tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8993108951931633758.post9122305193847883379..comments2023-08-05T07:24:04.413-05:00Comments on Hope n' Change Cartoons: Wednesday Double HeaderUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger39125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8993108951931633758.post-62577216268659538822014-09-11T01:33:15.847-05:002014-09-11T01:33:15.847-05:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07720547920308398294noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8993108951931633758.post-6919695172241734012014-05-10T10:32:41.577-05:002014-05-10T10:32:41.577-05:00Yes Anonymous, what actual "hard" data t...Yes Anonymous, what actual "hard" data they have isn't much better than the stuff they make up. Anthony Watts has been documenting these poorly placed stations for years:<br /><br />https://www.google.com/search?q=watt+how+not+to+measure&oq=watt+how+not+to+measure&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i64.6547j0j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8#q=wattsupwiththat+how+not+to+measure+temperature<br /><br />I just love the ones that are located right next to the exhaust of commercial air conditioning units:<br /><br />http://surfacestations.org/images/MarysvilleCA_USHCN_Site_small.jpg<br /><br />Measuring human activity? Certainly. Measuring "climate"? Not hardly.<br /><br />Being a pilot, I've seen may interestingly placed ones at airports, which are popular places for recording stations. The decade of data I've collected from my weather station attached to the outside of my house is certainly more accurate than many of the "official" station.John the Econnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8993108951931633758.post-84816423358729098402014-05-09T21:53:18.921-05:002014-05-09T21:53:18.921-05:00Www.surfacestations.org shows that all the weather...Www.surfacestations.org shows that all the weather stations are gathering bad data. One of my favorites for challenging global warming-cooling-disruption-change "settled science." Garbage in, garbage out as they say...<br />Love HopeNChange!!!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8993108951931633758.post-19402776736976696952014-05-09T14:03:21.486-05:002014-05-09T14:03:21.486-05:00@John the Econ -
I am glad that I am now an emanc...@John the Econ -<br /><br />I am glad that I am now an emancipated "chick"! Just teasing. If I had a dollar for every time I "fat fingered" something - nearly caused my phone to get reset to factory settings the other day.<br /><br />@Jim Hlavac -<br /><br />One of your comments at the URL you provided: "And I’m wondering, as the pole moves it affects the jet stream which swirls around it ..."<br />My understanding of the jet stream phenomena is that it is a result of the temperature difference between the equator and the poles, coupled with the Coriolis Effect (<a href="http://twister.caps.ou.edu/PM2000/Chapter7.pdf" rel="nofollow"> See Eq. (7.15) </a>) caused by the Earth's rotation. It is an energy transport phenomena, in other words. <br /><br />So, it is not at all clear to me that it "rotates around the magnetic pole" except by coincidence. However, I could easily see how a disrupted magnetic pole would cause atmospheric changes that are induced by the Sun's radiation in a different manner - I think in one of your links, or maybe you wrote it, it mentions the Northern Lights, for example. <br /><br />But I need to find more info on how the magnetic pole and the atmosphere interact. It is certainly intriguing. And at any rate, as you, John, and so many others have said (elsewhere), and really as intuition would compel, the Earth is just too damn complicated for such simplistic "explanations" as CO2 alone. Particularly since CO2 is consumed (by plants).Chuck Efnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8993108951931633758.post-51499225540773732362014-05-09T09:58:38.923-05:002014-05-09T09:58:38.923-05:00@Chick Ef, didn't take anything personally. U...@Chick Ef, didn't take anything personally. Unlike those who are part of the climate "consensus", I am quite tolerant of diversity of thought on the topic.<br /><br />And you're not meant to "see the science". The climate cartel doesn't want you to see it. In real science, your data and protocols are proudly displayed out in the open for all to see and evaluate. But the climate cartel hides there as though it's some sort of competitive corporate secret. (And since most of this data is publicly funded, it's also illegal to be hiding it)<br /><br />And as for the money: Advocates for AGW (anthropogenic global warming) argue that any science disputing their hypothesis is tainted because it might be funded by corporate interests.<br /><br />And yet, almost all of AGW science is funded by government to the tune of billions of dollars a year. No conflict of interest there!<br /><br />@Jim Hlavac, you created a great read in 2011. And again, the AGW community totally rejects the notion. Why would they? Most other fields of science are usually enthusiastic about the possibilities of something new.<br /><br />It's because AGW isn't about science. It's about statism, anti-capitalism, and communism; all about "control".<br /><br />100 years ago, Progressives honestly believed that once Americans were educated as to the benefits and wonders of communism, that they'd enthusiastically sign up. It didn't happen. So after WWII, they needed to take a different tack. Since we wouldn't go willingly, they needed to create a crisis of epic proportions that would convince the masses that permitting the massive powers of state to micromanage society was the only way to survive. That's why they chose carbon; there's absolutely no aspect of your life from the moment you are conceived until long after you're dead that does not involve interacting with carbon. If the government can be freed to regulate your relationship with carbon, there is absolutely no corner of your life that they cannot control.<br /><br />So drifting magnetic poles, solar fluctuations, or even cow farts are not adequate. It's going to be carbon, come hell or high water.John the Econnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8993108951931633758.post-75937802000904871762014-05-09T09:43:28.424-05:002014-05-09T09:43:28.424-05:00@Jim Hlavac
Thanks for the extra info. I guess I ...@Jim Hlavac<br /><br />Thanks for the extra info. I guess I missed John's comments about spinning masses - will have to go back and look. But now that you mention it, it might make a lot of sense if Coriolis effects are coming into play - maybe your links talk to this - I will go look. But just like a gyroscope, the Earths' spinning maybe cause the magnetic poles to precess in some fashion? The dynamics of the magma mix that up a lot. <br /><br />But still what effect that has on climate is a mystery to me. <br /><br />Anyway - will go look at you stuff and come back - but first an errand. Chuck Efnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8993108951931633758.post-78199133930171958242014-05-08T22:31:19.623-05:002014-05-08T22:31:19.623-05:00People have wondered about my comments on the Magn...People have wondered about my comments on the Magnetic North Pole -- there's many sources of information on this -- I gathered up some in November of 2011 -- and put them in my blog ... <br />http://thedailymush.wordpress.com/2011/11/18/is-magnetic-norths-movement-the-cause-for-climate-change/<br /><br />Along with some tidbits related to the whole un-understood farce called "we have met the enemy and it is us" of "global climate warming disruption change" -- <br /><br />Much of it has been updated -- I'm sure -- but I don't have time to really do it again ... <br /><br />Yet, it seems the Mag-pole has moved even more since last I explored the issue. <br /><br />It seems, and JohnEcon is on to it - that the molten core around the solid core inside the several different layers of crust all spin at different rates. Because, as anyone who knows Euclid on spherical motion knows, or Mosconi on billiards -- spinning objects affect other spinning objects - and thus, when several different spinning things are spinning at different rates they will eventually go out of alignment -- and realign. Oddly, very oddly, the Mayan's calendar alludes to this in their 3 cycles where the cycle starts out where a single axis aligns, and slowly, inexorably, goes out of alignment, until thousands of years later it realigns where it was again.<br /><br />It's quite a merry go round. <br /><br />Jim Hlavachttp://www.thedailymush.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8993108951931633758.post-25290737119395692652014-05-08T20:34:02.462-05:002014-05-08T20:34:02.462-05:00@John the Econ
Just getting back to this. You pro...@John the Econ<br /><br />Just getting back to this. You probably won't see this before the next posting by the good doctor but --<br /><br />My previous comment was not directed at you per se. It was just my constant complaining about not seeing the science - all I ever hear/read is this back and forth of plausibilities. That isn't science. And that is OK if it is advertised as such but the AGW believers call it science. <br /><br />I was simply using your comment as context for that. <br /><br />I am an AGW skeptic - "Show me the money". The left has failed in that regard. The comments made by other skeptics make the most sense to me. But I continue to keep an open mind. My comment was directed at that.Chuck Efnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8993108951931633758.post-46723532545781697012014-05-08T12:20:53.947-05:002014-05-08T12:20:53.947-05:00@Readers- Damn good comments above, and I'd re...<b>@Readers-</b> <i>Damn</i> good comments above, and I'd really like to jump into the conversation but I'm juggling chainsaws today. Carry on!Stilton Jarlsberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14503164551782304564noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8993108951931633758.post-12000294771969466352014-05-08T11:01:44.587-05:002014-05-08T11:01:44.587-05:00Stilt! Clean-up, aisle 3!!
So much for the Capcha...Stilt! Clean-up, aisle 3!! <br />So much for the Capcha free posting. <br />Rat ba*tard @holes.. <br />(yeah, all that and you'd think I could come up w/ something relevant to point out, like "thank God for climate change, "normal" climate for midwest is ice as high as Denver" -or - "They like to talk about a 'runaway greenhouse' environment, but they never bring up 'runaway icehouse / snowball Earth', which paleoclimatologists assure us has happened at least once... http://www.snowballearth.org/what.html ) Pete (Detroit)noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8993108951931633758.post-86939963912434753722014-05-08T09:42:12.629-05:002014-05-08T09:42:12.629-05:00@Chuck Ef, I'm not questioning that mankind...@Chuck Ef, I'm not questioning that mankind's contribution to CO2 may have non-linear effects. But I certainly do question the outright rejection of almost every non-human factor from consideration. It's clear that those behind the orthodoxy can't afford to have those questions examined to any depth.<br /><br />As for what can or should be done to avoid disaster, there never has been any "consensus". Do consider that even if all of the industrial countries had signed on to Kyoto and actually achieved its stated goals, (the US did not sign, and yet beat almost every country that did) the effect on warming over the next century would not have even been measurable. So what was the point?<br /><br />Meanwhile, in order to reduce CO2 to pre-industrial levels, we would ALL have to either revert to a stone-aged existence, or reduce global population by roughly 80%. (actually, both are effectively the same thing) How we would do that is anyone's guess. It disturbs me to have to think of Pol Pot as a kind of ecological hero.John the Econnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8993108951931633758.post-7289027762801989172014-05-08T09:00:07.104-05:002014-05-08T09:00:07.104-05:00Some really interesting stuff posted here. Really....Some really interesting stuff posted here. Really. I am truly intrigued by this magnetic pole stuff.<br /><br />That said, I can certainly believe that one effect can have an outsized impact on the climate versus. (''So a 1% to 1.5% variability in solar output has negligible effect on global temperatures compared to the 0.12% of CO2 that man contributes to the 0.04% of CO2 that exists in the atmosphere.") This is what nonlinearity is all about. Some things can in fact have catastrophic effects depending on how they enter the equations - that is the claim. <br /><br />All I am interested in are the equations/models and the supporting evidence for their validity. THAT I can find no where. <br /><br />When claims like these, which have the potential for devastating impact on mankind, are made, the "believers" need to supply the hard evidence. Anything other than that is orthodoxy and politics. <br /><br />And when I say "devastating", I have seen estimates of a needed decline of 5.7B people to reach the Left's CO2 goals. Those claims may be exaggerated too for all I know but what's a billion or two between "friends". Chuck Efnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8993108951931633758.post-9403576009661473822014-05-08T08:27:01.176-05:002014-05-08T08:27:01.176-05:00Yes @Sparky, to many is is a religion, and in the ...Yes @Sparky, to many is is a religion, and in the worst sense. It's adherents must maintain complete faith in their leaders, and most arguments are little more than an appeal to authority.<br /><br />Today, we have people who call themselves "scientists" with a straight face who literally call of the excommunication of fellow scientists for not conforming.<br /><br />Meanwhile, we have other "scientists" who like to evoke "Pascal's Dilemma", where Pascal postulates that if one has uncertainty about the existence of God, then perhaps it would still be wise to attend church, since doing so covers the basis at relatively little personal risk. Some time ago, eco-liberals started throwing that one out, arguing that even if "global warming" was less than certain, it would still be a good idea to take steps to prevent it. (as if that was even possible)<br /><br />So, you'd think that if eco-liberals really believed that, then the churches would be overflowing with eco-liberals. And yet, they aren't.John the Econnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8993108951931633758.post-65687318585927412562014-05-08T06:28:38.590-05:002014-05-08T06:28:38.590-05:00@John the Econ ~ See, that's my argument all a...@John the Econ ~ See, that's my argument all along. That "global warming" or whatever Leftist term is being bantered about, is a religion. They won't listen to reason because they're too drunk on power with the blood of innocents (our economy, for one). It is Marxist, as TrickyRicky so rightly stated. I see only two ways to fight it. Ignore them or another way which I won't put in print. Trying to educate them doesn't work.Sparkyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09531515666554867421noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8993108951931633758.post-68131510485433909462014-05-08T05:55:05.907-05:002014-05-08T05:55:05.907-05:00Just found this very interesting article on climat...Just found this very interesting article on climate change when I Googled " Do Canadians worry about global warming?" <br /><br />http://www.eskimo.com/~bpentium/articles/warming3.html<br /><br />After seeing the name of the website, it occurred to me that raising fears about global warming is RACIST, as Eskimos may find it offensive.Geoff Kinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01702402850031773761noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8993108951931633758.post-90944505122984678662014-05-07T20:55:59.356-05:002014-05-07T20:55:59.356-05:00Here's another interesting take on the Preside...Here's another interesting take on the President's doom-and-gloom agenda:<br /><br />The President's report goes on about the additional destruction that is inevitable due an increase in the number and severity of the tornadoes, hurricanes, etc.<br /><br /><b>So what does the casualty insurance industry think of all this?</b> Since they have actual money at stake here, you'd think they'd be quaking in their boots, raising rates or cancelling policies altogether. You'd be wrong.<br /><br /><i>The effects of climate change, "if any," have not affected the insurance market, billionaire Warren Buffett told CNBC, —adding he's not calculating the probabilities of catastrophes any differently.<br /><br />While the question of climate change "deserves lots of attention," Buffett said in a "Squawk Box" interview, "It has no effect ... [on] the prices we're charging this year versus five years ago. And I don't think it'll have an effect on what we're charging three years or five years from now."<br /><br />"The public has the impression that because there's been so much talk about climate that events of the last 10 years from an insured standpoint and climate have been unusual," he continued. "The answer is they haven't."</i><br /><br />http://www.cnbc.com/id/101460458<br />John the Econnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8993108951931633758.post-31099608476897189732014-05-07T20:48:47.841-05:002014-05-07T20:48:47.841-05:00@JIm Hlavac & @George in Houtx, as someone who...@JIm Hlavac & @George in Houtx, as someone who engages in a couple of hobbies that require a knowledge of navigation, I've been aware of and following the magnetic shift issue for several decades now. The rate at which it has been moving has been increasing for some time. For those who don't understand much about geo-physics or the function of the earth's magnetic field, suffice it to say that without it, we wouldn't likely be here. It's the magnetic field surrounding our planet that deflects and diverts most of the high-energy charged particles that are constantly bombarding our planet from both the sun and deep space. Without it, we'd literally be cooked.<br /><br />My question has always been: To what degree does the magnetic field in conjunction with the Van Allen Radiation Belt affect climate at the rate at which energy is absorbed from the sun.<br /><br />When "global warming" was starting to become the fad back in the early '90s, I'd repeatedly ask proponents of the theory about the effect that our shifting magnetic pole might have on our climate. This notion was always completely rejected. Not only did they totally disregard this as an possibility, but they wouldn't even consider solar cycles as an influence comparable to what they said man was doing. So a 1% to 1.5% variability in solar output has negligible effect on global temperatures compared to the 0.12% of CO2 that man contributes to the 0.04% of CO2 that exists in the atmosphere. It had been decided: CO2 emitted by human activity was to be the official enemy. Anything that could not possibly be connected to human interference would not be considered. It was in exchanges like this where it became very clear that "global warming" was not about science at all, but was a wholly-owned political agenda of the far left to be used as justification for any and all government excess.<br />John the Econnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8993108951931633758.post-85075691668133078732014-05-07T19:47:10.095-05:002014-05-07T19:47:10.095-05:00@ CenTexTim: time on this is variable. what I mean...@ CenTexTim: time on this is variable. what I mean is that there is geological evidence that the Earth went 'multi-pole' and then flipped in a "short" time. in THAT instance, the poles flipped back quite soon. so the poles were back to 'normal' in a short geological span. still, a short geological span could be hundreds of years ..... or it could be a matter of days or weeks. other times the poles flipped (yes, this a common thing) it took several thousands of years to get back to normal.George in Houtxnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8993108951931633758.post-12933763474071683982014-05-07T18:53:28.429-05:002014-05-07T18:53:28.429-05:00@George in Houtx
You sound like that Chinese prov...@George in Houtx<br /><br />You sound like that Chinese proverb - "May your life be interesting." I think it is meant as a threat. Or maybe it was "May you life be filled with opportunities." Whatever.<br /><br />Anyway, fascinating. I need to look this stuff up. <br /><br />But it is quite a "shocker" eh? The Earth being so complex? Whoda thunk?<br /><br />But I am quite convinced that cow flatulence gets to the Earth's magma core somehow. Al Gore said so ...Chuck Efnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8993108951931633758.post-20680443728127829222014-05-07T18:25:06.686-05:002014-05-07T18:25:06.686-05:00George in Houtx - what kind of time frame are we t...George in Houtx - what kind of time frame are we talking about re: multiple poles?CenTexTimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04026518638421849111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8993108951931633758.post-14621880363565610412014-05-07T17:44:13.444-05:002014-05-07T17:44:13.444-05:00Stilton, re: what Jim H. had to say about the mag ...Stilton, re: what Jim H. had to say about the mag polar shift .... this is something I have been following as an amateur geologist since the early 70's. as best as I can describe it, the molten metal core develops circulation currents as it spins. these affect the magnetic field. as the currents shift, so, too, does the north / south magnetic poles. as the currents continue to shift, the patterns of swirls get more complex. this leads to the magnetic field weakening. there will come a time that the swirls get so complex that we might see 4 (or more) magnetic north poles. and like in the late-night t v info-mercials ..... But wait! there's more! with more than 1 each north / south magnetic poles, the field strength will be very weak. this will expose all life to cosmic radiation which will do bad things to the DNA. ALSO, it will expose the Earth to cosmic rays. these tend to cause clouds to form in the high atmosphere. clouds block sunlight. this leads to a cooler Earth and a very probable ice age. in short, things will be quite "interesting"!!George in Houtxnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8993108951931633758.post-50190306026422949922014-05-07T16:02:15.651-05:002014-05-07T16:02:15.651-05:00"Anthropocentric Global Warming" has bee..."Anthropocentric Global Warming" has been one of my favorite topics for the last two decades.<br /><br />As a young econ student in the '80s, those in the "hard sciences" used to look down on us social-numbers crunchers as inferior because unlike them, we couldn't adhere to the "scientific method" like they theoretically could. And to a large degree, they were right; In economics, it's not possible to test hypothesis with the kind of certainty that you can in say, physics. This leaves a lot of room mischief as as a profession as one gets wider latitude in picking and choosing data and how it's used, since little of it is actually "hard".<br /><br />Fast forward a decade or so. Today, many in the "climate" community freely and openly use statistical "tricks" that would have had those in my econ student cohort expelled (as we should have been) had we tried to use them.<br /><br />The problem is that there's only 1 earth, and absolutely no way to test anything, especially in a field where it's even questionable to what degree we even impact such things as "climate".<br /><br />So these people with billions in government funding come up with these tidbits, much of it based upon questionable research, and say <i><b>"We need to undo industrialization, and we'd all be better off if there were a few billion fewer people on the planet, and if we all had the carbon footprint of a caveman. Trust us as we take your cash and your freedom and let us save the planet from yourself."</b></i><br /><br />If it were only that bad. But it's actually worse that than. A President who flies about in a personal 747 goes to the foreign lands of the poor and impoverished, and tells them not to expect to own nice homes with A/C or have automobiles, because the planet can't deal with it. Then he jets back to America for another round of golf.<br /><br />How retrograde is that? The left likes to scream that it's conservatives who want to take America back to the '50s. Well, these people want to take us back to the middle ages! These people want us to be their serfs, and this is how they plan to justify it.John the Econnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8993108951931633758.post-86271696509958018482014-05-07T14:03:40.080-05:002014-05-07T14:03:40.080-05:00@Sparky- Theology aside (which I don't say in ...@Sparky- Theology aside (which I don't say in a negative way in the least) I think Man's impact on the Earth pales in comparison to the natural forces at work, including the power of the sun and emissions from volcanic sources (among many others). Moreover, we're already doing a pretty good job of regulating emissions in our country - so what else would Obama have us do? If we were to shut down industry in America <i>completely</i>, it would make virtually no difference in the climate. But would make a heckuva difference to hundreds of millions of people.<br /><br />@Ron Russell- I liked your piece! And yes, "cap and trade" is the goal here - though again, just like Obamacare, it's all about economic redistribution rather than its stated purpose.<br /><br />@Jim Hlavac- You've got too much good stuff in your comment for me to react to all of it, but it <i>is</i> interesting to wonder how the conditions that are changing our magnetic pole and polarity might also be affecting climate. Not that anyone is going to get grant money by investigating it.<br /><br />@Anonymous- Funny and accurate! (By the way, it's easy to give yourself a name when posting comments: just click the Name/URL button and enter whatever name you like!)<br /><br />@Chuck Ef- Oh for cryin' out loud; I had to look at your linked story TWICE to make sure it wasn't a satire from The Onion. But nope: <b>Harry Reid declared that the Koch brothers are among the MAIN causes of climate change.</b><br /><br />Seriously, it's time Harry was medicated and locked in a rubber room.<br /><br />@Colby- Lynne Cheney is a smart woman and I agree completely: the mere fact that the Lewinsky piece is <i>in</i> Vanity Fair means that the editors thought it would be good for the Clintons - and <i>probably made a point of getting it cleared with them</i>.<br /><br />And don't worry about your spelling. Proper grammar, syntax, and spelling are all oppressive tools of the power elite, and probably racist.Stilton Jarlsberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14503164551782304564noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8993108951931633758.post-71768965301883886742014-05-07T13:42:29.176-05:002014-05-07T13:42:29.176-05:00@TrickyRicky- The well-orchestrated timing of Lewi...@TrickyRicky- The well-orchestrated timing of Lewinsky's return is a twofer: it distracts from Benghazi, and it will make the "Monica problem" old news by the time Hillary announces her run for the White House.<br /><br />@CenTexTim- I think "climate disruption" may be my favorite apocalyptic non sequitur so far. All it really says is that nature isn't taking its expected course - which could be more indicative of our misguided expectations than climate-changing machinations.<br /><br />@Chris- I think the news networks of ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, and MSNBC should all unite under the banner of ADHD.<br /><br />@Geoff King- Great points. The evidence of climate change is pretty good, but the evidence that it's man made is very weak, and the evidence that we can turn it around is nonexistent - especially as one nation acting unilaterally.<br /><br />@American Cowboy- You know, maybe this "climate disruption" is actually being caused by an unnatural zone of atmospheric low pressure surrounding Washington because of all the Dems who suck!<br /><br />@Chuck Ef- Because Billy boy was screwing around, we got "presidential disruption" that kept a lot of important things from happening - and taking Bin Laden out of the game is at the top of that list.<br /><br />And I still remember the day that Monica was supposed to give her grand jury testimony. The country was waiting for news, when suddenly BJ Bill commandeered all the TV stations for an emergency announcement: he'd just sent missiles to attack Al Qaeda. Or that's what he claimed; actually he just blew the living hell out of a non-military aspirin factory in the middle of nowhere. I firmly believe that this was a transparent distraction from the Monica news of the day...and further, that the repercussions from the aspirin factory snafu caused Bill to pull back from watching/confronting Al Qaeda. (Note: right around then, he reassigned investigators from looking at Al Qaeda to look for white bigots burning down black churches in the South - which proved <i>not</i> to be happening).<br /><br />Long story short- I think Monica helped create the circumstances which culminated in the nightmare of 9-11.<br /><br />(More comments shortly!)<br /> Stilton Jarlsberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14503164551782304564noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8993108951931633758.post-17101951148824154002014-05-07T13:37:59.818-05:002014-05-07T13:37:59.818-05:00@Colby
Ha! Well, you know, when I was young, &quo...@Colby<br /><br />Ha! Well, you know, when I was young, "liberal" meant "open minded" - so yeah, I was a liberal too. Now it means orthodoxy. It's really sad. So I call myself a "classical liberal" in the sense of the Founding Fathers. So far as I am concerned, the only thing like that these days if libertarianism. <br /><br />And yes, I too see a butterfly! That must be the effect the "true believers" are referring to.<br /><br />BTW, I don't know if anyone is aware of Crichton's "State Of Fear" - but I thought he had an extraordinary appendix in that novel addressing AGW. It seemed perfectly reasonable to me. Chuck Efnoreply@blogger.com