Bio not provided
I was going to reply in detail, but as I stated before: why bother? You wouldn't listen anyway.
The data tampering that has been going on at NOAA and NCDC is nothing short of astounding. So I don't accept them as credible sources, even if you do.
Don't worry, I have been through this before, and I have little doubt that you will find ad-hominem attacks to make against "Steve Goddard", even though he has caught NCDC at publishing figures based on data that doesn't even exist, and they even admitted it.
You really don't get it yet that this argument is over. But I have had many years now of dealing with ideologues and I don't expect anything I say to convince you. So it isn't worth my time to really try.
2 months, 3 weeks ago on Conversation @ http://www.newrepublic.com/article/120202/james-inhofes-greatest-hits-his-last-time-senate-environment-chair
Where do you get this rubbish? The "actual data" show that alarmism over CO2 is made-up nonsense.
Here's your "actual data" (and it is... HadCrut4 is straight from the folks that brought you ClimateGate):
(Quote: "It is worth noting that the observed trend over [1998-2012] — not significantly different from 0...")
It isn't "stupid" to look at the ACTUAL data and make judgments from that, rather than listening to politically-driven left-wing climate alarmism on the news.
AND... your "99%" was actually 97%... and even that was absolute nonsense:
Actual statisticians looked at the same data and concluded that "study" only actually showed a 0.3% "consensus".
So don't go calling people stupid when it is so easy to show that you do not, yourself, know what you're talking about. You've been fed a bunch of politically-motivated propaganda masquerading as "science", and you swallowed it hook, line, and sinker.
Well, let's see:
We know that Crichton was correct that the "green machine" has been a huge cash cow for the Democrats.
We know that oil companies DID spend a few million dollars fighting draconian regulations. Maybe $10 or $20 million, maybe even more. But we ALSO know that according to GAO, by 2010 government had spent $106 BILLION on "climate change" research. So... which "side" is spending money on this again, exactly? I don't understand the argument because even if the energy companies had spent a billion (they didn't), the money argument still works AGAINST the alarmists by more than 100 to 1.
We know that climate models have beet utterly incompetent at predicting ANYTHING.
We know that sea level is not rising any faster than it was 150 years ago.
We know that we have been in a 30-year LOW in global cyclonic energy (hurricanes, tornadoes, etc.).
We know that droughts are down, and floods are pretty much normal.
We know that Antarctic sea ice has been at record highs, and right now, today, Arctic ice is almost exactly at the 1981-2010 mean. (That means perfectly normal.)
We know that Antarctic land ice isn't shrinking any faster than it ever has, according to the historical record.
We know that there hasn't been any actual warming in 18 years, even though CO2 has continued to rise.
We now know (recent paper in Nature) that there is no "missing heat" hiding in the deep oceans.
I could go on, but why bother?
What this all means is that LEBER doesn't seem to know that this argument has already been won, and her side did not come out on top. Time to get a clue.
Don't forget Madison's Report of 1800, a couple of years later, in which he expanded upon his earlier resolution, and explicitly stated that the Supreme Court is susceptible to corruption and power-grabbing, just like the other branches.
And hey, TenthAmendment Center: I'm going to keep telling you this until you get off it and get a decent comment system: I *STILL* can't log in using my Firefox browser. I got it working in Chrome and Safari, but still no go with Firefox. The login window pops up then instantly goes away. Even with all script blockers and everything like that turned off.
AND... this is also an important point: for a site that is supposed to love freedom and privacy, it sure does host a lot of scripts that track users! According to my Do Not Track application, you have NO LESS THAN 11 DIFFERENT TRACKERS on this site. They are:
1. Twitter Badge
2. Facebook Connect
3. Google "+1"
8. Google Analytics
11. Comscore Beacon.
Don't let anybody tell you that these scripts don't track users: they do. I am a professional web developer, I have used many of them myself, and I know exactly how they work. (I should qualify that: I do not use them unless a client expressly asks for them, and even then I try to talk them out of it.)
1 year, 11 months ago on Nullification in One Lesson
You should be made aware of a couple of things:
First, the Washington State webpage for emailing State legislators does not allow you to send emails to senators or representatives unless your address is in their district. So contacting committee members DOES NOT WORK if you go through the usual procedure, unless your particular rep. is on the committee. I ran into this issue when the previous Washington State bill (HB 1168) was mentioned here. So if you want to contact the committee members you need to come up with an alternative scheme.
Second, TenthAmendment Center's "livefyre" comment login system does not work worth a darn. It would not work for me at all in either Firefox or Chrome browsers. I use a script blocker in Firefox but even with it turned off, the login system would not work. I have no script blocker in Chrome but that did not work either. When you click "Sign In", using either browser, a login window pops up then immediately disappears. I have sent feedback to your organization about this issue before.
I finally managed to log in using Safari. But keep in mind that Firefox and Chrome together are used by a pretty good percentage of your readership... far more than Safari users. I would not be surprised if that were a major reason why I have not been seeing as many comments lately.
1 year, 11 months ago on Washington State Considers Firearms Freedom Act – Tenth Amendment Center Blog
I'm not putting down religion. But I would like to explain why I believe introducing it into your argument is a big mistake.
Throwing religion into the mix does 2 things:
First, it gives people the impression (correct or not) that you are relying on faith rather than logic to put forth your argument. If you are trying to make a logical or factual argument, then, your argument is often weakened in the eyes of your audience, even if it is still logically sound.
Second, it gives fuel to your opponents. Because now they can claim (rightly or wrongly) that you are a "right-wing religious nutcase" and so nobody should listen to the stuff that you spew.
So, to sum it up: I'm not saying there is anything wrong with your belief or your expression of it. But from the standpoint of STRATEGY, I would thank you very much to stop spoon-feeding talking points and sound bites to our opponents.
2 years, 5 months ago on Name Calling and "Tenther Nullification Nonsense" in Arizona
This is a good summary of the nullification concept, but you weaken it when you try to use religion to justify it. That was completely unwarranted, unwanted, and unappreciated.
Take a lesson from Jefferson, and leave your religion at home.
Other than that, it was an excellent article.