President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump



CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*


CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*


CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

(R) Ron Hanks




CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) J. Sonnenberg (R) Lauren Boebert (R) Ted Harvey

15% 10%↓ 10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Dave Williams

(R) Doug Bruce

(R) Bob Gardner




CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*


CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) Brittany Pettersen



CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

(R) Janak Joshi




State Senate Majority See Full Big Line





State House Majority See Full Big Line





Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
July 08, 2010 11:36 PM UTC

DO NOT Give Tom Tancredo a Microphone

  • by: Colorado Pols

SATURDAY PM UPDATE: Well, that’s the bottom, folks. The Colorado Independent’s Joseph Boven reports that Ken Buck has given the whole idea of World War II, 9/11 and nuclear annihilation some thought and changed his mind: Obama’s worse.

Speaking after Tancredo at the Conservative Western Summit on Saturday, where Tancredo reiterated statements made at a Buck supporter barbecue on Thursday, Weld County District Attorney Buck reversed his position.

“The other day my good friend and supporter Tom Tancredo said that the greatest threat to this country is the man who occupies the White House, Barack Obama,” Buck said Saturday. “There is a lot of truth in what Tom Tancredo says.”

When questioned as to whether Barack Obama is indeed the biggest threat to the United States, Buck originally said on Thursday: “”I think he has created a new word. It is called a ‘Tancredoism.’ I don’t agree. I think that there are a lot of threats in this country. I don’t think that the man in the White House is the greatest threat to this country at all.”

FRIDAY PM UPDATE: Just posted to Buck’s opponent Jane Norton’s Facebook page–folks, at long last, we are now officially speechless.

Original post follows–yes, really. Jane Norton has one-upped Tom Tancredo.

UPDATE: KDVR Fox 31’s video after the jump.

Fresh video from today’s Ken Buck Senate campaign rally, featuring South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint. With, by a country mile, the most memorable quotes supplied by Tom Tancredo:

“I cannot possibly, I guess, add to anything that’s been said here,” begins Tancredo.

As it turns out, he was wrong.

To paraphrase, for those of you who can’t see the video, Tancredo says–in no uncertain terms or language–that President Barack Obama is the single greatest threat that the United States has ever faced. Tancredo says this after listing off a number of things, including both World Wars, the Cold War, Al Qaida and the Depression, that the U.S. has seen over the past century. None of these things, he says, were ‘greater threats’ than President Obama. Our own President, says Tancredo, is a greater threat to the United States than Nazis. Or commies. Or nuclear annihilation.




379 thoughts on “DO NOT Give Tom Tancredo a Microphone

  1. We can always count on Tancredo to say some pretty crazy things, but if you listen closely U.S. Senate candidate Ken Buck says something to the person on his left.  I think he says “I’ll agree with that.”  Is Buck just as crazy as Tancredo, or did he say something else?

    1. I listened to the clip.  The person standing next to him is his son.  I had difficulty making out what he said.  I did not hear anything like what you suggested.  If I were to guess it would be:”Where did that come from?”.

      I agree it was difficult to make out but suggesting that Buck agreed with Tancredo based on this audio was unfair.

      1. I too came away from this video wrongly thinking that Buck had expressed agreement with Tancredo and smiled. That was not the case, Buck very clearly was uncomfortable with what Tancredo said and wasted no time distancing himself.

        Jane Norton, on the other hand…

    1. that Republicans let Tancredo headline at their events.  Most of them think he’s sane, and some even worship him.  Tancredo is the Republicans.  That’s who they are.

  2. Who cares if target audience will, in the very near future, be powerless outside of a few increasingly isolated strongholds.  Not Tancredo.  He absolutely has to say somthing crazy every so often to keep up his bookings and he never has or will care about anything beyond the care and feeding of Tom Tancredo.

  3. I’m not saying I agree with this. What I do know is that millions of Americans do agree, and they are coming to vote Democrats out of office in massive numbers.

    Instead of scoffing, you Democrats should be thinking about how you will survive the righteous anger of Americans who are tired of being used and abused by the leech class. The fact that it is a little over the top should not concern you less.

      1. gamble with our money, our lives, health,  livelihoods and our planet and stick us up for their losses when their ponzi schemes and shoddy corner cutting constructions collapse on our heads, bankrupt and poison us, perhaps? The pols who do their bidding?  The regulators they buy? Am I missing anyone?

          1. Back to the elite’s glory days of a very few haves and a whole lot of have nots.  

            When you slice and dice that top 1%, you discover that what goes into that high average income actually is concentrated in the upper reaches of that single percent, making it a very tiny plutocracy indeed.  

            The last thing on their agenda is creating well paying jobs with their wealth. Just the opposite. They’re running the rest of us in a race to the bottom through downsizing, outsourcing and importing cheap, powerless illegal labor while using old cold war fears of communism and socialism to make sure we don’t figure out that they have us voting against our interests and for theirs.

              1. “Oh, pleez, massa rich man, gimme a job, any job.  Yassa, I’ll mop yo floors, in fact, I’ll lick them clean for yo.  An’ just gimme some scraps of that filet, yassa, I be happy, no trouble here, sir.”

                Apparently you a)weren’t around, and/or b)missed the fact that many jobs were made when the rich were a whole lot less rich.  The CEO/peon wage difference has multiplied by a factor of something like ten since I was a kid.

                What I find really fascinating is how the uber-rich get peons like you to stand up for them.  It’s really amazing.

              2. Did you ever notice that since the Bush tax cuts for the rich, good jobs have gotten scarcer and real income for middle classes has stagnated or deteriorated while povewrty has increased? So where are all these great economic opportinities your elite are providing with their piece of the pie?

                How much more proof does it take to demonstrate that the only thing trickling down is contempt while the rich pull away from the rest of us at an ever faster pace without leaving any extra wealth behind?    How many more times do we have to see trickle down and deregulation lead to recessions and depressions before you stop trying to convince us that the way out of the hole your side has dug for us is more of the same kind of digging?  You folks had ample opportunity under Reagan and Bush II to prove your pet theories and they proved to lead to dismal failures.

                I’m not a government employee but would be much prouder to be one than to be a bloodsucking Wall Street flim flam artist or a Mining or Oil CEO who doesn’t mind killing workers and destroying livelihoods by cutting corners to increase already spectacular profits by a few bucks, then threaten to pass the costs on to the public if we dare make them follow sensible rules or pay for their own screw-ups.

                If you aren’t in the top fraction of one percent and you’re still buying this piss on my leg and tell me it’s raining crap, I’ll be looking for practical advice elsewhere.  

        1. but it could be a Republican coal mine owner or maybe a Republican CEO running Haliburton but if GOPWarrior and the mob are going to take these guys out then he is my new hero.  

          Wow what a warrior.  Fight Fight Fight eh big buddy.  Oh and fight some more.  He loves to fight because that is what Pro-Life Republicans do.  Fight fight fight.  With Obama.  With Democrats.  With each other.  With green eggs and ham.  He’s just gotta fight someone.

          So are we scared of these righteous fear mongers who like to fight.  Not really.  They have no new ideas to solve our national problems so bring it on doofus and lets fight with workable ideas and innovative solutions.  You are going to waxed if the votes are based on workable solutions.      

    1. You’ll never win but you don’t care about that because competent long-term governance is not what you’re interested in in the slightest. You’re out for a temporary sensational high and then it’s off to the next big lie.

      “Leech class” and “righteous anger”

      Republicans are a perpetual testimony to the ever increasing capability of humanity to sound new depths of denial.

      I’d say shame on you but apparently you’ve been told that too many for the wrong reasons.  

        1. I’m pretty sure my IQ is higher than most people on here (yes that’s a challenge – somebody post a link to a scientifically valid IQ test and we can compete). If I were you, I’d have an IQ below 40.

          1. Isn’t that close to an oxymoron?

            I took two IQ tests a couple of years apart when I was a kid; while both gave me pretty high numbers, they differed from each other by about 35 points.  How the heck do you judge a series of tests that can fluctuate so wildly?  And what exactly is “IQ”?  For some it’s raw info, for others reasoning capacity, for some the ability to process certain types of problems…

            Remember when we had that discussion about the “lefties” on this site and religion?  I’d suggest to you that your assumptions on IQ are about as accurate as your assumptions on the (lack of) religion on the left, without going into Mensa weenie wars about it.

            1. Rather than reading my IQ test results (shocking I tell you – nowhere near what my detractors say) I like the movie IQ.  

              And I can say the fruitcake R’s of Colorado are facing strong competition from Virginia R’s.  However, the Attorney General of VA has out paced Suthers by miles, many miles.

          2. Those were self-identified students.

            Now, is that a chicken or an egg?  Do smarter people gravitate to liberal philosophies because they see the benefits to society?  Or does the more critical thinking of cause and effect, of long range vs. short range policies necessitate a higher IQ?

            1. Also saw study that showed conservatives more fearful, stronger startle response.  Than makes sense too considering their political methodology of choice is inspiring fear.

              1. Self-identified cons had many more nightmares.  Libs, “weird” dreams.  I take the latter to mean creative and exploratory, willing to dream outside the box.  

                1. And my “than” should be “that. It would make more sense. In general, liberals open to new experiences, info, etc.  Conservatives hostile to anything they haven’t been used to all their lives.

    2. I’m not saying I agree with this. What I do know is that millions of Americans do agree, and they are coming to vote Democrats out of office in massive numbers.


      “I’m not saying I personally agree with Hitler’s demand to murder 6 million Jews, but what I do know is that millions of Germans do agree, and they are coming to vote the Weimar Republic out of iffice in massive numbers.”  

        The “I’m not saying I personally agree” disclaimer before quoting and celebrating an outrageous statement that you hope to benefit from politically is among the shabbiest and most dishonest political evasions.  

  4. in a conference call he and DeMint did with the media, i asked if Ken agreed with Tancredo that Obama is the greatest threat to the country.

    His response: “Ken does not agree with that. I was surprised when Tom said that. I think Tom tends to exaggerate sometimes… I think there are a number of threats to this country, and I respect, frankly, President Obama… I disagree with him on a number of issues.”

          1. was in response to JeffcoBlue and she got back to me.

            BTW, RedGreen said basically the same thing you did so I have no reason to doubt you are relating accurate info.

              1. I figure if Buck said pretty much the same thing in two totally different settings, there’s not much reason to doubt the validity of what he said.  

  5. I see guys mowing their lawn who care more about their appearance.

    Maybe he just woke up and is still in that confused state and that’s why he is just dribbling out of the mouth.

    Tom, one donut next time, seriously, the loose t-shirts aren’t hiding it anymore.

    1. People are tired of you guys playing the race card. Did you notice who gave the invocation at the beginning? It was a dang good prayer, and just as anti-Obama as the rest.

  6. with about 59% of the vote.  Shocking that such a buffoon was so popular.  It seems that the more outrageous he is, the more the Republicans love him.  And he has his PAC where he brings in funds to be spent on the most right-wing, fringe candidates.  Ken Buck must fit the criteria.

    1. R district (never gone D since it was created) there is never any serious effort on the part of the Dem party to support an opponent.  We just don’t show up on the priority list for money. Understandably. The big difference between Tancredo and the Dems who challenged him and his successor, Coffman, is that come election day, almost nobody has ever heard of the Dem.  Conti? Winter? Eng? Flerlage? It’s the same story over and over. It really isn’t a wacko rightie district. It’s just R for congress on automatic pilot.  

      1. It’s an exact equivalency.

        To paraphrase, for those of you who can’t see the video, [x] says–in no uncertain terms or language–that President [George W. Bush] is the single greatest threat that the United States has ever faced. [x] says this after listing off a number of things, including both World Wars, the Cold War, Al Qaida and the Depression, that the U.S. has seen over the past century. None of these things, he says, were ‘greater threats’ than President [Bush]. Our own President, says [x], is a greater threat to the United States than Nazis. Or commies. Or nuclear annihilation.

        Well, how about now?

        1. I have never said anything close to that, and I would not condone anyone who did. It’s ridiculous.

          But I do believe that George W. Bush, objectively, was the worst President in American history.

          1.   Most historians agree with that.  My personal choice for Second worst is Woodrow Wilson, but many historians sigh over that racist, sexist, disgrace.  

              1. because I am not convinced there is intelligent life on the planet he lives on.

                  But if you want to consider just a few of the sins of Woodrow Wilson:

                  His seizure of Vera Cruz

                  His segregation of a federal civil service integrated by Ulysses S. Grant.

                  His persecution of suffragettes — including force feeding of hunger strikers.

                  The Palmer Red Raids — far and away the greatest abuse of civil liberties in American history.  By comparison, the short-lived “McCarthy era” was a church social.

                  Rank violation of neutrality laws and failure to uphold the law of the sea by aiding and abbetting an illegal British blockade of Germany (that included food and medicine for starving people, not just the contraband of war that international law allowed Britain to ban.)

                  Winning re-election on the platform “He Kept Us out of War” before taking us into a war where the U.S. had no vital interests at stake.  (The Kaiser wasn’t Hitler and the Czar was hardly a model of democracy.)

                  Keeping the U.S. out of the League of Nations by adamantly refusing to accept the Lodge Reservations — despite pleas from Britain and France that he accept those minor, face-saving, measures.

                   In closing, let me just ask:


                “How’s that New Freedom thing working out for you?”

                  1. than Glenn Beck actually getting something right, though it is certainly an exception to the rule.  He was right on the business of giving Miranda warnings to suspected terrorists who are American citizens, after all.  I watched his show a couple of times when he was on CNN and found him to be simply brain dead and haven’t watched him since.  So, I only see those supremely stupid things he does that get picked up on the Daily Show.

                    He sure seems to love swasticas, but to each his own, I guess.  

                    1. Where did you get that? Obviously if you’re watching clips which have been taken out of context for comedic purposes on the Daily Show, you’re not getting the full picture.

                  1. benefits from promoting that lefty ideal of world peace. People really don’t know much about all his bad deeds, and give him a pass on the Fourteen Points because he meant well. His insistence upon them, which forced the Allies to compromise on what exactly was to happen to Germany, since Britain and France wanted to make her utterly powerless for all time. The resulting compromise humiliated Germany without rendering her of her ability to rise again, and so was a major contributing factor in the rise of Hitler and WWII. That war happened because WWI left a lot of business unfinished, and Wilson had a huge hand in ensuring that that business was unfinished. Few actually comprehended that in 1919, but there it was.

                    Yeah, Wilson was not one of our better presidents.

        2. Too bad you are such a two faced phony about using Hitler images.

          Weren’t you outraged when Bush was being compared to Hitler because the Pro-Life president gave the green light to torturing other human beings but now you don’t see any problems with comparing Obama to Hitler because you really really believe it’s true like Death Panels.  Oh wait you said after the vote that you didn’t believe in Death Panels.  You were actually right on that one.  They don’t exist do they?  Maybe you think it is good payback to liberals and as long as we talk about dicks like Tancredo making inflammatory statements we won’t talk about what a mess the last Republican administration created or how to clean it up.  Anyway good to see you check in at the old blog site you two faced phony.

            1. The thing I find so fascinating about conservatives is their total willingness to believe how evil President Obama is without any facts.  The Death Panels claim was totally made up by Palin but it went through the conservative community like a wildfire and people were screaming at town hall meetings not to pull the plug on granny.  

              Now Tancredo makes these grand pronouncements that Obama is the most evilest ever but doesn’t produce one fact to support his claims and guess what?  Conservatives eat it up without any skepticism at all.  Talk about the most stupidest people ever believing everything they are told and then getting all frothy and outraged about how they need to slay the evil doer.

              Appeals to emotion usually flunk logic 101 but conservatives have never been considered logical.  They vote against their self interest all the time.  This is why they are so good at dirty campaigning and so incompetent when it comes to actual governing.  No solutions to real problems but lots of hate and character assassinations and a total willingness to cheat to win.

              1. You’re aiming it at me.

                Yes.  Tancredo’s an idiot. I’ve said that before.

                But, you’re being disingenuous if you deny that stuff, every bit as vitriolic was said about Bush by the fringe left often while he was President.

                I’m not saying you said it, but some did.  And they’re as fringe as Tancredo, so everyone stop acting like this is the first time someone has ever said something stupid about the President.

                1. Tancredo is not “the fringe.” He’s the mainstream of the GOP. He wouldn’t a) be stumping for a likely candidate for the House of Representatives, and b) be seconded by that candidate’s primary opponent if he were your party’s fringe.

                    1. If you want to convince anyone that what you say is so, then please explain what he was doing on the same dais as Buck, why Buck is in apparent agreement, and why Norton went out of her way to endorse Tancredo’s remarks – all without distancing themselves from the extreme tone he used.

                    2. … then there’s one more things to consider.

                      Either Buck or Norton will be the GOP nominee for CD-5, which we know has specifically been targeted by the national party for reclamation. Buck and Norton are mainstream GOP, or else they’d be the people polling in the single digits rather than contending for the nomination. This is a high profile race, one being watched by politicos all over America. And both of the contenders, one of whom will get the nod for taking back this seat, are embracing Tancredo.

                      I really can’t see how anyone can say he’s on the fringe. Maybe by the the pre-RINO purge, big tent standards the GOP once embraced. But not today.

                    3. Senate campaign, I mean. Not CD-5. And I was thinking of CD-4 when I wrote that anyway. Being away for a few months, then jumping back in, has made me all confused.

                      Well, fucking up that fact aside, the rest of the point still stands. Even more so, since this is a statewide race, not one for a nominally Republican house district. I’m not sure how high up the priority list THIS particular race is for the GOP, but I know that they will want this one bad if they are serious about retaking the Senate. And they’re all letting that loose cannon Tom Tancredo help out.

                      I guess you’re not going to talk about this further. That’s cool. Good night.

                    4. Any thoughts, LB? Is Jane Norton also “nuts” and “not close to the base?”

              2. you’ve got to give conservatives a pass on a few things; at least there is a kernel of truth. Liberals are the masters of emotional appeals most of the time.

                1. Fuck “kernals of truth.” How about using actual facts and logical discussions instead of appeals to emotion? Cons will have a leg to stand on when they criticize liberals when they stop doing the same thing.

                  1. It’s laughable that libs suddenly believe they have credibility in this department. I mean just last year we had the global warming hysteria, for crying out loud. Weren’t we all supposed to be 20 feet under water and fried right now? Not to mention all the fraudulent sob stories brought forward to incite people to hate the insurance companies, which have a much lower margin of profit (3%) than most other industries. Talk about facts and reason!

                    1. the insurance companies, which have a much lower margin of profit (3%) than most other industries.


                       You A:confuse gross profit margin on sales with rate of return on invested capital, which is the real test in business, and

                        B: ignore the real source of insurance company profits, which is returns on reserves (they invest your premiums long before they pay them out.)

                        If they had a poor year last year, it’s because, (you may not have noted) that we’re in the worst recession since the ’30s, courtesy of Bush and Co.

                        As to climate change — an established fact with a broad scientific consensus.  Only things in doubt are:

                        1 degree of human involvement in the change,

                        2 – scope, distribution and rate of change

                        3- whether changes will be good or bad in specific areas (they cut both ways)  

                    2. the climate changes back and forth

                      But it’s a fact of nature, not some problem that needs to be solved.

                        There is clearly a human element involved in the current climate change.  The degree of human involvement is what is in dispute.  Essentially, when we burn coal . gas et al, that was laid down in the carboniferous age, we’re returning CO2 to the atmosphere that was removed 130 million years ago.

                        Data aren’t clear enough to show the degree of human element but it’s clear it is significant.  The most compelling evidence is the ice cores from Antarctica, which give us snapshots of the atmosphere going back hundreds of years.

                         And while it may not be a problem that can be “solved,” it’s one we can accelerate or mitigate.  I still go to the approach by Bill O’Reilley, George H.W. Bush’s EPA director.   Do those things we know make senses for economic and national security reasons and, even if we don’t face a climate crisis, we’d have no regrets because they were good things.  They include:

                       Higher CAFE standards for autos

                       More solar/ wind/ geothermal and other renewable.

                       Doubling nuclear power from 20 pct to 40 pct of our production (as john McCain advocated)

                        Insulation for homes and businesses

                        Ethanol (GM has millions of vehicles already on the road that can use E-85 as well as regular gasoline)

                        Expanded use of clean diesel (already in place in Europe)

                        Natural gas generators to supplement solar/wind  (natural gas only produces half the CO2 coal does because it has an extra hydrogen atom, which becomes water upon burning)

                        Expanded use of rapid transit/car pools/van pools/ bike lanes, etc.  I walked to and from work for 37 years, traveling about 40,000 miles in the process.  

                        Finally, sequestrated CO2 from coal should be considered, if it can be shown to be technically and economically feasible.

                        What we can’t do is the Tea Party/Alfred E. Neuman policy:

                      “What, we worry?”  

                    3. The degree of human involvement is what is in dispute.

                      The role of humans, and the relative contributions have been pretty well explained.

                      Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.

                      –Climate Change 2007: Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis. Summary for Policy Makers.


                      Figure SPM.2. Global average radiative forcing (RF) estimates and ranges in 2005 for anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O) and other important agents and mechanisms, together with the typical geographical extent (spatial scale) of the forcing and the assessed level of scientific understanding (LOSU). [Same source as above.]

                      The figure SPM.2. (above) clearly indicates the role of anthropogenic influence on climate compared to, say, solar irradiance. The figure also shows that some human influences lead to net cooling, others to net warming.  Elsewhere, in the technical nitty-gritty, are comparisons of the human role to other natural forces such as volcanoes.

                      Of course, the current IPCC report was based on the state of our knowledge, pre-2005. The lead authors have been selected and they have begun the 3-4 year process of developing the next assessment.

                      So, what is occupying the time of climate scientists now is working out the relative roles of various climate feedbacks. The direction, strengths, and otherwise importance of factors such as cloud cover, atmospheric aerosols, ocean mixing, etc.

                      Positive feedbacks ramp up change at ever increasing rates. Negative feedbacks dampen rates of change. And if there are any significant thresholds (e.g., albedo), then we may be well over the brink before the BJs of the world recognize that they have been played for suckers.

                    4. but it doesn’t really quarrel with my claim that it’s the degree of human involvement that is in dispute, granted that we know it is significant.

                        “most” I wouldn’t doubt it.  It’s even possible that human involvement would be at 150 percent or so of of the increase (meaning that human activity was offsetting what would otherwise be a cooling trend.)

                        My only problem with your chart is that, like everything generated by a computer, it suggests a degree of precision that far outruns the accuracy of the assumptions.  Computer models sometimes give you bullshit to six decimal spaces.

                        What we know is that we have a problem and humans are significant players in that problem.  Since we aren’t likely to regulate volcanos anytime soon, we better look at what we can : solar, wind, nuclear, geothermal and other non greenhouse power, ethanol, biofuels of all kinds, higher cafe standards, insulating homes, building rapid transit, and all the rest of the achievable things that we would be wise to do even if the climate wasn’t changing.  

                        The world is rapidly running out of affordable petroleum and I, for one, am getting sick and tired of fighting wars so Saudi Sheiks can get richer.’

                    5. Voyageur,

                      For several reasons, it is completely unreasonable for you to claim:

                      like everything generated by a computer, it suggests a degree of precision that far outruns the accuracy of the assumptions

                      The main reason this is unreasonable is because that chart above includes ranges of uncertainty (that’s what those error bars – the thin horizontal black lines – are doing there overlaying each of the colored bars). Some forcings, like cloud albedo effects have a large amount of uncertainty, while other forcings, like halocarbons, have smaller levels of uncertainty.

                      There is a large amount of uncertainty about the sum total anthropogenic effect, but the best estimate is a positive 1.6W/m2, and it is almost certain that the net human effect is positive (i.e., warming) and the likely range is 0.6 to 2.4W/m2), despite the uncertainty in the estimates.

                      The level of uncertainty is repeated, in numeric rather than graphic formats, in the third column (with the colored numbers). Indeed, just about half of that graphic is devoted to depicting uncertainties around the best estimates currently possible!

                      In the far right column is the “Level Of Scientific Understanding” (LOSU). For some forcings we have a high level of understanding but for some our understanding needs improvement. These are the topics about which there is likely to be heated discussions at scientific meetings!

                      In real scientific publications, there is almost always an explicit and quantified estimate of the uncertainty. This is good.

                      However, it does allow unscrupulous advocates to take one extreme value or the other and focus on it and either ignore the range of possibilities OR claim that because there is uncertainty, this means there is “no proof” and thus we can carry on with business as usual.

                    6. But I just don’t think that humans are significant players in affecting global temperatures. We have definitely increased the CO2 in the air, but I think it is far more likely that the increased temperatures of the 90’s were due to the corresponding increase in solar activity. I can’t prove it, but I believe I read somewhere that there was a period of our history where CO2 levels were much higher than they are now, and the earth survived just fine.

                    7. and building a full diary around it, with some expansion of the points you made above.  I’d be glad to FP it.  We need more information and far less bombast on this issue.

                      And if you don’t mind, please give me the code for embedding a picture like that.   I know how to do it in Word Press but when I bring stuff from Word Press here, the coding disappears.  

                        I know Dave Thielen and others have printed the codes before, but I didn’t save them.  

                    8. but I’m not going to be able to work up a diary for some time now – work is going crazy and the only reason I’m hitting CO Pols today is because I need an occasional break from working.

                      The Summary For Policy Makers is a quite readable summary of the IPCC report. Each Working Group Report of each periodic assessment includes a summary in (mostly) non-technical language.

                      The 1st through 4th IPCC Assessment Reports are available here.

                      In each of the recent publication years, the assessments have been divided by working group, such that there is, for the 4th assessment:

                      Working Group I Report: The Physical Science Basis (SPM)

                      Working Group II Report: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability (SPM)

                      Working Group III Report: Mitigation of Climate Change (SPM)

                      (SPM is the Summary for Policy Makers)

                      As for posting images, I use (img src=””) where the () are replaced with <> to give you:

                      Figure SPM.4. Comparison of observed continental- and global-scale changes in surface temperature with results simulated by climate models using natural and anthropogenic forcings. Decadal averages of observations are shown for the period 1906 to 2005 (black line) plotted against the centre of the decade and relative to the corresponding average for 1901-1950. Lines are dashed where spatial coverage is less than 50%. Blue shaded bands show the 5-95% range for 19 simulations from five climate models using only the natural forcings due to solar activity and volcanoes. Red shaded bands show the 5-95% range for 58 simulations from 14 climate models using both natural and anthropogenic forcings.

                    9. otherwise YOU are the one who is repeating lies for the purpose of sowing fear and doubt, and thus you deserve bashing, both figurative and literal.

                    10. How many times do I have to repeat it? “hide the decline”, “hide the decline”, “HIDE THE DECLINE”

                    11. Please provide credible links to support your point of view.

                      Or shut the fuck up.

                      There are no facts in your post, only ill-conceived opinion.

                    12. did you just totally skip out on coverage of Climate Gate? Those were the exact words in the email.

                    13. refers to the series of emails showing the fraud that is global warming. Global warming is an invention of con men; it has nothing to do with science.

                    14. It shows one set of concerns over one instance of one data set, in a decades long, world-wide, data and theory rich discovery of a phenomenon almost beyond any and all empirical or theoretical doubt.

                      But it also shows how eager the ignorant are to exploit rationalizations of beliefs based on the attraction of convenience rather than the persuasion of reason applied to data.

                    15. That’s just another empty and meaningless assertion, unaccompanied by any factual or rational support, as is the universal norm for your posts. Since you are incapable of contributing anything constructive to human discourse, you take pride in the one thing you are capable of doing: Tying up a small amount of the time and attention of those who are able to make informed and rational arguments, and thus have the marginal influence on our collective understandings of the world that you will never have.

                    16. Let me count the ways:

                      1) Emails such as those that were published are rather normal events, and not some sort of triumphal debunking of science, either in whole or in part.

                      2) Even if they were, the transgressions of one or two individuals in a constrained context does not debunk the work of thousands over decades, all over the world.

                      3) Even if it did, the authenticated empirical data remains intact, and so abundant that its significance is beyond all reasonable doubt.

                    17. I was shocked to learn that “thousands of decades ago” they were working on climate science. Really? I believe that 20,000 years ago predates historical record. I’m glad you’re finally putting your ignorance on display for all to see. God help us if this man gets elected.

                    18. I guess we can just burn those textbooks on paleantology, since no one was studying dinosaurs while they were alive, right?

                      Yes, Beej, what we really need in office is more people like you, who think that there’s no way to collect data relevant to phenomena that occurred before the data was collected, and other similar Shultheis-isms and Renfroe-isms. Thanks for straightening us out on that one.

                    19. that the phrase “the work of thousands over decades” does not refer to thousands of decades of work, right? I forgot to use small enough words for you. (Here, let me try again: Lots of people have worked for lots of years, in this case, thousands of people for tens of years. Okaaaay? My daughter has some Strawberry Shortcake books for you to borrow, if that would help.)

                    20. capped by a pension that is probably more than you earn.  Wow, what a lousy career I had;-)

                    21. I didn’t understand the reference to e-mails anyway, but now I do.

                        I have no doubt the e-mails hurt the careers of the authors.  But the vast body of research — including those very impressive antarctic core samples and the disturbing acceleration of the Greenland glaciers — are pretty well independent evidence that something is going on.  

                    22. temperatures were increasing a bit, but the increase was wildly exaggerated. In the long run temperatures are cyclical, and the increased temperatures may have been due to increased solar activity and other natural causes. Temperatures peaked around a decade ago and have been declining slightly since then:

                    23. So, BJ, what is that between now and that “peak around a decade ago?”

                      Sure, bj, “the increased temperatures MAY have been due to increased solar activity.”

                      The increased temperature MAY also be due to decreased pirate activity.

                      Both are similarly unlikely (except that the latter, at least, is supported by evidence – see below).

                      Note the lack of directional trend in the solar irradiance data compared to the temperature data above.

                      The decline in pirate activity has resulted in a general warming trend.

                      In March 2008, global daily temperatures closely tracked the inverse of recorded pirate activity.

                      Believe whatever gets you hard, bj, but scientists base their conclusions on real evidence. (It ain’t the sun, bj. Indeed, it is more parsimonious to conclude that it is pirates.)

                    24. Try to follow my logic here. If the sun burns more hotly, temperatures might increase on earth. I know, pretty complicated but you might understand it if you think real hard. You do have to admit that the solar cycle variations look eerily similar to the temperature data. And I think I trust “UAH Globally Averaged Satellite-Based Temperature of the Lower Atmosphere (Jan. 1979 thru August 2009)” more than “Global Temperatures”.

                    25. And that’s why I pointed out how completely ridiculous your statement was, even with the waffling “may.”

                      How you can conclude that the graph with the solar irradiance since 1975 (where solar output goes up and down and up and down and up and down) looks “eerily similar” to the temperature data (which goes up and up and up and up) is bizarre, but not at all unexpected. This is normal behavior from a blinded ideologue.

                      And also not unexpected is that you “trust” a temperature record that uses only one measuring instrument at a time, with little to no overlap between satellite launches, and with a period of record of just 40 years, and that drifts and thus needs “massaging” in order to “standardize” the record.

                      You can look at the page source if you want to see what the “Global Temperatures” record is drawn from. But I trust that you are way to lazy to look for data or sources.

                    26. What a surprise that anything you would say could possibly be arbitrary and meaningless (in much the same way that Donald Duck talks like Donald Duck is a surprise).

                      Now, try to follow along. The actual data tells quite a different story.

                    27. comprised of composite data sources, arbitrarily challenged, vindicated in widely published debunkings of the challenges, and reproduced in a variety of less controversial subsequent models, right?

                      The thing about stating empty, unsupported blind ideological assertions is that it’s just that easy for others to come along and show just how meaningless your statements really are, and how intellectually ill-equipped the person who relies on recourse to them really is.

                      You’re a duck in a barrel, Beej, and not a cute one that anyone feels tempted to spare.

                    28. But temperatures are cyclical, and the arctic melt due to the high temperatures of the 90’s and early 2000’s is now slowing. In fact, the area covered by arctic ice even increased by 140,000 square miles from 2007 to 2008:


                      If indeed CO2 were causing global warming (and I maintain that it’s not), some studies show that increased arctic melt would actually reduce the amount of CO2 in the air:


                      Just take a look at today’s headlines.

                      The IPCC is hiding from reporters again:


                      Australia experiences coldest day in 100 years:


                    29. But thanks for providing a newspaper story from 2008. The fact that you think this is in any way “support” for your “argument” is very telling.  

                    30. 1) arctic and glacial ice levels have reached historic lows, as evidenced by core samples and photographic evidence, leading already to a variety of crises both for certain species and certain human communities.

                      2) Increased CO2 concentration in the atmosphere was hypothesized to cause global warming even before any measurements were taken, in an instance of empirical data verifying theoretical knowledge.

                      3) While there are some small mutual interference effects involved in global warming (for instance, increased production of picophytoplankton, which sequesters atmospheric carbon), there are far more mutual reinforcement effects (for instance, decreased albido from reduced polar ice cover). When examining complex systems, motivated fools look at one aspect of one interaction in isolation and declare, when one can be found that bucks the trend, that that is proof that the trend doesn’t exist. Analysts look at all aspects of all interactions, and determine their cumulative impact (for instance, though picophytoplankton mass increases with warmer waters, total phytoplankton mass decreases, leading to a food-chain crisis in the seas, and a die-off of marine life).

                      4) Australia’s coldest day on record is beyond irrelevant, since weather is not climate, momentary fluctuations are not averages, and global warming models themselves predict extreme weather events and extreme temperature fluctuations, including localized global cooling in some instances due to altered currents and weather patterns. Your example in this case combines various fallacies, including a return to your ironically amathematical assertion that an N of 1 is statistically significant, and a profound lack of understanding of the nature of the models and what they demonstrate.

                    31. everything is subjective. To most of us, empirical research performed with methodological rigor isn’t. To blind ideologues, whatever contradicts their arbitrary assumptions is subjective, while their arbitrary assumptions are not. Go figure.

                    32. I suggest you go read the Climate Gate emails and tell me whether you think they used “methodological rigor”.

                    33. one lapse in methodological rigor in one instance does not discredit all science done everywhere, nor even all science within a given discipline. Newsflash, Bozo: There are similar instances in every discipline. The reason, as I believe you noted elsewhere, is that incentives exist for such lapses (there’s money and career advancement at stake, in all disciplines). By your logic, all science is therefore fatally discredited, and we should trust the random assertions of a blind ideologue over the generally methodologically controlled conclusions of those who study the phenomena in question. That puts you in the camp of the Medieval Inquisitioners (to whom you actually do bear a certain intellectual similarity), in opposition to what has proven to be one of the most robust forces in the production of human knowledge. Congrats on your fine choice.

                    34. Scientists who are unethical try to hide their fraud. We’re lucky we even caught one. Of course there are plenty of good scientists, but the global warming thing was hyped by the media and democrats as an excuse for control. Scientists were never as unified around it as the left would have you believe.

                    35. I’ve studied it, and your assertion is bullshit. The scientific consensus around global warming is comparable to all similar scientific consensuses on emerging and powerfully compelling empirical and theoretical near-certainties. The dissent is manufactured, and almost unversally scoffed at by those who study climate phenomena (and by those who know how to access and review secondary sources).

                      The truth is that there are two political camps in the world today, and they aren’t “Democrats v. Republicans” or “Liberals v. Conservatives.” They are those who start with ideological certainties and bend arguments to serve them v. those who start with the resources of the human mind and bend their ideological commitments to serve those instead.

                      As I’ve said, 80% of American economists in a poll by The Economist magazine in 2008 favored Democratic over Republican policies. The overwhelming majority of scientists who study climate phenomena (and, in fact, of scientists in general) recognize global warming to be a well established empirical and theoretical fact. Claims by people who are not professionals in either of these fields, and generally know little or nothing about them, that knowledge is on their side, are, by definition, arbitrary claims flying in the face of what the majority of people working in those professions maintain to be the lessons to be garnered from them.

                      And none of your flailing little comebacks will any way change that fact. Your inability to follow simple arguments based on accumulated data is your problem. The demonstrably false assertions built on that inability are not going to stand unchallenged by rational people working together to do the best we can to face the challenges of a complex and subtle world. So keep blowing your vuvuzela; it may be annoying, but it’s not capable of drowning out the chorus of informed reason that stands against it.

                    36. there are certain warning indicators that lead to a rebuttable presumption that we’re dealing with the camp that starts with ideological certainties, and bends “the truth” to serve them:

                      1) Conclusions that have a local bias, serving some in-group at the expense of, or with indifference toward, some out-group.

                      2) Conclusions that have short time horizons, serving temporarily immediate interests at the expense of temporarily (or intergenerationally) farther removed interests

                      3) (the broader category to which 1 and 2 above belong) Conclusions that are suspiciously convenient, casting what appeals to the desire for immediate selfish gratification as policies that serve our long-term global interests, or, conversely, as policies that don’t need to consider our long-term global interests (dismissing any such concern as “utopian”).

                      4) Conclusions that are mere repetitions of unexamined assumptions rather than carefully constructed and empirically supported arguments.

                      5) Conclusions that are shored up by extraneous and meaningless claims to legitimacy, such as “I’m a math grad student, so I know what I’m talking about when I say that those here who have actually studied climate change science don’t know anything about climate change science.”

                      6) Conclusions that are defended by rote spit-back of the criticisms launched against them, directed at those who launch such criticisms, without any reflection on the absurd irrelevance and inapplicability of those parrotted words and ideas directed at people in a fit of childish flailing rather than considered analysis.

                      Hmmm. Sound familiar?

                    37. Scientists who are unethical try to hide their fraud

                      Are you arguing that scientists who are ethical don’t try to hide their fraud?

                      What’s the point of your statement? I wrote that, since there are incentives to fudge data in every science, it occurs at some rate in every science, but that to conclude from that fact that other research within the same discipline is somehow discredited by some broad-brush of guilt by association would be to claim that no scientific research can ever be trusted at all, which kick the definition of “truth” back into the hands of blind ideologues like you. How does your statement respond to that? It doesn’t. It’s meaningless. Like every damn thing you post.

                      You really can’t grasp even the most simple of logical arguments, can you? No matter how many times you inform us that you’re really a brilliant math student, the fact that you are completely logic-deaf (and dumb) alone stands in glaring opposition to your own thus-far completely unsupported self-definition.

                    38. otherwise YOU are the one who is repeating lies for the purpose of sowing fear and doubt, and thus you deserve bashing, both figurative and literal.

                      Data. You do know what data is, right?

                    39. Wrong answer.

                      Dude, at 27 you should be WAY beyond this kind of immature response.

                      Besides, we’ve already established what decades of peer reviewed science and research, conducted at hundreds of institutions worldwide, has to say about this. When you get that kind of consensus, it’s foolish to keep challenging it.

                    40. have not established anything. There is no consensus whatsoever; there was a document signed by hundreds of scientists across the world disputing global warming a while back. Of course the media shut down any type of press about this. There’s a link somewhere but I don’t really feel like digging for it.

                    41. Einstein, whose findings were way more profound than anything any climate scientist has discovered, didn’t believe in quantum physics. It didn’t fit his personal worldview. However, none of his refutations could pass the scientific review process. So, this brilliant man, who was commenting on something within his field of expertise, was wrong.

                      Every time I see some scientist (or group of them) saying that there are “serious problems” with climate change theory, I say, “prove it.” That is, publish a study that passes the peer review process and affects the consensus.

                      Of course, that’s just taking the best view of these scientists. I well remember the cigarette companies and their scientists who denied that their product caused lung cancer. I’m sure at least some of these scientists are on the payroll of all the energy and fossil fuel companies, paid to confuse the issue in the minds of the public and policy makers. It helped tobacco companies avoid stringent sales and advertising regulation.

                      That’s all that’s happening here.

                      I’ve posed this to Laughing Boy before, and he never answers. You won’t have an answer, either. (You’ll have a response, but as in other debates, those words will not actually address what I’m saying here.)

                    42. Exactly my point. Scientists also tend to be predisposed towards results that get them more funding.

                    43. You have no point. You’ve never had any point. You never will have any point. You’re a virtual vuvuzela, only more obnoxious and less informative.

                      That scientists can be wrong does not mean that a nearly universal, decades-long, world-wide scientific consensus based on just about the most extraordinarily rapid accumulation of ever-proliferating empirical evidence in modern history, verifying a well-established and very compelling pre-measurement hypothesis (that increased CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere would lead to steadily increasing global average temperature) has any significant chance of being wrong.

                      Look, as much as we all have newly fueled doubts about the institutional competence of the CSU math department, we don’t assume that every math professor or student associated with that department is as much of an idiot as you are. That would not only be unfair, it would also be unreasonable. You can’t overgeneralize from specific examples, nor can you let an N of 1 be any signifcant factor in making a statistical determination. If you had studied anyh math, you’d know that….

                      Ooops! Okay, let me rephrase that: If you had been capable of learning what you allegedly studied, you’d know that.

                    44. And without support for your arguments. Merely proclaiming that global warming is a universal, decades-long, world-wide scientific consensus does not make it so. As this is somewhat an area of expertise for me (error estimates in mathematical models), while you on the other hand are just a political hack, I don’t see how you have much credibility. Let me get this straight. Your argument is “since only one climate scientist was discovered to be a massive fraud and to have misrepresented temperature data, his conclusions are absolutely true.” And when questioned about this dubious statistical method, you scream “consensus!” and try to change the subject to math (about which you know nothing anyway). I cower in fear of your mighty intellect.

                    45. I’ve studied environmental and natural resource economics, environmental law, climate change law, energy law, and energy security and sustainability. In the course of those studies, I’ve had occasion to review the evidence on climate change, to examine the models that are used, to see them reflected by empirical data, and to study the mutually reinforcing systemic developments involved. As for your area of expertise, if there’s one thing you’ve demonstrated most compellingly here, it’s that you have none, and certainly none upon which any rational person would rely.

                      Get this straight: My argument is that no climate scientist was discovered to be engaged in massive fraud, that thousands haven’t been accused of it, that the conclusions don’t belong to any single individual, and that the data is overwhelming. It’s not that hard to follow, Beej.

                    46. I see why you have a compelling interest in covering for the climate scientists. Without them, your entire career goes down the drain.

                    47. No, you’re mistaken yet again. I do broad-based policy work, my most recent contract involving preventative services for parents of children at risk of abuse and neglect. I have no interest in “covering” for anyone. But I do have an overwhelming interest in clearing away the smoke blown by assertively ignorant others.

                    48. At first you sought to discredit me for lacking the relevant expertise (unlike you, an incompetent math student embued with a wealth of arbitrary and discredited beliefs). Then, discovering that I have the expertise that, in fact, you lack, you took the opposite tack of claiming that it’s actually having that expertise which discredits someone, since they then have a vested interest in defending their field of expertise! In other words, Beej, no matter what the case is, you will do your tiny contortions to “argue” that it proves your tiny little false certainties. Of course, to add to the irony, I both have the expertise, and lack the vested interest. I can’t wait to see how that discredits me….

                    49. that tired old Elizabethan affectation, “methinks you doth,” is a hackneyed cliche (inside another hackneyed cliche) that just makes you look even more ridiculous, which, granted, is quite a feat.

                    50. Scientists can be wrong, but the scientific method ensures that science is right.

                      Science says man is contributing to global warming. That’s been validated by 40 years of scientific study.

                      Scientists dispute this. But their objections can not be validated by scientific study.

                      So, why do you believe the ones who can’t be trusted to be right?

                    51. and that there are scientists on either side of the issue who disagree with each other, based on the current state of climate research.

                    52. My point is that there is no “consesus” [sic]and that there are scientists on either side of the issue who disagree with each other, based on the current state of climate research.

                      So long as those in disagreement can’t back up their arguments with research that passes the full scientific method, this is false.

                    53. … you have disqualified yourself from the debate, on the grounds that conspiracy theories are a violation of logical discussion.

                      I hereby declare this discussion over, with me as the clear winner. (I was leading by a long shot on points, too, but a win is a win, amirite?)

                    54. It is a conspiracy theory. Again, you got nothing so you show nothing.

                      And, I only have to tell YOU that I won. Everyone else already knew it.

                      victory lap

                    55. (justifying his disbelief in quantum physics) that “God would not play dice with the universe) wouldn’t pass peer review;-)

                    56. Contrary to what the fear mongers of the past have claimed (well after they were all worried about global cooling and another ice age), CO2 in the atmosphere has not caused temperatures to increase abnormally (everything is cyclical). In fact, plants and green things thrive on CO2, so if we want a world that is more green, we should pump more CO2 into the atmosphere.

                    57. No really. If you really believe that higher concentrations of CO2 cannot be harmful, you should trust me that sticking your head in the toilet will be good for you.

                      After all, as we all can agree, living things “thrive” on water. Using your “logic” it follows that if you completely immerse yourself in water, this will be a good thing, right?

                      It’s Exxon and Koch that are the fear mongers (oh, and completely gullible idiots like you), not the world’s climate scientists.

                    58. Do you know why human beings eat too much sugar, salt, and fat when they get the chance? Because those foods are necessary to humans in small quantities, and are hard enough to get on the African savanna that there was no evolutionarily selected cut-off switch. We consume as much as we can, because we evolved in a context in which consuming as much as we could was conducive to survival, and thus conducive to reproductive success.

                      Do you argue, therefore, that fat, sugar, and salt must be healthy in any quantity, since they are healthy in some quantity?

                      It’s the same “argument” as the one you are making now (amazingly enough, this is the closest I’ve seen you coming to actually making an argument). CO2 within a historically normative range is part of our atmospheric composition, and part of the processes that are facilitated by that composition. Change that composition by fundamentally altering the balances among its constituent elements (or compounds), and you have poisoned the systems that depend on current distributions in exactly the same way that you can poison humans with too much of almost anything that is good for them in small quantities.

                    59. which, in the historically normal context of most people being constantly malnourished, would have been more often than not beneficial.

                      However, to people who thrive on something other than arbitrary (and highly uncertain, in your case) observations, it is not just the raw factual assertion that matters, and the blind implication that because it can be, under certain circumstances, beneficial, it must therefore always be beneficial (even when abundant evidence suggests that it’s not). Rather, those of us with more than two brain cells to rub together are more concerned with the actual systemic implications of any change in any variable. Increased concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is highly counterproductive to human welfare, all things considered. And that is usually our ultimate concern.

                    60. what you call “thinking.”

                      The scientific evidence shows that elevated CO2 can result in increased plant growth when all other growth requirements are provided ad lib. (E.g., in a greenhouse situation but not in the real world.)

                      However, plants adapt to elevated CO2 by reducing stomatal conductance and stomatal density. This adaptation to elevated CO2 can be “maladaptive” at higher temperatures because plants now have reduced ability to modulate internal temperatures.

                      If nitrogen, phosphorus, or other key compound is limiting to growth, then increased CO2 doesn’t have much effect.

                      The real world is frequently more complex than simple addition. It is almost always more complex than the pronouncements of ideologues with little or no knowledge about physiology, biology or ecology.

                      But don’t you go worrying about your ignorance. It’s obvious you are proud of this. I’m glad you have some characteristic to be proud of.

                    61. This, Ardy, says it all. And the fact that a math grad student has such a poor grasp of this fact is one of the reasons so many have considered his having been granted a masters degree and allowed to teach undergrads to be a poor reflection on CSU’s institutional competence.

                    62. 1, 2, 3, and 4.

                      Now, do we also have to provide links for you supporting the claim that the Holocaust happened, that 2+2=4, and that describe such simple phenomena as the Doppler Effect, the refraction of light, and how feedback loops work? Just let us know; I’m sure we’d all be delighted to continue wasting our time teaching you how to wipe the snot off your face.  

                    63. @BJ as it were

                      To sum up-  I find it astounding that BJ is that stupid.  It can’t be real.  He’s just putting out the dumbest Hannityesque  Beckism he can come up with.    

                    64. @BJ as it were

                      To sum up-  I find it astounding that BJ is that stupid.  It can’t be real.  He’s just putting out the dumbest Hannityesque  Beckism he can come up with.    

                    65. because you’ll benefit from a second reading. It hurts to have illusions dispelled, but you’ll be a better person for going through it.

                      It’s been said before, but I’ll say it again – you’re entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.

                    66. They are merely beautiful and perfect Forms that exist in the mind of God.

                      Or perhaps only you exist, BJ, which is why it doesn’t matter if you make any sense or not.

                      Perhaps you are facing your own ‘terrible freedom,’ balanced on the precipice–as it were–experiencing vertigo, as you realize the empty fluff you have filled your life with is really meaningless…

                      In any case, keep trying.  

                    67. Actually, mathematics is the language that under girds all of science. Almost every scientific field uses mathematical models today. Thus, it is very important to have accurate mathematics. Otherwise, you get faulty predictions from your models which start widespread panics, such as global warming (every think about why they changed it to “climate change”?). I work on error estimates in mathematical models, and I know that there is still a very large degree of uncertainty in climate models. There are a large number of complex earth systems that need to be modeled very accurately in order to predict what the climate is going to do, and we just don’t have that level of precision yet.

                    68. Engineering is not science either, even though advances in science are very dependent on engineering.

                      As for terminology, keep making shit up. It makes you look brilliant. Really.

                2. bj claiming that Obama is an emotional leader is as funny as Michael Steele saying Obama started the war in Afghanistan.  I thought the knock on Obama is that he wasn’t emotional.  

                  You can tell what kind of a parrot this partisan oaf is attempting to use Newspeak to claim that the town hall meetings last year were all populated by calm reasoning conservatives who didn’t buy for a minute the claim by Sarah Palin that regulation of the health insurance corporations would result in government death panels.  What a goofball fraud.

                  You forget that we are the elite effete liberals.  We read books that don’t require crayons and support teaching real science in school.  We see right through your transparent attempts to portray Tancredo as a reasonable person with legitimate issues.  If his issues are legitimate then enumerate the threats that he thinks are more horrible than Nagasaki.

                  1. so cool, calm, collected, young, bright, new, black, intelligent, whatever. They voted for him based on his personality and charisma rather than his experience. And it’s been a disaster, with his approval ratings sinking like a rock ever since he took office.

                    1. Not me.

                      I voted for him because I could not stand the picture in my head of President McCain standing on the White House portico yelling at the DC youth Hey you kids! Get off the damn lawn!!

                    2. but because McCain gave me the choice of voting for a really old guy with a history of cancer who had chosen a complete idiot who would be the worst disaster ever as president for his running mate or Barack Obama. Hmmm tough choice. With the financial crisis and the disaster in the gulf + seeing who McCain and Palin have turned into I am absolutely sure I made the right choice. Obama has his faults and I am quick to criticize when it’s fair to do so, but McCain has proven to be completely unprincipled and Palin is as stupid as we thought she was.

                    3. but because McCain gave me the choice of voting for a really old guy with a history of cancer who had chosen a complete idiot who would be the worst disaster ever as president for his running mate or Barack Obama. Hmmm tough choice. With the financial crisis and the disaster in the gulf + seeing who McCain and Palin have turned into I am absolutely sure I made the right choice. Obama has his faults and I am quick to criticize when it’s fair to do so, but McCain has proven to be completely unprincipled and Palin is as stupid as we thought she was.

                    4. but because McCain gave me the choice of voting for a really old guy with a history of cancer who had chosen a complete idiot who would be the worst disaster ever as president for his running mate or Barack Obama. Hmmm tough choice. With the financial crisis and the disaster in the gulf + seeing who McCain and Palin have turned into I am absolutely sure I made the right choice. Obama has his faults and I am quick to criticize when it’s fair to do so, but McCain has proven to be completely unprincipled and Palin is as stupid as we thought she was.

    1. We stuck with reality as a basis for encouraging people to vote Democratic.

      W gave us all the loony we needed. I guess Tancredo and the GOP are following W’s example.

      I am far from telling them to stop with the exaggerated buffoonery either.

    2. Find video/audio/other credible evidence that a Congressman said this about W while stumping for another congressional candidate, and you’ll have a valid point.

      Bluff and bluster of this kind, when it comes from loons of either fringe is one thing; it’s par for the course at teabag and antiwar rallies. When it comes from an acknowledged party leader and elected Representative, even if he’s out of office now, it’s something else entirely.

    1. I didn’t want to break the camera pointing at such an ugly mug.  Have you been putting down some extra hot dogs or something?  Wow what a waddle.

        1. I must of have confused you with Rush but I didn’t think he was at the meeting so I just assumed it was you.  You are both are insufferable know-it-alls with no real solutions and lots of hand wringing outrage.  

          Sorry again about the mixup.  Next time I’ll hone in on your skinny face masked with anger at how horrible it is to be in the minority in a democracy where people get to choose their leaders and sometimes choose based on logic rather than emotion.  That’s when your party always loses power.

          1. “how horrible it is to be in the minority”

            I’m really going to enjoy the rest of this year. Not sure what your point is about logic vs. emotion. Emotion elects bleeding-heart libs like Obama; logic always elects conservatives.

            1. why Tommy terrified Tancredo, who is notorious for emotional fear mongering, was allowed to give a fact free emotional appeal to fear that Republicans in the audience ate up?  They were clapping and cheering to his obvious dog whistle emotional appeals to fear.  The only conclusion I can draw from this is that you stink as an observer of human behavior.

              1. the thought police weren’t out doing their job. Where were you Gilpin Guy? You should have stood up, grabbed the mike, and recited a litany of threats to America, asking whether the crowd thought Obama was worse than each one. Give me a break, you know how political speeches are. That’s on both the right and the left.

        1. I’m a capitalist; I go where the money is. If you don’t like me “sucking off” money from the state, vote to cut government spending on education and research. It won’t happen, but you can try – I’m too valuable. 🙂

              1. If you actually were targeted to lose a grant for ideological reasons, we’d take the case, pro bono.  But bear in mind that under the equal access to justice act, if you win a civil rights suit against the federal government, you (meaning the attorney) are entitled to reasonable legal fees from the defendants.  Depending on the experience of the attorney, that’s about $300 an hour (which we’ve earned in some of our environmental cases.)

                  That’s why david lane was so pissed when the judge threw out the verdict against CU in the ward churchill case.  That $1 for ward was enough to trigger mucho thousands in legal fees for David, who can bill at about $500 an hour because of his long experience.

                   I am an avid supporter of higher education in general and research in particular.  (Btw, I’m not defending churchill, who was a fraud and rightly fired)  I could rag you a little on that point in that education seems to be your one exception to the general anti-gummint bias you project.  And, of course, it’s self-serving.

                  But it’s too serious an issue to demagogue.  Colorado is destroying higher education — and our future with it.  I’ll take whatever friends for higher ed I can find and if you’d spread that message among your Tea Party friends, I’d be grateful.

                  I have been an adjunct professor at DU, the University of Colorado at Denver Graduate School of Public Affairs and Metro State.  I was also on the staff at West Point a long time ago in a war far away.

                  So, higher education is one of the few political issues I’m passionate about.  And while Ralhie’s kidding, if there ever is any threat to your funding or academic standing because of your expression of constitutionally protected political views, please give us a call at the Mile High Law Office.  You can get the number from the MHLO blog or just google it, or message me, or whatever.        

                  1. are paying for my time, because I have acquired a certain amount of expertise in mathematics that allows me to a) teach it to your kids, enabling them to get a higher paying job when they graduate, and b) produce very precise error estimates in sophisticated mathematical models which boosts predictive capability in, among other things, many earth processes. So if you (and society) think that is a worthwhile expenditure of your tax money, then everything is fine. And if not, then vote for people who want to cut higher ed.  

                    1. But hey, it’s tough being a conservative on this site and sometimes my ego needs a boost. 🙂

                    2. I thought this comment was responding to a different post. I stand by everything I said about my expertise in mathematics.

                1. because without it we can’t develop new technologies and attract high paying jobs to the U.S. I am very concerned about countries like China and India surpassing the U.S. in mathematics and science – not good for our economy. As a fiscal conservative, I do believe that government spending needs to be cut to match revenues, but I think the cuts need to apply equally across the board. As it is, so many things are protected that higher ed bears the brunt of all cuts, which is not good. Thanks for the legal support; I do appreciate it.

                  1. We need to expand in some areas, greatly — including higher education.  (K-12 is actually adequately funded, but poorly spent.)  We also need to expand spending on key infrastructure, highways, rapid transit, etc.

                      Where to cut?  A 700 billion military budget comes trippingly to the tongue.  Surely, we could cut it by 20 billion a year for the next 10 years, totaling $200 billion annually by 2021.

                      At the state level, that’s why Ref C, which you deride, was crucial.  It got rid of the TABOR ratchet, which would have forever prohibited recapturing the revenue lost in the last recession — as well as locking in the current even more radical cuts forever.

                       But we are, by some measures, already 48th in our per capital support of higher education.  Higher Education, and highways, in that order, need more money in Colorado.  FASTER marked a start on the highway problem and Fastracks — slower than hoped but still a major initiative — is expanded rapid transit.  So where is the future for higher ed?  We need a new, major, dedicated, revenue source.  Ask my old friend Joe Blake and he’ll tell you the business community is ready to lead on this issue.


                    1. If we can’t get the job done quickly we need to get out. This was the position of the Ron Paul people. I just don’t think we should expand spending when we don’t have the money in the first place. It’s like a college student going on a credit card spending binge and racking up debt that haunts them for the rest of their life.

                      The cuts to higher ed have been good in that they have trimmed the fat and inefficiencies out of it. However it is now underfunded and I would be in favor of restoring some funding ONLY IF we can cut enough elsewhere to balance the budget.

                      I can’t remember for sure but I think Joe Blake may be involved in the Campaign for Colorado State, which is an excellent program to raise money from alumni and the private sector. When I used to attend OU they had a good fund raising program and manged to raise a lot of cash from alumni. Many OU graduates make a lot of money in oil or business and support their alma mater.

              2. The people who are funding you might not like the bullshit you post.

                Free speech has consequences.  Maybe it’s about time for you.

                Nobody’s talking about a lawsuit here.  Just the free market–whether your funding source thinks you deserve their money, especially after saying, “If you don’t like me “sucking off” money from the state, vote to cut government spending on education and research. It won’t happen, but you can try – I’m too valuable.”

                Nobody is that valuable.  Especially a pissant like you.

                I enjoy solving puzzles.  You have just given me one.

                1. And maybe my employers actually do think I’m valuable for what I do, which is why they pay me. Not being a mathematician, you wouldn’t understand my worth.

                  Great, now I’ve got the equivalent of a hit out on me. At least some people on the left like Voyageur still have some honor and decency, and will protect my right to free speech.

                  1. I was a republican for 33 years, switched in December.  Voltaire said “I disagree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

                      I won’t go that far, but as a paralegal in an up and coming law firm, I’d say’

                      “I may disagree with what you say, but I’ll defend your right to say it — and make damn good money in the process!”

                       Adam Smith is much more my hero than Voltaire, and he’d call that enlightened self interest!

                    1. He’s not really a lefty.  After all these years, I still can’t figure it out.  Usually–if not quite always–sensible, however. 🙂  

                      If you were a real student, rather than an occupant of some collectivist institution, you might learn something.  

                    2. Well, if you’d kindly write me a check for $100,000 or so I’ll gladly transfer to a private school.

                    3. I guess there isn’t really any honor and decency left on the left at all. 😉

                2. I wonder what your employer would think about all the nasty things you’ve said on here. Ever think about that? No, because you’re just a spoiled little brat who throws a tantrum when people don’t do and say what he wants them to.

                    1. Well I guess that does give you free reign to be a jerk to whoever you want. I’m surprised you’re not “sucking off” the state with a government job.

                1. I had a good friend who worked in his lab. He does some great stuff with algae bio fuel. In my opinion, that’s the most promising alternative energy being developed today, and economically viable too!

                  1. I did a story a few years back on an oil company working to separate the CO2 from coal fired power plants and use it to grow algae fuel.  What a neat idea.  

                      Some right-wing fruitcake wrote in to knock the idea — I asked how many millions he was putting of his money into his crackpot idea?  The oil company wasn’t doing this for good strokes, it could foresee a profit.  

                    1. But your Phillips County farmers produce a product we can use “right here, right now”.  If today’s US ethanol producers were a “country” they would be the second largest importer of transportation fuel into this country today, only behind Canada.  The current industry already supports more than 450,000 jobs and eliminated the need to import 300 million barrels of oil last year.  

                    2. My environmental guru, Jay Tuchton of WildEarth Guardians, defends the existing ethanol program on pragmatic grounds.  You have to start by building an infrastructure ande a supply network: like those E85/gasoline dual fuel Chevy Silverados out there and E85 stations.  As demand grows, Cellulosic can come on line and we can grow, baby, grow.  I look forward to the day when Phillips, Yuma and other counties will be cited for America’s ability to tell Hugo Chavez to shove his petroleum reserves where excessive sunshine won’t biodegrade them.  Eventually, I see biodiesel, ethanol, and other renewables powering about all our transportation needs.  We’re running out of Petroleum anyway, but we’re not running out of good old American ingenuity.

                        Windfarms for our electricity, biofuels for our cars.  But save enough barley and hops to keep brewing beer, OK?  

                    3. In the event you haven’t seen this:


                      While we still desperately need a long-term energy plan for the US that includes both traditional and renewable resources to achieve independence, I’d suggest that Calamity Jane look out her window at the strategic “above ground” reserves of energy we have at our immediate disposal.  How about this slogan for the Plains:  “[Conservation]Till Here, [Conservation]Till Now.

                2. and I couldn’t be prouder that CSU is a global leader in the algae space as well as many other game-changing technologies being developed under Bryan’s leadership.

          1. Why am I not surprised?

            Why don’t you recoil at your own hypocrisy?

            If you were a man of principle you would never have taken a publicly funded job.

            1. which funnels the most capital to you based on your worth. Capitalism does not mean no government. That is libertarianism. You have your isms confused.

          2. Even if you were “brilliant” (something which you make increasingly hard to imagine with every new post), saying it all the time would be both obnoxious and irrelevant. This is a place where you have a chance to demonstrate it (again, something which you have rather glaringly failed to do). The fact that you, only recently arrived, could lose nearly 2.5-to-1 in a “most obnoxious” contest against me, who has long been considered by many on this blog to be unbearably obnoxious (and has been posting here prolifficly for years, giving me lots of time and opportunity to offend many), in a contest that you framed to your best advantage (wisely avoiding, for instance, any contest on our relative merits), is just one more tribute to how thoroughly and profoundly you don’t get it.

            A new screen name is actually a very good idea, because then you’ll have a second chance to either prove once again what a fool you are, or try a different strategy and rise to the level of being merely inoccuous (which all evidence indicates is the greatest height to which you can aspire).

            If you want people to take you seriously, stop announcing your greatness, and start proving your bare adequacy.

  7. I caught a clip on MSNBC earlier today of El Rushbo going off on the same vein, that Obama is the worst threat to the country ever, that he wants America to fail, etc.

    Tank used almost the exact same phrasing. It’s OK. I doubt if Tancredo has had an original thought in his life, no matter how vile.

    1. Actually he sounded reasonable in the article which was refreshing.  He needs to be careful because his supporters want to hear the same thing from him.  Nothing loses you the Tea Party vote faster than saying you don’t personally hate the president of the United States.

      1. It’s his lack of leadership and inability to respond to the real threats that do face us. How many days did it take for him to get off the golf course in order to address the BP spill? The guy plays way more golf than Bush ever did.

          1. I don’t have time to go prove every little detail that has been reported ad nauseum already. If you watched anything other than MSNBC you would know about it.

            1. The United States Coast Guard was on scene immediately after the accident happened looking for survivors and then went directly into containing the spill while assisting BP in stopping the flow.

              Timelines have been released by the Obama Administration showing the response to be immediate and continuing.  President Obama early on used the term relentless response and our men and women in uniform took up the task and are still at their posts.  You spit in their faces when you say they didn’t response.  What a traitor to our men and women who serve our country.  You dishonor them with your disingenuous lies.  No you dishonor yourself.  What a jerk.

                1. perhaps you’d be so kind as to do some for Gilpin Guy.

                  No?  Here’s an April 21 NY Times article giving updates from the Coast Guard, noting that not only were they involved in search and rescue operations, but that, one day after the explosion, they had no fewer than 17 vessels on the way to deal with potential oil spills.

                  Another article on the 22nd noted the Coast Guard had environmental assessment teams on standby pending the extinguishing of the fire on board the rig.

            2. If you’re going to malign someone specific, do it with facts, not rumor and innuendo.

              If you had done the basic research, you would know that Obama, as of 6/21/2010 after the oil spill began, had played 39 rounds of golf since taking office.

              Bush 43 played only 24 rounds in his first three years before supposedly quitting the game.  He claimed he gave it up for the troops, but has recently been called out with video footage of him playing after he claimed he stopped for that reason; it is reported that the real reason he quit was due to bad knees – the reason he also quit running and took up biking.

              Obama has a ways to go, though – Dwight Eisenhower reportedly played 800 rounds in his two terms.

                  1. turnabout on a cheap shot is still a cheap shot.  I criticized bush for many things, but trying to stay physically fit wasn’t one of them.

                  2. So why don’t you try to get your brain into how much time Obama has spent “chopping brush?”

                    Golf is the only diversion?  How much time did Bush spend in Crawford by 18 months into his Administration.  That’s a fair question.

                    Oh.  You have no brain?  Sorry for asking.

                    1. how much time did each of them spend on vacation?  Obama, for all that he plays perhaps one round of golf a week (average – he did at least 3 rounds during 1 week of vacation in 2009) for every week during the golf season, doesn’t take terribly many extended vacations, and at least the reporting on those vacations makes him seem more involved with the country than Dubya was when he was on vacation.

                    2. … the reporting “makes him seem more involved with the country than Dubya.” We’re talking about the Main Stream Media (MSM)В®, a George Soros Enterpriseв„ў. You can’t trust the MSM!!!!!1!!one!

                    3. He might give you a job on the Norton campaign. Your insults are top notch, just the thing to fit her style.

              1. Lincoln offered to send a barrel of his brand of whiskey to his other generals, on the grounds that it might improve their performance.

                  If Ike really did play 800 rounds of Golf, given his outstanding performance in office, the least we can do is find out what brand of golf clubs he used and send Obama a set.

              2. FYI, Obama has played 39 rounds in a year and a half, while Bush played 24 rounds in three years. Thus Obama played three times as much golf as Bush.

                1. in the United States Coast Guard who were on scene and involved from the very beginning.

                  Since when was Obama required to rush down to the Gulf on April 21st to personally dive down and stop the well.

                  What a fucking goofball to imply that Obama playing a round of golf the day after the accident meant that a government response was not happening.  Bad results don’t mean that good people were not at their stations performing at their best.  Our military was ready and responded to the best of their abilities to contain the oil and assist BP.  They did their jobs and you are liar to say that they didn’t.

                  After BP failed to shutoff the well and the damage became extensive, Obama did a brilliant job getting BP to setup the escrow fund to help beleaguered Gulf Coast residents.  It was excellent statesmanship to negotiate with Hayward and use his legal training to get an admission of responsibility and no cap without years of court proceedings.  Obama didn’t freak out when things got tough and he didn’t meddle with BP’s attempts to cap the well.  BP had the resources and the equipment to deal with the well and the guy who is chief driller on the relief well if 40 for 40 for intercepts.

                  Obama did his part to listen to the Gulf Coast residents get them relief.  He ordered the 19,000 National Guard to duty for either clean up or claims processing.

                  You’re still a jerk to insult those who serve in the Coast Guard and are working everyday to contain the damage.  What a traitor to our military.


                    1. I used “Obama and Golf” as my search term and found all the links to the right wing noise machine claiming that Obama is bad to still be golfing so it looks like you are just parroting another conservative hyperventilating narrative.  Do you have one original thought in your head or are you a trained parrot that knows how to peck at the keyboard.

                    2. your best attempt to deflect it is to say “a lot of other people believe it too”? Nice try.

                    3. regarding the response to the Gulf oil spill.

                      Regardless whether Obama should have been obsessed about the oil spill, the originating error occurred with regulatory oversight which goes back to the deregulation frenzy under George Bush.  It was during the Bush administration that MMS employees were caught with prostitutes and going to drug parties with oil company employees.  The corruption and neutering of the MMS regulatory agencies was one of the contributing circumstances in lack of regulatory oversight for these deep water wells.  One of the first acts that Obama did regarding the Gulf oil spell was to demand and get the resignation of the head of MMS.  The staffing of the MMS with deregulation apostles is  another example of why George Bush is considered one of the worst presidents ever.  The Gulf disaster has his fingerprints all over it and it another unpleasant mess that Obama needs to clean up along with reforming the MMS.

                2. in the United States Coast Guard who were on scene and involved from the very beginning.

                  Since when was Obama required to rush down to the Gulf on April 21st to personally dive down and stop the well.

                  What a fucking goofball to imply that Obama playing a round of golf the day after the accident meant that a government response was not happening.  Bad results don’t mean that good people were not at their stations performing at their best.  Our military was ready and responded to the best of their abilities to contain the oil and assist BP.  They did their jobs and you are liar to say that they didn’t.

                  After BP failed to shutoff the well and the damage became extensive, Obama did a brilliant job getting BP to setup the escrow fund to help beleaguered Gulf Coast residents.  It was excellent statesmanship to negotiate with Hayward and use his legal training to get an admission of responsibility and no cap without years of court proceedings.  Obama didn’t freak out when things got tough and he didn’t meddle with BP’s attempts to cap the well.  BP had the resources and the equipment to deal with the well and the guy who is chief driller on the relief well if 40 for 40 for intercepts.

                  Obama did his part to listen to the Gulf Coast residents get them relief.  He ordered the 19,000 National Guard to duty for either clean up or claims processing.

                  You’re still a jerk to insult those who serve in the Coast Guard and are working everyday to contain the damage.  What a traitor to our military.


            3. EVERY assertion that gets challenged here MUST be backed up.

              This is why your credibility is routinely questioned. Maybe you meant that as a throwaway comment, but your challenge to google it suggests that it’s not.

              Pols (and any credible blog) is like a court of law – it’s not up to us to accept your word, it’s up to you to prove it. We shouldn’t have to confirm your fanciful assertions, YOU should take a little bit more time and find something to prove it. This allows us to a) assess the source for credibility (hint: news articles from major news organizations like Time, CBS, even FoxNews are good, but editorials, even from respected sources like the WSJ, are not, to say nothing of Michelle Malkin or Michael Moore), and b) see if you were quoting or citing without taking things out of context.

              Credibility is yours to earn, not ours to give.

              1. Can you post a link showing that “EVERY assertion that gets challenged here MUST be backed up”? Prove to me that Pols is like a court of law. Post a link to an article objectively explaining why news articles are good and editorials are bad.

                See what I mean?

                1. This is just how we’ve always done things here. People who provide links to back up their assertions are taken seriously, regardless of their affiliation. (It’s why Laughing Boy, ellie, and several others are respected here.)

                  You can conduct yourself any way you see fit. If you go on treating unsupported assertions as fact, you’ll learn in full time what it gets you.

                  1. but I guess I’m overestimating the intelligence and awareness of my audience. It just gets tedious to post a link backing up every single statement I make. Apparently only those on the right have to do this, whatever the crazies on the left throw out there is accepted as fact without proof.

                    1. “Oh poor, poor conservative me! Why these liberals always askin’ me for proof?”

                      Maybe conservatives are so whiny about this because they know that most of their ideas have to be taken on faith, because they won’t pass any kind of real world test.

                      As far as links go, it works both way, beej. If I claim something as fact, such as Bush vacationed twice as much as Obama has, but don’t post a link, you’re free to challenge me for one, and I should either post it or shut the hell up.

                      Just make sure that you aren’t frivolous about that. Some things are widely known and established as fact, like the human factor in climate change. (See all the stuff Voyageur and ardy have posted, and dispute this assertion there, if you can.)

                    2. Must I remind you yet again of how Climate Gate destroyed this whole myth? “Hide the decline” was what they said, implying THERE WAS A DECLINE!

                    3. have completely exonerated all the scientists whose emails were stolen by a hacker.

                      So beej, unless you have PROOF of some conspiracy, you might as well drop the references to “whatever-gate.”

                    4. if global warming is proven false found that the scientists did nothing wrong. Gee I wonder why. We have the emails, ardy; I’m not an idiot.

                    5. and no single scientist is worth risking the entire university over.

                      If there was ANY evidence that Mann or Jones or any scientist was guilty of malpractice, they would have been tossed immediately.

                      There was none. Even the London Times has retracted its stories.

                    6. it doesn’t erase 40 years of research that’s been conducted at universities and institutions all over the world. Most of that work wasn’t related to, or dependent upon the research conducted by these scientists.

                      You should ask yourself why you’re so desperate to believe that humans, over 6 billion of us burning fossil fuels at a rate never before done in this planet’s 15 billion or so years of existence, are not or can not have an affect on global climate.

                    7. I think it’s a bit arrogant to assume that humans could have a big impact on global climate. Yes, pollution can be a problem in a few high density areas, but these are a drop in the bucket compared to the total surface area of the globe.

                    8. We didn’t just start spewing CO2 into the atmosphere today. This has been going on for hundreds of years, and the pace picks up every day as the developing world becomes more industrialized, and as our population continues to explode.

                      Keep in mind that we’re decimating the equatorial rainforests which is the globes largest consumer of CO2. (Remember when you stated that plants could benefit from all that CO2? Such a statement doesn’t fit in with your assertion that we can’t produce enough CO2 to make a difference.)

                      Keep in mind a few things. There are over 6 billion people now, and we keep finding novel ways to burn more and more fossil fuels every day. (Do you know how much petroleum is expended in food production, now that we routinely get produce from the Southern Hemisphere? That wasn’t happening even 10 years ago.) And places like China and India are consuming as much if not more than the USA and Europe. And there are fewer and fewer plants to absorb that CO2, so it has nowhere to go.

                      Yes, the world is huge and has a high capacity for this stuff. But the atmosphere as a whole is made of a very small amount of CO2, so that means that we can significantly alter that percentage when we burn millions of tons of fossil fuels every single day, especially when that rate is always rising and the earth’s capacity to convert it back to oxygen and carbon is always diminishing. This is backed up by all observable data.

                      Even if you use an eyedropper to fill a swimming pool, given enough time you can fill it all the way up.

                    9. Yes you can say carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has “tripled” or whatever, but there wasn’t very much to begin with, so there is still a very very small percentage of carbon dioxide in the air. I don’t deny that CO2 in the air has increased; I just doubt that it has significantly impacted temperatures or the climate.

                    10. Apparently not, since you think it proves they’re hiding something (at least 3 reviews from 3 different groups of people have said they’re not…)

                      For the not informed, the statement had some important context: when viewing two different sets of climate data (tree-based and readings-based), the tree-based data diverges from the more accurate readings-based data in the last 60 (I think, approx.) years – the tree-based data is lower for some reason that I can’t remember off-hand.

                      So, since you don’t know anything more than the short phrases that Hannity tells you about, you wouldn’t know that “hiding the decline” means “developing a statistical algorithm to merge the longer tree-based record with the more accurate (in the short term) readings-based record”.

                    11. Keep on trying to find a way to explain it away. “hiding” means that data was intentionally obscured, which is FRAUD. It is much different than merging the records. Why not “hide the increase” instead?

                    12. No mathematician worth the title should ever be found associating with the response you just made.

                      You either don’t understand, in which case you’re an ignorant know-nothing, or you’re deliberately trying to stoke up the right-wing theories with blatant disregard to the facts, which means you value power politics above reality.

                      Either way, you should never be let near a field of scientific inquiry.

                    13. means they were open and honest? You’ve really gone off the deep end now. Yes, there were two different sets of data, and they tried to hide one (the more reliable one). The reason you “can’t remember off-hand” is because the temperatures ACTUALLY WERE lower.

                    14. is due to the fact that increased tree growth in response to warmer weather has decreased significantly during the last 20 years, a phenomenon which began and and has been verified during the period of time in which both direct temperature measurements and tree-ring measurements have been taken simultaneously (which also demonstrates a near perfect correlation for the hundred years preceding the change in tree growth responsiveness to increases in temperature). Since tree ring data was verified to be accurate before that point, and extends back in time further than direct measurement data, it was deemed to be useful for measurements of temperatures for those years prior to direct measurements. Since it ceased to be accurate, due to related human effects on the environment, during the period of time in which direct measurements are available, direct measurements were deemed to be useful for the period during which they are available.

                    15. “tree ring data ceased to be accurate due to related human effects on the environment”

                      Actually, direct measurement data ceased to be accurate due to human effects.

                    16. Is the emoticon indicative that you accept Steve’s (and my) clarification of that phrase now?  ’cause if you think we’re following you around on “direct measurement data ceased to be accurate due to human effects”, you’re completely nuts.

                    17. is to give the search term that includes the articles you base your argument on.

                      This lets them repeat your search list and they can counter with a different search term or challenge the ones you have provided.

                      Providing links is laborious and nobody reads them but if you provide a search term you have given them the clues they need to research your claims.

                    18. It’s like footnotes – it just shows that I’m not pulling facts out of my ass, and you can usually just look at the domain name to tell whether it’s a legitimate source or not.

            4. When asked to, support it. If you choose to decline, and time is a perfectly good reason amongst others, just let it go.

              Don’t tell the questioner to find out himself.  

                1. My mind reels….

                  And you teach in college?

                  My brain hurts.

                  Because it is the role of the one stating an alleged fact to offer proof, not the listener.  I think most of us got this in, oh, maybe, fourth grade???

                  But not you.

                    1. If I say “The moon is made of blue cheese,” is it YOUR job to support my statement?

                      Of course not.

                      I hope you are relegated to a position in the sub-sub basement away from students.  

                    2. Wouldn’t want them to have to deal with facts or anything like that. Then they might question their elite liberal academic overlords.

            5. There are special needs kids to whom this ugly term is still addressed…usually by other kids…

              Most playgrounds don’t allow its use…that’s a rule I would like to see adopted here..

                1. Although lately I just call him Libby.

                  I’m sensitive to the term too.  When my dad was an elementary school principal, his special ed program had about 40 kids with Down’s Syndrome.  He loved those kids like they were his own children.

                  1. I actually do work for some DS charities and have a few families that I’m really tight with, and I seem to slip when I’m hanging with the guys or playing hockey, etc.

                    Not proud of that.

                1. 1) Dwyer was referring to a courtesy owed to people other than the individual you were referring to, so your response misses his point.

                  2) The fact that you’re a f***ing idiot is not evidence that the person calling you that is one too. To the contrary, it’s evidence that they recognize a f***ing idiot when they see one.

                  3) I noticed you’ve changed your sig-line to the unattributed cooptation of a direct quote, combining your well-established lack of any original thought with your well-established lack of any ethical compass.

                2. I’ve watched in growing horror as BJ digs deeper and deeper.

                  BJ – There’s a reason I haven’t commented during the entire “Climategate” vs. Proven Science argument you’ve been having. The reason is that I’m fairly ignorant on the subject. Yeah, I’ve heard all the pundits attempt to convince people that climate change it all a hoax. I’ve also seen scientist trying to convince people it’s real. I’ve accepted that I just don’t know. The difference is I don’t feel a need to absolutely flaunt my ignorance the way you do. I’ve read most of the links everyone has posted and done my best to try and follow them. The science is pretty convincing while the “climategate” stuff just seems to be energy company scientists trying to convince people the sun will rise in the west.

                  BJ, I truly do wonder what’s at the root of your insecurity. Why you feel the need to be right every single time. I’ll debate on facts and have a good time doing it. I’ll even be passionate about it. But admitting to your own ignorance is the smartest thing you can do. How else can you learn something new?

            1. While Bush had his nose to the grindstone?

              Then how about this?

              Vacation days in first year of office:

              George W. Bush – 69 days

              Reagan – 42 days

              George H.W. Bush – 40 days

              Obama – 26 days

              Clinton – 21 days

                1. He’s a math major.

                  He starts with some “obvious” assumptions, like “government is bad,” “unions are bad,” “all regulation is bad,” and “the free market is always best.”

                  All the rest is derived using logic and reason. There’s no need for facts. They just get in the way of a good “proof.”

                  1. and smiley faces.

                    See- you can say anything to anyone with a smiley face and it’s not offensive.  It’s like if I called bw or sk2 a “dick weed” pr “jerk weed” 🙂

                    It’s ok, cause there’s a smiley.

                    Rounding errors are apparently the way math majors justify MUS.  

                    1. At first I thought it was “Mothers Against Debt Colorado” (which is a real group), but somehow I don’t think that’s it.

                  2. You guys just start with the opposite assumptions and end up with the opposite conclusions, so you don’t have much credibility in this department.

                    1. You start with assumptions and establish “proofs.”

                      I start with measurements and observations and deduce my conclusions from them.

                      Your arguments would fall completely on deaf ears in the scientific community (as they do here) because they’re all tautologies.

                    2. He doesn’t start with assumptions and establish proofs; he starts with assumptions, and ends with the same assumptions. He has virtually never made a single mathematical (logical) argument here, neither of the deductive nor inductive variety. He’s a vuvuzela, only more annoying and less informative.

                    3. He’s not a mathematician.

                      He’s a pissant grad student with more ego than brains.

                      Some of us have been there, which is why we recognize the syndrome.

                    4. he has repeatedly demonstrated considerable innumeracy (mathematical illiteracy), engaging in fallacies that most mathematicians groan at (like using isolated examples to argue against statistical assertions). By all evidence he’s presented here, he’s incompetent even at his one claim to fame (being a math grad student). Masters Degrees (and even Ph.D.’s, for that matter) are handed out to anyone who jumps through the hoops, regardless of their level of proficiency. It’s obvious from his posts here that BJ has an MS in math only because he went through the steps to get one, not because he has any aptitude for mathematical thinking.

                    5. The steps to get a MS require high level mathematical thinking. I’d like to see you try. Better yet, I’d love to have you in my class. The “I’m failing because you’re an idiot” argument wouldn’t work so well there.

                    6. This is the height of your obnoxiousness, that your incredibly weak and ill-supported claims are knocked down one after another, by virtually all other participants, but, like a little bottom heavy Bozo-punching-clown, you just bob back up with the same stupid insistance that you’re something you’re not, and that everyone else is what you actually are. The problem with published delusions, BJ, is that while they satisfy your own insular reality, they fool no one else.

                    7. I taught college classes too, as adjunct faculty as well as a grad student (as have many who post here). And I’ve created mathematical models of social institutional systems, worked on a multi-million dollar research project, earned all sorts of honors in various graduate careers, scored in the 98-percentile on each of three graduate level standaridized exams (GRE, LSAT, and PLACE), and so on and so forth. And none of that has anything to do with conversations here, which thrive or fail on their own merits. Stop telling us how brilliant you are, and start showing us…, or not. I’m tired of being pulled down to your level, despite (or maybe because of) the ease of picking you off. You win; I’m done. I’ll keep debunking your garbage from time to time, but what you are or aren’t is no longer of any concern to me.

  8. Little tommie pitchhits all the time for boyles, etc.  I have heard rants of this kind in the radio..but I never mentioned it, because I thought nobody here cared…..who knew?

  9. I agree with the General.  So let’s shut down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the war on terror (maybe even the war on drugs for good measure).

    That would go a long way toward reducing the deficit.

  10. Is now DEFENDING Norton. I’m not going to link, you know where to go. I was gonna call it The Cumstain, is that too much?

    Plunkett actually said that Norton’s agreement that Obama is a worse threat than nuclear war and Al Qaeda “isn’t that out there.” The rest of his post is confusing, but this should be a clear indicator how bad it really is getting over at paper-that-shall-not-be-named.

  11. He handled this one with a lot more class than either Tancredo or Norton.  He will probably be a tougher opponent to beat than Norton but the thought of this witch being this close to being a senator is just nauseating.

    She says Obama is a threat but never specifies what she means.  It is just some vague fear word that she assumes is true because she says it.  This is another Republican Newspeak moment where Obama on so many levels is fixing the mess left by Republicans and moving the country forward towards energy independence and better health but they call those actions a threat.  What awful liars.  

  12. What Tancredo has done is to move the goal line, again.

    The republicans have been successful in rebranding  our current economic crisis so that it is now, not a function of Wall Street,etc.incredibly bad risk taking  and lack of government oversight and regulation, but rather a consequence of the Obama administration economic policy  and that the real problem is debt.

    That is an incredibly accomplishment in just one year.  Now, Tancredo/Norton take it one step further and say that the Obama policies are not only responsible for our economic crisis, but are a real threat to this country.

    Brilliant lockstep.

    I would like to remind everyone that Tancredo, at least I believe I have heard him say this on the radio, was able to avoid the draft and military service in the 60s because of an emotional disability.  So I do not think it appropriate to ridicule his condition.

  13. “The other day my good friend and supporter Tom Tancredo said that the greatest threat to this country is the man who occupies the White House, Barack Obama,” Buck said Saturday. “There is a lot of truth in what Tom Tancredo says.”

    How on earth is Obama a major threat to the country? He passed a minimal health care bill and a financial reform bill that probably isn’t enough – and that’s a threat???

    The biggest threat Obama presents to the Republicans is proving that a Democrat isn’t much different from a Republican president. (Yes Bush was awful but Obama’s difference appears to be competence, not a significant change in direction.)

    1. but have to disagree that Obama is no better than Bush.  You are obviously a lefty fringe radical who thinks that Obama governing from the middle is a bad thing.

      1. But I think a lot of what’s happened is the middle has been re-defined to be the middle of the Republican party. On bank regulation they didn’t even take us back to 1995. On taxes they won’t even take us back to the Reagan administration. It’s sad…

        And I’m not on the lefty fringe – many on here think I’m a closet Republican because of my support for education reform, oppisition to high overhead taxes, etc.

        1. The thing that is a recurring theme with self-hating Democrats is that they always expect things to magically change in 18-24 months and then when it doesn’t they proclaim absolute failure, we’re all gonna die and all Democratic politicians are terrible people.

          The Republicans built their current successes over 30-40 years but Democrats expect instant miracles.  Where is the long view that Obama is shifting the middle back towards the left like any natural pendulum swing.

          Here is a good link on someone who sees it as a generational rather than a seismic shift.

          Against Dispair by Michael Tomasky

            1. It is unrealistic to expect the Obama Administration to fix this complete and utter fuck up in less than two years.  Ferreting out the deregulation moles in the MMS is going to take a while just by itself and it is just a microcosm of the how thorough Republicans were in wrecking decent government.  As Reagan said let’s stay the course and we will come through the storm.

                1. who voted for the worst president in the history of the United States.  You don’t have the best credibility to judge presidents.  

                  McCain would have probably suspended his presidency at the first crisis.

                  You also forget to mention that the Republicans have done everything possible to obstruct economic recovery so that an asshole like you can make these unsubstantiated claims.

                  It must suck to be a such traitor to all the working men and women in America playing the partisan card without regard to the condition of those who have been most affected by the collapse of Republican economic policy.

                  1. Republicans have done everything they can to try to save the economy, while libs continue to prop up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (and other failed businesses) with bailouts, trying to make them give mortgages to people who can’t pay them back. Bush himself tried to regulate these guys, but dems prevented him from doing so. At some point though, you’re going to have to admit this is Obama’s economy. I would say it became his about a year ago when he said unemployment wouldn’t go above 8% if we passed the stimulus.

                    1. should probably base their claim on the discipline of economics rather than on the arbitrary assertions of blind ideology. Just a thought.

                      Republican policies have long been poison to the economy, because they have been blindly ideological rather than analytical in nature. That’s probably why 80% of American economists favored Democratic over Republican economic policies in a poll conducted by The Economist magazine in 2008, and why for decades economic growth has been far more robust under Democratic than under Republican management. But, hey, as long as you can type claims that have no basis in reality, I guess they must be true, right?

                      The majority of professional economists, even those who are generally fiscal conservatives, have stated that their primary criticism with the stimulus package has been that it was too small. Some have also criticized it for not focusing more on investments with higher and more immediate multiplier effects. Exceedingly few have suggested that public spending stimulation of the economy was not called for, and the empirical outcome has been that the economic meltdown (resulting from underregulation of the financial sector) has been far less catastrophic than almost predictions maintained on the eve of the last presidential election.

                      (Claiming that Republicans were ever the champions of smart regulation is, well, too absurd to even address. What you really mean is that a policy intended to continue the obscene concentration of wealth into ever fewer hands in this country is something you’re now going to call “regulation” because it serves some rhetorical purpose to do so.)

                      Even unemployment statistics overwhelmingly suggest a highly successful policy, since the turning point from accelerating growth in unemployment to decelerating growth in unemployment occurred immediately in the wake of passing the first stimulus bill, and, while having stagnated, has not turned around.

                      It’s easy to mobilize empty rhetoric to claim that because an economic catastrophe that was created by the previous administration still is stifling our economic vitality it belongs to the current president. But the truth is in the change in the numbers over time, which goes like this:: Economic crash under Bush, kept getting worse under Bush, started to get better almost immediately under Obama, and is currently far less severe than anyone foresaw when Obama took office.

    2. I thought I might be able to vote for Buck if Bennet were the democratic nominee.  Now, I know I cannot.

      Simple, I will vote for romanoff or bennet depending on which one comes out first  denouncing Buck/Norton/Tancredo….

      If neither does, then I am voting third party…any third party….Hell, I may figure out how to vote for myself….at least, I love this country.

  14. I think that the quiet readers of this blog have gotten the point that The Beej is an ignorant, immature ideologue that just likes the sight of his clueless rantings. It appears that his self-esteem is bolstered by the number of responses he is able to generate.

    No amount of rational evidence will change The Beej’s non-thinking positions, but it is important to counter his ignorance for the benefit of others who might be persuaded by evidence and real arguments.

    Our work is done on this thread, CO Polsters. Well done!

    Bring on the vuvuzelas!

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments

Posts about

Donald Trump

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo

Posts about

Colorado House

Posts about

Colorado Senate

32 readers online now


Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!