Comments Posted By jackson1234
Displaying 11 To 20 Of 190 Comments
WHAT'S SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND ABOUT CLIMATEGATE? EVERYTHING
Sharp piece. I am an agnostic who is about to become an atheist on this subject without the creds to be on one side or the other. In other words, I am just like the minions who accept AGW except I know my limitations. They don't realize it or perhaps could care less since a certain messianic, religious fervor is evident among many AGW zealots.
Yesterday I read an initial analysis of one of the leaked graphs. It was an attempt to dumb down the subject and make sense of it, but it was tedious to say the least. The conclusion was that the model was so fraught with error as to be useless. Nonetheless, this graph informs a lot of the common research. It is this type of information, along with what I admit is a gut reaction to some AGW advocates' blatant chicanery, that has started to make me more doubtful than neutral.
You are particularly right here:
"What it should do is knock some sense into the fools who are gathering in Copenhagen. If this were truly about saving the planet, there would be no talk of requiring the kinds of draconian, economy destroying measures being contemplated by world leaders. But global warming is now out of the scientist’s hands and is in the political realm. And since politics is ultimately about control, government action to curb emissions will be the order of the day."
It seems--note, True Believers, seems--some of the more prominent AGW researchers have been driven by the desire to obtain results to justify policy decisions. At a minimum that isn't science as we know it.
Against this backdrop, Copenhagen is a total farce.
Comment Posted By jackson1234 On 8.12.2009 @ 12:02
WARMIST ADVOCATES REFUSE TO DIFFERNIATE BETWEEN 'DENIERS' AND 'SKEPTICS'
Scientists are the ultimate skeptics. The East Anglia emails reveal many if not most AGW advocates who also happen to be scientists dropped their requisite skepticism.
The smallest problem AGW advocates have is their conflating skepticism with denial. No, their largest problem is they not only cannot make their case while they demand intrusive, outrageous economic disruptions, they have undercut that case themselves.
Stick a fork in this turkey. The tragedy will be if AGW turned out to be correct and over-reaching killed it. I have started to doubt that scenario as my AGW agnosticism is moving rapidly toward atheism.
Some left-wingers conducted the ultimate war on science here. Since I love the fruits science produces, I fear for how badly it has been tarnished by these fanatics.
Comment Posted By jackson1234 On 7.12.2009 @ 09:43
Richard Bottoms:
"Even that limited amount of work needed to overcome Bush’s ADD was too much so we skipped out less than two years into the war and made in much harder and very much more expensive to accomplish to little we can do even in the best of scenarios."
Amazing how Bush's ADD lasted eight years, and the left-wing's ADD has lasted about 11 months under this president. The "good war" didn't look so good with a change in Administrations, eh? If Obama can do one-third as well as Bush I will be happy. If he surpasses him I will be elated. If his lunatic base will give Obama half a chance (you know, the same loons who raised hell when Bush even sent troops to Afghanistan), I will be shocked.
Comment Posted By jackson1234 On 2.12.2009 @ 15:38
Rick:
"That was my follow up to this - a round up of Michael Moore type reaction on the left."
Let us not delude ourselves. We don't have to turn to kook fringe celebrities like Moore to get the Democratic Left's reaction. Elected Democratic officials have done a bang up job in less than 24 hours.
Behold:
"For most of the public policy decisions in the first 10 months of his presidency, President Obama has enjoyed the backing of the liberal wing of his party. However, Obama's latest move -- sending 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan -- places him at odds with many of his most ardent supporters in Congress...
"The two co-chairs of the 82-member Congressional Progressive Caucus -- the largest subgroup in Congress -- oppose the troop surge and are just two of a sizeable number of Democrats who are likely to vote against its funding...
"Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) withheld support in a statement released last night, saying only that Obama had "articulated a way out of this war" and that the "American people and the Congress will now have an opportunity to fully examine this strategy...
"Hours before the speech, four members of Congress held a press conference at the Capitol to denounce the troop surge. They agreed that Congress should be allowed to fully debate the move before any troops are deployed...
"The three Democrats there -- Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wisc.), Rep. James McGovern (D-Mass.) and Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), who chairs the Congressional Black Caucus -- said there is a distinct unease within the Democratic caucus about the decision to send more troops and that its funding is far from a sure thing..."
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/12/02/rep_woolsey_majority_of_dems_will_vote_against_war_funding_99367.html
The kook fringe is the Democratic Party mainstream on national security issues with few exceptions. You might get some grief from Freepers, I have no clue, but when you look at the reaction of rank-and-file Republicans, let alone their elected officials, there is no comparison to the Democratic reaction.
None.
I would be interested to see how many of these fine public officials were all for the "good war" in Afghanistan until Bush went out of office. I'm certain someone will compile their old, i.e., 11-month old, musings.
Hypocrites all.
Comment Posted By jackson1234 On 2.12.2009 @ 11:45
An addendum: The speech live was horrible and perhaps the worst the president has delivered. The transcript is much better.
Comment Posted By jackson1234 On 2.12.2009 @ 10:29
You ruined an otherwise good post with an incredibly stupid question at the end. The vast majority of Republicans indeed support the president. The majority of Democrats oppose him. In fact, the only Republican criticism has been he either should have deployed more troops and/or shouldn't have imposed a withdrawal date. Most Democrats, of course, being world class liars and hypocrites ("Afghanistan is the good war", ad nauseum) want a withdrawal. While there are exceptions on both sides, this is how it has shaken out.
Will you run a post about Democratic opposition to the president on Afghanistan?
I doubt it since it doesn't fit your insipid template.
That was my follow up to this - a round up of Michael Moore type reaction on the left.
Come back in a few hours - especially if I get linked by the Freepers and you tell me whether that last question is spot on or not. Even though most knucklehead Republicans don't visit here anymore, I'll still get a fair share of heat for agreeing with Obama.
ed.
ed.
Comment Posted By jackson1234 On 2.12.2009 @ 10:24
While there always is the possible excuse of mental illness or financial gain, this is just intellectual laziness. The man has essentially turned out to be a poor substitute for a DailyKos diarist. This tripe is what the left-wing extreme sites spew without the coherent insanity.
Comment Posted By jackson1234 On 1.12.2009 @ 12:54
WALKBACK COMPLETE: US RECOGNIZES WINNER IN HONDURAN ELECTION
Michael:
"Endorsing the idea of military coups in Central America?"
Coup? More like "court ruling." But hell, why let facts get in the way with a little, insignificant country like Honduras?
Comment Posted By jackson1234 On 30.11.2009 @ 14:41
I am not so certain whether the Obama Administration was as "amateurish" as much as ideological here. Regardless, the people of Honduras have spoken and chosen wisely. It is a truly sad day when a left-wing American president feels compelled to cast his lot with a wannabe dictator who shares some of his core convictions. The same can be said of the Argentine and Brazilian leadership.
Sharp analysis.
Comment Posted By jackson1234 On 30.11.2009 @ 09:54
'THE COST OF DYING:' FALSE CHOICES OR THE FUTURE OF AMERICAN HEALTHCARE?
Michael Reynolds:
"I have to go with (b.) You really don’t want to leave that decision in the hands of someone whose stock options rise in value if you die."
I'll take the greedy businessman over the political hack who will make his decisions on who lives and who dies on the basis of party and faction. I read your description of Medicare, largely right, above. It really undercuts your argument when you come to think of it, to wit, the biggest government health program already makes political decisions.
Comment Posted By jackson1234 On 24.11.2009 @ 12:10
