I think CS natureboy just turned magic4589 into one THROAT-FUCKED BITCH!

 

You goofy fruitcake.

Right. And the Rothschilds secretly run the world.

 

Now that you mention it....

Excellent op-ed this morning, in the Wall St. Journal, in response to Kerry's recent reference to "shoddy scientists" and "deniers."

Yeah, moonbat, the WSJ is a Murdoch rag. So why should you care? Because the op-ed is written by Richard McNider and John Christy.

"Who are they," asks the low-information moonbat?

Oh, they are just tenured climatologists and fellows of the American Meteorological Society. And John Christy was only a member of the 2007 IPCC panel that shared the Nobel Prize with Al Gore.

So, what do they have to say?

I won't paste the whole article. But here are some highlights:

John Kerry likened climate change skeptics to the "Flat Earth Society," yet a flat earth used to be the near-universal scientific consensus. Deniers insisted that the earth was round.

Most (if not all) skeptics of Climate Change actually embrace the known fundamental facts: namely, that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and that burning fossil fuels increases it.

What is not known is (1) by how much the Earth's atmosphere will warm as a result, (2) whether the result will cause harm, and (3) what to do about it.

The computer models that are used by policy makers are built almost entirely by people who believe in "catastrophic global warming."

The models are almost entirely wrong.

In 1994 "we" (McNider and Christy et. al.) published in Nature an article showing that real warming was just one quarter of predicted results.

That disparity has grown in the past twenty years. (The op-ed piece shows some graphs.)

The Climate Change "consensus community" has neither facts nor working models on its side, so it falls back on anecdotal evidence such as melting glaciers and the recent Arctic warming trend-- neither of which can be shown to be caused by greenhouse effects. The "consensus community" would be more intellectually honest to simply admit that the Arctic warming trend is not currently understood. But this is not politically expedient. [Besides, observes clarise, these people are believers.]

The "consensus community" uses other excuses for the absence of warming. They say that the warming is hidden by other effects. Maybe. But those other effects, whatever they are, are not understood, and whatever they are, they are intrinsic to the system being modeled. Again, evidence of the models' flaws. "When a batter goes 0 for 10, he's better off questioning his swing than blaming the umpire."

The model inconsistencies in and of themselves do not refute the theory of greenhouse gas induced warming, but it is disturbing that "consensus science" will not acknowledge the discrepancies, because public policy is formed by their findings.

Public policy has a cost to economies and to people, and that policy rests on an unsound foundation.

McNider and Christy compare the perils of the current "scientific consensus" with the 18th century medical "consensus" in the British Empire that scurvy was caused by internal putrefaction, ignoring real-world experience among British ship captains that citrus in the diet cured scurvy. As a result more British sailors died of scurvy than of actual military campaigns.

Similarly, we are crippling the world's economies, and the developing world especially, and it is harming people unnecessarily and groundlessly.

Closing paragraph verbatim:

"We should not have a climate science research program that searches only for ways to confirm prevailing theories, and we should not honor government leaders, such as Secretary Kerry, who attack others for their inconvenient, fact-based views."
​

 

Don't hold his broken pledges as a crime.
He meant them, oh he meant them at the time.

If a Republican is elected president in 2016 count on lots of executive orders, especially if the Democrats hold the House, the Senate, or both.

The most dangerous political lie of the last 34 years was Ronald Reagan's promise to cut taxes, raise defense spending, and balance the budget by 1983 without cutting middle class entitlements. Most Republicans still believe that is possible.

 

I never said being a lying hypocrite was a crime. I was just pointing to evidence that he is one.

 

An Obamacare success story. "Freed" from the workforce.

 

Woops!

 

LOL! Found on Twitter.

 

So how many minds were changed here?

 

Oh no you don't!
First, the jobless rate/labor force participation have been almost totally effected by the unemployed remaining unemployed for far longer periods than at anytime since unemployment benefits became a reality in 1934 and they started tracking such things. Almost since it's inception, the average term of unemployment was around 14 weeks. Even during recessions, 14 weeks was the norm.
Since 2009 the average term of unemployment has been over 33 weeks. The system was never designed to fund that length of unemployment. Obama has been encouraging people to "upgrade" their skills by returning to college, and even making sure they could continue to collect their benefits while they did so. Then he "nationalized" the student loan program. The result? Millions of Americans who were laid off in 2009 exhausting their benefits, going to school and running up massive student loan debt that they now owe to the feds instead of the bank, and STILL unemployed because they are all but unemployable now. Employers don't want to hire people who have forgotten how to get out of bed in the morning, and who have non existent job skills.

The end result is that Hundreds of thousands of those unemployed are now on welfare, Social Security disability, and/or welfare.

Obama owns that. Not Bush, not the Republicans, Obama. No other President since Roosevelt has presided over such a train wreck of an economy or a labor landscape like this one. His executive order raising wages to $10.10 is pure BS; he can raise it to $100 an hour for all the good it does the unemployed.

And his promises?

Yeah, we should hold a politician..........any politician...........to his promises. The ones that he got elected for. If we don't, then what the hell; we'll just expect them to make promises like "cut taxes, raise defense spending, and balance the budget by 1983 without cutting middle class entitlements."

Now, you wouldn't be bashing Bush for his broken promises, while giving old Obama a pass would you?

 

DL will never admit it, but he still refuses to debate me on the issue of violence and race. He'll spew his "facts" and then run away, and i take that to mean that he sees the error of his ways but can't admit it yet.

Oh, and Clarise and I agree that I am one handsome devil now! She used to think I was a putz.

 

So you have sent Clarise your pic? WOW!

 

WTF are you talking about?! I never said Congress was elected by the EC. I said that the Dems won the overall House popular vote by 1% in 2012, so it's not as if people wanted a Repug House majority in 2012.

Try to address what I'm saying, Blockhead!

 

Is that the aim here? I thought the idea was to have fun. And in that case....


[YOUTUBE]DyM1Qj5TZ2k[/YOUTUBE]

 

What you said was:

Doesn't sound ANYTHING like what you're trying to backpedal to.

"Complex electoral factors". Yeah, you weren't referring to the Electoral College. And I'm Lady Gaga. That makes us both liars.

 

LOL, yes you did moron. I will even quote you and put your words in bold letters so you can read your own stupidity again while we all laugh at you....:laughing:

 

Here we go again with your lack of comprehension of what is posted. It is not the other poster who made the mistake, it is as usual and once again YOU.

 

Really now? Well, since you apparently comprehend what the writer "meant", why not break it down for us unenlightened ones? Specifically those "complex electoral factors" that kept the Dems from taking back the house with their popular vote.

 

I am afraid it might prove futile. It is obviously what is being read into his post not what he literally said. I cannot make you understand if you want to argue a paper tiger.