Sandbox – 11mar15

March 2015
S	M	T	W	T	F	S
1	2	3	4	5	6	7
8	9	10	11	12	13	14
15	16	17	18	19	20	21
22	23	24	25	26	27	28
29	30	31

OUR LINKS

YubaNet
White House Blog
Watts Up With That?
The Union
Sierra Thread
RL “Bob” Crabb
Barry Pruett Blog

Sandbox – 11mar15

11 March 2015

[So much to think and talk about – Hillary's debacles and scandals and incipient candidacy(?), Kentucky's two senators starting to hug each other, Obama's Iranian bumble, The Fed's prevarication on interest rates and the market's dive, Iran 'advising' Iraqi troops against ISIS (remember, these turkeys fought an eight year war recently), al Sisi, our strongest Arab ally, still waiting for a visit to the White House, ragheads by the thousands all over Africa and Asia pledging allegiance to ISIS, …, oh my! And yes, Nevada County's plan for economic development is still AWOL.]

Posted in Comment Sandbox

130 responses to “Sandbox – 11mar15”

Gregory

13 March 2015

“There’s nothing wrong with that, but you should be humbled by people who have more experience than you, including my experience fighting Microsoft in a legal case. Heck, as a lawyer, [sic] might learn something from it.” -Cartman
Eric, you missed a spot.

LikeLike
drivebyposter

13 March 2015

“do you remember the Dem Congresscritter grilling the Admiral about how many troops could be put on Guam before it tipped over spilling everyone into the sea?”
No doubt Hank Johnson provides a one-man snapshot of his district.
I suppose that the hope in any voting system is that the average opinion of a sample of people is tolerably close to being a decent answer…usually.
I do like the notion that a non-scientist shouldn’t be allowed to question NASA funding distribution. You might as well say that a President (Eisenhower excepted) should never be allowed to question a general.

LikeLike
Walt

13 March 2015

Some fresh smelling crap for this here sandbox, and some GREAT news for a few Lefties
here.( that will remain nameless) Feeling a little “short”?? The mistress looking for better lumber? Ahhh. The Marvels of modern medicine. But don’t count on your Obummer care to pick up the tab. ( unless being a card carrying Lib… Maybe..)
http://news.sky.com/story/1444513/docs-perform-first-successful-penis-transplant
My the NC Scooper put their take on this.

LikeLike
George Rebane

13 March 2015

driveby 207pm – Your important musing on our voting system might be impacted by the study published by Dr Caplan some years back, and reported here –
http://rebaneruminations.typepad.com/rebanes_ruminations/2008/07/how-elections-r.html
Re NASA funding. Perhaps lay people should not get involved in the agency’s “funding distribution”. However, weighing in on the large scale initiatives NASA is undertaking should IMHO be open to all well-read taxpayers. Assuming to assuage Muslim sensitivities is probably not in the agency’s charter, nor should it be. And diving into the AGW controversy beyond providing sophisticated instruments, obtaining space-based measurements, and generating datasets for use by the scientific community is again far afield from its charter.
Today, given limited budgets and multi-national participations, our space program needs an expert hand in the planning and coordinating near and far term space explorations. NASA should be very involved in laying out detailed development and operational scenarios that serve our national interests.

LikeLike
Todd Juvinall

13 March 2015

Goodness, Pwelline gives us so much fodder. Love it!

LikeLike
fish

13 March 2015

In which Cousin Brucie finds himself nearly voted off the island….
brucelevy says:
March 13, 2015 at 4:22 pm
Come on Jeff, you must be speaking rhetorically. This isn’t the best of all possible worlds. The Union doesn’t give a s*** about being perceived as a serious paper..if they have any self awareness at all they have to see that that possibility is out of the question. They’re not and will never be, and in their heart of hearts (if they have one)…they know that. Journalistically, they are the fools of the farce. If they actually knew what they were doing they wouldn’t be working for this backwater rag. And those in the community with even a vestige of brain already know that. The best they can do is hold on to the simplistic dinosaurs that are their present base of subscribers.
An admission from the progressive vanguard that the Union only hires second rate hacks!? Interesting!
Does the intellectual cadre say anything about those too inept to continue working for the local fish wrap?………hmmmmmm!
Careful Bruce…you know how heavy handed “Big Brother” can be when offended! You might find yourself in the Nevada City equivalent of The Chestnut Tree Cafe with Jones, Aaronson, and Rutherford.

LikeLike
Bill Tozer

13 March 2015

Shut up, Fatty.

LikeLike
Bill Tozer

13 March 2015

Frisco Values:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/03/13/1st-transgender-lawmaker-charged-in-nh-hospital-bomb-threat/?intcmp=latestnews

LikeLike
RL Crabb

13 March 2015

Someone needs to monitor the comments on their blog from vile,irresponsible name-calling.

LikeLike
Don Bessee

13 March 2015

Crabman, what is responsible name calling?

LikeLike
fish

13 March 2015

Posted by: Don Bessee | 13 March 2015 at 09:45 PM
When you wear a condom……

LikeLike
Ben Emery

14 March 2015

An arrogant Senator basically lecturing the NASA Administrator on why and what NASA was formed is the point. Just like bloggers who don’t have a medical degree arguing with a cardiologist findings about the anatomy of the heart and how to read a CT scan.
To spell it out for you guys. You guys challenging the global climatologist community and their almost unanimous agreement on Global Warming/ Climate Change makes you look like a bunch of idiots (in a bad way).

LikeLike
Ben Emery

14 March 2015

Or another way to look at it would be if I wanted to argue Physics with George or Math with Greg or how to build a home with Todd.

LikeLike
drivebyposter

14 March 2015

“An arrogant Senator basically lecturing the NASA Administrator on why and what NASA was formed is the point.”
and the counterpoint is that a Congressman is exactly the person who should do this thing. They provide the funding for those departments and serve as a counterbalance to the executive branch.
Ignore for a moment the fealty you have to the politics of climate change/global warming. I think you can make a strong case that NASA is not the place for that kind of research, and that a highly politicized ecosystem policy fight will tend to be the cowbird that pushes NASA’s prime missions out of the nest.
At this point, if a person has any interest in spaceflight or a permanent human presence off-planet, you might as well pass off the whole program to the military…just make sure that the Air Force (or whoever) builds launch systems that are appropriate for NASA designed instrument packages.

LikeLike
George Rebane

14 March 2015

BenE 822am – As a member of the idiot bunch here, I’d like to remind you that you ARE arguing physics and math with those of us who are professionals in the field, and who understand intimately the role of those sciences in climatology. It is understandable that you do not know the content and operation of the very technical tools used to model climate and attempt predictions of its future course.
And your assessment is wanting on the proportion of IPCC scientists qualified to judge the models into which the contributions of their own narrow areas were integrated. More importantly, as the IPCC reports point out, these scientists, who comprise the overwhelming majority of the cited ‘consensus’, make no claims about climate change outside their areas of specialty.

LikeLike
Todd Juvinall

14 March 2015

Ben Emery is hopeless. He keeps repeating himself. Boring.
But once again since he did not read anyone’s previous posts here it is. The US Senator’s job Ben Emery is to authorize money to NASA. Since President Obama made NASA a “Muslim friendly” zone a few years back and also cut the missions of NASA, you should be happy Ted Cruz is grilling them. Perhaps you should also read the comments by the professional here as well. Maybe follow some of their links as well. It appears the planet is doing just fine. But if you want to do your part to curb the CO2 gas, I suggest you stop breathing. Sheesh!

LikeLike
fish

14 March 2015

Posted by: George Rebane | 14 March 2015 at 08:57 AM
You’re wasting your breath George….Bens progressive catechism is seamless and impenetrable.
“Whatever the Party holds to be truth is truth”
The word has been delivered and the faithful will go forward into yon wilderness to convert the faithless

LikeLike
Gregory

14 March 2015

Ben, the activist scientists (there’s an oxymoron for you) who tell you the science is settled are lying. Let’s revisit what James “Gaia” Lovelock told The Guardian a couple years ago:
“The great climate science centres around the world are more than well aware how weak their science is. If you talk to them privately they’re scared stiff of the fact that they don’t really know what the clouds and the aerosols are doing. They could be absolutely running the show. We haven’t got the physics worked out yet. One of the chiefs once said to me that he agreed that they should include the biology in their models, but he said they hadn’t got the physics right yet and it would be five years before they do. So why on earth are the politicians spending a fortune of our money when we can least afford it on doing things to prevent events 50 years from now? They’ve employed scientists to tell them what they want to hear.”
As time goes on it’s clearer and clearer that clouds and aerosols account for the tiny bit of mysterious warming far better than the imagined positive feedback response to an even tinier bit of CO2… again, CO2 has risen from being 0.03% (three hundredths of one percent) to 0.04% (four hundredths of one percent) of the atmosphere, and CO2 was 0.2% (two tenths of one percent) of the air when our milk sucking ancestors first scampered out of the Triassic Park about 250 million years ago.
Activists desperately want the science to be settled but it ain’t, and the premature conclusions made when the IPCC was formed were, well, made with a lot of ignorance in place. Much has been learned about energy flows in the climate system since an oversimplistic model gave rise to the warming scare ages ago.
Men go insane in mobs but regain their wits one by one. Ben, you may be one of the last to figure it out.

LikeLike
fish

14 March 2015

To spell it out for you guys. You guys challenging the global climatologist community and their almost unanimous agreement on Global Warming/ Climate Change makes you look like a bunch of idiots (in a bad way).
Indeed….for if I’m to be an idiot this is the kind of idiot I prefer to be, recalcitrant and unpleasant to the bitter end.
Unlike your kind…..the “useful” kind.

LikeLike
Walt

14 March 2015

Prepper cooking anyone?
ISIS would really be on edge when bacon is made in the firefight.
http://munchies.vice.com/articles/cooking-bacon-on-the-barrel-of-your-gun-is-the-most-american-thing-ever

LikeLike
fish

15 March 2015

ATTENTION….ATTENTION: IRONY ALERT
Climate debate turns nasty: Biden implies skeptics are ‘stupid’…
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/235717-climate-debate-turns-nasty
Well the “Prince Ruprecht” of democratic politics would know stupid now wouldn’t he?

LikeLike
Joe Koyote

15 March 2015

“The rest should know that it is ONLY people with degrees in hard-quantitative fields like physics, math, and the systems sciences that can even hope to understand what is required to correctly analyze climate related data…..”
If this is the case, George, then by your own logic, the ONLY people qualified to discuss politics and propaganda are those with degrees in those fields, therefore, all of you ought to shut your pie holes because you are unqualified and unable to understand the subtleties necessary to correctly analyze political/media related data. Given the cited sources (right wing think tanks) for all of your arguments, climate change included, it becomes obvious to the properly educated observer that this is painfully true.

LikeLike
fish

15 March 2015

…… it becomes obvious to the properly educated observer that this is painfully true.
Well if you include yourself in this cohort prepare for hysterical laughter to ensue!

LikeLike
Gregory

15 March 2015

JoKe, the theoretical underpinnings one needs to understand politics is learned by most on the playground in elementary school.
The college I attended had Physical Chemistry as a general ed requirement, and that amused my budding young chemical physicist and his buddies at Cal to no end. JoKe, I take it you have a BA… did you take any science beyond a required low level “Your Friend, the Amoeba” life science appreciation class?
Here’s a list of papers, some of which I read, including all of the papers that turned me from lukewarmer to skeptic to scoffer over one fevered month a few years ago, and few of them are readable without a whole lot of of math, physics and chemistry studies. In contrast, I first read Machiavelli’s The Prince when I was in high school (English translations, of course) and it was pretty understandable to anyone who has witnessed schoolyard bullies practicing their craft. Power Politics 101.
Climate Scientists claiming only they can understand the validity of their work are a lot like the chiropractors of the past who demanded only they understood chiropractics… medical doctors just don’t have a clue. Then there’s the honesty factor that James “Gaia” Lovelock let out of the bag a few years ago:
“The great climate science centres around the world are more than well aware how weak their science is. If you talk to them privately they’re scared stiff of the fact that they don’t really know what the clouds and the aerosols are doing. They could be absolutely running the show. We haven’t got the physics worked out yet. One of the chiefs once said to me that he agreed that they should include the biology in their models, but he said they hadn’t got the physics right yet and it would be five years before they do. So why on earth are the politicians spending a fortune of our money when we can least afford it on doing things to prevent events 50 years from now? They’ve employed scientists to tell them what they want to hear.”

LikeLike
Gregory

15 March 2015

The link, the list that’s approaching 1400 papers supporting climate skepticism:
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

LikeLike
L

17 March 2015

Just for fun… Am I the only player here who has noticed an uncanny facial resemblance between the AG-wannabe, Loretta Lynch and the Rev. Al Sharpton? L

LikeLike
Todd Juvinall

18 March 2015

Looks like the lamestream media is as smart in Israel as it is here. Their “exit polls” were bogus. Bibi wins and will retain the seat. Obama used ur tax money through a State Dept grant to fund a “non-profit” run by an old Obama staffer to try and defeat Bibi. Any outrage from the lamestreams? NOPE.

LikeLike
George Rebane

18 March 2015

Gregory 148pm – Quoting the immortal Popeye = ‘I yam what I yam!’

LikeLike
Gregory

18 March 2015

George, I am at a loss to understand what of mine your 5:09 refers to…

LikeLike
George Rebane

18 March 2015

Gregory 509pm – Well, that now makes two of us. I checked back and couldn’t even find any ‘148pm’ comment, let alone one by you. I haven’t a clue how I connected your name to that affirmation of Popeye’s. Forgive me.

LikeLike