have and must focus on that one value and all issues included must flow from that value. To do otherwise creates fractures within the movement that lead to its destruction.

  42. Black Flag says:

    PeterB in Indianapolis

    BF, Would it be accurate to say that in your view the universe essentially IS law, because it is reasoned, ordered, and proveable?

    Hence, the laws of nature.

    If that is the case, then would you also say that those in favor of laws which are not natural laws but are instead arbitraty laws most likely would support the view that the universe is chaos and that they somehow have the magical ability to create order from this chaos by the power of their own (obviously considerable) will?

    I have found often that this is exactly the case.

    I myself would rather support the position that even though I do not understand everything in the universe, it is at least POSSIBLE TO BE UNDERSTOOD because it is reasoned, ordered, and proveable.

    This is the primary and core premise of “Science”.

    To believe that the universe is chaos naturally leads one to want to “follow” someone who seems to have more knowledge of the universe. However, if the universe is truly chaos, it is not logically possible for one person to possess more knowledge of it than another.

    Very well put!

    You’re becoming a fantastic “Dread Pirate Roberts”!

    • Peter and BF:

      “To believe that the universe is chaos naturally leads one to want to “follow” someone who seems to have more knowledge of the universe. However, if the universe is truly chaos, it is not logically possible for one person to possess more knowledge of it than another.”

      Except that we may discover that what looks like chaos actually has a pattern. Thus chaos within order.

      The other conclusion is that those who claim to have the answers for complex problems will almost certainly be unable to predict all the consequences of their actions.

      More govt solutions will create more unforseen outcomes. Exponentially increasing man made chaos which acts in contradiction to the natural laws of the universe, and thus man.

      Whew, overcome by sudden wave of philosophical meandering.

      Hope all well with you fellows today
      JAC

  43. Black Flag,

    put up or shut up:

    http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/07/challenge-to-climate-change-skeptics.html

    You think you can do better than this guy?

    • Black Flag says:

      Maybe yes or maybe no.

      Weather is not climate. Further, surface readings are fraught with errors, as already explained. UHI effect and time-of-day problems….

      A number of comments explained his fallacy…

      But his method is intriguing. It might be interesting to ‘really’ bet on it, based on mid-level sat. readings over the equator.

      • Black Flag says:

        Are you game with that (ie: satellite readings?) 🙂

        We can bet on the monthly temp. anomaly – its variation +/- with 20 year mean…. $25 to me if it is down, $25 to you if it is up….

        • Ask him. It’s his bet.

          • Black Flag says:

            His bet measures nothing but localized situations – like many who confuse air turbulence with ‘climate change’

            Sen. Debbie Stabenow, Energy Leader [Henry Payne]

            Detroit, Mich. — Michigan just experienced its coldest July on record; global temperatures haven’t risen in more than a decade; Great Lakes water levels have resumed their 30-year cyclical rise (contrary to a decade of media scare stories that they were drying up due to global warming), and polls show that climate change doesn’t even make a list of Michigan voters’ top-ten concerns.

            Yet in an interview with the Detroit News Monday, Senator Debbie Stabenow (D., Mich.) — recently appointed to the Senate Energy Committee — made clear that fighting the climate crisis is her top priority.

            “Climate change is very real,” she confessed as she embraced cap and trade’s massive tax increase on Michigan industry — at the same time claiming, against all the evidence, that it would not lead to an increase in manufacturing costs or energy prices. “Global warming creates volatility. I feel it when I’m flying. The storms are more volatile. We are paying the price in more hurricanes and tornadoes.”

            And there are sea monsters in Lake Michigan. I can feel them when I’m boating.

            http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=N2FjM2ZkMWJmZTlmZjk0MzMwNjIxN2ZmNDgyZDJmZmQ=

      • You miss the point. It’s not his fallacy. He’s responding to people who claim climate change isn’t happening based on their own personal experience with local weather. Regardless, he wants to bet real money.

        • I don’t know of anyone here who has claimed that “climate Change” does not or is not happening. The debate is whether man has anything at all to do with it.

          • So when Black Flag provides all that stuff about hockey stick graphs and such he still thinks global warming is happening? Maybe the issue for you is the cause, but it seems pretty obvious that Black Flag still disputes the effects.

            • I think, although I don’t speak for him, that he believes as most of us do. Climate Change is happening (not warming, even the folks pushing this admit to that now). But humans don’t affect it. It has always happened before we were here and will when we are gone. The hockey stick graphs stuff is accurate. That crazy stuff that Al Gore offered in his little made for TV production was full of holes and misrepresentations. Go out and research the hockey stick graph and you will find that it was completely inaccurate.

              If you want to teach climate change as a matter of science, go right ahead. But that is not what the people you are talking about or citing are doing. They are attempting to use it as a tool for government action and control. Understand that one fact, and you will understand BF’s position better going forward, as well as my position. I have written several articles on the myth of man made global warming. I hope you will find time to read them.

              Thanks for the comments.

              • I’ll have a look.

                But it still seems like Black Flag could apply his area of expertise to this (i.e., gambling). This guy is a pretty good odds-maker and statistician.

              • Here’s a little reading for you as well:
                http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/528.pdf

                Scroll down to the part where 84% of scientists think that global warming is real and that humans are a contributing factor.

                No consensus, huh? It must be a government conspiracy to con all of those scientists into going along with a one-world government.

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

                The supposed statistic that 84% of all scientists believe that global warming is real and is caused by man is simply a blatant falsehood.

              • Perhaps you could point to the flaws in this survey that make it “a blatant falsehood.”

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

                See furthe comments below

            • Earl H:

              In response to your 84% of scientists comment.

              Most scientists don’t have any expertise in the fields required to make such a claim with any knowledgable backing.

              I, as a scientist, did not sign onto any such claim nor did any of the scientists I know. We have no expertise to make such a claim one way or the other.

              The letter produced by the supporters of man caused warming included many, many scientists without any such expertise and in fact included the names of many who were vested in the outcome.

              You also ignore the fact that some large number of scientists, with expertise in the field, who had signed on have now said it is all BS.

              And for the record, even many of the opponents to man made warming have stated that currentl CO2 levels could account for some warming. Somewhere around 1/2 of 1 degree. That is far from effect that “consensus” has claimed is reality.

        • Black Flag says:

          Let’s be clear.

          It is moronic to debate that climate changes. Any person who lives in North America see this happen at least 4 times a year.

          This is an attempt of the eco-nuts to mask their dogma of anthropogenic influences on climate to try to tie all climate change to be the result of human activity.

          Utterly bizarre.

          Earl, don’t fall into word games – try to stick to science.

    • Reading that post I get the feeling that guy doesn’t understand “global climate change” at all. I notice he also hedges his bet by disqualifying almost anyone from participating.

      • You know who he doesn’t disqualify? Guys like Black Flag.

        Put up or shut up.

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          Earl,

          Put up or shut up seems a bit belligerent. Perhaps your ideas on this subject are a bit too fixed?

          I can show you direct evidence (which has been linked to on this site before), that the mean surface temperature of the earth plateaued in 2000 and has remained steady or declined every year since then.

          Even the New York Times has recently admitted that we are in a cooling cycle, although they, of course, still claim that once the cooling cycle ends we will have runaway, uncontrollable global warming.

          As to consensus on the issue:

          http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2008/05/17/32-000-deniers.aspx

          I guess that would depend on what you call consensus and who you allow to claim the term “scientist”.

          Climate change happens constantly and has always happened constantly throughout the geophysical history of the earth. There have been many times that global CO2 levels were far higher than they are now, and many times when global mean surface temperature was far higher than it is now. If this was not the case, how do you explain the fact that England used to be prime wine-producing country for its abundance of grapes (which won’t grow there now because it is too cold) and how do you explain the fact that Greenland used to be, well, green?

          We do not yet understand ALL of the factors that influence climate change and make it either warmer or colder, because climate is an enormously complex system with thousands of variables, and changing any one variable MIGHT (or might not) effect the entire system. One conclusion that many scientists have reached is that solar activity, the wobbles in the position of the sun due to gravitational interactions from the planets, wobbles in the earth’s orbit due to the gravitational interactions with other planets, and magnetic field fluctuations on both the sun and the earth are generally thought to be the actual drivers of climate change in any direction.

          You also have to account for the fact that climate change predictions are based upon models, and models are only as good as:

          A: The accounting for as many variables as possible by a modeler that actually understands all of the variables and how all of the variables interact (climate has so many variables that scientists do not yet understand the interactions of all of them yet).

          B: The quality of the input data used by the modeler (the old GIGO adage: Garbage In: Garbage Out), so if the modeler uses faulty input data, even if the model were perfect, the output data would be faulty.

          C: The propensity of reality to conform to a model. A modeler will try to account for as many “known” variables as possible, but quite often reality will throw in variables which are completely unaccounted for, such as large, frequent volcanic erruptions, a magnetic reversal of the earth’s field, a magnetic reversal of the sun’s field, or any other natural “trick” which could not have been accounted for by the model.

          Due to all of these reasons, a model will rarely (if ever) predict reality with any measureable degree of accuracy over a long time period. Models that are well constructed and account for as many variables as possible and have good input data generally fair pretty well over the short-term (five year periods or less), but even these have little or no predictive value when it comes to what will be happening 20, 50, 100, or 1000 years in the future.

          Given the hard data I have seen recently on solar activity, magnetic activity (solar and terrestrial), and orbital variations, I am personally going along with the scientists who are claiming that the next 25-30 years will be colder than the period of 1990-2000, but there could be changes in many variables that could also cause that to not be the case.

          • So you offer a petition signed by Freeman Dyson (who believes that man-made global warming is a fact and that it is caused by increases in CO2 levels).

            • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

              If Freeman Dyson signed a petition in 2008 stating that he believes that ANTHROPOGENICALLY CAUSED global warming is not happening, then I believe that to be his opinion.

              I could easily “Sourcewatch” the survey you used to show that 84% of all scientists believe that man-made global warming is real to try to show that your source is highly suspect as well by the way….

            • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

              Which proves what? That all authors have personal bias in one direction or another? That would be SHOCKING!

            • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

              Sourcewatch itself claims to be unbiased and not politically affiliated. However, Soucewatch is a product of the Center for Media and Democracy which states that “it favors “grassroots citizen activism that promotes public health, economic justice, ecological sustainability and human rights”

              I think we can see from that statement of the ideals supported by sourcewatch that it, itself, is not denying a biased position.

              • They are also meticulously referenced. Are you suggesting that they lie to support their goals? Besides, I would personally trust someone favoring “grassroots citizen activism” more than I would the astroturf crowd or those standing to make billions off of delayed actions.

              • Black Flag says:

                They exaggerate.

                Some would call that lying.

              • Got some evidence or just assertions?

                Who’s exaggerating now?

              • Earl:

                “or those standing to make billions off of delayed actions.”

                You mean like the Environment Defense Council, Sierra Club, Wilderness Society, Audubon, Green Peace, Ecosystme Defense, Rocky Mtn whatever, etc etc etc???

              • Compare the budgets of those non-profit organizations with those of the oil companies. You’re deluding yourself if you think Greenpeace or any other public interest group has more than a tiny fraction of the resources available to huge multinational corporations.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      As many of the commenters on that particular site have pointed out, it is:

      A: an extremely poorly designed bet which demonstrates absolutely nothing about global warming or cooling.

      B: heavily depends on variability in localized events.

      C: heavily depends on surface-temperature-station data which is often faulty due to improper siting and infrequent quality assurance/quality control of the data coming from those sites.

      If this same author wants to bet me that the average mean surface temperature will rise or fall over a sligthly more significant time period (say 20-30 years) and is willing to use reliable data (satellite as opposed to surface temperature station), then I would be willing to consider his bet.

      For example, July was abnormally cold in Indiana, but recently El Nino has formed again and has pushed the jet-stream farther north in this region of the country, which has allowed for a more typical southwesterly flow of air and caused a return to warmer temperatures. The warmer temperatures are expected to persist until the jet-stream again shifts to the south in this region of the country.

      Since I KNOW that the jet-stream has shifted north in the Midwest due to the formation of El Nino, and that is what is causing a return to normal/slightly above normal temperatures for the near future, I would be a complete idiot to take his bet, but the warmer temperatures here for August have absolutely nothing to do with atmospheric CO2 or anything of the sort. As I point out in a post below, there is no demonstrable correlation between global mean surface temperature and atmospheric CO2 concentration whatsoever.

      I strongly suspect that if you could convince this guy to keep the bet going for the next 30 years, and you bet on the cold side, you would probably come out at least somewhat ahead unless solar activity suddenly picks up. You would have to have the financial means to ride out any periods of time that were abnormally warm FOR YOUR PARTICULAR LOCATION, but if you can carry out the bet long enough, you should be fine if you bet the cold side. The abnormally warm years of the mid to late 1990s have recently moved the “normal” number somewhat higher, so this should also favor anyone who bets the cold side.

      Regardless, the way the bet is designed it proves nothing one way or another about climate change unless you apply it to GLOBAL temperature and do it over a long period of time.

      This may be, in part, what the author is trying to point out. If that is the case, he should realize that he is proving that ANY rhetoric from EITHER side of the debate that tries to equate short-term localized phenomena to global climate change is anecdotal and useless. So if Al Gore says it was a warm summer in DC in 1998 and Matt Drudge says it is cold July in the midwest, both arguments (though factual) should be completely discounted in the climate change debate because they are not of sufficient scope to draw any useful conclusions.

      • …and as many others pointed out:

        The purpose of the bet wasn’t to prove that short-term weather patterns are evidence of climate change, but that those who deny climate change often misrepresent the facts in order to dispute the existence of man-made global warming.

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          Yes, but it fails to point out that those who SUPPORT the idea of global warming used the exact same type of argument back in 1998 when it was abnormally warm 🙂

        • The bet as constructed doesn’t even show what you claim it shows.

          It is a stacked bet based on the assumption that the reader won’t understand that the maximum of a range will rarely fall below the average of a range.

          It shows nothing.

    • Earl:

      You should study the challenge a little harder before using this as some sort of serious challenge on temp trends.

      The guy is using the High Temp compared to the Daily Avg Temp. as the bet. If he had brass he would have used the daily Low Temp and reversed the conditions of pay off.

      You see, he is playing with a stacked deck.

      A more accurate comparison would have been the Avg Temp for that day compared to the historical Avg Temp for that day.

      And by the way, in my hometown I would be kicking his butt, even using his criteria. But if I have to give 20 days notice before counting stops then the odds are in his favor each day until it stops, that we will at least be even.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        Exactly JAC,

        I have seen days in February in Indianapolis where the temperature was 60 degrees farenheit at 12:01 AM (well above average), but by 5:00 AM it was 7 degrees farenheit (well below average) and the average temperature for the WHOLE DAY ended up being below average, in spite of the well-above average temperature at 12:01 AM to start the day, so it is, indeed, a sucker’s bet.

        And YES, I am NOT KIDDING, 60 at midnight and 7 at 5:00 AM on THE SAME DAY actually happens around here from time to time… usually accompanied by 60mph winds out of the northeast or northwest in the intervening 5 hours…. OUCH!

        • I have not doubt. For several nights in July, before my trip, our hottest temps of the day were from midnight to 2 am.

          Warm day, clear evening (cooling) then heavy clouds move in, trapping heat. Along with warm south westerly wind carrying warm air from California.

          By day break it was hot and very humid. Then the sun induced thermals moved the cloud cover,along with normal front and the day began to cool.

          Little lesson here. Water vapor is the primary green house gas, ie clouds.

          Another factoid for those who don’t know, the hottest time of day is usually mid to late afternoon, generally 2:30 to 5:00 p.m.. It is not high noon as many think.

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

            Also, the more mountainous the region, the later in the day the daily maximum temperature is generally reached. It takes quite a while to warm all of that exposed rock!

            When I lived in Northwest Colorado, it was not unusual for the warmest time of day to be 5:30 PM. (4:30 PM if you throw out “daylight savings time”) Generally here in the “flatlands” the warmest time of day is about 1:30 to 2:00 PM (12:30 to 1:00 PM if you throw out “daylight savings time”)

            • Interesting, I didn’t know there was such a difference in hottest time of day. Makes complete sense though.

              Mountainous country also has much more air movement due to convective heating in the early and later parts of the day. Thus the hottest time of day is when absorbtion is maximized and air flow is minimal.

              Evening breezes usually start when the sun dips low enough for the mountain tops to start cooling. It can range anywhere from soon after the max heat to just after sunset, on really hot stagnate days.

              Another facttoid for the flatlanders who’ve never been out here. In the winter, the warmer air is at higher elevations. Cold air flows downhill and gets trapped in the Valleys. Climb up to get above the cold pool and the temp can jump 20 degrees.

              Elk will climb up once winter sets in hard. You can find them laying around on south slopes just above the cloud/cold air line.

        • Sorry Peter, I just noticed the magnitude of change you mentioned.

          That is severe for your part of the world is it not?

          Out here we are more used to 40 to 50 degree swings from high to low in a given day.

          We had a “Northern Express” come through one year and as the news was reporting its movement they showed students sunbathing in bikini tops at the Univ. with temps near 20 just a few miles away. As the front moved the temps would drop from around 80 to 20 in less than 30 minutes. Within two hours it was down to zero.

          The closest analogy I could ever come up with was working in the heat until you were sweating hard and then walking into a big freezer. It was that sudden and that severe. You can imagine the winds that came with it.

          Until later gator
          JAC

  44. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    More on the “climate change” debate:

    There is a simple fact that the vast majority of people conveniently and completely ignore when discussing climate change. That fact is this:

    If atmospheric CO2 concentration was THE main driver of climate change, it would be possible to show that global mean surface temperature was indeed directly proportional to CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.

    That is, it would be possible to demonstrate that for every 10ppm increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration, global mean surface temperature increased by a specific and directly relational amount; say 0.2 degrees centigrade for example.

    If such a directly proportional relationship existed, it would be possible to show that regardless of any other factors (since CO2 is the primary driver of the system) a 100ppm increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration would yield a 2 degree centigrade increase in global mean surface temperature (using the hypothetical 0.2 degrees per 10ppm increase that I have stated).

    No directly proportional relationship has been demonstrated between atmospheric CO2 concentration and global mean surface temperature. In fact, actual temperature data from 2000-2009 would directly contradict this. Atmospheric CO2 concentration has risen in the period of 2000-2009 and yet global mean surface temperature has fallen over the same time period. Therefore, atmospheric CO2 concentration CANNOT BE the main driver of temperature change or “climate change” or whatever you want to call it.

    • Why must it be directly proportional? It seems to me that given the scale we should be looking at second or third order relationships.

      • Black Flag says:

        Earl,

        It is logarithmic. Even the IPCC says so, because (gee) its a Law of Nature.

        You require TEN TIMES the concentration to DOUBLE the effect.

        An increase by 3% makes such a minor effect as to be overwhelmed by nature.

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          An equation can be directly proportional in many ways:

          it all depends on how x varies with y.

          sometimes x varies with y in such a way that doubling of x will yield a doubling of y.

          As Black Flag points out, the relationship we are discussing is logarithmic in nature, which is still a direct proportion.

          Therefore, as he states, you would have to have 10 times the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere to double its effect on temperature (be careful, this does not mean that the temperature would double, it simply means that the effect of CO2 on temperature is doubled, which is clearly not the same thing)

          This also means that you would have to have 100 times higher atmospheric concentration of CO2 for 3x the observable effect, 1000 times higher concentration for 4x the observable effect, 10,000 times the concentration for 5x the observable effect, etc.

          This is why, at concentrations at or below 100PPM, CO2 has an observable effect on temperature, but above 100PPM any increase that is not STAGGERINGLY HUGE is orders of magnitude too small to have any more noticeable effect.

  45. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    Addressing the blatant falsehood of the statement “84% of all scientists agree that global warming is real and that humans are causing it” a bit further:

    In order to show that 84% of all scientists thought this, first you would have to further define “scientist” and determine the exact qualifications necessary to have an informed opinion on the subject.

    For example, is a phsychologist a “scientist”? Some people would argue yes. Is a psychologist qualified to make a truly informed opinion on whether or not the temperature of the earth is warming AND humans are causing it? Maybe, if they devote a LOT of their spare time to studying and understanding the research being done on both sides of the issue, but if they do not study and understand the research being done on both sides of the issue, then I would probably argue “no”.

    So, first you would have to come up with the criteria by which you defined what a scientist actually was, and then what subset of scientists you were willing to deem qualified to give a truly informed scientific opionion on the subject at hand.

    After coming up with your criteria, you would then have to survey ALL of the scientists which were still on your list of “scientists who I deem qualified to give a truly informed scientific opinion on the subject at hand”.

    Once you can point me to that survey and demonstrate to me that 84% of all scientists on that list believe as you claim, then I will stipulate to your proposed 84% consensus number.

    As I have shown in another posting, over 32,000 well qualified scientists have signed onto a petition refuting the claims of anthropogenically caused global warming. One would have to assume that the number of well qualified scientists that actually refute the claim is even higher than the number signing the petition, but just for fun, lets go with the 32,000 number (and assume that all 32,000 are indeed well qualified, just for the sake of argument). You would have to find me 168,000 well-qualified scientists that support the position that global warming is in fact occurring and it is in fact caused by human beings just to make your 84% number valid for the subset of 200,000 scientists in this example. (32,000 is 16% of 200,000 so if the remaining 168,000 all agreed with the proposition that global warming is occurring and caused by man, that would be 84%).

    You would also have to find a way to account for any scientists that answered, “I am unsure as to whether global warming is occuring or not” and you would have to find a way to account for any scientists that answered, “I think global warming is occurring, but I am unsure whether it is directly caused by man or not.”

    So, go ahead, show me such a survey. Even then, it would only represent a subset of the scientists that could be well-qualified to have an informed opinion on the subject. It would also not have any mechanism to account for any scientists that did not actually agree with their own stated opinion. There might be some scientists working for big energy corporations that feel that man-made global warming is indeed occurring, but fear that they might lose their paycheck if they stated that opinion too obviously. There might also be scientists who work for government (and I don’t mean ONLY the US government) that might feel that man-made global warming is a bunch of nonsense, but they fear to lose their job (or perhaps even spend some time in “detention”) if they express their opinion too loudly.

    • Did you actually look at the petition you offered? There are almost as many people from the field of medicine as those from Atmosphere, Earth and Environmental science. Does that sound like a well qualified pool of petitioners?

      “Atmosphere, Earth, & Environment (3,803)

      1. Atmosphere (578)

      I) Atmospheric Science (113)
      II) Climatology (39)
      III) Meteorology (341)
      IV) Astronomy (59)
      V) Astrophysics (26)

      2. Earth (2,240)

      I) Earth Science (94)
      II) Geochemistry (63)
      III) Geology (1,684)
      IV) Geophysics (341)
      V) Geoscience (36)
      VI) Hydrology (22)

      3. Environment (985)

      I) Environmental Engineering (486)
      II) Environmental Science (253)
      III) Forestry (163)
      IV) Oceanography (83)

      Computers & Math (935)

      1. Computer Science (242)

      2. Math (693)

      I) Mathematics (581)
      II) Statistics (112)

      Physics & Aerospace (5,810)

      1. Physics (5,223)

      I) Physics (2,365)
      II) Nuclear Engineering (223)
      III) Mechanical Engineering (2,635)

      2. Aerospace Engineering (587)

      Chemistry (4,818)

      1. Chemistry (3,126)

      2. Chemical Engineering (1,692)

      Biochemistry, Biology, & Agriculture (2,964)

      1. Biochemistry (744)

      I) Biochemistry (676)
      II) Biophysics (68)

      2. Biology (1,437)

      I) Biology (1,048)
      II) Ecology (76)
      III) Entomology (59)
      IV) Zoology (149)
      V) Animal Science (105)

      3. Agriculture (783)

      I) Agricultural Science (296)
      II) Agricultural Engineering (114)
      III) Plant Science (292)
      IV) Food Science (81)

      Medicine (3,046)

      1. Medical Science (719)

      2. Medicine (2,327)

      General Engineering & General Science (10,102)

      1. General Engineering (9,833)

      I) Engineering (7,280)
      II) Electrical Engineering (2,169)
      III) Metallurgy (384)

      2. General Science (269)”

      http://www.petitionproject.org/qualifications_of_signers.php

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        Yup, for the most part, I would say that the so-called “scientists” on this list FOR THE MOST PART have the ability to form an informed opinion on the subject.

        Did 100% of the scientists on this list take all of the time necessary to fully study the issue and undertand all of the research? I doubt it, but then again, I highly doubt you could come up with such a list in the first place. Even the scientists studying global climate don’t have the time or the knowledge to fully understand all of the variables involved and fully study all of them, so in effect, one could argue that THEY are not qualified to give an opinion either if you want to go that route.

      • Black Flag says:

        Earl

        Of the “2500 scientists” on the IPCC, there was actually less than 100. The rest were activists or government representatives.

        Of that 100, only 20 actually had any even remote experience with climate study.

        Of those, most dispute the findings of the IPCC for one reason or the other (including not being more urgent)

    • The link for the survey was already provided above, but you may have it again if you’d like:

      http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/528

  46. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    I love it when people try to argue this stuff with an Environmental Chemist who specializes in the study of air pollutants 🙂

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      Oh and I was too modest to mention that the environmental chemist who specializes in the study of air pollution has a good head for math and logic as well….

      Ok, enough self-aggrandizement for the day 🙂

      • Just a “Convenient Truth”….

      • I might add that your “good head for math and logic” seems pretty lacking in an understanding of surveys and statistics. You don’t need to poll every scientist on Earth. You merely have to show that your pool comprises a representative sample.

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          There are 3 types of lies:

          1.) Lies
          2.) Damn Lies
          3.) Statistics

          Quite often, #3 is the worst of the bunch.

          • Wow, how profound. I’m underwhelmed.

            The point isn’t that statistical surveys can be poorly designed. The point is that a properly designed study is quite a useful tool. You should know this as a scientist given the need for statistics in research.

            • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

              Earl,

              Statistics can indeed be quite a useful tool.

              Often they are a tool used to manipulate rather than inform.

              Observable data is data. If the data is obtained in an honest way by unbiased observation and no mistakes are made in the process of obtaining the data, and, MOST IMPORTANTLY, if the method of obtaining the data can be demonstrated to be valid, then you have “good data”

              The problem with statistics is that you are often presented with a set of data which you did not derive by your own observation and you do not know if the methods used to obtain the data that comprise the set were actually methods that were demostrably valid.

              I could easily go to any government-sponsored panel on “climate change” and ask the scientists there if they supported the premises that global warming is occurring and if it is caused by human activity.

              I am certain in that setting that I would get 84% agreement with those premises easily.

    • Self praise is no praise. When you climb on down off that high horse you might just realize that there are plenty of people smarter than you in that 84%.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        The 84% is a fictional number, as I have already discussed, and yes, I am sure that there are a number of people within that “84%” that are smarter than I am.

        I have no illusions about being the smartest man on earth, I just know that I am right up there with many of the smarter ones, and yes, there are those that surpass me I must admit 🙂

        • I know you said it’s fictional (BTW, I think you mean fictitious), but you have yet to show how the methodology used in the study was wrong.

  47. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    More about “improper siting” of surface temperature stations:

    The federal government has a set of “siting criteria” which establish whether or not a proposed site for a surface temperature station will produce “acceptable data” or not. It is somewhere in the VOLUMINOUS Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) and I don’t feel like digging up the exact reference at this time. If you feel so inclined, I am sure that you can look it up.

    Here is an excellent article about surface temperature station sighting, in response to which I am certain that Earl H will question the validity of the source:

    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/surfacestationsreport_spring09.pdf

    Enjoy!

  48. Black Flag says:

    And, lastly, Earl

    Science is not a beauty contest where votes matter.

    Science is hypothesis, experiment, theory, hypothesis….

    As Einstein said: “I don’t care how many say I am right, it only takes one to prove me wrong”

    The anthropogenic theory of climate change requires a number of consequences to exist. Not one of those necessary consequences exists.

    It is not a matter of demonstrating one fault, as Einstein said, it is by fact the demonstration that all of them are wrong. There is not one consequence required by AGW theory that can be demonstrated.

    This is shocking.

    The amount of billions of dollars wasted into mitigating Climate Change when not one effect of human causation has been demonstrated.

    • Another thing about science: it doesn’t care whether you only pay attention to studies sponsored by the Cato Institute or oil companies. But it seems awfully odd that the only people pushing the hard skeptic line are those with an axe to grind about one-world governments or those in the pockets of the petrochemical industry.

      Maybe you can explain that phenomenon.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        Perhaps you can explain the phenomenon that is is impossible to demonstrate any positive correlation between atmospheric CO2 concentration and global mean surface temperature?

        Also, what makes you think that ANY GOVERNMENT is fundamentally more honest than any petrochemical corporation? If you honestly think that any government is more honest than any corporation, you are sadly misled. I am not saying that the petrochemical corportation is MORE honest, just saying that the governments are EQUALLY DISHONEST.

        Fundamental trust that the government is acting in your self interest is sadly misplaced.

      • Black Flag says:

        That is dogmatic propaganda.

        As already pointed out, the number of petitions, the number of scientists overwhelming are against the IPCC hysterical and bizarre claims.

        There are a number of scientists of whom I respect and personally know (such as Dr. Pielke) who argue that anthropogenic influences are measurable. But none of them argue about the hysterical need for massive destruction of the world’s economy.

        There are a number of scientists of whom I respect and personally know (such as Dr. Ball) who argue that anthropogenic influences are not significant at all. And, none of them argue about the hysterical need for massive destruction of the world’s economy.

        However, those that do make such an argument in favor of destroying the global economy cannot demonstrate the required massive anthropogenic influence.

        It is very black and white, once you rise yourself above the dogma and the myth.

      • Ah that old lefty trick of trying to discredit the argument by linking it to unpopular and unrelated examples.

        What do you guys call that? Strawman?

        I happen to have an opinion that is also espoused by someone you think is corrupt, big oil, therefore my opinion is not valid. By raising the connection the intent is to link me to big oil as somehow they are paying for my opinion also. Despite the fact that I have no connection to big oil and did not use any of there supposed science in coming up with my own conclusions.

        By the way Earl, when did a letter signed by folks supporting the human caused warming view become a “study”?

        • Why don’t you ask Peter? He’s the one pushing the petition as a reliable source.

          And what your referring to isn’t a straw man, it’s an example of reduced credibility given the stakes involved. BTW, straw men aren’t a tactic only used by those on the left. Now that I think about it, didn’t you just try to discredit me for simply being a ‘lefty’?

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

            Earl,

            NOW you are getting it!

            Strawmen are frequently employed by BOTH SIDES!

            You presented your survey, I presented my petition. I attempt to discredit your survey, you attempt to discredit my position.

            So, given that apparently neither my petition nor your survey are actually valid, how do we discern the TRUE number of scientists that support one position or the other?

            • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

              err.. discredit my PETITION, not position…

              lol…

              well.. maybe he was trying to discredit both….

          • No, I didn’t. Apparently you have as hard a time grasping the real meaning of words as you do reality in general.

            What I was guilty of was identifying a tactic that has been used by the Left/Liberals/Environmentalists for years. They mastered its use. And I pointed out that you were using the tactic of the Left. That is all.

            Notice, I didn’t even assume you are on the Left, although by your last couple of comments it is becoming quite evident.

            I will concede that there are some on the right who have adopted the practice of Straw Man use. All statists eventually use the same tactics. Its part of your nature.

            • Can’t you read your own post?

              “That old lefty trick…”
              “What do you guys call it…”

              Straw men and other logical fallacies are no more prevalent on the left than the right. However, your inability to see them used by those on the right may explain this unjustified belief.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      BF,

      This is precisely what I am pointing out in #45. No direct proportionality in CO2 concentration vs. temperature has EVER been shown either in recent history or in the geological history of the climate record.

      If no directly proportional relationship can be shown between CO2 concentration and global mean surface temperature today, yesterday, or 15,000 years ago, most likely it is due to the fact that NO SUCH RELATIONSHIP EXISTS!

      • Black Flag says:

        I agree.

        The confusion upon the layman is that it is true that Co2 is a significant component that, in addition to water vapor, warms the earth.

        Without Co2 in the air, the Earth would be permanently frozen.

        However the almost the entirety (98.8%) of Co2’s effect occurs in the ‘under 100ppm’ concentrations.

        Any increase in atmospheric Co2 about that concentration has a logarithmically decreasing influence.

        Hence the AGW lie – Co2 warms the earth: (true). AGW Co2 production, therefore, warms the earth. (false)

      • There actually has been such a correlation shown in the data I have seen.

        CO2 production, as represented by atmospheric levels per ice and fossile records, clearly follows increases in mean global temperature.

        Yet I have never seen the cause effect discussed. So let this smaller scientific brain propose that increased temps increase two significant things that produce CO2.

        First is plant growth.

        Second is oxidation, in the forms of plant decay and wildfires.

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          JAC,

          Most of the ice and fossil record data that I have seen shows that maximum atmospheric CO2 concentration occurs several hundred years after a major cooling event.

          What this suggests is that CO2 levels rise IN RESPONSE to warming and fall IN RESPONSE to cooling, and therefore the maximum CO2 concetration lags until after the cooling event occurs.

          Therefore, indications are not that increases in CO2 are causing the warming, but that the warming causes the increases in CO2 concentration.

          Case in point on a micro-scale (and this being micro-scale it MAY OR MAY NOT APPLY TO THE ARGUMENT) would be that it was very warm in 1998, and it is cooler now, yet the atmospheric CO2 concentration in 2009 is higher than it was in 1998.

          As I said, an 11-year period is not sufficient on the geological time-scale to either prove or disprove the hypothesis.

          In order to prove the hypothesis, it would probably be necessary to live into the beginning of the next ice age while still measuring the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, and find out if it did indeed hit a maxima several hundred years AFTER the onset of the next ice age.

          We would have to have a tremendous lifespan to be able to do this on an individual basis obviously. I certainly hope I am not around to see ANY parts of the next ice age, let alone several hundred years worth of it.

          If the “fascionutsoskeptics” (of which I supposedly am 1) are correct, the next 20-30 years are going to be pretty uncomortably cold in the winter, but I sure hope that I am not around for a major ice-age 🙂

          • Black Flag says:

            As Peter says, Co2 follows temp.

            Temp up THEN Co2 up, Temp down THEN Co2 down.

            The current hypothesis is water temperature. Cold water holds higher concentrations of Co2 then warm water (anyone who drinks soda in summer discovers this)

            As temp. increases, the oceans temp increases. However, water requires a massive input of energy to generate a warming – hence, it takes a long time for water to react to an increase in temp.

            As it warms, it releases its Co2, adding to the atmosphere concentration.

            In the reverse, water takes a very long time to cool, hence as it slowly cools, Co2 dissolves into water out of the atmosphere.

            There is no experimental hypothesis of climate change that can demonstrate Co2 concentration above 100ppm that drives temp.

            • As I said to Peter, I agree with the relationship.

              I think the plant growth and increased oxidation sources would match up with the lag time between peak CO2 and peak temp. Increased wildfires may occur for many years after warm periods as incresed plant growth supports conditions for very large burns. The Yellowstone fires occurred almost 30 years after the forest started dieing which happened 130 years after the right conditions existed for the forest to become established at the density that it did.

              What mechanism would cause the ocean to give up CO2 when warming?

              Why wouldn’t it just expand in volume retaining essential the same gases.

              Obviously there is increased evaporation, so is this the mechanism?

              The ocean effect is an interesting one that we have even less data for. It could be that much of the missing CO2 (industrial prod – actual atmospheric levels) was absorbed by the oceans. I posted once before on some current theories that CO2 levels are raising acidity of the ocean, thus threatening coral reefs. Of course the proponent of the theory didn’t consider other CO2 sources and didn’t explain how he and his partner determined that the ocean CO2 levels had increased or that acidity had increased. But it is an interesting hyposthesis and deserves serious evaluaion.

              I for one would find a serious change in ocean chemistry and loss of coral reefs much more concerning than increased terestrial temps around the world. Most folks don’t know how much of our life cycles are tied to the ocean.

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

                JAC, the answer to your question as to why cold water holds higher concentrations of CO2 than warm water is tied to kinetics, just as evaporation is tied to kinetics; however it is not evaporation itself that causes water to lose CO2 as it warms, but the increased kinetic energy of the CO2 molecules dissolved in the water at higher temperatures which causes the CO2 to be released from the water.

                Hopefully that explanation wasn’t too sciency or incomplete for you 🙂

          • That’s what I said Peter.

            Guess I wasn’t clear. By “follows temp” I meant it literally follows as comes after.

            Sorry, my bad wording

  49. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    Regardless of what you believe regarding “global climate change” or “global warming” or “Anthropogenic Global Warming” the fact remains that it is still going to be that same petrochemical company selling you heating oil in the winter when you are freezing, and those same governments telling you in the winter when you are freezing that you are a bad person for using the heating oil to keep yourself warm and therefore they must impose higher fees upon you for using it.

    As a result, you might choose to find more “environmentally friendly” ways to heat your home, such as solar, wind-generated electric, or geothermal. This may indeed be the way to go since your tax dollars are already subsidizing several of these industries, and the government is providing additional subsidies to consumers who choose to use “alternative” forms of energy.

    You see Earl, you accuse “global warming skeptics” of things which are not necessarily true. I have no problem if you choose to heat your home more efficiently or through the use of alternative forms of energy or have a more fuel-efficient car or whatever… If you choose to go that route, good for you!

    However, by what right do you determine how I heat my home or what kind of car I drive?

    I like a cleaner enviroment… I like the fact that the environment in the US is now demonstrably MUCH BETTER than it was in the 1960’s and 1970’s. I have no problem with the desire to make even more progress in that direction.

    What I do have a problem with is people who have the illusion that they have some sort of authority over you or me attempting to mandate your behavior and mine through the use of highly questionable (in fact pretty easily disproveable) “science”.

    If something can be disproved yet people are still using it as a rationalization for proposing policy, that policy can no longer be said to be based on “science”.

    Here is an interesting homework assignment for folks here… I would be interested for Earl H, Black Flag, USW, JAC, and anyone else here to participate. I would love to see Kent McManigal get in on this as well. I might even ask USW to move this particular portion of this post to a Friday Night Guest Commentary or something so that we all have more space to discuss.

    Ok, here is the exercise:

    First of all, stipulate that a truly free society exists (you have to stipulate this because in reality no such thing ACTUALLY exists at this time).

    In such a truly free society, what mechanisms are employed to prevent such a society from polluting itself to death?

    BE CAREFUL, YOU CANNOT EMPLOY ANY MECHANISMS WHICH VIOLATE THE FREEDOM OF THE SOCIETY!

    I have my own answers, but I do not feel the need to write an entire article right now and would rather see what everyone else comes up with.

    • You had to go right to the hardest one first didn’t you?

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        DAMMIT JAC, I AM A SCIENTIST, NOT A MAGICIAN!

        heeheehee 🙂

        Of course the Environmental Chemist is going to go with the pollution of a free society issue FIRST!

        What did you think I would go with first!!??!!?

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          By the way,

          If this is the hardest one, the rest of ’em must be pretty damned easy, ’cause this one doesn’t seem ALL that complicated to me 🙂

        • I was hoping for a break up of the govt sponsored monopoly on major league baseball and nfl football.

          To me this is one of the more difficult becasue there are scientifically determined values required to establish adverse effects, whether on humans or other parts of our environment.

          The key to air pollution is I believe the same or similar to water pollution and to other environmental protection issues. It is in that sense I feel it the most complicated. In a truly Free Society how to we keep from destroying our nest?

          I have never reached a satisfactory answer to the environmental protection question within the VDLG framework. I am very anxious to here your ideas.

          You can tell by my questions that I have come close, but I always get stuck on “who gets to develop the information required?” Then “how do we pay for it?”

          I actually liked the Cap n Trade concept when first presented because govts only role was in setting the initial cap and the depreciation rate. Then I decided we couldn’t trust govt to come up with Real numbers as they couldn’t even debate the need honestly. Now of course, govt wants to control the data, set the limits, and control and/or profit from the trade. Oh the power of the ring.

          I think the final solution to pollution, if you will, is the courts. But that requires dependable and objective data/information from which to base violations of the common laws developed under ‘non initiation of violcence’ ethic. That is where I always get stuck. I see no free market economic value to supporting the science required because it could impose upon the freedom to pursue economic activity.

          It might have value to the “green inclined” but if they fund it then the results become potentially tainted.

          If we use govt to collect and study then we are forcing everyone to pay when some may not want to, violation of Liberty.

          Perhaps I view this the hardest because it is the one I know the most about.

          So my dear friend. Care to start sharing?

          JAC

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

            JAC,

            I will share some of my thoughts, but they may not be the entire answer… or they may just not be quite the answer you were looking for:

            First of all, lets agree that pollution is “bad” (hence why it is called pollution in the first place), and let us assume that there are at least potentially negative health effects, and MAYBE even negative climate effects.

            We have yet to come up with any form of energy production or industrial production which does not pollute in some way or other, so the conundrum we have is that in order to have adequate energy and adequate “things” to live the lifestyle that we wish to have.

            In a free society, you have to choose for yourself what level of pollution you think is acceptable. If a company produces a cheaper car, yet in producing the cheaper car also produces more pollution in the production process, you can choose a more expensive car that is made using a process that produces less pollution.

            BUT, many people might still buy the cheaper car because it is cheaper.

            Since this is of concern to you, you might seek out others with a similar concern and try to come up with a way to produce cars more inexpensively while still limiting the pollution caused by the manufacturing process to an “acceptable” level.

            You might also try to come up with a different fuel source for energy production/fuel (say hydrogen for example) for which the only byproduct of combustion is H2O. If you could not do this inexpensively and safely, it is unlikely that this would become a viable option UNTIL SUCH TIME AS SOMEONE CAME UP WITH A WAY TO DO IT INEXPENSIVELY AND SAFELY.

            The only way to eliminate pollution is to come up with sources of energy and ways to make things that are non-polluting, and this energy and these things must also be able to be produced at a price point which will allow them to be competitive with energy or products that are produced using means that pollute. You might be able to convince people to pay a little bit more for non-polluting (or at least less-polluting) energy and things, but there is a limit to how much more they will pay.

            You cannot mandate what amount of pollution can be emitted in any sort of process, because, as we have already seen, all that does is cause the producer to take their plant elsewhere and pollute there instead of here, and then they simply ship us their products and we buy them anyway… as if somehow they have now become “ok” because someone else’s backyard is being messed up instead of our own.

            So the main answer is you have to decide how much of a mess you are going to tolerate in your own backyard in exchange for having the lifestyle you want to have, and if energy or products are being produced by means that exceed the amount of mess in your backyard that you are willing to deal with, you have to make the moral decision not to purchase those products or that energy. Then, if you REALLY want to do something about it, find people who feel the same way that you do, and try to come up with a better way to build that “mousetrap” so that the people that are messing up your backyard are either put out of business or convinced to do it your way because your way is more profitable.

            You are never going to eliminate pollution entirely (unless you come up with an energy source which is non-polluting, and even if you come up with such an energy source, you would also have to come up with raw materials that can be converted into finished goods without causing pollution too!).

            The only things you can do without imposing on anyone else are the things I have described above. There may be a few ideas that I missed, but I will leave it to BF and others if I missed anything really big here.

    • I have one for you that relates to this and other similar issues.

      If there was an organization, govt or private, that was resonsible for collecting data on say pollution levels and say determining which pollutants caused actual health problems,

      And that organization had absolutely no other power than to report such scientifically based data to the public,

      Is it possible to prevent those who are adversely affected by the data, lets say coal fired plants or oil industry, from seizing control or otherwise corrupting the science?

      Is it possible to keep idealogues from gaining access to the organization for the purpose of skewing the science?

      I think the answer to these two questions forms the basis for the solution, as you have probably suspected by now.

      Your thoughts?
      JAC

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        JAC,

        How do you ensure that such an organization (whether public or private) is not introducing bias into the data set BEFORE reporting it to the public in the first place? Even though the organization has no power to do anything other than report the data, how do we ensure that idealogues are not part of the organization and exert no influence over the organization in the process of collecting and reporting the data to begin with?

        I hate to make it more complicated than you already did, but….

        • You didn’t, as your question is buried within both of my questions. I was simply separating on the basis of the two sides who may wish to be “consensus based” as opposed to scientifically based.

          I was not separating the various steps that could be corrupted but who would want to corrupt.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        JAC,

        My theory would be that there are 2 sources of influence here… the government and the mega-corporations. Both of these sources of influence attempt to exert such influence BEFORE, DURING and AFTER the scientific process occurs.

        The only way I see to eliminate the potential influence from these sources would be to eliminate governments and corporations that have sufficient power to posess such influence.

        Am I on the right track?

        • Black Flag says:

          As far as using freedom and rights to manage pollution –

          Step One – one must establish harm. No harm, no foul.

          This is incredibly hard on an individual basis to prove that my car is harming you when I drive it. But it is possible…

          Step Two – degree of harm.

          To measure compensation for damage, the degree of damage is necessary. Another huge hurdle. I suspect such damage would amount to minute fractions of a penny.

        • Peter/BF:

          If we start with the non initiation of force ethic.

          Then a polluter is violating my rights by having an adverse effect on a)my health or b) my property.

          Thus the establishment of “harm” is in my view also necessary.

          That is the basis for my exploration of independent science to determine where harm occurs. Obviously we can’t individually afford to conduct such studies. But a group of us could. But then how do we keep out serious bias due to predetermined beliefs (big oil or big greens).

          I think for many cases involving environment the issue of “degree of harm” is irrelavent in the final solution (OMG I used that term). For law to be good law it should be objective and the offense concisely described. Otherwise we have no way of knowing in advance if we are violating the law. So in pollution there must be some value established that applies to all. Thus a threshold of “harm” but not “degree of harm”. The violation for harm is stop doing it or go to jail.

          If it can be shown that I incurred expenses, say medical bills, due to the harm then compensation is reimbursement of those bills and any NPV of lost earning potential based on my most recent earning capacity.

          These are just thoughts here guys, not proposed final answers.
          More thoughts?

        • I look at the influence problem like this.

          First who has a desire to affect the outcome, beyond pure science? Generally it is either those who could lose something, like the big oil corps or coal, or those who have some other agenda, such as the Green Movement which views man as a blight. The bias comes in determining the “acceptable level” given the criteria of “human health”.

          Next comes the mechanism for finding the answer. Govt or private labs. We know that those who have an agenda will fight for the Ring of Power so that is a given. If we can not find a way to exclude their influence from Govt then it has to be private.

          Now how can we prevent severely biased outcomes in the private option? This is where I get stuck.

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

            JAC,

            First of all, ask yourself these questions:

            How did science advance and how was progress made before the advent of massive funding from public and/or private sources?

            Is it possible for science to advance absent massive funding from public or private sources today?

            If the answer to question 2 is no, then how do we ensure that the massive funding comes from a source which will not impart its own bias into the process?

            • Peter:

              You are starting to answer my questions with my own questions.

              Your not trying to give me a headache just for fun are ya?

              Historically there was some govt influence/funding of science. But there was a large part funded by “benefactors” who simply had an interest. But that was the age of enlightenment.

              I am asking you two whether you think there would be enough interest among the general population to “voluntarily” fund independent labs to do the work needed to establish these thresholds.

  50. Black Flag says:

    Earl
    “seasons aren’t climate”

    IN FACT, it is, Earl!

    Again, the layman has become so muddled between what constitutes weather and what constitutes climate.

    Weather is caused by the daily heating of the earth by the sun. This causes evaporation, and heating of the air. Hot air rises, (low pressure areas) causing cold air to fall (high pressure areas). The earth spins, which causes this areas to move. The flow of air filling in from the down force of cold air (high pressure) into the up force (low pressure) causes wind. Wind causes turbulence and mixing at all levels of the atmosphere.

    Climate is caused by global influences such as tilt of the earth, ocean temperature chage, solar influences and our orbit around the sun, cosmic rays, etc. This is why we have seasons – a massive global effect of the tilt of the earth.

    • Black Flag says:

      Simply, weather is local, climate is global.

      • If climate is global then why is it the closer you get to the equator the less seasonal variation there is?

        Before you pretend to misunderstand the question, I know the mechanism. What I want to know is how you claim seasonal variation is the same thing as climate?

        • Black Flag says:

          Because at the equator, there is no measurable tilt.

          Look at a fulcrum, Earl. The point in the center does not move. The ends do.

          The equator DOES have climate effects, Earl. As the tilt changes the climate in the North and the South, it alters global wind patterns known as the Jet Stream.

          This is why Florida has a hurricane season.

        • Black Flag says:

          Another way to see this, Earl, is that the ‘ice age’ only affects the North and Southern Hemispheres – the equator remains unaffected.

          As you can see that as a ‘climate’ effect, though the equator remains ice free.

          Since we see this effect seasonally (ie: explosion of ice) due to the tilt of the earth, would not you not hypothesize that Global Warming or Cooling would also be an affect of some interaction between the earth and the sun?

        • :sigh:

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

            I guess we can take “sigh” as a “no” you do not agree that climate change is due to interactions between the earth and the sun.

            Would you care to elaborate on what you feel causes global warming or global cooling if it is not, in fact, interactions between the earth and the sun which are the primary causes?

          • Black Flag says:

            Are you not aware that all climate and weather is due to the Sun?.

            Without the sun, there is no weather and there is no climate.

            There is no climate or weather on Pluto.

          • If you had taken the time to read my post you would have seen that I already understand the mechanism of seasonal variability caused by the tilt in the Earth’s axis. What I was looking for was clarification about how ‘season’ = ‘climate’

            I can see you guys are so wrapped up in your own little world with all your self-perpetuating delusions, that any attempt by me or others to add some sense to the conversation is pretty much pointless. All you do is gang up on invaders like hornets protecting their nest.

            Good luck with your little libertarian sewing circle. I’m sure things will only get crazier as you realize that most people in this country don’t feel the same way you do.

            C’est la vie.

            • USW — it there a way to post pictures in comments? I have a good picture of the sewing circle 😉 c

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          If climate is NOT global, then the phrase “global warming” and the phrase “global climate change” can have no validity.

          • Uh…no. Global climate change means that all of the climates are changing and it’s not isolated to individual regions. This by no means insinuates that there is one overarching climate on Earth.

            Try again.

            • Black Flag says:

              Ah, No. No such thing occurs, even in the IPCC computer games.

              Look up glaciation. Do you believe the equator was covered in ice?

              • No, but just because the water at the equator never froze doesn’t mean that a double-digit change in temperature isn’t significant.

              • Black Flag says:

                I agree, like moving from -30C to 30C within 12 months?

              • Or going from a yearly average of 30 to a yearly average of 15.

              • Black Flag says:

                Earl H

                Or going from a yearly average of 30 to a yearly average of 15

                So, it appears you would agree that a mean temp. that has changed merely 1C over the last 100 years is statistically irrelevant?

                (And we haven’t even begin to discuss what constitutes a mean temp.)

              • It’s not irrelevant if the long-term trend shows it to be gaining momentum.

  51. I always question the motives of those who freak out over “anthropogenic climate change”. It has become another religion that it is blasphemous to question.
    The 100 or so notifications I got on this topic last night caused me to unsubscribe from this post. A shame since there are some interesting topics being discussed that got buried under the climate change nonsense.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      Exactly Kent,

      It has indeed become religious dogma, and it is blasphemous to question religious dogma.

      Far too many debates are becoming that way these days, precisely because government wants to shut off debate.

      It is sad that reasoned, rational debate has been nearly totally discouraged on so many topics in favor of either blindly agreeing with the government position or being labeled a “kook”, “wingnut” or other such label if you do not support the government-mandated postion on an issue.

      Land of the free my ass!

      Sorry, my frustration got the better of me there for a minute….

  52. Black Flag says:

    JAC
    “What mechanism would cause the ocean to give up CO2 when warming?”

    The same mechanism that makes your soda pop explode in fizz when you open it when its warm.

    The amount of dissolved CO2 is governed by Henry’s Law, which states that P(CO2) = Kh * C(CO2) where P(CO2) is the partial pressure of CO2 in the ambient air, Kh is Henry’s Law constant, and C(CO2) is the concentration of dissolved CO2 in the water. Now, the solubility of gases decreases with increasing
    temperature.

    Stated another way the Henry’s Law constant decreases with
    increasing temperature.

    Put in another way 🙂 the equilibrium for the constant is sensitive to the function of temperature.

    • Black Flag says:

      The net effect isthat there is less CO2 dissolved in water as the temperature increases.

      Hence, it enters the ambient air, increasing its concentration.

      Oceans are the largest reserve of Co2 on Earth. 93% of all Co2 is in the oceans.

      As oceans warm, atmospheric Co2 rises.

      As oceans cool, atmospheric Co2 decreases.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      As I pointed out above, this relationship has to do with kinetics. Higher temperature imparts greater kinetic energy to all of the molecules involved in the interaction (to both the water molecules and the CO2 molecules.

      Greater kinetic energy means more molecular motion, which means greater space between the molecules involved in the interaction, thus allowing the release of dissolved CO2 from the water.

      All kinetic interactions are subject to temperature. Some interactions are exothermic and some are endothermic, which can further complicate the issue, but the CO2/Water interaction is pretty straight-forward. Cold water does indeed hold a higher concentration of CO2 than warm water is capable of holding.

      An open container of pop (or soda depending on where you live :)) will always lose its carbonation regardless of temperature; however, if you keep your open container in the refrigerator, it will take longer to go flat than if you keep it on your kitchen table.

      • Black Flag says:

        Well, actually, it all has to do with partial pressure.

        Hot air is less dense and exerts less pressure.

        Cold air is more dense and exerts higher pressure.

        Yes, you’re right. The higher the kinetic energy, the lowers the density, and vis versa.

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          Yeah it is all inter-related, but no matter which way you look at it, I think we have shown that it makes sense that cold water retains more dissolved CO2 than warm water does, which was the original point 🙂

          • Black Flag says:

            😆

            Yeah, I hope its perfectly clear that oceans increase or decrease Co2 in the atmosphere because they change temperature.

            • So now what causes the oceans to warm and cool?

              • Black Flag says:

                The Sun.

                The changes of cloud cover changes the intensity of the warming on the ocean.

                More clouds, less sun, cooler water

                Less clouds, more sun, warmer water.

              • Black Flag says:

                Hence the negative feedback loop.

                Warmer water, more evaporation, thus more cloud, less sun, cooler water, less evaporation, less clouds, more sun….

              • I think there is more to it than just the sun. It is big but how about major current changes?

                El Nino and La Nina for example.

                Wouldn’t higher CO2 levels in the water increase the heat absorption capacity of the water as well?

                Making the oceans warmer as the CO2 level increased, at least near the surface.

              • I’ll add more before you get back.

                I think the level and effect of ocean floor volcanic activity is not well understood nor accounted for in the whole equation.

                I also don’t think our scientists have adequately accounted for the effects of major volcanic and other large scale events (major wildfires and duststorms) on ocean and atmospheric chemistry.

                We are just now discovering the Chinese dust storms were present in the atmosphere for what, 7 years.

                The Indonesian volcanoe of many years ago provided us with great sunsets for 3 years on northern Idaho. The sulpher gas levels remained high enough to create deep orange sky at dusk each evening, without any cloud cover.

    • Peter:

      What is the bond between CO2 and H2O when in solution. I don’t remember my chemistry all that well.

      Given your description we should be able to measure higher near surface CO2 levels above warmer bodies of water. Correct?

      • And to followup, as that air moved, prior to full mixing, and as it cooled wouldn’t we see increased CO2 concentrations as meaured by ppm?

        • Black Flag says:

          Not in air. The air temp. has little to do with concentration of the Co2 in air.

          The sun (or lack of) either warms or cools the oceans.

          As water cools, the partial pressure of gas dissolves Co2 into the water, increasing its concentration in the water.

          As water warms, the partial pressure of th gas exhausts into the air out of the water, decreasing concentration in the water.

          • I think you missed the key question.

            Is not “concentration” measured by the amount of something was measured against a fixed volume of the whole.

            Thus the old phrase, “the solution to pollution is dilution”.

            If CO2 concentration is measured in the number of molecules per liter of air, for example, would we get higher concentrations, more molecules per liter?

            Or does the ratio remain the same and the total number of molecules increase?

            In closed space the number remains the same and the pressure builds on the container. But in the atmosphere there is room for the heated molecules to expand, thus reducing concentration in any particular “liter of air”. At least that would seem to me the case.

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          JAC, on a day in which air conditions were literally very close to totally stagnant and the mixing height was very high, you might be able to measure a difference in CO2 concentration at ocean-surface level; however, this would practically be difficult because over a body of water large enough to make this measurment possible, stagnant conditions with high mixing height rarely (if ever) occur.

      • Black Flag says:

        Absolutely correct!

        It takes approx. 500-800 years for the changes to the surface to be reflected in the compositions nearer the bottom of the ocean.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        My reply to this seems to have evaporated! 🙂

        Anyway, if you take a teaspoon of sugar and put it into a glass of water and stir vigorously, the sugar dissolves in the water. YOU HAVE NOT CHANGED THE MOLECULAR NATURE OF THE SUGAR OR THE WATER IN ANY WAY.

        Much the same happens with CO2 and water. A very small amount of the CO2 will react with the water and form Carbonic Acid, but this is a very week acid so not much of it is formed. Other than that, you have not changed the molecular comosition of the water or the CO2 in any way.

        So, simply think of it as CO2 has a higher solubility in cold water than it does in warm water, but due to kinetics, it takes a good while for CO2 to dissolve into the cold water.

        • If it controlled by kinetic energy then wouldn’t cold air (colder than the water) be required for the CO2 energy to reduce to the point it could be mixed in solution?

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

            JAC,

            Yes, that is exactly what happens in an ice-age. The air cools to the point where it is cooler than the water, since huge bodies of water take far longer to cool than the air does, and then, as the water cools, more and more CO2 gets dissolved into the water.

            If the water cooled faster than the air, we wouldn’t see a several-hundred year lag between minimum land temperature and minimum CO2 concentration in the air.

            • It would also happen in the winter within large areas of the norther and southern hemisphere. Where air temps drop far below ocean temps, correct?

              The wizards are always reporting greater CO2 levels at north and south pole regions. I always figured it had more to do with cooler air. Greater air density then greater CO2 concentrations. But that gets back to how it is measured, which I will look up later.

              If the above is true then the oceans near the poles should be absorbing more CO2 which is then circulated to warmer areas and eventually released back into the air.

              Now if a sudden change of ocean currents were to bring warmer water into the polar region in winter we would have very cold air and warm water (relatively). Thus perhaps raising measured atmospheric CO2 because water temps were higher than other periods of measurement.

              Thus the warm currents moving north would cause fluxuations, increases, in CO2 readings in the atmosphere. The warmer water would also influence local weather and ice sheet structure.

              Thus a change in ocean currents carrying warmer water north could cause someone to declare CO2 levels have increased at the pole and the ice cap is melting. Therefore it is the fault of CO2.

              Completely missing the effect of the warmer ocean currents on the whole thing.

              So where am I off on this one?

    • BF:

      “Stated another way the Henry’s Law constant decreases with
      increasing temperature.”

      Sorry, not buying that one. A constant is constant. The relationship of the two values changes.

      What is the constant by the way?

      • Black Flag says:

        JAC,

        It is a Henry’s Law is scientific principle beyond refutation.

        His constant is a ‘constant’ in his calculation, that is, it is not conditional upon changes of the material it is measuring.

        The constant is calculated by additional effects that are independent of Henry’s Law.

        Think of it this way – a yard stick is a constant. You use it to measure distance. But if the stick’s velocity approaches the speed of light – its length changes. It is still a constant for your measurements, that is, what you are measuring did not change the stick’s length – but its length has changed by a law of the universe, independent of the material you are measuring

        • Black Flag says:

          Which is why the search for the “universal” constant, that is, something that never changed under any circumstance, external or internal.

          Einstein rationalized that it would be the speed of light. It always goes exactly the same velocity in a vacuum -always-

          Thus, all of our measures, whether weight, mass, volume or distance now is to the precise root of the speed of light.

          • Black Flag says:

            For example, a meter is now defined as the distance light travels in 1/299 792 458 of a second.

          • Einstein also said that the cosmological constant was his biggest embarrassment. The need for a constant in an equation shows that the underlying principles are not fully understood and that the theory should be improved.

            • Black Flag says:

              Earl

              Whether Einstein was embarrassed or not is moot.

              Godel demonstrated that there must exist a cosmological constant, if the system is to remain consistent.

              His theory of incompleteness offers that any system that is ‘complete’, that is contains all the proofs of itself inside itself would be irrational.

              Any rational system would be ‘incomplete’, that is, that there would be one axiom that could not be proven within the system.

              Given the universe is rational, there requires a cosmological constant.

              • Gödel’s incompleteness theorem by no means implies that there must be a cosmological constant. All it says is that any consistent mathematical system is necessarily incomplete (i.e., we can produce a true but unprovable statement). Mathematics is descriptive, not prescriptive. The world could go on with any commentary from the sidelines.

                Your assumption that the universe is rational is merely another unprovable axiom.

  53. Earl,

    I’ve been scanning he comments and nowhere have I seen how you are leading by example. What have you done PERSONALLY to save Mother Earth? Have you given up using electricity? Do you still use any form of transportation that uses energy? Do you take hot showers? Given up eating meat? (all those cow farts are killing Gaia) Have you reduced your level of physical exercise so as not to exhale more CO2? Have you had chilren? Do you believe in culling the human population? If so, why are you still alive? Besides complaining that everyone who doesn’t believe you and Al Gore, what have you and your fellow believers done to, shall we say, ‘put up’? Until EVERY last one of you believers is living in the stone age for ten years, I will not reconsider my position. Complain all you like. Lead by example, Earl.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      Cyndi P,

      Your post is obviously humorous and cynical, but it contains a grain of truth.

      Since the production of energy and the production of goods pollute, and since pollution does have some negative effects, the only way to control it (since it cannot currently be eliminated) is to decide FOR YOURSELF what level of pollution you are willing to tolerate, and then do exactly what you said, lead by example.

      • More truth than humor. I’m tired of being nagged by a bunch of….fill in the blank. If, as they say, most people are on their side of this, then they can all do VOLUNTARILY what they are trying to force the rest of us to do. If there really is a problem, that should solve it. If there isn’t a problem, then we’ll have the proof. I’m fed up with hearing the propaganda.

        Asking them to put up usually makes them shut up…

        🙂

        • Much like other complicated issues where there is a great deal at stake, those who stand to lose out can delay any action by infusing just enough doubt so as to give people a reason to avoid making difficult choices.

          Your kids probably think Fruity Pebbles are a good breakfast choice based on the commercials (and would likely eat them for every meal if you didn’t constantly remind them about the fine print, “…as part of a balanced breakfast”). As long as there are powerful interests on one side pushing us to make irresponsible choices, we need some balance on the other side to keep us from doing irreparable harm to ourselves and the planet we live on.

          I put up often, shut up rarely.

    • I drive a diesel car that emits less CO2 (and can run on renewable sources of fuel). I don’t eat beef (or any animal bigger than myself). I turn the water off while I lather (aka navy shower). I recycle. I believe in ZPG (hence only 2 kids).

      This isn’t an ‘all or nothing’ proposition. Small changes in lifestyle by many people amount to large changes. I do live by example and I try to do a little better each day.

      What have you done to reduce our dependency on foreign oil and natural resources?

      • Black Flag says:

        I drive a car that has a 500hp engine, I like steak and hot showers, and I recycle aluminum and glass.

        • And I think Nicholas Cage’s character in ‘Leaving Las Vegas’ had a workable plan for spending the rest of his life, but I wouldn’t suggest the same strategy regarding natural resources. Waste not, want not.

          • Black Flag says:

            Natural resources….

            …. it appears you do not understand how huge the Earth is….

            Humans have used an immeasurably insignificant amount of “Natural Resources”.

            • I know exactly how big the Earth is. I also know how much freshwater it takes to keep the southwest from turning back into a desert. You can tell by the huge white ring around Lake Mead. I’m pretty sure you could measure that.

      • Earl,

        I have done nothing to stop man made global climate change because I believe it is a con. As for eliminating our dependence on foriegn oil, I voted for the Drill Here, Drill Now Republican party and not the Hopey-Changey BS. I treat the environment like the rest of my responsibilites. As for natural resources, I live with in my means. I make less than $50k a year so I’d say my means are pretty modest. Again I say, let the Greenies lead by example and leave the rest of us alone. It should work quite well because those of us who don’t believe in man made climate change are just a few Neandertals, while the rest of the world is so much smarter and wonderful than us. (/sarc off)

  54. Peter/BF:

    Do you two realize we have been conducting simultaneous conversations about political philosophy and climate/ocean relationships and chemistry/physics for over three hours?

    I got to get ready to entertain some of my wifes friends so will have to leave you now.

    Will check back later this evening to see what answers you left to my latest.

    JAC

  55. Black Flag says:

    Just A Citizen

    I think there is more to it than just the sun. It is big but how about major current changes?

    There is a powerful and direct correlation between sunspot activity (which signals increase is solar activity) and global warming, as well as an equally powerful correlation between an extended lack of sunspots (signaling a decrease in solar activity) with global cooling.

    The problem was that the increase in radiation was not enough to account for the warming.

    However, by experiment (and now, subsequently proven by observation in the atmosphere) it has been shown there is a more powerful effect.

    The mechanism affected is cosmic rays. Cosmic rays come primarily from the black hole(s) at the center of our galaxy. It has been experimentally proven (a very unique concept in climatology) that cosmic rays hitting the upper atmosphere creates a thin layer of very reflective clouds.

    When the Sun is very active (hence sunspots), the solar wind (material expelled by the sun) is very strong, and deflects the cosmic rays away from the earth, which then creates very few high clouds, allowing more sunlight to hit the earth, causing global warming.

    When the Sun is inactive (hence no sunspots), the solar wind dies away, more cosmic rays hit the atmosphere, creating clouds, which reflect a significant amount of solar radiation back into space, causing global cooling.

    During from 1995 to 1999, we experienced the greatest number of sunspots ever recorded in history (this is the longest scientific record of mankind, stretching back to Galileo).

    Starting in 2000 and continuing to present, the Sun has, quite literally, turned off. We are now experiencing the longest stretches of no sunspots since the mini-ice age of the 18th century.

    Current Stretch: 29 days since last sunspot (when only 1 was recorded)
    2009 total: 171 days (78%) sunspot free.
    Since 2004: 682 days sunspot free
    Typical Solar Min: 485 days

    This “shutdown” is so severe that NASA has had to revise its solar cycle theory. Cycle 23 was supposed to end over a year ago, and cycle 24 was to have started. We are at a point where cycle 24 is supposed to stop and cycle 25 start – but cycle 23 hasn’t ended yet. The new idea is that the sun ‘skips’ a cycle, and maybe we are in cycle 25 now. Such a thing is unprecedented except in theory made about 20 years ago in an attempt to explain the mini-ice age, when the same thing happened.

    (A sunspot cycle is when the polarity of sunspots swaps between N and S, even cycles have N “up” and odd cycles have “S” up)

    The high level clouds theory was disputed since they can’t been seen. However, a shuttle launch back a little ways took the first pictures of these clouds, which exist at an altitude of over 100,000 feet.

    El Nino and La Nina for example.

    Yes, these twins are known by this phenomena name: “Pacific Decadal Oscillation” or PDO.

    The driver of this oscillation is water temperature – and it has been found that they generally follow a decade long shift between one to the other, then back again.

    Wouldn’t higher CO2 levels in the water increase the heat absorption capacity of the water as well?

    No.

    Co2 shares all of its spectrum absorption frequencies with water – in other words, H20 absorbs the all of same frequencies of light as Co2 (Water absorbs additional frequencies as well). Therefore, water in the ocean absorbs it all, none by the Co2.

    In the atmosphere, water takes the vast majority of the absorption, leaving just a little bit between the gaps of the water molecules for Co2 to absorb.

    However, Co2 is 4x more radiating then H20, because of its structure (it “bounces” or “vibrates” in four directions, where as water only “bounces” or “vibrates” in one direction). Methane “bounces” in 20 directions, hence radiates 20x more than water.

    However, there is so little methane in the atmosphere as to be irrelevant. But there is so much water vapor in the air, water presents 85%-95% of the radiating energy for warming the earth.

    • As I recall “The mechanism affected is cosmic rays. Cosmic rays come primarily from the black hole(s) at the center of our galaxy. It has been experimentally proven (a very unique concept in climatology) that cosmic rays hitting the upper atmosphere creates a thin layer of very reflective clouds.”

      The actual mechanism is a reaction between the cosmic rays and certain subatomic, or atomic level particles that results in forming particles large enough to allow the clouds to form. I can remember the actual reaction right now.

      Do you recall what it is?

      “Co2 shares all of its spectrum absorption frequencies with water – in other words, H20 absorbs the all of same frequencies of light as Co2 (Water absorbs additional frequencies as well). Therefore, water in the ocean absorbs it all, none by the Co2.”

      If they both absorbed the same frequencies of radiation wouldn’t both absorb energy? How can water absorb all and CO2 none? I know that water absorbs and radiates more but doesn’t CO2 absorb some?
      But your statemenet regarding absorbtion creates a major dilemna for the warming prognosticators.

      Part of the theory of increased ocean levels is that the CO2 in the ocean will increase the ocean temperature, thus expanding the volume, due to the heat absorbtion capability of CO2. This temperature related volume expansion is supposed to account for at least a couple feet of sea level rise, as I recall. Thoughts on this part?

      By the way I think I am guilty of a gross misconduct foul in our discussion. I realized after reading the last couple of comments by you and Peter that I have never placed my background on the table, except for the parts revealed during the philosophy series. I have asked questions in a simple way to help others understand and you have responded in like fashion.

      But for the record, I have a B.S. degree in Forest Management and spent over 20 years practicing my profession in the field. I have two years of graduate level education in two complimentary fields. One is Forest Ecology and Silviculture and the other is in Logging Systems Engineering. The first of these required considerable study in micro and macro climate changes and relationships. And due to the second of these I look at such marvels as the Macinac Bridge in a different light than most. The balance of forces that allow a suspension bridge to be held up by cables is absolutely fascinating. And the calculations to make it work are almost overwhelming. I would have graduated with a minor or dual degree in Forestry and Business Mgt but I couldn’t get the concept of Accounting. Isn’t that funny. A guy who ate up Matrix Calculus couldn’t understand simple accounting. My other big fall down in college was statistics. After 20 some years of business ownership I figured out the accounting thing. I eventually overcame my stigma with statistics as well. That’s why I picked up on the stacked deck of the temp. bet presented earlier today.

      I offer this so that you don’t have to feel like you have to go out of the way to simplify your answers on this kind of stuff for me alone. I will ask technical questions if I don’t understand. I do think it is good for the general audience though if they are watching/listening.

      Not tooting horns here I just felt after re reading your responses that I may have made you work harder than necessary.

      JAC

      • Black Flag says:

        1) Co2 in Oceans.

        There is about 10,000 times more water than Co2 in ocean (by weight).

        2) Cosmic Rays. That is correct – you can google it for more details.

        3) NO. Co2 in oceans does NOT increase sea level. The warming of the oceans increases its volume, which increases the sea level slightly, however, especially in North America, the land is still rising (and sea level falling) – the land is ‘popping’ up from centuries of compression under ice.

        No, they’re good questions, and if any ‘simplifying’ it is mostly for those without degrees in science.

  56. Black Flag says:

    Just A Citizen

    I’ll add more before you get back. I think the level and effect of ocean floor volcanic activity is not well understood nor accounted for in the whole equation. I also don’t think our scientists have adequately accounted for the effects of major volcanic and other large scale events (major wildfires and duststorms) on ocean and atmospheric chemistry. We are just now discovering the Chinese dust storms were present in the atmosphere for what, 7 years. The Indonesian volcanoe of many years ago provided us with great sunsets for 3 years on northern Idaho. The sulpher gas levels remained high enough to create deep orange sky at dusk each evening, without any cloud cover.

    All of that is true – it is very poorly understood.

    If you want to read up on it, it is the topic of ‘aerosols’ in the atmosphere.

    Aerosols have been shown to reflect sun energy back into space. However, aerosols dissipate to the surface, and in the Arctic, they darken the snow. This changes the albedo effect (snow reflects energy back into space) and retains more heat. Which one dominates? (shrug)

    However, what do we know?

    We know the Earth is a massive, self-regulating, negative feedback loop. If it wasn’t we’d have been toast on the first volcano or asteroid strike. But we are still here.

    So no matter the disturbance, the Earth adjusts and center lines itself. Think of a marble in a milk can. No matter how hard you shake it, the marble will eventually roll back to the center and not fall out. You have to tip the whole thing upside down, but there is no way mere mortal man has even a minor effect, so “us” tipping it, vs. an asteroid strike….. nah, we ain’t that powerful

    • Black Flag says:

      Co2 in Oceans.

      There is about 10,000 times more water than Co2 in ocean (by weight).

  57. Black Flag says:

    Global Warming ate my data

    * Track this topic
    * Print story

    We’ve lost the numbers: CRU responds to FOIA requests

    By Andrew Orlowski • Get more from this author

    Posted in Environment, 13th August 2009 14:35 GMT

    Click here to reserve your place at The Register Agile Data Center Summit

    The world’s source for global temperature record admits it’s lost or destroyed all the original data that would allow a third party to construct a global temperature record. The destruction (or loss) of the data comes at a convenient time for the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) in East Anglia – permitting it to snub FoIA requests to see the data.

    The CRU has refused to release the raw weather station data and its processing methods for inspection – except to hand-picked academics – for several years. Instead, it releases a processed version, in gridded form. NASA maintains its own (GISSTEMP), but the CRU Global Climate Dataset, is the most cited surface temperature record by the UN IPCC. So any errors in CRU cascade around the world, and become part of “the science”.

    Professor Phil Jones, the activist-scientist who maintains the data set, has cited various reasons for refusing to release the raw data. Most famously, Jones told an Australian climate scientist in 2004:

    Even if WMO agrees, I will still not pass on the data. We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.

    In 2007, in response to Freedom of Information Act requests, CRU initially said it didn’t have to fulfil the requests because “Information accessible to applicant via other means Some information is publicly available on external websites”.

    Now it’s citing confidentiality agreements with Denmark, Spain, Bahrain and our own Mystic Met Office. Others may exist, CRU says in a statement, but it might have lost them because it moved offices. Or they were made verbally, and nobody at CRU wrote them down.

    As for the raw station data,

    “We are not in a position to supply data for a particular country not covered by the example agreements referred to earlier, as we have never had sufficient resources to keep track of the exact source of each individual monthly value. Since the 1980s, we have merged the data we have received into existing series or begun new ones, so it is impossible to say if all stations within a particular country or if all of an individual record should be freely available. Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e. quality controlled and homogenized) data.”

    Canadian statistician and blogger Steve McIntyre, who has been asking for the data set for years, says he isn’t impressed by the excuses. McIntyre obtained raw data when it was accidentally left on an FTP server last month. Since then, CRU has battened down the hatches, and purged its FTP directories lest any more raw data escapes and falls into the wrong hands.

    McIntyre says he doesn’t expect any significant surprises after analysing the raw data, but believes that reproducibility is a cornerstone of the scientific principle, and so raw data and methods should be disclosed.

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/13/cru_missing/

  58. Black Flag says:

    Earl

    Here is a link to Dr. Pielke’s paper on surface temp. trends.

    Dr. Pielke Sr. on warm bias in the surface temperature trend – “provides evidence of the significant error in the global surface temperature trend analysis of NCDC”

    http://climatesci.org/2009/08/13/new-paper-documents-a-warm-bias-in-the-calculation-of-a-multi-decadal-global-average-surface-temperature-trend-klotzbach-et-al-2009/

    As I related above, Dr. Pielke is an acquaintance. He is also one of the first to hypothesis anthropogenic effects on climate.

  59. Black Flag says:

    http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009EO300001.pdf

    For hundreds of years, humans have observed that the Sun has displayed activity where the number of sunspots increases and then decreases at approximately 11- year intervals. Sunspots are dark regions on the solar disk with magnetic field strengths greater than 1500 gauss and the 11- year sunspot cycle is actually a 22- year cycle in the solar magnetic field, with sunspots showing the same hemispheric magnetic polarity on alternate 11- year cycles.

    The last solar maximum occurred in 2001, and the magnetically active sunspots at that time produced powerful flares causing large geomagnetic disturbances and disrupting some space- based technology.

    But something is unusual about the current sunspot cycle. The current solar minimum has been unusually long, and with more than 670 days without sunspots through June 2009, the number of spotless days has not been equaled since 1933

    The solar wind is reported to be in a uniquely low energy state since space measurements began nearly 40 years ago

  60. Black Flag says:

    Sunday, August 16, 2009
    Wobbling earth triggers climate change

    Regular wobbles in the earth’s tilt were responsible for the global warming episodes that interspersed prehistoric ice ages, according to new evidence.

    The finding is the result of research led by Dr Russell Drysdale of the University of Newcastle that has been able to accurately date the end of the penultimate ice age for the first time.

    The new dates, which appear in the today’s edition of Science, show the end of the second last ice age occurring 141,000 years ago, thousands of years earlier than previously thought.

    Using information gathered from a trio of Italian stalagmites, the research has punched a hole in the prevailing theory that interglacial periods are related to changes in the intensity of the northern hemisphere summer.

    Drysdale and colleagues suggest that the earth emerges from ice ages due in large part to changes in the tilt of the planet in relation to the sun, otherwise known as its obliquity. This affects the total amount of sunlight each hemisphere receives in its respective summer, rather than the peak intensity of the solar radiation during the northern summer.
    Dating ice ages

    Sediment on the sea floor contains accurate a record of what happened to the earth’s climate prior to the last ice age. But up until now dating the sediment and the evident climatic changes has not been possible.

    Drysdale and colleagues overcome this difficulty by comparing the changes in the sea floor to similar material on the surface that can be accurately dated.

    Dr John Hellstrom of the University of Melbourne used a very sensitive mass spectrometer to measure the amount of uranium and thorium contained in samples taken from the three stalagmites in the Italian Antro del Corchia cave to date the material.

    They were then able to relate variations in the chemical composition of the stalagmites, to changes in the North Atlantic sea floor, thereby dating the changes.

    “When it’s cold in the ocean, there is less evaporation and less rainfall above the cave. When it’s warm in the ocean, there’s a lot more water evaporated and a lot more rain,” says Hellstrom.
    Then and now

    This technique for dating the comings and goings of prehistoric ice sheets has the potential for tracking climate changes much further back than ever before.

    The result is that the new date for the end of the second last ice age is thousands of years too early to be related to any increase in the intensity of the northern hemisphere summer as predicted by the Milankovitch Theory.

    Instead, the researchers found that, in the past million years global warming events have occurred every second or third cycle of the earth’s changing obliquity, which occurs every 41,000 years.

    Hellstrom says that the new knowledge may assist in calibrating the effectiveness of current climate modelling technology.

    “Any improvement we can have in understanding how the earth’s orbital parameters affect our coming in and out of ice ages can certainly affect the models used now too.”

    The team are now using their measurements to investigate the provocative idea that the glacial melting periods actually began in the Southern Hemisphere.

    • I understand you’re self-taught and never went to college and all, but it is generally frowned upon in the academic world to provide information without also providing its source. Some call it lazy, some call it plagiarism. I’d just prefer if you let us all know where you cut and paste from:

      http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2009/08/14/2655852.htm

      • Black Flag says:

        Earl,

        First, I’m not in the ‘academic world’ so I couldn’t careless if ‘they’ frown or not.

        Second, plagiarism is taking undue credit. I did not take credit – I merely posted. Your accusation carries no merit.

        Third, why does the articles source have meaning for you?

        Fourth, why do you assume I didn’t go to college?

        Fifth, you got one thing right, I am mostly self-taught.

        • Sorry if I misunderstood. I thought you were in favor of avoiding formal education.

          I didn’t accuse you of plagiarizing. Who would plagiarize and forget to leave out the date stamp and title?

          Regarding the article’s source, I think it’s very important to know who the author is in order to get a feeling for his/her motivations and to be able to ensure that portions weren’t left out or altered.

          It’s just a matter of courtesy and full disclosure for me. If you think the article is worthwhile, why not cite the source?

          • Black Flag says:

            Re: “Formal” education.

            I have found for most people that it is a massive waste of money and time.

            Most people could get the necessary education at home, while earning, in 5 years for less than $15,000.

            Rest assured, that most of my cut and pastes are vetted.

            Why not cite source? Because I am lazy 😆

  61. Black Flag says:

    Earl

    I also know how much freshwater it takes to keep the southwest from turning back into a desert. You can tell by the huge white ring around Lake Mead. I’m pretty sure you could measure that

    Where did the water go?

    You do know there is exactly the same amount of water today on Earth as there was 100,000 years ago, right?

  62. Black Flag says:

    Earl H

    Gödel’s incompleteness theorem by no means implies that there must be a cosmological constant. All it says is that any consistent mathematical system is necessarily incomplete…Math is not prescriptive.

    Oh, but it does, good sir.

    Mathematics is the language of the Universe. It is the perfect descriptor for the operations of the Universe.

    It is because of this very fact of mathematics that we predicted positrons, dark matter, anti-protons, lasers and holograms, etc.

    Your assumption that the universe is rational is merely another unprovable axiom.

    Uh, Earl, Axioms are by definition unprovable.

    The Universe being rational is a requirement of science. If you do not hold this belief, our conversation is over as it is futile to discuss science with an irrational man.

  63. Black Flag says:

    Earl H said

    It’s not irrelevant if the long-term trend shows it to be gaining momentum.

    Yes, it is on the 10,000 year scale. Which, by the way, is a

    What scale are you using?

  64. Black Flag says:
%d bloggers like this: