November 30, 2009
— Ace Not a scientist, but apparently a science columnist on the "green" beat.
As I said, this is too rotten and stinking to be ignored much longer.
Allah quotes the head of the IPCC of course acting as a denier and pretending, as seems to be the party line, that this doesn't mean anything. The science, you may have heard, is settled.
The blubbery idiot Gibbs also instructs us that there's "no real scientific dispute about global warming," of course.
But check out this reversal from Clive Crook, who writes at both the Financial Times at The Atlantic.
First, his kneejerk response, taking the easy route of denial:
It isn’t the world he needs to convince on global warming, it is the electorate back home.This is all the harder since the climate science email dump, which showed leading experts–people calling for enormous changes in how the world’s economies work–discussing ways to keep their data private, manipulate public opinion, and deny dissenters access to the professional literature. (None of those emails surprised me, by the way. When it comes to public relations, the climate-science cabal is its own worst enemy. I’m surprised so many people are surprised.)
Ah, nothing surprising here. Scientists are manipulative liars; didn't you already know that, you naive fool? We always knew they were manipulative liars so this news is no shock. (Oh, but by the way, trust scientists -- they're the only truth-tellers in the world.)
But now, having read the emails and thought them over, he sings a different tune:
In my previous post on Climategate I blithely said that nothing in the climate science email dump surprised me much. Having waded more deeply over the weekend I take that back.The closed-mindedness of these supposed men of science, their willingness to go to any lengths to defend a preconceived message, is surprising even to me. The stink of intellectual corruption is overpowering. And, as Christopher Booker argues, this scandal is not at the margins of the politicised IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] process. It is not tangential to the policy prescriptions emanating from what David Henderson called the environmental policy milieu [subscription required]. It goes to the core of that process.
One theme, in addition to those already mentioned about the suppression of dissent, the suppression of data and methods, and the suppression of the unvarnished truth, comes through especially strongly: plain statistical incompetence. This is something that Henderson's study raised, and it was also emphasised in the Wegman report on the Hockey Stick, and in other independent studies of the Hockey Stick controversy. Of course it is also an ongoing issue in Steve McIntyre's campaign to get hold of data and methods. Nonetheless I had given it insufficient weight. Climate scientists lean very heavily on statistical methods, but they are not necessarily statisticians. Some of the correspondents in these emails appear to be out of their depth. This would explain their anxiety about having statisticians, rather than their climate-science buddies, crawl over their work.
I'm also surprised by the IPCC's response. Amid the self-justification, I had hoped for a word of apology, or even of censure. (George Monbiot called for Phil Jones to resign, for crying out loud.) At any rate I had expected no more than ordinary evasion. The declaration from Rajendra Pachauri that the emails confirm all is as it should be is stunning. Science at its best. Science as it should be. Good lord. This is pure George Orwell. And these guys call the other side "deniers".
Another heretic.
Here is what is going on here, psychologically.
People like Crook want to think well of themselves, and how they think well of themselves is to associate themselves with those they consider rationalists and humanists and concerned and just-liberal-enough.
Note how blithely he dismisses those who actually want "scientists" to reveal their data and assumptions for inspection and testing as "anti-science." I'm anti-science? Hey, Fuckhead: Out of the two of us I've been the only one pushing for actual science. Skepticism? Testing? Challenging? Do these ring any bells, Prickface?
But you see, psychologically, why he has, without looking at the evidence, chosen to align himself with Jones, Mann, etc.: Because, again without looking at the evidence, he has deemed them "pro-science" and actual scientists like McIntyre "anti-science."
This is not a rational, scientific impulse. This is an emotional and personal one: He likes one group of people more, likes what they stand for and what they believe, thinks they'd be great mates to have a beer with, good smart logical "pro-science" guys of the sort he respects and admires.
And their persecutors, then, must be "anti-science."
But note what ClimateGate is doing and will continue to do: It forces dickheads like this Clive Crook to reevaluate his initial entirely-unscientific bias that Jones and Mann are the "Good Guys," the White Hats, the rationalists. Now he sees they're actually bad guys, black hats, irrationalists.
He hasn't joined the skeptics yet -- he still brands us anti-science deniers -- but notice the huge change in attitude: He now calls his former heroes "deniers" too.
Believe me, in case it's not obvious: 99% of the public has no fucking clue about climate "science." They know 1% of what you know, at best. They have no idea of what the facts are, or the evidence.
All they know is that one side is "pro-science" and the other side is "anti-science."
But what happens when that belief -- the only reason they have to mouth these idiotic claims about us all drowning in 20 years -- is displaced by a new belief, that Jones and Mann are themselves "anti-science"?
Christopher Hitchens had a great point about Clinton's impeachment, why he would never be removed from office. "The American people," he said approximately, "wish to believe they are open and broad-minded about sex," and so Clinton would skate. People's brains -- primitive, predictable things, really -- find "The Narrative" in every story, as simple and as emotion-based as possible.
Who are the good guys? Who are the bad guys? And based upon such gut level, lizard-brain judgments important decisions are reached.
The Clinton-supporters deemed his detractors to be "anti-sex," and sex is a good thing, and being pro-sex is a good thing, so... no actual arguments about perjury, obstruction of justice, and so on were relevant. The major criteria for judgment was that the pro-sex people were good and the anti-sex people were uptight and wicked and no fun at all, so hey, you want to be on the fun partying team, don't you?
Pretty much all of liberalism works this way -- that's why it persists in the face of so much contrary information. Here are some fun, smart, rational guys and here are some uptight, bigoted, ignorant haters; which side do you want to be on? Nevermind reason or evidence; which crowd do you most wish to associate with? (And, fyi, for the young: Our girls put out more in college, in case that matters to ya. Wink.)
Politics, it has to be kept in mind, is mostly emotional and mostly aspirational. Who we choose as heroes and who we choose as models says, we hope, something about us. We signal to others what kind of people we are (or what kind of people we'd like to imagine we are) by the sort of person we choose to emulate and offer respect to.
In the last election, more people wanted to be Obama -- fun, loose, hip, cool, cosmopolitan -- than John McCain -- dour, old, ungraceful (due to injuries sustained being a war hero... but it's the surface that matters).
This is partly why I get on some commenters for their casual use of nasty racial put downs. Not only do such comments offend me, but those making them make for poor ambassadors for conservatism: Note that every time you do this, there's some reader out there thinking These are not the sorts of people I wish to be around, or to count as my political brethren. I'd rather be part of the team that doesn't think watermelon jokes are all the rage
Be that as it may -- there is a sea-change a-happening. I doubt we "deniers" will ever get credit, except of the most begrudging kind. We'll be told, ultimately, we were "right, but for the wrong reasons," and that sort of thing.
But what is happening now is almost as good: The veneer of aspiration has been stripped from the lying bastards Mann and Jones, and they no longer seem like the sorts of guys you'd want to befriend, let alone be.
Loose, casual kinds of guys? Only, it seems, as regards their coding and methods.
I think it will be interesting and important to watch this unfold over the next several weeks, this psychological paradigm-shift.
The next step, psychologically, is to limit the damage and to claim that these are just a "few bad apples." That allows them to cast out a few bad actors while keeping their aspirational fantasies, and their conceptions of self, alive: They get to continue thinking of themselves as "pro-science" while they throw a few token irrelevants under the bus. They want to heal the psychic damage as quickly as possible, and with as little change as possible.
But will it be possible to do that? Can they just convince themselves that, but for a few "Rogue Operatives," the "science is settled"?
We'll see.
But this is a first, critical step. We have been presented the truly indefensible, and some, at long last, are finding that they cannot defend it.
Hang On: DrewM. tells me the big change I thought I saw here might not be a big change; Crook called these guys a "cabal" in his first posting, indicating he always thought they were crooked.
I may have misread this, a bit, and be calling Crook a "a new heretic" when in fact he's been a heretic all along.
Still: I think the initial response shows him pooh-poohing the matter, and claiming that the only real problem with this "cabal" is its PR efforts.
So I think I'm right, but I don't know, so I'll note Drew's disagreement.
Ether way: I'm still holding to my prediction. I already have green fool Monbiot calling for Phil Jones, to resign. There will be more.
Posted by: Ace at
03:13 PM
| Comments (310)
Post contains 1743 words, total size 11 kb.
Posted by: huerfano at November 30, 2009 03:18 PM (vtuZz)
Posted by: mystry at November 30, 2009 03:18 PM (kmgIE)
...more than one way to get warm medievally, IYKWIMAITYD.
Posted by: Adriane at November 30, 2009 03:20 PM (0U2C0)
Posted by: mystry at November 30, 2009 03:23 PM (kmgIE)
Great post, Ace.
I would just answer this central misunderstanding: "It isnÂ’t the world he needs to convince on global warming, it is the electorate back home."
AGW, or GW itself, may or may not be true. I concede it may be. What we deniers believe is that a 1-degree change is not worth destroying First World economies over. And ManBearPig will never convince me of the crisis until he scales down the lux carbon lifestyle himself.
Posted by: PJ at November 30, 2009 03:24 PM (FG8qn)
Posted by: mystry at November 30, 2009 03:25 PM (kmgIE)
Posted by: pele at November 30, 2009 03:26 PM (yvIZY)
Now, why he didn't blow the whistle sooner is a different story but I don't think he blaming the skeptics in that quote.
Posted by: DrewM. at November 30, 2009 03:26 PM (FCWQb)
If not for those ;----------------- lines in the code, this whole scandal would be a "just kidding, old bloke, we scientists often do such tom-foolery such as saying 'hide the decline' and doing 'tricks' ... you wouldn't understand."
But line after line of truth prefaced with a semi-colon is irrefutable.
in the scientific sense of the word.
.
Posted by: BumperStickerist at November 30, 2009 03:27 PM (ruzrP)
Posted by: Iskandar at November 30, 2009 03:29 PM (u1pln)
Posted by: Zombie John Lennon at November 30, 2009 03:30 PM (GkYyh)
"We are just unpassionate interpreters of facts." "We are just objectively trying to present the facts." "We don't care what the facts are, we just want the facts." IPCC spokesperson
LIARS, GREEDY, PEOPLE HATERS
Posted by: pele at November 30, 2009 03:30 PM (yvIZY)
I'm finally average!
Posted by: Chastity "Chaz" Bono at November 30, 2009 03:30 PM (Gzb30)
Posted by: Hammer at November 30, 2009 03:31 PM (GkYyh)
Posted by: mystry at November 30, 2009 03:33 PM (kmgIE)
Posted by: marmo, High Priest, Church of Climatology at November 30, 2009 03:33 PM (7Y8qQ)
If not for those ;----------------- lines in the code, this whole scandal would be a "just kidding, old bloke, we scientists often do such tom-foolery such as saying 'hide the decline' and doing 'tricks' ... you wouldn't understand."
So... the lesson here is that I should stop commenting my code?
Posted by: Unprecedented Anachronda at November 30, 2009 03:36 PM (1OYcp)
So... the lesson here is that I should stop commenting my code?
WTF? You had to wait for a memo?
Never document anything. Once you do, people expect it to work the same way every time.
Posted by: MikeO at November 30, 2009 03:37 PM (Ce+tv)
Posted by: Jean at November 30, 2009 03:37 PM (vb5IK)
Posted by: ace at November 30, 2009 03:37 PM (jlvw3)
Posted by: Black Yoshi at November 30, 2009 03:40 PM (UOGvw)
He's got nothing, and he knows it.
Posted by: OregonMuse at November 30, 2009 03:41 PM (6kI9E)
I have what I suspect is an unusual perspective. I am a career scientist, although not a climate scientist. I don't buy global warming, and reject the notion that it is proven, or that we should spend lots of money "fixing" it, certainly not unless the science is a lot more solid than it is now. OTOH, my brother in law is an internationally known atmospheric chemist, a dyed in the wool liberal, and, at times, a real prick about global warming and those who don't accept it. It would be easy for me to simply dismiss him, but the fact is that he is a very good scientist, has his own research to back up what he says, and is not the kind to propagate a fraud. I suppose my point is that while the people from HadCRU are charlatans and frauds, it is too easy to dismiss all of the AGW concerns on the basis of this incident. Again, I am convinced that AGW is false, but there are a lot of very reputable scientists who can and do sincerely argue otherwise. We do our cause a disservice if we simply dismiss AGW because we don't like the messengers. That is what the Jones of the world do. There are plenty of facts on which to base our skepticism.
Posted by: pep at November 30, 2009 03:41 PM (OTCVm)
Posted by: Dr. Spank at November 30, 2009 03:42 PM (GGgoa)
Another good one that relates to the AGW hucksters
"Back off man, I'm a scientist!"
Posted by: Blackford Oakes at November 30, 2009 03:43 PM (DtTM9)
That affectation is definitely the weakest part of being a libertarian I guess.
Posted by: Iskandar at November 30, 2009 03:43 PM (u1pln)
Posted by: pep at November 30, 2009 03:43 PM (OTCVm)
Posted by: Jean-Baptiste Lamarck at November 30, 2009 03:44 PM (QKKT0)
Which describes Mcardle to a T. She voted for him and claims to be interested in free markets.
Posted by: Iskandar at November 30, 2009 03:44 PM (u1pln)
Posted by: Stanley Pons at November 30, 2009 03:44 PM (QKKT0)
Posted by: Jean at November 30, 2009 03:45 PM (3WbbL)
In my field, most papers in good journals are presented multiple times and then put out there in an online forum (SSRN) well before they appear in a journal. So a paper gets a lot of going over before it gets published in ay journal that's worthwhile. I've published in "good" journals, and also some crappy ones. And I've also done my share of reviewing. So, while I'm clearly a small fry, I'm aware of how it's done at least in my corner of the academic world.
I'd have to say that the peer review process in my discipline is generally fair - I've gotten far more rejections from journals than acceptances, but that's generally the case (the typical rejection rate is between 80 and 95% at the top journals). I never felt like a paper got rejected because it was "heretical". In most cases, it was because the results simply weren't strong enough. In most cases, a reviewer at a good journal will pick apart every facet of the paper - from the basic story to the data collection to the statistical methods used. In particular, most reviewers put a lot of stock in what we call "robustness tests" - making sure that the authors haven't picked the one methodology that gives us the results they want to see.
I've done my fair share of reviewing too. I've done enough statistical work that I can usually spot when someone's played foul with the data. So if a paper gets past me, I'm reasonably certain that their data says what they say. If not, I ask for the above mentioned "robustness" tests.
I haven't read the climate studies that caused all the furor. But most serious researchers wouldn't act the way these clowns have. The simplest way to allay critics' fears would be to show the data. Since they haven't, a lot of people will cry Bozo on them. In fact, there seem to be enough critics of the "settled science" of global warming that I don't think this will be allowed to blow over. At least I hope not.
And once the data is revealed (which I doubt will happen), I may read their papers, break out my trusty statistical software packages and take a crack at their data. My sense is that these people aren't that strong in statistics. At the very least, picking their work apart will provide some exercises for my grad students.
Posted by: RightwingProf at November 30, 2009 03:46 PM (I8MPS)
I was on a date one time and the woman I was out with asked me if I believed in Global Warming. I told her that first "belief" didn't play a part in it, facts mattered. Second, yes there was a warming period but it ended about 10 years ago. And third and most importantly, there's zero, zip, none when it comes to proof linking that warming phase to anything man did.
That was the end of that.
Posted by: DrewM. at November 30, 2009 03:46 PM (FCWQb)
When it comes to these AGW hoaxers, I'm all for branding....Texas-style.
Posted by: IllTemperedCur at November 30, 2009 03:46 PM (l1Wlr)
Agreed.
Posted by: pep at November 30, 2009 03:46 PM (OTCVm)
"Back off man, I'm a scientist!"
Another one, which applies to erg:
"Yes, it's true. This man has no dick."
Posted by: OregonMuse at November 30, 2009 03:47 PM (6kI9E)
"The stink of intellectual corruption is overpowering"
I would have used the word "stench." It paints a much stinkier picture.
Posted by: conscious, but incoherent at November 30, 2009 03:47 PM (Vu6sl)
Posted by: Paul Ehrlich at November 30, 2009 03:47 PM (QKKT0)
"Can they just convince themselves that, but for a few 'Rogue Operatives,' the 'science is settled'?"
Human beings can convince themselves of anything if that's what they need to do to get through the day. Human beings can convince themselves of two or more diametrically opposed things at once, or six impossible things before breakfast, if they have to do so to maintain their perfect image of themselves.
Posted by: stuiec at November 30, 2009 03:48 PM (7AOgy)
In the last election, more people wanted to be Obama -- fun, loose, hip, cool, cosmopolitan -- than John McCain
Leftists are in a perpetual state of arrested development. It is the ideology of emotional children.
Strangely enough, I never went through a liberal phase. Not even as a teen.
I always thought people on the left were fucked in the head because they spent every day telling me that things I could see with my own eyes weren't true.
Speaking of the gang you want to run with ... I never wanted to align myself with people who had to lie in order to advance their cause.
Posted by: Warden at November 30, 2009 03:49 PM (jNkHq)
Posted by: DrewM. at November 30, 2009 07:46 PM (FCWQb)
That wasn't a woman. That was a brainless blow-up doll. (By which I mean to insult her lack of thought, not your taste in toys.)
Posted by: stuiec at November 30, 2009 03:49 PM (7AOgy)
This is partly why I get on some commenters for their casual use of nasty racial put downs. Not only do such comments offend me, but those making them make for poor ambassadors for conservatism
Oh, ace...you were doing so well, and then...this. I'm afraid I'll have to dock you five points. When I post here, I am not -- explicitly or imlicitly -- doing so as an ambassador for conservatism or any other creed or ideology. I have no control over what other people allow themselves to be offended by, and I refuse to censor myself according to what other people might think of it.*
However, I always post knowing that I am, in a figurative sense, a guest in your house. I may not agree with everything you say, but I do agree that you have the final word in etiquette: you are free to boot me or anyone else if we offend you. You make the rules in your house, not me. Mere politeness dictates the limits on my speech here, not some abstract sense of fealty to an ideology or creed.
I probably am making too much of what you're saying -- in practice, you have shown far more forbearance to the idiots and trolls than I would have. But I hope you understand my motives for speaking as I do. I don't opine to advance some greater conservative agenda -- I simply speak my mind. You are free to find it offensive, and drop the ban-hammer; and I would accept it as just desserts from the master of the house. But please let us not cast it in terms of racism or deviation from conservative orthodoxy; I find that kind of thing very obnoxious.
*"Shit on them people", in the argot of my ancestral folk.
Posted by: Monty at November 30, 2009 03:49 PM (sYaae)
It's funny how the Warmists are now trotting out the old 'yeah, but George Bush suppressed and/or eliminated warming data from government reports' argument to justify the UEA's hiding of data.
So, as usual, the Left goes to their old standby of 3 Stages of Spin, (say it with me, now):
1) s/he didn't do it
2) even if s/he did it, so what?
3) Republicans do it, too
At first the emails were fakes (stage 1). Then they were taken out of context and no biggie (stage 2). Now were at the final stage were they admit to the scandal but equivocate to silence the critics.
What's next? Why Jones and Mann will claim they've received death threats, of course.
Posted by: Scopes, the talking monkey at November 30, 2009 03:50 PM (b5sJf)
I got into a great argument with my libtard sister from LA over Thanksgiving dinner. It started over AGW...and about how we on the right are anti-science since the issue was settled. Of course, she simply ignored anything that was said to refute that and just kept repeating that same mantra.
Then it moved on to stem cell research...and how Bush outlawed all research into it. (I have to state here that she actually has a college degree..it's in the arts, but it's still a college degree).
Yes...Bush outlawed stem cell research. I had to explain that what he did was to stop federal funding for new embryonic stem cell lines. Apparently, that was the problem since all the therapies and treatments came from those particular types of stem cells...and government scientists made all the discoveries. She again pretended that I had facts to rebut her stupidity.
At that point it dawned on me that nothing...absolutely nothing ...was going to penetrate that force field of libtard ideology. The thing is..she really is not a stupid person. She is just so indoctrinated in the leftist group think...and the acceptance that it brings in her Silver Lake neighborhood, that that nothing short of a bat to the head will get her attention.
Posted by: beedubya at November 30, 2009 03:50 PM (AnTyA)
Posted by: Bobby Byrd at November 30, 2009 03:52 PM (cPa0+)
Posted by: Holdfast at November 30, 2009 03:52 PM (Gzb30)
Ghostbusters quotes! (runs to IMDB)
Personally, I liked the university. They gave us money and facilities, we didn't have to produce anything! You've never been out of college! You don't know what it's like out there! I've *worked* in the private sector. They expect *results*.
Posted by: IllTemperedCur at November 30, 2009 03:55 PM (l1Wlr)
Posted by: Dr. Spank at November 30, 2009 03:56 PM (GGgoa)
I was on a date one time and the woman I was out with asked me if I believed in Global Warming. I told her that first "belief" didn't play a part in it, facts mattered. Second, yes there was a warming period but it ended about 10 years ago. And third and most importantly, there's zero, zip, none when it comes to proof linking that warming phase to anything man did.
That was the end of that.
Not even a bj?? You didn't buy her dinner,did you?
Posted by: beedubya at November 30, 2009 03:57 PM (AnTyA)
trying to redo the global economy with made up science is criminal
Posted by: ginaswo/MiM at November 30, 2009 03:57 PM (HmjDq)
I'm hoping (probably in vain) for a "Mr. Smith Goes to Copenhagen" moment next week. Maybe Nick Griffin or someone else dramatically taking the floor and just laying it all out for the world to see. I know an honest man stands no chance in the UN, but if a sizable minority can come away from there deadset on doing the science all over again, and getting it right, that would be great.
Posted by: lincolntf at November 30, 2009 03:58 PM (7XkqZ)
Posted by: ace at November 30, 2009 04:02 PM (jlvw3)
Posted by: crystal at November 30, 2009 04:04 PM (KVSUW)
Yes, but the beauty of this cabal is that the number of influential members has been intentional kept small. Throw three or four under the bus and there's no one left to support this edifice of corrupt politicized science.
Posted by: toby928 at November 30, 2009 04:05 PM (PD1tk)
Posted by: ace at November 30, 2009 04:05 PM (jlvw3)
All of you AoSHQ'ers with science or engineering degrees (BS (or BA), MS(or MA), PhD, or MD) might consider signing the Global Warming petition and mailing it to the address provided at:
http://tinyurl.com/yfu9rwa
I mailed mine today.
Posted by: TennDon at November 30, 2009 04:07 PM (o6Yv2)
Didn't we have a whole thread of pedophile jokes once? Or am I confusing this with Wizbang from the old days.
Posted by: toby928 at November 30, 2009 04:07 PM (PD1tk)
Posted by: ace at November 30, 2009 04:07 PM (jlvw3)
Posted by: ace at November 30, 2009 04:08 PM (jlvw3)
Posted by: crystal at November 30, 2009 04:09 PM (KVSUW)
Posted by: ace at November 30, 2009 04:10 PM (jlvw3)
O/T: Ace, how about calling the ONT "The Open Bar" from now on? And instead of "New Comments Thingy," how about "The Woodchipper"?
Posted by: Chef Boy RDB at November 30, 2009 04:10 PM (q6dIH)
Posted by: logprof at November 30, 2009 04:10 PM (I3Udb)
Posted by: ace at November 30, 2009 04:11 PM (jlvw3)
Posted by: Usful Ijit at November 30, 2009 04:12 PM (+8fSS)
Posted by: rawmuse at November 30, 2009 04:14 PM (L11fl)
The boob size to stupidity* ratio simply went beyond my tolerance.
*Not regular stupidity but the aggressive stupidity of someone who thinks they are the smartest person in the room when they are actually high functioning retards.
Posted by: DrewM. at November 30, 2009 04:14 PM (FCWQb)
Posted by: ace at November 30, 2009 04:16 PM (jlvw3)
Hacked e-mails: History
Posted by: Just Another Poster at November 30, 2009 04:17 PM (NgoAe)
Always be closing Ace. Always.
Posted by: DrewM. at November 30, 2009 04:17 PM (FCWQb)
Ah, the kind of stupidity that one fears might actually be contagious.
Run Forrest! Run!
Posted by: toby928 at November 30, 2009 04:17 PM (PD1tk)
Whichever genius programmer invents a FRIKKIN STOP BUTTON for YouTube, Hulu, Liveleak, etc. stands to make millions, because that person will be a FRIKKIN PIONEER. Not a pause button which will do nothing to stop the "valuable" (SO WE ARE TOLD) bandwidth from being used to load the ENTIRE FRIKKIN VID, but a REAL LIVE STOP BUTTON, like the one I had on my Radio Shack cassette player back in 1979. Whoever invents this PIONEERING PIECE OF GENIUS TECHNOLOGY should be given KINGSHIP.
WHY IS THE WHOLE WORLD RETARDED?
Am I really the first moron to discover this idocy?
Posted by: Taqiyy. at November 30, 2009 04:17 PM (ltfED)
Posted by: ace at November 30, 2009 04:17 PM (jlvw3)
Hacked e-mails: 16-21 record the last 3 seasons that turned up in the hacked e-mails
Posted by: Just Another Poster at November 30, 2009 04:19 PM (NgoAe)
Posted by: Jean at November 30, 2009 04:19 PM (7K04W)
So instead of drawing Senor Wences face on his hand he drew Dick Cheney's?
Posted by: Sort-of-Mad Max at November 30, 2009 04:20 PM (aC0uO)
Posted by: crystal at November 30, 2009 04:21 PM (KVSUW)
Posted by: ace at November 30, 2009 04:22 PM (jlvw3)
Posted by: ace at November 30, 2009 04:22 PM (jlvw3)
(And, fyi, for the young: Our girls put out more in college, in case that matters to ya. Wink.)
We did get more cooter back then. Course, I was a bit more svelte.
Posted by: Jek Porkins (rdb) at November 30, 2009 04:22 PM (q6dIH)
Posted by: Tom Servo, Mike, and Crow at November 30, 2009 04:22 PM (MMC8r)
The Science is scuttled, scuttled, I tells ya!
Posted by: sherlock at November 30, 2009 04:23 PM (ktKOD)
Posted by: ace at November 30, 2009 04:23 PM (jlvw3)
A statistical model works like this:
y = f(x, b, e)
where y is a vector of some outcome variable of interest (getting a blowjob on Saturday night, etc.); x is vector of observed predictor variables (money spent on drinks, IQ of the girl, etc.); b is a vector of parameters, e is error, f is the functional specification of the model. The goal of statistical estimation is to find the value of the b's that minimize the error of the model, when compared against observed data (x and y). If our model fits well against our historic weekend data, then we can happily simulate/forecast the blowjob-optimizing values of alcohol and chick IQ.
In the case of the Great IPCC Climate Swindle, y is the historic record of global temperatures, and the x variables are historic CO2 levels and/or a linear time indicator. Except they aren't, and that's there's the big problem. y is not really "global temperature," it's a set of numbers that the EA-CRU has labeled "global temperature." In their own words "the <i>homogenized value added data.</i>" Or as we say on the street, "shit we made up."
Where are the raw temperature data on which those data are supposedly based? "Ummmmmmmm..... we accidentally erased them." Well okay then, what transforms, fourier filters, wavelets aggregations, etc did you apply to the raw data to arrive at the homogenized series? "We lost the code."
Jesus H. Christ on hockey stick.
Posted by: iowahawk at November 30, 2009 04:24 PM (veL4N)
I do think that the emails to Shell Oil open an avenue to allow people to pull away from GW. So many of them have been indoctrinated into the "evil Big Oil" concept, that surely seeing these guys curry favor with Shell might cause them to question the whole thing.
Either that or they will have one of those melt-downs like the computers on Star Trek did when Spock would present them with two mutually exclusive theories.
Posted by: Miss Marple at November 30, 2009 04:24 PM (4DwVn)
I see. His first impression was, he just figured it was boys being boys. Just some real-life scientists on the job. A worldly cosmopolitan gent such as himself knows how it is.
Jesus Christ.
Does this Mr. Crook have any scientific background at all? On his brief CV he lists Oxford, London School of Economics, and then a long career of having opinions about things.
Posted by: Gov. William J. LePetomaine, Ph.D. at November 30, 2009 04:25 PM (w41GQ)
Whichever genius programmer invents a FRIKKIN STOP BUTTON for YouTube, Hulu, Liveleak, etc. stands to make millions,
OOT: Is it too much to ask that they put a footstool at the end of the airport security line?
I, too, often conjecture that I am the smartest person in the world.
Posted by: AmishDude at November 30, 2009 04:25 PM (T0NGe)
Posted by: crystal at November 30, 2009 04:25 PM (KVSUW)
Posted by: ace at November 30, 2009 04:26 PM (jlvw3)
Posted by: Jean at November 30, 2009 04:26 PM (6Njk9)
Posted by: IllTemperedCur at November 30, 2009 04:28 PM (l1Wlr)
Posted by: Piltdown Man at November 30, 2009 04:28 PM (T0NGe)
Ace, there gravity anomalies that no current Theory can explain.
No shit and its killing my property value! WTF?
Posted by: Michael Moore at November 30, 2009 04:29 PM (Nn6P3)
Posted by: mystry at November 30, 2009 04:29 PM (kmgIE)
Posted by: Jean at November 30, 2009 08:26 PM (6Njk9)
I always thought the theory was, "They're fake."
Posted by: AmishDude at November 30, 2009 04:29 PM (T0NGe)
Posted by: That Chick Drew Was Dating at November 30, 2009 04:30 PM (jlvw3)
Posted by: Dr. Spank at November 30, 2009 04:30 PM (GGgoa)
Posted by: crystal at November 30, 2009 08:25 PM (KVSUW)
Have I mentioned that Dave in Texas is really mean to me?
Posted by: DrewM. at November 30, 2009 04:30 PM (FCWQb)
That is, unless Drew Brees throws 3 straight interceptions in the 1st quarter (not such a statisical impossibility as one might think) and then a bulldozer falls on him.
Posted by: Kratos (on the back of Gaia, scaling Mt Olympus) at November 30, 2009 04:31 PM (otlXg)
Posted by: IllTemperedCur at November 30, 2009 04:31 PM (l1Wlr)
Posted by: Jean at November 30, 2009 04:32 PM (QFzyw)
she now chooses modified limited hang-out denial.
She should have gone with super-modified pro-stock full anti-denial with a half-gainer.
Posted by: Jek Porkins (rdb) at November 30, 2009 04:32 PM (q6dIH)
I'm just sayin. Wouldn't the Super-Ultra-High-Tech invention of a Stop Button for flash vids decrease the load on the internets by 75% or more?
But that would make sense. And the days of things making sense, alas, are gone.
Posted by: Taqiyy. at November 30, 2009 04:32 PM (ltfED)
It's not a good idea to try to post and surf the web for pron at the same time.
Posted by: Kratos (on the back of Gaia, scaling Mt Olympus) at November 30, 2009 04:32 PM (otlXg)
Posted by: CoolCzech at November 30, 2009 04:32 PM (QECjC)
Posted by: ace at November 30, 2009 04:32 PM (jlvw3)
Posted by: Dr. Spank at November 30, 2009 04:33 PM (GGgoa)
Posted by: Soap MacTavish at November 30, 2009 04:33 PM (554T5)
Posted by: ace at November 30, 2009 04:33 PM (jlvw3)
Posted by: IllTemperedCur at November 30, 2009 04:34 PM (l1Wlr)
Fucking awesome, Ace, and larger than these damned hucksters--particularly here:
"Politics, it has to be kept in mind, is mostly emotional and mostly aspirational. Who we choose as heroes and who we choose as models says, we hope, something about us. We signal to others what kind of people we are (or what kind of people we'd like to imagine we are) by the sort of person we choose to emulate and offer respect to."
Spot on, and the only explanation other than the devil's hand why people read pap like People and watch Oprah specials. I'll jump off a bridge now because there is no hope but lots of bridges.
Posted by: awed at November 30, 2009 04:35 PM (GjSWq)
Have I mentioned that Dave in Texas is really mean to me?
Posted by: DrewM. at November 30, 2009 08:30 PM (FCWQb
You poor,poor thing. *nestles DrewM.'s head between bosoms*
Posted by: crystal at November 30, 2009 04:35 PM (KVSUW)
Posted by: ace at November 30, 2009 04:36 PM (jlvw3)
Posted by: IllTemperedCur at November 30, 2009 04:37 PM (l1Wlr)
and every girl might be willing to throw you a mercy boning.
HAH! That's a good one. Yeah, um
Is that true?
Posted by: Jek Porkins (rdb) at November 30, 2009 04:38 PM (q6dIH)
Posted by: Jean at November 30, 2009 08:32 PM (QFzyw)
It's just that in circumstances in which gravity's effects should have manifested themselves, I see objects that seem to defy gravity.
They seem larger than they should be, however, and sometimes there's a vein showing.
So my theory is: They must be fake.
Posted by: AmishDude at November 30, 2009 04:38 PM (T0NGe)
Hmm...in the quoted article, I don't like the words " plain statistical incompetence" because it implies that this wasn't deliberate, that there was some kind of sloppy reporting that made these folks come to the wrong conclusions. It was deliberate, pure and simple.
Posted by: BeckoningChasm at November 30, 2009 04:39 PM (eNxMU)
Posted by: dr kill at November 30, 2009 04:39 PM (kQWfP)
All the time I am confronted with conservatives whom make jokes in this manner as some form of harmless fun; as if being completely oblivious to the issue of racial relations is some sort of halmark of a "true" conservative, one that flies in the face of all forms of political correctness. I try to tell them, pretend you are addressing the apathetic, squishy, middle, whom have never educated themselves on political philosophy enough to know that a war of ideology is ongoing and is culminating in this country between the collectivists and individualists. They know not that there is really no middle ground, no fence to walk between the two ideals, no happy medium that makes some sort of sense. Soon, as the polarization reaches critical levels, they will realize, and they will have to make a choice, or admit to themselves that they are turning a blind eye to mankind's future. We then try to convince them of the high mindedness of conservative beliefs about the potential of society as realized through the free individual by telling worn out less than funny jokes whose common element is fixation on the melanin content of the Presidents skin; the best response they could ever merit is a nervous, awkward, courtesy chuckle. While also resulting in permanent alienation of potential allies.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose at November 30, 2009 04:40 PM (0q2P7)
Global Warming: The guy standing between the Senate floor and a cable news reporter broadcasting live.
Hacked e-mails: Chuck Schumer
Posted by: IllTemperedCur at November 30, 2009 04:40 PM (l1Wlr)
Posted by: iowahawk at November 30, 2009 04:40 PM (veL4N)
Posted by: Jean at November 30, 2009 04:40 PM (1bQOq)
Posted by: crystal at November 30, 2009 04:40 PM (KVSUW)
Hacked emails : Their opponents game plan
Heading to a bar. See ya'll. If I don't get a bj : global warming.
Posted by: Dr. Spank at November 30, 2009 04:41 PM (GGgoa)
Hacked Emails: Crystal is a bot created by the Lace Wigs Marketing division
Posted by: ace at November 30, 2009 08:36 PM (jlvw3)
Global Warming: Crystal is a bot created by the Lace Wigs Marketing division
Hacked e-mails: Drew walks in on jason and laptop-battery guy banging his date.
Posted by: Blazer at November 30, 2009 04:42 PM (+FzLa)
Hey, those guys are geniuses. If anyone ever perfects the FemBot (sex and samiches), I bet it's them.
Posted by: DrewM. at November 30, 2009 04:42 PM (FCWQb)
Welcome, Ace. Off to that bridge now. But one last point: and The Daily Beast. It is the same instinct that drives the herd there as well.
Posted by: awed at November 30, 2009 04:42 PM (GjSWq)
41 I think the government ought to publish some politics about the working people,but it is not useful for the pledge of the rich.
Posted by: Laptop-battery at November 28, 2009 05:12 AM (1Z0Al)
Posted by: Dr. Spank at November 30, 2009 04:45 PM (GGgoa)
Posted by: crystal at November 30, 2009 08:40 PM (KVSUW)
How you doin'?
Posted by: AmishDude, who is much cooler and better looking than DrewM. at November 30, 2009 04:46 PM (T0NGe)
Posted by: ace, who is cooler than both drew and amish and also has a really cool blog at November 30, 2009 04:47 PM (jlvw3)
Hacked Emails: Your wife reading through a comment page you left open.
Posted by: Warden at November 30, 2009 04:47 PM (YZac3)
Posted by: Ol Grandpa who remembers old stuff at November 30, 2009 04:48 PM (+CLh/)
Posted by: ace, who is so cool he says things like "It's all good, baby" at November 30, 2009 04:48 PM (jlvw3)
Posted by: The Dread Pirate Neck Beard at November 30, 2009 04:49 PM (nlTK1)
Hacked Emails: Your wife finding out you post by the handle "Warden"
Posted by: Warden at November 30, 2009 04:49 PM (YZac3)
Mike the Moose,
I was a democrat in college, and starting leaning more to the right after I left school. You're pretty much right, although all black people aren't thin skinned. Especially black conservatives. I have experienced more racism from the left in the last ten months, than in my entire 31 years. You are also right about perception. I pass along links to family members and friends, hoping that they'll give truth a chance. It's extremely hard to cut through years of effective liberal brainwashin and victimization. Couple that with the very real fact of slavery, segregation, etc.
I remember in middle school that we had to watch "Eye on the Prize" every year in February. Great. I needed to know my history. the price that was paid by those before me, so that I could have an equal shot. But what was conviently left of the lesson plan was redeemption. The teachers dweeled on the oppression, and not of the perserverance. The balcks that marched in the streets in that era sttod for something. My granmother would cra in her pants, if she were alive to see what our culture has come to.
Posted by: crystal at November 30, 2009 04:50 PM (KVSUW)
Ace, you have a really cool blog? What's the url of that blog?
Posted by: DrewM. at November 30, 2009 04:50 PM (FCWQb)
Posted by: Jean-Baptiste Lamarck at November 30, 2009 07:44 PM (QKKT0)
Yeah, at the bottom of a dumpster.
Ok fine, I stole my joke from treacher... haven't you guys figured out I steal most of my jokes? That's why the ones I'm proud of aren't the good ones (they're just the original ones).
Posted by: Gekkobear at November 30, 2009 04:50 PM (3SeZf)
When you wanna talk about nice, settled, non-controversial science, maybe stay away from modern physics. It's kooky beyond belief.
But here's a serious question. And let me admit I know precious little about the field of climate science. Have climate scientists ever made a prediction that held up? Not trying to be snarky, I really don't know. You'd think they'd have to make a few before being taken seriously. I know that hurricane one didn't work out. And the inevitable, unstoppable, uninterruptible rise of temperature with CO2 concentration didn't work out.
Posted by: FUBAR at November 30, 2009 04:51 PM (cPa0+)
Global Warming: Gekkobear's ability to bring teh funnay.
Hacked Emails: People who don't "do" courtesy laughs.
Posted by: Warden at November 30, 2009 04:53 PM (YZac3)
Christ. That guy's been screaming this from the rooftops for at least a decade.
Now he looks like a hero.
Posted by: Ol Grandpa who remembers old stuff at November 30, 2009 04:53 PM (+CLh/)
Global Warming: The daily Ace double-post.
Hacked e-mails: Morons who fight over being the first to comment "Ace doesn't read his own blog".
Posted by: IllTemperedCur at November 30, 2009 04:54 PM (l1Wlr)
Remember when the left said that was the good war and the one who had to win.
Oh and he just said the military wants the war to last forever because that's why they get paid.
Wow. Just wow.
Posted by: DrewM. at November 30, 2009 04:54 PM (FCWQb)
Posted by: ace at November 30, 2009 08:32 PM (jlvw3)
There is no gravity. The earth sucks.
Posted by: LGoPs at November 30, 2009 04:54 PM (v/rEn)
Posted by: AmishDude, he of the huge brain, huuuuuge I say at November 30, 2009 04:55 PM (T0NGe)
"No worries" is way cooler than "it's all good, baby". Seriously, I almost got laid once saying it.
Posted by: Warden at November 30, 2009 04:55 PM (YZac3)
Posted by: tangonine at November 30, 2009 04:56 PM (C8Pcc)
Liberal is an anagram of braille. Appropriate because they appear unable to see or read about the climate science scandals.—Tim Ball
Posted by: Andy at November 30, 2009 04:56 PM (VMyjP)
Olbermann just said we should leave Afghanistan.
Remember when the left said that was the good war and the one who had to win.
Oh and he just said the military wants the war to last forever because that's why they get paid.
Wow. Just wow.
Posted by: DrewM. at November 30, 2009 08:54 PM (FCWQb)
He didn't jump the shark,....he just jumped the Snake River Canyon.
Posted by: Blazer at November 30, 2009 04:56 PM (+FzLa)
Oh and he just said the military wants the war to last forever because that's why they get paid.
Wow. Just wow.
Posted by: DrewM. at November 30, 2009 08:54 PM (FCWQb)
LGoPs just said that Olbermann should leave the fucking planet.
Oh, and he just says these things because that's how he gets paid.
Olbermann is a Fuckstick.
Posted by: LGoPs at November 30, 2009 04:56 PM (v/rEn)
Remember when the left said that was the good war and the one who had to win.
Oh and he just said the military wants the war to last forever because that's why they get paid.
Wow. Just wow.
Posted by: DrewM. at November 30, 2009 08:54 PM (FCWQb)
Olbermann? Inconsistent? Elitist? Stupid? The devil you say!
Drew, does Ace pay you crazy blog hazard pay to watch MSNBC?
Posted by: AmishDude, lookin' out for the co-bloggers, because he's a sensitive kinda guy at November 30, 2009 04:57 PM (T0NGe)
Posted by: Jean at November 30, 2009 04:58 PM (tJF9l)
Posted by: LGoPs at November 30, 2009 04:58 PM (v/rEn)
Posted by: tangonine at November 30, 2009 04:58 PM (C8Pcc)
Hacked Emails: Your wife reading through a comment page you left open.
Posted by: Warden at November 30, 2009 08:47 PM (YZac3)
Lolz!!!!
And yet, sad at the same time.
Posted by: crystal at November 30, 2009 04:59 PM (KVSUW)
Posted by: AmishDude, able to wield old cheap jokes with the deftness of Hayden Christensen at November 30, 2009 04:59 PM (T0NGe)
Global warming: A $5 gift card to Chucky Cheese.
Hacked emails: A pony. That shits gold. And is nervous.
Posted by: awed from the grave at November 30, 2009 04:59 PM (GjSWq)
Posted by: IllTemperedCur at November 30, 2009 04:59 PM (l1Wlr)
I wrote Obama an open letter on my blog saying enough is enough! We love you, widdle Twinkums but if you don't get our mean Mr. McShooty Pants guys out of Afghanistan, we'll have a tantrum and then we'll say "or Else!"
Actually, I didn't type it out on a keyboard. I wrote it in Easy Cheese on a 300 lb yellow fin tuna, took a shot with my CoolPix camera, e-mailed it to my leather-whip boy and then he typed it up for my blog. Then I made sweet, sweet love to the Easy Cheese covered tuna.
You didn't think I was going to eat it, did you? Gross!
Posted by: Michael Moore at November 30, 2009 05:01 PM (Nn6P3)
Posted by: Johnny I at November 30, 2009 05:02 PM (wRAyx)
Posted by: Mr Wizard at November 30, 2009 09:01 PM (+CLh/)
There is no such thing as empty space.
Except between the ears of a sociology professor.
Posted by: AmishDude, showing the knowledge at November 30, 2009 05:03 PM (T0NGe)
Hacked emails: Your grandson asking you about it 45 years from now.
Posted by: Warden at November 30, 2009 05:03 PM (YZac3)
And yes, Randi, you cna use this on your radio show to illustrate how much we fucking hate you. And as a USAF MTI, I'd have had your ass discharged before your could claim the rank of airman. You piece of shit.
Posted by: tangonine at November 30, 2009 05:04 PM (C8Pcc)
Posted by: IllTemperedCur at November 30, 2009 05:04 PM (l1Wlr)
Hacked E-Mails: she only carries Magnums
Posted by: Blackford Oakes at November 30, 2009 05:04 PM (DtTM9)
Posted by: LGoPs at November 30, 2009 05:05 PM (v/rEn)
Posted by: Jean at November 30, 2009 05:05 PM (PjevJ)
Posted by: MSM at November 30, 2009 05:05 PM (RxUMK)
There is no such thing as empty space.
Except between the ears of a sociology professor.
Women's Studies Majors?
Posted by: Beto at November 30, 2009 05:06 PM (+CLh/)
Hacked emails: Using "your" instead of "you're" while doing it.
Posted by: Warden at November 30, 2009 05:06 PM (YZac3)
Really? I mean, your brain...really?
Posted by: crystal at November 30, 2009 09:02 PM (KVSUW)
Haven't you ever said, "I want you to think my brains out!"?
I wear a size 16EEE hat.
I know how many licks it takes to get to the tootsie roll center of a tootsie pop. (Answer: Just a few more, just a few more.)
Posted by: AmishDude, just answering fanmail at November 30, 2009 05:07 PM (T0NGe)
Ace, I know the only time you hear from me is when you say something I disagree with, and I'm not normally into kissing your ass, but what you wrote here in this original post was a friggin' jewel of both well reasoned thinking and insight on the mental process at work with these clowns.
I'm awestruck.
Posted by: Jim in San Diego at November 30, 2009 05:07 PM (H7Rlw)
Posted by: IllTemperedCur at November 30, 2009 05:08 PM (l1Wlr)
Women's Studies Majors?
Posted by: Beto at November 30, 2009 09:06 PM (+CLh/)
No way! Women's studies majors are brilliant. Where else can you get an A to hang out with a room full of chicks with low self-esteem?
Posted by: AmishDude, just answering fanmail at November 30, 2009 05:08 PM (T0NGe)
crystal, if you're still here, jason came bearing all kinds of gifts for you. I think he's the one.
Posted by: Blazer at November 30, 2009 05:09 PM (+FzLa)
Posted by: IllTemperedCur at November 30, 2009 05:09 PM (l1Wlr)
Posted by: Jek Porkins (rdb) at November 30, 2009 05:10 PM (q6dIH)
My solution? Everybody who believes in Global Warming hold your breath and keep holding it to prevent that CO2 pollutant from adding to it.
Begin.....NOW!
Problem solved in about 3 minutes. All the fucktards are dead and we can go on living our lives.
Posted by: LGoPs at November 30, 2009 05:11 PM (v/rEn)
I bet the 'hockey team' supporters might enjoy another post on the Everything Is Wonderful blog.
"We've been caught lying, cheating, and stealing. Everything is wonderful!"
Posted by: Iskandar at November 30, 2009 05:11 PM (u1pln)
Crystal:
I am of the firm belief that many if not most Democrats know for a fact how destructive modern racism is. The "Sell out"/"Uncle Tom" self limiting cultural trends which punish the industrious and successful with ostracization creates a permenant segment of victim dependents the power brokers (Jesse and Al) use as a voting block for political purposes. So the politicians string a few handout programs together, enough to show their coveted voting block they "care", and are "doing something" but are very careful to keep them dependent; and sitting at the table are Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, reaping the political and financial rewards of assisting a perpetuity in dependent status amongst their followers. Human lives used as less than pawns, more like money, more like property, it is the antithesis of humanity, and has every element of the slavery, segregation, and prejudice, that we have fought so hard to destroy. Yet conservatism is evil because we seek for all people to live independently on their own two feet, free from dependence, free from fealty. We are the evil ones.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose at November 30, 2009 05:12 PM (0q2P7)
Hacked E-Mails: looking over the ratings the next day
Posted by: Blackford Oakes at November 30, 2009 05:12 PM (DtTM9)
Global Warming: Telling your wife that AoSHQ is your favorite blog
Hacked Emails: Your wife reading the site.
Posted by: toby928 at November 30, 2009 05:12 PM (PD1tk)
Posted by: IllTemperedCur at November 30, 2009 05:13 PM (l1Wlr)
Posted by: IllTemperedCur at November 30, 2009 05:17 PM (l1Wlr)
Posted by: Jek Porkins (rdb) at November 30, 2009 05:17 PM (q6dIH)
Posted by: Che Pizza at November 30, 2009 05:18 PM (4iIhs)
THe latter is true, of course, but is so unlikely as to not be worth mentioning.
Past results are no indication of future performance, as your financial advistor says. Good science is predictive, but not inevitably so -- quantum theory, which has been proven about as well as any physical theory we know of, makes some very strange predictions that seem to flout other "settled sciences" like gravitation and EM theory. This is the biggest remaining problem in physics, in fact: unifying the Newtonian and Quantum models of matter. The problem is -- they disagree (fundamentally!) in certain extreme environments. (Like proximity to very energetic or very massive objects.)
Which is to say: just because everything always has been that way doesn't mean that everything will continue to be that way. It's a question of probabilities, of ratios, and a question of how well we understand either of those (not very well). We do the best we can and move on, but absolute certainty about the physical world is unseemly -- we do not even begin to know enough to be confident in what we don't yet know, much less about what we (think) we do know. Humility before nature is the sine qua non of all great scientists.
I always say that honest scientists and engineers should use a lower-case "f" when speaking of facts, and never utter the word "truth" at all.
Posted by: Monty at November 30, 2009 05:20 PM (sYaae)
Posted by: Che Pizza at November 30, 2009 05:20 PM (4iIhs)
AmishDude made me feel kinda funny @224...I liked it
Posted by: crystal at November 30, 2009 09:20 PM (KVSUW)
Like when we used to climb the rope in gym class.
Posted by: Garth at November 30, 2009 05:21 PM (T0NGe)
Posted by: Che Pizza at November 30, 2009 05:23 PM (4iIhs)
Posted by: sTevo at November 30, 2009 09:22 PM (eA3tl)
Don't you mean "American Stinker"?
Hee, hee, hee, hee, *snort*
Posted by: Mikey Mann at November 30, 2009 05:24 PM (T0NGe)
Yes, I think Tipper's still kicking.
Posted by: AmishDude at November 30, 2009 05:24 PM (T0NGe)
Posted by: sTevo at November 30, 2009 09:26 PM (eA3tl)
Some of our hashes are born, some are made and some are thrust upon us.
Posted by: AmishDude at November 30, 2009 05:27 PM (T0NGe)
Mike the Moose..
Exactly. And..in he last fifty years or so, with every social program, with Jesse, Al an' them, exactly how has the black culture steadied itself? When have you EVER heard Al Jesse et al encouraging black children, rather than extorting corporations and individuals? It seems that we, as a culture, make demands on everyone but OURSELVES. Waiting on Daddy-Governemnt to "clean up our neighborhoods", "educate our children", "get rid of poverty", etc but fail to do anything ourselves but make demands. There is this filter that black people (in general) see everything through. It's the filter of race, aided and abetted by the media, and the left. I asked m mother, last year, who she was voting for. Increduously, she looked at me and said "obama, of course". I then said, "but don't you like owning your own business?" My mom then spat out the standard liberal line--"It was George Bush that got us in this mess"...ARGHHHHH!!
I forgot to add that to the list of Obama's one-liners''"I inherited this mess".
Posted by: crystal at November 30, 2009 05:29 PM (KVSUW)
Blazer...nah.
AmishDude made me feel kinda funny @224...I liked it
Posted by: crystal at November 30, 2009 09:20 PM (KVSUW)
Hey Amish,....you slippin' the moronettes roofies again?
Posted by: Blazer at November 30, 2009 05:31 PM (+FzLa)
Posted by: Che Pizza at November 30, 2009 05:31 PM (4iIhs)
Posted by: Jek Porkins (rdb) at November 30, 2009 05:31 PM (q6dIH)
Posted by: Barney Frank at November 30, 2009 05:32 PM (DtTM9)
How much longer until some lower level global warming scientists start jumping ship to save their hides with the "We were lied to!" defense?
That's when things will start getting fun. Just like a bunch of mob bosses rolling over on each other.
Posted by: Dang at November 30, 2009 05:34 PM (UA4gE)
On very good authority it was a setup,
from an insider worried about being busted for FOIA crimes.
Posted by: Beto at November 30, 2009 05:34 PM (+CLh/)
Posted by: Che Pizza at November 30, 2009 05:35 PM (4iIhs)
Posted by: Blazer at November 30, 2009 09:31 PM (+FzLa)
That's a damnable lie and I deny all of it, unless you have copies of my emails.
Posted by: AmishDude at November 30, 2009 05:35 PM (T0NGe)
Posted by: Johnny I at November 30, 2009 05:35 PM (wRAyx)
Posted by: Che Pizza at November 30, 2009 05:37 PM (4iIhs)
Posted by: IllTemperedCur at November 30, 2009 05:37 PM (l1Wlr)
Posted by: IllTemperedCur at November 30, 2009 05:40 PM (l1Wlr)
Hacked emails: Obama's proto-fascist serve.gov ad with Obama catching a football in slow motion.
Posted by: AmishDude at November 30, 2009 05:41 PM (T0NGe)
Posted by: IllTemperedCur at November 30, 2009 05:41 PM (l1Wlr)
What I really should have said is...
Global Warming: ITC's claims of having a life
Hacked e-mails: The X:Y thing
Posted by: IllTemperedCur at November 30, 2009 05:45 PM (l1Wlr)
Posted by: Johnny I at November 30, 2009 05:46 PM (wRAyx)
Posted by: crystal at November 30, 2009 05:47 PM (KVSUW)
Posted by: RicardoVerde at November 30, 2009 05:47 PM (PBTsv)
Posted by: Che Pizza at November 30, 2009 05:50 PM (4iIhs)
I'm glad you saw the prison bars and left. I myself live behind enemy lines in the "Hawked all of our gold to pay for social programs" State. And to think we actually elected Reagan at one time. I've got to get going, have fun with the other morons.
BTW morons, I expect that you've taken notes on how to have a real conversation with someone you just met?
Posted by: MikeTheMoose at November 30, 2009 05:52 PM (0q2P7)
Ok here goes...
Global Warming: The Spice Channel
Hacked Emails: Jeanene Garafolo on The View (with Rosie O'Donnell hosting)
Posted by: crystal at November 30, 2009 05:54 PM (KVSUW)
209 Iowahawk
"McArdle's Climategate post was so retarded as to leave me doubting whether Andrew Sullivan was still the biggest fuckwit on the Atlantic's payroll. She kept referring to the EA-CRUT as their "model." Um, Megan? This word "model" you keep using? I don't think you know what this word means.
A statistical model works like this:
y = f(x, b, e)"
Dr. Wegman I presume?
http://tinyurl.com/ylge8ze
Posted by: riterong at November 30, 2009 05:54 PM (jWvfJ)
Posted by: IllTemperedCur at November 30, 2009 05:55 PM (l1Wlr)
I'm glad you saw the prison bars and left. I myself live behind enemy lines in the "Hawked all of our gold to pay for social programs" State. And to think we actually elected Reagan at one time. I've got to get going, have fun with the other morons.
California?
BTW morons, I expect that you've taken notes on how to have a real conversation with someone you just met?
I enjoyed it just as much
Posted by: MikeTheMoose at November 30, 2009 09:52 PM (0q2P7)
Posted by: crystal at November 30, 2009 05:56 PM (KVSUW)
Posted by: Che Pizza at November 30, 2009 05:57 PM (4iIhs)
McArdle's Climategate post was so retarded as to leave me doubting whether Andrew Sullivan was still the biggest fuckwit on the Atlantic's payroll.
Bigfoot, dude. She believes in Bigfoot.*
*My now-standard response to any pro-McArdle post. She sometimes says wise things, but also is on record for voting for Obama. This equates directly to an otherwise-sane person who devoutly believes in Bigfoot. It raises questions about her judgement. Ann Althouse is another Bigfoot believer.
Posted by: Monty at November 30, 2009 05:59 PM (sYaae)
Hack: "There's something about August going into September where everybody in Washington gets all wee-weed up."
Posted by: Che Pizza at November 30, 2009 09:57 PM (4iIhs)
Ha! I particuarly enjoy it when Obama's voice channels the old black southern baptist preacher. Almost as bad as when Hilary did it..."I ein't nah wayzz ti-urrrd"....
Posted by: crystal at November 30, 2009 06:00 PM (KVSUW)
Posted by: MikeTheMoose at November 30, 2009 09:52 PM (0q2P7)
Do you have any idea who you're talking to? We don't talk to real people.
We are internet people.
We are all handsome, beautiful, witty, brilliant, rich and accomplished.
Posted by: AmishDude at November 30, 2009 06:00 PM (T0NGe)
Posted by: Che Pizza at November 30, 2009 06:06 PM (4iIhs)
Do you have any idea who you're talking to? We don't talk to real people.
We are internet people.
We are all handsome, beautiful, witty, brilliant, rich and accomplished.
Posted by: AmishDude at November 30, 2009 10:00 PM (T0NGe)
Hear, hear.
Posted by: Roseanne Barr at November 30, 2009 06:06 PM (LKkE8)
Posted by: Che Pizza at November 30, 2009 06:17 PM (4iIhs)
Now that we're a few days down the road from Monbiot's statement, and more analysis has happened, and it looks like its not just going to blow over, Monbiot is starting to look more like a crapweasle than the pure broker of honesty and unicorns he professes to be.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at November 30, 2009 07:23 PM (sUghd)
http://tinyurl.com/yhpl8so
Just heard Climate Depot guy on WABC-am's new John Bachelor show (used to love his show; now he makes me cringe much of time, but I digress)..
Posted by: ParisParamus at November 30, 2009 07:30 PM (I2aaX)
Posted by: ms. docweasel at November 30, 2009 07:48 PM (kgwdA)
Posted by: Glenn at November 30, 2009 08:30 PM (GhO4J)
You hit it out of the park with this one.
Brilliant psychological analysis---I always benefit from your insights into how people really think and make decisions. This is the unpleasant reality we have to face up to if we want to have any hope of winning elections.
Posted by: Kathy from Kansas at November 30, 2009 11:27 PM (eBpsW)
Posted by: awnree at November 30, 2009 11:47 PM (ZNdcE)
Posted by: Son of a Pig and a Monkey at December 01, 2009 04:36 AM (RD17r)
Posted by: Tonawanda at December 01, 2009 06:33 AM (VKn7o)
Posted by: MAster Wu at April 14, 2010 07:26 AM (9mXpG)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.313 seconds, 438 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.








Posted by: mystry at November 30, 2009 03:15 PM (kmgIE)