Puterbac News Network and Political Discussion Thread

[Dr. Strangelove]

Boehner invites a foreign leader to speak to Congress and bash the President. Even some at Fox News having trouble stomaching that

http://www.vox.com/2015/1/24/7884311/ne ... r-fox-news

[Professor Tiger]

Bebe got tired of Obama ordering the Secret Service to give him wedgies in the Oval Office.

[Toemeesleather]

Bout time repubs started showing disrespect for Prez who completely deserves it.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Netanyahu and Congressional Republicans are cooperating to undermine the foreign policy of a siting President and try to give Bibi a boost in his own election which takes place in weeks.

1) The White House has a standing policy (going way back) of not meeting with foreign leaders who have an imminent election. Apparently Boehner does not share those ethical concerns.

2) If this were any other country seeking to undermine our foreign policy on the floor of our own legislature, conservatives would go apeshit. But because it's Israel, well that's the 51st state isn't it?

[10ac]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... chete.html

When machetes are outlawed only outlaws will have machetes.

[sardis]

Netanyahu and Congressional Republicans are cooperating to undermine the foreign policy of a siting President and try to give Bibi a boost in his own election which takes place in weeks.

1) The White House has a standing policy (going way back) of not meeting with foreign leaders who have an imminent election. Apparently Boehner does not share those ethical concerns.

2) If this were any other country seeking to undermine our foreign policy on the floor of our own legislature, conservatives would go apeshit. But because it's Israel, well that's the 51st state isn't it?

Seriously? This President has gone rogue against congress for 6 years. Don't expect any sympathy for POTUS. Anyway, this is nothing new. Congress in the 80's undermined the President and defunded the Contras. Oh, that's right they were fighting communists, and we can't have that. At least we know what side you are on.

Republicans defend Israel and capitalism.
Democrats defend Muslims and communists.

[Professor Tiger]

There's a real possibility that Obama is using Boehner to play good-cop-bad-cop. Obama can go to the Iranians and say, "Guys, guys, you know that I want to give you everything you want and get little in return. But you see this crazy Zionist congress I have to deal with. Please give me SOMETHING to placate those infidels."

[Jungle Rat]

Does anybody else agree that DSL is retarded?

[Dr. Strangelove]

Netanyahu and Congressional Republicans are cooperating to undermine the foreign policy of a siting President and try to give Bibi a boost in his own election which takes place in weeks.

1) The White House has a standing policy (going way back) of not meeting with foreign leaders who have an imminent election. Apparently Boehner does not share those ethical concerns.

2) If this were any other country seeking to undermine our foreign policy on the floor of our own legislature, conservatives would go apeshit. But because it's Israel, well that's the 51st state isn't it?

Seriously? This President has gone rogue against congress for 6 years. Don't expect any sympathy for POTUS. Anyway, this is nothing new. Congress in the 80's undermined the President and defunded the Contras. Oh, that's right they were fighting communists, and we can't have that. At least we know what side you are on.

Republicans defend Israel and capitalism.
Democrats defend Muslims and communists.

Did Democrats in the 80's invite communist leaders from Nicaragua to come to Congress and denounce Reagan on the floor of the House? There's a significant difference between R's and D's going after each other and bringing in a partisan foreign leader to attack the President

[Professor Tiger]

Looks like the Northeast is about to get a blast of global warming.

[sardis]

Netanyahu and Congressional Republicans are cooperating to undermine the foreign policy of a siting President and try to give Bibi a boost in his own election which takes place in weeks.

1) The White House has a standing policy (going way back) of not meeting with foreign leaders who have an imminent election. Apparently Boehner does not share those ethical concerns.

2) If this were any other country seeking to undermine our foreign policy on the floor of our own legislature, conservatives would go apeshit. But because it's Israel, well that's the 51st state isn't it?

Seriously? This President has gone rogue against congress for 6 years. Don't expect any sympathy for POTUS. Anyway, this is nothing new. Congress in the 80's undermined the President and defunded the Contras. Oh, that's right they were fighting communists, and we can't have that. At least we know what side you are on.

Republicans defend Israel and capitalism.
Democrats defend Muslims and communists.

Did Democrats in the 80's invite communist leaders from Nicaragua to come to Congress and denounce Reagan on the floor of the House? There's a significant difference between R's and D's going after each other and bringing in a partisan foreign leader to attack the President

Last I recall Israel is an ally.

Obama has unprecedentedly circumnavigated congress with his edicts, and now he expects them to back him up on foreign policy? I don't blame congress for flippin' him the bird by inviting Netanyahu.

[Toemeesleather]

The prevaricator-in-chief deserves every bit of loathing the spineless repubs will dish.

[hedge]

"Anyway, this is nothing new. Congress in the 80's undermined the President and defunded the Contras."

Congress undermined an illegal drugs for arms scandal and you think that was wrong?

[Toemeesleather]

2014 Hottest Year on Record - Scientific American
2014 Will Set Record as Hottest Ever - NOAA
This Year Shapes Up as Warmest on Record - World Meteorological Organization

Lucky Dog Falls Down Elevator Shaft, Survives - Fox News

When public opinion polls show that the difference between the support for political candidates is less than the survey’s margin of error, most people understand that the candidates are effectively tied.

But when it comes to climate change, the public’s appreciation of “margin of error” seems to vanish. This is partly because of misinterpretations of the data by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

For example, last week NOAA headlined its home page, “It's official: 2014 was Earth's warmest year on record.” NASA proclaimed in its Jan. 16 news release video, “2014 was the hottest year on record.”

In repeating this claim in in his State of the Union address on Tuesday, President Obama demonstrated that NASA’s and NOAA’s announcements are accepted as true at the highest levels of government. The “warmest year ever” message will now be incorporated into talking points for government officials the world over.

But it is a deception. NOAA’s data shows that the record for the year was set by only four one-hundredths of a degree Celsius over the previous record warmest years, 2010 and 2005, while the uncertainty in the temperature statistic is nine one-hundredths of a degree, or more than twice the amount by which the supposed record was set (NASA showed a record being set in 2014 by only two one-hundredths of a degree).

In fact, NOAA temperature statistics for seven previous years — 2013, 2010, 2006, 2005, 2003, 2002, and 1998 — are all within nine one-hundredths of a degree of 2014’s level. So they all tie with 2014. No new record was set.

The same applies to NOAA’s announcement that, “December 2014 was warmest December on record for globe.” December 2014 was one one-hundredths of a degree hotter than December 2006, the previous warmest December, which was one one-hundredths of a degree warmer than 2003. The uncertainty is seven one-hundredths of a degree, so the December temperature statistic for all three years — 2014, 2006, and 2003 — are effectively equal. No new December record was set.

Rather than support the notion that global warming continues unabated, the data from NOAA and NASA reinforce the observation that we are in the midst of an extended pause in planetary warming.

If NOAA and NASA made grand announcements of temperature records set by hundredths of a degree, many people would laugh, appreciating that such changes cannot even be felt, let alone present problems.

So instead, they emphasize the amount by which temperature statistics exceed the “the 20th century average.” But to know this difference to hundredths of a degree, as they claim to do, requires that we also know the average for the 20th century to hundredths of a degree. And this, in turn, requires that we know the “global average temperature” in each year during the 20th century to a similarly high degree of accuracy.

Historical climatologist Dr. Tim Ball, former professor at the University of Winnipeg, explains, “Typical accuracies of temperature measurements throughout the 20th century were between one and one-half degree Celsius. Therefore it makes no sense whatsoever for NASA and NOAA to claim differences from a 20th century average in hundredths of a degree.”

Ball explains that even modern “instrumental data is inadequate. There is are virtually no data for the 70 percent of Earth’s surface that is oceans. There is practically no data for the 19 percent of land area that are mountains, 20 percent that are desert, 20 percent boreal forest, 20 percent grasslands, and 6 percent tropical rain forest.”

“So NASA just invents data to complete the picture,” continues Ball. “They do this by making the ridiculous claim that a single station temperature represents all land temperature within a 1,200 km radius region.”

So, it is simply not possible for NASA and NOAA to determine a meaningful average temperature statistic for the planet based on surface readings, as they pretend to do. It is only through the use of satellite-based instruments that we can hope to get a meaningful overview of planetary conditions. Satellite data shows that 2014 did not set a record at all, with computed temperatures statistics merely extending the current plateau.

NOAA chief scientist Richard Spinrad boasted in a Jan. 16 news release that “NOAA provides decision makers with timely and trusted science-based information about our changing world …”

In reality, Spinrad’s agency is all about PR spin when it comes to temperature records. Science be damned.

[sardis]

"Anyway, this is nothing new. Congress in the 80's undermined the President and defunded the Contras."

Congress undermined an illegal drugs for arms scandal and you think that was wrong?

No, congress, first, legislatively cut off support to the Contras. Then the Reagan administration decided to try other means to fund them.

[hedge]

So Congress took an action that they were legally entitled to take, the president didn't like it, so he illegally undermined their authority. I assume you were OK with that...

[sardis]

No, my point was that congress undermining the President by inviting a foreign leader to speak is no worse than congress undermining the President by cutting off funding of his foreign policy.

Congress is legally entitled to invite a guest speaker.

I was ok in us supporting the Contras, as brutal as they may have been, to fight against communism. I was not in favor of circumnavigating congressional authority the way the Reagan administration did.

[bluetick]

When public opinion polls show that the difference between the support for political candidates is less than the survey’s margin of error, most people understand that the candidates are effectively tied.

But when it comes to climate change, the public’s appreciation of “margin of error” seems to vanish. This is partly because of misinterpretations of the data by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

For example, last week NOAA headlined its home page, “It's official: 2014 was Earth's warmest year on record.” NASA proclaimed in its Jan. 16 news release video, “2014 was the hottest year on record.”

In repeating this claim in in his State of the Union address on Tuesday, President Obama demonstrated that NASA’s and NOAA’s announcements are accepted as true at the highest levels of government. The “warmest year ever” message will now be incorporated into talking points for government officials the world over.

But it is a deception. NOAA’s data shows that the record for the year was set by only four one-hundredths of a degree Celsius over the previous record warmest years, 2010 and 2005, while the uncertainty in the temperature statistic is nine one-hundredths of a degree, or more than twice the amount by which the supposed record was set (NASA showed a record being set in 2014 by only two one-hundredths of a degree).

In fact, NOAA temperature statistics for seven previous years — 2013, 2010, 2006, 2005, 2003, 2002, and 1998 — are all within nine one-hundredths of a degree of 2014’s level. So they all tie with 2014. No new record was set.

The same applies to NOAA’s announcement that, “December 2014 was warmest December on record for globe.” December 2014 was one one-hundredths of a degree hotter than December 2006, the previous warmest December, which was one one-hundredths of a degree warmer than 2003. The uncertainty is seven one-hundredths of a degree, so the December temperature statistic for all three years — 2014, 2006, and 2003 — are effectively equal. No new December record was set.

Rather than support the notion that global warming continues unabated, the data from NOAA and NASA reinforce the observation that we are in the midst of an extended pause in planetary warming.

If NOAA and NASA made grand announcements of temperature records set by hundredths of a degree, many people would laugh, appreciating that such changes cannot even be felt, let alone present problems.

So instead, they emphasize the amount by which temperature statistics exceed the “the 20th century average.” But to know this difference to hundredths of a degree, as they claim to do, requires that we also know the average for the 20th century to hundredths of a degree. And this, in turn, requires that we know the “global average temperature” in each year during the 20th century to a similarly high degree of accuracy.

Historical climatologist Dr. Tim Ball, former professor at the University of Winnipeg, explains, “Typical accuracies of temperature measurements throughout the 20th century were between one and one-half degree Celsius. Therefore it makes no sense whatsoever for NASA and NOAA to claim differences from a 20th century average in hundredths of a degree.”

Ball explains that even modern “instrumental data is inadequate. There is are virtually no data for the 70 percent of Earth’s surface that is oceans. There is practically no data for the 19 percent of land area that are mountains, 20 percent that are desert, 20 percent boreal forest, 20 percent grasslands, and 6 percent tropical rain forest.”

“So NASA just invents data to complete the picture,” continues Ball. “They do this by making the ridiculous claim that a single station temperature represents all land temperature within a 1,200 km radius region.”

So, it is simply not possible for NASA and NOAA to determine a meaningful average temperature statistic for the planet based on surface readings, as they pretend to do. It is only through the use of satellite-based instruments that we can hope to get a meaningful overview of planetary conditions. Satellite data shows that 2014 did not set a record at all, with computed temperatures statistics merely extending the current plateau.

NOAA chief scientist Richard Spinrad boasted in a Jan. 16 news release that “NOAA provides decision makers with timely and trusted science-based information about our changing world …”

In reality, Spinrad’s agency is all about PR spin when it comes to temperature records. Science be damned.

No reference, so it must be Watts Happening or InfoWars. Not that it really matters..

from wiki: Timothy Ball has been represented to the media as a climatologist who has held a professorship for upward of twenty-eight years. In fact, he was a professor of geography, not climatology, who retired in 1996 after eight years. He has written four papers on historical climatology but none are found in scientific journals. Ball co-founded Friends of Science, perhaps Canada's leading climate change denier organization, which the Toronto Star reports is funded in large part by the oil industry

[Professor Tiger]

The real question is whether the assertion:

NOAA’s data shows that the record for the year was set by only four one-hundredths of a degree Celsius over the previous record warmest years, 2010 and 2005, while the uncertainty in the temperature statistic is nine one-hundredths of a degree, or more than twice the amount by which the supposed record was set (NASA showed a record being set in 2014 by only two one-hundredths of a degree).

The same applies to NOAA’s announcement that, “December 2014 was warmest December on record for globe.” December 2014 was one one-hundredths of a degree hotter than December 2006, the previous warmest December, which was one one-hundredths of a degree warmer than 2003. The uncertainty is seven one-hundredths of a degree, so the December temperature statistic for all three years — 2014, 2006, and 2003 — are effectively equal. No new December record was set.

In fact, NOAA temperature statistics for seven previous years — 2013, 2010, 2006, 2005, 2003, 2002, and 1998 — are all within nine one-hundredths of a degree of 2014’s level. So they all tie with 2014. No new record was set.

...is true or not. I assume the NOAA raw data is published and available for anyone to analyze. If the clergy of the Man Made Global Warming Religion wish to offer counter evidence to Ball's assertions, then let's hear them. Ball's analysis should be easily disprovable. But going after his credentials or associations are not an argument against his points.

And if he isn't published in scientific journals, that is about as surprising as Chris Hitchens not being published in the Southern Baptist gazette. No fundamentalist religion likes having their faith challenged.

On a different note, this if funny right here:

http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2015/0 ... on_article

[hedge]

Your god will sort it all out, eh, Prof?