Tuesday Night Open Mic for December 8, 2009

Another Tuesday is upon us already. And that means open mic. I will use my first topic to respond to Black Flag on his rant on the Iran being a threat article. This time of year I often struggle to find the time to dole out the responses at the appropriate times and with necessary detail. When I devote an entire article to one person’s point of view, I at least should ensure that I find the time to answer that person. Such is the case here. On top of this topic, there are some other compelling ones for tonight. We have more climate madness. We have the Senate Majority leader inserting foot into mouth quite well. We have the possible dropping of the public option altogether on the health care bill (including why I don’t think this is a good thing). And finally, we will have a quick hit on the fact that Obama’s poll numbers are now below 50% for the first time.


  1. Black Flag says:

    USWeapon Topic #1

    This is the original response from Black Flag on the topic of Iran from Friday Night. I brought it over here so that I can give him an answer. I will not be able to respond much today, but will when I can.

    .. October the vast array of actions by Iran to extend violence to other countries around the world….

    Around the world?

    Sorry, sir, no way. Their minor capability exists to no more than regional.

    They have no carriers, no ICBMS, no heavy lift capacity…

    They are undoubtedly the supports of Hezbollah, as the USA is the supports of Israel.

    This mismatch of support is huge – Israel gets more support from the USA then Iran’s entire military budget.

    So the claim that Iran has not initiated violence in 300 years is false.

    Strawman. They obviously have a government so at the minimum they’ve initiated violence on their own people.

    But that isn’t what was stated as fact.

    Let’s be clear….
    They have not invaded another country in 300 years….

    Let’s be clear, if Iran felt truly threatened by our presence in those two countries, they would be far more quiet these days.

    Absolutely not true.

    A nation under threat does not shrink away from that threat. They become bellicose and aggressive so to deter an attack.

    The US felt threatened by the presence of USSR in Cuba. Did the USA get ‘quiet’???

    They feel no threat, they simply see an opportunity to use the current situation as a false reason to do the things they do.

    You have to be blind to claim this.

    Current array of US forces surrounding Iran.

    Iraq – Around 167,000 troops.
    About 75,000 in Afghanistan

    (BF then had a list of all Navy operations in the “Western Pacific” which I eliminated only for space concerns.)

    So give me a break…. Iran is surrounded.

    The leadership in Iran is unstable at best.

    This is wholly untrue.

    The government, a theocratic republican democracy, by the way, is quite stable – probably the most stable government in the region after Israel.

    It has had three transfers of power via elections since the Revolution.

    Just as I have stated before, they have threatened Israel and others time and again.

    In whole and in part due to threats by Israel on Iran.

    I have been accused of polylogism, but using these arguments as grounds to show a peaceful Iran is certainly applying two different standards to similar situations, so I throw that claim back.

    Well, let’s see.

    You refuse to accept history as evidence – irrelevant to you.

    You refuse to accept the diplomatic attempts of engagement with USA and Israel (which were completely refused by the latter) – this is irrelevant to you.

    You refuse to accept the proclamations of their President – this is irrelevant to you.

    You refuse the documentation and declarations from the IAEC and the USA Security Assessment – this is irrelevant to you.


    Nothing exists that is enough for you – you’ve well darn made up your mind and that’s that!!

    They have been doing so covertly for years.

    What neighbors? They’ve been ‘harming’ Russia? Nope, they are friends.

    Iraq? Saddam tried to destroy Iran – not a neighborly thing to do I’d say.

    Afghanistan and Pakistan? Nothing there.

    So who are you talking about??

    You assume it will.

    A rattlesnake will most surely bite if you keep harassing it.

    I bet JAC will tell you the best way not to get bite by one is to leave the darn thing alone.

    But making it your enemy, your target of international harassment, embargo, incursions of combat troops and agents provocateurs may certainly end up biting your foot.

    Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapon. We can argue back and forth all day otherwise, but the fact is that they are doing so.

    Prove it.

    The same blundering idiocy that got the US people to back Bush into invading Iraq is now going hard-strong on Iran.

    The fact, USWep, is that the IAEC has stated unequivocally – as has the USA own Security Assessment – that Iran is NOT pursuing nuclear weapons.

    There is one, and only one, nation in the Middle East that has nuclear weapons. And that is the one where the effort and urgency is needed to bring to heel.

    You dismiss real fact and insert your own to fit your argument. Dishonest at best, sir.

    History shows us many countries becoming global thorns without having attacked anyone previously. No one thought the US was a threat in the late 1700’s, and they were wrong.

    Wholly untrue.
    Please provide proof to your incredible claim.

    The US was considered a serious threat to European powers well before Independence. France and Spain were seriously concerned with the expansion, prosperity of the Americas to their interests in America.

    Be careful making claims to historical reference, sir, that you may not fully known yourself.

    The world didn’t believe that Hitler had the potential to wreak the havoc that he did until it was too late.

    The world was very aware of the havoc threat of Germany. Why do you think European Powers tried vainly to de-claw her after WW1???

    There wasn’t a history of Somali pirates taking ships in International waters at one point.

    So now you have to reach to criminal actions to make a point???


    But to sit back and pretend that they can be ignored as no threat to the region is irresponsible.

    Stawman. No one is arguing ‘ignored’.

    In fact, the argument has been made many times called ‘diplomatic engagement’.

    Do you know the USA still does not have diplomatic relations at any level with Iran? Iran has requested it numerous times, and the US – so not to disturb Israel – has refused. Can you imagine something stupider than that??

    The US talks to Iran via the Swiss Ambassador. Can you imagine! The US is provoking a war with Iran over disclosures, yet can’t even talk about it without having the Swiss carry the letters!!

    • USWeapon Response to BF

      Around the world?

      Sorry, sir, no way. Their minor capability exists to no more than regional.

      They have no carriers, no ICBMS, no heavy lift capacity…

      They are undoubtedly the supports of Hezbollah, as the USA is the supports of Israel.

      This mismatch of support is huge – Israel gets more support from the USA then Iran’s entire military budget.

      Back up your claim. I offered examples of their activity around the world, from Ireland to South America. That you choose to ignore those examples amounts to you doing little more than saying “did not!’ while crossing your arms.

      And again you failed to separate the issues as I asked. You continue to attempt to use US evil action as a prop instead of addressing the actions of Iran. I don’t care what Israel gets from the US. Apparently the words “focus on whether Iran is a threat, not on whether the US is a threat. I already know the threat the US is,” are a bit too complicated for you to comprehend, or your bias against the US is so overpowering you lack the ability to have a debate without having a Tourettes moment against the US.

      So the claim that Iran has not initiated violence in 300 years is false.

      Strawman. They obviously have a government so at the minimum they’ve initiated violence on their own people.

      But that isn’t what was stated as fact.

      Let’s be clear….
      They have not invaded another country in 300 years….

      Now who is changing the argument to tailor it to your advantage. You have stated Iran is no threat to the outside world. You have stated they have no bad intentions towards Israel or the rest of the region. You have stated that they have not initiated violence against other countries. I provide proof otherwise, so you change the statement to “No, I only stated they have not invaded another country.” Weak. It may win you a point in a debate, but it doesn’t win one in a debate where the question is whether they are a threat.

      Let’s be clear, it Iran felt truly threatened by our presence in those two countries, they would be far more quiet these days.

      Absolutely not true.

      A nation under threat does not shrink away from that threat. They become bellicose and aggressive so to deter an attack.

      The US felt threatened by the presence of USSR in Cuba. Did the USA get ‘quiet’???

      “A Nation” reacts accordingly. When you are a world power and you feel threatened, you get loud. When you are a weak little mouse who just wants to play nice (as you claim Iran is) you shut your mouth and hope they leave you alone. Go in and threaten 5 guys in a bar, you will get 5 different reactions. Saying the US acts one way so Iran must be following the same model is false logic, and you know it.

      You have to be blind to claim this.

      No, you have to be blind to not see this. Your undying loyalty to Iran has clouded your ability to see them for what they are. As I have stated many, many times, yet you cannot seem to grasp: I can see the evil in the US government and the Iranian government. You are too focused on the evil US and so eager to denounce her that you are blind to the reality in Iran.

      Current array of US forces surrounding Iran.

      Iraq – Around 167,000 troops.
      About 75,000 in Afghanistan

      Actually the peak of US troops in Iraq was a little less than 158,000 and that was a peak, not current. And the peak of Afghanistan was 32,000, and we are now talking about increasing to 62,000 for 18 months. Listing every navy group in the Western Pacific was nonsense. If you are going to provide numbers, get the right ones as opposed to more than doubling the amount of US troops ever present in Afghanistan.

      So give me a break…. Iran is surrounded.

      Nonsense. More bunk that you provide to justify whatever actions Iran takes that are against the US. We have roughly 190,000 soldiers in two countries out of the seven that border Iran. In today’s world that means nothing. Those 190k would face an Iranian army of over 500,000. They are not threatened by us being there. They are opportunists. Get over the love affair and see them for who they are, not who you wish them to be.

      This is wholly untrue.

      The government, a theocratic republican democracy, by the way, is quite stable – probably the most stable government in the region after Israel.

      It has had three transfers of power via elections since the Revolution.

      Just three transfers of power since the revolution. There is a statement that engenders stability. They had violent riots in the street after their last election, which appears to have been a fraud. They have a group of radical fundmentalists on the government side and a group of radical clerics on the other side.

      Given how unstable you constantly claim Israel is, I guess your comparison really proves my point better than it proves yours.

      In whole and in part due to threats by Israel on Iran.

      Oh, I see. Your argument is going to be based on “she hit me first”. Works with 5 year olds, not with national governments. Under your premise here, any country that says bad things about the US completely justifies our threatening to wipe them off the map too. But I bet you wouldn’t defend the US if she made that threat. You would condemn her as evil and a gigantic threat. Iran makes the claim that they will do so, and you revert to “Israel said mean things first.” Brilliant deductive argument there.

      You refuse to accept history as evidence – irrelevant to you.

      No, you refuse to accept history as evidence. Iran operates in a more clandestine way to cause problems abroad. You ignore it and say they are not a threat. Polylogism. When the US does it, it is proof, when Iran does it, you simply ignore it.

      You refuse to accept the diplomatic attempts of engagement with USA and Israel (which were completely refused by the latter) – this is irrelevant to you.

      That Israel refused to diplomatically engage with a leader who believes they do not have the right to exist is not an argument that supports your position. Not much to talk about in those negotiations are there?

      You refuse to accept the proclamations of their President – this is irrelevant to you.

      I will gladly step right up and accept 100% of what their President says the second that you agree to accept 100% of what the US Presidents say. You seem upset that I know a President lies and therefore don’t believe him while applying a different level of analysis to your acceptance of what the US President says. Polylogism seems to be your specialty when it comes to Iran.

      You refuse the documentation and declarations from the IAEC and the USA Security Assessment – this is irrelevant to you.

      What does the IAEC or the USA Security Assessment have to do with anything? Because some International group says something I have to believe them? That same group of International bums (because the international groups all play together) want me to believe in Global warming and international gun control measures too. It fascinates me to watch you espouse the idiocy of international groups on topics you disagree with while being shock and dismayed that any person refutes them when you decide you like their conclusions.


      Nothing exists that is enough for you – you’ve well darn made up your mind and that’s that!!


      Nothing exists that is enough for you – you’ve well darn made up your mind and that’s that!! (and no it wasn’t a mistake that I simply copied what you said)

      A rattlesnake will most surely bite if you keep harassing it.

      I bet JAC will tell you the best way not to get bite by one is to leave the darn thing alone.

      But making it your enemy, your target of international harassment, embargo, incursions of combat troops and agents provocateurs may certainly end up biting your foot.

      Or a Rattlesnake might just bite you when you walk past minding your own business. The fact is that it has dangerous potential and possibly fatal consequences.

      Wholly untrue.
      Please provide proof to your incredible claim.

      The US was considered a serious threat to European powers well before Independence. France and Spain were seriously concerned with the expansion, prosperity of the Americas to their interests in America.

      They did not see the US as a threat to their countries. They saw the US as a threat to their ability to lay claim to land on this continent. There is a big difference. Don’t try to dilute the argument by attempting to change what is meant by the threat as we were discussing it.

      People didn’t see Germany as having the potential to do what it did until it was too late. I see Iran as a threat to her region. You simply refuse to see that as a possibility.

      Stawman. No one is arguing ‘ignored’.

      Yes, you are. You are stating she is no potential threat at all. She doesn’t want Nuclear Weapons. She isn’t interested in controlling the region. She just wants to be left alone.

      On the contrary, I have never made any argument that she should be invaded. Nor have I made an argument that she should be attacked. What I have done is argue that she has the potential to be a real threat to her neighbors and cause the kind of problems that lead to a large scale conflict. You ignore those possiblities and consistently use the tactic of applying a different standard to her government than you apply to the US government. And your reasoning is that the US has a history of violence and Iran has a history of rescuing lost puppies and adopting abandoned children.

      I have always been appreciative when you have complimented me by saying that I will change my stance when reason and logic tell me to. I would say the same about you, except for this case. I know I have my moments of stubborn thought. This is yours. I have my guesses as to why you blindly support Iran. But I cannot fathom it from someone with your intelligence.

      I have stated previously my admiration for the people of Iran. I have stated my respect for their religion, which I disagree with but respect. I have stated that I don’t see Iran as an out of control monster set on world domination. I have stated my dislike for the way she is sometimes treated. But I assess the situation with all the facts and I refuse to let my like for the people get in the way of my assessment of the Iranian government. Iran is a potential threat in the Middle East. I stand by that. She may not be the threat that the US government makes her out to be, but she is a threat none-the-less. I cannot fathom your inability to assess the situation the same way, I only see that you are blind to any negative information that surfaces from Iran. You lose credibility when you fail to apply the same level of analysis and skepticism to Iran that I apply to the US.

      • I’m with BF on most of this … and with one aside (not sure if he agrees). There is no way to stop any nation state from developing nuclear weapons. It is almost absurd to do so (or try beyond limited sanctions). How could we expect Iran not to develop such weapons while they are surrounded by other states with them? I see any nuclear treaty as grist for the mill … nonsense … much ado about nothing (there’s no way to stop any country from protecting itself). Should it be aggressive with such weapons down the road is something we’ll all have to deal with when it happens (unless we intend to fight one war after another forever).

      • USW…..off topic some here. I apologize. My head hurts, sometimes, for butting heads with those on this blog, however, am I too stupid to realize that people are dealing with what they wish would happen instead of dealing in the realities of today…or have I gone of my usually pretty stable rocker?

        I have read Bastiat’s book. I spent several hours yesterday and last night reading about the Theory of Natural Law…its origins and interpretations from the Greeeks forward to today.

        I have spent several hours…over 40 hours…of reading through pasts posts. You have had some very intelligent people on here and some plants (both figuratively and literally)and you have a cross section of people that are just trying to understand.

        You have philosophers and those that believe that philosophy is a foundation of the future.

        You have leftists.

        You have extreme right.

        You have the “fence riders”.

        You have anarchists, socialists, capitalists, and whatever other ‘ist” I missed. A complete cross section of humanity and human kind (tho, I wonder is some are not from another dimension).

        You have warriors and academics.

        You have several that fit more than one category.

        But there seems (to this simple old retired Colonel who knows nothing) to be one underlying theme that is missed. I do not see very many on here that face the reality of the situations at hand. I can understand the differing philosophies. The different thought process’ and the different social strata but all of us have one thing in common and that is………we are here, on this blog, together.

        I read enough about Natural Law yesterday and last night to understand it…but it is not reality as we face to day. Trying to get people to understand it is admirable but not practical and using the euphemeism that we “have to start somewhere” is great but does not that somewhere have to be real? Not a theory?

        For example, to not vote because you believe it is impractical and, therefore, a protest to government, to me, does not face the reality of today. Sure it is a protest and perfectly legitimate in mind and spirit but that is mind and spirit and gets nothing done except to show people that you exercised your right to dissent. Even if people agree with it, the reality still is nothing is done and worse is or could be created. That is how I see it. Black Flag is an admitted anarchist ( a person who rebels against any authority, established order, or ruling power ). Ok great. I support his right to be this. But, if I have read his numerous posts correctly, he also uses the system he despises to build his wealth, his social prominence as he sees it, protects his family, his property, etc. Charlie does the same and so does Peter and the rest. Therein lies the reality. Am I missing something here? They espouse not to use violence or violent means and despise anyone who does it…including government. Ok…great. But, by living in the system and abiding its laws…are they not doing the same thing by proxy that they are so adamant against…..taking advantage of a system that does the very thing in reality? (Guys, I am not picking on you individually but your motives and philosophy. I would sit down and have a beer with anyone of you. I would share my last meal with anyone of you, if you were starving. I am a warrior and businessman and I am trying to understand.)

        As stated, I am a warrior and businessman. My family is wealthy but I chose my own path and have not touched a single dime of that wealth since I went my own way. My family got their start in the oil business. Wildcatters. They were successful. The family protects its money by using the system that we have. We did not create that system, but it is what we have. Reality. If we use this system, are we guilty of ill gotten gains? Can anyone say, they are not using the system? If you pay taxes to avoid going to jail, then you are using the system. If they hateit so much…protest by not paying your taxes or whatever.I was fortunate and lucky to be born into this life. I never missed a meal except by choice and never had to walk barefooted as a child. I never had to walk five miles through a blinding snow storm to school. I rode a bike. I was fortunate that my parents got lucky and hit oil and gas and expanded from there. I went to college without my parents money. I played golf for four years on a full scholarship on a talent that I had and learned. I was more fortunate than an inner city child. Ok. This is reality. It has absolutely nothing to do with fairness. I enlisted in the military and chose not to be an officer and did not live off family. In 1969, my wife and I lived off post on $225 per month and chose not to have welfare and food stamps even though we qualified and I have a family worth millions. That is reality and integrity. I see it in that if I could do it…anyone could. There is no displaced or held down society unless you choose to be held down and displaced.

        Today, I am in the family business from the standpoint of helping to run it. I do not take a dime to this very day from trusts or salary. I have my own income.They are there for me to use as retirement and I am sure that I will inherit. I will inherit from the lucky wildcat field that my family discovered and the risk that they took and I hope to take the family business and expand it using the same system that is in place to do so and pass it to my son and daughter and grandchildren. Charlie and others see this as a bad thing but they live in a glass house. They are using the system, same as I and everyone else and they profit by it. I am quite sure that each person on this blog will take advantage of any tax available loop hole out there. That is reality.

        Now, to your post to BF. Black Flag points out several things that are true to a certain extent. History shows a lot of things including philosophy. But even if the US has not been the perfect child, there is a reality to Iran that cannot be ignored. History of the Persian Empire is full of the history of Iran. BF slices and dices his historical points and that is ok. It is no secret that he likes Iran and its people but he does not face reality. The Persian Empire was ruthless and full of its own detractors. I agree with him only to the certain extent that Ian does not want to control the world, but Iran has a long memory. I am quite convinced that Iran wants to be the “ruler” of the Persian Empire once again. Hussein wanted that and now Iran. The President of Iran is a liar. I know it, you know it, the world knows it, and BF knows it. The reality of the world is what is happening now and BF cannot justify the fact that Iran is “surrounded” as a pretext to terrorism and supporting such. Reality…Iran will get the nuke. Period. He says prove it….I do not have to…his precious history will prove it. When the reality of the nuke hits and Iran tips its missiles, there will be justification in his mind. That is all.

        Reality takes a front seat today. Hypothesis, philosophy, theory…..none of that defeats what is real. They are great ideas and ideals but you have to do something about it…today….now to make hypothesis or theory or philosophical reasoning to come true. To retreat behind bunkers and barbed wire or stick your head in the sand is not dealing with reality…it is running from it. The battlefield taught me reality. Bullets were real….they were not imagined. The man trying to stick me with a bayonet was real…not imagined. It did not matter to him or me what the French or the Chinese did or the philosophy of the US was…It simply does not matter in the crux of the situation. That is the same as today…does anybody understand the reality of the situation? What it is going to take? How long it will take? That talking about it, while great for the ego and conversation, still does not get anything done? Iran is real and not imagined. My interpretation of the reality of Iran is when they get the nuke, they will not sit back, join hands, and sing we are the world and Kumbayah. They WILL threaten their neighbors and they will heighten and increase their support of regime overthrow through subversive and violent means all over the world. It will happen. BF will say prove it…and I will say prove that it won’t. We shall see.

        That is where the reality is….

        • D13

          Colonel, you have be confused.

          Are you saying that philosophy has no place in getting out of our current mess?

          That it has no place in restoring liberty?

          What good is ACTION taken without a GOAL?

          How do you defend your GOAL against the Statist, without a philosophical foundation?

          The tenor of your post leads me to conclude that you think reality is at odds with philosophy. I don’t think you really believe that so could you please explain.

          What’s the word on snow in Oklahoma?


        • D13

          “Colonel, you have be confused.”

          …you have me confused.

          I know that was correct when I hit reply so can’t figure how it changed.

          • JAC,,,,snow ok at the ranch…just cold. The Arbuckle’s run through the center of us but not a lot of snow. Just cold and being the highest place in Oklahoma….really cold. Yes, you are confused because I am not very eloquent in speech. I am not saying that philosophy has NO place at all. There must be some reachable goal to accomplish…of that I agree and philosophy certainly does have its place. What I am saying is that standing up and espousing nothing but philosophy is not going to get anything done. I support it 100 percent even if I do not agree with it but there must be a goal. There is a time for talking and a time for action. What I find amusing is that it appears that if a “certain” philosophical bent is not taken, then those philosophers shut down, disparage the system, and do nothing to change it. So, no, I am not against philosophy at all….I am against talking with no action and just talking is not action.

        • D … you are my man (seriously).

          I admire all you have accomplished and I agree that reality is what counts (so no more 200 year old philosophy or constitution formula/revisionism) … I do take part of this system and I don’t want to see it change over night. I simply don’t buy into capitalism anymore. I don’t expect it will go away in my lifetime and I’m not in a panic living under it (I flourished financially while using it as a criminal—but that wasn’t what I had dreamed of doing some day). Although I have a temper, I don’t lose my shirt (get angry) over much but the corporate bailouts and subsequent lack of penalties to those who bankrupted the system does get my goat (so to speak). I found it fundamentally reprehensible (and criminal) that corporations were bailed out at workers expense and if we’re going to go that route, better for the people than the corporations.

          Again, I’m not a bleeding heart liberal (anymore). I don’t believe welfare is the answer but I don’t believe “morality” can be judged from one side of the political fence and that natural law lays no claim on it either. Some find social Darwinism as right as rain morally. I don’t. So long as you have opposing views of morality (and there are significant numbers on both sides of the argument) you don’t have a claim on morality (either side).

          Colonel, seriously, I admire the hell out of you (just for the way you try to engage in here—it is very considerate of you). I have no choice but to use the system (it’s where I live/how I live). I’m not panicked about capitalism so much that I want an overnight revolution, but I think both sides of the coin in here (in general) are pretty much on the fringe of the American population (so there’s nothing to fear on either side). Sarah Palin isn’t going to be President in our lifetime and neither is Ralph Nader.

          All best to you, sir.

          • Charlie, you and I are not far off, actually. I despise what happened and is happening as well…but I am going to vote. I am going to find people to run for office and try to change the system. I am taking on the system…everyday. I am not just standing on the street corner and talking. I am taking on the education system, illegal immigration, and the employers as a start. But I am doing something. I am not just sitting idly by and complaining about the system. It is flawed or wrong or downright dumb but I am out in it. Now, I know that everybody cannot do it but they can do more than just talk. They can vote….even if their vote does not support their philosophy…why not try to get to the closest point. What is…is.

            • D, I do vote but I know my vote is (for now) wasted and probably supports the side furthest from my political beliefs (which would be the Republicans). I won’t vote Dem or Rep again because I firmly believe those two parties are completely corrupt. If I wind up losing my 2nd job this year (i lost my weekend job to the “stimulus”, I’ll have all the time in the world to fight the system and I will). I’m one of those socialists who worked 7 days a week while writing books and goign to powerlifting meets (so all socialists aren’t lazy and looking to live off the state). Proactive people will always be proactive. Lazi asses will always be lazy asses. I’m not looking to reward the latter, but want to see a more equitable starting point (not for minorities only–for everybody). Then let the chips fall where they may.

              • Charlie:

                Socialism requires, by definition, the public ownership of the means of production and the distribution of said production.

                There is no private property relative to the “means and distribution of production”.

                Since it is impossible for the “entire” public to own something, a proxy called Govt is used. Thus the Govt owns the property under the supposed claim that the people then own the govt. Aside from a flat lie, this is the general concept.

                Under such a system there can be nothing but an eventual evening out of status based on existence rather than effort. If all the public owns the production then all the public must equally benefit. Regardless of their efforts.

                You still sure you are a “socialist”?

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


          I think that you have a flawed understanding of reality.

          You seem to think that reality is what we currently have, and yet, demonstrably, what we currently have is largely based upon lies, ignorance, theft, immorality, unethical behavior, etc.

          You claim that because that is what we have, that forms the basis of “reality”. It does not. Falsehoods, theft, wilfully doing what you know to be wrong, all CONTRADICT reality, they do not DEFINE IT.

          Therefore, you must seek to correctly DEFINE reality before you can propose a system to properly deal with reality. Natural Law is a theory, yes. It is a theory which attempts to define reality WITHOUT CONTRADICTION.

          To claim that it is necessary to continue to define reality in contradictory terms will only continue to make you unable to deal with it rationally.

          • No sir….I do not think I have a flawed understanding at all. Reality IS what we currently have. It is rotten to the core. It is based on lies, ignorance, theft unethical behavior and all those things you listed…..THAT is the reality. NOw, I do not like this reality. I hate it. There is no definition to what reality is supposed to be….THAT is philosophy. The reality, as I define it, is what I see, hear, and feel when I walk out the door. IT is what is happening now. So, we have to deal with it. I am not going to sit here and try to do definitions of anything….I am going to try to change what I perceive to be wrong. And I am doing just that and I encourage all of us, you, everybody….do something. The reality of our system is that if you disagree with it and you with hold your vote, you are not aiding anything, you are hurting it. EVEN if the two choices are what you are against. You pick the BEST choice and then either run for office yourself to change it or you find some one that thinks like you and support them. Now, I pick on the vote as one item. But I am doing more than that. I am challenging the employers who hire illegals, I am challenging the educational system for changing history books to reflect other than American History in an American History class, I am challenging teachers who teach left or right and not both….I am openly challenging them…writing letters, showing up on their doorstep (non violent, showing up at hospital emergency rooms, taking license numbers and posting things so people know who is violating the law that our institution is not prosecuting….things like that.

            So, no, I think that I understand reality. I do not need to define what I see, feel, hear, touch, smell…..I do not have to define reality in that a skunk smells,,,I know that it does. It may not right now…but it will.

            I am not eloquent in speech….am I any clearer now?

        • TexasChem says:

          Peter I was under the impression from D13’s post that the reality we live in as he sees it; is a direct result of being based upon those lies, ignorance, theft, immorality, unethical behavior, etc. that plague our society.In a nutshell we need to get off our asses and do something about our reality else by living in it we condone it.

          • Ok, Texas Chem…..show me up…… Thank you for your condensed version of what I was trying to say…your interpretation is what I am trying to get across.

            • D13:

              I visit this site on a regular basis as do you. I do try to get involved and actually do something. I have attended tea parties, a town hall meeting (2nd person to speak), and wrote letters to my senators. While I try to do what I can while in the system we are in, I also recognize that my efforts have not changed anything.

              This site gives us a place to vent, discuss and dream of a better system. I am not sticking my head in the sand and will engage when I have an opportunity to do so. I will also prepare for the worse case scenario should it occur. Even the government wants citizens to prepare for disasters.

              Some of us dream of VDLG, even though it may never occur in our life time. JAC has some good ideas on getting the word out (his Kilroy idea). Too many people are uneducated on what is going on and the more that we can educate the better off we will be.

        • D13, I have had all day to ponder your post, and I , from the first read understood where you were going with it.

          Your call to action is loud and clear. I would certainly like to make a difference in stopping the mayhem that has infiltrated our elected idiots. Where I live, with my resources, it’s a pipedream to get involved in the political mess that is entrenched deep in my local politics.

          With that said, I have to act outside of the normal thinking of my neighbors. I am almost prepared for the worst (just want to get a couple more deer), I’m doing my best to educate each day, in hopes of waking just a few brainwashed people up. I have no desire to associate with politics, in it’s current state, as I feel it is a lost cause here. In some ways, I wish (and hope it don’t happen at the same time) the whole damn thing would collapse and all hell breaks loose. Then my best talents can be used to make a difference.

          I, like you, think of myself as a warrior. You are attacking the system that is broken, I am waiting for the weakness of the broken system to expose itself, so then I can attack the weakest point. The giant oak won’t be taken down at it’s strongest point, but at it’s weakest point. Like a ant that finds the hole and leads the colony in to take down the tree from within, I’m looking for the hole!

          However the path leads, It leads to the same end. Hopefully we can meet there!


          • Yessir and I know that most everyone on here has the the right thing in mind. I agree that educations is one of the best things to do. educate the public as to what is happening but the public is not on here. However,getting as many people here is something also that can help…If I can keep Matt under control, which I feel…is…well…a pipe dream…but I like him. 🙂

  2. USWeapon Topic #2

    Fox News Embraces Cyber-Terrorism to Subvert the Copenhagen Summit

    No one in the mainstream media, it seems, has the guts to take on this scandal. This isn’t some penny ante affair about graft or infidelity. This is a direct assault on our national values, on who we are as Americans. At one time, the criminal types who burglarized the Watergate or the office of Daniel Ellsberg’s doctor were reviled. Now they have their own network. Bret Baier set the scene last Thursday:

    Despite the escalating controversy over climate change data since the British e-mail story broke 13 days ago, the major broadcast networks have not covered it on their morning or evening news shows according to Media Research Center, even with President Obama heading to a climate change summit in Copenhagen next week.

    The scandal is Baier’s relentless promotion of cyber-terrorism. Of course, he’s not the only apologist for the criminals who hacked into servers at the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia. George Will, Lou Dobbs and Newt Gingrich have all lent their support to this broad-based campaign effort by Fox News to legitimize the work of criminals who lurk in the shadows. The criminals, who remain unidentified and still at large, stole confidential e-mails, selectively edited them, and disseminated them to promote the crackpot belief that the scientific case for global warming is not rock solid.

    and my favorite hypocritical moment of the day:

    Of course, among bona fide journalists, deceitful editing is considered a bad thing. Not at Fox News. They deceitfully edited the words of the Pope to claim that he was a global warming skeptic. They falsely inserted words into the text of a scientific article to change its meaning. And the deceitfully edited a Daily Show segment to allege that Jon Stewart is a global warming denier.

    Read David Fiderer’s complete nonsensical rant at the Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-fiderer/fox-news-embraces-cyber-t_b_383887.html

    I have to be honest and say that this was perhaps just as dishonest and irrational and idiotic a rant as the one I offered from Bob Cesca a couple of months ago. A couple of thoughts from me, beyond the obvious distortions and madness from a far left loon: First, Fiderer attempts to answer Baier’s comment about the media not covering the issue by pointing out that Fox News is not calling for the head of an unknown hacker. Why not address the fact that all of the MSM is completely ignoring this issue, except to attempt to claim it was all “taken out of context” and “doesn’t mean anything at all”?

    This is another example of how you attempt to misdirect the entire discussion by ignoring the story and attacking the source. These emails will be the first step in the crumbling of the man-made global warming lie. The question is whether it will matter or whether we are simply too late to stop an out of control train that doesn’t care a bit what us stupid commoners think.

    As for the hypocritical moment, that just made me laugh out loud. Where is his outrage at MSNBC claiming racism by cropping a picture to hide that a semi-automatic weapon is being carried by a black man? How about his disdain with CNN for their crackpot reporting from the Tax Day Tea Parties? I don’t mind if you want to call out Fox News, idiot, but for pete’s sake, understand before you start throwing rocks that you live in the glass mansion with a giant carbon footprint.

    Another of my favorite crackpot quotes from this article was:

    Given the circumstances, no one with common sense, or common decency, would place the onus on the terrorists’ victims, the scientists at the University of East Anglia, to prove their veracity and the credibility of their work.

    Given the trillions of dollars you want to waste based on this research, and the individual liberties, national sovereignties, and awards and Oscars you are giving out, shouldn’t you DEMAND that any scientist prove the veracity and credibility of their work. I demand that my landscaping guy prove the veracity of his work before he gets paid. Yet you don’t think that demanding the scientists that start the bullshit man made global warming train show their work is a valid request? If I don’t show my work on a statistics problem, I fail. Yet you think these scientists should be given a pass, even as we spend billions and subject TV viewers to Al Gore?

    Jesus Haliburton Christmas, these AGW crackpots have less upstairs than a gnat.

    • They’re freaking out because they’re scared. They’re busted….

    • Wow, are you sure this wasn’t from The Onion and meant as satire? Can someone truly be this dumb? The MSM should be considered party to the AGW crime, along with all the other crooks that have been pushing this false science.

    • Buck The Wala says:

      Interesting op-ed in today’s Times on climategate:


      Basically points out that even if some numbers have been hyped or some research tainted we still do not and cannot fully understand climate change and the extent of human impact, Cheney’s 1% Doctrine (if there is even a 1% chance of a low-probability, high-impact event, we should and must take action) should apply. Friedman argues that, worst case scenario we are wrong but leave behind a clean-power economy with little to no dependence on foreign oil.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


        I have no problem with using cleaner energy sources that would reduce our dependence on foreign oil in theory.

        In practice, however, there are currently no “clean” sources of energy that are more abundant and more inexpensive than coal and oil.

        What the government is proposing to do is essentially tax the hell out of “dirty” energy sources in order to ARTIFICIALLY make them more expensive in order to make “clean energy” sources SEEM to be competitive.

        In addition, there are also known problems with the 2 hottest technologies in “clean” energy, which are solar and wind. The main problem with both of those is that you cannot get a consistent and reliable amount of energy from either technology. The energy supply in a society such as ours MUST be consistent and reliable.

        So, if you wish to have your cost of living go up and your standard of living go down based upon inconsistent and unreliable sources of energy all because of a 1% chance that we MIGHT be harming the planet, go ahead and pay more. Just don’t use the government to force the rest of us to go along with it.

        I think that research should certainly continue on alternative energy sources, and that alternative energy sources should be used to augment and even replace coal and oil whenever possible, providing that the energy can be provided at the same price or at a lower price.

        The “1% Doctrine” is used by many politicians on BOTH sides of the aisle, and in EVERY case where it is used, it is used as an excuse to increase the power and control of the government, so be very wary when you see it used, regardless of which “side” is using it. It basically NEVER has anything to do with “saving the planet” or any other “worthy” goal.

        • Buck The Wala says:

          I wasn’t stating that I agree with the 1% Doctrine. It would be hard for me to support the doctrine here when I denounced it when Cheney used it to advance a war.

          I just thought it was an interesting take on the issue to share with everyone else here.

        • What the government is proposing to do is essentially tax the hell out of “dirty” energy sources in order to ARTIFICIALLY make them more expensive in order to make “clean energy” sources SEEM to be competitive.

          Close, but not quite. What the government is actually doing is forcing polluters to internalize the externalities of their fuel choice.

          That is, when you burn coal, you shoulder the cost of the coal, but someone else has to bear the burden of the attendant pollution. By taxing you for the pollution, they (a)assign the cost to the correct source and (b)force you to consider the cost since it no longer falls under the header of Someone Else’s Problem.

          Imagine that you owned a hotel and I owned a bar next door. If I play loud music, I will attract more patrons and make more money. This loud music, however is bad for your hotel and costs you guests. So effectively, the government has decided that I can play my loud music, but I have to pay for the losses that I cause you. If the city does this, I will always pay loud music because the external cost is someone else’s problem.

          I do so love analogies. 🙂

          • Typo: If the city doesn’t do this, I will always pay loud music because the external cost is someone else’s problem.

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

            Mathius, your analogy is faulty.

            If you can prove that burning coal has materially harmed you, then you are entitled to restitution from the burner of the coal.

            In this case, the government is SPECULATING that burning coal is harming THE GLOBAL CLIMATE (which has yet to be proven) and is artificially raising the cost of burning coal based upon that speculation.

            An individual has a right to restitution when DEMONSTRABLY harmed. A GOVERNMENT has no right to restitution based upon an unsubstantiated claim of “global harm”.

            There is almost NO cost associated with burning coal and producing energy with it. You are CLAIMING an attendant cost associated with the pollution caused by this activity. However, that cost is passed on to the consumer because the power plants are already required to use low-sulfur coal, and are already required to install extensive emission controlls in order to limit their output of pollution.

            So, yes, all the government is doing in the proposed Cap and Trade legislation is, in fact, ARTIFICIALLY increasing the price in order to make other sources of energy appear to be more attractive.

          • The power companies that burn the coal are going to pass the cost on to us Mat.Do you not understand this?The consumer will pay for his services.The Government is just using Cap n Trade, Copenhagen Summit Treaty to tax its populace.Plain and simple.There is no way to refute that.Energy costs will skyrocket.The hardest hit industry will be the chemical companies.The difficulties of passing off higher costs for their products will be more difficult.No doubt companies will relocate to an “undeveloped” country like…China where labor costs with little to none emissions regulations will contribute to boosting their economy.I can’t believe China has been labeled as underveloped at the Copenhagen summit since they are one of the largest emitters of CO2 in the world as it stands today.

            • v. Holland says:

              Lets talk about all this money that developed countries are gong to be giving to undeveloped countries-what control do we have with what they actually spend the money on after they receive it.

          • Matt:

            “Close, but not quite. What the government is actually doing is forcing polluters to internalize the externalities of their fuel choice.”

            The Hell they are. A tax does not do what you say here. Nor will Cap and Trade.

            It simply enriches those who wish to use this issue to enrich themselves. It acts as a financial penalty for the govt’s use, just as a speeding ticket. It does nothing to place the cost in the proper location nor to provide compensation to those harmed.

            Furthermore, You can not tax production without the cost being passed to the consumption side of the equation. The neighbors get to pay the cost of reducing the pollution on them.

            The absolutely most efficient means of controlling pollution is to simply establish a standard that must be met. No taxing and no B.S. trading system. And the cost of the control will still roll down hill, but only the actual cost of the control will be incurred. And nobody else gets enriched by it.

            Except of course the lobbyists who are paid to fight against or for the controls, and the congressmen who take the donations to impose or kill the controls. And of course these costs also roll down hill. But they are nothing compared to those created by taxing or a Cap and Trade system.

            • v. Holland says:

              You are so right JAC-lets look at Clunkers-with time the new better cars would have been traded in and people with the older cars would have purchased them as used cars-all the clunker program did was try to speed up the process by getting people to buy cars they couldn’t afford and it cost people who would have bought a better used car right now the inability to do so because those cars were destroyed and it caused the cost of used cars to go up-great plan(huge amount of sarcasm here)

            • Buck The Wala says:

              JAC, you get my agreement on this:

              “The absolutely most efficient means of controlling pollution is to simply establish a standard that must be met”

              That is exactly what is needed – a strict standard and fines/penalties for those companies that fail to adhere to that standard.

              • v. Holland says:

                Aren’t we already doing that?

                • Strict-er.

                  • v. Holland says:

                    I suspect we can talk about and arrive at economically sound standards without going to such extreme measures as cap and trade and Copenhagen.

                  • WHY????

                    AND FOR WHAT????????

                    • Because I hate America and want to destroy the economy as part of my evil scheme for world dominance. Why else?

                      It’s all laid out in the WALNUT manifesto.

                      BECAUSE IT’S DANGEROUS! A lot of very smart and very knowledgeable people have done a tremendous amount of work and reached the conclusion that we need to pollute less. Until it is proved otherwise, I wish to err on the side of caution.

                    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

                      An error on the side of caution is still an error

                    • Yes, but an error on the side of caution doesn’t cause the end of life as we know it.

                      If global warming is real and we do nothing, we all die.

                      If global warming is not real and we reduce our emissions etc anyway, we have inconvenienced ourselves and wasted money.

                    • Matt, that is totally untrue.

                      Global Warming will not kill the planet – it is impossible. Our planet is a negative-feedback system – your theory requires it to be a postive feedback systems.

                  • Matt:

                    You evaded or misunderstood the question.

                    WHAT pollutants need a stricter standard?

                    WHY do they need a stricter standard?

                    WHERE is the proof it is dangerous?

              • Buck

                Not fines.

                Just jail time for those who knowingly violate the standards.

                Oh, but first there must be proof of harm to those affected. Actual scientific proof of harm, not speculation of what might or could happen.

                If there is proof of harm, then I might be able to also support fines provided that 100% of the money was distributed to those affected as compensation for the harm.

                One thing we all forget in this “pollution” debate. There are very few true “externalities” because we all “benefit” from the industry that creates the pollution. It is WE that are struggling to find the balance betweent the cost and benefit.

                WE have been excluded from the discussion by those with their own agendas and those who see a chance to enrich themselves.

                Now Buck, how do we do that without Federal Govt and the EPA?

                Time for you and Matt to put those highly skilled brains of yours to work.

    • So far, I have seen no evidence that a hack occurred. The released file appeared to have been compiled by an internal source in anticipation of the Climate Research Unit being forced to release the data under the freedom of information act. Thus, the file name FOIA2009.ZIP. A much more likely scenario is that the file was deliberately leaked by a disgruntled insider or accidentally placed in a public area of the server where it was spotted and downloaded. If the file was in a public area is downloading it a hack? I don’t think so.

      Even Climate Research Unit officials say the data seems to be genuine. Emails contained in the released material show some bad things happening, but the released computer code is even more damning.

      Many liberals have no problem with public release of top secret US Government information, but they are going bananas over release of climate information from a university in the UK that should have been released long ago pursuant to multiple freedom of information act requests.

    • A Puritan Descendant says:

      Has this planet been invaded by space Aliens? Did I miss the landing? Even if manmade global warming were true, nothing short of all of mankind living in solar heated TeePees would make a real improvement. I have been practically banging my head against the wall for years trying to figure out where so much deranged thinking, on a multitude of subjects, could have arrived from. Today it is worse than ever. We are all so screwed!

      • And if all of mankind was exterminated, it would amount to a whopping 0.01C decrease in global temperature.

        We are so minor a force, its just embarrassing.

        • A Puritan Descendant says:

          Exactly BF! Tnx, I am going to go drink some of my orchard cider and try to calm down once again

    • “Given the trillions of dollars you want to waste based on this research, and the individual liberties, national sovereignties, and awards and Oscars you are giving out, shouldn’t you DEMAND that any scientist prove the veracity and credibility of their work. I demand that my landscaping guy prove the veracity of his work before he gets paid. Yet you don’t think that demanding the scientists that start the bullshit man made global warming train show their work is a valid request? If I don’t show my work on a statistics problem, I fail. Yet you think these scientists should be given a pass, even as we spend billions and subject TV viewers to Al Gore?”

      I’m a little confused. Do you think that all scientists are being funded to prove global warming? Oil and energy companies have invested millions in efforts to fund contrarian studies. There are literally hundreds, thousands, of independent studies that demonstrate the veracity of the climatologists’ work. The ratio isn’t even 10-1.

      Would you like some examples? Here they are:

      Click to access references.pdf

      This is a list of the references made in “Climate Change and Water,” a report released by the IPCC that discusses what the impact of the earth’s rising temperature will be on water. Wow, that’s a lot!

      Well, the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) might not be your favorite source, but it does have a mountain of data in its favor. For the anti-warming contingent to be taken seriously in the scientific community, they would have to demonstrate why all of these independent reports seem to be coming to the same conclusion.

      Don’t want the IPCC? Here is a report published in 2001. It essentially summarizes the research to date, at that time, and its message is that the Earth is getting hotter, and that the causes of this are man-made. It acknowledges that there are warming and cooling periods, that these too are worldwide, and that they tend to range through about 2-degrees Celsius. Bear in mind that this summary was written at the behest of the Bush White House, by a non-profit organization. That’s why it manages to be legibile, even to laymen such as myself. (I hate reading journal articles, because the jargon is insanely difficult to work through). http://www.gcrio.org/OnLnDoc/pdf/ClimateChangeScience.pdf

      I could list every single study cited in that report as an example of scientists demonstrating the veracity and credibility of their work. But a simple look at the conclusions that study reaches (supported by 2000-2009 being, as predicted, the hottest decade in 150 years) shows that their conception of the future is fairly modest. The ice caps will not collapse and melt. The weather, however, will change–and that change will impact us. And a look at the IPCC’s conclusions–not the sensationalized excerpts, but an actual read-through of 1/100th of the site’s material–shows that they’re not running around, screaming that the world is going to end. They say it’s possible, but unlikely… but that the vast, vast, vast, vast, vast majority of evidence supports that we are trapping the sun’s energy and doing in decades what’s supposed to take millennia. (vast!)

      Here are some questions we should all be asking, and attached are the conclusions reached by thousands of scientists, neatly summarized. Note that these summaries are not simple “yes” or “no” answers–there is scientific disagreement about all these questions, and these are the points they agree on. http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/FAQ/wg1_faqIndex.html

      And (sorry to harp on the IPCC website so much, but it really is the easiest way to find the mountain of evidence in favor of Climate Change) here is a still easier-to-read “Summary for Policy Makers”. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf

      Now, it took me about 15 minutes to find those documents. But it’s the first link that should be the most daunting. The one that reads like this: (feel free to skim over this huge wall of text)

      Abdalati, W. and K. Steffen, 2001: Greenland ice sheet melt extent:
      1979–1999. J. Geophys. Res., 106(D24), 33983–33988.
      Abeku, T.A., G.J. van Oortmarssen, G. Borsboom, S.J. de Vlas and
      J.D.F. Habbema, 2003: Spatial and temporal variations of malaria
      epidemic risk in Ethiopia: factors involved and implications. Acta
      Trop., 87, 331-340.
      Abou-Hadid, A.F., 2006: Assessment of Impacts: Adaptation and
      Vulnerability to Climate Change in North Africa: Food Production
      and Water Resources. Washington, DC, 127 pp. http://www.
      Abou-Hadid, A.F., R. Mougou, A. Mokssit and A. Iglesias, 2003:
      Assessment of Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability to Climate
      Change in North Africa: Food Production and Water Resources.
      AIACC AF90 Semi-Annual Progress Report, 37 pp.
      Abu-Taleb, M.F., 2000: Impacts of global climate change scenarios on
      water supply and demand in Jordan. Water International, 25(3),
      ACIA (Arctic Climate Impact Assessment), 2004: Impacts of a
      Warming Arctic: Synthesis Report of the Arctic Climate Impact
      Assessment, Policy Document prepared by the Arctic Council
      and presented at the Fourth Arctic Council Ministerial Meeting,
      Reykjavik, 24 November 2004, 140 pp.
      ACIA (Arctic Climate Impact Assessment), 2005: Arctic Climate Impact
      Assessment. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1042 pp.
      ADB (Asia Development Bank), 1994: Climate Change in Asia: Vietnam
      Country Report. Asia Development Bank, Manila, 103 pp.
      Adler, R.F. and Co-authors, 2003: The version 2 Global Precipitation
      Climatology Project (GPCP) monthly precipitation analysis
      (1979–present). J. Hydrometeorol., 4, 1147–1167.
      AEMA, 2002: Uso sostenible del agua en Europa. Gestión de la
      demanda. Ministerio de Medio Ambiente, Madrid, 94 pp.
      Agarwal, P.K., S.K. Bandyopadhyay, H. Pathak, N. Kalra, S. Chander
      and S. Kumar, 2000: Analysis of yield trends of the rice–wheat
      system in north-western India. Outlook on Agriculture, 29(4),
      Agoumi, A., 2003: Vulnerability of North African Countries to Climatic
      Changes: Adaptation and Implementation Strategies for Climatic
      Change, IISD. http://www.cckn.net//pdf/north_africa.pdf.
      Aguilar, E., T.C. Peterson, P. Ramírez Obando, R. Frutos, J.A. Retana,
      M. Solera, J. Soley, I. González García and co-authors, 2005:
      Changes in precipitation and temperature extremes in Central
      America and northern South America, 1961–2003. J. Geophys.
      Res., 110, D23107, doi:10.1029/2005JD006119.
      Alcamo, J. and T. Henrichs, 2002: Critical regions: a model-based
      estimation of world water resources sensitive to global changes.
      Aquat. Sci., 64, 352-362.
      Alcamo, J., P. Döll, T. Henrichs, F. Kaspar, B. Lehner, T. Rösch and S.
      Siebert, 2003a: Development and testing of the WaterGAP 2 global
      model of water use and availability. Hydrol. Sci. J., 48, 317–338.
      Alcamo, J., P. Döll, T. Henrichs, F. Kaspar, B. Lehner, T. Rösch
      and S. Siebert, 2003b: Global estimates of water withdrawals
      and availability under current and future “business-as-usual”
      conditions. Hydrol. Sci. J., 48, 339–348.
      Alcamo, J. and Co-authors, 2004: A new perspective on the impacts of
      climate change on Russian agriculture and water resources. Proc.
      World Climate Change Conference, 29 September–3 October,
      2003, Moscow, 324–335.
      Alcamo, J., M. Flörke and M. Marker, 2007: Future long-term changes
      in global water resources driven by socio-economic and climatic
      change. Hydrol. Sci. J., 52, 247–275.
      Aldhous, P., 2004: Borneo is burning. Nature, 432, 144–146.
      Alexander, L.V., X. Zhang, T.C. Peterson, J. Caesar, B. Gleason, A.M.G.
      Klein Tank, M. Haylock, D. Collins, B. Trewin, F. Rahimzadeh, A.
      Tagipour, K. Rupa Kumar, J. Revadekar, G. Griffiths, L. Vincent,
      D.B. Stephenson, J. Burn, E. Aguilar, M. Brunet, M. Taylor, M.
      New, P. Zhai, M. Rusticucci and J.L. Vazquez-Aguirre, 2006:
      Global observed changes in daily climate extremes of temperature
      and precipitation. J. Geophys. Res., 111, D05109, doi:10.1029/
      Allen Consulting Group, 2005: Climate Change Risk and Vulnerability:
      Promoting an Efficient Adaptation Response in Australia. Report to
      the Australian Greenhouse Office by the Allen Consulting Group,
      159 pp. http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/impacts/publications/riskvulnerability.

      That’s are roughly one half of the A’s. They take up 1 page of a 26 page document of nothing but references. And I would say that they argue that science is, in fact, meeting its burden of proof.

      • Sounds like you have your mind made up. I also have my mind made up. I have done more than 15 minutes of research. If UEA is considered the leading Climate Research group in the world, and they are now shown to have been manipulating data to show trends and realities that were untrue, why are you so quick to believe what you are reading?I can provide 26 pages of references to a report too. That doesn’t make my conclusion any more sound than yours. Common sense must kick in at some point. Stop relying on what these websites are telling you to believe…. and THINK. Does it make sense to you? I am a pretty smart guy, not Stephen Hawking, but bright. The idea of global warming being CAUSED BY MAN doesn’t make logical sense to me. And there are too many examples of data being manipulated, graphs being disproven, and “models” predicting the future incorrectly for me to accept the trillion dollar solutions. It was apparently far warmer during the medievel warming period than anything they are predicting at this point in our future. How exactly do you explain that? The giant catapult industrial complex?

        Answer that one question. The weather guys at the Weather Channel cannot tell me with a single bit of accuracy what will happen with the climate next summer. Why is it you believe that the “scientists” can tell us the future based on data they don’t have?

        I can say it no more clearly than this. Man-made global warming is a hoax. A lie. A fraud. You have been hoodwinked, led astray, bamboozled. You can continue to fall for the nonsense if you like. I will not. I am a thinking man. I use analysis and reason. Both of those things tell me this is bull.

        Common Sense. That is what all the folks are lacking when they buy into the fraud. You are allowing your heart to trump your head. You are letting fancy words from scientists convince you of what common dang sense would tell you cannot be true. I am open to the conversation Nick… but I warn you ahead of time. I am not a lemming, I am not an idiot, and this isn’t an issue I decided to pick up yesterday because it is suddenly great news fodder. I have been studying climate change for years trying to figure out the truth. I believe it is a fraud. You are welcome to prove me wrong, but implying that the longer the reference list, the greater the accuracy of the conclusion will not get it done.


        • @USW There are a lot of things science dictates that don’t make sense to me when I stop to think about them. For example, there is more space in solid matter than matter–we are all made up of more composite nothingness than solid matter. Does that make sense? No–but it’s still true. Light is both a wave and a particle. That doesn’t make logical sense to me. Objects gain mass as they approach the speed of light. Why do they do that? There’s a reason mankind thought the Earth was flat for tens of thousands of years: because if we base our assumptions about the world on personal experience, that’s the conclusion we’d draw.

          You say you can provide 26 pages of references. Can you? Then do it. I’ve looked around for 15 minutes and found a couple hundred examples of research that supports my side of the argument. You’re saying “that’s all false,” and implying that every single scientist I’ve cited is deeply invested in a hoax–a hoax that, were one of them to walk up to Exxon-Mobil with damning evidence, would instantly make them millionaire-betrayers.

          Fine. Give me a full page of references. The sort that have abstracts. You’re saying that scientists aren’t meeting their burden of proof. I’m linking to resources that indicate that they are. Which of the reports in my sample group is lying? Where is the opposite faction’s mountain of evidence?

          For the record, the same tactics we see today with global warming have been done before. Back in the day, most aerosol cans, air conditioners, etc. used Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), little particles that–when they get into the atmosphere–can destroy tens of millions of ozone molecules before dissipating. Naturally, the companies producing those CFCs wanted to make sure they could carry on doing so. The article is a pretty good read:

          This is also a good read, for people who think that climategate means that every scientist everywhere is lying to make the big bucks:
          Part 2: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/12/cru-hack-more-context/comment-page-10/

          • I am at work and therefore unable to research at the moment. BF or Peter, would you like to take care of this for me? Both of you have destroyed this argument in the past.

          • There are a lot of things science dictates that don’t make sense to me when I stop to think about them. For example, there is more space in solid matter than matter–we are all made up of more composite nothingness than solid matter. Does that make sense?

            Quantum mechanics is a science that uses the observation-hypothesis-experiment-observation (repeat as necessary)

            Climate Science is functionally devoid the ‘experiment’ part. Instead, it uses computer models in its place.

            However, no computer model has ever nor will ever be capable of modeling the Climate.

            Thus, proclamations of your certainty simply cannot exist.

            Light is both a wave and a particle. That doesn’t make logical sense to me.

            So is a wave on a lake. Do you not see the lake as a particles and see the wave moving through it?

            Not hard to imagine at all.

            Objects gain mass as they approach the speed of light. Why do they do that?

            Because Mass is merely coagulated Energy – thus as a body absorbs energy, its mass must also increase – since they are the same thing, adding more of something will make it larger. Pretty logical.

            We do not observe these effects at the velocities we experience simply because it takes a whole heck of a lot of energy to make up a small bit of matter.

            There’s a reason mankind thought the Earth was flat for tens of thousands of years: because if we base our assumptions about the world on personal experience, that’s the conclusion we’d draw.

            Perfect analogy of the current climate dogma.

            It is simply not true that people believed the earth was flat for thousands of years.

            Men knew the world was a sphere 2,000 years ago by observation – the Earth’s shadow on the Moon showed it was round.

            Around 330 BC, Aristotle provided observational evidence for the spherical Earth by observing shadows.

            Further,Eratosthenes, 200 BC. He was known as Beta, because he proved himself to be the second best in the world in almost any field.

            He was the first Greek to calculate the circumference of the earth (with remarkable accuracy), and the tilt of the earth’s axis (also with remarkable accuracy); he may also have accurately calculated the distance from the earth to the sun and invented the leap day.

            By measuring the shadows of sticks on the Solstice at different locations (and estimated distances) he calculated the circumference within 1%.

            But the myth that ancient people believed in a flat world persists today – it is dogmatic myth that makes a lot of fairy tales go’round.

            Same with the junk Climate science.

            Burdened with myth and models, it holds little basis in observational fact.

            You say you can provide 26 pages of references. Can you?

            Hundreds of pages. All you got is 26?

            I’ve looked around for 15 minutes and found a couple hundred examples of research that supports my side of the argument.

            A 100 studies all copying the same rotten data over and over again does not make the data nor the science 100 times better.

            Dr. Wegman, arguably the #1 Statistician in the USA, in his review of the Global Climate Science found it incredibly incestuous and closed. Very little actual outside peer review was done – peer reviewers were almost always co-authors in other studies.

            Without an unbiased eye, he predicted that the Climate Science community would be closed only to a select group and extremely dogmatic.

            As we seen in Climategate, there was a systemic and overt action to ostracize any skeptics and to punish any peer review journal that dared to publish contrarian study.

            You’re saying “that’s all false,” and implying that every single scientist I’ve cited is deeply invested in a hoax–a hoax that, were one of them to walk up to Exxon-Mobil with damning evidence, would instantly make them millionaire-betrayers.

            This belief that skeptics are, somehow, in the pockets of big oil is utterly bizarre.

            Fine. Give me a full page of references. The sort that have abstracts. You’re saying that scientists aren’t meeting their burden of proof.


            They are not.

            They have no experimental evidence whatsoever. They only have models.

            Thus they only have hypothesis, but absolutely there is no proof – period.

            For the record, the same tactics we see today with global warming have been done before. Back in the day, most aerosol cans, air conditioners, etc. used Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), little particles that–when they get into the atmosphere–can destroy tens of millions of ozone molecules before dissipating.
            Naturally, the companies producing those CFCs wanted to make sure they could carry on doing so. The article is a pretty good read:

            Interestingly, there is little science that says human caused CFC or that humans have anything to do with the ozone hole.

            The site you posted fails to provide these core answers:

            While the chemistry science of the reaction of ozone and CFC is factual, it does not prove that the CFC in the atmosphere are man-made.

            It is well known that the CFC’s in the stratosphere are there due to volcano emissions of chlorine.

            This explains many of the unanswered questions surrounding human causation.

            1) How does surface CFC get into the stratosphere? The troposphere-stratosphere air boundary precludes mixing.

            2) How does CFC, primarily produced in Northern Hemisphere, get to the South Pole, across jet streams that actually preclude hemispherical mixing.

            The answer comes clear if you add volcanoes.

            The eruptions easily blast through the troposphere barrier – and Southern Ozone hole is due to southern hemisphere volcanoes – and further, the deep cold of the Antarctic further increases the hole.

            Even Mankin and Coffey themselves ascribe their observed 1982 increase of the ozone hole was due to the volcano El Chichon rather than to CFCs!

            Belgian researcher R Zander–in 1987 found no increase in hydrogen chloride (HCI), suggesting that stratospheric chlorine comes mostly from natural sources.

            But we also know that the elimination of CFC has resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people – by starvation.

            Without the CFC, older refrigerator failed, and food was destroyed. Financially unable to afford the far more expensive replacements, real people in Africa died.

            The hypothesis of human causation for ozone hole has been pretty much contested for sometime.

            Realclimate.org is hardly an unbiased site for ‘science’ or comment – especially climategate as the major participants of realclimate – Gavin Smith and M. Mann are seriously wrapped up in it.

            It appears Mann is going to be investigated, and already his own colleagues are ostracizing him.

            I’d expect his own blog site would deal with him rather more kindly than others.

            • Okay.

              First, I cited those early examples of things that seem logically false but are in fact true because they are things I understand from an abstract perspective, but not in terms of a “I walk around and it’s immediately apparent to me that _____” sense. There were human beings for thousands of years prior to Greek civilization. They believed the world was flat, and so did the Greeks who inherited those beliefs–which was why it was important news when the Greeks found evidence that it was, in fact, round. I could have used a better example, like “for thousands of years, people believed that the sun rotated around the earth.” But I suspect there was a scientific minority even then, just like there was an effort to discredit the assertion that the Earth revolved around the sun. Moving on.

              (sorry, I don’t know how to put your quotes into boxes)

              “Hundreds of pages. All you got is 26?”
              Where are your hundreds of pages, then? I showed you mine; you show me yours. Saying you’ve got hundreds of pages of bibliographical citation is a pretty outrageous claim. Show me.

              “A 100 studies all copying the same rotten data over and over again does not make the data nor the science 100 times better.”
              Again, please look at the page. These studies don’t all use the same data. They’re not all by the same people. They don’t all come from the same association, data set, weather center, decade, etc. They aren’t all from the same year, or even decade. Many of them are, in fact, nothing but data themselves. Saying that they’re all based on the same data is preposterous and demonstrably false. Do you really believe “Spatial and temporal variations of malaria epidemic risk in Ethiopia: factors involved and implications” and “Greenland ice sheet melt extent: 1979–1999” are using the same rotten data? They each represent entirely different pieces of the puzzle, which is comprised of thousands of studies just like those two–some of which are outdated, and in turn studies are written criticizing those outdated studies, and so on. Science isn’t a community of faith, it’s a community based off of doubt and dispute–which is why gravity remains a Theory, not a fact.

              “They have no experimental evidence whatsoever. They only have models.” How do you propose they “experiment” with the entire global climate? What would be the control there? There are some things you HAVE to look at the data and form educated guesses on. So far, those guesses have been alarmingly accurate. And again, the prediction isn’t that the earth is going to jump up drastically. We’re looking at .3C per DECADE. That’s slow, and not necessarily detectable in a single year, or even a single decade. Sometimes the sun’s rays aren’t particularly strong in a given year. Sometimes the ocean currents bring down the temperature for a couple of years. But look at the last 10, 20, 30, 40 years. The warming trend is there.

              “As we seen in Climategate, there was a systemic and overt action to ostracize any skeptics and to punish any peer review journal that dared to publish contrarian study.”
              I won’t dispute that there were e-mails discussing and approving the repression of research. I don’t think anyone would dispute that those actions are deplorable. But importantly, those efforts FAILED: the papers they suggested be repressed were published, and the people they wanted fired were not. It also turns out that those scientists were right: the scientific methodology of those papers, once they were published, came into question, and they were generally considered to be an example of the failure of the peer-review process to properly eliminate poor scientific data. If anything, Climategate demonstrates that there isn’t a single, uniform opinion within the climatologist sphere–that there is and continues to be debate. This article is an excellent read on it: http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/4338343.html

              “Dr. Wegman, arguably the #1 Statistician in the USA, in his review of the Global Climate Science found it incredibly incestuous and closed. Very little actual outside peer review was done – peer reviewers were almost always co-authors in other studies.”
              Peer review, in general, is conducted only by acknowledged experts in a given field, or “peers.” It’s not a perfect system, but it tends to work well, largely because scientists are competitive and love to disprove one another’s theses. Because you haven’t linked me to any specific article or quote, I’ll assume you’re talking about the data referenced in this article here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/07/the-missing-piece-at-the-wegman-hearing/#more-328
              The PDF of his testimony they link to wasn’t available. Going by Wikipedia, Dr. Wegman’s conclusions were more along the lines of, “Climatology needs more statisticians.” He might not be wrong, but he doesn’t offer an opinion that global warming is a hoax (he was essentially ordered not to discuss the issue as a whole). He’s looking at the methodology of ONE STUDY, and saying that he disagrees with its conclusions–specifically, that the 1990s were the hottest decade of the millennium. Additionally, the study he focused on doesn’t represent every study being made today, in the last five years, or even concurrently with it.

              “Thus they only have hypothesis, but absolutely there is no proof – period.”
              That’s right–because they’re trying to predict what will happen in the next decade, or century. How can you prove something that hasn’t happened yet? What HAS happened is the earth has gotten warmer. Dr. Wegman may not agree that the 1990s were the hottest decade of the millennium, but no one disputes that they were uncommonly hot. So far, the 2000s have been hotter. Looking at the 2010s, climatologists say that they’ll get hotter, too–roughly .3C hotter. The proof has to wait until we compile the data for the next 10 years.

              “Realclimate.org is hardly an unbiased site for ’science’ or comment – especially climategate as the major participants of realclimate – Gavin Smith and M. Mann are seriously wrapped up in it.”
              You’re saying that I’m citing a biased source. At least I’m citing SOMETHING to support the points I’m making. It’s not like I’m saying “SCIENCE SAYS SO!” and then plugging my fingers in my ears; I’m doing the bare minimum of research, via google, and immediately finding loads of information that supports my argument. You haven’t linked me to an article. You haven’t linked me to a study, which would have been convenient, since I wouldn’t have had to google “Dr. Wegman”. You’ve named a few studies for the CFC issue. So here I’ll address those, and then get about 4 hours of sleep so I can get up and work.

              *Here thar be CFC talk*
              You mention a few points. As a last point, I was interested in how CFCs get into the atmosphere, too. So I googled, “How does CFC get into the stratosphere?” The first three results were articles explaining how that, in fact, occurs. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=chlorofluorocarbons-cfcs is the first one, and can be summarized thusly: “Because CFCs are so long-lived in the lower atmosphere, there is ample time and opportunity for them to become well mixed and eventually to reach the stratosphere.”

              Better still, the third result:
              Gases, heavier than air, reach high altitudes by convection — the physical
              mixing of masses of the atmosphere. Once there CFC’s undergo photochemical
              chain reactions so that a small quantity of CFC’s propagate
              atmosphere-damaging chemical reactions.

              Vince Calder

              Almost any molecule or particle that is not too much heavier
              than air can be transported long distances horizontally or
              to great heights vertically by atmospheric motions. For instance,
              consider the great heights to which thunderstorms can reach,
              well into the stratosphere. As the air rises in the thunderstorm,
              it carries with it whatever pollution and particles that were
              near the surface. Thus they can end up in the stratosphere. Not
              being too much heavier than air and with little for mechanisms to
              remove them (little vertical motion, little water vapor, no
              precipitation, etc.), CFCs can reside in the stratosphere
              for a long time before they literally fall out down towards the

              David R. Cook
              Atmospheric Research Section
              Environmental Research Division
              Argonne National Laboratory

              There you go. A very small amount gets there, then stays there, merrily destroying O3 molecules as a catalyst.

              By the way, I googled “How does CFC get into the stratosphere? +volcanoes” and THIS was the first result: http://stason.org/TULARC/science-engineering/ozone-depletion-stratospheric-chlorine/23-Volcanoes-put-more-chlorine-into-the-stratosphere-than-CF.html
              It begins thusly:
              “23 Volcanoes put more chlorine into the stratosphere than CFC’s.
              Short Reply: False. Volcanoes account for at most a few percent
              of the chlorine in the stratosphere.
              Long reply: This is one of the most persistent myths in this
              …and then it continues, citing various sciency articles.
              (haha holy crap, I just hit forward and almost lost this entire response. Time to end it and get some sleep.)

              • Nick F:

                You said: “There are some things you HAVE to look at the data and form educated guesses on. So far, those guesses have been alarmingly accurate.”

                First, yes they are guesses as in hypothesis. That does not make it fact alone. That is what has happened. Theory has become fact through political pressures.

                Second, the predictions have NOT been accurate. That is the whole point with the information released. Those who have driven the models constantly tweak the data to make it conform to what they view as the proper predictions. That is why the use of models alone for this type of science is flawed.

                Experiment in the natural sciences consists of observing the real world to see if it does correlate to the predictions. But in doing so ALL cause/effect relationships must be accounted for, not just those preferred by the observer.

                By the way, all the studies you posted as some sort of proof have nothing to do with proving the underlying assumption and predicted correlations between C02 production and temp. increase. They represent the body of scientific predictions of impacts caused by increased temps. and climate changes.

                Those reports that predict future changes ALL rely on the predicted ranges of temp increase that flowed from the flawed analysis and reports.

                It looks to me as though you have some background in one of the science fields affected but you can’t let go of the fact that the underlying conclusions of cause and effect regarding C02 and global warming are suspect.

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

            Amount of money going to climate change research from governments, “environmental concern groups”, and other people interested in proving that man is actually causing global warming:


            Amount of money going to climate change research from the “evil” Exxon-Mobil

            $23.8 Million last year.

            If you were a biased researcher in search of never-ending grant money for your pockets, which side of your toast is the bread more effectively buttered on?

      • Nick said: but that the vast, vast, vast, vast, vast majority of evidence supports that we are trapping the sun’s energy and doing in decades what’s supposed to take millennia. (vast!)

        Sir, you have said the very words that prove the theory wrong. If we are trapping the suns energy IN, then we are also blocking the same energy from entering. If the energy can’t get out, how then do you suggest that it gets IN. Contradiction in the Law of Physics, Nick. Your premise has failed, try again! 🙂


        • Roll up the windows of your car on a hot day. Behold! We trap the sun’s energy IN, without blocking it from entering!

          • But if the energy of the sun cannot be released because it is prohibited, it is physically impossible for that same energy to enter. Under your claim of your post (not your claim, just your current state of brainwashed) , so how do you equate that the energy can come in, but not out. If my car gets hot, because energy from the sun comes in, I open the windows, which releases the energy. But the earth, according to your post is trapping that energy, so based on your ideolgy, my opening the windows would be useless, because, you show no proof of a window. Under your premise, there is no window to open. If energy can’t go one way (out), then there is no way for that energy to go the other way (in). Try again! 🙂

          • @G-Man
            I should be less flippant, so I’ll give the actual answer to your question (which operates on the same principles as the car door thing). Yes, it would be impossible for something to completely block the sun’s energy from going out, while also letting it go in. But that’s not how CO2 (or out atmosphere) works. Instead, it operates like a filter. CO2 doesn’t block UV-wavelength energy. It does, however, block infrared (heat) energy, which operates at a significantly lower wavelength.

            Therefore, a high CO2 concentration doesn’t stop the sun’s rays from getting in as high-energy, ultraviolet light. But when the UV-rays hit the earth, they break down into low-wavelength heat energy–which is why it’s hotter in the sun than in the shade, why dark-colored clothing heats up in the sun more than light-colored clothing (it’s dark because it reflects fewer wavelengths of light), and why leaving the windows up on a hot day is a bad idea. It is the low-wavelength heat energy CO2 prevents from escaping through the various layers of the atmosphere.

            • @G-Man

              I didn’t see this post up before I wrote my response. So while my previous response addresses it, if you still doubt that the sun’s light can enter through a surface as UV light, transform into heat, and then be blocked from leaving as IR light, please respond. I’ll be glad to explain it in more detail.

              For the record, the behavior of sunlight with respect to CO2 gas isn’t disputed. Solar rays behave this way, and CO2 gas does do this. The question is, are the high levels of CO2 gas today the result of people impacting their environment? And do they result in a high enough CO2 concentration to trap enough IR light to heat the earth to a significant degree?

              • Nick,

                I should be less flippant, so I’ll give the actual answer to your question (which operates on the same principles as the car door thing).

                Absolutely incorrect, sir!

                The Earth does not operate like a greenhouse!

                This is one of the biggest stupid analogies in Science – utterly confused everyone.

                In a Greenhouse (like your car)
                radiation energy enters from the window and is absorbed by the surfaces inside – the seats, dash, etc.

                The molecules of these surfaces increase their energy level, and release it back into the atmosphere of the car as heat energy.

                But because there is no convection, the air cannot rise or fall – so it continues to absorb the heat released by the surfaces until an equilibrium is established between the heat energy radiating out of the hot windows, heated by the hot air inside.

                The Earth does not work this way!

                The Sun heats the surface of the planet and the molecules release heat energy into the air.

                But unlike the car, there is no block to the air convection – hot air rises, and gets cooled as it reaches the top of the atmosphere – cold air falls – and poof! we have what we call weather.

                This is why Climate Science is impossible to prove.

                I can measure precisely the energy system in a Greenhouse – how much sun will create how much heat.

                I can do this because the calculation of the convection currents can be discarded – there is no convection. So the calculation is a simple energy in/out.

                But I cannot do this in Climate Science. Convection exists and cannot be discarded – and it is an infinitely complex series of turbulence equations that are unsolvable.

                It is the low-wavelength heat energy CO2 prevents from escaping through the various layers of the atmosphere.

                So, let’s be clear.

                Water vapor absorbs the same spectrum as CO2 (as well as other spectrum that CO2 does not).

                As such, the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere as a component of the heating is very small compared to water vapor.

                The best way to understand this is using window slats.

                If you slat the windows, it blocks light, except for the gaps.

                Putting more slats behind the front ones will block more of the escaping light – but ONLY THE LIGHT THAT WASN’T BLOCKED (absorbed) by the first slats.

                To block the same amount of light as the first slats, you need 10x more slats in the back – the logarithmic component of absorption.

                Thus, the increasing the CO2 in the atmosphere would require 10x the concentration to double its effect.

                A 30% increase is insignificant.

                Co2 is a better absorber than water – and methane better than both.

                This has to due with the number of axis of vibration of the molecules – sorta of like ‘how does the molecule bounce’.

                Water only vibrates along one axis. Co2 vibrates along 4, and methane along 24.

                But Co2 is a trace gas – so even though it bounces in more ways, there isn’t anywhere near enough of them to make a difference.

                The question is, are the high levels of CO2 gas today the result of people impacting their environment?

                No. The calculation doesn’t work out.

                The amount of Co2 increase is greater than human output by a huge margin.

                There is a ‘missing’ source – probably the ocean.

                And do they result in a high enough CO2 concentration to trap enough IR light to heat the earth to a significant degree?


                Here we can do real science experimentation.

                We can put Co2 in a jar and measure the absorption based on concentration.

                Guess what, it’s logarithmic.

                So the very tiny small increase of CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere simply cannot account for the warming of the late-1990’s.

                And even more important – it does not account for the cooling since then! 🙂

                • “As such, the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere as a component of the heating is very small compared to water vapor.”
                  “Co2 is a better absorber than water – and methane better than both.”
                  “Thus, the increasing the CO2 in the atmosphere would require 10x the concentration to double its effect.”
                  But the light here isn’t passing through one set of slats to hit the next–it’s hitting both, together. There are just a lot more H2O slats than CO2 ones.
                  “But Co2 is a trace gas – so even though it bounces in more ways, there isn’t anywhere near enough of them to make a difference.”
                  Then why does the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere correlate so strongly with changes in the earth’s temperature? It’s not a perfect system, like a greenhouse, otherwise we’d all be dead. But data indicates that increases in CO2 produce slight increases in temperature.
                  “No. The calculation doesn’t work out.
                  The amount of Co2 increase is greater than human output by a huge margin.
                  There is a ‘missing’ source – probably the ocean.”
                  There being even higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere than just the amount we’re producing doesn’t mean that our actions aren’t impacting those levels. For example, God only knows what kind of impact our overfishing has had on the ocean plantlife–but while that doesn’t belch out CO2 like an exhaust pipe, it has an impact on global CO2 levels.
                  “Guess what, it’s logarithmic.”
                  Please explain what you mean there. Me confused.

                  You won’t read it, but here’s a massive document on why small amounts of CO2 in our atmosphere can influence the global climate.

                  Click to access ar4-wg1-chapter3.pdf

                  It’s 102 pages long, but only 80 pages or so are the actual article. The last 20 pages are the studies they cite. It actually isn’t that hard to read, although the studies it’s based on are eye-gougingly dense. This, by the way, is the sort of document the opposition needs to produce in order to refute the current theory.

                • BF

                  I have to clarify somethings here. Molecular spectra of different molecules are defined by their moments of inertia (3 one each in the X, Y, and Z axes) and their normal modes of vibration (3n-6, where n is the number of atoms).

                  CO2 is a linear molecule. The moment of inertia about the molecular (O-C-O) axis is zero since the atomic mass is at its center. Furthermore, the other two moments are identical, hence redundant which would normally mean that each line would be doubled but since the O’s have an even number of protons, the doubling does not occur. CO2 has 3 normal modes of vibration, v1 is the symmetric mode where the 2 oxygens both move out and in symmetrically. This mode is IR inactive since there is no change in dipole moment. v2 is the bending mode which has a fundamental band near 15 um. v3 is the asymetric stretch which occurs at 4.3 um. There are numerous other hot and combination bands that can occur as well. See my note below about saturation.

                  H2O is a bent molecule and as such it has 3 distinct moments of inertia. It is an asymmetric top. This greatly increases the number of rotational lines. Water also has 3 normal modes of vibration, the 2 stretching modes occur near 3 um and the bending mode near 6 um. All are infrared active. Since the hydrogen atoms are very light, water has a small moment of inertia in comparison to CO2. The rotational line spacing is inversely proportional to the moment of inertia, hence water lines are much more widely spaced that CO2, hence it covers a much broader region of the spectrum.

                  Note, at high spectral resolution, there is very little overlap between the water lines and the CO2 lines. They do not interfer with each other.

                  As you said, CH4 is much more complex than either H20 or CO2. Due to its tetrahedral symmetry, it has 4 normal modes, of which only 2 are infrared inactive. However, there are a large number of combination bands that can involve the other 2 modes. Like H2O, it has a small moment of inertia, thus the lines are widely spaced. Like the other two it is a strong absorber.

                  Beer’s Law states that absorbance is directly proportional to the product of the concentration and the pathlength. Absorbance is defined as the -log10 of the transmittance which is the ratio of the light intensity with the sample to the intensity without the sample. If I have a concentration pathlength product that produces an abosrbance of 1, 10% of the light is transmitted. If I double the concentration to get an aborbance of 2, 1% of the light is transmitted, 3 0.1%. This is your logrithmic relationship.

                  While convection plays an important role, all substances radiate according to there absolute temperature. Hence the earth does radiate energy back into space. This is why clear winter nights are much colder than cloudy nights. (See my notes on radiation theory below.)

                  Other phenomena that must be considered in the radiation transfer is the temperature of the gas and its pressure. The temperature of the atmosphere decrease with altitude as does the pressure. The decreasing temperature impacts the Boltzmann temperature distribution, i.e. the molecules store less energy hence are lin lower vibrational and rotational energy levels. This reduces the intensity of the higher rotational lines as well as reducing the intensity of the numerous hot bands. Thus it is easier to saturate the spectrum (become opaque). Decreasing pressure causes the line shape (bell curve described below) to narrow up. Again enhancing the saturation effect.

                  Radiation transfer is probably the easiest and best understood aspect of the GW discussion. But as BF has stated, the other more difficult aspects are just as important. One is trying to balance an equilibrium equation. This is like balancing a teeter-totter. Add one ounce to one side, and the balance tips. Miss one even minor contributor, the result is wrong and cannot predict the future.

                  I hope I have helped, it is now 1 am PST and I have to fix a frozen pipe in the morning to restore water to the house.

              • Your explanation is close but not perfect. All bodies radiate energy based on their temperature. The total radiation emitted is proportional to the absolute temperature to the fourth power. The shape of the radiation curve vs wavelength is determined by the Planck Equation. The sun’s surface temperature is about 6000K hence the Plank equation peaks near a wavelength of 0.5 um in the visible. A large percentage of the solar radiation is in the visible which decreases exponentially into the UV. The transmission of the atmosphere in the visible and UV is very good. This explains why the eye is most sensitive to yellow light. The Planck equation does tail off in more of a linear fashion throughout the infrared region of the spectrum.

                When solar engery does reach the earth, it naturally warms the surface in proportion to the emissivity of that surface. A perfectly black surface has an emissivity of 1 and is called a blackbody. A surface that reflects 100% of the light either specularly (mirror like) or diffusely (scatters) has an emissivity of 0. The surface will then reradiate the energy but now based upon its temperature and emissivity. Since the temperatue is much lower, the Planck curve peaks at a much longer wavelength. For room temperature, 300K, the peak is near 10 um in the infrared. The total energy reradiated will be substantially lower because of the fourth power rule.

                The infrared protion of the solar energy that enters the atmosphere is absorbed by the CO2 and other green house gases, H2O, NO2, CH4 etc. If one just looks at the major CO2 absorption features, you will find that very little solar energy actually reaches the earth at these wavelengths. This is called saturation. The major absorption features are opaque at even a few ppm. Light is reversible so if energy at the CO2 peaks cannot get in, it cannot get out either.

                To visualize an infrard absorption band for a simple molecule like CO2, think of a picket fence with decreasing picket hieght in both directions. Now add to this image the fact that each picket is shaped like a Gaussian (bell or normal distribution) curve.

                So then how is CO2 getting such a bad rap. Well there are other weak absorption bands in CO2 that are not as strong and will allow radiation in and will trap some of the reradiated energy. Also the wings of the 100’s of bell shaped absorption features start to add up. So CO2 does have potential to trap radiation.

                CO2 is a linear symmetric molecule with relatively heavy atoms for a gas. As such its spectrum is quite dense (covers a small wavelength range) (pickets close together)and has a limited number of active infrared bands. Molecules such as the bent water molecule are asymmetric tops thus have far more bands hence more lines. Also water has the light hydrogen atoms which gives it a much lower moment of inertia hence the lines (pickets) are spaced wide apart and cover a much larger spectral region. Methane also falls in this latter category. Hence the total amount of energy absorbed by H2O and CH4 will be much greater than CO2. So much of the effort is being directed at a bit player only because that is most likely the only one we can control. (On a dark night, where do you look for the lost quarter but under the street lamp.)

                You can take my word for the above since IR molecular spectroscopy is my field of expertise. If you do not accept that then I suggest a nice trilogy on molecular spectroscopy written by the late Nobelist Gerhard Herzberg of the National Research Council of Canada. Expect some Quantum Mechanics.

                Now add to this some other physics/chemisty. If the earth and the atmosphere warm up, water evaporation increases since the air can hold more of it. This might accelerate the global warming. However, water has a nasty habit of forming clouds which are white (low emissivity) and reflect the visible radiation back into space, thus cooling the earth. There is also a theory, ignored by the AGW crowd, that charged particles from the sun initiate cloud formation thus cooling the earth.

                All of the data that I have seen from the recent Climategate incident concerns “models” used to fit historical data after that data has been significantly massaged. They are using very sophisitcated statistical techniques such as principal components analysis (PCA) (the stuff used in the mortgage derivatives), Fourier analysis, and Bayesian statistics. They are also doing some massive smoothing (integration). I do not consider this analysis of historical data to have any predictive ability because they are just analyzing what appears to be random events with little or no understanding of the physics of the process. You can find correlations by this process but not causation.

                I routinely apply PCA and its cousins Principal Component Regression (PCR) and Partial Least Squares (PLS) to the near infrared spectrum of gasoline to predict its octane number. This is after developing the “model” from a training set of gasolines that reflect the widest possible variation of chemical composition the refinery can produce. There are strict ASTM rules on testing the resultant model for robustness and applicability. I know these models work because we continually test them for effectiveness. I also know that there is underlying chemistry that relates composition to octane number and a linear relationship between the composition and its spectrum. I can also test this experimentally by spiking in various chemcicals in the gasoline and measuring the changes. Models so developed have statistical limits and must only applied within those limits. One never extrapolates a model without much trepidation.

                This kind of rigor and testing I have yet to see in the CRU data. I will admit, I have not actively read the literature but if such rigor were available, I would think it would be widely quoted.

                BF in one of his posts today is correct in that the missing piece is experimantal confirmation.

                • All I do is try to explain it simply, and then some show off has to complex the thing up.


                  Yeah, T-Ray, that’s what I said…!

                • @T-Ray Thank you for the response. I did my best to read and understand it.

                  “You can take my word for the above since IR molecular spectroscopy is my field of expertise. If you do not accept that then I suggest a nice trilogy on molecular spectroscopy written by the late Nobelist Gerhard Herzberg of the National Research Council of Canada. Expect some Quantum Mechanics.”
                  I do, and I’m not going to dispute any of the molecular properties you listed. We agree that CO2 is vastly outnumbered by water vapor, that CO2 is a gas that human beings can control the emission of, and that “CO2 does have potential to trap radiation.”

                  “I do not consider this analysis of historical data to have any predictive ability because they are just analyzing what appears to be random events with little or no understanding of the physics of the process.”
                  Let’s bear in mind that climategate focuses on the UEA, one prominent research center among many. The scientific community studying climate change as a whole is far larger, and contains experts in many fields. I am certain that if you look around, you will find that there are, in fact, several molecular spectroscopists (is that a word?) whose focus is on analyzing the atmosphere, how we’re changing it, and what those changes are doing. In 2008, the Journal of Molecular Spectroscopy apparently contained the following article: “Special issue dedicated to the pioneering work of Drs. Edward A. Cohen and Herbert M. Pickett on spectroscopy relevant to the Earth’s atmosphere and astrophysics.” I tried to see what that pioneering work was, but–not being a subscriber to the Journal of Molecular Spectroscopy–I couldn’t read the article without purchasing it.

                  Now, that doesn’t necessarily mean that Drs. Edward Cohen/Herbert Pickett are for or against man-made climate change. Judging by this (http://www.nrao.edu/meetings/isstt/papers/2009/2009167173.pdf), I’d say that Herbert Pickett at least is still an active participant in the application of spectroscopy and the analysis of climate change.

                  The NERC in Britain (National Environment Research Council) has, so far as I can tell, a pretty intense molecular spectroscopic unit. Is “intense” the right word? It exists, at any rate: http://www.msf.rl.ac.uk/reports/Msfar034.pdf
                  What do they think? http://www.nerc.ac.uk/research/issues/climatechange/

                  I’m sure there are other examples of molecular spectroscopisticators working on climate change, at research centers that continue, with their support, to ascribe to the “man-made global warming” theory. I have to get back to work now. BUT, at any rate, I hope this at least demonstrates that molecular spectroscopy and climatology aren’t strangers to one another. In fact, the nrao.edu article suggests to me (again, layman analysis incoming!) that the field of atmospheric spectroscopy is being advanced in order to enlarge the data set for climate change, so we can test the models, then produce more accurate models. In other words, that climate change is, far from ignoring the physics their models incorporate and depend on, actively working to collect more physical data, and actually advancing the field.

                  Here’s an excerpt from that article:
                  “This region is critical for climate because temperature
                  changes in this region will produce very large changes in the
                  outgoing long wave radiation that cools the Earth.
                  Temperature changes in this region are also indicative of how
                  realistic models are in transporting added heat from additional
                  greenhouse gases from the surface up to the upper
                  troposphere. There has been an issue for quite some time as to
                  whether model simulations at the surface visa vis the free
                  troposphere are realistic. One component is that a primary
                  feedback is water vapor above 500 mb. It appears climate
                  models have a tendency to produce more water vapor in the
                  upper troposphere in response to increased greenhouse gas
                  concentrations and warming at the surface than may be
                  occurring in the real world. Unfortunately we don’t really
                  know whether or not this is true because the water vapor and
                  temperature observations in the upper troposphere are simply
                  not good enough.”

                  No conspiracy here–scientists actually are trying to piece together the physics of our atmosphere, match that against the model, and then determine how accurate that model is.

                  • “scientists actually are trying to piece together the physics of our atmosphere, match that against the model, and then determine how accurate that model is.”

                    And meanwhile politicians and media pundits are telling us that the science is settled and we should spend trillions to react. And send trillions more to less developed countries as a “carbon debt.”

                    Thus my point to the whole discussion. The science is far from settled. There is ample evidence to suggest that “facts” we have are not facts at all, and that we should not be spending trillions on what we don’t understand.

                  • Nick, I am quite familiar with J. Mol. Spec., even have a few articles in there myself on CO and CO2 spectroscopy. I have been out of the high resolution IR R&D for the last 20 yrs. The other journal that will have a lot of good info will be the J. of Radiative Transfer. The USAF Cambridge Research Lab has a database of atmospheric spectral lines that is quite significant. They are called LoTran and HiTran. They have been amassing this data for over 30 yrs. Hence much is known about the atmosphere and has been known for some time. Other centers (somewhat dated) on atmospheric spectroscopy are U. of Denver, National Center for Atmospheric Research (Boulder), NOAA Suitland, NASA Goddard, NIST, Ohio State, Penn State, U of Washington, Michigan State, JPL, NASA Ames, Los Alamos, Sandia, NRC (Canada)…. This is the crowd I use to run with.

                    The area where the data has been historically weakest is in the quantitative measures of absorption coefficients under various temperature and pressure regimes. This a diffcult and time consuming process in the laboratory to accomplish. It is not sufficient to measure just the intensity at the center of a line but one needs to know the line shape and the absorption at the wings. Changing the background gas can also change the line shape.

                    I do not know Cohen or Pickett (JPL) nor have I heard of them. I have interacted with several JPL scientists over the years.

                    Re: NERC, I looked at their site and was not that impressed. I found no bibliographies of published papers. For $60M/yr, I hope they have many. Their instrument list was normal but not impressive. Some of the satellite work looks interesting. Their website is a bust in terms of technical information. Also I have to questin a group that names one of their divisions, Rapid Climate Change. If you work in this group and disprove RCC, do you get fired?

                    Nick, I can find the literature if I need to. All it would take is a few days in a university library. I just have other more important things to do like keep my company up to date on technology and taking care of my wife. So I am off to the blood lab with her. Later.

  3. USWeapon Topic #3

    Senate Dems: Deal near to drop public option

    After days of secret talks, Senate Democrats tentatively agreed Tuesday night to drop a government-run insurance option from sweeping health care legislation, several officials said, a concession to party moderates whose votes are critical to passage of President Barack Obama’s top domestic priority.

    Majority Leader Harry Reid refused to provide any details at a mid-evening news conference where he told reporters a “broad agreement” had been reached between liberals and moderates on the controversial issue.

    With it, he said, the end is in sight for passage of the legislation that Congress has labored over for months.

    Read the entire article at the parody news site (MSNBC): http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34326187/ns/politics-capitol_hill/

    Let me first say that the fact that the article actually openly states that these were secret talks speaks to how low our expectations have become for the United States Congress. As I recall, the Messiah clearly stated that the debates and discussions around this would be open, transparent, and broadcast on C-Span. Just another lie I suppose. But here is the real thought from me on “secret” talks…. they should be illegal for Congress. If you are debating and discussing a piece of legislation that has the potential to impact nearly every single citizen in the United States, you should be required to have every single bit of that discussion out there for public consumption. “Secret Deals”? Is there any liberal in America who can defend the idea that something as monumental as this bill (or cap and trade or the stimulus or the Patriot Act) should be passed by using secret deals?

    Next, while I know there are many out there who are thinking “good, the public option is dead. I feel better.” DON’T. This is bad news. Because it means that this boondoggle of a bill is a bit closer to passing in the United States Senate. The passage of this bill in any form is bad, with or without the public option. There is NOTHING good about this bill. There is NOTHING in this bill that is going to help make America better or help to bring down the costs of health care. The entire bill is about usurping individual liberty, trumping private enterprise, and giving more power to the federal government. Any compromise that gets this bill closer to passage is a horrible development.

    • All I know is Harry Reid was very smug in his interview that things were close; they still wouldn’t reveal what is was they had, but you are right, USW, if Harry Reid thinks it’s good, guaranteed it is bad for all freedom loving citizens.

  4. USWeapon Topic #4

    Calls Mount for Reid to Apologize Over Slavery Remark

    From Nevada to Washington, calls were mounting Tuesday for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to apologize for comparing opponents of health care reform to supporters of slavery.

    The antagonistic comment, made on the Senate floor Monday, came at a sensitive time for health care reform, with Democratic leaders trying to push a compromise by the holidays, and in the middle of Reid’s heated race for re-election in Nevada. The remark did not bode well for either effort.

    Senate Republicans blasted Reid for the comparison, calling it “offensive” and “unbelievable” and suggesting he was starting to “crack” under the pressure of the health care reform effort.

    In the comment, Reid argued that Republicans are using the same stalling tactics employed in the pre-Civil War era — and during the women’s suffrage and civil rights movements.

    “Instead of joining us on the right side of history, all the Republicans can come up with is, ‘slow down, stop everything, let’s start over.’ If you think you’ve heard these same excuses before, you’re right,” Reid said Monday. “When this country belatedly recognized the wrongs of slavery, there were those who dug in their heels and said ‘slow down, it’s too early, things aren’t bad enough.'”

    He continued: “When women spoke up for the right to speak up, they wanted to vote, some insisted they simply, slow down, there will be a better day to do that, today isn’t quite right.

    “When this body was on the verge of guaranteeing equal civil rights to everyone regardless of the color of their skin, some senators resorted to the same filibuster threats that we hear today.”

    Read the rest of the article about the future ex-Senator from Nevada at Fox News: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/08/calls-mount-reid-apologize-slavery-remark/?test=latestnews

    Let me say first that this is yet another attempt by those on the left to play the race card. I have grown tired of this tactic. And I am quickly beginning to find myself at odds with not only those who do so, but with the regular Americans in the Democratic party who continue to fail to stop their party from doing so. Forget the idiots that agree and embrace the racial accusations, I am now getting angry with the twits who refuse to denounce those who do so. Stand up, regular everyday Democratic voters, and demand that your party and your pundits stop this vile tactic. It is divisive and wrong.

    But further, let’s just show the Senate Majority Leader for the dimwit that he is. Democrats opposed women’s suffrage and civil rights. However, the parties, it can be argued, have switched sides over time. Traditional conservatives of that time were the opponents of these bills, while liberals supported them. So it is really unclear who is responsible for the changes, but I give credit to the “progressive movement”, because Teddy Roosevelt was the first to endorse it and Woodrow Wilson called for passage of the 19th amendment. However, there ends my defense of Reid’s statements. Because the comments he attributed to the pre-civil war opposition are untrue. The claim was that the north had no right to tell the southern slave owners what to do, not, as he claimed, “slow down, stop everything. Let’s start over.” This is where the future ex-Senator goes astray. And where he plays his race card ever so gallantly.

    The fact is, as I pointed out above, we should be slowing down, not because I am opposed to health care reform, but because I don’t want this done wrong. And everything they are doing is wrong, because their intent it not to reform health care, but instead to control Americans. To even begin to compare a noble cause such as equal rights or women’s suffrage to this completely villainous cause of taking over control of 1/6th of the economy is downright dishonest.

    Harry Reid is a piece of trash. Then again he is the leader of 99 other pieces of similar dung.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      I find it interesting that when it comes to a decision whether or not to send more troops to Afghanistan, Obama asks for as much time as he needs because he wants to “do it right” as opposed to “doing it fast”.

      And yet, when it comes to “health-care reform” Obama and the Democrats have publicly stated that they need to “get something done now, and if it isn’t quite right we can fix it later”. Nevermind the fact that “health-care reform” has a far greater economic and societal impact on ALL of the people of this country….

      Please ‘splain to me how this makes sense. The only way I can make sense of it is that they KNOW if they don’t get radical changes made to health-care now, they probably never will, so hence they are trying to beat the Christmas rush.

      • v. Holland says:

        Add in the trip to Copenhagen even after the leaked emails-with all the talk about investigations and with the seriousness of the charge, you would think there would have been a hold put on Copenhagen until after the investigations.

  5. USWeapon Topic #5

    Obama approval rating below 50 percent

    Support for President Obama has dropped below 50 percent for the first time in a CNN poll despite high marks for his recently announced Afghanistan policy.

    Forty-eight percent of Americans questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. national survey released Friday said they approve of the job Obama is doing as president — a drop of 7 percentage points from a survey last month.

    Fifty percent said they do not approve. The difference of 2 percentage points between approval and disapproval falls within the range of the poll’s sampling error.

    “The poll indicates that the biggest drop in approval comes from noncollege-educated white voters,” said Keating Holland, CNN’s polling director. “That’s one indication among many that Obama’s growing unpopularity may be more related to unemployment and the poor economy” than to factors such as his strategy for Afghanistan.

    Read the entire article at CNN International: http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/12/04/obama.approval.poll/

    Just a quick hit here. Let me say that I do think that this polling is relevant. It shows that the luster of the Messiah is wearing off. And that is an important thing. It shows that the American people are perhaps beginning to regret their decision on November 4th, 2008. It shows that he is being seen for the fraud that he is. I say fraud because his experience is lacking and his campaign promises are turning out to be even more full of crap than even the past Presidents. And that is saying something.

    However, don’t celebrate just yet. What many folks are missing in the gleeful little charts showing his rating lower than any other President at this point in their tenure are the amounts of the others on that chart. Ronald Reagan was only a few points higher than Obama and he ended up being considered a great president, and won a true landslide a mere three years later. George Bush was tons higher (although 9/11 causes that to be somewhat misleading), and ended the Presidency with an approval rating on par with Congress. The point is that the poll numbers at the one year mark mean nothing. There are many things that can make those numbers change dramatically. He might hit 80% approval or drop down as low as Congress. Only time will tell.

    I would, however, prefer that all these media outlets stop attempting to spin the results. This article stated that it was all about unemployment. What none of them are willing to admit is that perhaps the Messiah is simply being seen as not at all what he campaigned as being. How much of the drop would you attribute to that factor, CNN? You know what demographic CNN doesn’t ever mention? Blacks. Interesting.

    • Posting for comments. Obama = a negative Carter. If Al Qeida (sp) wants to destroy our way of life, they better hurry because BO is beating them to it!


    • Buck The Wala says:

      Hey everyone, how have you all been?

      Work has been extremely crazy the past few days so I haven’t had time to jump in. Hopefully today will give me more of a chance to get back in the game.

      Just a thought on Obama’s poll numbers: Yes, they are low; the lowest of any President at this point in time in their Presidency. Part of the reason is a sizable number of Americans disagree with his policies and genuinely feel he is heading the country in the wrong direction. Part of the reason is some liberals who believe he is not going far enough based on his campaign and are voicing their frustration.

      But perhaps there is a different reason as to why his numbers are the lowest of any President at this point in time — the increasing polarization of this country. Every year the country gets more and more polarized with more and more people actively hoping the President fails simply because he belongs to a different political party. I am not saying that people can’t genuinely be upset with Obama’s policies (I know the vast majority of people on this site have given a lot of thought to Obama’s policies and concluded they are unhappy), but let’s not forget the many Americans who oppose Obama simply because he is not a Republican (nor the many Americans who opposed Bush simply because he is not a Democrat – it goes both ways).

      Another point on poll numbers in general – did anyone see the Daily Show last night (Mathius, I’m sure you did). Stewart pointed out a Fox News panel discussing a Rasmussen poll on climate change. The numbers added up to 120%. Not a single commentator pointed that fact out, yet all used that poll to prove their point. Sad, but instructive on the use of poll numbers to highlight a point.

      • Buck

        Welcome back. Hope the honeymoon was great.

        While there is polarization it does not account for the drop.

        It accounts for where he started from.

        Your point about his Lefty supporters is the most relevant to me. At least at this single point in time.

        I am guessing much of the slide is the hard Lefts dissatisfaction with the lack of action.

        They are the most prone to the God or King syndrome, in my opinion. They think the President will make us feel better and that he is somehow able to MAKE Congress do what he wants.

        The real tell in the long run is what happens to the more “independant” or the “moderate Dems/Repubs”. Those are the hardest to get back once you’ve lost them.

        By the way, POLARIZATION is an American tradition. We operate under the misconception that today’s politics are nastier than previous generations. It simply isn’t the case. In fact, it is essentially polarization that led the founders to recognize the need for strong States and a weak Federal govt. It allows a free people to vote with their feet.

        Best to you and the new missus.

        • Buck The Wala says:

          Thanks for the well wishes. Honeymoon was fantastic and I only wish I was still in 85+ degree weather instead of this rainstorm.

          I think you make a good point about the far left and dissatisfaction with Obama accounting for the majority of the slide. I know I’m dissapointed with several things he has done as compared to what his campaign had ‘promised’. Of course, I’m not of the illusion that everything said in a campaign will magically transpire.

          As for polarization, yes, politics has always been a nasty endeavor and history is ripe with examples of polarization. I do believe though (and I don’t have any cites to back me up) that we have become increasingly polarized. The extremes on both sides have become more bloated than in the past. This ‘bloatedness’ if I can call it that for lack of a better descriptive term, can and does (in my mind) fuel lower poll numbers.

          • Buck

            If you give it a little deeper thought I think you will realize it is not polarization itself that is the culprit here.

            I know that is what we call it, but in reality it is more of a politicization of the parties.

            Polarization is actually good, in my view, as it more accurately defines the principles of certain groups. What we have is just plain nasty politics for the sake of “party”.

            As someone said here awhile back, there is a loss of “statesmanship” in the political parties. Such allows criticism of the other without stooping to such tactics as playing the race card or drawing comparisons to murderers.

            It is civility that is missing but we should expect such, because civility has been diminished in our society as a whole. Manners go along with that. A woman should not be shocked or take special notice of a man holding the door for her, or letting her go first in line. But it has become just that. An exception instead of the rule.

            • Buck The Wala says:

              Politicization / Polarization — call it what you will, but I think we are both talking about the same thing.

            • I think its more than that. We are being intentionally manipulated into fighting each other so that the elites can continue grabbing power and wealth from us. Americans need to focus on the real enemy and stop bickering over shit that won’t matter once the politicains and ‘communtiy leaders’ have their way with us.

        • I did see that daily show.. and I noticed in the clip that the reporter realized that he was using bad data. He started to add the ‘likely’ and ‘somewhat likely’ columns, started to say 94, then quickly moved on. If that’s not outright fraud, I don’t know what is.

          The key part starts around 35 seconds in and the point at which he catches the error and ignores it is at 50.

          The Daily Show With Jon StewartMon – Thurs 11p / 10c<td style='padding:2px 1px 0px 5px;' colspan='2'Gretchen Carlson Dumbs Downhttp://www.thedailyshow.comDaily Show Full EpisodesPolitical HumorHealth Care Crisis

          • Buck The Wala says:

            Thanks for posting the clip!

          • v. Holland says:

            I’ve gotta say this is so stupid -I can’t believe that it was intentional-to me it just shows that these people are rather slow on their feet-they were so surprised by the numbers-they didn’t know how to handle the situation so they just didn’t say anything-it would have been so easy and funny to have just said -wait, hold up here, someone has obviously messed up here, this equals 120%-then they could have come back and quoted the right ones.

            • I would agree that there was probably no fraud intended when the numbers were put displayed, but at the point where he added to 94, then caught himself and continued act as if the data were still viable, I do not see how this can be defended.

              • v. Holland says:

                Not defending it, just saying I see it as stupid not fraud-Now depending on what they are saying now to defend their stupidity, which sorta pushed them into a corner, may or may not be classified as fraud. Haven’t heard their response to this video.

                • Did you watch the video? (it’s quite amusing if nothing else).

                • Buck The Wala says:

                  The only thing I can find on Fox’s response in a brief search:


                  • v. Holland says:

                    It’s too long-I have to leave for awhile, will read when I get back.

                    • I’ll summarize for you: We did nothing wrong. We never said the numbers sum to 100, instead, what we were doing was showing three separate pieces of information: the number of ‘very likely’ + ‘somewhat likely’, the number of ‘somewhat likely’ and the number of ‘unlikely’, omitting the undecideds. It’s your own fault you misunderstood the data. And it’s also your fault that our own commentator thought you could add the numbers up.

                      Oh, and we’re going to ignore completely the fact that this poll was taken after the email story broke and included a question about the emails despite the fact that we claimed the exact opposite.

                  • v. Holland says:

                    I was a little confused by mediamatters article-so I researched a little myself-I found this article which shows why the mistake was made, at least to my satisfaction so I will stick to stupid mistake not fraud -here’s a part of the article -I will post the rest at bottom -“Indeed, here’s the paragraph from Rasmussen’s article that Fox was referring to with the graphic:

                    Fifty-nine percent (59%) of Americans say it’s at least somewhat likely that some scientists have falsified research data to support their own theories and beliefs about global warming. Thirty-five percent (35%) say it’s Very Likely. Just 26% say it’s not very or not at all likely that some scientists falsified data.”


                    Hope this post correctly a little tight here.

          • Matt:

            “If that’s not outright fraud, I don’t know what is.”

            Being Stupid is not an act of Fraud Matt. That requires deliberate deception.

            One would have to prove intent to decieve here to claim fraud. Your internal bias perhaps affecting your judgment of Fox?

            I suspect the V. Holland is correct. Inability to think on their feet.

            • Buck The Wala says:

              I think its a bit more fraud than you are willing to admit. As Matt points out, the commentators did realize that something was askew and just glossed over it. That seems pretty deliberate to me.

              Not to mention the news isn’t given in a vacuum – there are editors and aides behind the scenes looking at the graphs and polls being displayed.

              • Buck:

                I bet the editors and aides produced the numbers and didn’t notice that the way they constructed the story created a number larger than 100.

                How can you claim fraud when they openly displayed the numbers?

                I have been around news people and seen them produce such stories. Most of them wouldn’t be able to react to something being goofy with the facts in the story. Their reaction would be much the same. Gloss over it and move on.

                As, V. Holland said, it would have been better if they made a joke about it and set it aside. Perhaps a more seasoned “reporter” instead of T.V. performer would have been able to do that.

                Guess time will tell. You will need to prove or someone will, that the producers and/or reporters were trying to deliberatly decieve the public by placing bad numbers in the report.

                At any rate, it is hilarious watching you guys getting worked up over this “fraud” while making no noise about the glossing over the crap pulled by the climate experts. Lets see, one could affect our economy and liberty and the other would affect……..?????????????? nothing.

                • Buck The Wala says:

                  As I just posted under Mathius: I withdraw my comment as far as it implies fraud on the part of the network itself.

                  Regarding ‘climategate’ and those emails, I do not believe this is a story as much as it is being made out to be.

                • Buck The Wala says:

                  Also, I initially brought up the issue not to ‘get worked up over the fraud’, but to point out the inherent inconsistencies in using poll numbers alone to make a point.

                  • Buck

                    I agree that POLL numbers show very little if anything most of the time.

                    They have become THE NEWS instead of data used to support REAL NEWS.

                    Polls are overused and abused.

            • As I just said to V. I am inclined to think that there was no fraud intended with the posting of the chart. But once the commentator deliberately ignored bad data and chose to pass it off as good, how can you say that doesn’t qualify as fraud? At least on the part of the commentator – I make no claim here that Fox in its entirety was being fraudulent.

              He knew the data was bad. He acted as if it was good. Ergo fraud.

              • Buck The Wala says:

                Without any proof that the ‘backstage’ deliberately posted the polls knowing the numbers were off, I withdraw that part of my earlier comment that could be taken to imply there was fraud on the part of the network itself.

                • See, what Buck has done here? He acknowledges an inadvertent error, takes responsibility for it, then makes it known that he retracts the faulty statement. This is how responsible people act when they make mistakes.

                  Let’s see if Fox does this.

    • obamasleftnut says:

      man – all this hattred of our president just gets old. how many of those other presedents had as many problems set on his lap as obama? Huh? i dont think so ace. and yes – this hear is a man proud that he voted for brother barack and i still support him all the way. he said things was going to be hard to go by – did he lie? no he didnt. his approval will skyrocket once his plans go futher into place. know it.

      • Go back under your bridge, troll.

        • obamasleftnut says:

          whaddyou want to argu about cyndyP? ya’ll wanna make soemthing from his approvcal ratings now? this man been in office less than a year! he is changeing us for the good and for good! or are you just a general hater? i’ve read your nonesense posts before lady (sorry to inlsult other ladees). make yor point cyndip and well talk about it. dont just use dumb insults. huh?

          • Mr Nut,

            Which of my posts would you care to discuss? Please be specific and use proper spelling and grammar if possible. Give specific examples of ‘nonesense’ and your reasoning for considering it such. Don’t take too long. I’m a bit pressed for time as I have go to work here in a little while.

            • obamasleftnut says:

              you can reefer to me as OLN – that is what I go buy. its people lik you that set us all bag cetnuries. you just hate eveything about a man that gives u a job. you make no sens. brother barack has been a gift to us nation. i cried when i watched his speech to his noble peace prize this morning. he makes me proud he should make you proud also.

              • Proud? He embarasses me.

                • obamasleftnut says:

                  he is a beacon of light pretzel. he shines for all of us brothers and sisters and will do you proud to. you will come around to us my brother. he is undigging from the mess bush left us all in. you as children will grow to later appreciate our parent our president brother barack just like kids as we do

            • obamasleftnut says:

              and i am his nut miss – i will also support brother barack and i will always be on his left. so you throw the first stone and we see were we end up. i never back from a dabate or a fight if you make it that and i got all the time cyndeeP

          • First,I am from Illinois. Probably the most corrupt state in the nation. It has arguably the most corrupt city in the nation.(Chicago)Guess where Obama learned his politics. When this clown got elected,I thought he would be the worst pres. ever. Now I think he could be the best. He could lead us the end of centralized govt. as we know it.(Hopefully) Then at least we would have a chance to be a free country again. Freedom and Liberty to all!

            • obamasleftnut says:

              pretzel he is a gift to us all and he shows that every day. his policies bring us all together as one nationn and give you freedom and liberty. in my neck of the woods in north carolina we get hope from him and now we now have the voice we always needeed and wanted.

              • What hope would that be?

                • obamasleftnut says:

                  what you mean what hope? look mug – my brother keeps the sweet rolling – i just cashed my check and I can buy my rims or my lifestile 48 bose systems for crib or some new unc gear for the season. we been thrown on the heap forever. he is our hope to get off that heap

      • Olf

        If you review the postings on SUFA, you will find little hate here. You WILL find disagreement about policy. All are welcome to debate here to gain knowledge. Most on this site find politicians regardless which side of the isle they come from as being distasteful. Don’t fly by join.

        • obamasleftnut says:

          aint no doubt bama – ive read and watched a while – i just know brother barack knows and means well. i get worked up when i see the silly attaks that dont help much.

          • obl (from one lefty to another). Obama’s problem is 2010. If he can’t get a veto proof senate to do ANYTHING now, what happens when his majority gets tighter or he loses it? So far he’s saved Goldman Sachs and AIG (following bush’s lead). When does he save us? He came to office with a ton of political capital and it seems he’s expended most of it already (but accomplishing nothing).

            He needs to quit flying all over the place and maybe spend some time with his Senators/Congress and get them moving or I fear this guy will be one and done.

            Not that I voted for him … I voted for Nader.

          • OLF said:

            “i just cashed my check and I can buy my rims or my lifestile 48 bose systems for crib or some new unc gear for the season. we been thrown on the heap forever. he is our hope to get off that heap”

            Explain to me how throwing you a small government bone will get you off the heap and not make you more dependent on the government. They have no interest in you; all they want is to control you and your vote. One can make much more money when one applies ones self than relying on a handout. Do you not want a better lifestyle than what you currently have? Politicians will never improve your circumstance, only you can do that.

          • I would suggest taking that check and enrolling in an english class in a junior college.Then take the remainder of your check and enroll in a trade-school so you can support yourself rather than living off the government bone.

            That bone your getting is just a means of keeping you on the heap.If you want to get off the heap then stand up on your own and be a man by your own actions.

  6. Major storm hit us today; no blower so we shoveled in shifts throughout the night to keep up. Sore, tired, but it looks beautiful out there today! Now the wind is picking up and temp tomorrow minus 25 windchill!

    More cookie baking today, I guess!

    Have a good one everyone~

  7. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    Please welcome ClimateAudit to WordPress. Their new site is:


    Give them a look. They have been around for a while, but just recently migrated their server to wordpress.

    Many would call them “climate skeptics”. I would personally call them “realists”.

    • Peter,

      A great site, I found that Australia and New Zealand both have official published charts showing warming that their records do not support.

      Another source of info, they have broken down some of the original code
      from East Anglia.


      Central to understanding the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit kerfuffle (dubbed Climategate) is an appreciation of the “scientific method”. The scientific method outlines the rules of the game when competing and contradictory theories vie to explain the world in which we live. McQ at QandO offers a good summary of the methodology and where the CRU comes up short:

      “Other scientists have, for years, been asking for and been refused the original data on which the CRU based its hypothesis of man-made global warming. We see pundits defending the science claiming the emails don’t prove AGW to be a fraud. Maybe, maybe not – but what they do show is a consistent effort to avoid providing the data requested to others who would like to test it. That alone should raise a sea of red flags to any real scientist. The last thing those who are sure of their hypothesis and their science should be doing is actively trying to keep the data which underpins their hypothesis from being tested as demanded by the scientific method.”

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      Steve McIntyre was the scientist who completely and CONCLUSIVELY debunked Mann’s original hockey-stick. Therefore, he COULD be painted as a skeptic. However the point is, he did not SPECULATE that Mann’s hockey stick was bogus, he PROVED it was bogus. In my opinion that simply makes him a good scientist.

  8. Just finishing a 29 hour day…whew…to bed now.

    Maybe catch up tomorrow.

    • I recommend Provigil.

      • Red. Bull.

        It gives you wings.

        And if you mix it with Dr. Pepper, it can obliterate your need to sleep entirely.

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          Some day you people will be wise enough to realize that sleep is a wonderful thing, and rather than trying to avoid it, you should fully enjoy it as much as you can.

          I even indulge in a 2-hour nap at least 1 day per week. Revitalizes you a hell of a lot better than sugar, caffein, or drugs.

          If you happen to enjoy sugar, caffein, and/or drugs, then by all means, go for it, but sleep is GOOD!

          • Judy Sabatini says:

            Hi Peter

            My nappy day is on Saturday’s. Hey, can’t start the day without my one and only cup of strong coffee, then I’m good to go.

            Hope you’re doing well today sir.

          • Sleep is for the weak. I haven’t slept since Jurassic Park was in theaters.

            • Judy Sabatini says:

              Hey Mathius

              So, are you saying that you’re a robot then? Are you like the Bicentennial Man? What’s your secret go to be able to go without?

              How’s things in Mathius land going?

              • No, I’m just really scared of velociraptors and haven’t been able to sleep since I saw the movie.

                Things are good here. Aside from the Crap-tastic weather. We don’t have this white stuff where I come from.

                • Judy Sabatini says:

                  Oh, don’t be afraid, they won’t get you, Just don’t look under your bed, or in your closet though.

                  You got snow too, huh. We got a pretty good dose of it here. The mountains got anywhere from 2 to 4 feet of new snow.

                  But, there is another new system coming in for Thursday, but warmer and wetter, so that’s not so good for the skiers and boarders like my son’s.

                  Glad to hear things are going good for ya.

                  • I never thought they could be hiding under the bed.. I have safeguards in case they try to enter my home and I always check my closet thoroughly when I come home.. but if they’re under the bed, they’re already inside the perimeter! They could just be biding their time for me to lower my guard..

                    I’m going to have to conduct a thorough sweep of the house I’m buying to make sure there aren’t any already lurking in wait..

                    Thank, Judy. Now I’ll probably never sleep again.

          • TexasChem says:

            I am encumbered with my responsibility to provide for my fellow man so am led to work as much as possible to achieve my American dream.I have no time for sleep working 12 hour rotating shifts!

            Seriously though I have already had withheld over 22K in taxes this year just to the feds and am not happy about that one bit.My hard work is being plundered by the very establishment meant to protect my liberties.Come tax time I know I will owe even more and it will just get worse over the next couple of years.

  9. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    This is in response to some of the climategate stuff above.

    The computer code CLEARLY shows downward adjustments to pre-1941 raw temperature data, and upward adjustments to post-1941 temperature data, even when no such adjustments are justifiable.


    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      By the way, you REALLY want to read this, it shows how they turned a 0.7 degree C temperature DECLINE shown by raw data over the course of a century at ONE LOCATION into a 2.4 degree C temperature INCREASE in the “value-added” data at the same station for the same period.

  10. Judy Sabatini says:

    Hello Everyone

    Will try and catch up with the posts here if time permits. But as for the poll numbers on both Reid and Oblahblah, that should be an indication, hopefully that most people are not happy with the way they are tearing this country apart.

    Reid numbers are at 38% right now, and for what they say here in Nevada, he had better do something to help the people here. He claims to have created jobs for Nevadans, and claims to have created a better way of life for us, claims that the health care bill will benefit us, and I say to that, what a laugh. He isn’t doing shit for us here.

    As for him apologizing for his statement, I wouldn’t bet on it. He is one of the most arrogant senators around next to Obblahblah. If you don’t agree with their policies, you’re either a terrorist, the bad guy, and just plain wrong and you had better listen to us or else you will be in trouble. Sounds like he’s talking to a bunch of 3rd graders.

    We are doing everything possible to get rid of him and send him packing back to Searchlight NV. where he belongs. He’s been senator for way too long, and it’s time for some new, fresh blood to get in.

    I put up a post yesterday, showing Obablahblah’s numbers, and how it shows, he’s the lowest sitting pres ever, even next to the Peanut Man, Carter, and that’s not saying much.

    I wonder how those people who voted for this idiot feel now, how they like the changes he’s made. How do they like their lives being taken over by the government and being told how they can live their lives, and what and where and how they can do what the government says they can do. I wonder.

    Hope you all are doing good today.

  11. Judy Sabatini says:

  12. Judy Sabatini says:

    Something you should know about Revolution Lyrics

    Title: The Beatles – Revolution lyrics

    Artist: The Beatles Lyrics

    Visitors: 350856 visitors have hited Revolution Lyrics since May 27, 2008.
    Revolution Lyrics

    You say you want a revolution
    Well, you know
    We all want to change the world
    You tell me that it’s evolution
    Well, you know
    We all want to change the world
    But when you talk about destruction
    Don’t you know that you can count me out
    Don’t you know it’s gonna be all right
    all right, all right

    You say you got a real solution
    Well, you know
    We’d all love to see the plan
    You ask me for a contribution
    Well, you know
    We’re doing what we can
    But when you want money
    for people with minds that hate
    All I can tell is brother you have to wait
    Don’t you know it’s gonna be all right
    all right, all right

    ah, ah, ah, ah, ah…

    You say you’ll change the constitution
    Well, you know
    We all want to change your head
    You tell me it’s the institution
    Well, you know
    You better free you mind instead
    But if you go carrying pictures of chairman Mao
    You ain’t going to make it with anyone anyhow
    Don’t you know it’s gonna be all right
    all right, all right
    all right, all right, all right
    all right, all right, all right

    • ‘I’m a Believer’
      Russ Vaughn
      I’m a Believer
      (With apologies to The Monkees and dedicated to Senator Barbara Boxer – Ma’am)

      I bought into Al Gore’s climate fairy tales,
      Meant for tin-hat lemmings just like me;
      Al was out to get me,
      With his scary themes,
      Disappearing icecaps haunted my dreams.

      Then I got the faith, now I’m a believer
      Not a trace of doubt in my mind
      I’m with Al, I’m a believer
      I couldn’t see truth if I tried

      Climategate is such a very little thing,
      Meaningless to moonbats just like me;
      Deniers are such liars,
      That’s the way it seems,
      Dumping stolen emails on Al’s schemes.

      But I’ve got the faith, I’m a believer
      Not a trace of light enters my mind
      I’m with Al, I’m a believer
      I couldn’t see truth if I tried.

      I thought global warming was a given thing,
      Seems the more I give the more Al’s got;
      What’s the chance he’s lyin,’
      All for his own show,
      When he’s needin’ heat waves he gets snow.

      But I still got faith, I’m still a believer
      Still no trace of doubt in my mind
      I’m with Al, I’m a believer
      I really don’t care if he lied.

      Russ Vaughn

  13. Judy Sabatini says:

    Time for a morning funny.

    It was just reported that Phil Mickelson contacted Tiger’s wife to pick up some tips on how to beat Tiger!

    Apparently the police asked Tiger’s wife how many times she hit him.
    She said “I don’t know exactly… 5 or 6, but put me down for a 5.”

    Tiger Woods is so rich that he owns lots of expensive cars.
    Now he has a hole-in-one…

    What’s the difference between a car and a golf ball?
    Tiger can drive a ball 400 yards……

    What were Tiger Woods and his wife doing out at 2:30 in the morning?
    They went clubbing !!!

    Tiger Woods crashed into a fire hydrant and a tree.
    He couldn’t decide between a wood and an iron.

  14. TexasChem says:

    I do not know if it is just a Texas thing or what but I have been wondering where the supporters of the democrat leftist agendas are?Every person I know, once becoming up to date with current events and the direction this administration is taking our country; are totally against it.

    I never once thought I would ever see a president elected that wouldn’t say the pledge of allegiance nor salute our flag.Much less not even celebrate Christmas?Associate with terrorists and dictators.Have tax cheats, communists and radical deviants appointed as advisers to his staff.Implementing policy that will harm the economy and American way of life.Where the hell is he actually trying to lead this nation?Not anywhere that I am willing to follow nor allow my children to be subjected to.

    • Buck The Wala says:

      I didn’t realize celebrating Christmas was a prereq to the Presidency.

      As for finding someone who is up to date on current events and is happy (w/ some caveats) with the direction this administration is taking our country, I’m one. And I know quite a few others as well.

      • TexasChem says:

        I didn’t say it was a prereq to celebrate Christmas…what I am infering is that he is traditionally un-american.

        So what was your favorite directional lead of this administration?The appointment of Kevin Jennings as the Assistant Deputy Secretary for the Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools?

        I for one question the sanity and moral reasoning behind anyone supporting this administrations madness.Cut and dry.Period.(SNIP)

        • Buck The Wala says:

          So not celebrating Christmas makes someone ‘traditionally un-American?” (and thus implicitly unqualified for office?)

          What is your argument against the appointment of Jennings? A lot of fuss was made over the “fact” that Jennings covered up statutory rape – a quick look at the facts demonstrate the student was of legal age of consent at the time. Is there something else you’re getting at that I may be missing?

          • You seem relatively intelligent, so I expect you will wake up at some point…take the blinders off…

            • Buck The Wala says:

              What’s with the ‘relatively’ qualifier there!? 🙂

              I’m not going to get into it on Jennings as I don’t believe he was best-suited for the job; I do feel a lot of outrageous claims were made, many of which were unfortunately a bit of a stretch of the truth.

              I’d also still like further clarification on the un-American line though…

        • I would say that anyone who takes 3 months to make up his mind to send more troops to Afganistan while they are over there dying, but only takes about a week to decide to spend 250 billion more dollars on a ill thought out jobs plan that we don’t have is UNAMERICAN.

          I would say that a sonofabitch who would THREATEN and bully Congress into passing Health Care and ESPECIALLY Cap & Trade, even though we obviously can’t afford to spend the money is UNAMERICAN. Damn near DICKtatorish.

          I would and will say that anyone who thinks and acts like the American flag is not worth him wiping his ass with it. And acts like the American People are too stupid and backwards to know what they want, and so corrupt that he feels he must apologize for us everywhere he goes, is not only UNAMERICAN, but a worthless peice of SH!! as well.

      • Christmas in Iran
        Iran (formerly known as Persia) call Christmas by the name of the Little Feast, which is not so little after all. A great fast precedes Christmas beginning from 1st of December and people have to abstain from eating meat, eggs and dairy products such as milk and cheese for 25 days. The days are meant to purify one’s body, mind and soul to welcome the Christ and people are advised to spend time in peace and meditation and attend the Church services regularly. Christmas Eve is the last day of the fast and people gather to attend Mass even before dawn on Christmas and receive Communion.

        Only then they are allowed to break their fast and the preparations for the great feast is started. Joy and merriment reigns all over the country. Plenty of meat is prepared for the celebrations, the main dish being a variation of chicken stew, which is cooked in large quantities and is stored and eaten for several days. Santa Claus is not a craze among Iranian kids not they exchange gifts at Christmas but they get new clothes that they can wear all through the week. Christmas week is the time for happiness for all boys and girls as they can enjoy themselves and indulge in food once again.


        For the record, yes, I am being a stinker. This is meant as humor.

  15. Judy Sabatini says:

    MICHAEL GOODWIN: Obama’s Whoppers

    By Michael Goodwin

    The president’s still whining about the problems he inherited when he took office and he’s still blaming Republicans. And the American people are tuning him out at a stunning pace.

    The other day, I wrote that President Obama has “run out of both charm and ideas.” I was too kind.

    To judge from the string of whoppers in his dreary jobs speech yesterday, he’s also run out of facts. And he’s still whining about the problems he inherited and blaming Republicans.

    He might as well be barking at the moon. That’s sort of what he is doing, because the American people are tuning him out at a stunning pace.

    The latest Gallup Poll gives him a record low 47 percent approval. Only 26 percent in another poll say he deserves the Nobel Peace Prize. Naturally, his press secretary attacks the pollsters, likening them to children with crayons.

    And Obama plunges on with his blame-game act. It’s tired, unpresidential and ineffective, all the more so because he’s banking on a bill of goods to prop himself up.

    The most egregious example came when Obama said yesterday the $700 billion bank-bailout fund, or TARP, was “launched hastily under the last administration” and was “flawed.”

    Here are the facts. George Bush was in the White House, but Democrats controlled both houses of Congress. Obama himself, as a senator, voted for the bailout in October 2008.

    No one claims the bill was perfect, but there is no record –zero — of Obama trying to fix it. Remember, it was John McCain who rushed back to Washington after the first version failed and tried to get involved to reshape it.

    McCain flubbed the effort, but Obama made none. He only reluctantly joined a White House conference with McCain and Bush on the bailout after urging Congress “to step up to the plate and get this done.”

    He went on the Senate floor and said there wasn’t time to fiddle with the bill before leaving the details to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who said at the time, “No one knows what to do.”

    Fortunately, there were people who knew what to do. Timothy Geithner, then chairman of the New York Federal Reserve and now Obama’s treasury secretary, was deeply involved with Bush’s treasury secretary, Henry Paulson, in shaping the legislation that helped to avert a financial crash.

    That 2008 vote released half the TARP money, with a second vote coming in January 2009, a week before Obama was inaugurated. He wanted the second installment of $350 billion, and most Democrats, along with a handful of Republicans, voted to give it to him.

    The record is clear: The $700 billion bailout was crafted on a bipartisan basis, with Obama’s support and encouragement, and he has controlled most of the money. For him to now claim otherwise is disgraceful.

    Of course, no Obama speech is complete without straw men bearing false choices, and yesterday’s was no exception, as this passage shows:

    “There are those who claim we have to choose between paying down our deficits on the one hand, and investing in job creation and economic growth on the other. But this is a false choice.”

    It’s not a false choice, given the context of Obama’s plan to use $200 billion of the TARP money as a slush fund to help small businesses. That’s not the deal he made in January.

    Angry over how Paulson and Geithner used the first half, Congress set tighter restrictions on the money because it was borrowed and thus added to the deficit. The intent was to repay it as soon as possible, not to turn it into a revolving pot of discretionary spending for the White House.

    Still, Obama was just getting warmed up. The earlier misleading claims were mere prelude to his Whopper of the Day: “One of the central goals of this administration is restoring fiscal responsibility.”

    Does a single American believe that? Does he?

  16. Judy Sabatini says:

    Cartoon of the day

    • A West Texas Cowboy’s View on Terrorism

      Buck Lynn, a west Texas working cowboy was being interviewed on a local radio station about an upcoming ranch rodeo when the radio host asked him what thought about the allegations of torture of suspected terrorists.

      His reply prompted a standing ovation from those in the audience with numerous people calling in to agree.


      ‘If hooking up one rag-head terrorist prisoner’s testicles to a car battery to get the truth out of the lying little camel-shagger will save just one American life, then I have only three things to say,’

      “Red is positive, Black is negative, and make sure his nuts are wet.”

      • Judy Sabatini says:

        HI LOI

        Good one. By the way, I liked that music video you put up yesterday. That singer reminds me of the one who sang Smooth with Carlos Santana, or is it the same guy?

        • Goodday Judy,

          Yes, the same, Rob Thomas, Matchbox 20

          She got out of town
          On a railway New York bound
          Took all except my name
          Another alien on Broadway

          There’s some things in this world
          You just can’t change
          Some things you can’t see
          Until it gets too late

          Baby, baby, baby
          When all your love is gone
          Who will save me
          From all I’m up against out in this world

          Maybe, maybe, maybe
          You’ll find something that’s enough to keep you
          But if the bright lights don’t receive you
          You can turn yourself around and come on home

          I got a hole in me now
          I got a scar I can talk about
          She keeps a picture of me
          In her apartment in the city

          Some things in this world
          They don’t make sense
          Some things you don’t need
          Until they leave you
          And they’re things that you miss

          Baby, baby, baby
          When all your love is gone
          Who will save me
          From all I’m up against out in this world?

          Maybe, maybe, maybe
          You’ll find something that’s enough to keep you
          But if the bright lights don’t receive you
          You can turn yourself around and come on home

          Let that city take you in, come on home
          Let that city spit you out, come on home
          Let that city take you down, yeah
          For God’s sake turn around

          Baby, baby, baby
          When all your love is gone
          Who will save me
          From all I’m up against out in this world?

          Maybe, maybe, maybe
          You’ll find something that’s enough to keep you
          But if the bright lights don’t receive you
          Well, turn yourself around and come on home

          Yeah, come on home
          Baby, baby, baby, baby come on home
          Yeah, come on home, yeah, come on home
          Yeah, come on home
          Baby, baby, baby, baby come on home

  17. Judy Sabatini says:

    Oh, come on now Matt, I was only teasing you, I didn’t mean to scare you even more. LOL But, you brought it up first about not sleeping and the raptures because of Jurassic Park.

    By the way, congratulations on the house.

    • Judy, I’m not the only one suffering from this tragic affliction. ( http://www.xkcd.com/87/ ). I bought myself a number of gigantic mouse traps to place in my yard. It’s also a well known fact that raptors are terrified of wheaten terriers, so I’m looking forward to getting one as soon as I can convince Emilius. She doesn’t understand the very real danger we are all living in – she doesn’t even check the back seat before getting in her car to see if a raptor is hiding there – I fear she won’t last too long with such a lax attitude.

      Thanks for the congrats. Emilius is very excited for the house. I don’t actually want a house yet (too much effort/money), but I’ll never have a better time to buy (prices/mortgage rates) – strike while the iron is hot, and all that..

      How are things in JudyLand?

    • Judy, I’m not the only one suffering from this tragic affliction. ( http://www.xkcd.com/87/ ). I bought myself a number of gigantic mouse traps to place in my yard. It’s also a well known fact that raptors are terrified of wheaten terriers, so I’m looking forward to getting one as soon as I can convince Emilius. She doesn’t understand the very real danger we are all living in – she doesn’t even check the back seat before getting in her car to see if a raptor is hiding there – I fear she won’t last too long with such a lax attitude.

      Thanks for the congrats. Emilius is very excited for the house. I don’t actually want a house yet (too much effort/money), but I’ll never have a better time to buy (prices/mortgage rates) – strike while the iron is hot, and all that..

      How are things in JudyLand?

      • Judy Sabatini says:

        You’re funny Matt. Outside of freezing my butt off, things are fine. A little warmer today, but not by much. My son is going to move the computer from the den here into the living room. Will be much warmer in there than here in the den.

        Yes, a house can be a pretty big responsibility, but hey, if things are right for you now, then don’t wait. Why pay rent when you can have a nice big mortgage, right. No, seriously though, I think that’s just great that you’re doing this for you wife. If it makes her happy, you’ll be happy too, I know.

        We’d like to dump this one, it’s just too much house to keep up. We have a tri-level, 2200 SQ ft, and a pretty big backyard to keep up in the warmer months. But, we are upside down right now, so it’s not worth trying to sell. Stupid economy. Hopefully when and if things improve, maybe then,we’ll see. Our oldest son said he wanted to buy it from us, but to wait a couple more years. He wants to go to helicopter training, and he said he might have to go to Alabama for that. He’s trying to qualify for Warrant Officers school, so he’s go a lot to do before he can buy a house. But he likes this one, and he wants it. Besides, he was raised in this one.

      • It ain’t the dinosaurs we should fear …. it’s the Zombies!

  18. Al Gore warned CNN viewers Wednesday about imminent planetary doom at the hands of his favorite bogeyman global warming just seconds before Kiran Chetry reported the “monster storm paralyzing travel in more than a dozen states” with “winter still two weeks away.”

    On “American Morning” to discuss issues surrounding the United Nations climate change conference taking place in Copenhagen, the former Vice President said, “All the mountain glaciers all over the world are melting, many of them at a greatly accelerated rate, threatening drinking water supplies.


  19. PeterB in Indianapolis says:


    I promise you that if you try to read ALL of this, your head will hurt. However, do your best and perhaps you will understand why ALL CURRENT GOVERNMENTS (including ours) are, in a legal sense, wholly illegitimate.

    Refute his arguments if you can. I strongly doubt you can do so with logic.

  20. D13

    A response I’d like you to consider based on your post above (Iran thread).


    You speak of need to deal in ‘reality’ and then you go right into a ‘belief system’ based on ‘concepts’ – all of which are “not real” at all!

    Representation, civil law, government, society are all concepts – they exist only in the minds of men.

    We speak of them as if they were physical, but they do not exist anywhere in the real world except in our minds.

    Government is really only a bunch of individuals acting.
    Society is only a bunch of individuals acting, etc.

    Step outside and touch ‘government’ or ‘society’. You can’t – there is nothing to touch except people – individual people.

    Our management structure, the organization structures, the interplay between individuals, is scripted by our concepts.

    We use these concepts as a short cut – a methodology that gives us pre-prep’d answers to the interactions between humans and between humans and the universe – so that on every encounter with the reality, we don’t have to figure out what to do, by trial and error, all the time.

    So we act in a manner wholly based on the ideas we hold in our head.

    And we see this – different cultures act differently. But they are no less a human being as you are. They have exactly the same body parts you do.

    So the only difference in the acting must be based completely on the concepts held within our minds.

    So what we think makes the world we live in.

    This is why ideas have consequences.

    What we hold in our mind – the concepts that we use to guide our individual action – determines how we act.

    So, why is important to fully grasp a reasoned basis for those concepts?.

    Because they are shortcuts.

    We do not go back and retest our constructs on a per second basis to see if they still work in the Universe of reality.

    We pass these constructs on to our children as rote, that is, a technique which avoids understanding of a subject and instead focuses on memorization.

    We deliver these constructs by rote to ourselves and our children as if they were in full alignment with the reality of the Universe.

    Because, as you say, reality is. The Universe cannot be fooled.

    If we hold an irrational concept, and use that irrational concept to guide our actions the Universe will teach us a very hard lesson.

    But what happens if we embed an irrational concept as rote to our children?

    We continue to deliver very hard lessons to our children and their children and so one. Over and over again the Universe delivers hard lessons – and hundreds of millions of humanity in slaughter is testament to those hard lessons.

    So how do we fix this?

    We examine what we was delivered by rote and break it apart to find the beliefs and constructs that are irrational and correct them.

    The only way we can do that is by testing those constructs against Natural Law of Man to see if the assumptions we have made of the Universe are correct.

    But if we do what you want – ignore this process and dive into what is essentially trial and error – we will have no clue whether we align with the Universe or not.

    The error in proceeding this is – remember, we are creating rote short cuts for our children in our future so that they do not have to figure this out every time.

    If we simply rush to trial and error and ‘do something’ we may create a wholly irrational system that may appear to be rational – but carry a flaw so severe it destroys all mankind.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      I wholly agree BF,

      The way in which we describe and attempt to understand reality MUST be in alignment with reality, or our attempted understanding is fatally flawed.

      What D13 percieves as reality right now, is a product of flawed constructs and flawed understanding. Essentially it is not reality’s fault that things are so screwed up right now, it is the fault of those that cling to faulty constructs that things are so screwed up right now BECAUSE they are using a flawed construct to attempt to describe and understand reality.

      The only way to solve the problem is to bring our attempted description and understanding of reality into better alignment with reality itself. Attempting to force reality to realign itself with a faulty construct always ends in disaster. Reality IS… it will not change itself to suit our whims and desires. Therefore, we must strive to have the best constructs possible to facillitate our description and understanding of reality. The best constructs are non-contradictory.

      Attempting to re-align reality to fit a

    • Somehow, I think we are saying the same thing. Let us make an assumption that I subscribe to the Theory of Natural Law of Man. I think that I understand it well enough to discuss it. Let us further assume that I adopt it. Now what? I understand it, I adopt it, I want it. Now where do we go? Without action…where do we go. Talk more? Get on blogs? or hit the streets in non violent avenues to change what we live under and keep changing until we reach our goal?

      You and I disagree, I think on what is violent and what is not but that is another thread.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        I think that BF would argue that the current system will fall apart under its own weight, so the most appropriate action is to help people prepare for this eventuality.

        BF also advocates action at the local level, where you can have a noticeable impact, so I am pretty sure that he realizes that it is ok to act and not merely get on blogs and post about it. However, getting on blogs and posting about it is a form of education, which is also a form of action, and it is very necessary as well. Contrary to what some people here think, just by being here and educating others and engaging others in debate, we are ACTING.

        • 100% right (again), Spaniard!

        • Kristian Stout says:

          I have to agree with you Peter. I have learned so much since coming here and can actually have intelligent conversations with people about politics. I could never do that before because I didn’t know what the hell I was talking about. It started for me after watching Fox news for a while but coming here has taught me more than I ever learned there. My husband won’t talk politics with me anymore because he says I take it too personally and he’s right, I do take it personally. This is my life these politicians are playing with!

  21. Sgt. Makerney — Fights for Your Life, Then Fights for Hers
    by Rene Banglesdorf

    If you put a weapon of any caliber in the hands of this feisty redhead, you’d better hope she’s on your side. A deadly accurate shooter, US Army Sergeant Kisha Makerney served her first tour of duty in Iraq right out of high school. Deployed with her Oklahoma National Guard unit, 120th Combat Engineers, she left for Al Taqqadum, Iraq in February 2004.

    As a part of the Asphalt Section Equipment Platoon, Kisha and her “battle buddies” filled IED (Improvised Explosive Device) holes so they couldn’t be used again and patched mortar holes on helicopter landing pads. Kisha’s unit also up-armored vehicles to better withstand attacks, and mounted guns to the roofs. In addition her role in the 120th Battalion Security Team, Kisha’s usual perch was between the two ‘SAW’s’, M249 Squad Automatic Weapons, blasting targets at 1000 meters. Even though they were fired upon or heard gunfire every day, Kisha returned to Oklahoma in one piece, craving fast food and adrenaline rushes.
    Sgt. Makerney

    That’s when she bought the motorcycle, a Suzuki SV 650S. On June 24, 2005, she made a quick trip to rent a movie while her family was cooking dinner. The front tire blew out, and Kisha veered in-between two road signs as the motorcycle went off into the woods. Her first emotion was fury that she had wrecked her new bike. Her second thought, as she examined herself, was that she was never going to be able to serve her country again. She was hurt, and hurt badly.

    The lower part of her left leg was hanging by a tendon. Crawling on her elbows, Kisha managed to get to the side of the road and flag down a passing motorist. She was taken to the hospital and then life-flighted to Dallas. Before she even regained consciousness, the members of her unit were lining the hallways, making calls to every influential military and civilian contact they knew. Knowing Kisha’s character and integrity, they had no doubt she would fight to return to service — even as an amputee.

    After several surgeries, ill-fitting prostheses, and instructions not to push herself as hard as she did, Kisha did rejoin her unit. She had taught herself how to walk and run, how to handle any type of terrain or obstacle. She overcame depression and defeat. And she became just the tenth soldier — and the first woman — to return to a combat zone with a prosthesis. This time around, she was a Correctional Instructor for the Iraqis.

    Presently, Kisha is Warrior at the Center for the Intrepid at Fort Sam Houston in San Antonio, undergoing training with other wounded veterans. She’s also awaiting either deployment orders or acceptance to flight school to operate Apache helicopters. Nothing seems to faze or even slow down this dedicated soldier.

    In the meantime, Kisha was selected to appear as a guest on Veteran Outdoors, a television show that surprises wounded veterans with their dream adventures, which currently airs every Saturday morning nationwide on Fox Sports Net. In this particular episode, which will air in the Fall of 2010, the surprise is for the viewer as two women — Kisha, and guest host (and first-time hunter) René Banglesdorf — head out to Sterling City, Texas for a guided whitetail hunt on a ranch operating under a Managed Lands Deer Permit.

    The first evening the girls, the cameraman and two guides watched several young bucks and nearly a dozen does come and go, grazing in the clearing near the blinds where the hunters were sitting. None were trophy candidates, so they returned to camp empty-handed but excited for the next day. Around the campfire, Kisha enthralled the guys with her tales of shooting every kind of weapon known to man.

    She proved her mettle the next morning as she put a perfect shot through a “spike,” a young buck with no potential of growing a trophy set of antlers. The buck jumped, took three leaps, smacked right into a tree and dropped ten yards from where she hit him at 140 yards using her Winchester bolt-action .30-06, model 70.

    Later that night, in an elevated blind on the other side of the property, Kisha was talking about her experiences in the Army when a big, mature ten-point buck walked into the clearing and began munching his dinner. She watched him for a couple of minutes through the RedHead Epic 3x9x40 scope mounted to her rifle, chambered a Winchester 165 grain round and fired as soon as he quartered away from her.

    Instead of jumping up in excitement, she kept her head lowered and eyes focused on the buck through her scope, waiting to see if she needed to fire another round. Hit from 130 yards, the 10-pointer dropped right where she hit him. She climbed down the ladder from the blind and sauntered to her kill with a barely discernable limp. Kisha beamed as she examined the antlers and body of her trophy. It was a successful hunt.

    From the Editor:
    Our author René Banglesdorf comes back next week to Guns & Patriots with the story of her first deer — and it’s a nice buck.

    Rene Banglesdorf is the CEO of Charlie Bravo Aviation (www.wepushtin.com), and guest host of Veteran Outdoors (www.veteranoutdoors.com).

  22. On Nov. 29, a 57.5% majority of the Swiss voters, approved a ban on the construction of new minarets in their country. The four existing minarets are allowed to remain and the building of new mosques – Switzerland already has some 200 mosques – is also permitted, but the Swiss electorate does not want any new minarets towering over Swiss cities and villages.

    The referendum result was not the answer the Swiss federal government in Bern wanted. The government had actively campaigned for a “No” in the Ban-the-Minaret referendum. Foreign Minister Micheline Calmy-Rey said she was “shocked and disappointed” by the outcome. Turnout for the referendum was unusually high, with 53% of the electorate casting a vote and an overwhelming majority of 22 of Switzerland’s 26 cantons supporting the ban.

    If Switzerland were part of the European Union (EU), the Swiss would no doubt be made to vote again until they give the answer their government wants. That is what some self-declared “democrats” are, indeed, proposing.

    – “The Swiss will have to vote again,” Daniel Cohn-Bendit, the leader of the Green group in the EU Parliament told the Swiss newspaper Le Temps.

    – “But the Swiss people have spoken…,” Le Temps objected.

    – “So what?” Mr. Cohn-Bendit said.

    Switzerland, however, is one of the few nations in Europe that is not a member of the EU. In fact, the Swiss have already rejected EU membership in five referendums. They are so attached to their sovereignty, which is predominantly local (municipal and cantonal), that they are loathe to transfer it to the federal authorities in Bern, let alone to supranational organizations even further removed from their Alpine villages.


  23. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    It seems that many of the “modern liberals” (current US definition) believe in Darwin’s theory of evolution.

    That theory states that through adaptation, species such as primitive man adapted to circumstances (usually what would arguably be considered BAD circumstances) such that those with the necessary strength, ingenuity, intellect, and occasionally downright luck were the ones who survived the experience and successfully reproduced and passed their genes onto succeeding generations. Most modern liberals consider that this process was overall a GOOD THING, because it allowed primitive man to evolve into modern man.

    And yet, the same modern liberals now argue that “social Darwinism” is now somehow EVIL. Social Darwinism is nothing more than a misnomer. If man is to evolve further, into a yet even better species, would it not be true that man should be subject to trials and tribulations which ensure that the strongest and/or smartest and/or most resourceful and/or downright luckiest are the most likely to survive and successfully reproduce and pass their genes on to the succeeding generations?

    And yet, most modern liberal policy penalizes the strongest, most intelligent, most resourceful, and luckiest individuals. At the same time, most modern liberal policy rewards the least intelligent, laziest, weakest and unluckiest, thus making it easier for them to reproduce and pass their genes on to succeeding generations.

    If evolution was correct, desireable, and good in the past, why is it now evil? Do modern liberals argue that we have become sufficiently evolved such that further evolution as a species is no longer desireable? I see contradiction here. Apparently the “greater good” in the past was for our species (and all others) to adapt to hardships and evolve, whereas now the “greater good” is to attempt to mitigate all hardships (especially for those that do not have the strenght, intellect, resourcefulness and luck to deal with them). Would this not cause stagnation as a species, or perhaps even devolution? Why is this good now as opposed to evolution being good in the past?

    Or, is evolution actually evil, and now that we have the means and resources to mitigate it we should? Is that the argument? If evolution through adaptation to hardships is natural, and what causes some species to survive, thrive, flourish and evolve while other species become extinct, can it be said to be a bad thing?

  24. I bet a Dr. Pepper Matt & Ray cannot respond to the issue discussed without a shot at Mrs. P….


    By Sarah Palin

    Wednesday, December 9, 2009

    With the publication of damaging e-mails from a climate research center in Britain, the radical environmental movement appears to face a tipping point. The revelation of appalling actions by so-called climate change experts allows the American public to finally understand the concerns so many of us have articulated on this issue.
    This Story

    Copenhagen’s political science
    The ‘Cap And Tax’ Dead End
    The climate-change travesty

    “Climate-gate,” as the e-mails and other documents from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia have become known, exposes a highly politicized scientific circle — the same circle whose work underlies efforts at the Copenhagen climate change conference. The agenda-driven policies being pushed in Copenhagen won’t change the weather, but they would change our economy for the worse.

    The e-mails reveal that leading climate “experts” deliberately destroyed records, manipulated data to “hide the decline” in global temperatures, and tried to silence their critics by preventing them from publishing in peer-reviewed journals. What’s more, the documents show that there was no real consensus even within the CRU crowd. Some scientists had strong doubts about the accuracy of estimates of temperatures from centuries ago, estimates used to back claims that more recent temperatures are rising at an alarming rate.

    This scandal obviously calls into question the proposals being pushed in Copenhagen. I’ve always believed that policy should be based on sound science, not politics. As governor of Alaska, I took a stand against politicized science when I sued the federal government over its decision to list the polar bear as an endangered species despite the fact that the polar bear population had more than doubled. I got clobbered for my actions by radical environmentalists nationwide, but I stood by my view that adding a healthy species to the endangered list under the guise of “climate change impacts” was an abuse of the Endangered Species Act. This would have irreversibly hurt both Alaska’s economy and the nation’s, while also reducing opportunities for responsible development.

    Our representatives in Copenhagen should remember that good environmental policymaking is about weighing real-world costs and benefits — not pursuing a political agenda. That’s not to say I deny the reality of some changes in climate — far from it. I saw the impact of changing weather patterns firsthand while serving as governor of our only Arctic state. I was one of the first governors to create a subcabinet to deal specifically with the issue and to recommend common-sense policies to respond to the coastal erosion, thawing permafrost and retreating sea ice that affect Alaska’s communities and infrastructure.

    But while we recognize the occurrence of these natural, cyclical environmental trends, we can’t say with assurance that man’s activities cause weather changes. We can say, however, that any potential benefits of proposed emissions reduction policies are far outweighed by their economic costs. And those costs are real. Unlike the proposals China and India offered prior to Copenhagen — which actually allow them to increase their emissions — President Obama’s proposal calls for serious cuts in our own long-term carbon emissions. Meeting such targets would require Congress to pass its cap-and-tax plans, which will result in job losses and higher energy costs (as Obama admitted during the campaign). That’s not exactly what most Americans are hoping for these days. And as public opposition continues to stall Congress’s cap-and-tax legislation, Environmental Protection Agency bureaucrats plan to regulate carbon emissions themselves, doing an end run around the American people.

    In fact, we’re not the only nation whose people are questioning climate change schemes. In the European Union, energy prices skyrocketed after it began a cap-and-tax program. Meanwhile, Australia’s Parliament recently defeated a cap-and-tax bill. Surely other nations will follow suit, particularly as the climate e-mail scandal continues to unfold.

    In his inaugural address, President Obama declared his intention to “restore science to its rightful place.” But instead of staying home from Copenhagen and sending a message that the United States will not be a party to fraudulent scientific practices, the president has upped the ante. He plans to fly in at the climax of the conference in hopes of sealing a “deal.” Whatever deal he gets, it will be no deal for the American people. What Obama really hopes to bring home from Copenhagen is more pressure to pass the Democrats’ cap-and-tax proposal. This is a political move. The last thing America needs is misguided legislation that will raise taxes and cost jobs — particularly when the push for such legislation rests on agenda-driven science.

    Without trustworthy science and with so much at stake, Americans should be wary about what comes out of this politicized conference. The president should boycott Copenhagen.

    The writer was the 2008 Republican nominee for vice president and governor of Alaska from 2006 to 2009.

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      @LOI – on the subject of Sarah Palin’s WashPost OpEd

      1. I’m not convinced anymore that she actually writes these things – someone is doing the work her. Not that I care – I just wouldn’t be so quick to attribute the work to her.

      2. There is, of course, a MediaMatters piece specific on this: http://mediamattersaction.org/factcheck/200912090004 As usual her (as with many many other politicians) words and prior actions will betray the piece that is attributed to her.

      3. Kudos to the WashPost – they realize that by publishing something from such a media figure they will likely sell more papers. Smart move!

      • Ray,

        I like my Dr. Pepper over a little ice, maybe a touch of cherry.

        I cannot refute any of your points, as I did not see her write the op-ed. The Media Matters article is interesting. You may list me as a conservative who doubts her, sincerity or integrity? But will you hold Obama or Biden to the same standard?

        And the Dr. Pepper, you did not address the issues she raised. Ask me about Obama and I think my responses will be aimed primarily at his policies. When I question his character, such as his “promise”
        to have bipartisan discussions on healthcare on the floor, live on CSPAN, he broke that one. When he met with only the DEMOCRATIC Senators, behind closed doors, he then became a liar.

        The question is, who has more integrity, Obama or Palin? Damn, Illusion, that’s a stupid question. He is the PRESIDENT! She is a former Governor, hawking books. Tiger Woods cheated on his wife, so what, public figure. A promise made by the leader of the most powerful nation in the world is supposed to be held to a higher standard.

      • Ray:

        “As usual her (as with many many other politicians) words and prior actions will betray the piece that is attributed to her.”

        Actually they DON’T Ray.

        Read the media matters piece carefully. It is a hack job at best.

        The one issue that as a Governor she approved of taking action to prepare her state to benefit from what appears to be an inevitable action by Washington D.C..

        Is that not what you want your elected representatives to do? She had spoken out against the concept but moved to capitalize on that systems should it be imposed by the higher order.

        How is that different from you taking advantage of tax cuts that you decry? It’s not.

        So what should be shown as a politician willing to put aside her own personal beliefs in order to represent her citizens, you might call this pragmatic, is shown as hypocricy. She has in fact made statements to the media before that she must sometimes put her personal beliefs aside when representing what is best for the people of Alaska, within the context of the existing reality.

        It is obvious to me, that the media matters article starts with that premise and then forces the round pegs into the square holes it constructed to prove it all fits. Crappy reporting, pure and simple.

  25. OK, all, let us get this straight. We are talking about the issue of MAN MADE global warming. If the global warming is not coming from man but through a natural cycle instead, then there is nothing we can do to stop it. Those who believe in man made global warming are, in my humble opinion, nuts. I mean, if you want to discuss hubris, that has to be at the top of the all time list of hubris. One lousy Mt.St. Helens or Mt. Pinatuabo type volcanic eruption (or the meteor over Siberia) dwarfs man made pollution probably for the entire length of the industrial revolution. What about those annual forest fires we have out west I wonder how much Co and Co2 they emit?

    My friend Buck, please answer me my riddle. Why is Greenland called Greenland, why are the polar ice caps ON MARS shrinking and why is the Roman port city of Ostia so far from the Med.? If you can answer these, and relate them to man made anything I would be much more likely to agree with a man made cause rather than a natural cycle.

    The answer my friends to a non polluting source of energy is Nuclear. I noticed everyone above kept dancing around coal, oil, wind and solar. The answer is and always was nuclear. If you worry about sloppy workers, follow Heinlein’s suggestions, let the Navy run it under contract. I don’t know that anyone ever did jail time for Three Mile Island but, had that happened in the military, there would have been a general court and I suspect some would have gotten a look at the inside of Ft. Levenworth. Am I right Colonel?

    If the Governor elect of New jersey invites Bruce Springstein (one of the world’s all time phonies) to play at his inauguration because : a, the Gov. elect is a big fan and b, Springstein IS New jersey to a lot of people, and Springstein refuses because he does not like Republicans, exactly who is doing the polarizing? If Harry Reid compares republicans who oppose Obamacare to ante bellum slaveowners, then who is doing the polarizing? Folks, I hate to disallusion anyone but the democrats of today have a lock on polarizing. 1972 ended the democratic party as anyone knew it. The party out there today bears no resemblence to anything my dad, a lifelong ,moderate democrat ever supported.

    I stopped believing in compromise a long time ago. The mere word presupposes that both sides will be willing to give up something. First, there can be no compromise with evil. Second, compromise means that one is willing to give up something in order to get something in return that one desires. In cases of new programs like Obamacare, exactly what does sonmeone from the majority who consider themselves independents or conservatives get in return?

    Compromise with bad folks means as follows:

    Give me 50% of what you have or I will bash you in the nose says the compromisor to the comromisee.

    I give 50%, my nose remains intact, the compromisor is happy.

    Two years pass

    Give me 50% of what you have or I’ll bash you in the nose says the compromisor again.

    But I gave you 50% last time says the compromisee as he gets bashed in the nose.

    I give 50%, my nose is bashed but intact and the compromisor is happy

    Two years pass

    Give me 50% of what you have or I’ll bash you in the nose says the compromisor again.

    Anyway, you get my drift. As a staunch 2nd Amendment type, this game has been going on for the past 45 years. Despite all the registrationn, background checks and everything else, we are stlll being portrayed as the “gun lobby” unwilling to compromise. Screw compromise, “You may fire when you are ready Gridley” (or words to that effect).

    • Just a quick note:

      Nuclear Energy is at best a short term answer. If man converted his global electrical generation from coal to Uranium, we only have about 100 years of Uranium in the world.

      Uranium is among the rarest element on Earth. There isn’t a lot of the stuff.

      • Judy Sabatini says:

        Thought you were going to bed until tomorrow after working 29 hours.

      • So, being an admittedly non-scientist just a dilettante who likes reading about it, what is a breeder reactor?. I thought that it converted spent nuclear fuel into new fuel.

        Like oil, which in the 1970’s was predicted to run out in the 1990’s, do you not think that more uranium will be found?

        Believe me, I’m serious here, how about the presence iof nuclear material on the Moon or Mars?

        • Breeder reactors turn the 238 U into 235 U, the latter is capable of sustaining nuclear reaction.

          Uranium is as rare as silver.

          Unlike oil, which is arguably one of the most abundant things in the Universe, all Uranium is created inside a supernova.

          It also decays, albeit slowly, 4 billion year half life.

          So, about half has decayed away since the beginning of the solar system.

          So here is the nut.

          There are 847 billion tonnes of coal reserves, to meet the next 85 years of consumption.

          There are 35 million tonnes of Uranium ore (238).

          1 kg of Uranium = 3000 tonnes of coal.

          So in Coal-tonnes, there is about 1/5 the energy supply in the Uranium we can get at in the ground.

          In other words, replacing all coal with Uranium would be a reduction from 85 years to only 17.

          Yes, we can find more – there is about 10^14 tonnes of Uranium with digging down 25 miles in the crust.

          That is a lot of dirt to move to get to it , though.

          Lots in the oceans too, but at the moment, energy negative to get it out of the sea water.

          • SK Trynosky Sr says:

            Gracias amigo.

          • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor
            Black Flag is right, but I feel some of the things being said here are misleading. Breeder reactors take the waste products they produce and recycle them into usable materials–like burning a bunch of coal, and then ending up with the same amount plus an extra pound or two once all’s said and done, instead of toxic waste. Some breeder reactors even produce more fuel than they consume, which is kind of insane and I don’t pretend to understand.

            That means that while the supply of Uranium is more limited than that of coal, our ability to reuse it is far greater–because you can only burn coal once, and you don’t get more coal when you do it, same as we don’t get more gas when we run our cars on gasoline. While there are more coal reserves than there are uranium, as breeder reactor technology advances, you only need enough uranium to perpetrate the cycle once. Then it keeps going. Ideally forever. Probably not, but for awhile, at least.

            So meeting the energy needs of the earth with 35 million tons of Uranium as opposed to coal would be a reduction from 85 years of one-time energy, to 17 years of perpetually renewing/increasing energy–which, using only breeder reactors, is actually infinity years. Use uranium, get more uranium, use the uranium you just made, get it back + more, etc., etc., etc.

            Also, oil is not one of the most abundant things in the Universe, since it exists only here on Earth to the best of our knowledge (I know, I know, it was hyperbole). It, like life, might be among the rarest things in the Universe.

            • Nick,

              My calculation of 3000 kg of coal per kg of coal assumed 100% energy use of Uranium – that is, including reprocessing.

              Breeder reactors; a clarification.

              Breeder reactors make U235 out of U238.

              What you are talking about is reprocessing a wholly different nut.

              When the nuclear fuel has consumed 2% of its fuel, the impurities in the rods significantly interfere with the nuclear reaction.

              The fuel is removed and in the US it is buried.

              In other more sane nations, it is reprocessed – the impurities are removed and the fuel ‘reused’.

              The impurities are nasty stuff – called the “Dirty Daughters”, including plutonium – highly radioactive stuff.

              Here is where we get plutonium and the fear to make a bomb – its in the reprocessing.

              Why breeding and reprocessing are occasionally linked is that you can take the plutonium, stuff inside a sphere of U238 and !poof! U235 is produced! And the plutonium disappears back into Uranium!

              Further, thorium can be ‘bred’ into U235, offering 100 fold increase in available material.

              But “breeding reactors” and “reprocessing” are two, distinct, things.

              Oh, and how there is more fuel than when it starts is easy to understand, by following the physics.

              U238 is NOT fissionable. It is merely radioactive. It cannot sustain a nuclear reaction.

              U235 is fissionable.

              A breeder reactor needs some fissionable material (U235) or plutonium (which is fissionable too), stuff the fissionable inside the U238, use some neutron exciters and you get more U235.

              So, take a pound of ‘fuel’ U235 and 10 pounds of non-fuel U238 and you get 8 pounds of fuel, U235.

              Thus, you end up with more fuel than you started with….

            • Neptune and Uranus are planets of methane – and Saturn moon Titan has hundreds of times more liquid hydrocarbons than all the known oil and natural gas reserves on Earth.

              It, quite literally, rains oil on Titan.

    • Buck The Wala says:

      I will let Mathius (the resident LA expert) get into the forest fires, but I do believe I read somewhere that the sheer number and magnitude of these fires has increased dramatically over the past few years.

      I wonder why.

      Look, I am not a scientist, nor do I pretend to be. But as I believe Mathius had pointed out earlier today, a lot of people much smarter than him (and myself) on these issues have come to the conclusion that there is such a thing as a human impact on climate change. I am willing to defer to those scientists.

      And Greenland is called Greenland to trick people into heading there instead of beautiful Iceland! Now that was an easy riddle!

      • Buck,

        The answer has been know for 100 years.

        It’s called “El Niño-Southern Oscillation” – the warming and cooling of the Pacific Ocean along the cost of America.

        This causes a wind change. During the warming phase, hot air rises above the ocean drawing winds from the desert across California – drying it out – lots of fire.

        During the cooling phase – hot air rises on the desert and draws moist air from the Pacific over California – lots of rain and floods.

        There is no mystery here.

        Greenland was green. It held colonies for 100 years. They grew their own, plentiful bounty of food. When global cooling came back, they had massive starvation and abandoned the colonies.


        • Buck The Wala says:

          But where is your proof that we have had zero impact on the El Nino Southern Oscillation?

          • There is no climate scientist (including the AGW theorists0 that claims the ENSO is affected by CO2 accumulation.

            It is 100% Solar based.

            • ENSO and global warming

              A few years ago, attribution of recent changes (if any) in ENSO or predictions of future changes were very weak.[40] More recent results tend to suggest that the projected tropical warming may follow a somewhat El Niño-like spatial pattern, without necessarily altering the variability about this pattern,[41] while the ENSO cycle may be minimally shortened.[42]

            • Buck The Wala says:

              I’ll take you on your word on that one BF; just don’t have time to do the research right now. Work has unfortunately picked up.

              • Buck,

                Greenland as Sk. was pointing out is a simple, historic check of the theory of AGW. During the Medieval warm period, Greenland was warm and fertile, and was colonized by the Vikings. The little ice age forced them to abandon.

                And today, Greenland is not as warm as during The Medieval Warm Period. The famous hockey stick was debunked because they erased the medieval warm period to make it read as they wanted, not as the actual temperatures were.

                Another check, both the scientific data and historic say that during the time of Christ, it was warmer than the 2100 projections. So the worry of the N. pole being ice free, if it can happen, it already did one and two thousand years ago,
                And Al Gore and his pet “scientist” know this but will not discuss it.

                • Buck The Wala says:

                  Man, a lot of people jumping on me today for my Greenland/Iceland joke.

                  • Just remember, you gotta be willing to die with a sword in your hand screaming Wodan!!!

                    You get a really neat funeral out of the deal. (see “The Vikings” Kirk Douglas, Tony Curtis and Ernest Borgnine as Ragnar) circa 1957.


                    That should do it Buck. They won’t bother you again. No one wants me to pull this blog over.


                    • Buck The Wala says:

                      Least of all me. Where else could I spend my time avoiding work!

                      I believe my brain is arriving in the mail today.

                • Therefore, the Roman port city of Ostia was on the Med since the sea levels were higher because of Polar melting in the time of Christ.

                  LOI, do you realize how few people out of the hundreds I have asked would ever admit this? It’s like the fable of “the Emperor with No Clothes”. Nobody is willing to be scorned FOR BEING RIGHT!

                  This kind of thing has always served as a clarification to me as to how a country like Germany could vote themselves into nazism in the 1930’s. people would apparently rather face Armegeddon rather than be scorned. never a good omen.

                  My three questions always get me off the invite list to most parties. As with John Adams, I am somewhat honored to be both obnoxious and disliked.

                  • SK Trynosky Sr,
                    I answered your question about the Roman port city of Ostia in the past. It has noting to do with sea level:

                    The great harbor, silted over, lays beneath Leonardo da Vinci Airport at Fiumicino.

                    The shoreline moved seawards, due to silting, from the Middle Ages until the 19th century. Therefore Ostia is today still lying next to the Tiber, but at a distance of some three kilometers from the beach. Ostia is Latin for “mouth”, the mouth of the Tiber. The river was used as harbour, but in the Imperial period two harbour basins were added to the north, near Leonardo da Vinci airport. The harbour district was called Portus, Latin for “harbour”.

                    • Is there a change in elevation? Do we know?

                      There are other parts of the world where we know that what was the shoreline is now above it. I remember watching a special on Viking exploration where they seemed to know the exact spot the Vikings came ashore which was now some 75 feet from the shoreline.

                    • The reason is that the land mass is expanding back to where it was before the glacial ice sheets.

                      The massive weight of the Ice Age compressed the land mass and now its melted away, the land is slowly springing back up.

                      Same in North America – the sea level is shrinking, not rising.

          • Buck,

            There is a bunch of nature we do know.

            There is a bunch of nature we don’t.

            But we do know this.

            1) Models are not science. All the proclamations of the “Climate Science” Dogma is based on computer models. They are all wrong. They have always been wrong. They have never been right.

            The Climate system is too complex to model. To deal with this complexities, much of the model is assumptions and single point variables.

            For example, no model accounts for thunderstorms – nature’s air conditioner. There are 100,000 thunderstorms raging over the global every day. They are KEY in the warm/cold air flow to the upper atmosphere – and no model accounts for them.

            CO2 is logarithmic in its influence in the atmosphere. 98% of the warming due to CO2 concentrations occurs at 200ppm – more than that, the CO2 is simply irrelevant. Even the IPPC admits this (as this is matter of a law of physics).

            So human-causation of climate change hypothesis has a very weak foundation to support it.

            Current hypothesis – which has been experimentally tested – is the cosmic rays from the center of our galaxy appears to have a primary influence on global climate.

            Cool, huh? We directly experience an entanglement with the entire galaxy!

            • Knowing that scientists cannot predict the weather on July 17, 2010 in my hometown, why on earth can anyone fall for this GW BS. I am truly amazed and disappointed in the fact that so many people believe that scientists are able to predict GW a hundred years out, but can’t tell me if I’m going to have a white Christmas in 16 days. I also own the Brooklyn bridge and it’s for sale, cheap! 🙂

            • Heard something today which I thought was interesting and would appreciate your take O Great One. Apparently we have never(I know I haven’t)bothered to think about the exhaust from hydrogen powered vehicles, namely water vapor. Since water vapor is something like 200 times the greenhouse gas that CO 2 is, the environmental lobby pushing for hydrogen fueled vehicles wants to increase pollution. Some scientists!

              • Well, the amount of water vapor mankind produces as compared to nature is immeasurable. We can only calculate it – and as a percentage of nature it is 0.00000000000001%

                Adding a bit more from H2 Cars won’t matter a little bit.

                However, nobody talks about where we get Hydrogen for the fuel cell cars, do they?

                Guess where….

                …yep, oil.

                We crack the oil molecules down to break off the hydrogen.

                Anyone who believes these cars will reduce our oil consumption doesn’t know chemistry.

                • SK Trynosky Sr says:

                  Thought we could use the electricity from nuclear power to crack water down to its two components. Or, what the hell, any other source of electricity for that matter.

                  • Hydrogen is nasty stuff.

                    It wants to combine with everything so storage is a huge problem – it dissolves all containers.

                    Cracking water is very energy inefficient, a real waste of nuclear power.

                    But storage of H is really a big problem.

                    That is what a fuel cell is.

                    It is a compound that combines with Hydrogen, and then when you want it back, you break the bond, and rebond it with Oxygen.

                    There is energy loss because you need to steal some of the energy from the O/H bonding to break the fuel cell bonds.

                    But at least the Hydrogen is inert and won’t dissolve the car.

            • Buck The Wala says:

              Based on very very spotty research on my part (quick Google search on ‘global warming’ and ‘forest fires’):


              Basically a 2006 study did find a correlation between global warming and the increase in number and magnitute of forest fires in the west.

              Again, I’m not saying this is definitive at all, but it is instructive as to how little we know about the climate system.

              • Therefore, forest fires are causing global warming, no?

                Statistics don’t lie, statisticians do.

              • Buck:

                This is not jumping on you, as you appear a little edgy.

                But jumping on the SFC for picking a story that was in turn picked on a small window of data.

                If they had looked at the period 1890 to about 1940 they would have seen that there was significant numbers and larger fires.

                There was another round of major fires in the ealry 60’s.

                The Donner fire of 1960 burned from Donner Pass in Calif to the outskirts of Reno, NV.

                Fire suppression got better and the climate cooled and got wetter for a spell. Then it warmed again.

                In the early 70’s foresters were sounding the alarm of a future increase in wildfires if more logging and controlled burning was not done. Especially in the higher elevation types. You see, the forests were becoming denser and were filled with older trees that were expected to die.

                Pretty much everything that was predicted has happened in terms of forest health in the west. Except in the past decade global warming became the excuse. Even though it was all predicted before global warming was a gleam in Al Gores eye.

                There is an absolute correlation between drought periods and increased forest fire size and intensity. Especially if the forest fuels are allowed to build between drought periods.

                There is not an absolute correlation between the droughts and Greenhouse gas emissions, because the western forests have experienced severe drought periods before these emisson could have had an effect.

                You are correct about how much we do not know. We know much more than many realize, but it is in parts of the system. It is the knowledge of the SYSTEM itself that may in fact be unknowable.

                It certainly doesn’t help when these modern scientists cherry pick and manipulate data to fit their own agenda. At such practice is not limited to climate. I have personaly seen this with water quality models relative to predicting effects of forest managment activities. Base line data was changed in the field because the actual data didn’t conform to the predetermined range of data assumed for that stream.

                The destruction of prior studies and documents that could refute later claims of negative implacts or that predicted a pending forest health disaster if some action were not taken.

                The Algorians who told the U.S. Forest Service scientists that their conclusion regarding the New World Mine project, outside Yellowstone, “were the wrong answer”. The “correct answer” was published the next morning in the NY Times and presented as the agency’s own conclusions. All orchestrated by Mr. Gore and his staff from the white house. Govt employees were threatened with their carreer and retirement if they went public.

                I will admit that my life experience in the environmental science field has led me to be more skeptical that most. But unfortunately, it is continuously validated. The climate BS coming out now is just the biggest of a long history of such crappy work and deliberate distortion.

                If you have any questions about Forest Ecology and fire history any such related matter just ask. I will do my best to give you honest answers.

                One point of history for your trivia collection. This coming year is the 100 year anniversary of the 1910 fires in the west. Many of these fires burned together and consumed over 3 million acres spreading from northeastern Washington and northern Idaho into western Montana. Entire towns were lost along with many lives. The fire fighting tool called a Pulaski (pull-asky) was named after a Ranger who saved his crew during the fires by forcing them into a cave and holding them at gunpoint.

                Time for dinner so gotta go.
                Best to you and your new bride.

                • Buck the Wala says:

                  Hey JAC, not edgy – just stressed at work and trying to keep up on the site. Very difficult to juggle both at the moment!

                  I’ll try to take a closer look at some of these issues today.

                  Thanks for the well wishes too!

                  Hope your day is better than mine today.

      • Well we could blame Satan for the forest fires, that is probably more accurate than blaming man made global warming. Probably pass Occams razor too.

        there has been a tremendous amount of argument over the past few decades on the wisdom of fighting small forest fires. Nature apparently uses them to clear out underbrush.We have all seen in science class where fire is actually the method some pine seeds use to start growing. That filmstrip fascinated me. Where we have gone wrong is in fighting all these little fires instead of allowing controlled burns. Our mistake (human hubris again) is in assuming we know and understand everything and in trying to order everything. Sometimes nature knows better.

        Another great SF book for you folks who want to understand nature. “Earth Abides” by George Stewart. Classic end of world scenerio man overpopulates, nature takes care of problem, nature returns, the buffalo roam. The best part was the author had only one novel in him and a pretty good one at that, everything else he wrote was science. I first read the book in ’62, it was written in ’47 and recently reprinted in paperback. A good solid science based thinking piece heavily into anthropology, biology, bio diversity and sociology.

        • There you go SK, giving the next group of politically paid scientists an idea to start playing with when the GW rage is dead! Wait! Maybe thats what all this healthcare reform is 😛

    • SK’

      Greenland is called Greenland because my viking ancestors didn’t want their competitors to find the real bonanza, which they called Iceland.

      Propoganda that has lasted through the centuries.

      Despite this simple humorous quirck of history, I find much wisdom in your comments.

      Hope all is well.

  26. Judy Sabatini says:
  27. Crazy weather today! 51 degrees at 11 am, 38 now with heavy snow squalls and high wind with 50 mph gusts. I’m hoping to stay on without losing power, but ya never know.

    No this weather is not caused by any Global Warming BS, it’s been doing this all my life. I hope the hoax is finally going to put Al Gore and his minions to stick there head in the sand in shame. He’s a disgrace to mankind, a greedy prick, and is polluting my air everytime he talks. 👿

    Hope today finds everyone well!


    • Judy Sabatini says:

      Come on G,, tell it like it really is.

      Glad you’re having warmer weather than we are here. Don’t think it broke 30 yet. Nice and pretty out today though. Sunny, bright, but cold as heck. Those wind gusts are a bitch, aren’t they. Have you had any that go to, say like 90? Not fun.

      By the way, we don’t have any wind, so don’t send it here, don’t want it.

      Hope you’re doing good today G.

      • Momma Natures fury, at her very best. Should wake up to a few inches of snow. That’s cool, I like snow until Feb. Besides, it means snow on the ground Saturday for hunting, yahoo!


    • but you didn’t use the trick to adjust the temperatures. the high was actually 55 and it isn’t 38 it is 48. It is science don’t bother arguing.

      • Hi Naten!

        Just checked the temp again, 36 and falling. My guess is your East of me, based on your temps. I did adjust the temp down using the trick, since the temp gauges are located within 10 feet of a man made heat source (mainly a building).

        Hope today finds you well!


  28. Judy Sabatini says:

    Not sure if this was put up or not, watched some of it, but really couldn’t take listening to him for too long.


    • Judy, It’s dinner time on this side of the country, did you have do this? 🙂

      • Judy Sabatini says:

        Sorry, I just figured the talk of the day seems to be global warming, didn’t mean to ruin your appetite with Bore, I mean Gore.

  29. Just alittle Christmas cheer, and I would like to send a special “Happy Hannuka” to Matt!

    • Buck The Wala says:

      What, no Happy Hannukah to me?? I’m truly hurt.

      A bit early, but Merry Xmas G!

      • I apologize Buck, Didn’t know your were Jewish. Let me, for the record, add Buck and all my Jewish friends to this list of well wishings!


        • Buck The Wala says:

          No apologies necessary; just giving you a hard time. 🙂

        • Judy Sabatini says:

          By all means, ad me to that list too. Sorry Buck if I had known, I would have included you on that video I posted below.

          • Buck The Wala says:

            Not at all Judy. I’ll have to take a look at the video later on. For now, time to wrap up my day and head into the city for dinner…

  30. Things I have learned living in ARKANSAS

    1. Possums and armadillos sleep in the middle of the road with

    their feet in the air.

    2. There are 5,000 types of snakes and 4,998 live

    in ARKANSAS.

    3. There are 10,000 types of spiders. All 10,000

    live in ARKANSAS plus a couple no one’s seen before.

    4. If it grows, it sticks; if it crawls, it bites.

    5. Onced and twiced are words.

    6. It is not a shopping cart; it is a buggy.

    7. Fire ants consider your flesh as a picnic.

    8. People actually grow and eat okra.

    9. Fixinto is one word.

    10. There is no such thing as

    “lunch”. There is only dinner and then there is supper.

    11. Ice tea is appropriate for all meals, and you

    start drinking it when you’re two. We do like a little tea with our sugar!

    12. Backards and forwards means “I know everything about you.”

    13. Jeet? is actually a phrase meaning “Did you eat?”

    14. You don’t have to wear a watch because it doesn’t matter what time it is. You work until you’ re done or it’s too dark to see.

    15. You don’t PUSH buttons, you MASH them.


    1. You measure distance in minutes.

    2. You’ve ever had to switch from “heat” to “A/C” in the same day.

    3. You use “fix” as a verb. Example: “I’m fixing to

    go to the store ”

    4. All the festivals across the state are named

    after a fruit, vegetable, grain, insect, or animal.

    5. You install security lights on your house and

    garage and leave both unlocked.

    6. You know what a “DAWG” is.

    7. You carry jumper cables in your car…for your OWN car.

    8. You only own four spices: salt, pepper, Tabasco and ketchup. (Can’t forget the Cavender’s too)

    9. The local papers cover national and

    international news on one page but require 6 pages for

    local gossip and sports.

    10. You think that the first day of deer season is

    a national holiday.

    11. You find 100 degrees Fahrenheit “a little warm”.

    12. You know all four seasons: deer season, rabbit season,

    traping season, and fishing season

    13. You know whether another ARKIE is from north

    or south as soon as they open their mouth.

    14. Going to Wal-mart is a favorite pasttime known

    as goin’ Wal-martin or off to Wally World.

    15. You describe the first cool snap (below 70

    degrees) as good pinto-bean weather.

    16. A carbonated soft drink isn’t a soda, cola or

    pop..it’s a Coke, regardless of brand or flavor.

    Example: “What kinda coke you want?”

    17. Fried catfish is the other white meat.

    18. We don’t need no stinking driver’s ed….if our

    mama says we can drive, we can drive.

    19. You understand these jokes and forward them to

    your friends from ARKANSAS (and those who just wish

    they were). Not EVERYONE can be an ARKIE; it’s an art form

    and a gift from God!

    • Little Melissa comes home from first grade and tells her father that they learned about the history of Valentine’s Day. “Since Valentine’s Day is for a Christian saint and we’re Jewish,” she asks, “Will God get mad at me for giving someone a valentine?”

      Melissa’s father thinks a bit, then says “No, I don’t think God would get mad. Who do you want to give a Valentine to?”

      “Osama Bin Laden,” she says.

      “Why Osama Bin Laden,” her father asks in shock.

      “Well,” she says, “I thought that if a little American Jewish girl could have enough love to give Osama a Valentine, he might start to think that maybe we’re not all bad, and maybe start loving people a little bit. And if other kids saw what I did and sent Valentines to Osama, he’d love
      everyone a lot. And then he’d start going all over the place to tell everyone how much he loved them and how he didn’t hate anyone anymore.”

      Her father’s heart swells and he looks at his daughter with new found pride. “Melissa, that’s the most wonderful thing I’ve ever heard.”

      “I know,” Melissa says, “and once that gets him out in the open, the Marines could shoot the bastard.”

    • A dog named Al,

      A guy is driving around the back woods of Tennessee and he sees a sign in front of a broken down shanty-style house: “Talking Dog For Sale.”

      He rings the bell and the owner appears and tells him the dog is in the backyard. The guy goes into the backyard and sees a nice looking Labrador retriever sitting there.

      “You talk?” he asks.

      “Yep,” the Lab replies.

      After the guy recovers from the shock of hearing a dog talk, he says “So,what’s your story?”

      The Lab looks up and says, “Well, I discovered that I could talk when I was pretty young. I wanted to help the government, so I told the CIA. In no time at all they had me jetting from country to country, sitting in rooms with spies and world leaders, because no one figured a dog would be eavesdropping. I was one of their most valuable spies for eight years running.”

      “But the jetting around really tired me out, and I knew I wasn’t getting any younger so I decided to settle down. I signed up for a job at the airport to do some undercover security, wandering near suspicious characters and listening in.”

      “I uncovered some incredible dealings and was awarded a batch of medals. I got married, had a mess of puppies, and now I’m just retired.”

      The guy is amazed. He goes back in and asks the owner what he wants for the dog.

      “Ten dollars,” the guy says.

      “Ten dollars? This dog is amazing! Why on earth are you selling him so cheap?”

      “Because he’s a liar. He never did any of that stuff. “

    • Four United States Presidents get caught up in a tornado … and off
      whirled to
      the land of OZ.

      They finally made it to the Emerald City and went to find the Great

      ” What brings the four of you before
      the great Wizard of Oz?”

      Jimmy Carter stepped forward timidly and said:
      “I’ve come for some courage.”

      ” No Problem! said the Wizard. Who ‘ s next?”

      Richard Nixon stepped forward,”Well, I think I need a heart.”

      “Done! says the Wizard.
      Who comes next before
      the Great and Powerful Oz?”

      Up stepped Bush and said,
      “I’m told by the American people that I need a brain.”

      “No problem! said the Wizard.
      Consider it done.”

      Then there is a great silence in the hall.
      Bill Clinton is just standing there,
      looking around,
      But he doesn;t say a word.
      Irritated, the Wizard finally asks,

      “Well, what do you want?”


    • >Two Trees
      >It is hard to find a joke today without a dirty word or two in it,
      >but, here is one:
      >Two tall trees, a birch and a beech, are growing in the woods. A small
      >tree begins to grow between them, and the beech says to the birch, “Is
      >that a son of a beech or a son of a birch?”
      >The birch says he cannot tell.
      >Just then a woodpecker lands on the sapling.
      >The birch says, “Woodpecker, you are a tree expert. Can you tell if that
      >is a son of a beech or a son of a birch?”
      >The woodpecker takes a taste of the small tree. He replies, “It is
      >neither a son of a beech nor a son of a birch. It is, however, the best
      >piece of ash I have ever put my pecker in.”
      >Now wipe that smile off your face.

      • Judy Sabatini says:

        You’re the bad one today LOI. You shouldn’t put those up because I can’t help myself, I have to read them, You being a bad influence on me.

      • Two men are out at a bar late at night.

        They’re getting ready to go home to their

        wives. The first man says, “I hate going

        home this late. The missus always gives

        me an earful as soon as I walk in.”

        The second man turns back and says, “Just

        do what I do: slam the front door loudly

        and shout ‘honey, I’m home and horny’.

        When I do that, my wife always pretends to

        be sound asleep.”

    • Sounds just lak Georgia!

      “6. You know what a “DAWG” is.”

      From me to you LOI.

      We know what a HAWG is too!

      Merry Christmas LOI.

  31. Judy Sabatini says:
  32. v. Holland says:

    If you want to listen to the best recording of this song, at least in my opinion -Click on #1 in the saved playlist.


    • Judy Sabatini says:

      Apparently I have a retarded computer, it all says unsaved play list.

      • v. Holland says:

        My mistake -push first one on unsaved playlist-why it says unsaved, truly beats me because it doesn’t make any sense.

  33. Judy Sabatini says:

  34. I am always amazed by the true love of our fellow man, even if sometimes we don’t agree. While many concern themselves with the evil, many others believe in the goodness in the hearts of each other. I like the goodness idea!

    • Judy Sabatini says:

      Hi G

      Where do you find these at? By the way, was you dinner spoiled?

      • No my dinner wasn’t spoiled LOL. All these are on You Tube, just waiting to be seen. I start by picking a song, then go from there, most of these I’ve gotten in e-mails, so I know how to search. I may have over 1000 videos on disc like this at work, nice library Ehh!


        • Judy Sabatini says:

          Yea, I’ll say. I just wondered. Going to be getting off here shortly, Matthew’s going to move my computer in the living room, where it’s warmer. I bought a new desk and that’s what he’s working on now, so when he gets through with that, time to move the computer. I’m tired of freezing here in the den. Besides, I’ll have more privacy and no blaring TV interfering with me.

          You’re a nice guy, you know that. I feel very blessed in having you as my friend G, and I’m grateful for it. Must be the Christmas season sneaking out of me now, but I just wanted you to know that.

          • I’m blessed to have you as a friend as well. Good people seem to be in short supply, I’ve found some of them here, and you are one of the best! 🙂

            • Judy Sabatini says:

              AWWWWWWWW! Now I’m blushing, And thanks ever so much G, I’m feel like you are a brother to me as well, if that’s okay if I say that. You are an easy person to talk too, and you have been there for me when I felt on the low side, and you managed to bring me out of it with you words.

              Okay, got to go, they’re getting ready to move the computer now.

              Will see you here tomorrow. Have a great night G and a great tomorrow.

              Take care


  35. Judy Sabatini says:

    Good night to all and have a great tomorrow.

    Love you all very much


  36. Buck,

    Based on very very spotty research on my part (quick Google search on ‘global warming’ and ‘forest fires’):


    Basically a 2006 study did find a correlation between global warming and the increase in number and magnitute of forest fires in the west.

    Again, I’m not saying this is definitive at all, but it is instructive as to how little we know about the climate system.

    First, there has been no warming since 2000. So if the correlation depends on warming, it wasn’t there. So much for that.

    Second, correlation is not causation.

    From 2000 to 2006 there has been a net influx of people to California. Therefore immigration to California caused the increase in forest fires ???

    From 2000 to 2006 there has been a net decrease in NOx from vehicles in California. Therefore the lack of NOx causes forest fires??

    Any study that tries to cite correlation=cause is faulty. It is merely a hit-run piece of nothing worthy.

    ENSO has been studied for decades. It has been documented for centuries.

    True, we know almost nothing about climate. Thus, the proclamations of the dogmatists like Gore are bizarre. They give certainty were absolutely none exists.

    • Buck the Wala says:

      One of the biggest mistakes is stating that correlation is causation. You are right to point that out, as it is something that many overlook.

      I haven’t had a chance to read the study itself and am unsure if it makes that mistake. From my take on the article, the study finds that global warming has had an impact on forest fires. Got a lot of research on these climate issues on my plate and am hoping I have some free time at work today to get to it.

  37. Every now and then something comes along that is just flat amazing.


    I’ve seen strange atmospherics from missle tests and none came close to this. My first instinct was “its a projection”. But how?

    Wonder if it is in the Mayan calendar?

    • That was amazing. How do you find this stuff?

      • Hey Bird

        I scan alot of headlines and subheadlines. Then I go to the stories of interest and then the good stuff is usually a link in the story to the original.

        This one was located in the footnotes of a story on Fox site.

        Of course one has to have a strange sense of the curious to pick a particular headline to start with.

        Well by my calculations you should be up to your alligators in cold wet white stuff by now. Did you get the big winds with the storm as well?

        • We had snow yesterday and today. The snow yesterday was very wet and hard to snow blow. Now we have the white fluffy stuff, which is easy to blow but ends up all over you. I just got in from snow blowing this morning. Up here, the snow just keeps adding up. It usually doesn’t melt much. Good for snow mobiles as the base builds up. Kids had no school yesterday or today. It’s a winter wonderland up here.

    • Bottom Line says:

      JAC – “I’ve seen strange atmospherics from missile tests and none came close to this.”

      BL – I’m real curious what exactly it is that you’ve seen.

      I saw something years ago over the bermuda triangle that looked like a crude version of the Norwegian phenomena. It was a controlled classified experiment, and may very well have been an attempt to create what was over Norway. What I saw had similar characteristics, but wasn’t nearly as pretty. I think a missile may have been used as a delivery system for the glowing stuff. What I saw was a glowing green phosphorescent fog/smoke in a spiral shaped funnel pattern. It was WAY the hell up there, and slowly descended as it spread and dissipated.

      I believe it has something to do with 3-D radar, and/or HAARP, and/or Scalar technology.

      The Norway thing was probably the Russians playing with the same tech.

      I read something a few months ago about how the Russians have been experimenting and developing scalar tech. I’ve read discriptions of things near Russia that resemble that of the pictures in the article.

      Very interesting post JAC.

      • BL:

        While growing up in Nevada we used to see all kinds of strange things. Missles fired from Southern Nev or Calif would leave strange patterns in the sky depending on the atmospheric conditions at the time.

        One of the strangest showed up as a pigtail like line moving from the southern horizon to the high point in the sky.

        Then it suddenly stopped and a bright arching line appeared the entire sky from east to west with a huge bubble like glow ahead of it, but smaller. Imagine what the compressed air looks like around a jet as it breaks the sound barrier, only from horizon to horizon.

        Well then the object took off to the west, a change in direction of 90 degrees, straight as an arrow and three times faster than when it first showed up.

        Later reports were that a missle had malfunctioned, self destruct was initiated and the thing was sent over the ocean. But due to the right light, temperature, and etc conditions of the atmosphere it created the most bizzare light show.

        One of the things missing that day, and from all such reports is the third dimensioin perspective. Most of us don’t realize that when looking at objects such as this in the sky we are only really seeing two dimensions. That spiral for example could have very well been a funnel shape as the one you saw.

        Still can’t figure out how the perfectly concentric spiral pattern could be formed by an object though. I could see concentric circles, like waves expanding from a rock dropped in water.

        Oh yeah, once saw a flying object at night that passed directly overhead without making any sound. We never considered it an alien craft as hit had standard aircraft lights flashing from the surface. But it was dark and pretty high so we couldn’t make out the exact shape. Always figured that was first test flights of stealth technology but will never know for sure.

        Anyhow, can’t wait for all the explanations to start showing up on the internet. I’m sticking with aliens arriving via the Star Gate. Or Russians leaving.

        Hang loose B.L.

        • Bottom Line says:

          They’re playing with something…And whatever it is, is pretty damn important.

          What I saw that night was only part of it. There is an accompanying story that is quite lengthy about the events that took place prior to and since that test.

          It’s long enough to write a book about. I won’t even try to condense it into a post.

          For the intelligence community to react the way they did in response to the events that had taken place aboard that ship several months prior, is an indication of the importance of the classified nature of the test/experiment.

          Whatever it is is a big deal.

    • From FOX,

      A spectacular spiral of light was seen over the north of the country on Wednesday, prompting theories it was caused by a meteor, the Northern Lights or even aliens.

      But now Russia has revealed that its latest test-firing of its new intercontinental missile ended in failure — at the same time observers witnessed the early morning light show.

      As well as signaling a major setback for the country’s armed forces, the revelation provided a possible explanation for the mysterious display in the skies.

      Russia’s defense ministry said it did not know whether the lights were caused by its Bulava missile, which can be equipped with up to 10 individually targeted nuclear warheads and has a maximum range of 5,000 miles.

      But defense analyst Pavel Felgenhauer said the images seen over Norway were consistent with a missile failure.

      “Such lights and clouds appear from time to time when a missile fails in the upper layers of the atmosphere and have been reported before,” he said. “At least this failed test made some nice fireworks for the Norwegians.

      • Bottom Line says:

        I’m not buying it.

        My guess is…

        They just want you to think it’s a missile test.

        Missiles may have been involved, but it isn’t about the missiles.

        If missiles/rockets were used, They weren’t ICBMs. They were something else.

        When missiles malfunction, they spew fuel/smoke/fire, or little to nothing. It either looks similar to the space shuttle disaster/s, or it’s not on fire or spewing anything and is too small an object in the sky to even notice or see.

        Liquid fuel being dispersed into a fine frozen crystalline misty cloud can give off a rainbow effect…

        …but glowing electromagnetically charged phosphorescence is different.

        Notice the blue glowing thing in the pic. It’s not a spill or fuel fire in the sky.

        Notice the big halo. Looks like some kind of strange magnetic field to me.

        I think what they’re doing up there is putting something into the atmosphere, then zapping it with some kinda beam/wave.

    • Bottom Line says:

      youtube is filled with videos of it.

  38. D13:

    I’m sure your boys are on top of this but thought it was interesting so brought here to share.

    I had never heard the dehydration findings before. We always assumed they froze to death.

    Blizzard Safety for Livestock
    Blizzards take a terrible toll on livestock. For both humane and economic reasons, stockmen should take necessary precautions in advance of severe winter storms.

    MOVE LIVESTOCK, ESPECIALLY YOUNG LIVESTOCK, INTO SHELTERED AREAS. Shelter belts, properly oriented and laid out, provide better protection for range cattle than shed-type shelters, which may cause cattle to overcrowd, leading to overheating and respiratory disorders.

    HAUL EXTRA FEED TO FEEDING AREAS before the storm arrives. Storm duration is the largest determinant of livestock losses; if the storm lasts more than 48 hours, emergency feed methods are required. Range cattle are hardy and can survive extreme winter weather providing they have some nonconfining type of shelter from the wind and are able to feed at frequent intervals.

    Autopsies of cattle killed by winter storms have shown the cause of death to be dehydration, not cold or suffocation. Because cattle cannot lick enough snow to satisfy their thirst, stockmen are advised to use heaters in water tanks to provide livestock with water and feed after prolonged exposure to winter storm conditions.

    The constant A includes the cooling caused by radiation and conduction. The value of the constants A , B , and C varies widely in formulae presented by different investigators. This is to be expected since H also depends on certain properties of the body being cooled. The above formula measures the cooling power of the wind and temperature in

    Read more: Winter Storms – average, low, world, daily, high, snowfall, days, Wherewhy winter storms occur, Freezing rainice storms, Winter storm impact http://www.weatherexplained.com/Vol-1/Winter-Storms.html#ixzz0ZGIpMpQo

    Glad to here the main part of the big blizzard missed your operation. I here there’s another one coming behind this one. With luck it will follow the same pattern.

  39. Nick,

    “Thus, the increasing the CO2 in the atmosphere would require 10x the concentration to double its effect.”
    But the light here isn’t passing through one set of slats to hit the next–it’s hitting both, together. There are just a lot more H2O slats than CO2 ones.

    No, sir, that is not how it works.

    Radiation can only be absorbed once at a time. It either goes into that molecule or another. They do not share that energy.

    The energy needs to be released by this molecule (lowering its energy) and absorbed by another (raising its energy) – as you can see, the energy budget doesn’t change.

    Water absorbs a far greater spectrum than Co2 – including the spectrum that Co2 occupies. By sheer concentration, water absorbs 90% of the radiation from the surface.

    “But Co2 is a trace gas – so even though it bounces in more ways, there isn’t anywhere near enough of them to make a difference.”
    Then why does the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere correlate so strongly with changes in the earth’s temperature?

    It is consequential correlation, not causation.

    As noted in the ice core pictures – temperature moves first, then Co2 concentrations follow – not the other way around.

    In other words, warming first, then Co2 increase.

    The hypothesis that answers this is that atmosphere warming heats the oceans – as water warms, it cannot hold the same volume of dissolved gas as cold water, thus, releases gas into the atmosphere – Co2 being one of those dissolved gases (think of the difference of warm bottle of Coke and cold one when opening).

    As atmosphere temp cools, eventually the ocean cools, absorbing more Co2 into the water.

    So Co2 is laggard, not a precursor to warming (or cooling).

    It’s not a perfect system, like a greenhouse, otherwise we’d all be dead. But data indicates that increases in CO2 produce slight increases in temperature.

    Less then 1/10 of a degree for every 100ppm over 240ppm.

    There being even higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere than just the amount we’re producing doesn’t mean that our actions aren’t impacting those levels.

    Yep, we get bigger crop yields, and healthier plants.

    The natural variation of natural Co2 production varies at levels 50 to 100 times the entire production of human Co2 for all history combined.

    Our production is wholly lost in the ‘noise’ of natural causes.

    “Guess what, it’s logarithmic.”
    Please explain what you mean there. Me confused.

    It means to double the effect of the Co2, you need to increase the concentration by a factor 10.

    To triple the effect of Co2, you need to increase the concentration by a factor of 100.

    To quadruple the effect of Co2, you need to increase the concentration by a factor of 1000, and so on.

    It means almost all of the entire effect of Co2 in the atmosphere all occurs in the first 200 ppm. After that, the effect is so small as to be called ‘insignificant’.

    I’m not making this up. This is physics. The IPCC AR4 has an entire chapter explaining this.

    And thus the root of the problem. These guys know Co2 can’t do what they are claiming it can do. It’s a matter of a law of the universe.

    So, they are inventing “forcings” – that is, feedback loops. But this is predicated on a belief that the Earth exists as a postive feed back loop – small changes creates massive effects.

    But if that was true, we wouldn’t be here. The first asteroid strike would have wiped out everything.

    But it didn’t. We are here to prove it.

    The Earth is a massive negative-feedback loop, not matter the disturbance, nature returns to the balance.

    AGW believe the earth sits like a marble on an upside cup, a little push – we’re done for.

    But the earth is sits like a marble inside a right sided cup. Shake it up, it simply rolls back and forth over a balance or mean.

    You won’t read it, but here’s a massive document on why small amounts of CO2 in our atmosphere can influence the global climate.

    Nick, I’ve read the whole report.

    What you will find is exactly what I said. They explain the physics of Co2 – they also state it can’t explain the warming – they create (wait for it) a hypothesis of “radiative forcing” which creates a chain-reaction (a positive feedback loop) that creates the observed warming.

    But they have problems. There exists no such feedback loop – they are still looking – and such forcing should have created a temp. signature in the troposphere – but its not there – and, the globe should not be cooling – but it is.

    Mighty problems for the hypothesis to answer.

    This, by the way, is the sort of document the opposition needs to produce in order to refute the current theory.

    As Einstein said – It matters not how many studies or experiments that agree with his theory, it only takes one experiment to disprove him.

    The AGW theory has far more than one disproved component.

    The Earth is cooling (it shouldn’t) – the fingerprint in the troposphere (its not there) – the oceans should be warming (they are actually cooling)……

    But it really only needed one….

  40. Global government has been created????


    • Cyndi P:

      He said “governance” not “government”.

      There has been global governance over various things for many years. The real concern is that the number of things falling under such efforts is increasing.

      And of course the concern that someone will try to concentrate the power in some way. The climate stuff could be the catalyst that creates the regulatory mechanisms needed for centralized control.

      My bigger concern, and the one we should stay focused on, is the treaties we agree to as part of this effort. Those treaties supercede our other laws. That is the real hazard at this point in time.

      Hope all is calm and warm at your place.

      • JAC

        If the scientist proved beyond any doubt that their global warming predictions were right-Would you support these treaties-I wouldn’t but I am curious about your thoughts.

        • V.H.

          I would NOT support these treaties.

          They have more to do with the Altruists and socialist view of “social justice” than with actually accomplishing something for the planet’s health.

          If it were all true, and IF I were KING, I would do NOTHING except to make sure all barriers to economic development were removed.

          Because if it were all true an instant market for CO2 reducing tech would grow overnight. Our businesses would develop and then sell the tech to other more developed nations. They can use taxes to buy if they want, but not the USA.

          The “developing” nations are not an issue as they do not produce enough green house gases to be of concern. But I am guessing that as new tech became cheaper they would be able to get some for themselves. Perhaps even expanding their energy prodcution..

          If any action other than this were needed it should be in the simple form of setting a limit or CAP on the production of the evil gases within our own borders. No TAX, No Cap n Trade as currently envisioned, nothing else.

          Short answer now: I would not sign any treaties regarding this stuff. We do what we need on our own and then let OUR power of pursuassion sell the rest of the world on the solutions we come up with. No force or coersion involved.

          Does that sound about right?

          Hope the V.Holland household is well today.

          • v. Holland says:

            We always seem to argue whether or not global warming is real -which is an important discussion but I just think it’s important to realize that with or without global warming the treaty that they are trying to agree on in Copenhagen is stupid either way-I may be wrong but when we entered WW1 and 2 did we have to sign a treaty in order to work with other countries in order to win these wars or did we just work together out of our combined needs.

      • I agree with you JAC.

        Yep, still warm and calm here, but lots of rain too.

        That’s it for now. Gotta go earn my keep. They’ve been making us work for it. We’ve even been getting OT. Nice.


    Tell me what you think about this little endeavor by our world transformative manipulator.

    COPENHAGEN (Reuters) – Billionaire financier George Soros told Reuters on Thursday he had found a way to unlock a stalemate on climate finance using International Monetary Fund assets.

    Green Business

    Soros wants to invest $1 billion of a total of his own $25 billion funds in low-carbon assets.

    U.N. talks in Copenhagen, meant to agree the outline of a new climate treaty to succeed the Kyoto Protocol, are stuck on splitting the bill to cut carbon emissions and prepare for more droughts, floods and rising seas.

    Poorer nations want rich countries to spend 1 percent or more of their national wealth on emissions cuts in the developing world, or at least $300 billion annually, about double the closest estimates by industrialized countries.

    “I’ve found a way for someone else to pay … to mobilize reserves that are lying idle,” said Soros, on the sidelines of the December 7-18 conference which world leaders will attend in the closing two days.

    “The whole conference might break down because of this, and this $100 billion fund I think could just turn this conference from failure to success.”

    Developed countries could invest a portion of $283 billion IMF special drawing rights (SDRs) in carbon-cutting projects in developing nations, he said.

    The IMF made the rights available to help combat the recession, by unlocking financial liquidity after panic froze debt markets — including more than $150 billion for the 15 biggest developed economies, Soros said.

    The low-carbon projects themselves would pay the interest on the proposed $100 billion to be spent over the next decade, from earnings which would depend on a carbon price for example under a global market in offsets and other carbon emissions permits.

    IMF gold reserves would guarantee the principle and interest. Soros acknowledged a series of obstacles to his proposal, including U.S. Congress approval, IMF director approval and a global carbon price.

    “The IMF directors are not keen to use it (gold reserve). If you on the board of directors you like to have this nice substantial reserve to sit on so they won’t actually do this of their own free will,” he said, adding political will was needed to drive his initiative.

    Other ideas on the table to unlock climate finance include a levy on transport fuels in shipping and aviation, a tax on rich nation carbon emissions rights or a fund raised from countries according to their contribution to climate change and ability to pay.

    (Reporting by Gerard Wynn, Editing by Janet Lawrence)

    • Tex,

      First, there is no such thing as ‘funds lying around’. The IMF funds are invested somewhere or are supporting other investments.

      So taking these funds and pouring them into worthless programs, they will definitely impact the poor nations who depend on IMF funds for basic development (for better or worse, but that’s another discussion)

      And anything with Soros, you know he’s there because it will make him a profit. He is does nothing that doesn’t help himself first.

  42. From FOX

    These are among the 11 most wasteful spending projects before Congress this year, according to two Republican congressmen — who with their party have kept up the drumbeat this week against what they say is excessive federal spending.

    The attention on pork comes as Congress prepares to raise the federal debt ceiling while pushing a new jobs-creation package that could run into the hundreds of billions. On Wednesday, four Republican lawmakers demanded an audit of the $787 billion stimulus program following reports of exaggerated or inaccurate accounts of the number of jobs created.

    On Thursday, Rep. Mark Kirk, R-Ill., and Rep. Tom Price, R-Ga., rolled out their list of what they call the 11 worst pork-barrel projects of the 111th Congress. Most of them have already been approved for funding.

    Here is the list:

    — $1.9 million for “water taxis to nowhere” in Pleasure Beach, Conn. Congress approved the money after a fire destroyed the bridge to Pleasure Beach, but the area already is accessible by foot and rowboats.

    — $3.8 million for an urban art trail in Rochester, N.Y.

    — $3.1 million for upgrades to a boat owned by the New York State Museum. The boat dates back to 1921 and was originally used in canals.

    — $3 million for bicycle racks in Georgetown — the Washington, D.C., neighborhood that is one of the wealthiest areas in the country.

    — $1.5 million to improve the streetscape in the six blocks surrounding a downtown Detroit casino.

    — $578,000 for fighting homelessness in Union, N.Y. According to a local news report, the town never asked for the stimulus money and did not even have a program through which to administer the money. The town supervisor said he wasn’t aware of a homelessness problem in the town.

    — $550,000 for a skateboard park in Pawtucket, R.I.

    — $500,000 for fish food in Missouri, to help defray the costs for state fish farmers.

    — $400,000 for renovations to a vacant building in City of Jal, N.M.

    — $380,350 to encourage landowners in West Virginia to grow shiitake mushrooms and ginseng.

    — $90,000 for a communal kitchen in Watsonville, Calif. The shared kitchen is meant to help food service entrepreneurs.

    • I have to wonder if this is how Ms. Hillary’s debt’s were paid.

      “Mark Penn’s two firms awarded millions from stimulus for PR push
      By Alexander Bolton – 12/09/09 12:00 AM ET

      A contract worth nearly $6 million in stimulus funds was awarded by the Obama adminstration to two firms run by Mark Penn, Hillary Clinton’s pollster in 2008.

      Federal records show that a contract worth $5.97 million, part of the $787 billion stimulus Congress passed this year, helped preserve three jobs at Burson-Marsteller, the global public-relations and communications firm headed by Penn.

      Burson-Marsteller won the contract to work on a public-relations campaign to advertise the national switch from analog to digital television. Nearly $2.8 million of the contract was awarded through a subcontract to Penn’s polling firm, Penn, Schoen & Berland, according to federal records.

      Federal records also show that a former adviser to President Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign received nearly $70,000 from that contract to help alert viewers in difficult-to-reach communities that their televisions would ssoon no longer receive broadcast signals.”


      • and just in case you can’t read the whole article-Notice that out of a 6 million dollar contract -they only received about a million and a half as compensation to run this “vital” service.

        “Burson-Marsteller, and the approved set of vendors, including its sister company Penn Schoen & Berland LLC, successfully completed the work with the FCC on time and under budget, the company said in its statement. “Burson-Marsteller received a total of $1,375,000 in professional fees to manage and support this time sensitive national and local effort with a large team of professionals. They disbursed the rest to firms around the country in local communities,” the company said.”

        Burson-Marsteller said its sister company, Penn, Schoen & Berland, received only $142,000 in fees. The rest was spent on a $2.4 million media buy that went to newspapers and local radio stations around the country and $147,000 spent for the services of advertising production houses, according to Burson-Marsteller.

  43. Judy Sabatini says:

    Hi All

    I want to share this video with you and I hope you watch it.

    It’s called A Soldiers Christmas Poem.

    It was written by a Marine stationed in Okinawa, Japan in 1998, but it’s the pictures that might bring a tear or two to your eyes.

    Hope all will have a good day today.

    Take care


  44. Well, I guess the good news here is that The Cull isn’t being pushed – yet…


    The real inconvenient truth
    The whole world needs to adopt China’s one-child policy

    Diane Francis, Financial Post
    Published: Tuesday, December 08, 2009

    Related Topics
    United Nations

    The “inconvenient truth” overhanging the UN’s Copenhagen conference is not that the climate is warming or cooling, but that humans are overpopulating the world.

    A planetary law, such as China’s one-child policy, is the only way to reverse the disastrous global birthrate currently, which is one million births every four days.

    The world’s other species, vegetation, resources, oceans, arable land, water supplies and atmosphere are being destroyed and pushed out of existence as a result of humanity’s soaring reproduction rate.

    Ironically, China, despite its dirty coal plants, is the world’s leader in terms of fashioning policy to combat environmental degradation, thanks to its one-child-only edict.

    The intelligence behind this is the following:

    -If only one child per female was born as of now, the world’s population would drop from its current 6.5 billion to 5.5 billion by 2050, according to a study done for scientific academy Vienna Institute of Demography.

    -By 2075, there would be 3.43 billion humans on the planet. This would have immediate positive effects on the world’s forests, other species, the oceans, atmospheric quality and living standards.

    -Doing nothing, by contrast, will result in an unsustainable population of nine billion by 2050.

    Humans are the only rational animals but have yet to prove it. Medical and other scientific advances have benefited by delivering lower infant mortality rates as well as longevity. Both are welcome, but humankind has not yet recalibrated its behavior to account for the fact that the world can only accommodate so many people, especially if billions get indoor plumbing and cars.

    The fix is simple. It’s dramatic. And yet the world’s leaders don’t even have this on their agenda in Copenhagen. Instead there will be photo ops, posturing, optics, blah-blah-blah about climate science and climate fraud, announcements of giant wind farms, then cap-and-trade subsidies.

    None will work unless a China one-child policy is imposed. Unfortunately, there are powerful opponents. Leaders of the world’s big fundamentalist religions preach in favor of procreation and fiercely oppose birth control. And most political leaders in emerging economies perpetuate a disastrous Catch-22: Many children (i. e. sons) stave off hardship in the absence of a social safety net or economic development, which, in turn, prevents protections or development.

    China has proven that birth restriction is smart policy. Its middle class grows, all its citizens have housing, health care, education and food, and the one out of five human beings who live there are not overpopulating the planet.

    For those who balk at the notion that governments should control family sizes, just wait until the growing human population turns twice as much pastureland into desert as is now the case, or when the Amazon is gone, the elephants disappear for good and wars erupt over water, scarce resources and spatial needs.

    The point is that Copenhagen’s talking points are beside the point.

    The only fix is if all countries drastically reduce their populations, clean up their messes and impose mandatory conservation measures.


  45. http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2009/20091209120343.aspx

    The Media’s Top 10 Worst Economic Myths of 2009
    From jobs ‘saved or created,’ to stimulus saving the economy, to ‘deficit neutral’ health care reform; here are ten biggest stories the media got wrong this year.

    By Julia A. Seymour
    Business & Media Institute
    12/9/2009 12:18:20 PM

    Each year the Business & Media Institute looks back on the year’s news and selects the top 10 worst economic myths. Here is our 2009 list:

    10. CBS, NY Times Support Ecuadorian Shakedown of U.S. oil company

    9. Media Fail to Scrutinize Obama’s Job Claims

    8. Government Stimulus is the Answer to Our Economic Problems

    7. No Tax Increases for the Middle Class

    6. The Recession was Over … by July.

    5. Cash for Clunkers was a ‘Success’

    4. Reagan vs. Obama on Jobs: Same Rate, Different Story

    3. Health Care Reform will be ‘Deficit Neutral’

    2. Tea Parties aren’t made up of grassroots protestors; they’re just ‘Astroturf.’

    1. ClimateGate

  46. Judy Sabatini says:

    Not sure if anybody saw or posted this or not.

    Copenhagen expected to ‘kick the can down the road’
    Pete Chagnon – OneNewsNow –

    Copenhagen COP15 climate conferenceA policy expert believes there will be much political “posturing,” but no real climate deal in Copenhagen.

    The Copenhagen climate treaty talks, the EPA’s endangerment finding of CO2, and the continuing debate in the Senate on “cap and trade” are all taking place in the midst of one of the biggest scientific scandals of modern times — ClimateGate. The release of e-mails and data that detail how the science was manipulated to show alleged “manmade global warming” has not deterred world leaders from discussing and possibly signing a climate treaty in Copenhagen. (See earlier story on ClimateGate)

    Ben LiebermanBen Lieberman of The Heritage Foundation believes expectations have been lowered going into the climate treaty talks currently taking place in the Danish capital. The ClimateGate scandal has given more ammunition to skeptics with the release of e-mails and data that show climate science was manipulated. Saudi Arabia has called for investigations into the matter, and the talks have been rocked by a leaked Danish text message which included an exposed draft of the climate treaty that showed rich nations winning out over poor nations.

    Lieberman predicts that there will “probably [be] a lot of posturing, a lot of agreements to meet again in 2010 and have the big decisions made then, [which is] essentially kicking the can down the road a bit.”

    And in reference to cap-and-trade legislation in the U.S. Senate, which is quickly losing support among the public, he adds: “…I really think it will be tough for the Obama administration to promise abroad what it can’t sell to the American people at home.”

    Climate change a ‘religion’
    Meanwhile, a spokesperson with the Congress of Racial Equality has some harsh words concerning President’s Obama’s trip to Copenhagen. Niger Innis admits he is disappointed by the president’s unwillingness to weigh the evidence. (Listen to audio report)

    Niger Innis”Climate change has become a religion. It is more than just a science to be debated and to be questioned and to be empirically challenged — it is now a religion. It is a matter of faith,” states Innis.

    He sees some political irony in the stance President Obama is displaying toward the issue of climate change and manmade global warming.

    “…President Obama, [who] came into power being the anti-Bush, is acting very much like the Bush stereotype in terms of moving ahead and going forward with a cap-and-trade regime that will strangle the American economy,” says Innis, “because he has a belief system and a faith and an almost religious zealousness…for the belief in climate change — and man causing climate change.”

  47. Judy Sabatini says:

    Gov’t misuses funds, TARP should fold
    Jim Brown – OneNewsNow – 12/10/2009 7:00:00

    A Republican senator says the $700 billion Wall Street financial bailout program needs to be ended immediately because the Obama administration and Democrats in Congress are not using the funds for their lawful purpose.

    Timothy GeithnerTreasury Secretary Tim Geithner announced yesterday that the Obama administration plans to extend the government’s financial bailout program until next fall. The announcement came just two days after the president said he was going to “wind down” the Troubled Asset Relief Program and work to fund Democrats’ “job creation” legislation with the remaining TARP funds.

    Senator John Thune (R-South Dakota) has introduced the TARP Sunset Act, a measure which would have prevented Secretary Geithner from extending the TARP beyond its expiration date (December 31, 2009). Thune tried to get a vote on his bill several weeks ago, but was prevented by the Democratic leadership.

    John Thune (R-SD)”So now we’re faced with the sobering fact that hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars will continue to exist as a slush fund for this administration and for congressional Democrats,” Thune laments. “I think that Congress needs to have this vote. We need to be on the record. This was legislation that was created by Congress. The very clear, plain meaning of the statute [is] that payments that come back in as funds are repaid…are to go back to the federal Treasury to be used to pay down the federal debt.”

    Thune says the administration is “acting in clear contradiction of the intent of Congress” and the law that created the TARP program in the first place. Under the TARP legislation, bailout money could be earmarked for financial firms only.

  48. Judy Sabatini says:
  49. Judy Sabatini says:
  50. D13

    Somehow, I think we are saying the same thing. Let us make an assumption that I subscribe to the Theory of Natural Law of Man. I think that I understand it well enough to discuss it. Let us further assume that I adopt it. Now what? I understand it, I adopt it, I want it. Now where do we go? Without action…where do we go. Talk more? Get on blogs? or hit the streets in non violent avenues to change what we live under and keep changing until we reach our goal?

    You and I disagree, I think on what is violent and what is not but that is another thread.

    If we end up with a shared, rational construct – a big “if” – how do we implement it?

    Remember, all of this is reasoned ideas and concepts – which exist wholly in our minds.

    So, the first step is to offer these ideas and concepts as understanding to the minds of other men. Communicating these ideas to others – and letting those ideas settle in other men’s minds is the first step.

    No one will act simply because some fool named Black Flag or D13 says so.

    Consider the American experiment. It took a line of philosophical thinkers like Locke to articulate an idea regarding government. Remember, he articulated his thoughts in the mid-1600.

    It wasn’t for another hundred years until Jefferson attempted to actually articulate a methodology to implement it. Ideas takes time to be accepted into the minds of men.

    Now, does that mean it will take a hundred years before a new idea becomes a construct? Probably not. Locke and Jefferson only communicated by written letters delivered on horse back. Communication was very slow.

    Today, internet makes it instant. A new idea can travel the whole world in one second, and be read by millions of people at the same time. The move to construct could be equally as quick.

    …..or not……

    Men do not ‘change’ their minds easily – or at all.

    Currently, many people find success within the flawed paradigm that surrounds us today.

    They will most certainly resist any alteration of this paradigm in fear that the new one will offer them failure. This was handled in the past by Revolution – slaughtering those that refuse to change. If we refuse this latter option for us, we will have to also accept that sudden, wholesale change within a paradigm will probably not happen either.

    So here is our challenge.

    The current paradigm is failing.

    A new paradigm is needed.

    No one will leave the current, primary paradigm for another new, but unknown paradigm without serious (and potentially violent) cause.

    Attempting to change the current paradigm, while in the current paradigm, is impossible and will only accelerate the collapse and increase the potential of wholesale disaster and violence, while delaying and interfering with the conceptual changes needed for men to accept the new paradigm.

    Men will think “if the current paradigm can be fixed, why bother changing paradigms?” But they do not understand that the current paradigm cannot be fixed.

    In other words, trying to fix the system will make it worse, and make the transition to the new paradigm even worse.

    So, what does the enlightened man do?


    By acting – any action – within the current paradigm will make the situation worse. There is no action that can make it better.

    So, the job is to teach.

    To write.

    To infect as many minds as possible with the potential of the new construction. We can be the New Locke, and teach men that this new idea – this new belief – this new society can all exist if the minds of men believe it can.

    We can build the constructs – not by rote but by careful reasoning – we can be the New Jefferson, too, in this regard.

    But we must be very, very careful we do not become the New Robespierre or the New Marx and the New Lenin by believing by heavy action and violence, we can force men into a new world devoid of the evil construction that plagues us today.

    • BF Stated:

      “But we must be very, very careful we do not become the New Robespierre or the New Marx and the New Lenin by believing by heavy action and violence, we can force men into a new world devoid of the evil construction that plagues us today.”

      TC:I take it that the majority of those who are regulars here understand your philosophy on the type of society and government you desire BF.I am in agreement myself with the majority of your concepts.How to get from point A to B is where we have no working strategy to succeed.

      My question to you is how do we get there without violence when as you already know there will definitely be those willing to become the next Lenin with their ideals being the exact opposite of what we desire.

      • Now go respond to my post #41 before you respond here!I am curious as to your insight into that matter.

  51. Judy Sabatini says:

    Healthcare ‘compromise’ an insult to seniors
    Jim Brown – OneNewsNow – 12/10/2009 7:20:00

    Healthcare costThe head of a conservative senior citizens group says the healthcare deal brokered by liberal and moderate Senate Democrats is one of the most “cockamamie” ideas he’s heard come down the pike in his 40 years in Washington.

    The so-called “compromise” Senate Democrats have cobbled together on a government health insurance plan not only allows people 55 and up to “buy in” to Medicare, but also increases the number of Americans eligible for the Medicaid entitlement program (see related article). The bill also may offer nonprofit health plans run by the federal Office of Personnel Management under director John Berry. Berry is the highest profile openly homosexual official in the Obama administration, and a staunch opponent of the Defense of Marriage Act.

    senior citizens smallJim Martin, president of the 60 Plus Association, says the bill is an “insult on top on an insult” to current senior citizens — and questions the practicality of the proposal.

    “How in the world are you going to cut $500 billion out of Medicare, add 31 million uninsured…and then all of a sudden they say, ‘Here’s another novel idea — why don’t we expand Medicare and Medicaid to the soon-to-be seniors, those so-called baby boomers?'” he asks.

    “Now how in the world are you going to add on another 15 or 20 million? There’s 78 million baby boomers on the horizon.”

    Martin says putting more people in Medicare “won’t improve care for seniors, it just makes the lines longer.”

  52. Matt and Buck:

    Per yesterdays discussion regarding Fox’s supposed fraud.

    Following is a better example of the kind of thing you were trying to point out. Not sure I would go so far as to say fraud but it sure as hell is an example of BIASED headlining and subheading.


    Most folks would read the headline as scinetistS rathter than scientisT. But not sure that was the intent. This could be either an attempt to bias the reader’s conclusions before they read the story (they tell the whole story but come back to the one complaint) or it could be an attempt to capture the already skeptical reader into visiting the article. Thus driving up viewer numbers to show their advertisers.

    Either way, it is bias at the best and perhaps a little fraudulent at worst. And it can’t be blamed on some producer goofing up the numbers and an actor newsperson not knowing how to respond.

    See……I can be fair and balanced.

    Hope you are both well today.

    • Buck The Wala says:

      Hey JAC, hope you’re doing well today too.

      I’d agree: probably not arising to the level of fraud, but definitely a bit misleading. If you start to look for things like this, you find examples all over the place on both sides of the aisle. Extremely frustrating.

    • SK Trynosky Sr. said
      December 9, 2009 at 6:05 pm

      “Therefore, the Roman port city of Ostia was on the Med since the sea levels were higher because of Polar melting in the time of Christ.”

      I was reviewing info on temperatures for the past 3000 years. Our current temp., measured at the surface of the Sargasso Sea.

      Years ago

      3,000 25C Roman Times
      2,750 22.5C
      2,500 25C Roman Times
      2,000 23.5C Christ
      1,300 23.6C Medieval Warm Period
      1,000 23C
      800 24.3C

      The 2006 temp was just under 23C.


      • Buck The Wala says:

        That’s an interesting find.

        It’s very tempting to look at those numbers and say ‘look at that, its cooler now than in Roman Times so there must be no such thing as a human impact on climate change’.

        But just because its cooler now does not in and of itself mean that there is no such thing as a human impact on climate change. Its interesting and should be looked at and considered and studied, but it does not prove anything by itself.

        • Buck,

          That is the best you’ve said so far – we don’t know if there is a human impact on climate.

          Dr. Roger Pielke, an acquaintance of mine and a very fine gentleman, and – ironically labeled as a skeptic.

          He does not believe Co2 is the driver of human-caused climate change. This makes him hated and ostracized in climate science circles.

          He argues there are MANY human actions that could contribute to climate change – which makes him an interesting ally of those that claim human caused climate change is unfounded!

          And his position is more aligned to what you said – he believes he has some compelling evidence of human influence in climate – primarily by massive changes in land use.

          • Buck The Wala says:

            Based on the studies I have read thus far (and articles on those studies) I believe that the evidence strongly indicates we have had and are having an impact on the climate in an adverse way. Precisely what that means for the future, I cannot say.

            But I would rather take action to reduce our emissions than do nothing and leave the status quo.

            • Hi Buck! I’m not against reducing pollution, who would be? But the proposals being sought are not free, which means that we all must pay this. How much are you willing to pay, just to do something that has not been proven to be a problem, but may cause a problem if we reduce CO2?

              Hope you are well today!


              • Buck The Wala says:

                Hey G, I’m doing good today, thanks! And you?

                Of course the proposals aren’t free. They never are. But I’m okay with that as I find the evidence overwhelming that there is a problem. And if it turns out we are mistaken as to the extent of that problem, so be it.

                • I’m fine as well, thanks for asking!

                  For the sake of this post, let’s say everybodies electric bill tripled, because of cap and trade. Five years later the whole CO2 thing is proven wrong absolutely. The poorest will suffer greatly, and my money would have been stolen and wasted for nothing. Since I earn my money, I’m not willing to take that chance, iand it should not be forced upon me. I make money for me, not to let some idiot politicians take it for an unproven hoax.


                  • Buck The Wala says:

                    G, your point is well taken. We can all agree that any cost imposed on the corporations will simply be passed along to the consumer. Not a good thing for my personal bottom line!

                    I am not a huge fan of the whole cap and trade system and, as discussed briefly w/ JAC yesterday, feel it would be much better to impose strict standards with severe penalties for those that do not abide by those standards.

                    One point of disagreement with your post though is your contention that global warming is an unproven hoax. IF science subsequently proves that we were wrong that does not mean this was all a hoax; it just means we were wrong.

            • But the US is doing something to reduce its emissions.


              emissions by some industrialized countries continue to surge: Spain’s 2006 emissions were 50.6 percent above 1990 levels, while Portugal’s were 40 percent higher, Australia’s 28.8 percent higher, Canada 21.7 percent, and the United States 14 percent. Meanwhile Britain has managed to reduce its emissions 15.1 percent relative to 1990, Germany’s cut was 18.2 percent, and France’s was 3.5 percent.

              The figures were released two weeks ahead of UNFCCC climate talks in Poznan, Poland. The next climate treaty — which will replace Kyoto — will be hammered out a year from now in Copenhagen, Denmark.

              • Buck The Wala says:

                Increasing emissions only by 14% over 1990 levels is certainly laudable though I wouldn’t necessarily classify that as ‘reducing’ emissions. It all depends on how you look at it and from your starting point.

              • The UK achieved their cuts by expanding the use of natural gas power plants, which was a largely market driven move. Now, with the EPA declaring CO2 a pollutant, natural gas will likely be forced
                out of use in the US.

  53. Judy Sabatini says:

    Americans’ net worth up for 2nd straight quarter

    Americans got wealthier for a second straight quarter in the fall, as the economic recovery again boosted home values and investments.

    Net worth _ the value of assets such as homes, bank accounts and investments, minus debts like mortgages and credit cards _ rose 5 percent from the second quarter to $53.4 trillion, the Federal Reserve said Thursday.

    Even with the gain, Americans’ net worth remains far below the peak of $65.3 trillion reached before the recession began, underscoring the vast loss of wealth over the past two years. Their net worth would need to rise an additional 22 percent just to return to its pre-recession peak.

    Investments provided the biggest boost in the July-September period. The value of corporate equities jumped $1.04 trillion, slightly less than the previous quarter’s rise.

    That increase mirrored the stock market’s powerful showing. The Standard & Poor’s 500 index, a barometer of the market, rose 15 percent during the third quarter. But it still remained 32 percent off the peak of October 2007.

    And stocks’ lofty performance isn’t expected to be duplicated any time soon. Even with an additional 4 percent gain so far in the fourth quarter, the S&P index is still about 30 percent off its peak.

  54. Judy Sabatini says:
  55. Judy Sabatini says:

    Hey, where’s everybody at? Nobody talking about anything today?

    Whoever is out there, hope you’re having a good day.

    • Bottom Line says:

      I’m here.

      Been postin’ above.(#37)

      Hope yer havin’ a good day too, Judy.

    • Waking up at the start of the end of the world,
      But it’s feeling just like every other morning before,
      Now I wonder what my life is going to mean if it’s gone,
      The cars are moving like a half a mile an hour
      And I started staring at the passengers who’re waving goodbye
      Can you tell me what was ever really special about me all this time?

      I believe the world is burning to the ground
      Oh well I guess we’re gonna find out


      Let’s see how far we’ve come
      Let’s see how far we’ve come
      Well I believe it all is coming to an end
      Oh well, I guess, we’re gonna pretend,
      Let’s see how far we’ve come
      Let’s see how far we’ve come

      I think it turned ten o’clock but I don’t really know
      And I can’t remember caring for an hour or so
      Started crying and I couldn’t stop myself
      I started running but there’s no where to run to
      I sat down on the street took a look at myself
      Said where you going man you know the world is headed for hell
      Say your goodbyes if you’ve got someone you can say goodbye to

      I believe the world is burning to the ground
      Oh well I guess we’re gonna find out
      Let’s see how far we’ve come
      Let’s see how far we’ve come

      Well I, believe, it all, is coming to an end
      Oh well, I guess, we’re gonna pretend,
      Let’s see how far we’ve come
      Let’s see how far we’ve come

      It’s gone, gone, baby, it’s all gone
      There is no one on the corner and there’s no one at home
      It was cool cool, it was just all cool
      Now it’s over for me and it’s over for you
      Well it’s gone, gone, baby, it’s all gone
      There is no one on the corner and there’s no one at home
      Well it was cool cool, it was just all cool
      Now it’s over for me and it’s over for you

      I believe the world is burning to the ground
      Oh well I guess we’re gonna find out
      Let’s see how far we’ve come
      Let’s see how far we’ve come
      Well I, believe, it all, is coming to an end
      Oh well, I guess, we’re gonna pretend,
      Let’s see how far we’ve come
      Let’s see how far we’ve come
      Let’s see how far we’ve come
      Let’s see how far we’ve come
      Let’s see how far we’ve come
      Let’s see how far we’ve come
      Let’s see how far we’ve come
      Let’s see how far we’ve come
      Let’s see how far we’ve come

  56. Hi Ya’ll!

    Today, as you all know, Obama accepted the Nobel Peace Prize, for what I do not know.

    In accordance with the left leaning desires for fairness, I believe their Lefty, Socialist, Democrat Fairness Doctrine would be required to give an award of similiar stature to a deserving person.

    I hereby, on behalf of anyone who cares, nominate a great person, a famed golfer, Tiger Woods for the award of Nobel PIECE Prize. 🙂


  57. Judy Sabatini says:

    Question. How can there be global warming when so many states are being hit with snow and bad weather, winds, huge waves in Hawaii, and really bad rains everywhere? Doesn’t the earth just go through cycles and the weather is constantly changing?

  58. Tex

    I take it that the majority of those who are regulars here understand your philosophy on the type of society and government you desire BF.I am in agreement myself with the majority of your concepts.How to get from point A to B is where we have no working strategy to succeed.

    My question to you is how do we get there without violence when as you already know there will definitely be those willing to become the next Lenin with their ideals being the exact opposite of what we desire.

    We need to seize the high ground and discuss the evil and the good of our civilization and its basic cores.

    In the mean time, here are some things we need to seriously consider (some of this from the “Fourth Turning”):

    – Prepare values: Forge the consensus and uplift the culture, but don’t expect near-term results.

    – Prepare institutions: Clear the debris and find out what works, but don’t try building anything big.

    – Prepare politics: Define challenges bluntly and stress true rights and freedom, but don’t attempt reforms that can’t now be accomplished.

    – Prepare society: Require community teamwork to solve local problems, but don’t try this on a national scale.

    – Prepare youth: Treat children as our highest priority, but don’t do their work for them.

    – Prepare elders: Tell future elders they will need to be more self-sufficient, but don’t attempt deep cuts in benefits to current elders.

    – Prepare the economy: Correct fundamentals, but don’t try to fine tune current performance.

    – Prepare the defense: Expect the worst and prepare to mobilize, but don’t pre-commit to any one response.

    Needless to say, none of this is happening. Our culture is radically segmented. No one knows the name of his neighbors two houses away. There is no community.

    What, specifically, do they recommend that we do as individuals?

    Rectify: Return to the classic virtues.

    Converge: Heed emerging community norms.

    Bond: Build personal relationships of all kinds.

    Gather: Prepare yourself (and your children) for teamwork.

    Root: Look to your family for support.

    Brace: Gird for the weakening or collapse of public support mechanisms. Hedge: Diversify everything you do.

    This is a good but it is expensive. It also means we have to ignore and end our involvement with prevailing systems.

    They go way beyond their evidence in this assessment:

    The next Fourth Turning could mark the end of man. It could be an omnicidal Armageddon, destroying everything, leaving nothing.

    The Fourth Turning could mark the end of modernity.

    The Fourth Turning could spare modernity but mark the end of our nation.

    Or the Fourth Turning could simply mark the end of the Millennial Saeculum. Mankind, modernity, and America would all persevere. Afterward, there would be a new High.

    I think #3 is likely, and #4 a possibility.

    The problem is that we have built our lives and our institutions in terms of the presumption of an ever-increasing ability of government solutions. Our future, however, requires the following (my list):

    A private property order and total disrespect of all forms of theft and killing of innocent lives.

    A reliable currency system – whether it centralized (our worse choice, but better than unreliability) or free market (our best choice, albeit nearly zero chance of occurring today).

    A high rate of saving – restore the capitalization of the economy to real terms.

    Future orientation – stop living for ourselves and return to the values of preparing a better world for our children.

    Faith in freedom – without freedom, everything else is lost.

    Widespread trust – when one can no longer depend on beating up immoral men, trust in our dealings will become a significant requirement.

    It also means we – ourselves, today – have to become far most trust worthy – right now.

    This will pay huge dividends in the near future as confusion ripples through our society, the natural tendency will be for people to cling to those that have clear sight, and strong moral principles. With an immutable bedrock of prinicples, it has always been these men and women who have carried the heaviest load of society through uncertain waters.

    Bu, right now, we are losing every one of these faiths. We are losing all of these.

    We must do what we can to establish local relationships. In a crisis, these will be the basis of our safety.

    A safe place is where such relationships are increasing.

    Geography affects this, but it is not central.

    In a crisis, most people will pull together locally.

    Getting that head start will help, and will be profitable as well.

    Remember, the feudal system was created when the desperate ceded their property and their lives to the ones who were prepared to accept them. I do not suggest we create a feudal system – but we must be aware that this can happen as easily as anything else. I would rather be a king than a vassal.

    • Howdy Mr. Flag!

      I like your list. The hardest part I see in is the “trust” ideas. They will be the hardest to overcome. I must say that I’m not a very trusting person, and I feel you are very similiar. That would pose a short term problem, even in small communities. It’s also something I need to work on personnally, I think?!?

      Hope you are well today. I’m learning the art of Texas Hold’em, fun game! 🙂


      • On a happy note, my Dad and daughter harvested deer today. That’s three on the shelf!!! I love it when a plan works out. 😎

    • Ahhhh…The future is only the past again, entered through another gate.

      So forewarned is forearmed then?

      • The gate known as government stupidity is a revolving door that never seems to stop moving, and we keep get pushed through it despite our objections. 😡

  59. From a blog:

    My Son’s Encounter With Government-Regulated Healthcare and the Drug War. What Saved Him Was His Death.

    My adult son suffered from an undiagnosed and fatal affliction. No physician knew what it was, so we did not know it was fatal until the day the police discovered him dead in his apartment. He was still on his feet.

    How was this possible? Because he had fallen face-down in the kitchen sink. He had walked over to the sink. A seizure killed him, as far as we know. He had no warning.

    Hhis symptoms began with tingling in his heels. Over the next four years, the tinglings turned into spasms. The limited zone of affliction kept going higher as the months went on until the spasms entered his skull. His eyes would flutter — not his eyelids: his eyes. Finally, the condition killed him.

    Because of the drug laws in this country, he was repeatedly told by physicians that he was faking his symptoms, that he was just after drugs. They would not treat him. One vicious female stood in front of a room full of patients and announced: “You’re just after drugs.” My wife told me that later. I am not one for suing, but in retrospect, we should have taken that harpy before the medical ethics (an oxymoron, I know) commission.

    One physician gave him a drug that had a little effect in stopping the spasms. When my wife called for a refill, the phone lady went to the physician. She came back: “Your son is not a patient any longer.”

    The existing system is callous and morally corrupt. This is what state coercion has produced. It is going to get much worse.

    The drug laws pressure users to lie to physicians, who have a monopoly over writing prescriptions. So, physicians are afraid of lawsuits for supplying illegal drugs. They train themselves to be callous. They sent my son to his death without a twinge of concern.

    Only one physician tried to help him. He does not take government money or third-party insurance payments. It’s a pure fee-for-service arrangement. He was my wife’s physician. He is as far outside the medical establishment as he can be and not lose his license from the state.

    My son was at the library and suffered a collapse. Someone called the emergency ambulance. They were loading him onto the gurney when he recovered, he later told us. They told him they were taking him to the hospital. He consented. That was a big mistake. The bill would be huge.

    At the hospital, they ran him through tests. He naively consented. They gave him a CAT scan. They said he was fine.

    To get his clothes back, some non-medical employee told him he had to sign a release form. There is no such requirement to get your clothes. When he signed, he accepted the bill. After that, it was all hearsay as to why he had to sign.

    He had no insurance. The bill was large enough that he could not pay it. Had he refused to sign the papers, they would have had to negotiate a price. Once you sign, the hospital can charge pretty much what it wants to. Suckers pay. Wise people hire lawyers and negotiate.

    On the day of his funeral, I was driving. My wife had his cell phone. The phone rang. It was the bill collector at the hospital. I heard my wife’s side of the conversation. She explained that he was dead and that she was on her way to his funeral. Then she said, “I do not know.” She hung up.

    She told me what the woman had said when she heard that we were on the way to his funeral. “Who’s going to pay this bill?”

    The public hates the system. The public does not understand that physicians will be squeezed by government health care and insurance. This will lead to rationing and bureaucratic care. But the public’s anger over the system is beyond the political point of no return.

    The public knows that the present health care system is corrupt. Voters don’t know the half of it. This is a system in which hospitals send inflated bills to families without insurance coverage, while letting the indigent in for free and negotiating with insurance companies and lawyers.

    The system is corrupt. It is going to be made even more corrupt, with worse service, by endless government meddling and rationing.

    It all began with John D. Rockefeller and Abraham Flexner in 1910.

    Flexner was not a physician. He was an educational reformer. The Flexner Report promoted state-licensed medical schools to control the supply of physicians. The report persuaded state governments to regulate medicine and medical schools.

    The system gave physicians an oligopoly: control over rival practitioners.

    Nye Bevan was in charge of setting up he National Health Service in Britain.

    In 1948, the first NHS hospital opened. He was asked how he got Britain’s medical association to consent to the National Health Service. He said he persuaded the leadership. He replied: “I stuffed their mouths with gold.”

    That is what Flexner offered physicians. They took the bait. They walked into the trap. There is now no escape.

    Like Esau, the medical guild sold its birthright for a mess of pottage. The government promised to control the supply of entrants, giving those who go through the hoops an oligopoly. The hoops are now nooses.

    If you take the government’s nickel, you also take its noose.

    I offer this advice to young adults: Do not go to medical school.

    I offer the rest of you this advice: Do not get sick

  60. Buck,

    I’m a firm believer that anything that is said to be a bad thing, must be proven beyond any doubt. We could debate all night about CO2 and all the scientists models and ClimateGate and all that, but that would be senseless at this point.

    So, let me toss a wrench in the fan and aim at the “consensus” on scientists who claim that they agree with AGW. First, if it is proven false, they are out of work. Self preservation hard at work. Here’s another scientific experiment that could undermine the facts, which are being highly disputed anyway.


    This, combined with all the stolen e-mails and codes, is interesting. I ask, if this were a crimnal trial where they must prove beyond a shadow of doubt that CO2 is causing AGW, could they?


    • Buck The Wala says:

      I’ve actually read up on that conformity study before. Psychology is very fascinating stuff. My personal favorite is the Milgram experiment where people would keep on shocking another given a doctor’s directive despite the ‘patient’ screaming in pain. In actuality of course, the shock did nothing and the ‘patient’ was in on it. Can’t replicate these studies anymore as they were found to have a negative psychological impact on the participants who really believed they were shocking someone!

      Back to the Asch study though: Not really applicable here. With climate change you have literally hundreds of thousands of studies demonstrating that there is such a phenomenon as global warming and that humans are having a real impact. These studies are backed up by independent research and analysis. Results are debated and replicated. The scientific process at work.

      Just to touch on ‘climategate’ a bit more – this does not rise to the level of showing a hoax. Yes, it is interesting and there may well be something going on with these emails and codes. But nothing in these emails indicates there is a worldwide hoax being led by the evil scientists who are scared to lose their jobs. I kid of course! But in all seriousness, these emails do raise important questions. But remember, they do not show that there is a hoax, nor prove that there is no such thing as global warming. Instead of focusing on these emails, if we were to have a debate (which I agree is pointless right now) we should be focusing on the studies themselves.

      • One study I looked at was on temperature depressions and spikes. It has been posted above, but from memory, the earth cooled for two years, rather quickly, after the eruption of Mt. Pinotubo. Then there was the spike in the late nineties (Al Gores favorite time of his life, LOL), but science attributed the spike to El Nino. When El Nino ended, the temp dropped and has not risen since. IMHO, every temp depression or spike can be attributed to a natural occuring event that occured or was occuring at that time in history. The spike in 1998 has not been repeated, which leaves the logical theory man is NOT causing AGW.

        I know, AGW also caused the end of the ICE AGE too!

        PEACE my friend!


      • But, Buck, there is no global warming for over 10 years. So what kind of “proof” can there be? None, of course. If your ‘proof’ disappears, so does your theory.


        It is not uncommon for the consensus science to be horribly wrong.

        Alfred Wegener was pilloried for his 1915 theory of plate tectonics. The overwhelming bulk of geophysics disputed his hypothesis.

        By 1960, geophysics found he was right.

        • Buck The Wala says:

          “There is no global warming for over 10 years.”

          But BF, it all depends on your starting point as I’m sure you would agree. I can cherry pick any 10-year period I want to ‘prove’ my view.


          With that, I’m heading home for the night. Have a good one all!

          • I use exactly the same claim as the AGW – look back at the last decade.

            They did that to ‘prove’ Global Warming.

            I look back to the last 10 years, and *whoa* Global Cooling!

            But your point is correct – where do we start?

            If we start on geological time scale, 100,000 years, we are going down deep back into an ice age.

            If we start on a super-geological time scale, 500,000 we are in the middle of a huge global warming.

            If we start in 1970 we are in global warming.

            If we start in 1940 we are in global cooling.

            If we start at Medieval Warming we are in global cooling.

            If we start in the 1800 Little Ice Age we are in global warming.

            But all of this is wholly independent of man’s actions.

            The only action we’ve done is place the start of the graph – and as you note, what does that prove?

            Another point to is the scale. If we magnifiy the scale say bottom line is -1C and top line is +1C, a tenth of a degree change looks HUGE!

            But if we use the kelvin scale, with bottom line 0K and top line +50C above 1,000 year average – the line is, well, nearly perfectly straight.

    • G!, good point.

      We know global warming does occur. It is a fact. So is global cooling.
      Think about ice ages and which sounds better? What we do not know is how much mankind is affecting the worlds temperature. But to debate global warming/cooling, you have to include our heat source, the sun. The sun has its own “weather”, and when it is “stormy”, the earth is hotter. When, like now, we experience a minimum period, it gets colder.

      There are reasonable measures we can take to reduce our emission, but there always seems to be opposition to ANY proposals. Coal is bad, can we move toward natural gas? Methane being released from pockets under the ocean is a huge factor in greenhouse gases. Would it not be better to capture it and convert it to CO2 than allow it out in its more harmful form?

      Would nuclear power not also be better, especially using re-processing?

      The sad fact is the environmentalists will block any proposals for power plants, except closing them. And that may be good for the environment, but its not good for people, the economy, or our nation.


      Solar energy firm drops plan for project in Mojave Desert
      BrightSource Energy’s decision ends a battle with environmentalists over a 5,130-acre site in a proposed national monument.
      September 18, 2009|Louis Sahagun

      Ending a bitter feud in the rush to develop solar farms, BrightSource Energy Inc. on Thursday said it had scrapped a controversial plan to build a renewable energy facility in the eastern Mojave Desert wilderness that Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) wants to transform into a national monument.

      The proposal pitted companies queuing up to replace imported oil and facilitate a national clean-energy economy against environmentalists strongly opposed to the idea of creating an industrial zone within 600,000 acres of former railroad lands that had been donated to the Department of Interior for conservation.

  61. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/10/AR2009121002575.html

    Pelosi to propose raising national debt ceiling
    Legislation to be included in defense spending bill headed to floor

    By Lori Montgomery
    Washington Post Staff Writer
    Thursday, December 10, 2009; 4:05 PM

    With the national debt projected to soar by nearly $1.4 trillion this year, congressional Democrats are planning a year-end push to dramatically increase the legal debt limit so they don’t have to revisit the politically uncomfortable issue in 2010, when they will face voters in November.

    House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Thursday that she would include legislation to raise the debt ceiling in a must-pass defense spending bill headed to the floor of her chamber next week. “We need to have a vehicle so that the Senate can vote on it, and it is our intention to have something on the Department of Defense bill,” Pelosi told reporters at her weekly news conference.

    House leaders have yet to settle on how much to raise the debt ceiling, now at $12.1 trillion. Numbers as high as an additional $1.925 trillion are under discussion. Federal borrowing is rapidly approaching the debt limit, and Treasury officials have informed congressional leaders that they must raise the cap before New Year’s Eve or risk running out of money to make Social Security and veterans’ payments in early January.

    • Well I don’t know about the rest of ya’ll, but my memory of what these bastards are doing right now will stretch far, far past 2010, or even 2012.

      • Esom,

        You is back!!! Good to hear from ya again, not the same without ya.
        No, I will not forget either.

        I have a liberal cousin that was willing to discuss issues before the election. Very silent now.

      • Judy Sabatini says:

        HEYYYYYYYYY! Esom Welcome back. Miss you these past few weeks. Hope you’re doing well. Hope to see you around here more often.



          1. A day without sunshine is like night.

          2. On the other hand, you have different fingers.

          3. 42.7 percent of all statistics are made up on the spot.

          4. 99 percent of lawyers give the rest a bad name

          5. Remember, half the people you know are below average.

          6. He who laughs last, thinks slowest.

          7. Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm.

          8. The early bird may get the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese
          in the trap.

          9. Support bacteria. They’re the only culture some people have.

          10. A clear conscience is usually the sign of a bad memory.

          11. Change is inevitable, except from vending machines.

          12. If you think nobody cares, try missing a couple of payments.

          13. How many of you believe in psycho-kinesis? Raise my hand.

          14. OK, so what’s the speed of dark?

          15. When everything is coming your way, you’re in the wrong lane.

          16. Hard work pays off in the future. Laziness pays off now.

          17. How much deeper would the ocean be without sponges?

          18. Eagles may soar, but weasels don’t get sucked into jet engines

          19. What happens if you get scared half to death, twice?

          20. Why do psychics have to ask you for your name?

          21. Inside every older person is a younger person wondering, “What the
          hell happened?”

          22. Just remember — if the world didn’t suck, we would all fall off.

          23. Light travels faster than sound. That’s why some people appear bright
          until you hear them speak.

          24. Life isn’t like a box of chocolates . . it’s more like a jar of jalapenos. What you do today, might burn your butt tomorrow.

        • Bad, very bad, no one should read this,

          A doctor had the reputation of helping couples increase the joy in their sex life, but always promised not to take a case if he felt he could not help them.

          >The Browns came to see the doctor, and he gave them thorough physical exams, psychological exams, and various tests and then concluded, ”Yes, I am happy to say that I believe I can help you.

          On your way home from my office stop at the grocery store and buy some grapes and some doughnuts. Go home, take off your clothes, and you, sir, roll the grapes across the floor until you make a bulls eye in your wife’s love canal. Then on hands and knees you must crawl to her like a leopard and retrieve the grape using only your tongue.”

          >He continued, ”Then next, ma’am, you must take the doughnuts and from across the room, toss them at your husband until you make a ringer around his love pole. Then like a lioness, you must crawl to him and consume the doughnut.”

          >The couple went home and their sex life became more and more wonderful. They told their friends, Mr. & Mrs. Green that they should see the good doctor. The doctor greeted the Greens and said he would not take the case unless he
          felt that he could help them; so he conducted the physical exams and the same battery of tests. Then he told the Greens the bad news. ”I cannot help you, so I will not take your money. I believe your sex life is as good as it will ever be, I cannot help.”

          >The Greens pleaded with him, and said, ”You helped our friends the Browns, now please, please help us.

          >”Ok, go to the store and buy some apples and a box of Cheerios…”

        • >When I was 14, I hoped that one day I would have a girlfriend.
          >When I was 16 I got a girlfriend, but there was no passion, so I decided I needed a passionate girl with a zest for life.
          >In college I dated a passionate girl, but she was too emotional.
          >Everything was an emergency; she was a drama queen, cried all the time, and threatened suicide. So I decided I needed a girl with stability.
          >When I was 25 I found a very stable girl but she was boring. She was totally predictable and never got excited about anything. Life became so dull that I decided that I needed a girl with some excitement.
          >When I was 28 I found an exciting girl, but I couldn’t keep up with her. She rushed from one thing to another, never settling on anything. She did mad impetuous things and made me miserable as often as happy. She was great fun initially and very energetic, but directionless.
          >So I decided to find a girl with some real ambition.
          >When I turned 31, I found a smart ambitious girl with her feet planted firmly on the ground and married her. She was so ambitious that she divorced me and took everything I owned.
          >I am now older and wiser, and am looking for a girl with big tits.

      • Cowboy

        A tough old cowboy from Denton, Texas, counseled his grandson that if he wanted to live a long life, the secret was to sprinkle a pinch
        of gun powder on his oatmeal every morning.
        > >
        The grandson did this religiously to the age of 103. When he died,
        he left 14 children, 30 grandchildren, 45 great grandchildren, 25
        great-great grand children, and a 15 foot hole where the crematorium
        used to be.

        Nite all.

  62. http://cbs2chicago.com/local/streeterville.condo.fire.2.1361275.html

    I wonder if there are people running around yelling “its going to collapse!!”

  63. Former BOE Official Buiter Says Greece May Be First EU Default


    …and we thought Dubai was bad….

  64. v. Holland says:

  65. Judy Sabatini says:

  66. Judy Sabatini says:

    Good night everybody & see you here hopefully tomorrow.

    Love you all


%d bloggers like this: