Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

State of the Union Thread


sacase

Recommended Posts

So, we've moved from "it's not happening", to "well, there's no agreement were doing if", to "yeah, it's happening, and we're doing it, but I want to jeep right on doing it, anyway"?

 

You tell me....start with what 'it' is

Is 'it' humans are the factor....a factor...if we hold our breath will it impact 'it'?

 

is 'it' temperature change?

 

Is 'it' good?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Enjoying watching people try to nail the twa jello to the tree for the 9864th time.  Good luck with that.

 

I now decide whether I want to post in a thread or not based on how long it takes me to scroll through twa's one line answers to paragraph long posts directed at him.

 

My complaint about the State of the Union is simple: Obama kept saying "Congress" when he really should be saying "The Republicans in Congress" or the "Tea Party Activisits Who Have Hijacked the Congressional Republicans."

 

Obama's desire to remain above the fray bothers me sometimes. He doesn't enjoy down and dirty politics the way truly effective Democrats (Clinton, Johnson, FDR) always did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"answers?"   Is that word you intended to use?

 

Improve the questions and ya get better 'answers'.

if ya have to write a paragraph to get around to one it is certainly not my fault  :P

 

sometimes the journey is more fun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These are some reasons I don't believe in man-made global warming:

 

Impass on Climate Change

 

Collaboration between EPA and "Environmental" Movement

 

and some great stuff here:

 

The Hockey Schtick

 

"In that light, consider the findings of a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change. Of 117 global warming predictions generated by climate-model simulations, all but three “significantly” overestimated the actual amount of warming that occurred during the past 20 years. The models typically forecast that global surface temperature would rise by more than twice as much as it did."

 

there is no consesnsus whatsoever on the magnitude of change.  Everysingle person (with some acceptable scientific margin for error) on the planet agrees that this is difficult to model, calculate or predict.  Every single person on the planet also agree that natural conditions like solar cycles et all are also very importan both in terms of short term fluctuations and long term trends.   there is by no means a consensus amongst those 97% on neither specific predicitons nor waht specific model should be best.  Furthermore there is NO "shrilly intolerant" disregarding of people that disagree on models nor specific predictions (or at least no more than in every single other research field, which are ALL filled with lab rats with relativley low people skills :) )

 

and yet there IS a consensus amongst teh 97% of scientists, to reject the null hypotheses:  there is no impact on global temperature from human activity 

 

 

what DOES ilicit a shrill response is the CONSTANTLY REPEATED ass-stupid logic used in those three links---- to reject the rejection of a null hypothesis because of a specific model prediction, with an apparent complete lack of even a clue about the conceptual existence of confidence intervals or probability.

 

 

 

 

lets put it in different terms.   If you ask 100 "basketball experts" to predict who is going to score more points over the next 10 games, Kevin Durant or Reggie Evans, I am confident that at least 97% of them will predict that Kevin Durant will score more points.  And yet, if you also ask them to predict how many points KD and RE will score in each of those games... ALL of them will be wrong.  

 

and yet...somehow.. miraculously... that fails to invalidate the strength of the predicition "Kevin Durant will score more points than Reggie Evans".  Amazing.  

 

Yet the EXACT equivelent logic from the hockey stick link would be.... Science and statistics are sooooo stupid, they can't even predict who will score more points, because all of those "so called experts" were unable to predict how many points KD and RE would score.  Morons.

 

 

 

I would add that pointing out the failure to grasp this simple basic fundemental elementary logic.... is not shrill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rep. Weber: Obama Is A Socialistic Dictator

January 28, 2014

Prior to President Obama’s State of the Union address, U.S. House Rep. Randy Weber (R-Tx.) tweeted that Obama is a “socialistic dictator.”

Weber succeeded Ron Paul as the representative of Texas’ 14th congressional district in 2013.

Earlier, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tx.) wrote a op/ed published by the Wall Street Journal in which he called Obama out for his imperial presidency.

“The president’s taste for unilateral action to circumvent Congress should concern every citizen, regardless of party or ideology,” he wrote. “The great 18th-century political philosopher Montesquieu observed: ‘There can be no liberty where the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or body of magistrates.’”

“America’s Founding Fathers took this warning to heart, and we should too.”

 

This just in... Randy Webber is moron.

 

1506292_595868560488512_957399325_o.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

and pointed out he is on pace to pass W the Dictator :rolleyes: ,even before his pen and phone line

 

:lol: 

 

 

Not sure how to break this to you but signing statements are NOT executive orders. 

 

List of President Obama's Signing Statements -

 

And he has not come close to Bush's use of them.

 

List of Presidential Signing Statements Issued by George W. Bush

 

And he has not used them as a form of veto.

 

Presidential Signing Statements

 

 

Q:  What kind of claims does Bush make in his signing statements that has people upset?

A:  In one frequently used phrase, George W. Bush has routinely asserted that he will not act contrary to the constitutional provisions that direct the president to “supervise the unitary executive branch.”  This formulation can be found first in a signing statement of Ronald Reagan, and it was repeated several times by George H. W. Bush.  Basically, Bush asserts that Congress cannot pass a law that undercuts the constitutionally granted authorities of the President. 

Q:  How can I quickly locate a lot of the controversial signing statements?

A:  In our search function for all presidential papers, search on:  “my constitutional authority” OR “unitary executive”.  This will return about 250 documents.  Most of them, from Ronald Reagan to the present are signing statements—but there are several veto messages sprinkled among them.

Q:  Didn’t the American Bar Association declare that Bush’s use of signing statements was unconstitutional?

A:  In July 2006, an ABA “Blue Ribbon Task Force”—not “The ABA”—found that these presidential assertions of constitutional authority “undermine the rule of law and our constitutional system of separation of powers.”  The report of the bipartisan commission, which relied on the American Presidency Project database, can be found here: http://www.abanet.org/media/docs/signstatereport.pdf

 

So in short, congratulations... Nothing you said has any relevance to this argument, nor does it prove Obama is abusing presidential power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you betting your money on these projected points or mine?...I'm more liberal with yours

You know how you can be driving and think you hear a bearing going bad.  Maybe you don't want to bet money on checking it out, or maybe you don't feel like taking the time to perform maintainence because it might not matter.  You might be right, or you (or the next owner) might be dealing with a much bigger problem down the road.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know how you can be driving and think you hear a bearing going bad  Maybe you don't want to bet money on checking it out, or maybe you don't feel like taking the time to perform maintainence because it might not matter.  You might be right, or you (or the next owner) might be dealing with a much bigger problem down the road.

 

I'm fine with checking it out, not so fine with replacing the bearings when it was the brake shoe because the mechanic makes more off a bearing.....and knows you will be back for the brakes

 

a new set of tires doesn't help either 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know how to break this to you, that list does not look like zer0 

 

nor do I recall W saying he would not use them

 

I like presidential powers .....got more cartoons?

 

I see you are continuing your path of self imposed ignorance. 

 

 

I like presidential powers .....got more cartoons?

 

Good. Glad you support Obama. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When he does something I approve of certainly.

 

speaking of ignorance .....was DACA a end run around congress in your view?

 

Not familiar enough to comment. What does it have to do with Randy Webber being a moron for calling Obama a socialist dictator?

 

Also waiting for you to show me how Obama "is on pace to pass W the Dictator".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not familiar enough to comment. What does it have to do with Randy Webber being a moron for calling Obama a socialist dictator?

 

Also waiting for you to show me how Obama "is on pace to pass W the Dictator".

 

Not aware that I replied to the Weber nonsense,I did reply to the number of EO's

 

168 already with how long left to go to reach W's 8 yr total of 291?.....and he claims to be just hitting his stride.

 

but maybe he will change his mind again 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not aware that I replied to the Weber nonsense,I did reply to the number of EO's

 

168 already with how long left to go to reach W's 8 yr total of 291?.....and he claims to be just hitting his stride.

 

but maybe he will change his mind again 

 

You see, because if Obama does 292, then he magically transforms into a dictator.  Or something.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Hockey Schtick

 

"In that light, consider the findings of a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change. Of 117 global warming predictions generated by climate-model simulations, all but three “significantly” overestimated the actual amount of warming that occurred during the past 20 years. The models typically forecast that global surface temperature would rise by more than twice as much as it did."

 

I'll actually respond to science and leave the socioeconomic/political/conspiracy theory stuff alone.

 

1.  I have a pretty long history posting here on climate science, and one of the things I've said for a long time (before people started talking about a "pause") is that I'm sure at some point in time the climate models will be wrong.  From a real basic physical chemistry prespective, the relationship between concentration and activity is not well behaved or a relationship that can be predicted without observation and that then affects interactions betweene things.

 

Until somebody shows that CO2 isn't a green house gas (e.g. the energy might not go to increases in surface heat, but the energy is going to have an effect-increased clouds, increased deep ocean temperatures, somewhere) and it doesn't affect the ocean pH, you are going to change the system.

 

If global climate models are actually no longer predicting the global climate (and I will address that point below), that doesn't comfort me a whole lot because that only means we don't know what is going on and while it might be something "good" that's not how changes in the environment tend to affect evolutionary systems, and if we don't understand what is happening we can't predict what is going to happen and mitigation essentially became impossible.

 

2.  The important thing you have to understand is that global climate models don't predict regional climate.  In general, global climate models don't do a good job of predicting climate on even large areas.  Even something like the continental US, and you generally don't see it used to do that in the published literature (I know some state agencies have done that and then put out reports, but also the ones that I've seen have admitted what they are doing is dubious).  And while I'll admit that isn't ideal, in terms of a global scale it doesn't mean your model is bad.  Ideally, a global model would also predict locally as well, but a model can be a good global model and be a bad local model, which is what we currently have.

 

The other thing you have to know is as the world has become come more connected and more dependent on satelites for weather information, the number of actual thermometers that make up the global temperature have become fewer (in climate science this is called station dropout and has been a big issue in terms of measuring the global temperature as a function of time).  From my perspective, this isn't such a big deal because today and in the time frame the paper your article cites have worked with, we have measured the global temperature using satelite data.  In addition, the existing stations have biases based on location.  There aren't many stations measuring temperatures in the Arctic.

 

So then the paper your article cites has taken the local temperatures measured by the stations and asked how do they match up with what the global climate model predictions for the location where the station is.  The local temperatures do cover large parts of the world, but in a biased manner, but in the end, each individual measurement is a local measurement.  Your asking on a local global scale, how good are the global climate models.  They aren't good.

 

That isn't ideal, and it is an area where the global climate models need to improve, but that doesn't mean they are bad global climate models.

 

Now, do we have reason to believe that the paper you've cited might be over estimating how bad the global climate models are?

 

YES!

 

Because there are 3 organization now that generate a global temperature based on surface based thermemters, and two that generate global temperatures based on satelite data, and of the 5 data sets, the one used in that paper has the lowest temperature.

 

It also is extremely lacking in thermometers in the Arctic.  The satelite data shows that the Arctic is warming faster than the rest of the world (and that actually is a prediction made by the global climate models).

 

So if you compared the global climate models to something that actually measures the global temperature (i.e. satelites), what you see is that the global climate models do pretty well (in terms of temperatures, most do currently overestimate, but not as much as the paper you cite states and in terms of some other things (changes in precipitation and sea ice) they under estimate the changes).

 

So while I'm pretty sure that at some point in time the global climate models will fail simply because the changes in the system are going to be come to far from the conditions under which most of the observations they are based on to be relevant, I don't think we are there (and I think that's actually pretty good news).

 

These people actually do a pretty good run down of how many of the models (including Hansen's 1988 model where a lot the attention started do as compared) to observations:

 

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/02/2012-updates-to-model-observation-comparions/

 

From my perspective, it is completely possible that global climate models are signficantly over predicting one place that the energy might be going (e.g. surface temps) and under predicting another (e.g. arctic sea ice).

 

I don't find a whole lot consolation in that because that only means that mitigation is that much harder to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You see, because if Obama does 292, then he magically transforms into a dictator.  Or something.  

 

A socialist dictator obviously :lol: .....or was it his executive actions that already did that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not aware that I replied to the Weber nonsense,I did reply to the number of EO's

 

168 already with how long left to go to reach W's 8 yr total of 291?.....and he claims to be just hitting his stride.

 

but maybe he will change his mind again 

 

Let me know when he passes Dictator Reagan's 381.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...