From today's headlines:
"Snowfall creates havoc across Seattle"
"Few commuters are braving bitter cold, icy roads"
"Metro shuts down 100 bus lines"
"Spokane is paralyzed by record snowfall"
Of course, today's weather by itself doesn't disprove the anthropogenic global warming theory. But given that so many of us are stuck at home today and our kids have been out of school for 3 days in a row with snow that in other parts of the country would be considered a welcome winter thaw, it's fair to raise this question:
Why are so many govenment officials spending so much time and resources focused on scientifically controversial and highly speculative predictions about future climate, when our governments aren't even prepared to cope with the weather that we're actually experiencing today?
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at December 19, 2008 08:59 AM | Email ThisPardon my language, but bullshit.
It is the height of arrogance to believe man is capable of impacting the climate in the manner the alarmists are shrieking about. In short, get over yourself. You're not that important.
Posted by: jimg on December 19, 2008 09:17 AMhttp://www.commondreams.org/views04/0130-11.htm
Posted by: Tacomamama on December 19, 2008 09:29 AMClaimshttp://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2158072e-802a-23ad-45f0-274616db87e6
"It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don't buy into anthropogenic global warming." - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.
Posted by: sn on December 19, 2008 09:38 AMThose are some of the things I've learned from global warming believers this week.
Posted by: scaramouch on December 19, 2008 09:58 AMWhat about the last time "mother earth" warmed?
Bush and company wasn't even around.
(who do you blame now)
Posted by: Medic/Vet on December 19, 2008 10:23 AM"Have you heard? The ice age is coming. They've proven it with computer studies at MIT."
"How did they prove that there is an ice age coming with computers?" ...
"The planet is getting colder. They have the data. And it is going to keep getting colder. They have these computer models --" ...
"But they have the data and they have computers!"
... "I know they do. But computers spit out whatever they are programmed to spit out. Load a computer with the data that the world has been getting colder; ask it what the weather will be tomorrow, and what do you think the computer is going to tell you? The world is getting hotter? If it does you'd better get a better computer....
...This latest hypothesis is a violation of the most basic of the laws of logic: the principle of non-contradiction. Something cannot be both A and not A. The weather cannot get colder while the climate gets hotter anymore than the earth can be flat while the world is round. This is not science, or logic; this is unabashed nonsense.
...Yes. Climate science has come to this: We are now being told, in effect, to ignore the data and believe the hypothesis. ... I take it back. Global warming, aka climate crisis, is now a crisis of logic. In other words, it is insanity.
Something else for Al Gore to worry about
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on December 19, 2008 11:04 AMThe AGW left has politicians and so-called "scientists" who rely on government grants to make their living. The dissenting voices are actual climatologists and meterologists who've been working in their field for decades. No political agenda, no side businesses selling carbon credits, no "green tech" investments. They are not beholden to anyone. They are not crackpots, they are not insane, they are not arrogant, they are not stupid. Neither are people who don't believe this global warming crap.
I wouldn't say the cold winter we're having has anything to do with a long term cooling any more than I'd say a warming trend that started in the 70's and ended in the 90's has any long term implication on climate.
All you AGW alarmists can't wait to shut down industry, get rid of our cars, and turn us all into automotons who dutifully not and accept whatever the liberal government commands us to do. This is not how this country became great, and this is not how we will continue to be great.
So all you smug alarmists can COUNT ON a fight. This is nothing but an excuse to force us into socialism. You can all shove it where the sun don't shine!
I have always said, it is arrogant of man to think that what we do will harm Earth.
Face it, Earth was here before us and it will be here long after we are extinct and to assume that we have any control of the weather itself is arrogant idiocy on our [their] part.
It's frightening to think how many mushy minds fall right behind them without ever knowing how they are being duped and manipulated.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on December 19, 2008 11:25 AMAs jimg says, bullsh*t!!!
Posted by: Kato on December 19, 2008 12:41 PMOK smart guy, answer me this: Please sight your evidence that this climate we have right now is the right one.
Before you answer, remember that at one point in history they were growing wine grapes in the UK and that in another space in time, skating on the Thames river was popular sport. So we have an exhibited wide variation in climate suitable for human kind to thrive. And just so you know, it is now to cold in the UK to grow wine grapes.
It's enough to make me want to scream. Certainly an example of how liberal orthodoxy infects even those who claim to be conservative.
And you know what will be next. A tax on beef.
Does the madness ever stop?
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 19, 2008 01:34 PMThe correct term is Climate Change? Are you serious? Climate Change by itself does not denote Cooling or Warming. This is a Forum on Man made Global Warming. So.....Global Warming is the correct descriptive term dealing with the subject of this Forum. Get it? Probably not. You sound too much like a Liberal.
Posted by: Daniel on December 19, 2008 01:42 PMI know it's off-topic for this discussion but it just drives me up the wall when a "conservative" such as Medved advocates the tactics leftists want to use to control how we live. He was a big McCain supporter so I guess that tells you something.
We had a pretty lively discussion elsewhere on this site yesterday centering around "moderate" Republican candidates. I agree with Medved on a lot of cultural issues but he still can't seem to let go of liberal ideas that involve telling people how to live their lives. Taxing Coca Cola because the government believes it's bad for you? Lord help us all.
Back to the topic here, that's what this whole "climate change" phoniness is. It's a way for the left to manipulate the way we live our lives because that's how they get their jollies.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 19, 2008 02:13 PMI'm sure McCain is sincere in his beliefs but to my view that makes him more of a Democrat than a Republican. It didn't exactly make for an enjoyable voting experience last month.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 19, 2008 02:29 PMYou are absolutely right. Too many Republicans have jumped on the AGW bandwagon. Otherwise how in the heck would we ever have had Republican presidential candidate endorse cap and trade?
Too many corporate types too. Seems there might be a buck to made, but that doesn't make the fraud legitimate.
Posted by: deadwood on December 19, 2008 03:05 PMI will pretend you seriously want to know the answer to this question, as opposed to wanting to confuse your readers by combining two unrelated issues.
It's simple cost/benefit. There is high confidence in the scientific community, despite your claims of controversy, that human-caused climate change will cause vast damage that is economically worth preventing. By contrast, it is not worthwhile for, say, the city of Seattle to spend more on snowplows, etc. that will be used perhaps once every couple of years.
Posted by: Bruce on December 19, 2008 03:09 PMOf course it sounds like a liberal. That is the response you get every time you try to pin them down on weather it is global warming or impending ice age.
Humor appears to be lost on the web.
Posted by: Vince on December 19, 2008 03:13 PMFew manage to notice the absurdity. The media continues to pump liberal nonsense into people, and kids get spoon fed liberal orthodoxy every day at school.
It explains why Republicans babble phrases such as "we value diversity" now without the slightest clue that they are simply parroting liberal phraseology designed to deny our cultural exceptionalism.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 19, 2008 03:35 PMI remember changing a flat tire when it was 10 below zero (not here). This isn't bitter cold.
Posted by: John on December 19, 2008 04:15 PMPLEASE. Show us some facts. No computer models that have been a total failure. No please show us. Explain to all of us why the earth has warmed and cooled. Plus why did the people who tell us about warming are the same who said about cooling.
Please, explain why (NASA) Mr. Hanson lied about a date on warming(just a month ago) when everyone else proved he lied.
I'm waiting to hear this answer.
Posted by: Medic/Vet on December 19, 2008 04:26 PMI remember changing a flat tire when it was 10 below zero (not here). This isn't bitter cold.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
It is, if your from Calif. (-:
Then everyone will only be allowed to eat nutrition pills
SOYLENT GREEN IS PEOPLE!
Sheng dan kuai le (Merry Christmas)!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on December 19, 2008 05:04 PMeither way, more micromanagement from above "for our own good"---NY trans-fat ban, anyone?
Founding Fathers would gasp in disbelief...
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on December 19, 2008 05:27 PMwe can milk this great society-like guilt trip issue for many more eons; can you say "consultants" and "attorneys?"
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on December 19, 2008 05:32 PMWhen I was growing up we simply called it "winter".
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 19, 2008 05:34 PMor something like that. I'm not particularly good with the voices either, but you get the idea... I think what happened is the Global Warming fanatics caused the world economy to go into a tailspin, causing a panic and wars, and that was why the Statue of Liberty was buried in pieces on the beach.
Of course, in real life, it ain't gonna be the apes taking over the world - we got them locked up or at least cohabitating (in sin) with that Nat'l Geographic chick in Kenya. According to A CONSENSUS OF SCIENTISTS, ahem, it's gonna be the Jack Russell terriers that will be running the world after I get back from my space mission. They don't take any s__t from you human scum. At least a guy from NASA and an ex-vice president say that.
Doctor Sayus, Doctor Sayus,
d o c t o r S a y u s
(Sung to the tune of "Amadeus, amadeus")
Posted by: Dave Lincoln on December 19, 2008 08:06 PMI split wigs.
Posted by: YourLifeIsMyFault on December 19, 2008 09:01 PMIs AL GORE a climate scientist?
Posted by: pbj on December 19, 2008 10:31 PMWas this summer especially hot? Was this winter exceptionally mild? Is Puget Sound lapping at our feet? The dire predictions of the warmists have not come to pass and neither are they likely to. The evidence is just not there.
The Global Warming mania is driven by the power lusting left and the nihilism of the environmentalist movement. They both want the destruction of capitalism and as a consequence the enslavement of man.
Think this is hyperbole? The above mentioned movie, The Day the Earth Stood Still, makes the case for the extermination of man, by our exterrestial overlords, to save the earth. Only by prostrating ourselves before them, begging for their mercy and promising to mend our ways do these aliens abort their environmentalist cleansing of humans from the earth. As they leave, however, they destroy our technology leaving us, no doubt, to mass starvation.
Posted by: Bill K. on December 19, 2008 11:49 PMJust don't try to take my stock of incandescent bulbs or my Benelli, or you will feel the pain of environmentally-friendly 00 steel shot.
Posted by: Dave Lincoln on December 20, 2008 06:56 AMNow think. Al Gore and all the AGW morons have a nice chart that shows how atmospheric CO2 levels correlate to atmospheric temperature levels (from fossilized tree rings and glacial core sampling, respectively). Because they have a political agenda, they assume the causality that furthers their agenda, i.e., that elevated CO2 levels cause atmospheric heating. However, our soda experiment, and the work of other climatologists studying the data over small time periods, proves just the opposite: atmospheric heating causes increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere as CO2 dissolved in the oceans comes out of solution.
What cause the heating? - Many things, but real climate experimentation and related scientific inquiry point most prominently to solar cycles and cosmic rays. Look it up.
AGW is a fraud, but its also a religion, and believers have faith. It has always been difficult for science to overcome faith (anyone want to be bled by a monk physician to cure bubonic plague or tuberculosis? People who argued that this procedure was harmful and had no effect on disease were called heretics), particularly when faith also yields political power.
Posted by: srogers on December 20, 2008 08:49 AMSee..there are these things called FACTS that wingnuts seem to have problems with. Like 150 million year old fossils, when the Bible supposedly says the world is 6000 years old. Like disappearing ice sheets on satellite maps...or CO2 levels taken in Antarctic core samples dating back 50,000 years. Or the historic lousy performance of the economy under Republican presidents vs Democrats...etc...etc.
Facts are facts. Everything else is just bullshit.
Obama's science advisor is a Nobel prize winning physicist..I think I believe his expertise more than some weatherman. This administration will be great, once we get the pathetic morons and Bush cronies with supposed degrees from Jerry Falwell "University" out of government, and put in competent, qualified, intelligent individuals.
Yep. And what you just spewed was nothing but opinion.
Posted by: jimg on December 20, 2008 11:09 AM1) Existing satellite data shows that the overall thickness of the Antarctic ice cap is increasing. This will be confirmed next year when a new satellite is planned to be launched that will carry the most sophisticated sensors yet placed in space to measure this data.
The extent of summer melting of the Arctic ice sheet (thin floating ice, not a "cap", that cannot affect sea level regardless of its extent) is moving slowly north, but the edge of the sheet still moves south again every winter. The mean of this oscillation moves north and south over time, but it appears to be slowly moving north as it has been since the last ice age.
These are facts. However:
2) I, and most scientists, do not dispute that the Earth has been slowly getting warmer lately, and that this has happened before, it will happen again, and also that the Earth has cooled before, and it will cool again. What I dispute, and what many, many scientists dispute, is that these cycles are caused by human activity.
You said nothing in your dumb post that addresses causality. You mention only a few facts and a lot of opinionated drivel, which shows your reliance on faith rather than your suppressed or unawakened reasoning ability. Whether you intended to or not, I thank you for providing evidence supporting my position above.
Posted by: srogers on December 20, 2008 11:39 AMObamanation to come in the form of New "carbon credits" polluters? of CO2? pay or invest in the new technology that does not exist or has Not been economically feasable until now with the new higher energy taxes to come. This will come to us in the form of an "Energy Bill" or a "Trillion dollar stimulation package". What a waist of American resources and more control coming now we are headed in the same direction of the EU.
We now have had 255 sun spotless days this year. This is the second highest number of sun spotless days in the last century. The only higher year was 1913, also a very cold year. We have sunspot records going back in to the 1600s. There is a strong correlation between low sunspots and cold climates on earth.
The Pacific and the rest of the Earth's oceans have about a 40 times greater heat capacity than the Earth's atmosphere. This is why we find that newer radiant heat systems in the floors of our houses are more desirable than forced air systems. Water has a much greater specific heat, and aggregate water has a much higher thermal mass and inertial resistance to change. The sun warms the oceans, and that's where most of the climate inducing heat is stored. In the last year or so, the Pacific Warm water mass has moved from closer to the West Coast of the US to further out towards the middle of the Pacific. Again, we have record for this phenomenon going back many years. And again, this correlates much more strongly that failed AGW computer models with our actual climate.
In other words, when we look at historical climate vs Pacific and Atlantic water temperatures, and Sunspot data, this allows us to predict the historical climate accurately to what is actually was. When we take the NASA Jim Hansen Global Warming CO2 fear models and plug in the historical data, they don't predict what actually happened. Good models would predict past, and current weather accurately.
Further, there is plenty of sattellite evidence that shows that the Arctic, but even more so the Antarctic ice is increasing. Glaciers have stopped retreating, etc.
It's a matter of empirical evidence, all of which shows that Gore/ Hansen are wrong.
You can try to make this about Bush, about "Wingnuts" or whatever you want, but consider buying a coat and adding insulation to your house, because it is getting colder, not warmer.
If you want energy to remain a freely traded commodity, that you can use for your home, business and life, reject Al Gore and his statist friends.
Posted by: Jeff B. on December 20, 2008 01:22 PMhttp://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18288820/
here is how the new energy extortion taxes work to force all industry to leave the USA.
Posted by: HW on December 20, 2008 01:27 PMNothing like those name calling nutcases on the right.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 20, 2008 03:39 PMGreenland is NOT shrinking. The edges of the ice sheet are calving, but the overall ice sheet is GROWING thicker, meaning more ice is piling up than is losing.
That's HARD DATA from the European Space Agency, a decidedly "fact based" organization.
Oh, and David Mathews? It's going to be 78 and sunny again today down here in Sanya, China. I think I'll go for another swim this afternoon in the 80 degree tropical ocean here. A wonderful place to enjoy Christmas! Glad I'm not back in Seattle with all their Global Warming...
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on December 20, 2008 05:25 PMI'm only going to say this once, because it's obvious you either did not check the link provided OR you are too ignorant to understand it. Per millimeter RADAR measurements from the European Space Agency, the Greenland ice sheet has been gaining thickness AND mass at a corrected rate of 5 cm/year thickness for a decade and a half.
Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.
I expect you to come back with some smarmy comment, which will indicate your obliviousness to hard data. And will make you a completely worthless poster here.
Now, come back with something hard, something tangible and real - other than your lunatic ramblings - and we can go onward. Otherwise it's the twit-filter for you.
By the way, the hot pot today was wonderful, and a few Tsing Qao's washed it down wonderfully. Off to the beach to enjoy a bit of sun and relaxation. Perhaps a nice back massage later today for 40 RMB (about $6).
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on December 20, 2008 08:58 PMOf course after eight years of Obama the United States will be a third world basket case. Just as the left wants it to be.
Posted by: Bill K. on December 20, 2008 10:25 PMIt has long been established that the Amazon Rain Forest effects weather patterns. Nobody disagrees with that. The obvious conclusion is that what we do to change the composition of the atmosphere will effect our long-term weather patterns.
Does one really need to be a rocket scientist or atmospheric scientist to understand that simple cause and effect relationship?
Posted by: susie Q on December 20, 2008 10:36 PMI would suggest you reconsider your heroes.
Or start thinking for yourself.
Posted by: susie Q on December 20, 2008 11:53 PMThe GRACE system is accurate to 1 cm. The report you cite covers 195 cubic km per year change. The ice sheet of Greenland is around 175,000,000 square kilometers.
Since it is obvious that science, technology, and just plain reason is rather difficult for you, let me walk you through it.
1. We have a measurement system called GRACE - that uses gravitational pull on a pair of spatially differentially positioned satellites to infer the relative mass of areas of the earth - is accurate to 1 cm (10mm). Meaning any measurement it makes is +/- 1cm.
2. We have a "reported" ice loss of 195 cubic kilometers of ice per year.
3. The area of Greenland's ice sheet is 175,000,000 kilometers.
4. The ice loss - spread over the area of Greenland - would be (195/175,000,000) 0.0000011 km. Or about 1 cm.
Now, if you had ANY scientific cells in your body - or even a bit of training - you'd realize that making claims that were essentially the ERROR of the measurement device is quite foolhardy! But you deniers, clinging bitterly to your religion, do not recognize the "error" of your way.
Yes, claiming "we've lost 1 cm of ice per year!" when your measurement accuracy is only 1 cm is absolutely worthless. If you don't understand why, then you show your own ignorance.
Prostitutes are cheap in China, aren't they?
You stay classy, Dimwit Mathews!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on December 21, 2008 07:58 AMActually, he is an atmospheric scientist, that is the name of the program at UW
Posted by: Cliff Mass Fan Club on December 21, 2008 09:01 AMAll that can be said is that humans are adding pollutants to the atmosphere that is a contributing factor to Global Climate change - Duh ! Dr. Cliff Mass has echoed similar sentiments. So why doesn't the left want Nuclear power - the best way to clean up our atmosphere when it has been proven that recycling nuclear waste within nuclear reactors as the French are doing will render the nuclear waste concern insignificant ?
Ans: Because they are out for one thing - Control...
Posted by: KS on December 21, 2008 11:42 AMMote, on the other hand, is commonly referred to as an atmospheric scientist and is highly regarded world wide.
Do you believe Mass because Mass tells you what you want to hear?
Just for fun, visit
Mote's extensive work in the field of "atmospheric sciences" and try to find an equivalent site for Mass.
Is it your job to be a dissent for the sake of dissenting because of politics ? You sound like a typical progressive. Prof. Mass has views that differ from the AGW talking points that leftists in lock step with the IPCC (ie James Hanson) spew from their rectal cavity. Disrespect intended.
I'd say that the dead horse in the post has been sufficiently beaten, but the gremlins are not going away - all the makings of a Mexican standoff - YAWN.
this is the best SP has to offer? this person is an idiot
So, cliff mass fan club, show me why I should trust Mass over Mote?
Posted by: suzy Q on December 21, 2008 02:21 PMPosted by: KS on December 21, 2008 03:36 PM
"The conservatives around Seattle can spout off as much delusional nonsense regarding the George W. Bush presidency as they wish, it isn't going to change the fact that Bush is going back to Texas and with him all of your failed ideas."
ROFL - Once again, DM demonstrates that he is a clueless xenophobe who doesn't know what in the hell you are talking about.
Don't feed the trolls. buh-bye.
Posted by: KS on December 21, 2008 07:38 PM"The conservatives around Seattle can spout off as much delusional nonsense regarding the George W. Bush presidency as they wish, it isn't going to change the fact that Bush is going back to Texas and with him all of your failed ideas."
ROFL - Once again, DM demonstrates that he is a clueless xenophobe who doesn't know what in the hell he is talking about.
Don't feed the trolls. buh-bye.
Posted by: KS on December 21, 2008 07:38 PMDo not, I repeat, do not, mention this to any leftists you might happen to be acquainted with. And at all cost, do not bring up the fact that a couple decades ago we were being told to prepare for a new ice age. They will turn instantly into a froth spewing ball of sheer anger which nowadays must also include an eyeball bulging rant about Sarah Palin,(much as DM does here). I have performed this experiment more than once. The results are always exactly the same.
It's one of the surest bets you can make. Leftists never admit that they are wrong. Not unlike the mean little 6th graders they once were. These are the same people who ignore the Salvation Army bell ringers freezing outside QFC because they might be Christians. I guarantee it. I know these people.
Just a theory mind you, but in my observation well adjusted, nice folks end up becoming conservatives. Angry, pessimistic people were liberals growing up and since they're unable to admit that just perhaps they were mistaken, they remain liberals. The became lawyers or professors. They move to places like Seattle, Portland, and San Francisco. They don't know people other than other liberals and if they happen to encounter a conservative they hate their guts. Observe the leftists you know. As they become older they get increasingly angrier.
In the end some of them become the sort of nasty trolls that post here, such as Mathews, Seattle Jew, and Mercifurious. Mighty sad, don't you think?
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 22, 2008 10:30 AMThis is why the UAW continues their assault on big auto, even as they will kill the cow from which they suckle.
True freedom oriented citizens have the correct view of people as free individuals capable of using their minds to be productive and fend for themselves.
Fundamentally, it is either of two ideologies: The Individual or the Collective. The Individuals manipulate ideas, technology, resources and the world around them to make a better life, and pursue their own happiness. And they know that their activity is not a mutually exclusive activity with their fellow man. Collectivists manipulate their fellow man with force, coercion, guilt, envy, etc. and they view everything as a fixed pie, because they only know how to take, and not how to create value on their own.
And when you have that cynical collectivist view, you are not creating value, or if you are, it's at the expense of others. The $75 dollar an hour UAW worker that carries a box from one side of the factory to another, or the WA State Union employee that is far overpaid can only exist at the expense of their comapny and/or the rights of the individual taxpayers, most of whom have to be in the private sector in order to finance the weight of their coporate burden or the wight of government.
And as such, ultimately, they know they are a drain and an imposition on their fellow man, and not really productive. There is no way that they can really ever know happiness, because they are a burden and a blight on their fellow man.
Happiness is reserved for the productive, and those who see the people and the world around them as an opportunity, and not a threat.
Posted by: Jeff B. on December 22, 2008 11:00 AMYou are exactly right in your analysis of leftist thought:
"Collectivists manipulate their fellow man with force, coercion, guilt, envy, etc."
These are not happy, well-adjusted people. They gleefully wish for the destruction of cultural exceptionalism. These people literally think it would be ok if people were still living in grass huts throwing spears at each other. It's just that we don't "understand diversity".
It is a load of garbage.
That in itself wouldn't bother me if they weren't constantly brainwashing people with their hogwash.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 22, 2008 01:17 PMOn the other side of the coin, the collectivists view consumption and production as a source of shame. It's a struggle of guilt even to leave the supermarket knowing that one's fruits and vegetables had to be collected in a plastic bag.
Mankind is the enemy of the collective, and the friend of the individual.
Don't worry Bill, there way depends on ours. They will lose.
Posted by: Jeff B. on December 22, 2008 01:29 PM"they are excited to make the best of that new opportunity and provide something new, and useful to their fellow man,"
A concept nearly impossible to convey to liberals. It's not that liberals don't actually go into business sometimes, but most don't have even the slightest concept of doing such a thing. Their idea of having a job is either being an attorney, a teacher,some sort of government social service job, or one of those swell union jobs where you're paid exactly the same whether you are Einstein, or dumber than a post. Or, after having a legal practice for a while they could become a career politician such as virtually every single Democrat politician.
Do these people have the slightest concept of what business has blessed them with? I reckon that they don't.
Just for fun, can anyone name 10 current Democratic politicians at any level that are not attorneys?
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 22, 2008 02:17 PMSuzie Q: Are you as half-witted as you seem?
Look up Cliff Mass on the UW web site. He has a Ph.D. and is a full professor the atmospheric sciences dept - one of the top At. Sci. dept's in the WORLD.
the almost elioquent Jeff B.:
Love your overgeneralizations. You sound almost philosophical in your ignorance. The free market cures all - is that why our economy is dragging down the rest of the worlds into one of the steepest depressions since 1930?
so much for your pathetic arguments about how wonderful the free market is - even Alan Greenspan admitted he was wrong about it. The lack of regulation led to this massive economic crisis - and prescribing more free market to cure the current problem is like giving cancer to cure it. Ain't gonna work. The supposed free market is not free and has not been since the early 1900's - you guys are living in a fantasy world.
How did oil prices come down so much? It wasn't increased capacitiy in 2 months! You morons don't understand economics or global warming. And Jeff B - your empty philosophy has ALREADY lost. There are more things in heaven and earth than your poor excuse for a philosophy, Hamlet.
Posted by: correctnotright on December 22, 2008 02:29 PMOtherwise I might be forced to revise my theory about you people. Fortunately you can always be counted on to prove me to be correct. No further academic research appears to be necessary.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 22, 2008 02:35 PMSoon it will all begin. They will come in the middle of the night in black armor-plated bio-diesel fueled HumVees and install solar panels on your roof at gunpoint while they show your tired crying family photographs of dying arctic animals. They will force you to remove incandescent bulbs from the home and explain how you will be billed vast sums for each of the CFLs they monitor you sleepily installing while they threaten family pets with organic pepper spray. The agents will leave you your free bus passes (courtesy of your new high income taxes) as they tow all non-hybrid vehicles to the crushing yards where they will be recycled to make windmills, which are only to be installed in front of picture windows on very expensive view properties. As they screech out of the driveway, with your confiscated non-energy star appliances under their arms, they laugh their way back to headquarters wondering how long it will take you to get your television to stop going into sleep mode every 35 minutes. Not that it will matter much, 35 minutes is about as long as anyone wants to watch the weather channel, the only programming allowed in your new FCC approved digital receiver. Happy holidays, and a very merry new year!
Posted by: Acid Brain on December 22, 2008 02:45 PMIf you're my age you wouldn't have ever imagined mandatory bicycle helmet laws. That's the law in Seattle. You wouldn't have imagined laws regulating whether or not you can cut down trees on your own land. You wouldn't have imagined laws forbidding you to have a fire in your fireplace. You would have been unable to comprehend a law that forces you to strap yourself into your own car seat.
You would not have been able to imagine school playgrounds without monkey bars and other playground equipment. You would have told me I was nuts if I said you couldn't go out to a bar and relax with a beer and a cigarette after work.
It never stops, Acid Brain. Michael Medved advocated a tax on soft drinks the other day. And he's a "conservative"!.
Must I go on?
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 22, 2008 03:03 PMSecond request. And I bet anyone trying to answer this question is having a very, very difficult time of it in spite of having the wonderful utility of Google.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 22, 2008 03:21 PMI'm just so pleased that you aren't an angry, name calling, hysteric leftist, "correctnotright".
I am not angry - I am quite happy my country has come to its senses and rejected the negative and failed plicies of Bush and the republicans.
I also enjoy the idiots and mental midgets on here that think global warmimg isn't real. You guys bet on the flat earth too and can't interpret science either....well, intelligence was never your strong suit.
As to the 500 scientists - that has been debunked plenty of times - most of the atmospheric scientists listed did no even know they were on the list and stated that their research was misinterpreted. Here are some of many links debunking that so-called survey that a bunch of idiots keep citing on here:
http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/inhofe-global-warming-deniers-47011101
http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/inhofe-global-warming-deniers-industry-money-46011008
http://www.newsweek.com/id/32482
Looks like most of the "scientists" don't study atmospheric science and of the ones who do - most had no clue they wer on the list and disagreed with it. Yup - just more right wing misinformation.
@108: Richard is right - even if you don't believe in global warming it is in our interest to get off our addiction to oil.
Yup, you aren't angry at all.
You might possibly be scared though. Scared and angry sometimes go together. That whole "global warming" "climate change" scam was designed to frighten normal folks that spend their time caring about their lives and the lives of their families. They don't have time to be political junkies who easily can figure out that liberals are phonies. They just turn on NBC when they get home and get the liberal line shoved on them every night while they fix dinner. That's how it is.
Decent people don't go around scaring the daylights out of people for political gain, but folks like Al Gore, (who is perhaps the biggest hypocrite on the planet), have been doing that for years without any evident remorse. Heck no, they get Nobel Prizes for their hypocrisy, (it would be bad form to mention that a Nobel Prize has been reduced to nothing more than a phony liberal annointment).
Now that it seems that the entire scheme might be collapsing just look at how the left reacts.
They are furious.
The collapse of your leftist scam could not possibly happen to a more deserving bunch of phonies. Who the heck are you people? Well, you are lawyers mostly. And academics. And career politicians,(usually lawyers), who hate the idea of school choice but your kids always go to "Sidwell Friends" private school.
You probably cheat on your golf scores, too.
"Just for fun, can anyone name 10 current Democratic politicians at any level that are not attorneys?"
Sure I believe there have to be some, but I don't think there are many.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 22, 2008 06:54 PMWell, since this board focuses on the Puget Sound, the first 5 who come to mind are Greg Nickels, Ron Sims, Patty Murray, Maria Cantwell, and Jim McDermott. Not a lawyer in the bunch.
OK, just for fun, I'll come up with 5 more. Nancy Pelosi, Tom Daschle, Bill Richardson, Al Gore, Mark Begich. And for a bonus, let's try Al Franken. That was easy...
Posted by: Bruce on December 23, 2008 12:20 AMWith the exception of Franken and McDermott I'd hazard a guess most of the others you list have been career politicians since they graduated with either degrees in political science, or government. Maybe one of them worked in a non-government related field, or owned a business. Maybe.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 23, 2008 09:48 AMI found a site saying that about half of Congress has law degrees. I couldn't find a breakdown by party, but given how easy it was to come up with 10 non-lawyer Democrats as you asked, I suspect it's close to even. Of course that's far more than the general population; after all, Congress's job is to make laws. And of course many other politicans have studied politics, government, etc. Duh, that's their job. But that doesn't mean they are all the same; it means that many of the same people who choose to work in government choose to study it first.
Posted by: Bruce on December 23, 2008 03:38 PMI found a site saying that about half of Congress has law degrees. I couldn't find a breakdown by party, but given how easy it was to come up with 10 non-lawyer Democrats as you asked, I suspect it's close to even. Of course that's far more than the general population; after all, Congress's job is to make laws. And of course many other politicans have studied politics, government, etc. Duh, that's their job. But that doesn't mean they are all the same; it means that many of the same people who choose to work in government choose to study it first.
Posted by: Bruce on December 23, 2008 03:39 PMI found a site saying that about half of Congress has law degrees. I couldn't find a breakdown by party, but given how easy it was to come up with 10 non-lawyer Democrats as you asked, I suspect it's close to even. Of course that's far more than the general population; after all, Congress's job is to make laws. And of course many other politicans have studied politics, government, etc. Duh, that's their job. But that doesn't mean they are all the same; it means that many of the same people who choose to work in government choose to study it first.
Posted by: Bruce on December 23, 2008 03:39 PMOf course not. They're Democrats.