2010-2-3 11:29:00
"One_Full_Case" writes:
"But there is such unwarranted, fervent hatred for a man of a certain race by folks of a different race, followed by such hysterical denial. That really makes one wonder."
JJ:
That's when the Left uses the race card -- when it's not about race and they are losing. Then they use the race card and make it about race when the Right is not even thinking about race. What does that tell you about the true seat of racism?
"CalvinJones" writes:
"If the tea monkeys are truly against big government why not protest at the gates of Gowen Field or Mountain Home AFB [Air Force Base]? Defense is the biggest drain on the budget and the driving force behind the national debt. Why are they not in Eagle [Idaho] to protest public option insurance for waterfront property owners?"
JJ:
The Right has always supported a strong defense and willing to pay whatever necessary to preserve freedom. All else we want as small as possible. This should be learned in "Politics 101" but most lefties have only progressed to "Politics 100.01."
"Robbo" writes:
"So what you're saying is, deficit spending is okay as long it's something you support? Handing billions of dollars over to Haliburton, Blackwater and KBR is alright with you?"
JJ:
Sounds like if you had your way we'd have no military at all as if we would be secure because the whole world loves us and would leave us alone if we would just be like the Amish. And to think the Left has the gall to accuse the Right of being below the threshold in the mental department.
"Robbo":
"Nice ASSumption. Where did I say I wanted no military? I have several family and friends who have been and are in the military and many live at or below the poverty level. I'd like to see the wasteful spending be reigned in. What do you have against our military personnel?"
JJ:
You sure had me fooled. You really sounded like you were criticizing me for supporting the military and spending any money on defense. What were you trying to do if not that?
"JackBrown" wrote:
"I think you miss the point JJ. The Lefties are not necessarily attacking Sarah's intelligence, instead her followers lack thereof."
JJ:
Then go ahead attack my intelligence. Getting the best of a Lefty in a debate is just too easy -- like shooting carp in a barrel.
"Rancher" wrote:
"We must keep Scott Brown in our prayers. He has been doing very well...."
JJ:
Amen Brother!
"Manikin" wrote:
"Can you please show me some examples of what you consider 'points of logic and reason' that the 'lefties' are so inclined to disregard?"
JJ:
I could write a book on this subject:
I could go on and on and on...
"AlDentePickles" wrote:
"I will keep repeating: THE ECONOMY COLLAPSED BEFORE THE ELECTION OF OBAMA. The stimulus has saved 2 million jobs that would have been lost and has now slowed the rate of unemployment to near zero. The process of recovery will be long because it took decades to get so bad."
JJ:
Two two million jobs is wishful thinking and cannot be proven. What can be proven is that the unemployment rate went from 8 percent to 10 percent when Obama said his plan would keep it at below 8 percent. The guy on the street is realizing the truth and this is why Scott Brown is THE NEW REPUBLICAN SENATOR OF MASSACHUSETTS!!!!
"AlDentePickles":
"Well, the plan has kept unemployment from reaching 30 percent which is what happened during the Great Depression. When ignorant people stopped deficit spending insuring the Great Depression they made it last for 11 years. Is that what conservatives want? Bunch of morons."
JJ:
Why stop at 30 percent? Maybe it would be 50 percent! On the other hand, if Obama did nothing it might only be 7 percent now. After the stock market crash in 1987 we were able to bounce back without taking extraordinary measures. There's no reason couldn't have done it this time.
JJ:
(This is a comment after reading a very short article in the Idaho Statesman newspaper about Scott Brown's victory in Massachusetts.)
The Headline should read: "Republican scores major upset in Massachusetts," with the congratulations from Obama as an after thought. Then instead of a short bulletin board story there should be a couple thousand words giving the real story behind the victory. Since this is the first story in the [Idaho] Statesman regarding the upset that many of us already knew was coming they should do some makeup writing to update the liberal readers who watch or read the censored news.
I suppose we can't blame the Statesman here if this is all they received from the Associated Press, but this is one of the big political stories of the decade.
"Niels" writes:
"The spent fuel can (from nuclear reactors) be contained safely for a time, but we have no technology to render it harmless."
JJ:
This is incorrect.
It would be rendered harmless if it was stored at Yucca mountain under a couple thousand feet of rock, but who put a stop to this plan? Good ole Obama. Now instead of being stored at one secure location we must keep the waste stored in shallow ground at over 100 locations. Insane.
The best solution is to use Integral Fast Reactors that can recycle all the waste so we don't even have to store it long term. Carter and Clinton killed development on this, but fortunately France is working on it.
JJ:
Finally, the Scott Brown story is big enough that it has to be covered by all the media. Now even the hard core Left will be informed about what is really happening. It has been a big but ignored story that the polls have shown for a while now that Brown would score a major upset.
It's too bad that "Climate Gate" never reached this point of tension. There are still a lot of media who have massively ignored this huge story -- or just mentioned it in passing.
"TWall" writes:
"I guess racial profiling (at airports) would have been great for the likes of [Timothy] McVeigh."
JJ:
Who's talking about racial profiling? There are a lot of profiling parameters that do not include race. The Israelis have used very successful tactics for years.
On thing we should do is create fast passes for frequent flyers. Anyone could apply for one (regardless of race, religion, etc.). The applicant would be thoroughly investigated and then if he has a low probability of creating a problem he is given a special pass that lets him immediately through the screeners. This would save enormous time and frustration and allow screeners to spend their time more profitably.
"ThoughtsThruTheWire" writes:
"Not that I am a fan of Obama or any politician, what I do hate more is people who lie, tell half truth or out and out post 'BS.' It was Reid who blocked Yucca Mtn. Get yer facts straight."
JJ:
You are making a feeble attempt to point out a mistake, but instead of accusing me of a mistake you make a giant flying leap and accuse me of being a liar. I do not appreciate this and will not return in kind. Instead of accusing you of being a liar I will merely point out your mistake:
Here is a quote from "US News & World Report":
"Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid reports in a message to Nevadans that President Obama has ended the government's bid to store nuclear waste in Yucca Mountain and that instead, Obama will try to come up with another plan."
http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/washington-whispers/2009/02/26/reid-celebrat\ es-obamas-yucca-mountain-decision.html
I also heard on television from Obama's own lips that he was taking credit for closing Yucca Mt.
Chris Doyle writes:
"The factual charts that NASA provides with a simple Google search that shows the proof of global warming."
JJ:
WRONG!
The NASA data shows we have entered a global cooling era and that recent global warming peaked in 1998. 2008 was quite cool, colder than 1881 and 2009 was cool also, over a degree cooler than 1998. Take a look at the NASA data for yourself:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt
It is true that the orthodox media have dragged their feet on covering Climate Gate. ABC, CBS and NBC took about three weeks to mention it on air, but all have now at least mentioned it and cannot refute the damming evidence. Here's a good liberal source:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/ 6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of- our-generation.html
The leaked emails reveal a manipulation of the data. Other sources reveal that decades of data have been trashed so we have to take IPCC's word that it is accurate.
Now on top of all this, researchers are finding numerous glaring errors in the IPCC report on which global warming theory is based.
One fantastic one is the prediction that the Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035. Real research indicates this is at least 300 years off and the date was lifted from a spurious magazine article with no research to back it up. The IPCC report also stated that the glaciers cover 500,000 square miles when the true amount is around 33,000.
Glaring errors are starting to awaken scientists so they are actually reading the IPCC report to see what other errors are there. This is good since we are contributing billions toward this research and possible trillions toward fighting climate change.
Doyle makes the mistake of most global warming groupies in that he thinks any warming is an all or nothing result of human induced CO2 as if cyclic change has come to a standstill. This is silly. The problem is that he can produce no formula that proves the amount of change that is caused by human induced CO2.
Every thinker realizes CO2 has some effect, but skeptics say it is small, 25 percent at most. The alarmists take the unscientific view that human activities are 100 percent responsible for climate change. At least that's the way they word their declarations. They use absolute statements like "Global warming is anthropogenically driven."
This all or nothing mentality is crazy talk right out of the Middle Ages playbook.
An unidentified reader responded with:
"You provided a link for US surface air temperatures to try to show there has been no upward trend in global temperature over the last century. You say 'Take a look at he NASA data for yourself'. Let's - Here it is, this time for the entire world, not just the USA."
JJ:
Please argue with what I do say, not with what I do not say. I stated that there has been no warming since 1998, NOT "over the last century" a statement you fabricated. I have acknowledged many times on this forum that there has been some warming over the last century.
"Rac10s4me":
"And what about Bill Gates? He is giving back...a lot. Just what are these big CEOs giving back? Can you site any who think of someone else besides themselves? Bill does not try to control. Exxon and others are."
JJ:
Exxon isn't doing anything to control me, but Congress sure as the dickens is trying.
Thank God for Scott Brown who stopped tyranny in its tracks.
"GrayMatter":
"Creepy politician worship again. Just creepy."
JJ:
Yes, I agree. Scott's win does creep out the Left. Just wait 'till November then there will be violent shakings and upsets of many nervous systems. Perhaps new illnesses will appear, but only in Lefties.
"GrayMatter":
"Example of bad press from nude photos: Vanessa Williams losing her Miss America title.
"The Miss America pageant has higher standards than our Senate?"
JJ:
Yet Vanessa went on to become a film star and become perhaps the most famous Miss America in history. Unlike Vanessa, however, Scott did not show everything. You can see the picture here:
http://www.cosmopolitan.com/cm/cosmopolitan/images /Ti/Scott-Brown-new3.jpg
I'd say the nude photos helped both her and Scott Brown. But before you Lefties here get any ideas remember that one has to have great looks to use this angle.
"GrayMatter" wrote:
"You must argue with what I say, not with what I don't say.
"I said nude photos caused her to lose her Miss America title, not that she was unsuccessful in life."
JJ:
I always argue with what you say. In this case I was not arguing that it did not hurt her in the Miss America title, but that it helped her career in the long run. If this is in harmony with your thinking then I am working on what you say and think.
"GrayMatter":
"Are skeptics all belonging to an altruistic based group with a single coherent message? Your complete bias shows as many of the skeptics put man's contribution at zero percent and say there is no climate change."
JJ:
That so?
Where is any recognized skeptic who says this? I do not know of a single person on earth who says there is no climate change.
"GrayMatter":
"If you were attempting to be neutral or fair or honest, you would cite both extremes."
JJ:
I can't find anyone on the Right who says there is no climate change. There are a few who say there is no global warming, but they are usually referring to recent trends.
In almost every story you read that talks about human caused global warming the point is presented as if humans are the only cause. Cyclic trends are rarely mentioned.
I do agree with you, however that there are extremists on both sides that refuse to examine the data and incorporate it.
JJ:
Thanks "Larnewoman" for providing me with NASA's worldwide temperature data. I did not have this on file and am glad to have it.
I am surprised with how much the global temperatures deviate from the USA temperatures in warming. I am more than a little suspicious of the accuracy here as 2009 is supposed to be one of our warmest years yet we have had record breaking cold temperatures all over the world.
These are land-based measurements, which often catch city heat and are at variance with the satellite data which can be found here:
http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/UAHMSUglobe-m.html
It also sounds like the graphs you cite have not used the data from the most accurate new Argo System for measuring ocean temperature since 2003, which shows a cooling trend. This is significant since the oceans are responsible for up to 90% of temperature change.
Here is a liberal reference:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88520025
And a conservative one:
http://blog.drwile.com/?p=239
Overall, there is a lot of evidence that we may be entering a cooling period, but no one knows for sure what the future will bring.
In 1990 the main global warming spokesman from NASA, James Hansen, predicted a 0.3 degree "C" temperature rise per decade and he was way off on this and other items.
http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/5581
"Hogwash":
"Hold on right there 'Larnewoman'! Don't confuse Joe [JJ] with the facts. the USA isn't the center of the universe! Repent Heathen!"
JJ:
Take a look at the additional facts I gave. They will really confuse you.
"Webfoot":
(Writing sarcastically.) "Evolution is wrong because we haven't found every, single fossil."
"Climate Change is a hoax because some data was falsified, some needs correction and it was really cold in Minneapolis last week."
JJ:
Evolution is a totally different argument, which I basically accept, though there are gaps in the puzzle. When the picture is put together we will all be proven somewhat wrong.
The problem isn't so simplistic as the temperature in Minneapolis but in 2009 there were record setting low temperatures all over the world.
Lefties do their best to project the idea that skeptics see climate change itself as a hoax. This is completely false. They refuse to identify that which we see as the real hoax which is this:
The hoax is that we need to spend trillions to make a difference and the trillions spent will do little or nothing. There is where the hoax lies and because money is involved Lefties misdirect by trying to falsely portray skeptics as flat earthers.
Quoting JJ, "Webfoot, " first wrote:
"'Joseph732': The problem isn't so simplistic as the temperature in Minneapolis....'
"Webfoot, " then wrote:
"Allow me some tongue-in-cheek as I have little interest in trying to win any arguments, let alone ad hominems.
"Despite popular belief, science is not exact. Good science is the discipline of...."
JJ:
The skeptics are trying to prove anything wrong in various theories that doesn't make sense. On the other hand, the global warmers are very ideological and have a fit if anyone even questions their paradigm. If they were on solid footing they would welcome questioning.
"GrayMatter":
"Joseph: You say you: know of no person on earth who denies climate change.
"Again, in your zeal to attempt to make a point, you prove absolutes are never the correct answer.
"Your claim of man made climate consensus being at 25 percent doesn't seem to hold much truth.
"Maybe you can provide. Your source."
JJ:
Show me a statement where any of skeptics say there is no such thing as climate change. I have seen nothing of the sort from any of them.
"GrayMatter":
"NPR is not a liberal source."
JJ:
And pigs fly.
"Larnewoman":
"A climate change skeptic's definition of the onset of an ice age:
"'A new analysis of global surface temperatures by NASA scientists finds the past year was tied for the second warmest since 1880. In the Southern Hemisphere, 2009 was the warmest year on record.'"
JJ:
According to the site you gave the temperature has only risen 0.8 degrees "C" since 1880. That's nothing unusual in the scheme of things. We are lucky it didn't go down instead or there would be a lot more starvation on the planet than is presently the case.
"GrayMatter":
"Why didn't you produce evidence for your 25% claim? Waiting...
" http://www.progressillinois.com/2009/11/5/gop-manmade-global-warming
" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Inhofe
" http://www.ecorazzi.com/2010/01/12/rolling-stone-covers- enemies-of-climate-change "
JJ:
There are no quotes there that prove skeptics deny climate change. On the contrary James Inhofe says "the climate is changing" in one of your references. Different scientists have different theories on the percentage of influence from humans. Some figure as low as 5 percent others as high as 50 percent with 25 percent being in the typical ballpark.
Copyright © 2010 by J.J. Dewey, All Rights Reserved