Comments Posted By allen
Displaying 11 To 20 Of 74 Comments
ABOUT MY DECISION TO LEAVE THE RIGHT
Pretty funny. You did leave out "capitalist running dogs," one of my all time favorites.
Comment Posted By Allen On 14.12.2009 @ 13:38
WHAT'S SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND ABOUT CLIMATEGATE? EVERYTHING
Climatology is relatively new science that is poorly understood by many people at this point. The first thing you need to do is separate the physically measured data from the inferred data.
For example, ice mass, ice extent, trapped gases in ice cores all contain physically measurable quantities that contain valuable climate information. for example the Vostok Ice Core data contains deuterated water which gives us a picture of the climate going back 400,000 years. It's a intellectually and mathematically rigorous process. Note, that we don't have to attribute the changes to anything at this point to see it, and all of it would be considered good rigorous science.
Next we have the inferred type of data, specifically global average temperature anomaly. In this case the base data would be the temperature readings themselves. From that, various mathematical schemes can be used to arrive at that quantity. This is where the problems are. As the 2001 IPCC report stated it's a "signal in the noise" problem. The temperature data itself is so noisy it's quite difficult to suss out the signal of the temperature anomaly. It also requires making a number of assumptions. Now if you then take this quantity and correlate some of the other physical data from above you've pulled all of the assumptions made into the previous data sets, where they did not previously exist.
In other words, you have attributed all events to global warming, based on the mathematically derived anomaly. It is very likely that one could see the same physical effects without any warming whatsoever. The climate is a complex non-linear dynamic system so not only are a large number of changes possible due to other forces, they are likely.
Comment Posted By Allen On 8.12.2009 @ 14:12
PALIN MAINSTREAMS THE BIRTHERS
Some of the comments at PJM were funny as hell Rick. I think you should write more of this stuff just to bring them out. My favorite: Moran the undercover Maoist.
Comment Posted By Allen On 4.12.2009 @ 16:20
Well the decision is made, let us hope it works out for the best. What will be interesting is in seeing the reactions in Congress when he goes to get the funding. If the republicans play any silly buggers with this they will only hurt themselves. The democrats have the real problem. A good portion of their constiuencies will not like this, but they have to go with them our their party leader. Tough row to hoe.
Comment Posted By Allen On 2.12.2009 @ 13:23
SUPERBLY OBLIVIOUS TO HIS OWN IDIOCY
Jesus Christ, you people have got to be shiting me. Sullivan's premise is that Palin claimed her daughter's baby as her own. Does any of that strike you as insane? You need to examine the possibility?
I never thought the fever swamp could get deeper and wider, but it has. Why don't some of you people hook up with the Truthers, the Birthers, the Fosterites, and the Triggers.
At least make it a complete insane conspiracy theory. Palin's daughter gave birth to a Down's syndrom child to hide the fact that the real father killed Vince Foster, who knew the secret behind 9/11, before it happened, who hid Obama's birth certificate.
Comment Posted By Allen On 19.11.2009 @ 23:21
IS THERE ANY WAY SARAH PALIN CAN RECOVER?
Ah yes, a political speech with strong terms never made a change in anything.
Mr. Gorbachev tear down this wall!
Mr. Moran, if the last few days doesn't tell you anything, where Gorbachev was praised for tearing down the Berlin wall, nothing will.
The fact that Sarah Palin termed them "death panels," when in fact a government panel will determine health care options, including life ending options, is fearmongering to you. Well so be it.
The wall isn't real.
Comment Posted By Allen On 17.11.2009 @ 00:32
MORE THAN POLITICAL CORRECTNESS OR VICTIMHOOD AT WORK IN FORT HOOD ATTACK
"...believed him chillingly odd but not a real threat."
I'm not buying that for a moment. I went through an experience like this where I used to work. The man in question talked frequently about all the guns he had, was decidely pro-militia, and then one day started making jokes about news stories of people shooting their managers.
A number of us immediately called the cops, and let upper management know, in no uncertain terms, this man was a potential threat. It was dealt with. The idea that no one might recognize the threat is ludicrous to me. I wouldn't be surprised to discover that he was reported as being a potential threat but it was swept under the rug.
Comment Posted By Allen On 12.11.2009 @ 16:12
A RELATIVELY SHORT FOLLOWUP TO MY PJ MEDIA ARTICLE ON BI-PARTISANSHIP
It is much like the cold war, both sides are afraid to unilaterally disarm because of a lack of trust.
The way to do it is in small steps. Opportunities are lost all the time because of gargantuan bills. For example, om immigration the republicans tried to get a monstrosity through that tried to do too much. Maybe, they should have started small by trying first to limit the influx.
Similarly, the current health care debate. the first step should have been just to fix the fraud in Medicare. By breaking up the legislation into smaller bites it's much easier to gain consensus, and build trust.
Comment Posted By Allen On 10.11.2009 @ 17:21
Busboy33,
The districts come and go based on the census the state house, and gerrymandering. Just in the 23rd District as constituted today: 210,000 registered (R) 160,000 registered (D). One might think it's a shoein for the republican but when you break it down by counties, over time, more democrats get elected to the House regardless of which district that county might be in. Similarly in the 20th right next door when you breakdown the registered (R) vs. (D) it's about the same. They have a similar history of voting.
The real question, in my mind, is why can't the GOP get registered republicans in those districts to vote for their candidates?
Comment Posted By Allen On 4.11.2009 @ 17:52
Busboy33,
Where are folks getting the idea that these are "safe" republican Congressional districts? All of them, the 20th, 21st, 22nd, 23rd, 24th, and 25th are primarily democrat districts. Over the last 100 years these districts have gone about 80% of the time for democrats in the House. The democrats have held about a 3 to 1 advantage over the republicans in the state legislature for a long time.
Granted most of those districts went to the republicans under Reagan's first term and stayed that way from anywhere from 10 to 20 years. So it's somewhat recent, but they turned back for Clinton or prior to Bush's second term.
Comment Posted By Allen On 4.11.2009 @ 16:47
