Friday, May 13, 2011

News Story Feels Unfair

The Journal Times has an uncanny knack for finding the sympathetic illegal alien like Christian, who "feels" it is unfair that he won't get a tuition subsidy to UW Parkside if Republicans get their way.

I am still waiting for the article featuring a hard working American citizen from, say, Zion Illinois, who, through no fault of her own resides on the Illinois side of the border and must pay full fare at Parkside, and who "feels" that it is unfair that illegal aliens get a tuition subsidy while she does not.


Anonymous said...

Shouldnt retaining in-sate talent be a priority?

Denis Navratil said...

Not sure how a college subsidy retains talent. They can still leave after we have trained them and spent money on them.

Anonymous said...

Sort of like the "need" for more foreign scientists and engineers in the U.S. - every American MS or PhD candidate in science or engineering should be required to take a short course in how to say "you want fries with that" in several languages.

Anonymous said...

Its pretty simple. Subsidies are a tool to help wisconsin college bound students to stay in wisconsin as opposed to attending an out of state school.

Denis Navratil said...

Not so simple anon. We could subsidize the degree and then the student could leave the state and find work elsewhere.

Anonymous said...

Or stay in the state to work. Wisconsin is "open for business remember"

Sean Cranley said...

I don't understand. Since Ronald Reagan granted amnesty to illegal immigrants in the eighties it has been defacto federal policy to encourage, even recruit these folks to come here as a way to bust unions and depress wages and benefits for labor. Yet for all this service to your cause you meet them with naught but fear and derision.

Although I suppose if they get college degrees that would slow the race to the GOPster Corporate American Serfdom Project for Global Competitiveness. O.K. now I think I get the point.

Denis Navratil said...

Sean writes that he doesn't understand and then proceeds to demonstrate as much. It doesn't take an anti-illegal immigrant sentiment to recognize that illegal immigrants should not have greater access to subsidies than legal citizens. But leave it to Sean to embrace the illogical.

Anonymous said...

Sean has a good point maybe it was illogical for Reagan to start the US down that road in the first place.

Sean Cranley said...

Funny, I don't see where I took a position on the tuition issue. My point was to explain (in part) the "conservative" policies that brought them all here.

Another Con policy that acted more as a driver than an attractor is NAFTA. NAFTA dropped the price for corn so low it destroyed Mexico's traditional rural farm economy, driving the peasantry off the land, into the cities and eventually here.

People will do anything to feed themselves and their families. And word has it that they've developed ladder technology so it doesn't matter how many fences you build.

Of course you ain't seen nuthin yet. Just wait till the climate change induced heat and droughts expand the subtropical-latitude desert zones and wipe out Mexican agriculture all together. Ya'll gonna need millions o minutemen.

Anonymous said...

The tuition outrage is just the tip of the iceberg. I seem to remember a whole lot more awful legislation that came out of the Doyle admin. Like directing WHEDA to underwrite loans to same illegal aliens for home mortgages. Many of which were subsequently foreclosed on. No suprise to anyone, because it was bad public policy. All things equal, Libs have an inbred urge to screw the taxpayer. Amazing.

Anonymous said...

Anon 6:28 - this is what happens when you draw a bright line between your voting block and the people paying the bills.

Nemo said...

sean, buddy, you're back! I feared that the guys with the big nets got ya. Way to give them the slip!

I see you are still pestering the masses by trying to sell the flowers of Mann made global warming on blogs. Did someone kick you out of an airport?

I loved the last part of your 1:37 PM comment. Will these "Climate Refugees" be included in the 50,000,000 total predicted by the IPCC in 2005 to be jumping our borders in 2010? (They seem to have been off by a bit. Like 50,000,000.) Heh.

Sean Cranley said...

Actually what Doyle did with WHEDA was in May 2009 (after the foreclosure crisis caused by GOPster deregulation was in full swing) to help revitalize struggling neighborhoods by helping people buy houses that were ALREADY in forclosure:

If it wouldn't have been for the predatory loans of mortgage brokers like Countrywide made possible by GOPster Phil "Enron" Grahm we wouldn't have had a major crisis. For crying out load have you heard about these folks in Racine and Milwaukee who PAID their mortgage payment and are still losing their homes because the "Entrepreneurial" corporate crooks in the GOPster deregulated financial industry didn't pay off the prior mortgage holder with the proceeds.

Why aren't these criminals in prison? I'll tell you why. Because we now live in a kleptocracy. You can't trust anything anymore, the system is no longer working.

As for you Nemo, I've followed links to, and debunked enough of your crackpot conspiracy websites.

There is only one climate change model that really matters - increased CO2 + sunlight = increased heat. That is irrefutable. It's physics, Mr. "engineer".

All the rest (that you rely on) are just attempts to predict how that extra heat WILL manifest itself and how it WILL then affct us and our planet.

But you keep telling yourself over and over what your petro-masters have told you to believe. Because we all know that in the Cult of Con if you repeat a lie enough times it becomes the reality you so ferverantly desire. You know, kinda like praying, only steeped in everlovin falsehood.

Anonymous said...

Sean...great job! You and one of the other anons i've seen on here bring logic and sense to Free Racine. Enjoy reading your posts.

Nemo said...

sean, "increased CO2 + sunlight = increased heat."

sean, I think I've found your problem. You seem to think that there is no difference between a carefully controlled laboratory and a uncontrolled, complex, self-adjusting, chaotic system. I would explain how such systems can, and often do, produce seemingly contradictory results but I can think of 3 reasons not to.

1) Mann-made global warming is not the topic of this thread and it would be rude to co-opt it just to give you a facewash in the snow of reason. Fun, but rude.

2) Since November, the left in general and you in particular have become increasingly hysterical. You can't reason with a hysteric.

3) Given your reasoning skills coupled with your confusion between faith and science, I'm not sure you would understand the concepts involved.

Instead, I'll ask you a simple question. In 2005 the IPCC predicted, in no uncertain terms,
there would be 50,000,000 climate refugees by 2010. They were off by about 50,000,000. What does that tell you?

Denis, sorry to pull this thread into an off-topic direction. It's hard not to respond when sean waxes foolish. That combined with snow flurries last Saturday pushed me to pontificate. I'll refrain from pulling this discussion farther afield and pelt sean with snowballs of facts from a fort of truth in a more appropriate comment thread.

Denis Navratil said...

Nemo, you always have my permission to take the discussion in any direction you please. Your beatings of Sean make my day.

Sean Cranley said...

Increased CO2 + Sunlight = increased heat/energy, period.

The physics is the same in both the lab AND in the atmosphere.

The 50,000 prognostication is tertiary evidence at best and quite meaningless as to the factual reality of climate change. You rely on this kind of meaningless tertiary evidence, because the primary evidence is beyond question. You can't knock it down.

Nemo said...

Thanks for the permission Denis! I promise not to abuse it. I've been having a fun time putting it into terms that sean (or anyone like him that thinks a scientist is a person that primarily wears a white coat and probes the odd monkey) can understand and hate to stop. So let's continue...

sean, I see you have added the term "energy" to your simplistic sun/CO2 equation. Interesting that. As you may or may not know there are two types of energy:

1) Kinetic, the energy of motion.

2) Potential, the energy of position.

Which type of energy were you referring to? Careful, planted in this question is trap. Heh.

Sean Cranley said...


Nemo said...

Both, sean? On earth this is certainly true. Much of the incoming kinetic energy is used by plants and stored as potential energy. Anyone who has ever put a log into a stove to heat their cabin can attest to this. In the lab results you cite, how much wood is produced?

Maybe it's best for you to take your silver metal and call it a day sean. Heh.

Sean Cranley said...

CO2 levels in the atmosphere are indisputably spiking to concentrations well beyond anything seen in our current climate epoch.

Consequently, the answer to your taunt is that not nearly enough extra wood (or other biomass) is being produced to absorb the CO2 we are emitting to keep it from being expressed as increased heat in the atmosphere.

Lob me another one of your pitches Nemo.

Nemo said...

sean, you said, "The physics is the same in both the lab AND in the atmosphere." Since no biomass was produced in your simple experiment, the result would seem to be different. Understanding why the result is not the same will go along way in helping to deprogram you.

You've clearly earned the silver here. Take it and move on. Heh.

Sean Cranley said...

WOW! Nemo, your degree in idiocity is indeed complete.

No biomass produced in the experiment. That is without a doubt THE dumbest, most dense comment you've ever made, which is quite the feat. I am totally astonished at how utterly stupid that one was. You've out done yourself!

There is NO POSSIBLE WAY that you are an engineer as you've claimed. Unless of course your field of engineering is the design and specification of moronicisms.

No biomass produced in the simple physics calculation of the known amount of heat CO2 absorbs versus other atmospheric gases. SHEESH!

Thank you Denis for giving Nemo leave to pursue this avenue. THAT was priceless! And just imagine what fanciful nonsense he'll follow up with to preserve his reality block and save face now!

Nemo said...

But sean, you said, and I quote, "The physics is the same in both the lab AND in the atmosphere." Now you are saying not exactly. Or not at all. Your difficultly seems to be not understanding what "the same" means. Let me try to help. 1 is the same as 1. 2 is not the same as 1. I could go on and on, but I don't want to tax your skills. The conclusion is that the experiments in the lab that you lied about do not take into account all the complexity in real world systems. Which leads to stuff like this,.

I asked you to take the silver metal and be satisfied but you didn't listen. Congratulations on being the first person I know of to take the bronze in a 2 man race. Heh.

There will be a short pause in this current beating of sean by me. Mrs Nemo and I are escaping the -10 F below normal "warming" that we seem to be having for the last few months here in Wisconsin. Leaving for Las Vegas in 2.5 hours. If anyone else wants to poke a Mann-made global acolyte feel free. It's easy and funny!

Sean Cranley said...

Dear non-engineer Nemo, your poor excuse for logical arguments are a pathetic joke, utterly worthless.

PHYSICS DOES NOT CHANGE with location, duh!

CO2 absorbs more heat than other atmospheric gases, INDISPUTIBLY.

CO2 levels are MEASUREABLY increasing at a rapid rate and are WAY above historical levels, DEMONSTRATING EMPIRICALLY that your "trees" are not absorbing CO2 at anywhere near a rate sufficient to keep pace with the input. Thus there WILL be addition heat/energy added to the atmosphere.

In addition, we humans are causing massive deforestation subtracting even more from the potential carbon absorbing biomass.

The ice caps are melting. Once they're gone their mitigating effect on temperatures will be gone as well, just like once all the ice melts in your freezer during a power outage.

I'll take the gold, the silver and the bronze and give you the dunce cap you've so doggedly earned.

Las Vegas and the base values it represents is just the place for a Money God worshipping Cult of Con moronization "engineer" such as yourself. Enjoy your natural habitat!

Nemo said...

And we're back! I saw this today and could not help but wonder if sean had tried to work some faith based alchemy to convince the uninformed and himself (but I repeat myself!) that bronze is the new gold. It did not come as a surprise to find that my very small buddy had wandered down his well trod path of pejorative rather that his less (rarely. (very rarely! (Never?))) traveled road of thoughtful debate.

A man once made the observation that you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. sean, I had hoped you would see the error of your argument. You didn't. I blame myself for underestimating your sophomoric understanding of science. Here, let me ever so gently shove your muzzle into the wet stream of truth. If the earth's atmosphere were the same as your lab bench example, you would be correct. It isn't. Increased CO2 has secondary and tertiary effects that can be anathema to your fundamentally religious position. Now quit predicting that the world will end on May 21st, open a book and try to learn something. Heh.

Sean Cranley said...

And I'm back too, although I had the good sense and values to stay far far away from Las Vegas and althought there was a casino boat nearby, I never considered wasting my time and money there.

My "sophmoric understanding of science includes the scientific law of uniformitarianism which holds that the same natural laws and processes that operate in the universe now, have always operated in the universe in the past and apply EVERYWHERE in the universe.

Therefore, the physics of energy absorption of CO2 apply equally in the lab as in the atmosphere.

Since you can't knock that fact down, you accuse me of failure to engage in thoughtful debate in the same sentence you accuse me of using perjoratives. Hypocrite.

Nemo said...

So close. I agree with you on the scientific law of uniformitarianism. A bench, operating under the same conditions here should produce the same results as a second bench operating under the same conditions there. The error you make is religiously applying simple models to complex systems. You discount as high heresy "increased CO2 has secondary and tertiary effects that can be anathema to your fundamentally religious position."

And then I saw this. Heh.

Call me when your bench produces denser woodland. Until then, thanks for playing. Don't forget your bronze metal on the way out.

Sean Cranley said...

uniformitarianism (which you agree with) means that CO2 absorbs the same amount of solar energy in the lab as in the atmosphere. Consequently, increased CO2 in the atmosphere (indisputable) means increased energy absorption (also indisputable). Your continued dancing will not get you out of this one.

I'm sorry but despite the ambiguous claims of one of your dubious sources about increased forest "density" (which they did not define), the FACT of the matter is that atmospheric CO2 is still increasing rapidly. Consequently, it is obvious that the carbon sinks including increased forest "density" (assuming it's real and not simply billions of tiny, closely spaced saplings) is insufficient to absorb the excess anthropogenic carbon input.

Nemo said...

sean, "Consequently, it is obvious...".

sean, before I try to teach you the difference between the thermodynamic effects of kinetic and potential energy (again) and to understand your position that a ton of saplings contains less mass than a ton of old growth wood, let us look at the core of your latest argument: "it is obvious..."

"It is obvious" implies that what follows is an axiom, a proposition that is assumed without proof. I fine this a delightful summation of your thoughts and ideas on Mann-made global warming.

As for your cries of "dubious sources" do you have any actual facts to undermine the studies or are you confusing "dubious" with "heretic" again? I've often found that it's helpful to see an example of a word or concept being used properly to improve my understanding so lets see if that works for you: I'm sorry if I've shaken your faith in this dubious cult with my heretic sources.

So are you going to wear that bronze metal or hang it over the mantel?

Sean Cranley said...

Well look, more meanderous yammerings from Nemo to continue to avoid addressing the point.

Atmospheric CO2 is increasing due to human contibutions. An atmosphere with more CO2 absorbs more solar energy. Please explain how this increasing CO2 is NOT going to result in more energy in the atmosphere.

Nemo said...

Asked and answered, sean. I made the claim, backup up by science, that some kinetic energy is being transformed into potential energy through biomass production. You disputed my claim by saying "it is not". And you used the word "obvious". You might have made a face at me too. I'm sure such fine forensic skills hold much power among progressives or anyone else in the unthinking class.

There is more evidence undercutting your cult. The most damming of which is that NASA satellite instruments precisely measuring global temperatures show absolutely no warming during the past the past 10 years. Ouch!

Sorry to shake your faith, sean. You can take solace in the thought that religions such as Mann-made Global Warming are mostly elements of faith and largely impervious to facts or reason. I'm sure it will go on as long as there are pockets to pick and rubes to be rolled (hi kay!).

Sean Cranley said...

Sorry Dude you continue to be in error.

EXCERPT: NOAA has released its annual State of the Climate report for the year 2010, and it goes down in the record books as another hot one, in a statistical tie with 2005 as the warmest year on record. But what's most striking about this past year's data is how it fits into the larger trend. The list of the 10 warmest years since NOAA's records started now features nine years from the last decade, and we haven't seen a year with temperatures below the 20th century average since 1976. NOAA has a temperature record that goes back to 1880.

Skepticism in science is a good thing, denial is not. You Nemo, are in denial.

Nemo said...

sean, I looked at your link. Check out the slope of the line since 2000. It looks to be zero or even negative (confirming absolutely no warming during the past the past 10 years.) Thanks for adding another piece of evidence disproving your position.

And while we're at it, let's add another. Heh.

I am reminded of Calvin Coolidge, a president of few words. Once a White House dinner guest made a bet that she could get the president to say more than two words. She told the president of her wager. His reply: "You lose."

Sean Cranley said...

Nemo you moron, when you have 2005 and 2010 as tied for the two hottest years on record that draws a horizonal line. DOPE!

Nemo said...

sean, seeing now that your faith in Mann-made global warming is "Outlier and Pejorative" based, I'm not sure that any rational line of reasoning will detach you from the cult.

Perhaps you should consider the approach of UN IPCC Author, Warmist climate modeller,and co-pope of Mann-made global warming Andrew Weaver on spreading the good news of Mann-made warming. Andrew Weaver: 'I'm fed up speaking with the stereotypical angry, retired, grey-haired engineer' -- Enjoys giving giving 'lecture to his daughter's class at secondary school'. I think you'll find that an audence with little understanding of science and mathimatics to be much more agreeable with your position. Heh.

Sean Cranley said...

Nemo baby dancin right on by the part about - But what's most striking about this past year's data is how it fits into the larger trend. The list of the 10 warmest years since NOAA's records started now features nine years from the last decade, and we haven't seen a year with temperatures below the 20th century average since 1976. NOAA has a temperature record that goes back to 1880.

Meanwhile CO2 levels continue to rise in that atmosphere and you still have not explained how that does NOT (in your mind) result in the increased absorption of solar energy.

Nemo tippy tippy toe gonna shuffle off to buffalo

Nemo said...

You're not listening sean. Remember a few comments back about the denser forests? Remember how conversion of kinetic energy to potential energy lowers the kinetic energy of a closed system?

I still have not gone into how co2 is a trace gas and any warming due to a trace increase in a trace gas would be impossible to discern from measurement errors.

Sorry to post such blasphemy. I try to never discredit another religion mostly because the faith based nature of religions are impossible to refute using the limited tools of logic. But when a cult springs up and claims to be backed by science, all I see is a target.

Sean Cranley said...

No Nemo, it is you who are not listening. As I said before, the denser forests (assuming that is even true) are not enought to compensate for the CO2 emitted, because the CO2 concentrations in the atmospere are still rising. If the forests were absorbing enough of the excess CO2, the concentration trend would flatten out. But they are not and it is not. It's just that simple.

I look forward to debunking your trace gas argument (again). Bring it on!

Sean Cranley said...

Oh yeah, almost forgot. You still have not explained how the increased atmosperic CO2 concentration does NOT (in your mind) result in the increased absorption of solar energy. you can't get around that one.

Nemo said...

sean, I had hoped that your knowledge of Mann-Made global warming scripture was better than it seems to be. What you have missed is that Warmist priests and bishops realized early on that any energy trapping by co2 at these trace amounts would be so small that they would be indistinguishable from measurement error. That's why they came up with the faith based "Forcing" (pronounced "magic").

You see sean, normally engineers and scientists first gain an understanding of a system before modeling it with an algorithm. The Jedi warmists wisely saw this as a impediment to their funding stream so they used the "Force" to create a lite algorithm that can be adjusted at whim to computationally slice through the most scientifically dense heresy. Can't get enough funding for that new plane? Turn up the Forcing to multiply the trapped energy by 4. That'll fill the old collection plate!

The biggest irony here seems to be the the sun could be currently going out. OK, technically a second Maunder Minimum is not "going out", but we will need all the insignificant warming we can get for the next 100 years or so.

The lesson of this comment thread? Don't send a warmist ewok to do the job of a Jedi. Heh.

Sean Cranley said...

Nemo said: Gobbilty-yadda yadda, insult, blah blah, insult-gook.