Thanks, Mother Jones

  1. ECA says:

    Farmer view:
    Look out hte window and DEAL with it..
    (we really dont want to DEAL with it)

    Planet changes, as any older person about the weather BEFORE..
    WEATHER changes…ask anyone with pictures of the great lakes, FROZEN..

  2. MikeN says:

    For what’s supposed to be a funny show, that was one big stern lecture that even the lefty audience didn’t like too much.

    Now if Jon Oliver had asked Bill Nye why he faked an experiment for Al Gore…

    • pedro says:

      And I find it funny that the only person they can find to defend their global warming belief is the “science guy”

    • bobbo, what is artificial in robots doesn't exist in Hoomans says:

      An excellent read. Sadly every issue has flim flam around it.

      Right now, you can take a bus to Tijuana and get Cancer Cure Treatment from a REAL DOCTOR by any modality you choose: diet, bee stings, intestinal worms, alien visitation. Spend $12,000, go back home, die from Cancer 6 months later.

      The Cancer Cures are a fraudulent ripoff.

      Question: does Cancer exist or not?

      • Not so fast says:

        Unfortunately, The Cancer Industry is so lucrative, an alien with a universal cure would be the victim of a contract killing.

        Better Question: What sub-industries would be the biggest contributors?

        • bobbo, what is artificial in robots doesn't exist in Hoomans says:

          Contributors to the contract killing?

          Well, you got the AMA right off the bat drilling down to all those in the Cancer specialty.

          Mom died from Lung Cancer. Pity watching the American Healthcare System feed off her final days. She went quickly after racking up $90K in 2 months of covered car.

          Sals exit would have been my own choice, which is why Sis held the Power of Attorney. Mom knew her son.

  3. t0llyb0ng says:

    What does MOC mean in that context?  “Abbreviation search returned 106 meanings.”

    “Just look.”  Do that & you may be projecting your own reality.  (HT Carl Jung, 100+ years ago.)

    Potshots.  Thanks for that one.  Has been added to the list of compound words—now at 1744 lines.  Sunspots & potshots in the same day!  [tongue-face]


    • bobbo, what is artificial in robots doesn't exist in Hoomans says:

      HEY!!! Quit documenting my failures.

      btw–how would you spell the shooting of more than one pot? Too many options for me.

      btw (x2) —doesn’t CONTEXT provide most answers to most confusion and the plenitude of conumbra (a gift!) that confront us daily? How can MOC in context mean anything other than Meridional Overturning Circulation?

      What are your other options?

  4. bobbo, what is artificial in robots doesn't exist in Hoomans says:

    Mike Hayes on “All In” (msnbc) just made a good review summing up Rubio the Science Denying Presnedent WannaBe But Cant Get Past His Own Primary:

    There is now consensus on AGW in Science, in the Military, and in Business. Even many Republicans are coming over.

    If you don’t accept the AGW Science, you are just a dipshit. Sad, because you concern for jobs for poor Americans would have really helped in deciding how to best address the co2 Peril.

    My own is a Carbon Tax to fund Alternative Energy in a MoonShot, we just got Jihaded by Al Quadda AGAIN effort to extablish WORLD WIDE Clean Energy Grid.

    THEN and only THEN can we get to work on the real issue which is GLOBAL bacteria resistance. I dibs on investigating Jenny McCarthy’s Unamerican role in all this.

    Yea, verily!

    • MikeN says:

      No need for a carbon tax. The moonshot has been achieved. It’s called nuclear energy, which might be a bit more expensive, but with fast permitting and newer designs, even these costs can be reduced. No carbon emissions beyond some cement manufacture, and maybe at the uranium mining stage, which itself can be powered by solar, or perhaps even nuclear.

  5. Sheesh says:

    Since when has the truth of anything been dependant on a vote though. Even if it was 99.9% on one side or the other, it doesn’t matter. All that matters is that there is some ultimate truth behind the assertion that mankind is affecting the climate in a significant way… or that mankind is not affecting the climate in any significant way… it’s not up for a vote… getting 51% on your side doesn’t mean that you can claim the other side has it wrong. One side or the other has the actual correct scenario, and it isn’t based on people. It’s based on facts. At one time, the majority of opinion was that the world was flat. As it turned out, it wasn’t. Same goes for the sun orbiting the earth. Or that you could turn lead into gold. Or that mankind could not fly like the birds of the air. Or that we would ever go to the moon. Fortunately, time is the ultimate decider of these things, not the current viewpoint of a great number of people.

    Oh, and there was that time recently when it was predicted that ___________ (fill in the blank — example “there will be a record number of hurricanes this season”)…

    Remember, time will ultimately reveal the truth, not a statistical count of opinions.

    • MikeN says:

      Exactly. So the IPCC report is using papers that are built on upside-down data, hot means cold and vice versa.

      It is pretty straightforward for any reader here to download Michael Mann’s code, look at the original paper by Tiljander, and see for themselves if Mann is upside-down, or the critics are right. Now what does it matter if there are 97 or 99.9999% of scientists agreeing in favor of Mann?

  6. MikeN says:

    Judith Curry is undoubtedly part of the 97%, yet she is also labelled as ‘anti-science’ for disagreeing with the climate mullahs.

    Lennart Bengtsson is a respected scientist who was attacked for expressing skeptical thoughts, with one colleague saying he would not be a coauthor with him.

  7. IM75 says:

    If this wasn’t so seriously ridiculous it would be funny. It wouldn’t surprise me that the Flat Earth Society has put out something methodologically identical.

  8. bobbo, Big Brained Apes with Lizard Emotions is an Evolutionary Dead End says:

    Consensus and its role in thinking.

    The history of thinking is that on just about every issue you can name, mankind first gets it wrong, and then over time gets it more closely to the truth.

    Ignorance – Observation – Magic – Gods – Copernicus – Galileo – Newton – Einstein – Under Construction.

    At each stage, you have a model/hypothesis/theory on which to test reality. The truth slowly emerges.

    What is the “theory” behind we can burn all the coal and oil we want to and nothing bad will happen? I put it at magical thinking with a dose of God giving us Dominion (without consequences).

    Stop shitting on yourself, and deal with reality.

    • MikeN says:

      Yup, eventually the global warming theory will be recognized as failing and adjusted properly.

  9. MikeN says:

    This is how you achieve 97% consensus:

    The paper suggested that the climate might be less sensitive to greenhouse gases than had been claimed by the IPCC in its report last September, and recommended that more work be carried out ‘to reduce the underlying uncertainty’.

    The five contributing scientists submitted the paper to Environmental Research Letters – a highly regarded journal – but were told it had been rejected. A scientist asked by the journal to assess the paper under the peer review process reportedly wrote: ‘It is harmful as it opens the door for oversimplified claims of “errors” and worse from the climate sceptics media side.’

    Prof Bengtsson, 79, said it was ‘utterly unacceptable’ to advise against publishing a paper on the political grounds.

    • Tim says:

      He added:

      “‘The problem we now have in the climate community is that some scientists are mixing up their scientific role with that of a climate activist.’

      “”Given how often the “97 per cent” consensus figure is quoted by politicians and scientists alike to justify the extreme measures being adopted to “combat climate change”, you can well understand why the alarmist establishment is so eager to suppress this inconvenient truth. — James Delingpole

  10. MikeN says:

    >This debate SO reminds me of the “smoking causes lung cancer” debate.

    Indeed. Michael Mann currently suing in court with lawyers for Big Tobacco. Just as they presented bogus science then, they present bogus science now ad call it a hockey stick.

  11. Captain Obvious says:

    I can’t believe you guys obsessed with Al Gore. You do realize that you sound like losers?

    • MikeN says:

      Why, he is a Nobel Prize Winner. Are you saying this Nobel Prize winner should not be taken seriously?