Wednesday Open Thread

"People's minds are changed through observation and not through argument."

–Will Rogers

33 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. Andrew Carnegie says:

    There seems to be a new explanation for the theologans at the Church of Global Warming as to why it is not hot outside, the ice-caps still have ice and our cities are not under water.  

    It has been cooling for the last approximate 15 years, not warming.  

    The idea is that an increase in the number of volcanoes, which spew sulpher into the upper atmosphere and which combine with water vapor to form vaporized sulphuric acid, deflects the sun's rays away from the earth.

    Here is a link:

    • davebarnesdavebarnes says:

      Excuse me, person who did not read the abstract.
      From the abstract: "Despite continued growth in atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases, global mean surface and tropospheric temperatures have shown slower warming since 1998 than previously"

      Slower warming is not cooling.

      • Duke CoxDuke Cox says:

        C'mon, Dave,

        Warming is cooling, up is down, left is right,and natural gas is a "clean" fuel. There is no such thing as "truth" in the rightie lexicon. Whatever suits the narrative…that is the MO of tools like our current loudmouthed troll.

        Anything that starts……is, history suggests, probably a lie.

      • Andrew Carnegie says:

        The article had a link to a Forbes article which states:

        "The increase in global temperatures since the late 19th century just reflects the end of the Little Ice Age. The global temperature trends since then have followed not rising CO2 trends but the ocean temperature cycles of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO). Every 20 to 30 years, the much colder water near the bottom of the oceans cycles up to the top, where it has a slight cooling effect on global temperatures until the sun warms that water. That warmed water then contributes to slightly warmer global temperatures, until the next churning cycle.

        Those ocean temperature cycles, and the continued recovery from the Little Ice Age, are primarily why global temperatures rose from 1915 until 1945, when CO2 emissions were much lower than in recent years. The change to a cold ocean temperature cycle, primarily the PDO, is the main reason that global temperatures declined from 1945 until the late 1970s, despite the soaring CO2 emissions during that time from the postwar industrialization spreading across the globe.

        The 20 to 30 year ocean temperature cycles turned back to warm from the late 1970s until the late 1990s, which is the primary reason that global temperatures warmed during this period. But that warming ended 15 years ago, and global temperatures have stopped increasing since then, if not actually cooled, even though global CO2 emissions have soared over this period.  . . .

        At first the current stall out of global warming was due to the ocean cycles turning back to cold. But something much more ominous has developed over this period. Sunspots run in 11 year short term cycles, with longer cyclical trends of 90 and even 200 years. The number of sunspots declined substantially in the last 11 year cycle, after flattening out over the previous 20 years. But in the current cycle, sunspot activity has collapsed. NASA’s Science News report for January 8, 2013 states,

        “Indeed, the sun could be on the threshold of a mini-Maunder event right now. Ongoing Solar Cycle 24 [the current short term 11 year cycle] is the weakest in more than 50 years. Moreover, there is (controversial) evidence of a long-term weakening trend in the magnetic field strength of sunspots. Matt Penn and William Livingston of the National Solar Observatory predict that by the time Solar Cycle 25 arrives, magnetic fields on the sun will be so weak that few if any sunspots will be formed. Independent lines of research involving helioseismology and surface polar fields tend to support their conclusion.”

        That is even more significant because NASA’s climate science has been controlled for years by global warming hysteric James Hansen, who recently announced his retirement.

        But this same concern is increasingly being echoed worldwide. The Voice of Russia reported on April 22, 2013,

        “Global warming which has been the subject of so many discussions in recent years, may give way to global cooling. According to scientists from the Pulkovo Observatory in St.Petersburg, solar activity is waning, so the average yearly temperature will begin to decline as well. Scientists from Britain and the US chime in saying that forecasts for global cooling are far from groundless.”

        That report quoted Yuri Nagovitsyn of the Pulkovo Observatory saying, “Evidently, solar activity is on the decrease. The 11-year cycle doesn’t bring about considerable climate change – only 1-2%. The impact of the 200-year cycle is greater – up to 50%. In this respect, we could be in for a cooling period that lasts 200-250 years.” In other words, another Little Ice Age."

        Personally, when chosing to believe conflicting reports, I would go with Forbes over the UN.


        • DavidThi808DavidThi808 says:

          For something this long – create a diary. And write most of it yourself. Quoting as appropiate is fine but dumping an article is lazy, is not fair use, and causes everyone to zone out.

        • JBJK16 says:

          Ideological blindness has requirements.

          Nuance is not a bad thing.

          When someone posts climate change stuff like this, it's easy to deduce your position:

          1. There is no climate change.

          2. Een if there might be, it's not human caused.

          3. Even if it was, it's too big and there's nothing we could do.

          4. Even if we could do something, it would be so expensive,  we shouldn't.

          In other words – I cannot be convinced because even if I could it wouldn't change anything. <fingers in ears, La – La- La-lala >


  2. Duke CoxDuke Cox says:

    The most telling sentence in the above points out the bias of the authors…"NASA's climate science has been controlled for years by global warming hysteric James Hansen."

    Calling Mr. Hansen a "hysteric"  gives away their prejudice.

    • BlueCatBlueCat says:

      The level of  certainty, well beyond 90%, clears the gold standard for science which doesn't grant 100% certainty to anything. No projections predicted that there would be no ice in the polar caps by now so that's sheer straw dog. Global warming also is understood as resulting in extremes so extreme cold spells are not at all inconsistent with the theory. Regardless, the dramatic shrinking of various ice masses is well documented. 

      We could all go on and on but we know what little use GOTPers have for facts or science. Just look at the drive to teach creationism as science and to deny evolution because it's just a theory. Like gravity and everything else in the scientific realm. 

      Can you imagine what they'd be saying if there was such overwhelming consensus among scientists, over the mid 90% range, for something they found it useful to believe but that progressives claimed, on the basis of nothing more than a tiny percentage of dissenters, was not true? Of course that never happens because facts have such an inconvenient liberal bias. On the right, idiotology trumps every other consideration including objective reality. Just ask Karl Rove. 

      • ajb says:

        There's no point debating science with AC. He doesn't understand the stuff he's cutting/pasting, so why bother?

        • BlueCatBlueCat says:

          He's a strict idiotologist. 

        • roccoprahn says:

          Okay, ajb, I understand that.

          But is it a "litmus test" that to be a "conservative", you HAVE to believe the crap this troll posted, in spite of the fact that 85% of scientists WORLDWIDE believe the planet is reacting catostrophically to climate change, that the United States DOD has called climate change the biggest threat to our national security, and NASA is an operational government agency, saying the same things in Democratic as well as republican administrations?

           I definitely believe this guy is just trolling without even reading/believing this garbage, and I guess any work is good work if you can do it, but the idea of someone exhibiting such disgracefull behavior, knowing something isn't true but dispensing it anyway, betrays a really creepy id.

          It's just wierd.

  3. DavidThi808DavidThi808 says:

    So they spent 5 million and didn't even look at Hyperloop? Come on people – think forward!

    "To do this kind of thing in the future, maybe in 20 to 50 years, you need to get interest generated and in the pipeline now," said CDOT project manager David Krutsinger.

    20 – 50 years from now it won't be high speed rail, it'll be something much better.

    • Elon won't be funding Hyperloop, and he only specced it out for the coastal run anyway. HSR is at least running in places.

      The cost for HSR between DIA and Eagle has come down since the first I-70 improvement study came out. IIRC it was >$18b then. The comparatively high cost to run HSR from Pueblo to Ft. Collins was surprising to me. I would have thought that would run a bit less, especially if they ran the rail around the cities and provided connector lines to the regional transport systems (e.g. catch light rail from DIA).

  4. DavidThi808DavidThi808 says:

    Really interesting (and long) article on the offshoring of digital work and the possibility of enforcing anti-subsidy laws against that work – REVEALED: MPAA’s latest anti-piracy move accidentally, completely screws Hollywood studios

    • BlueCatBlueCat says:

      Really interesting and readable despite length. Now maybe these techies are beginning to understand that they aren't exempt from the race to the bottom? Imagine the alliances of mutual support that could be formed between them and traditional worker protection organizations that still have some big money and influence of their own on the Dem side, such as the remaining unions?

  5. BlueCatBlueCat says:

    Speaking of science it turns out there are scientific reasons for the recent outbreak of paranoia among billionaires who seriously liken themselves to groups persecuted by the Nazis. No really. Not as long as David's very good article either. You should read that one, too. You can read the rest of this one at link. 

    It turns out F. Scott Fitzgerald was right about the very rich: Science confirms that they really are different from you and me.

    That difference has been on uncomfortable display lately, with billionaires declaring themselves an oppressed but superheroic minority “being pummeled” and “picked on,”despite their incomes having grown exponentially over the past few decades, leaving the rest of us far behind.

    Dacher Keltner, a psychology professor at the University of California-Berkeley, is not surprised by these rich-guy outbursts, which have included offensive comparisons to Nazi persecution. His research shows that large gobs of money often make people drift away from the reality the rest of us know. So if some of those millionaires and billionaires seem to be completely out-of-touch rich guys lacking sympathy for their fellow man, that's because they are.


    • saofner says:

      TPM Cafe has some research up whcih is important for those seeking a more fare Colorado as well as elsewhere.  It behooves us all to reach out to those who are not voting:   Class bias in voting is getting worse. From 1976 to the onset of the Great Recession, 21 states saw decreases in class biases in voting, but 29 states saw increases – and the increases were much larger than the decreases.


      First, states with higher levels of class bias in voting have been less likely to enact minimum wage increases. This increases inequality, since higher minimum wages are known to be associated with reductions in income differences.

      Second, as class bias in voter turnout becomes more pronounced, state governments become less liberal generally and less responsive to public opinion when the public moves left to support steps that could reduce inequality. Liberal public opinion tends to favor egalitarian policy interventions, so governments that are not responding when the public moves in that direction are less likely to enact a wide variety of policies that could mitigate economic inequality.

      What then can be done by those who disagree with Tom Perkins and wish to reduce income inequality? Our research suggests that encouraging more widespread voter participation is part of the answer.

  6. Andrew Carnegie says:

    Income inequality?

    Reed has to pull raise in Minimum raise because he does not have the votes.

    So much for the Obama theme song for 2014.

    Guess destroying 500,000 jobs is not universally popular, even among Dems.

    Maybe he can lower the threshold to approve legislation to less than 50 votes?

    • He needs 60 votes. He has 37 committed, and 2 Democratic opponents (Pryor and Carper). That leaves 16 uncommitted Dems (I'm guessing both Angus King and Bernie Sanders are already signed on) for a potential 53 yes votes – enough to pass, but not enough to bypass cloture/filibuster.

      And it would be dead in the House anyway. But it's still good to push for it.

  7. BlueCatBlueCat says:

    Oh and here's why today's GOTP is never going to do better with women. Remember these aren't things Ds said about Rs' views. These are things R pols and talking heads have said themselves.  Direct quotes in  full context.  What little criticism they have received from fellow Rs or half assed apologies a few may have offered themselves has always been along the lines of "poor choice of words", never condemning, admitting the stupidity of or denouncing the actual views expressed or the idiotologists (who must have all the maturity of 11 year old boys) expressing them. The idea that many of these men actually have wives who aren't completely repulsed by them and even allow physical contact is creepy beyond words. Stockholm syndrome?

  8. BlueCatBlueCat says:

    Here's one especially for JBJK. Now I know there's no cure for stupid and anecdotes do not a case about anything make but I just couldn't resist.

  9. MichaelBowmanMichaelBowman says:

    Rumors swirling that Cory Gardner just entered the US Senate race….

  10. Urban Snowshoer says:

    There was a doom and gloom article in National Journal the other day which listed Colorado's governorship as one of the most likely  to switch parties. Hickenlooper is by no means guaranteed re-election but he's not toast either–how many of the people who dislike his stance on guns wouldn't have voted for him  anyway? The article also glossed over, for the most part, the liabilities of Tancredo and Gessler.

  11. mamajama55mamajama55 says:

    governor Brewer did the right thing and vetoed the "turn the gay away" bill. Yay! From George Takei's FB post:

    BREAKING: AZ Gov. Jan Brewer has VETOED S.B. 1062, the "Turn Away the Gays" law. So very glad to hear she has listened to the thousands of citizens, businesses and civic leaders who urged sanity and a quick end to the new segregation.


  12. mamajama55mamajama55 says:

    More good news! Castle Rock  citizens gathered signatures , and temporarily blocked the repeal of the open-carry law, long enough for its citizens to vote on whether they want armed people everywhere!

    From Colorado Ceasefire FB:

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account

You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.