Hillary and Jeb (& Bernie and Byron Too) and Crystalline Wafers

If it was up to the GOP establishment, we’d go straight to both conventions and have a coronation of Queen Hillary and aging Dauphin Jeb Le Bush. And then the fun could start. People have spent time and more than a little money, lots of money on both sides in fact, preparing for this inevitable showdown that has proven most evitable for some time now. The undoubtedly battle-scarred and beltway-schooled aides, analysts, and pundits are unwilling, in large part, to let go of what they see as the true battle of choices for 2016.

Byron York has proven an exception to this rule. Maybe it's that time spent in the hallowed halls of Chicago that apparently fosters deep and abiding passions for the truth. Or maybe it's a case of being willing to actually listen and observe to what is going on on the ground. Rather than to parse and debrief and deconstruct the data for the benefit of all those naive, angry voters who will fall in line. Yes, they will. Any time now.

Spending dem debate night at the Stamp Student Union's auditorium at U of Maryland counting jelly beans (ok plastic beads in jars that showed who liked who) is about as down and dirty and local as you can get. And what it showed was that (a very unstatistical poll of course) young Dems do not like Hillary. And yes, they love Bernie. Classic european socialism plugged into social media like a crystalline wafer being doped with impurities. The fact that these young tech-savvy Dems are often entrepreneurial and innovative seems not to be a contradiction in their minds. You can do both! Innovate and build a new enterprise and over-tax successful people! All at the same time! The sky's the limit with Bernie!

Hillary is establishment. Big left-seeming money is establishment. Big right-leaning money is also establishment. Jeb is courteously and completely establishment. He can take his shirt off and get busy on stage all he wants and Hillary can deliver polished performances at debate time, but convincing people unhappy with the establishment - whether voters' definition of that word makes sense or not - is another matter. Ironically, it is Jeb that just might have the edge with young people over Hillary. It might be too late for him to leverage that, but like Bernie, he is desperately reaching for the younger vote. And the identity-politics vote. He has the establishment vote, whatever the heck that means in 2016, for now. But wrapping his arms around all those groups is a mighty challenge. Maybe Jeb should give Bernie a call, and stop being so cautious.

Posted by Keeley at October 14, 2015 4:18 PM
Comments
Comment #399545

Keeley, we haven’t heard a peep out of the socialists and libs regarding the dem debate. Too embarrassed to comment I suppose.

What we witnessed last night was a bidding war for votes. Working Americans understand that all this largess for others will come out of their pockets.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 14, 2015 5:44 PM
Comment #399546

Every democrat on that stage last night advocates killing the unborn, flooding our country with uneducated illegals who suck huge amounts of money from our welfare programs, add Trillions to our national debt, deny that “all lives matter”, promote programs that destroy the very fabric of our families and society, and given the chance, using executive orders, curtail or remove our 1st and 2nd Amendment rights.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 14, 2015 6:31 PM
Comment #399547

RF
I guess you can’t out socialize the socialists

The dems pick these little fights like the speaker position. They make absolutely no sense in their utterance. And that has nothing to do with a cows teats.
Dumb Debbie of DNC prominence is so out of touch with everybody that the words coming out of her oval orifice is just laughable. She sounds like a first grader. Hillary sounds like a lying, leaping, leopard lost in the lemmings of lacksadaisical lips of a lazy lard bucket

Gone for the night to watch Blackhawks and Flyers

Posted by: tom humes at October 14, 2015 6:38 PM
Comment #399548

AP FACT CHECK: Clinton, Sanders revise history in Dem debate

http://www.aol.com/article/2015/10/14/ap-fact-check-clinton-sanders-revise-history-in-dem-debate/21248948/

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 14, 2015 6:57 PM
Comment #399549

Hillary knocked it out of the park in the debate and she will win the nomination with ease. The GOP does not have a viable candidate to challenge her, so it is no great feat of prognostication to foresee Hillary will be the next president, and she will almost certainly have a Democratic Senate behind her. It’s pretty much a given, since the Democrats only have to defend 10 seats, and the Republicans have to defend 24. The Democratic Senate will be important because that means she will control Supreme Court picks.

As for the House, who knows? Roughly 84 Republicans belong to three fringe caucuses, and their seats are safe. These are the crazies, and they want to see the place burn if they don’t get their agenda enacted. The rest of the House GOP may form some sort of alliance with Democrats in order to take care of the basic business of governance.

Senator Sanders did well, but not well enough to matter. The minor candidates did not manage any game changers. It’s just not that interesting a race, and as much as the media would like to see a horse race, it’s just not going to happen.

Get used to the idea of President Clinton.

Posted by: phx8 at October 14, 2015 8:24 PM
Comment #399551

Today’s polls, I hate to bust your bubble ph, but Hillary is in trouble:

General Election: Trump vs. Clinton FOX News Clinton 40, Trump 45 Trump +5 General Election: Bush vs. Clinton FOX News Bush 44, Clinton 40 Bush +4 General Election: Fiorina vs. Clinton FOX News Fiorina 42, Clinton 39 Fiorina +3 General Election: Carson vs. Clinton FOX News Carson 50, Clinton 39 Carson +11

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/president/

Posted by: Blaine at October 14, 2015 8:39 PM
Comment #399552

Hillary’s a liar and she’s flip-flopped on every issue. How could anyone take her seriously; Cooper asked her, is she willing to do anything to get elected…answer…YES she is.

Posted by: Blaine at October 14, 2015 8:43 PM
Comment #399554

Phx is one of those who IMO are the ones who blindly pull the lever for anyone that has a “D” after their name. Not caring for anything but that “D”.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at October 14, 2015 9:05 PM
Comment #399555

Blaine,
Being a bit selective with which RCP poll from 10/13 you cite. The FOX poll shows GOP candidates beating Hillary. Surprise surprise. The Quinnipiac poll shows Hillary beating most candidates with the exception of Jeb! I would suggest taking both of those polls with a generous side of salt. Incidentally, neither reflects Hillary’s debate performance.

Trump and Carson lead most of those polls, with no one else consistently making it into the double digits. Remember, the Republican primaries are different this year. They are winner take all. If Trump wins a primary with 30%, he takes all the delegates. Given the way Trump has managed to stay at the top of the polls despite what would normally be career-killing gaffes, it is hard to see anyone overtaking him. Jeb! has the money and @ 20% of the super delegates, so he will be in it for the long haul. Rubio has a LOT of dark money quietly backing him. Cruz has enough to keep going too. Carson should have self-destructed by now; like Trump, he says something ridiculous almost daily. Yet GOP voters do not care. Maybe he’ll keep going to, although it is hard to imagine anyone actually pulling the lever for a guy who doesn’t know the difference between the deficit and the national debt, or what the debt ceiling actually is… But hey, it’s only October, and among conservatives, a fundamental ignorance about policies and issues is not even considered a stumbling block anymore.

Posted by: phx8 at October 14, 2015 10:13 PM
Comment #399556

ph, looks like you got it all figured out…except….”GOP voters do not care”, as you say. So I imagine GOP voters will vote for whoever the GOP candidate is; which leaves the independents. And since Hillary has such a low trust issue, I figure mot of them will vote for real change this time. The way I figure, some diehards like yourself will vote for whoever has the “D”, but there are a lot of Dems who will have no part of the lying vile person. Perhaps you should check with Warren Porter and see how he feels about HRC. He much represent a constituency.

Posted by: Blaine at October 15, 2015 12:35 AM
Comment #399557

So it begins ph:

“Young Democrats loving Bernie, hating Hillary on debate night”

“She’s the epitome of the establishment and the corrupt politicians, and there are so many things to dislike about her,” said J.T. Stanley, a senior who is one of the co-founders of Terps for Bernie. “My number-one issue is money in politics, because we can’t do anything about global warming until we get the money out of the system. That’s my single issue, and that’s why I despise Hillary. She’s the devil.”

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/young-democrats-loving-bernie-hating-hillary-on-debate-night/article/2574083

Posted by: Blaine at October 15, 2015 12:42 AM
Comment #399558

Tell me it ain’t so ph:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/10/14/we-still-won-t-have-a-female-president.html

“Considering her to be a lock to become the next president would be ill advised”

From your side, read it and weep….

Posted by: Blaine at October 15, 2015 12:49 AM
Comment #399559

Blaine,
“My number-one issue is money in politics, because we can’t do anything about global warming until we get the money out of the system.”

That’s a silly thing to say, first claiming that nothing can be done about Global Warming because of money in politics- that barely makes sense- and second, because Hillary Clinton has publicly stated her opposition to Citizens United, as have most other Democrats. Hillary raises a lot of money because she has chosen to act within the rules of the system. Sanders has chosen not to do so. Sanders may be admirable,, but Hillary will win the nomination.

The linked article is even sillier. The female author’s thesis seems to be that women are discriminated against, sure, but they already have some, and some is good enough, so no one will see the need for a female president. The article is virtually void of content. I’ve seen the author on talk shows before and she’s usually pretty good, so that article is very disappointing. To point out that there are 6 female GOP Senators while not pointing out there are 48 males is just ridiculous.

Posted by: phx8 at October 15, 2015 9:47 AM
Comment #399561

RF
I guess you can’t out socialize the socialists

The dems pick these little fights like the speaker position. They make absolutely no sense in their utterance. And that has nothing to do with a cows teats.
Dumb Debbie of DNC prominence is so out of touch with everybody that the words coming out of her oval orifice is just laughable. She sounds like a first grader. Hillary sounds like a lying, leaping, leopard lost in the lemmings of lacksadaisical lips of a lazy lard bucket

Posted by: tom humes at October 15, 2015 10:47 AM
Comment #399562

13 months out and the cons & repubs are at it again making their wild predictions of election outcomes. Let’s review:

Romney will win in a landslide!
Obama is one term and done!
McCain will wind in a landslide!
Obama will never get nominated!

And that’s just a sampling. How many times do you have to be wrong on predictions before you begin to realize that maybe your predictive analysis is askew?

Hillary did outstanding in the debate. Her next big test was going to be the Benghazi Special Committee appearance but now that cons and repubs are admitting that it was a partisan attempt to damage her campaign, that doesn’t seem to bode well for her demise. We will see, time will tell.

From what I took away from the debates Hillary doesn’t seem to want to shy away from forcing the issue on several positions that have caused problems in the past. Stricter gun control legislation, women’s health and in particular the pro choice position, wage equality, immigration reform, to name a few. This will be an interesting campaign since the righties seem to be adamant that those positions could spell trouble for Hillary. I say it’s about time, let’s get it on HRC, we’ve got your back. Oh and she seemed to have a vibrancy in the debate appearance that I haven’t seen in awhile, look for that to become the norm.

Posted by: Speak4all at October 15, 2015 11:03 AM
Comment #399563

All I hear out of Hillary is “I was for it then now I’m against it” FLIP FLOP, FLIP FLOP. Vibrancy in the debate??? We all know that the 4 old guys had their marching orders to go easy on the old lady, so how VIBRANT can you get.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at October 15, 2015 11:20 AM
Comment #399564

IMO, this election could be one that redefines the future of this country.
A dishonest politician who knowingly mishandled classified government information, being elected President with being anti 2nd Amendment and giving illegal aliens free health care, as a major part of her platform.

Posted by: kctim at October 15, 2015 11:20 AM
Comment #399565

By the way those 4 old guys know they can’t win, but the DNC had to put on a show so you get what you pay for.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at October 15, 2015 11:22 AM
Comment #399566

KAP,
“By the way those 4 old guys know they can’t win…”
Never underestimate the egos of people who are running for president. They say the first words out of every Senator’s mouth when they look in the mirror are ‘good morning, Mr. President.’

Flip flop? I don’t see it. She has changed her positions on some issues, but I am fine with that. HRC is a pragmatist, not an ideologue. If you want ideological purity, you will have to look elsewhere. Generally speaking, she is liberal on social issues and hawkish on foreign policy. She is more conservative on economic policy than I would like to see. She (and Obama) support what the NSA is doing. Sanders opposes it, and so do I. On the other hand, HRC supports gun control, while Sanders opposes it, and on that issue, I am with HRC.

There is no such thing as a perfect candidate, or a candidate who never changes their views. Hillary makes her views well known, and she goes to great trouble to articulate her positions. Usually I agree with her. Sometimes not. But she stands head and shoulders above any of the other candidates, not only in terms of where she stands on the issues, but in terms of gravitas.

Btw, if you dislike HRC for flip flopping, you must absolutely hate Donald Trump.

kctim,
“A dishonest politician who knowingly mishandled classified government information…”
She never mishandled classified information. That is false. The FBI did its investigation and found nothing wrong. Nothing.

Posted by: phx8 at October 15, 2015 11:39 AM
Comment #399567

Phx8,
The FBI investigation has been completed and it found that classified government information was not found on her personal server?
I was not aware of that. Thank you for the update.

Posted by: kctim at October 15, 2015 11:46 AM
Comment #399568

kctim,
Some of the declassified information have been retroactively classified in the past few months; in other words, they were declassified at the time they were sent. In addition, Hillary was NEVER the target of the FBI investigation. The NYT made that accusation in print and retracted it shortly afterward.

In a week HRC will testify before the Benghazi Committee. It is likely to go very badly for the Committee. Recently Majority Leader McCarthy announced- twice!- that the purpose of the Committee was to drive down Hillary’s poll numbers. Seriously, that guy was not the sharpest knife in the drawer. I think we all knew that already, but publicly declaring it destroyed any thin veneer of respectability the Committee might have possessed. Since then, a Committee investigator said he was instructed to ignore all other issues and only investigate HRC; and another Congressman said it was true that the only purpose of the Committee was to attack Hillary.

There have already been 8 committees investigating HRC, and none found anything that was not already known within days of the original event. Those committees include the House Intelligence Committee chaired by a powerful Republican.

There’s nothing wrong with opponents attacking HRC. However, they have no right to use taxpayer money to conduct a partisan attack, and the current Committee has violated various agreements to conduct its attacks, including selectively leaking info to smear her, and conducting interviews without informing Democrats, and then attempting to hide the interviews when nothing was discovered.

This Committee is in big trouble. They have zero credibility, and right now, Hillary is on top of her game. Should be fun.

Posted by: phx8 at October 15, 2015 11:57 AM
Comment #399569

Phx8

I said she was a dishonest politician: She said she did not e-mail any classified material to anyone, but classified material was found on her private server.

I said she who knowingly mishandled classified government information: She said she was well aware of the classification requirements and did not send classified material, but classified material was found on her private server.

Wouldn’t somebody “well aware of the classification requirements” know that it can be retroactively classified? Yes. Why then would they store such information on an unsecured private server?

I’m not making some far out claims here, I am only stating the facts that are known. She has been dishonest and classified material has been mishandled.

Are you changing the subject to Benghazi because the FBI has not concluded its investigation and declared they have found nothing wrong?

Posted by: kctim at October 15, 2015 12:22 PM
Comment #399570

phx8, I have searched and searched to see if the FBI has concluded their investigation of the Clinton e mails and have found NO SUCH THING!!! How can it be done if they expanded their search to a second company just last week? I think it will take more then a week to search through a second server company, don’t you?

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at October 15, 2015 12:29 PM
Comment #399571

ph, you conviently missed the whole point of the dailybeast article, it doesn’t Matt if you agree with it, or whether it’s factual; the point is millennials find HRC untrustworthy, a liar, and tied to big doners. In short, they hate her.

speaks, Hillary will do or say anything to be elected. She has flip-flopped to sound more socialist than sanders, and she will flip again when she gets the democratic coronation in order to sound more moderate. Sorry, but no one can believe a word she’s saying.

Regarding Trump’s so called flip-flops; perhaps ph could give us an example of when Trump was in political office and voted for one thing and then flipped his opinion, or perhaps ph could tell us when Trump was on government payroll and making deals with foreign nations, and then flipped. In both cases Hillary did so, but as far as I know, Trump has never been elected or served as a government employee. Private citizen’s opinion change all the time; why even my opinion has changed on things, I used to think liberals were just ignorant, but my opinion has changed, now I think they are ignorant and are purposely trying to destroy America.

Republicans using Bhengazi and the email incidents to hurt Hillary’s election chances are just liberal talking points. In all honesty, she is the preferred candidate to run against any of the republicans.

Posted by: Blaine at October 15, 2015 12:36 PM
Comment #399572

Hillary understands center left politics better than anyone I am familiar with. Center left is where this election is going and will end up. The Republicans cannot find center right because it does not exist anymore. It has been replaced by right wing fanaticism that has no bounds. Reasonable voters see this and will decide accordingly. I have complete confidence that Hillary Clinton will address all of the right wing nonsense as she should. All we keep hearing is “she lied” “she’s bought and paid for” “she’s mean” “she’s ugly”. American voters see through this facade and will make their decisions. Unfortunately the right wing radio crowd has been spoon fed nonsense and will suffer the consequences of believing nonsense. The Clinton campaign machine is now beginning to gear up and I understand why it has the right wing men so frightened. Change is gonna come.

Posted by: Speak4all at October 15, 2015 12:51 PM
Comment #399573

KAP and Tim, these are the leftist talking points. None of the investigations are finished. The left makes false statements and the tries to build upon a false premise. Warren Porter did the same thing when talking gun violence statistics. His claim was that a gun owner was more likely to commit suicide than he was to kill a person in an attack. This statistic makes no sense, because the Harvard research from 2007 found that the more guns there are in a society, the less crime is committed. Therefore, as gun ownership goes up and crime goes down, the only thing left unchanged is the suicide rates, which by default suicide becomes at a higher rate than the killing of an attacker. So WP’s comments are based on a false premise.

The left does the same with all their arguments. And the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree. It’s what all leftist do. They make a comment on a false premise and then to continue to build. But everything is based upon a lie.

So speaks, you don’t believe the democrat party has moved more left over the past say 20 years? Hillary is not center left, she’s trying to be left of Sanders. Which she will try to move center left after the coronation.

Your love of Hillary or Obama is not shared by a majority of Americans. Most Americans don’t trust either of them.

Posted by: Blaine at October 15, 2015 1:05 PM
Comment #399574

To prove my point about how leftist try to win the argument, all you have to do is read speak’s last comments:

1. Center-left is where the election is going; false premise.

2. The center-right does not exist; false premise.

3. American voters see through the facade of claims on Hillary; false premise.

If these things were true, then why is Hillary nose diving in the polls?

Speaks loves to make false claims; after he says we need to wait and see. That polls don’t mean anything unless it shows democrats winning. If they are loosing, we need to wait and see.

Posted by: Blaine at October 15, 2015 1:18 PM
Comment #399576

President Obama ran his campaign on center left ideas and policies. President Obama won two elections by running on center left ideas and policies. President Obama has governed from a center left position. Let’s dissect the right wings predictions once he was elected:

FEMA re-education camps will be organized.
Death panels will be instituted through Obamacare.
Gun confiscation will take place.
Government takeover of healthcare is going to happen.

None of these spoon fed nonsensical things happened. That doesn’t matter to the right wing audience that sucked this nonsense up like so much pap and pablum. They still believe this nonsense. The “normal” voter that decided to give a center left candidate a chance to implement ideas and policies twice, sees that that is exactly what happened. They will again see the nonsense of fright wing radio and be just as receptive to that as they were in 2008 and 2012. Hillary understands this and will appeal in the same rational, logical method to the voters and, I believe convince them that the last 8 years was nothing like the predictions of the right wing fanatical and should not be incorporated into their decision making process for 2016.

The only poll that really matters is the one that will take place in November of 2016. I am quite content to wait and support the candidate of my choice until that time. I encourage anyone else to do the same.

Posted by: Speak4all at October 15, 2015 2:12 PM
Comment #399577

Oh and she seemed to have a vibrancy in the debate appearance that I haven’t seen in awhile, look for that to become the norm.
Posted by: Speak4all at October 15, 2015 11:03 AM

Good Meds?

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 15, 2015 3:08 PM
Comment #399578

Blaine wrote; “But everything is based upon a lie.”

For sure…remember Allgore and MMGW?

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 15, 2015 3:16 PM
Comment #399579

Caught a snippet of Hillary’s interview at the USHCC (United States Hispanic Chamber of Commerce). She had laudable things to say about the Castro brothers and even inferred that she would certainly look long and hard at Julian Castro. Now it is way too early to start talking about running mates but Julian would make an excellent vice presidential candidate. Of course she first needs to gain the nomination and then there are many other laudable candidates she could consider. I just caught a feeling that she really does like Julian Castro and his youthful and sensible appeal. She seemed to be well received at the event but I haven’t really looked into it too much. As someone who enjoys watching the political process, it is refreshing to see some movement towards the depiction of a minority candidate being receptive to another minority candidate as a running mate.

Posted by: Speak4all at October 15, 2015 3:26 PM
Comment #399580

My last comment has got me thinking about something that might keep cons and repubs up at night in cold sweats. We have had a minority President in office for almost 7 years who will finish out his term, if Hillary is elected and re-elected with Julian Castro as her VP, the next progression might be for Castro to run for President. If elected and re-elected that would be 24 years straight of a minority running our country. This sounds intriguing and not at all out of the realm of possibilities. Okay, okay that makes a lot of assumptions but hey remember “Obama will never get elected President”.

Posted by: Speak4all at October 15, 2015 3:42 PM
Comment #399581

speaks is refreshed to see a tired old “white woman” who is running against 3 old white men, and may or may not pick a minority to run with her. But speaks seems to be unaware of the fact that the Republican Party has 2 young Hispanics, one black man, one white woman, a businessman, and a host of others running. 3 of which are not career politicians.

No matter how refreshed speaks is; our side is going to be exuberant to see the pig who has soiled the WH leave, and to see Hillary once again beaten either by her own party, or by the American people.

Posted by: Blaine at October 15, 2015 3:43 PM
Comment #399582

Speaks last comment got me to thinking about something too; 8 more years of socialist rule and there won’t be an America. Just another 3rd world cesspool.

Posted by: Blaine at October 15, 2015 3:48 PM
Comment #399583

Disgusting that you refer to our President as a farm animal but I have come to expect that from you as you seem to have been raised in a barnyard given your ability to communicate. I do think it was refreshing to watch candidates debate about the issues without insulting each other and the rest of the country, but hey that’s just me.

Posted by: Speak4all at October 15, 2015 3:51 PM
Comment #399584

We heard that in 2009 but it didn’t happen did it? You guys are getting old and tired but hey that is where you come from old and tired ideas from old and tired men.

Posted by: Speak4all at October 15, 2015 3:52 PM
Comment #399585

Democrat lemming-like voters have become accustomed to their national candidates promising ever more largess from the public pig trough. Oobama increased our national debt by Trillions but His voters received little. Most of the enormous deficit spending went to unions, big business, and special interest groups.

Hillary and Bernie are in a contest to determine who can promise the most spending. Bernie claims he will pay for his spending from the pockets of big earners. His rationale is that big earners need to have their pockets picked by government. He never dwells on the aftermath of taking “Capital” from Capitalism. His only desire is to Socialize wealth belonging to the private sector.

Hillary just promises spending on the lemmings with no plan to pay for it.

Bernie is at least honest.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 15, 2015 3:58 PM
Comment #399586

“Sanders is also the only professed socialist ever to seek the Democratic nomination for president.”

http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/4/30/candidate-bernie-sanders-throws-socialism-into-the-spotlight.html

Would the democrat party of today be recognized by democrats of just 20 or more years ago? I think not. My liberal friends on WB are so pleased to have dragged their party into advocating:

Killing the unborn

Changing the meaning of marriage

Providing national welfare for over 50% of our population

Advocating MMGW as settled “science”

Bankrupting our Republic with reckless deficit spending

Flooding the nation with illegal uneducated masses who collect welfare at the expense of all working Americans

Attacking our Constitutional Rights.

Promoting hatred and suspicion of our police

Hailing the slogan that only “black lives matter”

And finally, on the verge of nominating a Socialist to lead their party and the nation.

I invite my conservative friends to add to my short list.


Posted by: Royal Flush at October 15, 2015 4:18 PM
Comment #399587

Someone needs to up their meds? Sorry if I scared you guys with that nightmarish scenario before your naps but I kind of like the idea and I am not really sorry.

Speaking of the next Republican debate it looks like there may be some flies in the ointment? Bombastic republican candidates making bombastic demands, who would have thought that could happen? Me.

Posted by: Speak4all at October 15, 2015 4:27 PM
Comment #399588

It will be hard for conservatives to recognize the country anymore. The latest ADP report shows the average of the last four weeks showed the lowest unemployment claims since 1973.

It will be hard for conservatives to recognize the country anymore. The economy has grown for so long, it will become the third longest recovery since WWII, and will probably set the record for the longet.

It will be hard for the conservatives to recognize the country anymore: record highs for the stock market, low interest rates, low inflation, a recovery of housing prices, healthy consumer spending, growth in private sector jobs with almost no growth in the government sector, 5.1% unemployment (The Federal Reserve considers 5 to 5.2% to be full employment), 67 consecutive months of job creation in the private sector, and reduced federal deficits every single month of Obama’s term.

It will be hard for the conservatives to recognize the country anymore, with full rights being extended towards the LGBT community.

Posted by: phx8 at October 15, 2015 4:47 PM
Comment #399589

I can understand where speaks would find referring to Obama in swine terms would be insulting to his Muslim side. I never used to believe that Obama lied to the American people about his religious beliefs; but after watching him skirt around calling Muslims terrorist, watching his goals to import Muslims into the country, his hatred and attacks on Christians, and his hatred and disregard for Israel; I have to conclude Obama is a Muslim.

Posted by: Blaine at October 15, 2015 4:48 PM
Comment #399590

From Speaks link…

“@CNBC is pushing the @GOP around by asking for extra time (and no criteria) in order to sell more commercials.”

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 15, 2015 4:49 PM
Comment #399591

Poor phx8 keeps repeating the Oobama mantra. We have shown his comments about so-called achievements to be lies. No need to bother doing so again.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 15, 2015 4:53 PM
Comment #399592

How ironic; after the attacks on 9/11, the American people elect a Muslim to the highest office in the world.

Ph, once again, bases his conclusions on false premises. In words that the left might understand…lies

Posted by: Blaine at October 15, 2015 4:54 PM
Comment #399593

Cons and repubs are coming unglued on WB. Sorry guys but you brought this upon yourselves. Your adherence to the shock jock mentality of right wing radio caused you to defecate and urinate in your well of ideas. The outlandish claims of President Obama being a Muslim are typical of that nonsense. Now that your well of ideas has been urinated and defecated in the sensible people of this country are beginning to see it for what it is. Unfettered rantings of madmen. People want nothing to do with your well of ideas and will be avoiding any contact with that for sometime to come.

Posted by: Speak4all at October 15, 2015 4:58 PM
Comment #399594

If the Obama/liberal talking points were removed from WB liberal comments; there wouldn’t be much left to talk about.

Posted by: Blaine at October 15, 2015 5:00 PM
Comment #399595

“Cons and repubs are coming unglued on WB.”

OH, right…the nation is yearning for a socialist president.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 15, 2015 5:00 PM
Comment #399596

I suspect that some of our liberal friends will crawl out of the closet and declare themselves full fledged Socialists now that Bernie is so popular.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 15, 2015 5:03 PM
Comment #399597

The nation is yearning to rid themselves of the treachery, hatred and division that the right wing has been formulating and will look towards anyone that will help them provide an avenue away from this madness. Let’s just all wait and see what happens in November 2016 and then what occurs from that outcome? No, no that won’t be good enough for some of you. Your vision for this country is something none of us want to see and you just can’t handle that truth.

Posted by: Speak4all at October 15, 2015 5:06 PM
Comment #399598

Poll: 54% of Republicans say that, “deep down,” Obama is a Muslim

The same polls find 10% of democrats an 26% of independents believe Obama is a Muslim.

Posted by: Blaine at October 15, 2015 5:13 PM
Comment #399599

Speaks writes; “…and will look towards anyone (as a dem candidate for president)…”

LOL…you have your wish in the Socialist and the person who slept with a president and who must constantly remind us that she is a woman and we should vote for her genitalia.


“Let’s just all wait and see what happens in November 2016 and then what occurs from that outcome?”

My God man…are you really that dumb? We all know you want Bernie or Hillary to continue and expand on the excesses of Oobama.


Posted by: Royal Flush at October 15, 2015 5:16 PM
Comment #399600

What I want and what happens aren’t necessarily the same now is it? Or maybe you think that I have some great abilities? More likely you realize that your field of candidates couldn’t get elected by anyone and are very afraid.

Muslim? Again? You really need to get some new material. People are laughing at you not with you.

Posted by: Speak4all at October 15, 2015 5:22 PM
Comment #399601

“What I want and what happens aren’t necessarily the same now…”

That’s for certain.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 15, 2015 5:25 PM
Comment #399602

Nothing is for certain except your inability to understand that you have lost almost any credibility in a political discussion. But then you didn’t have much to start with so it was no great loss. You guys can’t stand someone saying let’s just be patient and wait for the election. Your devotion to right wing radio compels you to sow the seeds of hate against anyone you oppose rather than use a discussion to explain why. You see your minds were fertile ground for those seeds to grow. Most Americans don’t possess the immoral capacity for those thoughts to take hold, thank goodness.

Posted by: Speak4all at October 15, 2015 5:31 PM
Comment #399603

Blaine,
How do you explain the controversy with Revered Wright?

RF,
Are Obama’s “so-called achievements” just so many “lies”? Does that mean most of the world’s economists, statisticians, pollsters,mutual and hedge fund managers, bond traders, stock traders, option traders, and commodity traders are part of it too, both in America and the rest of the world? The numbers supporting the “so-called achievements” come from both the federal government and the private sector, and the financial incentive in the private sector to acquire the “real” numbers is tremendous, since it will give them a huge advantage.

Face it. The whole conspiracy thing just doesn’t work in the real world.

Same goes for Global Warming. Conservatives have to dismiss Climatologists, Physicists, Chemists, Geologists, Botanists, Zoologists, engineers, and virtually every other scientific discipline, because they all point to the same conclusion: humanity is the main cause of Global Warming. It leaves conservatives claiming that the scientists of the world- both national and international- and every credible scientific institution in the world, both national and international- are involved in a conspiracy. Furthermore, conservatives willingly accept the findings of scientists in every other field of science (except evolution and embryology), yet deny the science behind Global Warming.

Obama is a Muslim, a follower of Reverend Wright, a communist, socialist, Kenyan, and Indonesian…

Uh huh.

It just doesn’t work in the real world.

Posted by: phx8 at October 15, 2015 5:39 PM
Comment #399604

Since the only radio I listen to is Rush Limbaugh, and that’s not very often, and since you accuse him of calling Obama a Muslim, and since all of his radio broadcasts are archived; perhaps you could offer some proof for your lying accusations. Put up or shut up, as the old saying goes. My guess is you are once again quoting the liberal talking points.

Posted by: Blaine at October 15, 2015 5:40 PM
Comment #399605

I didn’t quote anyone but you. You are the one that has to own your stupidity, I cannot blame that on anyone else. It’s all yours.

Posted by: Speak4all at October 15, 2015 5:41 PM
Comment #399606

Sorry phx8, repeating the lie never ends in the truth. We have debated what you claim about how much better we are because of Oobama and the falsehood of MMGW. I have provided facts refuting your claims. I won’t bother doing it again.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 15, 2015 5:48 PM
Comment #399607

Here you go ph, expand your mind…not everyone is a lemming.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/tom-blumer/2015/10/07/press-ignoring-news-global-warming-true-believers-will-find#sthash.AvXf1IWq.dpuf

So speaks comments that conservatives have been brainwashed by talk radio is just talk. You have nothing to back it up. So you’re a liar…stands to reason. When liberals lips are moving, they are lying.

Posted by: Blaine at October 15, 2015 5:56 PM
Comment #399608

Blaine,
David Evans is a cook, and it is well documented:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/David_Evans_arg.htm


Posted by: phx8 at October 15, 2015 6:07 PM
Comment #399609

If you want to get down in the weeds, this article discusses the mistake Evans makes with his math:

https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2015/10/04/not-even-partially-correct/

Posted by: phx8 at October 15, 2015 6:08 PM
Comment #399610

The Evans article is a pretty good example of why people should turn to peer reviewed material, or go to credible national and international organizations. It is just too easy for one guy to make mistakes.

Posted by: phx8 at October 15, 2015 6:09 PM
Comment #399611

Leading Climate Scientist Defects: No Longer Believes in the ‘Consensus’

“One of the world’s most eminent climate scientists – for several decades a warmist – has defected to the climate sceptic camp.

Lennart Bengtsson – a Swedish climatologist, meteorologist, former director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg and winner, in 2006, of the 51st IMO Prize of the World Meteorological Organization for his pioneering work in numerical weather prediction – is by some margin the most distinguished scientist to change sides.”

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2014/05/08/leading-climate-scientist-defects-no-longer-believes-in-the-consensus/

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 15, 2015 6:26 PM
Comment #399612

RF,
There are 9,136 scientists involved in peer-reviewed articles supporting APG. There is only one opposed. When this particular scientist had an article rejected by peers, he quit and claimed he was being persecuted. The reviewers said there was no persecution, just criticism and offers of ways to improve:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/may/16/murdoch-media-hypes-lone-climate-denial-big-oil

Like Blaine, you are choosing an individual’s viewpoint- a viewpoint that does not meet the standards of peer review- and instead, ignoring the viewpoint of thousands. Thousands. And these thousands have met the standards of peer review and its rigorous cross-checking.

If there were thousands of scientists denying AGW, that would be worth considering; instead, there is one here, one there, without any cross checking for accuracy, and you and Blaine are running of the races with those outliers, and ignoring the work of thousands.

It just doesn’t work.

Posted by: phx8 at October 15, 2015 6:54 PM
Comment #399613

If there were thousands of scientists denying AGW, that would be worth considering; instead, there is one here, one there, without any cross checking for accuracy, and you and Blaine are running of the races with those outliers, and ignoring the work of thousands.

It just doesn’t work.
Posted by: phx8 at October 15, 2015 6:54 PM

More lies, more deception, more spin. We’ve had this battle before and you lost. I am not going to waste my time doing all the research and posting again. Read the archives.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 15, 2015 7:00 PM
Comment #399614

“Don’t look now, but maybe a scientific consensus exists concerning global warming after all. Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem.

The survey results show geoscientists (also known as earth scientists) and engineers hold similar views as meteorologists. Two recent surveys of meteorologists (summarized here and here) revealed similar skepticism of alarmist global warming claims.”

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 15, 2015 7:26 PM
Comment #399615

Illinois lottery winners getting IOUs thanks to budget crisis

“The Illinois government is issuing IOU’s to lottery winners and to no one’s surprise — everyone is angry.”

http://www.aol.com/article/2015/10/15/illinois-lottery-winners-getting-ious-thanks-to-budget-crisis/21249557/?icid=maing-grid7|main5|dl35|sec1_lnk2%26pLid%3D-1198413372

LOL, just imagine, getting an IOU from government. Well, no surprise here. Illinois is a liberal stronghold and we see the results.

A Sanders or Clinton win could soon see our Social Security payments in the form of an IOU as well.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 15, 2015 7:33 PM
Comment #399616

“I believe the whole climate consensus debate is silly. There is not a single well educated scientist that question that greenhouse gases do affect climate.”

Lennart Bengtsson was quoted in saying when discussing his resignation from the IPCC and joining the GWPF.

Posted by: Cube at October 15, 2015 7:59 PM
Comment #399617

RF,
I am SO sorry for you. What a terrible embarrassment, for you to fall for an article which clearly seeks to misrepresent. Please extend my sympathies to your crushed and reddened reputation.

You see, the article only surveyed members of one organization, the Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists, and Geophysicists of Alberta. These are Petroleum Engineers from Canada. Most work for the biggest employer in Alberta. They represent Big Oil in Canada. Some develop the tar sands, one of the dirtiest sources of oil in the world.

It gets worse.

The article misrepresents the results of the survey. The original article suggests exactly the opposite results of what this Forbes article concludes. Look at the original survey.

This person is a senior fellow at the Heartland Institute. It is absolutely terrible that he would be given a platform at Forbes.

RF, please check before posting such terrible misinformation. It really does a disservice to everyone.

Posted by: phx8 at October 15, 2015 8:48 PM
Comment #399618

Tell me ph, what proof is there of any climate change (since there IS no global warming), that is not based on computer projections? Everything in the hat of the climate change magicians is computer projections. There are no facts. It’s another money grab, power grab, income redistribution trick.

Posted by: Blaine at October 15, 2015 10:59 PM
Comment #399619

Blaine,
From 1880 to 2012 global temperatures have increased 1.53 degrees Fahrenheit, according to the IPCC. That is not a projection. That is a matter of record. The current rate of warming remains about 1.3 degrees F per century.

Since the beginning of the Industrial Age, atmospheric CO2 has increased from 280 ppm to 400 ppm in the same period. That is not a projection. It is measureable. That is what happened. Atmospheric CO2 and other green house gases are highly likely to continue increasing. Although atmospheric CO2 dissipates in @ 80 years, there continues to be a net addition each year. It is likely the situation will grow worse, not better.

What we do about this- if anything- is up for debate. That part is political. What has already happened is fact.

Posted by: phx8 at October 16, 2015 12:17 AM
Comment #399620

“From 1880 to 2012 global temperatures have increased 1.53 degrees Fahrenheit”

Phx8, as I have no ‘side’ on this issue, I am curious what the increase was for 1756 to 1880?

Posted by: kctim at October 16, 2015 9:03 AM
Comment #399621

Google “Climate change graphs in history” shows graphs from earths history temps highs and lows. Some show that there is very little difference in todays temps then they were thousands of years ago.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at October 16, 2015 10:06 AM
Comment #399622

ph uses the word “likely” two times in his scientific response. Is the word likely a definitive word, or is it a projected word?

When scientists came up with the means temperature or 1.53 degrees between 1880 and 2012, was the temperature taken in the same place by the same instruments? A person could actually go to a store and buy 2 different thermometers and when used side by side get a difference on 1.53 degrees. And ph is expecting us to believe a1.53 degree difference, over a period on 132 years is actually scientific and believable. And the same thing can be said for the CO2 readings between the beginning of the Industrial Age until today. All of this to prove an increase of 120 ppm over this same time span. Does ph have any idea how minute 120 ppm really is? Were the instruments the same, were they calibrated the same, does ph believe the scientific measurements from 132 years ago are as accurate as today?

Furthermore, since it is forests or plants that convert CO2 to oxygen, can ph tell us if the earth’s forests were exactly the same 132 years ago as today. Was the earth’s vegetation the same 132 years ago?

Once again, we have those on the left, building supposed truths upon false premises. Ph and the left make comments on unproven data and expecting everyone to accept it as truth. Once everyone has accepted the false data as factual, they then build upon that.

Ph just used computer projections to prove the truth of computer projections.

Posted by: Blaine at October 16, 2015 10:39 AM
Comment #399623

kctim and Blaine,
For a record of the past two thousand years, see the following:

http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/shared/articles/AREPS-preprint06.pdf

Naturally I do not expect you to read the whole article, but personally I found it very interesting. I do not know if the page numbers will show up on your computer the same as mine. Anyway, scroll down a few pages to 114 and there are maps showing where various types of historical climate records have been obtained from all over the world, including documents, tree rings, sediments, ice cores, coral, speleothem (cave rocks… I learned a new word today!), and more. Next, scroll down to page 121 for a graph of the temperatures. The uptrend is clear.

Posted by: phx8 at October 16, 2015 11:39 AM
Comment #399624

Here is another site:

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/paleoclimatology-data/datasets/climate-reconstruction

The list of methods for reconstructing historical climates on the left hand side of the page is really remarkable. The sheer volume of information and research is astounding. This kind of stuff blows me away. I really do think it is cool, the brilliance and creativity in coming up with ways to measure paleoclimates.

As anyone can see, there is so much more to this than using a thermometer to measure the historical record of temperatures. But history is the easy part of assessing Climate Change because it can be cross-checked so many ways.

Atmospheric CO2 levels have increased from 280 parts per million to 400 parts per million. That does not sound like much, but consider this: the ozone layer is only 10 parts per million, yet without it, we would cook. Seemingly small amounts of change in something as vast as the atmosphere can make enormous differences. The hottest paleoclimates had 600 ppm of CO2.

In any case, the historical record makes it clear that temperatures are increasing, and the cause has been identified. Humanity is changing the climate by burning fossil fuels, and by introducing greenhouse gases, we are setting off Global Warming. All other causes have been exhaustively researched and eliminated. So the question is, what do we do?

Posted by: phx8 at October 16, 2015 11:54 AM
Comment #399625

Phx8, appreciate the links. Thanks.

Posted by: kctim at October 16, 2015 12:19 PM
Comment #399626

On another note, the federal budget deficit fell once again. It has been reduced every single year Obama has been in office, from $1.4 trillion to $439 billion, the lowest level since 2007.

Posted by: phx8 at October 16, 2015 12:28 PM
Comment #399627

phx8 gave a link to” Climate Over the Past Two Millennia
Michael E. Mann

Who is Michael Mann?

“Perhaps the most notorious of agenda-driven proxy reconstructions was published by global warming alarmist Michael Mann. As a young, relatively unknown recent Ph.D. graduate, Mann attained wealth, fame and adulation among global warming alarmists after assembling a proxy temperature reconstruction that he claimed showed global temperatures underwent a steady, roughly 1,000-year decline followed by a sharp rise during the 20th century. The media reported on the Mann hockey stick reconstruction as if it settled the global warming debate, but objective scientists pointed out several crucial flaws that invalidated Mann’s claims. Eventually, Congress commissioned distinguished statistician Edward Wegman to review and report on Mann’s methods and conclusions. After assembling a blue ribbon panel of experts to study Mann’s temperature reconstruction, Wegman reported the criticisms of Mann’s reconstruction were “valid and compelling.”

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/03/17/warmest-temperatures-in-4000-years-not-so-fast-global-warming-alarmists/

“Remember that really scary “hockey stick” graph IPCC used to show that rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations would send global temperatures soaring? And recall all the ballyhoo about CO2 levels reaching a 400 ppm record high? Yet last February even IPCC’s chairman Rajenda Pachuri has admitted that world temperature data has been flat for the past 17 years. And that was after the British media reported that the UK Met Office was projecting a 20-year standstill in global warming by 2017.”

“…temperatures have been higher when CO2 levels were lower, and vise versa.”

“The second possible very small warming, following a slight cool-down, may have begun in the late 1970s lasting until 1998, a strong Pacific Ocean El Niño year. Yet even if global temperatures actually did rise very slightly during that second period, the U.K. Hadley Center and U.S. NOAA balloon instrument analyses fail to show any evidence, whatsoever, of a human CO2 emission-influenced warming telltale “signature” in the upper troposphere over the equator as predicted by all IPCC global circulation models. In fact, about half of all estimated warming since 1900 occurred before the mid-1940s despite continuously rising CO2 levels since that time.”

So Maybe the Models Are Broke…Not the Climate After All!

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/09/10/terrifying-flat-global-temperature-crisis-threatens-to-disrupt-u-n-climate-conference-agenda/

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 16, 2015 12:53 PM
Comment #399628

phx8 writes; “On another note, the federal budget deficit fell once again.”

Hail Oobama? No, Hail Sequestration.

“In the last few years, President Obama and both parties in Congress have worked together to reduce our deficit by more than $2.5 trillion through a combination of spending cuts and increased tax rates.

In 2011, Congress passed a law saying that if they couldn’t agree on a plan to reduce our deficit by $4 trillion — including the $2.5 trillion in deficit reduction lawmakers in both parties have already accomplished over the last few years — about $1 trillion in automatic, arbitrary and across the board budget cuts would start to take effect in 2013.”

https://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/sequester

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 16, 2015 1:00 PM
Comment #399629

The controversial Wegman report ran into trouble for plagiarism. It was commissioned by Representative and well known Denialist Joe Barton- you may remember he was the guy who apologized to BP for the Gulf Oil spill- and the report questioned the statistical basis of some of Mann’s work. According to Wegman:

“We were not asked to assess the reality of global warming and indeed this is not an area of our expertise. We do not assume any position with respect to global warming except to note in our report that the instrumented record of global average temperature has risen since 1850 according to the MBH 99 chart by about 1.2º centigrade.”

In the second link, a Denialist named Larry Bell pushes the idea that there has been a hiatus in Global Warming since 1998. If anyone wants to give this guy the time of day, here is a Wikipedia article on the topic:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_hiatus

The idea of a Global Warming hiatus comes from the fact that 1998 was the hottest on record, and since temperatures since then have not exceeded the 1998 record (at least, not by much), it is possible to draw a flat line- a regression against the mean- to make it look like warming is not a problem. Of course, the flat line is occurring at a very high level, and most of the temperature records for the top ten hottest years are within this line. In any case, it is a moot point. Events overtook the hiatus theory. It should be noted that 2015 is already 99% likely to be the hottest year on record. It has been an exceptionally hot year, and we are only in October. 2015 is something like 1998, in that an El Nino is fueling higher temperatures. This destroys the claim of a pause in Global Warming, because now, we are off to the races.

Posted by: phx8 at October 16, 2015 2:28 PM
Comment #399630

Isn’t the internet great phx8? Once again I have proven that for every argument for MMGW there is one against.

Conclusion: No consensus.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 16, 2015 3:08 PM
Comment #399631

I am shocked…shocked I tell you.

The United States has confirmed that Iran tested a medium-range missile capable of delivering a nuclear weapon, in “clear violation” of a United Nations Security Council ban on ballistic missile tests, a senior U.S. official said on Friday.

http://www.aol.com/article/2015/10/16/u-s-confirms-iran-tested-nuclear-capable-ballistic-missile/21250288/?icid=maing-grid7|main5|dl6|sec1_lnk2%26pLid%3D-1617605894

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 16, 2015 3:54 PM
Comment #399632


The War on Poverty After 50 Years

“In his January 1964 State of the Union address, President Lyndon Johnson proclaimed, “This administration today, here and now, declares unconditional war on poverty in America.” In the 50 years since that time, U.S. taxpayers have spent over $22 trillion on anti-poverty programs. Adjusted for inflation, this spending (which does not include Social Security or Medicare) is three times the cost of all U.S. military wars since the American Revolution. Yet progress against poverty, as measured by the U.S. Census Bureau, has been minimal, and in terms of President Johnson’s main goal of reducing the “causes” rather than the mere “consequences” of poverty, the War on Poverty has failed completely. In fact, a significant portion of the population is now less capable of self-sufficiency than it was when the War on Poverty began.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/09/the-war-on-poverty-after-50-years

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 16, 2015 4:35 PM
Comment #399633

RF,
There is a scientific consensus. If you were paying attention, you’d notice the links you post come from people who are NOT climatologists; furthermore, they seek only to cast doubt, and none of them offer credible alternative theories to explain Global Warming. The fact is, there is a scientific consensus. What is lacking is a political consensus, and that is mostly the work of a very small group of people; most of those are funded by the Koch Brothers & The Heartland Institute, Exxon, and other fossil fuel organizations. These are the groups that promote the Deniers. In addition, the Deniers are not prevalent in other countries. In the US, they are not prevalent among scientists, Democrats, or liberals. They are most prevalent in one political group- conservative Republicans.

Why don’t the Deniers offer alternative theories? The answer is simple. The goal has always been to cause enough confusion to prevent action, because that is the most profitable thing for Exxon and fossil fuel organizations to do.

Posted by: phx8 at October 16, 2015 4:39 PM
Comment #399634

phx8 has a bad case of somnolence. He has apparently slept thru all the post I have written about this subject giving numerous theories to explain warming not related to man’s activities.

He has yet to post a link showing climate change computer modeling that matches facts. Why? There are NONE!

We’re the deniers and his bunch are the Magical Believers.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 16, 2015 4:47 PM
Comment #399635

The thing I find interesting is that if a scientist is getting money from GOVERNMENT GRANTS he/she will be the mouth piece for MMGW if the scientist does NOT get funds from the government MMGW is a hoax. Take away the GOVERNMENT FUNDS and see how long the MMGW scientist keep the talking points alive.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at October 16, 2015 4:52 PM
Comment #399636

More important than the observed correlation between temperature and CO2 is the application of quantum mechanics to determine the radiative properties of CO2. CO2, like all gases, absorbs radiation selectively at particular wavelengths and emits it at others. This has to do with the resonance of the atom’s internal vibrations. It just so happens to be that CO2 absorbs the very longwave infrared radiation emitted by the Earth and it does so at a wavelength that is free from absorbtion by Nitrogen and Oxygen. These radiative properties of CO2 can be demonstrated in a laboratory with the assistance of a spectrometers.

These facts were known 100 years ago. This lead Svante Arrhenius to quantify the climate’s sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 concentration well before most of the warming before it even happened. Here is a layman’s overview of Arrhenius’ work.

Posted by: Warren Porter at October 16, 2015 5:04 PM
Comment #399637

phx8’s last link was from Wikipedia, which is the worst possible place to link for information. Wikipedia can be amended by any yahoo that accesses the sight.

ph also links to the site promoting the famed “hockey stick “, which is once again, a computer generated projection. In fact everything ph has said is based on a computer generated projection.

The problem with projections is that they are only as accurate as the imputed information.

ph once again bases his comments on the false premise that global warming exists; which doesn’t. There is no evidence of global warming, other than warming or cooling that takes place naturally.

Posted by: Blaine at October 16, 2015 5:13 PM
Comment #399638

Harvard-Smithsonian Physicist: Computer Models Used by U.N. Overstate Global Warming

“Dr. Wei-Hock “Willie” Soon, a solar physicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, came under attack by environmentalists after co-authoring a peer-reviewed paper explaining “the widening discrepancy between prediction and observation” in climate change models, and members of Congress soon took sides.

The scientific paper, entitled “Why Models Run Hot,” concludes that the computer models overstated the impact of CO2 on the climate: “The impact of anthropogenic global warming over the next century… may be no more than one-third to one-half of IPCC’s current projections.”

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/harvard-smithsonian-physicist-computer-models-used-un-overstate

On June 30, 1989, the Associated Press ran an article headlined: “UN Official Predicts Disaster, Says Greenhouse Effect Could Wipe Some Nations Off Map.” In the piece, the director of the UNEP’s New York office was quoted as claiming that “entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels if global warming is not reversed by the year 2000.” He also predicted “coastal flooding and crop failures” that “would create an exodus of ‘eco-refugees,’ threatening political chaos.”

Other UN predictions were so ridiculous that they were retracted before they could even be proven wrong. Consider, as just one example, the scandal that came to be known as “Glaciergate.” In its final 2007 report, widely considered the “gospel” of “settled” climate “science,” the UN IPCC suggested that Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035 or sooner. It turns out the wild assertion was lifted from World Wildlife Fund propaganda literature. The IPCC recanted the claim after initially defending it.

Like the UN, the Pentagon commissioned a report on “climate change” that also offered some highly alarming visions of the future under “global warming.” The 2003 document, entitled “An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications for United States National Security,” was widely cited by global-warming theorists, bureaucrats, and the establishment press as evidence that humanity was facing certain doom. It also served as the foundation for the claim that alleged man-made “climate change” was actually a “national security concern.” However, fortunately for the taxpayers forced to pay for the study, the Pentagon report turned out to be just as ridiculous as the UN “climate refugees” forecasts.

By now, according to the “not implausible” scaremongering outlined in the report for a 10-year time period, the world should be a post-apocalyptic disaster zone. Among other outlandish scenarios envisioned in the report over the preceding decade: California flooded with inland seas, parts of the Netherlands “unlivable,” polar ice all but gone in the summers, and surging temperatures. Mass increases in hurricanes, tornadoes, and other natural disasters were supposed to be wreaking havoc across the globe, too. All of that would supposedly spark resource wars and all sorts of other horrors. But none of it actually happened.

For well over a decade now, climate alarmists have been claiming that snow would soon become a thing of the past. In March 2000, for example, “senior research scientist” David Viner, working at the time for the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, told the U.K. Independent that within “a few years,” snowfall would become “a very rare and exciting event” in Britain. “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he was quoted as claiming in the article, headlined “Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past.”

The IPCC has also been relentlessly hyping the snowless winter scare, along with gullible or agenda-driven politicians. In its 2001 Third Assessment Report, for example, the IPCC claimed “milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms.” Again, though, the climate refused to cooperate. The year 2013, the last year for which complete data is available, featured the fourth-highest levels on record, according to data from Rutgers University’s Global Snow Lab. Spring snow cover was the highest in a decade, while data for the fall indicate that it was the fifth highest ever recorded. Last December, meanwhile, brought with it a new high record in Northern Hemisphere snow cover, Global Snow Lab data show.

After the outlandish predictions of snowless winters failed to materialize, the CRU dramatically changed its tune on snowfall. All across Britain, in fact, global-warming alarmists rushed to blame the record cold and heavy snow experienced in recent years on — you guessed it! — global warming. Less snow: global warming. More snow: global warming. Get it? Good.

The same phenomenon took place in the United States just last winter. As record cold and snowfall was pummeling much of North America, warming theorists contradicted all of their previous forecasts and claimed that global warming was somehow to blame. Among them: White House Science “Czar” John Holdren. “A growing body of evidence suggests that the kind of extreme cold being experienced by much of the United States as we speak is a pattern we can expect to see with increasing frequency, as global warming continues,” he claimed.

That assertion, of course, is exactly the opposite of what the UN “settled science” IPCC predicted in its 2001 global-warming report, which claimed that the planet would see “warmer winters and fewer cold spells, because of climate change.” Ironically, perhaps, Holdren warned decades ago that human CO2 emissions would lead to a billion deaths due to global warming-fueled global cooling — yes, cooling, which he said would lead to a new ice age by 2020.

Ridiculous forecasts have been made by other “climate scientists” who, like Holdren, continue to reap huge amounts of U.S. taxpayer dollars in salaries, grants, and benefits despite being consistently wrong. James Hansen, for instance, who headed NASA’s Goddard Institute for three dec­ades before taking a post at Columbia University, is one of the best known “climatologists” in the world — despite his long and embarrassing record of bad forecasting spanning decades.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/18888-embarrassing-predictions-haunt-the-global-warming-industry

My friends, can you detect a pattern in this behavior about MMGW. Predict, spread the alarm, get more money from government, deny, predict again.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 16, 2015 5:34 PM
Comment #399640
the famed “hockey stick “, which is once again, a computer generated projection.

You have ZERO idea what you are talking about. Michael Mann is a paleoclimatologist, not a climate dynamicist. Micahel Mann’s work does not use a general circulation model (GCM). Instead, he works with various proxies (tree rings, sediments, ice cores, agricultural records, etc) to reconstruct past temperatures. Cut the crap.

The problem with projections is that they are only as accurate as the imputed information.
Absolutely. We use GCMs to predict the weather and they struggle to generate a forecast even a week in the future because it is impossible to supply the model with enough quality data. That said, GCMs still provide a useful tool for experimenting to determine the outcome of the Earth System when subjected to various scenarios. As a bonus, it can often be easier to forecast climate rather than weather because the former is simply a boundary-value problem. We don’t try to predict the temperature on February 24, 2037, but we do try to predict the mean temperature for 2030s.

Ultimately, there nothing special about a “computer” model. They are just solutions to mathematical equations. Numerical models are crucial physics. Svante Arrhenius constructed a numerical model of Earth’s climate in 1896 and solved it by hand. Jim Hansen created a more sophisticated model in 1988 and solved it with a computer, but the end results were not very different. Today, scientists at NCAR, GFDL and elsewhere work with models even more sophisticated than Hansen’s. Still, the results are not very different.

Are the models perfect? Absolutely not! There is a great deal of uncertainty in many aspects of the climate system. This is mostly in the coupling between the atmosphere and other systems such as the oceans. The same can be said for the impact aerosols and clouds have upon Earth’s albedo. Nonetheless, these uncertainties pale when compared to the greater picture of the warming trend that will continue so long as humans continue to emit GHGs without abatement.

Posted by: Warren Porter at October 16, 2015 5:53 PM
Comment #399641

Willie Soon is a fraud. Not disclosing his conflicts of interests is a serious breach of integrity that not only violates the rules of the journals that published his work, but also obliterates the norms the scientific community uses to ensure the soundness of scientific research/ Besides, Willie Soon’s work is terrible.

Posted by: Warren Porter at October 16, 2015 6:09 PM
Comment #399642

Nonetheless, these uncertainties pale when compared to the greater picture of the warming trend that will continue so long as humans continue to emit GHGs without abatement.
Posted by: Warren Porter at October 16, 2015 5:53 PM

Spoken like a true alarmists Warren. Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain pulling the levers and twisting the dials.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 16, 2015 6:10 PM
Comment #399643

Well said, WP. The objections to computer models always struck me as odd. A model is… well… a model. Some are more accurate than others, and as time goes by, they become more and more refined.

And it is remarkable that Arrhenius came up with a pretty good estimate for Global Warming over a hundred years ago.

RF,
Dr. William Soon was discredited in February 2015. It turns out he was taking large sums of money- $1.3 million has been traced to its source- with most of it coming from the Koch Brothers, the API, Exxon, and the Southern Company, in exchange for providing them with material to deny Global Warming. Soon did not disclose his conflict of interest. This was widely publicized. The link below is only one example. If you prefer others, there are a large number of resources detailing the fall of Soon.

A subsequent investigation of mainstream climatologists could find no examples of any failing to disclose their source of funding.

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/global-warming/climate-deniers/koch-industries/dr-willie-soon-a-career-fueled-by-big-oil-and-coal/

Blaine,
I provided a Wikipedia link because it presents a simple summary, and it contains so many other links in one article. As we all know, Wikipedia is not the be-all and end-all. It is, however, very convenient for summaries and for finding additional resources.

Posted by: phx8 at October 16, 2015 6:14 PM
Comment #399644

Warren, my link to the Willie Soon article refutes your contention. Go back and read please.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 16, 2015 6:16 PM
Comment #399645

phx8 and Warren remind me of the little boy crying Wolf. I have briefly outlined all the predictions by the MMGWer’s that didn’t happen. Yet, they run around with their hair on fire telling us that this time…this time…we will be correct. Just keep sending us money.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 16, 2015 6:19 PM
Comment #399646

Liberals are a strange breed. They can combine magical thinking with political conviction and never be bothered with facts.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 16, 2015 6:22 PM
Comment #399647

Algore must be laughing at how easy it is to fool the MMGWer’s. He gets richer and you guys get dumber.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 16, 2015 6:24 PM
Comment #399648

Here’s the problem; Warren Porter considers himself to be a expert on climatology, he considers his breed of people to be the absolute, undisputable exerts on GW or Climate Change, or whatever the latest name is for the fraudulence. Below is an article of how Warren Porter and his associates feel about the “discussion or debate on Climate Change”. If you disagree with these radicals, and that is what they are, then you are branded a heretic. Heretic is a good word because what the left believes about Climate Change is a religion of the left:

Are you skeptical of human-caused global warming or climate change like many respected scientists and climate experts? Then you should be prosecuted like a Mafia mob boss, according to 20 academics at ivory towers like Columbia, Rutgers, and the University of Washington.

Apparently, these professors either don’t believe in the First Amendment or are profoundly ignorant of the basic rights it protects. They recently wrote an open letter to President Barack Obama and Attorney General Loretta Lynch asking for anyone who questions the climate-change dogma to be criminally prosecuted under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act because they have “knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change.”

RICO is a federal law passed in 1970 as part of the Organized Crime Control Act that was intended to be used as a tool to go after organized crime, including dangerous drug cartels and Mafia operations.

The letter writers believe that any individuals and organizations involved in questioning the “science” behind global warming are the equivalent of the racketeers the RICO law was supposed to stop—racketeers like the kind Marlon Brando portrayed as Vito Corleone in “The Godfather” (1972) or Edward G. Robinson played as Enrico “Rico” Bandello in “Little Caesar” (1931). In fact, the acronym for the federal law, RICO, comes from that Edward G. Robinson character.

Letter to President Obama, Attorney General Lynch, and OSTP Director HoldrenSeptember

1, 2015
Dear President Obama, Attorney General Lynch, and OSTP Director Holdren,

As you know, an overwhelming majority of climate scientists are convinced about the potentially
serious adverse effects of human-induced climate change on human health, agriculture, and
biodiversity. We applaud your efforts to regulate emissions and the other steps you are taking.
Nonetheless, as climate scientists we are exceedingly concerned that America’s response to
climate change – indeed, the world’s response to climate change – is insufficient. The risks
posed by climate change, including increasing extreme weather events, rising sea levels, and
increasing ocean acidity – and potential strategies for addressing them – are detailed in the Third
National Climate Assessment (2014), Climate Change Impacts in the United States. The stability
of the Earth’s climate over the past ten thousand years contributed to the growth of agriculture
and therefore, a thriving human civilization. We are now at high risk of seriously destabilizing
the Earth’s climate and irreparably harming people around the world, especially the world’s
poorest people.
We appreciate that you are making aggressive and imaginative use of the limited tools available
to you in the face of a recalcitrant Congress. One additional tool – recently proposed by Senator
Sheldon Whitehouse – is a RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act)
investigation of corporations and other organizations that have knowingly deceived the
American people about the risks of climate change, as a means to forestall America’s response to
climate change. The actions of these organizations have been extensively documented in peerreviewed
academic research (Brulle, 2013) and in recent books including: Doubt is their Product
(Michaels, 2008), Climate Cover-Up (Hoggan & Littlemore, 2009), Merchants of Doubt
(Oreskes & Conway, 2010), The Climate War (Pooley, 2010), and in The Climate Deception
Dossiers (Union of Concerned Scientists, 2015). We strongly endorse Senator Whitehouse’s call
for a RICO investigation.

The methods of these organizations are quite similar to those used earlier by the tobacco industry.
A RICO investigation (1999 to 2006) played an important role in stopping the tobacco industry
from continuing to deceive the American people about the dangers of smoking. If corporations in
the fossil fuel industry and their supporters are guilty of the misdeeds that have been documented
in books and journal articles, it is imperative that these misdeeds be stopped as soon as possible
so that America and the world can get on with the critically important business of finding
effective ways to restabilize the Earth’s climate, before even more lasting damage is done.

Sincerely,

Jagadish Shukla, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
Edward Maibach, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
Paul Dirmeyer, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
Barry Klinger, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
Paul Schopf, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
(continued on page 2)
Letter to President Obama, Attorney General Lynch, and OSTP Director Holdren
David Straus, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
Edward Sarachik, University of Washington, Seattle, WA
Michael Wallace, University of Washington, Seattle, WA
Alan Robock, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ
Eugenia Kalnay, University of Maryland, College Park, MD
William Lau, University of Maryland, College Park, MD
Kevin Trenberth, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO
T.N. Krishnamurti, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL
Vasu Misra, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL
Ben Kirtman, University of Miami, Miami, FL
Robert Dickinson, University of Texas, Austin, TX
Michela Biasutti, Earth Institute, Columbia University, New York, NY
Mark Cane, Columbia University, New York, NY
Lisa Goddard, Earth Institute, Columbia University, New York, NY
Alan Betts, Atmospheric Research, Pittsford, VT

http://dailysignal.com/2015/10/09/skeptical-climate-change-is-real-these-20-academics-think-you-should-be-prosecuted/

phx8 is a mouthpiece for the left; his comments on every subject when confronted with the facts is to attack the scientist, etc. as a fraud and not believable. Then he quotes from Wikipedia.

Then we have the local expert on GW…Warren Porter; and his comment to me is:

You have ZERO idea what you are talking about. Michael Mann is a paleoclimatologist, not a climate dynamicist. Micahel Mann’s work does not use a general circulation model (GCM). Instead, he works with various proxies (tree rings, sediments, ice cores, agricultural records, etc) to reconstruct past temperatures. Cut the crap.

He tells me I have no idea what I am talking about when I say GW/Climate Change is found only in computer models. Warren tells me I don’t know what I’m talking about and then proceeds to tell the benefits of computer models after and then says they are not “absolutely correct”.

Tell us Warren Porter, since your link is based upon proving GW based on the work of Svante Arrhenius; who’s work was the “coming ice age” of the 1970’s based upon?

I won’t even try to copy and paste the articles related to the coming ice age, but Warren Porter can surely read the articles by world famous climatologist and scientists. Years before Warren Porter was even a gleam in his daddy’s eye, famous scientists were warning of impending doom:

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/1970s-ice-age-scare/

Warren, I would suggest you read these articles posted throughout the 70’s. The polar caps are growing…perma frost is expanding south. It’s unbelievable; yet today we see the exact opposite taking place, with the same dire consequences of doom.

Perhaps the left can now understand why there is such a negative reaction to the prognosis of doom.

Posted by: Blaine at October 16, 2015 6:58 PM
Comment #399649

RF,
I missed the link about failed predictions. Some predictions did fail. Others did come true to some degree. One interesting prediction claimed there were no climate refugees, but we may have already seen a harrowing example. An academic paper estimated there was @ 70% likelihood that a recent drought in Syria was caused by Global Warming. The drought drove Syrians from their countryside into the cities, into camps, and into circumstances of extreme poverty. This, in turn, led to political unrest, civil war, and the rise of ISIS.

There are other examples. The Pacific island of Kiribati will have to be evacuated due to rising sea levels. Global Warming has long been predicted to be felt first and most severely in the arctic, and villages on the coastline are being forced to evacuate.

We have seen refugees in this country too. Global Warming predictions suggest there will be warmer air, and warmer air carries more water. The number of hurricanes and tropical storms will vary, but when storms do occur, AGW predicts they will drop more rainfall. We have seen those kinds of storms with Hurricane Sandy and the recent tropical storm in SC. Now, these are examples of weather, so the correlation is not absolute. But it does match the predictions.

Posted by: phx8 at October 16, 2015 7:04 PM
Comment #399650

And the RICO lawsuit against Exxon is being filed because Exxon based its internal operations upon its own research showing Global Warming was happening, and then funded external denials of Global Warming which it KNEW were false. Exxon has a big problem.

Posted by: phx8 at October 16, 2015 7:08 PM
Comment #399651

Blaine, the letter you posted is simply outrageous. Scientists my ass. Political panderers.

Warren and phx8 are simply prostitutes for the huge government entity known as MMGW. Listen carefully and you can hear the tax dollars sloshing around in the coffers of paid for government shills hiding behind university facades.

No matter how often the MMGWer’s are wrong about their precious human induced computer modeling; they come back and tell us that this time they are correct.

It is a religion with them as you point out. They are God-less hypocrites kneeling at the altar of pseudo-science.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 16, 2015 7:13 PM
Comment #399652
Liberals are a strange breed. They can combine magical thinking with political conviction and never be bothered with facts.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 16, 2015 6:22 PM

Your are correct Royal; some of us can remember when the same world renown scientist were predicting Global Freezing. I bet Warren Porter doesn’t even know why we went from Global Warming to Climate Change? It was because people started reminding the left of the ice age predictions of 45 years ago…so the world renown scientist said “OH NO, they’re on to us”, so they slowly started calling GW…climate change.

“Follow the money”, is the old saying. The UN and GW transfers the wealth of nations from those who have to those who don’t, with a lot of it sticking to the hands of the UN. GW in America means billions in grants for studies, billions for green energy research, billions to companies who build battery powered cars. Oh, that’s already happened with a loss of billions of taxdollars.

Posted by: Blaine at October 16, 2015 7:14 PM
Comment #399653

Climate Change is probably a better term than Global Warming because a change can result in counterintuitive results.

For example, higher temperatures could melt the Greenland icecap, introducing large amounts of fresh water into the Gulf Stream. This introduction of fresh water into a salt water current would stop the thermo-haline circulation- the flow of which keeps Europe relatively warm despite its high latitude- and stopping the Gulf Stream, in turn, would result in low temperatures in Europe. This is an outcome that should take a very long time to develop.

Posted by: phx8 at October 16, 2015 7:30 PM
Comment #399654

phx8, I don’t know of anyone who denies that climate changes over time.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 16, 2015 7:34 PM
Comment #399655
my link to the Willie Soon article refutes your contention.

I am sorry if I missed something, but nowhere in the CNS news piece is there any indication that Dr. Soon didn’t relieve the alleged funds nor is there any indication that he properly disclosed them when submitting the manuscript for peer review.

As for the content of Soon’s work, Christopher Monckton, a collaborator of Soon’s, is quoted in your article as saying, “Take away the erroneous assumption that strongly net-positive feedback triples the rate of manmade global warming and the imagined climate crisis vanishes.”

Well duh. If you run a model with the feedbacks removed you will observe a far diminished sensitivity to rising CO2. However, we cannot wave magic wands and make these feedback mechanisms disappear. A warmer Earth means more H2O vapor in the air and H2O is a GHG more potent than CO2. A warmer Earth means less ice covering the surface which will lower the planet’s albedo. These are not figments of imagination; they are real phenomenon.

BTW, the test to see if a computer model can be trusted is to run it hindcast mode. Feed it data from the first half of the 20th century and see if it can predict the second half. Monckton & Soon’s model fails terribly at that task:

We show that M15 systematically underestimate warming: since 1990, most years were warmer than their modelled upper limit. During 2000–2010, RMS error and bias are approximately 150 % and 350 % larger than for the CMIP5 median, using either the Berkeley Earth or Cowtan and Way surface temperature data.

Of course, should we really be surprised?

this poor performance can be explained by a logical flaw in the parameter selection and that selected parameters contradict observational estimates
Posted by: Warren Porter at October 16, 2015 7:36 PM
Comment #399656

ph says the oceans are rising; if they are rising, then the radius of the earth increases and if the radius of the earth increases…then the speed of the earth’s rotation slows down. Simple physics; so can ph tell us if the earth’s rotation has slowed down?

Posted by: Blaine at October 16, 2015 7:40 PM
Comment #399657

Who is this guy and can he be trusted?

Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner is the head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University in Sweden. He is past president (1999-2003) of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution, and leader of the Maldives Sea Level Project. Dr. Mörner has been studying the sea level and its effects on coastal areas for some 35 years.
Posted by: Blaine at October 16, 2015 7:45 PM
Comment #399658

Prof. Dr. Gerhard Gerlich / Dr. Ralf D. Tscheuschner:


The days of this CO2 malarkey are coming to an end – sooner or later. Therefore, Professor Rossiter’s fellowship at the Institute for Policy Studies should be reactivated since he got the point. We have emphasized that there are no atmospheric CO2 greenhouse effects in physics, and climate models are not based on physics. The anti-CO2 campaigners never presented measurements, which show that an atmospheric gas volume warms up in response to a concentration increase of the trace gas CO2. And never it was proven that so-called “fossil fuels” are fossil. The earth ball is a huge repository of resources wrapped into a thin film of mankind. So what? An enlightened, up-powered and industrialized Africa will be a source of our future inspirations and creativity. IPCC, Al Gore, and their buddies should turn off their light bulbs sustainably. This would solve most of these (pseudo-)problems of our time immediately.”

- See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2014/06/17/nils-axel-moerner-two-german-climate-scientists-co2-malarkey-coming-to-an-end-days-are-doomed/#sthash.iFxPqazT.dpuf

Posted by: Blaine at October 16, 2015 7:51 PM
Comment #399660

So we have a scientist from the Global Warming Policy Foundation who says the ice caps on the Artic and Antarctic are not melting, they are indeed expanding. The polar bears are flourishing. If the poles aren’t melting, then how are the oceans rising?

EXCLUSIVE: Ice in the Arctic and Antarctic is ‘not melting’, says global warming expert

THE North and South Poles are “not melting”, according to Dr Benny Peiser a global warming expert.

By Levi Winchester

PUBLISHED: 07:01, Thu, Dec 25, 2014

Dr Peiser, from the Global Warming Policy Foundation says that the poles are “much more stable” than climate scientists once predicted and could even be much thicker than previously thought.

For years, scientists have suggested that both poles are melting at an alarming rate because of warming temperatures - dangerously raising the Earth’s sea levels while threatening the homes of Arctic and Antarctic animals.

But the uncertainty surrounding climate change and the polar ice caps reached a new level this month when research suggested the ice in the Antarctic is actually growing.

And there could even be evidence to suggest the polar bear population is not under threat.

Ted Maksym, an oceanographer at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts, conducted a study in which he sent an underwater robot into the depths of the Antarctic sea to measure the ice.

His results contradicted previous assumptions made by scientists and showed that the ice is actually much thicker than has been predicted over the last 20 years.

Dr Benny Peiser, from the Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF), said this latest research adds further proof to the unpredictability of the supposed effects of global warming.

He said: “The Antarctic is actually growing and all the evidence in the last few months suggests many assumptions about the poles was wrong.

“Global sea ice is at a record high, another key indicator that something is working in the opposite direction of what was predicted.”

The Antarctic is actually growing and all the evidence in the last few months suggests many assumptions about the poles was wrong

Separate satellite data released this month showed evidence that at the other end of the globe, the ice in the Arctic sea is also holding up against climate change better than expected.

The data from the European Space Agency CryoSat-2 satellite suggests that Arctic sea ice volumes in the autumn of 2014 were above the average set over the last five years, and sharply up on the lows recorded in 2011 and 2012.

According to this research, Arctic sea ice volumes in October and November this year averaged at 10,200 cubic kilometres.

This figure is only slightly down on the 2013 average of 10,900 cubic kilometres, yet massively up on the 2011 low of 4,275 cubic kilometres and the 6,000 cubic kilometres recorded in 2012.

Dr Peiser, who believes the threat of global warming has been overstated by climate scientists, described this occurrence as “some kind of rebound” adding that no-one knows what will continue to happen to the poles.

Posted by: Blaine at October 16, 2015 8:15 PM
Comment #399661
Claim That Sea Level Is Rising Is a Total Fraud

http://www.climatechangefacts.info/ClimateChangeDocuments/NilsAxelMornerinterview.pdf

Previous link:

http://www.express.co.uk/news/nature/548516/North-South-poles-not-melting-Dr-Benny-Peiser

Posted by: Blaine at October 16, 2015 8:18 PM
Comment #399664
He tells me I have no idea what I am talking about when I say GW/Climate Change is found only in computer models.
No, I didn’t. You claimed that Michael Mann’s “Hockey Stick” came from a computer model. That is demonstrably false.

That said, your claim that anthropogenic global warming is only found in computer models is also false. Svante Arrhenius predicted global warming in 1896 without the aid of a computer.

Warren tells me I don’t know what I’m talking about and then proceeds to tell the benefits of computer models after and then says they are not “absolutely correct”.
There’s this thing in the world called nuance. Ever heard of it?
who’s work was the “coming ice age” of the 1970’s based upon?
Here is a summary of relevant research published in the 1970s. Despite its popularity in the general press, papers predicting global cooling constitute a minority of the scientific literature in peer review journals. General press articles often failed to cite any published research, instead relying on “anonymous scientists”. In other cases, the general press articles predict an upcoming ice age, but make it clear that “soon” is meant in a geologic context, not a human one. The next ice age is thousands of years away rather than millions.

Ultimately, look to the table on page 1332. There are 7 papers with a total of 325 citations in support of the global cooling hypothesis and 36 papers with a total of 1837.

Your are correct Royal; some of us can remember when the same world renown scientist were predicting Global Freezing.
Poppycock. All those general press articles were based upon a tiny slice of the available scientific literature.
I bet Warren Porter doesn’t even know why we went from Global Warming to Climate Change? It was because people started reminding the left of the ice age predictions of 45 years ago…so the world renown scientist said “OH NO, they’re on to us”, so they slowly started calling GW…climate change.
This is unadulterated bullshit. The globe has warmed over the past century, leading to the term global warming. There was never a switch to climate change. The term global warming still regularly appears in scientific literature and documents.
I don’t know of anyone who denies that climate changes over time.

Well, there are the Young Earth Creationists who deny the existence of the ice age let alone the warm climates that existed back in the Mesozoic.

ph says the oceans are rising; if they are rising, then the radius of the earth increases and if the radius of the earth increases…then the speed of the earth’s rotation slows down. Simple physics; so can ph tell us if the earth’s rotation has slowed down?
The slowdown in Earth’s rotation is really tiny. Posted by: Warren Porter at October 16, 2015 10:10 PM
Comment #399665

Generally speaking, Antarctic sea ice has been stable and even expanded slightly over the last few decades while Arctic sea ice has retreated.

Our understanding of the cryosphere is not sufficient to make predictions regarding its future health. Many forecasts have wildly underestimated the rate of melting in the Arctic Sea Ice. In particular, the minima of 2007 and 2013 caught the community by surprise.

Phx8,

Interactions between global warming and the Thermohaline Circulation (THC) are not projected to be a problem this century even in the worst case scenario. However, it is something to our descendants will be worried about in the 22nd century if things do not abate. However, I am confident we won’t reach that point. Global warming will be creating too many problems in the late 21st century for it to be ignored.

Posted by: Warren Porter at October 16, 2015 10:24 PM
Comment #399666
The slowdown in Earth’s rotation is really tiny. Posted by: Warren Porter at October 16, 2015 10:10 PM

But we do have the technology to know if it happened; so has it? Has the day slowed down to say, 24 hours and 1 minute?

Generally speaking, Antarctic sea ice has been stable and even expanded slightly over the last few decades while Arctic sea ice has retreated.

Our understanding of the cryosphere is not sufficient to make predictions regarding its future health. Many forecasts have wildly underestimated the rate of melting in the Arctic Sea Ice. In particular, the minima of 2007 and 2013 caught the community by surprise.

So, the Antarctic sea ice has expanded, the Artic sea ice is not melting; the oceans are not rising, the temperature has not changed, there is an ice age coming right after the global warming, but we will all be doomed by the end of the 21st century…

Warren; somebody bought you books, sent you to school, and you’re still as dumb as a box of rocks.

For example, higher temperatures could melt the Greenland icecap, introducing large amounts of fresh water into the Gulf Stream. This introduction of fresh water into a salt water current would stop the thermo-haline circulation- the flow of which keeps Europe relatively warm despite its high latitude- and stopping the Gulf Stream, in turn, would result in low temperatures in Europe. This is an outcome that should take a very long time to develop. Posted by: phx8 at October 16, 2015 7:30 PM

What do you think WP; do you think phx8 is full of crap, or do you think he has a point? I personally don’t think phx8 even knows what “thermo-haline circulation” even means. But uf the Arctic is not melting, then there’s no cold fresh water entering the Gulf Stream. Which means all this stuff is just leftist talking points.

The term global warming still regularly appears in scientific literature and documents.

Yes it does, but to the ignorant masses of liberals, who don’t see the earth warming, the sea rising, or the poles melting; the term climate change has to be used in order to keep up the deception.

By the way WP, you failed to answer the question; is Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner also a fraud, or is his research real?

Posted by: Blaine at October 16, 2015 10:56 PM
Comment #399671
But we do have the technology to know if it happened; so has it? Has the day slowed down to say, 24 hours and 1 minute?

If the entire cryosphere melted, the length of a day would increase by 2/3 of a second. But we are not living on a planet where the entire cryosphere has melted. In fact, very little of the cryosphere has melted so far. Most of the observed rise in sea level is due to thermal expansion rather than the melting of ice sheets or glaciers. Even then, global sea level has risen by only half a centimeter. I’m not sure why you are pushing this issue, satellite altimetry is a much better method for detecting a rising sea level than looking for changes in the Earth’s moment of inertia. It would only make sense to do this if one doubted the accuracy of satellite altimetry data.

So, the Antarctic sea ice has expanded,
Yes, because a warmer globe has increased precipitation (snowfall) in that region.
the Artic sea ice is not melting
That’s not what I said. The decadal trend in the Arctic is one of a shrinking sea ice extent.
the oceans are not rising
Tide gauges and altimetry data contradict this claim. Sea levels have clearly risen by half a cm in recent decades. However, it is the future rise in sea level that is most concerning. The rise in the past few decades is relatively trivial.
the temperature has not changed
Pardon me?
there is an ice age coming right after the global warming
This is just one of several possible outcomes. That said, the THC is relatively robust and our understanding of the oceans is quite limited.
but we will all be doomed by the end of the 21st century…
Doomed? Just because AGW will be causing problems doesn’t mean we are “doomed” in any catastrophic sense. It does mean that a substantial portion of global GDP will be spent dealing with those problems, thereby diminishing global standards of living.
What do you think WP; do you think phx8 is full of crap, or do you think he has a point? I personally don’t think phx8 even knows what “thermo-haline circulation” even means. But uf the Arctic is not melting, then there’s no cold fresh water entering the Gulf Stream. Which means all this stuff is just leftist talking points.

The Arctic IS MELTING and the North Atlantic is freshening.

Posted by: Warren Porter at October 17, 2015 8:51 AM
Comment #399672
Yes it does, but to the ignorant masses of liberals, who don’t see the earth warming, the sea rising, or the poles melting; the term climate change has to be used in order to keep up the deception.

Then why does the term “global warming”
keep appearing in the general press?

Posted by: Warren Porter at October 17, 2015 9:11 AM
Comment #399676

Warren Porter said:

No, I didn’t. You claimed that Michael Mann’s “Hockey Stick” came from a computer model. That is demonstrably false.

But I came upon this bit of information by Richard Muller in 2003:


http://www.technologyreview.com/news/403256/global-warming-bombshell/

So, despite the fact that Mann’s Hockey Stick was debunked a decade ago, am I reading this correctly when it says Mann fed data into a computer program? This is what I said and you told me that what I said was “demonstrably false”. Got any updates on that?

Posted by: Blaine at October 17, 2015 9:48 AM
Comment #399677

You still fail to answer the question; is Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner also a fraud, or is his research real?

Tide gauges and altimetry data contradict this claim. Sea levels have clearly risen by half a cm in recent decades. However, it is the future rise in sea level that is most concerning. The rise in the past few decades is relatively trivial.

Tide gauges are not dependable per Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner research; and altimetry data has not been around long enough to establish data. You are trying to use todays satellite mixed with inaccurate data from 132 years past.

So you don’t have accurate data to prove anything about the sea levels. According to Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner, the claims by ph that south pacific islands were sinking into the sea, was not based upon rising sea levels, but rather salt water contaminating their fresh water reserves. Not very scientific.

No matter what you say, every reason you have given for GW/Climate Change is based upon computer models. It’s all predictions and by your own words the predictions have failed to happen. Even Mann’s hockey stick was based upon defective computer data.

Doomed? Just because AGW will be causing problems doesn’t mean we are “doomed” in any catastrophic sense. It does mean that a substantial portion of global GDP will be spent dealing with those problems, thereby diminishing global standards of living.

Then you WP are an exception to the GW “the sky is falling” crowd. There’s not enough room on WB or time to quote all the doomsday reports from the GW supporters. According to some, we mankind should have already been extinct. From Al Gore to Obama. In fact Obama said that GW is the most important crisis we face, even more than terrorism. Honestly WP, how do you expect GW pessimists to ever believe you when these clowns are out there predicting the end of the world, when it has been proven that GW scientist have faked the facts, and when the first thing out of GW supporting politicians (including the UN) is to take money from those who have, to give to those who have not?


Posted by: Blaine at October 17, 2015 10:10 AM
Comment #399678

We have been told that the world’s individual weather events, such as hurricanes, tornadoes, or even droughts, etc; are not proof of GW. Yet, every time we have a storm or high tide, the supporters of GW are out there saying “I told you “.

Posted by: Blaine at October 17, 2015 10:31 AM
Comment #399679
So, despite the fact that Mann’s Hockey Stick was debunked a decade ago, am I reading this correctly when it says Mann fed data into a computer program? This is what I said and you told me that what I said was “demonstrably false”. Got any updates on that?

Here is your original claim:

the famed “hockey stick “, which is once again, a computer generated projection

A Computer generated projection is a general circulation model (GCM), a tool used by dynamicsts. GCMs have many uses, none of which have anything to do with Michael Mann’s reconstruction of prehistorical temperatures.

Rather, Professor Mann uses proxy data to reconstruct prehistorical temperatures. Undoubtedly, there is math involved and it would take a very long time to work things out by had. Fortunately, Mann and his colleagues have written scripts to have the math solved by a computer. However, these programs do not attempt to simulate the atmosphere nor do they attempt to forecast or make projections about the future. They simply implement statistical algorithms in order to interpolate temperature from the proxy data. All of Mann’s code is free availible. And don’t waste your time with Stephen McIntyre’s flawed work

Many of my comments are being held for approval by Keeley because they contain too many links.

Posted by: Warren Porter at October 17, 2015 1:19 PM
Comment #399681
You still fail to answer the question; is Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner also a fraud, or is his research real?

You seriously ask me to refute evidence from a man who divines for water?

Posted by: Warren Porter at October 17, 2015 1:33 PM
Comment #399682

Very strange. The spam filter is capturing any comment I make with more than one link.

Tide gauges are not dependable per Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner research
Well, sorry to burst Mörner’s bubble but his inability to detect rising sea levels levels with his divining pendulum has no bearing on any serious discussion regarding climate. Posted by: Warren Porter at October 17, 2015 1:34 PM
Comment #399683
Then you WP are an exception to the GW “the sky is falling” crowd. There’s not enough room on WB or time to quote all the doomsday reports from the GW supporters. According to some, we mankind should have already been extinct. From Al Gore to Obama. In fact Obama said that GW is the most important crisis we face, even more than terrorism. Honestly WP, how do you expect GW pessimists to ever believe you when these clowns are out there predicting the end of the world, when it has been proven that GW scientist have faked the facts, and when the first thing out of GW supporting politicians (including the UN) is to take money from those who have, to give to those who have not?

Unlike the denialists, left wing activists do not pose a threat to my children’s standard of living. According to the Stern Review, the economic costs of unmitigated global warming will amount to 20% of global gdp. That is a lot of money to risk upon the tales of a few scientists with marginal training in climatology.

Posted by: Warren Porter at October 17, 2015 1:40 PM
Comment #399684

One more demonstration of Nils-Axel Mörner’s expertise.

Posted by: Warren Porter at October 17, 2015 1:44 PM
Comment #399685

Your link to James Randi is kind of weird, the nearest I can figure, he spends his time attacking other people for lame reasons.

The point is WP, you are no different than the water deviner, by divining nothing more than a theory. Absolutely everything you have said is not based upon actual facts; but rather computer projections. No matter how you spin Mann’s work, it was still based upon computer projections. Furthermore, your theories fly in the face of Christians who believe God is in control of all of his creation. Sorry, but I’ve read the end of the book, and it says nothing about the world ending by global warming. But now, I’ve thrown a real wrench into your scientific theories.

Posted by: Blaine at October 17, 2015 2:08 PM
Comment #399686

Warren writes; “Unlike the denialists, left wing activists do not pose a threat to my children’s standard of living.”

Hmmm…because millions of folks are not convinced of MMGW and willing to spend huge sums of money on an unproven problem with no proven solution we are a threat to your children’s standard of living?

Warren, I suggest you invest a little of your study and brain power to understand the magnitude of our real national debt which is approaching $20 Trillion. Both parties seem to have no qualms about ever increasing debt. This debt Warren, is truly the greatest threat to all our children and grandchildren.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 17, 2015 2:17 PM
Comment #399687

WP, I’m having the same problem posting.

Royal, yes I find it amusing that Porter would consider GW deniers the greatest threat to his children. With a national debt of $20 trillion, and that’s no including SS, Medicare, and now obamacare. Why should we be surprised, his president Obama considers GW to be the greatest threat to America.

Posted by: Blaine at October 17, 2015 2:37 PM
Comment #399688

It would be interesting to know how much Obama’s epa and executive orders have already cost Americans in rising food costs, electric bills, and general merchandise.

Posted by: Blaine at October 17, 2015 2:42 PM
Comment #399689

Yes Blaine, it would be interesting. Aren’t we all glad that Oobama is not in control of our oil?

I simply can not wrap my mind around the horrible choices the dems have put up for president. Can anyone imagine that the party and their voters would even consider an avowed socialist for leader of our great Republic?

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 17, 2015 2:50 PM
Comment #399690

Oobama is desperately attempting to divert attention from his failed domestic and foreign policies by scaring the lemmings with MMGW.

Fortunately, “Less than a third of Americans are now concerned about global warming and climate change…”

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/mar/25/global-warming-climate-change-less-third-americans/

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 17, 2015 2:57 PM
Comment #399691

Politically Left Scientist Dissents – Calls President Obama ‘delusional’ on global warming

“My blood simply boils too hot when I read the blather, daily, about climate catastrophe. It boggles the mind that I could be certain that I know what caused a half degree (C) rise in the last hundred fifty years. It’s simply not large enough to find a physical cause.”

http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/09/23/politically-left-scientist-dissents-calls-president-obama-delusional-on-global-warming/

“For this belief – based in a decade’s worth of statistical research and analysis on climate change data – Rossiter was recently terminated as an associate fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies, a progressive Washington D.C. think tank.”

http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/18034/

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 17, 2015 3:23 PM
Comment #399692

The leftist are quick to point out that production of oil has increased under Obama and prices have gone down. But what they fail to realize is that Obama has done his best to cut production of all fossil fuels. He’s cut permits to drill and produce oil on government lands. He has confiscated more state lands for federal control. It was state and private lands that have produced our oil and gas.

I was just watching a program on tv about the 76-80 Carter presidency. They interviewed Carter and he said his number one goal during his term was to get us off oil and find alternative fuels. The solar panel he put on the roof of the WH, was immediately taken down by Reagan. Carter boldly said our dependence on foreign oil was cut during his presidency. I told my wife, yes it was, because there were gas lines due to shortages, the price of gas skyrocketed, people were out of work, and interest rates were close to 20%. He was a complete idiot. I had 2 small children and times were really hard. Carter was the last democrat president I voted for, and will never vote for another. Democrat presidents govern from an ideology.

And here we have another one; Obama governing fro a leftist ideology. Not what’s best for the country, but what will promote their agenda. Warren Porter has consumed the cool aid, and honestly believes the bs he is spoon fed.

Posted by: Blaine at October 17, 2015 3:30 PM
Comment #399694
Your link to James Randi is kind of weird, the nearest I can figure, he spends his time attacking other people for lame reasons.
James Randi likes to investigate claims of paranormal ability. There are a lot of fraudsters out there who take advantage of the gullible. We are lucky people like James Randi take the time to expose them for who they truly are.
The point is WP, you are no different than the water deviner, by divining nothing more than a theory.
Rubbish. Anthropogenic global warming is a theory and it has been tested against observations. In the absence of the greenhouse effect, simple calculations demonstrate the Earth would be 50C cooler than it presently is.
No matter how you spin Mann’s work, it was still based upon computer projections.
Stop being an idiot. Mann’s reconstruction is not a simulation. It is data based upon simple observations of proxy records (Tree rings, sediments and the like). He wrote a script to have a computer apply a statistical algorithim to match the proxy data to temperature. If you are going to throw out anything that uses a computer in any manner you are being absolutely ridiculous. Math is the language of the universe. It is with computers that we solve the math equations. Now, with a simulation it is difficult to know beforehand whether or not the projection corresponds to the world we live in and it would be correct to dismiss a hypothesis that only existed in the forecasts of GCMs. But AGW is much more than that.
But now, I’ve thrown a real wrench into your scientific theories.
No. You’ve tossed incoherent bullshit manufactured by a few dozen contrarian scientists. You have never read a peer-reviewed jornal article on the matter and resort to parroting articles published in the conservative press.

Where is the beef? Where is the denialist computer model that replicates 20th century warming using only basic physics but shows no warming in the 21st century? What evidence is there to support negative feedback mechanisms to counter the positive ones.

Where is the denialist reconstruction of paleoclimate using proxy data? Stephen McIntyre, a man with historic ties to the mining industry, tried and failed to debunk Mann’s work in spectacular fashion.

Furthermore, your theories fly in the face of Christians who believe God is in control of all of his creation. Sorry, but I’ve read the end of the book, and it says nothing about the world ending by global warming.
And now the gloves have come off with the pseudoscience on full display. I guess you got tired of worshiping that water dowser and needed to bring in an actual deity to do the job, well-played.

BTW, it’s also a book that denies the existence of the recent Ice Ages. Talk about denying what can be easily observed!

Hmmm…because millions of folks are not convinced of MMGW and willing to spend huge sums of money on an unproven problem with no proven solution we are a threat to your children’s standard of living?
According to the Stern Review, the economic cost of unmitigated global warming will amount to 5-20% of global GDP by the end of the century. That is by definition a threat to the standards of living of my children and grandchildren. The cost of mitigation is estimated to be 1% of global GDP. Even if there was an 80% chance global warming was all made up, it would still make more sense to spend money today to reduce GHG emissions.

The fact that million people would rather believe conservative propaganda than what their own two eyes tell them cannot be helped. Brainwashing en masse is difficult to counter.

I suggest you invest a little of your study and brain power to understand the magnitude of our real national debt which is approaching $20 Trillion. Both parties seem to have no qualms about ever increasing debt. This debt Warren, is truly the greatest threat to all our children and grandchildren.
Tell me, by what mechanism will this debt threaten posterity? Rising inflation and higher interest rates are the worse outcome I can imagine. Yet, inflation is at record lows and interest rates are nudging into unprecedented negative territory. That said, like a good Keynesian, I support running surpluses in times of plenty see the upcoming election as a chance to elect someone committed to that goal. I am not interested in voting for Clinton or Sanders for precisely this reason. Obama has done a good job decreasing the deficit and I don’t trust either of them to continue that legacy. Posted by: Warren Porter at October 17, 2015 3:36 PM
Comment #399695

Ronald Reagan was our savior from the failed Carter administration. I remember well the talks Carter had from the White House, wearing his sweater, telling Americans that we had to cut our standard of living due to fossil fuel scarcity.

Americans voted for a man who believed in our nation and our ability to achieve whatever we wanted by individual enterprise not government edicts.

Carter was a defeatist ideologue. Reagan was the champion of individual liberty and freedom.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 17, 2015 3:44 PM
Comment #399696

I provided a link in Comment #399648 list 20 academics who literally wrote a letter to Obama and the AG, requesting them to charge and try any scientist who denies GW. WP ignored the link. It seems to me, the destruction of our 1st amendment rights might be of greater danger to WP’s kids than GW deniers. I believe it was Kirsten Powers who wrote a book about the left’s goal to shut up all opposition. I will have to check.

Posted by: Blaine at October 17, 2015 3:44 PM
Comment #399697

Yes Blaine, the lefties disparage the actual “Rights” found in our Constitution and find “new rights”.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 17, 2015 3:47 PM
Comment #399698
WP ignored the link.

Ethically, I cannot comment.

Posted by: Warren Porter at October 17, 2015 3:52 PM
Comment #399699

Yes, I was correct, her book was “The Scilencing-how the left is killing free speech “

http://www.amazon.com/Silencing-Lefts-War-Free-Speech/dp/1621573702/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=142076299

She is a liberal, she worked for Clinton, and has written for liberal news outlets; but the left’s response will be to attack her. The silencing of GW deniers is only one aspect of the left’s agenda. They try to silence anyone who disagrees with them. If a woman is conservative, she’s a skank; if a black is conservative, he’s an Oreo. This is becoming a real problem in America. You would think WP would b e more concerned about his kid’s constitutional rights.

Posted by: Blaine at October 17, 2015 3:57 PM
Comment #399700

Ethically???

You don’t seem to be ethically challenged on liberal policies.

Posted by: Blaine at October 17, 2015 4:00 PM
Comment #399701

Blaine, in Warren’s world of academia, I believe it is called “Go along to get along”.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 17, 2015 4:02 PM
Comment #399702

Unless by “Ethically “, you mean, if you commented negatively, you would be ostracized for your comments.

Posted by: Blaine at October 17, 2015 4:04 PM
Comment #399703

I have a conflict of interest. Let’s leave it at that.

Posted by: Warren Porter at October 17, 2015 4:06 PM
Comment #399704

If that’s true, then WP ought to be more concerned about his own rights to free speech. I would hate to be in that position. How sad.

Posted by: Blaine at October 17, 2015 4:07 PM
Comment #399705

I’m guessing on of the academics on the list is WP’s professor. So much for free will. As long as you are parroting the leftist professors, everything is fine. But, for God’s sake, don’t think for yourself.

Posted by: Blaine at October 17, 2015 4:11 PM
Comment #399706

WP has no problem personally attack any academics who are deniers, he even makes fun and mocks them. This is just my opinion, but right does WP have to debate on WB if his speech is monitored by leftist professors? He argues from his professor’s point of view and not his own. So who can trust what he says as being his own convictions?

Posted by: Blaine at October 17, 2015 4:17 PM
Comment #399707

This is why tenure is so crucial in academia. It is also why I intend to return to the private sector as soon as I finish. I enjoyed the year I spent advising the industry of the risks they face from climate change and I hope to return to a similar position in the future.

Posted by: Warren Porter at October 17, 2015 4:17 PM
Comment #399708

When I was at University back in the 60’s we were taught how to think. Today it seems that our students are being taught what to think.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 17, 2015 4:17 PM
Comment #399709

Warren writes; “…advising the industry of the risks they face from climate change…”

Hmmm…If A, B, and C is true…then do D?

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 17, 2015 4:27 PM
Comment #399710

There are ideals and there is reality. Does academia strictly adhere to its ideals 100% of the time? No, it doesn’t. After all, academia is a human institution. But this reality was no different 50 years ago.

I will say there is distinction between undergraduate and graduate level education that I could not appreciate two years ago. Eventually, one reaches a point where one is forced to abandon the aspiration of being an expert at everything. When I earn my PhD, I will be an expert only with regards to my dissertation topic. When one is not an expert, one places a certain amount of trust in someone else who is one.

Posted by: Warren Porter at October 17, 2015 4:33 PM
Comment #399711

When one is not an expert, one places a certain amount of trust in someone else who is one.
Posted by: Warren Porter at October 17, 2015 4:33 PM

True enough Warren. But one must exercise their own brain and test what is being promoted by the “experts”.

As we have seen on this thread…experts disagree all the time. How do we decide what is truth? We must test every hypothesis to determine validity.

Consider the “expert” testimony in court cases. Many times experts take totally opposite positions. As a juror, would you give a death sentence to a person based upon which expert you believe?

Committing huge national resources to combat MMGW based only upon experts who agree, while ignoring experts who disagree is madness.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 17, 2015 4:43 PM
Comment #399712

WP, not a true statement. Dr. Morner is a PhD with special studies in sea levels, and you called him a quack and a charlatan.

I hope you PhD is not in the field of GW. I fear your career will be short lived.

Posted by: Blaine at October 17, 2015 4:50 PM
Comment #399713

Once again, the lawsuit being filed targets Exxon. No one’s free speech is under attack. Exxon used research for its internal operations as far back as the 70’s recognizing AGW, but externally funded APW. Exxon KNEW they were intentionally misleading by pretending AGW was not happening, yet they did so anyway. This has resulted in a lawsuit accusing them of violating RICO statutes.

It should be noted the tobacco industry faced a similar lawsuit and lost in 2006. The AGW Deniers have been using very similar tactics to the tobacco industry, and many of the same people are involved, including The Heartland Institute.

As for Kirsten Powers and her book, does anyone really believe this FOX news analyst is a liberal? How gullible does a person have to be to buy into that?

Posted by: phx8 at October 17, 2015 5:41 PM
Comment #399714

“KNEW they were intentionally misleading by pretending AGW was not happening…”

And now we have proof that will stand up in court that MMGW is happening?

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 17, 2015 5:46 PM
Comment #399715

RF,
I don’t think there is any question courts would affirm the factual nature of AGW, but courts do not perceive that kind of affirmation as their purpose.

Exxon is vulnerable because they are publicly owned company which knowingly presented false information to the public in collusion with others in order to profit, even though they KNEW the information was false, and used that information about the true nature of AGW for their internal operations. So… that is racketeering. They were essentially running a racket.

As for the free speech issue, the question becomes this: do people and corporations have the right to knowingly present false information for profit, even though they know it is false, and even though they then act on their own behalf using the concealed, true information? Is that covered by free speech?

Posted by: phx8 at October 17, 2015 6:34 PM
Comment #399716

Regarding knowingly presenting false information; Hillary Clinton, Obama, and his administration have been doing it for years.

Posted by: Blaine at October 17, 2015 7:25 PM
Comment #399717
Dr. Morner is a PhD with special studies in sea levels, and you called him a quack and a charlatan.

Quack and charlatan are your words, not mine. Is there any evidence disputing the fact that Dr. Morner has been a dowsing for water for decades? As an expert in diving water, he places more trust in his dowsing pendulum rather than tidal gauges or satellite. It is quite obvious that the conservative blogs on which you rely for talking points don’t give a damn about getting the facts straight. It’s all about winning the next election rather than winning America’s future, right?

Posted by: Warren Porter at October 17, 2015 7:38 PM
Comment #399718

Tell us WP, what has Obama done for America’s future? Better yet, since he only has 14 months left, tell us what Hillary will do for America? I read no conservative blogs. WB is the only blog site I read. Tidal gauges are not accurate and satellite has no reference point beyond a decade.

So even though Kirsten Powers has a career writing for liberal news outlets, worked for the Clinton administration; because she gives the liberal point of view on Fox News, she’s not really a liberal. Perhaps ph could tell us what qualifies as a liberal?

Posted by: Blaine at October 17, 2015 8:06 PM
Comment #399719

ph, do you support Hillary for president? WP has already said he would not vote for Hillary; does that mean WP is not a liberal?

Posted by: Blaine at October 17, 2015 8:10 PM
Comment #399720
what has Obama done for America’s future

In 2009, the world economy was in crisis. 80 years ago, a Republican President faced a similar crisis and the decisions he made resulted in a depression that lasted for over a decade. Obama fared much better due to the activism of the ARRA and other things such as the expansion of unemployment benefits.

In 2010, Obama and Congressional Democrats passed the PPACA, a successful overhaul of health insurance. Millions of uninsured Americans are now able to purchase insurance and discrimination based upon “preexisting conditions” is a thing of the past.

Since 2009, the deficit run by the government has dropped at a record rate.

Kirsten Powers
Nobody here gives a damn about Powers’ sophistry.
I read no conservative blogs.
Now, that explains a lot. You constantly link to blogs reporting on the activities of scientists who dispute the global warming consensus. Given the dubiousness of all these claims, it was surprising to see you still link to them. Then again, you are putting more faith in Dr. Mörner’s dowsing pendulum than in a satellite altimeter. Posted by: Warren Porter at October 17, 2015 9:46 PM
Comment #399721
True enough Warren. But one must exercise their own brain and test what is being promoted by the “experts”.

As we have seen on this thread…experts disagree all the time. How do we decide what is truth? We must test every hypothesis to determine validity.

Consider the “expert” testimony in court cases. Many times experts take totally opposite positions. As a juror, would you give a death sentence to a person based upon which expert you believe?

Committing huge national resources to combat MMGW based only upon experts who agree, while ignoring experts who disagree is madness.

Testing hypotheses is definitely the way to go. It is how the scientific method works. When something gets published in a prestigious journal such as Science or Nature, you can be certain that those claims will be tested. Relevant source code can be obtained from the authors and the results replicated. In fact, my advisor routinely asks me replicate the results of articles that interest him. Now, my current focus isn’t climate science so I haven’t personally attempted to replicate the results of a GCM or Mann’s paleoclimate reconstruction. However, I have friends and peers who I know personally and who I trust and respect. These are my classmates, naive and open-minded as much as I am. Some of them are involved with climate research and have themselves verified these findings. It would be honestly impossible to manage a conspiracy grand enough to corrupt not only the active researchers, but also every single graduate student as well.

Contrast this with the work of contrarians. Their research struggles to overcome the hurdles of peer-review and when it does it is usually in a third rate journal. Each and every time, someone from the community publishes an article refuting the contrarian’s claims, typically by pointing out clear observations that are consistent with anthropogenic global warming, but which contradict the contrarian’s hypothesis.

There is a false equivalence at work here. Thousands upon thousands of active climate scientists support the general consensus that increasing GHG concentrations leads to a warmer Earth. Perhaps a dozen people with the proper credentials disagree. Are their claims equally credible? I don’t think so.

Posted by: Warren Porter at October 17, 2015 10:54 PM
Comment #399722

Blaine,
Yes, I support Hillary. If she somehow fell by the wayside, I would be willing to support Biden or Sanders or O’Malley. If Webb won I would have to take a look at Green and Libertarian candidates. If Kasich won the GOP nomination and went on to win the general election, I would probably not vote for him, but I would feel like the guy could do a decent job. The rest of the GOP candidates are not worthy of consideration, and some, like Trump and Carson, are outright ridiculous.

Last I saw, WP liked Lessig. In an interview on MSNBC with Chris Hayes, Lessig made some good points about campaign finance reform. Lessig is unquestionably right about this. But Hillary and Sanders and O’Malley all would be friendly towards reform and getting around Citizens United.

All recognize the importance of addressing Global Warming, which is unquestionably the biggest issue facing us, though few even recognize it at this point.

Democrats and liberals are not the same as conservatives. There is no litmus test other than common sense. There will be some disagreement, sometimes significant, among liberals and Democrats. Despite that, I am more than willing to live with the differences. I am not an ideologue. I want to see the country work and be successful even if it is not necessarily liberal or even run by Democrats.

Like most Americans, I wanted to see Bush succeed after 9/11. He did not. Everyone of us is poorer for his failure, liberal and conservative alike.

Conservatives rooted for Obama to fail from the first day he was elected. They have opposed him at every turn on every issue, even issues conservatives would normally support, such as Obamacare. The shift to the far right and ideological rigidity have brought us to the present day’s failures, and they are very serious. The GOP controls the House, yet they cannot agree on a Speaker, the third in the line of succession for the presidency. Major challenges must be faced soon, such as raising the debt ceiling. The idea of these people running the country is downright frightening.

Posted by: phx8 at October 17, 2015 11:06 PM
Comment #399724
In 2010, Obama and Congressional Democrats passed the PPACA, a successful overhaul of health insurance. Millions of uninsured Americans are now able to purchase insurance and discrimination based upon “preexisting conditions” is a thing of the past.

WP, did you have a straight face when you were typing this? First, in 2010 Obama and a straight party vote passed PPACA. I want you to remember, there was no Republican support and there was no Republican input. This one is owned completely by the Democrats. That being said, there has been a continued 50+% of Americans who have been against obamacare…that means more than half of Americans have always been against it. Secondly, the program is failing. The Obama administration came out this week announcing a drop in enrollment numbers, heading off the news releases. The question was asked, “Are Obamacare’s 22 Health Insurance Co-ops Near Financial Collapse?”

Ominous signs are proliferating among 22 Obamacare health insurance co-ops of imminent financial collapses that could leave more than a million Americans without coverage, according to a Daily Caller News Foundation Investigative Group analysis.

All but one of the federally funded co-ops are experiencing accelerating net losses. President Obama’s signature health care reform program established the co-ops to provide non-profit competition to private sector health insurance providers.

Many of the 22 co-ops could soon follow an Obamacare co-op that defaulted earlier this year, suffering $163 million in operating losses in a single year. That collapse left 120,000 customers without coverage on Christmas Eve…

New figures compiled by Miller and Marie-Grace Turner, president of the Galen Institute, show that net losses for the co-ops reached a record $614 million in 2014. Both AEI and Galen are Obamacare critics.

The figure is nearly three times the $234 million in losses suffered through the first three quarters of 2014 as reported by Standards & Poor’s in a February 2015 report. It means that the burn rate for the experimental Obamacare co-ops is quickening.

“All but one of the co-ops,” S&P noted, “reported negative net income through the first three quarters of 2014.”

Insurance ratings firm A.M. Best also warned in January that as of September 30, 2014, “the ratio of surplus notes outstanding to capital and surplus exceeded 100% for all of the co-ops.”

Arizona’s Meritus Mutual Health Partners co-op has long-term loans that are nearly 1,000 percent of the value of its capital and surplus, according to A.M. Best.

S&P identified the co-ops suffering the worst capital ratios as those in Illinois, Arizona, Colorado, Nevada and Maryland.

The Community Health Alliance co-op in Tennessee reported that it’s net losses were 314% of its federal funding, according to the S&P report.

Community Health said in January that it would no longer offer insurance on the state exchange, according to the Tennessean daily newspaper. The co-op enrolled 140 customers and received $73 million from Obamacare, a cost of more $521,ooo per enrollee.

Another indication of serious co-op financial weakness is the fact that CMS gave out $317 million in additional “solvency loans” to one out of every three co-ops last year.

The injection of the federal funds was to prevent co-op capital reserves from falling below the minimum capital rates set by each state insurance commissioner.

The emerging picture of massive losses across all of the federal co-ops was forecast by an original White House Office and Management and Budget estimate that warned up to four of every 10 co-ops could default.

The human wreckage left behind a failing co-op was seen earlier this year when regulators in Iowa and Nebraska liquidated the assets of a failing federal health care co-op known as Co-Opportunity Health. Insurance regulators officially declared the co-op was in “hazardous condition” last December.

Co-op supporters hailed Co-Opportunity health because it had initially enrolled 50,000 customers, the second highest in the nation.

“We are very pleased with the market response to our products,” said David Lyons, Co-Opportunity’s chief executive officer and a politically-connected former Iowa insurance commissioner.

What Lyons failed to say was that Co-Opportunity slashed prices and offered very low, below-market premiums to attract new customers…

That harsh action appeared contrary to the originally stated mission of the consumer-oriented co-op as presented by Obama administration officials.

At its formation, federal officials at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services promised the co-ops would offer “affordable, consumer-friendly and high quality health insurance options.”

Then we have the rise in penalties for not purchasing HC.

We have seen the rise in everyone’s HC after the liar in chief said they would not only not rise, but they would actually go down.

This is what Barney Frank said about obamacare (of course, after he voted for it and then retired from congress):

“The rollout was so bad, and I was appalled — I don’t understand how the president could have sat there and not been checking on that on a weekly basis. But frankly, he should never have said as much as he did, that if you like your current health care plan, you can keep it. That wasn’t true. And you shouldn’t lie to people. And they just lied to people. He should have said, ‘Look, in some cases the health care plans that you’ve got are really inadequate, and in your own interests, we’re going to change them.’ But that’s not what he said.”

So we know Obama lied; even your side admitted that.

The left loves to tout the claims that millions of people now have insurance, who never had it before, “Millions of uninsured Americans are now able to purchase insurance and discrimination based upon “preexisting conditions” is a thing of the past.”; but what about the millions of people who lost their insurance, or were forced to buy policies with mandated coverage they did not need, or had to buy coverage with thousands of dollars in co-pays?

NBC News

President Obama repeatedly assured Americans that after the Affordable Care Act became law, people who liked their health insurance would be able to keep it. But millions of Americans are getting or are about to get cancellation letters for their health insurance under Obamacare, say experts, and the Obama administration has known that for at least three years.

Four sources deeply involved in the Affordable Care Act tell NBC NEWS that 50 to 75 percent of the 14 million consumers who buy their insurance individually can expect to receive a “cancellation” letter or the equivalent over the next year because their existing policies don’t meet the standards mandated by the new health care law. One expert predicts that number could reach as high as 80 percent. And all say that many of those forced to buy pricier new policies will experience “sticker shock.”

None of this should come as a shock to the Obama administration. The law states that policies in effect as of March 23, 2010 will be “grandfathered,” meaning consumers can keep those policies even though they don’t meet requirements of the new health care law. But the Department of Health and Human Services then wrote regulations that narrowed that provision, by saying that if any part of a policy was significantly changed since that date — the deductible, co-pay, or benefits, for example — the policy would not be grandfathered.

Buried in Obamacare regulations from July 2010 is an estimate that because of normal turnover in the individual insurance market, “40 to 67 percent” of customers will not be able to keep their policy. And because many policies will have been changed since the key date, “the percentage of individual market policies losing grandfather status in a given year exceeds the 40 to 67 percent range.”

That means the administration knew that more than 40 to 67 percent of those in the individual market would not be able to keep their plans, even if they liked them.

Yet President Obama, who had promised in 2009, “if you like your health plan, you will be able to keep your health plan,” was still saying in 2012, “If [you] already have health insurance, you will keep your health insurance.”

“This says that when they made the promise, they knew half the people in this market outright couldn’t keep what they had and then they wrote the rules so that others couldn’t make it either,” said Robert Laszewski, of Health Policy and Strategy Associates, a consultant who works for health industry firms. Laszewski estimates that 80 percent of those in the individual market will not be able to keep their current policies and will have to buy insurance that meets requirements of the new law, which generally requires a richer package of benefits than most policies today.

All of this just deals with your claims of Obama’s successes with obamacare; it would require a whole other write up to deal with your claims of his financial successes.

Posted by: Blaine at October 18, 2015 1:21 PM
Comment #399725

WP says:

In 2009, the world economy was in crisis. 80 years ago, a Republican President faced a similar crisis and the decisions he made resulted in a depression that lasted for over a decade. Obama fared much better due to the activism of the ARRA and other things such as the expansion of unemployment benefits.

First, unemployment benefits do not create jobs; unemployment benefits prevent people from looking for work.

Second, the stimulus was nothing more than a gigantic liberal slush fund. Money was wasted on green energy projects.

Almost 100 million American workers are out of work.

The average median income for middle class Americans has dropped over $6k a year.

The unemployment numbers are a fraud; only those drawing unemployment are counted, not those who have run out of the benefits. Unemployment among blacks is very high.

The stock market is being propped up by the fed and control of interest rates.

And lastly, the most important thing on the minds of voters is not GW, it’s the economy. If the economy is doing so great, why are Americans so concerned about it?

Only in the dreams of the left is Obama economy all rosey.

Posted by: Blaine at October 18, 2015 1:53 PM
Comment #399726

What would the country look like without unemployment benefits? Simply look at the Great Depression. People had no benefits and looked for work, yet remained unemployed because of economic hard times.

What would the US look like without the stimulus? Coincidentally, the Rupert Murdoch owned Wall Street Journal just did on piece last Friday that did a study on this. The estimate? Without TARP, the fiscal stimulus, Quantitative Easing, and the auto bailout, unemployment would have peaked at 16% rather than 10%; the economy would have stayed down for twice as long; twice as many jobs would have been lost; and the budget deficit would have gone up to $2.8 trillion. Without those, today the economy would be much poorer: real GDP would be $800 billion lower, there would be 3.6 million fewer jobs, and unemployment would be 7.6%

http://www.wsj.com/articles/dont-look-back-in-anger-at-bailouts-and-stimulus-1444948370

Interest rates are low because there is steady growth and no inflation. If nothing is done through legislation to increase wages, wages will grow anyway as we attain full employment and employers are forced to compete for employees. And because interest rates are low, the stock market provides a more attractive investment for many.

If the economy is not doing great, why don’t Republican presidential candidates talk about it? Why don’t Republican voters ask questions about it at campaign rallies?

The truth is, the economy is doing well, so there is little for either side to discuss. For those who believe it is not doing well, they are forced to resort to conspiracy theories, and declare things like “the unemployment numbers are a fraud.” That might work for people gullible enough to support a Trump or a Carson, but it makes such people look ludicrous to everyone else.

Posted by: phx8 at October 18, 2015 3:33 PM
Comment #399727

Obamacare has succeeded. The uninsured rate has dropped rates have gone up much more slowly than before health care reform.

Blaine, since you stated Obama is a Muslim, I have a few questions about that. Is his wife a Muslim too? What about the children? Are there other Muslims in government we don’t know about? It would be a pretty incredible coincidence if Obama were the only one to secretly infiltrate, yet make it to the highest position in the land. Is he Shia or Sunni? If he were Shia, that would explain the agreement with Iran. But if he picked up Islam from his parents, he would probably be Sunni, and in that case, wouldn’t want to do anything to help out the Iranians. Hmmm. And how devout is he? Is Obama just a weekend Muslim- you know, he believes and pays lip service, but doesn’t participate except for holidays- or is he really into it, praying on a secret prayer rug five times a day.

Pigs are considered unclean animal in Islam, and it is forbidden to eat them. Does Obama avoid eating pork at state dinners? Seems like that would be a dead giveaway, unless he’s secretly Jewish.

Posted by: phx8 at October 18, 2015 4:30 PM
Comment #399728

A Muslim is allowed to do or say anything, if it is for the purpose of deceiving infidels. Is Obama a deceiver?

Posted by: Blaine at October 18, 2015 5:09 PM
Comment #399729

From the Washington Examiner:

Hillary Clinton has started faking a Southern drawl to speak to Southerners, just as she did during her last presidential run eight years ago.

The tactic drew chuckles, derision and not a little resentment when she tried it in 2007 and 2008. But she was back at it again in Alabama on Saturday, putting on a heavy twang to express her contempt for Republicans.

What a fake…

Posted by: Blaine at October 18, 2015 5:15 PM
Comment #399730

Ah! Of course. So, is Obama also deceiving his wife and children, or are they Muslims too?

Posted by: phx8 at October 18, 2015 5:18 PM
Comment #399731

phx8,

I think Blaine is having a “Nigel Tufnel” moment.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at October 18, 2015 7:02 PM
Comment #399732

Hard to keep that conspiracy amp on 11 all the time…

Posted by: phx8 at October 18, 2015 7:41 PM
Comment #399733

And Blaine, Hillary Clinton lived in AK for @ 17 years.

Posted by: phx8 at October 18, 2015 7:45 PM
Comment #399734

So phx8 all because a person lives down south for 17 years don’t mean they should go around sporting a FAKE accent. I lived in Virginia for 14 years that don’t mean I’m going around talking with a fake southern drawl. Since Hillary is an Illinois native I guess all because she married Bill who is a true southerner she is allowed.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at October 18, 2015 10:32 PM
Comment #399735

What, if anything, has Hillary affecting a southern accent have to do with whether or not Obama’s wife knows he is a secret Muslim.

Inquiring minds…

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at October 18, 2015 11:46 PM
Comment #399736

Rocky,
It seemed like a fair question. Blaine says Obama is a Muslim and a deceiver. Is his wife also Muslim, or is she being deceived? Are his children Muslim, or is he also being deceived?

I am beginning to suspect it is not Obama who is doing the deceiving. But let’s see if Blaine can provide answer a simple question.

Posted by: phx8 at October 19, 2015 3:12 AM
Comment #399737

And let’s see if I can syntax write good.

Posted by: phx8 at October 19, 2015 3:20 AM
Comment #399738

phx8,

“I am beginning to suspect it is not Obama who is doing the deceiving.”

That is exactly my point, though my sarcasm probably made it unclear. I think we are dealing with a bulls**t artist that has become so enamored with the game it has become reality.
Blaine has claimed that Obama’s agenda has gone through with no support from the right.

Well, duh.

Wasn’t that what Mitch McConnell had talked about during the lead up to the mid-terms in 2010?


KAP,

“So phx8 all because a person lives down south for 17 years don’t mean they should go around sporting a FAKE accent.”

I don’t mean to seem indelicate here but truly, who gives a rat’s ass.

For those who support Hillary, it won’t change a thing, and for those who don’t support Hillary, it won’t change a thing.
I am not a Hillary supporter, why should I even care?

Those who want to make a big deal out of this need to get a hobby.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at October 19, 2015 8:25 AM
Comment #399739

I believe what we are seeing is deception from both Clinton and Obummer. Why tell the truth when you can deceive? And if they would deceive on the simplest of things, what would they do on matters that count?

Posted by: DSP2195 at October 19, 2015 10:41 AM
Comment #399740

phx is the one who said she lived in Arkansas, Rocky and I guess he likes her being a fake that she is, even with the fake drawl. If she wants to be a fake I could care less to. I do not support her or any of the other o0ld people that the Dems put up.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at October 19, 2015 10:43 AM
Comment #399741

The Clintons have a history of trying to identify with whatever the crowd. Remember, Bill Clinton was touted as the first black president. They take the old saying, “when in Rome, do as the Roman’s do” literally.

What a joke; a screeching old wrinkled white woman from Chicago purposely trying to drawl like she’s from Alabama. We end up with a screechy old drawl…

Posted by: Blaine at October 19, 2015 10:51 AM
Comment #399743
A Muslim is allowed to do or say anything, if it is for the purpose of deceiving infidels. Is Obama a deceiver?

Who taught you about Taqiyya? I’m going to wager a guess that it wasn’t a practicing Muslim. This is the danger when you rely on conservative media for information. They feed you lies. You should try some truth for a change. It is much easier on the mind than all that cognitive dissonance you typically deal with.

Posted by: Warren Porter at October 19, 2015 12:54 PM
Comment #399744

How about the liberal media? Warren!

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at October 19, 2015 1:19 PM
Comment #399745
Who taught you about Taqiyya? I’m going to wager a guess that it wasn’t a practicing Muslim. This is the danger when you rely on conservative media for information. They feed you lies.
Question: Are Muslims permitted to lie? Summary Answer: Muslim scholars teach that Muslims should generally be truthful to each other, unless the purpose of lying is to “smooth over differences.”

There are two forms of lying to non-believers that are permitted under certain circumstances, taqiyya and kitman. These circumstances are typically those that advance the cause Islam - in some cases by gaining the trust of non-believers in order to draw out their vulnerability and defeat them.

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/011-taqiyya.htm

Tradecraft. Persona. Deception. Disinformation. Cover: Western operational terms and techniques. But, Islamic terrorists have their own terms: taqiyya (pronounced tark-e-ya) : precautionary dissimulation or deception and keeping one’s convictions secret and a synonymous term, kitman: mental reservation and dissimulation or concealment of malevolent intentions… Taqiyya and kitman or ‘holy hypocrisy’ has been diffused throughout Arabic culture for over fourteen hundred years since it was developed by Shiites as a means of defence and concealment of beliefs against Sunni unbelievers. As the Prophet said: ‘he who keeps secrets shall soon attain his objectives.’

The skilful use of taqiyya and kitman was often a matter of life and death against enemies; it is also a matter of life and death to many contemporary Islamic terrorists. As so often in the history of Islam, a theological doctrine became operational.

During the Spanish inquisition, Sunni Moriscos attended mass and returned home to wash their hands of the ‘holy water’. In operational terms, taqiyya and kitman allowed the ‘mujahadeen ’ to assume whatever identity was necessary to fulfill their mission; they had doctrinal and theological and later jurisprudential sanction to pretend to be Jews or Christians to gain access to Christian and Jewish targets: ‘the mujahadeen can take the shape of the enemy’.

Taqiyya is common to both Shiite and Sunni Muslim discourse and has significant implications for understanding Islamic fundamentalism and terrorist operations. The theory and practice of counter terrorism would be counter productive, indeed pointless, and even harmful, without reference to taqiyya and kitman and the crucial role of deception ranging from Islamic jurisprudence to Al Qaeda training manuals, which carry detailed instructions on the use of deception by terrorists in Western target countries.

According to Christian ethics lying is a sin; In Islamic jurisprudence and theology, the use of taqiyya against the unbelievers is regarded as a virtue and a religious duty.

“Verily the most honorable of you in the sight of God is the most pious among you; verily, God is knowing, aware!” 49:13

Shi’a interpret the phrase above as “he among you who exercises Taqiyya most”

Like many Islamic concepts taqiyya and kitman were formed within the context of the Arab-Islamic matrix of tribalism, expansionary warfare and conflict. Taqiyya has been used by Muslims since the 7th century to confuse and split ‘the enemy’. A favored tactic was ‘deceptive triangulation’; to persuade the enemy that jihad was not aimed at them but at another enemy. Another tactic was to deny that there was jihad at all. The fate for such faulty assessments by the target was death.

http://www.islam-watch.org/Others/Taqiyya-Deception-Islam.htm

WP, the word non-believers means “Infidels”, so they are permitted to lie to infidels. Evidently, you have been listening to the lies of your liberal professors.

Posted by: Blaine at October 19, 2015 1:36 PM
Comment #399746
What is Taqiyya?

In several Quranic passages as well as the example of Muhammad, Muslims are encouraged to deceive non-Muslims when it will help protect Islam. It is known as the principle of “taqiyya” or “religious deception.”

This is less surprising if you first understand that in mainstream Islamic teachings, the world is divided into “the house of Islam” and “the house of war.” That is, part of the world is Islamic and the other part has yet to brought into the light with Allah’s holy law (Sharia).

And since relations with the non-Islamic part of the world exists in a state of war, then deceit is an appropriate strategy, used by all military commanders since the beginning of warfare.

As Raymond Ibrahim wrote, the Quranic verses 3:28 and 16:106, as well as Muhammad’s famous assertion, “War is deceit,” have all led to the formulation of a number of doctrines of “taqiyya.” And this is not an obscure point of theology. It is being practiced today by devout Muslims. See some examples of taqiyya caught on tape.

In the book, Terrorist Hunter: The Extraordinary Story of a Woman Who Went Undercover to Infiltrate the Radical Islamic Groups Operating in America, Rita Katz wrote about being at an IAP conference in Chicago. IAP is the Islamic Association for Palestine. There were lots of booths at the conference for “charitable” organizations, and at one of these booths, Katz met a man she already knew about: Muhammad Salah. She pretended she didn’t know who he was, and he introduced himself as a “Muslim human rights activist.”

Katz, a non-Muslim woman dressed as a Muslim, wrote, “He was small, thin, nearly bald. Totally harmless looking.” He told her these conferences were so important because “we can teach you about the oppression and sufferings of Muslims in America and all over the world.”

Then he told Katz his story. He had been a Palestinian with an American citizenship, a used-car salesman, working in Chicago when he went to Israel to “visit family and friends.” But in Israel he was arrested by the Israeli authorities and thrown into prison for five years!

Katz looked appropriately appalled and asked why in heaven’s name would they put him in prison? “Because the Israelis oppress innocent Palestinians,” he said. “And do you know what is the most shocking part? When I returned to the U.S., after I was tortured and I thought I was going to die in that prison, the Americans placed me under investigation and froze my assets! Me, an innocent citizen, a car dealer, a family man, father of five!”

To any other kafir this probably would have been a convincing story. The poor, oppressed Muslim! It’s just wrong to treat people that way. Those Israelis must be very cruel. Those Americans are so oppressive to Muslims!

But Katz was not an ordinary kafir. She researched people like Salah for a living. She knew all about him. This frail, innocent-looking man was the leader of the worldwide military wing of Hamas, a brutal terrorist organization! When he was arrested in Israel he had a hundred thousand dollars in cash on him. In his testimony, he admitted the money was supposed to go to “members of Hamas’s military wing.” He displayed detailed inside knowledge of Hamas’s structure and funding, and his testimony was later used as evidence in the New York trial of Musa Abu Marzook, the leader of the political bureau of Hamas (and the man who had appointed Salah to his position as leader of the military wing). Katz writes:


“Salah disclosed (in his testimony) that he’d been authorized by Marzook to recruit individuals for training in the uses of explosives to fight in the ‘holy war.’ In the United States, Salah began training ten such recruits, three of whom were chosen to carry out attacks. In addition to supervising the building of bombs, explosives, and remote detonation devices, Salah was instructed by Marzook to develop biological and chemical weapons for Hamas.”

When Nasser Hidmi was caught trying to detonate a bomb in Israel, he said he had been chosen by none other than the poor, innocent, abused, oppressed Muslim, Muhammad Salah.

This is an example of the principle of religious deception in action.

The use of taqiyya is the main reason most non-Muslims are so confused about the real nature of Islam — they are constantly being intentionally deceived by orthodox Muslims. But once you know about it, the jig is up. You are much less easily deceived.

Posted by: Blaine at October 19, 2015 1:45 PM
Comment #399747

http://www.inquiryintoislam.com/2010/06/what-is-taqiyya.html

Posted by: Blaine at October 19, 2015 1:46 PM
Comment #399748
Taqiyya

TaqiyyaTaqiyya is a concept and a reality that non-Muslims must bear in mind when reading or listening to the words of Muslims.

Taqiyya (also spelled taqiya or taqiyyah) is lying to advance Islam and/or to prevent harm to Muslims (taqiyya literally means “prevention”).

Muslims justify taqiyya from the Quran, other Islamic texts and the example set by Muhammad, including the following:

>”The Apostle said…’Who will rid me of Ibnul Ashraf?’ Muhammad bin Maslama, brother of the Bani Abdul-Ashaf, said, ‘I will deal with him for you, O Apostle of Allah, I will kill him.’ [Muhammad] said, ‘Do so if you can… All that is incumbent upon you is that you should try.’ [The Assassin] said, ‘O Apostle of Allah, we shall have to tell lies.’ He answered, ‘Say what you like, for you are free in the matter.’” - Ibn Ishaq, The Life of Muhammad, page 307

“The Prophet said, ‘War is deceit.’” - Volume 4, Book 52, Hadith 269

“By Allah, and Allah willing, if I take an oath and later find something else that is better than that, then I do what is better and expiate my oath.” - Volume 7, Book 67, Hadith 427

“The believers never ally themselves with the disbelievers, instead of the believers. Whoever does this is exiled from Allah. Exempted are those who are forced to do this to avoid persecution.” - Quran 3:28

When non-Muslims confront Muslims about truth facts that are inconvenient to Muslims (e.g., Hitler and Islam), Muslims often lie (see Muslim Brotherhood), even on record and in front of other Muslims, who do not appear surprised since they also know about taqiyya (as well as kitman - the related practice of telling half-truths).

Without knowing about taqiyya, non-Muslims are liable to believe Muslims’ lies, especially given the nonchalant reactions from the other Muslims around.

http://www.billionbibles.org/sharia/taqiyya.html

Posted by: Blaine at October 19, 2015 1:50 PM
Comment #399749

It is for this reason the Iran deal Obama and the stooge Kerry made was of no use. The Iranian leaders will sit and lie right to Kerry’s face and stupid Kerry believes them. They are self justified to lie to the infidels.

Posted by: Blaine at October 19, 2015 1:54 PM
Comment #399750

WP, since you are Jewish, I will include a couple Israeli sites discussing the art of deception by lying to the infidels; you can read them for yourself, unless you also consider these to be conservative blog sites:

http://www.raymondibrahim.com/islam/taqiyya-about-taqiyya/

http://www.israelmilitary.net/showthread.php?t=1725

Posted by: Blaine at October 19, 2015 2:08 PM
Comment #399751

From CIC to I(diot)IC

“The White House on Tuesday backtracked on President Barack Obama’s blanket assertion earlier this week that Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server as secretary of state didn’t pose a national security threat.

Asked outright in an interview on CBS’ “60 Minutes,” Obama said, “I don’t think it posed a national security problem.”

“We don’t get an impression that there was purposely efforts … to hide something or to squirrel away information,” he said.”

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/13/politics/obama-hillary-clinton-email-server-60-minutes/

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 19, 2015 2:11 PM
Comment #399752

From Politifact are listed over 60 major lies that Obama told the American people; of course this doesn’t count the lies that his press secretary had to backtrack on, as pointed out by Royal. The left has no problems with these lies, because they promote the left’s agenda. Why is it that Obama has no problem lying to the American people?

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/barack-obama/statements/byruling/false/?page=1

Either Obama is following the art of “Taqiyya”, or he’s just adapting it.

Posted by: Blaine at October 19, 2015 2:27 PM
Comment #399753

Blaine,
You never answered the question. Is Obama’s wife a Muslim? Are his children Muslims? And is Obama the only secret Muslim in the administration? It seems rather incredible that only one person would conceal their devotion to Islam and attain the highest office. Surely there are others who concealed their religion in order to deceive, but only rose to the level of assistant secretary.

By the way, Congressman Alan Grayson called this ‘The New McCarthyism’- a campaign of relentless smears and lies. Grayson was specifically referring to the Benghazi Committee, and the actions of its chair. Turns out Gowdy made a change to a document, released it, and then accused Hillary Clinton of revealing classified information. But The New McCarthyism is exemplified by what we see and hear all the time in a series of fake scandals- Fast and Furious, The IRS, Benghazi- as well as false accusations. Targets have included Bill Clinton, Obama, and now Hillary.

Calling Obama a Muslim is a classic example of The New McCarthyism. The moment a few obvious follow-up questions are posed, the whole things falls apart. The usual response is to run away, change the subject, or accuse the accuser of doing the same thing… Standard Operating Procedure. Meanwhile, the followers of The New McCarthyism spread a relentless sense of fear, and conspiracy theories to counter any suggestion that fear is unjustified.

Posted by: phx8 at October 19, 2015 2:29 PM
Comment #399754

I believe that Blaine is the Muslim. He proposes such outlandish, unsubstantiated claims about President Obama being a Muslim that no one can believe them, thus reinforcing the idea that President Obama is not a Muslim!! Only a subversive Muslim would try something as fiendish as that. Now I am also working on the theory that RF is a staunch Hillary supporter and climate change activist. Same reasoning on this one. His claims are so over the top and silly that he is actually persuading people who might be inclined to feel that Hillary is a fraud and climate change is too that they can’t possibly be correct because his arguments don’t make any sense. We’re onto you guys now so just be careful, we’re watching.

Posted by: Speak4all at October 19, 2015 3:22 PM
Comment #399755

Update: Scientist leading effort to prosecute climate skeptics under RICO ‘paid himself & his wife $1.5 million from govt climate grants for part-time work

“The $350,000-$400,000 per year paid leader of the RICO20 from his ‘non-profit’ was presumably on top of his $250,000 per year academic salary,” Pielke wrote. “That totals to $750,000 per year to the leader of the RICO20 from public money for climate work and going after skeptics. Good work if you can get it,” Pielke Jr. added.

http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/09/20/update-leader-of-effort-to-prosecute-skeptics-under-rico-paid-himself-his-wife-1-5-million-from-govt-climate-grants-for-part-time-work/

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 19, 2015 3:28 PM
Comment #399756

Sorry, I screwed up my link earlier. Mea Culpa.

Blaine,
Websites written by apologists for non-Muslim faiths have zero credibility.

Posted by: Warren Porter at October 19, 2015 3:37 PM
Comment #399757

Liberal Reasoning: Idiotic or Dishonest?
Walter E. Williams | Sep 23, 2015


“The Seattle City Council voted unanimously to establish a tax on gun and ammunition sales. Hillary Clinton has called for a 25 percent tax on gun sales. In Chicago, Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle proposed “violence taxes” on bullets to discourage criminals from buying guns. Let’s ignore the merit of these measures. They do show that gun grabbers acknowledge the law of demand. They want fewer gun sales and thus propose raising the cost of guns.

What the liberals believe — and want us to believe — is that though an increase in the cost of anything will cause people to use less of it, labor is exempt from the law of demand. That’s like accepting the idea that the law of gravity influences the falling behavior of everything except nice people. One would have to be a lunatic to believe either proposition.

http://townhall.com/columnists/walterewilliams/2015/09/23/liberal-reasoning-idiotic-or-dishonest-n2054855

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 19, 2015 3:46 PM
Comment #399758
Blaine, You never answered the question. Is Obama’s wife a Muslim? Are his children Muslims? And is Obama the only secret Muslim in the administration?

Well, I don’t know phx8, his wife and kids didn’t run for office, so what does it matter?

The last time I checked, the 1st Amendment of the Bill of Rights guarantees the American people the right of free speech. I know that kills those on the left. I linked to 20 academics who wrote to Obama and the AG to charge an try anyone who disagrees with them over GW under the RICO laws. This is an attempt to shut them up. phx8’s and speak’s drivel is an attempt to shut me or anyone else up, who says anything against their Obama. I’m not allowed to form an opinion and make the comment that Obama’s actions against Christians, Jews, and his support of terrorists appear to make his religion Muslim? What gives you the right to tell me what I can say or not say?

phx8 says:

“Calling Obama a Muslim is a classic example of The New McCarthyism.”

And speaks goes even further to say:

“I believe that Blaine is the Muslim. He proposes such outlandish, unsubstantiated claims about President Obama being a Muslim that no one can believe them, thus reinforcing the idea that President Obama is not a Muslim!! Only a subversive Muslim would try something as fiendish as that. Now I am also working on the theory that RF is a staunch Hillary supporter and climate change activist. Same reasoning on this one. His claims are so over the top and silly that he is actually persuading people who might be inclined to feel that Hillary is a fraud and climate change is too that they can’t possibly be correct because his arguments don’t make any sense. We’re onto you guys now so just be careful, we’re watching.”

Tell me speaks, are you threatening Royal Flush and myself? How are you watching us? Are you stalking us on the internet because we speak our minds, which is our right of free speech? Do your threats toward us mean that anything we say that doesn’t meet your approval or agree with your agenda is subject to scrutiny? My suggestion to you is not to threaten people who don’t agree with you as a means of intimidating them.

Posted by: Blaine at October 19, 2015 4:09 PM
Comment #399759

Blaine, Speaks would have to remove his liberal blinders and ear plugs to watch anything we do so not to worry.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 19, 2015 4:15 PM
Comment #399760

See what I mean? These two are up to no good. Muslim conspiracy denier and climate change activist are in our midst! We can only hold out hope that the Special Benghazi Committee appearance by Hillary this week will put them in their place. Just you wait. It will all come out in the wash. But in the meantime they will just keep saying over and over again all of their outlandish and unsubstantiated claims to try to use their reverse psychology on us. Stay strong, don’t be fooled.

Posted by: Speak4all at October 19, 2015 4:43 PM
Comment #399761

Speaks, care to comment on the “climate prostitute” in my post above who is the leader of the RICO20.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 19, 2015 4:45 PM
Comment #399762

Oh no you don’t, you can’t trick me with your subterfuge. Draw me into some whacko argument that you propose only to try to get me to like Hillary and Climate Change proponents in your devious manner. Your adherence to this nefarious plot has been noted!

Posted by: Speak4all at October 19, 2015 4:48 PM
Comment #399763

Ah…Yes…the old “humor ploy”.

Speaks can’t handle the truth so gives us a feeble attempt at humor to cover his ineptitude.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 19, 2015 4:50 PM
Comment #399764

Sure, sure whatever you say. Just remember we are onto you now. In other news looks like the Committee Chair is doing a real bang up job getting ready for Tuesday, Ooops!

Posted by: Speak4all at October 19, 2015 4:59 PM
Comment #399765

LOL…here’s a quote from Speaks link “ooops”.

“State Department spokesman Mark Toner confirmed Monday afternoon that State officials had missed one occurrence of Moussa’s name it had intended to delete from the email in question.

Sorry Speakee…that ooops is on Kerry’s department.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 19, 2015 5:03 PM
Comment #399766

“Tell me speaks, are you threatening Royal Flush and myself? How are you watching us?”

Well, even if he didn’t know where your buttons were before, I’d say he scored a direct hit.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at October 19, 2015 5:03 PM
Comment #399767

OK, so now you’re going to defend Kerry in your convoluted way? Oh noes, will this madness never end? You scoundrel!

Posted by: Speak4all at October 19, 2015 5:14 PM
Comment #399768

Poor Speaks…and here I thought he only drank on weekends.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 19, 2015 5:16 PM
Comment #399769

Typical damn Climate Change activist, blame it on the booze. That’s what they all do.

Posted by: Speak4all at October 19, 2015 5:19 PM
Comment #399770

Are there any sober libs on WB?

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 19, 2015 5:22 PM
Comment #399771

Why would we be somber? What is there to be somber about? Are you and Blaine out to get us! You guys are trust trying to trick us again using your guile and wit. It’s not gonna work! We’re onto you now! Ooops just re-read your comment, sober not somber. Never mind.

Posted by: Speak4all at October 19, 2015 5:30 PM
Comment #399772

LOL…Speakee is just as lousy with “drunk talk” as Hillary is with “black speak”.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 19, 2015 5:34 PM
Comment #399773

Don’t tell me. You were never a fan of Emily Litella?

This momentary lapse in judgement will be overcome. I will not allow you to use your opprobrious conduct to influence my decision making process.

Posted by: Speak4all at October 19, 2015 5:49 PM
Comment #399774
“The State Department failed to redact a name in a subject line, so the committee took steps to remove this information so it was consistent with State Department’s redaction of it in another subject line,” Ware said Monday. “The committee will not confirm the name in question is the alleged source.”

State Department spokesman Mark Toner confirmed Monday afternoon that State officials had missed one occurrence of Moussa’s name it had intended to delete from the email in question.

“There was one case — I think it was just human error in our desire to get these documents to the Benghazi Committee as quickly as possible,” Toner told reporters at a regular news briefing.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/10/trey-gowdy-release-cia-source-name-benghazi-committee-214919#ixzz3p3Qm4w8N

I think the state dept released it on purpose to shift attention from Hillary’s big day. Kind of like the Friday night document dumps.

Posted by: Blaine at October 19, 2015 6:16 PM
Comment #399775

Blaine, I believe the state department under Kerry is just as incompetent as it was under Hillary.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 19, 2015 6:20 PM
Comment #399776

You would think the Obama people would support Hillary, since the email server is just a witch-hunt, as those on the left claim:

Two former high-ranking Obama administration officials say they did not know about the existence of Hillary Clinton’s private email server while she was serving as secretary of state. They also refused to say whether they approved her use of such a server.

Derek Chollet, a former assistant secretary of defense, and Matthew Olsen, the former director of the National Counterterrorism Center, spoke with reporters Monday afternoon in a call organized by the left-leaning National Security Network. The call was promoted by the Clinton presidential campaign, as well, in preparation for Clinton’s Thursday testimony to the House select committee on Benghazi.

Asked if they knew about the server at the time Clinton served in the Obama administration, both Chollet and Olsen said they did not. Asked if they approved of the use of such a server, Chollet said he would “pass” on that question.

“It’s not really for me to say,” said Chollet, who added that the government does need to rethink its classification process for sensitive documents.

Olsen also said he would “pass” on the question of whether or not he approved of Clinton’s server.

Clinton has claimed that having a private server, which was not secure and through which classified information passed, was allowable under the State Department’s rules. She has also said she “regrets” setting it up because of the controversy that has arisen since the House committee first discovered its existence.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/call-promoted-campaign-two-fmr-obama-officials-refuse-defend-hillary-private-server_1048628.html

Posted by: Blaine at October 19, 2015 6:26 PM
Comment #399777

Do the bundlers know something that WB leftist have failed to realize. The right don’t to claim anything against Hillary, she’s self destructing:

WASHINGTON — Hundreds of wealthy Democrats who raised money for President Obama’s re-election have not yet joined the top fundraising ranks of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, raising hopes among some of Vice President Biden’s supporters that there remains a path for his late entry into the race.

Just 76, or less than 10%, of the 833 individuals who collected political cash for the 2012 Obama-Biden campaign are listed among Clinton’s “Hillblazers,” her campaign’s designation for people who already have bundled together at least $100,000 on her behalf, a USA TODAY analysis of Clinton’s newly updated fundraiser list shows.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/2015/10/18/hundreds-obama-bundlers-missing-clintons-elite-fundraising-ranks/74170182/

Posted by: Blaine at October 19, 2015 6:31 PM
Comment #399778

Perhaps we should provide presidential candidate Clinton with the same level of security she provided Ambassador Stevens.

“If you want a window into Libya and what was happening in the weeks and months before these four were killed, why would you not look at the Ambassador’s emails?”

Gowdy indicated that the emails showed that Stevens began requesting additional security almost from the day he arrived in Libya, on June 7.

“And on one occasion, he even joked in an email ‘maybe we should ask another government to pay for our security upgrades because our government isn’t willing to do it.’ So if you want to know what’s happening in Libya, you have to look at his emails,” Gowdy said.

Read more: http://www.bizpacreview.com/2015/10/19/ambassador-stevens-emails-leading-up-to-benghazi-attack-will-give-you-chills-gowdy-says-nobody-cared-265621#ixzz3p3YAwYPt

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 19, 2015 6:40 PM
Comment #399781
Using Biden to Block the Clintons from Regaining the White House

Hillary doesn’t stand a snowballs chance of getting elected, and Obama don’t want to see her elected:

As he approaches the end of his career in elected office, Barack Obama is in a truly precarious position: He is going to exit the White House having accomplished almost nothing substantive on the policy front — his health-care program is not going to survive, Gitmo is not going to be closed, we are not leaving Afghanistan, and he is sending troops into Iraq — and outside of his perch at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, his party is in ruins: In Congress and the states, the Democrats are in their weakest position in modern political history. If the Democrats do not win the presidency in 2016, there are going to be some very uncomfortable questions about what exactly Obama & Co. accomplished, and at what price…

But the Clintons aren’t Obama’s people. Bill Clinton thinks of Obama as his own political Stepin Fetchit, the guy who only a few years ago would have been “carrying our bags.” Herself was Obama’s main obstacle to power. (No, Senator McCain most certainly was not.) Obama did not build this machine to hand it over to the Clintons on a cold winter morning in 2017. That puts him in a double bind: He has to make it beyond question that he and his clique now own the Democratic party — that the Clintons are just weird sad old 1990s relics like those ancient AOL CDs that some youngsters ironically collect — but he also needs the Democrats to win the presidency in 2016 in order for the party to be worth owning…

If President Obama really were the bloodless Machiavellian his critics sometimes think he is, he’d see to it that Herself and a few of her top staffers were indicted under 18 U.S. Code § 793 and 18 U.S. Code § 798 for their improper handling of classified documents, and then put out the word that the time has come to choose sides. That she should be indicted is beside the point, politically; it would, however, be the last anybody ever heard of the Clintons. Or he may calculate that her troubles will continue to deepen and decide to simply watch quietly as she goes under with no assistance from him…

The problem is that there is no one in the field to swoop in and lead the Democrats to victory in 2016. Obama has a personnel problem… And that’s where Joe Biden comes in. Biden is the Obama guy who isn’t really an Obama guy — he was elected to the U.S. Senate when Barack Obama was eleven years old. He had a life and a political career before he hitched his wagon to the teapot messiah from Chicago, and though his is not the keenest mind in politics, he surely gets the game: If he gets in, he is to be reduced to a purely instrumental condition, an enabler of Obama’s last and most important political play, a placeholder keeping the chair warm until Obama’s people have settled on a real president. Biden doesn’t seem like a man who minds being used so long as the deal is a square one, but he is also old and tired and has recently suffered the loss of a child, which must be nearly unbearable. There are three possible outcomes for him: He could get in the race, win, and become a figurehead. He could get in the race, lose, and retire with the stink of defeat upon him.

Or he could just keep smiling.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425752/obama-2016-joe-biden-hillary-clinton

Posted by: Blaine at October 19, 2015 8:38 PM
Comment #399782

Sanders is beating Hillary among democrats, but could you imagine putting a self proclaimed Socialist up against any of the Republican candidates? The lefties on WB like him, but the rest of America looks at him like he’s a nutcase.

Of course Sanders is planning a big speech so he can “explain” what democratic socialism is:

“I think we have some explaining and work to do,” the Vermont senator told an audience at a house party here in the nation’s first caucus state, acknowledging that the term “democratic socialism” makes some people “very, very nervous.”

Why would it make democrats nervous, isn’t this what they believe?

Posted by: Blaine at October 19, 2015 8:39 PM
Comment #399783

The definition of stupidity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results:

The Chicago Tribune reports there have been 2,439 shooting victims so far this year alone in Chicago…

Mayor Rahm Emanuel (D) is announcing a $250,000 city fund to support church and community sponsored gun buyback programs in Chicago.

The plan comes after Chicago’s “assault weapons” ban, “violence tax” on ammunition and firearms, and stringent regulations on gun stores have not only failed to reduce gun violence but are actually correlating with a surge in firearm-related homicides.

Surprise…the criminals don’t care about taxes, the price of guns and ammo, or buybacks. In fact they like it when the government takes away the victims guns.

Posted by: Blaine at October 19, 2015 8:47 PM
Comment #399784

Blaine,

Your cutting and pasting one article after another is getting a bit annoying. If you have a comment, make it. But, nobody is interested in excerpts from your reading list.

Posted by: Rich at October 19, 2015 9:07 PM
Comment #399785

You know, asking Blaine to write his own comments instead of parroting whatever he reads on the radio or on conservative blogs is quite unfair. It means poor old Blaine will have to actually use his brain and think for change.

Posted by: Warren Porter at October 19, 2015 9:46 PM
Comment #399786

Let me cut and paste one more from Rocky Marks:

Well, even if he didn’t know where your buttons were before, I’d say he scored a direct hit.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at October 19, 2015 5:03 PM

Posted by: Blaine at October 19, 2015 11:23 PM
Comment #399789

Brevity can be used to an advantage when commenting here. More often than not I just scroll through long comments, unless the subject matter is really intriguing. Many of us here want to read what the individual commenting believes, wants or espouses. We all can find out what Brietbart, Limbaugh, Fox News or other right wing outlets espouse by merely viewing their opinions at their websites. Here the individual’s concise opinion is more sought after.

Hey how about them Canadians! We have been told that Liberalism is a dying political persuasion. What happened? Let’s hope this sentiment bleeds over their southern border. Oh Canada!

Posted by: Speak4all at October 20, 2015 10:00 AM
Comment #399791

Hooray for nepotism!

Posted by: Warren Porter at October 20, 2015 12:17 PM
Comment #399792

Hooray for the Canadian electorate that made a decision based on their interpretation of what they wanted. Someone might call that nepotism but I would say it is more like democracy in action.

Posted by: Speak4all at October 20, 2015 2:08 PM
Comment #399793

Speaks, Warren if you 2 think Canada is so great MOVE THERE!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at October 20, 2015 2:27 PM
Comment #399794

White House threatens to veto anti-sanctuary city bill, ahead of Senate test vote

“”Sanctuary cities and the associated violent crimes by illegal immigrants are reaching a critical point, and we cannot wait any longer to take action to protect Americans here at home,” sponsor Sen. David Vitter, R-La., said in a statement.

The White House, though, claimed in a written statement that the bill “fails to offer comprehensive reforms needed to fix the Nation’s broken immigration laws and undermines current Administration efforts to remove the most dangerous convicted criminals and to work collaboratively with State and local law enforcement agencies.”

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/10/20/republicans-push-for-sanctuary-city-crackdown-in-key-senate-vote/

Interesting fight looming here. The Right recognizes the violence perpetrated by some illegals sheltered by some of our cities and wishes to deport those with criminal records.

The Left abhors violence if committed by a white person with a gun or a police officer shooting in self defence but will allow criminal illegals to remain free in many of our cities.

Perhaps our liberal friends can explain why known alien criminals in the US should be protected from deportation?

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 20, 2015 2:51 PM
Comment #399795

KAP,
Ever heard of this thing called sarcasm?

Posted by: Warren Porter at October 20, 2015 3:04 PM
Comment #399797

Warren, Your the one praising Canadians and their liberalism. Move on up there and see the prices of things up there and you won’t be praising them much more. A few years ago I was up there near Toronto because the company I worked for bought a bingo equipment factory up there, the room I stayed in at a Howard Johnsons Motel cost the company $260. a night and the Perkin’s Restaurant next door a Patty Melt and fries were $12. The same room here would be $60.-$70. a night and a Patty Melt and Fries would be $7. So like I said if you like Canada so much MOVE THERE.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at October 20, 2015 3:46 PM
Comment #399798

Canada fared much better during the last recession than the US and other G7 countries under conservative leadership. I wonder why?

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 20, 2015 3:56 PM
Comment #399803

WP, well now you’ve done it. With your incessant praising of liberal Canada you’ve gone and upset KAP. We are going to have to order in a mega supply of !’s to take care of this as he’s only getting started.

Posted by: Speak4all at October 20, 2015 5:53 PM
Comment #399805

I have heard that Speaks has his Halloween costume ready. He is dressing up as Uncle Sam and will distribute Monopoly money throughout the neighborhood to demonstrate how much liberals care about others.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 20, 2015 6:28 PM
Comment #399806

Hey speaks, !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! got an endless supply!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at October 20, 2015 6:31 PM
Comment #399807

Isn’t WatchBlog great?

Posted by: Warren Porter at October 20, 2015 6:56 PM
Comment #399808

Yes Warren, I believe it is. Every possible political view is presented by thinkers, kooks, charlatans, and losers. It is great entertainment.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 20, 2015 7:05 PM
Comment #399809

Today’s America has cities and states that can violate federal immigration law with impunity. The chief executive has said he would veto a bill enforcing immigration law in sanctuary cities in clear violation of his constitution duty.

Hmmm…states can’t enforce immigration law as the argument is that enforcement is a federal duty. The feds won’t enforce immigration law because…Oobama says so.

This guy is a tyrant, an anti-constitutionalist, lawless, fickle and a president that cares little about the welfare of American citizens.

Americans must bear this tyrant just a little longer. His shame and disgrace will follow him all his days.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 20, 2015 7:22 PM
Comment #399810

Oobama has stuck His thumb into the eye of every caring American by openly saying he will only enforce those laws with which he agrees.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 20, 2015 7:39 PM
Comment #399811

KAP,

Contrary to your experience, the cost of living in Canada is lower than the US. If you really are interested in comparing Canada to the US, I would recommend the following website for an up to date comparison between the US and Canada on a number of factors (cost of living, crime, health care, pollution, quality of life, etc.): http://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/compare_countries_result.jsp?country1=United+States&country2=Canada

Posted by: Rich at October 20, 2015 7:40 PM
Comment #399812

“Oobama has stuck His thumb into the eye of every caring American by openly saying he will only enforce those laws with which he agrees.”

When did he say such a thing? Do you have a reference or are you fantasizing? By the way, threatening to veto a bill is hardly refusing to enforce a law. It isn’t a law yet!

Posted by: Rich at October 20, 2015 7:50 PM
Comment #399813

Rich, I checked out your link and a few others which say a whole different story then the one you linked. Maybe you should check them all out before you commit to one.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at October 20, 2015 7:59 PM
Comment #399814

President Barack Obama used a TV interview to describe law enforcement officials as soldiers under his direct command, and he threatened to punish law enforcement officials who try to ignore his November policy barring the enforcement immigration law against millions of illegals.

http://dailycaller.com/2015/02/26/obama-consequences-if-immigration-officers-dont-enforce-amnesty/

“We work to achieve our policy goals in the most effective and appropriate way possible,” the official said. “Often times, Congress has blocked efforts (ie [No Child Left Behind] and DREAM) and we look to pursue other appropriate means of achieving our policy goals. Sometimes this makes for less-than-ideal policy situations — such as the action we took on immigration — but the president isn’t going to be stonewalled by politics, he will pursue whatever means available to do business on behalf of American people.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2012/06/obamas-policy-strategy-ignore-laws-077486#ixzz3p9iFaXAE

Many more examples available but I have to close for the day.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 20, 2015 8:02 PM
Comment #399816

I talked with a French Canadian friend 2 days ago an he told me the price of gasoline in Quebec was $4.80 a gallon. Today’s price is C$1.20 a liter.

Posted by: Blaine at October 20, 2015 8:39 PM
Comment #399817

https://www.expatistan.com/price/gas/quebec-city/CAD

Posted by: Blaine at October 20, 2015 8:43 PM
Comment #399818

Rich,

Thank you for the link. It is really interesting to observe the impact government subsidization of particular sectors/industries in the US. It really perverts the free market here.

Posted by: Warren Porter at October 20, 2015 8:49 PM
Comment #399825

RF, no costume but I do hand out $ but only to my grandchildren and it is good old US greenbacks not monopoly money, charity begins at home.

Please, please, please do not talk to any young trick or treaters this year about conservative and republican political policies. As I have told you in the past, this only scares the Bejeesus out of the younger ones and causes the older ones to become sick to their stomachs and miss out on eating their candy.

Posted by: Speak4all at October 21, 2015 10:49 AM
Comment #399837

Absolutely Speak. Every time I show that the social programs they (young Americans) are paying for will be busted and broke by the time they need them they become ill.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 21, 2015 1:05 PM
Comment #399846

Then you are misinterpreting their displays. They merely find your focus on “paying” as something they find ridiculous and very short sighted. It’s Halloween for crying out loud, free candy. Get it? Now if you are trying to talk to them about social programs their eyes will glaze over or they will quickly move on to the next house and walk away thinking “what a crazy old dude!”. Kids you gotta love ‘em. I have never once ever believed the conservative republican hype about how worried you are about the “children” and they may have to pay for something. We all know that your type are out for yourselves and yourselves only. You care not one whit for children.

Posted by: Speak4all at October 21, 2015 2:33 PM
Post a comment