"People are not illegal" read the t-shirt.
Clever. Of course nobody thinks people are illegal so the shirt wearer is technically correct. Is anyone claiming that illegal aliens are themselves illegal? No. Rather, it is understood by everyone not inclined to wear a "people are not illegal" t-shirt that said folks are somewhere - in the USA - that they are not legally allowed to enter.
So the clever set are insinuating that, because people are not illegal, that they are then somehow entitled to enter into the US. Just stupid. But they are part of a club that thinks they are clever and passionate and humane and oh so caring while those who disagree are racists etc... I bet that feels good.
Contact Denis
About Me
- Denis Navratil
- I love Racine Wisconsin. But I am not naive about the challenges we face. I have chosen the name Free Racine for a reason. For Racine to realize its great potential, we must free ourselves from our own failed policies, from high taxes, failing schools, and self serving politicians.
College Fix
- Althouse
- College Fix
- Journal Times
- LiberTEA Racine Blog
- Protein Wisdom
- WSJ opinion
- blogging blue
- breitbart
- caledonia unplugged
- charlie sykes
- city of racine
- drudge report
- instapundit
- investors editorials
- jihadwatch
- lucianne
- national review
- newsbusters
- racine uncovered
- real clear politics
- real debate wisconsin
- root river siren
- townhall
- wisconsin opinion
92 comments:
Clever? The first word that came to mind after reading the t-shirt message was inane. As in lacking sense, significance, or ideas; silly. A word that should crop up more and more as a spot on descriptor of the left in general.
Enjoyed your recent repartee at the blue. Was tempted to join in on the value of labor, but felt you handled them well and didn't want to detract. Keep up the good work!
Thanks Nemo. You are right, the t-shirt isn't clever, but clearly the wearer thinks it is.
It's been de facto federal policy to let illegal immigrants come here to work and live ever since Reagan granted them amnesty back in the 80's. Why else would the gov't cease using a database that checked to make sure names corresponded with SS#s for new hires?
The Republicons love it, because it drives down wages for labor, busts unions and results in a generally less secure, more desperate, less uppity labor force willing to let their rights be trampled and more pliable working and middle classes.
The Democrats have been reticent to say anything about for fear of alienating the fastest growing demographic in the country that is increasingly a part of their base.
That's why everyone looked the other way for 25-30 years until the fearful, brown people loathing faction of the rightwing started squaking and forming militias and generally fouling up their master's plan.
And speaking of inane, sean has recently banished (banished I tells ya!) moi from his BURP site for making him look bad. It's important to note that Denis does not do the same to sean. While the comparison of the two situations is not exactly the same, I don't remember sean ever getting the best of Dennis, it underscores the intellect of both sides. Conservatives want debate and reason, Progressives just want you to agree and hand over your wallet.
sean, it's refreshing that you now admit that illegal aliens are "increasingly a part of their [the Democrats] base". The next time you rant about voter fraud you should include a word or two explaining that you don't consider an illegal's vote to be fraud. It will make your position more clear. Heh.
Wrong again Nemo, no banishment. People posting comments on the BAP blog have to use personal responsibility and take ownership of their free speech but using their real names not pseudonyms.
And your last paragraph above is complete BS and a pattently dishonest twisting of my statements, once again demonstrating your lack of intellectual integrity. You can post all you want on the BAP blog, but you have to take responsibility for your "arguments" by using your real name and not hiding yourself behind Jules Vern characters or, more aptly, cartoons.
Oh yeah, and I don't have to get "the best of Denis" he consistently leave the defense of his posts to anonymous inept guards like you Nemo who are easily overcome with one quick rhetorical karate chop to the neck (see above).
My history at BURP has come full circle. After kay banished me from her site, you invited me to comment at BURP stating that you never banish anyone. You lied, but I really don't care. This isn't the first time that a Lib suppressed speech, won't be the last. At the next super secret ALEC meeting, old Nemo will get a 4th pip on his uniform (for the fourth banishment from a Progressive site). I think that also comes with a pay raise, so thanks for the banishment sean.
Sic semper tyrannis! heh.
Don't know why you posted twice, but since you did I figure what's good for the goof is good for the gander. Or something like that. sean, your "rhetorical karate chop" is more like a nunchuck attack where the attacker strikes himself. Hilarious! You claimed that illegal immigrants are "increasingly a part of their [the Democrats] base". Do you ever read your own posts or are your comments just the product of a strange Rorschach test? The later would explain the lack of any thought. heh.
Nemo, you are not banished. You can post on the BAP blog all you you want. You just have to do it with your real name like I do, like Denis does, like scores of others do.
And I would note that this privilege to post on BAP's privately owned blog space in still extended despite the fact that you are a bald face liar as demonstrated repeatedly and, most recently, above.
Ahh sean, the projection just keeps on coming. Let's use logic. Nemo's comments are deleted at the BURP. Removing an individuals comments solely do to his identity is a form of "banishment". Nemo is banished.
Further, how do you know that Nemo is not my "real" name. When family and friends call me Nemo, I respond. Likewise, when people I know refer to Nemo, they are referring to me.
To prove identity, will the BURP be requiring a photo ID for commenters? After all, I could post under any name I find.
sean, you seem to be immune to logic and reason. I am beginning to fear that this goes beyond a simple cognitive explanation. Are you being possessed by a "Demon of Illogic"? Quick, I'll need an old programmer and a young programmer! The power of COBAL compels you! The power of COBAL compels you! Heh.
Nemo you kill me! I can see Seany floating above the bed now.
Hey I think it's time for another get together -
I would consider Nemo's refusal to to use his real name and take responsibility for his posts as a loss for the BAP blog if he ever had anything of substance to bring to the discourse. But as he has aptly demonstrated for a considerable period of time this is not a consequence of his decision. No loss there.
Thanks Anon, but we all should really thank Denis. Mr Navratil has the courage to allow dissent without the dissenter having to supply his or her Social Security Number. It would be fun to get together again sometime. Can I bring my pet sean? He's almost house broken and I can make him dance on command (and float above his bed, heh).
sean, I take full responsibility for my posts. Happy?
Maybe we should get together on the 4th to celebrate the creation of what used to be a free country. When does that Right to Breathe tax go into effect?
Drivelous case in point exemplified above.
This demon is a strong one. Sir Anon, start reading from the The UNIX System Administration Handbook while I continue the chant. The power of COBAL compels you! The power of COBAL compels you! Heh.
Drrrrrrrrrrrrivel
Still there Mr "Papers, please"? Burn any good books lately? You never did answer questions about photo ID for comments at the BURP, sean. Will there be some sort of form/forms to fill out? Are you going to issue wavers for your friends? Heh.
More aNemonous nonsense.
sean "Papers, please" cranley, while we all appreciate you summing up your ideas in one or three words, are you ever going to answer the questions?
"Papers, please", it's often a challenge to keep up with just how limited your vocabulary is. You do know that anonymous and alias are two different words with two very different meanings, don't you?
Exxon Mobil CEO admits climate change is caused by humans, say we should "adapt" and burn more oil!: http://burlingtonareaprogressives.blogspot.com/2012/07/plutannosaurus-rex.html
Ivar Giaever,“Is climate change pseudoscience? If I’m going to answer the question, the answer is: absolutely.”
Sounds like the EM CEO is trying to get his hands on some tasty Obama money. There's billions to be made/taken by duping the masses into thinking that they can power the world with unicorn farts and glitter. Some are easier to dupe than others, eah "Papers, please"?
More meaningless aNemonous linkings.
Let's see he's an 83 year old man who won the nobel prize in 1973. From 1958 to 1969 he worked in the fields of thin films, tunneling and superconductivity. In 1965 he was awarded the Oliver E. Buckley Prize for some pioneering work combining tunneling and superconductivity. In 1969 he received a Guggenheim Fellowship and thereupon spent one year in Cambridge, England studying biophysics. Since returning to the Research and Development Center in 1970, Dr. Giaever has spent most of his effort studying the behavior of protein molecules at solid surfaces.
Funny I don't see any climate related experience or research whatsoever. Once again we see why you keep your real identity hidden to avoid personal responsibility for the quality (or rather lack thereof) of your comentary.
Funny, I see a guy that understands the difference between Science and Religion.
I've noticed that it did not take long for the high priests of global warming to proclaim the current WEATHER to be CLIMATE. sean "Papers, please" cranley, let me see if I understand the new canons of Mann. If it's cold out, that's weather. If it's warm out, that's warming. Science? Heh.
I see a mechanical engineer in his twighlight years who has never studied the subject of climate change and is not qualified to do so.
I also see an aNemonous moron who rejects that actual science in favor of statements of faith made by people, who have nothing to back them up, simply because it suits his predetermined ideological mindset.
aNemonous is a ROCK! He has long ago girded the gospel armor of the Cult of Con. Let nothing of logic penetrate the mind of the Conmaton! All hail the mighty Con!
Oh my, sean "Papers, please" cranley is a bit cranky today. And forgetful. I've given you gigabytes of data in links that would have raised doubts of Mann-Made warming in an open minded individual. The problem with trying to disprove Mann-Made ecclesiastical law is that it is not falsifiable. Such is the main difference between Science and Religion. Your faith, "Papers, please" is strong. They should consider you for sub-pope or whatever your cult calls it. Heh.
Here's another few Megs of data for ya "Papers, please"...
Long-term trend over the past two millennia has been towards climatic cooling.
You lose, again. Heh.
"...moron who rejects that actual *logic* in favor of statements of faith made by people, who have nothing to back them up, simply because it suits his predetermined ideological mindset."
Changing only one word throws your own statement in your own face, Sean. This must be the explanation for for thuggish behavior and clanging cowbells in search of coherency. You didn't convince many people in the last go-round of elections, given Walker clobbered your guy be an even bigger margin. Howzat?
aNemonous, long term natural cooling on a scale of tens and hundreds of thousands of years, related to Earth's million year long pattern of glacial and interglacial periods is NOT unexpected!
What is unexpected is your idiocy in connecting a potential very long term cooling trend, evidenced over the last 2,000 years to a short-term heating trend over the last 150 years due to our changing of the composition of the atmosphere.
The two phenomena operate on completely diffent timescales and are related to completely diffent causes.
Of course you will not acknowledge this FACT because you've got the gospel armor of the Cult of Con to protect your ideology from the inconvenient truth.
You realize GearHead, that unless you show sean "Papers, please" cranley a photo ID with your "real" name on it, you will have any comments you make at the BURP burned. Is it just me, or is the irony "Papers, please" is serving up here just double plus tasty?
sean "Papers, please" cranley, I'm not sure what "FACT" you are trying to make. At first I was going to point out that there seems to have been no warming for over a decade, but your post had me wondering. You do know that 2 < 20 by an order of magnitude, don't you? Why would you call a trend that lasts tens and hundreds of thousands of years "long term" and then call a cooling trend that lasts 2000 years "very long term"? Your membership in the faith of Mann may not be due to malformed reason as I once thought, but on ignorance of the properties of numbers. Maybe we can pass the hat to get you some flash cards so that you can get to know your numbers better. Heh.
Here's another few megs of data to question your "FACTS" (as best as I can make them out).
USHCN Thermometer Data Shows No US Warming Since The Year 1900
You lose, again and again.
It's like Snidely Whiplash has Nell tied to the tracks and the 2100 is running right on time, while Dudley Do Right won't get there for another 10,000 years. But aNemonous thinks help is on it's way! Whadda dork!
Opps, I thought sean could engage in an intelligent exchange of ideas. My bad. The power of COBAL compels you! The power of COBAL compels you! Heh.
Dear aNemonous I used the terms long term and very long term both to refer to the timescale for the glacial/interglacial periods, which as I mentioned before is on the order of tens and hundreds of thousands of years.
The 2 millenia trend that you brought up also relates to this glacial/interglacial period of 10k to 100k years.
The fact that you would resort to such semantic hair splitting indicates once again the lack of intellectual integrity you bring to bear in constructing your "arguments".
The fact that you'd bring these very long term trends with totally different causation into a discussion on anthropogenic climate change shows the degree to which you are out of your element and grasping at irrelevant straws.
But don't worry aNemonous, Dudely Do Right is riding to your rescue at a glacial pace!
I'll just close with this quote from your hero Ivar Giaever; "I am not really terribly interested in global warming. Like most physicists I don't think much about it. But in 2008 I was in a panel here about global warming and I had to learn something about it. And I spent a day or so - half a day maybe on Google, and I was horrified by what I learned. And I'm going to try to explain to you why that was the case."
Wow aNemonous, he's google climate expert just like you! That speaks volumes.
To be honest, Ivar Giaever is way smarter than me. However, we both are horrified at "scientists" that corrupt data sets, hide data, forget the scientific method and fuse science, religion and politics. I've always felt science is a search for the truth, not for a wallet to pick. I guess I'm just not as larcenous as yourself. Just curious, did you read Ivar Giaever's heresy "to explain to you why that was the case" or did you dismiss him outright because of his apostasy?
As far as the very long vs long trends in cooling, I do not recall seeing a study that suggested that there was cooling from the period 10,000 to 2,000 years ago. Could you post a link to that paper, please?
Response:
Paragraph 1a; Agree
Paragraph 1b; No I did not read it as I don't consider him to be a credible expert on the subject, did you read it?
Paragraph 2; I didn't say there was cooling from 10,000 to 2,000 years ago, I refered only to your previous statement about the last two millenia.
No, I could not find the speech. If you have a link please share. One part I could find that you did not post is this, Giaever referred to agreement with the evidence of climate change as a "religion" and commented on the significance of the apparent rise in temperature when he stated "What does it mean that the temperature has gone up 0.8 degrees? Probably nothing. (Pretty much what I've said all along much to the discomfort of the modern Pareisees of Mann). It seems clear that the Nobel prize winner was influenced by the US Senate Report as was I.
As far as not reading it because you don't consider him to be a credible expert, I can only offer the words of Richard Feynman, "Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts".
And finally, just to be clear, are you telling us that 2000 years is a very long time in terms of glacial/interglacial time periods?
Perhaps, but that does not mean you should not believe in the expertise of ignorance!
I think you have one to many "nots" in your last response or did you really mean to say that "you should believe in the expertise of ignorance".
Again, just to be clear, are you telling us that 2000 years is a very long time in terms of glacial/interglacial time periods?
I don't think you understand the significance of the a fore mentioned study. Previous estimates of historical temperatures during Roman era and Middle Ages were too low. The data the computer models use is wrong. The Pillars of support for the religion of global warming are resting on the soft sand of bad data.
Remember when the faithful predicted (backed by computer models no doubt) that the ice in the Arctic was going to disappear? Heh.
Oh look aNemonous, if you follow the link to the actual article it includes this little tidbit that your wacky denial webbypage conveniently left out: "While sea ice cover is sparse in most of the Arctic, ice off Alaska is thicker than in recent years, and that ice is melting fast, according to the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre."
OH! Victory Lap!
read it for yourself here: http://iceagenow.info/2012/07/sea-ice-delays-shell-alaska-drilling/
Have a nice weekend.
I just developed a drug based on computer modeling. Lots of data went into this. It predicted that the drug will be an allosteric inhibitor or a crucial enzyme involved in the genesis of liver cancer. The model also predicts that the drug is non-toxic at therapeutic levels and that the drug would have sailed through Phase I through III clinical trials. Again, the drug was never tested directly but there is lots of evidence that it will be safe and effective.
Would you take it? Seany need not answer unless he tries his best not to be stupid. This was actually for you Nemo - I couldn't waste the time of a single neuron on anything that Resident Assclown has to say.
Sorry - "of a crucial enzyme"
Thanks Sir Anon, and cool.
No seriously aNemonous, if you follow the link to the actual article it includes this little tidbit that your wacky denial webbypage conveniently left out: "While sea ice cover is sparse in most of the Arctic, ice off Alaska is thicker than in recent years, and that ice is melting fast, according to the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre."
That's very inconvenient isn't it aNemonous?
Yours Truly,
Resident AssClown
PS I didn't think denis permitted obsenity on his blog as I've not seen it in the past.
But perhaps he makes exceptions for evolutionary freaks like the Anonyous drugster. You see, it took millions of years of evolution in primitive life forms to separate the oral and anal cavities in to two separate organs and Anonymous has undone those millions of years in a mere 8 sentences!
sean "Papers, please" cranley, still dancing?. I was unaware that your order of the cult had a Whirling Dervish analogue. Are you sure it's not some sort of nervous tic? Heh.
Faith: What Mann-made warming is all about.
I'm sure I don't have to ask if Seany was snotty and inane but I'm glad you had something intelligent to read here on this very blog Nemo! You know, you hit it earlier when you mentioned the concept if "testable". Making predictions then observing is obviously not testing, it actually is faith. I can make a prediction about what is happening at 10^-100 meters, and even if it somehow makes sense, it will never be testable by mankind. Therefore it can't be a theory, a hypothesis or even an inference. It is just horse shit.
aNemonous, you can hide under a pile of coats and hope it goes away, but if you follow the link to the actual article it includes this little tidbit that your wacky denial webbypage conveniently left out:
"While sea ice cover is sparse in most of the Arctic, ice off Alaska is thicker than in recent years, and that ice is melting fast, according to the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre."
Yours Truly,
Resident AssClown
P.S. One wonders if AnamAnus thinks, and if so, if it thinks it's making sense.
Thanks again, Sir Anon. Couldn't agree more. Testing beyond the confines of Turing is Science. It's a pity that some "scientists" feel overly burdened by this inconvenient truth. You're probably right about the testability of string theory, but you never know what will come until it does (not exactly true, retrocausality and the delayed choice quantum eraser will always amaze).
Speaking of Faith, all the talk about "dark energy" is beginning to bug me as well. It too seems to be based solely on observation, no tests required. Next time Denis rounds us all up, be prepared to discuss possible non-uniform density of the Higgs Field, conservation of energy and increasing galactic acceleration.
Warning, the weak-minded are advised to avert their eyes lest they be confronted by their lies: "While sea ice cover is sparse in most of the Arctic, ice off Alaska is thicker than in recent years, and that ice is melting fast, according to the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre."
I biology the field of systems biology has incredible promise, I don't know if you're familiar with it. The goal is to perfectly model a single cell, then tissue, then an organ, the organ system, then the entire body. Understanding all inputs and outputs to a single cell plus everything going in intercellularly is a fairing task. Even one single genome has over a terabyte of data in the sequence and searching let alone storing the data is hard to do.
Having said this, if one put together a model of a single cell that wasn't perfect, one would continue to work. One would not get to say "reality doesn't fit with our model - so reality must be worse than we thought".
Another issue is understanding a cell or entire organism completely - in real time. That requires deep, accurate knowledge and modeling of all processes that contribute to homeostasis. How can "scientists" - with a straight face - say that their overarching models are correct without accurately predicting every input, I.e., local and regional weather system? I know the hand waving arguments they use , and again, you can say whatever you want if it isn't testable.
It is frustrating as hell to me (and you know who I am Nemo) to watch these salesmen get away this this. Global warming is probably happening and people might be contributing BUT saying this is fact is pure sales. I will control you while you give me money. I never had that class in graduate school.
In biology
I hate the autocorrect. I need to make sure I check the accuracy of the machine that is programmed to anticipate my intentions. Another perfect computer model.
Stop the presses! Arctic ice melting fast during the peak of summer! Any other interesting thoughts "Papers, please"? Over salting food makes it taste salty? Democrats continue to tax and spend? Fools continue to spout foolishness? Heh.
Sir Anon,"I never had that class in graduate school."
My neither, I guess we should have taken geology.
Me neither,
I also hate autocorrect.
Well well aNemonous, just like the flawed site you linked to which leaves out information that doesn't support their pre-determined conclusion, you've split the sentence and left the inconvenient part: "While sea ice cover is sparse in most of the Arctic..."
But then that is in keeping with the lack of intellectual integrity you repeatedly display.
Yours Truly,
Resident Assclown
P.S. AnonAnus, your blatherings, were they to be coherent would still not be relevant.
BTW Nemo, I threw out 10^-100 because the Planck Limit is 10^-35 and there is no way that mankind will ever measure something even that small. We could build an atom smasher the size of the Earth and it still wouldn't work.
Tell it to Shell, "Papers, please". sean, you clearly don't understand the very salient point that Sir Anon made. When a scientific discipline no longer uses scientific methods but rather faith, it is no longer science, it is Religion. Before the cult of Mann-made global warming began to gather the faithful, how many times did you hear of a theory being validated not by experimentation, but by consensus. I urge you, while we still have a small shred of respect for you (see the numbers in Sir Anon's last comment), put down the cowbell, stop the chants and return to the fold of Science. Or even geology. Heh.
Sir Anon, did you notice how sean "comment burner" cranley did not respond to your drug question? As somewhat of an expert on his forensic style, this is interpreted as a total victory for you. Did I ever tell you, Sir Anon, how you are directly responsible for my banishment from kay's and, by extension, the BURP? The first time I saw kay's, you where banished for essentially just saying, "Hi, I disagree". After reading that, I vowed to also achieve "banishment". It took a lot longer than yours, but eventually it came on a comment I left questioning liberals commitment to free speech, it doesn't get better than that.
Nemo - I never read a single word Seany writes so I have no idea what he says except when you or someone else responds to him. As for Kay's site, I was on there one time years ago and never went back. I don't know what the BURP thing is. Must have been another Anon who got you banned. I'll mention this at our Anon picnic!
Once again, I bring forth that which aNemonous dare not speak of; "While sea ice cover is sparse in most of the Arctic, ice off Alaska is thicker than in recent years, and that ice is melting fast, according to the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre."
Yours Truly,
Resident Assclown
sean "Papers, please" cranley, isn't the ice in the Arctic always "sparse" after the peak of summer?
Still wondering if you are willing to take Sir Anon's drug. After all, it passed all the computer models.
Surely this will deprogram you, comment burner. My favorite part,"Since 1998, more than 31,000 American scientists from diverse climate-related disciplines, including more than 9,000 with Ph.D.s, have signed a public petition announcing their belief that “…there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” Included are atmospheric physicists, botanists, geologists, oceanographers, and meteorologists."
I only wish they had not included geologists, my own anecdotal experience says they tend to be a rather thick lot. Heh.
Any of us with a PhD in the sciences can comment on the non-use of the Scientific Method in this debacle. One of the absurd claims is that global warming "science" is different. It sure is.
My point about the sentence regarding ice in the artic was that your source intentionally left it out because it countered the claim he was trying to advance which demonstrates the lack of integrity and quality of your wingnut conspiracy sources.
Excerpt from Forbes Article Page 1, Paragraph 5: "As Joseph Bast who heads the Heartland Institute points out,...” and "And yes, I (the Author) truly do hold both Joe Bast and Heartland in high esteem."
The Heartland Institute is a Chicago based PR-opaganda firm that for years worked on behalf of the tobacco industry to deny that cigarretes cause cancer. The Hearland Institute is documented to now be working for the fossil fuels industry. So much for the Author's judgement and credibility.
He then goes on to quote OK Sen. Inhofe a politician wholly owned by the fossil fuels industry.
There is a lot of the other typical denial BS in the article, but one of my favorites is the discussion of Candian scientists (paragraph 3, page 3). Let's see 51,000 scientsts in a country of 30,000 million people. Wow! almost two percent of all Canadian men, women and children are climate research scientists! Who know?
Maybe you should look at some alternative information for a change: http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm
Ah 0.2%, sorry.
Actually 0.17%, why did you round that number?
Looked at the link you supplied. Interesting that they throw a few percents around but did not include 1 actual number that derived the percents. No not interesting, typical. I know that sharing actual data is anathema to the cult of Mann-made Global Warming (they prefer to hide or corrupt data sets like all "scientists" right?). Conclusion : Propaganda. Did enjoy the comment section that took apart the various religious dogma your sect espouses, thanks.
Nemo, I have a paper published in an actual journal that suggests that our damage to the environment might cause an alien attack. I'm not kidding. I can get you the pdf. I hope they aren't going to destroy us because we haven't cured cancer. I'm sure glad we are diverting billions of dollars away from useful research.
Alien attack, eah? Don't let the Mann-made global warming cultists know else we all pay to give every American a MP3 of Slim Whitman's "Indian Love Call" for protection. Heh.
ANemonous, you call my link propaganda and yet your sources like to leave out pertinent facts and openly cite and admire the Heartland Institute, a PRopaganda firm with the ethics of a tabacco company executive, LITERALLY!
And yet you completely ignore that! How can you possibly take such sources seriously? Nevermind, I know how.
What I love about you guys is you think the climate scientists are part of a vast global conspiracy that whoever is behind will somehow profit from someday.
And yet you completely disregard any chance that there is a concerted effort by those profiting IMMENSELY, TODAY and with plenty of resources available to them (money) to use to keep the status quo that they love so well. And this is despite being confronted by the evidence of the Heartland Inst. that is a "Public Relations" firm that is DOCUMENTED to be on their payroll. THIS you find credible!?
Incredible. Talk about ignoring the elephant in the room.
Yours Truly,
Resident Assclown
There is a link to the alien attack journal article in here :
http://m.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/aug/18/aliens-destroy-humanity-protect-civilisations?cat=science&type=article
The term "peer reviewed" in the global warming discipline means the same as other disciplines, at least according to their computer models.
Anon, heh. Thanks.
sean, I can't remember ever stating that I "admire" the Heartland Institute. I'll chalk that comment up to local propaganda, a BURPed example of the meaningless stat exercise you previously linked to.
So while demonstrating pants wetting hysteria about businesses spending money to get the truth out, you ignore the 70 Billion the feds have pumped into the Mann-made propaganda machine. Why is that?
aNemonous, you don't recall saying you admire the Heartland Institute because you didn't, nor did I say you did.
You should work on your reading comprehension. Excerpt from Forbes Article Page 1, Paragraph 5: "As Joseph Bast who heads the Heartland Institute points out,...” and "And yes, I (the Author) truly do hold both Joe Bast and Heartland in high esteem."
I attribute this mental lapse to the extremely taxing task of ignoring the petro-funded elephant in the room and maintaining your cognitive dissonance.
On another note, Denis are you ever going to issue another post so we came argue about something else for a while prior to the climate change evidence mounting to a point that even aNemonous and Anomanus have to acknowledge that their Cult of Con faith has failed them?
Yours Truly,
Resident Assclown
Sorry, "Papers, please". I'll admit that I made an error in quickly scanning your 12:48 post. I apologize.
sean, you seem to have trouble in understanding why an industry might spend money defending itself from propaganda. You seem to have no trouble understanding why the Luddite class spends money. Why is that?
Did you see one of the latest slips from the cult of Mann? You would be wise to try to convince me and Sir Anon using uncorrupted data sets and science rather than ad hominem and chants. Getting the raw data sets could be a challenge in that the Bishops and Cardinals of Mann-made global warming have done a good job in hiding them. Do you do a lot of data hiding in geology, sean? Heh.
Well well, the article protests that the data is witheld, but completely fails to address why, or to demostrate that they even asked the question. Well it FuxSnooze after all, not an outfit noted for quality journalism.
I don't know how other people handle issues like this, but in my field we don't give out information for free or even for a price to third parties without the expressed permission of those paid for that information to be collected, generatd, analyzed, etc. And we certainly wouldn't issue such data before the evaluation and quality checks were completed. But I guess we won;t know if that had anything to do withit because after all it is FuxSnooze.
I understand why groups in favor of life on earth would put money toward advancing knowledge about their issue. I don't understand how they will profit from that in anyway comparable to the fossil indusatries and their PRopagandist firms like Heartland are.
Anyway, all of this is just more side argument. Here is the issue at hand. We're pumping over 30 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere everyyear and that goes up 3% every year on average. that has increased the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. CO2 absorbs more energy so the atmosphere is absorbing more energy. You can't add energy to a dynamic system without changing how that system behaves.
So we ARE causing climate change. How that change is being expressed is debatable. But the fact that the change will occur is not.
Well sean, you certainly have a complete understanding of the catechism of Mann-made warming. Lets see if the unholiness of reality can shake your faith. More energy in this particular system results in more evaporation leading to more clouds. Clouds reflect vast amounts of energy back into space. Less solar energy would result in cooling. The fact is, we don't have a very deep understanding of this topic outside of the holy computer models.
Loved your phrase, "...firm with the ethics of a tabacco company executive, LITERALLY!". Did you see the legal representation Pope Mann hired? "Papers, please", you missed your calling, you really should do stand up. Heh.
So aNemonous, you acknowledge that we're adding energy to the atmosphere and that will cause changes in the climate, exactly how the changes will be manifested is still not completely understood.
I think we've reached an agreement! Was that so hard?
The question, "Papers, please", is whether the change is insignificant or not. Religious fanatics are sure it is. Heretics (pronounced scientists or engineers or thinking people that know the difference between data and dementia) do not.
How does your scripture explain the sharp drop in temperature after the 1940s? Statistical blip? Lies? Voldemort? Heh.
Part of (most of) the popularity of this nonsense is due to the fact that it "sounds good" and allows the "scientists" to be crusaders and folk heros. With respect to the former, I recall about two years ago when the same lottery number came up on two consecutive draws. The WI State statistician (don't remember his title but it was official) then calculated the odds of that happening. I came out of my chair. Someone can calculate the odds of two identical but independent events happening consecutively? Yep, and he gets a paycheck from the taxpayers. His number was ridiculous but to average people or pseudo-intellects like Seany it sounded good. The science will not be stifled by naysayers!!!
Now that we agree that humans are changing the composition and dynamics of our atmosphere, let's take a look one former skeptic's analysis of how that change is being expressed: http://news.yahoo.com/former-global-warming-skeptic-makes-total-turnaround-113037588.html
EXCERPTS: A prominent scientist who was skeptical of the evidence that climate change was real, let alone that it was caused by humans, now says he has made a "total turnaround." Richard Muller, a professor of physics at the University of California, Berkeley, says he has become convinced that "the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct," and that humans are "almost entirely the cause" of that warming.
In a series of papers published last year, BEST presented their statistical analysis of 1.6 billion temperature reports spanning the last 200 years, controlling for possible biases in the data that are often cited by skeptics as reasons to doubt the reality of global warming.
Their analysis indicated that global warming is real — that the average global land temperature has risen by 2.5 degrees Fahrenheit (1.4 degrees Celsius) since 1750, including 1.5 degrees F (0.9 degrees.
Now, in a brand new study that probed the causes of that warming, the BEST team says it has cleared from blame the natural variations in Earth's climate that so often get implicated by skeptics. Muller and his colleagues implicate carbon dioxide emissions by humans as essentially the sole cause of global warming.
"The carbon dioxide curve gives a better match than anything else we've tried," he wrote Saturday (July 28) in a New York Times editorial. "Its magnitude is consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect — extra warming from trapped heat radiation. These facts don't prove causality and they shouldn't end skepticism, but they raise the bar: To be considered seriously, an alternative explanation must match the data at least as well as carbon dioxide does."
"I embarked on this analysis to answer questions that, to my mind, had not been answered," Muller wrote. "I hope that the Berkeley Earth analysis will help settle the scientific debate regarding global warming and its human causes. Then comes the difficult part: agreeing across the political and diplomatic spectrum about what can and should be done."
What you call data sean, I'd call dogma. Proof here. I wonder if your "skeptic" used this data or the like. It saddens me that scientists, real scientists (not geologists, heh), would prostitute themselves to get a piece of the 70 billion "research" dollars the feds have given out. sigh.
WattsUp With That? Who could argue with such a well respected source as Watts Up With That? Oh that's proof alright.
As to your question, why don't you follow the link, read the article and get your answer?
Well OK, I KNOW why, but then you shouldn't be so foolish as to ask to be lead to water only to refuse to drink.
I read the psalm, er sorry, article. Read this and you might understand my heresy, er sorry, skepticism.
Bestest quote:
"This requires the ordinary reader to take BEST's accompanying press releases on blind faith - which is not a barrier for some journalists"
Blind faith, the preferred tool of the geologist, eah? Heh.
Nemo, what is your thing with geologists?
Anon, I don't really have a thing with geology in general but sean claims to be a geologist (and also boasted to have gotten an 'A' in his glaciers class to boot!). From there, I use a bit of the reasoning so prevalent in Mann-made global warming dogma. Despite my low sample size and lack of experiments, I'm theorizing that the field of geology attracts simpletons and ass clowns. I polled my friends and 92% (or was it 97%?) agree, so we have a consensus. Don't be a denier Anon, geologists (aka "Dirt People") are possessed by demons of stupidity. While I, for one, would never impede their comments, congress should really look into suspending their franchise to ensure a smarter elector and a better tomorrow for our children and our planet. Heh.
Hey sean "Papers, please" cranley, here's more on your "former skeptic". Muller's sounding more and more like a geologist (see previous post). Heh.
Oh! Geology is a tough science like any other, except for its intersection with pseudoscience. If he has a BS that's great, but many if not most undergraduate degree people have never published a thing and have little or no idea how research is (or should be) done. But once this global warming business turned into political theater withand massive amounts of money and power at stake, everyone is an expert. Ass clowns rule!
Scott Walker, one of the best known living liars rides to the rescue of those who lie for a living. August 9th Scott Walker will speak at a $150 per plate fundraiser in Chicago for the Heartland Institute which is a GOP PR-opaganda firm tha
t for years worked for the tobacco industry to deny that cigarettes cause cancer and is now on the payroll of the fossil industries as one of the major merchants of doubt in the malignancy that is climate change denial.
They also dabble in promoting the conversion of our children into perpetual revenue streams for the education profiteers and in bashing and scapegoating our teachers through Operation Angry Badger to advance their corporatist "free-market" (yeah, right) fALEC, anti-worker agenda.
Follow the link to find out more about the Walker-Heartland-Fossil-fALEC daisy chain!
http://burlingtonareaprogressives.blogspot.com/2012/08/scott-walker-to-speak-in-climate-of.html
Yours truly,
Resident Assclown
PS. At least I don't include things like Watt Up Wit Dat, which sounds more like a second rate Saturday Night Live bit than a credible source, and claim it as "proof" for my position like aNemonous did. Whadda joke he is and whadda couple of loons you two are!
I see you mentioned ALEC (and put an 'f' in front of the abbreviation to make it look like the word phallic! Hilarious (to 12 year old boys and mental midgets alike).) but you failed to mention the Bilderbergers, the Illuminati and Area 51. Tin foil hat to tight around the ears, sean?
Sorry about the link that refers to numbers and math to prove my point. I forget that such non-sense has no place in a Mann made religion such as yours. Heh.
Just came across an actual warmist (unlike your fake skeptic, sean) that became a skeptic (heretic) of Mann made warming. Enjoy! And again sean, you lose. Heh.
What's up everyone, it's my first pay a quick visit
at this site, and piece of writing is truly fruitful designed for me,
keep up posting these articles or reviews.
Also visit my homepage - play minecraft for free
Unquestionably believe that which you said. Your favorite justification seemed to be on the
net the simplest thing to be aware of. I say to you, I certainly
get annoyed while people consider worries that they plainly do not know about.
You managed to hit the nail upon the top as
well as defined out the whole thing without having side-effects , people could take
a signal. Will probably be back to get more.
Thanks
My webpage; Psn Code Generator
Post a Comment