It Was Fifty Years Ago Today
This week marks the fiftieth anniversary of the Beatles' visit to the US and their famous appearance on the Ed Sullivan Show. Fifty years. That television show was a pivotal moment for the generation that was born immediately after World War II. It was the visible form of a surge of irrepressible teenage energy and optimism -- there was really strange and different and great music and girls screaming and weird haircuts, it was an awakening moment for a generation. It is impossible to explain to someone who wasn't part of it, just as it is impossible to identify the awakening moments of another generation. Like, South Park? Seriously?
The LA Times had a story yesterday that went back and looked at what the pundits of 1964 had to say about The Beatles when they first arrived here. The comments are hilarious in retrospect. You can't say that after a mere fifty years, the Beatles have stood the test of time, their music could die as the baby-boomer generation dies out, but certainly they proved the cynical sourpusses of the middle sixties wrong.
I will select a few quotes from the Times article. Like, here is what the giftedly vocabularistic conservative pundit William F. Buckley, Jr., said:
Newsweek wrote, in February, 1964:
The band I am in has been experimenting with "She Loves You" in rehearsal lately, and that early Beatles song is amazingly rich in melody and harmony. Listen to the first line of the verse: "You think you've lost your love," where the first part of the line is sung in unison, with the final word and the following line done in two-part harmonies, with one voice breaking up and one going down in what are essentially two coequal blended melodies. Listen to the tom-tom triplets after the "Yeah yeah yeah" choruses. Look at the inventive way those young musicians used the four-minor chord, how natural it sounds to go to a C-minor in the key of G. The motif in the lead guitar that goes into a verse, and the line on the bass that brings you into the tag ending, are perfect, seamless arranging. And it rocks. And they go "Yeah yeah yeah" on high notes, in unison, and then end on a big, fat triad of clear voices singing full-throatedly in perfect pitch.
It is indeed preposterous farrago to criticize the 1964 Beatles for their melodies and harmonies, never mind the more sophisticated music that came later.
Here's another one. Theodore Strongin, writing for the New York Times exactly fifty years ago today, said:
One more. George Dixon, writing in the Washington Post:
Nate Silver's 2012 best-seller "The signal and the noise: Why so many predictions fail -- but some don't" contains many beautiful examples of pundits, experts, and economists making judgments and predictions that are just plain wrong. Maybe the LA Times took only the most sensationally misguided comments from the 1964 media, but I'll bet you would find that almost nobody in the grown-up mainstream media guessed, when "I Want to Hold Your Hand" and "She Loves You" went rocketing to the top of the charts, that we would have a vocabulary in the twenty-first century that is peppered with Beatles allusions, that getting the two surviving Beatles together at an awards show in 2014 would be The Big Story from that night of celebrities and glitter, fifty years later. The pundits had no idea what they were talking about, but they got paid to talk about it, and Wise People nodded in wise agreement. Fortunately the experts' tone-deafness had zero impact on the Beatles' actual audience.
The LA Times had a story yesterday that went back and looked at what the pundits of 1964 had to say about The Beatles when they first arrived here. The comments are hilarious in retrospect. You can't say that after a mere fifty years, the Beatles have stood the test of time, their music could die as the baby-boomer generation dies out, but certainly they proved the cynical sourpusses of the middle sixties wrong.
I will select a few quotes from the Times article. Like, here is what the giftedly vocabularistic conservative pundit William F. Buckley, Jr., said:
The Beatles are not merely awful; I would consider it sacrilegious to say anything less than that they are god awful. They are so unbelievably horribly, so appallingly unmusical, so dogmatically insensitive to the magic of the art that they qualify as crowned heads of anti-music, even as the imposter popes went down in history as "anti-popes."You can just see his nose wrinkling as he contemplates the thought of Beatles. Appallingly unmusical, that is good.
Newsweek wrote, in February, 1964:
Musically they are a near disaster, guitars and drums slamming out a merciless beat that does away with secondary rhythms, harmony and melody. Their lyrics (punctuated by nutty shouts of "yeah, yeah, yeah") are a catastrophe, a preposterous farrago of Valentine-card romantic sentiments ...It is actually a preposterous farrago (a phrase I use all the time in conversation) to criticize the harmonies and melodies of the early Beatles.
The band I am in has been experimenting with "She Loves You" in rehearsal lately, and that early Beatles song is amazingly rich in melody and harmony. Listen to the first line of the verse: "You think you've lost your love," where the first part of the line is sung in unison, with the final word and the following line done in two-part harmonies, with one voice breaking up and one going down in what are essentially two coequal blended melodies. Listen to the tom-tom triplets after the "Yeah yeah yeah" choruses. Look at the inventive way those young musicians used the four-minor chord, how natural it sounds to go to a C-minor in the key of G. The motif in the lead guitar that goes into a verse, and the line on the bass that brings you into the tag ending, are perfect, seamless arranging. And it rocks. And they go "Yeah yeah yeah" on high notes, in unison, and then end on a big, fat triad of clear voices singing full-throatedly in perfect pitch.
It is indeed preposterous farrago to criticize the 1964 Beatles for their melodies and harmonies, never mind the more sophisticated music that came later.
Here's another one. Theodore Strongin, writing for the New York Times exactly fifty years ago today, said:
The Beatles' vocal quality can be described as hoarsely incoherent, with the minimal enunciation necessary to communicate the schematic texts.Hey man, wait a few weeks until you hear how Mick Jagger communicates the schematic texts. The Beatles will sound like music to your sensitive ears.
One more. George Dixon, writing in the Washington Post:
Just thinking about the Beatles seems to induce mental disturbance. They have a commonplace, rather dull act that hardly seems to merit mentioning, yet people hereabouts have mentioned scarcely anything else for a couple of days.Yeah, and for a couple days after that. And a couple days after that. For fifty years, so far.
Nate Silver's 2012 best-seller "The signal and the noise: Why so many predictions fail -- but some don't" contains many beautiful examples of pundits, experts, and economists making judgments and predictions that are just plain wrong. Maybe the LA Times took only the most sensationally misguided comments from the 1964 media, but I'll bet you would find that almost nobody in the grown-up mainstream media guessed, when "I Want to Hold Your Hand" and "She Loves You" went rocketing to the top of the charts, that we would have a vocabulary in the twenty-first century that is peppered with Beatles allusions, that getting the two surviving Beatles together at an awards show in 2014 would be The Big Story from that night of celebrities and glitter, fifty years later. The pundits had no idea what they were talking about, but they got paid to talk about it, and Wise People nodded in wise agreement. Fortunately the experts' tone-deafness had zero impact on the Beatles' actual audience.
posted by JimK at 8:47 PM
147 Comments:
CARSON CITY, Nev. (AP) — Nevada's attorney general and governor said Monday that they won't defend the state's gay marriage ban when it goes before a federal appeals court, saying that a recent court decision makes the state's arguments supporting its constitutional amendment "no longer defensible."
Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto, in a motion filed with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, said Nevada's legal arguments defending the voter-approved prohibition aren't viable after the court's recent ruling that potential jurors cannot be removed from a trial during jury selection solely because of sexual orientation.
"After thoughtful review and analysis, the state has determined that its arguments grounded upon equal protection and due process are no longer sustainable," Masto said in a statement.
Nevada's move comes as the federal government and courts around the country in recent months have chipped away at laws the prohibit marriage and benefits for same-sex couples. In a one-month span from December to January, two federal judges struck down state bans on gay marriage for the same reason, concluding that they violate the U.S. Constitution's promise of equal protection under the law.
Gov. Brian Sandoval, a Republican seeking re-election this year, said he agreed with the Democratic attorney general's action.
"Based upon the advice of the attorney general's office and their interpretation of relevant case law, it has become clear that this case is no longer defensible in court," Sandoval said in an email to The Associated Press.
The state's move was hailed by gay rights advocates and civil libertarians.
"This is fantastic evidence the state has recognized that equality for all people in Nevada and certainly across the country is of utmost importance," said Tod Story, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada.
The state's move was an about-face from January, when the attorney general's office filed a lengthy brief supporting the gay marriage ban that voters approved in 2002.
Eight same-sex couples, some married for decades, sued the state, arguing that the law is unconstitutional. A federal judge in Reno upheld the law in 2012, sending it to the appeals court in San Francisco.
One of the plaintiffs, Caren Jenkins, said she was delighted by the development, though it doesn't mean gay marriages are imminent in Las Vegas' wedding chapels.
"This issue is far from resolved. The constitutionality issue still needs to be dealt with," Jenkins said. "But it certainly is something to celebrate."
Tara Borelli, senior attorney with Lambda Legal, a gay rights advocacy group that represented the couples, said Nevada's move is "a signal there's no longer any excuse to defend this discrimination."
"I think it will send a powerful message to the court that no Nevada official is willing to defend the ban any longer," she said.
Leaders with the Coalition for the Protection of Marriage, a conservative group that pushed for Nevada's gay marriage ban, did not immediately respond to messages seeking comment.
In an initial brief supporting the law, the state argued that Nevada's constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman is a legitimate state interest, "motivated by the state's desire to protect and perpetuate traditional marriage."
But the same day Nevada's brief was filed, a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit issued a ruling in another case that changed the legal dynamics and left the attorney general's office immediately rethinking the state's position.
The court found that potential jurors could not be excluded from jury duty based on sexual orientation, extending to gays and lesbians a civil right that the U.S. Supreme Court has previously promised only to women and racial minorities.
"Drinking Dom Perignon '53 above the temperature of 38 degrees" is "as bad as listening to the Beatles without earmuffs."
—James Bond, secret agent in "Goldfinger," 1964
"The Beatles laid the groundwork for many of the problems we are having with young people by their filthy unkempt appearances and suggestive music while entertaining in this country during the early and middle 1960s."
—Elvis Presley, 1970
"Drinking Dom Perignon '53 above the temperature of 38 degrees" is "as bad as listening to the Beatles without earmuffs."
—James Bond, secret agent in "Goldfinger," 1964
"The Beatles laid the groundwork for many of the problems we are having with young people by their filthy unkempt appearances and suggestive music while entertaining in this country during the early and middle 1960s."
—Elvis Presley, 1970
http://vigilance.teachthefacts.org/2014/02/it-was-fifty-years-ago-today.html#comments
Conservative ‘60s curmudgeons complained:
“The Beatles' vocal quality can be described as hoarsely incoherent, with the minimal enunciation necessary to communicate the schematic texts.”
“Their lyrics (punctuated by nutty shouts of "yeah, yeah, yeah") are a catastrophe, a preposterous farrago of Valentine-card romantic sentiments ...”
Ah, those were the days, when conservatives could put together coherent sentences with proper grammar and at least an 8th grade vocabulary. They may have been complaining just for the sake of complaining, but man, at least they did it with some style and panache!
What’s the matter with today’s conservatives? Too much home schooling? Too much "No Child Left Behind?" Too much communion wine?
Have a nice day,
Cynthia
cinco, all the leaders of the 60s were more eloquent, liberal or conservative
MLK or George Wallace or RFK, it was the golden age of rhetoric
what happened is that the Supreme Court banned prayer from schools and our education system has been in decline ever since
while I'm a huge Beatles fan, the contrariness is typical of critics and fun to read
that's what they're there for and it's always entertaining
books, movies, music, whatever
the time-tested classics were generally detested by critics when they arrived
happens in science too
the common wisdom among the experts is usually wrong
If you missed it Sunday night, there's great news:
"The Beatles: The Night That Changed America - A Grammy Salute" will air for a second time on Wednesday from 8:30-11 p.m. ET.
John Lennon - Jesus Affair Press Conference
"Christianity will go. It will vanish and shrink. I needn't argue about that: I'm right, and I will be proved right. We're more popular than Jesus Christ now; I don't know which will go first—rock 'n' roll or Christianity. Jesus was all right, but his disciples were thick and ordinary. It's them twisting it that ruins it for me."
Mark David Chapman, Lennon's murderer:
"His rebel period ended as suddenly as it had started. When he was 16, a California evangelist came to town. Mark went to one of his meetings and had a moving religious experience.
His friend Newton Hendrix couldn't believe the change. The old Mark had "long hair, old army jackets, green draft coat and stuff like that. Now he was a lot calmer, softer spoken, his hair was short. He was still wearing the large coat and some of that stuff – but now he always wore a large wooden cross around his neck."
Soon Mark was passing out religious tracts. He found his first girlfriend, another born-again Christian named Jessica Blankenship. His schoolwork improved. And he devoted himself to the South De Kalb County YMCA. He was a counselor at the Y's summer camp.
"Mark was a Pied Piper with the kids," Adams would say eight years later. Adams remembered Mark as "a guy down on one knee helping out a little kid or with kids just hanging around his neck and following him everywhere he went."
The kids called him "Nemo," apparently after the Jules Verne character. When Chapman was presented with the award for outstanding counselor in the camp, the kids were on their feet, chanting "Ne-mo, Ne-mo, Ne-mo!"
Two other events influenced the born-again Mark. When John Lennon was quoted as saying, "We're more popular than Jesus Christ now," he turned violently against his one-time hero. Chapman and his Christian friends sang Lennon's "Imagine" with new lyrics: "Imagine John Lennon is dead.""
And later:
"Lennon was gunned down at the entrance to his Manhattan apartment building on Dec. 8, 1980. Chapman recounted how he staked out the building, and even approached the rock and roll legend earlier in the day for an autograph.
“He was very kind to me,” Chapman told the board. “[He was a] very cordial and very decent man.”
Nonetheless, Chapman, who said he “was so compelled to commit murder that nothing would have dragged me away from that building” waited until Lennon returned from a recording session and then shot him.
“When Mr. Lennon passed me I turned, pulled out my weapon and shot him in the back,” Chapman said.
Chapman, who was carrying a copy of the J.D. Salinger classic “Catcher in the Rye,” said he fired five shots with a .38-caliber revolver, hitting Lennon four times in front of his wife, Yoko Ono.
Chapman said he bought the murder weapon in Honolulu, and got the hollow point bullets from a police officer pal in Atlanta who did not know of his plan.
Chapman claims to be a Christian, dating back well before the murder he committed at age 25.
“So this is obviously very embarrassing for me now, having committed murder,” Chapman told the board."
well, Chapman may claim to be a Christian but attacking someone who doesn't believe in Jesus is not following the example of Jesus himself
as you will remember, hopefully, when the soldiers came to arrest Jesus, Peter took up a sword and cut the ear off one of them
Jesus healed the soldier's ear and told Peter to put his sword away, saying, "those who live by the sword will die by it"
btw, the protagonist of Catcher in the Rye, Holden Caulfield, is an atheist
any idea how many Christians have been killed by Marxist atheists over the years?
Holden Caulfield is a fictional character.
So is John Galt.
Groups take moral stand against GOP policies at march
"RALEIGH, N.C. — The president of North Carolina's NAACP on Saturday promised another summer of protests and continued litigation in reaction to policies of the Republican-controlled state government he says are immoral.
Rev. William Barber II made the promise before a crowd of between 80 and 100,000 people during the Moral March on Raleigh.
"Plant America on higher ground," he said. "Lord, Lord plant our minds on higher ground. Plant our hearts on higher ground. Plant our souls on higher ground. Lord, lift us up, lift us up, lift us up and let us stand. Plant our feet on higher ground."
More than 900 people were arrested last year in his Moral Mondays protests for refusing to leave the rotunda outside the state House and Senate. Civil disobedience was not planned for Saturday, the NAACP said.
Barber's movement has spread to other states. Protesters have been arrested in Tennessee and Georgia recently in Moral Mondays-style demonstrations. South Carolina has its own version called Truthful Tuesday.
Organizers of the march made five demands:
• Secure pro-labor, anti-poverty policies that insure economic sustainability.
• Provide well-funded, quality public education for all.
• Promote health care for all, including affordable access, the expansion of Medicaid,women's health and environmental justice in every community.
• Address the continuing disparities in the criminal justice system on the basis of race and class.
• Defend and expand voting rights, women's rights, immigrants' rights, LGBT rights and the fundamental principle of equality under the law for all people.
The march brought together a diverse group from Baptists to Muslims and gay marriage supporters to teachers and environmentalists to speak out on what Barber calls "extremism that takes us down the road to destruction."..."
Watch the video here.
"Holden Caulfield is a fictional character"
obviously, you jackass
you're the one who brought up the fact that Chapman had the book with him and claimed he was motivated by Christian belief to murder John Lennon
I simply wonder why, then, he would carry around a book whose hero was an atheist
"Groups take moral stand against GOP policies at march"
a truly mixed-up group of people
someone might remind them that Republicans tend to support charitable organizations at a much higher rate than Democrats, whose idea of helping the poor is to work to elect politicians who steal other people's money and hand it out rather than do anything to help themselves
the Obama administration, on the other hand, is in court fighting the Little Sisters of the Poor, trying to shut them down unless they agree to pay for birth control practices that violate their religious beliefs
Maryland high school seniors top the nation on AP exams
"For the eighth consecutive year, Maryland had the highest percentage of high school seniors in the country pass the Advanced Placement tests in 2013, according to a report released by the College Board on Tuesday.
Nearly 30 percent of Maryland seniors earned a college-ready score on the AP exams last year. Connecticut ranked second, and Virginia followed closely behind in third place with 28.3 percent of its graduates obtaining a 3 or better on the tests, allowing students to earn college credit while still in high school.
“Maryland schools are focused on preparing our graduates for higher education or career, and the AP program provides students with a strong foundation upon which to build,” Maryland Superintendent of Schools Lillian M. Lowery said in a statement.
Maryland and Virginia exceeded the national rate, which was 20.1 percent.
Gov. Martin O’Malley (D) said the report is evidence that Maryland’s commitment to education is “paying off.”
...In Montgomery County, more than half of the graduates earned a 3 or better on at least one AP exam, outperforming students across the state and the country, county officials said....
So let's hear Anon explain how MCPS students are managing do so well academically after "the Supreme Court banned prayer from schools and our education system has been in decline ever since" and even after taking MCPS's revixed sex education classes.
House approves 'clean' debt limit after Republicans drop demands
(Reuters) - The House of Representatives narrowly approved a one-year extension of federal borrowing authority on Tuesday after Republicans caved into President Barack Obama's demands to allow a debt limit increase without any conditions.
The 221-201 vote, carried mainly by Democrats, marked a dramatic shift from the confrontational fiscal tactics House Republicans have used over the past three years, culminating in last October's 16-day government shutdown.
It came after House Republicans repudiated House Speaker John Boehner's latest plan to link an increase in the $17.2 trillion borrowing cap to a repeal of planned cuts to military pensions.
the previous post is a perfect example of the non sequitur thinking that typifies the TTF mentality
for example, when I have repeatedly pointed out that global warming has ceased, the response is that last was in the top ten warmest years of all time
but that doesn't counter my point
it may be warm but it's not getting warmer
similar logic is being presented above
I point out the U.S. educational system has declined since prayer was removed from schools and the response is that Maryland schools are currently better than the national average
if you wanted to counter my point, the way top do it would be to compare the U.S. national average now and then
unfortunately for you, the would be pointless, however, because the facts are on my side
the U.S. educational system has, indeed, declined since prayer was removed from schools
your best shot would be to find a feasible alternative cause
maybe, like Elvis, you could try to blame the Beatles
"The House of Representatives narrowly approved a one-year extension of federal borrowing authority on Tuesday"
the American people are schizo on this subject
the majority think America shouldn't borrow any more
and they get mad when Republicans won't approve automatic increases
Boehner allowed the vote but Dems had to gather the support
it will be an election issue
"Non sequitur" means "It does not follow." How does it follow from a cessation of enforced religion (which is what you mean by stopping prayer in school) that schools have declined in this country.
I'm not even sure you have your facts correct. Can you provide us with data that point out this decline? Do you have links, studies, anything?
Robert
It is amazing to me that someone could be employed as a educator and be ignorant of the recent history of education. The decline of education since 1963, when just by random chance the Supreme Court ruled on O'Hair, has been widely discussed. The average SAT scores of college-bound students declined gradually for the necxt twelve years as each grade affected graduated and then flat-lined.
Quick google produced the two links below.
An analysis by the College Board of why scores declined on the verbal SAT by 54 points from 1963 to 1980:
https://research.collegeboard.org/sites/default/files/publications/2012/7/researchreport-1985-2-student-program-change-sat-scores-failing.pdf
a year-by-year listing of the scores from 1972 to 2013 showing the verbal SAT scores dropping from 530 in 1972 to 496 in 2013
this is just a quick search, I'm sure there's more but, again, I remain flabbergasted that a teacher wouldn't be aware of this
so when cinco says "Ah, those were the days, when conservatives could put together coherent sentences with proper grammar and at least an 8th grade vocabulary" and asks if it's because of home-schooling, which was rare when these declines in verbal ability took place, that was an ignorant and partisan statement
as for cause of this obvious correlation, it's not hard to see how dropping prayer could affect student morale and motivation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAT_Reasoning_Test
btw, having prayer in school didn't impose it on anyone
atheist children actually need to learn to cope with a world where most people believe in God
it's the world they live in
whoops
the Wikipedia belongs under the "a year-by-year" sentence
global warming blizzard headed for the Washington-Boston megapolis
temperatures expected to be warmer than the recent polar vortex snowstorm
that must be global warming
warmer snow and ice!!
ha,ha,ha
the global warming experts are now predicting the weather will get warmer every month for at least the next six months
I wonder if they'll be right this time
sooner or later there will be a hurricane in Florida that they can blame on global warming
Having skimmed to report to which you gave the url (google href a, btw, and you can make links) since I haven't had time to read, I noted a number of things:
1)there's a disclaimer saying it's not necessarily the views of the College Board; 2)SAT scores declined only for certain periods in the '70s and '80s, not steadily since 1963; the SAT is not necessarily a good barometer of student learning in school and school competence; the frequency of very high scores dropped, lower and middle-achieving students actually did better.
Read your reports before you publicize them.
O'Hair did not end prayer in schools. Students can pray all they want. What the courts said was that school officials can not force or coerce students into praying the way in which those officals want (i.e. government officials in their official capacity can not create or enforce a religion).
rrjr
"Having skimmed to report to which you gave the url (google href a, btw, and you can make links) since I haven't had time to read, I noted a number of things:
1)there's a disclaimer saying it's not necessarily the views of the College Board;"
this is a typical bullshit comment from a TTFer
I don't necessarily agree with the views of the College Board either
indeed, I read some of it, and there's not much to agree or disagree with
they can't figure out what happened
but I posted the report not for the opinions or analysis but because referenced the facts about the declining scores that you claimed to not know about and implied I was making up
"2)SAT scores declined only for certain periods in the '70s and '80s, not steadily since 1963;"
if you re-read my comments, you will see I said the same thing
the scores declined steadily for the twelve years after O'Hair (63-75) and have varied little since
"the SAT is not necessarily a good barometer of student learning in school and school competence; the frequency of very high scores dropped, lower and middle-achieving students actually did better"
well, most think the SATs are a good barometer
high scores dropping sounds pretty bad
kind of like when half the students in MCPS honors math classes can't pass the math finals ever since the gay curriculum was enacted
"Read your reports before you publicize them."
I read enough of them
I posted them in response to request for stats, which they contained, you stupid ass
"O'Hair did not end prayer in schools. Students can pray all they want."
yes, but teachers can't lead classes in prayer
"What the courts said was that school officials can not force or coerce students into praying the way in which those officals want"
I was in school in 63 and don't remember prayer but I doubt anyone was forced to pray
and the courts did more than say any student could opt out, they said classes led by teachers couldn't pray
if they had ruled no one should be forced to pray, I would whole-heartedly agree with them
what they did was try to protect children from atheist homes from exposure to religion or the idea that most people believe in God
"(i.e. government officials in their official capacity can not create or enforce a religion)"
no officials of the time were creating or enforcing any religion
Have I not asked you not to call names?
Your notions that lack of enforced prayer and anti-harassment policies that include lgbt people lead to school failure are just bizarre. So bizarre, in fact, that you just have to be saying it to goad people into responding to you. My apologies for having fed your strange addiction. You really do limit genuine discussion here with your combativeness and contrariness. You should stop, really.
"Have I not asked you not to call names?
Your notions that lack of enforced prayer"
that's pretty bizarre itself, slobbo, to call the freedom to pray "enforced"
"and anti-harassment policies that include lgbt people"
more crap
the curriculum is not an "anti-harassment policy"
it teaches false notions about homosexuality that lead the students to disrespect empirical evidence
what's that got to do with harassment, moron?
"lead to school failure are just bizarre"
maybe if you'd be as "bizarre" as to look at correlation and try to determine cause, you might have a more defensible world-view
you might even be able to call yourself a competent educator
"So bizarre, in fact, that you just have to be saying it to goad people into responding to you"
sheez, I don't want anybody to say stupid things
if you can't come up with something intelligent, don't bother
"My apologies for having fed your strange addiction. You really do limit genuine discussion here with your combativeness and contrariness. You should stop, really."
the consistent cry of the lunatic fringe
"STOP MAKING SENSE"
you can't hide from the truth forever, slobbo
Anon, your bad language and disrespectful tone are beginning to make me unhappy. If you wish to continue promoting your form of ignorant narcissism on this web site, please do it with some wit and style, or at least civility.
JimK
the way top do it would be to compare the U.S. national average now and then
A report by the Society for History Education, Four Decades of the Advanced Placement Program has data showing that in 1962, a total of 21,451 students took AP exams and by 1998, over one million students took AP exams.
A related report tells us that in the year 2000, "A breakdown of the results by race/ethnicity showed that the majority of the AP students who took the TIMSS Physics test were White (66%) or Asian (26%) and these two groups performed about the same. Other ethnic/race groups did not perform as well, but there were too few students to reliably report on their performance.
Last year, 2013, nearly 4 million students took AP exams according to data compiled by CollegeBoard.com.
Right here in MoCo in 2013, MCPS reports:
"The percentage of Hispanic MCPS graduates that scored a 3 or higher on at least one AP exam was 35.8 percent, which is significantly higher than the state of Maryland (28 percent). The percentage of African American MCPS graduates that scored a 3 or higher on at least one AP exam was 22.1 percent, which was more than double the percentage in the state of Maryland (9.7 percent). Dr. Starr said the fact that African American and Hispanic students continue to outperform their peers across the state and the nation is good news. However, he remains concerned about the achievement gap.
More than half of the graduates from the Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) Class of 2013 earned a college-ready score on at least one Advanced Placement (AP) exam, far outperforming their peers across the state and the nation. "
....Nearly two-thirds of 2013 MCPS graduates (66 percent) took at least one AP exam while in high school.
...The high schools with the greatest percentage of 2013 graduates earning a score of 3 or higher on at least one AP exam were Walt Whitman (83.5 percent), Winston Churchill (83.5 percent), Thomas S. Wootton (77.2 percent) and Poolesville (72 percent).
Many more students take Advanced Placement classes and exams each year, and that is true for all races and ethnicities, even those who are victims of the achievement gap. Poverty is the biggest factor contributing to that achievement gap and this graph shows how many more people are living in poverty in the 21st century than before.
Further, "The US Census declared that in 2010 15.1% of the general population lived in poverty:[40]
9.9% of all non-Hispanic white persons
12.1% of all Asian persons
26.6% of all Hispanic persons (of any race)
27.4% of all black persons."
Focusing on school prayer, while ignoring all these other factors, does not yield any valid conclusion.
STOP BEING DENSE!!
"A report by the Society for History Education, Four Decades of the Advanced Placement Program has data showing that in 1962, a total of 21,451 students took AP exams and by 1998, over one million students took AP exams."
oh, OK, great
but you're still being an idiot, while having the gall to call me DENSE
in the less competitive 60s, fewer kids took AP exams so there's not a valid comparison
the comparable numbers are SAT scores, which college-bound kids took now and then
you can argue this wasn't caused by the removal of prayer from the schools if you like
but, the facts are the facts and you need to find some alternative reason for the decline of academics in the U.S. that closely correlates, as the ban on prayer does
could be that the ban on prayer is part of a larger phenom that explains it
lack of character, commitment, respect for elders, the sexual revolution, dissolution of gender roles, rise of single parenting, et al, could be the explanation
but, of course, they could all result from a lack of prayer
still, there's no way this generation matches the pre-1963 one in verbal skills, which is what cinco originally blamed on home schooling
btw, you are all up in arms that I would dare to say the prayer ban caused the decline
but, you have no problem with cinco claiming home schooling caused it, when there is ample statistical evidence that home schoolers have higher SAT scores than public school students
maybe you're biased in favor of a liberal agenda
imagine that
it's easy if you try
Vigilance readers see which commenter relies on imagination rather than objective data to make points, and they can clearly see which commenter has an agenda and frequently resorts to name calling just like a bully.
well, let's see:
the TTFer called me dense
and to counter my point that the U.S. educational system has declined, he first says Maryland has a higher success rate on AP exams than the national average
and then when I point out the obvious no sequitur nature of his reasoning, he shifts to saying more kids take AP test now than in 1963
of course, there's lame local educational "expert" who has devised some ranking that claims schools should be judged by the numbers of their kids who take AP exams so maybe he reads the wrong "experts"
then, Robert implies that I don't read the reports I link to and then claims I made points I didn't and then starts arguing with these straw arguments he created
the data speaks for itself
the U.S. educational system has declined since 1963
the decline coincided with the removal of prayer from schools
Correlation does not imply causation
For example, a believer claiming
"global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking numbers of Pirates since the 1800s. For your interest, I have included a graph of the approximate number of pirates versus the average global temperature over the last 200 years. As you can see, there is a statistically significant inverse relationship between pirates and global temperature."
does not mean the average global temperature has increased *because* the number of pirates has decreased.
"Correlation does not imply causation"
no, it doesn't
but cinco brought up the decline-
I offered an explanation, which is actually feasible,
unlike the pirate thing
cinco egregiously feigned that it was limited to conservatives
I also noted the decline is ubiquitous, not limited to certain political views
and while correlation isn't necessarily causation, it's where most discoveries begin
correlation with reasonable explanation should be investigated
I bet you love the whole anthropogenic global warming theory, which is based on correlation and gets weaker every day
sitting inside looking at 14 inches of snow, with three more expected to fall before sundown
I love this era of global warming!!
How California's 500-Year Drought Is Destroying the Lives of Farmworkers
"Farming season starts again soon, and prospects are bleak.
February 11, 2014 | MENDOTA, Calif.—When the rain finally came, it stayed three days, turning the rutted roads in this old farm town into a mess of pools and puddles. But calamity is still on its way.
The farms in and around Mendota are dying of thirst. The signs are everywhere. Orchards with trees lying on their sides, as if shot. Former farm fields given over to tumbleweeds. Land and cattle for sale, cheap.
One long weekend of showers amounts to a drop in the proverbial bucket. Everyone here knows that after the driest year on record in California, the Central Valley, one of the richest food-producing regions on earth, is up against what geologists are calling the 500-year drought. Fresno County, the heart of the Central Valley’s San Joaquin Valley farm belt—and the number one farming county in the nation—may lose up to a quarter of its orchards and fields this year for lack of water..."
The view from above: NASA reveals the shocking impact of California's worst drought in history
"the Central Valley, one of the richest food-producing regions on earth"
funny that you mention the Central Valley, which is where so much food comes from, because it is naturally so dry that it wouldn't produce any food at all if it weren't for the massive projects of the 1940s, man-made
it is all artifice
California has a history of droughts that are always described at the time as, like, the worst ever, man
and which end suddenly and completely
Wikipedia has a page detailing the many, many droughts in U.S. history
here's the California droughts of the last fifty years:
"Drought became particularly severe in California, with some natural lakes drying up completely in 1953"
"Southern California was hit hard by drought in 1958-59, badly straining water resources"
"Drought continued in parts of California in the early 1960s. Southern California recorded their worst drought of the 20th century in 1961"
"Short term droughts hit particular spots of the United States during 1976 and 1977. California's statewide snowpack reached an all-time low in 1977. Water resources and agriculture (especially livestock) suffered. This drought reversed itself completely the following year."
"The Western United States experienced a lengthy drought in the late 1980s. California endured one of its longest droughts ever observed, from late 1986 through early 1991. Drought worsened in 1988-89, as much of the United States also suffered from severe drought. In California, the five-year drought ended in late 1991 as a result of unusual persistent heavy rains"
"The 2001-02 rain season in Southern California was the driest ever since records began in 1877. San Diego recorded only 2.99 inches (76 mm), compared to the annual average of 10.34 inches (263 mm)"
"Records were broken in an even worse drought just five years later, during the 2006-07 rain season in Los Angeles [3.21 inches (82 mm) compared to the annual average of 15.14 inches (385 mm)]"
"The drought of 2006-07 in California contributed to the extreme severity of the 2007 California wildfires"
"From 2006-2011 the state of California endured through a five-year drought. First declared by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2008, as he tried to win voter support for an $11 billion bond to build new water projects, like new dams and peripheral canals
California officially ended its drought in March 2011, when Governor Jerry Brown deemed the "drought emergency" over
Drought resurfaced in much of the state as of June 2013.
The 2008-2011 California drought continued through 2010 and did not end until March 2011.
In 2013 and early 2014, the California drought returned and intensified. The year 2013 shattered low precipitation records everywhere in California"
yeah, what's going on now is real historic
right...
another TTF argument
sliced and diced
Doctors in South Dakota would face life in prison for performing virtually any abortion procedure under a new bill proposed by a Republican state lawmaker.
House Bill 1241 would make it a felony to perform any abortion procedure that causes a fetus to become "dismembered." Because fetuses are rarely removed completely intact during abortions, the bill would effectively ban the procedure entirely.
State Rep. Isaac Latterell (R), the bill’s sponsor, said that the bill is intended to outlaw "gruesome" abortion procedures. “It just makes clear that a certain procedure that is totally horrific and gruesome to any reasonable person would not be an acceptable method of ending a child’s life, and that is to dismember or decapitate a living, unborn child,” he said.
The bill uses language that is intended to remind people of Kermit Gosnell, the Pennsylvania abortion provider who was charged with murder after performing gruesome abortions.
To end pregnancies during the first trimester, doctors either use a procedure called "suction aspiration" or they administer medication abortions. Either method would be a violation of the new law. For that reason, abortion providers in South Dakota who perform any kind of abortion procedure risk spending their life in prison.
spend all day shovellin' the walk and driveway
round has it covered again
but I don't mind
a globally warmed world is enchanting
"the U.S. educational system has, indeed, declined since prayer was removed from schools"
Why, is that what the prayers were all about?
--
"the curriculum is not an "anti-harassment policy" … it teaches false notions about homosexuality that lead the students to disrespect empirical evidence"
Evidence of what?
"Why, is that what the prayers were all about?"
supplication is not the only form or effect of prayer, improv
it could affect morale and purpose
as a cause for the correlation with declining academic status, it's very feasible
the case isn't conclusive but it's the most reasonable explanation I've heard
--
"the curriculum is not an "anti-harassment policy" … it teaches false notions about homosexuality that lead the students to disrespect empirical evidence"
"Evidence of what?"
it doesn't level with the kids and disclose that pursuing a homosexual lifestyle significantly and adversely affects one's health
"it could affect morale and purpose
as a cause for the correlation with declining academic status, it's very feasible"
Then there must be ample evidence proving it. Let's see it.
< crickets chirping >
"a globally warmed world is enchanting"
Let us know how you feel about it in August.
Meanwhile progress marches on:
Antonin Scalia Gets Big Shoutout In Judge's Decision Against Virginia Gay Marriage Ban
"Once again, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's blistering June 2013 dissent against overturning DOMA has been cited by a judge ruling against a state's gay marriage ban.
Late Thursday night, U.S. District Court Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen decided that Virginia's current law denies same-sex couples "their rights to due process and equal protection guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution."
As TPM points out, Wright Allen made a direct reference to Scalia's words in the process. Part of his June dissent highlighted the conflict United States v. Windsor presents for state and federal gay marriage laws.
From page 28 of Wright Allen's ruling:
"In Windsor, our Constitution was invoked to protect the individual rights of gay and lesbian citizens, and the propriety of such protection led to upholding state law against conflicting federal law. The propriety of invoking such protection remains compelling when faced with the task of evaluating the constitutionality of state laws. This propriety is described eloquently in a dissenting opinion authored by the Honorable Antonin Scalia:
As I have said, the real rationale of [the Windsor opinion] is that DOMA is motivated by "bare . . . desire to harm" couples in same-sex marriages. How easy it is, indeed how inevitable, to reach the same conclusion with regard to state laws denying same-sex couples marital status."
Scalia's June dissent went so far as to call the Supreme Court's decision to strike down DOMA "legalistic argle-bargle." He argued that same-sex marriage was a question best reserved for Congress and the states.
"We might have let the People decide," he said. "But that the majority will not do. Some will rejoice in today’s decision, and some will despair at it; that is the nature of a controversy that matters so much to so many. But the Court has cheated both sides, robbing the winners of an honest victory, and the losers of the peace that comes from a fair defeat. We owed both of them better. I dissent."
This is not the first instance of Scalia's words from the federal DOMA case being applied at the state level. TPM noted in its Friday report that judges from Kentucky, Utah and Ohio have all pointed to some portion of that dissent in their various rulings."
Bad anonymous said "sitting inside looking at 14 inches of snow, with three more expected to fall before sundown I love this era of global warming!!"
Scientists predicted global warming would bring more extreme snowstorms and deluges and that's exactly what has happened
Bad anonymous said "California has a history of droughts that are always described at the time as, like, the worst ever, man".
At the time they may well have been the worst that ever happened but the situation has been ever worsening. California droughts have gotten more severe and the data confirms California is undergoing an all time record drought just as scientists had predicted global warming would bring about.
I'll leave bad anonymous to try to refute the truth with his typical lies. Its Valentines day and Hubby's taking me to a fancy restaurant to have a seafood feast.
Happy Valentines day everyone!
"Scientists predicted global warming would bring more extreme snowstorms and deluges and that's exactly what has happened"
to begin with, this current weather is not extreme
I've seen many times worse over the years
time to switch to your "since the Industrial Revolution," song and dance, lazy Priya
additionally, there's not much scientists didn't predict
a stopped clock is right twice a day
a person that predicts everything will always be right when something happens
they also predicted bigger and more hurricanes after a rough year in Florida about a decade ago
they thought that was safe in a place where the college sports team is called the Hurricanes
oops!
nobody expects a perpetual Garden of Eden
the weather always has something going on
if their only case is that the weather will be vaguely unusual, it's not much of a case
"California droughts have gotten more severe and the data confirms California is undergoing an all time record drought just as scientists had predicted global warming would bring about."
California is a naturally arid climate, manipulated by humans
its day of reckoning was due
someday the big quake will hit and the alarmists will try to tie it to anthropogenic climate change
it's a trick as old as Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court
it's time for lazy Priya to admit to lying about the halting of global warming for the last fifteen years
the truth was out there
and, now, it's in here
hey, guess what, kids?
as of this morning, 49 out of fifty states had snow on the ground
only Florida was snow free
doesn't sound like global warming, or drought, to me
"as of this morning, 49 out of fifty states had snow on the ground
only Florida was snow free
doesn't sound like global warming, or drought, to me"
Look who thinks today's weather means anything in the long run.
"a person that predicts [one thing over and over] will always be right when [that one] thing happens" but entirely wrong the rest of the time.
Marriage Equality Opponents Left With Nothing But Tradition
"2013 was not a good year for opponents of marriage equality. Maryland, Delaware, Rhode Island, Illinois, New Mexico, California, New Jersey, Hawaii, and Minnesota were added to the list of states allowing same-sex marriage. The Defense of Marriage Act was struck down by the Supreme Court. And if anything, 2014 is shaping up to move even faster. Earlier this week, a judge in Kentucky ruled that the state must honor same-sex marriages performed in other states. And last night, a federal judge in Virginia struck down the ban on same-sex marriage the state passed in 2006.
The judge stayed her decision until a higher court can rule on the inevitable appeal. But with these cases piling up, it seems obvious that the Supreme Court is going to rule sooner rather than later on the legality of same-sex marriage bans, something they've been trying to avoid until now. And with the continued evolution of American culture and public opinion in favor of equality, the chance that those bans will be declared unconstitutional seems to grow every day.
Advertisement
At this point, advocates of marriage equality can afford to spare a moment of sympathy for their opponents, to say: look, we understand that change can be unsettling. You're worried about the demise of the traditions you accepted as absolute. But as the judge in the Virginia case wrote, "Tradition is revered in the Commonwealth, and often rightly so. However, tradition alone cannot justify denying same-sex couples the right to marry any more than it could justify Virginia's ban on interracial marriage."
Same-sex marriage opponents refer to themselves as advocates of "traditional marriage," but they backed themselves into a corner by assuming we'd all agree that because something is "traditional," it has an inherently superior moral value. "Traditional" means nothing more than "we've been doing it this way for a while." As soon as our values change and a tradition gets discarded, we tend to decide it wasn't traditional in the first place. Polygamy is traditional; it goes back thousands of years, is Bible-approved, and is still practiced in many places. But that doesn't tell us whether it's good or bad for individuals or for society.
So yes, the tradition is changing around you, because the society's values have evolved even when yours haven't, and we get that this makes you upset. But you'll get over it, just as people did every one of the many times that we changed the definition of marriage just in the past hundred years or so. If you don't, this is going to be a difficult year."
more global warming
in addition to the snow covering 49 states, the Great Lakes which hold a fifth of the world's fresh water are frozen over for the first time in twenty years
CHEBOYGAN, Mich. (AP) - From the bridge of the Coast Guard cutter Mackinaw, northern Lake Huron looks like a vast, snow-covered field dotted with ice slabs as big as boulders - a battleground for the icebreaker's 58-member crew during one of the roughest winters in memory.
It's been so bitterly cold for so long in the Upper Midwest that the Great Lakes are almost completely covered with ice. The last time they came this close was in 1994, when 94 percent of the lakes' surface was frozen.
As of Friday, ice cover extended across 88 percent, according to the federal government's Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory in Ann Arbor.
"Look who thinks today's weather means anything in the long run."
yes, but I'm not claiming something extraordinary is happening
I'm just saying everything is within the range of normal
the burden of proof is on those who say massive economic dislocation is necessary to prevent some vague catastrophe,
the nature of which keeps changing
"the Great Lakes which hold a fifth of the world's fresh water are frozen over for the first time in twenty years"
That's right. Cold snowy winters used to be the norm.
Not anymore.
Now cold winters that freeze the Great Lakes and put snow on the ground in many US states seem unusual.
Hmmmm.
they still are
this winter's colder than average but within the range of normal
you're grasping at straws
there's nothing happening that isn't common
and it hasn't gotten warmer in 15 years
even lazy Priya knows that now
Next paragraphs after
"As of Friday, ice cover extended across 88 percent, according to the federal government's Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory in Ann Arbor."
Selectively omitted, as usual.
"...Sections of the lakes, which hold nearly one-fifth of the freshwater on the world's surface, harden almost every winter. That freezing keeps the Coast Guard's fleet of nine icebreakers busy clearing paths for vessels hauling essential cargo such as heating oil, salt and coal. But over the past four decades, the average ice cover has receded 70 per cent, scientists say, probably in part because of climate change.
Still, as this season shows, short-term weather patterns can trump multi-year trends. Winter arrived early and with a vengeance and refuses to loosen its grip.
"That arctic vortex came down, and the ice just kept going," said George Leshkevich, a physical scientist with the federal lab...."
classic TTF
nothing unusual is happening
and that refutes the idea that there are consequences of the slight global warming that has now ceased to increase for FIFTEEN YEARS
as lazy Priya now knows that
Priya said no such thing, that's simply another lie you choose to repeat as you spin your bubble of self-delusion.
Screaming about FIFTEEN YEARS doesn't not change the fact that 2013 was within the 10 warmest years ever recorded on earth.
That fact does not make 2013 "common." It makes it among the 10 warmest years ever recorded on earth, which were:
2010, 2005, 1998, 2003, 2002, 2006, 2009, 2007, 2004, 2012
2013 tied for fourth place (per NOAA), or seventh place (per NASA), well within the 10 warmest years ever recorded on earth.
Get the foam out of your eyes and note that 10 of the warmest years ever recorded on earth have all occurred in first 13 years the 21st century.
Your repeated claim that "global warming that has now ceased to increase for FIFTEEN YEARS" is simply wrong as actual annual average global temperatures clearly prove.
"Your repeated claim that "global warming that has now ceased to increase for FIFTEEN YEARS" is simply wrong as actual annual average global temperatures clearly prove."
you fool
you just admitted you were wrong
look at what you said:
"2013 was within the 10 warmest years ever recorded on earth.
That fact does not make 2013 "common." It makes it among the 10 warmest years ever recorded on earth, which were:
2010, 2005, 1998, 2003, 2002, 2006, 2009, 2007, 2004, 2012
2013 tied for fourth place (per NOAA), or seventh place (per NASA), well within the 10 warmest years ever recorded on earth"
so, all the ten warmest years happened in the last 15 years and the most recent is not the warmest
and, it's so close among them that there is dispute over whether it was 4th or 7th
the only logical conclusion, then, is that the increase has stopped and we're on a plateau
just as I've been saying and lazy Priya has denied
ten of the last 15 have been the hottest and the most recent is not on top
sounds like the increase ended in 1998 and we've been in holding, just has the experts at NCAR and IPCC have discussed
you wonder how many times TTFers will keep making themselves look stupid
"the only logical conclusion, then, is that the increase has stopped and we're on a plateau"
Logical? During 10 of the last 13 years, Earth's annual average global temperature has been hotter than it's ever been and you think that's a plateau?
No darling, that is the crest of the hill up there in record territory.
Kind of like the stock market's performance during the week that ended yesterday.
The summer melt season for Arctic sea ice has lengthened by a month or more since 1979, a new study finds.
The primary culprit is a delayed fall freeze-up — the autumn chill when sea water freezes into ice — but the fallout remains the same: the Arctic ice cap is stuck in a vicious feedback loop betwixt its warming environment and melting ice, researchers reported Feb. 4 in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.
The Arctic is one of the fastest warming places on Earth. Temperatures here are rising twice as fast as the global average. As the atmosphere warms, the Arctic ice cap has shrunk by 12 percent per decade since 1978, when scientists started tracking ice with satellites, according to NASA. The seven lowest September ice extents (a measure of the total ice cover) have been in past 10 years, including 2013.
Climate change deniers like bad anonymous try to deceive people into thinking its not happening by pointing out that the Antarctic ice has increased last year but Arctic ice is being lost at three times the rate Antarctic ice is growing.
Bad anonymous said "so, all the ten warmest years happened in the last 15 years and the most recent is not the warmest".
Irrelevant. Once cannot determine whether or not there is a climate trend by comparing one year with the last, climatolgists emphasize that one must look at trends over a 10, or preferably 15 year period to determine whether or not there is a trend. If you do a linear regression on the yearly global average temperatures the temperature line continues to rise each year.
If you do a rolling average of ten years of data and compare the average yearly temperature for the period 1989 to 1998 and then compare the average yearly temperature for the period 1990 10 1999 and then 1991-2000 and so on you'll see the rolling average temperature increases every year. No honest statistician would claim temperatures plateaued in 1998, that is simply not true. The truth is that temperatures have continued to increase just as scientists predicted back in the 90's and your claim that they predicted temperatures would increase at the same rate is an absurd lie, no climatoligist ever predicted such a thing, even the most neophyte student of climatology can obviously see that wouldn't happen, you're just a liar as you've repeatedly demonstrated.
Bad anonymous said "this winter's colder than average but within the range of normal".
Once again, you're cherry picking the data to milead people. The United States represents only 2% of the earths surface, its the height of dishonesty to focus on what's happening there and pretend its typical of the planet. 2013 was one of the warmest years on record and the last decade has been the warmest ever recorded. The weekly or monthly fluctuations in temperatures on a tiny part of the planet have precious little to say about what's going on on the planet as a whole over time.
Its heating up. There is no scientific controversy about this, the overwhelming concensus of the scientific community is global warming is real and man-made. The global warming deniers are not scientists for the most part and do not make their arguments in peer reviewed journals or at scientific conferences because they know they can't make a scientific case that its not happening. Instead they focus their efforts on the media and politicians in order to deceive poorly informed laypeople who won't question the deniers claims because as laypeople they don't have the knowledge or data to do so.
"Logical? During 10 of the last 13 years, Earth's annual average global temperature has been hotter than it's ever been"
well, that's false
it's the warmest in the short period of time that measurements have been done
but a life sustaining Earth has been much warmer in the past
"and you think that's a plateau?
No darling, that is the crest of the hill up there in record territory"
but sweetie pie, a plateau and a crest have something in common
they are as high as it goes
don't know if that's true of global temperatures but it appears that it has been that way for the last 15 years
"The Arctic is one of the fastest warming places on Earth. Temperatures here are rising twice as fast as the global average."
irrelevant
it's unpopulated
and the fact that it's getting warmer twice as fast as the average of populated areas is skewing the averages
meaning it's even less relevant
"As the atmosphere warms, the Arctic ice cap has shrunk by 12 percent per decade since 1978, when scientists started tracking ice with satellites,"
well, that just happens to coincide with the warming spurt that ended 15 years ago
go figure
"Arctic ice is being lost at three times the rate Antarctic ice is growing"
so what?
the point is half of the world is experiencing something different from the other half
I quoted them and linked them so you can't feign ignorance
"Once cannot determine whether or not there is a climate trend by comparing one year with the last"
I didn't do that, you did
I compared the last 15 years
"climatolgists emphasize that one must look at trends over a 10, or preferably 15 year period to determine whether or not there is a trend"
they've actually done that and concluded that global warming has stopped
the NCAR says global warming has "halted"
I quoted them and linked them so you can't feign ignorance
the IPCC, whose mission it is to spread concern about global warming, says we have been in a "warming hiatus" for 15 years
I quoted them and linked them so you can't feign ignorance
"If you do a linear regression on a rolling average of ten years and compare the average yearly temperature and then compare the average yearly temperature and so on you'll see the rolling average temperature increases. No honest statistician would claim temperatures plateaued in 1998,"
so, you think the NCAR and IPCC are dishonest?
quite an admission
"Once again, you're cherry picking the data to milead people"
I can't address that until you tell me what "milead" means
"The United States represents only 2% of the earths surface, its the height of dishonesty to focus on what's happening there and pretend its typical of the planet"
it's actually a fair chunk of the populated world
so are the Mid-East and Japan and India
"2013 was one of the warmest years on record and the last decade has been the warmest ever recorded"
yes, we've discussed this
global warming has plateaued
"The weekly or monthly fluctuations in temperatures on a tiny part of the planet have precious little to say about what's going on on the planet as a whole over time"
so, why do you keep dwelling on California?
"Its heating up. There is no scientific controversy about this"
then why does the IPCC discuss the controversy in their latest report?
I quoted them and linked them so you can't feign ignorance
"the overwhelming concensus of the scientific community is global warming is real and man-made"
despite yet another example of your hillbilly-quality spelling ability, you are right about the consensus
but the scientific consensus has an historically poor record
where's the hurricanes the consensus was predicting a decade ago?
"The global warming deniers are not scientists for the most part and do not make their arguments in peer reviewed journals"
did you know there's currently a crisis in the scientific community because the proliferation of peer-reviewed studies that have turned out to be non-replicable?
it's likely because of the politicization of science by liberals and gay advocates in recent years
that's the true topic of this blog
not, the gay crap
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
If what the tree rings say is true, California hasn’t been this dry in more than 500 years. If what the leading climate scientists say is true, that dryness will only get worse in the coming years. And if what economics predict is true, grocery bills nationwide may be some of the first things to suffer.
When conditions are ripe, California’s $44.7 billion agricultural industry is “the supermarket of the world,” producing nearly half of all the fruits, nuts and vegetables grown in America. The most abundant source of produce comes from Central Valley — deemed “The Land of A Billion Vegetables” by the New York Times — which produces 8 percent of America’s agricultural output by value.
But now, Central Valley is the biggest victim of the state’s three-year drought. And there are no sign that things will get any better in the coming years.
“[It's becoming] increasingly clear the region won’t see relief from the devastating drought anytime soon,” Kevin Kerr, editor of CommodityConfidential.com, told MarketWatch. “Retail prices for many key agricultural commodities could jump.”
Specifically, MarketWatch’s report says, consumers may see higher prices for beef and milk. Less water means less grass for cows to graze, forcing ranchers either to slim down herds or sell cattle.
And it’s not just the animals. With water scarce, farmers are unable to plant as many seeds, so prices of artichokes, celery, broccoli and cauliflower could rise at least 10 percent according to Milt McGiffen, a vegetable specialist at the University of California at Riverside. California is the top producing state for lemons, limes, peaches, strawberries, almonds, walnuts and pistachios — these and other crops could face production problems.
Plants that grow on vines and trees are in an especially tough position, as Mother Jones notes. Those plants have to be maintained year-round. And while it takes more than one drought season to kill a tree, California’s drought has been long-running. It takes time for supplies to replenish, too — meaning spiked prices could last more than just one season, even if the drought were to end.
“However bad this year, it will be worse next,” Ken Shackel, a tree-crop expert at the University of California-Davis, told Mother Jones. “Really bad this year means really, really bad next year.”
This year, California farmers will likely leave 500,000 acres unplanted — about 12 percent of last year’s acreage, according to the executive director of the California Farm Water Coalition. Because yields will be so bad, a report in Ag Professional notes, some farmers may even make more money selling their water than they can make growing crops.
“We are at that point the risks for the future are really significant,” Peter Gleick, president of the nonpartisan research organization Pacific Institute, told Bloomberg News. “We have to fundamentally change the way we manage water.”
In declaring a drought state of Emergency on Jan. 17, California Gov. Jerry Brown, Jr. called on residents to voluntarily cut water consumption by 20 percent. So far, though, only a handful of cities have enacted mandatory water restrictions. And as the consumption cut was announced so recently, it is too soon to tell whether people are actually following them. As it is now, California needs 15 to 36 inches of rain to end the drought.
Until then, California and those who eat its crops may have to brace for the worst, as the state’s recent dry spells grow longer and stronger — a fact many leading scientists link to climate change. As Climatologist James Hansen told ClimateProgress’ own Joe Romm, “Increasingly intense droughts in California, all of the Southwest, and even into the Midwest have everything to do with human-made climate change.” The warming by itself helps dry out the soil and reduce the snowpack, robbing the region of a reservoir needed for the summer dry season.
but sweetie pie, a plateau and a crest have something in common
they are as high as it goes
You can see the future?
You know what the next decade's average global temperatures will be, and the decades after that too?
No, actually you can't and you don't.
But you best prepare to enjoy the unseasonable warm front later this week.
Texas Court Sets Precedent for Recognizing Trans-Inclusive Marriage
The 13th District Court of Appeals in Corpus Christi issued a decision on Thursday affirming that a Houston trans widow’s marriage was lawful and as such that she should be entitled to survivorship benefits. The decision reverses a 2011 judgment against Nikki Araguz which at the time barred her from receiving benefits after her husband, Thomas Araguz, was killed in the line of duty in 2010 while working as a volunteer firefighter. Thursday’s ruling overturns the reasoning that was behind the denial of benefits — namely, that Araguz wasn’t a woman at the time she married — and affirms that marriages involving a trans person should be recognized as valid within the state. There will now be further court action to secure Araguz the benefits she should have received.
Celebrations as Indiana’s Constitutional Amendment to Ban Gay Marriage Hits 2-Year Set-Back
Despite the very best efforts of many religious conservative lawmakers in the state, Indiana will now have to wait at least another two years before it can move to put a constitutional amendment before voters to enshrine the state’s existing ban on marriage equality.
A constitutional amendment must be passed unchanged by two consecutive legislatures, and when the state senate this week decided to strip the amendment of its overreaching civil unions ban, they effectively reset the clock, meaning that the earliest that ban could be brought forth is now November 2016.
Good anonymous posted a link that showed 2013 was within the 10 warmest years ever recorded on earth.
Bad anonymous said "That fact does not make 2013 "common." It makes it among the 10 warmest years ever recorded on earth, which were: 2010, 2005, 1998, 2003, 2002, 2006, 2009, 2007, 2004, 2012 2013 tied for fourth place (per NOAA), or seventh place (per NASA), well within the 10 warmest years ever recorded on earth" so, all the ten warmest years happened in the last 15 years and the most recent is not the warmest the only logical conclusion, then, is that the increase has stopped and we're on a plateau ".
Your comment is giberish. 2013 is common for the last 10 years and uncommon for the long term climate history and the decade from 2000-2009 was the warmest ever. Those facts mean the warming is still happening, its warmer than it has been, and the claim that this means warming has stopped is nonsensical.
Good anonymous said "Logical? During 10 of the last 13 years, Earth's annual average global temperature has been hotter than it's ever been"
Bad anonymous said "well, that's false it's the warmest in the short period of time that measurements have been done but a life sustaining Earth has been much warmer in the past":
No, it means that during 10 of the last 13 years Earths average global temperature has been hotter than its ever been for the thousands of years of climate humans have evolved to cope with. That it was warmer millions of years ago and there was life then is meaningless - large shifts in climate such as we are undergoing have resulted in mass extinctions as the life hasn't been able to cope with the big changes. We are currently going through the sixth largest extinction phase the planet has seen in its 4 billion year existence. And although there have been warming events in the distant past, this one is happening much more rapidly than those did due to the increase in CO2 in the air.
I posted "The Arctic is one of the fastest warming places on Earth. Temperatures here are rising twice as fast as the global average."
Bad anonymous said "irrelevant it's unpopulated".
This comming from the guy who kept telling us global warming is a good thing because the people in Alaska will be warmer - you two faced liar.
Bad anonymous said "and the fact that it's getting warmer twice as fast as the average of populated areas is skewing the averages meaning it's even less relevant".
Certainly not. The arctic is not walled off from the rest of the planet, what happens there affects the entire planet through rising sea levels and deadly floods, more frequent storms (which has happened as predicted). NCAR research shows droughts have affected double the land mass they did in the 1970sand the warming of the Arctic will eventually warming up the rest of the planet even more.
I said "Arctic ice is being lost at three times the rate Antarctic ice is growing"
Bad anonymous said "so what? the point is half of the world is experiencing something different from the other half ".
Absolutely not. The planet on average is warming up all over, the southern hemisphere as a whole is not cooling while the northern hemisphere warms. Antarctica has localized cooling and not very much, most of the tiny ice increase there has been due to factors other than temperatures.
Bad anonymous said (several times throughout his B.S.) "I quoted them and linked them so you can't feign ignorance".
You obviously never linked to ANYTHING, you're just continuing your pattern of painfully obvious lying. And you have a well documented history of altering quotes to drastically change their meaning to suit your agenda and have even admitted you feel free to change quotes you post however it suits you regardless of the facts.
I said "One cannot determine whether or not there is a climate trend by comparing one year with the last"
Bad anonymous said "I didn't do that, you did I compared the last 15 years".
No, I didn't compare one year with the last, I noted the statistical trend over time. It is you who keeps hanging your hat on the unusually warm year 1998 to pretend global warming has stopped while trying to ignore or deny the reality that most of the warmest years in the historical record have occurred recently. Your false claim depends on careful selection of the starting and ending points. The starting point is always 1998, a particularly warm year because of a strong El Niño weather pattern.
Somebody who wanted to sell you gold coins as an investment could make the same kind of argument about the futility of putting your retirement funds into the stock market. If he picked the start date and the end date carefully enough, the gold salesman could make it look like the stock market did not go up for a decade or longer. But that does not really tell you what your retirement money is going to do in the market over 30 or 40 years. It does not even tell you how you would have done over the cherry-picked decade, which would have depended on exactly when you got in and out of the market. Scientists and statisticians reject this sort of selective use of numbers, and when they calculate the long-term temperature trends for the earth and have concluded global warming is still happening.
I said "climatolgists emphasize that one must look at trends over a 10, or preferably 15 year period to determine whether or not there is a trend"
Bad anonymous said "they've actually done that and concluded that global warming has stopped".
An outrageous lie. 97% of scientists agree global warming IS happening".
Bad anonymous said "the NCAR says global warming has "halted".
They said no such thing. The NCAR says global warming has temporarily slowed (and they are very much in the minority on that) but they agree that it is still happening.
Bad anonymous said "I quoted them and linked them so you can't feign ignorance".
I've been through this thread 3 times and you didn't link to ANYTHING, you're a liar and an incredibly stupid one to think people are going to believe you've done something you obviously haven't. And this goes for the other five times you repeated that lie.
Bad anonymous said "the IPCC, whose mission it is to spread concern about global warming, says we have been in a "warming hiatus" for 15 years".
They said no such thing. They noted that global warming rate has slowed recently but in no way have they said global waming has stopped. The IPCC says the reason atmospheric temperatures haven't risen as fast is the the earth is going through a solar minimum and more than 90% of the world's extra heat is being soaked up by the oceans, rather than lingering on the surface and a recent study in the journal Nature Climate Change has proven unusually powerful trade winds in the Pacific Ocean (caused by global warming!) have contributed to pushing the warmer ocean waters to greater depths, creating an illusion of a warming plateau on the surface.
I said "If you do a linear regression on a rolling average of ten years and compare the average yearly temperature and then compare the average yearly temperature and so on you'll see the rolling average temperature increases. No honest statistician would claim temperatures plateaued in since 1998.
Bad anonymous said "so, you think the NCAR and IPCC are dishonest? quite an admission".
I never said any such thing. But we all know you have a well documented history of being dishonest and in keeping with your nature you've lied here about what the NCAR and IPCC have said and then idiotically falsely claimed you posted links to the false statements you assigned to them.
I said "Once again, you're cherry picking the data to milead people"
Bad anonymous said "I can't address that until you tell me what "milead" means".
Again with the willful stupidity . No one with above a room temperature IQ is in any doubt as to what "mislead means". You just want to hide from the issue because you're lying.
I said "The United States represents only 2% of the earths surface, its the height of dishonesty to focus on what's happening there and pretend its typical of the planet"
Bad anonymous said "it's actually a fair chunk of the populated world so are the Mid-East and Japan and India".
The United States represents less than 5% of the worlds population. Once again, like a typical Republican American, you grossly overestimate the importance of the United States in the world. The most heavily populated areas in the world are India, Pakistan, and China and those are areas that will be, and already are, severely impacted by global warming. But of course as a Republican American you think only the handful of Americans on the planet are important.
I said "2013 was one of the warmest years on record and the last decade has been the warmest ever recorded"
Bad anonymous said "yes, we've discussed this global warming has plateaued".
No, as I've been saying statistical regression analysis of the data shows no evidence that global warming has plateaued - you're just a liar.
"The weekly or monthly fluctuations in temperatures on a tiny part of the planet have precious little to say about what's going on on the planet as a whole over time"
Bad anonymous said "so, why do you keep dwelling on California?".
Because unlike the portions of the planet you keep highlighting, California is representative of what's going on on the planet as a whole. The NCAR research shows droughts have affected double the land mass they did in the 1970s. The short term localized warming I've brought up is representative of what is happening with the planet as a whole in the long run, the short term localized cooling you highlight is NOT representative of what is happening with the planet as a whole in the long run. I tell the truth, you lie.
I said "Its heating up. There is no scientific controversy about this"
Bad anonymous said "then why does the IPCC discuss the controversy in their latest report?".
You're confusing the controversy amongst laypeople with a controversy amongst climate scientists which does not exist. The IPCC discusses the fake controversy climate change deniers have fabricated because its dangerous to the long term health of humans and the planet.
"The global warming deniers are not scientists for the most part and do not make their arguments in peer reviewed journals"
Bad anonymous said "did you know there's currently a crisis in the scientific community because the proliferation of peer-reviewed studies that have turned out to be non-replicable? it's likely because of the politicization of science by liberals and gay advocates in recent years".
Another absurd lie as is typical for you. The only area where a significan't percentage of "studies" have been called into question is the anti-gay pseudo-studies performed by liars like Regnerus. The scientific forum is open to everyone that can make an evidence based case for their claims. There has been for all practical intents and purposes no peer-reviewed studies that make the claim that global warming is not happening or has stopped. Global warming deniers for the most part are not scientists and can't make a scientific case for their claims so they concentrate on conning the public and media where their claims won't be scientifically scrutinized.
I said "the overwhelming concensus of the scientific community is global warming is real and man-made"
Bad anonymous said "you are right about the consensus but the scientific consensus has an historically poor record where's the hurricanes the consensus was predicting a decade ago?".
Nonsense. The scientific consensus has an incredibly accurate record and in those occasions where its been off its self-correcting over time. Contrast this with the horrific record of religion in explaining the world and they're not even in the same universe. What should be once in a century superstorms such as Sandy and Katrina are happening close together and in fact such severe weather has increased just as predicted. You're just repeating something you want to believe without having ever looked at the evidence. You've been shown you're wrong several times but you are too dishonest to let go of your comforting lie. Your false claims are motivated by religion, my facts are derived from science.
Climate change models are fully capable of replicating the temperature trends of the 20th century and this gives scientists confidence that in the long-term, they can make accurate predictions of average temperatures in the next 100 years. That doesn't mean they can reproduce every bump and dip along the way, though. Contrary to what bad anonymous is trying to convince people of, no climate change research or scientist has ever suggested each individual year will be warmer than the last or that temperatures were expected to or would climb at the same rate. If global warming really weren't happening, there shouldn't have just been a slowdown in the rate of atmospheric temperature increases we are now seeing that coincides with earth being in a solar minimum, the atmospheric surface temperatures should be cooling significantly instead of still warming. Over the past decade the U.S. has experienced about two daily record high temperatures for every record low 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.
While its true that the rate of atmospheric temperature increases have slowed over the last 15 years, the overall warming of the entire climate system has continued rapidly over the past 15 years, even faster than the 15 years before that. If you look at this graph you can see that while the rate of temperature increase in the atmosphere has slowed, the atmospheric heating represents only 2% of the overall warming of the global climate. The rates of temperature increase for the remaining portions of the global climate such as upper and deep ocean temperatures, and land and ice temperatures have increased at a far greater rate. It is a myth that global warming has paused, or halted.
Now of course bad anonymous will go back to repeating the lies I've debunked in detail.
I missed this one:
I said "As the atmosphere warms, the Arctic ice cap has shrunk by 12 percent per decade since 1978, when scientists started tracking ice with satellites,"
Bad anonymous said "well, that just happens to coincide with the warming spurt that ended 15 years ago".
Another pathetic attempt to decieve. The Arctic ice cap has continued to shrink at a similar rate since 1998. The seven lowest September ice extents (a measure of the total ice cover) have been in past 10 years, including 2013.
Students Block Westboro Baptist Church's Michael Sam Protest With Wall Of Love
""Divided we are weak. Together we are strong."
Those were the words tweeted by openly gay football star Michael Sam, thanking his University of Missouri family for their support. He posted the message after arriving at the school and seeing a group of Mizzou students surrounding the perimeter in order to block out a Westboro Baptist Church protest.
On Saturday, Sam headed to Columbia, Mo., to join Missouri's 2014 Cotton Bowl champion team in accepting the Cotton Bowl trophy during the Missouri v. Tennessee basketball game, the Kansas City Star reported. The defensive lineman came out as gay on Sunday, Feb. 9.
Unsurprisingly, the Westboro Baptist Church wasn't happy about this, and headed to Mizzou Saturday to protest the athlete.
“They comforted him in his sin, Michael Sam, this past week," WBC's Shirley Phelps-Roper said, per Missouri's KRCG. "They just absolutely went crazy when he announced and told the world he is a filthy pervert and a rebel against God. They fawned all over him.”
But Mizzou students were prepared to block out the Westboro haters with a wall of love.
"Our hope is for the wall to reflect a unified student body and symbolize a display of love towards our own tiger, Michael Sam," students Kelaney Lakers and Alix Carruth said in a statement to the press, obtained by the Riverfront Times. "We're humbled and a bit overwhelmed by the community's response. This issue is so much bigger than either of us, and we want to do justice to Michael Sam and show him that Mizzou loves him."
That's just what they did.
Hundreds of supporters gathered around Faurot Field Saturday in a sign of solidarity for Sam and in defiance of the 14 Westboro members who showed up, the Columbia Daily Tribune reported. The human wall stretched a half-mile, made up of students, faculty and former Mizzou football players.
The act of kindness was not lost on Sam, who tweeted his thanks.
"Thank you for all of my Mizzou family for your support. Divided we are weak, Together we are Strong. #OneMizzou
8:00 PM - 15 Feb 2014"
Sam graduated from the University of Missouri in December. He is currently eligible for the 2014 NFL Draft and is poised to become the first openly gay, active NFL player ever."
Some people regularly suggest that the Church should stay out of politics, but we regret to observe that the current political agenda is encroaching upon fundamental principles that Christians, and people of all faiths, hold dear: compassion for the poor, safety for all people and equality for everyone.
House Bill 2453, which is currently before the Kansas Senate, proposes to legalize discrimination against gay and lesbian couples, attributing the excuse for such discrimination as “religious freedom.” In truth, this bill is not about religious freedom but is aimed at creating state-authorized bias and inequality.
Under this bill, government employees could refuse to offer services to their fellow citizens and taxpayers, while claiming religious motives. Business owners could refuse goods and services to people they perceive to be partnered gay or lesbians without repercussion. This proposed legislation is reminiscent of the worst laws that permitted discrimination against people on the basis of color, sex or nation of origin. The intent of this bill is an affront to the beliefs of all Kansans who support equal treatment under the law for every human being.
Kansas history is filled with examples of standing up for the expansion of rights – in our abolitionist, free state roots; as the first state in the country to elect a woman to a political office; and as a place identified with contributing to the end of school desegregation. We have a high calling to provide equality and equal opportunity to everyone.
For Episcopalians, our faith is unequivocal. Our Baptismal Covenant asks, “Will you seek and serve Christ in all persons, loving your neighbor as yourself? Will you strive for justice and peace among all people and respect the dignity of every human being?” Promising to strive for justice and peace among all people and to respect the dignity of every human being requires us to be adamantly opposed to legislation that does none of these things.
Our biblically based faith calls us to live out the command of Jesus Christ to love one another. You cannot love your fellow Kansans and deny them the rights that belong to everyone else.
We urge the rejection of this bill so that our great state might continue to stand for justice, dignity and equality.
In Christ,
The Right Reverend Dean E. Wolfe
Ninth Bishop
The Episcopal Diocese of Kansas
The Right Reverend Michael P. Milliken
Fifth Bishop
The Episcopal Diocese of Western Kansas
Thanks for that good anonymous. I didn't see the link bad anonymous posted in the previous thread but as you pointed out it contradicts the things he's always saying about global warming like he did on this thread with comments like:
"global warming, warmer snow and ice!! ha,ha,ha"
"it is all artifice"
"sitting inside looking at 14 inches of snow, with three more expected to fall before sundown I love this era of global warming!!"
"it's time for lazy Priya to admit to lying about the halting of global warming for the last fifteen years"
"only Florida was snow free doesn't sound like global warming, or drought, to me"
"everything is within the range of normal"
"there's nothing happening that isn't common"
"the increase has stopped"
"they[scientists]'ve actually done that [looked at trends over 15 year periods] and concluded that global warming has stopped"
"NCAR says global warming has "halted""
You can see how bad anonymous has been repeatedly trying to deceive people into believing global warming is not happening and has "ended" but the people he linked to in the previous thread who he says back him up said no such thing, they acknowledged that global warming is still going on:
Although they said global warming has paused they later explained what they actually meant - "Since 2001 the global trend has been relatively flat (see graph). However, temperatures continue to run warmer than in previous decades. The global average from 2000–09 exceeds the average for 1990–99, which in turn was warmer than 1980–89. And the average for 2010–12 topped the 2000–09 average....Although scientists are confident that global temperatures will rise further in the coming decades, there could still be occasional "pauses" in warming that last a few years, like the one we've been seeing since the late 1990s.".
And of course while its true that the rate of atmospheric temperature increases have slowed over the last 15 years, the overall warming of the entire climate system has continued rapidly over the past 15 years, even faster than the 15 years before that. If you look at this study you can see that while the rate of temperature increase in the atmosphere has slowed, the atmospheric heating(which NCAR was referring to) represents only 2% of the overall warming of the global climate. The rates of temperature increase for the remaining portions of the global climate such as upper and deep ocean temperatures, and land and ice temperatures have increased at a far greater rate. It is a myth that global warming has halted, stopped, or is not happening. It is happening and people are already starting to pay the price.
Anonymous could learn a lot from the link provided on the thread below, such as What's the difference between climate and weather?.
The Answer offers a few definitions:
"Weather is what's happening in the atmosphere on any given day, in a specific place. Local or regional weather forecasts include temperature, humidity, winds, cloudiness, and prospects for storms or other changes over the next few days. (Learn more about how NCAR studies weather.)
Climate is the average of these weather ingredients over many years. Some meteorologists like the saying that "climate is what you expect; weather is what you get," memorable words variously attributed to Mark Twain, Robert Heinlein, and others.
In practical terms, the climate for a particular city, state, or region tells you whether to pack short-sleeved shirts and shorts or parkas and mittens before you visit, while the local weather forecast tells you if you'll want to wear the parka by itself or with an extra sweater today.
WHAT'S A NORMAL CLIMATE?
Climate varies across space and time, so climate is studied on a variety of spatial and time scales.
To interpret today's atmospheric conditions, we need a reference period of average, or "normal," climate to compare it against. How long is long enough to define the average climate for a city, state, or region? The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Weather Service calculates a 30-year average once a decade. The current "normals" (issued July 1, 2011) are based on data from 1981 to 2010. NOAA's FAQ helps put this metric in context. For example, it notes that "Normals were not designed to be metrics of climate change."
When it comes to climate on a global scale, the "normal" reference period depends on which climate components scientists want to study. For example, many scientists compare average global temperatures, precipitation, and other variables for the 20th and 21st centuries with the 30-year averages for 1870 to 1899, before major industrialization produced large quantities of greenhouse gas.
You can see how recent observations and future projections of warming and cooling compare to conditions at the end of the 19th century by watching a visualization of data from the NCAR-based Community Climate System Model in our Climate Change Multimedia Gallery.
BEFORE THERMOMETERS
To understand how climate varies across time, scientists examine three kinds of climate data: observations, historical accounts, and environmental evidence locked up in fossils, ice cores, and other "proxy climate records."
Observations of temperature at Earth's surface date back as far as 350 years for some locations in England, but only about 100 to 150 years in most of the developed world. But even before the thermometer was invented, ancient civilizations kept records of droughts, floods, unusual hot or cold weather, and other climate indicators, including planting and harvest times.
While human accounts can take us back hundreds or thousands of years, we need other tools to understand how Earth's climate has varied during its much longer lifetime of about 4.5 billion years.
Paleoclimatology delves into the deep history of past climate variation through what are called "proxy records." Air bubbles trapped in ice cores, the composition of lake sediments, changes in tree rings, pollen fossils, and other parts of Earth's ancient environment have given scientists many clues to past temperature, precipitation, wind patterns, and the chemical composition of the atmosphere through time.
Observations, historic accounts, and paleoclimate data are used to test the reliability of computer models that simulate Earth's climate on time scales from decades, to centuries, to millennia. Studying prehistoric variations can also provide important clues about what to expect in a warmer world."
And this one:
Isn't ice building up in some places, like Antarctica (and doesn't that offset losses in the Arctic)?
"As the amount of summertime ice has declined in the Arctic Ocean, it has increased in the Southern Ocean adjoining Antarctica. The processes controlling ice in these two areas are not the same, though, and the implications for global climate are very different.
Southern sea ice forms and decays each year around the edge of Antarctica. However, the continent itself remains virtually covered with ice year round. In the Arctic Ocean, there is about twice as much summer ice as there is around Antarctica. The loss of summer ice in the Arctic threatens to expose much of the ocean to the midsummer sun. Since dark ocean absorbs far more sunlight than does the brighter sea ice, this leads to a warmer ocean and, thus, further melting, in a warming feedback loop. The total loss of summer sea ice in the Arctic would also have profound implications for the people and wildlife of this region."
And Isn't there still a lot of debate among scientists?
"The scientific method is built on debate among scientists, who test a question, or hypothesis, and then submit their results to the scrutiny of other experts in their field. That scrutiny, known as "peer review," includes examining the scientists' data, experiment and/or analysis methods, and findings.
The spirited debate around remaining uncertainties in climate science is a healthy indicator that the scientific method is alive and well. But the fundamental elements of climate change are not in dispute. To take just a few examples, we understand
-how greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide trap heat (see FAQ: What is the Greenhouse Effect?)
-how much carbon dioxide we have added to the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution (see FAQ: How much carbon dioxide is already in the atmosphere?)
-how observed warming has been affecting plants, animals, the ecosystems they live in, and us, the people who depend on them (see article: Impacts on Natural Systems)
The questions on this page represent many of those raised by debaters who are not actively engaged in climate research. These questions have been answered here and elsewhere with evidence from research that has been tested by the scientific method.
Science is a human activity, and no human is infallible. Science is also a community activity, and scientists rely on each other to question, challenge, and improve one another's work. When corrections are made, this is not a sign that the system is broken but rather that it's working as designed.
The science reported by researchers at NCAR and our collaborating institutions around the world is built on decades of investigation and represents the current state of our knowledge on climate change.
Our understanding of the particulars of climate change continues to evolve, and predictions of specific impacts may be revised upward or downward. However, the majority of climate scientists who specialize in understanding the complex interactions of our atmosphere, Earth, and Sun have concluded that:
Global warming is unequivocal and primarily human-induced (U.S. Global Change Research Program, citing its 2009 report on Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States).
Changes in the atmosphere, the oceans, and glaciers and ice caps now show unequivocally that the world is warming due to human activities (United Nations, citing the IPCC 2007 report)
Here's what several major scientific organizations say about global warming and climate change, including the uncertainties climate scientists continue to examine (each link opens a new window):
AGU Position Statements on Climate Issues (American Geophysical Union)
Statements of the AMS on Climate Change (American Meteorological Society)
EGU Statement on Ocean Acidification (European Geosciences Union)"
looks like Lazy Priya and the nameless sidekick we'll call Hazy Me-ya, think a large volume of posts can obscure an inconvenient truth:
for whatever reason, and whatever the future may or may not hold, the fact is that global warming ended in 1998
until they stop denying that, there is no reason to take them seriously
It’s time to chill on global warming.
Has the polar vortex got you down? Are you feeling sympathy for friends in Atlanta who’ve endured temperatures frigid enough to drive southerners into the warm embrace of Johnnie Walker Scotch — if only they can chop themselves out of snow and ice in time for happy hour? This seems a good time to stop the deafening chatter of teeth and develop a coherent thought: I envy Al Gore.
I’m jealous of all deluded salesmen of the junk science known by the politically correct term “climate change’’ who see a near future in which our entire planet turns into sunny Florida. No, wait — during the polar vortex that hit this country like a cold slap in the face last month, all 50 United States and Washington, DC, recorded temperatures below freezing. That includes Florida. Hawaii, too.
Gore, Bill Clinton’s vice president who lost the 2000 presidential election to George W. Bush, has reinvented himself as the world’s leading warming guru, a career that’s turned him into a kind of zaftig version of Hollywood movie star Brad Pitt.
The Oscar-winning 2006 documentary that shows Gore giving a scary slide show, “An Inconvenient Truth,’’ catapulted him into winning the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize, which he shared with fellow climate hysterics of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
So, will we soon be wearing bikinis in Bismarck in December? (I wish.)
Gore’s vision of a world plagued by rising seas and rampant tropical diseases, which he preaches can be averted only if Americans drive hybrid cars and replace energy-guzzling dryers with outdoor clothes lines, is as false as the notion that the ice sheet is melting in the North Pole, threatening to drown frisky polar bears.
The “entire North Polar ice cap will be gone in five years,’’ Gore, now 65, told a German TV audience in 2008. Wrong.
In fact, receding Arctic ice rebounded between 2012 and 2013, growing by 29 percent into an unbroken patch more than half the size of Europe and within 5 percent of what it was 30 years ago, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center.
Last month near the South Pole, a Russian ship carrying scientists and tourists traveled to the bottom of the Earth so passengers might document global warming and shrinking ice caps. But the ship got stuck on ice that was thicker than at any time since records started being kept in 1978. The warming fans were airlifted to safety by helicopter, leaving behind confused penguins.
And — whoops! — climate scientists conceded last year that the Earth’s surface temperature stopped rising in 1997. (Or did temps take a temporary “pause,’’ as warmists say?) Too bad for makers of jet-skis and tank tops: We might see global cooling into the 2030s.
Warmists blamed Hurricane Katrina in 2005 and Superstorm Sandy in 2012 on greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. But the hurricane season that ended on Nov. 30, 2013, was among the quietest since 1960.
Just two meek Category 1 hurricanes formed in the Atlantic Ocean last year. Neither made landfall in the United States.
Doubt is growing. (Warming disciples dismiss this trend as “global-warming denial.’’) According to a survey by Yale and George Mason universities, less than half of Americans, 47 percent, believe global warming is caused by humans, a 7 percentage-point drop from last year.
But don’t express your disenchantment with the cult of warming to the Los Angeles Times. An editor announced in October that the newspaper does not publish Letters to the Editor that say global warming isn’t real.
President Obama is down with warmists. His administration has proposed regulations to reduce carbon emissions from power plants. And in his proposed budget next month, he will ask Congress to set up a $1 billion “Climate Change Resilience Fund,’’ a waste of cash that would be used for research, helping communities prepare for climate change (by building more swimming pools?) and funding “breakthrough technologies and resilient infrastructure,’’ a White House spokesman said.
But can Obama persuade Congress to go for this at a time when more Americans than ever are asking why it’s so cold?
This frosty winter, be daring and curl up under a blanket made of nonrecycled fiber. You’re bound to have company.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Atlanta Georgia
2/17/14
Currently 64 Degrees F
oh, that proves it
global warming has been conclusively confirmed today in Georgia
everyone can go back to their tree forts now
"In fact, receding Arctic ice rebounded between 2012 and 2013, growing by 29 percent into an unbroken patch more than half the size of Europe and within 5 percent of what it was 30 years ago, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center."
So you've gone from citing NCAR to citing the New York Post.
No desperation on your part there, huh?
< eye roll >
Let's see what your more reputable source, the NCAR says about sea ice:
We're going into an ice age, aren't we?
"Glacial periods have occurred about every 100,000 years, in sync with well-understood cycles of change in the way Earth orbits the Sun. These "Milankovitch cycles" affect where sunlight hits the planet, which can speed up or slow down the accumulation of ice across high latitudes.
It has been about 10,000 years since the last glacial period ended. All else being equal, another glacial period would be expected to arrive in the next several tens of thousands of years. However, the exact process is not fully understood, so we don’t know exactly when this will occur.
In contrast, the increase in human-produced greenhouse gases is proceeding rapidly, and it is already having effects that could intensify significantly in the next few decades. One analysis, published in the journal Science in 2013, shows that the warming of the last 100 years has occurred far more quickly than the gradual rise and fall of temperatures over the preceding 11,200 years. We cannot count on the arrival of the next ice age to offset the potentially catastrophic effects of human-triggered climate change over the next several centuries."
"I hear there’s a lot of ice melting in the Arctic Ocean. Will this make sea levels go up?"
"Ice melts each summer and refreezes each winter in the Arctic Ocean. Summer sunshine only melts part of the sea ice, but the amount that melts has increased dramatically over the last few years, especially since 2007. The extent of sea ice at its summer minimum (which usually occurs in September) is now little more than half of where it was in the 1980s, and the minimum ice volume (which considers both extent and thickness) has dropped by more than 60%.
Experts differ on how quickly Arctic sea ice will continue to melt, with some projections leading to summer periods that are virtually free of ice by the 2020s or even sooner. Ice will continue to refreeze each winter, but the increased areas of open ocean will affect human activities and wildlife and may influence regional climate in ways now being studied. Also, the dark ocean can absorb more heat than brighter, more reflective sea ice, which helps foster a vicious cycle of more melting and more warming.
Unlike ice that’s melting on land, the loss of ice floating in the ocean doesn’t raise sea level, since the ice will take up less space once it melts (just as ice melting in a glass of lemonade doesn’t cause the glass to overflow)."
"In fact, receding Arctic ice rebounded between 2012 and 2013, growing by 29 percent into an unbroken patch more than half the size of Europe and within 5 percent of what it was 30 years ago, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center."
That is a lie.
While its true that the artic ice has increased in 2013 from 2012, 2012 arctic ice was at an exceptionally low level, its lowest level ever. And despite the increase in 2013, 2013 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 in 2013 of the remaining 25% doesn't even remotely begin to undo the damage that's happened over the last 30 years.
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 the long term to create the false impression that the planet is not warming - it most certainly is.
Arctic ice in 2013 was at its sixth lowest level ever.
The ice reached its lowest extent ever in 2012. Although there was an increase of 29% in the 2013Arctic surface ice area the ice thickness is much thinner than in previous decades.
The rebound in ice cover after a record low year was expected, Walt Meier, a glaciologist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md., said in a statement. "There is always a tendency to have an uptick after an extreme low; in our satellite data, the Arctic sea ice has never set record low minimums in consecutive years.
The Arctic ice extent remains at less than 70% of what it was 30 years ago.
lazy Priya and hazy Me-ya
the cards have not fallen well for the alarmists
last year, more record lows than highs were recorded across the globe
last year, the ice in the Arctic increased TWENTY-THREE PERCENT
Al Gore said five years ago it would be gone by now
last year, ice in the Antarctic was at an all-time high
this is significant because only melting on the land increases the global sea levels so it sounds like that catastrophe ain't happening either
the hurricane season in the Atlantic was the calmest on record, following a decade long pattern
the IPCC got a thrill up their leg about ten years ago when Florida had a bad hurricane season and declared it proof of global warming and just the beginning
they are really bad at predicting, btw
they had a major embarrassment a few years back predicting all the glaciers in the Himalayas were going to melt
oh, and, despite lazy Priya's lyin' and denyin', the global average temperature has not risen appreciably in the last five years
the IPCC admits it, the NCAR admits it
but the lazy lyin' Priya can't
we're blessed to live in a remarkably stable time of weather with wondrous technology lifting the level of human existence
and lazy Priya can't stand it
"has not risen appreciably in the last five years"
oops, I meant 16 years
that's right
sweet sixteen
Bad anonymous, given your well documented history of lying your claim that last year there were more record lows set than record highs isn't believable - there's a reason why you've never tried to document that claim.
The truth is over the past decade the U.S. has experienced about two daily record high temperatures for every record low
As we've repeatedly discussed, although the Antarctic ice has increased the amount of the increase is insignificant compared to the amount of Arctic ice loss. The Arctic is losing sea ice five times faster than the Antarctic is gaining it, so, on average, the Earth is losing sea ice very quickly. Over 70% of the volume of Arctic ice has disappeared since 1979. Global warming deniers try to deceive people with the NS&IDC measurements of sea ice extent but the numbers are deceptive as they measure the ocean surface area with sea ice of at least 15% so in other words up to 85% of the ice can be gone in an area and NSIDC will report it as unchanged. The Arctic sea ice area has declined by 40% since 1979 and the total ice volume has declined by over 70% There is no inconsistency between Antarctic ice growth results and global warming
Bad anonymous said "this is significant because only melting on the land increases the global sea levels so it sounds like that catastrophe ain't happening either".
Land ice is being lost at a rapid rate and sea levels are rising at a faster rate than predicted and faster than they have at any time in the last several thousand years. The melting sea ice changes weather patterns as we've seen with the colder than normal U.S. winter due to the much warmer Arctic sending the jet stream lower and bringing relatively cooler (relative to the United States) air farther south. The changing weather patterns have doubled the area of drought stricken land around the world and caused flooding in other areas.
And contrary to your lies about hurricanes the fact is that storms are becoming more frequent and severe.
I see you're still laughably claiming the IPCC and NCAR back up your claim that global warming has stopped when in fact what they said was "Since 2001 the global trend has been relatively flat (see graph). However, temperatures continue to run warmer than in previous decades. The global average from 2000–09 exceeds the average for 1990–99, which in turn was warmer than 1980–89. And the average for 2010–12 topped the 2000–09 average....Although scientists are confident that global temperatures will rise further in the coming decades, there could still be occasional "pauses" in warming that last a few years, like the one we've been seeing since the late 1990s.".
Contrary to your absurd assertions global warming has never predicted that there would be an unbroken string of years with each new year being hotter than the last. The trend is well established since the industrial revolution, the earth is undeniably warming over time and no one ever predicted it would keep warming at the same rate.
And of course while its true that the rate of atmospheric temperature increases have slowed over the last 15 years, the overall warming of the entire climate system has continued rapidly over the past 15 years, even faster than the 15 years before that. If you look at this study you can see that while the rate of temperature increase in the atmosphere has slowed, the atmospheric heating(which NCAR was referring to) represents only 2% of the overall warming of the global climate. The rates of temperature increase for the remaining portions of the global climate such as upper and deep ocean temperatures, and land and ice temperatures have increased at a far greater rate. It is a myth that global warming has halted, stopped, or is not happening. It is happening and people are already starting to pay the price.
you're unbelievable, lazy priya
you just shift the stats around any way you can to reinforce your faith in this fake global warming theory
here's a quote from NCAR:
"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) devoted a section of its 2013 physical science assessment to analysis of the 1998–2012 warming hiatus."
you do know what hiatus means, I trust?
for the time being, global warming has stopped
the last pause lasted about 45 years
that takes us to a time when technology will probably surpass the need for carbon emissions
not that carbon emissions appear to be causing any problems anyway
"you do know what hiatus means, I trust?"
Do you??? Hiatus means "a pause or gap in a sequence, series, or process."
Hiatus does not mean "the end of the process, sequence or series."
NCAR also said, as pointed out in your "bit" even, "Although scientists are confident that global temperatures will rise further in the coming decades, there could still be occasional "pauses" in warming that last a few years"
What NCAR is saying is that there has been a gap in the ongoing process of climate change and without changes in how much pollution we foul our environment with, climate change will continue.
The only one claiming climate change had ended is you because you insist on focusing on single sentences here and ther while ignoring the data you don't like.
"Tired Of Endless Winter? Blame Changing Jet Stream
As northeastern U.S. prepares for yet more snow, study suggests a changing jet stream pattern is creating longer winters
As the northeastern U.S. braces for the latest in a seemingly endless series of winter storms, new research has shown that the persistent cold weather suffered by much of the United States this winter may be a result of a changing jet stream pattern.
A new study shows that the jet stream over Northern Europe and North America may be taking a longer, more meandering path as a result of a rapidly warming Arctic narrowing the differential between upper and middle latitudes, reports the BBC.
Temperatures in the Arctic have been rising two to three times as rapidly as the rest of the globe, and as the difference in temperature between the Arctic and middle latitudes diminishes, the jet stream that separates them slows. That means that cold weather over North America tends to linger longer, according to the study presented at American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in Chicago.
It also means that warm weather is pushed further north and cold weather heads further South. Alaska and Scandinavia have had unusually warm winters this year, while southern U.S. cities like Atlanta have been struck by rare snowstorms and freezing weather.
More snow began bearing down on cities like Boston and New York on Saturday, just days after a mammoth snowstorm inundated the region with over a foot of snow in some areas and caused thousands of flight cancellations across the country. Boston is expecting up to a foot of snow this weekend and up to six inches are expected around New York City."
"Hiatus means "a pause or gap in a sequence, series, or process."
Hiatus does not mean "the end of the process, sequence or series."
NCAR also said, as pointed out in your "bit" even, "Although scientists are confident that global temperatures will rise further in the coming decades, there could still be occasional "pauses" in warming that last a few years"
What NCAR is saying is that there has been a gap in the ongoing process of climate change and without changes in how much pollution we foul our environment with, climate change will continue.
The only one claiming climate change had ended is you because you insist on focusing on single sentences here and ther while ignoring the data you don't like."
if you morons would pay attention, you'd see that I clearly stated that NCAR and IPCC believe that global warming will resume in the future
but, that's based on their theories, which haven't got a reliable track record
what they said that is factual, and which lazy Priya and hazy Me-ya can't admit, is that global warming stopped 16 years ago
they think it will resume but the future is not yet a fact
that you can't distinguish between facts and theory explains so much about "T T Facts"
and how about the polar ice cap that should be gone and all those hurricanes we should have suffered through?
maybe some day global warming will be a concern
I'm sure that would fulfill your wildest fantasies
but, it isn't a concern now
part of the TTF mindset is to focus more on what the worst scenario some nut is envisioning than on actual observed facts
the fact is that global warming has ceased for 16 years
there is no proof it was ever caused by human activity but, at some future point, as we are only about 10% of the way to the next ice age on a historic basis, it will no doubt resume
our planet has been much warmer in the past and life thrived
Bad anonymous said "if you morons would pay attention, you'd see that I clearly stated that NCAR and IPCC believe that global warming will resume in the future but, that's based on their theories, which haven't got a reliable track record what they said that is factual, and which lazy Priya and hazy Me-ya can't admit, is that global warming stopped 16 years ago".
You did say on one occaision that NCAR and IPCC said global warming will resume, the problem is you keep making isolated statements that NCAR and IPCC said global warming has stopped which is not true. To say global warming has stopped is to claim it will not resume and NCAR and IPCC agree with you, which they most certainly do not. Over time you will stop mentioning that NCAR called it a pause and that it will resume and start asserting that they said global warming has stopped (that it will not resume) and therein lies your dishonesty. You think because you said once that NCAR said global warming has paused and will resume that that makes it okay for you at any point down the road to assert that as though its a fact that global warming has stopped, halted, ended (and by implication will not resume) and that NCAR stated that - that is a lie.
When we are on top of you and fact checking you you can be pushed into admitting the truth, but when we let you go on without supervision you increasingly start to distort the truth and then out and out lie. Just like you did with your claim that there were more record lows than record highs in 2013. That is true for the U.S. which only represents 2% of the planets surface but now you've started claiming there were globally more record lows than record highs which is a lie. The truth is that the last decade was the warmest on record. 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.
2013 was globally the fourth warmest year on record. The last 15 years have been consistent with what happens when global warming occurrs, it is not consistent with a planet where global warming is not taking place as you normally claim. If global warming weren't taking place the last 15 years should have been cooler than normal.
If you want to say "In my opinion global warming stopped 16 years ago" I don't have a problem with that, but stating it as though thats a fact and stating that NCAR and IPCC agree with you is a lie - STOP LYING.
And of course the overwhelming scientific evidence shows global warming has NOT stopped in the past 15 years. While its true that the rate of atmospheric temperature increases have slowed recently the overall warming of the entire climate system has continued rapidly over the past 15 years, even faster than the 15 years before that. If you look at this study you can see that while the rate of temperature increase in the atmosphere has slowed, the atmospheric heating(which NCAR was referring to) represents only 2% of the overall warming of the global climate. The rates of temperature increase for the remaining portions of the global climate such as upper and deep ocean temperatures, and land and ice temperatures have increased at a far greater rate. It is a myth that global warming has halted, stopped, or is not happening and it is a lie for you to assert that NCAR and IPCC said global warming has stopped, halted, or ceased as you've done several times in this thread alone.
Bad anonymous said "and how about the polar ice cap that should be gone and all those hurricanes we should have suffered through?".
No climatoligist predicted that the polar ice cap would be gone by now. The truth is the prevailing view has been that it would be gone by the year 2070 to 2100 and a few are now thinking it may be 2050 or possibly within a few decades.
And the other fact of the matter is that storms have gotten more severe and frequent as predicted and we've witnessed with what should be once in 100 years superstorms Katrina and Sandy.
"To say global warming has stopped is to claim it will not resume and NCAR and IPCC agree with you, which they most certainly do not. Over time you will stop mentioning that NCAR called it a pause and that it will resume and start asserting that they said global warming has stopped (that it will not resume) and therein lies your dishonesty"
priya, you sad thing
the only difference between "stop" and "pause" is fortune-telling
global warming has STOPPED
the NCAR and IPCC confirm it
the fact that they use the terms like "pause" or "hiatus"
that's just their guess
the observable science they've seen shows the planet has not gotten cooler for 16 years
they confirm this
"The truth is that the last decade was the warmest on record"
that's irrelevant to whether warming has ended and it's deceptive of you to bring it up
"it is a lie for you to assert that NCAR and IPCC said global warming has stopped, halted, or ceased"
no, it's a truth
their hope that warming will resume is just a guess based on information that hasn't been efficacious as a predicting principle in the past
did you know there is currently a crisis in science concerning the high number of peer-reviewed studies that are not replicable?
read all about it:
http://www.nature.com/news/policy-nih-plans-to-enhance-reproducibility-1.14586
Bad anonymous said "the only difference between "stop" and "pause" is fortune-telling global warming has STOPPED the NCAR and IPCC confirm it".
That's a lie, they said NO SUCH THING. As you've said, you don't know the future therefore you don't have the information necessary to honestly assert that its a fact that global warming has permanently stopped. You can say that NCAR and IPCC don't know that it will restart but by the same token you don't know that it won't either therefore its a lie for you to say its stopped, halted, ended or ceased - that is merely your opinion. And neither the IPCC nor NCAR said global warming had "stopped", "ceased", or "halted". They said it had paused, or gone on hiatus and there's a world of difference between what they said and what you falsely claim they said. Central to the NCAR's and IPCC positions is that the slowdown in the increase in temperatures of the last 15 years is TEMPORARY. You are LYING when you claim IPCC and NCAR said global warming has stopped, you are characterizing their statement on the situation as an assertion that the situation is permanent and that is the height of dishonesty.
Bad anonymous said "did you know there is currently a crisis in science concerning the high number of peer-reviewed studies that are not replicable?".
A typical gross distortion of the facts you commonly rely on to try to con people into believing your B.S.
The NIH statement only applies to Biomedical research, not to all the myriad fields of science as you've dishonestly tried to lead us to believe. And even in that article the authors said "fraudulent papers are vastly outnumbered by the hundreds of thousands published each year in good faith." and they certainly never described the situation as a "crisis".
In the same way you try to deceive people about global warming (by suggesting without evidence a localized short term situation is typical of the long term global situation) you've tried to deceive people with a fake "crisis" in science.
And it most certainly isn't a fact, or the truth that global warming has ended, halted, ceased, or stopped and you've been repeatedly shown this:
While the rate of atmospheric temperature increases have slowed recently the overall warming of the entire climate system has continued rapidly over the past 15 years, even faster than the 15 years before that. If you look at
this study you can see that while the rate of temperature increase in the atmosphere has slowed, the atmospheric heating(which NCAR and IPCC were referring to) represents only 2% of the overall warming of the global climate. The rates of temperature increase for the remaining portions of the global climate such as upper and deep ocean temperatures, and land and ice temperatures have increased at a far greater rate. It is a myth that global warming has halted, stopped, ended or is not happening and it is a lie for you to assert that NCAR and IPCC said global warming has stopped, halted, or ceased. They charcterized the slowdown in rate of temperature increase as temporary, you keep dishonestly claiming they characterized the situation as permanent. An honest characterization of what the NCAR and IPCC said demands that you note they said the situation of the past 15 years is TEMPORARY and therein lies your dishonesty. You cannot leave that out when you're talking about their position and claim what you're saying is the truth.
Here’s all you need to know about trolls like bad anonymous:
A new study published in a psychology journal concludes that online trolling correlates with sadism, psychopathy and Machiavellianism. Here’s the abstract:
In two online studies (total N = 1215), respondents completed personality inventories and a survey of their Internet commenting styles. Overall, strong positive associations emerged among online commenting frequency, trolling enjoyment, and troll identity, pointing to a common construct underlying the measures. Both studies revealed similar patterns of relations between trolling and the Dark Tetrad of personality: trolling correlated positively with sadism, psychopathy, and Machiavellianism, using both enjoyment ratings and identity scores. Of all personality measures, sadism showed the most robust associations with trolling and, importantly, the relationship was specific to trolling behavior. Enjoyment of other online activities, such as chatting and debating, was unrelated to sadism. Thus cyber-trolling appears to be an Internet manifestation of everyday sadism.
Caitlin Dewey responds to the study:
But the intriguing thing about this new study by researchers from University of Manitoba, University of Winnipeg and University of British Columbia is the idea that trolling behavior springs not from the opportunity provided by the Internet, but from innate characteristics people possess both online and off.
That bodes poorly for efforts to tame the trolls. It also suggests, somewhat ominously, that there are lots of “everyday sadists among us.”
Of course there are. The anonymity and distance of online communication provides the opportunity for them to show their true nature in ways that they cannot do in their everyday life. I have always maintained that there’s nothing fake about this kind of thing. If you spend your time acting like an a-hole online, you are an a-hole.
The National Institutes of Health does not study climate.
NIH is concerned with the reproducibility of biomedical research, not climate studies.
The types of studies NIH funds have to do with medical and mental problems. You know, things like compulsive lying, inability to repeat a simple phrase accurately and comprehend what it means, an inability to cite references properly, and why are some people reasonable when others are bullies, that sort of thing.
The number you call to volunteer to be a research subject in one of their studies is 301-496-4763 or 1-800-892-3276.
Notice how bad anonymous spends almost all his time now lying about global warming and very little time lying about gays and lesbians? Its because he's begining to accept that anti-gays like him have lost their war on gays and they are increasingly unable to suppress the truth regarding gayness.
lol.
no priya.
it's just that given the upcoming collapse of civilization, it is somewhat irrelevant.
when you have major economists on CNN suggesting you prepare a "bug out bag" well then....
who is screwing who and how they are telling kids in the public schools that everything and anything goes... well it becomes irrelevant.
do you have 6 months of food on hand ?
you should.
Priya, you really are stupid
it's just unbelievable
it's hopeless reasoning with you but I'll make a few points
to begin with "stop" does not mean permanent cessation
all over America, the greatest country in the world, we have something called stop signs
when cars come up to them, they stop
then, they go again
under your definition, they never move again
so, when the NCAR and IPCC say global warming haws stopped
they have to if they want to retain any credibility
because facts are facts
then, there's the whole about atmospheric warming versus ocean and land warming
but remember, AGW theory says the planet is warming because humans are creating greenhouse gases in the atmosphere
if the air isn't warming, the theory is disproven
your theory can't be replicated
an anon: "pursuing a homosexual lifestyle significantly and adversely affects one's health"
So we’re back to “same-sex attraction, IN AND OF ITSELF, causes AIDS?”
That’s not only not true, it’s not fair.
Are you sure you believe in a just god?
Does it matter to you?
based on the comments of you and lazy Priya, improve, I'd say it causes dementia
let's take a gander:
an anon said: "pursuing a homosexual lifestyle significantly and adversely affects one's health"
improv improvised: "So we’re back to “same-sex attraction, IN AND OF ITSELF, causes AIDS?”"
well, unresisted same-sex attraction no doubt has negative consequences to those who indulge such thoughts but that's not what the anon said
he said "pursuing a homosexual lifestyle"
try to pay attention, imp
"That’s not only not true,"
unless you raise two people from birth in plastic bubbles, and they have sex under clinical conditions, it is true
but, of course, in that case, you'd have a couple of emotionally troubled individuals
you see, improv, if you decide to indulge same sex attractions by seeking a willing person of the same gender, you have an elevated risk of encountering a person who engages in random and widespread promiscuity and has a compromised biological system
"it’s not fair."
why?
you don't have to act on deviant inclinations
those who don't lead very happy lives
"Are you sure you believe in a just god?"
I assume here that you're blaming God for your desires
ridiculous
"to begin with "stop" does not mean permanent cessation"
lazy Priya is the epitome of the gay agenda
any time you're losing an argument, hey, no problem
just change the definition of words
even those whose mission it is to advance anthropogenic global warming theory, such as IPCC, have been forced to admit that global warming has halted, at least for now
those poor guys apparently don't the tricks of lunatic fringe gay advocates
all the top ten warmest years have occurred in the last fifteen years
and 2013 was the seventh highest
no way those two could be true unless there is a downward trend beginning
after all, there were six higher years recently so 2013 must be down
also, since only 2% of warming is in the atmosphere, it sounds like the warming that occurred in 1975-1998 wasn't due to greenhouse gases, which affects the atmosphere
talk amongst yourself, people
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
"Congratulations, Samuel “Joe” Wurzelbacher — better known as “Joe the Plumber.”
The non-Joe, non-plumber announced on his Facebook page that he has acquired a job with the Chrysler Group LLC, which requires membership in the United Automobile Workers labor union.
“In order to work for Chrysler, you are required to join the union, in this case UAW. There’s no choice – it’s a union shop – the employees voted to have it that way and in America that’s the way it is,” he wrote.
Wurzelbacher became nationally known during the 2008 presidential debate when GOP nominee John McCain cited how “the Plumber” had confronted President Obama about his plan to end tax breaks for those in the top tax bracket. He later said that McCain had “screwed up his life.”
Being a Tea Party celebrity generally requires that you don’t have an actual job or, if you do, that you quit it as soon as possible — while endlessly chastising the jobless (blatant hypocrisy is another requirement). But after his congressional bid for Ohio’s 9th district floundered, with incumbent Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-OH) winning more than 70 percent of the vote, he was eager for an opportunity.
Of course, Chrysler would likely not exist without the government bridge loans that Mitt Romney actively opposed. The former Republican nominee for president argued that private creditors should have stepped in for a traditional bankruptcy, though General Motors’ chief executive officer insisted no such capital existed.
The auto rescue of both General Motors and Chrysler was begun by President George W. Bush. On the day President Obama took office, Fiat announced it wanted to buy Chrysler.
Obama’s auto industry task force recommended the acquisition, which was necessary for the company’s survival, and kept the automaker funded until the sale was complete.
Altogether, the auto rescue saved $248 billion in personal income and saved millions jobs, like the one “Joe” “the Plumber” just started."
Anon blabbered:
“but remember, AGW theory says the planet is warming because humans are creating greenhouse gases in the atmosphere
if the air isn't warming, the theory is disproven”
“also, since only 2% of warming is in the atmosphere, it sounds like the warming that occurred in 1975-1998 wasn't due to greenhouse gases, which affects the atmosphere”
Oh God.
The stupid.
It burrrnnnnsss.
I realize that not everyone has taken a thermodynamics class in college, but clearly someone needs to learn SOMETHING about heat transfer.
Here’s something on the elementary level that will at least get you started:
http://www.wisc-online.com/Objects/heattransfer/default.aspx
Press all the little buttons to see the videos.
Not that I think it will change your minds, but maybe there’s a small chance that you’ll start to realize just how unbelievably idiotic your “if air isn’t warming” statement is.
I won’t hold my breath though.
Recently a poll indicated that 25% of Americans answered the following question wrong:
“Does the Earth go around the sun, or does the sun go around the Earth?’
http://newsfeed.time.com/2014/02/16/1-in-4-americans-thinks-sun-orbits-earth/
It is interesting to note that it is also 25% of Americans that identify as Republicans:
“Forty-two percent of Americans, on average, identified as political independents in 2013, the highest Gallup has measured since it began conducting interviews by telephone 25 years ago. Meanwhile, Republican identification fell to 25%, the lowest over that time span. At 31%, Democratic identification is unchanged from the last four years but down from 36% in 2008.”
http://www.gallup.com/poll/166763/record-high-americans-identify-independents.aspx
Somehow I find this hard to believe this is just a coincidence.
Just curious Anon:
“Does the Earth go around the sun, or does the sun go around the Earth?”
Have a nice day,
Cynthia
"I won’t hold my breath though"
if you aren't dizzy yet, cinco, go ahead and explain how greenhouse gases emitted by the 1% make the ground hotter without making the air hotter
you don't have to hide behind a link
go ahead and 'splain it to us
glad to see that even you won't encourage Priya's denial of global warming's cessation
a little honor among you thieves
“if you aren't dizzy yet, cinco, go ahead and explain how greenhouse gases emitted by the 1% make the ground hotter without making the air hotter
you don't have to hide behind a link
go ahead and 'splain it to us”
I’m running late for work Anon…
There are plenty of places around the web you can find that do a decent job. And I have better things to do than quibble with idiots.
Here’s a couple more to get you started:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-carbon-dioxide-is-greenhouse-gas/
One thing to keep in mind though, air is a good insulator for heat and water is a good conductor. If you start radiating heat into a system containing both water and air (like the earth) expect the water temperature to rise first. VERY simplistically, the CO2 we keep pumping into the air isn’t creating a heating problem in the atmosphere, it’s trapping infrared radiation before it escapes back into space. That radiation goes back down to the land and sea and heats those up.
Have a nice day,
Cynthia
OK, cinco
I'll check it out and get back to you
but, I won't be civil about it
go reformat your hard drive before backing up just to see what happens
the CBO estimates Obama's proposed minimum wage hike would cost 500,000 job on top of assessment last week that Obamacare would result in 2 million fewer jobs
Obama declares war on the CBO's latest negative assessment of his policies
President Obama’s drive to raise the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour is central to his goal this year of narrowing income inequality -- and giving Democrats a fresh refrain in the midterm election campaign. But a few pages in a Congressional Budget Office report scuffed that message.
“Our review is that zero is a perfectly reasonable estimate of the impact of the minimum wage on employment,” Jason Furman, chair of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, told reporters while challenging CBO’s projection that the number of job losses could begin with the number 5, with five zeroes tacked on.
Bad anonymous said "to begin with "stop" does not mean permanent cessation so, when the NCAR and IPCC say global warming haws stopped."
First off, you're lying. The NCAR and IPCC NEVER said global warming has "stopped", they said it was on
"hiatus", or had "paused." Secondly you're lying when you say stop does not mean permanent cessation, it most certainly can and usually does mean that and you're trying to justify deceiving people because the meaning can be ambiguous.
Scientists use exact language because otherwise people will misinterpret what they are saying and think "That's the end of global warming, nothing to worry about in the future." and that is definitely not their position and that is why they did NOT say global warming had "stopped", "ceased", or "halted"
In the context of global warming saying it has "stopped", "ceased", "ended", or "halted" can and will be interpreted by people as meaning the pause is not a pause but a permanent cessation. So, while you try and justify your deceptive use of words by saying "Stopped" doesn't necessarily mean permanently stopped the truth is you want people to think it is a permanent situation acknowledged by the experts and then deny that you're attempting to deceive people with the lame excuse that "stopped" could mean "pause".
This is no different when you dishonestly changed the AP story to say the public blamed Democrats for the shutdown when it in fact said the public blamed both democrats and republicans. You tried to hang your hat on your telling of a partial truth not being dishonest, but it is dishonest, its lying through ommission. That's what you are trying to justify with global warming. You want to lie through ommission by saying its a fact global warming has stopped and encouraging people to assume its permanently ceased. Then when you're called on that you try to deny your attempted deception by disingenously saying when people stop at stop signs its a temporary thing.
We all know you're hoping to deceive people about global warming and what NCAR and IPCC said and you want us to give you our blessing to do it because you claim your use of "stop", "halted", etc. is ambiguous and that makes it okay. But we won't give you our blessing to deceive people, we won't falsely say you're telling the truth no matter how much you want us to, because YOU'RE LYING.
Bad anonymous said “but remember, AGW theory says the planet is warming because humans are creating greenhouse gases in the atmosphere if the air isn't warming, the theory is disproven”.
Again with the willful stupidity. You know that's not correct but you're too biased to acknowledge reality. No climatoligist ever said the planet would warm uniformly at the exact same rate with each year being warmer than the last, in fact they've ALL said the exact opposite, that there will be fluctuations up and down in the short run but over the long term temperatures will rise.
As we've repeatedly discussed, there are all manner of natural processes that affect the climate and over the long term (thousands of years) they cause temperatures to go up and down over the short run (years, or perhaps a few decades). Global warming doesn't erase those natural processes and fluctuations, it works on top of them so there will always be fluctuations in the global temperature even though global warming is happening. The difference is when natural weather patterns would have the temperature fluctuating upwards global warming makes that upward fluctuation even higher. When the natural processes that affect normal weather patterns would have the short term temperature dropping and becoming cooler global warming prevents those cooling periods from being as cold as they should be. That's what's happening with the past 15 years. If only natural processes were at play this would be a downward fluctuation in temperature making things cooler than normal. Due to global warming what would have been a normal cooling period now isn't a cooling period at all, the global temperatures are rising slightly instead.
You've acknowleged on at least two occaisions when I first brought this up that this made sense to you, stop pretending you don't understand it now, you're not fooling anyone by acting stupid. You know as well as all climatoligists and informed laypeople that a short period where the air isn't warming as fast most certainly doesn't disprove global warming.
Bad anonymous said "explain how greenhouse gases emitted by the 1% make the ground hotter without making the air hotter."
The same way greenhouse gases, the sun, rotation of the planet, myriad directional winds, currents, and on and on and on make parts of the planet warmer and parts of the planet cooler. Obviously it is inevitable that the planet doesn't have a uniform temperature from one end to the other, or from one level of atmosphere or ocean to the other. To think that if some parts of the planet are warmer than others it must eventually conduct heat and make everything the same temperature is just childishly stupid.
Bad anonymous said "well, unresisted same-sex attraction no doubt has negative consequences to those who indulge such thoughts".
That's a lie. Same sex sex in a monogamous relationship has no more negative consequences than heterosexual sex in a monogamous relationship.
Bad anonymous said "but that's not what the anon said he said "pursuing a homosexual lifestyle".".
There's no such thing as a "gay lifestyle". The lifestyles of gays and lesbians are just as diverse as the lifestyles of heterosexuals. Knowing a person is gay or lesbian tells you nothing about their lifestyle, all it tells you is they're same sex attracted.
Bad anonymous said "unless you raise two people from birth in plastic bubbles, and they have sex under clinical conditions, it is true".
No, that's a lie and a mighty stupid one at that. We all start out as virgins and anyone that wants to can wait to have sex until they've found that special someone. While gay men have higher rates of STDs than heterosexuals, the vast majority of gay men are still disease free. And lesbians have lower STD rates than either heterosexual women or heterosexual men.
If you're going to take the position that only people with the lowest STD rates should have sexual relationships then it necessarily follows that only lesbians should be allowed to have sex and if any one else wants to have children they should do it through artificial insemination.
Bad anonymous said "the CBO estimates Obama's proposed minimum wage hike would cost 500,000 job on top of assessment last week that Obamacare would result in 2 million fewer jobs".
Again you're lying, you haven't a shred of intregity. As you've been repeatedly made aware of the CBO did NOT say Obamacare would result in 2 million fewer jobs, they said people would choose to work less because Obamacare allows them to and that would be the equivalent of 2 million people quitting their jobs. But those jobs will still be there and unemployed people will fill them thus lowering the unemployment rate. So, IF there were 500,000 jobs lost due to minimum wage hikes ALL those people would find jobs in the 2 million jobs people are being hired for due to Obamacare.
And of course the CBO didn't say 500,000 jobs would be lost due to the minimum wage hike, they said "an insignificant number to 1 million might be lost. In order to maximize profits virtually every employer has cut all positions they can possibly do without. Those employees they still have they can't do without and so it is extremely doubtful that any significant number of jobs will be lost due to a minimum wage increase. And if there are, they'll be hired to fill the positions people quit because Obamacare improved their lives.
Bad anonymous said "I won't be civil about it".
As research shows online trolls like bad anonymous are sadistic, psychopathic and Machiavellian.
You can certainly see the Machiavellian in bad anonymous repeatedly trying to justify telling the lie that NCAR and IPCC said global warming has stopped when they literally said "paused" and "on hiatus".
And of course they were referring to atmospheric warming which represents only 2% of the global climate. The oceans, land, and ice have continued to warm over the last 15 years at an alarming pace which greatly exceeds even the 15 years before that.
Robert said "That’s not only not true, it’s not fair. Are you sure you believe in a just god? Does it matter to you?".
Robert, I know the tendency is for people to assume others are similar to onself, but bad anonymous isn't here out of any sort of moral conviction or desire to do good, his purpose here is to hurt people like you. Some people just can't be reached by appeals to fairness, justice, or right and wrong.
"And if there are, they'll be hired to fill the positions people quit because Obamacare improved their lives."
you are assuming that not working is an improvement over working.
as of course, you would, not really having none much else.
it's all part of lazy priya's victimization mindset
if you disagree with lazy priya, you're a sadist
if you think lazy priya should work like everyone else, you're a slave driver
"Robert said ""
lazy priya, you're about as good with names as you are with definitions
Robert, the "teacher" from Fairfax didn't say this
Patrick, the improvisational "artist" from Naples did
btw, stop means stop
that's how everyone uses it
there's is no alternative definition, even archaic, that means or implies that the stopped situation will never resume
the NARC and IPCC said globa warming has stopped
I've never said that they don't think it might not start again
you're lying
Bad anonymous said "you are assuming that not working is an improvement over working.".
The CBO stated that people would choose not to work as much because Obamacare allows them that ability. If those people thought continuing to work the same amount was better than working less then they'd have choose to work the same amount. They are not going to do that because to them working less is an improvement.
This isn't rocket science bad anonymous. When people are given a choice as to how much to work they're going to chose to do whichever improves their lives.
Bad anonymous said "if you disagree with lazy priya, you're a sadist".
Nonsense. If I say coffee is better than tea and someone else says tea is better than coffee I won't be calling them a sadist - I don't call people that merely for disagreeing with me. I call people sadists when they do things to harm others because it gives them pleasure - that's definitely you, you're certainly a sadist.
Bad anonymous said "if you think lazy priya should work like everyone else, you're a slave driver".
Of course you are. My husband choses to support me and doesn't ask me to work and I chose not to. If you want to force me to work you're by definition trying to enslave me. You have no right to tell me what to do.
And you're no one to be throwing stones, you don't work even though you're paid to do so (you waste your workday surfing right wing blogs for grist to post here to attack innocent people). At least I don't deceive an employer into giving me a paycheck to support my personal activities.
Bad anonymous said "Robert, the "teacher" from Fairfax didn't say this Patrick, the improvisational "artist" from Naples did".
An honest mistake, unlike your constant telling of untruths. The facts remain the same regardless of who posted that.
Bad anonymous said "btw, stop means stop that's how everyone uses it there's is no alternative definition, even archaic, that means or implies that the stopped situation will never resume".
Nonsense. Stop means the activity has ended and only in certain contexts is it implied that it may resume. If one doesn't use stop in a context in which one assumes resumption, or explicitely state the stoppage is temporary the implication is that the stoppage is permanent.
For instance, if my sister says "I stopped having sex with my husband once we divorced" people believe the situation to be permanent because that's what stopped means if there is no qualification. If my husband says "I stopped smoking a long time ago" he doesn't mean he paused his smoking and resumed smoking at a later point. If he did so and said "I stopped smoking" everyone would point out that he is still smoking and say "Oh, come on, you didn't really stop, you're smoking now!".
Bad anonymous said "the NARC and IPCC said globa warming has stopped".
No, they most certainly did not. A literal quote of what they said is "paused" and "on hiatus". If you were to ask either if it was their position that global warming had "stopped", "ended", "halted", or "ceased" they most assuredly would say "That is not our position at all, our position is that the slowing down in temperature increases is temporary". They'd say that because scientists aren't careless with their words and using terms like "stopped" would be a mischaracterization of their position on global warming and that is what you're deeply desirous of doing - mischaracterizing their position in order to con people into believing global warming is no longer a concern.
Bad anonymous said "I've never said that they don't think it might not start again".
That's the machiavellian side of you. You don't want to be explicit because you want to exploit ambiguous language to try to say one thing and then deny thats what you're trying to say. If you weren't hoping to deceive people you would ALWAYS use the words "paused" and "on hiatus" when referring to what the NCAR and IPCC said about global warming. You avoid using their literal words because you want to create the false impression that they said global warming has ended permanently and that's a fact when it isn't.
Alternatively if you weren't trying to deceive people you would qualify your statements to eliminate any ambiguity by saying "The IPCC and NCAR said that global warming has stopped temporarily" but you want to leave out that clarifying word "temporarily" because you want to let people think they meant stopped permanently.
Its just like you did with the AP story on who the public blamed for the shutdown. You changed it to say "the public blames the Democrats" when it actually said "The public blames both the Democrats and Republicans". You want to claim what you're doing is ethical and okay because you stated a partial truth but you were lying through omission to encourage or allow people reading your paste to believe the public blamed ONLY the Democrats.
You are a highly deceptive person and as research shows internet trolls like you are machiavellian and you've proven that over and over.
Bad anonymous is trying to hang his hat on his assertion that no one will ever interpret unqualified words like "stop", "ceased", "halted", "ended" to mean a permanent situation. Its utterly absurd, dishonest, and childish all in one.
not hanging any hat
just speaking a truth inconvenient to the alarmist viewpoint
global warming has halted for the time being
it's unlikely it was caused by human activity
just a couple of facts
White House pique notwithstanding, the Congressional Budget Office is standing by its estimate of the job impact that a minimum-wage hike would create.
"Our analysis of the effects of an increase in the minimum wage is completely consistent with the latest thinking in the economics profession," said CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf, disputing the Obama administration's attempted takedown of his agency's work.
The White House and congressional Democrats tried to paint CBO as out of touch with mainstream economic thinking after the nonpartisan budget agency estimated raising the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour could reduce the number of workers in the labor force by 500,000 in 2016.
Elmendorf did not respond directly to remarks from the White House Council of Economic Advisers' Jason Furman, who said the CBO view was "outside the consensus view of economists when it comes to the impact of the minimum wage on employment."
The White House's criticism of the nonpartisan budget referee was a departure from its response two weeks ago, when CBO issued a report finding that Obamacare would reduce the labor force by the equivalent of 2 million full-time workers in 2017. The White House stepped forward to clarify those findings, not to question them.
And what else did the CBO say?
"The CBO director added that in his view, 500,000 lost jobs could be said to be small compared to the overall size of the workforce.
The CBO report also found that raising the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour would lift 900,000 people out of poverty by increasing income."
well, the first is a value judgment
I'd prefer to stick to facts
I don't object to the CBO saying that but it's no secret how many working Americans there are
regardless, most of us don't think of 500,000 losing their jobs as a "small" thing
I can imagine rabid Obama supporters do
by supporting this guy, it's obvious jobs for Americans has never been their priority
the second statement may be more factual but, honestly, being slightly over or under the poverty limit is not that significant
the truth is the value of these jobs won't have gone up
a better solution is to find ways to train these people for more valuable jobs, and create thise type of jobs
the vast majority of people who work for minimum wage are from households that are above minimum wage, just not on the basis of their salaries
You do not present facts. You present right-wing opinions and call them "facts."
For example, "it's unlikely it [global warming] was caused by human activity" is something you said was a fact, when it is only your opinion.
< eye roll >
"by supporting this guy, it's obvious jobs for Americans has never been their priority"
Now who's lying? Check out these facts all presented in one simple graph even you might comprehend.
Two more years of facts.
The world bad anonymous inhabits is a fantasy where he can declare anything to be and it magically is, evidence and facts be damned.
"World Experienced 4th Warmest January On Record, But Not U.S.
WASHINGTON (AP) — The globe cozied up to the fourth warmest January on record this year, essentially leaving just the eastern half of the United States out in the cold.
And the northern and eastern United States can expect another blast of cold weather next week.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported Thursday that Earth was 1.17 degrees warmer in January than the 20th century average. Since records began in 1880, only 2002, 2003 and 2007 started off warmer than this year.
Almost all of Africa, South America and Australia and most of Asia and Europe were considerably warmer than normal. China and France had their second warmest Januaries. Land in the entire Southern Hemisphere was hottest for January on record.
While more than half of America shivered last month, it was one of the few populated spots on Earth cooler than normal. The opposite happened in 2012, when the United States had its warmest year ever and the globe was only the eleventh hottest on record.
Looking ahead, forecasters are seeing a large area of temperatures much below normal starting midweek in the upper Midwest and then plunging south. But it won't be quite as frigid as the deep freeze of early January that came from the polar vortex, said meteorologist Dan Collins of NOAA's Climate Prediction Center.
The polar vortex is a high-altitude wind pattern that normally keeps Arctic air bottled up in northern Canada and around the North Pole. In January, a big chunk broke off and allowed that ultra-chilly air to meander south. That's likely to happen again next week, Collins said.
The national forecast for March through May predicts no drought relief in the West and cooler than normal temperatures in the upper Midwest. Warmer temperatures in the Southwest in March are expected to spread across the entire South in April and May."
NOAA climate briefing
A satellite photo released by NASA on Sunday shows that the devastating effects of the drought can be seen even from space.
Persistent dry weather has grown more worrisome in the American West, with nearly two thirds of the region experiencing some level of drought. By most measures, the state of California is suffering through the worst of it. The effects of the dry spell are visible in the mountains, where snow pack is lacking, and now in the vegetation cover on the landscape.
Nearly all of California was in a state of extreme drought at the end of January 2014. The past three months (November to January), six months (since August) and twelve months were all the driest periods in California since record-keeping started in 1885. From February 1, 2013, through January 31, 2014, a statewide average of 6.97 inches (177.04 millimeters) of rain fell; the norm is 22.51 inches (571.75 millimeters).
The map above shows the impact of drought on California’s farms, forests, and wild lands. Based on data from the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) on NASA’s Terra and Aqua satellites, the map contrasts plant health from January 17 to February 1, 2014, against average conditions for the same period over the past decade.
Shades of brown depict where plant growth, or “greenness,” was below normal for the time of year; shades of green indicate vegetation that is more widespread or abundant than normal. Grays depict areas where data was not available (often due to cloud cover). The map is based on the Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI), a measure of how plant leaves absorb visible light and reflect infrared light. Drought-stressed vegetation reflects more visible light and less infrared than healthy vegetation.
There is some surprising greenness along the edges of the Sierra Nevada range. “In a normal year, much of the green areas near the mountains would be snow-covered,” said Ramakrishna Nemani, a vegetation sensing expert at NASA’s Ames Research Center. “Since there is not much snow this year, the evergreen vegetation appears anomalously green. In fact, that is bad news for this time of the year.”
The coastal mountains from north of San Francisco to south of Los Angeles are snow free and dry, as is much of the Sierra Nevada. In the midst of California's Sacramento and San Joaquin valleys, there are a few patches of green indicating some farms that still have access to water for irrigation. But much of the region is brown—signs of land suffering from drought stress or left fallow when it would normally be planted with crops.
“If you showed me this image without the date, I would say: ‘This is California in early fall after a long, hot summer, before the fall and winter rains and snows arrived,’” said Bill Patzert, a climate scientist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory. “This is no California winter postcard.”
Though northern and central California received a burst of rain and snowfall in early February, the drought remains deep. “Although there were short-term local improvements from this week’s ample precipitation, the long stretch of subnormal precipitation dating back to 2011-12 wet season has accumulated large deficits, leaving rivers, lakes, reservoirs, and snow packs well below normal,” wrote David Miskus of the NOAA Climate Prediction Center. “Even though this storm was welcome, the central Sierra still needs 3 to 4 more copious storms to bring this wet season close to average. Unfortunately, little to no precipitation fell on southern California and the Southwest.”
"DEAR ABBY: My husband and I relocated to Florida a little over a year ago and were quickly welcomed into our new neighbors' social whirl. Two couples in the neighborhood are gay -- one male, one female. While they are nice enough, my husband and I did not include them when it was our turn to host because we do not approve of their lifestyle choices. Since then, we have been excluded from neighborhood gatherings, and someone even suggested that we are bigots!
Abby, we moved here from a conservative community where people were pretty much the same. If people were "different," they apparently kept it to themselves. While I understand the phrase "when in Rome," I don't feel we should have to compromise our values just to win the approval of our neighbors. But really, who is the true bigot here? Would you like to weigh in? -- UNHAPPY IN TAMPA
DEAR UNHAPPY: I sure would. The first thing I'd like to say is that regardless of what you were told in your previous community, a person's sexual orientation isn't a "lifestyle choice." Gay people don't choose to be gay; they are born that way. They can't change being gay any more than you can change being heterosexual.
I find it interesting that you are unwilling to reciprocate the hospitality of people who welcomed you and opened their homes to you, and yet you complain because you are receiving similar treatment.
From where I sit, you may have chosen the wrong place to live because it appears you would be happier in a less integrated neighborhood surrounded by people who think the way you do. But if you interact only with people like yourselves, you will have missed a chance for growth, which is what you have been offered here. Please don't blow it."
"The world bad anonymous inhabits is a fantasy where he can declare anything to be and it magically is, evidence and facts be damned"
that global warming has halted for 16 years is a fact
that it may resume at some future point is a fantasy
one that would cause the boys at the IPCC to be out of job if it were wrong
talk about a conflict of interest
Hooray for Jeanne Phillips.
Me: "Are you sure you believe in a just god?"
an anon: "I assume here that you're blaming God for your desires"
That doesn’t answer my question.
Do you believe and hold God to a standard of invulnerable fairness?
improv, I'm not going to engage in a theological discussion with someone who has made some pretty blasphemous utterances here
if you have something you want to say, it will have to be a monologue
Bad anonymous said " I'm not going to engage in a theological discussion with someone who has made some pretty blasphemous utterances here".
What a pathetic excuse. You'd be happy to engage in such a discussion if you thought you could spout some specious rhetoric. You're running away because you know you can't justify your bigotry under the presumption of a just and fair god.
I'ts just like the research shows, bad anonymous is sadistic, psychopathic, and machiavellian and he can't be reached through appeals to justice, fairness, or right and wrong.
Me: "Do you believe and hold God to a standard of invulnerable fairness?"
anon: "improv, I'm not going to engage in a theological discussion with someone who has made some pretty blasphemous utterances here"
You can’t answer a simple yes or no question yet you expect me to believe that you are capable of engaging in a theological discussion?
Post a Comment
<< Home