On Tuesday, November 18, 2014 1:42:25 PM UTC-5, dgk wrote:
Not a very impressive reference. All they do is try to attack based on
who is behind the report challenging global warming. It's supposed to be a
big surprise that those behind it are skeptical about man-made global
warming? The exact same thing could be said about the other side, the true
believers. It would be a lot more credible if they challenged the science,
instead of trying to smear the authors.
I did get a kick out of this though:
"The IPCC is supported by hundreds of scientists, think tanks, and organizations around the world that assess and synthesize the most recent climate change-related science."
IPCC is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, ie the proponents of
man-made global warming. They "synthesize" science? Interesting choice of
words. What the hell is that? A freudian slip perhaps?
On Monday, November 17, 2014 7:37:59 PM UTC-7, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
It's called _global_ warming because the average temperature of the
whole world gets hotter, but just because the average goes up
doesn't mean there can't be record cold in some parts of the world,
and climate scientists know that having more thermal energy does
stuff like make the jet stream in the northern hemisphere move
farther south than normal and bring more cold with it.
On 11/19/2014 12:31 AM, email@example.com wrote:
Buffalo, NY (well, south of the city, not as much
the city itself) got 76 inches of snow in a 24
hour period. The NYS Thruway was shut down from the
west corner of the state through to Henrietta, NY,
exits 61 through 46 yesterday, and continues
closed all of today, Nov 19, Wed, 2014. That's a lot
of global warming, and will likely lead to major
flooding when it thaws in a couple days. Hope people
have food and water at home, and the roof holds up.
On Wednesday, November 19, 2014 5:42:31 AM UTC-7, Stormin Mormon wrote:
Similarly, seatbelts sometimes kill people who would
have lived if they hadn't worn them. And just a few
weeks ago where I live, temperatures were 5F - 10F
hotter than normal, but I didn't cite that as proof
of global warming because, like your examples of cold
weather, they don't represent the whole picture, and
it would have been dishonest for me to claim otherwise.
On 11/21/2014 12:11 AM, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
Interesting you should mention. One of my friends
had two vehicle wrecks, and swears up and down that
a seat belt would have been his death.
The two wrecks I've been, I do believe seat belts
saved me a lot of injury and death and so on.
BTW, global warming continues. It's 22F in PRNY
this morning. Might get to 23F or so later when
global warming really kicks in.
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
On Wednesday, November 19, 2014 12:31:20 AM UTC-5, email@example.com wrote:
I'd like to see the evidence that shows most scientists "know" that
global warming is moving the jet stream to the south. As opposed to
some scientists postulating that it "might" be a factor. There is a
big difference, you know.
Imagine the dust bowl of the 30s occuring today. Immediately a whole
lot of people would jump on the bandwagon that "man-made global warming"
caused it. Today, all that has to happen is for the jet stream to move
and instantly it has to be global warming. Sorry, not buying it.
On Wednesday, November 19, 2014 5:52:36 AM UTC-7, trader_4 wrote:
No, you can't say the weather where you live being cold
proves there's no global warming, just as I couldn't cite
the unusually warm weather we had a few weeks ago as proof
of global warming.
Apparently fairly mainstream climate science says global
warming is affecting the jet stream.
I thought the Dust Bowl was caused by overfarming without
the use of good soil conservation practices.
On Friday, November 21, 2014 12:23:16 AM UTC-5, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
Did overfarming cause the drought? Without a drought, there would have
been no dustbowl. Good grief. I'm still
waiting for that "fairly mainstream climate science" reference
that says global warming is making the jet stream move farther
south than normal.
The most interesting part of this whole global warming thing is
watching the proponents grasp at straws now. The problem is that for
about the last 15 years, there has been almost no global warming,
the temp has been going basically sideways. So they are reduced to
nutty statements like that this Oct was the hottest on record. Yeah,
it was the hottest by .02 degrees, beating out 2003. That would seem
to me to be well within the margin of measurement error. And I also
would not be at all suprised to find fudging with the data. Did they
use the exact same data, from the exact same locations that they did
10, 20, 50 years ago? Unlikely. Almost certainly they've added readings
from new locations and then done some "adjustment" to factor those in.
And then they pull out a .02 degree difference. And the headline is
"Warmest Oct on Record", with most articles not even mentioning that
it's only .02 more than 11 years ago.
Me, I'm waiting to see which way the temp goes when it finally
breaks out of the 15 years sideways pattern.
No. He may be criticized as being over-cautious and a lousy politician,
but I can't believe than *anybody* who sits in the office of President
Of the USA is a wimp.
It's like calling Dubya dumb.... you don't get and stay there by being
dumb. I think Dubya was a poor president... but no way would I
characterize him as "dumb".
You can have plenty of negative personality traits and still survive in
the office, but "wimp" and "dumb" are not among them.
On Wednesday, November 19, 2014 9:29:46 AM UTC-5, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Why not? Jimmy Carter was obviously a wimp. He refused to take decisive
action to deal with the Iranian hostage situation. Obama is obviously a
wimp too. He refuses to take real action against Putin and Russia. For starters, how about just calling him out and telling the world what
Putin really is,a thieving, too bit thug. I'd be telling the Russian people
how he and his buddies stole all the country's wealth and put it in their
own pockets. Instead of kowtowing to the Soviet Union, Reagan
told the world what they were, an evil empire.
Dumb <> wimp
"Unfortunately what we need is not a president who "survives". We need one
who is a real president, a leader, capable of bringing people together and
Are you suggesting that Xi Jinping believes the world wants to hear that
China will continue to increase their greenhouse gas emissions for the
next 16 years? I suspect he will be a man of his word on this issue.
The disturbing thing is that the 'stupid American voters' are tripping
over themselves praising Obama for this one-sided 'agreement'.
On Wednesday, November 19, 2014 10:22:23 AM UTC-5, Mike Hartigan wrote:
Ahh, another fellow who actually pays attention. For the record, I'm not
sure the American voters are praising Obama. Most of them don't even know
that there was any agreement. The media though is certainly reporting it
as a triumph, without giving any of the details that quickly show it's a
The only reason he appears over cautious is he is calculating what
affect the current crisis will have on his political career when he
should be calculating what direction is best for our country.
Nobody can ever accuse him of being a lousy politician. A politician
is one who deceives or outmaneuvers others for personal gain and he
has that down pat.
In that sense, yes. But in the sense of wanting people to like him and
being able/willing to glad-hand people he doesn't really care for to
make them work towards his ends, I would say he falls way short.
To me, Clinton and Reagan were masters of that craft. I see Obama as
sort of an anti-Clinton/anti-Reagan.
On Wednesday, November 19, 2014 5:43:41 PM UTC-5, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
If Obama is rated fairly at all by future historians, he will wind up near
the bottom of the list. With the exception of Obamacare, which now appears
has at least a 50-50 chance of going down via the Supreme Court, he's
gotten very little accomplished. He's divided the country, beyond anything we'veseen before. He just doesn't give a damn about the political process or even trying to compromise or reach common ground. What he's doing right now is
a perfect example. He's thumbing his nose at the new Congress. A real
politician who wants to get things accomplished would at least wait until
January, meet with the new leadership, try to reach some agreement. If that
doesn't work, then he could still do his executive orders. Instead,
he's saying, screw you, and embarking on a path to issue executive orders on immigration that even Obama himself said was illegal just a year or two ago.
And to top it off, he's inviting the Republicans to the WH for dinner the night
before he pulls this stunt. Nice move. Don't invite them over to negotiate,
discuss, try to find a way to pass a law, just invite them over the night before he issues the order. Wonder what's on the menu.
And to top it off, he obviously doesn't even give a damn about the illegal
immigrants either, because it's very likely that ultimately the executive
order will be taken down by the courts as an unconstitutional abuse of power.
And by doing what he did, he's now so poisoned the relationship with the new
Congress that not only won't anything get done on immigration, it's going to
be 10x harder to get cooperation on anything else Obama wants. It's going to
be a failure for Obama, for the illegal immigrants, and for the country. The
question is why he does it. I've come to the conclusion that he's a few cards
short of a full deck and must have some actual mental illness.
I'm not demonizing him, just stating facts. What part of "anti-truth,
justice and the American way" isn't factual?
Anti-truth? The whole world knows he has lied on occasions too
numerous to list. We all know "If you like your health plan..." to
mention just one.
Anti-justice? Why weren't the black panthers investigated for voter
intimidation? Why wasn't anyone prosecuted for "Fast and Furious?" Why
wasn't Lois Learner prosecuted for her role in the IRS scandal?
There's many more, but I think you get my point.
Anti-American? He has stoked the fires of class warfare, he has put
our children deep into debt, he has threatened our national security
by allowing our borders to be so porous, he enforces only the laws
that he wants to enforce. Again there are many other examples.
As sergeant Joe Friday use to say, "The facts, nothing but the facts."
On Wednesday, November 19, 2014 8:36:09 PM UTC-5, Gordon Shumway wrote:
You can add what he's about to do with his executive order on illegal
immigration to the anti-American list. What kind of president would do
that, instead of meeting with the new Congress and trying to reach some
common ground? If that didn't work, in March he could still do what he's
apparently going to do now. It's about as clear an example as you could
have as to where the biggest problem in DC exists right now. Would LBJ,
Clinton, Reagan, any president you can think of, do what he's about to try
And you have to love the media coverage of it all. With the exception of
Fox, there is no discussion of the high probability that what Obama is
about to pull is unconstitutional and an abuse of power. They just report
that he's gonna do it and the Republicans are pissed off.
Can you imagine if a conservative Republican president were doing similar?
Suppose a Republican said, "I'm tired of trying to get abortion laws changed,
so, screw the new Congress, screw the last election, I'm issuing executive
orders making most abortions illegal." In that case, not only would the
lamestream media report it, but there would be instant and long discussion
along the lines of "Is that constitutional? does he have the power to do that? here is constitutional law professor Deershowitz and his opinion, etc.
With Obama, because they still love and protect him, they won't even go there.
But if Obama's EO holds up, then the Dems should be careful of what they've
started. Future presidents will be free to do the same thing.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.