Memeorandum


Powered by TypePad

« Here We Go Again | Main | Saturday Morning »

January 27, 2012

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451b2aa69e201630038d144970d

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Global Warming Calmism:

Comments

Clarice

It's long overdue.

Rick Ballard

I thought the propaganda was settled?

Janet

Here's a link to Michael Mann's climate emails. via Instapundit

Clarice

Darn, you're right once again, Rick.

NK

Been a weather/climate bug since my 1975 HS science project. Bottom line Temps are up a bit since the 1960s, temps way higher than the end of the Little Ice Age around 1880. So why? Who knows? CO2 is up, what does that mean? The AGW ALARMIST models DON'T show significant temp increases because of CO2; they MODEL those increases based on "POSITIVE FEEDBACKS" that they assume will result from minor CO2 temp increases. That's it- that's the whole AGW pitch-- it's assumptions and models based on those assumptions. We know how those types of assumptions worked for MBS risk models. Read the letter from real scientists and engineers who have tenure and aren't worried about thenext grant. They are giving the facts and the science. They are not looking for your tax dollars.

jimmyk

I applaud these scientists, but this was never really about science anyway, so unfortunately the impact will be limited.

I'm reminded of when the current head of Obama's Council of Economic Advisers Alan Kruger published a piece claiming that higher minimum wage had if anything a positive impact on employment. Subsequent research showed that his analysis was flawed, but politicians and other hacks still cite it.

Neo

As a dobbin with two US patents, I always remember the difference that was explained to me in Engineering School between "scientists" and "engineers" .. namely, engineers have to take economics.

Why anyone would entrust their economic future to a bunch of scientists is beyond me to begin with.

Ranger

Why anyone would entrust their economic future to a bunch of scientists is beyond me to begin with.

Well, tehcnically, the scientists are just providing the excuse for the socialists to take control of the economy.

jimmyk

That's right, Ranger. It's theater. Also supply and demand. If enough people (with resources) want something, "scientists" will provide it. However well intentioned, Keynes provided it in 1936 for politicians looking for excuses to increase the government's role in the economy.

Neo

And it is likely that more CO2 and the modest warming that may come with it will be an overall benefit to the planet.

Solar Cycle 25, which just begin, looks to be less energetic than the cycles during the Dalton Minimum of the early 1800's. The Dalton Minimum coincided with a period of lower-than-average global temperatures, about 2 degrees C lower.

Danube of Thought

Unexpected:

"Sales of new U.S. homes unexpectedly declined in December for the first time in four months, capping the slowest year on record for builders. Purchases of single-family properties decreased 2.2 percent to a 307,000 annual pace, figures from the Commerce Department showed today in Washington. "

Extraneus

Also from Insty:

Investors Business Daily: CNN Turns Blind Eye To Obama-Alinsky Ties

NK

Neo-- take it easy with the "solar minimum" stuff. Early solar cycle measurements overstated sloar activity, so it is debatable how low current measurement really are. There is no cause for alarmism either way. Most like scenario (according to Richard Lindzen @ MIT) is by the end of the 21st Century when CO2 concentration has dubled, mean temps will be 1 DegreeC higher than the end of the LIA and level there. That's a nice balmy temp in which to grow crops.

Sue

And here I was thrilled that the next ice age could be averted by pumping CO2 into the air. I'd much rather be warm than cold.

steve

AAARGH

Why didn't this come out before I traded in my perfectly fine SUV for a Volt that causes me constant worry that it's going to blow up?

And before I replaced all my perfectly good incandescent bulbs for the mercury bulbs I dread contaminating my neighborhood when I invariably will drop one?

And stopped eating inexpensive food in favor of the much more expensive 'locally grown' stuff that doesn't last three days before spoiling?

And got rid of my riding mower that doesn't cause my back to go out like when I push the ridiculously inefficient rotary mower?

And spent thousands of dollars on solar panels for my roof that won't pay for themselves until about 50 years after I die?

Oh that's right, I didn't do any of that stuff... because I figured this day was coming, when the curtain was finally pulled back and the global warming crowd was revealed to be the hyped up frauds they are.

Danube of Thought

So in the end, Al Gore is like Pee Wee Herman: made a lot of money making a fool of himself.

matt

I'm still feeling all tingly from that solar flare the other day.

As another of the Administration's bets on green energy gets flushed down the toilet in the past 24 hours I am still waiting with bated breath for the Times do do a deep investigative story that will garner all sorts of awards.

Oh yeah, wrong administration....

NK

OT-- the higher education bubble has burst!! 'Bam threatens colleges with price controls, State Us demand more taxpayer money. Blue v. Blue, I'll buy popcorn and watch. See link: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-27/obama-proposes-to-link-federal-u-s-college-aid-to-affordability.html

Captain Hate

Does it ever dawn on the mensas in the MFM that using "unexpected" to describe every bit of negative economic news for over 2 years doesn't enhance their ability to sell the global warming garbage?

Threadkiller

Speaking of solar flares, was there any relationship between the flareup and the unexpeted tornadoes?

Threadkiller

That was coincidental, CH.

Danube of Thought

I wonder about that all the time, CH. Can they possibly be unaware of how it appears?

Captain Hate

DoT, their lack of self awareness is pretty stunning. Either they don't recognize what they're doing or have such a low opinion of their readers that they believe they can print anything and it will be uncritically accepted. Or both. I think even Pravda was more adept than they are and, even then, nobody in the Soviet Union believed it.

Jim Ryan

Dang, there are three tea party candidates going against George Allen and all of them look solid: Jamie Radtke, Earl Jackson, and Tim Donner. Plus, Allen is fine, too. A real, healthy GOP primary down here!

Rick Ballard

CH,

The usage of 'unexpected' is absolutely correct as used by business journos who have been properly indoctrinated in Keynesian gibberish just as 'Where's the heat?' is the proper response from Lysenkoists chasing the Skydragon and 'What the hell are all the these gushers?' from well indoctrinated Peak Oilers.

I consider the usage to have a very high degree of utility. I know that when I see 'unexpected' wrt economic news there is no reason whatsoever to continue reading unless I feel like examining propaganda.

Sue

Has anyone seen Red Tails? I wanted to go see it tonight but I'm seeing really bad reviews.

centralcal

Remember those SOTU ratings (showing a decline year over year for Obama) well there is more:

And according to a new analysis of viewing patterns during the speech, interest was on the decline from the beginning. More than a quarter of the people who started watching on network television at 9 p.m. Eastern tuned out within the first five minutes — before the president even began speaking.

Kantar Media conducted a survey of 100,000 households and examined their behavior in the moments leading up to, during, and after the speech. It found that after 27 percent of network television viewers stopped watching in the first five minutes, many of them flipped the channel to TBS, USA and ESPN, which benefited the most from the drop off in the State of the Union audience.

The first 5 minutes is all I really watch too, mainly wanted to see how many SCt Justices attended this year.

Captain Hate

Good point, Rick.

Sue, there's no power on Earth that could make me see Red Tails.

peter

So in the end, Al Gore is like Pee Wee Herman: made a lot of money making a fool of himself.

Not to mention that whole chakra thing

Porchlight

I like Pee Wee Herman a whole lot more than Al Gore. He did quality work.

Frau Steingehirn

DoT - Pee Wee Herman made an honest living and worked hard to make people laugh. I'd shake *his* hand any day.

Meka Leka Hi Meka Hiney Ho!

centralcal

Clarice, whenever you are around today, be sure to check out Jeffrey Lord's AmSpec piece today exposing exactly what Elliot Abrams was up to with his headline grabbing critique of Newt. And Lord even is able to include a tie in to ABC News and an old vendetta against Newt.

Rush is all over it today on air and reading heavily from it.

NK

Red Tails-- anyone interested in the Tuskegee Airmen can read volumious histories about them in print and online. They were heroes on multiple levels. BUT NEVER EVER go see this Lucas movie, never ever see any movie that Lucas has a hand in. he's a smug greedy Leftwing #$@^%!

Captain Hate

I agree with Porch; Pee Wee was at least entertaining. Weird Al is just a boring loser who resorts to maudlin weeper family stories which are probably at least partially a crock for political advantage. Although when he puts that "earnest concerned" look on his fat mug it is kind of funny in a not-entertaining way.

Extraneus

In case anyone missed this...

Grandchildren of John Tyler, America’s 10th president, are still alive

The men, Lyon Gardiner Tyler Jr., born in 1924, and Harrison Ruffin Tyler, born in 1928, are the sons of Lyon Gardiner Tyler, one of President Tyler’s 15 children.

President Tyler was 63 when his son, Lyon Gardiner Tyler, was born, according to records obtained by FoxNews.com. And Lyon had his children even later; he was in his 70s when his sons were born. The boys’ mother, Sue Ruffin, was the second wife of Lyon Sr., who died in 1935.

Stephanie

Well Pee Wee and Gore both had their hands in the popcorn, and both popcorn buckets had a hole in the bottom. Too bad Pee Wee's is the only one who found a happy ending.

Jane

And according to a new analysis of viewing patterns during the speech, interest was on the decline from the beginning.


Some of us deserve medals.

Just saying....

Clarice

Thanks, cc.

Porchlight

Very OT,

JOM friends - my pals and I are participating in this contest tomorrow night:

http://www.austin360.com/recreation/geeks-who-drink-geek-bowl-is-an-austin-2125438.html

About 140 six-man teams are playing. Last year in Denver our team tied for 7th place, but the composition of this year's team is almost entirely different. The only two of us that played last year are myself and my conservative gal pal (and we'll probably be the only two righties in the room, or close to it).

The event starts at 7 pm Central. Any smart vibes you can send our way would be much appreciated.

Ignatz

--I'd shake *his* hand any day.--

Think I'd wear a surgical glove in either case.

Danube of Thought

From Pehokoukis:

Rick Ballard

"Some of us deserve medals."

With V for Valor insignia as well, Jane.

c-c,

It appears that Speaker Gingrich woke up to find a horse head in his bed. The exhumations of supporters for Governor Romney probably wasn't even necessary.

We've learned that Governor Romney can and will punch back strongly - once the puzzled expression leaves his face.

Neo

Next time somebody warns you of the dangers of carbon dioxide, ask them if they can cite the definitive peer-reviewed study that incontrovertibly ties man to current climate warming. Al Gore’s books and movies don’t qualify, neither do IPCC reports which are mostly put together by politicians.
This should be fun … because there is no such definitive peer-reviewed study.

centralcal

You surely do deserve a medal, Jane. I kept the station on, but lowered the volume and stopped watching, listening after he began to speak. There is probably another 25% (or greater?) who did that, too.

Porchlight

"Some of us deserve medals."

You sure do, Jane. And TK and daddy and others who liveblog so I don't have to watch.

Danube of Thought

Sorry that chart got cut off. It looked OK on Preview.

NK

RickB-- I too am happy to see Romeny was able to slap down that bellowing blowhard Newt, without even mussin' his hair or dirtying his manacure. I like that in a patrician candidate. I really do.

Neo

DoT: I noticed years ago that if you take a chart of the last 30 years of the Dow Industrials (^DJI) with a linear (not log) graph, you will notice that you can predict every bubble in the economy.

Jane

They announced during the debate that Romney has a new debate coach.

That pretty much explains things I think.

Danube of Thought

Twenty million more people watched Giants-Niners than the SOTU.

Barbara
"Some of us deserve medals."

You sure do, Jane. And TK and daddy and others who liveblog so I don't have to watch.

I agree, Porch. You all do such a great job, and it is very much appreciated.

Jane

Guys - thanks but I said that to be funny - cause I do it whether you ask or not. WE all cope in the best way we can And all this praise makes me nervous.

Jane

Did you guys read this?

It sets out all of Bambi's Alinsky ties - some of which I was unaware of.

Danube of Thought

"Newt Gingrich's nomination as the GOP presidential candidate would not only lock in an Obama victory in November, but would also keep the Senate in Democratic hands and make Nancy Pelosi speaker again, according to elections predictor Larry Sabato's UVa Crystal Ball team. Simply put, says Sabato, it would be a 'Newt-Mare.'"

Does anyone here seriously doubt that?

centralcal

I saw that piece early this morning, Jane. It reminded of the things Glenn Beck was really good at - making Obama connections on his blackboard to such folks as Alinsky, Soros, etc.

Jack is Back!

DoT,

Saw that chart and article at Business Insider and the first thought I had was "will the Obama regime hide the decline?"

There are hockey sticks and there are hockey sticks.

Porchlight

Grandchildren of John Tyler, America’s 10th president, are still alive

Wow, Extraneus. That is quite incredible.

Ignatz

--Does anyone here seriously doubt that?--

Yes.

Porchlight

Does anyone here seriously doubt that?

I don't see how anyone can know one way or another.

sbw

Porch, a low key comment, and precise. Thank you.

centralcal

Don't know, DoT. I think there are other problems in River City, too and so does Kimberly Strassel at the Wall Street Journal. Her close:

Mr. Romney isn't beating Mr. Gingrich in Florida on the arguments. He's barely eking ahead of a man whose own history and temperament are his hurdles to victory. Mr. Obama won't have that problem. If a Nominee Romney thinks he can win the White House with the sort of uninspired performance he put in this week, he's got a long 2012 ahead of him.
Captain Hate

Does anyone here seriously doubt that?

Yes

Jane

Does anyone here seriously doubt that?

I am increasingly worried about a Newt candidacy and other than the obvious (his anti-capitalism rhetoric, his bombastic and off-putting style) I'm not exactly sure why.

His unfavorable numbers are horrible so I'm also not clear on why so many here (all ABO-ers I know) are hoping for his nomination.

Do you guys think anyone can beat Obama? That's possible but at this point, hardly a lock.

Ignatz

--I don't see how anyone can know one way or another.--

No one can. However it seems unlikely the Senate or House will turn on whether Newt rather than Mitt is nominee. Barry almost certainly has no coattails and what is the compelling evidence Newt has such outsized reverse coattails?

Ignatz

--Do you guys think anyone can beat Obama?--

Wrong question.
I think Barry has already largely defeated himself.
The question should be;
Can anyone avoid screwing up the victory Obabma's trying to hand them?

Captain Hate

I'm with Iggy (obviously) and think the DNC has a major problem with how to spend their campaign dollars which are down considerably from their levels in 2008. 2010 has to have them scared out of their minds regarding the House and Senate. Newt personified the 1994 gains. I think we have way too many pundits who are competing with each other to come up with outlandish headlines.

Jane

Can anyone avoid screwing up the victory Obabma's trying to hand them?

Good point.

I wonder if there are more voters out there who refuse to vote for Newt than refuse to vote for Mitt. The unfavorables seem to suggest that, but who knows?

Clarice

I doubt Sabato,DoT. But then I doubted Abrams account yesterday before the AM Spec dug up the evidence to prove my suspicions.

centralcal

I agree Ignatz. I think whomever the nominee on our side is he will not impact down ticket races this election cycle.

Yes, Jane, I do think anyone can beat Obama. I am not "hoping" for any of them specifically - I have grave concerns about each of them. I also think the "electability" issue has been overplayed and is used to yank us around, make us fall into line by the Romney-ites.

Danube of Thought

A very large slice of the electorate sees Newt as a loathsome, repellent figure. If Independents and the Muddle see him as the GOP's standard-bearer, I believe the party will pay a terrible price.

centralcal

Golly, I don't think I knew this. But from the comments at L.I.:

The key, THE SALIENT fact about Elliot Abrams was left out by Jeff Lord, who probably knew full well what it was.

Elliot Abrams is married to JENNIFER RUBIN.


sbw

Gosh, there is a lot of hand-wringing going on. You couple those revolutions to a generator and windmills will be passé.

Captain Hate

At this time in 1980 Reagan was feared by everybody outside of California who had been exposed to him by media tools who presented him as a warmongering civil liberties destruction machine who was the candidate of Archie Bunker. Then a campaign happened with debates and speeches and a lot of people, including Democrats, figured they would be better off than with President Malaise.

Despite what Ann Coulter says, people aren't dumb and are capable of acting in their self interest when presented with two choices and one of the choices has provided 3+ years of misery and the other offers positive realistic change. And one of the candidates lied about what he'd do four years ago.

A Casual Observation

"Does anyone here seriously doubt that?"

Yes.

It doesn't effect or influence us one way or another.

Both of us have already voted for Newt, and what's more, after adding up the likely Romney supporters here and on two other blogs, we got fifteen of our friends (including four Democrats) to vote for Newt, too, to nullify your votes for Romney. How does that grab ya?

jimmyk

people aren't dumb and are capable of acting in their self interest when presented with two choices and one of the choices has provided 3+ years of misery

I agree. I wonder what Reagan's "negatives" were in 1979. I don't put that much stock in polls about positives and negatives, which are largely media-driven and soft concepts. Whether it's Newt or Romney or someone else, once they stop biting each others' backs and focus on the very soft target of BO, things are going to look up.

Extraneus

A very large slice of the electorate sees Newt as a loathsome, repellent figure.

Is that because he actually is, or because the Dem/media ghouls did a number on him? (Sure, he's abrasive, fat and ugly, but the ethics pile-on that pushed him out of office was just about equivalent to that of Sarah Palin's, coincidentally another vanquished demon of the right, who isn't abrasive, fat or ugly.) What's the solution if it's the latter? Don't put up a fight? Milquetoast for breakfast, lunch and dinner?

Captain Hate

By obsessing on this "electability" phantom (under which we would have had a President Dewey) you're letting unelected self-appointed "experts" make your choices for you. The purpose of the primaries is to let the people make the choices. That's why the tantrums of the "experts" when the voters don't do as they're supposed to do infuriate me.

Barbara
Does anyone here seriously doubt that?

It's a serious concern.

Gingrich is performing true to type. Early on in the debates, he learned that the audience loved it when he would stand up to the media and refuse to play the game by their biased format (e.g., Brian Williams silly questions in the debate he moderated). The more that he showed his outrage, the more that it revved up the audience. Gingrich saw that and as Emeril Lagasse would say, he kicked it up a notch.

That approach is justified and helpful when used judiciously. Employed on an almost constant basis, it loses its effect and can become tiring. There is just so much righteous indignation that can sustain a candidacy. As someone said on another thread last week, eventually people would get tired of his "schtick." It appears that that is beginning to happen.

Can he resurrect his campaign one more time? I hope not. It's the first time that I've agreed with Sabato in a decade, but if Gingrich were to be the nominee, it would be a "Newt-Mare" (see DoT quote at 1:25 pm).

Jane

the "electability" issue has been overplayed and is used to yank us around, make us fall into line by the Romney-ites.

I hope you are right. I was very pro-Newt until he went on his anti-capitalism rant, and you know how anti-Romney I've always been, so I wonder why it had a bigger impact on me than all the other Newt supporters here. The only people I would accuse of being anti-capitalism here are Casual Observer in her multi-iterations and the feather troll, so it clearly didn't bug the rest of you like it bugged me.

Once I moved away from the Gingrich aisle all his short-comings started jumping out at me like a sore thumb. Instead of looking strong he started to look pretty ugly.

Whether it's Newt or Romney or someone else, once they stop biting each others' backs and focus on the very soft target of BO, things are going to look up.

I so hope you are right.

OldTimer

OMG, centracal...no wonder.

Danube of Thought

"How does that grab ya?"

Not at all. Anecdotal evidence is a waste of time.

Danube of Thought

"Is that because he actually is, or because the Dem/media ghouls did a number on him?"

Makes no difference.

A Casual Observation

"La, la, la, la, I can't hear you." - Danube Of Thought

Jack is Back!

Newt's "anti-capitalist" rant was words.
Obama's "anti-capitalist sentiments" are actions.

Big difference. One guy is using rhetoric to win a primary.
The other guy is using his conditioning and philosophy to destroy a nation's economic spirit and success.

There is no choice in November no matter who wins the primary whether you like the alternative candidate or not. I have my chance on Monday or Tuesday to select who I think will do the best job but if it turns out to be someone else who faces Obama and DNC radical-socialist-entitlement state juggernaut then I am that person's biggest supporter.

Have faith. ABO

Captain Hate

Jane I'll be the first to admit Newt isn't a perfect candidate by any stretch. But he might be the best we have at articulating why the current path is wrong and presenting a positive alternative.

jimmyk

I wonder why it had a bigger impact on me than all the other Newt supporters here.

It had a big impact on me, as I posted here the other day when Newtmania seemed to be taking hold. But Romney has messed it up by taking a similarly low road, which is maybe even more devastating for him because one thing he has going for him is a sense of dignity. If Santorum weren't grievously flawed in his policy prescriptions I'd have flown to his camp. He seems to be the only one left with any dignity.

centralcal

Jane, I can't and won't argue with you about your feelings and/or decision making processes in choosing a candidate. I respect your opinions and your honesty in voicing them.

You have chosen Romney as your candidate. I haven't chosen one, although at times I have leaned a bit and then snapped back.

They ALL have flaws. They ALL have some virtues. They are ALL better than Obama.

Appalled

CH:

If Newt can articulate a steady course from one day to the next, he will not be the guy who served as speaker, or the guy who goes from triumphant to triumphalism, to whining within the space of a week.

jimmyk

They ALL have flaws. They ALL have some virtues. They are ALL better than Obama.

That pretty much sums it up, doesn't it?

I've been railing against the whole "electability" thing for the last year or more, so I'm with CH about that.

Porchlight

Romney is the safe choice. I don't know if he's the best choice.

We are cooling folks, for how long even kim doesn't know.

Ooh, I'm delinquent, negligent and retarded. Almost a hundred comments before I see it.

In response to a comment at Judy's that the Lysenko reference was a bit extreme I wrote: Yeah, what a pitiful analogy. Lysenko only bolluxed up biology in the USSR at relatively little social cost. Jones, Mann et al have bolluxed up climate science worldwide at huge social cost.

I particularly like the gradually spreading meme that CO2 and expected mild warming and much greening will be beneficial to us rather than harmful.
=========
========================

Captain Hate

I didn't say he was perfect, Appalled. He's not my idea of an ideal candidate but I'd hope that he could stay focused throughout a campaign.

Appalled

Jimmyk

It floors me that one of the prime complaints about Romney is that he will not be tough enough against Obama, but when Romney does show he can be harsh, folks complain he's being mean.

Being nice and ignoring the rich oppo research file on newt would hand newt Florida and the election. Mitt likes to win, and usually does so.

A Casual Observation

Not at all. Anecdotal evidence is a waste of time.

Posted by: Danube of Thought | January 27, 2012 at 02:08 PM

Maybe so. But the facts remain that your vote has been nullified, and, in effect, each of us got to vote ten times. Ah, c'est la vie.

MarkO

No.

I was swayed by many things, but the thought experiment in which I closed my eyes and attempted to imagine Newt and Calista as President and First Lady still lingers.

Jane

CC- I recoil at the thought of "choosing Romney". I'm much more anti-Newt than I am pro-Romney. I just wonder what I am missing.

Newt's "anti-capitalist" rant was words.
Obama's "anti-capitalist sentiments" are actions.

Big difference. One guy is using rhetoric to win a primary.

Actually that is not the sort of rhetoric that should win anything - and it certainly had the opposite effect on me. I do think Newt is whimsical. ANd if one day Calista came into the oval and convinced him Obamacare was right for America, he would have no problem going along with that. I do not see his conservative principles as the least bit principled.

I don't worry about Romney being whimsical. He may not be as radical as we want (altho I think he would be radical if he could see a path to economic success, e.g the Ryan plan). I see Newt running for power and Romney running for success. ANd I think these days we really really need some success.

Porchlight

Mitt likes to win, and usually does so.

Evidenced by one term as MA gov. He declined to run for a second term, knowing he would lose. Prior to that he lost to Teddy in 1994. Then he lost the primary in 2008. To me that doesn't add up to "usually."

Porchlight

Forgot to add - he's lost 2/3 primaries so far in 2012.

Appalled

Porchlight

I would add bain and the Utah Olympics to his wins. I would remember that newt made himself the least popular man in America by 1998.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Amazon





Traffic

Wilson/Plame