Obama Pushes People To The Right
by Big Dog on Jul 7, 2009 at 05:51 Political
Obama enjoys amazing popularity and despite all the wrong turns he enjoys a high approval rating. He is a personable man and can be quite engaging particularly for the mind numbed people who listen to the words but don’t understand what they mean. In other words, typical Obama followers.
Though I might add that some people give him high marks even as they are beginning to worry more about him each day. The NYT released an article about his radical Columbia days and the White House press corps has begun to zap him with stinging questions while Press Secretary Gibbs is beaten to death on a daily basis. The natives are getting restless.
Yes, they are restless because Obama promised them change and everything he has done has not lived up to the promises he and VP Biden made. It now seems that they are admitting, on a weekly basis, that they were wrong about one thing or another. Obama likes to say things over and over so that they become believed but now it looks like fewer folks are relating to his philosophy even as they give him high approval ratings. My friend Don Surber reports on a recent Gallup Poll and more people are moving to the right since the election.
Gallup: 39% say they have grown more conservative since Election Day.
Another 18% say they are more liberal.
But wait. There’s more.
Among independents, 37% said they are more conservative now that President Obama is actually president, while 19% say more liberal.
Among Democrats, 34% say they are growing more conservative under President Obama, while 23% say they are more liberal.
Among other findings, 52% now say the government has too much power, versus 42% just 5 years ago.
It would appear as if people are seeing through the magic of Hope and Change and realizing the radical path Obama has set for the country and they do not like it. More than half say the government has too much power (and Obama is reaching for more with health care and cap and trade) and 34% of Democrats claim to be more conservative since Obama took office.
These are amazing numbers and if this trend continues 2010 will be a good year for Republicans, provided we can field good, conservative candidates. If this keeps up we might be able to gain some seats in the House (regaining it would be tough) and we might have a shot at the Senate. I would like to get back enough seats to keep the filibuster but I also want to see John McCain and and a few other RINOs sent packing. We need new young talent (and I am not opposed to new young Democrats so long as they come with new ideas) so that we can get rid of the establishment politicians.
Obama might be helping with that and if he keeps it up he will do for us what Jimmy Carter did. Carter gave us Reagan. If we can field a true conservative Obama will be a one term wonder and give us a great replacement.
The trends are going our way but it is still early. Looks good for Fox though. Their viewership is up 33% since the election. People are wising up and looking for fair and balanced, not moronic one sided rants by the likes of Olberman.
Reality is setting in and though Obama still has the luster and there are people who just want to give him a little longer (give him a chance) he is pushing people to the right. He is out of his league and it shows.
Or as Surber puts it:
“Last year, he was change and hope. This year, he is reality.”
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: Conservatives, don surber, gallup, hope and change, Obama, polls
You mean: one-term blunder. 8)
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/07/06/stupidest-house-resolution-ever/
“People are wising up……”
I think people need to start wising up faster or else this country is lost.
Perhaps, as with Carter, they will wise up after about a year, and we can begin getting some decent representation in there- some people with some spine, rather than these invertebrates.
This is just a suggestion for you Blake and Big Dog because we do need to start taking this country back again and that is that the left wing nuts who come on here have to say things in 3 or 4 sentences or less and that is has to be something more substantive than you are stupid and ignorant and here is my latest quote from a left wing blog to prove it.
VIC: “the left wing nuts who come on here have to say things in 3 or 4 sentences or less…>>
DAR
It is entirely to Bigdog’s credit that he does allow substantive dissent and rebuttal and does *not* censor comments as you suggest he should.
With regard to my input, I will be leaving shortly for a month vacation so you may be able to return to your comfortable regularly scheduled programming which apparently consists of “high-fives,” backslapping soundbites and “dittos.”
D.
When I have to scroll and scroll to just get to the bottom of comments–I don’t even bother and it is not necessarily substantive and neither is “you are an idiot because you posted this.” I knew you would call it censor and I believe censor is not allowing you on here at all to spew. I am just saying when people are part of the problem and not part of the solution…….
How do you know that they’re not substantive if you don’t even bother to read the long comments? Did it ever occur to you that the long comments are long because they contain substantive material?
Doesn’t it seem strange that Big Dog or Blake can post very long articles that might be full of multiple items that each need explaining, yet you want us to be limited to three or four sentences? And that you’ll read those longer articles but you won’t read responses to them? Take a look at this one. It’s an extremely long article with multiple parts, and just one part spawned extensive, substantive discussion. Could I have explained those details of the science in four sentences?
Censoring is not all versus nothing. For example: I think that your definition of “censor” as not allowing [us] on here at all is @#%$ing stupid. I also think that your idea of limited commenting is dumb as *&@%.
Muffling opposing opinions because you’re too lazy/afraid/xenophobic/indoctrinated — whichever one(s) it may be — to read them is unacceptable.
Why don’t we see any outrage from you at Blake’s or “In On It Not”‘s behavior, victoria? Blake said that he wants to slap me and that he’d probably shoot me. In On It said he would shoot me just on principle. I’m pretty sure that neither Darrel nor I have threatened bodily harm to anyone here. Blake hurls insults more often than he posts something substantive in comments, but you’re not asking for him to be limited. Why not, victoria?
Actually, no, I do not hurl insults as often as you- you call either me or Dog “idiots” at least once a post- comment, and ti gets really tiring, hence the slap comment- I am a fairly direct person, and that is my response should someone be foolish to call me a liar as often as you have.
Besides, with your e- mail addy that is, what- bogus@fakelie- what else should we expect?
Sav- If, after reading interminable BS, complete with circular logic, for months on end, I think we can all distill you down to just the insults, and disregard you as easily as used grease.
BLAKE
Actually, no, I do not hurl insults as often as you-
SAV
Prove it.
BLAKE
you call either me or Dog “idiots” at least once a post-
SAV
Lie. I sometimes call you an idiot when your remarks are idiotic — certainly not every time, and certainly not every post.
How many times have I called Dog an idiot? Provide links.
BLAKE
I am a fairly direct person,
SAV
If that were true, you’d address a topical point all the time.
BLAKE
Besides, with your e- mail addy that is, what- bogus@fakelie- what else should we expect?
SAV
Gee, Blake, I’ve been threatened with injury, and you’re wondering why I use a fake email address? Why are you poking around at it anyway? Looks like I’m the one getting under your skin.
BLAKE
after reading interminable BS, complete with circular logic, for months on end, I think we can all distill you down to just the insults, and disregard you as easily as used grease.
SAV
You’ve disregarded what I’ve been saying since I started posting here, Blake, based only on the fact that you don’t like what I say. You haven’t once exposed any BS or circular logic, you just hand-wave my posts away. The only time you’ve made even a half-assed attempt is discussing sheep evolution, and that’s not going well for you.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NDE3MmE5MDVmMGM1YjQ2NmVhMjJkN2I2ZTcxMzhlNjU=
This is why I said what I did in my last comment and it is so true.
Barry is creating an angry class of people who will soon have nothing to lose, and they want their Country back.
Why don’t we see any outrage from you at Blake’s or “In On It Not”’s behavior, victoria?
Because this is Big Dogs site and Blakes a contributing writer. They get to write what they want. Besides I agree with most of it including sometimes when they threaten bodily harm to people like you and Darrel because of what has been going on in this country and you have the nerve to come on here and defend it.
Besides here is your three sentences for you–“Big Dog (or any other name)your stupid and you don’t know what you are talking about in that post. I think Obama, or Harry or anyother name in congress or the senate is doing an absolutely wonderful job. I can’t wait to pay more in taxes on just about everything and have my life totally regulated by the government. I would also love to wear a burka(sp) and learn Arabic.
VIC
Besides here is [sic] your three sentences for you..
SAV
Actually, there are four there. But hey, since you get to put words in my mouth, I’ll put some in yours. The difference will be that I’ll base my translations on what you’ve actually said, as opposed to the xenophobic hatred you embody so well.
VIC
Because this is Big Dogs site and Blakes a contributing writer. They get to write what they want.
NEOCON TRANSLATOR
“They’re allowed to be abusive because they’re in power.”
SAV
This explains why you guys loved the Bush administration.
VIC
Besides I agree with most of it
NEOCON TRANSLATOR
“But if Democrats were in charge of the site, they wouldn’t be allowed to do it.”
SAV
You’re a hypocrite.
VIC
including sometimes when they threaten bodily harm to people like you and Darrel
NEOCON TRANSLATOR
“I support Blake’s and IOIN’s threats of injury.”
SAV
You should be proud.
VIC
because of what has been going on in this country and you have the nerve to come on here and defend it.
NEOCON TRANSLATOR
“How dare you disagree with us? My hatred is justified.”
SAV
But you’re not refuting our points. Neither is Blake. Not even Big Dog fares too well when Darrel or I call him on something.
The fact is that you can blame people like Darrel and me, but the vast majority of the problems facing the country right now were put into play by the people who share your opinions, not oppose them.
VIC
Because this is Big Dogs site and Blakes a contributing writer. They get to write what they want.
NEOCON TRANSLATOR
“They’re allowed to be abusive because they’re in power.”
No, Big Dog can do what he wants because he pays the bill. There are no First Amendment rights here because they do not apply. I allow people to comment out of my own generosity and sense of fairness. I only moderate two people and they are both absolute morons.
I fare quite well. When one discounts the links to obviously biased sources then all we have is your opinion.
Certainly you and Darrel make valid points about many items but those do not discount the valid points of others.
Personally I would like to see everyone cease with the insults directed at individual here and just debate. We all have our strengths and weaknesses and all deserve a little civility.
DOG
When one discounts the links to obviously biased sources then all we have is your opinion.
SAV
I think you have a skewed idea of what “bias” is. You suspected that my identifying CBN (actually, misidentifying CBC, but stick with my point here) as an non-credible source of science information is bias. Perhaps that qualifies as “bias” in the sense of increased tendency to reject, but it’s “bias” that is well-placed based on experience: When CBN says something about evolution, it’s a good bet that the statement is incorrect. Darrel showed the same thing with many of your GW claims, whether it was global cooling, temperatures “declining” since 1998, or a lack of sufficient information.
DOG
Certainly you and Darrel make valid points about many items but those do not discount the valid points of others.
SAV
Such statements rest upon what constitutes a “valid point.” It’s a “valid point” that the colloquial use of the word theory is more at “guess,” but that’s irrelevant to the definition of scientific theory or to how scientists use the word. For questions of science, the NAS is not a “biased source” so much as they are an authoritative source.
Stamping your foot and shouting, “Wull, the jury is still out!!!1!!one” when the jury was in 150 years ago is certainly an opinion, but it’s not a valid point, and it certainly doesn’t discount the slew of evidence that brought the jury back in the first place.
The problem here is that you feel that you alone are the arbiter of what constitutes a “valid opinion”, which, if I am correct, presents only one side of the argument- you have a position, which is many times counter to our positions- this does not discount our positions’ validity or relevance to the discussion.
In fact, there would be NO discussion without us, so you should thank us for giving you a chance to be overly verbose.
We may agree, we may not- but a one sided discussion is but a soliloquy.
Bigd: “When one discounts the links to obviously biased sources then all we have is your opinion.”>>
DAR
But this is a fallacy, the Genetic Fallacy. Truth is independent of it’s source. To rectify this problem I told you, and I will make the offer again, if I make or cite a claim that you can’t believe because of it’s source, simply ask and I will back it up with another source. I don’t make claims I can’t back up and I don’t rely upon any single source.
For example, when you hand waved away the scientific NY Times/CBS News Poll showing a strong majority support for a “public option” I provided you *seven additional* mainstream scientific polls.
BIGD: Personally I would like to see everyone cease with the insults directed at individual here and just debate.>>
DAR
I agree.
D.
I never said a theory was a guess. I said it was not proof of something. I know how it is used in science and I know that there are even disputes as to how it is used in science among different disciplines.
I never said global temperatures were cooling since 1998. I said that the temperature in the US has been declining since then. That is a big difference. You guys keep inferring things that were not said and then dispute what you inferred instead of what was stated.
There are many climate scientists who have a different opinion. With the varying opinions I think more study is needed before we spend untold amounts of money. The Earth was going to be in an ice age only 30 years ago. Now it is going to melt.
The temps have fluctuated for all of history in cycles.
It is used to explain that which is observed. It is not proof of something.
I said bias because you assumed it came from the Christian network rather than the Canadian, not because it is not credible for science but because you assumed that I had used it as the source. You assumed because I am Christian I used that as a source.
DOG
I never said a theory was a guess.
SAV
You denied that something labeled a “scientific theory” was extremely well-established, tantamount to a fact.
DOG
I know that there are even disputes as to how it is used in science among different disciplines.
SAV
I find this intriguing. Please direct me to a source where I can read about scientific disciplines (or significant portions of scientists therein) that argue that “theory” should be used differently, or that different names should be used, or whatever this issue may be.
DOG
I never said global temperatures were cooling since 1998. I said that the temperature in the US has been declining since then. That is a big difference.
SAV
Guh. Have a seat for a moment.
Global temperatures have been decreasing since 1998 (well, until 2005, it seems). But that’s not even the issue here, and I’ve already pounded you over the head with multiple analogies. The thing is, I really don’t think you lack the brains to understand why this factoid doesn’t mean anything. So, I’ll ask the question straight up: Are you failing to grasp why a local maxima in 1998 does nothing to weaken the argument that global warming is taking place, or the argument that it is largely artificially induced?
DOG
There are many climate scientists who have a different opinion. …. The Earth was going to be in an ice age only 30 years ago.
SAV
My patience has run out. How absolutely blind to reason must you be to use both of these claims and not notice the hypocrisy? “Global cooling” had negligible support in the scientific community. Darrel dealt with this. You’re citing this idea presented by a popular magazine (but virtually no scientists) as an example of something worthy of ridicule, then you turn around and say that scientifically illiterate boobs (but virtually no scientists) show that there’s uncertainty. First you make fun of a virtually non-existent scientific minority, then you elevate and cherish a virtually non-existent scientific minority. That’s folly. That’s hypocritical. That’s insanity.
I’ve been giving you a lot more credit than I give Blake. It appears that I’ve been giving you too much.
DOG
You assumed because I am Christian I used that as a source.
SAV
What the hell, Dog? Your religion didn’t even cross my mind. I saw CBC and thought CBN — and I thought it after seeing “CBC” but before seeing the excerpt — probably because I’m more familiar with CBN than CBC. There’s nothing else to it. There were no assumptions; and my mistake had nothing to do with you — as I said, I had been giving you credit. But this is just absurd.
Bigd: “I never said global temperatures were cooling since 1998. I said that the temperature in the US has been declining since then.>>
DAR
Here is what you posted on June 22:
“All of the major temperature records show that the earth’s average temperature has been falling for ten years now…”>>
http://www.onebigdog.net/epa-comment-period-on-co2-ends-today/
My response at the time:
“This is terribly misleading and based upon the utterly transparent trick of cherry picking the anomalous hot year of 1998. It’s really shameless, yet I see it all the time.
Note: “And 11 of the last 12 years rank among the warmest since record keeping began in 1850.”
Scientific American, 11/07
***
DAR (new)
But the larger howler I thought was this one, which you still haven’t acknowledged:
“The hottest period was in the early part of the last century, not recently.” –Bigd
That was approximately June 29.
My response at the time was:
“How can you say something so foolish and clearly false? Where on earth do you get such bogus information?
Bigd, look at this standard, uncontroversial chart, and then tell me that “the hottest period was in the early part of the last century.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png
D.
You claim that 1998 was an “anomalous” year, because it was unduly hot and what?- skewed results?
Weather is anomalous in and of itself, because what climate does is change- Duh!
We had a discussion about evolution/ adaption, where 24 years was bandied about as a time period for that discussion, but can you truly base your observations on a 11 to 12 year period with ANY accuracy? I think not.
BLAKE
You claim that 1998 was an “anomalous” year, because it was unduly hot and what?- skewed results?
SAV
That’s not the claim at all. It’s clear that you don’t understand the folly of referring to extrema without referencing absolute values.
BLAKE
but can you truly base your observations on a 11 to 12 year period with ANY accuracy? I think not.
SAV
You didn’t bother to follow the link that Darrel posted, did you Blake? It has data going back for much, much longer than 12 or even 24 years. But that’s actually beside the point: the fact that 1998 was 11 years ago doesn’t change the fact that the “argument from extrema” (which I’ll start calling it now, because stupid people just won’t let it die the death it so richly deserves) fails. Do you need me to explain to you why this is the case, or do you have a tenth-grader available to help you out instead?
BLK: “You claim that 1998 was an “anomalous” year, because it was unduly hot and what?- skewed results?>>
DAR
Correct. If you look at a 10 or e1even year period. Which no sensible person would do.
Imagine years, as waves, and they are coming into shore in slow motion.
A large one comes in (1998). Then ten more, but they are a little smaller than (1998) but still very large in relation to the last 130 waves (and perhaps 1,000). After the biggest one (1998) you say “hey, look, they are getting a little smaller now.” Well, only in relation to that one big one (1998), but they are still near record setting waves (years). And the concern is they will be getting bigger (and the ocean level higher).
No one expects them to increase in perfect stair steps. GW warming is a statistical average increase around a slowly increasing mean.
BLK: Weather is anomalous in and of itself, because what climate does is change>>
DAR
Please don’t confuse “weather” and “climate” as you just did. They are two very different things.
BLK: can you truly base your observations on a 11 to 12 year period with ANY accuracy?>>
DAR
No. That’s why I complain when people do it. Bigdog denied doing this and I provided the exact quote he posted. See above.
D.
BLK: “You claim that 1998 was an “anomalous” year, because it was unduly hot and what?- skewed results?>>
DAR
Correct.
SAV
I disagree, Darrel. The data for 1998 doesn’t skew results. Interpreting the higher temperatures in 1998 as a refutation of global warming skews the results because such an interpretation misrepresents the results.
But this whole GW thing is debatable in our importance to this- it might be getting hotter with or without us- I can agree that CO2 has increased, but there have been periods in history when it was many times what it is now, and we had nothing to do with it then- I wonder at our part in it, how badly cow farts or burps or whatever they are accused of doing works on the totality of this “warming”, etc.
Left wing sites I am suspicious of simply because they have a stake in skewing the results, so I read various points of view, and have become convinced that this problem (if indeed it IS a problem) is anything but settled science.
BLAKE
But this whole GW thing is debatable in our importance to this-
SAV
This is the standard rightwing line, but it’s not true. Read on.
BLAKE
but there have been periods in history when [the CO2 level] was many times what it is now,
SAV
When? Provide a source that includes data. But remember, CO2 levels don’t tell the whole story, and there are other data that are relevant.
BLAKE
Left wing sites I am suspicious of simply because they have a stake in skewing the results,
SAV
Once again, the genetic fallacy. Dismiss your opponents because they’re your opponents.
But this is worse. Why would scientists want to skew results? Darrel made an excellent point earlier: In the era of Bush, when rightwing loons were hellbent on refuting global warming, scientists who allegedly based their findings on funding would have gone the other way to get support from Republicans in power and big oil. If anything, it’s easier to argue that the deniers have more reason to skew the results, because then they can continue with minimal environmental regulations and keep guzzling that nice, expensive oil. Really, saying that the left has a reason to skew and that the right doesn’t gets it wrong twice.
BLAKE
so I read various points of view
SAV
Actually, you don’t, and you just admitted that you don’t. You don’t read anything you consider “left wing” (or at least you dismiss what they say, but I suspect you don’t read it), and no doubt you dub something “left wing” as soon as you realize it doesn’t share your opinion.
If you want to read the only point of view that matters, read the point of view of climatologists who actually do the research. It’s asinine not to. It’s asinine to read the points of view of economists and anti-scientists and third-graders and burger-flippers and give them any credence. How much have you read about the findings that have been peer reviewed and published in respected scientific journals? And why do you care about anything else?
BLAKE
and have become convinced that this problem (if indeed it IS a problem) is anything but settled science.
SAV
Which is exactly what the rightwing loons want you to think. I posted the numbers: 97% of researching climatologists agree with us. That’s settled.
I provided the link earlier that indicated that CO2 levels were 10 times higher than they are now and we were in an ice age. Search the comments and you will find it.
I found it, where it was followed by links showing that this guy’s arguments aren’t credible.
Of course, they never are when they disagree with you.
Look, Dog, I can make this really easy:
Explain why this factoid refutes the position that humans are causing an increase in global temperatures.
This factoid refutes that the rise in CO2 is the cause.
More study needs to be done to determine if a) the global temperatures are rising and will continue to do so or will rise and fall cyclically as they have for centuries and b) if they are rising, is man causing it and c) if so, what is man doing to cause it.
Since not all science that can rule this out has been completed any conclusions are premature.
DOG
This factoid refutes that the rise in CO2 is the cause.
SAV
Only if all other variables at that time are identical to their current levels. In fact, your link contained no actual data. It didn’t describe an average global temperature, it just said that the earth was “in an ice age.” But we’re “in an ice age” now, so that doesn’t mean anything. The fact is that CO2 levels were dropping at that point, and the temperature was dropping. Read more.
DOG
More study needs to be done to determine if [three issues]
SAV
Plenty of study has been done already. The jury is in.
DOG
Since not all science that can rule this out has been completed any conclusions are premature.
SAV
That’s a funny way to put it. Nothing– nothing that the denialists propose as an alternative explanation actually explains the observations. Besides the CO2, nothing that the scientists have analyzed explains the observations.
This isn’t even a case of “We don’t really know, so this is our best guess.” This is a case of, “All of the evidence points this way, and there’s plenty of evidence.” The best you can do is cite a nondescript factoid, ignore the context, and conclude that nearly every climatologist miraculously missed this loudly-bellowed claim. Absurdity at its finest.
Right Sav, so nothing explains it but CO2. Sure, but no one has shown CO2 to be the culprit. You all are saying that CO2 fits so it must be the answer.
You claim that the items that have been proposed do not explain it. Based on what? Like I said, there are climate scientists who do not believe this.
This is intersting stuff
Most scientists identify as Democrats.
DOG
This is intersting [sic] stuff
SAV
What’s interesting is that even though you’ve had this very, very simple mathematical fact explained to you repeatedly, you don’t recognize that people who use it obviously don’t understand statistical analysis.
NON-CLIMATOLOGIST
There is no problem with global warming. It stopped in 1998.
SAV
Throw George Brett fat pitches when he’s batting .390 because he’s not batting .395 anymore.
This is a junior high math lesson topic. I’m not kidding.
This is not a rhetorical question, Dog, I want you to answer it. Do you understand why the claim that temperatures peaked in 1998 is not relevant?
NON-CLIMATOLOGIST
The last two years of global cooling have erased nearly 30 years of temperature increase.
SAV
No it hasn’t. How can anybody who can read a graph honestly make that claim?
Dog, do you actually consider this guy credible after making these two claims?
Like he said, your graph deals with the last 150 years, he deals with data from a much longer period.
The graph shows a small increase in global temperature over about 130 years. It does not show why it occurred and it is not a big increase.
What does the graph for the preceding 500 years look like? Does it go down and then up and then down and then up indicating cyclic activity? You cannot use a snapshot to give the whole picture.
He is a geologist. How do you know if his specialty is Palaeoclimatology or not? If it is then he certainly is as qualified as a climatologist. There are many disciplines who chime in on GW. Those disciplines that agree are not castigated because they are not climatologists, only when they disagree.
“Carbon dioxide has an effect on the atmosphere and it has an effect for the first 50 parts per million and once it’s done its job then it’s finished and you can double it and quadruple it and it has no effect because we’ve seen that in the geological past, and we’ve seen it in times gone by when the carbon dioxide content was 100 times the current content. We didn’t have runaway global warming, we actually had glaciation, so there’s immediately a disconnect. So carbon dioxide is absolutely vital for living on earth; it’s plant food, all of life lives off carbon dioxide. To demonise it shows that you don’t understand school child science.
—Ian Plimer, interviewed on ABNNewswire, June 2009”
DAR
Pilmer’s from the same cast of clowns I have been roasting for years. He’s a quacky Australian on the dole of a Canadian rightwing mining group called “Natural Resource Stewardship Project” (Canada has more oil than Saudia Arabia, this is why GW denial pops up there more often than it normally would).
Some standard roast:
***
Plimer also states that El Niño is caused by earthquakes and volcanic activity at the mid-ocean ridges.[8] This contrasts with the view held by the meteorological and oceanographic communities, which is that El Niño arises from dynamical interactions between the atmosphere and ocean.[9]
Plimer’s book has been criticised by numerous mainstream scientists.[10][11]
University of Adelaide climate change Professor Barry Brook stated Plimer has not published scientific papers on climate change.[12] “Heaven & Earth” was reviewed in The Australian newspaper by Michael Ashley, Professor of astrophysics at the University of New South Wales, who says that if Plimer could actually demonstrate that the various lines of scientific research were “fundamentally flawed, then it would rank as one of the greatest discoveries of the century and would almost certainly earn him a Nobel prize”.
Ashley’s review finishes by suggesting:
“Plimer has done an enormous disservice to science, and the dedicated scientists who are trying to understand climate and the influence of humans, by publishing this book. It is not “merely” atmospheric scientists that would have to be wrong for Plimer to be right. It would require a rewriting of biology, geology, physics, oceanography, astronomy and statistics. Plimer’s book deserves to languish on the shelves along with similar pseudo-science such as the writings of Immanuel Velikovsky and Erich von Daniken.”.[11]
LINK
DAR
Von Daniken is the fellow who finds 500,000 year old spark plugs, etc.,.
D.
Why did you ignore my questions, Dog? Can you not answer them? Did you not understand that when I said that the first question was not rhetorical and that I wanted you to answer it, it meant that the question was not rhetorical and that I wanted you to answer it?
Your credibility has been spiraling, but this is appalling. You are refusing to answer a simple question. We’re left with two glaring possibilities:
1. You do not understand why George Brett was still a great hitter even after his average dropped five points from .395.
2. You do understand why pitchers didn’t throw George Brett fat pitches when batting .390, but you refuse to acknowledge that arguing otherwise shows a profound, disqualifying misunderstanding of statistics.
Is there a possibility I’m missing, Dog, or is one of these the case? Because both make you look like a pathetic hack. Your response is a complete evasion of every one of my points. Run, Dog, run!
I am not refusing to answer your question. It was silly. I understand that he was a great hitter regardless of whether he was hitting 400 or 395.
I said that you are using stats for the past 150 years. Go back 5000 years and look at the temperatures and tell me what you see. The statistical analysis should give much better results using that many more data points.
I have to tell you Sav, I am getting tired of your berating attitude. You want to debate do so but I suggest you tone it down. I am not your child or your wife and will not tolerate much in the way I am treated at the site I permit you to use.
Understand?
“Plimer has done an enormous disservice to science, and the dedicated scientists who are trying to understand climate and the influence of humans, by publishing this book
Funny, you change the name to Al Gore and change publishing this book to making this movie and the result would be true.
Of course, the ones who do not agree are moron knuckle draggers who have not been to a class taught by Darrel or Sav so they do not know what they are doing. They have been roasted by the Freethinkers who are the all knowing, all seeing, truth detectors whose words can never be disputed.
In 15 years when the world is not melting you guys will look foolish.
By the way, not to worry, I fixed things. Gore said the planet had a fever so I dumped a bottle of Tylenol in the storm drain to help bring it down.
DOG
Of course, the ones who do not agree are moron knuckle draggers who have not been to a class taught by Darrel or Sav so they do not know what they are doing.
SAV
Right! You think that .390 is a lousy batting average because it’s less than .395. People who take my class know why you’re wrong. Actually, they know before they get to my class, because they’ve already made it through junior high.
The thing here, though, is that you’ve had the opportunity to have lessons correspondence style, but instead of asking questions, or challenging the mathematical claims, or answering the questions posed to you, you plug your ears.
DOG
… the Freethinkers who are the all knowing, all seeing, truth detectors whose words can never be disputed.
SAV
Ah, so that‘s why you don’t answer my questions!
Run, Dog! Run!
Are you on drugs? I answered the question and I never said that 390 was a lousy batting average. It is not as good as 395 but people would kill to have it. I have made it through junior high, high school and college so I fail to see what you are trying to indicate about me seeing as how we have never met.
I did not get my degree in nursing by sending in box tops.
DOG
I answered the question
SAV
Actually, no you didn’t. I asked the question at 01:16 11Jul, and you haven’t referenced the 1998 “peak” since. In fact, you just explained that you weren’t answering it because you considered it silly.
DOG
I have made it through junior high, high school and college so I fail to see what you are trying to indicate about me seeing as how we have never met.
SAV
It’s quite simple. Claiming that global warming is not a problem because “warming peaked in 1998” is like saying that George Brett isn’t a good hitter because he’s no longer .395, even if he’s batting .390. The fact that this is so incredibly obvious yet you fail to recognize the fallacy of the reasoning is the indicator that you aren’t thinking even the slightest bit critically.
Now that you’ve finally acknowledged that the reasoning is bunk when we apply it to batting average, why can’t you acknowledge that the very same reasoning is bunk when we apply it to temperature? Now, let me make something painfully clear: this is not the entirety of anybody’s argument, and I’ve never said that it is. But we can draw a conclusion when somebody uses a statistical argument rooted in statistical ignorance: the person make the argument must be ignorant of statistical mathematics. So when Plimer uses this erroneous reasoning, why should we consider his interpretations valid? We have positive reason to believe they are not valid. Throw on the slew of objections that Darrel presented, and it becomes clear that this guy’s a hack.
So, contrary to your claims that we’ve rejected his arguments because we disagree with them, we’ve shown you valid, compelling evidence that he is not a credible source.
DOG
I am getting tired of your berating attitude. You want to debate do so but I suggest you tone it down.
SAV
When I have to ask you three times to answer a very relevant question, you can bet your booty I’m calling you on your evasion. Period. I treat you like somebody who won’t answer a question because you’re somebody who tries to avoid answering a question. Why should I do any differently?
DOG
I answer your questions when I deem them worthy of my time. Some I have no interest in answering.
SAV
No kidding. Why would you have an interest in answering a question that undercuts your position? That’s why “Run Dog, run!” is appropriate.
DOG
I did not get my degree in nursing by sending in box tops.
SAV
And that’s how I got my degree in science? and a job in a lab? and my science teaching certificate? Or do you think I got them from a Cracker Jack box?
DOG
I said that you are using stats for the past 150 years.
SAV
And you would be wrong. I merely posted that graph to address and refute your source’s claim that the past 30 years of warming have been “erased.” I don’t need information going back 150 years, or 500 years, or 500,000 years to refute a claim that refers to the last 30 years. All I need is information that refers to the last 30 years.
I answer your questions when I deem them worthy of my time. Some I have no interest in answering.
(quote) “Plimer has done an enormous disservice to science,…”
Bigd: Funny, you change the name to Al Gore and change publishing this book to making this movie and the result would be true.>>
DAR
No it wouldn’t be true. Gore’s book and movie are entirely based on the solid, peer-reviewed, science done by experts.
As referenced above, Plimer “has not published scientific papers on climate change.” (ibid) And yet he tries to overthrow the established science by writing a pop book for the populace. Gore hasn’t published of course but he isn’t going what Pilmer does, he is referencing the established science. That has a different standard, a different burden of proof.
Bigd: Freethinkers who are… truth detectors whose words can never be disputed.>>
DAR
I am sorry you so completely misunderstand. We thrive on having our words disputed. It’s the fire our beliefs must pass through before we believe them. This is how science gets it’s power to discern reality, it’s how our justice system gets at the truth and it’s how freethinkers and philosophers get rid of the junk. So dispute any and all of our “words.” Just make sure you have your ducks in a row, your references hold up to examination and your arguments are sound. When you have the better argument I will change to your position so fast your head will spin.
Bigd: “In 15 years when the world is not melting you guys will look foolish.”>>
DAR
Actually, some climatologist I have seen address this say we would need to see a fairly strong 20 year trend for there to be serious reservations about our present understanding.
The actual melting will probably be more for your great-great grandchildren. So who cares anyway!
D.
Since my great, great grandchildren will be saddled with the enormous debt the government is creating they might be happy to have it all end in a ball of fire.
In 5000 years the earth has warmed and cooled. It will continue to do so and the minute increase in average temperatures (some of which are taken from thermometers near heat sources) will be statistically insignificant.
Bigd: “(some of which are taken from thermometers near heat sources)”>>
DAR
Thanks for mentioning this. This is the GW skeptic claim which goes:
“Warming is due to the Urban Heat Island Effect”
You can read a good response to this here.
No doubt you have heard of these things but perhaps hadn’t had the opportunity to hear a proper response. Keep them coming. I’ll respond to them as time allows.
D.