Seriously, WTF are you talking about? I used documentary evidence (a video), and an article from The Wall Street Journal to debunk Powerline’s disingenuous narrative of the events. Claiming that I’m swallowing lies, absent the provision of evidence, is not an argument. Neither are bizarre claims about my unwillingness or inability to use search engines (how else would I have located the video? The Wall Street Journal article?) or irrelevant (at least in response to me) digressions about your position on global warming (of which I have expressed no position myself).

Please try harder.

You have a meteorology background (not backed by federal grants, natch), but do not understand the difference between weather modeling and climate modeling? Does that meteorology background include studies at Bob Jones U.?

Search-engines are at your disposal. I am not obligated to exhaustively provide your remedial education. Name-dropping key-words is more than sufficient.

(I knew anthropogenic global-warming theory was complete bullshit back in the early ’80s, even before Carl Sagan & idiots assorted were lying there asses off about “nuclear winter” in the pages of Scientific American. Why? Because one of the many things about me which you do not know is that I have a meteorology background not tied to federal grants.)

I’m sure that some day, when challenged directly on the substance of your posts, you will respond in kind, directly addressing the substance of the response. Alas - that day is not today. I am left with but the cold comfort of the knowledge that you just ain’t foolin’ anybody.

The only problem? Powerline’s supposed debunking of the situation is an obfuscatory half-truth. Here’s the link to the CBS news video of McCain’s speech. http://tinyurl.com/2zlj5e Notice how, instead of “correct[ing] himself almost immediately” after making the mistake, McCain continues blithely along until, after the time-wipe and at the end of the press conference, Lieberman corrects him. You have to give him credit, though, he corrected himself almost immediately… after being corrected by someone else, some time later.

What really makes the story a misleading half-truth is that is leaves out that McCain “made similar comments earlier on a radio program, though he did not correct those.” Which, of course, establishes a pattern of misidentification. Of course, I did get that last tidbit from that Liberal Media stronghold — the Wall Street Journal. http://tinyurl.com/yso9d4

Who’s Ignorant? (March 18, 2008)

One of today’s minor news stories is a kerfuffle over a supposed “gaffe” by John McCain. McCain, talking about Iraq in Amman, Jordan, said:

“Well, it’s common knowledge and has been reported in the
media that Al Qaeda is going back into Iran and receiving
training and are coming back into Iraq from Iran. That’s well
known. And it’s unfortunate.”

He corrected himself almost immediately, saying “I’m sorry, the Iranians are training extremists, not Al Qaeda.” And it sounds as though he did, in fact, simply misspeak. What is more significant is how the Democrats and the mainstream media reacted to this non-event. They condemned McCain for ostensibly failing to understand that Iran couldn’t possibly train al Qaeda terrorists, since al Qaeda is a Sunni organization and Iran is a Shia country. This is what passes for sophistication in the lamest precincts of the media.

– That was *yesterday*.

– It’s a twisted, unholy union of corrupt academic grant-mongers and Marxist international shakers seeking to economically hamstring the West by bamboozling them into swallowing the carbon-reductions of Kyoto, and pass sixty-five billion new laws regulating every aspect of your indoor and outdoor behavior.

Meanwhile, back in reality, 2007 was the coldest year in the last 50, and in just that one year wiped all the temperature gains of the 1990s. (Why? Well, the sun was roarin’ with spots and cooking the planet with extra UV-radiation in the ’90s, but is now at the bottom of its 22-year cycle with virtually no spots, and overdue for the shift back upward.)

For an refresher course in pure Stalinist bile and denial, ask a pro-warming professor or politician about all those other scientists’ (ranging from The Weather Channel founder to Dr. William Gray the hurricane specialist, and dozens of other climatologists) objections.

Josh Willis Ph.D. -

water is apparently coming from a recent increase in the melting rate of glaciers in Greenland and Antarctica.

Is it really apparent Josh? Apparently Dr. Willis doesn’t know that temperatures in Antarctica only get above freezing in a few areas near the edge of the Antarctic circle, so ice doesn’t generally melt there… ever. Glaciers in the Antarctic flow into the ocean, they don’t melt, and their speed rarely changes.

It is fun to note that we only have reliable & accurate data since WWII. Before then, we had surface measurements for a hundred years prior (via mercury thermometers) Before that, who knows?

The data is incomplete. Science estimates what temperatures were and such from indirect measurement and from calculated guesses. Unfortunately, thats all they are: guesses. And science has repeadetly been wrong before.

Has there been large swings of temperature in the past? Yes. Are we most likely on an uptick? Probably. Like the economy, you only will know what is going on years after the fact. In geological terms, it may be centuries.

Climatologists and their ilk will argue against these points, but all-in-all it only is logical. A 4 billion year old planet’s temperatures will fluctuate. We are looking at one miniscule fraction of a miniscule fraction of a percent. You just can’t trend a sample set that small, folks. You can’t.

1) I know.

2) Yea, yea, i get it.

3) Come on, cow f***ing?

4) I suspected that.

I find your comments crazy, but charming in an idealistic young anarchist way. I will continue responding snarkily to your comments if you continue to oblige me by giving long, well-though-out rebuttals. I find that hilarious. It’s a personality flaw.

Instead I predict the outcome of this will be even more complicated theories about how ocean temperatures lag and a new set of models that restate the theory in such a way that it’s perfectly reasonable to have a hypothesis that doesn’t fit the data.

Her implication is that the authorities in Amsterdam decided to let gays have sex in the park at the same time they said owners have to leash their dogs because they were worried that the gays would try to have sex with the off-leash dogs.

A few things.

First. I didn’t call anyone a fascist.

Second. I never claimed that those who desire to coercively outlaw all forms of bestiality have “no reasons at all.” I made a claim about the injustice of such a blanket prohibition, which means that I’ve evaluated the justifications for such a prohibition and found them wanting. An example to illustrate. I understand why some people are in favor of coercively taking my money and redistributing them to enormous corporate agricultural farms. I understand the reasons that people are in favor of agricultural subsidies — or more accurately, corporate welfare. I’m just OPPOSED to such coercion despite those reasons, because those reasons are wanting and illegitimate.

Third. Finding something “creepy” is not a legitimate justification for coercively prohibiting it. There are lots of things that two adults can, and should, be allowed to do to each other that I find creepy — but I don’t accept my personal feelings of “ick” towards something as being a sufficient justification for forcibly preventing them from doing it.

Finally. I’m not really a sports fan.