President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Kamala Harris
(R) Donald Trump
80%↑
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) V. Archuleta
98%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Marshall Dawson
95%
5%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd
(D) Adam Frisch
52%↑
48%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(D) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank
(D) River Gassen
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) John Fabbricatore
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen
(R) Sergei Matveyuk
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
52%↑
48%↓
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
April 27, 2009 10:39 PM UTC
35 Comments
The radical UFCW and the radical API.
by liberals so the conspiracy theories are unfounded. 😉
I do have a question about that ad. It claims increased taxes will decrease research into alternative sources of energy and that we need to use the fuel protected on Federal lands. Can someone please explain the logic of why that would be a good long-term solution?
I think “Energy Tomorrow” can use that fuel to not only lubricate the highway for the handbasket, but then use it to fill the lake of fire they have created for themselves in in HELL!
you can’t help yourself from attacking
And your third-rate baiting tactics never change.
and funny.
never mind thats it’s an unsustainable finite resource with loads of environmental consequences – that’s all you need to know. Wait, I think the lady in the add winked at me (woo hoo, coochie coo, i’m blushing !).
I thought Pols would have higher standards than to take money from API, but hey, the economy is a bitch !
What a pile of steaming man loaf.
sometimes he sits corrected 🙂
For as long as we’ve been online. Conspiracy nuts will say what they want regardless, but Colorado Pols is a political blog. That’s all. Nothing more.
Can you share with your loyal readers how much you charged API to buy your soul?
I can’t believe the industry funded front group would waste their money buying an ad on the most left wing attack machine website in Colorado. It’s a wonder they won the campaign to defeat Amendment 58.
Good luck with that, y’all.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/ind…
We’ve been cooling or warming since Bush 43 was elected, I just know there is a trend line in there somewhere.
Randy Mann… is that a joke?
I’m laughing.
From Wise Young:
“The moment I saw this graph, the hair began to rise on the back of my neck. First, anybody that shows a graph without indicating the units of the y-axis has something to hide. Second, to depict something as variable and complex a global temperature as such a smooth curve suggests dishonesty. Third, the labeling of the chart with the words “Nomanic Time” in bold is bizarre What is Nomanic? Fourth, why does this data go back only 4500 years? Most sources of climate data that goes back several thousand years also include data that go much further back. Fifth where did this data come from? It looks nothing like any climate data that I have seen. Finally, who on earth are Climatologist Cliff Harris & Metereologist Randy Mann ?”
Except I saw a very similar (though not identical) graph in a pull-out chart from National Geographic. But they overlaid the CO2 emissions to up the scare-factor and downplay the we’ve-been-here-before-factor.
And their slogan is The People of the Oil and Gas Industry.
AAH! It’s made from people!! NOOO!!!
pixel width into your img src tags. Jesus.
Now there’s a man who knew his HTML code.
there is a difference between the two, but maybe you saw that Lou Dobbs special about there being no global warming the day after it snowed in Vegas. Sheesh.
10 million new autos on the road every year since 1903 and the heavy use of plastics that began in the late 1870’s.
Time to drag out the “Burn Wood, Not [insert new term pertaining to ONG]
thats bigger than your drop from 2007 to 2008. By your line of thinking that means we had global warming back then, and then we didn’t, and then we did, and didn’t, and, oh, wait a second…
You don’t make any logical sense.
maybe you could help check the blinker on my tailight. Is it working ?
YEP…NOPE…YEP…NOPE
but that someone is not you, Libertad.
A recently published survey of earth scientists shows that the more familiar a scientist is with climate research, the more likely they are to understand what the temperature trends are and what contributing causes are responsible for the trends.
You can find this short peer-reviewed report by searching for Doran & Zimmerman. 2009. Climate Change 90(3):22-23 or just click here.
“Climate scientists are more likely to be buy climate-change stuff.”
I’ll take “Studies where the authors spent the funding on hookers and blow and then made stuff up” for $100 please.
The chart I want to see is the one comparing global temperature not to CO2 in the atmosphere, but to solar output. You can’t track the temperature of the water in the teapot without figuring out what the burner is set at.
S(t) is the solar irradiance
T(globe) is the global average temperature
Note that T(globe) goes up & up & up …
Note that S(t) goes up & down & up & down …
If you have to use a data set that only goes back 20 years and that excludes the most recent years in order to make a “point” then you really don’t have much backing for your “point.”
According to the NCDC January 2009 was the 7th warmest recorded since 1880.
(Also, you should note that what is plotted in this graph are temperature anomolies. This means that if the temperature is above zero, then that record is warmer than average. So even though Jan 2008 was cooler than Jan 2007, both were warmer than average. All this graph does is show that Jan 2007 was quite warm for the last 20 years. Jan 2008 was still quite warm compared to the average January. Not included in your graph is the fact that Jan 2009 was also warmer than average.)
If one chooses to look at the available data that goes back to 1880, then the trend is unmistakable. I’ll post the graph here for your convenience.
Well, congrats, for parroting everyone else’s material and then crowing about how great it is that you talk about the fruits of their labor and then boast that your site garners more attention.
To me, that’s tantamount to Jared Polis’s declaration that he had a hand in the death of the Rocky Mountain News. You’re implying that subjectivity and blogs are the way of the future, while organizations dedicated to truth and fact — instead of blubbering partisanship a la Bill O’Reilly and Keith Olberman — should fall by the wayside.
Really, you should be proud of yourselves.
Schmucks.
We’re just saying our site gets more traffic than that section of their site. You’re the one making all these other, um, judgments.
It’s just that it’s a messy process that is entirely in public view.
Is it just me, or does the API ad have some serious anti-aliasing (or, rather, anti-aliasing failure) artifacts?