Virgin Births Not Uncommon in US
You'd think, with something like this happening all the time, that we would have heard more about it:
The article ends up with a comment about self-report in the collection of scientific and medical information.
The results of a long-term study of reproductive health, published in the British Medical Journal, have revealed that one in two hundred US women claim to have given birth without ever having had sexual intercourse.I know what you're thinking. You're thinking these young ladies are lying. But it sounds like they mostly came from good, respectable homes, where they were taught good morals. Certainly not the type who would lie about something like this. And many of them had even promised not to have sex.
The findings were based on a study of 7,870 women and girls aged 15 to 28, as part of the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, which ran from 1995 to 2009.
The Christmas issue of the BMJ reports that, of the women who took part in the study, 45 (0.5%) reported at least one virgin pregnancy, "unrelated to the use of assisted reproductive technology."
In short, they claimed to have conceived - yet had not had vaginal intercourse or in-vitro fertilisation (IVF). America's 'virgin births'? One in 200 mothers 'became pregnant without having sex'
They found that the girls who had become pregnant, despite claiming they had never had sex at the time of conception, shared some common characteristics.It would have been interesting to find out how many of these virgin mothers' mothers were also virgins. There could be entire virginal lineages. I never did those dirty nasty things, and grandma never did them -- and you shouldn't do them either, sweetie.
Thirty-one per cent of the girls had signed a so-called 'chastity pledge', whereby they vow - usually for religious reasons - not to have sex. Fifteen per cent of non-virgins who became pregnant also said they had signed such pledges.
The 45 self-described virgins who reported having become pregnant and the 36 who gave birth were also more likely than non-virgins to say their parents never or rarely talked to them about sex and birth control.
About 28 per cent of the "virgin" mothers' parents (who were also interviewed) indicated they didn't have enough knowledge to discuss sex and contraception with their daughters, compared to 5 percent of the parents of girls who became pregnant and said they had had intercourse.
The article ends up with a comment about self-report in the collection of scientific and medical information.
The authors of the study, entitled "Like a virgin (mother)", - say that such scientifically impossible claims show researchers must take care in interpreting self-reported behavior. Fallible memory, beliefs and wishes can cause people to err in what they tell scientists.Merry Christmas, everybody, or whatever holiday you enjoy. For one day, at least, let's pray for peace on earth and goodwill toward all.
posted by JimK at 1:31 PM
255 Comments:
pathetic
Hysterical!
This week I received a letter from my employer. FCPS, after 15 years, wants proof of my eligibility to work in the United States. They say they did a "voluntary survey" of their records for such documentation. They've set up centers county-wide in January for people to turn in documentation, so I'm clearly not the only one.
Is Fairfax County looking for secret undocumented workers? Does anyone know where this is coming from?
Papieren bitte?
Happy winter solstice everyone.
Remember - a big party in the middle of winter is the reason for the season.
"scientifically impossible claims show researchers must take care in interpreting self-reported behavior"
unless the claims support the gay agenda, in which case no further investigation or replication
in that case, they've met all the requirements of what reputable scientists call the "Jim Kennedy" scientific method
"Happy winter solstice everyone.
Remember - a big party in the middle of winter is the reason for the season"
it's that time of year
when the resentment of unhappy atheists against believers reaches its frosty zenith
so sad
That's a good idea--sell your religon by insulting people who don't belong to it.
Robert, both Jim and lazy Priya made a gratuitous Christmas attack on Christianity, without provocation.
Could you show me, from scripture, how someone's response to that should be to try and "sell" them on religion?
Those who are well don't need a doctor, right?
Alan Turing was a mathematician and also a war hero, not because he fought in combat, but because he did crucial work for the British government during World War II. Turing broke a number of German codes, including communications that had been scrambled by the Enigma machines. In 1945, King George VI awarded Turing the Order of the British Empire.
In the following years, Turing made numerous contributions to knowledge, including the domain of pattern recognition. Many people consider him the father of computer science. Since 1966, the Association of Computing Machinery has awarded the Turing Award, perhaps the highest distinction in all of computer science, for contributions “of lasting and major technical importance to the computer field.”
Turing was gay, and in 1952, he was convicted of the criminal offense of “gross indecency” for a sexual act with a man. Upon conviction, he was asked to choose between imprisonment or probation, with the latter conditioned on acceptance of hormonal treatment, which would reduce his sex drive. He chose the latter. He lost his security clearance and his consulting position with the U.K. government. In 1954, he died of suicide.
This week, Queen Elizabeth II pardoned Turing.
Lighten up, Bad anonymous.
Christmas was originally a pagan celibration of the winter solstice. Christians co-opted it by pretending their imaginary god was born on that day because they couldn't stand people enjoying something unrelated to christianity.
sure, "lighten up" and here's another attack spasm of intolerance against Christianity:
"a big party in the middle of winter is the reason for the season"
it's really not an obscure piece of trivia to note that Christianity in trying to save populations from paganism, which had plenty of evil aspects, would adopt certain decorum elements and incorporate them, rather ingeniously, into the Christmas story
nothing really wrong with that
indeed, it was a form of cultural flexibility
but we know what your problem is
it's of your own making and really sad
why don't you lighten up and sign "joy to the world"?
on Christmas Day, there were 57 bombing attacks on Christians in Iraq
you know how lazy Priya always says that if you don't approve of homosexuality you are the reason gays are jumped at 3 in the morning in high-crime urban areas?
perhaps we should similarly accuse lazy priya's gratuitous attacks on Christians as being the cause of violence against Christians around the world
The US government in my opinion has done far too little to protect Christians and other minorities in Iraq. I don't get the sort of intolerance that leads to attacking churches and people simply because they don't agree with you.
Anon, even when you have a chance to make a point you blow it. There were three bombing attacks on Christians in Iraq, not 57, and 37 people were reported killed.
Why do they do that? Couldn't tell you. Things are different there.
Bush's Blunder in Iraq is still killing Iraqis.
"There were three bombing attacks on Christians in Iraq on Christmas, and at least 37 people were killed.
Why do they do that?"
Isn't it obvious that it's because of the hatred and bigotry of people like lazy Priya?
here's a fun article for a Saturday morning:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelcannon/2013/12/27/as-predicted-obamacare-plunges-into-utter-chaos/
Now that A&E executives have surrendered to the will of hundreds of thousands of "Duck Dynasty" fans and welcomed Phil Robertson back to the show nearly 10 days after creating a firestorm when they suspended him for expressing views about sexuality that are pretty much shared by many other conservative Christians, it's time to see who the winners and losers are.
The winners: Robertson and his family.They held fast to their values and learned how deep their fan base really is. The family's admission of regret about his statements to GQ was no surrender, given that his comments were never about hate as opponents had insinuated.
The losers: A&E executives, of course, who knew all along that the Robertson family members were conservative Christians, yet did the world's worst imitation of Claude Rains in "Casablanca" when gay groups complained.
And while we're on that subject, the other big loser is GLAAD, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Discrimination, which showed how far it had strayed off the path of encouraging tolerance into the dark woods where conformity is enforced by witchhunts and demands for blood sacrifices. GLAAD's intolerance sparked what its leaders called the worst backlash they'd ever seen -- a backlash that included prominent members of the gay community such as Andrew Sullivan and Camille Paglia.
That's right: Two groups of smug, urban sophisticates got outsmarted by a backwoodsman who shoots ducks for a living.
Heckuva job, folks.
"Indiana already has a law banning gay marriage, complete with criminal penalties for pastors who perform same-sex rites, but that's not good enough for state Republicans. Prodded by right-wing religious groups such as the good Christian folks at the Indiana Family Institute, GOP legislators voted overwhelmingly in 2011 for an anti-gay constitutional amendment and are now mulling a second and decisive vote.
It's a mighty special amendment. Not content merely to limit the legal benefits of marriage to hetero couples, it comes with extra added venom to outlaw any "legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals." Together with criminal penalties already in the law, this would make Indiana the state most like Russia when it comes to gay oppression.
Like Russian ruler Vladimir Putin, Gov. Mike Pence and his religious right allies are betting the populace will back them. "The future of marriage belongs in the hands of voters," says Micah Clark, executive director of American Family Association of Indiana. But why just marriage?
The proud social conservatives of Indiana might as well git r done all in one vote. For starters, they can add official recognition of the state's Ku Klux Klan heritage, now moldering in a Historical Society bin. They can restore Bible-based anti-miscegenation laws, which outlawed interracial marriage. (Indiana distinguished itself as the only Northern state to keep such a law on its books well into the 1960s.) Turning to the present, they can also rehabilitate White History Month, which the (lately defunct) Indiana University White Student Union attempted to establish earlier this year.
But why not go the whole hog, Hoosiers? Just add White Supremacy to the anti-gay amendment. Since multiple studies link right-wing social conservatism with old-fashioned racism, it's bound to be a crowd-pleaser.
Oh, wait a moment. Could we possibly be confusing a crowd-pleaser with authentic democracy? Maybe Micah Clark was snoozing in civics class when the teacher went over "majority rule, minority rights."
As the great 19th century expounder of American democracy Alexis de Tocqueville observed, simply giving the majority absolute power is no better than living under a dictator. Without constitutional and institutional constraints on the reach of the majority, 51% could vote to enslave everyone else.
The Founding Fathers well understood the threat that John Adams called a "tyranny of the majority." Chief among their concerns was to divide up power among institutions that could keep checks and balances on one another. Of course, they were stuck with a pre-existing system of slavery, and it very nearly scuppered the Constitution. But eventually and at enormous human cost we got past "the Peculiar Institution," and in my lifetime first the courts and then the Congress made legal equality a reality in the lives of most Americans.
Great progress, to be sure, but for America to leave any of its citizens out of the circle of legal equality now would be just plain wrong. So, let's either go back to the days of legalized racism, segregation, and sexism, or let's move ahead. Martin Luther King said, "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice." I believe that to be true, but if the retrograde forces of Old Time Religion hold sway, justice may have to bend around Indiana awhile longer."
Who in the world would describe what Phil said as "values?"
"Who in the world would describe what Phil said as "values?".".
Someone totally devoid of the values of justice, equality, and fairness - a pervert
"GOP legislators voted overwhelmingly in 2011 for an anti-gay constitutional amendment"
sorry, but just defining marriage and outlawing back doors into its benefits which would nullify its uniqueness is not "anti" anything
it is pro-marriage
"Together with criminal penalties already in the law, this would make Indiana the state most like Russia when it comes to gay oppression."
look, I have a lot of problems with Putin but, in this case, all he is doing is protecting the children of Russia from exposure to homosexuality
we have similar laws which specially protect children from evil influences
for example, adults are free to indulge in porn as a free speech right but the right is suspended in regard to child porn
similarly, Russia is using special measures to protect its children
who can blame them?
meanwhile, the sniveling liar Barack Obama who campaigned as someone opposed to gay marriage, is now sending a delegation of homosexuals to the Olympics to be confrontational
let's hope Billie Jean King tells a group of teens about her adventures out of the closet and gets sent to the gulag for twenty
"For starters, they can add official recognition of the state's Ku Klux Klan heritage, now moldering in a Historical Society bin. They can restore Bible-based anti-miscegenation laws, which outlawed interracial marriage."
well, the Hoosier voter doesn't favor that, in spite of your nasty insinuation
it is an insult to racial minorities to say their skin color is the equivalent of deviant sexual desires and behavior
"But why not go the whole hog, Hoosiers? Just add White Supremacy to the anti-gay amendment."
well, Hoosiers don't favor that
but if you are going to change the definition of marriage to include homosexuals, why not go whole hog and allow bigamists and trigamists and incestual and interspecies marriage?
Since multiple studies link left-wing socialism with disregard for sexual morality, it's bound to be a media-pleaser.
"Great progress, to be sure, but for America to leave any of its citizens out of the circle of legal equality now would be just plain wrong."
finally, someone stands up for sexual deviancy and its need for special protection
"Who in the world would describe what Phil said as "values?""
anyone who has read his comments, probs
"Someone totally devoid of the values of justice, equality, and fairness - a pervert"
lazy Priya, who has repeatedly stated that there is no morality other than doing what you want, believes anyone who values a civil and wholesome society is a pervert
"“Even though we thought that the questions were quite clear, there’s still the possibility that some women misunderstood or misinterpreted them, such as simply giving the wrong year, or for whatever reason that they did not want to admit that they had had intercourse,” Herring is quoted as saying. As the original data gathering wasn’t confined to just women, the researchers decided to go back and see if virgin fatherhood was also something that people claimed. “… We actually found a few virgin fathers as well — which is a little harder to get your head around,” Herring adds.
We have to be careful about drawing any concrete conclusions from this analysis. As Herring points out, it may be that a portion of the women had entered their information wrong or had made mistakes in their answers. The study also describes some “born again” virgins who weren’t virgins in the early parts of the study but answered that they were virgins toward the latter half. Why that happened isn’t clear.
Still, there does seem to be a link between women who for whatever reason had signed chastity pledges and the likelihood of them claiming a virgin birth. More in depth research would have to be done on the link between religious motivation for this but, of the handful of reasons why a young woman might sign a chastity pledge, religion and possibly pressure from a religious environment all seem to be likely culprits.
We also have to count ignorance as a factor. Young women deprived of sex education may not believe that the sexual activities they are engaging in amount to a loss of virginity. They may also believe that because they used practices like the so-called “rhythm method,” they couldn’t possibly fall pregnant. There’s also the troubling fact that according to the study, the virgin mothers were more likely to have parents who said they didn’t talk to their children about sex and contraception because they themselves didn’t know enough.
Examining this in a wider context, the study is both humorous and worrying. The religious campaign against sex education, the promotion of abstinence only education and the shaming of young women who do have sex has been proved to have a verifiable impact on pregnancy rates. In terms of abstinence-only education, we have a wealth of evidence to say it actually makes pregnancy rates climb higher. Could it also be leading more women to claim they’re having virgin births?
Despite the fact that this analysis is published in the BMJ’s Christmas edition, which is traditionally packed full of slightly off-kilter research, this is a study that should be taken seriously and used as a platform for more investigation."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131220154511.htm
"Dec. 20, 2013 — A new study conducted by Drexel University environmental sociologist Robert J. Brulle, PhD, exposes the organizational underpinnings and funding behind the powerful climate change countermovement. This study marks the first peer-reviewed, comprehensive analysis ever conducted of the sources of funding that maintain the denial effort.
hrough an analysis of the financial structure of the organizations that constitute the core of the countermovement and their sources of monetary support, Brulle found that, while the largest and most consistent funders behind the countermovement are a number of well-known conservative foundations, the majority of donations are "dark money," or concealed funding.
The data also indicates that Koch Industries and ExxonMobil, two of the largest supporters of climate science denial, have recently pulled back from publicly funding countermovement organizations. Coinciding with the decline in traceable funding, the amount of funding given to countermovement organizations through third party pass-through foundations like Donors Trust and Donors Capital, whose funders cannot be traced, has risen dramatically.
Brulle, a professor of sociology and environmental science in Drexel's College of Arts and Sciences, conducted the study during a year-long fellowship at Stanford University's Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences. The study was published today in Climatic Change, one of the top 10 climate science journals in the world.
The climate change countermovement is a well-funded and organized effort to undermine public faith in climate science and block action by the U.S. government to regulate emissions. This countermovement involves a large number of organizations, including conservative think tanks, advocacy groups, trade associations and conservative foundations, with strong links to sympathetic media outlets and conservative politicians.
If you want to understand what's driving this movement, you have to look at what's going on behind the scenes..."
Anonymous compares being open about one's sexual orientation (including same-gender marriages) to the sexual exploitation of children.
Does anyone else see this as extreme? I wonder if A & E would do a reality show about him.
Robert, like most anti-gays bad anonymous realizes he's losing his war on gays so he's getting more shrill and extreme to try to compensate.
"This study marks the first peer-reviewed, comprehensive analysis ever conducted of the sources of funding that maintain the denial effort"
this is really what this blog is all about
not homosexuality but the multi-faceted attempt by liberals to abuse scientific concepts for propaganda purposes
"through an analysis of the financial structure of the organizations that constitute the core of the countermovement and their sources of monetary support,"
analysis? you mean a list if their supporters
big deal, it's no secret that conservative groups oppose governmental redistribution of wealth justified by alarmism
also, companies that would bear the burden of this folly also support an objective look at what has become an unquestioned status quo
"The study was published today in Climatic Change, one of the top 10 climate science journals in the world."
really?
sounds biased
"The climate change countermovement is a well-funded and organized effort to undermine public faith in climate science"
that because the movement believes we should act on empirical evidence, not "faith in climate science"
"and block action by the U.S. government to regulate emissions"
no one opposes sensible regulation of pollution
attempting to alter the climate, however, is folly, and there is no reason to believe government regulation could do it
"This countermovement involves a large number of organizations, including conservative think tanks, advocacy groups, trade associations and conservative foundations, with strong links to sympathetic media outlets and conservative politicians."
hate to break it to you, but the global warming alarmist movement involves a large number of organizations, including liberal think tanks, advocacy groups, trade associations and liberal foundations, with strong links to sympathetic media outlets and liberal politicians
do you actually not realize that?
did you know that in December 2008, Al Gore gave a speech to a German trade group and, after pointing out that he invented the internet and used to be the "next" President of the US, stated that within five years the northern polar ice cap would be melted?
did you know that the size of the aforementioned ice cap has increased 60%?
indeed, these alarmists continually make stupid predictions that don't come true
so, it really shouldn't take much to deny the likelihood of their predictions
they really don't know what they're talking about
"Anonymous compares being open about one's sexual orientation (including same-gender marriages) to the sexual exploitation of children"
children should be protected from exposure to deviant ideas and practices, especially when the consequences of such aren't honestly described
truthfully, pursuing homosexual activity in our real world, not a clinical setting, is dangerous
and even those who survive the physical dangers will be emotionally harmed and lose the opportunity for a fulfilling life which includes things like a family with the two biological parents of the children or a relationship with the real God
if you want the opportunity to spread this gangrene among adults, that's free speech
children are another story
"Does anyone else see this as extreme?"
probably lunatic fringe gay advocate extremists
but you have to realize that these people constantly misunderstand what the public considers extreme
remember when they thought Americans would boycott Chik-Fil-A because its owner believed gay marriage was wrong?
polls show it is currently the top-rated fast food in America
remember when they thought Americans would boycott A&E because the star of its highest-rated show believed homosexuality is akin to bestiality?
A&E was forced to reinstate him after a public outcry
so I think we would have to conclude that homosexual advocates either don't understand what is extreme in a country or they know the truth full well and are hoping to create a new reality with a song and dance routine to a compliant media
am I right?
"Robert, like most anti-gays bad anonymous realizes he's losing his war on gays so he's getting more shrill and extreme to try to compensate"
people like lazy Priya, whose life is lived on the internet, have a hard time with reality
lunatic fringers think they are winning because judges from ivory towers keep declaring homosexual "marriage" a constitutional right
just this morning I was reading in the paper that "no one suspected a conservative state like Utah would legalize homosexual marriage so soon"
but Utah didn't, a judge did
and his decision, being resisted by the state government in Utah, is headed to the Supreme Court
with 2013 drawing to a close, it's hard to overestimate what an annus horriblis this has been for the liberal minority in America
as the year started off, their hero President signed off on making most of the Bush tax cuts, that they had railed against for over a decade, permanent
then the liberals thought it would be easy to exploit the tragedy at Newtown and push through long-desired gun control legislation
epic fail
then, having hyperbolized the effect of the Hispanic vote on the Prez election, they thought immigration reform would be a slam dunk
epic fail
onward, and conservatives called the liberal bluff on the budget and got 5% across the board cuts in liberal discretionary programs
before long, it was uncovered that Obama used the IRS to harass his political opponents, which was probably the difference in a close election
and then that Obama was collecting all phone records and internet activity of Americans, as he escalated a drone war, killing scores of innocent people around the globe
during the summer, Obama completely fumbled the Syrian crisis, making Putin look good and agreeing to not help the rebels
as fall began, liberals began a campaign to force the Redskins to change their name
epic fail
then, Americans saw Obama try to use the shutdown for political purposes, shutting out veterans from war memorials
oh, and Obamacare, the liberal answer to all our problems
turns out, it raised premiums, deductibles, out-of-pocket costs, taxes and reduced choice for most, denying access to the best doctors
and it looks like, next Wednesday, just as many will be uninsured as last New Year's Day
a desperate Obama try to make peace with North Korea and was snubbed by Congress
as the year comes to a close, polls show that Americans prefer the next Congress be Republican and have rallied around a backwoods bayou hunter who says homosexuality is as deviant as bestiality and was attacked by liberals for stating his beliefs
and homosexual marriage is headed to the Roberts Supreme Court
HAHHAHAHA!!!
epic fail
"Don't be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the Christians, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers -- they won't inherit the kingdom of God. Don't deceive yourself. It's not right."
Anyone have a problem with that? Anyone offended?
Why should they be?
I didn't think so.
offended?
not really, more sad for you
Phil Robertson was paraphrasing scripture, I Cor 6:9-11
"Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God."
two things are clear here: homosexuality is included with sin in Scripture, and all have sinned and can be forgiven
Phil Robertson told the truth. If you want to mock and satirize, that's your loss.
“Phil Robertson told the truth”
Ummmm… no.
Phil Robertson told people his opinion – a paraphrased passage from one of many versions of the bible.
The simple fact of the matter is that there is more testable evidence for anthropomorphic global warming than there is for an anthropomorphic god.
The fact that he can say these kinds of things with out malice is not evidence that he is not hateful, but that he has repeated such slanderous things about LGBT folks for so long and without introspection, that he has become numb to the dangers this kind of talk about people (anyone) can be to victims he has unwittingly cleaved from God’s favor.
Just because he can say it without being “hateful” doesn’t erase the denigrating damage and underlying hatefulness of the statement. God’s love (assuming for the moment it exists) doesn’t somehow miraculously shine through this when people all over the world use God as a bludgeon to isolate, slander, shame and humiliate gay people.
The first step in eliminating people you don’t like is to put them into the same class as animals and pedophiles. Christians have been doing this at least since the days of the “blood libel.” Christians obsessive compulsion to equate gays with bestiality and pedophilia is just the modern-day, watered down version of that. And since today’s secular society doesn’t let them execute people for supposedly sacrificing children, they contrive to use the legal system to keep LGBT people isolated as much as possible from society.
Left to their own devices, Christians would do something like this:
“The pastor, identified on YouTube as Charles L. Worley of Providence Road Baptist Church in Maiden, N.C., condemns President Obama's much-publicized endorsement of same-sex marriage while calling for gays and lesbians to be put in an electrified pen and ultimately killed off.
"Build a great, big, large fence -- 150 or 100 mile long -- put all the lesbians in there," Worley suggests in the clip, reportedly filmed on May 13.
He continues: "Do the same thing for the queers and the homosexuals and have that fence electrified so they can't get out...and you know what, in a few years, they'll die out...do you know why? They can't reproduce!"
He also said that if he's asked who he'll vote for, he'll reply, "I'm not going to vote for a baby killer and a homosexual lover!" Many of the congregants cheer and reply, "Amen."”
Call it “belief” if you like, and whine, snivel, and claim you’re a “victim” if someone complains about what you say, and “attacks” you in the press or YouTube for “spreading God’s word,” but as a member of the much maligned LGBT community who was raised Catholic, observation has forced me to conclude that if there is a God, he would have known far better than to make His representatives here on earth any form of “Christian.”
Have a nice day,
Cynthia
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/28/samesex-couples-shatter-m_n_4511778.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular
Same-sex Couples Shatter Marriage Records In Utah
“SALT LAKE CITY (RNS) -- In the week since a federal judge overturned Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage, the number of weddings in the state has skyrocketed, shattering records and accruing thousands of dollars for Utah’s 29 counties.
As of close of business Thursday (Dec. 26), more than 1,225 marriage licenses had been issued in Utah since last Friday (Dec. 20). Of those, at least 74 percent, or 905 licenses, were issued to gay and lesbian couples.
Marriage licenses in Utah cost between $30 and $50, depending on the county.
With an average marriage license costing $40, counties in Utah made a grand total of more than $49,000 in the three-and-a-half days most county clerk’s offices were open this week.
About three-quarters of that money came from gay and lesbian couples seeking marriage licenses in the immediate aftermath of U.S. District Judge Robert J. Shelby’s ruling that overturned a statewide ban on same-sex marriages…”
"Ummmm… no."
actually, yes
"Phil Robertson told people his opinion – a paraphrased passage from one of many versions of the bible."
no, he didn't include any opinions
it was all scriptural
if you think there's a version that changes the meaning of this scripture, let us know
"The fact that he can say these kinds of things with out malice is not evidence that he is not hateful, but that he has repeated such slanderous things about LGBT folks for so long and without introspection, that he has become numb to the dangers this kind of talk about people (anyone) can be to victims he has unwittingly cleaved from God’s favor."
he didn't slander anyone or cleave anyone from God
he took scripture at face value
the scripture is from God
btw, "GLBT folks" is a classic
oxymoron
the term "folks" means those who are representative of the norm
that's not GLBT individuals
"Just because he can say it without being “hateful” doesn’t erase the denigrating damage and underlying hatefulness of the statement. God’s love (assuming for the moment it exists) doesn’t somehow miraculously shine through this when people all over the world use God as a bludgeon to isolate, slander, shame and humiliate gay people."
the scripture Robertson referred to doesn't isolate "gay people" at all
it includes homosexual behavior in a list of sinful qualities that was extensive enough to include most people and even said that the Christians being addressed were guilty of these things
so, how are homosexuals being stigmatized?
the rest of your post is baseless and wild extrapolation
“As of close of business Thursday (Dec. 26), 905 marriage licenses had been issued in Utah to gay and lesbian couples."
this is the ruling of a rogue judge and not the people of Utah
it's destined for the Supreme Court
here's a fun story:
"Pope Francis reportedly was "shocked" by a bill that would allow gay couples to adopt children in Malta.
Maltese Bishop Charles Scicluna told the Times Of Malta that he spoke with Pope Francis about the bill and the pope encouraged him to speak out against it.
The Holy See's reaction may come as a surprise to those who have viewed him as progressive on gay rights. LGBT magazine "The Advocate" even named him their person of the year, citing his comments about homosexuals.
Despite his July comments, the pope has a long history of being against gay rights. He has come out strongly opposed to same-sex marriage and called it "a destructive attack" on God's plan."
http://nationalreview.com/article/367176/racism-wrecking-ball-john-fund
Anon claimed:
“it was all scriptural
the scripture is from God”
The scripture as we know it today has been interpreted and re-interpreted dozens of times since its contents and many critical features (like the question of Jesus’ divinity) were voted on by a bunch of bishops in the 4th century at the Council of Nicaea.
This council was called by a military emperor to consolidate his power and control over his vast territories. Pagan by birth, some say that Emperor Constantine converted to Christianity on his deathbed.
The scriptures that this council voted on formed the basis of an organizational system that was used to control, dominate, coerce, and tax people for centuries. It was highly successful. Constantine was a genius when it came to military strategy and tactics, as well as political theatre and political consensus building.
If the scripture was truly “from God” (something which you have no testable evidence for) it would seem entirely unnecessary for a bunch of guys in the fourth century to vote on whether Jesus was divine or not. Our culture and history would be far different if they had voted the other way. It would seem that question would have been pretty obvious to folks almost two millennia closer to Jusus’ life – you shouldn’t need to vote on it.
“if you think there's a version that changes the meaning of this scripture, let us know”
Folks have changed the meaning of scripture throughout history to suit their own needs. It helps to be king though to do it. That’s why we have something called “The King James” version of the bible. King Henry the VIII didn’t like the interpretations on divorce, so he set up his own church. Many kings used the bible to justify their ruling power and wars on people they didn’t like – including (alternately) Catholics and Protestants. It’s good to be King. People interpret the bible to suit their own political and religious desires and needs. That’s why we have DOZENS of different bibles. They can’t all be right. It’s probably time to vote again on which one is correct. Any takers?
“the rest of your post is baseless and wild extrapolation”
My post came from the teachings of Pastor Worley, my own personal experience, and the experiences of people I know personally. It has far more basis than claiming things like “Bill 23-07 is going to lead to men dressing up like women to invade girls’ privacy in public restrooms.” THAT would be wild extrapolation.
“btw, "GLBT folks" is a classic
oxymoron
the term "folks" means those who are representative of the norm
that's not GLBT individuals”
This is a classic way to isolate and marginalize people. By twisting words to your own specific and narrow interpretation, you have attempted to isolate them from the larger society as a whole and rhetorically minimize them to the point of a few isolated individuals. This makes it easier to promulgate the tyranny of your majority.
For your edification, here is the definition of “folk.”
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/folks?s=t
folk [fohk] Show IPA
noun
1. Usually, folks. ( used with a plural verb ) people in general: Folks say there wasn't much rain last summer.
2. Often, folks. (used with a plural verb) people of a specified class or group: country folk; poor folks.
3. ( used with a plural verb ) people as the carriers of culture, especially as representing the composite of social mores, customs, forms of behavior, etc., in a society: The folk are the bearers of oral tradition.
4.folks, Informal. a. members of one's family; one's relatives: All his folks come from France.
b. one's parents: Will your folks let you go?
5. Archaic. a people or tribe.
Have a nice day,
Cynthia
"So, you're the employer. Your employee makes these bigoted comments like Robertson from Duck Dynasty, and all their co-workers know about them. In this case, so does the public. What do you do? I'll tell you what you don't do. You don't look at the Constitution. The First Amendment right to free speech does not apply to non-government employers.
Yes, Mr. Robertson does indeed have First Amendment rights. That means the government can't throw him in jail, deny him a duck hunting license, or pull A&E's license to broadcast because of those comments.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: there is no free speech in corporate America.
What should the company consider? Here's what any employer should consider under these circumstances:
Contract: Mr. Robertson has a contract. It probably says that he can be suspended or terminated if he does anything that causes the reputation of Duck Dynasty or A&E to be damaged. Morals clauses are common in entertainment and writing contracts. If his contract says he can only be terminated for cause, then their lawyers looked at what is defined as "cause" under the contract. If you have a contract, your employer will review this first before they act. If you're like most Americans, you're an at-will employee, meaning you can be fired for any reason or no reason at all (other than illegal reasons like race, age, sex, whistleblowing, etc.)..."
"...Anti-harassment laws: Title VII and some state laws make discrimination and harassment due to race illegal. Some state and local laws make discrimination and harassment due to sexual orientation illegal. There's also an argument that Title VII's prohibition against sex discrimination bars some kinds of sexual orientation discrimination. Why should the company be worried about this? After all, he didn't make his comments to co-workers. Well, now the company is on notice of his propensity to make comments like this. So are his co-workers. Let's say he spouts off his views now that he's back to a gay cameraman, a black assistant or a Buddhist grip. The company could now be strictly liable if he creates a hostile environment at work due to sexual orientation, race or religion.
This case is similar to the situation where a superstar sales person, a favored supervisor, or the boss's daughter engages in illegal harassment. It's hard to get the company to fire or discipline someone who brings in the bucks or is a favored employee. Still, a company that ignores comments like these runs the risk that they could be held liable down the road when it happens again at work.
Even if you're the company superstar, it's best to keep your comments on race, sex, sexual orientation and religion to your close friends, family and yourself if you don't want to risk losing your job."
Way to go Svelte brunette - you really tore apart bad anonymous.
And thanks to you bad anonymous for proving my point with your shrill and extreme rhetoric after I pointed out that anti-gay christians knowing they're losing their war on gays are losing control of their anger and thus spewing ever more shrill and extreme attacks on innocent LGBTs
"Way to go Svelte brunette - you really tore apart bad anonymous."
lazy priya has a bizarre imagination
cinco simply reiterated some well known facts interspersed with some blatant misconceptions
Constantine, for example, wasn't a deathbed conversion
it's no surprise to any Christian who studies the Bible that there are myriad interpretations, indeed greatly exceeding the "dozens" cinco cites
indeed, any biblical scholar will tell you the first re-interpretation of God's word happened in the Garden
Eve told Satan what God said and Satan said “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?”
this is the source of most "interpretation"
while some passages of scripture are a little harder to understand than others, the truth is that scripture is perspicuous and means what it plainly says
but people have many motivations to deny the irreducible truth
I can just imagine what some of these gay liberal churches make I Cor 6
but Phil Robertson just took the Bible off the shelf and took it at face value
he didn't make anything up
"And thanks to you bad anonymous for proving my point with your shrill and extreme rhetoric after I pointed out that anti-gay christians knowing they're losing their war on gays are losing control of their anger and thus spewing ever more shrill and extreme attacks on innocent LGBTs"
I can only guess what lazy priya thinks I said that was shrill and extreme
we do know that lunatic fringe gay advocates keep misjudging what is extreme
they did it with Dan Cathay, they did it with Phil Robertson, et al
Americans are perfectly comfortable with people who oppose gay marriage and think homosexuality is similar to bestiality
and, guess what?
the new Pope doesn't think gays should adopt
if I thought that, they'd say I was extreme
but the imagination of those like lazy priya has made him their "man of the Year"
hahahahaha!!
did I mention this is a bad time to be a liberal?
So are you saying that belief in Christian scriptures isn't opinion, but adherence to truth?
Is belief in Muslim scriptures truth, or opinion?
97% of members of the National Academy of science don't believe in a personal god. It is the overwhelming concensus of the scientific community that the christian god is fiction and the bible written by primitive and ignorant men.
About two-thirds of scientists believe in God, according to a new survey that uncovered stark differences based on the type of research they do.
The study, along with another one released in June, would appear to debunk the oft-held notion that science is incompatible with religion.
Those in the social sciences are more likely to believe in God and attend religious services than researchers in the natural sciences, the study found.
The opposite had been expected.
Nearly 38 percent of natural scientists -- people in disciplines like physics, chemistry and biology -- said they do not believe in God. Only 31 percent of the social scientists do not believe.
In the new study, Rice University sociologist Elaine Howard Ecklund surveyed 1,646 faculty members at elite research universities, asking 36 questions about belief and spiritual practices.
"Based on previous research, we thought that social scientists would be less likely to practice religion than natural scientists are, but our data showed just the opposite," Ecklund said.
Some stand-out stats: 41 percent of the biologists don't believe, while that figure is just 27 percent among political scientists.
In separate work at the University of Chicago, released in June, 76 percent of doctors said they believed in God and 59 percent believe in some sort of afterlife.
"Now we must examine the nature of these differences," Ecklund said today. "Many scientists see themselves as having a spirituality not attached to a particular religious tradition. Some scientists who don't believe in God see themselves as very spiritual people. They have a way outside of themselves that they use to understand the meaning of life."
Ecklund and colleagues are now conducting longer interviews with some of the participants to try and figure it all out.
"About two-thirds of scientists believe in God, according to a new survey".
That's a gross misrepresentation of the study results. Scroll to the bottom for the questions on belief.
Only 33% specifically said they believe in god and an even smaller percentage of those specifically believe in the christian god. Another 18% said they believe in "some sort of higher power" with 41% saying they don't believe in anything, so over 67% don't believe in a personal god.
Members of the National Academy of sciences are the elite amongst U.S. scientists 93% of them do not believe in a personal god.
This is another example of bad anonymous lying about results of a poll he refers to just as he did with the party blame numbers poll on the October government shutdown.
That's why he never posts a link to the polls he refers to - so he can lie about them and hope no one will go to the trouble of looking them up for themselves.
lazy Priya, frothing at the bit on multiple posts
the Rice University study surveyed faculty at ELITE universities
"That's why he never posts a link to the polls he refers to - so he can lie about them and hope no one will go to the trouble of looking them up for themselves."
intelligent readers will note the lazy Priya did not post a link to the NAS study
what a fool!!
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/03/collins.commentary/
story about Francis Collins, an accomplished member of the National Academy of Sciences, who happens to believe in God
he has started Biologis, a group to promote discourse between science and religion
Today, a century and a half after Charles Darwin published "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection," the overwhelming majority of scientists in the United States accept Darwinian evolution as the basis for understanding how life on Earth developed. But although evolutionary theory is often portrayed as antithetical to religion, it has not destroyed the religious faith of the scientific community.
According to a survey of members of the American Assn. for the Advancement of Science, conducted by the Pew Research Center in May and June this year, a majority of scientists (51%) say they believe in God or a higher power, while only 41% say they do not.
Furthermore, scientists today are no less likely to believe in God than they were almost 100 years ago, when the scientific community was first polled on this issue. In 1914, 11 years before the Scopes "monkey" trial and four decades before the discovery of the structure of DNA, psychologist James Leuba asked 1,000 U.S. scientists about their views on God. He found the scientific community evenly divided, with 42% saying that they believed in a personal God and the same number saying they did not. Scientists have unearthed many important fossils since then, but they are, if anything, more likely to believe in God today.
If a substantial portion of the scientific community is made up of believers, why do so many people think evolution and religion are incompatible? It may be because some of our most famous and prolific scientists, such as American evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould and British physicist Stephen Hawking, were or are atheists and agnostics. But what about Francis Collins, the former head of the Human Genome Project, who was recently appointed as director of the National Institutes of Health by President Obama? Collins is an evangelical Christian who speaks passionately about his faith.
"Science without religion is lame" —Albert Einstein
Joel Primack has a long and distinguished career as an astrophysicist. A University of California, Santa Cruz, professor, he co-developed the cold dark matter theory that seeks to explain the formation and structure of the universe.
He also believes in God.
That may strike some people as peculiar. After all, in some corners popular belief renders science and religion incompatible.
Yet scientists may be just as likely to believe in God as other people, according to surveys. Some of history's greatest scientific minds were convinced there is intelligent life behind the universe. Today many scientists say there is no conflict between their faith and their work.
"In the last few years astronomy has come together so that we're now able to tell a coherent story" of how the universe began, Primack said. "This story does not contradict God, but instead enlarges the idea of God."
Bad anonymous said "lazy Priya, frothing at the bit on multiple posts".
LOL, typical bad anonymous, accusing others of his own worst traits. You made 21 long winded but mostly content free posts and I made 8 short and concise posts.
Bad anonymous said "the Rice University study surveyed faculty at ELITE universities".
Absolutely not. The members of the National Academy of Sciences are THE ELITE scientists in the U.S. and 93% of them don't believe in a personal god.
Bad anonymous said "intelligent readers will note the lazy Priya did not post a link to the NAS study".
Could you make your lies at least slightly blatently less obvious? I clearly did post a link to that poll.
Its you who refers to polls with text you've changed the numbers in and who doesn't post a link in the hope that you can hide your lies. Its you who excuses changing the text of the articles you paste by idiotically claiming the fact that you didn't post where it came from makes such dishonesty okay.
Francis Collins is in a tiny minority amongst members of the National Academy of Sciences, almost all of which are atheist/agnostic. He's so pathetic he says the "evidence" that convinced him god exists was seeing a frozen waterfall with three colours in it.
Bad anonymous said "a poll ten years more recent than lazy Priya's said "a majority of scientists (51%) say they believe in God or a higher power, while only 41% say they do not.".
I already posted a link to that poll you moron. In that poll only 33% said they believed specifically in god, with 18% saying they believed in "somthing" or a "higher power". In other words over 67% of the scientists in that poll don't believe in your christian god and that imaginary beings fictional statments about gays and lesbians.
Typical of pathetic christians like himself bad anonymous attempted to mislead people with Einstein's quote "Science without religion is lame".
Here's what Einstein really thought about christianity:
“Why do you write to me ‘God should punish the English’? I have no close connection to either one or the other. I see only with deep regret that God punishes so many of His children for their numerous stupidities, for which only He Himself can be held responsible; in my opinion, only His nonexistence could excuse Him.”
“I am a deeply religious nonbeliever.… This is a somewhat new kind of religion.”
“I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it.”
“I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings.”
“The idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I am unable to take seriously.”
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." From a letter Einstein wrote in English, dated 24 March 1954.
Have you all seen this ?
what do you think of it ...
insulting, or are you okay with it ?
Get enrolled video
"I already posted a link to that poll you moron. In that poll only 33% said they believed specifically in god, with 18% saying they believed in "somthing" or a "higher power". In other words over 67% of the scientists in that poll don't believe in your christian god and that imaginary beings fictional statments about gays and lesbians."
don't why you find such comfort in winning an election among materialists but, unfortunately, you're losing
51% think your atheism is dead wrong
51% believe in a higher power, which is evident from examining the structure of the physical
these scientists, however, are not theologians or philosophers so their opinion on whether God is personal or not is no more relevant than anyone else's
once you realize there is a higher power, the only rational explanation is Christianity
everything else falls short
and Christian scripture says homosexuality is contrary to God's purpose for humanity and, thus, sinful
you can't escape, lazy Priya
the truth is all around
everyone, even those who have dedicated their lives to materialism, know there is something more than what we can empirically measure
btw, this: "Its you who refers to polls with text you've changed the numbers in"
is a lie
with 2013 drawing to a close, it's hard to overestimate what an annus horriblis this has been for the liberal minority in America
as the year started off, their hero President signed off on making most of the Bush tax cuts, that they had railed against for over a decade, permanent
then the liberals thought it would be easy to exploit the tragedy at Newtown and push through long-desired gun control legislation
epic fail
then, having hyperbolized the effect of the Hispanic vote on the Prez election, they thought immigration reform would be a slam dunk
epic fail
onward, and conservatives called the liberal bluff on the budget and got 5% across the board cuts in liberal discretionary programs
before long, it was uncovered that Obama used the IRS to harass his political opponents, which was probably the difference in a close election
and then that Obama was collecting all phone records and internet activity of Americans, as he escalated a drone war, killing scores of innocent people around the globe
during the summer, Obama completely fumbled the Syrian crisis, making Putin look good and agreeing to not help the rebels
as fall began, liberals began a campaign to force the Redskins to change their name
epic fail
then, Americans saw Obama try to use the shutdown for political purposes, shutting out veterans from war memorials
oh, and Obamacare, the liberal answer to all our problems
turns out, it raised premiums, deductibles, out-of-pocket costs, taxes and reduced choice for most, denying access to the best doctors
and it looks like, next Wednesday, just as many will be uninsured as last New Year's Day
a desperate Obama try to make peace with North Korea and was snubbed by Congress
as the year comes to a close, polls show that Americans prefer the next Congress be Republican and have rallied around a backwoods bayou hunter who says homosexuality is as deviant as bestiality and was attacked by liberals for stating his beliefs
and homosexual marriage is headed to the Roberts Supreme Court
HAHHAHAHA!!!
epic fail
Querulous Paranoiac: "no, he [Phil Robertson] didn't include any opinions … it was all scriptural … if you think there's a version that changes the meaning of this scripture, let us know … the truth is that scripture is perspicuous and means what it plainly says … but people have many motivations to deny the irreducible truth"
From the last page of the Bible:
Revelations 22:18-19: "I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this scroll. And if anyone takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, God will take away from that person any share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll."
--
According to your truth, even the Holy Book warns of its own full, complete, and utter ERROR.
Patrick, nothing you say ever makes any sense to me
I know I'm just slow but could you elaborate
how does my Holy Book warn of its own full, complete and utter error?
thanks a bunch
www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2013/12/30/phil_robertson_on_marriage_duck_dynasty_star_advised_men_to_find_15_year.html
The Right Wing’s favorite Millionaire Martyr of the Moment just keeps on giving.
Like any good conservative Christian, he’s not content to just speak out on gays and blacks, marriage is a key topic for him, and he’s more than happy to hand out advice:
“In the video [linked above], a Sportsmen's Ministry talk, Robertson laments that good women are hard to find, saying, "Mainly because these boys are waiting until they get to be about 20 years old before they marry 'em. Look, you wait until they get to be 20 years old, the only picking that's going to take place is your pocket."
His advice for a happy marriage is to make like R. Kelly and hang out in high-school parking lots. "You got to marry these girls when they are about 15 or 16. They'll pick your ducks." (No, "pick your ducks" is not sexual innuendo—Robertson is talking about cleaning the feathers off of dead birds, a miserable task often left to women to perform.) "You need to check with mom and dad about that of course," sage Robertson wisely advises, but he does not explain how to convince the parents of teenage girls to let them marry grown men who are tired of cleaning their own dead birds.”
Somehow, while Phil is waving around his bible, he has failed to notice it was 2009, not 1809. Women have the right to vote now, and we have some of them called feminist, who just might point out how misogynists his rants are. Outside of the Catholic and Mormon churches, they might even call his advice as “promoting pedophilia.” But apparently that’s o.k. if you’re a heterosexual – and married.
Instead of hanging around high school parking lots, he should have given ol’ Mitt a call – he’s got BINDERS full of women.
Have a nice day,
Cynthia
I think the Get Enrolled ad is almost as cute as the KMart bell ringing boxers ad!
Ring the bells!
Announce the joyous season!
Let there be peace on Earth, good will toward all!
"Robertson laments that good women are hard to find, saying, "Mainly because these boys are waiting until they get to be about 20 years old before they marry 'em. Look, you wait until they get to be 20 years old, the only picking that's going to take place is your pocket"
I have an idea
why don't you send A&E a petition and get Robertson fired?
then, act like what some guy who spends his days hunting in the bayou is vitally important to our civilization
and then spend hours scouring the internet for anything he said that you make a big ass deal over
next up, another martyr millionaire: Sir Barack Obama
Until very recently I had no idea who or what Duck Dynasty was. But now I, along with the rest of the English-speaking world, know far more about Duck Dynasty than I care to. But I am preparing myself for the reality that I will be hearing those two words endlessly over the course of the next year. Because unlike many media scandals that come and go after a 24 hour news cycle, I believe the Duck Dynasty controversy will have legs. Not only will the controversy linger, it might reignite the culture war that has traditionally hurt Democrats, especially in off-year elections when older, whiter voters have turned out more.
On Friday, A&E announced that it would welcome Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertson back into the fold.
The move was no doubt motivated by the fact that a petition in support of Robertson garnered more than a quarter of a million signatures and his album sales (yes, apparently he and his family have an album) shot through the roof.
For those of you living under a rock Robertson described what he considers sinful during an interview with GQ: “Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men.”
Despite the fact that in the next quote Robertson also quotes scripture to denounce those who commit adultery, drink too much, and slander others as sinners, he was roundly denounced as a bigot and hate monger in progressive and liberal leaning news outlets.
This is precisely what will prove problematic for President Obama and the Democratic Party in the upcoming midterm elections.
Though nearly half of the country opposes same-sex marriage, the media narrative has become dominated by the storyline that only a small segment of backward bigots who hate gay people oppose same-sex marriage. That simply isn’t true. (Reinforcing bias in reporting on this story is the fact that many outlets caved to pressure to use the term “marriage equality” in coverage, when such a term is an activist creation. Interracial marriage is called interracial marriage, not “marriage equality.” If supporters of same-sex marriage view the civil rights fights as comparable, the same language standard should be applied.)
Polls also show 59 percent of Americans now find same-sex couples morally acceptable. That means there are plenty of Americans who don’t have a problem with gay couples but seem to have a problem with the word “marriage” being used to define their relationships.
Among my family members who oppose same-sex marriage, I have been told to congratulate my gay friends whose weddings I have attended. But I have simultaneously been told that such unions don’t fit my relatives’ biblical definition of marriage. I have further been told that in the context of the oft repeated phrase “love the sinner, hate the sin,” they see gay people no differently than they would view a straight person like me who decides to live with someone “in sin” (as the biblical saying goes). It wouldn’t make me a bad person but one who according to biblical text would be “living in sin.” In other words, they wouldn’t throw holy water on me but also wouldn’t throw me a parade. Most of all, they wouldn’t really care how I live my romantic life at all, as long as I was happy.
There’s a big gulf between the relatives I describe and someone who “hates” gay people. The fact that so many liberals can’t see the difference speaks to the tremendous gulf that has grown in recent years between the increasingly vocal liberal wing of the Democratic Party and, well...everyone else.
The Democratic Party is in danger of being seen as increasingly intolerant by crucial swing voters in the culture wars.
There was a time when there was room in both major parties for differing viewpoints. But much like Democrats accuse the GOP of bigotry for ostracizing party members who embrace bipartisanship—or, in the case of Gov. Chris Christie, embrace President Obama—the Democratic Party is in danger of being seen as increasingly intolerant by crucial swing voters in the culture wars.
Last year Democratic senators who oppose same-sex marriage were targeted by angry progressives, despite there remaining many more important issues affecting the LGBT community that those senators’ votes were needed on, most notably workplace protections for LGBT citizens. After all, not every gay friend I have wants to get married, but all of them want to be able to find and keep a job without fear of being fired for who they are.
Which raises a question: Would progressives rather have someone like Mary Landrieu of Louisiana say she is with them on same-sex marriage so they can feel good about themselves, or would they rather have her in the Senate to vote on other issues she can wield influence on and are more important? The alternative is a Republican senator who almost surely will vote against their interests 100 percent of the time. For the record, Landrieu was a co-sponsor of ENDA, the Employment Nondiscrimination Act, in 2009. (Landrieu has said she personally supports same-sex couples but believes her responsibility as a legislator means accurately representing the majority of her constituents who disagree with her.
But the reality is Landrieu is in trouble in the upcoming midterm elections. And my guess is if she were on record in support of same-sex marriage and had come out against Phil Robertson, her goose would be cooked, Cajun-style. She’s not the only one. Sen. Mark Pryor of Arkansas is one of a number of Democratic senators in conservative states where people do things like go to church, read the Bible, and, yes, watch Duck Dynasty.
Those of us in big cities—and particularly those of us who work in the media—have no right to dismiss these people as not part of the future of America. While issues such as health care and the economy have defined recent elections, the Duck Dynasty controversy could signal the return of social issues to front and center, and on those we remain a nation closely divided.
The backlash to the attack on Robertson was a reminder that the White House, the DNC, and progressive activists could soon find themselves living in an America in which those who think like Phil Robertson are calling the shots, because there are still just enough of them to take control of both houses come this November and the White House in 2016.
A funny thing happened during Australian climate change professor Chris Turney's venture to retrace a 1912 research expedition in Antarctica and gauge how climate change has affected the continent: Two weeks into a five-week excursion, Turney's good ship MV Akademik Shokalskiy got trapped in ice. It turns out, global warming notwithstanding, that there's so much ice down under that two ice-breaking vessels sent to rescue the research team cannot reach the Australasian Antarctic Expedition.
Years ago, global warming believers renamed the phenomenon "climate change" -- probably because of pesky details such as unusually cold weather undercutting the warming argument. Now, just as advocates argue that earth is approaching a tipping point, there's so much ice floating in Antarctica during the Southern Hemisphere's summer that the Australasian Antarctic Expedition posted in a statement: "We're stuck in our own experiment."
This incident shows that like the rest of us chickens, scientists have feet of clay. Turney had told journalists that his expedition wanted to collect data that could be used to improve climate models. Too bad the folks who are supposed to predict climate decades into the future are guided by scientists who could not manage to avoid ice floes during a five-week trip.
"We were just in the wrong place at the wrong time," Turney said. He believes that the ship was stuck in old ice from a 75-mile-long iceberg that broke apart three years ago.
Fair enough. But there's still the issue of ice volume. Climate changers usually warn about Arctic ice, which has been receding over the past few decades, but rarely address the overall growth of ice in Antarctica.
"I'm sure some researchers can find a possible explanation where humans are causing both Arctic ice melting and Antarctic ice growth, but I'm skeptical of scientists who blame every change in nature on human activities. Nature routinely causes its own changes, without any help from us," quoth Spencer, himself a climate change contrarian.
"Sea ice is disappearing due to climate change, but here ice is building up," the Australasian Antarctic Expedition acknowledges. It's a conundrum. If warming is melting ice in the Northern Hemisphere, why isn't it melting ice in the Southern Hemisphere?
Believers seize on all manner of weather -- less Arctic ice, more Antarctic ice -- as proof of climate change, but as Spencer notes, there is no climate change without man-caused global warming.
Turney told the Australian Broadcasting Corp. that his goal is to excite the public about science. As for climate change, "in the scientific community, it's remarkably solid." And "self-evident."
He pushes a framework of science being data-driven and free from politics. Yet it's hard to escape the suspicion that whatever the icebound researchers experience, they will frame it as proof that climate change is unassailable.
“For those of you living under a rock Robertson described what he considers sinful during an interview with GQ: “Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men.”
Despite the fact that in the next quote Robertson also quotes scripture to denounce those who commit adultery, drink too much, and slander others as sinners, he was roundly denounced as a bigot and hate monger in progressive and liberal leaning news outlets.”
Yeah, because apparently, if you’re just a regular LGBT person or liberal even, and some Christian lumps you in with animal fornicators, adulterers, and drunkards, you’re just supposed to sit back and “turn the other cheek” because they also quoted scripture. Don’t defend yourself from these slanderous and demeaning accusations, because, well, they’re just Christians quoting the “truth.” Never mind that you’ve never been an alcoholic, slept around, or had sex with animals. Just sit back and take it, because well, the Christians know what’s best for you, and how to “save society.”
Homey don’t play dat.
Have a nice day.
Cynthia
"The climate change countermovement is a well-funded and organized effort to undermine PUBLIC FAITH in climate science"
a couple of days ago, a TTFer posted this clip from "one of the top ten climate change magazines"
now today, we have a climate change scientist calling climate change "self-evident"
it's pretty clear that anthropogenic global warming theory has become a new religious belief and is not based on empirical evidence
problem is, scientists jumped to conclusions years ago and are now desperately trying to save face, abetted by socialist who see a chance to redistribute global wealth
"I know I'm just slow"
There’s no rush
then, why make up something called "homosexual marriage"?
Patrick, you just admitted that your statement had no basis
thanks a bunch
"Yeah, because apparently, if you’re just a regular LGBT person or liberal even, and some Christian lumps you in with animal fornicators, adulterers, and drunkards, you’re just supposed to sit back and “turn the other cheek” because they also quoted scripture. Don’t defend yourself from these slanderous and demeaning accusations, because, well, they’re just Christians quoting the “truth.” Never mind that you’ve never been an alcoholic, slept around, or had sex with animals. Just sit back and take it, because well, the Christians know what’s best for you, and how to “save society.”"
no, instead let's over-react every time someone says something we don't like and seek to bring as much pressure a possible to force them to never ever say it again
any reason why homosexuals can't live with the situation that those who engage in premarital sex do?
some people think it's OK, some think it's sinful
but when someone tells a reporter that they think it's sinful, there aren't calls to banish them from society
think of the liars and drunkards and adulterers and slanderers
Robertson associated them with truly disgusting things like homosexuality and bestiality
you don't hear them calling for him to be tried for crimes against humanity
cinco, you need to wise up for your New Year's Resolve
"Homey don’t play dat."
mocking people with different dialects ain't a good start
a lot of people who got trashed for New Year's Eve are waking up this morning and remembering the words of the Duckster
and they take umbrage to being lumped together with vile activity like homosexuality
will they sit back and “turn the other cheek” or will they defend themselves from these slanderous and demeaning accusations when they have never been so deviant as to have mono-gender relations?
start a petition!!!
so, let's say you went to a tavern and got a little drunk
and, in your inebriated state, you said a few things that weren't true about Daniel Snyder
and, forgetting yourself, you began to hit it off with an unaccompanied young lady at a table on the corner and went back to her place even though you're married
YOU TELLING ME THAT'S AS GROSS AND BAD AS BEING GAY?!?!?!?
this swamp hunter from Louisiana has gone too far this time
he should immediately lose his job and never be hired again
no one should ever buy anything he sells again and he should be thrown out of restaurants
no one should speak to him
reporters should scour all the records about him and find anything embarrassing they can
cops should follow him around and give him as many traffic tickets as they can
and, for heaven's sake, THEY SHOULD STOP PLAYING HIS CHRISTMAS ALBUM AT CRACKER BARREL!!
Utah brought the battle over same-sex marriage back to the Supreme Court on Tuesday, asking it to block a federal judge’s ruling that the state’s ban on such unions was unconstitutional, a decision that has resulted in a rush to marriage in the conservative state.
The state said U.S. District Judge Robert J. Shelby of Salt Lake City had created a new constitutional right for same-sex couples with his Dec. 20 ruling that the state’s ban violated federal guarantees of equal protection.
Each of the marriages performed since then “is an affront not only to the interests of the state and its citizens in being able to define marriage through ordinary democratic channels,” but also to the Supreme Court’s “unique role as final arbiter of the profoundly important constitutional question,” the state’s request said.
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court has thrown a hitch into President Barack Obama’s new health care law by blocking a requirement that religion-affiliated organizations provide health insurance that includes birth control.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor late Tuesday night decided to block implementation of the contraceptive coverage requirement, only hours before the law’s insurance coverage went into effect on New Year’s Day.
Her decision, which came after federal court filings by Catholic-affiliated groups from around the nation, throws a part of the president’s signature law into disarray. A federal appeals court agreed with Sotomayor, issuing its own stay against part of the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare.
man, 2014 is starting out great!
this will be our year!!
2014: the year TTF was silenced
Patrick Fitzgerald (December 31, 2013 9:11 AM):
"According to your truth, even the Holy Book warns of its own full, complete, and utter ERROR."
chocolate confetti: "then, why make up something called "homosexual marriage"?"
Based on my shared observation of the Biblical warning that (some, any, all of) it could be made up, it confounds you as to how I do not see same-sex marriage (SSM) as being also “made up?”
As a dodge it leaves room for improvement, but moving on…
You will always see SSM as “made up” as long as you see our love as “made up,” and you will see our love as fake or counterfeit or a matter of confusion as long as you CHOOSE to -- and you will choose to as long as you WANT to, and clearly you do.
-
What flabbergasts me (and I think a lot of others around here), is how it’s even possible to think that you feel threatened by something that you yourself proclaim not to exist.
the modern era: "2014: the year TTF was silenced"
Besides the First, what other Amendments would you have done away with?
"sorry, but just defining marriage and outlawing back doors into its benefits which would nullify its uniqueness is not "anti" anything … it is pro-marriage"
If you believe that human-marriage is about government “benefits” and a social recognition of “uniqueness,” then you’re probably not the best person to be speaking about the meaning of marriage in any context.
--
Genocidal Intender: "look, I have a lot of problems with Putin but, in this case, all he is doing is protecting the children of Russia from exposure to homosexuality"
Genocidal Intentions: The Ex-Gay Movement and Social Death:
The 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (UNCG).
Article II of the UNCG defines genocide as ‘‘any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; and/or
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.”
--
"it is an insult to racial minorities to say their skin color is the equivalent of deviant sexual desires and behavior"
You’re the only one comparing “desires and behavior” with skin color. Most of the rest of us understand the difference between being and behavior.
Some racial minorities are also LGBT and some aren’t, but are pro-lgbt.
Perhaps you should speak for yourself.
Patrick, very Priya-esque, posts three straight posts, trying desperately to make some points
which he did, of course- for our side
the nonsensical non-sequitors indicate a losing side trying to divert attention, and getting very nervous
HAHAHAHA!!
for demonstrating the vacuousness of the homosexual argument:
thanks a bunch!!
To recap:
chocolate jazz:
"1. Priya-esque
2. three straight posts
3. trying desperately to make some points
4. which he did, of course- for our side
5. the nonsensical
6. non-sequitors
7. indicate a losing side
8. trying to divert attention
9. getting very nervous
10. HAHAHAHA!!
11. the homosexual argument
12. the vacuousness of the homosexual argument:
13. thanks a bunch!!"
--
No, no, thank you. I think we’ve all learned a lot here today.
Congratulations, Patrick.
Be sure and let us know what you've "learned" yesterday, before you forget.
HAHAHAHAHA!!
Republicans are to blame for the nearly five million Americans who will not have any health insurance this year because of the GOP’s refusal to expand Medicaid in various states across the country.
Though the Affordable Care Act provides complete funding through 2016 for Medicaid expansion in all states – and 90 percent funding in the following years – 25 Republican-controlled states have still refused to expand the program that offers coverage to the poor.
As a result, approximately 4.8 million people will find themselves inside the so-called “coverage gap,” which one report suggests could cost 27,000 Americans their lives in 2014.
Anon complained:
“no, instead let's over-react every time someone says something we don't like and seek to bring as much pressure a possible to force them to never ever say it again”
Really Anon… really?
You do realize that this is the same thread where Priya posted:
“Happy winter solstice everyone.
Remember - a big party in the middle of winter is the reason for the season.”
Which you then called “a gratuitous Christmas attack on Christianity, without provocation,” and “another attack spasm of intolerance against Christianity,” even though Priya said absolutely nothing about Christianity, nor did she denigrate anyone or conflate them with adulterers or animal fornicators. God forbid someone had wished a Muslim happy birthday on the 25th, I’m sure you would have called it “an all out nuclear war on Christianity.” That victim card really falls out of your sleeve at the SLIGHTEST provocation. You might want to think again before you accuse someone of overreacting.
“mocking people with different dialects ain't a good start”
It wasn’t a mock, it was a quote. I reiterated this memorable line as my own because Damon Wayans’ delivery in his cynical clown character act succinctly encapsulates my emotions on the response to your post. Here is some more useful information for you:
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_In_Living_Color_sketches
“Homey D. Clown – Damon Wayans plays an ex-con who works as a clown (real name Herman Simpson) for his parole agreement, but lashes out at anyone (usually by hitting them on the head with a sock full of pennies) who attempts to make him perform the standard antics of the role - "I don't think so... Homey don't play dat!". His goal in life is to get even with "The Man", a personification of the white males that are "holding him down". Near the end of most sketches, Homey would lead a group of children (played by the cast members) in a call and response sing-along, which would end with him degenerating into a rant, then intimidating the children into repeating after him. Homey was also the first, and only, In Living Color character to get his own video game.[2]”
For a great little chuckle, you can watch him on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_QhuBIkPXn0
Long time readers are well aware that I reserve my carefully constructed mockery for trolls whose grossly overblown sense of superior morality, misplaced certitude, and willful stupidity utter blinds them to the pernicious belligerence of their words and actions.
Anon complained:
“this swamp hunter from Louisiana has gone too far this time
he should immediately lose his job and never be hired again
no one should ever buy anything he sells again and he should be thrown out of restaurants
no one should speak to him
reporters should scour all the records about him and find anything embarrassing they can
cops should follow him around and give him as many traffic tickets as they can
and, for heaven's sake, THEY SHOULD STOP PLAYING HIS CHRISTMAS ALBUM AT CRACKER BARREL!!”
Putting the overblown hyperbole aside for the moment, I don’t remember you complaining when a Million Moms started a petition to fire Ellen DeGeneres from JCPenny not because she had maligned or denigrated anyone, committed a crime, or harassed Christians, but simply because she’s gay, and god forbid folks should see her on TV. I’m pretty sure the Million Mom’s action was more of an OVER reaction.
But here’s a wild-derriere idea… it you’re tired of gay people “over reacting” after someone conflates them with adulterers, animal fornicators, drunkards, and the like, then simply stop doing that – and encourage your friends to stop doing that. Last time I checked, the bible wasn’t intended to be a “get out of slander free” card you could wave after hurling a bunch of denigrating epithets at a class of people - especially when it has that line about not bearing false witness against your neighbors.
Have a nice day,
Cynthia
You're my hero Cynthia - what a masterful and poetic beat down!
"Republicans are to blame for the nearly five million Americans who will not have any health insurance this year because of the GOP’s refusal to expand Medicaid in various states across the country."
just those five million?
there are about thirty million in America without insurance
why aren't the Republicans responsible for not raising taxes to give all these people free insurance? :) ? :)
really it's the fault of Democrats who don't take their life savings and contribute it to health clinics to give everyone free insurance!!!
just think of all the poor people whose lives would be so much better if Democrats gave as much money to charity as Republicans
Democrats are to blame for not supporting benevolent charities which provide a safety net for the lower income
homosexuals are to blame too
think of all the charities that helped the poor but were shut down because their religious beliefs prevent them from recognizing gay "marriage" and hiring homosexuals to run worthy programs with a religious element
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
I just recorded your IP address, anon. One more like that and you're out of here.
JimK
Gotcha
so encouraging to know you're not one of those to whom nothing is sacred
even if it is just one thing
aren't there more people without insurance now in 2014 than there were in 2013 because of all the cancellations ?
5 million cancelled, 1 million enrolled in obamacare, = -4 million, yes ?
net loss of plans
it's hard to say because the wild card is how many new people are now on Medicare
suffice it to say, at best, after all this sound and fury, there has been no improvement
there will be hell to pay in November for Congressmen and Senators who voted for it
even if it is just one thing
Anon, as you well know, there is only one rule here: don't piss me off.
When you come into my house and poop on the living room floor and insult my friend it tends to irritate me.
JimK
general observation indicates that is not so
Two days after Christmas I found myself in a doctor's office in New Jersey at eight o'clock in the morning. As I sat in the waiting room, a middle-aged woman came in and began a discussion with the receptionist. It seemed that her daughter, who would turn 26 on December 31, was trying to figure out what to do about health insurance.
The woman explained that her daughter had been on a policy with a low co-pay and deductible (she didn't specify what they were) that cost $240 a month. But Obamacare had scuttled that policy and the most affordable plan open to her was a lot more in monthly costs (again, she didn't specify), but with a $6,000 deductible and $50 co-pays. What this woman was inquiring, on her daughter's behalf, was how much the doctor actually charged just for a garden-variety visit, in case she got sick. Sighing, she said that she and her daughter both suspected that it was probably best if she just skipped insurance, paid the penalty—her word—and then bore any healthcare costs directly.
The entire conversation almost sounded like the script of an RNC ad. But it wasn't. These were real people trying to navigate the real problems caused by Obamacare. And I suspect that over the holidays this scene was replicated all over the country.
Some Democrats might object. They'd say that without knowing how much of an increase the new plan represented, we can't really know how much worse it was. Or that the new plan may have had so many new benefits that this woman (and her daughter) didn't realize that it was better for them. Or that maybe the daughter could have qualified for subsidies. Or that this woman was so misinformed that she obviously hadn't read John Roberts's Supreme Court decision, because there's no "penalty" in Obamacare—it's a tax!
Those arguments are fine, I guess. But as a political matter, I'm not sure they matter. Successful political parties can propose all sorts of things. They can point to a better tomorrow or warn of danger ahead. They can sell hope or tough love. What they generally don't do is argue with the public by telling voters that they're stupid. Which is precisely the nub of all those arguments in favor of Obamacare.
What interested me about the lady in the doctor's office is that the town she lives in isn't all that far out of the American mainstream. Just guessing by her demographic markers—her geography, age, ethnicity, and the fact that she had a kid but wasn't wearing a wedding ring—there's a good chance she voted for Barack Obama at least once. But going by her tone of voice, I'd be surprised if she ever voted again for a candidate who supported Obamacare.
That's the political price of Obamacare. But there will be an intellectual price to be paid, too. Watching the left trying to defend Obamacare is often funny—witness this bit of shameless goalpost shifting from Washington Post's White House stenography blog. But sometimes it's just sad. Last week, for instance, the New Republic ran a piece that attempted to defend Obamacare by arguing Scrooge was right not to give charity to the poor.
No, really. Go take a gander.
Dickens has presented Scrooge cruelly in this passage, and, by invoking prisons and workhouses, he has brought to mind the worst and ugliest of government agencies, in order to shine a warm light on his own preferred method for alleviating poverty, which is private charity. Prisons and workhouses are, even so, state-run social services, and everyone of a liberal sensibility ought to agree that a proper effort to cope with poverty is going to require government agencies more than door-to-door charitable campaigns. If only the oppressed proletarians of the Christmas Carol, the Cratchit family, possessed a full right to vote, which they do not, they would surely vote for government services, to be funded by the very mechanism to which Scrooge adverts, namely, taxation of wealthy persons such as himself. The entire Carol turns on a plaintive note, which is warbled by the sickly and crippled Cratchit boy, Tiny Tim, who, a Spirit tells us, hasn't a ghost of a chance for survival so long as Scrooge remains tightfisted and cruel. This should remind us that, in regard to social problems and social service A Christmas Carol is, above all, a meditation on health care. Let us ask, then: should Tim's health and ability to survive depend on Scrooge's capricious impulses—his desire, one year, to keep his wealth to himself, or his Christmas recognition, the following year, that he ought to send a proper goose to his exploited clerk's impoverished family and ought even to offer Mr. Cratchit a raise? But, no, Tim's health care ought not to depend on the whims of Mr. Scrooge. The boy needs a reliable medical clinic or a public hospital—a large-scale government service, in short, like a prison or a workhouse, inscribed in law and supported by the whole of society, except devoted, in this instance, to pediatric medicine.
It's a particularly revealing argument in two ways. First, it shows the absurd lengths to which the left is willing to go to defend Obamacare. But more importantly, it exposes the left's core views concerning civil society and the state.
"Civil society" is the layer of organizations, associations, and traditions that have historically mediated between individuals and the state. It is the source of a great deal of good and has long been revered as an important aspect of democratic self-government. But today's liberals find it an annoyance. They believe instead that the power of the state must be made ever more expansive and irresistible. They wish to sweep away imperfect civil society so that all individuals may—must!—have direct, personal encounters with their government.
The American left didn't always think this way.
The corruptions of Obamacare are manifold. The president proposed it without having any real goals for it. Democratic legislators voted for it without liking it. And now, even as it fails, smart people who should know better are being stampeded into defending it. Each of these ill turns were prompted not by wisdom, or necessity, or even ideology, but rather by simple, base partisanship. There will be a price for all of this. And the first part of the bill comes due on November 4.
here in the Mid-Atlantic: schools closed, snow blowing in the streets faster than plows can push it off, wind chills in single digits....
global warming strikes yet again
yeah, the proof for global warming just keeps piling up
yesterday, some study came out that we are near the "tipping point"
hahahahaha!!!
Glad you enjoyed the post Priya, but I wouldn’t call it poetic. I’ve done a couple of limericks in the past, but thought I’d do haiku, or something in the style of Ogden Nash the next time I waxed poetic.
Have a nice day,
Cynthia
Obama sandwich analogy on Obamacare by dinseh D'Souza
this is the best description I have seen for why redistribution is wrong..
Cynthia, maybe poetic wasn't quite the right word, but stylish and so well written with a feminine touch.
I see since then bad anonymous is behaving like more and more anti-gay activists today - he can see he's lost his war on gays and its making him lose control of his emotions. His tears of defeat are like sweet, sweet nectar to me.
Bad anonymous said "here in the Mid-Atlantic: schools closed, snow blowing in the streets faster than plows can push it off, wind chills in single digits....global warming strikes yet again.".
You've been educated on this but desperately cling to being willfully stupid. What your doing is called cherry-picking the data - ignoring the majority of the data that disagrees with your desired conclusion and looking only at the minority of data that supports it.
As you're well aware, any isolated cooling or warming trend on the planet is irrelevant, what matters is the average global temperature. Globally 2013 has been warmer than average and Nov. 2013 warmest global temp ever.
The world does not end at the U.S. border despite dumb Republican beliefs that it does. Virtually all the 12000 research papers climatoligists have done conclude that global warming is real and man made. Your idea that thousands of independent scientists all have the desire and ability to conspire to play a hoax on the public isn't remotely plausible, its just pathetically, willfully, stupid.
okay this is funny ...
98% of stories ignore ice bound ship on global warming mission
it's not just the ship that went to find evidence for global warming
the rescue ships that went to free them are also stuck
and keep in mind this is summer in the Southern hemisphere
Same story bad anonymous:
Any local event is irrelevant, its the big picture that counts - the global average temperature continues to rise. You can hide your head in the sand of localized events but it won't change the bigger picture - the scientific community is virtually unanimous : global warming is real and man made.
Chocolate Rain
Some stay dry and others feel the pain
Chocolate Rain
A baby born will die before the sin
Chocolate Rain
The school books say it can't be here again
Chocolate Rain
The prisons make you wonder where it went
Chocolate Rain
Build a tent and say the world as dry
Chocolate Rain
Zoom the camera out and see the light
Chocolate Rain
Forecast to be falling yesterday
Chocolate Rain
Only in the past is what they say
Chocolate Rain
Raised your neighborhood insurance rates
Chocolate Rain
Makes us happy 'livin in a gay
Chocolate Rain
Made me cross the street the other day
Chocolate Rain
Made you turn your head the other way
(Chorus)
Chocolate Rain
History quickly crashing through your veins
Chocolate Rain
Using you to fall back down again
[Repeat]
Chocolate Rain
Seldom mentioned on the radio
Chocolate Rain
It's the fear your leaders car control
Chocolate Rain
Worse than swearing, worse than calling names
Chocolate Rain
Say it publicly, and you're insane
Chocolate Rain
No one wants to hear about it now
Chocolate Rain
Wish real hard it goes away somehow
Chocolate Rain
Makes the best of friends begin to fight
Chocolate Rain
But did they know each other in the light?
Chocolate Rain
Every February washed away
Chocolate Rain
Stays behind as colors celebrate
Chocolate Rain
The same crime has a higher price to pay
Chocolate Rain
The judge and jury swear it's not in the face
(Chorus)
Chocolate Rain
Dirty secrets of economy
Chocolate Rain
Turns that body into GDP
Chocolate Rain
The bell curve blames the baby's DNA
Chocolate Rain
But test scores are how much the parents made
Chocolate Rain
Flippin' cars in France the other night
Chocolate Rain
Cleans the sewers out beneath Mumbai
Chocolate Rain
'Cross the world and back it's all the same
Chocolate Rain
Angels cry and shake their heads in shame
Chocolate Rain
Lifts the ark of paradise in sin
Chocolate Rain
Which part do you think you're 'livin in?
Chocolate Rain
More than marchin' more than past and law
Chocolate Rain
Remake how we got to where we are
Dinesh is very funny. Wrong, but funny.
Listening to the Founding Fathers
why do you think he is wrong, Robert ?
why is it morally wrong these days to be a wagon puller ?
why is there no longer any shame associated with laziness ?
The vast majority of your so-called "non-wagon pullers" are working, many of them holding two jobs and working far harder than the top 10%. You're just typical of the right wing demonizing the poor, telling lies about them, and pretending they don't deserve to have the lazy filthy rich give back in proportion to the degree they've overbenefited from society.
And Dinesh D'souza is a moron who wrongly thinks liberally sprinkling his mindless dribble with inappropriate use of the word "quantum" will make people think he's smart and saying something meaningful. He's one of the biggest posers out there.
lazy Priya:
"And Dinesh D'souza is a moron"
Christopher Hitchens:
"If you are ever asked to debate Dinesh D'Souza, I have but one word of advice: don't."
I ask you: who do you think is smarter: lazy Priya or Christopher Hitchens?
"why is there no longer any shame associated with laziness ?
Blogger Priya Lynn said..."
these two terms were consecutive above
haha!!
how appropriate!!
Antarctica sea ice is at an all time record high.
and the artic ice cap GREW 1/2 million miles last year...
Arctic Ice Cap Growing
"how appropriate!!"
I know, right?
more evidence the globe is warming up
after holding steady for 15 years, temperatures are plunging:
"SIOUX FALLS, S.D. (AP) — The weather warnings are dire: Life threatening wind chills. Historic cold outbreak. Bitter cold temperatures.
Winter is normally cold, but starting Sunday tundra-like temperatures are poised to deliver a rare and potentially dangerous sledgehammer blow to much of the Midwest, driving temperatures so far below zero that records will shatter.
One reason? A "polar vortex," as one meteorologist calls it, which will send cold air piled up at the North Pole down to the U.S., funneling it as far south as the Gulf Coast.
The temperature predictions are startling: 25 below zero in Fargo, N.D., minus 31 in International Falls, Minn., and 15 below in Indianapolis and Chicago. At those temperatures, exposed skin can get frostbitten in minutes and hypothermia can quickly set in because wind chills could hit 50, 60 or even 70 below zero.
Temperature records will likely be broken during the short, yet forceful deep freeze that will begin in many places on Sunday and extend into early next week. That's thanks to a perfect combination of the jet stream, cold surface temperatures and the polar vortex — a counterclockwise-rotating pool of cold, dense air, said Ryan Maue, of Tallahassee, Fla., a meteorologist for Weather Bell.
"All the ingredients are there for a near-record or historic cold outbreak," he said. "If you're under 40 (years old), you've not seen this stuff before."
Snow already on the ground and fresh powder expected in some places ahead of the cold air will reduce the sun's heating effect, so nighttime lows will plummet thanks to strong northwest winds that will deliver the Arctic blast, Maue said.
The cold blast will sweep through parts of New England, where residents will have just dug out from a snowstorm and the frigid temperatures that followed. Parts of the central Midwest could also see up to a foot of snow just as the cold sweeps in pulling temperatures to 10 below zero in the St. Louis area.
Even places accustomed to normally mild to warmer winters will see a plunge in temperatures early next week, including Atlanta where the high is expected to hover in the mid-20s on Tuesday.
"This one happens to be really big and it's going to dive deep into the continental U.S. And all that cold air is going to come with it," said Sally Johnson, meteorologist in charge at the National Weather Service in Sioux Falls.
It's relatively uncommon to have such frigid air blanket so much of the U.S., maybe once a decade or every couple of decades, Maue said. So far, this winter is proving to be a cold one.
"Right now for the winter we will have had two significant shots of major Arctic air and we're only through the first week of January. And we had a pretty cold December," Maue said.
Cities and states are already taking precautions. Minnesota called off school for Monday statewide, the first such closing in 17 years, because of projected highs in the minus teens and lows as cold as 30 below. Milwaukee and Madison, Wis., students also won't be in class Monday. North Dakota Gov. Jack Dalrymple urged superintendents to keep children's safety in making the decision after the state forecast called for "life threatening wind chills" through Tuesday morning.
The Great Lakes and other bodies of water will freeze over, meaning frigid temperatures WILL LAST THE REST OF THE WINTER, Maue said."
All utterly irrelevant. What matters is the global average temperature and the global temperature for 2013 has been warmer than average and November 2013 was the warmest month on record.
That's why its called global warming and not united states warming. The world doesn't end at the U.S. border bad anonymous. The U.S. is colder than normal BECAUSE of global warming - global warming has caused the jet stream to dip farther southward bringing colder arctic weather into the U.S. but the average global temmperature is still warmer than normal despite this localized cooling.
And of course global temperatures have NOT held steady for the past 15 years, most of those years have been warmer than average with the last decade being the warmest on record. 2011 was the ninth warmest year on record since 1880. The ten warmest years in the 132-year record have all occurred since 1998, and the last year that was cooler than average was 1976. The hottest years on record were 2010 and 2005.
"The U.S. is colder than normal BECAUSE of global warming"
who saw that coming?
hahahaha!
well, some guy on the radio today said they have been excluding some of the thermometers from the coldest areas, which might just affect the average, Priya...
and the NOAA adjusts the numbers before releasing trends, in some cases the thermometers are in the middle of urban areas which of course will run warmer..
what I would like to see is a study that shows the raw data in rural areas before any NOAA adjustments.
new study shows half of the global warming in the US is artificial
"The U.S. is colder than normal BECAUSE of global warming"
too funny
after jumping up and down saying no one event means anything, lazy Priya now proclaims this one record cold snap is caused by global warming
as the evidence accumulates, the true believers of the Anthropogenic Warming Cult are panicking
nothing funnier than liberals panicking!!
And of course bad anonymous is attempting to mislead people with his post about Arctic ice. While its true that the artic ice has increased this year from last year, last year arctic ice was at an exceptionally low level, its lowest level ever. And despite the increase this year, this year arctic ice is still at one of the lowest levels its been at in the last 30 years. In fact 75% of Arctic ice has been lost over the past 30 years and a 29% increase this year of the remaining 25% doesn't even remotely begin to undo the damage that's happened over the last 30 years.
Look at the long term graph of arctic sea ice and the steady decline is obvious. What the sources bad anonymous uses do to deceive people is to highlight isolated cooling trends in one place or one time while ignoring the overall trend of increased temperatures. There is a lot of natural variation in climate so of course there are moments and localized places where its sometimes cooler than it has been but don't be fooled by this cherrypicking of the data. Look at the long term global temperature graphs and don't be fooled by dishonest claims that termperatures have remained steady over the past 15 years, it is simply a lie, even the graph in the last link bad anonymous posted shows the obvious long term warming trend.
And right wing climate change deniers like to point to the increase in antarctic ice to try to mislead people into thinking the planet is cooling. The truth is that Arctic sea ice is being lost 3 times as fast as Antarctic ice is growing. Once again, the people trying to deceive the world point to isolated and localized trends and ignore the bigger global picture in the long term to create the false impression that the planet is not warming - it most certainly is.
I posted "The U.S. is colder than normal BECAUSE of global warming"
Bad anonymous replied "who saw that coming? hahahaha!:".
Oh please, don't play stupid, you aren't fooling anyone. Anyone with an IQ above 85 can understand that a small part of the planet such as the United States can get colder than normal while the bulk of the planet gets warmer than normal and this means global temperatures are rising, not falling. The warmer sea temperatures have caused the jet stream to shift south and this brings arctic air to the U.S. but average global temperature is still above normal.
Bad anonymous said "after jumping up and down saying no one event means anything, lazy Priya now proclaims this one record cold snap is caused by global warming".
Unlike with your claims my assertion is consistent with the increasingly warmer average global temperatures over long periods of time. Your assertion that this represents global cooling is contradicted by the increasingly warmer average global temperatures over time - you lose.
"well, some guy on the radio today said they have been excluding some of the thermometers from the coldest areas, which might just affect the average, Priya...in some cases the thermometers are in the middle of urban areas which of course will run warmer..".
Some guy on the radio?! That's what passes for a scientific authority for the right wingers? Please. I suppose we should take some radio guys word for it over the 12000 research papers of which 97% say global warming is happening and its man made. And its a red herring anyway. Even if some of the temperature readings come from cities rather than the slightly cooler rural areas they still show the trend where those readings were taken is increasing temperatures over time and the cooler rural areas also show increasing temperatures over time - its not a case where they were taking temperatures only in rural areas, stopped doing that and started taking temperatures only in cities and mistook the temperature differential for global warming.
Once again, climate deniers like bad anonymous highlight local and short term cooling while ignoring the warming global temperatures over the long term. To get an accurate reading of any trend you have to look at global average temperatures over the past couple hundred years and when comparing year to year need to do a 10 or 15 year rolling average which clearly shows increasing temperatures virtually every year.
Bad anonymous said "as the evidence accumulates, the true believers of the Anthropogenic Warming Cult are panicking".
Really? Do you really think we want global warming to be happening? Its easy to see why conservatives want to deny it, they don't want to accept that there's going to be problems, they'd like to just think everything is going to continue to be wonderful. But whats in it for all the scientists and other people who acknowledge the reality, what are we supposed to get out of going through the trouble to abate global warming if its not happening? Nothing, bad anonymous. Face it, there's no reason for scientists and people like me to say its happening if there's good evidence it isn't. We don't want global warming to be happening, we'd like to believe it isn't too, but we're not going to hide from what's going on just because it isn't nice.
The truth is global warming is happening and right wingers like you are playing a childish and dishonest game of pointing out atypical trees while refusing to show the forest.
"It seems like things may have reached a whole new level of crazy in Utah.
Trestin Meacham, a 35-year-old Utah man, is allegedly refusing to eat anything until the state nullifies its recent decision to allow same-sex couples to get married.
At the time the above video was released, Meacham had reportedly gone 12 days without food -- surviving only on water and an occasional vitamin -- and has lost 25 pounds.
“I cannot stand by and do nothing while this evil takes root in my home," the 35-year-old reportedly wrote on his blog. "Some things in life are worth sacrificing one’s health and even life if necessary. I am but a man, and do not have the money and power to make any noticeable influence in our corrupt system. Nevertheless, I can do something that people in power cannot ignore."
Meacham claims he will fast until Utah decides to nullify the court's decision -- nullification being a theory that the states have authority in all matters, not the federal government. It is a theory that has reportedly been used previously in an attempt to prevent integration in the public school system in the 1950s.
Greg Skordas, an attorney interviewed by 4Utah, reportedly stated that nullification is not an appropriate theory in the case of same-sex marriage in Utah. "If people want to change that they have to go through the appropriate processes," he stated. "When individual personal liberties are at stake the state can't infringe on that, even if it's the will of the people."
This isn't the first time that extreme anti-gay demonstrations have taken place in protest of a state's decision to legalize same-sex marriage. In late November, Illinois Bishop Thomas John Paprocki held an exorcism at the Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception "in reparation" for the state's decision to extend marriage rights to same-sex couples."
It's so obvious that Tristen is afraid of the temptation of gay marriage. There is no other reason a person would be so self-destructive.
"When individual personal liberties are at stake the state can't infringe on that, even if it's the will of the people."
when a state doesn't marry someone, no one's liberty is at stake
they are still free to do whatever they want
the liberty lost here is that of the people of Utah, who are being forced to marry people in deviant relationships
the fast isn't necessarily extreme
the lunatic fringe is again unable to distinguish extremism from the mainstream
Chik-Fil-A opposing gay marriage is not extreme;
a Christian who believes homosexuality is a sin like bestiality is not extreme:
and this:
"This isn't the first time that extreme anti-gay demonstrations have taken place in protest of a state's decision to legalize same-sex marriage. In late November, Illinois Bishop Thomas John Paprocki held an exorcism at the Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception "in reparation" for the state's decision to extend marriage rights to same-sex couples.""
is an appropriate religious response to sin
the only thing extreme is the lunatic fringe
the epidemic of rape by homosexuals against straight men, that has coincided with the gay agenda, continues:
"Police have arrested a 38-year-old man who they say sexually assaulted at least 10 college-age men he met at beer-pong tournaments and other extreme sporting events.
Joey Poindexter was arrested over the weekend for the alleged sexual assault of a man after a beer pong tournament in College Park, Maryland last month.
The alleged victim says he woke up at Poindexter's house in the morning and recalled being sexually assaulted in the shower the night before.
The cops later found several photos at Poindexter's house of college-age guys apparently "in various states of consciousness and in compromising positions," according to a police statement. The alleged victims were all drunk or unconscious, according to police.
The alleged victims were heterosexual. Two of those alleged victims have come forward, and police are trying to find at least seven other victims.
Maryland police are working with cops in other cities where Poindexter recently attended beer-pong and other sporting events — including Dallas, Salt Lake City, Virginia Beach, Atlantic City, Baltimore, and Washington, D.C.
Police believe Poindexter, a real-estate appraiser, has been sexually assaulting men for a decade. Other alleged victims may have been reluctant to come forward, as male rape in America is especially stigmatized.
“Rape in men is more common than people think,” said Lisae Jordan, executive director for the Maryland Coalition Against Sexual Assault."
"the epidemic of rape by homosexuals against straight men, that has coincided with the gay agenda, continues:"
That, dear anonymous, is what people mean by hate speech.
well, it took three voluminous postings early this morning to convince lazy Priya that lazy Priya had posted enough verbiage to obscure the fact that lazy Priya was caught yesterday talking straight nonsense
just to recap, yesterday, after lazy Priya had flailed around about how no one event is the result of global warming, lazy Priya, in a fit of frustration, blurted out that the current cold snap in the U.S. is the result of global warming
let's look at some of the more humorous ramblings:
"And of course bad anonymous is attempting to mislead people with his post about Arctic ice. While its true that the artic ice has increased this year from last year, last year arctic ice was at an exceptionally low level,"
haha!
well, to begin with, the arctic ice post wasn't by badass anon but some other anon
yes, but if the planet as a whole is warming, how would ice be increasing?
I remind you that the leader of the global warming alarmist cult, Al Gore, said five years ago that the northern ice cap would be now gone
unfortunately, the prophecy of your cult doesn't have a good record
"What the sources bad anonymous uses do to deceive people is to highlight isolated cooling trends in one place or one time while ignoring the overall trend of increased temperatures."
well, the "overall trend" doesn't seem to be having any effect at tall on Antarctica, which is actually larger than the Arctic
why wouldn't that be as important as the North Pole, if not more?
"That, dear anonymous, is what people mean by hate speech"
c'mon, Robo
the local police are saying it's happened at least ten times
and it just happens to be at the same time as gays are becoming more visible
sheez, I think it's something to think about
"There is a lot of natural variation in climate so of course there are moments and localized places where its sometimes cooler than it has been but don't be fooled by this cherrypicking of the data."
yes, because the global warming cult has a patent on cherry-picking and they don't like others using it without paying a fee
we have all seen the warmers flip out every time a big iceberg breaks off the Antarctic ice sheet, a process that's been happening since Adam was a pup
"And right wing climate change deniers like to point to the increase in antarctic ice to try to mislead people into thinking the planet is cooling. The truth is that Arctic sea ice is being lost 3 times as fast as Antarctic ice is growing."
not this year
as you admitted above, Arctic ice increased this year
you may be surprised to know that we all still remember what you said at the beginning of the same post
it's why everyone's laughing
"Once again, the people trying to deceive the world point to isolated and localized trends and ignore the bigger global picture in the long term to create the false impression that the planet is not warming - it most certainly is."
actually, I think overall global warming may be irrelevant
as long as major population centers aren't effected, no one cares
cinnamon wind: "when a state doesn't marry someone, no one's liberty is at stake"
Except the couple wanting to marry.
"they are still free to do whatever they want"
Except get married.
"the liberty lost here is that of the people of Utah, who are being forced to marry people in deviant relationships"
We’re talking The Mormon Church of Latter Day Saints Utah here, are you condemning polygamy or homosexuality? And if homosexuality, then are you doing so in support of polygamy?
"a Christian who believes homosexuality is a sin like bestiality is not extreme:"
That comparison is just another way of saying our relationships should be seen as no more that acts of two animals mating, but mostly to portray our humanity as nonexistent in order to justify the promotion of hatred for us.
Believe and express as you will, just know that you’re not fooling the rest of us.
You are extreme, face it. BE EXTREME! If that’s who you really are about this, at least be honest with yourself. Until then, you can’t be honest with the rest of us.
"[Exorcism] is an appropriate religious response to sin"
Yes it is, but when you choose to obsess over punishing victimlessness “sins” to the exclusion of attending to real pain and need where your efforts could change universes for the better, then that exorcism better be for yourself because it means you’ve lost your ability to discern right from wrong.
cinnamon wind: "when a state doesn't marry someone, no one's liberty is at stake"
Patrick: "Except the couple wanting to marry."
Patrick, you are a true moron.
Liberty is individual.
For example, a law that prevented you from standing naked in your front yard while the neighborhood kids go to school restricts your liberty. It's a reasonable restriction but a restriction nonetheless.
Ruling that the state of Utah has to marry two homosexuals to each other violates the liberty of the people of Utah.
That's because marriage is not an individual act but one in which all members of a society participate. Being forced to participate, as a judge ruled the people of Utah are, restricts their liberty.
anon: "a Christian who believes homosexuality is a sin like bestiality is not extreme:"
Patrick: "That comparison is just another way of saying our relationships should be seen as no more that acts of two animals mating, but mostly to portray our humanity as nonexistent in order to justify the promotion of hatred for us."
Parick, you are a true moron.
Acts of two animals mating are as intended by God are perfectly normal.
When homosexuals have sex with animals, however, that would be abnormal and wrong.
There's nothing extreme about thinking that.
"You are extreme, face it. BE EXTREME! If that’s who you really are about this, at least be honest with yourself. Until then, you can’t be honest with the rest of us."
Patrick, you are a true moron.
We weren't actually discussing me at all. We were discussing whether Phil Robertson and Dan Cathay were extreme in their views, which they aren't, as indicated by the massive public support they received when attacked by homo-gays advocacy groups.
Every time you guys try to accuse someone with traditional views of sexual morality as extreme, you lose.
When will you ever learn?
anon: "[Exorcism] is an appropriate religious response to sin"
Patrick: "Yes it is, but when you choose to obsess over punishing victimlessness “sins” to the exclusion of attending to real pain and need where your efforts could change universes for the better, then that exorcism better be for yourself because it means you’ve lost your ability to discern right from wrong."
Patrick, you are a true moron.
There is no indication this individual did not attend to his other duties in addition to noting that public support of deviancy as normal is wrong.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
chocolate eyes: "Liberty is individual."
chocolate eyes: "That's because marriage is not an individual act but one in which all members of a society participate. … Being forced to participate, as a judge ruled the people of Utah are, restricts their liberty."
“Restricts their liberty” to do what? And if “liberty is individual,” how can it be “forced to participate” in, or be affected by anyone else’s marriage?
--
"For example, a law that prevented you from standing naked in your front yard while the neighborhood kids go to school restricts your liberty. It's a reasonable restriction but a restriction nonetheless."
Translation: For example, a law that prevented you from raping the neighborhood kids restricts your liberty. It's a reasonable restriction but a restriction nonetheless.
“Gays-rape-kids” smear aside, you may as well be flat out arguing that marriage equality, in and of itself, compels gay persons to expose themselves to the neighborhood kids as their parents drive them off to school.
--
"Ruling that the state of Utah has to marry two homosexuals to each other violates the liberty of the people of Utah."
How?
No answer? Oh, what a surprise.
--
"There's nothing extreme about thinking that."
Not as long as you twist the meaning of what was being said in the first place.
--
"Every time you guys try to accuse someone with traditional views of sexual morality as extreme, you lose."
Traditional? You mean like arranged marriages, marriages as a property transaction, underage marriage, God-approved incest, God approved polygamy, and God's condemnation of divorce and remarriage as unrepentant adultery (punishable by stoning in those days)
"Tradition" ain’t always what it’s cracked up to be (or did you want to bring stoning back?), but keep using the word so the rest of us know that your arguments against marriage equality are as puddle deep as the talking points listed on the last family hate group website you’ve visited.
--
"There is no indication this individual did not attend to his other duties in addition to noting that public support of deviancy as normal is wrong."
My contention stands. Unless he exorcised his own spiritual blindness, he wasted valuable time and press that could have gone to helping people in desperate need.
anon: "Ruling that the state of Utah has to marry two homosexuals to each other violates the liberty of the people of Utah."
Patrick: "How?
No answer? Oh, what a surprise."
the surprise is that a sentient human being can't understand such a basic concept
liberty is a concept that means the freedom to engage in any activity you desire
it doesn't mean the right to force others to participate in that activity with you
public marriage, which is what you demand the right to do with a homosexual partner of you own gender, is not an activity you engage in alone
also acting in a public marriage are the people of a society, first issuing licenses through their elected officials and, then, extending to you the privileges of marriage
their liberty to choose whom to do this with has been stripped by a renegade judge
anon: "There's nothing extreme about thinking that."
Patrick: "Not as long as you twist the meaning of what was being said in the first place."
no, it's not extreme, by definition, because the majority in society, even if they disagree, obviously believe it is within the realm of legitimate opinion
anon: "Every time you guys try to accuse someone with traditional views of sexual morality as extreme, you lose."
Patrick: "Traditional? You mean like"
no, Patrick, I mean the traditions our society had before the gay agenda tried to convert it
you are again arguing yourself into the loser's corner
anon: "There is no indication this individual did not attend to his other duties in addition to noting that public support of deviancy as normal is wrong."
Patrick: "My contention stands. Unless he exorcised his own spiritual blindness, he wasted valuable time and press that could have gone to helping people in desperate need."
apparently your contention doesn't stand because you are now arguing a different contention
before, you were arguing that the stand against homosexual marriage was done at the exclusion of other religious duties
now, you assert that anytime you oppose homosexuality you could have spent the time assisting the poor more than you may have already been doing
do you really want to go there, Patrick?
no religions hold that assistance to the poor is the only duty of man, 24/7
indeed, I doubt there are any non-religious people that believe that either
for example, if we were to say that a homosexual could have used the time he spent buggering some random guy he met at Lowdermilk Beach better by serving meals to the needy, that wouldn't be fair, would it?
for all we know, homosexuals in Naples are spending a great effort to assist the poor
doesn't mean they should do nothing else
Patrick, you should really start thinking through what you post here
then, maybe we could take you seriously
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anon wildly extrapolated:
“liberty is a concept that means the freedom to engage in any activity you desire”
it doesn't mean the right to force others to participate in that activity with you”
Then please, please stop forcing me to engage in your marriage. I can’t stand it any more. I don’t know why we ever let people like you get married in the first place. It’s obvious you have not contributed anything positive to society. I can’t stand even the thought of you being married any more. It’s best for society if you just get that divorce right now and stop forcing us to be part of your heartless relationship. I’m sure the rest of my LGBT friends would be glad to get out of your marriage too.
“public marriage, which is what you demand the right to do with a homosexual partner of you own gender, is not an activity you engage in alone”
Duh, that’s why the partner is a required part of the marriage. Please, try to pay attention.
“also acting in a public marriage are the people of a society, first issuing licenses through their elected officials and, then, extending to you the privileges of marriage”
Yeah, that 15 minutes of paperwork that clerk has to handle in the county office is just a HUGE burden on society.
“their liberty to choose whom to do this with has been stripped by a renegade judge”
Hardly, the judge just happened to notice that part of the constitution that reads “All men are created equal,” and if we really purport to uphold the constitution, it means we can’t force the religious views of some people onto those of others – no matter how many unfounded paranoid claims they make about it “destroying society.”
Liberty is the freedom to marry the single, consenting adult you agree to commit your life to.
Have a nice day,
Cynthia
"Liberty is the freedom to marry the single, consenting adult you agree to commit your life to."
Not exactly, although you could redefine marriage to make that true, I guess. That's what you people do.
Liberty is the freedom to ask someone to get married to you.
Liberty is the freedom to say yes or no to someone who asked you.
Liberty is the freedom to ask someone to conduct a marriage service.
Liberty is the freedom to no yes or no when asked to perform someone else's wedding ceremony.
Liberty is the freedom to seek a place where the populace agrees to license that marriage.
Liberty is the freedom of a local populace to accept or decline your reuest to license your marriage.
Liberty is not when anyone you asked to get married is forced to get married to you.
Liberty is not when any clergy that you ask is forced to perform your service.
Liberty is not when any state who you seek to license your marriage is forced to do so.
You're entitled to your own sick actions as long as no one else is forced to participate.
Sound good?
Bad anonymous said "Ruling that the state of Utah has to marry two homosexuals to each other violates the liberty of the people of Utah. That's because marriage is not an individual act but one in which all members of a society participate. … Being forced to participate, as a judge ruled the people of Utah are, restricts their liberty. liberty is a concept that means the freedom to engage in any activity you desire it doesn't mean the right to force others to participate in that activity with you"
In that case then heterosexuals marrying violates the freedom of gays not to participate in their weddings. If gays can't get married because it violates heterosexuals freedoms then heterosexuals can't get married because it violates gays freedoms - it works both ways.
Or, if its not really an infringment on gays freedom to allow heterosexuals to marry then it is not really an infringment on heterosexuals freedom to allow gays to get married.
You can't have it both ways anonymous. Either freedom applies to both gays and heterosexuals or it applies to neither. Lots of people oppose interracial marriage, or even marriage between blacks or between muslims. Naturally like the hypocrite you are you have never suggested that means there can't be any interracial marriages or marriages between blacks or marriages between muslims.
Bad anonymous said "also acting in a public marriage are the people of a society, first issuing licenses through their elected officials and, then, extending to you the privileges of marriage”
Those marriage clerks and business people are not themselves compelled to engage in the sexual activity they consider objectionable, or to marry someone of the same sex. Their objection is that it is sinful for others to engage in such activity and therefore they oppose their marriages.
The interference with the right of them to act in accordance with their religious belief is trivial or insubstantial, in that it is interference that does not threaten actual religious beliefs or conduct.
Its a valid point that preventing bad anonymous from punching me in the nose is a restriction on his liberty but I also have a right to be free from being hit on the nose. Our liberties are in conflict but no one would deny that the proper balance is to deny bad anonymous the freedom to hit me in the nose. The same is true for those who oppose the marriages of others - the "imposition" on their liberty is trivial or insubstantial while their desire to deny marriage to minorities is a major infringment. It is obvious that the proper, and indeed only proper, balance is to allow individuals to marry regardless of the objections of those who are only trivially affected by those marriages.
A ship trapped in ice near Antarctica once would have been a matter for worry. Today you have to at least smile at the plight of the Russian ship Akademik Shokalskiy, trapped with a passenger list of tourists and scientists trying to confirm that Antarctic ice is shrinking. Ah, the irony is rich.
The 52 passengers were evacuated after seven days to an Australian icebreaker a few miles away using a helicopter from a Chinese icebreaker, also nearby. Neither would-be rescue ship could get close to the Akademik Shokalskiy.
A crew of 18 remained, presumably to wait for less ice as the Antarctic summer (the seasons down there are the reverse of ours) creeps in. Food was plentiful and the passengers apparently had a grand time, with satellite connections all over the world, plenty of movies and fun expeditions onto the ice to watch penguins.
All’s well that ends well, eh? Well, there are a few details to clean up.
Who pays for the rescue? The trip organizer, the Australasian Antarctic Expedition, has no budget for it.
How did the ship get into trouble? Did nobody check what weather forecasts were available? Track what satellite pictures of the ice showed?
Was nobody aware that Antarctic ice has been setting records? A few minutes with Google would show that peak sea ice near Antarctica in 2012 was the most since records began in 1978, and that peak was surpassed in September of 2013.
Many facts contradict the scary predictions of the global warming believers. With luck the story of the Akademik Shokalskiy will generate greater appreciation of that.
Good news everyone!
The Supreme Court has put a stop to mono-gender "marriages" in Utah.
The U.S. Supreme Court has put same-sex marriages on hold in Utah while a federal appeals court more fully considers the issue.
The court issued an order Monday blocking any new same-sex unions in the state, reported The Associated Press.
The order follows an emergency appeal by the state following the ludicrous Dec. 20 ruling by U.S. District Judge Robert Shelby that the state's ban on same-sex marriage violates gay and lesbian couples' constitutional rights.
More than 900 gay and lesbian couples have married since then.
The high court order will remain in effect until the Denver-based 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decides whether to overturn Shelby's ruling.
Bad anonymous said "Many facts contradict the scary predictions of the global warming believers".
Wrong. Long term global averages show an unmistakeable trend towards warmer global temperatures.
There are normal upward and downward fluctuations in temperatures over a long period of time. Global warming doesn't erase these, or mean every year will be warmer than the last, it just changes normal temperature fluctuations upward and downward such that the fluctuations downward aren't as cold as they would otherwise be and the fluctuations upward aren't as warm as they'd otherwise be.
Of 12000 research papers on long term climate trends 97% conclude that climate change is real and man made.
The climate deniers cherry pick the data to create a false impression of what's happening by highlighting cooler regional or short term temperature changes and asserting this is typical but long term global average temperatures show a consistent rise in global temperatures.
Every time bad anonymous posts some localized or short term trend showing a cooling temperatures he's dishonestly ignoring the bulk of the data which shows average global temperatures are increasing in the long run.
"In that case then heterosexuals marrying violates the freedom of gays not to participate in their weddings. If gays can't get married because it violates heterosexuals freedoms then heterosexuals can't get married because it violates gays freedoms - it works both ways."
Except that homosexuals have always consented to heterosexual marriages. Are you saying that's changed?
Little know fact: all homosexuals are the result of a heterosexual union. To oppose such a thing would be to favor human extinction.
If all the parties consent, no one's liberty has been violated.
You misunderstood me, probably because of your lazy mind. I'm not saying homosexuals can't get married to other homosexuals. I'm saying first they must find another homosexual who consents to marry them. Then, they must find a clergy who consents to perform the ceremony (not that rough, actually.) Then they must find a locale where the people will consent to license their marriage and support it (not that rough, actually.)
But no one should be forced to marry a homosexual, perform the ceremony or endorse. That's more than a trivial violation of someone's liberty of conscience, although I'm glad to see even lazy Priya admits that is some kind of violation, even if trying to downplay the extent of the violation.
And, really, if homosexuals will think about they would know this has always been the case. Clergy and representative governments have always been free to marry who they want. Catholic priests won't marry anyone who can't successfully complete pre-Cana classes. Some clergy will only marry members of their faith. States won't marry brothers and sisters. Or a 30-year-old to an 11-year-old.
The people of a state have a right to decide what marriages they will endorse.
Some don't think marriages without the representation of both genders is a good idea. They won't marry same genders together.
Get over it and look elsewhere.
Once again, its easy to see why conservatives want to deny global warming. They're averse to change and want to believe we can continue as usual with no ill effects or concern for the future - no one likes thinking there will be trouble down the road.
Conservatives like bad anonymous assert that there's a vast conspiracy amongst liberals and thousands of scientists to wrongly convince people of global warming but that's absurd on the face of it. There's nothing to be gained for liberals or scientists by wrongly convincing people global warming is going on. We don't stand to benefit in any way by global warming being true, we'll suffer the consequences just as conservatives will. Scientists and liberals accept that global warming is happening because the preponderance of evidence clearly shows it is and because we'd rather ameliorate future problems by acting now rather than pretending everything's going to be hunky dory regardless of what we do to the planet.
"The climate deniers cherry pick the data to create a false impression of what's happening by highlighting cooler regional or short term temperature changes and asserting this is typical but long term global average temperatures show a consistent rise in global temperatures.
Every time bad anonymous posts some localized or short term trend showing a cooling temperatures he's dishonestly ignoring the bulk of the data which shows average global temperatures are increasing in the long run."
lazy Priya, you lost any stray shred of credibility you may have once had on the "cherry-picking" argument last week when you said cold weather in the U.S. was the result of global warming. Talk about a picked cherry!
Did it ever occur to you that overall average global temperatures might not be that significant if the average is boosted by certain inhabitable areas that have become warmer?
This year, for the fifteenth consecutive year the increase has been pretty insignificant. Antarctic ice set a record. Arctic ice is growing. More record lows were set than record highs, showing the warming is not necessarily widespread. The first measurable snow in decades halted fighting in the Mid-east and much of the Northern hemisphere is plunging into life-threatening cold as I write.
Meanwhile, temperature predictions made by global warming alarmists never come true.
I said "In that case then heterosexuals marrying violates the freedom of gays not to participate in their weddings. If gays can't get married because it violates heterosexuals freedoms then heterosexuals can't get married because it violates gays freedoms - it works both ways."
Bad anonymous said "Except that homosexuals have always consented to heterosexual marriages. Are you saying that's changed?".
Nonsense. There have always been gays who've opposed heterosexual marriage and particularly now many people (including some heterosexuals) oppose allowing heterosexuals to marry when gays can't. You assert that all of society participates in every marriage and all should have the liberty not to do so. If that's the case then no one has the right to marry because there are people who oppose "participating" in every marriage.
Bad anonymous said "I'm not saying homosexuals can't get married to other homosexuals.".
Of course you are, you said "Ruling that the state of Utah has to marry two homosexuals to each other violates the liberty of the people of Utah". If the state won't marry them it means they cannot have a valid marriage. You unconditionally oppose the marriages of gays and lesbians.
Bad anonymous said "I'm saying first they must find another homosexual who consents to marry them. Then, they must find a clergy who consents to perform the ceremony (not that rough, actually.) Then they must find a locale where the people will consent to license their marriage and support it (not that rough, actually.)".
Nonsense, a marriage commisioner doesn't have to be gay to marry a gay couple, a heterosexual has just as much right to marry a gay couple as a gay person does. No heterosexual, interacial couple, black, or muslim couple is refused a marriage license just because some people oppose it, so no gay couple can justly be refused a marriage license for that reason either. No one voted on whether interracial couples could marry and 70% of americans opposed that at the time of Loving vs Virgina. The constitution of the U.S. demanded equal treatment and so the law against misegnation was overturned exactly as the federal judge in Utah overturned the ban on gay marriage - no difference whatsoever. Bigots like you never argue that blacks shouldn't be allowed to marry because many oppose it and no one voted on it - you're disgusting hypocrites.
Bad anonymous said "But no one should be forced to marry a homosexual, perform the ceremony or endorse.".
People are forced to marry, perform, and "endorse" the marriages of interrational couples, Jews, Blacks, Muslims, and heterosexuals. If people can't be forced to marry, or "endorse" the marriage of gays then no one can be allowed to marry because that would be forcing people to marry or "endorse" marriages against their will.
Bad anonymous said "That's more than a trivial violation of someone's liberty of conscience.".
Your claim is absurd on the face of it. On one hand we have a county clerk being obligated to spend 15 minutes filling out some paperwork just as he has done hundreds of times before (or a cake baker spending an hour baking a cake just as he has willing done hundreds of times before) and on the other hand we have a gay couple being denied the right to be married for a lifetime and the 1300 obligations and benefits associated with marriage. One "infringment" on liberty is trivial and inconsequential and the other infringment on liberty is extreme. It is nonsensical for you to claim a trivial "freedom" should outweigh a profound freedom. Heterosexuals aren't being told they can only marry a same sex partner or they must engage in sex they object to.
There is no such thing as absolute freedom in any society, often rights must be restricted to balance them between individuals. Its absurd to say its more important to be free from 15 minutes of paperwork you normally freely do anyway than it is to have a lifetime of marriage and the 1300 benefits and obligations that go along with it. Even if we were to turn logic upside down and say that was the proper balance that would mean no one should be allowed to marry because there is always someone who objects to a marriage.
"Once again, its easy to see why conservatives want to deny global warming. They're averse to change and want to believe we can continue as usual with no ill effects or concern for the future - no one likes thinking there will be trouble down the road.
Conservatives like bad anonymous assert that there's a vast conspiracy amongst liberals and thousands of scientists to wrongly convince people of global warming but that's absurd on the face of it. There's nothing to be gained for liberals or scientists by wrongly convincing people global warming is going on."
actually, unfortunately, liberals have a great deal to gain by pushing this hoax
liberals believe, by principle, that the world would be much better off if the government regulated all human activity
anthropogenic global warming theory is but the latest excuse for it
further, most solutions proposed would involve an historically massive redistribution of wealth from the first world to the third, something that always sends a thrill up the legs of the lunatic left
as for scientists, it's not so much a widespread conspiracy as the fact that science has become increasingly political and protective of the status quo
Democrats favor increasing government research funding of obscure scientific issues and scientists keep coming up with pseudo-scientific studies proving Democratic positions
see the conflict of interest?
as is detailed in Ben Stein's documentary, Expelled, the status quo is protected in science by marking down students and denying tenure and otherwise barring entry into the field by free-thinkers
Bad anonymous said "you lost any stray shred of credibility you may have once had on the "cherry-picking" argument last week when you said cold weather in the U.S. was the result of global warming. Talk about a picked cherry!".
Nonsense. It is well documented that warming arctic ocean currents have caused the jet stream to move southward bringing colder arctic air father south in the U.S. than it normally would. If this was the only datum I had to support my claim that would be cherry picking but the vast majority of the evidence shows global warming is happening so I am not cherry picking, I am highlighting yet one more datum that is consistent with the vast majority of evidence.
Bad anonymous said "Did it ever occur to you that overall average global temperatures might not be that significant if the average is boosted by certain inhabitable areas that have become warmer?".
As I explained to you earlier, that's a red herring. While cities are slightly warmer than rural areas if there is no global warming then there would be no trend of increasing temperatures observed in cities (as there also is in rural areas) - the initially slightly warmer temperatures recorded would have remained at that level over time - they haven't, because of global warming. You also noted that the NOAA adjusts the numbers before releasing trends. In all likelihood it is adjusting the city temperatures downward to take into account that cities are warmer than rural areas. Not to mention that there are a variety of agencies around the world recording global average temperatures, not just NOAA and the long term graphs they've produced are all quite similar.
Bad anonymous said "This year, for the fifteenth consecutive year the increase has been pretty insignificant.".
The overwhelming scientific concensus is that the temperature increase is significant, if it weren't 12000 research papers wouldn't have concluded there is a global warming trend. The right wing likes to repeat the lie that temperatures have been steady for the last 15 years but a quick look at the yearly global average temperature graph shows that's obviously not the case - the trend is rising temperatures and the last decade has been the warmest on record. Once again, you can't look at short term trends and that one particularly hot year 15 years ago isn't evidence that it hasn't warmed since. If you take that one year 15 years ago and average the global temperatures for that year and the 9 previous years, that average isn't as warm as the average you get when you use the last 10 years - the facts are its gotten warmer over the past 15 years, just as its gotten warmer over the past 100 years prior to that.
"If people can't be forced to marry, or "endorse" the marriage of gays then no one can be allowed to marry because that would be forcing people to marry or "endorse" marriages against their will."
lazy Priya, think your comments through before you make them
your statement above is like saying if you can't force someone to get married to you, no one can ever get married
if Utah exercises its rights and declines to marry a homosexual couple, there are numerous other states and countries they can try
you should really try to avoid ranting "Nonsense" and then spouting nonsense
just makes you look stupid as well as lazy
Bad anonymouis said "Antarctic ice set a record. Arctic ice is growing.".
You're cherry picking the data again. While its true that artic ice grew in 2013 over the long term it has shrunk drastically. 75% the ice the Arctic had 30 years ago has disappeared. A 29% increase in the 25% that is left doesn't even begin to undo the damage that's occured over the past 30 years. Antarctic ice is not at an all time record high, that is simply a lie. While antarctic ice has grown Arctic ice is disappearing 3 times as quickly as Antarctic ice is growing. On average Arctic temperatures are increasing at 3 times the rate of global temperatures.
Bad anonymous said "More record lows were set than record highs, showing the warming is not necessarily widespread. The first measurable snow in decades halted fighting in the Mid-east and much of the Northern hemisphere is plunging into life-threatening cold as I write.".
Once again, you're cherry picking the data, looking at regional data and just this year and ignoring the long term global trend - YOU KEEP CHERRY PICKING THE DATA.
Despite localized cooling average global temperatures for 2013 are warmer than normal and November 2013 was the warmest average global temperature ever recorded.
Bad anonymous said "liberals believe, by principle, that the world would be much better off if the government regulated all human activity".
So absurd no even you believe that, you're just being childishly dishonest. Liberals have nothing to gain by hoaxing people into believing global warming is happening if it isn't. Liberals will suffer the consequences of global warming along with conservatives, no one wants global warming to be happening. We alert the world to it because the vast majority of the evidence shows it is happening and it will have serious negative consequenses.
I said "If people can't be forced to marry, or "endorse" the marriage of gays then no one can be allowed to marry because that would be forcing people to marry or "endorse" marriages against their will."
Bad anonymous said "your statement above is like saying if you can't force someone to get married to you, no one can ever get married".
You're misreading it. Let me try to clarify:
"If people can't be forced to perform a marriage ceremony, or fill out the paperwork for a gay couple to marry, or "endorse" the marriage of gays then no one can be allowed to marry because that would be forcing people to perform a marriage ceremony, or to fill out the paperwork for someone's marriage or "endorse" marriages against their will."
"The right wing likes to repeat the lie that temperatures have been steady for the last 15 years but a quick look at the yearly global average temperature graph shows that's obviously not the case - the trend is rising temperatures and the last decade has been the warmest on record. Once again, you can't look at short term trends and that one particularly hot year 15 years ago isn't evidence that it hasn't warmed since. If you take that one year 15 years ago and average the global temperatures for that year and the 9 previous years, that average isn't as warm as the average you get when you use the last 10 years - the facts are its gotten warmer over the past 15 years, just as its gotten warmer over the past 100 years prior to that."
this would hold up as evidence of brainwashing at any court in the land
lazy Priya, the average global temperature doesn't matter much as long as the Earth continues to have large habitable areas to sustain human life, which it clearly will
right now, you're telling us the globe has vastly heated up and, yet, we're here trying to deal with an historic cold snap
obviously, global warming isn't what it's cracked up to be
there is no need for a large scale government regulation of human activity
"If people can't be forced to perform a marriage ceremony, or fill out the paperwork for a gay couple to marry, or "endorse" the marriage of gays then no one can be allowed to marry because that would be forcing people to perform a marriage ceremony, or to fill out the paperwork for someone's marriage or "endorse" marriages against their will."
you're completely wrong
almost everyone gets married with the consent of parties in interest
you're arguing yourself into a corner
"Liberals will suffer the consequences of global warming along with conservatives"
there aren't going to be any consequences
but if liberals can get society to redistribute wealth before then, they will just claim they diverted disaster, without proof
they definitely have a reason to make people believe this hoax
and, at this point, you can add avoiding looking stupid to the list of motivations
Bad-ass anonymous said "More record lows were set than record highs, showing the warming is not necessarily widespread. The first measurable snow in decades halted fighting in the Mid-east and much of the Northern hemisphere is plunging into life-threatening cold as I write.".
lazy Priya says: "you're cherry picking the data, ignoring the long term global trend - YOU KEEP CHERRY PICKING THE DATA.
Despite localized cooling average global temperatures for 2013 are warmer than normal"
look, lazy Priya, citing that record lows exceed record highs is the opposite of "cherry-picking"
it involves date from all places and over an entire year
it is just as overarching as "average global temperature" which doesn't seem to have much effect on us if it's hotter than ever, as you claimviract
OK, that pretty much concludes this discussion
to recap:
average global temperature is not the sole determinant of whether the planet is habitable
there is no need for government regulations
most of the predictions of scientists in this field have proven incorrect
a judge had violated the liberty of Utah residents to decide what type of marriages they will endorse
the Supreme Court today blocked this renegade judge
Phil Robertson is a national hero
Republicans lead Democrats in generic Congressional polls by 9 points
have a happy day!!
not that Phil Robertson has been endorsed by the public, other celebrities are having the courage to express their views on homosexuality:
Former heavyweight champion Evander Holyfield said he does not think being gay is normal and compared it to a handicap that can be fixed.
Holyfield made the comments in the "UK Celebrity Big Brother" house while speaking to reality star Luisa Zissman about gay boxers. When Zissman said it would be good for a gay boxer to be public about his sexuality, Holyfield was taken aback.
"What would be good about it?" he asked. "That ain't normal."
After saying that the Bible spells out what's wrong and what's right, Holyfield compared being gay to having a handicap that could be fixed.
"Only thing I'm trying to tell you... You know how handicapped people are born? You can't say 'cause they were born that way you can't move that," he said. Adding, "It is a choice. Come on, that ain't the way nobody is made."
Gay former pop star Boy George, took to Twitter to complain.
The 51-year-old former boxer was later reprimanded for his remarks.
“Evander was told that his views weren’t shared by a large section of society and that expressing those views and the language he used could be seen as extremely offensive to many people," read a statement released by the show. "He was warned to think carefully about repeating them. Evander understood and accepted this. The producers of Big Brother will continue to monitor this and will take further appropriate action should a similar matter arise again.”
Despite the many complaints received, there are no plans to launch a formal investigation into the issue at the moment.
Holyfield is married and has fathered 11 children. He is a devout Christian.
Warned against expressing his views?
The show should be warned against suppressing them.
FOX NEWS: Liz Cheney dropping out of Wyoming Senate race
Dementia pugilistica
"Global warming may be contributing to the "polar vortex" causing frigid temperatures across most of the nation on Monday, according to some climate change researchers.
While it seems counter-intuitive, the research argues that plunging temperatures could come from changes in the jet stream caused by climate change.
Rutgers University climate scientist Jennifer A Francis has released a number of papers about changes in the jet stream brought about by warming Arctic temperatures.
Her conclusions suggest that warming Arctic air caused by greenhouse gas emissions has caused changing to the jet stream that is pushing colder Arctic air further south, causing temperatures to plunge from the High Plains to the Deep South.
The jet stream shift has sent frigid air across the central part of the country, and deeper into the south than normal.
Alaska, meanwhile, is being hit by unusually warm conditions and California is facing record-breaking drought, Francis said.
She said the strange weather is becoming more likely because of climate change.
"We can't say that these are extremes are because of climate change but we can say that this kind of pattern is becoming more likely because of climate change," Francis said.
NASA analysis has also drawn a link between the jet stream, climate change and colder temperatures.
A 2010 NASA analysis tied colder temperatures over the course of 2009 to an event similar to the wavy jet stream, called "Arctic oscillation" — a see-sawing pressure system over the North Pole. That oscillation pushed cold air to teh south.
The NASA analysis also said that despite cold snaps, and other weather changes being a part of naturally occurring patterns, they are still in line with a "globally warming world."
According to Francis, big fluctuations in the jet stream cause extreme weather conditions to hang around longer.
She argues greenhouse gas emissions are a key factor.
"The process of warming the Arctic is intensified due to greenhouse gas emissions," Francis said. "The Arctic is warming two to three times faster than the rest of the Northern Hemisphere."
MIT atmospheric scientist Kerry Emanuel said long-term climate change can only be seen by looking at detailed statistics.
“It's certainly plausible, at lease for awhile that a changing jet stream, may cause colder winters,” Emanuel said.
But he added that it is difficult to tie a direct link between individual events like the cold snap occurring in the Midwest and East Coast to global warming.
Emanuel added that that doesn't mean you can disregard global warming.
“If you cherry pick you can always find an excuse to go against [global warming,” Emanuel said."
Alaska sinks as climate change thaws permafrost
"...The nation's last frontier is — in many ways — its ground zero for climate change. Alaska's temperatures are rising twice as fast as those in the lower 48, prompting more sea ice to disappear in summer. While this may eventually open the Northwest Passage to sought-after tourism, oil exploration and trade, it also spells trouble as wildfires increase, roads buckle and tribal villages sink into the sea.
...The pace of permafrost thawing is "accelerating," says Vladimir Romanovsky, who runs the University of Alaska's Permafrost Laboratory in Fairbanks. He expects widespread degradation will start in a decade or two. By mid-century, his models suggest, permafrost could thaw in at least a third of Alaska and by 2100, in two-thirds of the state.
"This rapid thawing is unprecedented" and is largely due to fossil-fuel emissions, says Kevin Schaefer of the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colo. He says it's already emitting its own heat-trapping carbon dioxide and methane, but the amount will skyrocket in the next 20 to 30 years. "Once the emissions start, they can't be turned off."
Telltale signs are common — from huge potholes in parking lots to collapsed hill slopes and leaning trees in what are called "drunken forests" in Denali National Park, home of the majestic Mount McKinley — North America's tallest peak.
...Ruth Macchione, an 84-year-old grandmother in Fairbanks, has also witnessed the damage. She and her late husband raised nine children in a home he built more than 50 years ago with logs that he sanded and polished. He lived there until his death in 1986 and she stayed until 2000, when she was forced to move to a small new house next door.
"Everything's tilted," she says, gazing at the old family home that is sinking into the ground. For years, she put furniture and other items on blocks to try to level them, but it got to the point where she could no longer open or close the doors.
"It's a shame," she says sadly of her partly submerged homestead. "It was well-built."
...The perils of permafrost have long been known. Back in the early 1970s, government scientists insisted that parts of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline be built above ground with refrigerated supports.The pipeline's oil is hot and, if buried underground in permafrost, could help thaw the top layer and cause potential spills.
Yet scientists have just begun in the past five to 10 years to figure out how much carbon is stored in the permafrost and what its accelerated thawing will mean for climate change — and vice versa.
"It's like burning fossil fuels," says Schaefer. He and other permafrost experts have varying estimates on how much carbon dioxide and methane will be released into the atmosphere from thawing. Yet they agree climate change is exacerbating the problem and creating a "feedback loop" or vicious circle in which thawing then exacerbates global warming.
"We're on the edge of a major transition point," Schuur says, pointing to a 2013 report he authored that found tundras worldwide may already be emitting more carbon than they absorb. He says global permafrost emissions will be significant — akin to those from current deforestation — but probably much less than those from power plants, cars and other burning of oil and gas.
These emissions weren't included in the global warming estimates developed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and released in September as the first part of its Fifth Assessment Report. The report, which said with heightened certainty that humans are responsible for the planet's rising temperatures, serves as a basis for negotiating future climate treaties."...
almost forgot about this little piece of idiocy from last week:
Anon: “no, instead let's over-react every time someone says something we don't like and seek to bring as much pressure as possible to force them to never ever say it again”
Cinco: "Really Anon… really?
You do realize that this is the same thread where Priya posted:
“Happy winter solstice everyone.
Remember - a big party in the middle of winter is the reason for the season.”
Which you then called “a gratuitous Christmas attack on Christianity, without provocation,” and “another attack spasm of intolerance against Christianity,” even though Priya said absolutely nothing about Christianity,"
actually, lazy Priya was mocking Christianity using a common slogan used by Christians
it was blatant and unprovoked
must have heard all the Whos singing in the square and gotten all ticked off
my reaction was muted and actually analytic in nature
"nor did she denigrate anyone or conflate them with adulterers or animal fornicators. God forbid someone had wished a Muslim happy birthday on the 25th, I’m sure you would have called it “an all out nuclear war on Christianity.” That victim card really falls out of your sleeve at the SLIGHTEST provocation. You might want to think again before you accuse someone of overreacting."
if you'll go back and read, you'll see I was commenting on how lazy Priya would have reacted had a Christian done the same with some gay slogan out of the blue
but, all I did was comment
I didn't say lazy Priya should be fired (indeed, it wouldn't be a bad idea if the lazy one got a job), I didn't call for banishment from society, shunning by all as was attempted by the gay community to Robertson
anon: “mocking people with different dialects ain't a good start”
Cinco: "It wasn’t a mock, it was a quote. I reiterated this memorable line as my own because Damon Wayans’ delivery in his cynical clown character act succinctly encapsulates my emotions"
oh sorry, I'm not familiar with the lowest-common-denominator comics of our sleazy culture
cinco: "Putting the overblown hyperbole aside for the moment, I don’t remember you complaining when a Million Moms started a petition to fire Ellen DeGeneres from JCPenny not because she had maligned or denigrated anyone, committed a crime, or harassed Christians, but simply because she’s gay, and god forbid folks should see her on TV. I’m pretty sure the Million Mom’s action was more of an OVER reaction."
don't remember that
personally, I like Ellen DeGeneres and probably wouldn't have supported the petition
cinco: "But here’s a wild-derriere idea… it you’re tired of gay people “over reacting” after someone conflates them with adulterers, animal fornicators, drunkards, and the like, then simply stop doing that – and encourage your friends to stop doing that. Last time I checked, the bible wasn’t intended to be a “get out of slander free” card you could wave after hurling a bunch of denigrating epithets at a class of people - especially when it has that line about not bearing false witness against your neighbors."
all those things are sin and the Bible conflates all sin as having a common root
Robertson didn't make it up and only truthfully answered a question asked
but, as you complain, you might consider how adulterers, drunkards and "the like" feel about being compared to disgusting things like homosexuality and bestiality
sometimes these things can serve as a wake-up call
"Have a nice day,"
you know as well as me, you'd like to see me paralyzed
why don't you just come out once and screeeaam it?
"Blogger Priya Lynn said...
You're my hero Cynthia"
this explains so much
Bad anonymous said "average global temperature is not the sole determinant of whether the planet is habitable".
I never said it was but it certainly will have tremendous impact on our standard of living. Sea levels are rising and much of the human population lives close to the coast. As sea levels rise there is going to be tremendous disruption to those people with millions, perhaps billions eventually being dislocated and having their lives destroyed as happened in Louisiana. Other problems will be eventually be widespread, farm land flooded with salt water, higher temperatures and drought will cause crop failures and famine particularly in poorer countries, infrastructure failures due to extreme weather, an accelerated loss of animal and plant species which will harm the environment we rely on to live and so on.
Bad anonymous said "most of the predictions of scientists in this field have proven incorrect".
The absurdity and and breadth of your claim is breathtaking.
Bad anonymous said "look, lazy Priya, citing that record lows exceed record highs is the opposite of "cherry-picking" it involves date from all places and over an entire year".
Obviously false. It only involves those places where there was a record high and excludes the vast majority of places that were merely warmer or cooler than normal. You cannot judge average global temperatures by looking only at the handful of places that had record highs and lows in a given year.
I should have addressed in more detail that bit of bad anonymous's sophistry on global warming. He said ":More record lows were set than record highs, showing the warming is not necessarily widespread" with the implication being because of that this means the planet was overall cooler in 2013. Setting aside the fact that bad anonymous has a long track record of lying and presented no proof for the claim let me give a hypothetical example of how there can be more record lows set than record highs and yet the planet is still warmer on average. Let's say we have only six locations on the planet that represent its temperatures (A,B,C,D,E,F,G) and the average temperatures for those locations for 2012 in degrees centigrade were:
A +25 *record high
B +10
C 0
D +16
E 0
F -10
G +10
And then in 2013 the average temperatures for the same locations were:
A +22
B +17
C +5
D +18
E -5 **record low
F -9
G +7 **record low
If we add those up we get an average global temperature for 2012 of +8.5 degrees centegrade and an average global temperature for 2013 of +9.2 degrees centegrade so in this example the global temperature for 2013 was up despite there being more record lows than record highs. This is the sort of specious argument global warming deniers like bad anonymous rely on to deceive people. And if we check we find that indeed the global temperature for 2013 was warmer than average. Once again every time bad anonymous posts a bit of data showing localized brief cooling he's cherry picking the data by focusing on regional, rather than global temperatures and shorter time periods rather than longer time periods. When you look at the global average temperature trends over the past 100 or two hundred years its obvious the planet is warming up as time goes by. There is no incentive to believe global warming is happening if its really not but there is a lot of incentive to believe global warming isn't happening when it is - everyone wishes bad news weren't true. Liberals are more open to change than conservatives and that's why liberals are more willing to believe the science that shows there are going to be very negative consequences for the future if we don't act now.
Rutgers University climate scientist Jennifer A Francis says:
"We can't say that these are extremes are because of climate change"
MIT atmospheric scientist Kerry Emanuel says:
"it is difficult to tie a direct link between individual events like the cold snap occurring in the Midwest and East Coast to global warming"
climate scientist extraordinaire, lazy Priya Lynn:
"the cold in the U.S. is caused by global warming"
“If you cherry pick you can always find an excuse to go against global warming,”
of course, if you cherry-pick, you can always find an excuse to support global warming
seems to me that the alarmists have cherry-picked Alaska to prove global warming
it's been cold most everywhere else, the last year had more record lows than highs, ice is growing in the North Polar, massively growing in the larger Southern Polar
the average global temperature doesn't seem to mean much
"I never said it was but it certainly will have tremendous impact on our standard of living"
probably not as much as the suggested remedies to it
if anything like predicted happens, and these climate scientists haven't been right yet, certain areas may have to abandoned but other areas will become hospitable
migration happens all the time anyway
been to Detroit lately?
there's a glut of abandoned real estate that could be reclaimed if the South becomes less hospitable
and, of course, there are those who thrive in extreme environments
Badass anon: "most of the predictions of scientists in this field have proven incorrect".
climate expert Priya "Lazy" Lynn: "The absurdity and and breadth of your claim is breathtaking."
when you get our breath back, let's see some documentation
"You cannot judge average global temperatures by looking only at the handful of places that had record highs and lows in a given year."
but maybe that's more significant than average global temperatures
it's not difficult to construct scenarios where a few extremely hot areas skews the global average
better to look at the number of areas where there are extremes
on the global warming side, it seems to be mainly Alaska
"let me give a hypothetical example of how there can be more record lows set than record highs and yet the planet is still warmer on average"
let me give a hypothetical example of how it can be warmer on average but still be more record lows set than record highs
there is simply no reason that the average global temperature should be the sole determinant of the desirability of the weather
it could be skewed by the heat in places that are irrelevant
"This is the sort of specious argument global warming deniers rely on to deceive people"
personally, I think your argument is specious
"And if we check we find that indeed the global temperature for 2013 was warmer than average"
yes, but not as high as was predicted by climate scientists five years ago
the warming is trending to slower, much slower, and, for all the climate scientists know, based on their past reliability, may reverse soon
"Once again every time bad anonymous posts a bit of data showing localized brief cooling he's cherry picking the data by focusing on regional, rather than global temperatures"
my examples are more widespread than yours and just looking at a global average may be misleading
"and shorter time periods rather than longer time periods. When you look at the global average temperature trends over the past 100 or two hundred years its obvious the planet is warming up as time goes by"
200 years?
and why is now suddenly so significant?
the pace has allowed the human race to flourish
no reason to believe this won't continue
"There is no incentive to believe global warming is happening if its really not"
as we've already discussed, liberals have plenty of motive to push these government manipulations of our economy
Canada's defense chief says about 80 alien species visit the Earth regularly and are concerned about our nuclear weapons but haven't mentioned global warming
Is there something in the water up there?
A lot of wackos!:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/01/06/canadas-former-defense-chief-says-space-aliens-live-among-us-but-hate-our-nukes/
Bad anonymous your constant cherry-picking of the data by focusing on short term localized conditions while ignoring global average temperatures over long periods of time is childish, dishonest, and I've debunked it repeatedly.
Scientists and the liberals have no incentive to lie about global warming. If the price of oil is raised to discourage the use of greenhouse gases liberals pay the same price as conservatives and suffer the same reduction in what they can buy with their paycheque. If the government spends money on research into zero emmissions energy alternatives liberals pay the same extra taxes conservatives do. There is no benefit to liberals to undergo the hardships of eliminating greenhouse gasses if global warming isn't happening. Only conservatives have an insentive to lie about global warming because they don't want to believe their present lifestyle is causing problems for future generations.
Bad anonymous said "it's been cold most everywhere else, the last year had more record lows than highs, ice is growing in the North Polar, massively growing in the larger Southern Polar the average global temperature doesn't seem to mean much"
Obviously when the global average temperature for 2013 has been warmer than average it most certainly has NOT been colder than normal most everywhere else, its been warmer than normal
The average global temperature is ALL that matters, local conditions are irrelevant when determining the trend of the planet You're lying through ommission about ice at the poles. Artic ice grew in 2013 but over the long term it has shrunk drastically. 75% the ice the Arctic had 30 years ago has disappeared. A 29% increase in the 25% that is left doesn't even begin to undo the damage that's occured over the past 30 years. Antarctic ice is not at an all time record high, that is simply a lie. While antarctic ice has grown this year over the long run Arctic ice is disappearing 3 times as quickly as Antarctic ice is growing. One year most certainly doesn't make a trend, look at the past 30 years and far, far more ice has been lost than gained.
You haven't proven that there have been more record highs than lows and even if there were the example I gave proves its a logical fallacy that that means the globe as a whole is colder than average. You cannot look at a fraction of the temperature data and truthfully claim it is representative of all the data - that's nonsense.
Despite localized cooling average global temperatures for 2013 are warmer than normal and November 2013 was the warmest average global temperature ever recorded.
Bad anonymous said "there is simply no reason that the average global temperature should be the sole determinant of the desirability of the weather it could be skewed by the heat in places that are irrelevant".
We've adapted our lives to the weather as it has been, not as it will be. As I pointed out global warming will result in a world we are not adapted to and the resulting global negative consequences which will include, illness, wars, disease, famine, and flooding. Can we adapt to the change? Yes, of course but it will cost all of us dearly in terms of standard of living and even many their lives. Best to avoid having to adapt to a hot planet when we can avoid it.
I said "And if we check we find that indeed the global temperature for 2013 was warmer than average"
Bad anonymous said "yes, but not as high as was predicted by climate scientists five years agothe warming is trending to slower, much slower, and, for all the climate scientists know, based on their past reliability, may reverse soon".
Nonsense. The last decade has been the hottest on record. This time actually look at the graph at the link I'm posting. Its about 1/4 to 1/3 of the way down the page. Instead of knee-jerk posting your lies about the last 15 years look at the graph and try to tell yourself the trend towards wamer temperatures isn't increasing. Don't come back here and lie to us again, look at the graph and try to honestly tell yourself the planet isn't warming. Climate scientists have been predicting warmer temperatures over the long run and rising sea levels over the long run and that is exactly what is happening and in fact the rate at which sea levels have been rising is increasing which would obviously not be the case if overall global ice levels weren't decreasing. Given what we know about how greenhouse gasses trap heat there is absolutely no reason to believe the trend will reverse without us lowering the amount of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere.
Bad anonymous said "the pace has allowed the human race to flourish no reason to believe this won't continue".
That's like saying if you get your heat turned off in your house at the start of the winter you can start breaking up pieces of the house and burning them in the fireplace and there's no reason to believe you cannot continue to do so at any time in the future. No doubt people can prosper in the short term by failing to make the expenditures needed to preserve the environment but the planet is a finite resource with limited capacity to support people, obviously we cannot continue to grow the population and destroy the environment without it eventually resulting in a culling of humans.
I said "Once again every time bad anonymous posts a bit of data showing localized brief cooling he's cherry picking the data by focusing on regional, rather than global temperatures"
Bad anonymous said "my examples are more widespread than yours and just looking at a global average may be misleading it could be skewed by the heat in places that are irrelevant".
How stupid are you?! Obviously when the global temperature for 2013 is higher than average it is impossible that your examples of cold could be more widespread than examples of the temperature being warmer than normal! Obviously when we are trying to determine if the planet is warming the only thing that matters is the average global temperature! It is simply not possible that some parts of the planet are going to get hotter and hotter over the long run while other parts of the planet remain the same over the long run. That is why the only way to determine a trend is to look at average global temperatures over the long run. No part of the world's weather is walled off from the rest of the globe when the global average temperature over the long run is increasing every place on the planet is going to be warmer in the long run. The scientists recording temperatures around the world take pains to ensure the sites are representative of the planet as a whole. If it was true that only places where no one lived were getting warmer it would be it would be astounding (because its impossible) and making news world wide because the global warming deniers would be constantly screaming about it. Obviously that is not the case.
A ship full of “global warmists” heads off on an expedition to Antarctica to prove that the ice shelf there is melting so fast that every beachfront house in the world will soon be swept away by a massive tsunami.
But instead of finding a sad polar bear stuck on a tiny ice sheet, the adventurers found their ship stuck — in ice.
Wait, it gets better: A ship sent to free the stuck ship also got trapped in the ice. And over the weekend, the U.S. announced that it would send a heavy icebreaker to free the ships —so, of course, as usual, you taxpayers will foot the bill.
But still more: media reports about the Russian-owned research ship carrying the global warmists have failed to note the passengers’ mission. Instead, news organizations like Reuters say they left New Zealand on Nov. 28 “to commemorate the 100th anniversary of an Antarctic journey led by Australian explorer Douglas Mawson.” The AP peddled the same line, too.
Yet the real mission of the passengers came out anyway. The expedition’s leader is Chris Turney, a “climate scientist” who has set up a carbon refining company called Carbonscape, according to the website wattsupwiththat.com, self-touted as “the world’s most viewed site on global warming and climate change.”
The company, the site says, “has developed technology to fix carbon from the atmosphere and make a host of green bi-products, helping reduce greenhouse gas levels.”
National Geographic made it all very clear with the aptly titled report: “Who’s on That Russian Ship Stuck on Antarctic Ice? And Why?”
“The current crop of explorers are hoping to document some of the same data and compare them to Mawson’s numbers, ‘using the twist of modern technology,’ Turney told National Geographic,” the article said.
The last knife of irony: While they’ve been stuck in the ice, a new report came out saying there is more ice on the Antarctica shelf than ever before. “Scientists at the British Antarctic Survey [BAS] say that the melting of the Pine Island Glacier ice shelf in Antarctica has suddenly slowed right down in the last few years, confirming earlier research which suggested that the shelf’s melt does not result from human-driven global warming,” the UK’s The Register reported.
Said Pierre Dutrieux of the BAS: “We found ocean melting of the glacier was the lowest ever recorded, and less than half of that observed in 2010. This enormous, and unexpected, variability contradicts the widespread view that a simple and steady ocean warming in the region is eroding the West Antarctic Ice Sheet.”
And that’s why the media hasn’t bothered to mention the expedition’s real mission. It’s embarrassing. As humiliating as those reports from the 1970s on the much-feared Global Cooling.
“US Scientist Sees New Ice Age Coming,” blared a Washington Post headline in 1971. “The world could be as little as 50 or 60 years away from a disastrous new ice age, a leading atmospheric scientist predicts,” the paper said. Even The New York Times said “Climate Changes Called Ominous.” “There is a finite probability that a serious worldwide cooling could befall the Earth within the next hundred years.”
They were wrong then, and they’re wrong now. Yes, of course developed countries should do everything they can to reduce carbon emissions, but there is no global panic. After all, temperatures haven’t risen since 1997 (scientists say). Some news orgs, especially in Britain, are beginning to tell a different story.
“Global warming? No, actually we’re cooling, claim scientists,” one September headline read in The Telegraph. “Despite the original forecasts, major climate research centres now accept that there has been a ‘pause’ in global warming since 1997,” said the lead.
As the United States shivers in a record cold snap fed by a “polar vortex” (game time Sunday in Green Bay for the NFL playoffs was 3 degrees, with a windchill of -17!), perhaps its time to pay attention to the climatologists out there who hold that global warming is not settled science. Just over 100 years of definitive climate data can’t shed much light on the 4.5-billion-year-old Earth.
And last, there’s this: Al Gore has reportedly bought not one, not two, but three homes near beaches. So he doesn’t seem too worried about that coming sea-surge tsunami.
You just can’t make this stuff up.
We’re decidedly not going to do anything about what is allegedly causing global warming. Despite this truth, that we’re not going to do anything substantial when it comes to the supposed causes of global warming, coastal properties in the U.S. continue to fetch enormous prices.
Global warmists would rather change the subject here, and they would because the high cost of coastal homes in New York and Los Angeles is on its own a market signal that the alleged threat of global warming is well overdone. Even worse for those who buy into the theory of global warming that says a planetary crack-up is inevitable absent a substantial human response, is that Malibu, Manhattan and the Hamptons are filled with the very people who, when asked if they believe in the global warming theory, would most likely say yes.
Ok, so Ted Danson owns in Martha’s Vineyard, noted environmental activist Laurie David does too, and then Al Gore is known to have purchased a coastal palazzo in Montecito, CA CA. What this tells us is that even global warming’s most famous advocates don’t believe very deeply in their own activism. To believe the warmists we’re sitting idle as Rome supposedly burns, but as evidenced by the popularity of coastal property among warmists and non-warmists alike, the market says the ‘science’ predicting catastrophe is utter nonsense.
"As part of its ongoing strategy of attacking the Affordable Care Act, the Republican Party continues to present claims that just do not hold up.
The latest attack: Under Obamacare, more Americans have lost health insurance than gained it.
In November, when numerous reports that peopl were receiving cancelation letters in the mail surfaced, the GOP immediately asserted that under the new health care reform, more people would lose coverage than gain it.
By the end of December, Republicans claimed that approximately five million people would lose coverage in 2014 because of Obamacare.
That same month, Senator John Barrasso (R-WY) claimed that “thousands and thousands” in his state “have had their insurance canceled under the law.”
And the following day, Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) stated, “The administration is recognizing the grim reality that more Americans have lost health insurance than gained it under Obamacare.”
More recently, House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) tweeted a link to a Daily Caller article that wrongly declared the ACA “left more Americans without coverage than before the law was passed.”
A fact check conducted by the Washington Post’s Glenn Kessler, however, shows a reality very different from the one being presented by the GOP.
As Kessler points out, the Daily Caller article linked to by Boehner neglects the Medicaid expansion included in the new law that has since added 3.9 million Americans to its rolls. Additionally, “the article also incorrectly assumes that everyone whose plan did not meet Affordable Care Act standards but who did not sign up for a plan via the exchanges has been left without coverage.”
Ultimately, the article – as well as the GOP – neglects to make a distinction between canceled plans and lost coverage: Many Americans who received cancelation notices were later enrolled into another plan by the same insurance company, and others were able to find new plans through the exchanges. This means that not everyone who received a cancelation letter is now no longer covered by a new plan with either their former insurance company or a new one.
Also important to note is that under an administrative fix ordered by the White House, approximately 2.3 million Americans with canceled plans will now be allowed to stay on their former plan for at least another year.
Boehner’s spokesman Brendan Buck has since cleared up the Speaker’s intentions, saying that the tweet was meant to assert only that there were “more private plans canceled than private plans enrolled in Obamacare,” but the original tweet that quoted the Daily Caller, “Obamacare debuts with more canceled plans than enrollments,” conveys a different message – one that the Republican Party so desperately wants to be true, but just is not."
Enjoy the single digits today!
The daytime high temperature in Washington DC is projected to reach the unseasonable high of 52 degrees this weekend.
"As part of its ongoing strategy of attacking the Affordable Care Act, the Republican Party continues to present claims that just do not hold up."
that wasn't just the Republicans
everyone was saying that
and notwithstanding the above, it may still be true
the numbers are all very slippery because the White House is trying to keep it that way
if they were good, the White House wouldn't be doing that
here's a simple question:
how many Americans were uninsured at 1/1/13 vs 1/1/14?
until you can answer that, with documentation, don't play games with numbers and then accuse others
"A fact check conducted by the Washington Post’s Glenn Kessler, however, shows a reality very different from the one being presented by the GOP.
As Kessler points out, the Daily Caller article linked to by Boehner neglects the Medicaid expansion included in the new law that has since added 3.9 million Americans to its rolls."
at the link below, Sean Trende of RCP debunks this deceptive article by the Post
to make it short, the 3.9 million are simply people who enrolled in Medicaid, which happened on a routine basis before Obamacare
almost half were from states that didn't participate so they weren't covered as a result of Obamacare, by definition
by extrapolating from states that reported in detail, he is able to estimate that only about 190K of the new enrollees are as a result of Obamacare
Obamacare is pathetic and so is the Post:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/01/07/4_million_medicaid_enrollees_under_obamacare_121146.html
Grow up bad anonymous. Cherry picking the data and covering your eyes won't make the things you're afraid of go away.
"5 million cancelled, 1 million enrolled in obamacare, = -4 million, yes ?"
Here's your answer:
'here's a simple question:
how many Americans were uninsured at 1/1/13 vs 1/1/14?
until you can answer that, with documentation [and sources], don't play games with numbers and then accuse others"
"Grow up bad anonymous. Cherry picking the data and covering your eyes won't make the things you're afraid of go away."
dearest lazy Priya
you're a stupid ass
since I'm not a lazy thinker, like you-know-who, and I have my uncovered eyes wide open, I know that the worst predictions of warmist alarmists never come true and that the "average global temperature" hasn't had a negative impact as yet, as is conceded by the experts you cited
it may be that it never has a significant impact on any densely inhabited part of the globe
Al Gore is apparently not afraid to buy beachfront property, three of them, in fact
he's become wealthy making predictions that don't come true
five years ago, he said the Northern Polar ice cap would be gone now
news flash: ain't going to happen
ignoring the track record of your alarmist "expert scientists" and covering your eyes won't make your fears that you were completely wrong go away
just sayin'
"ATLANTA (AP) - The polar air that has made the Midwestern United States shiver over the past few days spread to the East and South on Tuesday, setting record low temperatures from Boston and New York to Atlanta, Birmingham, Nashville and Little Rock - places where many people don't know the first thing about extreme cold.
The Midwest and the East were colder than much of Antarctica.
In a phenomenon that forecasters said is actually not all that unusual, all 50 states saw freezing temperatures at some point Tuesday. That included Hawaii, where it was 18 degrees (-8 Celsius) atop Mauna Kea, a dormant volcano.
Across the South, records were shattered like icicles. Birmingham, Alabama, dipped to a low of 7 degrees (-14 Celsius), breaking the record of 11 degrees (-11.7 Celsius) set in 1970. Atlanta saw a record low of 6 degrees (-14.5 Celsius). Nashville, Tennessee, got down to 2 degrees (-16.7 Celsius), and Little Rock, Arkansas, fell to 9 degrees (-13 Celsius). It was just 1 degree (-17 Celsius) at Washington Dulles International airport, eclipsing the 1988 mark of 8 degrees (-13 Celsius).
The deep freeze dragged on in the Midwest as well, with the thermometer reaching minus 12 (-24 Celsius) overnight in the Chicago area and 14 below (-25.5 Celsius) in suburban St. Louis. More than 500 passengers were stranded overnight on three Chicago-bound trains that were stopped by blowing and drifting snow in Illinois. Food ran low, but the heat stayed on.
On Tuesday, many schools and day care centers across the eastern half of the U.S. were closed so that youngsters wouldn't be exposed to the dangerous cold. Officials opened shelters for the homeless and anyone else who needed a warm place.
With the bitter cold slowing baggage handling and aircraft refueling, airlines canceled more than 2,000 flights in the U.S., bringing the four-day total to more than 11,000.
In New Orleans, which reported a low of 26 degrees (-3 Celsius), hardware stores ran out of pipe insulation. A pipe burst in an Atlanta suburb and a main road quickly froze over. In downtown Atlanta, a Ferris wheel near Centennial Olympic Park that opened over the summer to give riders a bird's eye view of the city closed because it was too cold.
Farther south in Pensacola, Florida, a Gulf Coast city better known for its white sand beaches than frost, streets normally filled with joggers, bikers and people walking dogs were deserted early Tuesday. A sign on a bank flashed 19 degrees (-7 Celsius). Patches of ice sparkled in parking lots where puddles froze overnight.
The continental U.S., when averaged out, reached a low of 13.8 degrees (-10 Celsius) overnight Monday, according to calculations by Ryan Maue of Weather Bell Analytics. An estimated 190 million people in the U.S. were subjected to the icy blast, caused by a kink in the "polar vortex," the strong winds that surround the North Pole.
In Chicago, it was too cold even for the polar bear at the Lincoln Park Zoo."
Record setting heat wave in australia
Australia's record-setting run of hot weather is likely to continue into the new year with temperatures in some parts tipped to peak just shy of 122 degrees in the coming days.
The new year is starting off much as 2013 did, with an extended heatwave across large areas of inland Australia.
Last year was Australia's hottest in more than a century of records, as the Bureau of Meteorology will confirm this week.
Dr Dutschke said Thursday had the best chance during the current hot spell for a 122-degree reading to be reached, with Moomba in South Australia expecting more than 120 degrees.
"For some places, particularly western Queensland, it'll be the most intense heatwave for some parts of the state in more than 50 years," Mr Domensino said.
South Australia's Roxby Downs is forecast to hit 113 degrees, while the more northern town of Oodnadatta could reach a high of 118.4 degrees.
Leigh Creek, about 550 kilometres north of Adelaide, could hit 115 degrees, potentially creeping past its 25-year standing record of 115.4.
Richard Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology at MIT, leading climate “skeptic,” and all-around scourge of James Hansen, Bill McKibben, Al Gore, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and other climate “alarmists” may surprise you. If you know Lindzen only from the way his opponents characterize him—variously, a liar, a lunatic, a charlatan, a denier, a shyster, a crazy person, corrupt—you might expect a spittle-flecked, wild-eyed loon. But in person, Lindzen cuts a rather different figure. With his gray beard, thick glasses, gentle laugh, and disarmingly soft voice, he comes across as nothing short of grandfatherly.
Granted, Lindzen is no shrinking violet. A pioneering climate scientist with decades at Harvard and MIT, Lindzen sees his discipline as being deeply compromised by political pressure, data fudging, out-and-out guesswork, and wholly unwarranted alarmism. In a shot across the bow of what many insist is indisputable scientific truth, Lindzen characterizes global warming as “small and . . . nothing to be alarmed about.” In the climate debate—on which hinge far-reaching questions of public policy—them’s fightin’ words.
In his mid-seventies, married with two sons, and now emeritus at MIT, Lindzen writes, gives myriad talks, participates in debates, and occasionally testifies before Congress. In an eventful life, Lindzen has made the strange journey from being a pioneer in his field and eventual IPCC coauthor to an outlier in the discipline—if not an outcast.
Richard Lindzen attended the Bronx High School of Science before winning a scholarship to the only place he applied that was out of town, the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. After a couple of years at Rensselaer, he transferred to Harvard, where he completed his bachelor’s degree and, in 1964, a doctorate.
Lindzen wasn’t a climatologist from the start—“climate science” as such didn’t exist when he was beginning his career in academia. Rather, Lindzen studied math. A few years after arriving at Harvard, he began his transition to meteorology. “Harvard actually got a grant from the Ford Foundation to offer generous fellowships to people in the atmospheric sciences,” he explains. “Harvard had no department in atmospheric sciences, so these fellowships allowed you to take a degree in applied math or applied physics, and that worked out very well because in applied math the atmosphere and oceans were considered a good area for problems. . . . I discovered I really liked atmospheric sciences—meteorology. So I stuck with it and picked out a thesis.”
And with that, Lindzen began his meteoric rise through the nascent field. In the 1970s, while a professor at Harvard, Lindzen disproved the then-accepted theory of how heat moves around the Earth’s atmosphere, winning numerous awards in the process. Before his 40th birthday, he was a member of the National Academy of Sciences. In the mid-1980s, he made the short move from Harvard to MIT, and he’s remained there ever since. Over the decades, he’s authored or coauthored some 200 peer-reviewed papers on climate.
Where Lindzen hasn’t remained is in the mainstream of his discipline. By the 1980s, global warming was becoming a major political issue. Already, Lindzen was having doubts about the more catastrophic predictions being made. The public rollout of the “alarmist” case, he notes, “was immediately accompanied by an issue of Newsweek declaring all scientists agreed. And that was the beginning of a ‘consensus’ argument. Already by ’88 the New York Times had literally a global warming beat.” Lindzen wasn’t buying it. Nonetheless, he remained in the good graces of mainstream climate science, and in the early 1990s, he was invited to join the IPCC, a U.N.-backed multinational consortium of scientists charged with synthesizing and analyzing the current state of the world’s climate science. Lindzen accepted, and he ended up as a contributor to the 1995 report and the lead author of Chapter 7 (“Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks”) of the 2001 report. Since then, however, he’s grown increasingly distant from prevalent (he would say “hysterical”) climate science, and he is voluminously on record disputing the predictions of catastrophe.
The Earth’s climate is immensely complex, but the basic principle behind the “greenhouse effect” is easy to understand. The burning of oil, gas, and especially coal pumps carbon dioxide and other gases into the atmosphere, where they allow the sun’s heat to penetrate to the Earth’s surface but impede its escape, thus causing the lower atmosphere and the Earth’s surface to warm. Essentially everybody, Lindzen included, agrees. The question at issue is how sensitive the planet is to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases (this is called climate sensitivity), and how much the planet will heat up as a result of our pumping into the sky ever more CO2, which remains in the atmosphere for upwards of 1,000 years. (Carbon dioxide, it may be needless to point out, is not a poison. On the contrary, it is necessary for plant life.)
Lindzen doesn’t deny that the climate has changed or that the planet has warmed. “We all agree that temperature has increased since 1800,” he tells me. There’s a caveat, though: It’s increased by “a very small amount. We’re talking about tenths of a degree Celsius. We all agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. All other things kept equal, there has been some warming. As a result, there’s hardly anyone serious who says that man has no role. And in many ways, those have never been the questions. The questions have always been, as they ought to be in science, how much?”
Lindzen says not much at all—and he contends that the “alarmists” vastly overstate the Earth’s climate sensitivity. Judging by where we are now, he appears to have a point; so far, 150 years of burning fossil fuels in large quantities has had a relatively minimal effect on the climate. By some measurements, there is now more CO2 in the atmosphere than there has been at any time in the past 15 million years. Yet since the advent of the Industrial Revolution, the average global temperature has risen by, at most, 1 degree Celsius, or 1.6 degrees Fahrenheit. And while it’s true that sea levels have risen over the same period, it’s believed they’ve been doing so for roughly 20,000 years. What’s more, despite common misconceptions stoked by the media in the wake of Katrina, Sandy, and the recent typhoon in the Philippines, even the IPCC concedes that it has “low confidence” that there has been any measurable uptick in storm intensity thanks to human activity. Moreover, over the past 15 years, as man has emitted record levels of carbon dioxide year after year, the warming trend of previous decades has stopped. Lindzen says this is all consistent with what he holds responsible for climate change: a small bit of man-made impact and a whole lot of natural variability.
The real fight, though, is over what’s coming in the future if humans continue to burn fossil fuels unabated. According to the IPCC, the answer is nothing good. Its most recent Summary for Policymakers, which was released early this fall—and which some scientists reject as too sanguine—predicts that if emissions continue to rise, by the year 2100, global temperatures could increase as much as 5.5 degrees Celsius from current averages, while sea levels could rise by nearly a meter. If we hit those projections, it’s generally thought that the Earth would be rife with crop failures, drought, extreme weather, and epochal flooding. Adios, Miami.
Record setting heat in Los Angelos
On Christmas Day, Southern California basked in unseasonably warm weather as Santa Ana winds pushed hot, dry air across the region.
In Long Beach, the mercury hit 85 degrees, beating the 1972 high of 81 degrees.
In downtown Los Angeles, temperatures reached 82 degrees, making it the second warmest Christmas Day since records began in 1877 and well above the seasonal average of 67 degrees.
It is to avoid those disasters that the “alarmists” call on governments to adopt policies reducing the amounts of greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere. As a result of such policies—and a fortuitous increase in natural gas production—U.S. greenhouse emissions are at a 20-year low and falling. But global emissions are rising, thanks to massive increases in energy use in the developing world, particularly in China and India. If the “alarmists” are right, then, a way must be found to compel the major developing countries to reduce carbon emissions.
But Lindzen rejects the dire projections. For one thing, he says that the Summary for Policymakers is an inherently problematic document. The IPCC report itself, weighing in at thousands of pages, is “not terrible. It’s not unbiased, but the bias is more or less to limit your criticism of models,” he says. The Summary for Policymakers, on the other hand—the only part of the report that the media and the politicians pay any attention to—“rips out doubts to a large extent. . . . Furthermore, government representatives have the final say on the summary.” Thus, while the full IPPC report demonstrates a significant amount of doubt among scientists, the essentially political Summary for Policymakers filters it out.
Lindzen also disputes the accuracy of the computer models that climate scientists rely on to project future temperatures. He contends that they oversimplify the vast complexity of the Earth’s climate and, moreover, that it’s impossible to untangle man’s effect on the climate from natural variability. The models also rely on what Lindzen calls “fudge factors.” Take aerosols. These are tiny specks of matter, both liquid and solid (think dust), that are present throughout the atmosphere. Their effect on the climate—even whether they have an overall cooling or warming effect—is still a matter of debate. Lindzen charges that when actual temperatures fail to conform to the models’ predictions, climate scientists purposely overstate the cooling effect of aerosols to give the models the appearance of having been accurate. But no amount of fudging can obscure the most glaring failure of the models: their inability to predict the 15-year-long (and counting) pause in warming—a pause that would seem to place the burden of proof squarely on the defenders of the models.
Lindzen also questions the “alarmist” line on water vapor. Water vapor (and its close cousin, clouds) is one of the most prevalent greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. According to most climate scientists, the hotter the planet gets, the more water vapor there will be, magnifying the effects of other greenhouse gases, like CO2, in a sort of hellish positive feedback loop. Lindzen disputes this, contending that water vapor could very well end up having a cooling effect on the planet. As the science writer Justin Gillis explained in a 2012 New York Times piece, Lindzen “says the earth is not especially sensitive to greenhouse gases because clouds will react to counter them, and he believes he has identified a specific mechanism. On a warming planet, he says, less coverage by high clouds in the tropics will allow more heat to escape to space, countering the temperature increase.”
If Lindzen is right about this and global warming is nothing to worry about, why do so many climate scientists, many with résumés just as impressive as his, preach imminent doom? He says it mostly comes down to the money—to the incentive structure of academic research funded by government grants. Almost all funding for climate research comes from the government, which, he says, makes scientists essentially vassals of the state. And generating fear, Lindzen contends, is now the best way to ensure that policymakers keep the spigot open.
Lindzen contrasts this with the immediate aftermath of World War II, when American science was at something of a peak. “Science had established its relevance with the A-bomb, with radar, for that matter the proximity fuse,” he notes. Americans and their political leadership were profoundly grateful to the science community; scientists, unlike today, didn’t have to abase themselves by approaching the government hat in hand. Science funding was all but assured.
But with the cuts to basic science funding that occurred around the time of the Vietnam war, taxpayer support for research was no longer a political no-brainer. “It was recognized that gratitude only went so far,” Lindzen says, “and fear was going to be a much greater motivator. And so that’s when people began thinking about . . . how to perpetuate fear that would motivate the support of science.”
A need to generate fear, in Lindzen’s telling, is what’s driving the apocalyptic rhetoric heard from many climate scientists and their media allies. “The idea was, to engage the public you needed an event . . . not just a Sputnik—a drought, a storm, a sand demon. You know, something you could latch onto. Climate scientists carefully arranged a congressional hearing. And they arranged for James Hansen, one of the leading global warming “alarmists” to come and say something vague that would somehow relate a heat wave or a drought to global warming.” (This theme, by the way, is developed in the late Michael Crichton’s entertaining 2004 novel State of Fear, in which environmental activists engineer a series of fake “natural” disasters to sow fear over global warming.)
Lindzen also says that the “consensus”—the oft-heard contention that “virtually all” climate scientists believe in catastrophic, anthropogenic global warming—is overblown, primarily for structural reasons. “When you have an issue that is somewhat bogus, the opposition is always scattered and without resources,” he explains. “But the environmental movement is highly organized. There are hundreds of NGOs. To coordinate these hundreds, they quickly organized the Climate Action Network, the central body on climate. There would be, I think, actual meetings to tell them what the party line is for the year, and so on.” Skeptics, on the other hand, are more scattered across disciplines and continents. As such, they have a much harder time getting their message across.
Because CO2 is invisible and the climate is so complex (your local weatherman doesn’t know for sure whether it will rain tomorrow, let alone conditions in 2100), expertise is particularly important. Lindzen sees a danger here. “I think the example, the paradigm of this, was medical practice.” He says that in the past, “one went to a physician because something hurt or bothered you, and you tended to judge him or her according to whether you felt better. That may not always have been accurate, but at least it had some operational content. . . . [Now, you] go to an annual checkup, get a blood test. And the physician tells you if you’re better or not and it’s out of your hands.” Because climate change is invisible, only the experts can tell us whether the planet is sick or not. And because of the way funds are granted, they have an incentive to say that the Earth belongs in intensive care.
Lindzen, plainly, can’t be dismissed. Nor, of course, is he the only skeptic with serious scientific credentials. Judith Curry, the chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Tech, William Happer, professor of physics at Princeton, John Christy, a climate scientist honored by NASA, now at the University of Alabama, and the famed physicist Freeman Dyson are among dozens of scientists who have gone on record questioning various aspects of the IPCC’s line on climate change. Lindzen, for his part, has said that scientists have called him privately to thank him for the work he’s doing.
But Lindzen, perhaps because of his safely tenured status at MIT, or just because of the contours of his personality, is a particularly outspoken and public critic of the consensus.
the views of estimable climate scientists have been posted and all lazy Priya can do is cherry-pick?
and not come up with much, at that
I used to live in Long Beach, once upon a time.
85 degrees?
Wow, what a heat wave.
snicker, snicker
Heat wave in Rio causes water shortage.
Argentina ends 2013 with a heat wave that has sparked protests over electricity shortages
Can global warming be real if it’s cold in the U.S.? Um… yes!
It's quite cold across much of the United States right now, thanks to the dread "polar vortex."
So what does this tell us about global warming? Not very much. Sorry. A single cold snap in the U.S. doesn't disprove global warming any more than the record heat waves currently hitting Australia prove that it's happening. But since a lot of people — like Donald Trump — seem confused on this point, it's worth recapping a few basics:
1) Global warming refers to the whole planet, not just the United States. The term "global warming" typically refers to the rise in the average temperature of Earth's climate system since the late 19th century, as well as predictions for future warming. A key bit there is "Earth's average temperature." It can be very cold in one part of the world and very hot in another at the exact same time. (Sometimes the exact same weather event can do both: The jet stream is currently making some parts of the U.S. unusually hot and some parts unusually cold.)
What we're interested in is whether the global average is changing over a longer period. That's impossible to judge from a single point in time in a small area — the continental United States is less than 2 percent of the Earth's surface.
2) For example: December 2013 was an unusually warm month even though it was colder in the U.S. So let's take this past December as an example. North America was colder than the average over the past decade. But Europe and Russia were much hotter than average. India was cooler than average. Australia was warmer than average. And so on:
What happens when you add it all up? Early data suggests that December 2013 was tied for the 2nd-hottest December on record since 1979, the beginning of satellite measurements, according to data from the University of Alabama-Huntsville. Meanwhile, global average temperatures for all of 2013 are expected to be among the 10 highest since 1850 (though we still don't have a final count yet).
So you couldn't really infer all that much from a cool month in the United States.
3) The global temperature won't necessarily go up every year. Focus on long-term trends. Sort of a corollary to #1 and #2.
The global average surface temperature has clearly gone up since the 19th century, by more than half a degree Celsius. But there's also fair bit of variation year to year.
4) Global warming isn't expected to abolish winters in the U.S. anytime soon. Right now, climate experts are worried about a 2°C to 4°C rise in global average temperatures by the end of the century. That would create all sorts of disruptive changes. But those few degrees aren't enough to completely undo the larger swings in temperature we see each year between summer and winter in many parts of the world.
Indeed, many climate models suggest that we'll still see record cold snaps in the United States as the planet heats up. They'll just become much less frequent over time — while record heat waves will become increasingly common. See this paper in Geophysical Research Letters from 2009: Over the past decade, it notes, the U.S. has experienced about two daily record high temperatures for every record low. If the planet keeps heating up, that ratio will shift to 20:1 by mid-century. There will still be record lows in many areas. They'll just be rarer.
"The global average surface temperature has clearly gone up since the 19th century, by more than half a degree Celsius. But there's also fair bit of variation year to year."
actually, as noted by a distinguished climate scientist above, that isn't much after two centuries of emissions
"Right now, climate experts are worried about a 2°C to 4°C rise in global average temperatures by the end of the century."
why do they expect that?
while you deceptively keep saying it's hotter than ever, you don't say that the increase has virtually come to a stop in the last 15 years
btw, the climate scientist above explains exactly the motive of the alarmists, despite lazy Priya yesterday saying "why, whatever would be the motivation to exaggerate?"
it's called money
"If Lindzen is right about this..."
... the climate scientist above explains exactly the motive of the alarmists."
The only thing "right" about Lindzen is his politics.
He became a Republican as a result of his position in the climate change debate.
He's a political "scientist," apparently
the proof is in the pudding, I'm afraid
time and again, predictions of the alarmists have been incorrect
what Lindzen has said is empirically verifiable
facts don't lie
WINTER STORM HERCULES SLAMS EUROPE WITH XXL SURF
"Jam 6. 2014 An extraordinary winter of massive waves in the North Atlantic may get even more extreme as the huge storm that blasted the Midwest and Northeast heads toward Europe over the weekend.
Dubbed “Winter Storm Hercules” by the media, the intense low-pressure system that dumped up to two feet of snow across New England and caused thousands of flight cancellations nationwide is forecast to continue its fury as it moves out to sea, generating swells in excess of 50 feet as it lashes toward Ireland...."
Graziers cart water to keep cattle alive in drought stricken south-west Queensland
"January 8, 2014 Graziers in south-west Queensland's cattle country are carting water to keep cattle alive, as weather reports offer little hope of drought-breaking rain.
Adavale is a tiny town with just one pub and it is the hub for a usually thriving industry of surrounding cattle and sheep properties.
Publican Koss Siwers says there has not been significant rain for almost a year and he knows times are getting tough for locals.
"They're starting to actually cart water out to some of the properties. And I've had plenty of the truck drivers come in and tell me how far they're actually driving as a round trip," he said.
"One was here last week ... He was doing a 120-kilometre round trip non-stop, I think he was here for three days, carting water out to a property that didn't have a bore or any artesian water.
"And they had to get water out there to water the cattle."
Some areas have been without significant rain for 21 months...."
As happened in January last year, much of Australia has been enduring a sweltering heatwave over the first days of 2014, with temperatures in excess of 40°C in many areas. Meanwhile 2013 has been confirmed as the country’s hottest year on record...since records began more than a century ago, with the annual national mean temperature 1.2°C above the average.
Warmest years
10 warmest years on record (°C anomaly from 1901–2000 mean)
Year Global[66] Land[67] Ocean[68]
2010 0.6590 1.0748 0.5027
2005 0.6523 1.0505 0.5007
1998 0.6325 0.9351 0.5160
2003 0.6219 0.8859 0.5207
2002 0.6130 0.9351 0.4902
2006 0.5978 0.9091 0.4792
2009 0.5957 0.8621 0.4953
2007 0.5914 1.0886 0.3900
2004 0.5779 0.8132 0.4885
2012 0.5728 0.8968 0.4509
the significant thing currently is not that it is warmer, slightly, than a hundred years ago but that the heating has vastly slowed in the last 15 years, from slight to negligible
further, the increase over the last 200 years is only half a percent
so, why do alarmists insist it will go up 4 more percent in the next 85 years?
makes no sense
their predictions never come true
and whatever caused the atmosphere is warm slightly appears to not be having any further effect
in short, scientists who rely on government funding for their livelihood are trying to create a panic to secure it
it's not going well
the public is on to them
Record high winter temperatures in Washington
Weather service records from as far back as 1872 show that Christmas in Washington is normally cold and dry, with a low chance of snow.
Ms. Bettwy said Sunday’s temperature of 72 degrees tied the 1889 record high for the D.C. area, and the low temperature of 59 degrees also was a record high.
“The old record was 49 degrees in 1923,” she said. “Our normal high is 45 for this time of year.”
Record high temperatures in Siberia for 2013
Temperatures of 32 degrees Celsius, or 89.6 degrees Fahrenheit, were recorded in the Siberian city of Norilsk on July 21. The average temperature in July in the region is 13.6 C, or 56.48 F.
The western Russia heat wave during summer 2010 was the most extreme heat wave in the instrumental record of 1880-present for that region.
Heat wave in Europe
Record highs have been breaking in Europe again and again.
Take the Slovenian capital of Ljubljana, for instance. According to a blog written Thursday by Weather Underground meteorologist Dr. Jeff Masters, the city has broken its all-time record high five times in six days, culminating in a high of 104.4 degrees Fahrenheit on Aug. 8.
Ljubljana's streak of broken records is a sign of the heat's persistence, but other parts of the continent have risen to even hotter temperatures. Chris Burt, Weather Underground meteorologist, reported the mercury unofficially surpassed 105 degrees in parts of Austria on Thursday, a country that never had a reading of 104 degrees or higher.
In neighboring Hungary, temperatures were slightly lower, but still well into the triple digits in some places. The heat prompted the national government to lift some dress codes, allowing workers to commute more comfortably, reports the Times Online.
The highest readings were in Croatia, however. Temperatures soared into the 110s, according to Burt, with a 113-degree reading still yet to be confirmed.
While the deep freeze the United States is experiencing may seem like proof that global warming is a myth, the truth is exactly the opposite, according to scientists who predicted this type of extreme weather in a study published in September.
Global warming is unpaused and stuck on fast forward, new research shows
The widespread mainstream media focus on the slowed global surface warming has led some climate scientists like Trenberth and Fasullo to investigate its causes and how much various factors have contributed to the so-called 'pause' or 'hiatus.' However, the authors note that while the increase in global temperatures has slowed, the oceans have taken up heat at a faster rate since the turn of the century. Over 90 percent of the overall extra heat goes into the oceans, with only about 2 percent heating the Earth's atmosphere. The myth of the 'pause' is based on ignoring 98 percent of global warming and focusing exclusively on the one bit that's slowed.
As a recent paper published in the journal Nature showed, the Pacific Ocean in particular appears to be the key component of the climate's natural internal variability, and the main culprit behind the slowed global surface warming over the past 15 years. However, another important recent paper by Kevin Cowtan and Robert Way showed that the global surface temperature rise has not slowed as much as some previously thought; in fact, the surface warming since 1997 happened more than twice as fast as previous estimates.
So much for bad anonymous's dishonest claim that the earth hasn't heated up as fast as scientists predicted.
Global temperatue for November was the hottest on record
The month was so warm despite the fact that the U.S. was 0.27°F (0.15°C) cooler than average. Other parts of North America, northern Australia, Greenland, and the waters south of South America were also slightly cooler.
But the rest of the world more than made up for it. For example, Russia experienced the hottest November since the country started keeping records in 1891. Parts of the Ural Mountains in Siberia and the arctic islands in the Kara Sea experienced temperatures that were 14°F (8°C) higher than the average.
The first 11 months of 2013 are tied with 2002 as the fourth warmest such period, putting this year on pace to be one of the hottest ever recorded. (See also "2012: Hottest Year on Record for Continental U.S.")
The recent upsurge in Antarctic ice is much less than all the ice that has been lost so far in the Arctic.
In November, Arctic sea-ice continued its downward trend, dwindling by 6.8 percent below the 1981-2010 average of 4.24 million square miles (10.8 million square kilometers). November was also the month with the sixth-lowest extent of Arctic sea ice in 35 years of record-keeping.
A growing body of evidence demonstrates a link between the melting of Arctic sea ice and worsening summer heat waves and other extreme weather in the United States and elsewhere in the world, leading scientists said last week.
The report card, released Thursday, said that while this year’s melting of Arctic sea ice didn’t reach the record levels of 2012, the ice was thin and was at the sixth-lowest minimum since observations began in 1979.
“We cannot expect to be smashing records every year; there are going to be ups and downs. But those up and downs are going to be superimposed on the trend of a warming Arctic,” said Martin Jeffries, a University of Alaska Fairbanks professor who’s the adviser to the U.S. Arctic Research Commission.
The decadeslong decline in Arctic sea ice is among the most visible signs of global warming. NOAA’s Arctic Report Card came days after a study in the journal Nature Climate Change linked the sea-ice melt to extreme summer weather in North America and Europe.
There are a wide variety of factures that cause changes in the weather and a pattern of natural ups and downs in global temperatures. Global warming doesn't erase these, it just modifies them such that the cooling periods aren't as cool as they otherwise would be and the warming spikes are hotter than they otherwise would be. For this reason its impossible to distinguish if there is a global temperature trend by looking only at regional events at one period of time. Temperatures must be considered globally and over longer periods of time to overcome the "noise" inherent in short term temperature observations.
Scientists say a 15 year period is about the minimum one can consider to establish whether or not there is a trend and of course one must look at the global average temperature in order to avoid being mislead by localized temperatures.
Every time bad anonymous posts a global warming denial he uses the dishonest ploy of highlighting short term observations in localized regions. The best example of this is his absurd harping on the cold weather in part of the United States as he attempts to convince us conditions there determine what is happening with the planet as a whole. The truth is the United STates represents less than 2% of the planets surface area - obviously its absurd for him to assert what 2% of the planet is doing is more important than what the other 98% of the planet is doing.
And the planet as a whole is warmer than average for 2013 with November and December being the warmest months ever recorded. The last decade was the warmest on record and 2010 was the warmest year on record. Bad anonymous is simply lying when he claims global temperatures haven't risen in the last 15 years. Look at the graph of the global average termperatures and its obvious they are continuing to increase. Don't believe his lies about the last global warming being stalled for the last fifteen years, click on the link I posted and look at the graph of global average temperatures about 1/4 to 1/3 of the way down the page and his lie is painfully obvious
And its of course absurd to suggest those thousand-aire scientists are lying due to money, their is no money in convincing people global warming is happening if it isn't and there is nothing to gain for liberals by convincing others global warming is happening if it isn't. Bad anonymous says liberals benefit by the government controlling more of the economy but of course he can't come up with a single specific example as to how that's true, because their aren't any.
Bad anonymous likes to hang his hat on his lie that there have been more record lows than record highs, but of course he doesn't attempt to prove that because it isn't true. And in any event he's once again only looking at the United States while ignoring the other 98% of the globe. And even if we only do look at the United States over the past decade, it notes, the U.S. has experienced about two daily record high temperatures for every record low.
Out of 12000 climatology research papers 97% conclude global warming is real and manmade. The overwhelming consencus of scientists is that there are going to be very negative consequences from this in the long run from flooding, poverty, drought, to famine and wars.
Bad anonymous is like the person who has 97 doctors who tell him the lump he has is cancer and it needs to be removed and he chooses to believe the 3 doctors who say its nothing to worry about.
Priya destroys bad anonymous yet again, of course it was inevitable, I've got science on my side, he's got a bunch of conservative pretenders who are motivated to deny reality because they don't want to believe there's going to be any trouble in the future.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Post a Comment
<< Home