181 responses to “Sandbox – 5apr16”

1. 

   Gregory

   08 April 2016

   “The vast majority of climate science is part of a vast left wing conspiracy to intentionally stick it to the Man and raise their taxes.”
   -“Jon”, channeling the six figure CEO of the wretchedly misnamed Sierra Business Council that isn’t a Council of Businesses, Stephen Frisch
   Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but real science knowledge does trump the “your friend, the amoeba” general ed class you took under duress. There are literally tens of thousands of folks who believe as George and I do.
   Belief in your talking points isn’t evidence, “Jon”, and only about half of the climate scientists at the American Meteorological Society think half the warming of the past century was man made. The AMS actually asked them.
   Coal will be dug out of the ground for as long as it is economically viable… and taxing it to smithereens in the US doesn’t change viability for the world. For now, natural gas’ is cheap because of fracking, but if you had your druthers, that wouldn’t be the case, would it?

   LikeLike

2. 

   Jon

   08 April 2016

   Great year for renewables, bad-bad-bad one for coal. The world MOVES ON.
   http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/party-like-its-2015_us_57067bf4e4b0b90ac2716482?ir=Business&section=us_business&utm_hp_ref=business
   PS. Thanks for the continued compliments Greg in comparing my priorities and style to Mr. Frisch.

   LikeLike

3. 

   Todd Juvinall

   08 April 2016

   Coal is king in the world and “jon” is just not smart about reality it appears. He can’t even answer easy questions. He must be a public school grad. Jeeze what a dolt.

   LikeLike

4. 

   Jon

   08 April 2016

   3 out 4 of the largest US companies effectively or actually bankrupt, the 4th teetering.
   Coal is King! LOL

   LikeLike

5. 

   Gregory

   08 April 2016

   No, coal is not king, just a real good buy at the moment, and bankruptcy doesn’t make the coal go away… it just wipes out the debt.
   BTW, you might ask your sweetie in Truckee, “Jon”… why aren’t there any blacks or asians on the payroll at the Sierra “Business Council”? Why is the board lily white and 80% male?
   Why are the executives 100% white male, and why are the worker bees 80% female?

   LikeLike

6. 

   George Rebane

   08 April 2016

   One should recognize and equally celebrate the bankruptcies of companies regulated to death under the government gun, along with companies that went bankrupt in spite of being government anointed and bankrolled.

   LikeLike

7. 

   Gregory

   08 April 2016

   George, channeling Steven Frisch myself for a moment, green companies that are tragically forced to declare bankruptcy are consigned to that fate only if the governments of the world fail in their duty to insure they survive… Mom, Dad, send money!

   LikeLike

8. 

   Todd Juvinall

   08 April 2016

   “jon” is not too bright. China uses a lot of coal and will for a long time. So does India. So Obama and his eco pals BK American companies with over-regulation but they will rise again and send their coal to those countries. American ingenuity will prevail.

   LikeLike

9. 

   Jon

   08 April 2016

   Nice fantasy Todd, but Coal is over in the US for all intents and purposes. Over. Read all the material out there on the subject and get back when you hear or see otherwise. However, pining for the days of dirty resource extraction is still an option for the elderly such as yourself. Whatever makes you happy in your mind.

   LikeLike

10. 

    Russ Steele

    08 April 2016

    Jon, your are right coal is not coming back, because it is not really going away.
    China, the world’s leading emitter of greenhouse gases from coal, has been burning up to 17 percent more coal a year than the government previously disclosed, according to newly released data. The finding could complicate the already difficult efforts to limit global warming.
    Even for a country of China’s size, the scale of the correction is immense. The sharp upward revision in official figures means that China has released much more carbon dioxide — almost a billion more tons a year according to initial calculations — than previously estimated.
    The increase alone is greater than the whole German economy emits annually from fossil fuels.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/04/world/asia/china-burns-much-more-coal-than-reported-complicating-climate-talks.html?_r=0
    India’s coal consumption is increasing, detail here:
    http://www.indexmundi.com/energy.aspx?country=in&product=coal&graph=consumption
    Indian official says while country has huge plans for solar, there are limitations to clean energy and coal will remain most efficient energy source for decades.
    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/14/india-says-paris-climate-deal-wont-affect-plans-to-double-coal-output
    Solar Power Is Booming, But Will Never Replace Coal. Here’s Why.
    Indeed, when you factor in all the sources of energy consumed in this country, captured solar power amounts to well less than 1 quadrillion Btu out of an annual total of 96.5 quadrillion.
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2014/04/24/solar-is-booming-but-will-never-replace-coal/#2ae62db32499
    Jon, you can continue to dream your alternative fuel fantasies, but reality will rule the day. Coal is here until nuclear takes up the slack.

    LikeLike

11. 

    Todd Juvinall

    08 April 2016

    “jon” you are not to bright are you. The coal is in the ground here in great amounts. Only the companies extracting it have been vamoosed by Obummer. Jeeze you are dense.

    LikeLike

12. 

    Bill Tozer

    08 April 2016

    Poor Jon. He is screwed. He has a weak mind and a weak back.
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2zE1-48AAYc
    The word coal is dehumanizing to poor folk.

    LikeLike

13. 

    Jon

    08 April 2016

    US Coal is dead. Can I make it more clear? No one can control policies in India or China, but their coal related air pollution is not sustainable at current rates. China is clearly aware of this and committed to phasing it out. India further behind the curve, but the growth is not sustainable without massive social costs and unrest. The worldwide movement to phase this dirty stuff to combat climate change continues.
    In the meantime, US Coal is dead. When it comes to life, let me know.:)

    LikeLike

14. 

    Jon

    08 April 2016

    In other news, the Boy Scout Governor’s crown jewel of union busting has just been crushed.
    http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/wisconsin-right-work-scott-walker-221746

    LikeLike

15. 

    George Rebane

    08 April 2016

    I note with interest the inverse universes we live in when reading Jon’s 359pm regarding China and India – “… growth is not sustainable without massive social costs and unrest.” However, the word from their governments is that they fear ‘massive social costs and unrest’ without sustainable growth. Which, of course, comports with historical truth.
    Another example of the astute liberal mind?

    LikeLike

16. 

    Jon

    08 April 2016

    China is adjusting to the modern world and grasping the same economic impacts of a dirty environment as they desire to become a major world player. Pretty big deal when all of the population growth and associated pollution are concentrated in the fancy new cities they are trying to promote. I would say they’re kinda motivated to do something. Going green not only an option, a necessity.
    India, obviously a longer way to go, on many levels.
    No turning back to the dirty past in the USA. Sorry Kentucky, Sorry West Virginia. Its called progress.

    LikeLike

17. 

    Jon

    08 April 2016

    In other news, NASA just a bit worried about the encroaching Atlantic from climate change. Kind of a big deal.
    Nothing to worry about, right? Agenda 21 at work, right?
    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/05/science/nasa-is-facing-a-climate-change-countdown.html

    LikeLike

18. 

    Russ

    08 April 2016

    Jon, Jon, Jon@07:38PM
    The sea levels have been rising since the last ice age and will continue to rise on average about 2.87mm per year. On the East Coast about 3-4mm per year. There has been no acceleration in sea level rise since the 1900s according to the tide gauges in the PSMSL database.
    The tide gauges measure the relative sea level in many locations worldwide, mostly in northern Europe and North America, in the best cases since the mid-late 1800s, and are therefore the best source of information to understand what is going on…
    The PSMSL database includes the time series of the monthly average mean sea levels recorded by every tide gauge. You can go to the database and calculate the sea level rise say from 1900 to 1975 and then calculate the sea level rise at the same station from 1975 to present. You will discover no acceleration in sea level rise. Start here Jon: http://www.psmsl.org/products/trends
    Let us know if you find any groups of stations with an acceleration in sea levels.
    Or, you could go here, where the sea levels have already be calculated and displayed for you:
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/03/19/worldwide-tide-gauge-comparisons-show-no-acceleration-in-sea-level-rise/
    You do not have to take this as the final word on the subject, you can do your own calculations.
    No acceleration caused by AGW. Wow! Another liberal dream shot all to hell by the data!

    LikeLike

19. 

    Brad C.

    09 April 2016

    Coal in the US is ‘playing possum’ until the oversupply of alternative fossil fuels diminishes – or more nukes come online. Coal should be considered a ‘last ditch’ (no pun intended – well, OK, maybe it was) fuel unless someone finds a way to clean it up economically. Cleaning it up includes reclaiming the land that was screwed up during the extraction. Coal does not receive a lot of up front subsidies, but, when they play the ‘bankruptcy card’, we get to pay for the clean up/ reclamation costs of the companies we were foolish enough to allow to self-insure (self bond) against those costs.

    LikeLike

20. 

    Gregory

    09 April 2016

    Tide gauges are so 19th century… sea level by satellite radar altimetry is what the modern guy wants…
    http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
    There was an El Nino whooptie (also in ’98) but if you’ll notice, there’s something of a freefall since the peak a few months ago with the latest datapoint almost smack dab on the 3.3mm/yr trendline. Next issue should be early May.
    BC, how clever of those coal companies to commit suicide amid the hail of EPA gunfire just to get out of whatever reclaimation can be done after they dug a huge pit. In a thousand years, both Malakoff and the open coal pits will look better. There is a cost to mineral extraction; some things just can’t be repaired. Are we better with it or without it?

    LikeLike

21. 

    Jon

    09 April 2016

    Damn right there’s a cost in lives and environment destroyed.
    Better without.

    LikeLike

22. 

    Jon

    09 April 2016

    Russ, I think I’ll go with NASA over Anthony Watts.
    But thanks anyway.

    LikeLike

23. 

    George Rebane

    09 April 2016

    Jon 925am – Since neither party has generated the historical data sets or developed the GCM models, did you really mean to expose your knowledge of the affair by posing NASA and Watts as the opposing champions? Or was that supposed to be a bit of snark intended for the uninformed reader?

    LikeLike

24. 

    Gregory

    09 April 2016

    That wasn’t NASA, “Jon”… it was the New York Times with yet another warmista scare. The Colorado U data I posted was from NASA, the TOPEX, Jason-1 and Jason-2 satellites. No acceleration.
    I will fight to the death to allow the Jons of the world to live a life of quiet desperation as a subsistence farmer. In the meantime, coal will be extracted. Oil and gas will be fracked. Someday there will be a real breakthrough in power generation that will allow a semblance of a modern life without mineral extraction but that ain’t now.
    Look at the bright side… we’re not slaughtering whales for their fat anymore.

    LikeLike

25. 

    Robert Cross

    09 April 2016

    George 11:17 — So what you are trying to tell me is that someone who got a degree 50 years ago and has never directly engaged in actual climate research knows more than thousands of active researchers throughout the world? Then, add to that what your more than obvious right wing bias brings into the analysis and you expect people beyond your core here to believe your point of view? Personally I will go with the active scientists rather than an armchair quarterback.

    LikeLike

26. 

    Gregory

    09 April 2016

    Robert Cross, you’re apparently enamored by argumentum ad vericundiam and argumentum ad populum. What George was describing was basic science knowledge. I’ve never met a physicist or a chemist without it and it doesn’t much matter when the degree was earned.
    Just grokking 18th century mechanics and thermodynamics, along with an appreciation of the scientific method, goes a long way.
    There are a relative handful of scientists actually doing the heavy lifting of understanding the energy flows that make the climate… most of those “thousands of active researchers” at whose feet you are praying are just turning grant money into scare stories that justify more grant money. Your problem is you just get scared and your brain turns off (if it was ever on in the first place).
    If you want some respect, when you read a popular account in the newspaper or Mother Jones, actually read the journal papers they may refer to and put the actual claims in context. Then let us know.

    LikeLike

27. 

    George Rebane

    09 April 2016

    RobertC 1006am – You will go where your lights lead you. But about me, my education, my career history, and my ongoing work, you have no idea of which you speak. And yes, I claim to know more about the analysis of climate data and the prediction of climate change than at least 95% of the thousands of IPCC claimed ‘scientists’. And in these pages I have seen Mr Gregory Goodknight demonstrate the same. However, you as a member of the Believer Chorus, singing from some upper mezzanine, appear to have no understanding, let along experience, of how science advances and how its supporting technologies are developed and exercised.
    Finally Mr Cross, the “point of view” you so disparage is shared by also thousands of working scientists and engineers with detailed knowledge of the misrepresented science behind today’s politicized hysteria, and their conclusions have nothing to do with socio-political ideology. Disarmed in all other aspects of the issue, you, however, have naught but baseless ideology to clothe your nakedness.

    LikeLike

28. 

    Bill Tozer

    09 April 2016

    Off thread, maybe. Whatz a true believer to do next??
    http://dailysignal.com/2016/04/04/16-democrat-ags-begin-inquisition-against-climate-change-disbelievers/
    Guess not all of us angry extremists are politically attuned. We have lives and are happy to go back to them after the cleansing is done.
    https://www.facebook.com/lastamericapatriots/photos/a.235087906641439.1073741826.235086849974878/633115870171972/?type=3&theater

    LikeLike

29. 

    Gregory

    09 April 2016

    “And yes, I claim to know more about the analysis of climate data and the prediction of climate change than at least 95% of the thousands of IPCC claimed ‘scientists’.”
    George, I think that might be a bit of an overreach; I think the brass ring to reach for is that, whatever claim to fame or infamy one might have based on credentials or career, anyone with a solid understanding of the physical sciences has a right to make arguments based on facts and logic.
    I have no problem with the right of people who have a grade school science understanding of physics and chemistry to make factual arguments about the climate, but they usually don’t. Formerly local life scientist Anna Haynes was a case study of this, and when I was earning my dollar (she still owes me) by presenting her the peer reviewed papers that were the basis of the claims I had made when we first met, she demanded to see “graphical proof” that galactic cosmic rays had any effect on temperatures… meaning nothing short of a graph of GCR in lockstep with 20th century temperatures would do. Correlation masquerading as causality for someone whose paper chase for a terminal degree in genetics didn’t include even one course in physics, going back to high school.

    LikeLike

30. 

    Brad C.

    09 April 2016

    Interesting (short) coal articles,
    “Central Appalachia’s problems have come even as the United States sharply increases imports of coal, taking advantage of cheap mine labor in Colombia.”
    “Nearly three-quarters of U.S. coal imports are coming from Colombia, where mining labor costs are cheaper. The Colombian coal is brought on ships to power plants along the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic coast, avoiding competition with oil for rail space.
    Colombia increased its coal production 16 percent in the first half of the year, according to research firm IHS Energy.
    Meanwhile, the cost to mine Central Appalachian coal has been rising steadily as miners have to go deeper and deeper to get to the coal seams. That helps give Colombian coal an edge, said Elias Johnson, coal analyst for the Energy Information Administration.
    http://www.governing.com/news/headlines/kentucky-suffers-as-america-moves-away-from-coal.html
    http://www.governing.com/topics/transportation-infrastructure/kentucky-may-comply-with-epa-regulations-accidentally.html

    LikeLike

31. 

    George Rebane

    09 April 2016

    Gregory 1111am – while acknowledging your overall point, my several hours of reading page upon page of the detailed credentials of the IPCC consensus ‘scientists’ (a couple of years ago), I strongly stand by my claim. Overwhelmingly they are workers in very tiny and circumscribed specialties that directly or distantly relate to the amorphous field of ‘climate science’. VERY FEW have any working knowledge of the estimation toolsets required to knit together the, say, temperature proxy datasets to produce coherent temperature records over the millennia or megallennia. FEWER are familiar with the conflicting theories of physics required to generate the ‘finite element’ models of earth’s atmosphere let alone the temperature and emission dynamics of ground and sea. And finally, a NEGLIGIBLE NUMBER have any idea, let alone, training or working experience in large scale general circulation models that involve countless submodels, complex feedbacks, questions of subsystems identification, sensitivity, stochasticity, numerical and model propagation of errors, … .
    Adding their names to the list of AGW consensus scientists is like adding my name to the list of the world’s GO masters just because I know the rules of the game and precious else. And to put a bow on it, none of them (or us) know what geo-engineering technologies are needed for ‘Preventable Global Warming’ (e.g. we yet have working knowledge of neither the carbon nor the atmospheric aerosol cycles) even if we believe the consensus hysteria. But then again, you already know all that.

    LikeLike

32. 

    Jon

    09 April 2016

    Gregory 11:11AM, didn’t realize weatherman and blogger Anthony Watts had advanced degrees in physics and/or chemistry. Sorry for missing that distinction. 🙂

    LikeLike

33. 

    Gregory

    09 April 2016

    Jon, 10:11PM, so, you can’t read and you make things up?

    LikeLike

34. 

    Gregory

    09 April 2016

    George 11:36AM, I don’t count the people whose specialties are wholly unrelated to atmospheric physics whose role is to imagine how bad the impacts of the theorized warming would be. That’s most of the IPCC.
    It plumps up the Assessment Reports and gives the New York Times something to write about.

    LikeLike

35. 

    Jon

    10 April 2016

    Greg, they didn’t consult you for this front page NYT piece today. Yes, its climate change. No matter how many physics classes you took.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/10/world/asia/climate-related-death-of-coral-around-world-alarms-scientists.html

    LikeLike

36. 

    George Rebane

    10 April 2016

    For our ‘coal is dead’ aficionados, here is some light reading entitled ‘German Government Plans to Stop and Reverse Wind Power’ that came out yesterday (9apr16). It cites a number of publications – Berliner Zeitung, Financial Times, Deutsche Welle, … – reporting how low cost energy will now be transmitted from places like coal-powered China to European countries, e.g. Germany. I don’t expect the lamestream to be trumpeting this development, which means that our progressive readers will be a bit late in getting the news.
    http://paradigmsanddemographics.blogspot.com/2016/04/german-government-plans-to-stop-and.html
    http://canadafreepress.com/article/german-government-plans-to-stop-and-reverse-wind-power

    LikeLike

37. 

    Bill Tozer

    10 April 2016

    Yep, it’s all in the Paris Climate Agreement (the one fashioned together after the Islamic Extremist Terrorist blew up parts of the city). China good, America bad.
    http://patriotpost.us/cartoons/23150

    LikeLike

38. 

    Gregory

    10 April 2016

    “Jon”, yes, that’s a perfect scare story from the NYT. It even mentions the ’98 El Nino had a similar effect, no?
    Maybe the NYT doesn’t read Mother Jones
    http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2015/10/your-sunscreen-massacring-world%E2%80%99s-coral-reefs
    There’s a wide chasm separating coral bleaching and assigning blame to anthropogenic CO2 and it’s the “Jon”‘s among us that chose to throw virgins into the volcanoes for scares in the past.

    LikeLike

39. 

    Todd Juvinall

    10 April 2016

    The SacBee ran a couple of climate change stories today. The reefs of the world are “bleaching” and the Wolverines are unable to find a cave at the higher elevations in the snow of Montana, Wyoming and Idaho. You can read them and see they have no evidence for human caused climate change but the grant sucking whores are all in.

    LikeLike

40. 

    Gregory

    10 April 2016

    Just in case my post a couple minutes ago really did fall into the bitbucket… something for Jon
    http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2015/10/your-sunscreen-massacring-world%E2%80%99s-coral-reefs

    LikeLike

41. 

    Robert Cross

    10 April 2016

    George and Gregory — This is a lot like being on a jury. Juries often get two sides of the same story and it is their job to determine which story is true. A large part of that determination is the credibility of the witnesses. To be quite honest when comparing your credentials in the arena of climate change science to actual researchers in the field, you have no credibility. Self-aggrandizement is no substitute for experience and spending “several hours reading page upon page” does not equate to a lifetime of research. Your arguments would lose in a courtroom.

    LikeLike

42. 

    Gregory

    10 April 2016

    “Robert Cross”, you may be the reason why courts like their juries to be as ignorant as possible.
    Science isn’t about the credentials of the one making the argument, it’s the content of the argument. The research I cite is indeed by actual researchers publishing in actual peer reviewed journals, and, if “Jon” wants to try honesty rather than innuendo, he might grudgingly admit I’ve never cited Anthony Watts as an authority. In fact, I’m not sure I’ve ever cited anyone as an authority.
    What Rebane describing was “several hours reading page upon page”… of the credentials of IPCC reviewers, not research. That was determining the credibility of the authors of the document, just the sort of thing you think juries need to do. The vast majority of IPCC scientists do not do research into the atmospheric physics involved in determining the role of CO2, anthropogenic or not, in determining the world’s temperatures.

    LikeLike

43. 

    Russ

    10 April 2016

    OK all you coral reef hand-wringers, the Pacific is just recovering from a strong El Niño. In 1998, we had a similar strong El Niño and the coral reef suffered severe bleaching. I think it is possible that similar bleaching occurred during this El Niño.
    From the Australian Institute of Marine Science:
    Remote reefs can be tougher than they look
    WA’s Scott Reef has recovered from mass bleaching in 1998
    Isolated coral reefs can recover from catastrophic damage as effectively as those with nearby undisturbed neighbours, a long-term study by marine biologists from the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS) and the ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies (CoECRS) has shown.
    Scott Reef, a remote coral system in the Indian Ocean, has largely recovered from a catastrophic mass bleaching event in 1998, according to the study published in Science today.
    The study challenges conventional wisdom that suggested isolated reefs were more vulnerable to disturbance, because they were thought to depend on recolonisation from other reefs. Instead, the scientists found that the isolation of reefs allowed surviving corals to rapidly grow and propagate in the absence of human interference.
    Australia’s largest oceanic reef system, Scott Reef, is relatively isolated, sitting out in the Indian Ocean some 250 km from the remote coastline of north Western Australia (WA). Prospects for the reef looked gloomy when in 1998 it suffered catastrophic mass bleaching, losing around 80% of its coral cover. The study shows that it took just 12 years to recover.
    It was not AGW that caused the bleaching it was an El Niño and the reefs will recover. Yes, they have in the past and they will again. Nothing humans can do to stop what Mother Nature does naturally. Get over your obsession that humans can control the climate. We cannot!

    LikeLike

44. 

    George Rebane

    10 April 2016

    Gregory 1056am – Thank you. But it continues to point out the reading (comprehension?) skills of our progressive neighbors. Much of the differences in these pages (and on others’ comment streams) that lead to frustrating exchanges is simply due to bad reading habits in addition to tiny knowledge bases.

    LikeLike

45. 

    Todd Juvinall

    10 April 2016

    The stories I read in the Bee were typical numbskull stories. They use the weasel words, could, may, maybe, consensus, etc. o definitive , shall, does, will, etc.

    LikeLike

46. 

    Todd Juvinall

    10 April 2016

    Go to hell Denny Hastert. You freaking perv!

    LikeLike

47. 

    Russ

    10 April 2016

    Stalinist Conformity’: Swiss Professor Says ‘Young Researchers Forced To Submit To Mainstream Theories’
    Prof. Mathias Binswanger: ‘But how does one often publish or become often cited in respected journals of his own field? The most important principles are: Adaptation to the mainstream and do not question any established theories or models. All submitted articles first must go through a peer-review process where champions of the scientific discipline evaluate it. Under these circumstances, a young researcher has no option but to go along with the mainstream theories represented in the top journals and to use the empirical processes that are currently in trend.’
    My father-in-law was a Yale Department Head for 13 years, set a record, and one day over some beers in my back yard we were discussing change and how it happened in academia. Due to the peer review process, according to Dr Hollingshead, it took place on generational boundaries, as the old lions die off the new ideas are allowed to come forward. The old lion’s will not let a career of research be negated by one of the upstarts in the academic field. We are seeing anthropogenic global warming protected by the old lions of AGW who spent their whole career trying to prove humans can control the climate, and Mother Nature’s cycle has no influence. This generation change will coincide with the next grand minimum and another little ice age. Prepare for cooling.

    LikeLike

48. 

    Todd Juvinall

    10 April 2016

    Hey they missed me in this. Only 200 American addresses in 14,400 clients! Those rich, darn Americans must be pretty honest.
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2016/04/10/the-panama-papers-where-are-the-americans/#31437bda6ad0

    LikeLike

49. 

    Walt

    10 April 2016

    Since the first go round of giving loans to those who had no business getting one didn’t destroy the nation completely, “O” and Co. are looking to finish the job.
    http://nypost.com/2016/04/09/team-obama-is-setting-us-up-for-another-housing-market-collapse/

    LikeLike

50. 

    Gregory

    11 April 2016

    GR 11:56 … You’re welcome.
    Neither “Robert Cross” or “Jon” had a comeback after that last shaming, so, wondering where the “loosers” might have gone, I checked the FUE’s fatfarm… sure enough, both Frisch and the FUE were in a spiral of mutual admiration. Whatever floats their boats. Of course, that’s all highly speculative and only folks with access to the source IP addresses know for sure.
    The FUE also went off into the weeds painting a false picture of me as being an unhappy rightwinger at a leftwing college in my younger days; it’s amazing what he’s invented about me over the years, having never met me. Sorry, Jeff, I was probably to the left of the college center (a happy Social Democrat and Clean Gene McCarthy fan to start) and remain a classic liberal to this day, never a Republican. It’s a shame what passes for “liberal” nowadays is more McCarthyite than Jeffersonian. Coercive utopians, accent on coercive.
    Mudd students rather famously had a big demonstration in favor of the Viet Nam War, but that was a year or two before my time.

    LikeLike