Wednesday, February 11, 2015

Wisdom From Jon Stewart

Yesterday Jon Stewart announced that he will be retiring soon -- it will be a different world without him behind his desk. I wanted to go back to a beautiful statement he made a few years ago, which I felt was a most eloquent and optimistic summary of the American situation.

In 2010 Stewart and Stephen Colbert had a rally that was attended by more than 200,000 people. Colbert called it the "March to Keep Fear Alive," in keeping with his role as a conservative pundit, and Stewart called it the "Rally to Restore Sanity."

Addressing the crowd, Jon Stewart pointed to a scene of the Holland Tunnel on the Jumbotron and said:
These cars—that’s a schoolteacher who probably thinks his taxes are too high. He’s going to work. There’s another car-a woman with two small kids who can’t really think about anything else right now. There’s another car, (referring to the Jumbotron blowing in the wind) swinging, I don’t even know if you can see it—the lady’s in the NRA and she loves Oprah. There’s another car—an investment banker, gay, also likes Oprah. Another car’s a Latino carpenter. Another car a fundamentalist vacuum salesman. Atheist obstetrician. Mormon Jay-Z fan. But this is us. Every one of the cars that you see is filled with individuals of strong belief and principles they hold dear—often principles and beliefs in direct opposition to their fellow travelers.

And yet these millions of cars must somehow find a way to squeeze one by one into a mile long 30 foot wide tunnel carved underneath a mighty river. Carved, by the way, by people who I’m sure had their differences. And they do it. Concession by concession. You go. Then I’ll go. You go. Then I’ll go. You go then I’ll go. Oh my God, is that an NRA sticker on your car? Is that an Obama sticker on your car? Well, that’s okay—you go and then I’ll go.

And sure, at some point there will be a selfish jerk who zips up the shoulder and cuts in at the last minute, but that individual is rare and he is scorned and not hired as an analyst.

Because we know instinctively as a people that if we are to get through the darkness and back into the light we have to work together. And the truth is, there will always be darkness. And sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel isn’t the promised land. Sometimes it’s just New Jersey. But we do it anyway, together.
Sanity: live and let live.

274 Comments:

Anonymous Tip of the iceberg said...

Transcript of Tim Johnson's Party switch announcement

"I am announcing today that I am, I am switching to the Mississippi Democratic Party. And I also want to announce that I am running to be the next Lieutenant Governor of the great state of Mississippi.

Why join the Democratic Party and run for Lieutenant Governor? I’ll tell you. We are all Mississippians first. Elected officials should be in the business of helping all Mississippians. Not picking out who to hurt.

In the current way of doing business in our State Capitol and especially in the State Senate, has hurt a lot of my fellow Mississippians. We watch these current leaders make excuses for underfunding our schools. We see them refuse to repair and maintain our crumbling roads and bridges. And we stood by while they ignored the twelve thousand dollars pay gap between working women and men. We have also witnessed shocking corruption on their watch.

But the failure of the Republican leadership in the Senate to help sick people was the final straw. My home town hospital in Kosciusko Mississippi was up here the other day asking for a five million dollar stopgap bond loan to try to stay open due to the drastic hit they are taking because of Republican leadership refusing to take and accept the return of federal tax dollars through Medicaid Expansion.

Instead of doing the right thing, the Republican leadership would rather see five million dollar tax burden on the backs of the eighteen thousand citizens of Attala County. That’s not right. That’s my hometown. And that’s my home county.

If Montfort Jones Hospital had been closed three weeks ago, we wouldn’t have had a place to take my mother when she suffered a stroke. Thank goodness they were still open when we rushed here there for help. Because all indicators are that they won’t be open much longer all because of Republican political grandstanding."

February 11, 2015 1:31 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Jon Stewart will be sorely missed. While the mainstream media was often lax in calling out Fox news and other conservative media on their lies and distortions no one held their feet to the fire more often than Jon. Yes, on occasion he did overlook things he shouldn't have. He often had Bill O-reilly on his show and with one exception that I can remember he let Bill get away with B.S. he wouldn't let slide by when Bill wasn't on the show.

The most glaring oversight I remember is him playing a quote from a Republican telling their oft repeated lie that "There's 12000 State and federal gun laws in the U.S." when in fact there's only about 300. It was a rare slip up but a pretty significant one.

February 11, 2015 2:48 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The Mississippi Klan salutes Alabama's chief justice Roy Moore, for refusing to bow to the yoke of Federal tyranny. The Feds have no authority over individual States marriage laws. The fudgepackers from Hollywood and all major news networks are in shock that the good people from the heart of Dixie are resisting their Imperialist, Communist Homosexual agenda!

Alabama has a Constitutional amendment, that clearly says marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman. But much as they have since the 2nd war for independence was lost in 1865, the Federal Government by way of it's foreign masters seems set to push this abomination, on the God fearing people of Alabama. Will they send Jack Booted thugs to enforce it? Remains to be seen, but a simple study of history will show they once burned, destroyed and looted the state of Alabama. Georgia was burned almost to the ground, and in our state, Meridian Mississippi was destroyed by blue bellied sledgehammers in one day.

We call upon all Klansman and White Southern Nationalist to help in the massive protest's coming, Not by wearing your colors, but by joining in with the Christian community's protests that are surly coming against tyranical Federal judges. We have made the decision that we don't want to distract attention away from the issue, as anytime the Klan rides, we are made the issue by the zionist controlled media. Members are encouraged to lend a hand, make signs, recruit etc., but leave any insignia, colors, shirts etc at the house. We want to infiltrate these protests and make sure they are kept running in military fashion and not bullied by the outside agitators.

Let today be the day, that the outside forces that have ruled this nation since the end of the War of Northern Aggression be given notice, "The God fearing White man will no longer stand for your immorality, your Illegal unjust judges and laws. Your attempts to turn us into a third world cesspool must be defeated. Unlike the 1950's and 60's we see you clearly for the enemy you are. Until we drive the spear of God and truth through your lying cold black hearts, the Klan will leave the light on for you."

February 11, 2015 7:55 PM  
Anonymous still laughing said...

oh, I thought he was pretty funny but let's not overdo it

he didn't die

to quote the Who "the world looks just the same and history ain't changed"

check this out, from lazy Priya, the Brian Williams of TTF

just can't admit that global warming stopped in 1998

"Jon Stewart will be sorely missed. While the mainstream media was often lax in calling out Fox news and other conservative media on their lies and distortions no one held their feet to the fire more often than Jon. Yes, on occasion he did overlook things he shouldn't have. He often had Bill O-reilly on his show and with one exception that I can remember he let Bill get away with B.S. he wouldn't let slide by when Bill wasn't on the show.

The most glaring oversight I remember is him playing a quote from a Republican telling their oft repeated lie that "There's 12000 State and federal gun laws in the U.S." when in fact there's only about 300. It was a rare slip up but a pretty significant one."

so sad

intending to praise the guy, lazy Priya winds up criticizing him more than compliment

it's a personality defect

maybe there's some type of surgery that can turn Priya into a nice person

nah, surgery never works

hey, look

David Axelrod confirms what we all knew:

Obama lied about gay marriage to get elected

http://time.com/3702584/gay-marriage-axelrod-obama/

February 11, 2015 9:16 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

WASHINGTON -- On Monday, Alabama became the 37th state where same-sex couples could legally get married. The person who paved the way for this historic moment was Callie Granade, a judge on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama who ruled that the state's ban on marriage equality was unconstitutional.

Granade's ruling put her at odds with many officials in the conservative state. State Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore has directed probate officials to refuse to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, despite her ruling. So far, according to the Human Rights Campaign, 44 out of the state's 67 counties are listening to him.

For some, Moore's stand against equality for same-sex couples has evoked the image of former Gov. George Wallace (D), who famously tried to stop black students from enrolling at the University of Alabama, despite a federal court order to desegregate.

It may be only fitting then that now, standing on the other side of Moore, is Granade, the granddaughter of a civil rights-era judge who stood up to the white segregationist South during the 1950s and 1960s and helped advance equality for African-Americans.

Richard Rives, Granade's grandfather, was one of the judges known as the "Fifth Circuit Four." These judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued decisions that were crucial in breaking down segregation barriers in the South. Writing in The Nation in 2004, College of Charleston Professor Jack Bass said they "fleshed out the bare bones of [Brown v. Board of Education] and transformed it into a broad mandate for racial justice."

"A colleague on their court, Mississippian Ben Cameron, labeled them 'The Four,' a clear reference to the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse," wrote Bass. "Cameron considered states' rights 'the bedrock of our constitutional system' and believed his fellow judges were destroying the social order of the world he knew. Many white Southerners felt the same way about 'The Four.' Friends shunned them. Their wives received threatening phone calls at home. But the judges never complained."

Rives wrote the decision for the 2-1 majority in the 1956 case Browder v. Gayle, finding segregation on buses unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment.

Granade, as AL.com has noted, considers Rives her "personal hero." During her confirmation hearing in 2001, Granade said she considered herself, a judicial conservative, to be following in the footsteps of her grandfather.

"[T]he issues on which he more or less broke with precedent were ones which really flew in the face of the Constitution, the direct language of the Constitution," she said. "So in that sense, he could have been termed a strict constructionist. I think a judge will always be correct if the decisions that he or she makes are consistent with the plain language of the Constitution, and that is what I feel that my grandfather was doing."

Granade was nominated to the seat by President George W. Bush in 2001 on the recommendation of Alabama's two Republican senators.

February 11, 2015 9:48 PM  
Anonymous civil disobedience said...

"WASHINGTON -- On Monday, Alabama became the 37th state where same-sex couples could legally get married. The person who paved the way for this historic moment was Callie Granade, a judge on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama who ruled that the state's ban on marriage equality was unconstitutional.

Granade's ruling put her at odds with many officials in the conservative state. State Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore has directed probate officials to refuse to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, despite her ruling. So far, according to the Human Rights Campaign, 44 out of the state's 67 counties are listening to him."

the SCOTUS will make clear soon that family law is made by states, not a Federal bureaucracy

thankfully, most Alabamans are listening to the chief of their Supreme Court

I don't think Sir Barry will send the national guard in to force justices of peace to violate their conscience and pronounce marriage were none exists

February 11, 2015 10:02 PM  
Anonymous Robert said...

It seems many people (including the governor) are making the analogy of judges in Alabama not performing same-sex marriages now, to Governor George Wallace (the consummate segregationist) "standing in the school-house door" to block integration, 50 years ago.

It's worth noting that George Wallace changed. He became an active anti-segregationist and civil-rights supporter, and won his last election as governor of Alabama on the strength of his support in the state's African-American community.

Things change. People change.

rrjr

February 12, 2015 5:11 AM  
Anonymous back to the future said...

"It seems many people"

there aren't just any people, Robo

those are nutty people and lunatic fringe advocates

"are making the analogy of judges in Alabama not performing same-sex marriages now, to Governor George Wallace (the consummate segregationist) "standing in the school-house door" to block integration, 50 years ago"

but it's not the same, is it?

let's see: a bunch of homosexuals who want special tax breaks for forming partnerships to engage in deviant social practices vs. a young girl who wanted an education

see the difference?

"It's worth noting that George Wallace changed. He became an active anti-segregationist and civil-rights supporter, and won his last election as governor of Alabama on the strength of his support in the state's African-American community."

you probably don't remember this because your mind is like a sieve

but the last time he ran for President, he was nominated at the convention by an African-American

"Things change. People change."

yes, they do

in the late 70s, the public was very gay friendly, more so than now

and then, the public changed

February 12, 2015 6:31 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

After a federal court overturned Alabama’s ban on same-sex marriage, it should be pretty clear cut that gay marriage is now legal in the state, but that’s not how some judges in Alabama are choosing to hear it. Rather than following the laws, many counties in the state are ignoring the recent ruling, with one county going so far as arresting a minister who offered to marry a lesbian couple and refused to leave.

As the Montgomery Advertiser reports, Anne Diprizio, a non-denominational minister in Autauga County, was arrested after refusing to leave the probate office. Probate Judge Al Booth ordered her out of the building for wanting to perform a same-sex marriage, then called the police to escort her to jail. While witnesses described her dismeaner as calm, Diprizio was charged with “disorderly conduct,” a misdemeanor in Alabama.

According to Judge Booth, he decided to end all probate marriage ceremonies for the county as of last Friday because of an overwhelming “work flow.” He further insisted that it was not related to the federal court’s approval of same sex-marriage. That’s a nice excuse, yet to say that the timing of this sudden decision is suspect is an understatement. It’s remarkably similar to many Florida courthouses’ decisions to abruptly stop all marriages as soon as they were required to perform same-sex marriages. Officials at these courthouses also cited a busy workload rather than homophobia.

The couple Diprizio intended to wed had not set out to rustle any feathers. Morgan Plunkett and Courtney Cannon obtained a marriage license at the probate office (some counties are offering licenses but not ceremonies to try to straddle conflicting orders from the federal government and the state Supreme Court,) but did plan to marry there until Diprizio volunteered her services. They were surprised when the situation escalated like it did. “She was standing up for our rights to get married,” Cannon said.

Diprizio was only in jail for a matter of hours until she posted bail. At that point, she returned to the probate office and asked to speak to Judge Booth. Although he declined to speak to her, Diprizio vowed to offer up her ordained services to same-sex couples in the future, too. “As far as I’m concerned, it’s about love winning,” she said. “Today, love wins.”

Alabama counties would be wise to keep arrests of this nature to a minimum given what a tenuous situation the state has put itself in. State judges may disagree with the federal court’s decision, but those who are arrested while attempting to follow the ruling established by the higher court are going to have strong grounds for a countersuit.

February 12, 2015 8:06 AM  
Anonymous old man said...

love wins?

then, why do they need a piece of paper from city hall?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1_PIuEmj8s

they never thought they did

it's part of an agenda

February 12, 2015 10:15 AM  
Anonymous pastrami please said...

you guys realize that Obama has requested Congress authorize him to send troops to fight ISIS, right?

also, the request lists victims being targeted by ISIS and omits Jews as a target

on top of him calling the attack on a Jewish deli in Paris "random" and dissing Netanyahu, Obama is showing his anti-Semitic roots

February 12, 2015 10:48 AM  
Anonymous stewart's a hippie said...

did you know only 1.5% of adults aged 18-29 watch Jon Stewart?

he's for boring old farts:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/myth-jon-stewart-s-millennial-following_848151.html

February 12, 2015 10:52 AM  
Anonymous zero at the bone said...

that's as good as the global warming myth

February 12, 2015 10:53 AM  
Anonymous don't it make you wanna rock and roll? said...

you probably know that atheism is the most violent and murderous religious viewpoint

Mao and Stalin are about tied in their quest to slaughter the most people to impose atheism

though they're dead, atheist militants still roam in and comb through our society

recently they attacked Muslims in North Carolina:

"In North Carolina, three young Muslims who were active in charity work were murdered, by a man who identified as atheist and expressed hostility to Islam and other faiths. Police are exploring whether it was a hate crime."

February 12, 2015 11:08 AM  
Anonymous dep-ressed said...

Barry O has tremendously messed up our economy

not only is the gap between rich and poor at an all-time high and growing, the labor participation rate in Jan 15 was 62.9%

when Obama took office in Jan 2009, it was 65.7%

in Jan 15, unemployment was 5.7%

in Jan 2009, 7.8%

if the participation rate had been the same, unemployment would now be 9.7%

ALL of the improvement is that result of people giving up

and how did you achieve this, Barry?

borrowing more than any other President

throw the bum out

February 12, 2015 11:40 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

The labour participation rate has dropped because the large bubble of baby boomers is retiring. Republicans are well aware of this but can't resist a false narrative in their unjustified efforts to smear Obama.

Meanwhile, Obama has created a special envoy for LGBT rights.

The State Department has forwarded the name of Randy Berry, currently the consul general to the Netherlands, to the White House as the department’s pick to be the United State’s first special envoy for LGBT rights.

The post will be a lead spokesperson for promoting LGBT rights around the world, which has become a key priority for the Obama administration, as well as coordinating discussions on the issue within the department.

You can almost hear religious right wing heads exploding all over the country, can’t you?

With the overturning of the military's ban on gays and lesbians, the striking down of the anti-marriage "Defense" of Marriage Act, the establishment of marriage equality across the United States and now this Obama has become to LGBT people what President Lincoln was to blacks.

Meanwhile, christians, realizing they've lost in the States, are touring the world and lobbying to keep laws in place calling for the imprisonment and execution of gays and lesbians, and doing their best to see laws implemented around the world banning gays from not only marriage, but from advocating on their own behalf in anyway, as they've been successful doing in Russia. Christian Conservatives Scott Lively and Peter Labarbera are constantly bragging about how the laws in places such as Russia denying gays freedom of speech and in Jamaica requiring imprisonment for people gays and lesbians are their proudest achievements. And of course our own Wyatt/bad anonymous has frequently praised foreign countries for their laws requiring the imprisonment or execution of gays and lesbians having same sex sexual relationhips, or in Uganda a law that even prohibits people from renting an apartment to gays or lesbians. That's right, in Uganda if you're gay or lesbian its against the law for you to have a place to live. This is the sort of law Wyatt/bad anonymous hypocritcally cheers on as he's a closeted gay himself.

February 12, 2015 12:01 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

N.J. judge won't let "ex-gay" "therapy" "experts" testify in court case:

A New Jersey judge is currently considering a lawsuit filed by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) on behalf of two former patients and three parents of patients of JONAH, a Jewish ex-gay ministry. The suit alleges that JONAH broke consumer fraud laws by promising results (a change in sexual orientation) it could not delivery, and indeed for causing harm in the process. The judge previously indicated that the so-called therapists may indeed be liable, and has now decided that no pro-"ex-gay" "therapy" "experts" will be permitted to testify in the case.

Superior Court Judge Peter F. Bariso Jr. wrote that “the theory that homosexuality is a disorder is not novel but — like the notion that the earth is flat and the sun revolves around it — instead is outdated and refuted.”

Among the experts Bariso has excluded are Joseph Nicolosi, Christopher Doyle, Dr. James Phelan, and Dr. John Diggs. Nicolosi is often considered the father of modern-day "reparative" "therapy", and he also founded NARTH, the professional network for "ex-gay" "therapists", of which Phelan is also a previous leader. Doyle heads up the "ex-gay" group Voice of the Voiceless, which lately has tried to raise the profile of “"ex-gay" pride” by holding secret events that seemingly few people attend.

Excellent. There is no such thing as an “expert” in “ex-gay” "therapy".

February 12, 2015 12:06 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Wyatt/bad anonymous said "in the late 70s, the public was very gay friendly, more so than now".

Wow! The delusion in this one is just stunning. Meanwhile in the real world the percentage of people who say gayness is immoral and unacceptable has dropped from a large majority in the 70's to a small minority today. Closeted gay Wyatt/bad anonymous wants to pretend there's a backlash against the phenomenal gains in gay rights over the past 20 years but the truth is the exact opposite - gains in gay rights have followed ever increasing public acceptance of LGBT people.

And, its hilarious that Republicans like Wyatt/bad anonymous are now blaming Obama for the large gap between the rich and the poor. I just read four articles by replublicans denying that there was a growing or undesirable gap between the rich and the poor.

And of course it was Republicans that fought Obama tooth and nail to prevent him from doing anything about the gap between the rich and the poor - blocking attempts to raise the miniumu wage (instead lobbying to eliminate the minimum wage so billionaires can pay their employees $3/hour and greatly increase the gap between the rich and the poor), voting against the equal pay for women legislation, voting against programs to help the poor pay for further education, voting against eliminating the high interest rate windfall the federal government gets on student loans, voting against school lunch programs that help poor children achieve academically and break the cycle of poverty, and on and on.

And of course on the jobs front Republicans forced Obama to cut 2 million government jobs in order to fund the government which directly resulted in the unemployment rate being 1% point higher than it otherwise would have been and indirectly raised it even more by taking money out of the economy, they repeatedly blocked the American Jobs Act which would have replaced crumbling American infrastructure and according to economists (including John Mccain's election economic advisor) would have created 2 million jobs and directly lowered the unemployment rate by another 1% and indirectly lowered the unemployment rate further with increased economic stimulation.

And of course Republicans blocked efforts to raise the minumu wage which economists agree would have greatly stimulated the economy and created jobs as its consumers, not wealthy employers who create jobs. Wealthy corporations/employers have earned record profits thoughout the last resession by cutting every possible job which puts the lie to the Republican claim that raising the minimu wage would result in jobs being eliminated - wealthy employers have already eliminated every job they possibly can, they have to have the employees remaining so raising the minimum wage would only stimulate the edonomy and create jobs, not cause job loss. It would also pull millions of people out of poverty, mainly female adults who make up the vast majority of minimum wage earners.

February 12, 2015 12:22 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Wyatt/bad anonymous said "you guys realize that Obama has requested Congress authorize him to send troops to fight ISIS, right? also, the request lists victims being targeted by ISIS and omits Jews as a target on top of him calling the attack on a Jewish deli in Paris "random" and dissing Netanyahu, Obama is showing his anti-Semitic roots".

Obama's calling the attack on the Jewish deli "random" wasn't a denial that it was anti-semetic and he agreed it was anti-semetic.

ISIS is the Islamic caliphate of IRAQ and SYRIA. At present there are only about 200 jews in the area ISIS is waging war in, ISIS has made no threats against jews or attacks on them, they simply aren't a target. The language refers to people who are local to the conflict and who have suffered genocide at the hands of Isis like the Yazidi's, Shiites, and christians. Note the request doesn't mention protecting Americans either or the French because American citizens aren't under threat (other than the soldiers fighting ther) and the authorization isn't for sending troops to France to protect jewish delies. This is just another fake Republican "scandal".

Republicans breached long-standing protocol inviting Netanyahu to speak before congress without presidential support - even many in their own party said this was a slap in the face to the president and counterproductive. They did this to try to offend the Iranians and get them to back out of the nuclear arms limiatation talks Obama is carrying out with them - of course he "dissed" Netanyahu, Netanyahu said his sole purpose on coming to speak before congress was to prevent an agreement that would benefit the world from being signed. "Dissing" Netanyahu is pro-Israel as the agreement would greatly increase Israli security in the region and stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons. It is Netanyahu and the Republicans in congress who are making anti-semetic moves solely because they don't want Obama to get credit for making anything better.

February 12, 2015 12:54 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Throughout almost all of Obama's presidency every time he tried to address income inequality the Republicans screamed "Class Warfare!" and did everything they could to stop him. Remember that? Of course, who could forget the hypocrisy of Republicans on income inequality.

The pushed for tax cuts to the wealthy, blocked job training programs for the poor. Republican National Convention in 2012 you would have heard a cascade of laudatory speeches about the business class and entrepreneurs but precious little about the people in the street. The plight of average soul seem to have mattered for little, their situation being nothing more than an afterthought. For all the convention rhetoric you would have just assumed that the rest of us had simply been pulled along in the slipstream generated by the soaring 1 percent.


Think back across the past six years on all of the debate that involved the possibility of raising taxes ever so slightly on the wealthiest among us as way of mitigating the problem of income inequality. Weren’t we told by Republicans that it would hamper job creation? Likewise the same argument was made in opposing taxation for public works spending, family leave plans and government aid for job training. Thereafter John Boehner would hypocritcally carry on endlessly with the question “Mr. President, where are the jobs?

Well, the jobs are here now. The U.S. economy in the last quarter created more private sector jobs than has been done since 1997. There have been 60 straight months of private sector job growth and the public is no longer buying the Republican/Koch brothers media blitz falsely claiming the economy is terrible. So, Republicans needed a new line to B.S. about so they've gone almost overnight from claiming ecome inequality was exagerated/non-existent/not a problem to pretending they now care about while blocking every attempt to address it.

The connection between tax rates and growth is less than emphatically esthablished. As the Congressional Budget Office, said: “ The concept of lower taxes is so appealing to voters that many embrace them as an economic cure-all… But economic research suggests that tax cuts, though difficult for politicians to resist in election season, have limited ability to bolster the flagging economy because they are essentially a supply-side remedy for a problem caused by lack of demand.”

Because this is a lack of demand problem that's why raising the minimum wage is an ideal solution. Whereas when you give rich people a tax cut it that money just goes into savings and gets taken out of the economy with minimum wage earners, they are too poor to save so a raise goes directly into purchasing goods and services and stimulates the economy and creates jobs. Its consumers who are the job creaters, not wealthy business owners.

February 12, 2015 1:24 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Remember when even talking about the wealth gap represented class warfare? Any effort by government to affect changes in employment policy, hiring, unionization, etc., was seen as antithetical to the working of the free market. But now, suddenly, magically, many if not most of these ideas have found a new life, a renaisance, in the Republican Party.

What lead to such a radical departure from the conservative economic policies of the past six years? For one, conservative columnist Ross Douthat pointed out one very inconvienent fact about 2014: “For the second time in four years, the Republican Party has won a sweeping midterm victory without having a policy agenda to match.” Also consider that the G.O.P. has lost the popular vote in five of the past six presidential elections.

So, don't believe the Republicans when they now suddenly tell you they're concerned about the gap between the rich and the poor. They're just trying to placate the poor and the middle class while they work against programs that would actually help them.

There are still too many who willingly or naively assume that government has no constructive role to play in the economy. That notion is contrary to an accurate reading of the country’s economic history. Perhaps the now glaring issues of income inequality, with the longer term threat that it poses to democracy and growth, will finally drive the G.O.P. back towards the center the way Tea Party radicalism drove it to the right. That prospect would bode well for the G.O.P. due to the simple fact that America is not a conservative country; it is not even a right of center country. In the final analysis, there is a lot more to ensuring prosperity for all than making democracy safe for the business class and the entrepreneurs and there is certainly much more to it than empty rhetoric like “We need to become the party of the worker.”

February 12, 2015 1:25 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Unbelievable Nerve - Republicans Finally Discover Income Inequality

Have you noticed the Republicans’ latest central talking point -- evident in their multitude of goofy “responses” to the president’s State of the Union Address?

It’s this: America has a major problem with income inequality, the middle class is being squeezed and … wait for it … it’s all the fault -- somehow, although they don’t clearly say how -- of President Obama and Democrats.

Well, look who decided to show up! Republicans from Ted Cruz and Joni Ernst to Marco Rubio and Mitt Romney are all finally acknowledging the crisis-level problems America faces with economic inequality and wage stagnation, but only because they think they can somehow flip the blame onto their political opponents.

It’s their new favorite tactic. The same one that worked for them in the 2014 elections. Create a big problem and when frustration with that problem becomes widespread enough, blame it on President Obama. Leading up to 2014, the GOP on Capitol Hill was responsible for unprecedented obstruction and gridlock -- very intentionally, as their political strategy. They then used Americans dissatisfaction with Washington to achieve a “change” election, which went against the president’s party, because the president’s party is inherently the one seen as “in control.”

So, after decades of pushing deregulation of rapacious corporate interests, policies favoring no rules for Wall Street, attempts to deny workers a living wage, deny people health care coverage, deny people unemployment insurance and deny opportunity to students at every level of their education, the Right is going to try to blame progressive policies and progressive leaders for the new Gilded Age that they created!

February 12, 2015 1:56 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

And lest we forget where Republicans so recently came from, look at this article from Forbes:

"Republicans have eagerly entered the latest income inequality slap fight started by President Obama. Desperate to appear as concerned about the wealth gap as their reliably ‘compassionate’ adversaries on the left, they’ve been quite public with their dismay. And then to advertise how the Democrats have very little on them when it comes to being limited in the area of economic knowledge, they’ve fingered Obama’s policies, big government, and at times a floating dollar as the causes of surely ‘dreadful’ inequality.

They don’t call the Republicans the “Stupid Party” for nothing. Obama and the Democrats should love this. They set the terms of the debate – inequality is bad – and watch the Republicans sell out their professed economic principles so that they can appear as nice as the “Evil Party.”

Seemingly lost on a GOP desperate to not seem heartless is that income inequality is unrelentingly beautiful.

When income and wealth inequality are growing, unease in our lives is shrinking. Republicans, as the alleged Party of entrepreneurial capitalism, should understand this well, and stop acting as though success is something to politicize. Wealth inequality is one of the surest signs of economic advancement. It’s time for today’s Republicans to act like adults, and embrace the very inequality that has improved the lives of so many."

February 12, 2015 1:56 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Presented with the facts, Americans are undoubtedly smart enough to see through the GOP’s latest hypocrisy. But with the vast millions of corporate special interests and billionaire ideologues fueling their propaganda machine, and a powerful media empire led by Fox News, we cannot afford to take anything for granted.

Please do your part, in your community and among your peers, to call out Republicans’ dishonesty and challenge them to articulate real solutions to economic inequality and strengthening America’s middle class.

February 12, 2015 1:57 PM  
Anonymous the left isn't for gay rights, but gay wrongs said...

Priya's usual waste everyone's time tactic

I'll do the first one

"The labour participation rate has dropped because the large bubble of baby boomers is retiring"

this is a lie

the effect is minor

"Meanwhile, Obama has created a special envoy for LGBT rights.

You can almost hear religious right wing heads exploding all over the country, can’t you?"

no, I can't

kind of waste of money but one of the more trivial ones

can't imagine this having any real impact

"Meanwhile, christians, realizing they've lost in the States"

well, Christians aren't the only ones who oppose the gay agenda

but that opposition actually won the states

the problem is Federal judges imposing their view

even in California, where polls showed the public favored gay marriage by 60% before the campaign in 2008, listened to the debate an rejected gay "marriage" as did most states

the SCOTUS will return their rights later thus year

February 12, 2015 2:03 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

I pointed out "The labour participation rate has dropped because the large bubble of baby boomers is retiring"

Wyatt/bad anonymous whined "this is a lie the effect is minor".

Wrong. While it doesn't account for the entire drop in the labour participation rate it accounts for the vast majority of it.

Boom! Goes the dynamite!

Hahahahahahaha!

February 12, 2015 2:08 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

I said "Meanwhile, christians, realizing they've lost their culture war on gays in the States"

Wyatt/bad anonymous said "well, Christians aren't the only ones who oppose the gay agenda but that opposition actually won the states even in California, where polls showed the public favored gay marriage by 60% before the campaign in 2008, listened to the debate an rejected gay "marriage" as did most states ".

No, the polling in California was at best 55% against banning gay marriage in 2008. with most polls showing 49%-52% against banning gay marriage. And that was a long time ago. Public opinion has shifted a great deal since then with polls now consistently showing 55% or more of Americans in favour of marriage equality . The percentage for California polled at 61% in favour of gay marriage 2 years ago - it'll be higher now, more like 65%.

The lies the anti-marriage side used in 2008 were successful but with gay marriage much more prevelant now and no evidence the sky is falling those same dishonest arguments won't work anymore. And it doesn't matter as the Supreme court has indicated over and over again it is going to rule in favour of marriage and on the off chance it doesn't that will only delay the inevitable as even in Alabama that voted 80% in favour of banning gay marriage 41% now support marriage equality - if need be (and it won't) its clear Americans will eventually implement marriage equality on their own.


Wyatt/bad anonymous said "the problem is Federal judges imposing their view the SCOTUS will return their rights later thus year".

LOL! Your truly are a dreamer! Even most anti-gay anti-marriage bigots admit they've lost this battle. Precious few even on your own side still think you're going to win this thing.

February 12, 2015 2:37 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Pro-gay Marriage Signals Seen In U.S. Supreme Court Action

"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court's move on Monday to allow gay marriage to proceed in Alabama is the strongest signal yet that the justices are likely to rule in June that no state can restrict marriage to only heterosexual couples.

Of the nine justices, only two - conservatives Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia - dissented from the court's refusal to block gay weddings from starting in Alabama. Gay marriage is now legal in 37 states.

Thomas acknowledged in a dissenting opinion that the court’s move to allow gay marriages to go ahead "may well be seen as a signal of the court’s intended resolution" as it considers cases from four other states on whether same-sex marriage bans are permitted under the U.S. Constitution.

Gay rights groups shared Thomas' view.

Sarah Warbelow, Human Rights Campaign's legal director, said the justices' action on Alabama "has telegraphed there is virtually zero risk that they will issue an anti-equality ruling this summer."

Thomas' words echoed Scalia's 2013 dissent from the court's decision to invalidate a federal law that denied benefits to same-sex couples. Scalia predicted that the language of Justice Anthony Kennedy's opinion in that case would give judges a green light to strike down state gay marriage bans. That's exactly what happened.

February 12, 2015 2:38 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Christian Science Monitor

"On Monday, Alabama became the 37th state to allow same-sex marriage, after the Supreme Court declined to issue a stay. The high court action provides perhaps the best indication yet that a majority of justices are preparing to uphold gay marriage."

Handwriting is on the wall for Supreme court gay marriage decision

"The Supreme Court on Monday gave its strongest signal yet that advocates seeking the legalization of gay marriage nationwide have won even before April's arguments..

Normally, a state might have expected the high court to block the judge’s decision from taking effect, given that the justices had agreed to rule by June on whether gays and lesbians have a constitutional right to marry.

But rather than wait for the outcome, the justices instead told Alabama state officials they must now issue marriage licenses to gay couples.

“This is further confirmation that the result in the marriage cases is a foregone conclusion,” said Cornell University law professor Michael Dorf.".

“The court is only supposed to issue a stay when the party seeking the stay can show they have a likelihood of winning. By declining the stay, seven of the nine justices are saying that the state is unlikely to win on the merits and therefore, come June, marriage equality will be the law of the land across the entire country.”."


"The gay agenda is going down in flames! Flames I tell ya!"

LOL! hahahahahahahaha!

February 12, 2015 2:39 PM  
Anonymous Robert said...

"you probably don't remember this because your mind is like a sieve"

Just can't help it, can you?

February 12, 2015 2:54 PM  
Anonymous let us all just josh around said...

I kid around with you, Robert, because you're a fun guy

no need to lose that quality

go ahead and laugh at yourself

people who don't wind up as bitter sofa spuds in dreary provinces of Canada

February 12, 2015 3:00 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

There have been 59 straight months of private sector job growth under Obama and U.S. businesses have added 1.4 million jobs this year, the best six months since 1990.

And as I've shown its the Republicans who are responsible for the large income gap between the rich and the poor, its the Republicans who blocked every attempt to deal with it, and the Republicans who up until recently either denied there was a growing income gap or that it was undesrirable or as in the case of the Forbes article I linked to said "income inequality is unrelentingly beautiful

I posted several links on how to address the growing income inequality. The Republicans have hypocritically started finally acknowledging the crisis-level problems America faces with economic inequality and wage stagnation, but only because they think they can somehow flip the blame onto their political opponents.

It’s their new favorite tactic. The same one that worked for them in the 2014 elections. Create a big problem and when frustration with that problem becomes widespread enough, blame it on President Obama. Leading up to 2014, the GOP on Capitol Hill was responsible for unprecedented obstruction and gridlock -- very intentionally, as their political strategy. They then used Americans dissatisfaction with Washington to achieve a “change” election, which went against the president’s party, because the president’s party is inherently the one seen as “in control.”

Presented with the facts, Americans are undoubtedly smart enough to see through the GOP’s latest hypocrisy. But with the vast millions of corporate special interests and billionaire ideologues fueling their propaganda machine, and a powerful media empire led by Fox News, we cannot afford to take anything for granted.

February 12, 2015 3:16 PM  
Anonymous x-ray eyes said...

the absolute best way too help the economy is to reduce marginal tax rates on those who produce a lot of income and who will save the money

this provides seed money for new enterprises rather than wasting it on fritos and PBR

also, approve the Keystone and make Saskatchewan a radioactive dumping zone

February 12, 2015 3:35 PM  
Anonymous big fan of x-ray eyes said...

that's true

it's the absolute best way

February 12, 2015 3:39 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Wyatt/bad anonymous said (and Wyatt/bad anonymous pretending to be someone else pretended to agree with) "the absolute best way too help the economy is to reduce marginal tax rates on those who produce a lot of income and who will save the money"

The Republicans pushed for tax cuts to the wealthy, blocked job training programs for the poor. At the Republican National Convention in 2012 you would have heard a cascade of laudatory speeches about the business class and entrepreneurs but precious little about the people in the street. The plight of average soul seem to have mattered for little, their situation being nothing more than an afterthought. For all the convention rhetoric you would have just assumed that the rest of us had simply been pulled along in the slipstream generated by the soaring 1 percent.

The connection between tax rates and growth is less than emphatically established. As the Congressional Budget Office, said: “ The concept of lower taxes is so appealing to voters that many embrace them as an economic cure-all… But economic research suggests that tax cuts, though difficult for politicians to resist in election season, have limited ability to bolster the flagging economy because they are essentially a supply-side remedy for a problem caused by lack of demand.”


Because this is a lack of demand problem that's why raising the minimum wage is an ideal solution. Whereas when you give rich people a tax cut it that money just goes into savings and gets taken out of the economy with minimum wage earners, they are too poor to save so a raise goes directly into purchasing goods and services and stimulates the economy and creates jobs. Its consumers who are the job creaters, not wealthy business owners.

The crazy thing is that despite the common assumption that the Republicans are the party for people primarily concerned about maximizing their money they are in fact the worst party for the vast majority of people's monetary interests. The "go to" policies of the Republicans are to cut taxes and government. During the time when the tax rate has been lowest its benefited the rich and increased their wealth but the average american has seen their share of the overall wealth drop or remain flat. Lowering the tax rate has only seen the gap between the ultra rich and the average American grow. Under Republican administrations, and allowing a one-year lag to provide for time for policies to have effect, unemployment has increased, while gross national product decreased. The opposite has occurred under Democratic control of the White House. This reflects the basic divergence in policy objectives of the two parties.

February 12, 2015 3:55 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Unemployment soared after Reagan’s 1981 tax cuts.


Regan tripled the budget deficit. Unemployment jumped to 10.8% after Reagan enacted his much-touted tax cut, and it took years for the rate to get back down to its previous level. Meanwhile, income inequality exploded. Despite the myth that Reagan presided over an era of unmatched economic boom for all Americans, Reagan disporportionately taxed the poor and middle class, but the economic growth of the 1980′s did little to help them. “Since 1980, median household income has risen only 30 percent, adjusted for inflation, while average incomes at the top have tripled or quadrupled,” the New York Times’ David Leonhardt noted. Another irony is that although Republicans talk a big show about decreasing the size of the government, the size of the government grew under both Reagan and George Bush (3.7%) and has shrunk under Obama.

Quite simply, "supply side" or "trickle down" economics that Wyatt/bad anonymous is advocating have never worked and have always been counterproductive.

February 12, 2015 3:56 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Republican supply side economics that Wyatt/bad anonymous is advocating (or Voodoo economics as its also known) is where you look at a situation like Consumers buying 10,000 wide screen TVs per month and you want to boost the economy so instead of raising the minimum wage so more consumers can afford to buy wide screen TVs you give a tax break to the wealthy corporation so they can up production to 12000 wide screen TVs per month on the belief that if you just produce more goods consumers will automatically buy more despite not having the money to do so.

February 12, 2015 4:23 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

As Wyatt/bad anonymous said "reduce marginal tax rates on those who produce a lot of income and who will save the money" - unlike poor consumers who will spend every bit of extra income they get, stimulate the economy and create jobs, rich people will save any extra income and remove it from the economy entirely thus resulting in job loss.

February 12, 2015 4:30 PM  
Anonymous pretty sure Priya's a moron said...

Priya, you fool

until 2006, when America got frustrated with the Bush execution of the Iraq war and gave Congress to the Dems, America enjoyed full employment

now, we have the persistently low rate of employment of a European style socialist country

it doesn't matter how many jobs are produced as long as there are enough for those that want them

that happened in the Reagan era

not happening in the Obama era

and income inequality is only bad when the economy in general is going bad

otherwise, it's beautiful

why?

let's say that over the next year, everyone in America had their income go up 15%

inequality would increase, because the cleverest and most successful had the highest salaries to begin with, but everyone would love it

that's the Reagan era

on the other hand, what if everyone's income decreased 5%?

inequality would decrease but misery would ensue

see how wrong you've become by thinkin' like a moron?

February 12, 2015 4:35 PM  
Anonymous smug Dougie said...

"unlike poor consumers who will spend every bit of extra income they get, stimulate the economy and create jobs, rich people will save any extra income and remove it from the economy entirely thus resulting in job loss"

take a economics class, you imbecile

money saved doesn't go in a mattress

we have a modern banking system

it provides capital to open factories and breweries to employ people to make things like fritos and PBR

that stimulates the economy much more than so couch potato buying a bag of fritos and a six-pack of PBR

it's call productivity

get off your ass and enjoy some

February 12, 2015 4:48 PM  
Anonymous diplomat with a siamese cat said...

ain't it sad when you discovered that

Barack Obama is not really where it's at

after he'd taken from you everything he could steal

how does that feel?

February 12, 2015 5:00 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

0oooo, testy, testy - someone's blowing a gasket. Wyatt, you can make up whatever B.S. you want and post it but the actual numbers show otherwise.

During the time when the tax rate has been lowest its benefited the rich and increased their wealth but the average american has seen their share of the overall wealth drop or remain flat. Lowering the tax rate has only seen the gap between the ultra rich and the average American grow. Under Republican administrations, and allowing a one-year lag to provide for time for policies to have effect, unemployment has increased, while gross national product decreased. The opposite has occurred under Democratic control of the White House.

Hate to disppoint you Wyatt, but angry posts stating what you wish to be true in opposition to reality won't convince anyone.

The wealthy (the alleged "job-creators) don't create jobs in response to greater income, they only do it in response to greater consumer demand. As you said yourself, the extra income they get goes into savings, not the economy and many wealthy business people in Kansas after Brownback's massive tax cuts are on record saying that the tax cuts they got went into their pockets and not creating new jobs.

The wealthy have enjoyed unparalled increases in income during the recession because they've cut jobs to increase profits. Only when consumers start buying more will they hire more people, and consumers won't start buying more unless the government does something like increasing the minimum wage.

The so called investments of the wealthy simply don't go into creating new jobs, the wealthy don't open new factories unless they have to and they don't have to until consumers start buying more. Its consumers who are the job creators, not the wealthy.

It's quite simply preposterous that manufacturing more goods than people are currenlty buying will induce people to by more goods than they want and can afford. You're talking Voodoo economics, its never worked and never will.

February 12, 2015 5:07 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Now take your meds and calm down. The truth shall set you free.

February 12, 2015 5:09 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Wyatt/bad anonymous said "inequality would increase, because the cleverest and most successful had the highest salaries to begin with, but everyone would love it

that's the Reagan era".

Take off the rose coloured glasses and look at reality:

Unemployment soared after Reagan's 1981 tax cuts

Regan tripled the budget deficit. Unemployment jumped to 10.8% after Reagan enacted his much-touted tax cut, and it took years for the rate to get back down to its previous level. Meanwhile, income inequality exploded. Despite the myth that Reagan presided over an era of unmatched economic boom for all Americans, Reagan disporportionately taxed the poor and middle class, but the economic growth of the 1980′s did little to help them. “Since 1980, median household income has risen only 30 percent, adjusted for inflation, while average incomes at the top have tripled or quadrupled,” the New York Times’ David Leonhardt noted. Another irony is that although Republicans talk a big show about decreasing the size of the government, the size of the government grew under both Reagan and George Bush (3.7%) and has shrunk under Obama.

Quite simply, "supply side" or "trickle down" economics that Wyatt/bad anonymous is advocating have never worked and have always been counterproductive. That's voodoo economics he's advocating folks.

February 12, 2015 5:13 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Wyatt's freaking out because reality is shaking the foundations of his beliefs and he desperately wants to hide from it.

February 12, 2015 5:13 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

“In the 25 years between 1949 and 2004 in which Democrats controlled the White House, the real value of the minimum wage increased by $4, while during the 31 years in which Republicans were in office, it declined by about $2,” Bartels said. “Since the minimum wage is not indexed to keep up with inflation, its real value erodes unless if active efforts are made to increase it.”

February 12, 2015 5:15 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Wyatt/bad anonymous said "until 2006, when America got frustrated with the Bush execution of the Iraq war and gave Congress to the Dems, America enjoyed full employment".

No, it was the subprime mortgage crisis in 2007 that caused the economic collapse. Admittedly Clinton was partly responsible as he pursued de-regulation during his presidency but Bush took the deregulation even further and after all, the banking crisis and economic collapse occurred on his watch. Democrats realized the mistakes of Clinton and Bush and took steps to reign in the financial institution gambling on high risk investments that caused the crash and passed up with the Frank-Dodd act and the Consumer Protection Act.. Republicans bitterly opposed implementing regulations to make sure the financial crisis of 2007 never happened again and have been chipping away at Dodd-Frank and the Consumer Protection act since then. Republicans haven't learned their lesson and have taken every step they can to see they pass the risks of financial meltdowns and medical catastrophes back on the taxpayers.

In economic parlance, it is socializing the costs of doing business in order to maximize the profits of business.


Wyatt/bad anonymous said "now, we have the persistently low rate of employment of a European style socialist country".

Quite simply a lie. The unemployment rate is at 5.7%, there's been 59 straight months of private sector job creation and there's been more jobs created in the past six months than any other time since 1990. Republicans like to harp on the labour participation rate but the labour participation rate has been declining since 2000 (remember Bush?) and half the current decline in the labour participation rate is due to baby boomers retiring while the rest is due to cyclic drops typical of an economic recovery. The fact is the economy is doing well, and so well, Boehner tried to take credit for the recovery by absurdly claiming the economy had improved because the Republicans had won the mid-term elections. The problem with that is that the economy was doing very well well inadvance of the mid-term elections and only roughly 20% of Americans at any given time know who controls congress.

February 12, 2015 6:05 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Wyatt/bad anonymous said "income inequality is only bad when the economy in general is going bad otherwise, it's beautiful".

Well. there you have it folks. As he did with his advocacy of imprisoning and executing gays and lesbians Wyatt has let down his guard and allowed the truth to slip out - just like all the Republicans, this the "concern" he's recently and frequently expressed about the growing income gap between the rich and the poor isn't sincere. He's only complaining about it because he thinks he can flip the blame for this Republican caused problem on Obama. If a Republican was president right now you'd have never seen him or the Republicans pretending to be concerned about the income gap. The truth, as the evidence I posted shows, is that only Democrats are truly concerned about the gap between the rich and poor and have plans to address it. Republicans are just pursuing the tactic that was so successful for them in the 2014 election - create a big problem and when frustration with that problem becomes widespread enough, blame it on President Obama.

Wyatt/bad anonymous said "let's say that over the next year, everyone in America had their income go up 15% inequality would increase, because the cleverest and most successful had the highest salaries to begin with, but everyone would love it".

What a nice pollyanna attitude. Too bad it bears no resemblence to reality. Between 1979 and 2007 income rose 275% for the top 1%, 65% for the next 19% highest income earners, 40% for the next lower 60% of income earners, and 18% for the bottom 20% of income earners.

Contrary to Republicans sudden and hypocritical feigned concern for the wealth gap, its been a problem since long before Obama took office. Only Demorats have a plan for dealing with it and history shows (see my links above) only Democrats have been effective in reducing the income gap. Republicans like Wyatt/bad anonymous are drastically out of touch with reality and don't want to solve the income gap, they only want to create it and blame Obama for it.

February 12, 2015 6:06 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

You can tell by the even more frequent insults than usual Wyat/bad anonymous is very angry.

Its okay, he can't help getting upset over the foundations of his beliefs being challenged by reality. The ironic thing is by voting Republican Wyatt like so many Americans is voting against his own interests. He can't help it because he has a tribal loyalty to the republican party and sees being a Republican as a part of his identity. His identity is more important to him than his pocketbook.

February 12, 2015 6:09 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Earlier I posted "even in Alabama that voted 80% in favour of banning gay marriage 41% now support marriage equality".

I'm not sure where I saw that or how I got it wrong, but I've checked opinion polls since and Alabama is last in the nation in supporting marriage equality and its 32%, not 41% that support marriage equality there.

I wanted to correct my statement because unlike Wyatt/bad anonymous honesty and truth matter to me.

February 12, 2015 6:14 PM  
Anonymous off yer arse said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

February 12, 2015 6:34 PM  
Anonymous bye-bye-buddy boy said...

no more posts until Randy starts referring to people by their chosen name

February 12, 2015 9:27 PM  
Anonymous Robert said...

Among the many awful jokes I tell my poor students is "Did you know I'm a mushroom?" "Huh?" "Because I'm a fun guy."

Another in a similar vein, when we study words such as "who, whom, whose" and grammatical constructions using them, like "I saw the man who was chopping down the tree":

What do you call Santa's uncles, aunts and cousins?

Relative clauses.

February 13, 2015 7:34 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Wyatt/bad anonymous's latest position on income inequality (he's contradicted himself throughout this thread) is that its bad when the economy is bad and good when the economy is good. Througout this thread he's made the false assertion that the economy has been bad under Obama, but of course the opposite is true.

Not only has there been 59 straight months of private sector job growth and the past 6 months have created more jobs than any other time since 1990, and the unemployment rate is a low 5.7%.

Wyatt/bad anonymous tried to deceive people into believing that wasn't good by pointing to the lower labour participation rate but half of the drop in the historic labour participation rate is due to the bubble of baby boomers retiring and the rest is due to cyclic drops typical for any economic recovery.

The Gross Domestic Product growth was 3.125% for 2013 and 2.5% for 2014. One might be tempted to think the higher the GDP the better, but if the GDP gets too high it represents a financial bubble that's likely to burst with negative consequences. Economists agree that a healthy rate of GDP growth is between 2% and 3% - exactly what we see now.

Don't believe the Republican lies about how terrible the economy is, its doing quite well and the economic recovery is unfolding as they historically have. So, according to Wyatt/bad anonymous's latest position, income inequality now is now "beautiful". But look at the growth in income between 1979 and 2007 The top 1%'s income increased by 275% while the people earning between the 20% to 60% highest income only had their's increas by 40% while the lowest 20% of income earners only had an 18% increase in income during the same time.

Between 1993 and 2011 the top 1%'s income increased by 57.5 percent, while the incomes of the bottom 99 percent grew just 5.8 percent. Ask yourself if "that's a beautiful thing".

And remember, its the Republicans who've fought tooth and nail during Obama's presidency to block every attempt to address income inequality and then recently hypocritically blaming Obama for its existence (a 180 degree about face from what they've been saying for decades).

February 13, 2015 1:25 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Back in 2008 Jim the owner of this blog posted to Wyatt/bad anonymous "New Anon, whoever you are, if you would like to come here and express your opinion it's fine with me, but please be a little civil about your identity. The rest of us will discuss these topics with you if you will simply pick a name and stay with it. We do get comments by a lot of people, and though you think it's funny to use different names it makes it impossible for someone to know who they're talking to.

It is very easy for me to ban a user by their IP number. I'd rather not do that, I think it's fine to have a diversity of opinions here, but you need to maintain one identity.

Please pick a name and keep it.".

At June 03, 2008 3:23 PM Wyatt/bad aonymous said "Oh, alright. From henceforth, I'm Rolling Thunder.".

Wyatt, you pick one pseudonym and use only that pseudonym in the future like you promised to do seven years ago and I'll refer to you by that name. Of course if you start swapping names or post as "anonymous" again I'll go back to what I call you now.

February 13, 2015 1:44 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Gay-straight alliances in schools reduce suicide risk for all students

Canadian schools with explicit anti-homophobia interventions such as gay-straight alliances (GSAs) may reduce the odds of suicidal thoughts and attempts among both sexual minority and straight students, according to a new study by University of British Columbia researchers.

Gay-straight alliances are student-led clubs that aim to make the school community a safer place for all students regardless of their sexual orientation.

"We know that LGBTQ students are at higher risk for suicide, in part because they are more often targeted for bullying and discrimination," says Elizabeth Saewyc, lead author of the study and professor with the UBC School of Nursing. "But heterosexual students can also be the target of homophobic bullying. When policies and supportive programs like GSAs are in place long enough to change the environment of the school, it's better for students' mental health, no matter what their orientation."

LGBTQ youth and heterosexual students in schools with anti-homophobia policies and GSAs had lower odds of discrimination, suicidal thoughts and suicide attempts, primarily when both strategies were enacted, or when the polices and GSAs had been in place for three years or more.

The researchers previously found that Canadian high schools with GSAs in place for three years or more have a positive effect on both gay and straight students' problem alcohol use.

About the study: The study used data from the 2008 British Columbia Adolescent Health Survey conducted by the McCreary Centre Society for grades 8 through 12, which involved 21,708 students. Participating school districts represent 92 per cent of enrolled students across the province. One in five students attended school in districts with anti-homophobic bullying policies and one in three attended schools with GSAs. Sixty per cent of students were in schools with neither.

Key findings:

In schools with gay-straight alliances implemented three or more years ago:

•The odds of homophobic discrimination and suicidal thoughts were reduced by more than half among lesbian, gay, bisexual boys and girls compared to schools with no GSA.

•There were also significantly lower odds of sexual orientation discrimination for heterosexual boys and girls.

•Heterosexual boys were half as likely to attempt suicide as those in schools without GSAs.

--------------------------------
In schools where anti-homophobic policies have been in place for more than three years:

•The odds of suicidal thoughts and attempts for gay and bisexual boys were more than 70 per cent lower. Suicide attempts among lesbian and bisexual girls were two-thirds lower.

•Heterosexual boys had 27 per cent lower odds of suicidal thoughts than heterosexual boys in schools without such policies.

February 13, 2015 2:49 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Study links social environment to high attempted suicide rates among gay youth

"In the wake of several highly publicized suicides by gay teenagers, a new study finds that a negative social environment surrounding gay youth is associated with high rates of suicide attempts by lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) youth. The study found that LGB youth were more than five times as likely to have attempted suicide in the previous 12 months, as their heterosexual peers (21.5 percent vs. 4.2 percent).

The study of nearly 32,000 11th-grade students in Oregon found that LGB youth living in a social environment that was more supportive of gays and lesbians were 25 percent less likely to attempt suicide than LGB youth living in environments that were less supportive."

Clearly the suicide rates of LGBT youth would decline even further if not just their school environment, but their home life and community as a whole were more supportive.

February 13, 2015 2:56 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

REDNECK NEWS: Live report from Blount County, Alabama

"Published on Feb 12, 2015

Jeremy Todd Addaway, a self-styled reporter for “Redneck News,” tried and failed to find evidence that the legalization of same-sex marriage in Alabama had caused any damage to the state, Talking Points Memo reports. “I read on the news today some information, that homosexuals will be getting married in Alabama today, so I wanted to give you a live report from Blount County,” he began.

Addaway then scoured his backyard for evidence of “homosexuals doin’ homosexual things” in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision to allow state employees to officiate same-sex unions.

“This pile of brush is still here, and there are no homosexuals layin’ on top of it, doin’ homosexual things,” Addaway said.

“None in the shed either, but we need to check into this further,” he continued, delving ever deeper into his backyard.

“We’re back here by a pile of junk — and it’s still here — and there’s no homosexuals doin’ homosexual things here either, so it looks like we’re pretty safe here in Blount County, don’t think we’re gonna be subject to plagues of homosexuals fallin’ from the sky.”

“That’s the report here from Blount County,” he concluded. “Everything is pretty much still the same.”"

February 13, 2015 5:40 PM  
Anonymous king cupid said...

hope all TTFers are having some VD

statistically, there's a good chance of it

February 14, 2015 5:26 PM  
Anonymous Fun with abstinence said...

Memory is the second thing to go, King Stupid.

Taking the pledge to remain abstinent doesn't work

"It was a $45-million project, funded by 17 separate federal agencies. Bearman's investigators interviewed more than 20,000 young people about virginity pledge programs -- and there was some good news.

"Pledging will help them delay sex for, say, 18 months — a year and a half," says Bearman. "It's a big deal in the lives of teenagers. Eighteen months is a phenomenally long time. It's almost two school years."

So what's the downside?

"The downside is that, when they have sex, pledgers are one-third less likely to use condoms at first sex," says Bearman. "So all of the benefit of the delay in terms of pregnancy-risk and in terms of STD acquisition -- poof -- it just disappears because they're so much less likely to use a condom at first sex."

Why do they not use condoms?

"They've been taught that condoms don't work; they're fearful of them. They don't know how to use them," says Bearman. "Their peers don't use them. They have no experience with them. They don't know how to get them. They're hard to get access to. For whatever reason they don't use them, that has long-term consequences."

Not only are kids who take virginity pledges just as likely to have sexually transmitted diseases as kids who don't, but they are even more likely to engage in high-risk sexual behavior. This finding - something that really surprised Bearman -- appeared two months ago in the Journal of Adolescent Health.

"Adolescents who take virginity pledges – who remain virgins, that is, who don't have vaginal sex, who technically remain virgins, are much more likely to have oral and anal sex," says Bearman. "


Hey Sarah! How's that abstinence sex education working out for you?

Bristol Palin Welcomes a Son

February 14, 2015 8:53 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

The Atlantic reports on a recent survey that shows in clear detail how partisanship — tribalism — distorts public opinion on policy. Specifically, the survey was about Obama’s immigration orders, which were massively popular even among Republicans — unless you mentioned that Obama supported them.

"It is truly remarkable that an issue like immigration reform, which enjoys such broad support among the public, has become so mired in politics. PRRI’s most recent survey—released this week—finds that roughly three-quarters (76 percent) of Americans support the specifics of Obama’s executive action allowing the parents of children with legal status to stay in the country for up to three years if they meet certain requirements. Just one in five Americans (19 percent) is opposed to this policy. Moreover, this policy enjoys strong majority support across partisan and religious lines. 87 percent of Democrats, 77 percent of independents, and 67 percent of Republicans support this policy, as do majorities of Catholics (76 percent) and white evangelical Protestants (68 percent).

Support for the central provisions of the DREAM Act is similarly broad. Nearly seven in ten (68 percent) Americans favor allowing illegal immigrants brought to the U.S. as children to gain legal resident status if they join the military or go to college, including 79 percent of Democrats, 66 percent of independents, and 60 percent of Republicans."

There are very few public policies that have such broad support in this country. But look what happened when they mentioned Obama:

February 17, 2015 11:53 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

"However, the survey also found strong evidence of the power of partisanship at work among rank and file Americans. The survey split the sample into two demographically identical groups. The first group simply received the executive action on immigration and DREAM Act policy questions; the second group received the same verbatim questions, with a twist—the proposal was identified as “Obama’s policy.” The findings show a significant “Obama Effect” across both questions.

When there is no mention of Obama, two-thirds (67 percent) of Republicans favor allowing illegal immigrants who are parents of those with legal status to avoid deportation if they meet certain requirements. But when Obama is linked to the policy, support among Republicans drops 16 points to 51 percent. Support among independents also falls 13 points when Obama is linked to the policy, from 77 percent to 64 percent. Among Democrats, there is no statistically significant effect in support.

The “Obama Effect” is even more pronounced in attitudes about the DREAM Act. When Obama is not identified with the policy, six in ten (60 percent) Republicans favor allowing illegal immigrants brought to the U.S. as children to gain legal resident status if they attend college or join the military. Once Obama is identified with the policy, Republican attitudes invert: Support plummets 23 points to only 37 percent, while opposition rises to nearly 6-in-10 (58 percent)."

Tribalism: Still the enemy of critical thinking and Wyatt/bad anonymous is the perfect example of that.

February 17, 2015 11:53 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

RNC Lies About Obama Prayer Breakfast Remarks:

Following in the footsteps of right wing radio hosts — professional liars — now the Republican National Committee has taken to lying about what President Obama said at the National Prayer Breakfast. They’re pushing a petition demanding that Obama apologize for “insulting Americans” (that’s what it said on their Facebook page). The lies:

"At the National Prayer Breakfast, rather than condemning the terrorist attacks in the name of religion, President Obama lectured Christians on crusades from centuries ago.

He said, “And lest we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ.”

It’s infuriating to hear the President make such out-of-touch remarks and unduly insult Christians. President Obama should apologize to those hurt and offended by his comments. He should stand strong against those who threaten our country, our families and our freedom.

Demand Obama apologize for his insulting remarks."

February 17, 2015 12:09 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

One lie by commission: “rather than condemning the terrorist attacks”? Yeah, he totally didn’t condemn terrorist attacks:

"We see ISIL, a brutal, vicious death cult that, in the name of religion, carries out unspeakable acts of barbarism — terrorizing religious minorities like the Yezidis, subjecting women to rape as a weapon of war, and claiming the mantle of religious authority for such actions."

Yeah, he didn’t condemn Muslim terrorism at all. I mean, if you lie and ignore the transcript. Now the lie by omission: Like virtually every other Republican or conservative throwing a fit, they seem obsessed with pretending that what Obama said was only about the Crusades. But that was only one of many examples he used, including slavery and the Jim Crow laws. He could also have mentioned the murder of doctors and nurses at abortion clinics and much more. But somehow the mention of the crusades is the only thing that matters, it proves that he had to go back a thousand years to find examples of Christian violence.

They don’t care what the truth is, they only care how they can distort it for political gain.

February 17, 2015 12:09 PM  
Anonymous King Midas said...

"Obama’s immigration orders were massively popular among Republicans — unless you mentioned that Obama supported them"

That's because, as even the most despicable socialist media outlets in America recognized, Obama's actions were illegal under the Constitution. And a Federal judge today stayed the orders.

“And lest we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ.”

There are so many things wrong we this statement, it's difficult to know where to start. One aspect that has been ignored is that he used "we".

America is a land where state and church are separated. "We" is not just Christians but also Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Agnostics and even the stray atheist here and there. In America, all these people, of varying religious viewpoints, are up on their high horse believing ISIS is evil.

Why is he singling out Christians?

Further, is what sense does he refer to himself as one? Just as a smokescreen for attacking Christians?

Here he is: "I believe that the starting point of faith is some doubt -- not being so full of yourself and so confident that you are right".

Actually, strong faith is not thinking you're right. It's thinking God is. What Obama says here is what agnostics always say. That Obama can't distinguish between this shows he isn't a believer but an agnostic. He's entitled to his beliefs but he shouldn't mislabel them as a rouse for attack.

Since the President of the U.S., a "tolerant" land with freedom of religion, has decided to attack Christianity, however, let's consider his attacks:

Crusades. Muslim aggressors spread their religion, much like today, by threatening to behead anyone who didn't covert. Taking over, by force, lands holy to Christians and moving on to Spain and France, they shouldn't have been surprised that there might be a military response. If military action is ever moral, why wouldn't this qualify?

Inquisition. Highly exaggerated. many different ones over a century and a half. Most were benign inquiries, much like a Congressional investigations these days. The occasional excess, yes, but, overall, fewer victims in total over the entire history than the average day in the modern Muslim world.

Slavery. Please. Ever hear of William Wiburforce? After converting to an evangelical Christian, he was moved to found the abolitionist movement. Slavery once existed in every culture and land. It's end began in Christian countries and was led by the church.

Jim Crow? Please. Ever hear of the Reverend Martin Luther King? A Christian cleric. Enough said.

A new poll shows 5% of Americans believe Obama is doing a good job handling ISIS. Nowhere to go but up, Barry.

February 17, 2015 2:11 PM  
Anonymous convicted by a jury of my peers said...

new research proves cutting unemployment benefits helps create jobs

you can't argue- the study is peer reviewed

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/17/unemployment-benefits_n_6697134.html

February 17, 2015 8:23 PM  
Anonymous AAA said...

Except, you know, it isn't peer reviewed. If you had bothered to even look at the first page:

"NBER working papers are circulated for discussion and comment purposes. They have not been peer reviewed
or been subject to the review by the NBER Board of Directors that accompanies official
NBER publications."

Sorry Charlie.

February 17, 2015 9:41 PM  
Anonymous a man of constant moroseness said...

well, thanks for sharing

I was actually joking

peer review is a worthless process where politics is concerned

that's why the fact that so many scientists have turned to advocacy taints the value of scientific study in those areas

when it comes to highly charged areas like sexuality or climate change, a study is never done without the researcher knowing in advance what they want to "discover"

it's sad

February 17, 2015 10:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Gallup reports: Obama Approval on Issues, Favorable Rating Up:

"...The recent improvement in Obama's economy and foreign affairs approval ratings mirrors the trajectory of his overall job approval rating, which was 40% in Nov. 3-9 Gallup Daily tracking but was 47% in the latest weekly average, through Feb. 15. The increase has been aided by more positive economic news, including lower gas prices, which have boosted Americans' perceptions of the U.S. economy's health to the best they have been since the 2007-2009 recession.

The more positive economic news may also explain why his economic approval rating has increased more (up 10 percentage points) than his foreign affairs approval rating (up five points) since November. While the economy is getting better, Obama continues to deal with a challenging international environment, including the Ukraine conflict, the Islamic State's presence in Iraq and Syria, as well as the ongoing threats of international terrorism, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and North Korea and Iran. As a result, his foreign affairs rating remains on the low side relative to his 2009-2013 ratings.

Obama's economic approval ratings have not been above 50% since the honeymoon phase of his presidency in early 2009. As the economy continued to struggle through much of his presidency, his economic approval bottomed out at 26% in August 2011. It improved rather quickly to 45% by the time of his re-election in November 2012, but subsequently slumped again before the latest rebound.

Obama has been rated higher for his handling of foreign affairs than for his handling of the economy for much of his presidency, but that has changed since mid-2013 in the context of the economic progress and significant international challenges facing the U.S.

Obama's overall approval rating has also generally exceeded his approval for handling both the economy and foreign affairs. This has been the most common pattern for presidents, but there have been many exceptions.

Obama Favorable Rating Back Above 50%

Americans' more basic opinions of Obama -- apart from their rating of the job he is doing -- have also improved since the fall. Presidents' favorable ratings typically are higher than their job approval ratings. Currently, 51% of Americans say they have a favorable opinion of Obama, up from a personal low of 42% just after last fall's midterm elections. He was last at the 50% level in April 2014...."

February 18, 2015 7:31 AM  
Anonymous inalienated said...

oh yeah, America's wild about him

that's why his party has lost control of the majority of Senate seats, House seats, governor mansions and state legislatures since he was elected President

BY HISTORIC MARGINS

the Gallup poll must not have been peer reviewed

let's hope he campaigns for Hillary

recently, Alabama Judge Roy Moore said our right are given us by God

smarmy CNN commentator corrected him: "that's your faith, not our country"

actually, Cuomo's ignorant of our founding documents, which clearly state that we have "inalienable rights endowed by our Creator"

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/2015/02/16/god-rights-modern-liberal-mind/

February 18, 2015 8:14 AM  
Anonymous chilly willly said...

DC is below freezing all week

Niagara Falls is frozen over

Great Lakes ice is again over average

remember back when all the scientists that the globe was warming up?

it's easy to be nostalgic about the end of the 20th century?

in addition to global warming, Y2K alarmism was also a bust

February 18, 2015 9:46 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

And beyond your back yard, daffodils are blooming in San Francisco!

USA Today reports: Nationally, it's been one of the warmest winters on record

"While it's been a rough winter so far for people in the north-central and northeastern U.S., both December and January were actually warmer than average across the country overall.

The U.S. is having its sixth-warmest winter on record, according to data from the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC), which has records back to 1895.

For the first two weeks of February, while chilly weather enveloped the northeastern U.S. and record snow buried New England, practically the entire western half of the nation was seeing phenomenal, record warmth.

How warm? So far this month, there have been 4,074 records set for warm temperatures —- mostly in the West — and only 236 records for cold temperatures, the NCDC reported.

Records for warm temperatures have been set in Seattle, San Jose, Las Vegas, Reno, Salt Lake City and Butte, Mont.

In Salt Lake City, the average temperature in February is a whopping 16.4 degrees above average, AccuWeather said. Other warm spots include Boise (12.2 degrees above average) and Phoenix (8 degrees above average).

The lack of cold and snow is exacerbating California's severe drought. California's snowpack (snow water equivalent) is currently only 27% of normal, according to the California Department of Water Resources.

Ski areas across the West have struggled to stay open this winter because of the lack of snow. "We are temporarily closed until the next storm comes in," the Mount Shasta Ski Area in California said on its website.

"Keep praying for snow" is the plea on the website of Willamette Pass Resort in Oregon.

The pattern shows no signs of changing, with ongoing warmth in the West and freezing cold in the East for the next few weeks, according to the Climate Prediction Center...."

February 18, 2015 10:18 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Gee,whatever happened to "bye-bye-buddy boy said...
no more posts until Randy starts referring to people by their chosen name"?

February 18, 2015 10:43 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Wyatt/bad anonymous lying as usual, that's what.

February 18, 2015 10:43 AM  
Anonymous California shouldn't be so chill said...

San Francisco?

Been there in July and froze my ass off. They could use a little warming.

February 18, 2015 10:46 AM  
Anonymous Bud Light said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

February 18, 2015 10:47 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"our founding documents, which clearly state that we have "inalienable [sic] rights endowed by our Creator""

That bogus quote is a misspelled paraphrase.

The actual text is:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

"San Francisco?

Been there in July and froze my ass off."


And of course, you believe it is the weather conditions experienced wherever you are that determine world wide climate.

< eye roll >

February 18, 2015 10:58 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Wyatt/bad anonymous posted "new research proves cutting unemployment benefits helps create jobs".

LOL, from the very article Wyatt/bad anonymous posted:
"Some commentators, both liberal and conservative, have taken issue with the paper's methodology.".

The Huffpost article Wyatt posted then said "Using a different set of Labor Department data, Dean Baker of the Center for Economic and Policy Research found a smaller increase in employment in states where the benefit cut was deeper.". But if you read the article Huffpost linked to, what it actually said was using different data resulted in the oppositeresult!

"Baker replaces their employment data with the more reliable CES employment data (the headline job creation number you hear every month) and finds the opposite headline result:

It's not encouraging that you can get the opposite result by changing from one data source to another. Baker isn’t the first to question the robustness of these results to even minor changes in the data. The Cleveland Fed, on an earlier version of their argument, found their results collapsed with a longer timeframe and excluding outliers. The fact that the paper doesn’t have robustness tests to a variety of data sources and measures also isn’t encouraging."

From the conservative article "The phasing out of extended and emergency benefits reduced the unemployment rate mainly by moving people out of the labor force rather than by increasing the job-finding rate".

February 18, 2015 11:18 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Back to the huffpost article Wyatt/bad anonymous linked to:

"But while the study might help the GOP take credit for an improving economy, the story isn't so simple, as several other recent studies have found the long-term benefits weren't holding back workers.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Wyatt/bad anonymous said "oh yeah, America's wild about him that's why his party has lost control of the majority of Senate seats, House seats, governor mansions and state legislatures since he was elected President".

Republicans won in 2014 because their new favorite tactic was highly dishonest and highly effective. Create a big problem and when frustration with that problem becomes widespread enough, blame it on President Obama. Leading up to 2014, the GOP on Capitol Hill was responsible for unprecedented obstruction and gridlock -- very intentionally, as their political strategy. They then used Americans dissatisfaction with Washington to achieve a “change” election, which went against the president’s party, because the president’s party is inherently the one seen as “in control.”

That's Republicans for you - F*ing over America and blaming Obama for it. With roughly only 20% of Americans at any one time knowing who's in control of congress it works.

February 18, 2015 11:18 AM  
Anonymous not really randy said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

February 18, 2015 11:34 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

I posted polls showing Obama’s immigration orders were massively popular among Republicans — unless you mentioned that Obama supported them.


Wyatt/bad anonymous said "That's because, as even the most despicable socialist media outlets in America recognized, Obama's actions were illegal under the Constitution. And a Federal judge today stayed the orders.".

That didn't even make any sense. Obama's immigration policies popularity couldn't possibly have been affected by the absurd allegation that media outfits thought they were illegal. And of course they aren't. The immigration executive actions were perfectly legal themselves, the judge halted Obama's executive action, ruling that the administration had failed to comply with the Administrative Procedure Act, which calls for the White House to afford a longer notification and comment period before taking action. So, it was not at all that the actions themselves were illegal, it was a minor procedural complaint. If the charges are upheld Obama will simply re-issue the immigration executive orders and wait a little longer to implement it.


“And lest we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ.”


Wyatt/bad anonymous said "There are so many things wrong we this statement, it's difficult to know where to start. One aspect that has been ignored is that he used "we".
America is a land where state and church are separated. "We" is not just Christians but also Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Agnostics and even the stray atheist here and there. In America, all these people, of varying religious viewpoints, are up on their high horse believing ISIS is evil. Why is he singling out Christians?".

Yawn.

85% of the U.S. is chrisitian, given that and in the context used its obvious he's talking about christianity to Americans who, are for the most part christians, hence, "we". That's obvious to people who aren't brain dead.

February 18, 2015 12:10 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Wyatt said "Here he is: "I believe that the starting point of faith is some doubt -- not being so full of yourself and so confident that you are right".".


Wyatt/bad anonymous said "Actually, strong faith is not thinking you're right. It's thinking God is. What Obama says here is what agnostics always say. That Obama can't distinguish between this shows he isn't a believer but an agnostic. He's entitled to his beliefs but he shouldn't mislabel them as a rouse for attack.".

While its true that god is imaginary so thinking "god is right" is thinking YOU are right. But Obama is speaking as many christians do in noting that chrisitans vary widely on their interpretation of the bible and its dictates for christianity and so believe that even with the bible its wrong as a christian to not have some doubt about what you assert.


Wyatt posted "Crusades. Muslim aggressors spread their religion, much like today, by threatening to behead anyone who didn't covert. Taking over, by force, lands holy to Christians and moving on to Spain and France, they shouldn't have been surprised that there might be a military response. If military action is ever moral, why wouldn't this qualify?".

That's far, far, far from the whole story. Muslims held the holy since 638 the crusades started in 1095 over land muslims already occupied for some time. Over four hundred years. Muslims had up until the point of the crusades allowed chrisitans full access to the holy land, but any land that the church claimed was "holy" they felt they had the right to take. There was no aggression at the time the crusades started, there was peace and Christians ended it.

February 18, 2015 12:10 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Wyatt/bad anonymous posted "Inquisition. Highly exaggerated. many different ones over a century and a half. Most were benign inquiries, much like a Congressional investigations these days. The occasional excess, yes, but, overall, fewer victims in total over the entire history than the average day in the modern Muslim world.".

A gross whitewashing of an evil christian institution that actually took place over 800 years and mudered thousands of people including non-christians and women executed as witches. Read the truth about it here. The Spanish Inquisition, assuredly the most vigorous and corrupt of the various inquisitorial bodies that existed in Europe, held 49,000 trials between 1560-1700 and executed between 3 and 5,000 people.

And of course the numbers killed by the inquisition in medieval times doesn't match with the numbers killed by muslims today - there weren't the billions of people on the earth there are now at that time and they didn't have the mass destruction technology we now have. If they did the inquisition would have killed far greater numbers. And to see that's the case we need to look no further than Hitler and his nazi army who were all christians to see what christians are capable of with modern weaponry - they killed millions upon millions.

February 18, 2015 12:11 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Wyatt/bad anonymous posted "Slavery. Please. Ever hear of William Wiburforce? After converting to an evangelical Christian, he was moved to found the abolitionist movement. Slavery once existed in every culture and land. It's end began in Christian countries and was led by the church.".

How incredibly pathetic a defense of the indefensible (inevitably). Pointing to Wilberforce is no different than pointing to Gene Robinson and claiming christianity is responsible for ending the oppression and murders of gays and lesbians - in both cases the bulk of christians were on the immoral side first. When the confederate states seperated almost every christian church split into oppositiona and support camps but most of the ones opppsing slavery did so half-heartedly thinking either slavery should be left to gradually die out on its own or that it should be left up to the imaginary god to eventually get rid of it. Very few christians advocated going to war to put an end to slavery. And slavery started in those christian countries, of course it was then also subsequently ended in christian countries. In another 10 years after marriage equality is the law of the American land christians like you will be claiming christianity was responsible for it, hell, I've already seen some christians making the claim that all advances in gay rights are due to christianity. Of course Wyatt and we all know the truth is that christians have opposed the emancipation of both slaves and gays.


Wyatt/bad anonymous posted "Jim Crow? Please. Ever hear of the Reverend Martin Luther King? A Christian cleric. Enough said.".

Please. One black christian - of course he opposed Jim Crow! Ever hear of George Wallace, or the KKK? The vast majority of southern christans and many northern christians opposed eliminating Jim Crow laws. Once again a pitiful attempt to whitewash history and ignore that christianity was the biggest player in oppressing blacks and gays.

February 18, 2015 12:11 PM  
Anonymous if you don't get it, you don't get it said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

February 18, 2015 12:29 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

February 18, 2015 12:31 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

I posted "Obama's immigration policies popularity couldn't possibly have been affected by the absurd allegation that media outfits thought they were illegal"


Wyatt/bad anonymous said "didn't say they were I said that's why people favor the policy but not Obama".

As usual Wyatt can't understand english and posts accordingly. Let's review:
I posted polls showing Obama’s immigration orders were massively popular among Republicans — unless you mentioned that Obama supported them.


Wyatt/bad anonymous said "That's because, as even the most despicable socialist media outlets in America recognized, Obama's actions were illegal under the Constitution".

So, in other words Wyatt/bad anonymous said "Obama's immigration orders were popular amongst Republicans because media outlets allegedly recognized they were illegal" - again, nonsensical.

Now Wyatt/bad anonymous says "that's (the allegation media outlets though the orders were illegal) why people favour the policy".

LOL!. Once again, the idea that people favour Obama's immigration policies because media outlets allegedly thought they were illegal is preposterous - that couldn't possibly have had that effect and now Wyatt/bad anonymous has said twice it did while bizzarely prefacing those admissions with a denial.

February 18, 2015 12:45 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

I posted "The immigration executive actions were perfectly legal themselves, the judge halted Obama's executive action, ruling that the administration had failed to comply with the Administrative Procedure Act, which calls for the White House to afford a longer notification and comment period before taking action. So, it was not at all that the actions themselves were illegal, it was a minor procedural complaint."


Wyatt/bad anonymous freaking out screamed "This is completely wrong, Randy. The bigger problem is that Obama claims prosecutorial discretion. But that concept only applies to decisions about what to prosecute. Actively granting status to people is not in the President's purview and he will be corrected. GOT IT?!?!?!?"

Nonsense. As you can see here it had nothing to do with prosecutorial discretion, it was entirely a procedural complaint that has nothing to do with the validity of the orders themselves.

February 18, 2015 12:45 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Wyatt/bad anonymous said"Priya's usual rant about Christianity. Suffice it to say, she hates God. Judeo-Christian nations are the only places where gays are safe and slavery is abolished. Elsewhere, it's rampant. ISIS earlier in the week beheaded twenty Christians on a beach on the other side of the water from Italy and said they are on their way to Rome to kill the followers of the cross. Oh, but let's not get on a high horse".

That's precisely the point Obama was making. These days its Islam behaving badly, in the past it was Christianity. No one is denying that Christianity has become less evil as its lost its theocratic hold on nations and individuals over the centuries due to the enlightenment. Islam is a younger religion, it has yet to engage in the debates that caused christianity to lose its iron grip on people and nations.

And let's not forget that gays are far from safe in christian Uganda and much of christian africa where gays can be imprisoned for life merely for having consentual same sex sex more than once, people are required to report any gays and lesbians they know to the authorities and can't rent to gays or lesbians or risk facing jail time.

And the laws in Uganda, Africa, and russia where gays and lesbians have lost the right to free speech to advocate on their own behalf those laws were largely due to large congregations of christian organizaitions like the American Family Association and christian leaders like Scott lively and Peter Labarbara lobbying for anti-gay laws abroad and even participating in the writing of those laws.

LGBT people don't have to choose between being abused by christians and being abused by muslims, we can reject the abuse of both - this isn't an either/or situation.

February 18, 2015 1:02 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Wyatt/bad anonymous said "good lie, the House passed innumerable bills I the last several years".

LOL, Riiiiight, "inumerable bills", in other words 56 bills to repeal Obamacare but not a single bill to replace or make improvements on it, 55 anti-women bills to block pay equity, allow health insurance companies to discriminate against women, restrict access to birth control and abortion (even requiring women to have an ultrasound tool rammed up their vaginas to get permission to get an abortion), block infant and young child nutrition programs, eliminate family planning, and weaken protections for women against violence and discrimination. And that was in 2012 alone!

Republicans never advanced one job creation bill despite blocking several by Obama in order to tank the economy, they had a bi-partisan bill on immigration passed by the senate but John Boehner and the house Republicans refused to bring it up for a vote despite them repeatedly making the disingenous claim that they wanted to do something about immigration.

The house "passed innumerable bills in the last several years" just like the bubble of baby boomers retiring's effect on the labour participation rate was "minor" - you just make up B.S. as you fly.

The Republicans stated from the outset in a party meeting a couple of months after Obama took power in 2009 that there plan was to deny Obama any legislative successes and they'd do that by blocking everything he attempted to pass. And that's what they've done since then.

Gee,whatever happened to "bye-bye-buddy boy said...
no more posts until Randy starts referring to people by their chosen name"?

That didn't last long Wyatt/bad anonymous. But of course lying comes as easily to you as breathing. In fact, its a lot like breathing for you - you just can't stop for any substantial period of time.

February 18, 2015 1:05 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

Anon, I am pretty sure you remember what The One Rule here is. If you want your brilliant and insight-filled comments to be read by anyone, you will obey The Rule.

JimK


February 18, 2015 1:07 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Back in 2008 Jim the owner of this blog posted to Wyatt/bad anonymous "New Anon, whoever you are, if you would like to come here and express your opinion it's fine with me, but please be a little civil about your identity. The rest of us will discuss these topics with you if you will simply pick a name and stay with it. We do get comments by a lot of people, and though you think it's funny to use different names it makes it impossible for someone to know who they're talking to.

It is very easy for me to ban a user by their IP number. I'd rather not do that, I think it's fine to have a diversity of opinions here, but you need to maintain one identity.

Please pick a name and keep it.".

At June 03, 2008 3:23 PM Wyatt/bad aonymous said "Oh, alright. From henceforth, I'm Rolling Thunder.".

Wyatt, you pick one pseudonym and use only that pseudonym in the future like you promised to do seven years ago and I'll refer to you by that name. Of course if you start swapping names or post as "anonymous" again I'll go back to what I call you now.

February 18, 2015 1:11 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

American Christian Minister Scott Lively says he assisted in crafting the Russian law taking away the right to free speech from gays so they can't advocate on their own behalf and that it was "one of the proudest achievements of my career.".

February 18, 2015 1:20 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

How US Evangelicals Helped Create Russia's Anti-Gay Movement

Since American christians helped pass the Russian anti-gay law anti-gay groups have made tormenting the LGBT community a national and organized affair: Vigilante gangs have used social media to lure hundreds of gay people to fake dates and then disseminate videos of them being beaten or sexually humiliated, garnering hundreds of thousands of followers. Arrests and beatings at gay rights demonstrations are commonplace.

Video Exposes Christian American Extremists Advocating Abroad for Anti-LGBT Persecution

A new web video highlighting the role that American extremists have played in the passage of Russia's draconian anti-LGBT laws. The video details how more than a dozen Americans, including National Organization for Marriage (NOM) President Brian Brown have traveled to Russia in the last year to meet with policy makers and lobby for these laws. Also featured in the video is Scott Lively who tomorrow will join another American who has made a career advocating for the persecution of LGBT people - Peter LaBarbera – for a press conference announcing the formation of a new organization whose sole purpose is to spread hate abroad.

"Americans aren't buying the hate these anti-LGBT extremists are selling, so they've been forced to take their take their dangerous rhetoric abroad," said HRC president Chad Griffin. "These radicals are now traveling from country to country advocating for the persecution of LGBT people under the guise that they're saving children."

The consequences of these laws have been immediate and severe. In less than a year since the signing of an anti-LGBT "propaganda" law in Russia, we have seen LGBT people arrested and beaten in the streets, accompanied by a surge in asylum requests from LGBT Russians trying to leave the country. This is a direct result of the work Brian Brown and his allies did advocating for discrimination.

As we've seen in places like Russia, Uganda and Nigeria, the result of these people's work is widespread oppression, violence and harassment against the LGBT community and that must not be tolerated.

In addition to Brown, perhaps the most prominent American who has insinuated himself in the Russian "traditional values" movement is Scott Lively. Lively is currently facing a civil trial in Massachusetts for his role in promoting the "kill the gays" bill in Uganda, and he has been a prominent supporter of anti-LGBT laws across Eastern Europe as well.

February 18, 2015 1:29 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Wyatt, you pick one pseudonym and use only that pseudonym in the future like you promised to do seven years ago"

"Anon, I am pretty sure you remember what The One Rule here is. If you want your brilliant and insight-filled comments to be read by anyone, you will obey The Rule."

"thus (sic) guy's been doing this [for years]"

February 18, 2015 1:46 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

The Party of No: New Details on the GOP Plot to Obstruct Obama

TIME just published “The Party of No,” an article adapted from my new book, The New New Deal: The Hidden Story of Change in the Obama Era. It reveals some of my reporting on the Republican plot to obstruct President Obama before he even took office, including secret meetings led by House GOP whip Eric Cantor (in December 2008) and Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell (in early January 2009) in which they laid out their daring (though cynical and political) no-honeymoon strategy of all-out resistance to a popular President-elect during an economic emergency. “If he was for it,” former Ohio Senator George Voinovich explained, “we had to be against it.”

But as we say in the sales world: There’s more! I’ll kick it off with more scenes from the early days of the Republican strategy of No. Read on to hear what Joe Biden’s sources in the Senate GOP were telling him, some candid pillow talk between a Republican staffer and an Obama aide, and a top Republican admitting his party didn’t want to “play.”

But that wasn’t the only signal. A few other examples:

Vice President Biden told me that during the transition, he was warned not to expect any bipartisan cooperation on major votes. “I spoke to seven different Republican Senators who said, ‘Joe, I’m not going to be able to help you on anything,’ ” he recalled. His informants said McConnell had demanded unified resistance. “The way it was characterized to me was, ‘For the next two years, we can’t let you succeed in anything. That’s our ticket to coming back,’ ” Biden said. The Vice President said he hasn’t even told Obama who his sources were, but Bob Bennett of Utah and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania both confirmed they had conversations with Biden along those lines.

One Obama aide said he received a similar warning from a Republican Senate staffer he was seeing at the time. He remembered asking her one morning in bed, How do we get a stimulus deal? She replied, Baby, there’s no deal! This is how we get whole,” she said with a laugh.

February 18, 2015 2:02 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

David Obey, then chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, met with his GOP counterpart, Jerry Lewis, to explain what Democrats had in mind for the stimulus and ask what Republicans wanted to include. “Jerry’s response was, ‘I’m sorry, but leadership tells us we can’t play,’ ” Obey told me. “Exact quote: ‘We can’t play.’ What they said right from the get-go was, It doesn’t matter what the hell you do, we ain’t going to help you. We’re going to stand on the sidelines and bitch.”

Lewis blames Obey and the Democrats for the committee’s turn toward extreme partisanship, but he doesn’t deny that GOP leaders made a decision not to play. “The leadership decided there was no play to be had,” he says. Republicans recognized that after Obama’s big promises about bipartisanship, they could break those promises by refusing to cooperate. In the words of Congressman Tom Cole, a deputy Republican whip: “We wanted the talking point: ‘The only thing bipartisan was the opposition.’ ”

So, this is how the tactics the Republicans used to win in 2014 was developed as far back as 2008. Their new favorite tactic was highly dishonest and highly effective. Create a big problem and when frustration with that problem becomes widespread enough, blame it on President Obama. Leading up to 2014, the GOP on Capitol Hill was responsible for unprecedented obstruction and gridlock -- very intentionally, as their political strategy. They then used Americans dissatisfaction with Washington to achieve a “change” election, which went against the president’s party, because the president’s party is inherently the one seen as “in control.”. And contrarty to Wyatt/bad anonymous's claim that the Republicans "the House passed innumerable bills I the last several years", the bills they passed were entirely symbolic, repealing Obamacare 56 times in a useless gesture to pose for their base, and taking over 55 anti-women votes in 2012 alone to reduce women's access to birth control, abortion, family planning, and infant and child nutrional programs, not to mention trying to gut pay equity legislation and oppose legislation to lessen violence and discrimination against women. They didn't advance a single jobs bill despite blocking Obama's American Jobs Act which would have created 2 million jobs and Boehner repeatedly and disingenously asking "Where's the jobs Mr. President?". The Republicans repeatedly insisted they wanted to do something on immigration but Boehner and house Republicans refused to take a vote on a bi-partisan immigration bill passed by the senate forcing Obama to take executive action to address a pressing problem.

February 18, 2015 2:03 PM  
Anonymous one ring to rule them all said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

February 18, 2015 2:46 PM  
Anonymous I'm adorable said...

http://nypost.com/2015/02/17/why-are-jihadis-so-obsessed-with-porn/

February 18, 2015 8:27 PM  
Anonymous remember the global warming of the 20th century said...

Lake Erie 91% ice, Niagara Falls frozen over, Boston buried, Federal government in DC only worked one day so far this week...

If climate change "science" consists of making testable predictions, people in the megapolis think the debate ain't over yet

February 18, 2015 8:59 PM  
Anonymous the swami with the crystal global warming ball said...

http://reason.com/archives/2015/02/16/the-new-york-timess-comical-climate-chan

February 18, 2015 9:01 PM  
Anonymous AAA said...

This website has the most easily understandable explanation of why it's so cold here now -- basically a big huge mass of extra warm water in the Pacific is pushing warm air into western US and Canada. Where does all that cold air that was up in Canada go to? Well, with another big warm water mass called the Atlantic ocean pushing up there as well, it comes down in-between. The pictures make it pretty obvious:

http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2015/02/climate-changed.html

"If you deny that warmer ocean temps -> greater snowfall w/ coastal winter storms, you are not a climate denier. You are a physics denier." — from the Twitter feed of Dr Michael E. Mann, Climate Scientist

This site has a more detailed explanation of the same phenomenon with more detail, but the imagery is harder to discern:

https://robertscribbler.wordpress.com/2015/02/18/mangled-jet-stream-global-warming-hot-atlantic-water-boston-buried-under-8-feet-of-snow/

There's a reason for all this folks, and it ain't just "natural variation."

February 19, 2015 12:39 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

How to make a link

Or if you prefer --

http://www.echoecho.com/htmllinks01.htm

February 19, 2015 9:25 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

And it's not simply hot out west, there is RECORD heat happening there.

Record high temperatures are being set or tied in western states, while the very same week in February record lows are being tied or set in the eastern states.

Crazy mixed up old weather patterns are changing all over the place just as climate change models have predicted.

1. RECORD EVENT REPORT
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE MEDFORD, OR
1256 AM PST THU FEB 19 2015

...RECORD HIGH TEMPERATURE SET AT ALTURAS CA...

A RECORD HIGH TEMPERATURE OF 67 DEGREES WAS SET AT ALTURAS CA YESTERDAY.
THIS BREAKS THE OLD RECORD OF 63 SET IN 1934.

2. RECORD EVENT REPORT
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE MEDFORD, OR
1256 AM PST THU FEB 19 2015

...RECORD HIGH TEMPERATURE TIED AT MT SHASTA CITY CA...

A RECORD HIGH TEMPERATURE OF 68 DEGREES WAS SET AT MT SHASTA CITY CA YESTERDAY.
THIS TIES THE OLD RECORD OF 68 SET IN 1977.

3. RECORD EVENT REPORT
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE BOISE ID
258 AM MST THU FEB 19 2015

...RECORD HIGH TEMPERATURE SET AT BURNS OR...

A RECORD HIGH TEMPERATURE OF 62 DEGREES WAS SET AT BURNS OR
YESTERDAY. THIS BREAKS THE OLD RECORD OF 59 SET IN 1977.

4. RECORD EVENT REPORT
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE MEDFORD, OR
1256 AM PST THU FEB 19 2015

...RECORD HIGH TEMPERATURE SET AT KLAMATH FALLS OR...

A RECORD HIGH TEMPERATURE OF 65 DEGREES WAS SET AT KLAMATH FALLS OR YESTERDAY.
THIS BREAKS THE OLD RECORD OF 62 SET IN 1995.

5. RECORD EVENT REPORT
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE ELKO NV
0145 AM PST THU FEB 19 2015

...MULTIPLE RECORD HIGH TEMPERATURES WERE SET ACROSS NEVADA WEDNESDAY FEB 18...

STATION NEW RECORD OLD RECORD YEAR(S)

EUREKA AIRPORT 64 62 1995
ELY AIRPORT 66 62 1977
TONOPAH AIRPORT 68 68 1977

February 19, 2015 9:45 AM  
Anonymous I am the eggman. Kooky choo. said...

Thanks for citing Michael Mann. It's got everyone ROFL. Hint: once someone has been caught falsifying information, he's pretty much disqualified as an unbiased expert. He obviously has crossed the line into advocacy.

Highs are being hit regularly at various places. It's always been that way. Nothing to be alarmed about. The global temperature has remained static now for 16 years. Maybe someday the temperature will start climbing again like it did in the late 20th century but that's just speculation.

The problem with science is that to be useful to the general public, people need to exercise some skepticism. Perfect example is cholesterol. A couple of decades ago, it became clear that eating cholesterol is not bad for you. Yet, until the FDA acknowledged that last week, saying there is no evidence to support the idea, doctors were advising patients to limit cholesterol intake. This was based, not on evidence, but on the "opinion" of the experts. Meanwhile, egg consumption has halved in the last forty years, causing job losses and hurting the health of people who avoided a food that is a nearly perfect and versatile low-fat high-protein source.

This is the case today with anthropogenic global warming theory and sexuality theories. No evidence exists, they're just educated guesses. But advocacy types overplay this hand badly. "85% percent of scientists agree". blah-blah-blah

Truth is, as was seen with cholesterol, when scientists make an educated guess and turn out to be wrong, it takes them decades to concede it.

Facts are facts.

And twenty years from now, the EPA will announce that global warming is over.

And the AMA will announce that, yeah, sometimes people's sexual preferences change.

February 19, 2015 10:45 AM  
Anonymous voters just wanna have fun said...

Scott Walker, who now leads the polls for the Republican nation in our largest state, California, brings out the worst in the liberal nutjobs that are all over our media. This weekend mobs of hundreds surrounded the home of his elderly parents with bullhorns shouting epithets. This election is going to be so much fun!

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/02/19/how_scott_walker_brings_out_the_worst_in_the_left_125653.html

February 19, 2015 11:45 AM  
Anonymous igloo time said...

no one year proves a trend

but we seem to say that every year

this is air leaving Siberia, straight over the North Pole, and down to all the US east of the Mississippi

it's not displaced, we're in the stream as global temps decline

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2015/02/18/polar-vortex-to-unleash-record-breaking-cold-in-eastern-u-s-on-thursday-friday/

February 19, 2015 12:06 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Wyatt/bad anonymous said " The global temperature has remained static now for 16 years.".

A lie as you are well aware of by now.

The data clearly show atmospheric global temperatures have continued to warm over the past 16 years albeit at a slower rate than they were before.

The data show a warming trend since (very nearly) any start year you choose. Each of the last few decades has been successively warmer. And those are just the atmospheric temperature trends which represent only 2% of the global environment whereas seas and land masses represent the bulk of the planet's heat storing capacity. The rate of temperature increase in the oceans has been accelerating since 1998.

We have temperature data from 11000 years ago. After the end of the ice age, the planet got warmer. Then, 5,000 years ago, it started to get cooler — but really slowly. In all, it cooled 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit, up until the last century or so. Then it flipped again — global average temperature shot up.

Temperatures now have gone from that cold period to the warm period in just 100 years. So it's taken just 100 years for the average temperature to change by 1.3 degrees, when it took 5,000 years to do that before. This is what is meant by "natural factors can't explain the current temperature increase".

The climate changes to come are going to be larger than anything that human civilization and agriculture has seen in its entire existence.

The odds that this long term trend would have occurred absent human influence is at least one in 1.7 million. To which Wyatt/bad anonymous historically and childishly asserts "a completely baseless statement" when the reality is obviously that HIS disputing that fact that IS literally baseless. The evidence, facts, and figures providing the basis for that calculation are all in the links I posted. Wyatt/bad anonymous doesn't have any basis upon which to dispute them.

February 19, 2015 12:30 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Obviously sea levels wouldn't be continuing to rise if the planet hadn't warmed or had cooled over the past 16 years (as Wyatt/bad anonymous has alternately claimed along with also admitting the planet has warmed during the same time - he doesn't care if he contradicts himself as long as its expedient to his current B.S. attempt).

You don’t have to look 85 years into the future to see what a sinking world looks like—you only need to look as far as Miami.

Climate scientists have been warning the world about sea level rise for years, pleading with governments to cut back on carbon lest all our coastal cities go the way of Venice. In 2014, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released its fifth Assessment Report, predicting that oceans would rise more than 3 feet by 2100. Those projections make for some alarming visions of the future—cities water-logged, monuments submerged, islands created.

But the flooding is already happening in Florida. At the University of Miami’s Department of Atmospheric Sciences, Brian McNoldy and other researchers have been accumulating sea level data from Virginia Key (a small island just south of Miami Beach) since 1996. Over those nineteen years, sea levels around the Miami coast have already gone up 3.7 inches. In a post updated yesterday, McNoldy highlights three big problems that follow from those numbers—and they should worry all of us.

February 19, 2015 12:40 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

First: Sea level rise is acceleratingperhaps faster than the IPCC has projected. When McNoldy tracked the average daily high water mark, when flooding events are most likely to occur, he saw it increase over time—but he also saw the rate of that increase go up. The last five years saw an average increase of 1.27 inches of water per year. If that rate holds steady for the next 50 years (and if McNoldy is right, it will only get worse), high tide levels in Miami would go up over five feet.

Second: Predictions about day-to-day tide levels are less accurate than ever, threatening the city’s ability to plan for weather events. Tidal predictions are made through what’s called “astronomical factors”—essentially the moon’s orbit around the earth. But these don’t take into account factors like weather or sea level rise—so as climate change exacerbates sea level rise, tidal predictions will be more and more unreliable. While water levels in May 1996 typically were close to predicted values, McNoldy observed that the same values in May 2014 were consistently higher than predicted. That kind of discrepancy can’t be caused by weather alone.

Third: Besides creating higher risks of flooding, sea level rise is creating an unexpected danger: saltwater intrusion into aquifers used to extract freshwater. Almost 90 percent of south Florida’s drinking water is supplied by porous limestone aquifers. As sea levels rise, the saltwater exerts more pressure on the fresh water in the aquifer, and fresh water is pushed off further from the coast. Already, some cities have shut down wells because of saltwater contamination.

February 19, 2015 12:41 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

February 19, 2015 1:03 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

And of course its well known (including by Wyatt/bad anonymous) that the U.S. represents only 2% of the globes surface area and while its been cooler than normal in the eastern U.S. its the globe as a whole that matters and the rest of the globe has been much warmer than average for a long time. There hasn't been a global record cold year since 1911 and since that time there have been 19 records for hottest year including 2014.

But it was the warmth of the oceans that really stood out. Sea surface temperatures for the planet were a record 1.03°F above the 20th century average, surpassing 2003 and 1998.

Every ocean basin had some part of it with record warmth, said Thomas Karl, director of NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center.

Scientists predicted that global warming would cause cooler temperatures in the eastern U.S.

While the deep freeze we're experiencing may seem like proof that global warming is a myth, the truth is exactly the opposite, according to scientists who predicted this type of extreme weather.

Three scientists from Atmosphere and Environmental Research, Lexington, Mass., and one from Harvard co-authored an article in Oceanography that directly correlates melting Arctic Sea ice with extreme winter weather conditions on continents south.

February 19, 2015 1:04 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

"Arctic sea ice plays an important role in modulating surface conditions at high latitudes, and even small changes in sea ice extent can cause Arctic climate to change dramatically, with ensuing feedbacks on the entire Earth climate system," the study says.

The "ensuing feedbacks" result in part from distorted a jet stream pattern, the so-called "polar vortex." Normally it's a circular pattern around the pole that helps contain the region's chill. Distort the pattern and the chill spills south and can turn into a vicious cold snap anywhere in the northern hemisphere.

A seesaw effect of warm Arctic Ocean weather translating into colder weather on the northern continents has long been observed. However this Arctic Oscillation, as it is termed, has been notoriously difficult to predict. What the study found is that diminishing sea ice in the fall is a clear indicator of mild Arctic winters and, therefore, a warning of severe winter weather elsewhere.

If you think of the Arctic Circle as a freezer, global warming has propped open the freezer door, making our climate, however temporarily, more like the climate at the top of the world.

February 19, 2015 1:04 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Wyatt/bad anonymous said "no one year proves a trend but we seem to say that every year".

And yet you repeatedly insist that 1998 proves there's been no warming since then or the planet has cooled since then (or on rare occaisions of candor, admit its warmed since then).

As you are well aware of by now it is the temperatures of several years that show whether or not there's been a trend and with 13 of the hottest 15 years on record having been since 2000 global atmospheric temperatures are undeniably hotter since 1998. This is particularly concerning since 1998 was an exceptional el nino year. El nino is a natural weather cycle that brings unusually warm temperatures and on that basis it should have been substantially cooler since 1998 rather than three years since then being hotter, including the record hottest year of 2014 as 2014 was not an el-nino year. Further, the sun's output has been in its minimum cycle over the last several years making it even more unusual that atmospheric temperatures since 1998 have continued to warm. Not to mention ocean temperatures which have warmed at an accelerated pace since 1998.

February 19, 2015 1:12 PM  
Anonymous the candy man can said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

February 19, 2015 1:13 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Worst ‘Megadrought’ in 1,000 Years in U.S. Due to Global Warming

The U.S. is facing the worst drought in 1,000 years, “driven primarily” by man-made climate change.

By the end of this century, researchers are predicting years-long dry spells exacerbated by higher temperatures, creating conditions worse than so-called megadroughts that have been linked to the decline of American Indian cultures in the U.S. Southwest, according to an article published Thursday in the journal Science Advances.

The conclusion is further evidence that human activity is having profound, harmful and long-lasting impacts on the planet, and will continue to threaten the environment even if carbon emissions are significantly curtailed.

“The bad news is, these past megadroughts -- and we don’t use ‘mega-’ lightly -- when we compare the characteristics of those to the projections from future models, the future’s worse,” said Jason Smerdon, a climate scientist at Columbia University in New York and one of the authors of the report.

February 19, 2015 1:18 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

If carbon emissions don’t start declining by 2050, the risk of a decade-long drought in the Southwest and Central Plains doubles in the second half of the century, the researchers found.

Past megadroughts ravaged food supplies and may have contributed to Indian tribes in the Southwest migrating or dying off.

California’s drought is entering its fourth year, with snowpack levels about one-quarter of historical averages. San Francisco went without rain in January for the first time in 165 years. The drought is affecting more than 64 million people in the Southwest and Southern Plains, according to NASA data cited in the study.


February 19, 2015 1:18 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Wyatt/bad anonymous said "if global warming is making us cooler, why isn't this effect happening everywhere and not just to the eastern U.S.?".

Read the article oh willfully stupid one. Global warming has changed the pattern of the jet stream over North America causing it to travel farther south than normal. This brings arctic air down into the eastern U.S. making that part of the world colder than normal The arctic air is however much warmer than its historically been in the arctic and that's why the ice in the Arctic is melting at an alarming rate. That (warm relative to the arctic) air is cooler than air normally is in eastern U.S.

Only that 1% of the world is affected because that's the only place the jet-stream is dipping down farther south than normal. Its not cooler everywhere on the planet for the same reason the whole planet is not as warm as death valley in the U.S. - weather varies greatly depending on geographic location oh willfully stupid one.

February 19, 2015 1:27 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

"Why isn't global warming making the whole planet cooler?".

I can't even begin to comprehend how a person's thinking could be that screwed up.

And of course these aren't scientists' "guesses", its all based on data and evidence - guesswork has nothing to do with it but I suppose if your political beliefs won't allow you to accept any reality that challenges them that's what you have to believe to keep your head from exploding.

February 19, 2015 2:03 PM  
Anonymous how does the siberia makes us cold but not arctic? said...

"The U.S. is facing the worst drought in 1,000 years, “driven primarily” by man-made climate change"

not really

droughts are common in the Southwest U.S. and are always described as historic

"By the end of this century, researchers are predicting years-long dry spells exacerbated by higher temperatures,"

what a joke

they claim to know what the weather will be in 2100?

no, they predicted

scientists aren't good at that

"creating conditions worse than so-called megadroughts that have been linked to the decline of American Indian cultures in the U.S. Southwest"

luckily, we don't live in teepees

"The conclusion is further evidence that human activity is having profound, harmful and long-lasting impacts on the planet,"

actually, conclusions aren't evidence

say, you don't understand science, do you?

"and will continue to threaten the environment even if carbon emissions are significantly curtailed"

oh well, no point in significant curtailment then

"“The bad news is, these past megadroughts -- and we don’t use ‘mega-’ lightly -- when we compare the characteristics of those to the projections from future models, the future’s worse,” said Jason Smerdon, a climate scientist at Columbia University in New York"

move to Vegas, Jason

there's always room for more stand-up

"If carbon emissions don’t start declining by 2050, the risk of a decade-long drought in the Southwest and Central Plains doubles in the second half of the century"

a minute ago, it didn't matter if we curtailed

now, suddenly, we've got 35 more years

"the researchers found"

I don't know what kind of research this is but the chance is 100% that over 50 years, the SW will have a drought

it always has

"Past megadroughts ravaged food supplies and may have contributed to Indian tribes in the Southwest migrating or dying off"

well, that's not going to happen this time

"California’s drought is entering its fourth year, with snowpack levels about one-quarter of historical averages. San Francisco went without rain in January for the first time in 165 years"

you realize they had a monsoon last week, right?

"The drought is affecting more than 64 million people in the Southwest and Southern Plains, according to NASA data cited in the study"

Drought'll do that. Didn't need NASA to tell me that. Wonder how much the taxpayer paid for that gem of wisdom.

"Global warming has changed the pattern of the jet stream over North America causing it to travel farther south than normal. This brings arctic air down into the eastern U.S. making that part of the world colder than normal The arctic air is however much warmer than its historically been in the arctic and that's why the ice in the Arctic is melting at an alarming rate. That (warm relative to the arctic) air is cooler than air normally is in eastern U.S."

so, a regular stream of cold air leaves Siberia and goes over the North Pole and invades the U.S.

if it heats up when it goes over the Arctic, why is it cold when it gets here?

doesn't make sense, Randy

"Only that 1% of the world is affected because that's the only place the jet-stream is dipping down farther south than normal. Its not cooler everywhere on the planet for the same reason the whole planet is not as warm as death valley in the U.S. - weather varies greatly depending on geographic location."

it starts in Siberia and travels over the Arctic

now of this makes sense, Randy



February 19, 2015 2:06 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

I posted proof The U.S. is facing the worst drought in 1,000 years, “driven primarily” by man-made climate change

Wyatt/bad anonymous said "not really droughts are common in the Southwest U.S. and are always described as historic".

Ah, yeah - "not really" isn't a valid argument. And of course I never used the word "historic" although it is of course understandable that many droughts in the past were described as the worst ever, because they were the worst up until that time and as things have gotten worse over time later droughts that were even more severe became the worst. Just like 1998 was once the record hottest year, then 2005 was, then 2010, and now 2014 - things are getting progressively worse.


I posted "By the end of this century, researchers are predicting years-long dry spells exacerbated by higher temperatures,"


Wyatt/bad anonymous posted "what a joket they claim to know what the weather will be in 2100? no, they predicted scientists aren't good at that".

Actually, they are that good. When scientists used the inputs from 1900, 0r 1800 in climate models they couldn't reproduce the weather we later had without adding the increase in CO2. When they added in the effects of CO2 the weather patterns that later occurred were seen in the models. As we discussed, the climate models don't consistently over or underestimate the amount of global warming that's happened, over longer time periods like 20, 50, or 100 years they've been surprisingly accurate.

February 19, 2015 2:52 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

I posted "creating conditions worse than so-called megadroughts that have been linked to the decline of American Indian cultures in the U.S. Southwest"


Wyatt/bad anonymous said "luckily, we don't live in teepees".

It would be easier to adapt to global warming if we did. Its a simple matter to pack up a teepee and move when the area you're in floods or goes into unsustainable drought. Not so easy to move, say a major city in Florida with its trillions in buildings and infrastructure when it goes underwater from rising sea levels.



I posted "The conclusion is further evidence that human activity is having profound, harmful and long-lasting impacts on the planet,"


Wyatt/bad anonymous said "actually, conclusions aren't evidence say, you don't understand science, do you?".

I didn't write the article silly boy. It may have been inelegantly stated but what it says is that there is further evidence that human activity is having profound, harmful, and long lasting effects on the planet. Go harangue the other of the article for stating the obvious in a way that gives rise to your inconsequential complaints.

February 19, 2015 2:52 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

I posted "and will continue to threaten the environment even if carbon emissions are significantly curtailed"


Wyatt/bad anonymous posted "oh well, no point in significant curtailment then"

That's a rather foolish attitude. There will be continued threats even if carbon emmissions are significantly curtailed but the threats will be much worse than that if they aren't. Your attitude is like falling into a fire and saying "I'm going to be significantly burned even if I get out so I may as well not get out".


I posted "“The bad news is, these past megadroughts -- and we don’t use ‘mega-’ lightly -- when we compare the characteristics of those to the projections from future models, the future’s worse,” said Jason Smerdon, a climate scientist at Columbia University in New York"

Wyatt/bad anonymous said "move to Vegas, Jason there's always room for more stand-up".

You seem to think the only thing people need to live is physical space - how profoundly stupid of you.

February 19, 2015 2:53 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

I posted "If carbon emissions don’t start declining by 2050, the risk of a decade-long drought in the Southwest and Central Plains doubles in the second half of the century"


Wyatt posted "a minute ago, it didn't matter if we curtailed now, suddenly, we've got 35 more years".

They never said any such thing. As previously explained, what they said whas that we'd experience negative effects even if we significantly curtailed, what they didn't say in that sentence (but what should be obvious (and probably is) to you) is that the negative effects will be much worse than they would otherwise be if we don't significantly curtail carbon emissions.


Wyatt/bad anonymous posted ""the researchers found" I don't know what kind of research this is but the chance is 100% that over 50 years, the SW will have a drought it always has ".

How childish a dodge, skipping the sentence that preceded that: "If carbon emissions don’t start declining by 2050, the risk of a decade-long drought in the Southwest and Central Plains doubles in the second half of the century" and dishonestly pretending it will be business as usual in the future if cuts aren't made to carbon emissions.

February 19, 2015 2:53 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

I posted "Past megadroughts ravaged food supplies and may have contributed to Indian tribes in the Southwest migrating or dying off"


Wyatt/bad anonymous said "well, that's not going to happen this time".

Actually, it...is.



I posted "California’s drought is entering its fourth year, with snowpack levels about one-quarter of historical averages. San Francisco went without rain in January for the first time in 165 years"


Wyatt/bad anonymous said "you realize they had a monsoon last week, right?".

Silly boy, a monsoon isn't a one-time rainfall, its an entire season of heavy rainfall. California most certainly didn't have a "monsoon" last week. That bit of rain doesn't even remotely begin to make up for the disasterous shortfall of precipitation there.

February 19, 2015 2:53 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

I posted "The drought is affecting more than 64 million people in the Southwest and Southern Plains, according to NASA data cited in the study"


Wyatt/bad anonymous posted "Drought'll do that. Didn't need NASA to tell me that. Wonder how much the taxpayer paid for that gem of wisdom.".

Once again, the point you're pretending to miss is that things are getting worse and many more people are being affected than were in the past. Hiding your head in the sand won't make the worsening badness secede.


I posted "Global warming has changed the pattern of the jet stream over North America causing it to travel farther south than normal. This brings arctic air down into the eastern U.S. making that part of the world colder than normal The arctic air is however much warmer than its historically been in the arctic and that's why the ice in the Arctic is melting at an alarming rate. That (warm relative to the arctic) air is cooler than air normally is in eastern U.S."


Wyatt/bad anonymous said "so, a regular stream of cold air leaves Siberia and goes over the North Pole and invades the U.S. if it heats up when it goes over the Arctic, why is it cold when it gets here?".

Oh, please, stop pretending to be stupid. When the long term average temperature for air in the arctic is -40 and the long term average temperature for air in the eastern U.S. is -5 and arctic air warms up to -30 and goes into the eatern U.S. at -20 the same air is warm relative to normal arctic temperatures and cool relative to normal eastern U.S. temperatures - this is what I mean by you're being willfully stupid, you don't want to understand and are determined you won't.

February 19, 2015 2:54 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

I posted "Only that 1% of the world is affected because that's the only place the jet-stream is dipping down farther south than normal. Its not cooler everywhere on the planet for the same reason the whole planet is not as warm as death valley in the U.S. - weather varies greatly depending on geographic location."


Wyatt/bad anonymous said "it starts in Siberia and travels over the Arctic now of this makes sense".

No, it doesn't "start" in any particular place, the jet stream is normally moving and any periods of slower movement may happen at any place in the Arctic circle at any time. You understand but are too dishonest to admit it.

There you have it folks - Wyatt/bad anonymous pretending he has an IQ of 65 and he just can't understand how this all works. Shameful dishonesty driven by a need to cling to his political beliefs at all costs.

February 19, 2015 2:55 PM  
Anonymous watch the woods fill up with snow said...

"And of course these aren't scientists' "guesses", its all based on data and evidence - guesswork has nothing to do with it"

educated guesses are still guesses

that's how our educated medical researchers wound up misleading Americans about the dangers of eating eggs for so long

they guessed, "based on data and evidence"

and, honestly, we understand human biology much better than we do the climate

and, honestly, you don't have to be Einstein to see that a guess about the weather 85 years from now is preposterous

there are too many variables with unknown values, and also variables that aren't even in the equation yet

climatology is just not a very developed field

February 19, 2015 2:56 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Once again, the truth:

When scientists used the inputs from 1900, 0r 1800 in climate models they couldn't reproduce the weather we later had without adding the increase in CO2. When they added in the effects of CO2 the weather patterns that later occurred were seen in the models. As we discussed, the climate models don't consistently over or underestimate the amount of global warming that's happened, over longer time periods like 20, 50, or 100 years they've been surprisingly accurate.

Can Wyatt/bad anonymous argue like a fifth grader? Yes, he certainly can. Which proves nothing, of course.

February 19, 2015 2:59 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Highs are being hit regularly at various places."

Sure there's a high and a low temperature every day at every location on Earth, but what I posted were RECORD HIGHS.

A RECORD HIGH is the high temperature on a given day at a given place that is higher than the high temperature ever was before in prior years on that same day and at that same location.

If RECORD HIGHS are "hit regularly at various places," then the temperatures at those "various places" are continuing to rise and your claim that global temperatures have been static for 16 years is false. In fact that claim is nothing more than Koch Industries spin which, which you have swallowed hook, line, and sinker.

Others, however, including 97% of climate scientists have not.

We are setting RECORD LOW temperatures this month on the east coast, however, I remind you of the USA Today piece I provided and linked to above, which pointed out:

"So far this month, there have been 4,074 records set for warm temperatures —- mostly in the West — and only 236 records for cold temperatures..."

NOAA provides a graph and data of January U.S. Percentage Areas Very Warm/Very Cold

The blue lines representing very cold areas in the US in January start to vanish in the late 1990s while the blue lines representing very warm areas continue to grow longer and more numerous.

Look at the data below the graph and find the last 16 years. You will see that only 2004 had more very cold than very warm areas in the US.

There is similar worldwide data showing the same trends.

Now go stick your head back in the sand and by all means, keep pretending the Koch Industries line is right and all the data in the world is wrong.

And then I have a beachfront property in FL I'd like to sell you if you're buying.

February 19, 2015 3:12 PM  
Anonymous joe scientist said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

February 19, 2015 3:24 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Wyatt/bad anonymous, repeating baseless arguments I've repeatedly refuted in detail is never going to win the debate for you. The facts speak for themselves as any honest person can see in the links I posted.

Your arguing like a child couldn't be more transparent.

February 19, 2015 4:12 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Republicans seek political gain at the expense of defeating ISIS.

Fox news and Republicans have been hammering president Obama on his unwillingness to refer to the barbaric acts of ISIS as Islamic terrorism. Republican politicians use this as a springing off point to make disgusting claims that Obama doesn't love his country, that his heart isn't really in defeating Isis, or that Obama is really on the side of Isis. And Fox news jumps on the bandwagon running story after story complaining bitterly about how Obama won't refer to the beheadings, and burning alive of a Jordanian pilot as "islamic extremism" instead preferring to just refer to it as "terrorism".

There's good reason for Obama's terminology, one that helps us in the fight against Isis and yet hurts Obama politically at home. By insisting on labelling Isis as "Islamic extremists" Fox news and the Republicans are labelling all muslims as antagonists and encouraging the belief that the U.S. is at war with the muslim world - exactly what Isis wants because it helps their recruitment to portray the U.S. action as a war on Islam. The Republicans exploit this to win the politics in the U.S. by portraying Obama as weak and uninterested in attacking the problem because he (according to them) is too soft to refer to the war on Isis as a war on Islamic extremism, as though he doesn't want to speak badly of Isis. Republicans score points with the American public by doing this as it encourages people to believe Obama's heart isn't really in it, that he isn't really committed to doing what it takes to defeat Isis. Conservatives love that the president refuses to use the lable "Islamic extremism" because it allows them to hammer the president on Isis and attack him for a lack of specificity in the policy without offering a military alternative of their own. This has scored them political points with the American public as we see by the drop in the percentage of Americans thinking Obama is doing a good job fighting Isis.

February 19, 2015 4:13 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

From the persepective of the middle east, Isis desperately wants to be referred to as Islamic terrorists, they want the legitimacy that the title of Islam confers on them with Muslims around the world. They want to be seen as religious leaders, holy warriors in defense of Islam, not simply terrorists as Obama calls them. Osama Bin Laden was frustrated that Al Quaida was being acknowledged, recognized, and fought not as a religious organization but as a terrorist group. He even contemplated changing the name of Al Quaida to try to more closely identify it with Islam as he thought that would be helpful to their recruiting efforts. By refusing to label Isis as Islamic Obama is denying them the legitimacy the crave and hurting their recruitment efforts. Republicans are loudly claiming Obama's decision to refer to it as violent extremism without an emphasis on the word Islam is a politically correct cop-out which helps them politically in the U.S. but hurts the effort to destroy Isis.

This although even George Bush said it was counterproductive to inject Islam into a fight against terrorists who have no legitimate claim to religious values. When he slipped up and referred to the Iraq war as a "crusade" he spent considerable effort walking back that comment. If there was a legacy from the Bush approahc it was to be global policy based, not domestic politics based but conservatives are instead condemning Obama for not talking tough by referring to "Islamic extremism" so they can score political points at home. That's the Republicans priority - gaining political power regardless of how badly their attempts to do so hurts people in the U.S. and abroad. Obama is making a deliberate effort to show the U.S. is not at war with Islam and conservatives are undermining the war on Isis by insisting he refer to it as "islamic extremism".

February 19, 2015 4:13 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

And, once again the data clearly show atmospheric global temperatures have continued to warm over the past 16 years albeit at a slower rate than they were before.

If this weren't the case sea levels wouldn't be continuing to rise and rise at an even faster pace than they did up to 1998.

The 2000's were warmer than the 1990s, the '10s are warmer than the 2000's. 13 of the 15 hottest years on record have happened since 2000, there hasn't been a record cold year since 1911 and since that time there have been 19 records for hottest year including 2014.


The odds that this long term trend would have occurred absent human influence is at least one in 1.7 million. To which Wyatt/bad anonymous historically and childishly asserts "a completely baseless statement" when the reality is obviously that HIS disputing that fact that IS literally baseless. The evidence, facts, and figures providing the basis for that calculation are all in the links I posted. Wyatt/bad anonymous doesn't have any basis upon which to dispute them.

And that's just the atmospheric temperature warming, the oceans have warmed considerably more than the atmosphere and the rate of temperature increase has been accelerating since 1998.
and are doing so at an accelerating pace.

February 19, 2015 4:29 PM  
Anonymous sky diver dan said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

February 19, 2015 4:51 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

We've been through this before Wyatt, you repeating the same crap I've repeatedly refuted won't end any differntly this time. Its time you stopped pretending you don't understand and started being honest for a change.

Wyatt, there was no cooling between 1945 and 1970, temperatures remained somewhat steady but were still considerably higher than the historical norm.

Surface temperature measurments are far more accurate then satellite temperature data. While early surface temperature measurements from the 1850's were not taken from as many places as they are today those measurements vary little in accuracy from measurments taken today. And the majority of global warming in the last 164 years has taken place since 1970 after more widespread temperature monitoring was in place and there is no doubt about the accuracy of those measurements. The author of this global warming denialism article falsely claims a "scandal" was uncovered by the hacking of emails of climatoligists which showed them "manipulating" the data. In fact the so called scandal was thoroughly investigated and it was discovered that the so-called data manipulation was really routine statistical analysis work that is widely accepted as valid procedures amongst statistitions and that the calculations made had no effect on the temperatures reported.


Satellites can only measure surface temperatures indirectly and there's a lot of room for error. They use microwave signlals which tend to reflect temperatures at various altitudes. As the satellites vary in age their technology is different, readings vary and the data must be adjusted to try to account for that. The area of the earth covered by each satellite needs to overlap with the area covered by other satellites to try to make the numbers compatible and this is problem prone. Each satellite has slightly different calibrations, orbits etc. To get a long term temperature series, you need to ‘splice’ together the data from various satellites, launched and de-activated at different times. You need enough overlap between the operating lives of each satellite to compare their results to establish a common baseline. Many of the satellites have had quite long lives so another factor is degradation of the equipment and ‘drift’ in their calibrations. There is then the question of whether to use a new satellite’s data with its overlap issues or continue using an older satellite with its ageing issues.

February 19, 2015 5:23 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

The satellites also do not have propulsion systems so orbit decay affects the readings as does heating and cooling of the satellites. All of this combines to result in satellite temperature measurement data being quite unreliable. There are far more problems than I've mentioned here, have a look at the link to see the true depth of problems with satellite temperature data.


A favourite of global warming denialists, John Christy once claimed the satellite data show the temperature increases since 2001 are "statistically insignifcant originally made that assertion in after he completed a series of papers in the 1990s. Later analysis of the satellite data he was using in a 2006 study found him recanting that claim and writing in the study: "Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to challenge the reliability of climate models and the reality of human-induced global warming... This significant discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and corrected. New data sets have also been developed that do not show such discrepancies."


When the correct adjustments to the satellite data were applied the data matched much more closely the trends expected by climate models. It was also more consistent with the historical record of troposphere temperatures obtained from weather balloons. As better methods to adjust for biases in instruments and orbital changes have been developed, the differences between the surface temperature record and the troposphere have steadily decreased.

February 19, 2015 5:24 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

So, contrary to the global warming denialism article Wyatt/bad anonymous linked to there is no discrepancy between climate model projections and the surface air temperature observations. The truth is the most recent satellite data show the earth as a whole is warming.

And as always, this is only a discussion about atmospheric warming. Talking about surface temperatures isn’t the same as talking about global warming — the latter refers to the total amount of heat within Earth’s energy system. And most of that heat — more than 90 percent of it — goes into the oceans. And the oceans are heating up at an accelerating rate.

Trying to hide behind erroneous satellite atmospheric temerature data and make the scientifically refuted claim that its more accurate when 97% of climatoligists reject that won't score you any points.

February 19, 2015 5:25 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

And for probably the fifth time in this thread alone, If the planet hadn't warmed since 1998 or had cooled since then (as wyatt/bad anonymous alternately likes to claim) sea levels wouldn't be continuing to rise and rise at an even faster pace than they did up to 1998.

Wyatt/bad anonymous - willfully blind and willfully stupid.

February 19, 2015 5:32 PM  
Anonymous meteoric truth said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

February 19, 2015 5:37 PM  
Anonymous Alabama educates straight couple about fairness said...

They were told they couldn't get married. They said, 'But we're straight.' Alabama said, 'I know.'

"On Feb. 10, 2015, same-sex marriage became legal in Alabama. Gay couples started going to the courthouse, and straight couples showed up as well. Straight couples like these folks.

-- GIF-- "We were going to get married, and all our family was coming"

But the folks at the courthouse wouldn't give ANY of the couples licenses — gay or straight.

Because Alabama's chief justice doesn't think same-sex marriage should be legal, he told all the probate judges not to issue ANY licenses to any couples.

--GIF-- "They shouldn't be punishing everybody, you know?"

This seems like a really nice couple.

It sounds like they might not have ever thought about what it feels like to be denied a constitutional right.

--GIF-- Aw, no don't cry.

The interviewer basically asks how they feel as taxpayers not being able to conduct a regular state function like getting married.

--GIF-- "It's not fair. I mean everyone should be able to get a license."

I watched this GIF a few times because I think it's so fascinating to see the exact moment someone comes to the realization that denying gay people the right to marry is unfair.

At this point, though, he still doesn't "get it."

He pauses to think, he looks away, and then the lightbulb goes off.

--GIF--"I mean, if they are having problems with they gays, then they still....

....but that wouldn't be fair to them."

What it seems like he's about to say is "It's not fair. I mean, everyone [meaning straight people] should be able to get a license even if Alabama is fighting this fight with gay people."

Mid-sentence, he seemed to switch what he was going to say.

He's right. Denying gay couples the right to marriage, especially once it's been declared legal in the state, wouldn't be fair. That's the point. And for some people, this is obvious. But for many people, maybe it isn't. But now it is. That's progress. That's why empathy is such a powerful thing.

These lovebirds almost do a better job arguing this case than lawyers before the Supreme Court. Almost. I hope they have a wonderful, love-filled life with each other. And I hope they can get married soon.

Watch the video here.

February 19, 2015 5:42 PM  
Anonymous candy, is a minister handy? said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

February 19, 2015 5:44 PM  
Anonymous Meanwhile in Alaska said...

"air leaving Siberia, straight over the North Pole, and down to all the US east of the Mississippi

it's not displaced, we're in the stream as global temps decline"


Alaska's Warm Winter Forces State to Cancel Some Events

"Feb. 20, 2003 12:01 a.m. ET
ANCHORAGE, Alaska -- The Eastern U.S. may be digging out from the worst snowstorm in years, but up here in Alaska people are out playing golf. In the Last Frontier State, it's the winter that wasn't.

Since the cold season started in mid-October, temperatures in much of the state have been their warmest in nearly a century of record-keeping. That has hurt Alaska's winter sports and recreation industry. One big snowmobile race was canceled, and part of the famed Iditarod dog-sled race was relocated. Just this week, the Alyeska Resort in the Chugach mountains south of Anchorage announced it couldn't host the U.S. Alpine Championship ski competition in March because of a lack of snow. Meanwhile, at least one golf course has opened months early, and sightings of bears and mosquitoes are on the rise, way ahead of schedule.

"It's like nature is being fooled, says David Vonderheide, a meteorologist at the National Weather Service office.

Many Alaskans can't quite believe what has been going on. Here in the state's biggest city, for instance, the average high temperature this month was 37 degrees as of Tuesday. That is way above the normal February high of 26 degrees. On Feb. 8, it got so balmy that the thermometer hit a record 45 degrees. New York City, by contrast, never topped 29 degrees that day, and the city's average high this month was 34 as of Tuesday."

"It takes all the fun out of being an Alaskan," says Alaska highway-worker Galen Henslee as he and a colleague carve a trench to drain snow melt off the road.

National Weather Service meteorologists attribute the warm spell to a series of climatic events unrelated to global warming. They say El Niño caused the temperature of the equatorial Pacific Ocean to rise above normal this year, resulting in warm air from the tropics flowing north to Alaska. Meanwhile, they say, a ridge of high pressure created by that warmth sat over the West Coast and blocked the jet stream from running straight across the continental U.S. as it normally does.

Instead, the jet stream shifted north, above Alaska, and headed back south to funnel Arctic air into the northeastern U.S. Meteorologists say the jet stream positioning explains the Arctic blasts -- including last weekend's blizzard along the mid-Atlantic seaboard -- that have struck the Northeast. Temperatures in Albany, N.Y., for instance, have reached 32 degrees or higher on only 10 days since Jan. 1. The normal daytime high there for the first two months of the year averages 33 degrees...."

February 19, 2015 9:06 PM  
Anonymous Meanwhile in Alaska said...

Continued

"....Over the past few decades, Alaska and many other parts of the Arctic have experienced a gradual warming up; scientists variously blame manmade or natural influences. They say the warming has led to a gradual rise in water levels in some coastal communities, the outbreak of insect infestations in forests and the thawing of the permafrost beneath roads and structures, among other consequences.

But never in modern times has an Alaskan winter been as radically transformed as this one. Organizers of the 20th annual Tesoro Iron Dog snowmobile race, for instance, reluctantly decided to cancel the event, which was scheduled to begin this past Sunday. The organizers concluded there was too little snow over parts of the 2,000-mile course to safely conduct an event that last year featured 87 participants racing as fast as 120 miles an hour.

"Right now, the snow is so bad I don't think anyone would make it all the way," says Ken Lee, the 2001 winner of the Iron Dog race. Mr. Lee, a car-dealer manager in Anchorage, adds that he recently snowmobiled 28 miles down a frozen river to his backwoods cabin, but had to skim over water coming through ice cracks for much of the way. "Snowmobiles are not designed to go through water," Mr. Lee says. "The trick is you cannot let go of the throttle."

Organizers of the Iditarod Trail Sled Dog Race say they were forced to move the March 1 start of the mushing competition farther north to Fairbanks from its traditional starting point just outside Anchorage for the first time in the event's 31-year history.

Industries that support winter-recreation activities have also been in a funk. Business has been slow at ski resorts and winter lodges, and snowmobile dealers report a sharp drop in sales. At Arctic Recreational, a snowmobile distributor in Anchorage, unit sales are roughly a third lower this winter than at the same time last year. "It's hard to make sales when there isn't snow on the ground," says Brad Helwig, the distributor's general manager.

The balmy conditions have been a boon for some businesses, though. Earlier this month, the Palmer Municipal Golf Course outside Anchorage opened for the first time ever during February. "You can't 'snowmachine,' so you might as well golf," says Jeff Barnhart, the course's manager.

On one 40-degree day, about 30 golfers plunked down $10 to play as many holes as they wanted. With puddles and mud, the course wasn't in the best shape. But duffers weren't complaining. "I'm in mid-season form," said Bob Stirling as he blasted a bright orange ball nearly 100 yards down a practice range with a new wedge he had just bought. "What a great day! I played golf in February, and I'm going home with a new club.""

February 19, 2015 9:06 PM  
Anonymous iditarod in Boston said...

oh well

Alaska is warm and we're cold

kind of a reversal but, on average, not much change

average global temperatures are stable for the last 16 years, based on monitors on satellites

we paid a lot of money to put those satellites in place because land-based monitors are unreliable

more carbon is going in the air now than in 1975-1998 and yet there doesn't seem to be any effect

if 97% of scientists believe global warming is man-made, maybe they could tell us what their evidence is

it's certainly not correlation with human activity


February 19, 2015 10:41 PM  
Anonymous I'm in context said...

you may remember that the Democrats, not long ago, decided to "nuclear" and abolished the filibuster for judicial appointments so they could jam the courts with liberals

at the time, they were warned: Republicans will be able to do the same if they control the Senate in the future

Americans, who wanted a future, not to mention a working Congress, have now given control of the Senate to the GOP

time to abolish the filibuster altogether

right now, Democrats are holding up the Homeland Security bill by threatening to filibuster

and making the absurd assertion that shutting down Homeland Security is the GOP's fault

eliminate the filibuster, send the bill to Obama, let him veto it and take the blame for shutting down the agency

may seem drastic, but consider the context

Harry Reid did it first and, Obama, who for years said it would be illegal for him take unilateral action letting in millions of illegal immigrants, has now done what he previously called illegal

time to fight fire with fire

I'm sure David Fishback would agree

February 20, 2015 6:11 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Alaska is warm and we're cold

kind of a reversal but, on average, not much change"


Right!

"4,074 records set for warm temperatures —- mostly in the West — and only 236 records for cold temperatures"

is "not much change."

"You're an eediot!!"

February 20, 2015 7:26 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2014/05/15/how-we-count-senate-filibusters-and-why-it-matters/

Click the WaPo link and scroll down to the graph.

The GOP doesn't want the Democratic party to follow their example of obstruction since Obama was elected President of the United States of America.

February 20, 2015 8:02 AM  
Anonymous morning in America said...

Harry Reid is the one who has been obstructing ever since the Repubs took control of the House

what you mean by "obstructing" is not passing bills that Obama has already agreed to

Reid wouldn't allow votes on any bills passed by the House for two reasons:

1. he didn't want his Senators to be in a position to have to defend voting against things clearly favored by their constituents

2. he didn't want to put Obama in the position of having to veto them because then it would be clear who the obstructionist is

no matter

Repubs will eliminate the filibuster for the same period of time the Dems did and then will negotiate a return to civility that future Dems can't violate

assuming the Dems have any future

February 20, 2015 8:40 AM  
Anonymous going to the dump said...

""4,074 records set for warm temperatures —- mostly in the West — and only 236 records for cold temperatures"

is "not much change.""

well, it hasn't changed the average global atmospheric temperature since 1998

a little inconvenient fact for the alarmists

""You're an eediot!!""

well, thanks

for showing what a piece of trash you are

February 20, 2015 8:43 AM  
Anonymous nevermore said...

I just hope the larmists-ay are right and global warming returns

here in zero degree DC, I'm nostalgic for the 90s when global warming was happening

no more

February 20, 2015 8:45 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"here in zero degree DC, I'm nostalgic for the 90s when global warming was happening"

Time travel is questionable at best, however, you could travel to Alaska to play golf in February 2015 and sink to your knees in what we used to believe in the 90s was actually "permafrost."

February 20, 2015 9:12 AM  
Anonymous mild mannered mother earth said...

without Alaska, you wouldn't have much, would you?

a front in the Pacific has caused the jet stream from Siberia to shift eastward

it has nothing to do with global warming

that's why I'm not concerned

globally, the weather has been remarkably stable for 15 years now

it's an historic streak of mild

and while we're on it, Alaska is sparsely populated so there's little carbon being emitted there

February 20, 2015 10:44 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Obviously Wyatt/bad anonymous is lying when he says it hasn't warmed in the past 16 years. If that was true sea levels wouldn't be continuing to rise and rise at an even faster pace than they did up to 1998.

The 2000's were warmer than the 1990s, the '10s are warmer than the 2000's. 13 of the 15 hottest years on record have happened since 2000, there hasn't been a record cold year since 1911 and since that time there have been 19 records for hottest year including 2014. As you can clearly see from this graph of global atmospheric temperatues, they have continued to rise since 1998 - Wyatt/bad anonymous won't accept the truth regardless of how much proof he sees because the truth conflicts with his political agenda and that always comes first for him.

The odds that this long term trend would have occurred absent human influence is at least one in 1.7 million. To which Wyatt/bad anonymous historically and childishly asserts is "a completely baseless statement" when the reality is obviously that HIS disputing that fact that IS literally baseless. The evidence, facts, and figures providing the basis for that calculation are all in the links I posted. Wyatt/bad anonymous doesn't have any basis upon which to dispute them.

And that's just the atmospheric temperature warming, the oceans have warmed considerably more than the atmosphere and the rate of temperature increase has been accelerating since 1998. The oceans are burning up and at some point in the near future they are going to transfer their heat energy to the atmpsohper and we'll see global atmospheric temperatures rise even faster than they have since 1998.

February 20, 2015 11:17 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

And of course Wyatt/bad anonymous has been educated on the myth that satelite temperature data is more accurate and that it conflicts with land based temperature observations, he knows that's a lie but lies are all he has.

Surface temperature measurments are far more accurate then satellite temperature data. While early surface temperature measurements from the 1850's were not taken from as many places as they are today those measurements vary little in accuracy from measurments taken today. And the majority of global warming in the last 164 years has taken place since 1970 after more widespread temperature monitoring was in place and there is no doubt about the accuracy of those measurements. The author of this global warming denialism article falsely claims a "scandal" was uncovered by the hacking of emails of climatoligists which showed them "manipulating" the data. In fact the so called scandal was thoroughly investigated and it was discovered that the so-called data manipulation was really routine statistical analysis work that is widely accepted as valid procedures amongst statistitions and that the calculations made had no effect on the temperatures reported.


Satellites can only measure surface temperatures indirectly and there's a lot of room for error. They use microwave signlals which tend to reflect temperatures at various altitudes. As the satellites vary in age their technology is different, readings vary and the data must be adjusted to try to account for that. The area of the earth covered by each satellite needs to overlap with the area covered by other satellites to try to make the numbers compatible and this is problem prone. Each satellite has slightly different calibrations, orbits etc. To get a long term temperature series, you need to ‘splice’ together the data from various satellites, launched and de-activated at different times. You need enough overlap between the operating lives of each satellite to compare their results to establish a common baseline. Many of the satellites have had quite long lives so another factor is degradation of the equipment and ‘drift’ in their calibrations. There is then the question of whether to use a new satellite’s data with its overlap issues or continue using an older satellite with its ageing issues.

February 20, 2015 11:18 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

The satellites also do not have propulsion systems so orbit decay affects the readings as does heating and cooling of the satellites. All of this combines to result in satellite temperature measurement data being quite unreliable. There are far more problems than I've mentioned here, have a look at the link to see the true depth of problems with satellite temperature data.


A favourite of global warming denialists, John Christy once claimed the satellite data show the temperature increases since 2001 are "statistically insignifcant originally made that assertion in after he completed a series of papers in the 1990s. Later analysis of the satellite data he was using in a 2006 study found him recanting that claim and writing in the study: "Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to challenge the reliability of climate models and the reality of human-induced global warming... This significant discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and corrected. New data sets have also been developed that do not show such discrepancies."


When the correct adjustments to the satellite data were applied the data matched much more closely the trends expected by climate models. It was also more consistent with the historical record of troposphere temperatures obtained from weather balloons. As better methods to adjust for biases in instruments and orbital changes have been developed, the differences between the surface temperature record and the troposphere have steadily decreased.

So, contrary to Wyatt/bad anonymous's desperate lies there is no discrepancy between climate model projections and the surface air temperature observations. The truth is the most recent satellite data show the earth as a whole is warming.

February 20, 2015 11:18 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Good anonymous said "You're an eediot!!"

Wyatt/bad anonymous said "well, thanks for showing what a piece of trash you are".

That's quite the hypocrisy coming from Wyatt who's applauded gays and lesbians being imprisoned for life and executed merely for being gay.

February 20, 2015 11:22 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Wyatt/bad anonymous said "without Alaska, you wouldn't have much, would you? a front in the Pacific has caused the jet stream from Siberia to shift eastward it has nothing to do with global warming".

First, your article didn't say that the jet stream shifted eastward, it said it shifted southward and it didn't say the cool weather in the eastern U.S. caused by that wasn't due to global warming, it said the warm weather in Alaska wasn't due to global warming. Secondly, those were the opinions of meteoroligists who are trained in short term weather forcasting of a few days, not years like climatoligists. You obviously don't understand the difference between weather and climate.

And thirdly, your article was from 12 years ago! What an idiot.


Here's what the actual climatoligists (who, you know, study actual long term climate and not brief weather events) said: Global warming has caused the below average temperatures we've seen in recent years in the eastern U.S.

When you're reading what Wyatt/bad anonymous writes about global warming keep in mind that this is the man who crazily asked "Why isn't global warming making the whole planet cooler?" in response to the articles I showed him explaining how global warming has caused the jet stream to shift southward and bring cooler arctic air into the eastern U.S. How profoundly screwed up does your thinking have to be to come up with a question like that?!

Its because when he reads things he doesn't like about global warming he doesn't engage his brain, he skims over them and looks for the first specious objections he can make and sometimes they're unbelievably stupid.

Another good example is when I posted the article that said "Even if we make signficant reductions in greenhouse gases we will still experience some negative effects from global warming." Wyatt's infantile response was "then there's no point in reducing carbon emmissions" as though he can't comprehend that not reducing carbon emmissions would mean the negative impacts would be even worse than they will be if we do reduce them. Its the same logic as saying "If I fall into the fire there's no point in me getting out because I'll still be burned even if I do."

That's the level of "intellect" Wyatt/bad anonymous approaches global warming with. He pretends he's honest about it but he's completely closed off his mind to admitting he's wrong and no amount of evidence will convince him differently. He shuts his brain off when we post the evidence showing global warming is real and man-made and just skims over it looking for specious and often incredibly dumb specious objections.

Its willful stupidity folks. He's not really as stupid as he pretends to be. He just won't accept reality because it conflicts with his political beliefs.

February 20, 2015 11:50 AM  
Anonymous the mop is iced said...

"brilliant-anon keeps saying it hasn't warmed in the past 16 years. If that was true sea levels wouldn't be continuing to rise and rise at an even faster pace than they did up to 1998."

this is fallacious, andy-ray

scary how stupid one person could be

if an ice cube melted halfway when the room was 72 degrees, it will keep melting even if the temperature doesn't increase

as a matter of fact, the room could cool down quite a bit and the ice cube would keep melting

same with the global warming that occurred in the late 20th century

even if it doesn't go up, which it hasn't, the ice would keep melting

you have to think before you say things if you want anybody to have any credibility at all

btw, one of you morons keeps bringing up Alaska

I checked the weather: Nome is in the teens and snowing, Fairbanks is 27 for a high, Anchorage is 33 for a high

yeah, sounds like Martha & the Vandellas should start singung

February 20, 2015 12:00 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Wyatt/bad anonymous, the ice caps and glaciers aren't in an atmosphere that's constantly above freezing, They go through seasons were some ice melts and then it cools and some ice freezes. The melting occurrs during the summer and then in the winter it refreezes. When global temperatures rise the summer melting season is longer more ice disappears than historically did and there is less time for it to re-freeze as much ice in the winter to make up for it and the ice pack shrinks over a one year period. If the global temperature isn't rising this happens over one year and the ice pack remains at the new lower volume it achieved that year.

Trying to compare the ice pack that freezes and thaws over an entire planet to an ice cube in a 72 degree room is pretty stupid, but as the examples of you I posted above show, you shut off your brain when presented with global warming facts and put out the first specious argument that pops into your head.

Folks, remember, this is the same guy who when I posted about global warming causing the arctic to warm up thus pushing the jet stream farther south and bringing arctic air into the eastern U.S. and making it colder there said said "so, a regular stream of cold air leaves Siberia and goes over the North Pole and invades the U.S. if it heats up when it goes over the Arctic, why is it cold when it gets here? doesn't make sense". He's so willfully stupid, he's closed his mind so much, he doesn't understand that for example when the long term average temperature for air in the arctic is -40 and the long term average temperature for air in the eastern U.S. is -5 and arctic air warms up to -30 and goes into the eatern U.S. at -20 the same air is warm relative to normal arctic temperatures and cool relative to normal eastern U.S. temperatures.

That's how screwed up this guy has made his own mind. He's twisting his own mind into pretzels trying to avoid acknowledging even to himself a truth anyone with an open mind and an IQ of 85 can understand.

February 20, 2015 12:22 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

And of course, not only are sea levels continuing to rise since 1998, they're continuing to rise at a pace that's accelerated since that time!

That fact is in no way compatible with the hypothesis that the earth hasn't warmed (or has cooled as Wyatt likes to contradict himself with on occaision) since 1998.

February 20, 2015 12:26 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Wyatt/bad anonymous's "logic" is typical of global warming denialists who sometimes use the fact that there is a yearly thaw and refreeze of ice packs and glaciers as a way to deceive people into believing global warming isn't happening. They do this by waiting until the middle of winter, quoting observations showing how the ice pack has grown over the past few months and then assert this proves global warming isn't happening. Of course they make no mention of the fact that the ice is going to shrink again in the summer and shrink more than it did in the summers years before.

That's the level of "intelligence" of people global warming deniers like Wyatt/bad anonymous.

February 20, 2015 12:34 PM  
Anonymous enius-gay said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

February 20, 2015 1:25 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"without Alaska, you wouldn't have much, would you?

Get your head out of the former permafrost and pay attention.

It's not just Alaska. The entire Arctic region is releasing methane, a greenhouse gas into the atmosphere and even into water

Didn't FAUX news cover this event last summer?

Mysterious Siberian crater attributed to methane

Build-up and release of gas from thawing permafrost most probable explanation, says Russian team.


"A mystery crater spotted in the frozen Yamal peninsula in Siberia earlier this month was probably caused by methane released as permafrost thawed, researchers in Russia say.

Air near the bottom of the crater contained unusually high concentrations of methane — up to 9.6% — in tests conducted at the site on 16 July, says Andrei Plekhanov, an archaeologist at the Scientific Centre of Arctic Studies in Salekhard, Russia. Plekhanov, who led an expedition to the crater, says that air normally contains just 0.000179% methane..."

February 20, 2015 1:34 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

97% of climate scientists disagree with you.

The only "scientists" you've got on your side are paid big bucks by the oil and gas industry to lie and also promote other idiotic ideas like asbestos and cigarette smoke aren't harmful (for money once again, of course).

While there is some statistical uncertainty with a single year's measurement that uncertainty drops as you add more data and when 13 of the 15 hottest years on record have been since 2000, the last record coldest year was 1911 and there have been 19 record hottest years since then there just isn't any signficiant statistical uncertainty.

The atmoshperic temperature levels have udeniably continued to rise since 1998. Oceans which make up 90% of the heat sync capacity of the planet have heated up a great deal more than the atmosphere and are doing so at a pace that's accelerating. Sea levels are continuing to rise at a pace that's accerated since 1998 which simply couldn't be happening if the planet had ceased heating (or cooled) since then.

The odds that this all would be happening absent human influence is at least one in 1.7 million. You like to childishly asserts that is "a completely baseless statement" but the reality is you have no basis for that claim. The evidence, facts, and figures providing the basis for that calculation are all in the links I posted. You are utterly unable to dispute them.

February 20, 2015 1:47 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

My previous comment is directed to Wyatt.

February 20, 2015 1:48 PM  
Anonymous don't see any expalnations here said...

"97% of climate scientists disagree with you"

if they did, that wouldn't mean much; scientific consensus is often wrong; prior to last week, 100% of doctors were telling patients that eating cholesterol is bad for you; only if 97% of unbiased scientists performed a replicated experiment would thei opinion matter; scientists are as subject to peer pressure as anyone and we long ago passed the point where anyone could be objective on this topic

besides, 97% don't agree on anything but the broadest, overarching statements

"The only "scientists" you've got on your side are paid big bucks by the oil and gas industry to lie"

sounds like the IPCC

their whole purpose is to promote the idea of global warming catastrophe

if one isn't coming, they are out of a job

"While there is some statistical uncertainty with a single year's measurement that uncertainty drops as you add more data and when 13 of the 15 hottest years on record have been since 2000, the last record coldest year was 1911 and there have been 19 record hottest years since then there just isn't any signficiant statistical uncertainty"

none of those stats is incompatible with the fact that the temperature is no longer increasing

that you don't understand that shows how unhinged your mind is

"Oceans which make up 90% of the heat sync capacity of the planet have heated up a great deal more than the atmosphere and are doing so at a pace that's accelerating. Sea levels are continuing to rise at a pace that's accerated since 1998 which simply couldn't be happening if the planet had ceased heating (or cooled) since then"

sure, it could

we've already discussed how that could happen

"The odds that this all would be happening absent human influence is at least one in 1.7 million"

so stupid

go ahead and explain why

and don't tell us to read some link to some underground alarmist website

if you don't understand it enough to explain it, that's all we need to know

"You like to childishly asserts that is "a completely baseless statement" but the reality is you have no basis for that claim. The evidence, facts, and figures providing the basis for that calculation are all in the links I posted. You are utterly unable to dispute them."

you're the one making the assertion

you're referring us to a link because you can't explain it

on the out chance you actually read it, you surely don't understand it

February 20, 2015 2:24 PM  
Anonymous buckaroo of the month said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

February 20, 2015 2:25 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Priya Lynn, AAA, and a few others on this thread and others have done an excellent job explaining how the data informs the science.

All the data in the world doesn't matter to a troll like you.

You prefer keeping your head firmly planted in the sand and only noticing temperatures in your own back yard.

Weather in the DC area does not tell us much of anything about climate no matter what you believe.

February 20, 2015 2:55 PM  
Anonymous try thinking instead of linking said...

I've cited several studies before but prefer to simply talk about the ones they cite. AAA is relatively new, but Priya continually refuses to discuss any reasoning behind the studies

one example is that virtually all studies that Priya have linked have discussed reasons behind the end of the sharp increase in global warming around 1998

yeah, they have their theories and they all still think global warming will happen

but Priya, for the longest time, refused to concede this, likely because Priya doesn't read beyond the titles at the top of sections

and, even now, Priya tries to minimize this fact instead of thinking it through

I've now put Priya to the test

let's hear Priya explain why there is a 1.7 million to one chance that global warming is caused by human activity

if Priya actually read and understood the study, that shouldn't be a problem

but, I think we all know the truth

stop hiding behind links and have the courage to think

February 20, 2015 4:10 PM  
Anonymous living the dream said...

"Weather in the DC area does not tell us much of anything about climate no matter what you believe."

Actually, it does tell you one very important thing:

No matter what happens, there will always be varied climate.

Some places will be more or less hospitable than others and humans have shown a capacity to thrive in all types of environments.

So, the alarmist hyperbole is uncalled for.

If you guys were really concerned, you'd be running around planting as many trees, bushes, flowers and grasses as possible. Plant life sucks up carbon. Around here, the utility companies keep cutting down trees. Make it illegal.

Instead the focus is on cars. Why? A big carbon tax would be a massive vehicle to transfer wealth. The socialist dream.

February 20, 2015 5:26 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

'"WEATHER in the DC area does not tell us much of anything about climate no matter what you believe."

Actually, it does tell you one very important thing:

No matter what happens, there will always be varied CLIMATE.'


There you go again, KeepsHeadInSand, confusing weather with climate.

They are not the same thing.

Weather is the state of the atmosphere at a place and time as regards heat, cloudiness, dryness, sunshine, wind, rain, etc. and can change from minute-to-minute, hour-to-hour, day-to-day, and season-to-season.

Climate, however, is the average of weather conditions prevailing in an area in general or over a long period.

"let's hear Priya explain why there is a 1.7 million to one chance that global warming is caused by human activity

if Priya actually read and understood the study, that shouldn't be a problem"


Priya Lynn has explained the paper five times and she has provided clickable links to it in this thread.

It's not Priya Lynn's fault you are too lazy to click one of her links and/or too uneducated to understand her clear explanations of the science, but then you've always had trouble with reading comprehension and understanding science.

Click the link below, read the paper yourself and try harder to comprehend what you are reading this time.

Unless you'd prefer to stick your head back in the sand.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2015/01/thoughts-on-2014-and-ongoing-temperature-trends/

February 21, 2015 7:33 AM  
Anonymous what are the odds? said...

"There you go again"

you wish

no, I'm staying

sorry, Charlie

"KeepsHeadInSand"

actually, Priya's was in the sand not long ago

then, it turned out the ground temperatures were just as stable as the atmosphere

that's dang inconvenient!

now, Priya's head is at the bottom of the Marianna's trench, where Priya says the ocean is "burning up"

Priya hasn't gotten around to documenting that little bit of lunacy

"confusing weather with climate.

They are not the same thing."

do tell

when did I do that?

"Weather is the state of the atmosphere at a place and time as regards heat, cloudiness, dryness, sunshine, wind, rain, etc. and can change from minute-to-minute, hour-to-hour, day-to-day, and season-to-season"

OK

"Climate, however, is the average of weather conditions prevailing in an area in general or over a long period."

Yes, and every year we have the same conversation. The Eastern U.S. doesn't show sign of warming.

Stability has become our climate.

"Priya Lynn has explained the paper five times"

never

"and she has provided clickable links to it in this thread."

to a website created by Michael Mann, who has become involved in political campaigning, was tied to the East Anglia matter and has been investigated by his university, the State of Virginia and a Congressional committee

the website is cheesy

February 21, 2015 9:52 AM  
Anonymous what are the odds? said...

still, let's look at some statements in the linked article

on whether 2014 was a record year:

"differences of a few hundredths of a degree are simply not that important to any key questions or issues that might be of some policy relevance. A record year doesn’t appreciably affect attribution of past trends, nor the projection of future ones. It doesn’t re-calibrate estimated impacts or affect assessments of regional vulnerabilities"

gee, that sounds like what I've been saying

if 2014 was the hottest, the increase above the former hottest was too slight to be significant and, at that level, subject to be slightly off

as they concede:

"Analyses of global temperatures are of course based on a statistical model that ingests imperfect data and has uncertainties due to spatial sampling, inhomogeneities of records (for multiple reasons), errors in transcription etc. Monthly and annual values are therefore subject to some non-trivial uncertainty. Using those estimates, and assuming that the uncertainties are uncorrelated for year to year (not strictly valid for spatial undersampling, but this gives a conservative estimate), one can estimate the odds of 2014 being a record year, or of beating 2010 – the previous record."

"It's not Priya Lynn's fault you are too lazy to click one of her links and/or too uneducated to understand her clear explanations of the science,"

Actually, Priya is maybe too lazy but more likely unfit to paraphrase what the links said. Sounds to me like Priya doesn't understand the articles and usually hasn't read them.

But one could make a career of reading every link Priya puts up on dozens of posts simultaneously, each with several links. If Priya can't bother to discuss them, why should anyone read them?

As for the current article, this was roundly reported in the media not long ago and dismissed as ludicrous by commentators on both sides, so there wasn't much point re-reading it. It's garbage.

"but then you've always had trouble with reading comprehension and understanding science."

not really

have you been coming here a while?

"Click the link below, read the paper yourself and try harder to comprehend what you are reading this time."

Well, after discussing how difficult it is to do this analysis because of the many variables, the author if the article says:

"It is therefore an almost impossible to do a fully objective calculation of these odds. The most one can do is make clear the assumptions being made and allow others to assess whether that makes sense to them."

gee, sounds a lot like what I've been saying

so, let's hear Priya's assessment of the assumptions

that's how the author said the article should be used

than this:

"Of course, whether the odds are 1.7, 27 or 650 million to 1 or less, that is still pretty unlikely"

well yeah, fellows

but if the range is that wide, you to remember:

the distance between 1.7 and 650 is much greater than the distance between 0 and 1.7

"Unless you'd prefer to stick your head back in the sand."

regardless of where your head is, you might want to stick your brain back in

sounds like you opened your mind so much that it fell out

February 21, 2015 9:52 AM  
Anonymous ha-ha said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

February 21, 2015 10:47 AM  
Anonymous report from the caliphate said...

last week, Obama convened a summit on terrorism

he banned the term "Islamic terrorism"

at the end of the discussions, he presented his pre-determined solution

American taxpayers need to send terrorists to college so they can get good jobs

meanwhile, on a beach in Libya, directly across the Mediterranean from Italy, the Islamic state beheaded 21 Christians and said the next stop was Rome to destroy the "people of the cross"

not that anyone should get up on their high horse

of course, after the election Obama pitched a fit and unconstitutionally let in 5 million

a Federal judge stayed that action last week

meanwhile we learn that if Obama wins, each illegal alien naturalized will be entitled to a 24K refund for the past three years earned income credit ($120 billion total)

of course, the SCOTUS took up the questions of whether the Obamacare law should be enforced how Congress wrote in haste or how Obama wished they had written it

if Obama loses, and he probably will, millions will suddenly have no health insurance

The Obama administration said Friday it would allow people to sign up for insurance plans on HealthCare.gov through April, an extra two months, and at the same time said it sent some 800,000 people incorrect tax statements about their coverage in 2014 and asked them to delay filing their tax forms

just another week in the Obama caliphate

February 21, 2015 11:05 AM  
Anonymous report from the caliphate said...

oh, and Rudolph Guiliani said Obama is unpatriotic

the White House pitched a fit

then, video surfaced of Obama calling Bush unpatriotic during 2008 campaign

February 21, 2015 11:11 AM  
Anonymous the driving snow said...

sitting here watching a blizzard fill up the intersection 12 stories down

it's all part of the climate now

we're getting used to it

February 21, 2015 11:30 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"sitting here watching a blizzard fill up the intersection 12 stories down

it's all part of the climate now"


It's only today's weather.

When averaged in with worldwide temperatures throughout all four seasons, we will learn that the Earth's climate is continuing to warm.

"oh, and Rudolph Guiliani said Obama is unpatriotic"

Rudy also claimed that President Barack Obama doesn't love America and later said his comments weren't racist because Obama had a white mother.

What a pity Rudy chooses to stoop so low to make headlines these days.

February 21, 2015 12:54 PM  
Anonymous on a roll said...

"When averaged in with worldwide temperatures throughout all four seasons, we will learn that the Earth's climate is continuing to warm"

there it is, folks

the reason all climate change studies are tainted is that the alarmists have already decided what the results will be before they even happen

this isn't quantum level physics

cause goes before effect

"Rudy also claimed that President Barack Obama doesn't love America"

well, at least he had evidence

unlike you, who have already determined what the average temperature will be for the year, in mid-February

"and later said his comments weren't racist because Obama had a white mother"

Rudy said this because he had said Obama wasn't raised to love America

and the liberals started up their usual accusations of racism

Rudy pointed out, accurately, that he referring to raising Obama had in a white household so he can't be accused of racism in talking about how Obama was raised

Obama was raised by white liberal teachers and longed to please an absent father who was an anti-colonialist who hated America

who attended a church for decades whose pastor changed the words of God Bless America to God Damn America

when he won his first primary, his wife said it was the first time she was proud to be an American

he's forever telling us that America needs to get off its high horse and that he is managing the decline of American influence

he has ceded several victories to Putin and Iran in attempt to appease them, once telling Putin he would make concessions "after the election"

February 21, 2015 2:39 PM  
Anonymous Follow the money said...

Deeper Ties to Corporate Cash for Doubtful Climate Researcher

"For years, politicians wanting to block legislation on climate change have bolstered their arguments by pointing to the work of a handful of scientists who claim that greenhouse gases pose little risk to humanity.

One of the names they invoke most often is Wei-Hock Soon, known as Willie, a scientist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics who claims that variations in the sun’s energy can largely explain recent global warming. He has often appeared on conservative news programs, testified before Congress and in state capitals, and starred at conferences of people who deny the risks of global warming.

But newly released documents show the extent to which Dr. Soon’s work has been tied to funding he received from corporate interests.

He has accepted more than $1.2 million in money from the fossil-fuel industry over the last decade while failing to disclose that conflict of interest in most of his scientific papers. At least 11 papers he has published since 2008 omitted such a disclosure, and in at least eight of those cases, he appears to have violated ethical guidelines of the journals that published his work....

...Dr. Soon also received at least $230,000 from the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation. (Mr. Koch’s fortune derives partly from oil refining.) However, other companies and industry groups that once supported Dr. Soon, including Exxon Mobil and the American Petroleum Institute, appear to have eliminated their grants to him in recent years.

As the oil-industry contributions fell, Dr. Soon started receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars through DonorsTrust, an organization based in Alexandria, Va., that accepts money from donors who wish to remain anonymous, then funnels it to various conservative causes...."

February 22, 2015 9:18 AM  
Anonymous the objective one said...

that's fascinating but there may be no other way to get funding

the scientific status has made support for anthropogenic global warming theory a litmus test and any researcher that doesn't go along is ostracized and denied funding

it's a sad case where science has sold its soul for political expediency

let us know when this guy starts falsifying data like the "scientists" at East Anglia did

February 22, 2015 5:45 PM  
Anonymous how dry I am? said...

remember that drought in California that is THE WORST IN HISTORY and a MEGADROUGHT LIKE THE ONE THAT KILLED THE INDIANS and is CAUSED BY GLOBAL WARMING?

torrential rains have hit San Francisco recently and in LA, epicenter of dry, it's raining on Oscar night for the second year in a row

February 22, 2015 7:49 PM  
Anonymous Barack Milhaus Obama said...

Obama stonewalling like Nixon:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/22/irs-taxpayer-information-sharing-probe-stiff-armed/

February 23, 2015 8:02 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"any researcher that doesn't go along is ostracized and denied funding...

let us know when this guy starts falsifying data"


He is using "out-of-date data" and and making "spurious correlations" and has a doctoral degree in aeronautic engineering, not climatology, which you'd have known had you clicked the link and read the rest of the article.

"....Though often described on conservative news programs as a “Harvard astrophysicist,” Dr. Soon is not an astrophysicist and has never been employed by Harvard. He is a part-time employee of the Smithsonian Institution with a doctoral degree in aerospace engineering. He has received little federal research money over the past decade and is thus responsible for bringing in his own funds, including his salary.

Though he has little formal training in climatology, Dr. Soon has for years published papers trying to show that variations in the sun’s energy can explain most recent global warming. His thesis is that human activity has played a relatively small role in causing climate change.

Many experts in the field say that Dr. Soon uses out-of-date data, publishes spurious correlations between solar output and climate indicators, and does not take account of the evidence implicating emissions from human behavior in climate change.

Gavin A. Schmidt, head of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies in Manhattan, a NASA division that studies climate change, said that the sun had probably accounted for no more than 10 percent of recent global warming and that greenhouse gases produced by human activity explained most of it.

“The science that Willie Soon does is almost pointless,” Dr. Schmidt said.

The Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, whose scientists focus largely on understanding distant stars and galaxies, routinely distances itself from Dr. Soon’s findings. The Smithsonian has also published a statement accepting the scientific consensus on climate change...."


Far from being "ostracized", he works part-time for a center he disagrees with as he also offers his services to help big oil pretend the sun is responsible for all the effects of all the greenhouse gasses the oil industry and consumption produce.

"torrential rains have hit San Francisco recently and in LA, epicenter of dry, it's raining on Oscar night for the second year in a row"

A few days of rain, even of storms, have literally been a drop in the bucket as far as drought relief goes.

New Drought Monitor shows little improvement

"An Atmospheric River over the Pacific targeted Northern California in early February bringing impressive rain, which helped bring short term gains in the Drought Monitor.

The drought information released this week shows no change in the most severe category of exceptional drought. There was some improvement in the extreme category for the northern part of the state along with the Santa Cruz Mountains and the Northern Santa Lucia Range.

The Sierra Nevada saw little improvement in drought conditions because of higher snow levels and little gains in the overall snowpack. Throughout the range, snowpack is below 30 percent of average for this date. Now, record warmth is melting some of the snow that fell during the recent storms.

The 8 Station Index in the Northern Sierra Nevada calculates average snowpack and is a good indicator of water supply in the Sacramento Valley. The 8 Station Index started the 2014-2015 water year with a 33-inch deficit. This total combined with the average 50 inches of precipitation means the 8 Station Index would need to see 83.39 inches of precipitation by the end of September....

February 23, 2015 8:32 AM  
Anonymous truth and proof over credentials said...

"Though he has little formal training in climatology, Dr. Soon has for years published papers trying to show that variations in the sun’s energy can explain most recent global warming"

well, I guess you should have little trouble debunking the papers without personal attacks then

although his lack of training might lessen the chance of his research being successful, the proof is in the pudding

if you went to a restaurant and had a perfect steak, nobody would be arguing if the chef went to Johnson & Wales

if you heard a marvelous rendition of Beethoven's Ninth, you wouldn't dismiss it because the conductor didn't go to Julliard

and if someone makes a finding that works concerning global warming, you don't ignore it because he doesn't have a degree in the right kind of science

especially when the status quo in the field has demonstrated a bias and predeliction toward advocacy

"Many experts in the field"

Vague term. How many and what makes them experts?

"say that Dr. Soon uses out-of-date data,"

most of this data has some lag before being available

"publishes spurious correlations between solar output and climate indicators, and does not take account of the evidence implicating emissions from human behavior in climate change."

This statement is bass-ackwards. While there is understandable processes that could lead one to believe either could be an explanation for the warming from 1975-1998, only solar output correlates well. Carbon emissions don't.

"Gavin A. Schmidt, head of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies in Manhattan, a NASA division that studies climate change, said that the sun had probably accounted for no more than 10 percent of recent global warming and that greenhouse gases produced by human activity explained most of it."

Could you elaborate, Gavin? You're not the Pope. We need an explanation.

February 23, 2015 10:34 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"although his lack of training might lessen the chance of his research being successful, the proof is in the pudding"

And his proof uses "out-of-date data," claims "spurious correlations," and his science is "almost pointless" per Gavin A. Schmidt, head of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, who is infinitely better qualified to know than either you or Willie.

"We need an explanation"

No you don't.

Priya Lynn and others have provided you with tons of explanations you choose to ignore and try to denigrate with questionable research like the garbage published by Willie, bought and paid for by big oilers like Koch Industries.

You need to get your head out of the sand, quit listening to paid political "researchers," and accept the truth so we can all work together to save the planet for future generations.

February 23, 2015 11:23 AM  
Anonymous swinger of birches said...

"And his proof uses "out-of-date data," claims "spurious correlations," and his science is "almost pointless" per Gavin A. Schmidt, head of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, who is infinitely better qualified to know than either you or Willie"

this statement points to the central problem here

this isn't a problem of facts and scientific reasoning

it's about abuse of authority and credentials

what data is out-of-date?

from what I've seen, up-to-the-minute data isn't available

what "spurious correlation"?

a correlation could be spurious if there is no logical explanation for a process at work but that's not the case here

it's very easy to see how solar output could affect global temperatures

it's also easy to see how carbon emissions but the problem is that correlation is lacking

you need both to establish a fact

truth is the idea that human activity causes global warming is both out-of-date and seemingly without correlation

the current consensus of the status quo seemed true sixteen years ago but, now, atmospheric temperatures have stabilized as carbon emissions have steadily risen

that was then, this is now

science takes a while to admit they were wrong, but they'll get there

Gavin, the Loveboat captain, needs to explain what he's talking about. Trusting scientific authority without sufficient skepticism has always led to bad things.

"Priya Lynn and others have provided you with tons of explanations you choose to ignore"

oh, you mean like that 27 million to one number Priya presented as a fact and posted a link for

as we saw, following the link you find an author saying that the number is anything but fact and citing completely different numbers calculated by others

the author concedes that the "objective calculation" of such odds is nearly impossible and that readers should look at his "assumptions" and "assess" them for themselves

still waiting to hear Priya identification of those assumptions and assessment of their validity

"and try to denigrate with questionable research like the garbage published by Willie, bought and paid for by big oilers like Koch Industries"

actually, I didn't use any research at all

all that was necessary is to look at the internal logic of the links Priya posted

"You need to get your head out of the sand,"

I'm not the one just accepting anything I'm told without question

you and Priya need to use your head and try to understand this stuff

"quit listening to paid political "researchers,""

all researchers are paid

that's who they support their families

"and accept the truth so we can all work together to save the planet for future generations."

only a minority believes climate change will cause the planet to be unlivable

again, if you're worried, make like Johnny Appleseed and plant some trees

I'm in

February 23, 2015 12:06 PM  
Anonymous they're giving out Nobels said...

"Priya Lynn and others have provided you with tons of explanations you choose to ignore and try to denigrate with questionable research like the garbage published by Willie, bought and paid for by big oilers like Koch Industries."

actually, the point I've been making recently is that global warming has substantially stopped

Wei-Hock Soon, who you refer to in a racist manner as "Willie", agrees that warming is taking place

he just has a different theory about what's causing it

he's not alone, btw

I also have asserted that there is no proof that the previous warming (1975-1998) was caused by human activity

that's just a fact

there are no studies proving it

just ask this nice internet that alarmist extraordinaire Al Gore invented

February 23, 2015 1:05 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nobody abused any credentials.

Willie has a different theory about what is causing Earth's climate to warm because that's what his funders want him to find. They want him to disagree with 97% of actual climatologists because they don't like the consensus.

Keep believing Koch Industries' purchased pretenses as long as you choose.

I'm not the one who referred to him as Willie,

Complain to the NYT authors about that. if you think they are racist for using the term.

Is "Willie" a racist name for a person from Asia among conservative GOP people you hang out with?

Willie Horton was a racist ad used in a Presidential race, but Willie Horton is not Asian.

Have you seen Koch-paid Willie's photo in the NYT piece I linked to above? He's not black.

I suggest you get a grip.

Your racism accusations are spinning out of control.

February 23, 2015 3:42 PM  
Anonymous take an igloo class said...

any time you try to imply someone is correct simply by virtue of some credential without trying to understand their reasoning, you are abusing scientific authority

there's no excuse for not thinking

that's how we got eugenics and Nazis in the past

"Willie" is racist because you are replacing an Asian with an Americanized under the theory that its more appropriate

btw, the last time, a few hundred years ago, that we had warm global temperatures, it was also associated with solar activity

when it stopped, we went into a little ice age

if we try to interfere artificially and the solar activity ends, we could be in for a very dangerous ice age

February 23, 2015 4:06 PM  
Anonymous cool sunrise said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

February 23, 2015 4:08 PM  
Anonymous victory lap said...

well, it took a while but TTFers have finally figured it out

global warming

it's over!

at least, they know when they've been beaten

February 23, 2015 8:03 PM  
Anonymous chilly laurels said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

February 23, 2015 8:07 PM  
Anonymous the final days of the Obama caliphate said...

the media is becoming frantic in its efforts to discredit Scott Walker

they are scared out of their wits that someone who has won three statewide elections in four years in a blue state, despite the national liberal machine throwing all its resources at him each time, will be the Republican nominee

the latest: the media has proclaimed him disqualified because he said he doesn't know if Barack Obama is a Christian

David Axelrod is beside himself with indignation

odd, if you read his new book:

At present, Axelrod is running around the country promoting a book in which he confesses bluntly that Obama’s well-documented objections to gay marriage were nothing more than opportunistic lies. In 2008, Axelrod recalls in one chapter, “opposition to gay marriage was particularly strong in the black church.” In consequence, he adds, Obama “accepted the counsel of more pragmatic folks like me, and modified his position to support civil unions rather than marriage, which he would term a ‘sacred union.’” Elsewhere, Obama would tell audiences that, being “a Christian, . . . my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman”; and that, “as a Christian — for me — for me as a Christian . . . God’s in the mix.”

of course, most of the Western world's most vocal atheists have none of the doubt Walker does:

“You know who’s a liar about his faith,” Bill Maher suggested last year, “is Obama. He’s a drop-dead atheist, absolutely.”

“Our new president,” Christopher Hitchens told France 24 in 2009, “I’m practically sure he is not a believer.”

Richard Dawkins, meanwhile, has noted correctly that this theory is popular among progressives. “Like many people,” he averred in 2014, “I’m sure that Obama is an atheist.”

These statements lacked the modesty of Scott Walker’s effective “dunno.” In fact, they were far, far harsher. And yet they were met with relative indifference. Are we to conclude that the bien pensant class considers it to be more honorable for a person to suggest that the president of the United States is lying than to say that he does not know and does not care?

February 24, 2015 8:16 AM  
Anonymous Bought and paid for "deliverables" said...

Turns Out Fossil Fuel Companies Funded This Famous Climate Change Denying Scientist

"February 23, 2015

Written by Jolene Latimer

There are only a handful of scientists who deny that greenhouse gas emissions are harmful to humanity, and their assertions are continually cited by the public and politicians who would prefer to maintain the status quo when it comes to emissions laws. One of the most prominent of these scientists is Wei-Hock Soon from the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics who has been adamantly proclaiming that changes in the sun’s energy are causing events that almost everyone else thinks can be explained by man-made emissions.

He’s somewhat of a superstar in the climate change denying universe, often appearing on talk shows and testifying at conferences and before lawmakers.

But new evidence released by Greenpeace last week suggests his research is not as purely third-party as some would like to believe. Just released documents show at least $1.2 million in funding that he’s accepted from fossil fuel companies, funding that he’s never been upfront about.

The conflict of interest represents a grave transgression on Dr. Soon’s part, deeply violating scientific ethics and the values of the peer-reviewed journals his work was published in.

Many are drawing parallels between this situation and that of tobacco companies in the 60s who used suspicious scientific methods to create the appearance of doubt, keeping people in the dark about stark realities in order to continue increasing their profits. Recent lawsuits have revealed tobacco company executives knew all along that their products were harmful, but intentionally concealed these facts from the public.

The author of “Merchants of Doubt,” Naomi Oreskes of Harvard University, told The New York Times this act hinges on “creating the impression of scientific debate,” in order to “fear-monger.”

Though Dr. Soon’s ties to the fossil fuel industry were previously known, the extent of them was not. The monetary influence on specific scientific papers has been revealed by the recently released documents

According to The New York Times, Dr. Soon viewed these papers as “deliverables” for the companies that were funding his work. A testimony he made to Congress about the non-existence of climate change was also referred to with such an adjective.

His biggest sponsor, the Southern Company dished out $400,000. The Southern Company is one of the largest utility holding companies in the United States and is actively involved in many coal-burning plants

Dr. Soon’s work is criticized for environmentalists not just because there’s been a long-lived cloud of suspicion around his funding sources but also because he has little formal education in climate science and uses dated data to make questionable correlations to prove his thesis that humans are not the cause of climate change.

Even the Smithsonian, who employs Dr. Soon through the joint venture created with The Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, has tried to distance itself from Dr. Soon’s findings, admitting that there is a consensus surrounding the man made effects on climate change within the scientific community."


Dr. Soon's research was bought and paid for by the oil industry and Dr. Soon willingly hid that fact, and the fact he called his research for them "deliverables" from peer review boards in the hopes of passing off his "spurious correlations" of "out-of-date data" as legitimate scientific findings.

February 24, 2015 10:07 AM  
Anonymous AAA said...

Here is some more lovely science conservatives really won't like:

http://www.nature.com/news/sex-redefined-1.16943

February 24, 2015 10:16 AM  
Anonymous real good for free said...

"There are only a handful of scientists who deny that greenhouse gas emissions are harmful to humanity"

few deny that at some level they will be harmful

obviously, if the gases blocked out oxygen we'd be in trouble

on the other hand, if there wasn't a certain level, plants would die

of course, there will always be a certain because humans, like cars, exhale the stuff

in addition to carbon dioxide, other "greenhouse gases" include water vapor, without which there would be no rain, and ozone, fear of the lack of which drove another generation of alarmists bezerk

the question is: are they harmful at current levels or forseeable levels

there's considerable disagreement

"and their assertions are continually cited by the public and politicians who would prefer to maintain the status quo when it comes to emissions laws"

I partake in a lot of media and rarely see this mentioned

"One of the most prominent of these scientists is Wei-Hock Soon from the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics who has been adamantly proclaiming that changes in the sun’s energy are causing events that almost everyone else thinks can be explained by man-made emissions"

I never heard of him until I recently read here about him. I do know the CERN group in Europe, about four years ago, had some results tying cosmic rays to cloud formation and, hence, climate. Indeed, cosmic rays hitting Earth have declined since 2000, seeming to correlate with the halt in GW.

btw, just yesterday, you morons were saying he had nothing to do with Harvard

can you make up your mind?

"He’s somewhat of a superstar in the climate change denying universe, often appearing on talk shows and testifying at conferences and before lawmakers"

TTF's own straw man.

"But new evidence released by Greenpeace last week suggests his research is not as purely third-party as some would like to believe. Just released documents show at least $1.2 million in funding that he’s accepted from fossil fuel companies"

so what?

other researchers get grants from groups that advocate for global warming

it's an area without objective observers

February 24, 2015 1:43 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The conflict of interest represents a grave transgression on Dr. Soon’s part, deeply violating scientific ethics and the values of the peer-reviewed journals his work was published in"

BS. Depending on the journal, peer review itself is often tainted.

"Many are drawing parallels between this situation and that of tobacco companies in the 60s who used suspicious scientific methods to create the appearance of doubt, keeping people in the dark about stark realities in order to continue increasing their profits. Recent lawsuits have revealed tobacco company executives knew all along that their products were harmful, but intentionally concealed these facts from the public."

Except that there is no evidence, or reason to suspect, that Dr Soon did any of that.

"The author of “Merchants of Doubt,” Naomi Oreskes of Harvard University, told The New York Times this act hinges on “creating the impression of scientific debate,” in order to “fear-monger.”"

what's her degree in? hospitality management?

"Though Dr. Soon’s ties to the fossil fuel industry were previously known, the extent of them was not"

oh, so this isn't a new story

"The monetary influence on specific scientific papers has been revealed by the recently released documents"

well, by all means, elaborate

otherwise, this is just slander

"According to The New York Times, Dr. Soon viewed these papers as “deliverables” for the companies that were funding his work"

all studies are

there aren't any scientists working for free

"A testimony he made to Congress about the non-existence of climate change was also referred to with such an adjective"

paid expert testimony is accepted by every court in the land

it's common

"His biggest sponsor, the Southern Company dished out $400,000. The Southern Company is one of the largest utility holding companies in the United States and is actively involved in many coal-burning plants"

energy is our only healthy economic sector

"Dr. Soon’s work is criticized for environmentalists not just because there’s been a long-lived cloud of suspicion around his funding sources but also because he has little formal education"

the work speaks for itself

if a cake's good, doesn't matter if the chef was trained

"uses dated data"

an odd charge from those who claim you need to look long-term to study the climate

when's his data from?

the 16th century

"to make questionable correlations to prove his thesis that humans are not the cause of climate change"

other than that the science establishment didn't pick up them, how are the correlations "questionable"?

the really questionable correlation is that between auto emissions and global
warmth

seems there is no correlation

"Even the Smithsonian, who employs Dr. Soon through the joint venture created with The Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, has tried to distance itself from Dr. Soon’s findings,"

they do need to raise money

and Hollywood has a lot of it

February 24, 2015 1:43 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home