Are you the Ultimate Red Sox Fan? Enter your photo in our contest and you could win fan-tastic prizes.
Shot by Dan
“I got me a Chrysler, it seats about 20
So come on and bring your jukebox money
The Love Shack is a little old place where we can get together
Love Shack baby, Love Shack bay-bee.”
The B-52s
View our commenting policy and standards | Commenting FAQ | Report a problem
163 COMMENTS
Name is required
A valid email is required (test@test.com)
Comment is required
Your email address will not be published.
All fields are required to comment.
First thing when I get to work today, we have a fire drill. We haven’t had one in almost two years, and they pick the coldest day to do it. Glad my car was close by.
dobbs,
How cold was it? It was 2 degrees when I arrived at work today. Wind chill made it feel like -15 degrees. Sun was shining though.
I hope everyone has power again down in the NRV.
This was the “pick of the day” in Letters to the Editor:
What caught my attention about the sign wasn’t the omnipresent message, but the uber-official Roanoke presentation of it, massive city branding and all. The sign read “No bicycles or skateboards.”
That’s what the text read, but the true message is: “Go away, kids. We don’t trust you, like you or want you here.” This message appears at churches, schools, businesses, in public and private places — it’s everywhere.
Every day, while kids wish they could kick, push and pedal through life, we trudge along worried about heart disease and obesity. About children disconnected from family or society. About sedentary lifestyles and violent media. And, recently at least, about the lack of funding for mental health resources to help troubled teens and young adults who, alienated from the world, might vanish into the recesses of their basements and their minds and come out wielding a gun.
Maybe we should consider the message that’s sent to them every day, practically everywhere you look. That sign in Grandin Village might as well say: “Go inside. Sit down. Stop living life. Stop being social. Stop having fun. Stop playing. Disappear. We don’t want you here.”
How would anyone react to a message like that?
WILLIAM ALEXANDER
ROANOKE
My Response:
I have long been an advocate for more venues for kids to use their skate boards. But, obviously Mr. Alexander is only noticing the signs around town telling kids to keep off, and not seeing all the damage they do to our cities buildings and infrastructure. I sight just one example. The much touted Rail Walk along, is it Salem Ave.?…..Look at all the little spikes, or whatever they are they had to install to keep the skate boards off….They damage and chip away at the edges of everything. Interestingly it is his and all of our tax dollars that pay for these needless repairs…..We should now be incorporating something in all our parks to accommodate the skate boarders….We have one tacky skate board park. Imagine the public out cry if the city only had one baseball field, one basket ball court…..Think about it.
Comment by Ken Wilburn — January 22, 2013 @ 11:29 am
Has John’s brother join the blog???
Well, Ron, now I feel like a sissy. It was a balmy upper 20°s or so, and a nice, cool breeze in the sunshine. Thanks for giving me a little perspective. It could always have been worse. Such as, there could have been a real fire!
Sorry dobbs. I’m sure it was cold there as well. you are correct. Everything is relative.
Apparently Phil Mickelson is giving up golf and taking up pizza delivery in protest to the next tax structure. However shall we go on.
If Mickelson’s paying more than 50% in taxes (even in CA), the first thing he should do is fire his accountant!
Here’s what Forbes Magazine had to say about Phil Michelson’s whine.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/leonardburman/2013/01/21/phil-mickelson-stop-whining-and-give-thanks-for-your-good-fortune/
The latest move by Virginia Republicans to undo the will of the people.
http://www.timesdispatch.com/news/state-regional/virginia-politics/general-assembly/with-marsh-at-inaugural-senate-republicans-pass-redistricting-rewrite/article_275c514e-8a8b-5102-a5b8-fd721866aad8.html
Dan,
You’ll jump on this soon enough. I just wanted to make you aware that it is definitely a gun-free zone.
http://www.wset.com/story/20650277/ap-us-ffficial-1-in-custody-in-houston-shooting-possible-2nd-gunman-multiple-injuries
Well, whaddaya know, my wife was rearranging some things in our basement storage area, and came across an old newspaper which had been “protecting” an heirloom of some sort (probably an incandescent light bulb). Behold, it was a Thursday morning edition of the RT&WNs, dated 12/29/1977…a bit yellowed, but certainly readable.
The most interesting thing I found in the Roanoke Valley/State section was an article written by Frank Hancock titled, “1977: Wettest, Driest, Hottest, Coldest”.
To wit:
“The year produced the wettest and driest months on record. Local records go back to 1912. Records were broken for prolonged hot and cold spells and the lowest temperature tied the all-time record of 4 degrees below zero. There was a draught and during July the valley set a record for the least rainfall during that period – .45 of an inch. The previous record was 1.13 in 1957. Then, along comes November, which turns out to be the wettest month on record. A total of 6.45 inches of precipitation was 3.96 inches more than normal. This topped the record of 6.36 inches set in 1948.”
There was reference to “eight days in January when the mercury set records for cold, the lowest being -4 on January 17. This tied the previous record of -4 in January 1972.” There was more reporting of similar breached records, with “October being the only month during which no records were set.”
The article went on to provide additional commentary, but I have paraphrased so as to only include “new record” data. During the year of 1977 (not counting December 29-31), there were 18 days in which new highs were set, as well as 18 days in which new lows were set.
As written by Mr. Hancock, there was no nashing of teeth. There was no finger-pointing. There was no politicization of a good weather report, period. There was no gasping, there was no recriminating, there was no blame.
The green movement (makes me think of another kind of movement…) had not yet been created.
Weather was reported as created by nature, not by evil man.
“Gun control? It’s the best thing you can do for crooks and gangsters. I want you to have nothing. If I’m a bad guy, I’m always gonna have a gun. Safety locks? You pull the trigger with a lock on, and I’ll pull the trigger. We’ll see who wins.”
- Sammy “The Bull” Gravano, Mafia turncoat, when asked about gun control in a 1999 issue of Vanity Fair magazine.
The green movement…had not yet been created (in 1977).
Frank proves again his ignorance. Environmental issues, particularly where they intersected energy issues, were a notable part of policy discussion in the ’70′s. What rock were you living under to ignore that back then, Frank?
Re: (#14) Rob @2:52pm:
“Self-protection by concealed handguns? It’s the best thing you can do for snipers like Muhammed and Malvo. I want you to have a false sense of security. If I’m a sniper, I’m always gonna be hidden. Fast draw holsters? You pull a gun with a fast draw holster and I’ll fire from a hidden spot 300 yards away. We’ll see who wins.”
-Every sniper ever, including the one who killed two New York firemen last month, when asked how concealed handguns protect someone from a hidden sniper.
I wanted to share the lyrics of this song. The Christian Right often becomes judgmental and bigoted in trying to promote their beliefs. We must always stand up for our beliefs, but do it Christ’s way.
This song is a heart check for all Christians.
Here are the lyrics as well as a link to the song with lyrics.
Jesus, friend of sinners
We have strayed so far away
We cut down people in Your name
But the sword was never ours to swing
Jesus, friend of sinners
The truth’s become so hard to see
The world is on their way to You
But they’re tripping over me
Always looking around but never looking up
I’m so double minded
A plank-eyed saint with dirty hands
And a heart divided
Oh Jesus, friend of sinners
Open our eyes to the world
At the end our pointing fingers
Let our hearts be led by mercy
Help us reach with open hearts and open doors
Oh Jesus, friend of sinners
Break our hearts for what breaks Yours
Jesus, friend of sinners
The One whose writing in the sand
Made the righteous turn away
And the stones fall from their hands
Help us to remember
We are all the least of these
Let the memory of Your mercy
Bring Your people to their knees
Nobody knows what we’re for
Only what we’re against
When we judge the wounded
What if we put down our signs
Crossed over the lines
And loved like You did
You love every lost cause
You reach for the outcast
For the leper and the lame
They’re the reason that You came
Lord, I was that lost cause
And I was the outcast
But You died for sinners just like me
A grateful leper at Your feet
‘Cause You are good
You are good
And Your love endures forever
And I was the lost cause
And I was the outcast
You died for sinners just like me
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJXIugwiN7Q
Naturalism and the “Green movement” date back WAY prior to the 1970s. Read something Frank, why don’t you.
Frank, the environmental movement in the US is generally traced back to the publication of Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring in 1962, a good 15 years before that clipping you quoted was written.
On another note, thanks for the earworm, Dan.
Warren,
My point is about firearms in general. If you’re in a situation where you are facing an armed assailant, you’re going to lose if you are unarmed.
Ron May:
“5.Comment by Ken Wilburn — January 22, 2013 @ 11:29 am
Has John’s brother join the blog??? ”
What???
I neither see the comment, nor have a brother named Ken.
hey warren,
environmental issues were certainly around earlier, but the ah, …green ah, “movement”… hadn’t devolved into what it is now, until after it had been usurped by algore and lib “greenies” in general.
in fact, global “cooling” had been all the rage in 1975…
hey warren,
…please keep being an idiot. it becomes you.
Rob:
“Warren,
My point is about firearms in general. If you’re in a situation where you are facing an armed assailant, you’re going to lose if you are unarmed.”
There are no guarantees, but your odds only go UP when you’re armed.
Somewhere between 750-900 people in the General Assembly building yesterday, nearly all were carrying holstered handguns, and there were no problems at all. I know the antis hate that, but it was indeed the safest place in Richmond.
JW,
The comment was on a different thread and I was kidding.
Frank re: 2:52… no mention of “global cooling”???
I thought that was the mantra of “liberals” in the 70’s. Of course, as the term “liberal” lost it’s “cool” the term had to be replaced with “progressives”; and “global cooling” when proved a farce had to be replaced with “global warming”…
I can’t wait to see what the next “crisis” is when the term “progressives” is replaced with “beneficents”.
I am sure there will always be a “man made crisis” for the uninformed to rally behind; even if the “crisis” is just man made(up).
But hey… It keeps the uninformed occupied with a cause; some might call it their own religion.
Joe: “show me some love!!!!
Jill: crap..he’s popped another viagra…
Comment by Ken Wilburn — January 22, 2013 @ 11:29 am
Here’s the comment JW.
I am glad someone else has the same reaction I did to mr. Michelson’s comments. It’s like the guy who tells you he doesn’t want a raise because it will push him into the next tax bracket. Really? What a whiner.
Hey Kristen and Laura,
The way you folks put it, I think we can all agree with the concept that people began thinking about environmental issues soon after they began to experience the end of the life cycle of a meal.
However, that isn’t what I was referring to. The green movement, or “greenie” movement as known by me and others, began as a national political group in 1984, at some non-descript lib college in St. Paul, Minn.
The green movement is most often associated with global warming, otherwise known as “the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on mankind”.
In 1977, interestingly enough, the “greenies” were much more concerned with global cooling.
Dan,
I see Ron May made reference to an issue I would have expected you, and your Caseiets (I’m trying to coin a new term for your blind partisan followers), to be “all over” (maybe you didn’t “inform” them soon enough…lol) @ 2:38
Please sit down because this might shock you…
I, as a conservative; and a faithful believer that VA’s political system has historically been (relatively) above abusive partisan manipulations, DO NOT agree with this type of political wrangling.
While I do believe the districts, as I have seen them drawn, in this recent legislation, are fair; and make a lot of sense.
I don’t think the manner in which they were introduced, and passed, is in line with what makes Virginian’s different than those abusive political players (on the left) I have protested in the past.
If politics were a game like chess, I would say the R’s made an excellent move. Sadly, I wonder if we are not so close to the politics of DC, that we are experiencing some political endosmosis.
Of course, I might blame it on obama and his lack of leadership in unifying our country; just as liberals will blame it on “the house”.
No matter, it is a sad truth if VA politics begin to emulate DC politics.
Michelson is reported to have earned $47 million in 2012, most of that from endorsement deals. If I was him I’d sure consider moving from California to a no income tax state like many of his other golfing buddies have. He’s a good golfer, does good work with a variety of charitible organizations and is a genuine nice guy. This kind of whining doesn’t help him much though.
hey mike o,
Yes, I’ll never forget the hysterical histeria foisted upon us in the 1970s by all the “global cooling” idiots. Strange though, that we hear the same incesstant screeching by the same folks now, except they flip-flopped to “global warming”.
In my initial post, I kept quiet about the 1975 Newsweek cover page issue on global cooling, to see what lib would admit to remembering that. Go figure. It wasn’t a lib! Good for you!
“I am sure there will always be a “man made crisis” for the uninformed to rally behind”
Fox “News” will make sure of it.
I’m with you, Ron May. I’d rather he just do it.
A man (no matter his occupation) says he does not believe working for free, from January to July/August, just to pay taxes, is a fair deal; and liberals say he should work till October for free to support those who have retired, don’t work etc..
If the liberals moved that date to December, would that be considered “slavery”?
Really… Is there a number that anyone here can give that would honestly relate what they believe someone should give to the government?
If so, the next question is… Do you???
Frank, re: 5:34..
Sorry to screw it up… some of us are actually “informed”.
You would only get “excuses” from the other side after your point was made…
I don’t think they like you…lol
There can be nothing more ironic than a right winger speaking of others being “uninformed” and “hysterical”. You should take this act on the road.
Gun story of the day.
“Frank re: 2:52… no mention of “global cooling”???
I thought that was the mantra of “liberals” in the 70’s. Of course, as the term “liberal” lost it’s “cool” the term had to be replaced with “progressives”; and “global cooling” when proved a farce had to be replaced with “global warming”…
mikeO, you thought wrong, buddy. In that respect you have the same problem as Henry.
It’s true that in the late 1960s a scientist published a paper that predicted glacialization within a few thousand years. His name was Cesare Emiliani. But no consensus of agreement among the scientific community was EVER reached on global cooling. Did you get that? One lonely paper, published way back then, does not a consensus make. It was never a political cause celebre — by liberals or conservative or anyone. It was a guy and his theory, which got a bit of press.
In fact, in the 1970s there were more scientific papers on global warming. Even then it took almost 40 years for a scientific consensus on warming to emerge.
Despite the claims of Rush Limbaugh and the know-nothings he’s able to fool, science is not political. It’s a deliberate process of trial and error, and after a long period of that within a particular field, a consensus may emerge or it may not.
So the real problem here is not whether a scientist published a paper that predicted cooling. Rather, it’s in the first two words of your comment: “I thought . . .”
You thought wrong, that’s all.
hey there, sandi,
What’s your take on beyonce faking her “singing” of the National Anthem yesterday?
And, in your opinion, what event occured which drove the, ah, “scientists” away from their global “cooling” prophecy toward a complete 180 degree flip-flop to a brand new, but, ah, “accurate” prophecy…this time? We go from cold to hot. Dark to light? Wet to dry?
Two simple questions for a smart one like you.
hey dano,
Your statement that “science is not political” is about as hysterical as the global warming “scientists” representing their belief as “settled” science.
hey mike o,
Good post at 5:47! Hopefully at least one lib will engage you in an honest exchange, but I have my doubts.
I can see their furrowed brows now, and hear the rodent wheels just whirring away in their heads, as they think, and think, and think, some more…
Frank@31
Dan’s already done a good job describing the misconception you have about some kind of wide spread scientific acceptance of global cooling. True, it was featured on Leonard Nimoy’s quasi documentary TV series “In Search Of”, but just being on TV don’t make it true. If the hypothesis were valid, scientific evidence would have bolstered the claim. It didn’t.
Up till recently, I wasn’t sure which side of the fence to come down on anthropogenic global warming. Then this guy got involved in the debate:
http://muller.lbl.gov/
He is physicist, and a scientist whom I had come to admire as a gifted lecturer. I use some of his recorded lectures for instructional materials. He was a climate skeptic. As such, the Koch brothers thought he would be just the kind of guy to do a thorough review of current evidence for global warming. They bankrolled his analysis.
The problem is, Muller is such an objective scientist, that he actually came to the conclusion that the preponderance of evidence supported the claims of climate scientists who think we are causing climate change.
Here’s his opinion in the New York Times. I could give the link to the actual research but it has bigger words and is even more sciencey. You seem more of like a quick sound bite kind of guy.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Sorry you were wrong about the global cooling thing. Lots of people confuse stuff they see on TV with real life.
hey Mike Scott,
…Newsweek, too.
oh, and one more little thingy, Mike Scott,
what’s your take on michael mann’s “hockey stick” theroy?
“I am sure there will always be a “man made crisis” for the uninformed to rally behind”
What’s your take on beyonce faking her “singing” of the National Anthem yesterday?”
That didn’t take long.
Ron May re 5:33 “whining”
I run a “medium/large” sized business. We have employees that make from 30k to 200k and owner I am sure well over a mil/year, much of which he plows back into the company….
Those at 30k think they should make 100k… those above think they should have twice as much; (I think I am underpaid, but aint whining).
In your opinion, should the folks making 200k (who continue to keep our suppliers) be cut to 75k (so that we can raise our delivery folk up to 75k). Thereby losing our suppliers and therefore our entire business?
What logically follows is that those who make ANY MONEY will be out of work and on the “government dole”. Which takes thousands of dollars out of the economy, and puts thousands of dollars of burdens on those “idiots” that choose to continue to work.
Bottom line; work hard… don’t expect anything to be “given to you”. When you are successful “give” to others. Fight back when others want to take from your success of 30k, 40k, 100k, 1mil…..
Michelson is reported to have earned $47 million in 2012, most of that from endorsement deals. If I was him I’d sure consider moving from California to a no income tax state like many of his other golfing buddies have. He’s a good golfer, does good work with a variety of charitible organizations and is a genuine nice guy. This kind of whining doesn’t help him much though.
Comment by Ron May — January 22, 2013 @ 5:33 pm
Ron, interesting you believe that taking 63% of a man’s income is somehow Ok. As you mentioned, he does a ton of charitable work through his foundation. I would much rather him keep the bulk of his EARNED income in his control VS the State of CA.
Interesting news piece tonight. France’s Sarkosy (sp?) is considering moving to England to avoid the ridiculous French taxes….as many of the wealthy French have already done. That’s what happens!
“We did prerecord it and it was Beyoncé’s decision at the last minute to go with the prerecorded version,” the spokeswoman [for the Marine Corps] told [the] British paper [the London Times]. “We prerecorded all music as a matter of course and have done since time immemorial,” she said. “This is our 54th inauguration .… There is no question of there not being any music — it’s not because the performer cannot do it.”
SCANDAL! CALAMITY!
Wait. You mean to tell me we’ve been doing the exact same thing for decades? So, why is this news again?
Oh, that’s right – it’s Obama’s inauguration so it matters (but it’s not because he’s black! It’s because he’s an evil, maniacal, despotic, communist, socialist, Marxist, dog-eating pantywaist Antichrist, determined to set up his unholy rule with an iron fist over the inhabitants of Obamaland (formerly known as The United States of America), thus bringing about the Apocalypse foretold in Revelation).
Tomorrow’s headline: “Scandal in the White House! Obama farts without GOP approval!”
The idiot tank is full and the overflow pond is breaching the dam. Requesting assistance, CentCom.
Dan,
Thank you for admitting that the entire “global cooling” extreme now seems to be “a bit” over emphasized (did you say “one lonely paper?”…. Lmao… go figure… And the whole “liberal” world was behind this at the time… (are they now “stupid”?)
just as they are behind the “global warming” mantra.
Got any cites on the “papers” on global warming in the 70’s?…
From Salon; Obama II, Older, Wiser, Stronger.
“My point is about firearms in general. If you’re in a situation where you are facing an armed assailant, you’re going to lose if you are unarmed.”
Comment by Rob
Rob, a sniper IS an armed assailant!
My point is how overhyped the protection of carrying a concealed weapon is, and how you’ll lose to a hidden sniper if you’re armed the same as if you’re unarmed, and how gun fanatics (as opposed to reasonable gun owners) hate to discuss the sniper episodes that have occured in the U.S. because they have absolutely no way to claim guns can protect someone from them.
Frank,
Juz one more thing. Most of the scientific literature that you could access to support you claim of that “global cooling” was a widely accepted scientific theory would exist in the form of peer reviewed scientific journals. Especially prior to the period of time you think this was a widely accepted fact. Newsweek will not qualify as such a source.
After all, you can’t trust the mainstream media with those kind of facts, can you?
Fox News, in reporting today that Beyonce used the pre-recorded safety track for the anthem, made a point to also say that James Taylor and Kelly Clarkson sang their (less demanding and less important) songs live. Hmmm, what would Fox’s audience think of first as the most visible difference between Beyonce and the other two?
AC,
Phil Mickelson will not pay anything near 63% of his income in taxes. His accountant will, without much trouble, reduce his tax bill to well under 50% I’m sure. He could use H. & R. Block and do better than that.
Beyonce, seriously? Jeez the stupid is strong on here. Who says the GOP’s completely lost and content-free.
Michelson provides no value to the economy other than employing a few housekeepers, nannies, and a a caddy. He does like things here, he should move his fat butt elsewhere. He’s walking back his whine as fast as he can today but hey buddy…too late.
All the problems going on in this world, and people think Beyonce using a pre-recorded song is worth talking about. Idiots.
“Dan,
Thank you for admitting that the entire “global cooling” extreme now seems to be “a bit” over emphasized (did you say “one lonely paper?”…. Lmao… go figure… And the whole “liberal” world was behind this at the time… (are they now “stupid”?)
just as they are behind the “global warming” mantra.
Got any cites on the “papers” on global warming in the 70’s?…”
–Comment by mikeO
mikeO, where you’ve got it wrong is your notion that “the whole liberal world” was behind the idea of global cooling. That wasn’t the case and any honest assessment of what transpired recognizes it. It’s such a gross misstatement of fact that it’s risen to the level of outrageous lie. There was no “global cooling” movement at all. There was a 1966 scientific paper that didn’t even raise any eyebrows until it was publicized in a small handful of media outlets, 6-9 years later, and even that was a flash in the pan.
That was pretty much it. It’s kind of like the whole cold fusion “discovery.” Pons and Fleishmann created a brief stir, with a wrong “discovery” which other scientist quickly proved was wrong.
Why was “global cooling” a flash in the pan? Precisely because there was no consensus. Researchers took the paper, picked it apart and more or less discarded the ideas. And that’s why there was no movement, of anyone, back in the 1970s saying, “we’ve got to do something about this! We have to heat the earth up!” That never happened.
Cites for global warming in the 70s:
1. Schneider SH (November 1972). “Atmospheric particles and climate: can we evaluate the impact of mans activities?”. Quaternary Research 2 (3): 425–35. Bibcode 1972QuRes…2..425S. doi:10.1016/0033-5894(72)90068-3. [Precis Lay summary].
2. World’s temperature likely to rise; The Times; 22 June 1976; pg 9; col A
3. Rasool, S.I.; Schneider, S.H. (1971). “Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate”. Science 173 (3992): 138–41. Bibcode 1971Sci…173..138R. doi:10.1126/science.173.3992.138. PMID 17739641.
4. ^ Mitchell, J. Murray, Jr. (1971). “The Effect of Atmospheric Aerosols on Climate with Special Reference to Temperature near the Earth’s Surface.” J. Applied Meteorology 10: 703-14.
You don’t care, though, do you? You’re so in love with the idea that there was a “global cooling” movement run by liberals that I suspect no set of facts, ever, is going to get you off that silly dime.
Hey Mike Scott,
I never claimed to believe in the falsly prophecied global cooling lies. You say global cooling wasn’t true…it wasn’t “accepted” by mainstream scientists….but I suspect you and like-minded libs portend that …so you don’t have to deal with the niggling little issue that it presents to your, ah, man-made global, ah, “warming” prophecy.
Sheesh. The contortions you poor folks put yourselves through, just so that you don’t have to think clearly, or, admit your “prophecy” of the day…first global “cooling”, followed by man-made global “warming”, are politically created bogus means by which to transfer wealth.
Frank, you’re the one who’s deceiving himself.
hey J.M.,
You must eat lots a beans.
By the way, what’s your take on the issue of “lazy” not being a politically correct word?
Thats the one where Colin Powell castigated a former New Hampshire governor for having called Obama’s performance “lazy” after the first debate. Then, in a 2011 interview, Barbara Walters asked the president “what’s the trait you most deplore in yourself, and the trait you most deplore in others?”
Obama’s answer: “Laziness.”
mikeo,
I congratulate you on your business success. I too, have had a modicum of success in my career and the investments I’ve made during my adult life. My annual income, from a variety of sources, puts me in the upper 1.5% of earners in the U.S. It wasn’t always that way. I think you know, from my earlier posts, that I grew up on a small dairy/grain farm. When I graduated from high school, in the early 1960s, I continued to work on the family farm, worked 2 part time jobs, paid my mom & dad rent for my room & board, attended the junior college in my hometown year round and graduated in 2 years. I then transferred to a senior college in east Tennessee, worked in the dining room kitchen to pay for my room and board at college while my parents paid my tuition. I was a dish washer. In summers I went back home, worked on the farm and again other part time jobs to pay my way. I graduated in 2 more years and was accepted into a graduate program at a state university in Tennessee. I took classes at night and taught grades 5 through 8 in a 2 room school during the day. My 10 month salary was $3600. On weekends I worked as a bartender in a private club. The 2 salaries enabled me to pay tuition and my bills. I earned my masters in one academic year and two summer sessions. I next took a teaching job in the public schools of Arlington, VA. The best thing that happened to me during the year I spent in Arlington was that I met the girl who would become my wife. At the end of that year she & I got married and moved back to my home state of Indiana where I took a job which involved teaching & administrative duties at a small college. After 2 years in that position I was awarded a fellowship to enter a doctoral program at Indiana University. My wife continued to teach school while completed my doctoral program. It took 2 years,but I did it and IU offered me a faculty position which I accepted. I stayed in that position for 11 years prior to moving into my first position as Dean. Since 1985 I have served as a Dean, VP or a college president. I have been reasonably well paid in those positions. Additionally, my wife & I have made fortunate financial investments in cutting edge companies during the 40+ years of our married life together. I am a Director of 3 privately held corporations. Those corporations employ more than 300 people.
In short mikeo, my wife & I have done pretty well financially. However, we both share the Biblical philosophy that from those to whom much is given, much is expected. Over the course of of life together we have given generously to a variety of charitable organizations and causes in which we believe. Our accountants have done very well at claiming those charitable gifts in order to reduce our taxable income within the limits of the law.
My comment about Mr. Mickelson was not meant to be critical of him. My income and net assets are peanuts compared to those of Mr. Mickelson. If I can afford to hire accountants to take advantage of existing tax codes he most certainly can do so. A problem he has is that he lives in a state which probably has the highest income tax in the U.S. It won’t help him for his 2012 taxes but he sure could move to a more tax friendly state in 2013 and get a more favorable treatment of his income.
I have great respect for him and for you in regards to the work you do. I don’t enjoy paying taxes anymore than you do. Nonetheless, it’s a relatively small price to pay for the benefits we receive as citizens of this great country.
I congratulate you on your business success. I too, have had a modicum of success in my career and the investments I’ve made during my adult life. My annual income, from a variety of sources, puts me in the upper 1.5% of earners in the U.S. It wasn’t always that way.
Wonder why Dan doesn’t slam Ron for bragging? Shoot, this information was even unsolicited, unlike when Dan asked me about our business, then accused me of braggadocio.
Frank…
“Yes, I’ll never forget the hysterical histeria (hysteria) foisted upon us in the 1970s by all the “global cooling” idiots. Strange though, that we hear the same incesstant (incessant) screeching by the same folks now, except they flip-flopped to “global warming”.”
For the record Frank, I never believed global cooling was well supported by science, but I was only 13 when it was bandied about. Even then I was skeptical.
I haven’t flip flopped on anything. I’ve come to accept the real possibility of anthropogenic global warming because some very respectable and thorough science indicates we are affecting climate. I’ve been open to the idea, but wasn’t ready to fall on one side of the issue until someone argued good evidence for it.
” never claimed to believe in the falsly(falsely) prophecied (prophesized) global cooling lies. You say global cooling wasn’t true…it wasn’t “accepted” by mainstream scientists….but I suspect you and like-minded libs portend that …so you don’t have to deal with the niggling little issue that it presents to your, ah, man-made global, ah, “warming” prophecy. ”
I think you mean “pretend that”? Right? Portend implies something in the future and doesn’t work in that context so you must be saying “pretend”.
I never pretended that “global cooling” was false, so I can believe “global warming” is true. Your statement groups me into some vague group of liberals whom you assert use this kind of logic. I am not one them. I don’t know any either. In science you don’t have to pretend. It’s based on evidence. There was little that supported the notion we were heading for another ice age; there is evidence humans have affected global temperatures.
Since I haven’t listed to opposing positions on this issue, I’m not exactly sure how I’ve contradicted myself. You should have read Muller’s opinion Frank. There’s much you would find admirable about. While he comes to a conclusion that supports the science of anthropogenic climate change, he sets fourth a large list of other claims often associated with global warming alarmists which he finds lacking in evidence. I agree with him in that regard. Perhaps you might become better informed on some of those issues and comment intelligently on them as well.
hey Mike Scott,
Looks like you’ve got no answer to the michael mann hockey stick theroy.
Hey dano, what say you about mr. mann’s hockey stick theroy, eh?
I’m sure you both know all about it. Please share your opinions of that great scientific break-through.
A friend shared this video with me early this evening. It’s an old story, but something we need to see today. It lifted my spirits just a little. I hope you have the same experience.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZJhfP50bxE
‘Sup, Frank?
I happen to like all kinds of beans, though no one else in the house does, so I rarely make them.
I happen to think that politically-correct anything is politically incorrect. I’m a “call a duck a duck” kind of guy. I really don’t care if someone likes how it comes out of my mouth or not. When I’m being an ass, I want someone to tell me that I’m being an ass. I don’t want them to worry if I might be offended when they tell me so. When I get fat, I want to be told so. I expect this of anyone that I would truly call my friend. So, I think this PC thing has run its course and its time to get back to calling a duck a duck.
This doesn’t mean that I’m not without a proper education in the manners of a southern gentleman. I just may not practice it as consistently as I should.
My memory may not be correct but I seem to recall a mike o back in August whining about how his house was getting ready to be repossessed because he was behind on his payments due to losing his job and about how he was close to pulling the trigger for Romney but he was soliciting opinions from Democrats to try to knock him off the fence. This seems to stick in my memory because I specifically remember having to visit an ER and surfing on my Blackberry in the waiting room and reading a mike o’s infernal whining about President Obama being the root of his misfortune and wanting to but not being able to respond on my phone.
I could be wrong and if so I apologize in advance to this mike o but I’m pretty sure I’m correct. And if so I’m sure mike o will join me in praising our current president for his miraculous reversal of fortune. The Lord works in mysterious way…
Hey Mike Scott,
I will read the Muller material. Thanks.
How about the hockey stick theory? Oh, and since you are also being an editor, I did correct my misspelling of theory.
I never said you flip-flopped Mike, I said that scientists flip-flopped from global cooling to man-made global warming. And, if you are going to edit my post so you can better understand it, at the very least you should also read them so you can answer them more accurately.
As far as weather we are headed for another ice-age, or toward another warming spell, one thing is for certain…we’re heading one way or the other, ain’t we? I mean, before man learned how to burn things, there were heating and cooling periods, weren’t there?
That takes us right back to Mr. Mann’s ol’ hockey schtick theory.
Ron May,as the best and brightest are forced to relocate,seek shelter or even worse, become unmotivated…. Atlas Shrugged.
Hey J.M.,
You da’ man! And I mean that positively and sincerely. And, not that it matters in the scheme of things, I also believe you.
By the way, I eat lots and lots of beans. I love’em. My wife loves ‘em.
There’s like a gazillion ways they can be prepped and cooked. And, some say they’re good for your heart.
You have a great rest of the evening.
Ron May, your professional success is certainly laudable, but I would like to congratulate you on 40+ years of marriage. Longevity of this sort is rare these days, and I commend you and your wife for providing such an enduring model of commitment. Thank you, sir!
Holy cow we have denial of the global cooling movement of the 70′s. I guess it never happened and Time magazine didn’t publish at least 5 cover articles on it. Just Google images of Time and 70′s global cooling.
It’s not that you guys can’t make up your mind about which way the earth’s temp is going that bothers me so much. It’s just you guys always have it figured out. And when we are a little skeptical you act like we’re a bunch of Neanderthals.
By the way, “Love Shack” by the B-52s, turned up loud, windows down, sun roof rolled back, shades on, doin’ about 70 mph is one of the best sing-out-loud road songs on my playlist. Matter of fact, I had friends with those old Chryslers, probably a Newport, that seated at least 20. Those old things were a block long! Bang! Bang! Knock a little louder, baby!
’68 LeBaron all the way, baby. With a hot tub installed in the trunk, naturally.
http://forum.avtoindex.com/foto/data/media/28/Chrysler_Imperial_1968_30.jpg
Your what?
TIN ROOF!
rusted
Very good read:
http://tinyurl.com/afr5oq8
**
Ham Sandwich Nation: Due Process When Everything is a Crime
Glenn Harlan Reynolds
University of Tennessee College of Law
January 20, 2013
Abstract:
Though extensive due process protections apply to the investigation of crimes, and to criminal trials, perhaps the most important part of the criminal process — the decision whether to charge a defendant, and with what — is almost entirely discretionary. Given the plethora of criminal laws and regulations in today’s society, this due process gap allows prosecutors to charge almost anyone they take a deep interest in. This Essay discusses the problem in the context of recent prosecutorial controversies involving the cases of Aaron Swartz and David Gregory, and offers some suggested remedies, along with a call for further discussion.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 6
**
He offers a number of tentative suggestions on how to address the problem:
√ Rather than granting prosecutors absolute immunity against lawsuits, shift to a “qualified, good-faith immunity for prosecutors” — in other words, make them personally liable in instance when they aren’t carrying out their duties in good faith. [Dan, given the case you played a major role in up in Md you might like this idea. DaveH ]
√ If a personal is charged with a crime and acquitted, make the prosecution pay their legal bill. Or if there are multiple crimes being adjudicated, “we might pro-rate things: Charge a defendant with 20 offenses, but convict on only one, and the prosecution must bear 95% of the defendant’s legal fees. This would certainly discourage overcharging.”
√ Ban plea bargains all together, so that every criminal charge filed would have to be backed up in open court.
√ Alternatively, “we might require that the prosecution’s plea offers be presented to a jury or judge before sentencing. Jurors might then wonder why they are being asked to sentence a defendant to 20 years without parole when the prosecution was willing to settle for 5. 15 years in jail seems a rather stiff punishment for making the state undergo the bother of a trial.”
√ Consider whether regulatory violations should be subject to criminal sanctions at all.
Good stuff, IMHO.
As always, YMMV.
Re: my last
If you want to do a bit of background reading, check out:
Three Felonies A Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent
http://tinyurl.com/aw28brh
and
Go Directly to Jail: The Criminalization of Almost Everything
http://tinyurl.com/aprbg7b
And yet a revisit to another of my pet peeves:
http://tinyurl.com/a46jx57
**
Guilty Until Proven Innocent: Washington, D.C.’s Civil Forfeiture Racket
Policing for profit in the nation’s capital.
John K. Ross | January 19, 2013
Jerrie Brathwaite was not in her car when Washington, D.C. police seized it in January 2012. She had lent her 2000 Nissan Maxima to a friend, and that friend was pulled over, searched, and found to be in possession of drugs. A year later, Braithwaite—who has never been charged with a crime—still doesn’t have her car back, and no one from the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) will return her calls.
Brathwaite, 33, is knee-deep in the murky world of civil asset forfeiture, where confiscated cars, cash, and other property disappear into police coffers, and where legal recourse for owners is confusing, slow, and expensive. Under civil forfeiture, police can seize property from people who are never convicted—much less charged with—a crime. Unlike criminal forfeiture, where the government must prove property was used in the commission of crime, civil forfeiture law presumes an owner’s guilt.
SNIP
Brathwaite’s situation—and the MPD’s behavior—are not uncommon. Civil forfeiture is a national problem. Law enforcement agencies seize millions of dollars worth of property each year with little or no due process for owners. In all but six states property owners are considered guilty until proven innocent. State law typically allows law enforcement to keep most or all of the proceeds from forfeiture—an enormous incentive to police for profit.
SNIP
**
Sounds like interesting stuff, Dave Hicks. With regard to:
“√ Rather than granting prosecutors absolute immunity against lawsuits, shift to a “qualified, good-faith immunity for prosecutors” — in other words, make them personally liable in instance when they aren’t carrying out their duties in good faith. [Dan, given the case you played a major role in up in Md you might like this idea. DaveH ]“
There were two cases of wrongfully convicted men I played major roles in. The first, Guy Gordon Marsh, was convicted in 1973 of a 1971 murder and robbery at a 7-11 on Crain Highway and Aquahart Road. I turned up the evidence that perjury played THE key role in his conviction in 1987, and his conviction was overturned and he was released.
The other was a murder that happened in November 88 (I think I got these years right). Near the end of his 3-day trial in 89, defendant Bernie Ward took an Alford (guilty) plea to murder. The stabbing murder, of a gay guy who was last seen in a Baltimore bar, happened Nov. 15 1988 in an abandoned house about a quarter mile from 7-11 on Crain Highway at Aquahart Road (the one Guy Gordon Marsh was convicted of robbery/murder in ’71). But the body wasn’t found until more than a month later. Bernie Ward was sentenced to life in prison. Later that year I did a story that quite conclusively established Ward was in Tallahassee when the murder occurred in Maryland. Those included phone records, an interview with a priest (who only met Ward once); time and date-stamped court records in Fla with Ward’s handwriting on them, and other stuff. Bernie is not the sharpest pencil in the box, by a longshot and one of his big problems was that he “confessed” to being at the murder scene when the cops in Tallahassee picked him up. But the “confession” was wrong on so many details (day of week; time, town the murder occurred in, description of the vic’s car, and other things, that it was clear to me it was bogus.
Based on the evidence I turned up, Ward’s second lawyer won him a retrial after filing a motion that Ward’s original counsel was incompetent, bascially because the first lawyer should have turned up the exculpatory evidence that I did later. In the ruling that overturned the conviction, a 25-year-veteran law & order judge called it the clearest case of incompetent counsel he’d ever heard of. The retrail with the second lawyer lasted a week, and the jury took less than 2 hours to acquit Ward. That was in ’94; he had served 5 years in prison.
Even though they occurred years apart, both the Marsh and Wards cases were prosecuted by the same guy. He was a part time prosecutor (an oddity in AA County) who had a lucrative family law practice. In both cases, he was not the original prosecutor on the case. Rather, they got dumped on him when the original prosecutors left the State’s Attorney’s office for other jobs.
This guy is a VERY talented courtroom attorney. Juries loved him. He could take a weak case and, largely through his courtroom presence, persuade a jury the defendant was guilty as hell. In Ward’s case, he more or less convinced the DEFENDANT that he was guilty, which was truly bizarre. In baseball pitching terms, the prosecutor was a closer with a lot of saves under his belt.
I never quite came around to believing he prosecuted either case in absolute bad faith, though. It was more like, he was theatrically talented enough to take a thin case and make it seem substantial. If he had a flaw, it was that he took at face value what some corner-cutting detectives told him about the cases. He didn’t critically examine the evidence they handed him, and seemed to let slide things that didn’t seem quite right.
Funny; a relative in Annapolis was talking recently about possibly hiring a family law attorney and without hesitation I recommended this guy. I suspect he’s a great advocate to have on your side.
But there’s no question at all that he wrongfully convicted two men of murder. And I bet you he doesn’t lose a bit of sleep over that, either.
I hope all the bloggers here appreciate how lucky we all are to have such a gifted, highly trained, well educated, climate scientist like hey Frank
(snicker) to keep us all straight in our thinking on global warming and climate change. He clearly has years of valuable experience in the field and knows everything there is to know about the subject. I am sure that next year when he is forced to return to private life, Ken Cuccinelli and hey Frank will join together and create a social internet site funded by some right wing think tank and supported by contributions from the Koch bros. and advertising by the fossil fuels industry so that we can all keep up with the truth about this crucial matter And as an added benefit, Ken and hey Frank ( along with the Koch bros., the oil industry, and the coal mine owners) can make lots of money. In the meantime, the rest of us can continue paying the higher costs associated with the derechos, the Sandys, the proliferation of tornadoes, and the health care issues created by the water and air problems associated with all that profit taking.
Frank,
I wouldn’t be able to comment on Michael Mann’s hockey stick “theory”, because it isn’t a theory. It’s a graph with information on it. There’s a difference, but if you don’t know that at your age, I probably can’t convince you. Apparently many use the “hockey stick” as the single most important fact that climate scientists are part of a conspiracy to undermine the sensibilities of people who believe the earth is a static system and can’t be affected by human activity.
I accept the review of the scientific panels that absolve Michael Mann of any scientific shenanigans. Science ain’t perfect, but it does realize that integrity comes from close inspection and rejecting bad ideas. Mann got a whole measure of review and came out fine.
It turns out climate science is complex. I wouldn’t be inclined to accept or reject assertions on climate based on “a” graph. It’s a minuscule piece of information amid thousands of papers on a myriad of topics, many of which converge on the notion that global temperatures are changing and humans activities are the cause.
Michael Mann is person you’d never hear about, except our attorney general didn’t like his science because it didn’t agree with his politics, or, apparently, yours. In the end, his peers backed him up. It remains to be seen if the AG can continue make political hay with this. Personally, I think mobilizing the conspiratorial base was easy. Getting people who are less inclined to think that way is going to be much harder.
Mike Scott, you do know that you are wasting keystrokes right? Frank is not here for discourse, he is here to disgorge. Nothing changes his tone, his mind or his efforts. You treating his sloppy mess as respectable debate is much more than it deserves. That is one of the great liberal faults and why this crap has gotten as far as it has. Treating the disdain the Franks and Suzies of the world treat anything outside their POV as perfectly respectable discussion is a mistake. It only dignifies the bilious.
Just like ignorant troll Frank. Take a long discredited wingnut talking point and then repeatedly pummel it into the ground with a dead horse. Amazing the number of times this guy repeats the same thing over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over. Thank god Dan occasionally (but VERY rarely) clamps down on the BS.
Sandi,
Yeah I suspect you are correct about that. I can generally spot people who seem more interested in spouting than discussing. The tip off is usually “hey you libs” which uses the age old tactic of tying an individual to a group with whom the individual may or may not identify. It’s the guilt by false association ploy, in which folks like Frank get to dictate the totality of all my thoughts and political actions in his terms because it fits his commentary or personal narrative of how the world appears.
Still, I hold out some hope for Frank. He promised to read an informative opinion on climate change by a respected scientist and climate skeptic. If he can intelligently comment on the Muller’s conclusions and state why Muller’s analysis lacks in some manner, then we’ll have a small victory for rational discourse. He might even admit that his background and expertise don’t allow him to make an informed decision on the science.
The good money is not on that bet though. I’d wager more on a response that fits along the lines that said skeptical scientist is, himself, part of the left wing conspiracy to change all we know and love about America. Either that or they all work for the Trilateral Commission.
“He might even admit that his background and expertise don’t allow him to make an informed decision on the science.”
OTOH, he probably just yell “Hey, Mike,” and then repeat the same discredited statement or question he’s already posted a dozen times.
I’m going with gdad’s prediction.
As I previosly stated, Gdad, you spread nothing but falsehoods. You wouldn`t know a truism if it hit you in the face. Do you just sit there and make these things up for the fun of it? Remember, the TRUTH always wins. How about some honesty for a change…or, maybe you actually believe the crap that the Democrats tell you to believe.
applewood: do you have anything of substance to offer at all or do you just waddle in, kick on the fog machine and run?
How about you put up or shut up? Lay something substantial on us, backed by evidence, and let’s debate it. Part of letting the truth win is weighing the merits and relevance of all evidence presented, not dismissing evidence out of hand because it disproves your claim or you dislike the source. That’s not truth, applewood, that’s bias and yours is quickly becoming all we can see of you through the fog.
Hey Mike Scott,
Muller’s web-site is quite interesting, thanks for sending me the link. And, for all you other libs, I urge you to bone up on Muller, and his web-site. Then you should be able to keep up with Mike and I.
Mike, thus far I have thoroughly read Muller’s Theorems (which are not climate related but do offer some insight into life in general, and are a fun read), along with “A Brief Introduction to Ice Age Theories”, “Brief Introduction to the History of Climate”, along with Muller’s “Naked Copenhagen”, an article appearing in the WSJ in December 2009.
I will send you comments on the above later today. I think we might be getting somewhere.
Also, have you given any thought to sharing your opinion regarding Professor Michael Mann’s “Hockey Schtick” theory?
Hey J.M., “applewood: do you have anything of substance to offer at all or do you just waddle in, kick on the fog machine, and run?”
I dunno, I kinda agree with applewood’s point to gdad. Gdad hasn’t provided even one little lick of a fact, substantial or otherwise, on this thread.
Hey J.M., I have an idea! As of the time I write this post, Gdad has made just two posts on this thread, both having been made since Jan. 23 at 8:59 a.m. Please read them.
Do either of those posts rise to the level you demand of applewood?
Is gdad a partisan kindred spirit of your’s, unlike applewood?
Where is your comment which chides ol’ Ggad? Oops, I guess he’s immune from that, right, cause he’s a lib.
“As I previously stated, Gdad, you spread nothing but falsehoods.”
applewood, this is getting old and dull. Do you have nothing else other than this schtick? My statement about Frank and his repetitive posts is absolutely 100 percent correct, which can be verified simpyl by looking back at them. Which is tough to do if you have trouble reading.
Amazing the number of times this guy repeats the same thing over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over. Thank god Dan occasionally (but VERY rarely) clamps down on the BS.
Gdad is describing himself. My NextSearch app shows he’s mentioned the MSM claim about the $7 million clean-up bill for the Wisconsin Capitol grounds a whopping 37 times. Even Dan has had to tell him to shut up a few times, though it pained him greatly to do it.
Frank “hasn’t provided even one little lick of a fact, substantial or otherwise, on this thread”, or any others either and therefore lacks the credibility and ability to question anyone else’s assertions. YOU are the one making the outrageous claims Frank, so YOU are the one who needs to substantiate them, it is not our job to do that for you.
Science is not a “movement”, it is not a one man show and scientific theory is not something they make up.
What you and applewood offer is false debate, meaning you are pretending to debate and you have nothing but your right wing memes and attempts at clever insult to work with. You do not have enough understanding or information to even be called a skeptic, you are merely a follower claiming other followers are wrong. It is really a sad spectacle.
Frankly, Frank, I’m not particularly thrilled with the way that gdad conducts himself on the blog, but he doesn’t roll in here with every single comment calling other people liars and just generally being combative, either. He’s chosen his “enemies” and sticks with them, often engaging in reasoned, mature discourse with those that engage him in kind. He just seems to have less tolerance than most when you guys decide to strap on your clown shoes.
applewood, on the other hand, thinks he’s “winning” by insulting nearly everyone he comes across. It’s kind of like what you do sometimes, Frank: You wade deep into a liberal stronghold, smear some crap on the walls, and then act appalled or complain about civility when the residents start chewing your butt for doing it. You differ in that you don’t call everyone a liar, you just blatantly ignore any evidence to the contrary of your claim and repeat the claim, whereas applewood seems to only get crazier, more combative and even more vaporous.
Either way, you’re both perfectly capable of reasoned, mature discourse. Whether you choose to take that path is up to you, but know that you are weighed and measured by nothing more than your words here. You could be a great person in real life but present yourself as a complete ass in this place. You will be treated as such, too.
Well now that you bring it up again, suzie…
Frank@88…my thoughts on the hockey stick are in post 80.
J.M.,
Good words from you. I would expect nothing less. However, you are treading very close to the line over which hypocrisy lurks.
By the way, those clown shoes you reference seem to be pretty popular with just about all folks on this blog.
Hey! I know! Maybe we are all bound together by wearing the same shoes!
Hey Frankie, my two posts you refer to were simply factual observations about the way you post. No lies. And my “ignorant troll” comment was simply patterned after the way your blog idol suzie claims it’s OK to post. You should also read a little more closely before you accuse J.M. of not getting on my case — he did so just a few days ago because I post anonymously (which I reckon would apply to you, as well).
As for applewood, every time I’ve addressed one of his/her claims, I’ve presented facts or my opinion based on fact to counter what he or she has said. His/her reply? Waaaaa, waaaaa, Huff Post lies. Waaaa. Proven fact. NY Times lies. Waaa, waaa. He/she even said this when Huff Po ran a story that agrees with his views, when Huff Po simply restated what the Vatican said, and when I stated that Bobby McD (and the GA) had diverted money from the state pension fund, which is without question a fact.
“Frank@88…my thoughts on the hockey stick are in post 80.”
Yeah that Frank, he really pays attention to what you say when you answer on of his inquiries. After all, his main mission here is to get answers.
Snicker, snicker.
Ron,
I congratulate you on your success. I have no problem with reasonable taxes for necessary functions of government. However, I do believe there is a point of abuse, and I believe 60% of one’s income is well above necessary. I also believe that everyone should pay something. I would be curious to know what number you believe is enough. (as a side note; do you remember all those here, who criticized Romney for taking advantage of tax loopholes?. You might be careful, lest you incur the wrath).
Dan,
Your revisionist writing regarding “global cooling” would make Orwell’s “Winston Smith” cringe.
Some of us who lived during the 70’s (without losing all our brain cells), remember that “cause dujour” well, just like “acid rain” (hope that doesn’t cause any flashbacks).
If the best you can do is slam me for the “I thought” instead of “I remember”.
“I think” (lol) your argument is truly lacking.
Steve C,
I take my debts and obligations seriously and, unlike many these days, I look for no one to bail me out from my own mistakes.
I believe your memory to be incorrect. However, given my penchant for “smart a$$” hypothetical’s and scenario’s (which Dan loves so much); the possibility cannot be completely discounted. If you find that it was me, I would be interested in seeing it.
Frank and Applewood are really getting under the libs’ skin.
Let’s see. 50 straight hours below freezing in this southern location? Man, global warming is really a bear. LOL.
Hey mike o at 4:58 pm,
Very well said, sir.
Comments by Dave Hicks — January 23, 2013 @ 12:00 am. Dave, I share your interest in this topic, as I worked for many years in the courts. The prosecutor definitely has the upper hand because of the power of charging. It can be abused and is, but perhaps not as often as suggested in your links. In considering some of these suggestions, it is wise to consider unintended consequences. Anyway, a few comments:
He offers a number of tentative suggestions on how to address the problem:
√ Rather than granting prosecutors absolute immunity against lawsuits, shift to a “qualified, good-faith immunity for prosecutors” — in other words, make them personally liable in instance when they aren’t carrying out their duties in good faith.
√ If a personal is charged with a crime and acquitted, make the prosecution pay their legal bill. Or if there are multiple crimes being adjudicated, “we might pro-rate things: Charge a defendant with 20 offenses, but convict on only one, and the prosecution must bear 95% of the defendant’s legal fees. This would certainly discourage overcharging.”
Something like these first two ideas appeals to me, but determining bad faith may well be harder than determining guilt/innocence. Would bad faith have to be determined beyond a reasonable doubt, by clear and convincing evidence, or just perponderance? Dan opined that he couldn’t say that the prosecutor in the cases mentioned acted in bad faith. Will we distinguish between bad faith and just negligence? There is a possibility somewhere here. It will be interesting to see if a national discussion goes anywhere.
√ Ban plea bargains all together, so that every criminal charge filed would have to be backed up in open court.
Sounds good, but I suspect the criminal justice system would grind to a halt because of the time and cost of trials. Also, plea bargains do benefit defendants a significant percentage of the time.
√ Alternatively, “we might require that the prosecution’s plea offers be presented to a jury or judge before sentencing. Jurors might then wonder why they are being asked to sentence a defendant to 20 years without parole when the prosecution was willing to settle for 5. 15 years in jail seems a rather stiff punishment for making the state undergo the bother of a trial.”
√ Consider whether regulatory violations should be subject to criminal sanctions at all.
If a company or public utility discharges harmful chemical into the air or water, should we not prosecute wanton disregard for regulations. If a coal mine owner willfully falsifies safety logs regarding methane gas levels and an explosion occurs causing dealth, should we not prosecute? In my view, there are many laudable regulatory crimes that should be prosecuted more vigorously than, say, drug crimes.
Comment by Dave Hicks — January 23, 2013 @ 12:00 am
Re: Jason Perdue @ 7:36 pm
Civil suits standard of proof = preponderance — unless the legislature pass a law to make enumerated classes of civil claim more difficult to prove and raise the evidentiary standard to one of clear and convincing evidence, in those cases.
If this proposal is ever enacted, I would suspect clear and convincing would be required.
I would suggest that appeal courts findings of procedural misconduct would become a defacto standard with room for other clear and convincing evidence allowed but harder to win.
Re: my last
**** Spell check road kill **** Proofo ****
Should have read, “I would suggest that appeal courts findings of prosecutorial misconduct would become a defacto standard with room for other clear and convincing evidence allowed but harder to win.”
mikeo,
All my income was earned in the U.S. and I have no accounts in Switzerland or the Cayman Islands. My tax accountant takes every deduction permitted to me under the law. No more, No less. I’m not worried about critcism from my fellow bloggers regarding the taxes I pay.
I’m not sure how old you are mikeo. If Mr. Mickelson paid anywhere near 60% of his income in taxes he had incompetant tax advisors. Be that as it may, tax rates that we have today are a relatively new experience. Until the 1980s the federal tax rates were as high as 50%+ and from the 1930s to the 1960s as high as 90%+. I happen to believe that level of taxation is too high. To have taxes on the wealthiest from 35% to 39%+ is not a great burden given the current tax code. There are sufficient ways in the current tax code to reduce one’s tax burden as we learned with Mitt Romney and other wealthy individuals.
The danger for Mr. Mickelson and others like him is when Congress begins to take a serious look at the tax expenditures available to people of means. That’s when you, Mr. Mickelson, myself and others have to be very careful.
“Let’s see. 50 straight hours below freezing in this southern location? Man, global warming is really a bear. LOL.”
SCORE!!! suzie actually uses the stupidest and most ignorant argument a climate change denier can produce. I love it! I wondered who who claim the current non-record cold is some sort of evidence against global warming, and it was troll suzie.
“Frank and Applewood are really getting under the libs’ skin.”
It’s true that many liberals have a low tolerance for right-wing doltishness.
“It’s true that many liberals have a low tolerance for right-wing doltishness.”
–Comment by gdad
For more about RW doltishness, read the Friday guest post!
Suzie:
“Gdad is describing himself. My NextSearch app shows he’s mentioned the MSM claim about the $7 million clean-up bill for the Wisconsin Capitol grounds a whopping 37 times.”
Got a stat for how many times he’s mentioned OWSers pooping in Elmwood Park? That’s got to be up there too.
This nation has a revenue problem and yes we will have to look where the money is in order to make up that deficit. We need about 18% of GDP to sustain. It has to come from somewhere. For anyone making close to 50 million dollars a year to whine over taxes or the cost of anything is petty and childish.
This nation has a revenue problem and yes we will have to look where the money is in order to make up that deficit. We need about 18% of GDP to sustain. It has to come from somewhere. For anyone making close to 50 million dollars a year to whine over taxes or the cost of anything is petty and childish.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — January 24, 2013 @ 8:30 am
The solution is cut spending. . .revenues already up and “taxing” to citizens.
I agree Leon that spending needs to be cut. Let’s start with eliminating all the tax expenditures in the IRS Code.
If all the tax expenditures were eliminated, current estimates indicate annual federal government revenues would increase by near $1 trillion. That’s enough to eliminate the annual budget deficit. And this revenue could be raised without increasing tax rates, which is a sticking point for many elected officials.
Let’s you eliminate just half the tax expenditures. That’s still $500 billion each year or $5 trillion over 10 years. And, as I said in the paragraph above you could do that without raising tax rates.
See how easy that was Leon. Write your congressman/woman and tell him/her to get to it.
The solution is commons sense cuts and raising revenue.
I agree Leon that spending needs to be cut. Let’s start with eliminating all the tax expenditures in the IRS Code.
Comment by Ron May — January 24, 2013 @ 9:40 am
Ron; the IRS code is about revenue; not expenditures. . .which is why it is named “the Internal Revenue Code”. If you are suggesting eliminating all deductions. . .you are proposing more tax increases. . .which is a typical stupid liberal progressive mantra.
The solution is CUT / SLASH / ELIMINATE spending which means reduce the size of government. Government has gotten so big and complex that the GAO cannot audit it. . .this is unacceptable, wasteful and an example of the ineptness of liberals being in charge.
If we want to grow the economy taxes must be reduced. . .this actually stimulates business unlike the “stimulus” your messiah wasted billions upon billions on. Spending cuts must, and will, occur. The present spending level is not sustainable even at the exceptionally high tax rate
levels we are currently experiencing.
Obamanomics is not working and the only way one cannot observe this is due
to fundamental stupidity or inattention which are traits liberal progressives possess in abundance. . .
Hey Mike Scott,
Sorry I missed your post at 80. And, thanks for the link to the Muller web-site. I’ve spent quite a bit of time there, and am not yet finished…however, I do owe you some feedback. Thanks for your patience.
The below material is taken directly from Muller’s web-site. I will give you some feedback on Muller’s “awakening” later on today. Also, I provided a like to the Michael Mann issue, which, while there may have been some political exploitation concerning his tenure at UVA…Mann’s “science”, …isn’t science.
1. Muller’s Theorem’s – Many of life’s truisms are listed, along with some that appear to be original to Muller. Fun reading, and good food-for-thought. Theorem 25 is noteworthy: “Scientists are as easily fooled as anybody else.”
2. Muller’s 12/12/2009 article, published in the WSJ, “Naked Copenhagen.” Muller posits several interesting ideas towards reducing warming, including “Perhaps we could…squirt a few million tons of sulpher dioxide into the stratosphere to reflect sunlight, emulating the 1991 Mt. Pinatubo eruption.” Or, “we could foam up the oceans to increase reflectivity.” Muller goes on to say, “Another option is that we could learn to live with global warming. Despite claims to the contrary, storms aren’t increasing.”
Muller closes the article with, “Above all, we need to recognize that the West-bear-the-burden Copenhagen proposals are meaningless.”
3. ICE AGES and ASTRONOMICAL CAUSES – chapter 1. “A Brief Introduction to the History of Climate”. This 6 page report chronicles an approximate 120 year climate history.
- NOAA says, “according to an “averaging technique” devised by Qualye et al, that the “average area-weighted average over land and ocean” shows that Earth surface temperature is rising.
- fig. 1-2 – “The cool period preceding the 20th century warming is now seen as a dip that lasted 700 years. This period is now referred to as the little ice age.” Mike, the record reflects this “dip” as lasting 700 years, and was preceded by temps which were higher…as discussed in Fig. 1-3.
- Fig. 1-2 closes with, “The height of the Roman republic and empire was reached during another time of unusual warmth – even higher than the warm period of today, if the ice-reckoned temperature scale is accurate”.
- Fig. 1-3 – “some scientists argue that global warming is not human-caused, but is simply a natural return to the normal temperature of the previous 8,000 years.” “In fact, no one knows for sure if this is right or not.”
“The dip near 6000 AD is not understood. It actually appears to be coincident with a short term increase in temperature that took place in Antarctica.” Fluctuations are evident all over the plot, and crying to be understood.”
“The sudden rise…, at about 9,000 BCA (about 11,000 yrs ago) was the end of the last ice age. The abruptness of the termination is startling. The enormous glacier, several kilometers thick, covering much of North America and Europe, rapidly melted.”
I’ll close with quotes from the last paragraph in the 6 page article: “As soon as the cycle of ice ages was known, scientists realized that the ice age would eventually return.” And, “the more likely scenario for the early 21st century, is the continued gradual growth of global warming.
http://dailycaller.com/2010/07/25/michael-hockey-stick-mann-hides-atop-the-climate-change-ivory-tower/
Frank,that’s not an “article”. It’s someone’s crap blog, and sure as heck not a scientist’s.
Any time you see “Sorry, folks” in the text, you can assume it’s worthless. It’s like Leon citing some nonsense website as his “proof” that King was a Republican.
“Gdad is describing himself. My NextSearch app shows he’s mentioned the MSM claim about the $7 million clean-up bill for the Wisconsin Capitol grounds a whopping 37 times.”
Got a stat for how many times he’s mentioned OWSers pooping in Elmwood Park? That’s got to be up there too.”
Well, by golly, if right wingers wouldn’t make up idiotic lies like these two examples, I’d have nothing to goad them with, would I?
But I’ll tell you what, maybe suzie can run that app (if it even exists and if she even has it) on how many times she’s falsely claimed that Obama stole the election or any of about a dozen other inane topics that she recycles constantly. Or maybe how many times John W has repeated certain vapid gun arguments. Get back to us on those, suzie.
#114 Uhh, wrong again, Leon:
“Tax expenditure: Revenue a government foregoes through the provisions of tax laws that allow (1) deductions, exclusions, or exemptions from the taxpayers’ taxable expenditure, income, or investment, (2) deferral of tax liability, or (3) preferential tax rates.”
Read more: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/tax-expenditure.html#ixzz2IuQw5d31
“A tax expenditure program is government spending through the tax code. Tax expenditures alter the horizontal and vertical equity of the basic tax system by allowing exemptions, deductions, or credits to select groups or specific activities. ”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_expenditure
“Tax Expenditure
The way in which a government uses a tax code to spend money. For example, suppose a government offers a tax credit for adopting a child. In such a case, an adoptive parent would pay less in taxes than he/she otherwise would, effectively receiving a subsidy from the government for adopting a child. Tax expenditures are popular ways for governments to encourage behaviors such as purchasing a home or having children.”
http://financial-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Tax+Expenditure
Leon,
Not that I expect you will read it, but here’s a document that will further your education regarding tax expenditures. If you really were to dig into the issue of tax expenditures, I’m sure you’ll find many you’d love to eliminate. For example, the federal government spends, via tax expenditures, $11.9 billion each year on renewable energy companies. The list goes on and on Leon. Our government spends more than $1 trillion each year on them. They rarely get reviewed or discussed because they are never part of any budget discussion. It’s a primary reason Congressmen/women and Senators love them because they can insert them into the IRS code and it never gets discussed. Read the article and be informed Leon.
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/tax-reform/report/2010/04/15/7638/tax-expenditures-101/
If you bother to look at facts (I know, the bane of right wing existence!), you will clearly see that we routinely had revenue that was 17-20% of GDP until Bush’s tax cuts and we have suffered since. The GOTP maneuvered us into this crisis by cutting taxes past the sustainable point, continuing to spend as if no loss of revenue was happening and then we had an economic collapse. We do spend a lot of money to maintain this nation of “gimme” but make no mistake, the “gimme” is as corporate as it is individual and as greedy as it is needy.
We cannot JUST cut spending. And we won’t. The GOTP for all their dishonest rhetoric and sophistry won’t either. It can’t.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=205
I know you hate listening to people who know anything, but Bruce Bartlett once again nails it.
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/22/when-tax-cuts-were-a-tough-sell/
“Those who don’t know the history probably assume that the tax cut was a slam-dunk for Kennedy, something that was overwhelmingly popular. In fact, a big tax cut was highly controversial because at that time Republicans actually cared about the deficit and recognized that tax cuts would increase it. This view was shared by the large bloc of conservative Southern Democrats then in Congress and the general public as well.”
There was a time when making this nation work trumped politics. Thanks to the GOTP and complicit cowardly Democrats, that is no longer the case. The right wing would rather destroy this nation than admit they are wrong.
By the way Leon, we’ve tried that trickle down economics theory since the 1980s and all it has succeeded in doing is destroying the middle class. Our tax rates are as low as they have been since the income tax was first implement Leon. Finally, eliminating the tax expenditures, or even half of them, would not require increasing the tax rates. Think about Leon. Open your mind for just a moment. It’s amazing what revelations you might actually see.
OMG. . .Ron is another Walking Eagle. Between 1980 and 2008 the economy was solid. . .a few peaks and valleys but once Reagan got rid of the misery index things were good. Democrat (Liberal) economic policies =
tax and spend do not work. You can get your $500 billion in additional revenue by curbing the IRS’s ability to release that much in fraudulent refunds each year.
Goodlatte has the right idea. Scrap the code and put something reasonable in place. People like Beason and the rest of the IRS agents will find something else to do. . .BTW. . .the reduction in government payroll will be a start on the spending cuts. Sandi says we just can’t cut spending but, Sandi, is wrong.
I suggest you open your mind or take the blinders off as you know not of which you speak.
hey kristen,
yeah yeah yeah, the daily caller is not msnbc, so you discredit it. the writer is a writer, so you discredit him. by the way, when was the last time you discredited ol’ dano, eh?
my purpose for including the link is to share some information, which you might not have seen from your lib-sources, to “low-information” folks like you.
I think we all know that this whole “crisis” is not about spending, it is about dismantling (due to need of course!) the social safety nets.
They have only to sky write it.
Hey Frank, guess who originally said not to waste a crisis?
“In the 40th anniversary edition of his book, “Capitalism and Freedom,” Milton Friedman advised conservatives to use crises as opportunities to advance their agenda. “Only a crisis – actual or perceived – produces real change,” he contended.”
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/25/a-conservative-case-for-the-welfare-state/
“Republicans are now using the fiscal impasse to try to raise the age for Medicare and reduce Social Security benefits by changing the index used to adjust them for inflation. They know that such programs will be easier to abolish in the future if the number of people who qualify can be reduced and benefits are cut so that privatization becomes more attractive.”
And don’t forget the best part here, this is not Huffington Post or Daily Kos, not even Democratic Underground, it is Bruce Bartlett, who “held senior policy roles in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations and served on the staffs of Representatives Jack Kemp and Ron Paul. He is the author of “The Benefit and the Burden: Tax Reform – Why We Need It and What It Will Take.”
Leon gets nailed to the wall so he ignores the topic. Typical.
Frank@115
Read the NYT opinion piece. You do realize you are now promoting the ideas of a man who is has convinced himself that global warming is real and that people are to blame for it.
Frank, the Daily Caller is not the issue, using your own or any other writer’s POV to dispute science is the issue. When Dan starts arguing chemistry with a Chemist or physics with a Physicist, we will whack him too.
Leon, you have made it more than clear that you are the one in blinders, tight ones at that. I have never said “we just can’t cut spending” not what I said, not what I meant, not what we are doing, not even what anyone has said that I am aware of.
Since you are putting words in my mouth, it is you who “know not of which you speak”.
I think we all know that this whole “crisis” is not about spending, it is about dismantling (due to need of course!) the social safety nets.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — January 24, 2013 @ 11:50 am
If you had common sense you would realize that cutting spending is a must do to save the social safety nets. Present levels of spending are unsustainable.
If the whole system collapses or the value of our currency is completely undermined there will be no social safety net. If that happens Sandi; you
will probably want a gun for self defense.
Frank…
As long as you are reading seriously into what Muller has to say about global warming, you might also compare/contrast how the opinions you post might have changed once he sat down and reviewed climate data. He certainly came squarely down in the camp of scientists who believe people are causing the climate to warm.
Sandy,
Actually, I’ve talked a little chemistry with Dan. He knows enough to have a intelligent conversation. If the topic was the pharmacology or chemistry of certain drugs, he knows quite a bit about that for some reason.
Wow, Suzie and Jon Stewart agree! It’s possible that Stewart might be using a little sarcasm: “Global warming is a total hoax. And Ill tell you how I know. Because it’s cold today, where I live. That’s just science.”
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/01/jon-stewart-cold-global-warming.php?ref=fpnewsfeed
Holy cow, Mike Scott!
I am not promoting anything of the sort! I AM trying to carefully read Muller’s material, as contained on his web-site, and offer feedback to you.
The NYTs article, Muller’s “awakening” announcement, which I have read, contains no data, but Muller does direct readers to BerkleyEarth.org (headed by he and his daughter) to access five different scientific reports which contain his analysis.
Questions for Mike:
1. were any of the reports more meaningful to you than the others?
2. why are temperature reading sites weighted more toward land than water?
Thanks.
@131 pt2- Now that’s laugh out loud Funny.
“the writer is a writer”
Well. Color me convinced.
Hey Frank…the Daily Caller is not MSNBC. It’s also not Romper Room.
Frank,
To answer both questions, one the issues addressed in the study concerning urban heat islands. I first ran across that criticism of climate study in Michael Chichton’s book State of Fear. The skeptical main character lays out the whole problem of extrapolating global temperatures based on measurement stations in urban heat sinks. Sounded like a good argument to be skeptical of those measurements.
Muller’s group knew what the skeptical arguments were so they just analyzed temperature increases in non urban environments and still got the same increases. No matter what sub groups of temperature they analyzed, they found the same trends.
Don’t ask me to explain the mathematical or statistical models. That’s not within my realm of expertise, but I know enough that if the guy is putting all the data and the process on line for criticism, people who do no that stuff will poke holes in it if they can find them. That’s the way science works.
Mike Scott,
I didn’t ask you about Urban Heat Islands, as Muller makes his points on that issue pretty clear. I also haven’t asked you to explain Muller’s mathematical or statistical models….and, in my opinion, the studies are not fully comprised of only math and statistics. I was most interested to see if you had even looked at Muller’s studies, upon which he based his epiphany.
Evidently, you haven’t.
I’m surprised that you fully swallow what Muller is presenting in the NYTs article with no skepticism. Muller’s “Berkley Earth Surface Studies” presumably will, at the least, provide some insight into his team’s thinking process….and whether over-ocean air was in fact excluded from his research…and if so, why so. I will review those studies, and let you know my thoughts in due course.
The measured temperatures in Muller’s research appear to be comprised exclusively of over-land air measurements…which of course include relatively limited amounts of water, such as some very large lakes, and very large rivers.
What they apparantly don’t measure is air temperature over oceans and seas, which comprise over 70% of the Earth’s surface. In my opinion, thats a lot of area to be excluded from Muller’s epiphany. Particularly perplexing is that most of us lay people have some awareness that over-ocean-air temperatures often vary from over-landair temperatures….and, a primary influencers of ocean water and over-ocean air temperatures are under-surface water currents. I’m surprised you didn’t pick up on what appears to me to be the fact that Muller left that data entirely out of his study…and, that you are unaware of the inherent unreliability of “global” air temperature measurements which exclude over-ocean air temperatures, or, …which exclude over 70% of the Earth’s surface, an area of which has air temperatures which vary, sometimes greatly vary, from over-land air temperatures.
Thanks for sending the Muller material to me. Thus far, I am fascintated.
“What they apparantly don’t measure is air temperature over oceans and seas, which comprise over 70% of the Earth’s surface. In my opinion, thats a lot of area to be excluded from Muller’s epiphany. Particularly perplexing is that most of us lay people have some awareness that over-ocean-air temperatures often vary from over-landair temperatures….and, a primary influencers of ocean water and over-ocean air temperatures are under-surface water currents. I’m surprised you didn’t pick up on what appears to me to be the fact that Muller left that data entirely out of his study…and, that you are unaware of the inherent unreliability of “global” air temperature measurements which exclude over-ocean air temperatures, or, …which exclude over 70% of the Earth’s surface, an area of which has air temperatures which vary, sometimes greatly vary, from over-land air temperatures.”
–Comment by Frank
Translation: Frank will be satisfied that global warming is actually occurring if and when scientists manage to accurately measure long-term temperature changes in every cubic centimeter of air over the oceans and seas, and those measurements show an increasing trend (over a time period Frank does not specify).
That is impossible, though, so Frank will always believe in the impossibility that the Earth is warming.
They don’t measure air temperatures over oceans? Who knew?
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/bams-state-of-the-climate/2009-time-series/mat
Before you claim that a sharp guy like Muller would ignore something like that, you probably should go pretty deep into the data. I mean, you don’t have to look very far to find out that temperatures over oceans, in oceans and around oceans have been measured for many years.
“I was most interested to see if you had even looked at Muller’s studies…Evidently, you haven’t.”
Mike Scott obviously does know about Muller’s work, and Frank obviously won’t admit it.
Frank is not just ignorant about climate data being compiled in, on and over oceans. He also seems to not realize that all the layers of the atmosphere are measured regularly from both sides, earth and space, and much more than just temperature is measured that reflects climate shifts (e.g. UV refraction, atmospheric gases, etc).
hey dano…good ol’ dano…, and Mike Scott of course,
Again, a heart-felt thank you goes out to Mike Scott for sending me data on Richard Muller, the brilliant scientist (for the record, I am convinced Muller IS brilliant…) whose recent “awakening” from being a man-made global warming skeptic to a believer…has heavily influenced Mike Scott’s recent epiphany as well. That said, on to the details, ’cause that’s where the devil lurks…
1. All 5 Muller studies are predicated on air-over-land temperatures.
2. The Earth’s surface is 29.2% land, 70.8% water…or thereabout.
3. According to the last sentance in Berkley Earth’s study titled “250 Years of Global Warning”…Elizabeth Murrel (brilliant Richard’s brilliant daughter) says, “The current data does not include ocean temperatures; these will be added in the next phase of the Berkley Earth Studies.”
Question for Mike and ol’ dano: Why is the Mullers’ study referred to as “Global” when it applies only to the “land” coverage of Earth, which covers only about 29% of the entire “globe’s” surface?
4. The last sentence of Muller’s study titled, “Influence of Urban Heat on the Global Temperature Average”….reads thusly, “Including ocean temperatures in the Berkley Earth reconstruction is an area of future work.”
Mike,
I can’t imagine that you crossed over from a possible skeptic to a firm, unabashed believer based on Muller’s work, admittedly incomplete is it is, and as both Muller and his daughter both say it to be…at least, they say that their work in fact covers only 29% of the globe, and leaves OUT the most important global air temperature feature…oceans and seas….which are heavily influenced by under-water currents bringing cold water up and causing a “mixing” effect with warm water…well, you see where this is going, don’tcha…
Mike, I’m surprised at you for not knowing more about Muller than you appear. However, I am learning more about this important topic, and for that I thank you.
Dano, well, I’m not surprised at you. Based on your post, global warming appears to be one of those topics you admittedly know little, if anything, about. Hey, I know! Why don’t you read Muller’s material, like I have? Afterward, you might share what you learn with Mike.
Point taken #131 Mike Scott — January 24, 2013 @ 12:55 pm! No doubt either.
Well we will just have to wait and see what conclusions they come to when they finish analysing that data. Although there’s always more data. Always.
A very little tiny speck of knowledge is a dangerous thing.
Mike Scott,
Serious question…
Knowing what you now know, why do you think they call it “Global” warming temperature, when the measured temperature only covers air-over-land …which covers only 29% of the globe…and which excludes the greatest influencer of air temperature yet known to man, that being the oceans and seas…which cover the other 71% of the globe?
Mike, that’s a serious question.
“Mike Scott,
Serious question…
Knowing what you now know, why do you think they call it “Global” warming temperature, when the measured temperature only covers air-over-land …which covers only 29% of the globe…and which excludes the greatest influencer of air temperature yet known to man, that being the oceans and seas…which cover the other 71% of the globe?”
–Comment by Frank
Mike Scott, I reckon you will need a translation for Frank’s “serious” question. It is below:
Translation: “Mike, knowing what you now know, how big a fool do you think I am, considering that all of my intellectual powers are displayed right here on this blog? Serious question.
–Translation of a comment by Frank
Well now Mike, you are going to have to admit that hey Frank has got you there. Just because something happens on continents oceans apart cannot mean it is “global”.
hey dano,
Seriously, man.. it’s a legitimate question, and one you should be easily able to answer in a serious manner….unless you are a closed-minded, partisan, biased-writer, hypocrite.
Holy moly, this has been fun!
Thanks for playing, dano.
Frank,
I have to admit, you are really on to something. Partial Global Warming. I never even considered this possibility.
You read one detailed investigation out of thousands, and came up with an alternative hypothesis to explain why Muller is half baked. Heck, not even half, 29%.
Well done sir. Well done.
Before you take this alternative hypothesis to the journals, lets wait and see what Muller does with the temperatures of interest.
hey Mike Scott,
Said another way, here’s what happened:
1. I posted some information as published in the RT&WNs about Roanoke weather in 1977.
2. You send me something about Richard Muller (a NYTs article, and a link to Muller’s website.
3. You clearly give credit to Muller for tipping you entirely from the ” global-warming “skeptic” camp squarely into the man-caused global warming camp…all because of Muller’s conversion.
4. I read the material on Muller’s website (which you didn’t have the intellectual curiosity to do), and discovered a hole or two in his methodologies.
5. You swallowed the info in the NYTs article on Muller …hook, line, and sinker…and without question.
6. Unlike you, I actually read the material, and easily discovered…since it was noted by Muller and his daughter several times throughout his Studies, …that his “Studies” included “land-air temperatures” only.
7. Land covers less than 70% of “global” Earth’s surface.
8. You have allowed Muller to hoodwink you into accepting as gospel his “man-made global warming” conclusion without the least bit of intellectual curiosity.
9. That’s why there remains a lingering question for you:
Why do you accept without question Muller’s description of his work (which you bought sight unseen) as being “global” when in fact it is far, far, from global?
“4. I read the material on Muller’s website (which you didn’t have the intellectual curiosity to do), and discovered a hole or two in his methodologies.”
–Comment by Frank
Frank, you discovered no “hole or two in his methodologies.” You may believe you did — but I assure you, there’s a huge difference. You simply created a silly talking point based on an argument so stupid that it’s akin to saying, “Hey, if the Earth is warming, how come it’s below freezing in Roanoke today?”
It’s not worthy of any more more response.
I addressed my last post to Mike Scott, dan. I didn’t ask you to address my response. You did so of your own volition.
Frank,
You are indeed a brilliant man. Scores of intellectuals, scientists and skeptics have examined and commented on Muller’s conclusions, but you alone see through the clever subterfuge.
I don’t know how we all missed the obvious problems with the study when the author and his daughter mentioned it so frequently. It’s like they were trying to trick everyone with transparency and then by focusing entirely on only the data they analysed. Kind of like that old “pick a card” trick where the dealer pushes one in your direction.
Here I sit, hoodwinked, because I put credibility in the analysis of millions of data points they did include in their studies instead of a focus on the analysis they haven’t yet done.
Aside from your brilliance, you clearly have clairvoyant abilities by apparently knowing the totality of what I’ve read, the level of my intellectual curiosity (or lack there of), and how I come to my conclusions (single opinions in on paper).
A rare skill set indeed.
Never the less, you now put your own hypothesis out there. It’s being tested. It will either validate the current thinking or invalidate it. I’m sure either way you’ll alert us all the results of the study.
“Hey, if the Earth is warming, how come it’s below freezing in Roanoke today?”
And that was suzie’s “brilliant” argument.
Speaking of one’s own volition, you ignored the link provided by Mr. Scott revealing the data you claim is overlooked. I’ll repeat it for you here:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/bams-state-of-the-climate/2009-time-series/mat
If you check out all the graphs at that link, you’ll see an unmistakable upward trend in every single graph except one. While marine air temperature is not trending upward at the same rate as land temperature, the ocean heat content from 0-700m (which, by your own claims, is more important than land temps) is rising at a rate directly correlative to the data from over land.
Essentially, instead of finding any flaw in Muller’s theory, you’ve only reinforced it’s validity by demanding additional data be counted. Unfortunately for you, that data directly supports his theory and unless you’re doing your “thing” of being deliberately obtuse, you’re out of gas.
None of this, of course, will do a thing to change your mind. Just because you [incorrectly] think that you’ve pulled one rivet out of an aircraft carrier doesn’t mean that she’s going to sink.
You didn’t read Muller’s work to learn about the way the climate is changing and its potential causes, Frank. You read his work with the deliberate intention of finding a flaw so you could attempt to discredit him. That’s not science; that’s a witchhunt.
I’m enjoying the show.
hey J.M., welcome aboard!
I’d kinda wondered where you was.
J.M.,
If you had bothered to read my posts to Mike Scott from an unbiased perspective, you would have noticed that once Mike attributed his conversion… from whatever he said he was, to a fully fledged man-made global warning believer, …was based on the teachings of Muller, I focused my attention strictly on Mr. Muller, his studies, his writings. Mike Scott provided two links regarding Mr. Muller. One was to his website. The other was to a puff-piece NYTs article about Mr. Muller’s awakening. ALL material I read on Muller came directly from the links sent to me by Mike.
That said, Mr. Muller’s studies clearly state that they excluded ocean and ocean-air temperature readings from his “land-air” temperature readings. Ergo, my questions became focused like a laser on the fact that Mr. Muller’s studies only measured 29% of the globe’s air temperature…all of which was over land.
In other words, J.M., I focused all attention to Mr. Muller, who is a “once a skeptic, but now is found” kinda scientist”, whose brilliance led Mike Scott (according to Mike) fully into the man-made global warming tribe.
The link you note has nothing to do with Mr. Muller, nor his studies. Therefore, it has no bearing on the discussion Mike and I were having.
And, your premis is also wrong, J.M. I found Mr. Muller’s web-site to be very interesting and full of information, and find Mr. Muller to be a fascinating and smart man. As far as you thinking my motive was to “find” something to discredit Mr. Muller…nah, I didn’t do that. You see, Mr. Muller acknowledged the omission on his own, several times, as good scientists do.
In fact, I found Muller’s omissions within several minutes of reading (i, like many folks, often read scientific conclusions first), and continued reading his studies because they are interesting.
hey gdude and dan,
I’m glad you boys brought that up. If you were to move to northern California, say Eureka on the coast, which has an average temperature of 52.7 F, would you also think that Eureka’s weather would be representative of all of California?
Oops, my bad. Of course you would. Sheesh.
ahhh, dadgumit. My above-use of the word “weather” should have been “temperature”. Sorry.
Gee, Debbie,
I was hoping the show would go on a bit longer. Do ya think it was something I said…erhaps some fact which couldn’t be re-butted??
Something you said, Frank? Perish the thought.
Whew! Thanks, I would have worried about that to no end.
Boy, I’ll tell you, Frank’s “logic” is just breathtaking. Or maybe it’s his breath.