Screen Shot 2018-12-16 at 12.31.37 PM
Your host, PM 'Papa' Carpenter
Biden

***

  • ***

********


« Moody swings | Main | Jeb! attacks! … with Musac »

September 01, 2015

Comments

It's probably just as well that President Obama doesn't think like me and say: Fuck it, if they're going to call me a dictator, I may as well act like one.

The guy who named it was one of the first up there? I suppose that's true if you don't count the aboriginals as humans. I have traveled extensively through Ohio and I believe there are many high points in Ohio which may be named in honor of McKinley. There are many highway overpasses for example. Or the tallest ride at Cedar Point may do. Provided, of course they haven't already been renamed in honor of Ronald Reagan.

It's even better that Trump daily proclaims that a dictator is exactly what he will be.

It makes me laugh that NOBODY cares about calling Denali McKinley except some butthurt Ohioans. And once again Obama gives the butthurt folks an opportunity to display their pettiness.

I have no dog in the fight but I am just curious as to why 'Ol Big Ears' decided to change the name? Was it an electoral calculation that the Dems might lose the 'McKinley vote' but they would gain the 'aboriginal' vote?

Jest askin'?

Well David, according to some thinkers on the right, it is an example of Obama's greed to establish his legacy and is being done at the cost of sacrificing the very important sate of Ohio and the Democrats important political interests in securing the electoral votes of that state. And has nothing whatsoever to do with the desires of the people of Alaska, including their Republican senators. Both of whom were in favor of restoring the original name.

I think he did it for the fun of watching various Republicans and their pundits froth at the mouth.

Well, given that the residents of Alaska, Native and otherwise, refer to it as Denali, including that Superstar Sarah Palin, along with one of the Republican Senators from Alaska, Lisa Murkowski, it seemed the right thing to do.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8A8NaB9x8WM

As a conservative, that you would be puzzled by the Kenyan Ursurper's motives is to be expected.

Well, if was a political move to curry favor with Alaska at the expense of Ohio, it was a pretty dumb choice. So I'm just going to go with "because the Alaskan's wanted it that way and it was the right thing to do."

Et tu Sarah? Et tu?

Way to bury the lede, Milbank. The main point of Obama's trip is climate change, which gets no mentioned at all. The advertising department and boys on the 40th floor remain undisturbed.

A wee bit of background for the ignorant: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/cafe/mckinley-denali-history

Our host will doubtless be pleased to learn, as I was, that intestinal rumblings within the Republican fundraising class suggest that Mitt may rise again. Could this get any better? That would do it for me.

"The main point of Obama's trip is climate change, which gets no mentioned at all."

Of course not because there isn't any 'climate change' beyond the normal vagaries of our planetary system which operated a zillion eons before man came along with a box of matches!

If you believe that David then you must believe there is a way of knowing what those vagaries might be. What cycles, what randomness and what variance can occur. And if that is true then it must be possible to compare what is happening now to what has happened over those eons. This is a decidable proposition. You should have gone with "we can't possibly know what happened in the past". Otherwise you are provably wrong.

It's pretty risible that a Thatcherite would be proud of their ignorance of science.

Odd, isn't it, Peter, how little words mean a lot! Thus, you entire proposition, leaning as it does on the repeated word "if" collapses when leaned upon.

But you have already admitted your belief in that if and that we do know what is normal. And so do almost all the other nitwits who try to use the argument that all is normal. If we know what is normal then we can know what isn't. It provably isn't.

Give it up, Peter G, as Duff probably thinks that dendrochronology is a time-release shampoo that fights dandruff,

"It provably isn't."

So why don't you prove it?

And what is "normal" is that our climate changes, it always has done to greater extremes than anything Mankind has experienced, and thus the 'normal' appears to be 'chaotic'. So why do you insist that Man with his box of matches is the culprit for some ultra-mild warming that fizzled out about 20-odd years ago?

Also, I will be amused (if I live that long) to hear what you have to say about the very possible global cooling that is looming in the near future.

I'm leaving that to the people who specialize in those sciences. But if you want to debate the merits of the various temperature proxies that allow us to know what normal climate variance is then I am prepared to do so. I'm pretty good at following science. If your argument is that variation is both normal and not you have a problem. That ultra mild warming persisted for a very short time and then it got much much worse. Climactic trends are not measured in years or even decades.

Of one thing I am absolutely certain, no amount of science or knowledge will persuade the blind to see. Now fill me in, how can a sheep's bladder be used to predict earthquakes?
Oh, and The Day After Tomorrow was not a documentary. I'm guessing your reference to global cooling relates to the disruption of thermohaline currents in the oceans. And it is true that some computer models predict that massive disruptions of those currents, caused by global warming and the discharge of masses of fresh water into the Arctic basin could indeed precipitate a northern ice age. Boy won't we be lucky if we achieve that! That's a much better disaster.

It isn't "the merits of the various temperature proxies" that I doubt, it is the man-designed 'models' in the computers through which they are processed which leave me holding my nose! Mind you, most of the dendrochronology data, so beloved of 'DA', was turned into sawdust years ago by Stephen McIntyre.

However, Peter, you will be delighted to hear that I have never heard of "thermohaline currents". Hardly surprising in a man who, in his youth, failed 'O'-Level Maths, Physics and Chemistry - the exams Brit kids take around the age of 16. I came to this subject entirely neutral and read both sides. It took about a fortnight to suspect that the 'Warmers' were a cult not a scientific body. And none of them predicted the pause!

Well, David, your "authority" is now focusing in on Bradygate, a comedown for a mind so intelligent that it could make hash of the science of dendrochronology in one fell swoop, at least by your telling of it.

http://climateaudit.org/tag/brady/

As for your illiteracy in science being about that of a 13-year old, that is not surprising, but your cherishing of that illiteracy is something I find inexplicable.

As for the pause, that has been researched and explained:

Statistical analysis of average global temperatures between 1998 and 2013 shows that the slowdown in global warming during this period is consistent with natural variations in temperature, according to research. The study concludes that a natural cooling fluctuation during this period largely masked the warming effects of a continued increase in human-made emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/07/140721181805.htm

Read it, dear boy, even if you have to sound out some of the words aloud, like when you were younger.

Let me ease your mind then. As someone who did his graduate work in computer modeling on relatively simple non-linear systems I can assure you that most computer models are not worth the code they are written in. The shear joy one gets from constructing such a model that does not collapse often makes one overlook the model's deficiencies. Minute variations in data inputs can and do produce great variations in long term predictions. I never rely on computer models for anything but short term projections. They can do that. The aggregate of all the permutations in the various models are reasonably accurate over the short term. Say a hundred years or so. And those are uniformly not good.

Even though you're a master of precise technical concepts like "a zillion eons," I'll take the word of 97% of working climate scientists over whoever or whatever your divinations come from:

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Thank you, thank you, DA, you comment is priceless in so many ways.

First, do not 'do a Peter' and leap to conclusions. I do not 'cherish' my youthful idleness at the sciences, I bitterly regret them. The two things which today I would give up many other pleasure to correct, are my lack of understanding of mathematics, and of music. But there you go, we all make mistakes.

Now I want you to carefully re-read this clause from a sentence of yours:

"the slowdown in global warming during this period is consistent with natural variations in temperature".

That is simply too, too delicious! And then there is this:

"a natural cooling fluctuation during this period largely masked the warming effects of a continued increase in human-made emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases."

Oh please, no more, I'm hurting . . . but then Peter (not noted for his sense of humour) comes up with this:

"I can assure you that most computer models are not worth the code they are written in".

Oh my giddy Aunt, I can't take any more . . .

First, do not 'do a Peter' and leap to conclusions. I do not 'cherish' my youthful idleness at the sciences, I bitterly regret them. The two things which today I would give up many other pleasure to correct, are my lack of understanding of mathematics, and of music. But there you go, we all make mistakes.


Well, with the Internet at your disposal now, ignorance is no excuse.
-
And, had you read the article, you would've come across this in the opening paragraphs:

In a paper published this month in Geophysical Research Letters, Lovejoy concludes that a natural cooling fluctuation during this period largely masked the warming effects of a continued increase in human-made emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

The new study applies a statistical methodology developed by the McGill researcher in a previous paper, published in April in the journal Climate Dynamics. The earlier study -- which used pre-industrial temperature proxies to analyze historical climate patterns -- ruled out, with more than 99% certainty, the possibility that global warming in the industrial era is just a natural fluctuation in Earth's climate.

In his new paper, Lovejoy applies the same approach to the 15-year period after 1998, during which globally averaged temperatures remained high by historical standards, but were somewhat below most predictions generated by the complex computer models used by scientists to estimate the effects of greenhouse-gas emissions.

So he corrected the problem found in those complex computer models, which, as Peter G a stated, sometimes aren't worth the code they're written in.

Now, please tell me the mistakes in the article after you've read it, and before you start in on your third glass of Merlot.

Silly me, I've fallen for those merry hoaxters in the climate science community. I find the evidence for climate change to be compelling just like I find the evidence that a sixth great extinction is underway to be compelling. I'm also chump enough to believe evolution is a fact that explains all life on earth. I'm clearly too far off the deep end to accept any truth you have for me.

I won't bore you with any evidence for my crazy conspiracy theories and you leave me to my delusions. Fair?

So, Prof. Lovejoy, pray tell me this, when did you *predict* or even *warn of the possibility* of "a natural cooling fluctuation"? Not 'til *after* the event, I see! Tut, tut, and so please do tell us why we should bother reading another word of your climate predictions instead of just shouting something like, "Show us your willy" the next time you come up with some wheeze.

Incidentally, during this 20-year+/- period do you realise - SHLOCK-HORROR! - that CO2 emissions have gone up and up and up? It's the end of the world, I tell you, er, well, apart from those pesky "natural fluctuations" and those gimcrack computer models - which is where I came in - so I will raise my hat and depart making sure the nurse/warder locks the doors after me!

Read the article instead of babbling about it like an ignoramus, David,

You quoted more than enough, DA.

"Don't confuse me with the facts, DA."

Isn't that what you really meant to say? You can't even define what the term dew point means, but you're confident that you know more about climate change than people who did better on their O levels in science and make a living from it.

I now find that I withdrawal the earlier charge of pig ignorance.

Comparing them to you is really unfair, and I nearby apologize to all members of the species Sus domesticus for doing so.

Hearby for nearby.

The comments to this entry are closed.