Jon Stewart Rips Right-Wingers A New One

    When Unarmed Blacks Are Killed By Cops

    No Wrongdoing With Benghazi

    Right-Wingers Fuel Racism And Paranoia

Wednesday, December 30, 2009

The Year In (Right Wing) Crazy

Thomas Lindaman covers some highlights from 2009.

I'll just touch on a few of them, with some amusing help from Tom Tomorrow:

10. The 2009 elections. Democrats may have crowed about "taking a Republican seat for the first time since the Civil War," (which, by the way, is factually inaccurate, as a Democrat held the House seat from NY-23 way back in 1993)

Pelosi wasn't wrong. District 23 in New York has changed locations over the ages. The Democrats who were saying that NY-23 has been held by Republicans since the Civil War, were talking about the actual geographic area now in NY-23 - not the district that happened to have the number 23. Right now it's bordering Canada. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York%27s_23rd_congressional_district

They were correct, sorry.

8. The Ft. Hood shooting.

The wingnuts tried yet again to rewrite reality to suit their agenda. They dishonored the victims, their families, and the military by using the tragedy to catalyze the lies as an attack on our President. And right-wingers bitched about Obama not treating the Ft. Hood shootings as a terrorist attack. There was a reason for that. It was NOT a terrorist attack. It was an act of murder by a crazy soldier. A deranged individual, yes. But not even close to what could be claimed as a terrorist attack. This seems an appropriate time to quote a line from Sarah Palin's resignation speech: "In honor of the troops, you need to stop making stuff up."

6. ACORNgate.

"A study by the non-partisan Congressional Research Service (CRS) found that the community organizing group known as ACORN properly used all federal dollars it received in the past five years. In addition, the report found that no voters who were allegedly registered to vote improperly cast any ballots." http://congress.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/12/22/congressional-study-finds-no-acorn-violations/


5. Sarah Palin's reemergence.

3. The TEA Party movement.

You mean the TeaBaggers? Hey, you guys called yourselves that. lol

And too bad they weren't an actual organic grassroots organization:

But at least we got amusing right-wing pictures like this out of it:

1. The inauguration of Barack Obama.

We saw how classy the right-wingers were in that area:

See both complete parts of "The Year In Crazy" here:

Oh, Most Wicked Slowness!

Thomas Lindaman, in the usual right-wing fashion, tries to exploit an attempted terrorist attack to slam Obama. Lindaman is complaining that Obama took three days to make a speech.

According to Republicans, Obama immediately convening secured calls with John Brennan, his Homeland Security and Counter-terrorism Adviser, and Denis McDonough, National Security Staff Chief of Staff... where he gave orders on heightened air travel safety measures, and staying updated on the situations being taken to keep the American people safe and on the investigation... doesn't matter. Then a weird tangent: Apparently when Obama does make a fairly quick statement, like in the Henry Gates situation, it's a "snap judgment." Henry Gates was a professor in his own home, he showed two forms of ID to the police officer, then the cop called university security services anyway. Then Gates was arrested because he demanded the dickish cop's name and badge number, which he had every right to do. After being asked by the press (during a conference that was totally irrelevant to Gates, BTW), Obama stated the cop "acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home." Why was Obama's judgment on that a "snap" one, according to Republicans? ....Oh, because Gates was an uppity black man. Sorry, Obama was right. The moment the cops realized the home was his, they should have left immediately.

Anyway, enough of that non-sequitur. Let's get back to the Underwear Bomber:

Lindaman then states:

Funny, but the same people who call Obama "deliberate" for taking three days to make a statement are the same ones who went nuts over George W. Bush spending 5-6 minutes in a classroom on 9/11 after hearing of a plane hitting the World Trade Center. Go figure.

Apparently, according to Lindaman, Obama immediately taking action but not immediately making a public statement is exactly the same as this:

Republicans are cool with Bush just sitting there after being told "America is under attack." But Republicans are pissed that Obama was not scrambling to the podium to kiss scared Republican boo-boos because a guy set his nuts on fire and was subdued, even though Obama actually was taking action immediately. To Republicans, standing at a podium is more important than actually getting things done.

"I am offended that Obama isn't personally standing in front of this guy's crotch holding a megaphone and shouting about freedom!"

Now, you may say that I'm being unfair about comparing the Underwear Bomber to 9/11. But what's funniest about this, is that I don't want to do that. It's the REPUBLICANS that are comparing the Underwear Bomber to 9/11. Republicans, in their usual insanity, are actually comparing one of the largest terrorist attacks in human history, occurring against multiple targets in a coordinated attack, with a guy that failed to blow up an airliner after he set his nuts on fire. That's the opposite of what Republicans should be doing. Because it makes Republican leaders look bad (or worse, rather).

Remember the Shoe Bomber, which was a VERY similar situation to this? THAT is what this should be compared to. So why aren't Republicans comparing the Underwear Bomber to the Shoe Bomber?

Oh, wait... it's because Bush WAITED A WEEK to talk about the Shoe Bomber, then tried him in court. WHOOOOOOOPS! When that happened, Republicans said it showed he was strong on national security. However, Obama taking three days to talk about the Underwear Bomber, then plans to try him in court... THIS IS AN OUTRAGE!

The point of terrorism is to instill terror, panic, hysteria. If you deal with this nut (and terrorism generally) rationally but firmly, we win.

But you guys shoot yourselves in the foot again, by comparing this to 9/11.

Hell, why not compare it to Katrina? After all, Obama, who was still a senator at that time, didn't do anything when that happened, just like Bush didn't. Right?

Oh. Dammit!

The GOP And The TSA

In light of right-wingers like Thomas Lindaman trying to blame Obama for the Underwear Bomber, here's a few interesting facts:

1. Right-wingers got mad at Napolitano saying "The system worked." Well, if you see the actual interview, Napolitano was talking about the AFTERMATH procedures i.e TSA alerting the other airplanes about the situation, the dispatching of FBI agents in airports around the country...etc. And in that respect, the system DID work.

2. House Republicans voted against funding the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) for the very tools that might have prevented this event in the first place, just for shits and giggles.

3. Two of the al Qaeda leaders allegedly behind the plot were released by the Bush administration into an "art therapy rehabilitation program."

4. There is no permanent head of the TSA because of Jim DeMint (R-SC) over fears of unionizing: http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20091228/pl_mcclatchy/3386711

Tuesday, December 29, 2009

Wharrgarbl Roundup

Today's right-wing wharrgarbl is brought to you by the letter L (Thomas Lindaman):

President Obama pretty much came back with nothing from his second trip to Copenhagen this year. The great deal he struck with some of the developing nations...well, it seems China isn't committing to it, which leaves the door open for other countries involved in this deal to bow out as well.

"The great deal"? First you said it was a total bust. Now you're saying there was a great deal? You really need to keep your bullshit consistent. And no, China may not go along with the "80 percent emission cut by 2050." But China hasn't given any indication that they aren't going to keep their pledge to cut energy intensity from 2005 levels by 40 percent by 2020. You see, China is MAKING money from this deal. That's why I know they're going to keep that pledge. Because that's the bottom... well, you know. I'm sure that if they accomplish their goal, you'll just claim Obama had nothing to do with it. Just like you're claiming that Obama has everything to do with a one day speech.

Quite telling that someone of Obama's alleged international appeal could come away empty-handed on such an issue.

ROFL You guys really hate that we finally have a President that people (of value) aren't ashamed of, aren't you?

Then again, he should be used to disappointment in Copenhagen after the 2016 Olympics debacle.

"Debacle"? Because he supported America (unlike you Republicans)? Dude, let it go. You keep trying this soundbite, but nobody of value gives a shit. The new soundbite is to blame Obama for terrorist attacks, remember?

Lately, it seems more and more people are getting over their Obamamania hangover and starting to be critical of the man they helped get elected.

It really seems to annoy Republicans that we're always critical of our presidents since day one, since they don't do it when it's a Republican. Gotta love those polls! Right, Republicans? Oh, they're from Rasmussen? *Yawn* Never mind.

I hate to say I told you so, but, well...I kinda did.

Maybe you can write a book about it! Just like Limbaugh did (during the Clinton economic boom)!

You guys just hate it when things get accomplished that help the American people.

Democrats: Yes we can.

Republicans: No you can't!

Democrats: We just did.

Republicans: Well, you may have won, but we won't let you accomplish anything.

Democrats: *doing stuff*

Republicans: :'(

The recent terrorist attacks in this country should be a wake-up call for us all, especially in that we haven't learned anything from 9/11.

We "Haven't learned anything"? The passengers STOPPED him. You don't think 9/11 had anything to do with that? Sheesh.

It's like the whole lot of nothing you write about in the next entry:

It occurred to me today that we've been trying to fight the war on terrorism with legal remedies instead of actually fighting back.

"Fighting back"? Well, that's nice and vague, isn't it? It's especially funny considering Clinton's counterterrorism measures were far stronger than Bush Senior's. In fact, it was the strongest ever at that time.

Okay, what's your solution? Racial profiling? Bombing Nigeria? No way! I just got an email that says I'm getting $5.2 million from them!

If you treat terrorists as countries, you're helping them accomplish their goals. I guess you guys really HAVEN'T learned anything since 9/11.

A Call From Reality

And now a little fun with conservative christian delusion, in this case from Thomas Lindaman.

This is regarding the birth of Christ:

Matthew 1:23 "Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel" The prophecy given in Isaiah 7:14 referred not to a virgin but to a young woman, living at the time of the prophecy. And Jesus, of course, was called Jesus and was NEVER called Emmanuel in any other verse in the New Testament. Either Isaiah was wrong (failed Hebrew prophesy) or Jesus wasn't the savior (failed Christianity).

Oh, and the Wise Men following a star? Everyone at the time thought that stars were just little points of light a short distance above the earth. So it'd be no problem to have one hover above a particular place for a while, would it? In one story Mary and Joseph go directly to Egypt. In the other story they go to Jerusalem and then to Nazareth. Oops. Herod kills all boys in and around Bethlehem that are two years old and under. Such a massacre would certainly have been noted by contemporary historians. Yet not even Josephus, who documented Herod's life in detail, mentioned this event.

What about Joseph and Mary going to Bethlehem for the census? At the time of Jesus's alleged birth (4-6 BC), Judea was independent. It did not form part of the Roman empire. Hence, the emperor could not give the order for a census. Even assuming that a census was ordered: one would have to register in the place of residence, or nearest administrative center. NOT in the place of ancestral origin. Anything else would simply not make any sense. Now, Herod was not a Jew, but a Nabatean. He wasn't very popular, if only because he wasn't a proper Jew. Add that he had fought a war to gain & keep his throne. The very last thing on his mind would be ordering a census.

What about Jesus being from Nazareth? Matthew 2:23: "And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, "He shall be called a Nazarene."" "He shall be called a Nazarene." Matthew claims this was a fulfillment of prophecy, yet such a prophecy is not found anywhere in the Old Testament. "Nazarene" actually referred to a sect of Jews that was later identified with the Ebionites. The writers misunderstood the term "Nazarene." They thought it meant someone from a city called Nazareth. Pretty funny.

And here's the biggest problem: Nazareth did not exist! The evidence for a 1st century town of Nazareth does not exist - not literary, not archaeological, and not historical. It is an imaginary city for an imaginary god-man. Nazareth wasn't founded until long after Jesus was written as dead. Basically the writers had to figure out a way to make Jesus a "Nazarene" (mistakenly thinking it meant "a person from Nazareth"), yet somehow make him born in Bethlehem. That's why they created that ridiculous census story. The fact that the story of a census requiring Joseph to travel from Nazareth to Bethlehem in order to be counted was just a silly, clumsy device to get the family from Nazareth to Bethlehem for the birth.

It didn't happen. None of it happened.

You're basing your entire lives on this. And it's what shapes your political views, as well.

Which is funny considering how you guys treat the last real Christian President the White House ever had. Here's a hint: It wasn't Obama, the Bushes, Clinton, or Reagan.

The Party Of No... Maturity

I'm sorry, did you forget the town halls of this summer? Have you not seen the right-wing congresspeople standing up on the floor of the senate and saying that Obama wants seniors to die? Did you miss the Joe Wilson stunt? The conservatives act like two year olds. It's incredibly immature behavior. Hysterics about fictional Death Panels and abortion sex clinics in public schools. Panic attacks over white slavery and FEMA camps. Claims that Obama wants to murder the elderly. Politicians who think they deserve to be taken seriously while they blatantly lie to the public. How would you describe this behavior?

Using fear tactics to rouse the stupid into an irate frenzy is manipulative and wrong. So, there's the spectrum of conservative behavior; it runs from childish to... pathetically immature. But speaking of childish mentalities, that's one of the ways the Right gets these people to support them. They appeal to grade school mentalities toward the smart kids. So we get "east coast liberal elitist" rhetoric and rampant distrust of scientific (ie "egghead") fact. "Never mind what those highly educated people say. What do they know? Everything would be fine if only a bunch of reg'lar folks like us ran the government!" Not to mention covering your ears and going "Lalalala" when scientific facts get in the way of your fairy tale fantasies. The Right, in their usual twisted 2 year old mentality, see health care as a privilege, and something only earned by making enough money to pay for it in the private market. Rational people understand that it's a basic human right; one that as a civilized society we have a duty to provide to ourselves and those less in need.

The Right equates healthcare to iPods, when it's better equated to a military. Both are things that a strong nation HAS to have, and has to tax its citizens to provide. If Obama's plan is so terrible, where is the GOP plan? What will the GOP do to stop people from dying from lack of health care? Besides medical lawsuit caps, of course. The usual Conservative corporate anarchy solution. The facts clearly show that Conservatives simply don't give a damn. The Right hasn't proposed a solution in decades. And in spite of your projecting bullshit, Democrats have been trying since Truman. Fact: The right-wingers killed health care reform under Clinton Fact: The right-wingers didn't touch health care reform under Bush Fact: The right-wingers are doing everything they can to kill health care reform under Obama. How many people do you think died because of a lack of health insurance, or from denied claims since 1994? How many will continue to die each year? So yeah, I'd say the facts show that the Right is content to allow people to die in the streets. "It's your fault because you didn't crawl to an Emergency Room and die, or join a church! Damn those Lucky Duckies!"

The GOP has been completely undermined and destroyed by these selfish, childish, petty little hate mongers. And now they have to project yet again and pretend it's the Democrats that are the immature ones. When you guys on the right stop trying to teach Creationism in schools, stop wearing band-aids to ridicule veterans, and stop thinking that making faces and winking at the camera is "winning" a debate, then you can talk about maturity. With health care reform, Republicans had a chance to be mature and work with the Democrats and get a bill they liked better, or they could be babies and stonewall. So what did the Right do? They chose to be babies (as usual) and now the Republicans will get nothing.

You had your chance with the Wyden Bennett bill, which would have allowed heath insurance companies to operate nationally and the hopes that increased private sector competition would drive down prices (snicker). But of course, rather than fight for reform based on some retarded and silly private sector solution, the Republicans behaved in their usual way: Like little children "whining, crying, kicking, screaming", as well as squealing "NO!" about eating their vegetables, and now you're going to bed without supper. It won't be perfect, but it'll be better than the big pile of nothing the GOP has provided for ages.

And They Is Just You

Right-Wing Blogger Thomas Lindaman doesn't call himself a Republican, because the current Republicans are not what he considers Republicans.

He feels the right-wingers are not far ENOUGH to the right.

Got it.

Considering how batshit crazy and radical far right the Republican party is right now, that's quite funny. You're not an "Independent" and you've never been a "Libertarian." You're a Republican. And yes, I've seen it "from the very beginning" when you were claiming we found Saddam's WMD's, even after Bush's administration admitted none were found. I saw it when you lied through your teeth and claimed George W. Bush never said Saddam was a threat. I saw it when you defended the Patriot Act. I saw it when you blew off facts like evolution and AGW. I saw it when you gleefully supported the Republican stance on the Terry Schiavo incident. And I saw it when you were belittling people questioning Bush running up huge deficits. It doesn't matter what YOU call yourself. A person can say he's not a murderer until he's blue in the face, but that body in his trunk is why he's called a murderer by OTHER PEOPLE. Just like with your false gods, claiming things doesn't matter. EVIDENCE is what matters.

I don't like how the modern Democrats have gone so far to the right (like softening their stance on gun control and the death penalty). I don't like how the Green Party falls far more in line with what the Democrats are SUPPOSED to be. And I don't even agree with everything that the very liberal Democrats stand for (like legalizing hard drugs). But guess what? That doesn't change the fact that I'm a LIBERAL DEMOCRAT. I don't puss out and try to weasel out of the label. Cowards do that.

Every single stance you've taken, every mouth-breathing soundbite you make, marches right in lock-step with Republicans. That includes using the term "statist" (which you didn't start using until Glenn Beck started using it), because you Republicans know that throwing the ridiculous term "socialist" at everything isn't working anymore. But what's to be expected from a right-wing pundit that can't tell the difference between true "statism" and Keynesian economics? You're a Republican. Got it? Republicans calling themselves "Libertarian" or "Independent" isn't going to score them any hot liberal girls, anyway (which is one of many reasons embarrassed Republicans dodge the word now, too bad the girls have figured out the ruse). You're a Republican. You can be assured that the current Republicans are even more batshit INSANE than they were under the Reagan administration. You modern Republicans would ass-rape Ronald Reagan with a broom handle if he was an unknown and ran for the Presidency now, due to him being too "liberal." Just like you right-wingers would crucify your fantasy Jesus Christ if he appeared now for the first time and preached the same liberal things he preached in the bible. The days of intelligent Conservatives like William F. Buckley are over. The fact you don't like some of the issues of the current politicians doesn't matter. That doesn't change the fact that like always, you're going to continue to vote Republican, defend Republican presidential candidates, and trash any major candidate running against Republicans.

You're a REPUBLICAN. So take pride in your insanity and wear that Republican label on your sleeve. And you Republicans/Libertarians/Independents can also clam up on the "small government" bullshit, too. Every twat who got a B+ in social studies thinks "make the government be smaller" is the answer to everything. Right wingers are only bitching about "limited government" when leftists want to do something that would actually improve people's lives. Otherwise, they believe in dictatorial powers for government to police your life. If states are more repressive as in the case of racial segregation, they're for that and for the states having control; if the feds would be more repressive they're for feds having control. Conservatives are NOT for "government that governs least" and they NEVER HAVE BEEN. They are for government that does the least for people and does the most to regiment their lives with fear and loathing. The "small government" idiots thought deregulation of the markets was a good idea. The cataclysm of the deregulation of the financial markets is one of the great tragedies of our age. Look up "market failure" and "natural monopolies" and "tragedy of the commons." There are many cases where deregulation results in a less efficient outcome. One could look at water and sewer for example. Or anything involved in the provision of public goods. The right pretends to stand for smaller federal government, even as they spend us into record debt. They pretend to stand for state's rights, even as they meddle in state's affairs. You (yes, YOU SPECIFICALLY) showed your true colors in the Terri Schiavo fiasco. We're not buying it. We know now that when they say "limited government," they really mean, "getting our way." Why did rural electrification not happen until the government made it happen? Because laissez-faire economics has been tried. We end up with trusts and monopolies. Deregulation of the energy industry was an unmitigated disaster. Industries that we all rely on (energy, banks, healthcare) desperately need oversight or they become the pawns of those with the least concern for public good. Small, limited government is the best way to go? Like in Somalia? Ahhh, Somalia... the Conservative's dream country. Somalia, where there's no taxes to fix roads in another part of the country. Where there's no funds to art projects. Surely, they are living the American dream! When right-wingers decide that the rich need a tax cut, other services have to be cut to make up for the lost revenue. Services like improving protections against natural disasters. Katrina has proved this to be the case, and proved the leftists are right in that we need a strong Federal Government. The dismantling of FEMA illustrates that a strong government is important and a limited government can be disastrous. The government can be used as a tool of the people to accomplish things that need to be done on a large scale (healthcare especially, as that is a business that benefits from scale and inclusiveness). It can also be used as a tool to provide some basic social services that we can certainly afford to provide. A person would have to be a right-wing tool if they think that smaller government and lower taxes is a viable strategy. Their leaders are a bunch of idiots who used "fiscal conservative" and "free-market" as a shield while they maximized corporate profits and pretended to care about religion and abortion. And it's been going on for a LOT longer than "about a decade." Just ask Ronald Reagan, who fought the Soviets... through unbridled deficit spending. Bush conducted the largest reorganization of federal government since Truman, dramatically expanded government power, and conducted the largest increase in executive power arguably ever. I wonder who has done the most to screw the entrepreneurs, investors, and small businesses into the ground? Entrepreneurs, small businesses, and investors do better with Democrats in charge. Not opinion. Fact, based on the historical data.

And you conservatives wonder why you keep on losing. Isn't 80 YEARS of evidence enough for you to stop trying to destroy what makes America great? Democracy is based on the premise that all the people of a country should have an equal say in how their country is run. Rich, poor, black, white, gay, straight. From bloviating, right-wing, Dominican boy-raping, Oxy addicts... to secret Muslim commie infiltrators from Kenya, every citizen of a democratic nation has the same vote and the same voice... in theory. Unregulated capitalism BREAKS that. When a powerful capitalist class emerges, democracy goes out the window. One man's vote is now not worth the same as the next, because the capitalist class concentrates power in the form of wealth. They buy lobbyists, stage multi-million dollars political campaigns, and generally fund and create large-scale political campaigns designed specifically to damage democracy and perpetuate the inequalities that got them where they are. Unregulated capitalism, at least as practiced in the US, is antithetical to democracy and freedom. We should be looking at more nationalizing of infrastructure, to ensure everyone has access to modern communications and a healthy transit system. We should be allowing dying businesses like GM to fail and putting the factories in the hands of the unions directly. We should be implementing proper single-payer health care and universally subsidized secondary education. We should be eliminating the immortal corporate person and not rewarding people for cravenly exploiting the market while hiding from the consequences of their own actions. Instead, we're saving unregulated capitalism for another day. Saving it from its own excesses, rescuing the capitalist class from the consequences of their actions. And democracy will suffer a bit more for it. At least, however, the Democrats are trying to save both capitalism and democracy, as misguided as that may be. The Republicans, Libertarians, Independents tm and the reactionary right in general want to kill democracy to save capitalism.

The small business owner was killed off long ago, and not because of 'statism'. He was killed off because the cheap workers he would have employed here now live in Mexico and China. He was killed off because the lax anti-trust regulation gave rise to megacorporations. He was killed off because tax laws give breaks to big business over small business. He was killed off because he couldn't compete - and the government just turned a blind eye. So now, he, too, is just another corporate slave for some multinational because he wants to have a decent life for himself and his family. Cos being a 'self-made man' in this country means being Joe the Plumber: Uneducated, blue collar, and lower middle class. It's not worth the trouble. But there's room for a free market. A free market, however, should not be predicated on special legal fictions like the corporation. At its base, a proper market is one person exchanging the value of his labor for the value of another person's labor. Instead, what we are doing is rewarding people for exploiting other peoples' labor and stealing from the common treasury. The hard truth of the matter is that if people kept the full value of their labor, everyone would be able to provide for themselves and their families and live comfortably. The question is whether people want that, or the far less than one-in-a-million chance to become one of the exploiters instead of the exploited. The main points of social programs are to help people get educated, stay healthy, and in tough times maintain a basic standard of living so they can jump back into the labor pool when things turn around (homeless bums can't get jobs). When people are educated and healthy they are productive; earnings and standard of living beyond the basics are still merit-based providing the motivation to work.

You know what constantly astounds me? That the vast majority of the "conservative" base idolizes American life in the 50's and early 60's yet seem completely oblivious as to fiscal policy at the time. America in the 50's and 60's was, in many of their eyes, a capitalist utopia. Yet the top income tax rate was 90%. Sure the tax threshold was different, but the wealthy in this "capitalist utopia" were taxed MUCH more heavily than they were today. And then there's corporate taxes and excise taxes. Not that I necessarily believe we should bring these back to their former prominence, but instituting even a quarter of the percentage we had in the 50's during the height of the red scare would be met with cries of "Socialism! Statists! Buncha commies! You'll destroy the entire economy!" today.

Seriously, today's American right-wing Republicans/Libertarians/Independents tm are even more radicalized than Joseph McCarthy and his enablers were, and they wonder why we say that they're so far to the right? But no, according to Lindaman, they're not far right ENOUGH. These right-wing bloggers guys who fancy themselves self-made captains of industry and "entrepreneurs" (even though most of them live off their parents or work at unskilled jobs) have been encouraging an out-of-control capitalist kegger over the past few generations, and now they're absolutely FLIPPING OUT when someone's telling them that there are consequences for that behavior. It's juvenile as hell, and more than a little narcissistic. It's a giant scam. That's what these right wing politicians do. They exist as fronts for Wall Street to manipulate elite opinion. They're above even the usual propagandists like Limbaugh, who do the "dirty work" down in the trenches with the filthy masses. People like the Wall Street Journal editorial page are there to mobilize elite opinion; to manipulate and deceive the movers and shakers into thinking up is down, black is white, so long as it benefits their benefactors. Yet nearly no one in the so-called "liberal media" is allowed to call them on it. They're off limits. They are untouchables. This is understood in every newsroom of every major newspaper and television network. We've had progressive taxation for decades, it was never a problem before. However now that a Democrat takes office and wants to raise the top marginal rate ~3-4% it's "wealth redistribution"? Get over yourselves. Unregulated Capitalism was a wild success, wasn't it? The problem is that people were deluded into thinking that Unregulated Capitalism was about the betterment of everyone, when instead it's about the betterment of those lucky enough to catch the breaks to become wealthy.

The myth that is failing is the idea that hard work is all one needs to succeed. Hard work makes you a good cog in the engine, but that's it. Pretty scary when an Onion article feels so real: "More Americans Falling For 'Get Rich Slowly Over A Lifetime Of Hard Work' Schemes" This is corporatism, FAR worse than socialism, but Glenn Beck hasn't told you that. Big government isn't necessarily bad; what is bad is BAD big government. Big, EFFECTIVE government is desirable. If there is a social good to be had and it is demonstrated that government can provide this social good better than the private sector, then government should do so. Disagreements are reserved for the minor-premise questions of what is considered a social good and when the government is likely to be effective. But these people screaming "STATISTS!" appear to think that even if something is a good thing and government can do it well, it still should not. Why? There's no metric on deciding if a government is too big or to small. Is there a right size? All there is are different sectors of life, and we need to decide which are better. The countries of Scandinavia would like to have a word with "small government" guys. Its citizens seem to quite enjoy their "big," effective governments. You know, the ones that do things like making sure you don't go bankrupt because of medical bills or worry about how you'll afford to see a doctor if you lose your job. Much of the economic rewards we reaped in the 20th Century also have to do with the massive amounts of spending in infrastructure and research through government grant programs and lending. Our highway system for instance, or hell even the intertubes we type on. The economy exists to serve us; we do not exist to serve the economy.

If the economic model isn't achieving the goals we set out for it, we change it. Our problem is that the goals we set out for our economy is "make more money", and it's doing that pretty well. Just for the wrong people. We have to give our economy a more specific goal, such as "creating of an economically- and politically-dominant single-income middle class". If we had that goal, we would see more of a mixed economy, with government non-profit monopolies running things (or at least paying for things) that are inherently monopolistic AND critical to quality of life, such as health insurance, prisons, education, and utilities such as power, water, and sewage. Labor would be elevated; labor-crushing gigantic corporations and trade deals would be eliminated. Pollution would be controlled rather stringently. Keep the parts of capitalism that work towards this goal. Unregulated capitalism always fails because the best way to make money is to destroy the free-market system and form monopolies. It crushes the competition legally and illegally. To change laws to favor you and disfavor competition. Competing by being innovative in product lines, technology, equipment, marketing, and customer service is HARD and EXPENSIVE and cuts into profits. Nobody wants to compete on a level playing field if they can possibly prevent it. It's that simple. It's far more profitable to simply rape the consumer's wallet then try to convince them that you deserve their hard-earned money. Mixed market economy is the most accurate description of the United States, and it has been since its inception. The first tax imposed on business was in favor of large distilleries and alcohol distributors and was backed up the force of U.S. military arms. The Railroads were largely government subsidized but used private contractors and pieced out to pseudo private entities with considerable government oversight and regulation. At no point in our country's history have we observed perfect free market capitalism within the reach of government forces. The Wild West was perhaps the closest we've seen in our history, but it was closer to anarchy than any sort of capitalist ideal. And you right-wing Independents tm wouldn't last a year in that environment. You'd be face down in a horse's water trough.

The Conservatives' biggest agenda was the deregulation of the markets. It was a very successful attempt to dupe the idiotic "small government" crowd into thinking that the total raping of the financial industry was in our best interest. Right-wing "Independent tm " Americans are self-centered assholes that are too stupid to realize that it is the programs like ARPANET, the interstate highway system and the TVA that gave us the competitive advantage that made us the world's only superpower. Now that the Boomers have thrived from the combination of benefiting from these programs and the lowest tax rates since the Great Depression they have convinced a significant portion of their children that they did it all on their own and they did not need the government. And their little right-wing offspring swallow their bullshit hook, line, and sinker. The Right gleefully takes the fangs out of every governmental agency that even pretends to protect the consumer. You can thank the "small government" crowd for the current state of the economy. They sat idly by while they got fellated by the illusion of a free market, meanwhile laughing at themselves and the citizens of this great country getting reamed up the ass. We've been watching this mess hurl towards its inevitable conclusion for a LONG time. Now that the results are painfully obvious, rational people are losing their patience with those who keep claiming that the phrase "small government" makes any sense at all.

A government has to be large enough to be EFFECTIVE. You want a small government, move to a small country. Government can help people. Because WE are the government. Without government, there can BE no freedom. The Constitution was created to make government more efficient, AND TO MAKE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT MORE POWERFUL. This is contrary to every conservative utterance. And there's a reason for that. Here's an example: The State governments were imposing a racial theory on people. George Wallace wasn't just some guy; he was the embodiment of the government of Alabama (he was a Democrat, just remember this was the South during the Conservative "Dixiecrat" days). He got beat down by a bigger government, and a right-wing mythology developed wherein Wallace opposed government intrusions. But what's more intrusive than the local government telling you which water fountains to use? That sounds like an extraordinary level of government control over your life. And THAT, my friends, is why Conservatives hate "big government." The entire conservative philosophy is a complete fuck-up: They believe that government should be limited in the aspects of helping with personal freedom, but should be intertwined in big business dealings. Liberals, on the other hand, believe the government should stay out of personal affairs (abortion, gay marriage), but involve themselves in helping the American people and having regulations pertaining to business (tariffs, corporate tax codes, etc.) There are many signs of movement towards a more repressive authoritarian State and it happens to be... conservativism. They want a very powerful State to control personal life, the economic world and international society, and they use force if necessary. "Limited government out of people's lives... except for your morals, your body and your love life." "Limited government spending... except for MIC or when we need to (prescription drug plan) so we can retain power." "Limited government preserves state's rights... except for when people in a state pass something we don't like." And the fake Libertarians and "small government Independents tm " that claim "No, I don't want the government involved in either social OR economic issues!" are lying. Just watch whom they support, whom they are against, and how they vote. They are right wing, reactionary... statists.

Reagan dumped mental patients on skid row and tried to jam prayer into school. Yet he's the conservative ideal, folks! Perhaps we should give the "less government" people the backward states like Utah, Idaho, Wyoming and Mississippi. Let them secede and try running things without government. They would be walking into walls with their stupidity. I swear, this "anti-government" shit is the dumbest philosophy I've been exposed to in my lifetime. And I hope Zombie Reagan feels pain every time they suffer because of his bullshit philosophy. Again, the GOP simply does not care about small businesses, because they get their big bucks from big business, which only sees small business as unwanted competition. Big business doesn't mind paying taxes, since they get it all back in the form of government contracts, subsidies and tariff protections. The Right love to bitch about how we need small government, while they get to live in the comfort of a country that doesn't have it. Because they wouldn't last a month in their fantasy country. They claim they want to live in an isolated void, but they won't actually do it.

It's not about the SIZE of the government. This is really the heart of the disagreement between the Conservatives and the Liberals about the ROLE of government: Conservatives think government's business is to support big business; the Liberals think it is to serve the actual people. And that's why Conservatives will NEVER be correct, no matter how many labels you pseudo-sneaky guys apply to yourself (Republican, Libertarian, Independent tm ). Or the bullshit lying labels you try to apply to others ("Faux Liberal!" "Statist!") Because in the end, it's still only the Liberals that actually give a shit about Americans, and thus AMERICA. Liberals are what made America strong.

But please, you right-wing liars, continue to be Joe Conservatives.

Sunday, December 20, 2009

It's Not Murder When WE Do It!

Thomas Lindaman tackles the abortion issues regarding the Senate health care reform bill.

Getting a tumor removed is also considered an "elective" procedure, did you know that? You already pick up the tab for any woman getting an abortion under your private health insurance plan. Let me repeat that: YOU ARE ALREADY PAYING FOR ABORTIONS. Just like you're already paying for someone else's healthcare, albeit in the least cost-effective way possible. Nice work, "fiscal conservatives."

Too bad the RNC itself covered abortions in their own health care policies:

You can cut the "abortion is murder" rhetoric now. Your own actions in the RNC makes it completely clear that the RNC does not believe their own lies. If they really believed it was murder, they would have done everything they could to get healthcare coverage that doesn't cover it, because nothing would've been more important than getting the policy changed. It was a low priority, so they really didn't care. So much for that. Besides, if they really believed it was murder, they would have done something about it when they were in complete control back in 2001 through 2006. Anybody who thinks the GOP has any real interest in reversing Roe vs Wade is fooling themselves. It's a useful little issue to get all the religious fruitcakes to vote for their candidates come election season. They feed 'em the same rhetoric year in and year out, and the rubes fall for it every time. What's funniest about this, is that if men were the ones who got pregnant, abortion wouldn't even be a controversial issue. It would've be specifically condoned in the bible, and one could have instant abortions from vending machines. A woman scrapes a few cells off her uterus wall - so what. The mother is the host, the zygote is parasitic and feeding off of her. The host has the choice to have it removed. It's like being compelled to donate a kidney - you're negatively impacting your own health for the sake of another. We don't force people to donate kidneys, so we shouldn't force women to donate their wombs. Mother's health is at risk with pregnancy and thus reserves the right to remove herself from that harm at any time. If the zygote dies, so be it. If you want to make artificial wombs and take the zygote out and raise it, go for it, no one will stop you. The pregnancy is terminated during the most popular abortion process because it is the safest and least risky method. That's the only reason.

And that, my right-wing religious nutjob friends, is why you were unable to make abortion illegal when you had all those years of republican-controlled executive, legislative, and judiciary branches. It's a non-issue. Abortion will never be illegal for the same reason that self-defense will never be illegal. Whine and bleat all you want. Your impotent rage soothes and pleases me. This is a religious issue, and should have NO PLACE in government affairs. The very thing the "conservatives" keep preaching but not practicing. They think Magic Jesus blesses clumps of cells with a "soul". They just change the wording from "soul" to "potential human life" to avoid looking even more stupid (and failing).

The Conservative hypocrites want to make the choice for the woman and force her to carry and birth a child. Until they stand there and state that they are against the death penalty and for universal heath care for all, regardless of ability to pay, they can clam up with their "pro-life" bullshit. Note these "pro-life" types (and the hicks they manage to convince to go along with them) often have no sympathy for unwanted kids AFTER they are born. Those kids could live in poverty, shuffled from foster home to foster home and have a miserable existence but they don't give a crap out them. Not one bit. Not to mention that most anti-abortion groups are also comprised of the same people who oppose access to birth control and family planning. It would be fantastic if there were no unwanted pregnancies - if birth control had a 100% success rate and people made sure to use it, if rape and incest didn't exist. But we don't live in that world. No woman should be forced to carry a pregnancy to term against her will and the means to ABORT should be legal, safe, and readily available. Women who have abortions are taxpayers, too. So are women who get abortions in the United States. Termination of pregnancies is perfectly legal. Why should their interests be excluded from the public good just because someone else doesn't like it? I don't like funding a bloated worldwide military-industrial complex, but I pay my taxes anyway.

As Jon Stewart said: "It's taxes! You don't get to choose what you pay for. You go to the zoo and admission is $20; you can't say, 'Here's $18.50, I don't care for zebras.'" Hey, at least I credit Jon Stewart when I use his jokes. Waterboarding is an "elective" procedure that I didn't want my taxes paying for, yet here we are.

You guys are just lying. You don't care about the "baybees". You're just trying to stall health care reform.

Funny how those same right-wingers who were saying: "The government should not interfere with the doctor and patient so government should not be involved in healthcare". Are now the ones saying: "The government has power to completely say what the doctor can or can not do, even if the procedure is legal."

You guys are UNBELIEVABLY full of shit.

Instant Ego

This agreement was never about global climate change and man's impact on it. It was all about getting Obama a victory of some sort in Copenhagen, considering he hasn't had very good luck there this year.

If he needed a victory so badly, why wasn't he there since day one?

His appearance before the International Olympic Committee to try to get the 2016 Summer Olympics to come to Chicago was a bust, and an embarrassing one at that.

Yeah, how embarrassing to have our President support our country.

The reality is that Republicans embarrassed themselves by cheering America losing.

His winning the Nobel Peace Prize has become an international joke.

Funny, the only people bitching about it was Republicans and the Taliban. The rest of the world wished him luck.

Now with the UN climate conference, we're seeing how big a joke it is because of all the bickering and the weather.

"Derpy derp! It's snowing in Copenhagen thus AGW is a fraud!"

In short, Obama needed a victory in Copenhagen. After coming off as a laughingstock the last two times he went there, his ego couldn't take another blow, so he was looking to come away with something, anything, to make the third time truly become a charm. But what this agreement has done is made him look desperate and incapable of being an effective world leader.

Obama did NOT have a legal mandate. He wasn't in any position to make any significant binding commitments and everyone already knew that in advance. It was a good political move on his part to avoid any substantial involvement to avoid entanglements that would only backfire on him politically at home. Was anyone really expecting him to do much? Do American presidents posses some sort of magic that enables them to fly into town at the last minute and save the day like Superman? The GOPer meme is to blame Barack Obama, personally, for every problem in the known universe. "The prophet of imperfection! I'm writing in Lizard People on my next ballot! So they reached an agreement on nothing that was binding! Uh-huh!" And on and on. By UN rules, an agreement needs to be unanimous to be binding. Were you expecting miracles from a process with 200 nations when one of the most significant players was not prepared to make binding commitments? What do you want? Forcing other countries to agree by force of arms? The right-wingers are just pissed off because they were looking for him to give in MORE. He didn't. He played hardball and got a deal from the CHINESE. An agreement to keep negotiating was the best possible outcome. This is "to be continued". And we need to make the most of it. Negotiations will continue, and this will provide the opportunity for NGOs to apply pressure and governments to negotiate internally and externally before the next round. COP-15 is the first step, not the last. It's not the sort of success some people were hoping for, but those hopes had no relation to reality in the first place. Copenhagen was developing nation reality punching developed world arrogance in the gut. Copenhagen has ripped away the screens and left our eyes open to the immensity of the problem. Sure, no big agreement, but no more stumbling around in the dark. That's a much bigger win, even if it stings for the moment. I'm okay with supporting it because that's the way that a lot of big environmental regulation has to get passed (Clean Air Act, Montreal Protocol, etc.), only to be strengthened sufficiently later. These agreements are essential to the future of the world. Throwing up hands at the failure to produce a miracle in 2 weeks is childish and typical of Republicans.

And the Left was concerned about how America was perceived in the world when George W. Bush was President?

Obama, unlike George W. Bush, isn't dumb as a stump and actually acknowledges the threat of global climate change. The only people "laughing at Obama" are you right-wingers who will hate him no matter what he does.

There was someone being laughed at, though: Republican Senator Jim Inhofe (R-OK). This stupid hick with no education on climate and its changes goes to Copenhagen for a few hours, unilaterally decided he speaks for America and in the process is ridiculed by the European press and comes back with his tail between his legs. Republicans, welcome to how the world views you. He was lucky he didn't get a reporter who drilled him on what he actually knows about global warming and him responding with the typical desperate denier points: "Um, water vapor! Climategate! Hockey sticks! Sunspots! Hiding The Decline! Cultists! Nature Tricks!" I would have loved for him to claim that it's cooled since 1998. Europeans love hearing that line.

The Republican party has gone to great lengths to demonstrate to the world that they consider the rest of the world (and half of America) the Enemy. But no, it's somehow Obama's fault. What's funniest about all this, is that absolutely nothing would be happening under a Republican administration. No agreements at all. Just like no health care reform at all. All Republicans have now is an unpatriotic hope for failure, and a hope that America forgets what they did to this great nation.

But what would one expect from a group of people who's only knowledge of Copenhagen is this:

One May Smiley And Be A Villain

The United States, China, India, South Africa, and Brazil have all agreed to cut greenhouse gas emissions and allow for independent entities to review these countries' plans and accomplishments. Also, we have committed to cap global temperature increases to 2 degrees! And all it takes from us is support of a global fund to the tune of $100 billion! Of course, we don't know all the details of the deal yet because there are some details to hammer out, but isn't it great that we've made such important progress

For those interested in the costs, it ended up costing about 20% of what even the EPA thought it would. It's not often a government program does that. Apparently a 2 degree cap isn't significant to Republicans? Do you really want to get into a conversation about how big an impact even 2 degrees can make?

For one thing, no matter how much we limit greenhouse gases, we can't overcome nature. Man's contribution to greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is less than one percent. That leaves a whopping 99%-plus that we can't control, which includes volcanic eruptions. Unless Obama has a way to make volcanoes control their greenhouse gas output, our impact is going to be minuscule at best.

Sigh. Let's go through this again:

You may think that our contribution doesn't matter. But when you're adding to the mix, it makes an impact.

Then, there's the global temperature cap. We can't even predict the weather five days from now with any degree of accuracy. What makes these folks think we can control the planet's temperatures?

Weather is not climate! It's literally impossible to reverse this level of retardation, isn't it? No matter how many times it's diligently explained that a weather event has nothing to do with climate, no matter how many times the actual science is discussed and the premises described in detail, this shit is as close to understanding the issue as the average American is capable? What, precisely, is the issue that has people this confused? Is it the fact that both weather and climate both happen outside? Is that it? Somebody help me out here.

And here's the trick. It's frightfully easy for the AGW cultists to "prove" that their efforts are working Adopt the science of those who have shown the planet has been cooling since 1998.

At the heart of the Left's environmental science is blatant dishonesty. (See the Climategate emails and the Left's attempts to spin or deny them for proof.)

Too bad you deniers can't seem to provide any evidence of dishonesty in those emails.

That's why you won't specifically reference them besides soundbites like "Hide the decline."

It would be easy to delay the release of the temperature calculations to coincide with any kind of plan they cook up in Copenhagen. All it takes is a little time, and the AGW cultists will believe that the Copenhagen agreement has impacted the planet (all without proof, of course).

Since when has proof made ANY difference to you deniers?

Of Course!

Hey, wanna hear the right-wing solution to health care? Simple! Just listen to the solutions by Thomas Lindaman!

Because if there's one thing that manufacturing and corporations have shown us, it's that they're concerned about people's well-being. Part of the reason America is losing its manufacturing base is a direct result of no national health care and pension. They can build plants in countries that have universal health care and thus can pay them very little. Sorry, your anti union bullshit won't work. Republicans think that people exercising their rights of expression, association, contract, and property in their labor destroy the country. Republican policies of trade with China and India and others is also what undercut our manufacturing base. NAFTA also hurt things, but it was already in motion long before that.

Oh, and President Reagan giving the middle-class the two largest tax increases in our nation's history didn't help, either. But that doesn't matter, since it was just the working people that were taxed, right?

It's good to know there's some Conservative Joneses out there:

At least some right-wingers are finally being more honest that the one and only goal of the GOP is corporate anarchy.

The Gore, How It Scares Them

One of the favorite "defenses"

"I put 'defenses' in quote marks, that makes the proven facts untrue!"

that the AGW proponents drag out

"By saying 'drag out' that means they're not facts!"

to diminish discoveries

Not discoveries, LIES.

by people By LIARS.

who find flaws

Except they aren't flaws. Nice try.

with their religion...I mean "factual arguments"...

AGW has facts on its side. You have nothing.

And your religion is proven bullshit. And you know it, too. That's why you have to paint everything else in religious terms. "Obama is The One! Obamassiah!" "Al Gore is the messiah of AGW!" "AGW is a cult!" "AGW is a religion!" "Atheism is a religion!" "Richard Dawkins is their messiah!" All to try and make the fact that you believe in proven bullshit, look more credible. It won't work. Your ADMITTED religion, is proven bullshit. And it's just as stupid as believing in Zeus.

So don't try to drag science down to your levels, you religious nutjobs.

is to bring up that the skeptics aren't climatologists. Apparently, their logic is that, unless you're a climatologist, you can't understand the intricacies of AGW.

They aren't "skeptics." Skeptics would USE evidence. You idiots IGNORE evidence. That makes you DENIERS.

Enter Al Gore. In spite of his lack of scientific credentials, AGW proponents cling to what he says (which is pretty much cribbed notes of what others have said).

Enter lying right-wing bloggers. Al Gore is not a climatologist, never claimed to be a climatologist, and no climatologist uses Al Gore as a source for their research. Yet again, you right-wing bloggers have to base an entire post on a strawman LIE.

This inconsistency should not go unnoticed,

There's no "inconsistency." So how can it be noticed?

especially when you consider the following statements that show how little credibility the former Vice President has on the subject of our earth.

Every single source you use has ZERO credibility. That never stopped you.

"People think about geothermal energy - when they think about it at all - in terms of the hot water bubbling up in some places, but two kilometers or so down in some places there are these incredibly hot rocks, 'cause the interior of the earth is extremely hot, several million degrees, and the crust of the earth is hot..." --- Al Gore, "The Tonight Show", 11/12/09 The inconvenient truth: It's estimated that the earth's core is around 4000 degrees Celsius.

Yep, Gore was wrong. Too bad he didn't say that in his documentary or lectures. Too bad that doesn't mean AGW isn't a reality and that geothermal energy isn't an excellent energy source. And too bad climatologists aren't using that Tonight Show clip as a source.

"Some of the models suggest to Dr. [Wieslaw] Maslowski that there is a 75 per cent chance that the entire polar ice cap during some summer months could be completely ice free within five to seven years." --- Al Gore, keynote address at the Copenhagen climate summit, 12/15/09 The inconvenient truth: Dr. Maslowski's study says nothing of the sort. Maslowski, who works at the U. S. Naval Postgraduate School, stated that his study projected an 80% decline in the arctic ice in about six years, but that there would still be ice. But you don't have to take my own word at Maslowski calling out Gore's exaggeration. Dr. Maslowski said, "I was very explicit that we were talking about near-ice-free conditions and not completely ice-free conditions in the northern ocean."

If you actually read his brochure, Maslowski's reaches nearly the same conclusion as Gore: "Projecting the trend into the future indicates that autumn could become near ice free between 2011 and 2016 (Maslowski, 2009)." After the brochure was exposed, Maslowski had to backpedal recently and instead state "I said NEAR ice free, not COMPLETELY ice free!"

As if "near ice free" somehow makes the finding any less alarming.

"For a long time, the scientists have been telling us global warming increases the temperature of the top layer in the ocean, and that causes the average hurricane to become a lot stronger." --- Al Gore, courtesy of http://www.woopidoo.com/business_quotes/authors/al-gore/index.htm. The inconvenient truth: According to Ryan N. Maue of Florida State University, global hurricane energy has dropped to 30 year lows. [http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/] Although Maue admits activity may be on its way back up, the fact that there was this lull while Gore has claimed the earth has gotten hotter should give even the most ardent AGW follower reason to pause.

This has already been covered in an earlier post. Gore repeatedly stated that there's no consensus among scientists regarding hurricane frequency. He was referring only to the STRENGTH of hurricanes. And Maue's report was regarding frequency or a combination of strength AND frequency, not simply strength.

The Maue report and Gore's statement do not conflict at all.

"So, the fact that the ocean temperatures did go up because of global warming, because of man-made global warming, starting around the seventies, and then we had a string of unusually strong hurricanes outside of this multi-decadal cycle that is a real factor..." --- Al Gore, courtesy of http://www.woopidoo.com/business_quotes/authors/al-gore/index.htm The inconvenient truth: That may not be as accurate an indication of AGW as Gore and his followers think. Jo Nova

Ah, yes. Joanne Nova, writer of "The Skeptics Handbook" and not a climatologist. She's a public speaker who is now suddenly a "climate expert." Kind of like denier bloggers. Her real name is Joanne Codling. "Nova" is her stage name. lol

compiles evidence that ocean temperatures may not be warming after all and shows a possible omission of pertinent information, not unlike the attempts to suppress data that doesn't coincide with the prevalent message. [http://joannenova.com.au/2009/07/ocean-temperatures-the-new-bluff-in-alarmism/]

"Suppress data"? "Nova" is basing her conclusions on ARGO buoys that were calibrated WRONG. When it was discovered that the calibrations were wrong, the data was no longer used. This is "suppression"??

When the calibration was fixed, here's the result: http://oceans.pmel.noaa.gov/Pdf/heat_2006.pdf

Whoops, the "cooling trend" vanished. Guess the calibrators are in on the simple conspiracy.

You talk about Gore being used as a source (which he isn't). Then you use Nova as a source. Funny!

"It's a complicated relationship, but the most important part of it is this: When there is more CO2 in the atmosphere, the temperature increases because more heat from the Sun is trapped inside." --- Al Gore, An Inconvenient Truth, page 67 The inconvenient truth: Scientists have noted that Gore's own graph shows that temperatures warmed before CO2 levels increased. [http://www.slideshare.net/guest3c5779/al-gore-climate-change-inconvenient-truth]

And Gore doesn't deny that at all, liar. Funny how you omitted that crucial bit of information. REP. JOE BARTON (R-TX):"The temperature goes up before the CO2 goes up." GORE: "Sometimes that has been true in the past. The opposite has also been true in the past. But what's happening now is that we because of human action are overwhelming all of those cycles." [Joint House committee hearing, 3/21/07]

And last, but certainly not least... The most inconvenient truth: Al Gore got a D in Natural Sciences 6 (Man's Place in Nature) during his sophomore year at St. Albans. But don't worry. He bumped that up to a C+ when he took Natural Sciences 116 during his senior year. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A37397-2000Mar18] Kinda makes you question Gore's credibility, doesn't it?

And when you show us a climatologist that uses Al Gore as a data source, you can point these things out.

You right-wing bloggers use NOTHING but non-climatologists, as SOURCES.

Let me ask you this, Lindaman: As you said, Al Gore had a brain fart and said the earth's core is "Millions of degrees" instead of "Thousands of degrees" on The Tonight Show. Now, if Gore was confronted with this mistake, do you think Gore would STILL insist that the earth's core is "Millions of degrees"? Of course he wouldn't. And that alone makes him better than your denier blog sources.

Because when they're faced with the facts, you keep repeating the same lies OVER and OVER again.

Once again: Al Gore is not a climatologist. Al Gore never claimed to be a climatologist. No climatologist uses Al Gore as a source for their research.

Right-wing bloggers are the ones that use non-climatologists exclusively. Because you have nothing else.

Right-Wingers Be Hatin'

To put it mildly, the Left seems to have it in for Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, and anyone to the right of Joe Lieberman. (Heck, Lieberman's often included in the list of the maligned for being "too conservative" for Leftist tastes.)

Considering everyone to the left of extreme right-wing is a "liberal" to you guys, that's hilarious. In every other country but the USA, every Democrat in the three branches would be considered moderate to extreme right-wing. With the possible exception of Dennis Kucinich. You guys are the ones changing the standard.

But occasionally, even the Left says or does something that puts them at risk of being seen as completely loony. People from Arianna Huffington to the drooling minions who inhabit her website, Huffington Post, as well as other websites like DemocraticUnderground and DailyKos have said conservative talk radio hosts "incite violence."

Well, some of them do. They may not INITIATE it, but they can sure egg it on.

The Left points to situations such as the death of Bill Sparkman, a census worker in Kentucky, as proof that conservative talk radio, and Beck in particular, have created such an environment of hate that leads to violence. This sentiment was echoed in a recent episode of "Law and Order: SUV" by a character portrayed by John Larroquette: "Limbaugh, Beck, O'Reilly, all of 'em, they are like a cancer spreading ignorance and hate...They've convinced folks that immigrants are the problem, not corporations that fail to pay a living wage or a broken health care system... "

Aaaaand, how does Larroquette's character's quote say that they "incite violence"? He's just saying they spread ignorance and hate. Hate and violence are two different things. Of course, hate can LEAD to violence in many cases. But just encouraging people to hate something isn't the same as encouraging them to initiate violence against that something. I hate broccoli, but I don't blow up broccoli factories.

Now, here's the funny part. As yet, there has never been a violent act definitively linked to talk radio. The Oklahoma City Bombing? Nope. Sparkman's death? Oooh, sor-ray. Recent shootings at church? Aw, so close and yet so far.

Don't forget the abortion doctors!

"Phew, they can't definitively prove it. So no responsibility on my part!"

There are incidents that have been attributed to talk radio, but there are always other mitigating factors (such as...oh I don't know...the nutballs committing the crimes being crazy) that make it less and less likely that talk radio was the genesis of the crimes.

Of course they're crazy. But apparently you think crazy people can't be triggered by an outside influence.

Yet, in spite of the evidence, or more precisely the lack thereof, it's taken as an article of faith by the Left that talk radio inspires people to take violent acts. You know how many arrests there were at the TEA Party protests this year? Zero.

Uh... that means "lefties" weren't violent at those rallies, either. What's your point with that?

In fact, the only violence being committed seems to be initiated by...the Left. And I doubt their violence is being caused by listening to people like Glenn Beck.

Oooo... can't wait to hear these sources!

Let's not forget, it was President Obama who said "I want you to get in their faces" when talking about how to deal with the protesters at health care town halls.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCMDur9CDZ4 "I need you to go out and talk to your friends and talk to your neighbors. I want you to talk to them whether they are independent or whether they are Republican. I want you to argue with them and get in their face," Obama said. "And if they tell you that, 'Well, we're not sure where he stands on guns.' I want you to say, 'He believes in the Second Amendment.' If they tell you, 'Well, he's going to raise your taxes,' you say, 'No, he's not, he's going lower them.' You are my ambassadors. You guys are the ones who can make the case."

Sure sounds like inciting violence to me! You mean you don't argue with your friends on political matters sometimes? Or are your friends (or more accurately, people that have to deal with you) that limited?

Oh, and where in that video is Obama talking about health care town hall protesters? Are you hoping to weasel out by saying "Obama meant everyone. Thus it includes the town hall protesters. :-) :-)" That's not how you're wording it above. You're trying to make it sound like he was speaking SPECIFICALLY about town hall protesters. Because then it makes the following sound less like a non sequitur:

And, sure enough, SEIU did, injuring a man in St. Louis.

And who started the fight? The police don't even know. That "man" (Mr. Ken Hamidi) has already been dragged out of meetings before for being an asshole. And he's a proven liar:

Another protest saw a health care reform advocate cross a street and bite the ear off an elderly protester. (No word on whether Mike Tyson is suing for copyright infringement.)

Are you talking about that Rice guy that got the tip of his pinkie finger bit off? He was bitten AFTER he punched somebody twice. Even he admits that. He walked over and taunted demonstrators, then he hit someone, then hit him again in the mouth. THEN he got his pinkie bit off. Again, who turned it into something physical? In this case, we have the answer: It was him.

Oh, and Medicare covered him. lol

In fact, you can just Google "SEIU violence" and come up with a number of examples. I know it's shocking to think a labor union would resort to violence to get its way, but you must be strong and find the evidence for yourselves.

"Find it yourself!"

And are you bringing up the Gladney situation? Did you actually see the footage of the Gladney "beating"? Here's the footage from a Conservative website. The footage starts with a union man already on the ground, and apparentely a friend of his standing guard. Gladney (a bit obscured in the video) appears to stand forward close to the man on the ground before being pulled down by a union guy that rushed over, and they both fall. Then they get back up just as quick (including Gladney). Gladney proceeds to ask for cops and speak to a reporter. Then Gladney later is seen in a wheelchair covered in bandages?? Come on. Was there not already a union guy on the ground, shown later walking towards the camera holding his shoulder? Does this depict a "vicious attack" on Gladney, or a stupid scuffle? Funny, there were no convictions either. lol

So, why does the Left say talk radio incites violence when it doesn't? It does. Simple. Because the Left incites violence


What's funniest is that you couldn't even find one source to support that!

and wants to normalize it by accusing the Right of doing it. The Left cannot deal with its own personal issues, so they seek to create an environment where everyone does it, thus it "justifies" their actions, no matter how perverse. Also, it gives them a chance to take the moral high ground by attacking violence and those who incite it, but only if it's done by conservatives. But if conservatives don't incite or commit violent acts, the Left doesn't care. They'll say they do anyway, thus preserving their article of faith.

What's funny is that your post is doing the very thing you're lying about the Left doing.

Even funnier: If you replace references to "the Left" with references to "the Right", and vice-versa, in that above paragraph of yours, it wouldn't sound stupid. In fact, it would simply be a rather obvious statement that even right-wingers would yawn about.

This is the most blatant form of projection I've ever seen. What's next, are you going to claim McVeigh was a left-winger?

At the end of the day, though, all they have to back it up is their faith that it's true.

Yeah, tell that to Francisco Duran. But he was crazy too, so that doesn't count. Right?

"Right-wing talk radio doesn't incite violence, because there's no proof that it does. And when it does, it doesn't."

And it's hysterical how you keep using the word "faith." Funny how you don't apply your twisted logic to your own real-life religion, which HAS been proven to be bullshit.

If you want to speculate that right-wing talk radio condoning and encouraging violence, has absolutely no influence on ACTUAL right-wing violence, fine. But don't say it's a fact. And don't try to use it as a subtle way to pretend that the modern extreme right (abortion doctor killers, clinic bombers, the Ku Klux Klan, neo-nazis, Timothy McVeigh) is somehow less violent or equal to the violence of the extreme left. Because that's a load of bullshit even Glenn Beck wouldn't be able to swallow.

If you're going to use strawmen, the cliches have to be on both sides: We're the dirty peace-loving hippies with unicorns and rainbows, and you're the hatemongers. Hate is hate.

But then, what would one expect from someone who says to Annise Parker, the first openly gay Mayor of Houston, to " not be vengeful " with gay legislation? As if the fact she was gay was automatically a cause for "concern." WTF are you guys expecting, legislation that allows public buttsex? Sheesh.

Beck, Hannity, Limbaugh, Savage, and O'Reilly ALL incite ignorance and hate. Do right-wing mouthpieces incite violence? Not nearly as much, but some of them do. Do they INITIATE violence? No. The real question here should simply be: Does inciting violence actually lead to REAL violence? There's no definitive proof of that, as you say. But use your common sense. If a right-wing survivalist hick in Alabama is ignorant and mentally imbalanced, and some pundit that he loves says "Assassinate this judge." You think there's absolutely no chance he's going to do what he says?

I remember many years ago, there was a preacher who said on TV that committing suicide was a way to let God know that you're coming home. A very stupid thing to say. And some listeners did indeed commit (or attempt) suicide as a result of it. Obviously they had some mental issues to begin with, but you don't think hearing what that preacher said didn't have anything to do with it? Don't pretend it has no effect whatsoever.

Hate breeds hate. And hate can lead to violence. So when shit happens as a result of that, if you right-wingers are not going to wise up and stop preaching hate, at the very least take a little goddamn responsibility. Taking responsibility for your actions is something you bootstrappy right-wingers love to pretend is your philosophy, after all.

Rape, Murder, Arson, and Rape

Franken's amendment was promoted as being "anti-rape", but it's actually more anti-contract. If you sign a contract that says you must agree to do X to be considered for employment and you sign it, it is expected that you abide by the terms of the contract. It's unfortunate that a woman was raped by one of the private contractors hired by the government, as rape is a serious matter. To have Franken use it as a partisan cudgel in this case, especially to hide the fact that the amendment would make it legal to ignore the terms of a legally-binding contract, is nothing short of disgusting. Then again, Franken did make a rape joke on "Saturday Night Live" in 1995, so maybe it's not out of character for him.

The amendment was for banning federal contracts from being awarded to companies who require their employees to use their firms arbitration process - rather than the courts - for workplace discrimination claims. That's it. How can Republicans be against that? Using arbitration rather than courts is what's "disgusting."

And yep, Franken helped with a skit on SNL about Andy Rooney raping the cast of 60 Minutes. This is quite damning. Because fictional parody skits about rape, completely counteracts passing amendments that can actually help stop real-life rapes. Got it.

In the advent of the ClimateGate scandal, Senator Barbara Boxer has stated that she wants to launch a criminal investigation into the people who allegedly hacked the email account of the University of East Anglia that started the ClimateGate scandal in earnest.

So hacking into and stealing private emails is just an "alleged" crime, now? In order for the emails to be lawfully in the possession of the self-described "hackers", it would have to be with the permission of the institution and/or the originators and/or receivers of the email. Considering the institution that represents the originators and/or receivers of these emails deny this is the case, it would seem to most people a pretty cut and dried case of THEFT.

Boxer needs to learn her geography and legal limitations. The victims of the alleged crime are in England. The source of the leak is in Russia. I'm no Senator or law enforcement officer, but I'm pretty sure the U. S. Senate doesn't matter to England or Russia.

So because elements were not from this country, there should be no investigation? How convenient. So much for right-wingers being tough on crime.

And all to cover up the implications of ClimateGate.

Too bad there was nothing to cover up.

Another funny bit from that blog entry:

Given how poorly the Obama Administration has treated Israel

Why? Because he doesn't kiss their ass the way you bible-thumping hypocrites do?

Bush: "Israel, could you pretty-please stop bombing?"

Sharon: "Fuck off."

Bush: "Yes, sir."

Israelis and Palestinians should recognize each others' right to have a separate state, period.

Sunday, December 13, 2009

A Breakthrough?

The EPA announced an "endangerment finding" is in the works naming carbon dioxide to be a danger to the environment, thus making it subject to regulation. Once this finding is made public, it may be used to circumvent the lack of agreement on any environmental treaty coming out of Copenhagen.

Why This Matters: Not only does this finding do an end run around the Senate (the entity that is charged with approving all treaties, even climate change ones), but it comes off as a purely political desperation move to avoid having to deal with the implications of the ClimateGate scandal.

What are you basing this on? So now the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY is in on this simple conspiracy?

AGW proponents point to carbon dioxide production as proof that we're screwing up the environment, but the problem is that increases in carbon dioxide production occur after a temperature increase.

And when you consider carbon dioxide represents a little less than 4% of the total greenhouse gasses (with water vapor making up the bulk of it to the tune of 95%),

More on climate forcing here, for those that are curious:

regulating carbon dioxide may not have nearly the impact on the environment as some think it will.

MAY not?

All this time you've been saying AGW is a "myth." A "hoax." A "fraud." Meaning human production of CO2 has no impact on the environment whatsoever.

You're now saying that limiting CO2 production into the atmosphere MAY not have have NEARLY the impact that AGW proponents are thinking it will.

You're implying that limiting CO2 DOES have an impact on the environment. And it could even have the impact that the proponents are stating. It just MAY not.

Are you saying that AGW IS true, it's just the amount of predicted IMPACT that you're disagreeing with? If so, heck, why didn't you say that to begin with?

My god... is this a breakthrough? Is it possible that after doing your recent AGW research... You're seeing that humans DO impact the environment with our CO2 production?

Nope, No Bunk

A few more links that explain the hockey stick graph and establishing that it has been debunked, by definition. http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm - a good breakdown of the flaws with the hockey stick graph

Link by skeptic John L. Daly, who is not a climatologist. None of the links in THAT link are by climatologists. And it uses regional data instead of global data.

http://www.global-warming-and-the-climate.com/mann%27s-hockey-stick-climate-graph.htm - another good story, including this tidbit of information that should cause any AGW proponent to stop worshiping at the altar of Dr. Michael Mann for even a second: It was also prominent display in several places in the 2001 IPCC report, the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It has now been removed from the latest 2007 IPCC report for policymakers because it has become to much of an embarrassment for the IPCC to include it. The graph was subsequently criticized by many global warming skeptics and historians, because weather events such as the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age were absent. [emphasis mine] Hmmm...that's odd. A global warming graph that excluded periods of warming and cooling? Wouldn't that be cause to suggest that Mann's graph may be...inaccurate?

Considering that the "Medieval Warm Period" and the "Little Ice Age" are regional and NOT global, it's SUPPOSED to be excluded from the graph.

You see what happens when you use sources that aren't made by climatologists?

Oh, and by the way: If you had actually looked at the 2007 IPCC report, you would have seen that the graph was NOT removed.

But additional graphs from other researchers have been added (and there were other graphs before), totally independent from Mann. And guess what? They match Mann.

That's what happens when you take a denier blog at face value.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/09/hockey-stick-observed-in-noaa-ice-core-data/ - a nice link...about the "hockey stick" being proven in ice levels. You know, the same ice levels that Mr. Leftist Blogger and others like him keep saying is declining?

Ice levels IN ONE AREA. Again, you can't just use one section of REGIONAL information for GLOBAL temperature.

What's funniest is that the results of that data show that southern Greenland glaciers were unstable in the recent past. Again, you drag in a link that accidentally supports AGW. Polar ice caps and glacial ice WORLDWIDE are shrinking at an ever increasing rate. The "The ice in this particular area here isn't declining, thus global warming is a fraud" argument is as laughable as those denier bloggers that say "Global warming is fake because it's colder this winter in Bumblefuck, Mississippi than it was last winter."

http://theblogprof.blogspot.com/2009/09/confirmed-global-warming-hockey-stick.html - providing more evidence, especially that Mann's original work showed cherry-picked data. Hmmm...isn't that a sign of blatant dishonesty? I mean, it was when the Left bashed George W. Bush for going into Iraq, but it's okay for an AGW proponent to do?

"Cherry picked data"? If he used the other data, it would be INACCURATE data.

You denialists are hilarious. They reject inaccurate data sources, and you say it's "cherry picked." If they DID use the inaccurate data, you would be screaming about how their data sources are inaccurate!

As far as Iraq: There was no proof whatsoever! But I will say this: The Downing Street Memo shouldn't be used to "Debunk" Bush. Because again, CLAIMING that things are manipulated, doesn't mean that they ARE manipulated.

http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2005/09/ohioshort.pdf - A presentation given by Stephen McIntyre with a pretty extensive bibliography

Again, McIntyre IS NOT a climatologist! The very paper that published McIntyre's work discredited his "Mann is teh suxors" claims as unfounded!

Tell you what: When you need heart surgery, try going to an auto mechanic.

http://73wire.com/2009/11/the-famous-hockey-stick-graph-with-actual-data/ - not from a climatologist, but with two pretty clear graphs showing what Mann deleted and the impact it would have on the "hockey stick"

Yes, if you add the INACCURATE DATA.

A lot of these skeptic blogs are saying "You aren't taking into account this-and-that..." Yes, they ARE taking those things into account. It's DENIALISTS that aren't.

http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2008/8/11/caspar-and-the-jesus-paper.html - a nice summary of how two other AGW proponents went to unusual lengths to "prove" Mann right, in direct violation of academic standards. Gee, wouldn't that raise a red flag in even the most ardent AGW proponent?

What a scandal! Articles from NON-climatologists are being submitted to journals that are subject to peer review. Actual scientists call them out on the junk science. Article is rejected and/or refuted.

That's what pisses the conservative AGW deniers off the most, isn't it? They scream "liberal media" over and over again in the hopes that the neutral media will overcompensate and become conservative media. They try the same thing by submitting anti-AGW articles to journals in the hopes a few will slip through the cracks.

The difference is that the actual science will always prove you guys wrong.

http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2009/09/30/peer-reviewed-article-in-journal-science-says-sun-causes-global-warming/ - the link is self-explanatory, and might actually give a much more credible reason for the variations in the planet's temperature than AGW. Imagine that! The sun might cause heating! And since it's peer-reviewed, I'm sure Mr. Leftist Blogger will accept it as fact as he did with the "peer-reviewed" Mann work...

Of course the sun contributes to the planet's temperature! CO2 is not the only agent of climate change. And no climatologist claims that CO2 alone affects the planet's temperature. Only denier idiots are saying they're claiming that, because it makes a good strawman for them.

"Dr. R. Tim Patterson, PhD, is a Professor of Geology at Carleton University." - NOT a climatologist, again.

Patterson used CO2 reconstructions from rocks. And yes, it's pretty clear that there was a lot more CO2 in the atmosphere 450 million years ago. But guess what? The earth of today is NOT the earth of 450 million years ago!

Who in their right mind would really believe there's an exact ratio between CO2 and temperature for the past 450 million years? That's ridiculous.

The earth was a LOT different back then. Less plant life, the continents were shaped differently, the days were shorter. The sun wasn't even as bright!

You can read up more on this here. Be warned, it's very complicated (and I don't mean that in a condescending way):

Patterson's rock data is correct, but he's crediting all the variation he sees in his rock samples, to solar forcing. Cosmic rays have NOT been increasing in the last 30 years. So they can't be responsible for the recent warming, can they?

Peer-review is only the first filter. I'm only asking for peer-reviewed climatologists because I'm being generous.

You're going to have to try again.

http://www.lesjones.com/posts/002990.shtml - Just thought I'd throw this in so you can see how AGW has been hyped in the media year after year, pretty much all saying the same thing.

Did you even read the articles? They are NOT the same. Each one has new information! Let's look at them:

2001 - This link says Earth global temperature could increase by 5.8C by 2100, which is higher than earlier estimates.

2002 - This link says that Two British scientists state the rate of temperature rise could be more than the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's prediction of 3-10.5 degrees farenheit. They are saying it could be as high as 12.4 degrees. This isn't "the same thing," they're simply saying it's worse than the IPCC's prediction.

2004 - This link says that Climate change over the next 50 years is expected to drive a quarter of land animals and plants into extinction, according to the first comprehensive study into the effect of higher temperatures on the natural world. Again, this isn't "the same thing." This is about new predictions on global warming's effect on animal and plant life.

2006 - (This link was broken, but I found a copy of the article) This article says that UK scientists are saying that new studies reveal that the huge west Antarctic ice sheet is even more unstable than the IPCC report intially stated, and they are urging the IPCC to update their calmer information with this more urgent information. Again, this isn't "the same thing." Just because SOME of the information in the articles are the same, doesn't mean the articles are the same.

In each and every one of these articles, there's NEW information. Each one with more bad news than before.

http://www.frugal-cafe.com/public_html/frugal-blog/frugal-cafe-blogzone/2009/11/28/global-warming-scam-scientific-data-in-hockey-stick-graph-bogus-uh-fudged-video/ - more interesting information showing competing charts showing Mann's flaws That's not a "competing chart."

That's a chart of just EUROPE. Again, that is REGIONAL, not global. Sheesh!

http://www.nowpublic.com/environment/global-warming-hockey-stick-graph-methodological-comparison-graphs - more graphs showing that in three different studies, the results were the same, but the graph showing the "hockey stick graph" isn't one of them. It's the odd-graph-out. Funny how that works out...

That's because those other charts, all of which were cranked out by deniers' favorite non-climatologist McKitrick, have crucial data has either been removed and/or they're using a different standard that doesn't hold up to peer review. "Funny how that works out."

I do like the "three different studies", though. As if they were three independent studies. But more on McKitrick in just a moment.

http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/15557/Nature_Admits_Widely_Cited_Global_Warming_Graph_Was_Erroneous.html - Hmmm...this link shows that Mann and the two other scientists quoted in a 1998 Nature magazine article admitted they made mistakes in the original article. And the Left still thinks this guy is credible?

Did you even read the correction? That Nature correction is simply a correction of the DESCRIPTIONS of SUPPLEMENTARY information for the reader. It was NOT a correction on the actual analysis.

Anybody that's claiming that the Nature correction means there's "mistakes" in the 1998 RECONSTRUCTION, is blatantly lying.

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=94621 - A forum post, I know, but it contains much more damning information about the inaccuracy of the hockey stick graph.

I have no problem with someone using forum posts, as long as one is honest about the source.

In this case, the source "Andre" is not a climatologist, and is just dragging in links. And the main point he's making is (again) the removal of the "Little Ice Age" and the "Medieval Warming Period", both of which are NOT global.

http://www.informath.org/apprise/a3010.htm - What? A statistical error in the hockey stick graph? Why that's...completely expected! But surely the fact that there was a statistical error in Mann's original work doesn't mean it's wrong, right?

Now you're using a source that is a financial statician and AGW denier that's using claims by McIntyre and McKitrick to support HIS claims. Do you have ANY climatologists on your side?

Do you really want me to start doing what YOU are doing? Dragging in links by non-climatologists? You do NOT want me dragging non-climatologist links to rebut yours. Because that would open up TONS more links.

You'll wind up with revelations like these:

Among all the other problems with his code for a different paper, McKitrick didn't even convert degrees to radians, thus fucking up HIS ENTIRE MODEL.

He also claims there is no physical basis to average temperature, so much for thermodynamics, right? So, BY YOUR OWN STANDARDS, all sources that use M&M are now "debunked." (No, not really)

Well, I think I've proven my point. The hockey stick graph has been debunked on several fronts,

Nope, just deniers claiming it.

and the creators of it have admitted errors,

Where? Are you referring to that 1998 Nature article correction again? You know, the one that only corrects the READER SUPPLEMENTS?

while others have proven errors that Mann, et al, have yet to explain away in the context of whether the graph was right to begin with.

"Proven errors"? You honestly will believe ANYTHING those denier blogs will tell you, won't you?

You can spin it, you can dodge it,

Ah, yes. Using climatologists as sources for climate change is "spinning and dodging." Using non-climatologists as sources on climate change is TOTALLY NOT SPINNING AND DODGING!

you can make up silly pseudo-definitions,

"Pseudo-definitions"? Because I'm stating that claiming to debunk something is not the same as debunking it? If I claimed I cured cancer, does that mean I cured it?

but the truth is out there,

as I've proven.

See this link? Now I've totally PROVEN aliens!

The hockey stick graph is bogus,


and those who cling to it like a security blanket (like a certain Leftist blogger who hates me, but can't stop talking about me) are mere lemmings.

"Cling to it like a security blanket"? I said in the VERY LAST POST, you can throw out Mann's hockey stick if you want to, liar. Because it's clear that you'll believe anything EXCEPT peer-reviewed climatologists. Because even if you throw out Mann's hockey stick: The hockey stick is still there, and it was replicated in other studies and affirmed by the NAS (which has no political affiliation). Are you saying climatologists Wahl, Ammann, Moberg, Rutherford, Sonechkin, Holmgren, Datsenko, and Karlin are also in on the conspiracy? Because they have NOTHING to do with Mann's research and coding, and came up with pretty much the same goddamn thing.

Wahl and Ammann, who used their own method, support the Mann Hockey Stick and they even freely released their code and data, and challenged other researchers to use the code THEY used for their own evaluations. Where's the outcry? The silence is deafening. Do you know why? Because their graph wasn't in Al Gore's documentary.

Hell, throw out ALL the hockey sticks. You STILL have lots of evidence.

Hell, here's two AT RANDOM:

Are they in on the conspiracy, too?

Consider the hockey stick graph debunked, Mr. Leftist Blogger.

Right, because you say it is. Get back to me when you have something by an actual climatologist that's peer-reviewed. And that's being generous, since peer-review is only the first filter. Oh, but they're all in on a conspiracy, because the climatologists actually have standards.

Enjoy this poster [Epic Fail poster] "But Michael Mann said it would work!"

To a denier, a round wheel is a square.

"Hey, Podium guys! I totally pimp-slapped that leftist blogger by showing a whole bunch of non-climatologist links!" "Way to go, Ace! Screw that Algore and Odumba! Hehe, isn't that clever? I combined Obama and Dumb! Odumba would've been wringing his hands like a scaredycat when Saddam attacked the World Trade Center!"

Again, get back to me when you have something by an actual climatologist that's peer-reviewed. And again, that's being generous.

If I WASN'T being generous, I'd hold it to the same rigorous standards that are held to the Mann Hockey Stick, and tell you to get something from an actual climatologist that's been peer-reviewed AND approved by the National Academy of Sciences, the National Center for Atmospheric Research, and the American Meteorological Society. That holds up just a LITTLE bit better than denier blogs that think Europe is the globe, and that constantly quote a rejected statician that can't even label a Y-axis. But I guess all them there egghead organizations are in on it, too. Apparently they're all like the Masons.

UPDATE: Lindaman clammed the fuck up after this post. He never responded back again on this issue.

You're a proven liar, Lindaman. As stated before: When it comes to manmade global climate change, you and your ignorant ilk have repeatedly been proven...

You'll have to steal some other picture, now. God forbid you come up with something ON YOUR OWN.

I got the last word, again. Because you've got NOTHING.