« Ruminations - 9sep15 (updated 13sep15) | Main | Sandbox -12sep15 »

10 September 2015



It isn't a debate, George, it looks more like a tag team sermon on how damaging the future warming will be for all that is green and/or wiggly.

You take the warming on faith.

Russ Steele

Here is the write up on Ms Diz, from Sierra Foothill Report:

“Dr. Linda Dinsmore Swift, priceoncarbon.org Dr. Linda Dismore Swift prefers to be called ‘Diz.’ With a PhD in Biology she worked for over 30 yrs. primarily for Chevron in minerals, oil & gas exploration, underground mining and Corporate planning. As Corporate liaison for Chevron’s coal company mergers and acquisitions, she managed the merger of two Texaco and one Chevron technological ventures companies into one, as part of the Chevron-Texaco merger.

“Her work at various levels of management has given her a broad base of knowledge in the energy business. ‘Until I retired in 2004, I didn’t think that climate change was a ‘real’ problem. Since retirement I have been studying climate change, and now understand how serious the situation is.’ She now lectures on the risks of climate change, it’s causes and potential solutions. For the past 5 years she lectured on the impacts of climate change on business at the NYU Stern Business School. She speaks frequently at other universities and to other groups, dedicating herself to ‘building a shared understanding.’ She is now the primary voice behind the website, http://priceoncarbon.org

This web link should end her Internet opaqueness.

George Rebane

Gregory 1044am - Agreed, and so reported (didn't call it a 'debate').

George Rebane

RussS 1051am - Thanks Russ. Have edited my post to reflect your information.


Good news.. The loonie bin under the dome in Sac. removed the provision of the mandated 50% reduction of fuel used in the state in 25 or so years. Moonbat is pissed.

Todd Juvinall

The League is all about being a"non-partisan" political organization. Many years ago my friend Joan Lancaster (since deceased) a Republican and the Chair of the League said to me she joined the local League to have at least one Republican in the membership. Her hubby Bob was the retired Tahoe Forest boss and a good democrat. He and I had many breakfasts and he was apoplectic about all the "just out of college" liberals being hired.

I had a few debates back in the day sponsored by the League on varied issues. There was me and four libs.

George Rebane

Walt 1140am - Mr Goodknight gave a complete report on that last night in a more appropriate venue here -

PS. Here let's talk about how the Left mangles their version of the credentialed AGW debate ;-)


I would like to hear from our local lefties who have set a high standard for discussing climate change in Nevada County. According to the left, only certified climatologist have credibility when discussing climate change. Scientists in related fields who study climate papers do not have any credibility according to Pelline and Frisch, unless they are certified climatologists. According to these two highly vocal lefties, we should not be paying any attention to two biologists discussing climate change. What could they know, they are not climatologists.


Earlier I (somewhere) wrote about the two at the League of Women Voters shindig both being biologists, I regret that error borne out of haste and my web fumbling on my phone; 'Diz' is a retired geologist who is apparently interested in carbon trading. Perhaps someone who is free to attend will report back her lecture and her responses to the selected written questions from the unwashed attendees.

Jeffie's headline is "Local climate change debate this weekend..."; will he change that when he figures out that it isn't a debate?

Steven Frisch

Hey let me make this perfectly clear, there may be SOME people on the 'left' who claim only climate scientists can talk about climate change, but I am not one of them. I think any thinking person can understand the science and has a voice in the issue. Climate adaptation is about more than science it is about policy and community and risk management and economics and a dozen additional issues. I for one have not been saying that one must be a climatologist to discuss climate. It is intellectually arrogant people like Greg who have been making that claim.

Steven Frisch

Posted by: Russ | 10 September 2015 at 12:32 PM

Russ my critics has not been that they have no standing to discuss climate change, it is that they are captured by motivated reasoning, and their case is poorly made.



How is the satellite data, processed by two different organizations, and NOAA's own U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN), "captured by motivated reasoning" The satellite data analysis shows no global warming for 18 plus years and USCRN data plots show 0.4C cooling over the last ten years in the US. Data does not have emotions. A chart showing the data and the trend lines makes a case that most people can understand. They may not understand the math behind the chart, but the visuals are quite compelling.


"Climate adaptation is about more than science it is about policy and community and risk management and economics and a dozen additional issues. I for one have not been saying that one must be a climatologist to discuss climate. It is intellectually arrogant people like Greg who have been making that claim. "

I have never made that claim. I do make the claim that if you're going to discuss issues of applied physics it helps to know some physics, and, if you avoided real chemistry, math and physics in college, and continue to avoid real chemistry, math and physics to date, maybe you're trying to avoid real chemistry, math and physics.

"I think any thinking person can understand the science and has a voice in the issue."-Frisch

I agree completely, but your ilk have been shouting down voices to the contrary for decades now. The IntelligenceSquared debate was a great illustration of how thinking people (even on Planet Manhattan, not exactly a conservative stronghold) dramatically changed their minds over an hour of listening to the likes of Lindzen over Gavin Schmidt (who is a mathematician, not a physical scientist), leading to Schmidt, currently director of NASA-GISS, to avoiding any hint of a debate so as to not lend credibility to his opponents. Schmidt actually got booed by the Manhattenites for insulting their intelligence.


From the transcript linked from the same page:
"And now the results of our debate. After our debaters did their best to sway you...you went from, 30% for the motion that global warming is not a crisis, from 30% to 46%. [APPLAUSE]
Against the motion, went from 57% to 42%... [SCATTERED APPLAUSE, MOANS] And “undecided” went from 13% to 12%. The hardcore ambivalent are still among us. [LAUGHTER] So, in terms of opinion change, those in favor of the motion, have carried the day, congratulations to the team for the motion. [APPLAUSE]"

In short, to begin with it was skeptics 30, warmists 57, undecided 13
Afterwards, it was skeptics 44, warmists 42, undecided 12.

That, dear friends, is a rout.


Sorry, typo,2nd to last sentence should read

"Afterwards, it was skeptics 46, warmists 42, undecided 12"

Steven Frisch

Posted by: Russ | 10 September 2015 at 02:20 PM

You are cherry picking again Russ.

First, first the NOAA data is not as unequivocal as you are portraying--short term weather patterns can disrupt measured atmospheric temperatures and the overall trend remains one of warming. Second the base year you are starting from was one of the first spikes of hottest years ever, meaning subsequent years were hot but make the trend appear to be flat. Third, your statement is based on atmospheric observations but the atmosphere only accounts for about 2.5% of the overall climate system, oceans account for more than 90% and ocean have been warming. Finally, temperatures are well within the bounds of the currently accepted climate models even if one takes into account the 16 year period you are referencing, so it is hardy a 'proof' that the models are wrong, it is proof that there is variation within the parameters of the model.

It might be accurate to say that NOAA surface temperature measurements over a 16 year period have been flatter than previously predicted, but that is not proof of a slowdown in the overall system.

George Rebane

For the interested reader. The critical and celebrated parameter in all these global warming discussions is the earth's temperature (ET). Those who have been following the science know that ET can neither be observed nor measured for the simple reason that it does not exist. ET must computed through an algorithm whose inputs consist of very many numbers reflecting hundreds of individual readings of temperature itself or its tightly correlated proxy (e.g. intensity of IR radiation in a given spectral bandwidth). Each reading is vector or a 'tuple' that contains at least the measured temperature/proxy, variance, time, location, measuring instrument ID.

These measurement vectors are then sanity checked for outliers, perhaps detrended, cleaned up based on local and environmental factors, and perhaps even have certain 'data holidays' filled appropriately. The scrubbed dataset (not to be confused with Hillary's server) is then fed to the 'master ET algorithm' which itself had to be correctly initialized with a number of (subjectively) settable parameters before it crunches the input dataset and spits out the ET and its variance for what in estimation theory is called the 'validity instant' which becomes the time tag connected to the estimated ET value. Choosing the validity instant is also a matter of (subjective) judgment for it may exist anywhere within the time window of the dataset, or even outside the time window.

So if you've followed me so far, now consider that there are several competing ET algorithms today in use by various academic and governmental agencies here and abroad. Some have more prominence than others, which is usually determined by external political factors. In any event, what the layman has been taught to accept as a simple no-nonsense measurable like the temperature on his porch thermometer is anything but that. Taking the earth's temperature is a very complex task.

And if you think that is complex and difficult, consider the development of historical ET records from all kinds of inputs like fossilized tree rings to isotope densities in ice cores. You should now understand why people continually get into pissing matches about what data to use, how should it be scrubbed, what estimation algorithms should be applied and how, and then how are all those ETs going to be compared on an apples-to-apples basis to the ETs developed from current measurements. And from such exercises we are drawing solid conclusions on what synoptic/secular (long term) climate changes we will witness over the coming century as we continue to make butt stupid, draconian, and totally ineffective public policies. Oy geweh!

Don Bessee

We know we will hear a lot of this from the Heidi Hall supervisor campaign.


"Second the base year you are starting from was one of the first spikes of hottest years ever"

Frisch, you need to expand your horizons. Good US instrumental records don't stretch back even 200 years and there's been visible life on the planet for a good 540 million years. Hottest years ever?

The hottest terrestrial instrumental temperature reading remains Death Valley in the 1930's.

There has been no "spike". It got warmer over the 20th century, recovering from the Little Ice Age, some of it was man made and some of that was due to anthropogenic CO2.


The true believers just won't give up their manufactured "data". NOAA has been cooking the books and Steve just won't accept that fact.
Steve.. We still have plenty of ice on the North Pole despite the dire prediction it would ALL be gone by THIS YEAR!! ( sucks when things just don't go your way.)
Every "prediction" has come up more than short, despite the CO2 increases. (ooppsss)


Can Steve point out where the petroglyphs are from the indigenous meteorologists who scratched the prehistoric temp data into a stone slab?

Don Bessee

You guys have the dark lord of liberal lament land mumbling to himself today. :-) Keep up the good work!

Bill  Toz

Mumbling did you say, Don? Nay, my good fellow. It is called oinking. It was so hot today I bet The Purple Mountain's Travesty was sweating like a stuffed pig. I love it when he starts grunting and snorting and oinking and squealing. That's when I appreciate him the most.

George Boardman

Regarding Toz's 7:45 pm on 9/10:

Purple Mountain's Travesty? Good one, but not quite as good as a pun from Jeffy's old buddy Herb Caen, who once referred to the Bay Bridge as "the car-strangled spanner."

Unlike Jeffy, I'll bet Herb knew the definition of "misnomer."


George 11Sept25 update

That's where we part company... it doesn't require a conspiracy to get a good groupthink going the wrong direction. Here's an even simpler set of steps:

A - NSF and other granting agencies fund research they think has value.
B - Grantees perform research

Papers get reviewed by established practitioners

C - Research that meets groupthink expectations gets published
D - Researchers who don't get published find something else to do
Researchers who can't get tenure because they can't publish enough find something else to do
E - Repeat until you retire

I think this is the capture by a government funded technical elite that Eisenhower warned of. It really is a simple process and I expect most of the ones in the belly of the beast don't have a clue.


I can't help but notice Stephen Frisch, our home county (by way of Chicago and 'Frisco) six figure environmental 501c3 CEO has bailed ... could it be it dawned on him his positions were not as defensible as he once thought?

Maybe he actually watched the IQ2 debate of the question "Global warming is not a crisis"? If so, he should be aware that the science has moved decidedly towards the Lindzen side in the meantime and "the pause" is but a small part of that movement.

George Rebane

Gregory 128pm - And where do you think that I argued counter to that point, other than senior GS types sitting around the table talking about where to allocate next year's monies. The stack of proposals is high and the discussion around the table is led be the ranking department manager. As a consultant, I have been part of many such discussions and meetings. It is amazing how quickly the lower GSs fall in line after hearing the druthers of the HNIC. No one knows where he got his version of truth, but we always knew that he regularly talked to certain congressional appropriations committee heads as a matter of course.

So if 'conspiracy' is not to your liking, call it what you will. But once such 'truth' comes down the line it may take several funding cycles to discover the next new direction from on high. The 'AGW truth' has global strategic progressive objectives that have been written about by many international and national agencies and regularly meeting enclaves of elites. The rest of your points are tautology.

If this rendition parts our respective understandings, then so be it. Been there, done that.

Bonnie McGuire

It's too bad more people don't get around in America, so that they would know more about it's history and how powerful forces of climate etc. are constantly changing the earth's surface. A glacial Lake (in Glacier National Park) was formed by a river of ice over 2,000 feet thick that moved down this valley. Lake McDonald is evidence of it's passing. When the glacier receded more than 10,000 years ago, it revealed a changed landscape. The ice had quarried away huge amounts of rocks. A terminal moraine dammed McDonald Creek, impounding Lake McDonald. Glaciers are slow moving rivers of ice. Like conveyor belts they transport large volumes of material. As rocks and dirt pile up along the edes of the melting ice, they form moraines. Material that builds up at the snout is called a terminal moraine; debris deposited along the sides forms lateral moraines. The ridge across the lake and the ridgeline behind behind us are covered by lateral moraines left by the glacier.

Our travels revealed that the United States was once covered by glaciers. They carved the great beautiful valleys we now enjoy while they were melting and moving because of warming. Mastodon and wooly mammoth remains have been found all over Canada, North America, and central Mexico. These large, elephant-like animals roamed the earth 26 million to 10 thousand years ago, but suddenly disappeared. Was it caused because of global warming or something else? Some scientists thought tuberculosis may have been partly responsible for the extinction of the mastodon...one of the largest land animals living during the ice age. It belonged to the family Mammutidae that originated in North Africa, spreading to EurAsia and entering North America millions of years ago. Most were adapted to feeding on conifer forests that flourished in the cold climate.

The Oakland Museum of California Natural Sciences department brought a nearly complete fossil skeleton (right) of an American mastodon (Mammut americanum), a distant relative of the modern Indian elephant, to the museum in October 1999. The fossilized bones, found lying in their anatomically correct positions at Rustler Ranch in northeastern California, had been virtually undisturbed. The mastodon was discovered by a ranch hand who spied a part of an animal's tooth sticking out of the soil at a stream bank. Further investigation revealed that the skeleton was buried under six to eight feet of soil and occupied an area 10 by 12 feet. Roger Fiddler, owner of Rustler Ranch, removed the soil above the skeleton. He then invited the museum's Natural Sciences staff to help in final excavation and removal of the fossil mastodon. So here we have a brief picture of how different this country was when it was covered with glaciers.

This is just one example of what's out there waiting for those with inquisitive minds who don't take everything for granted.

Larry Wirth

Steven F: the pause doesn't involve "cherry picking" of any kind. The ending point in time is today and the beginning point in time is as far back as we can find no statistically significant change in WW temps. Both ends are extendable, one necessarily so. Hope this helps you interpret the information being published. No global warming for 18+ years, period. If you want to contest the facts, you need to understand them, first. L

Larry Wirth

PS: the current starting time point of the pause is in 1997, before the super El Nino of 1998. Also the pause includes the El Nino of 2010. All indicators are pointing down.

George Rebane

LarryW 950am - The only cherry picking that I see being done here is that by the Left who neither admit the temp history of the last 18+ years much less give a cogent refutation of it. But perhaps more importantly, none of them appear to understand what I wrote in my 305pm. Had they, then they would have acknowledged and altered their arguments accordingly. That they didn't indicates to me that they have a kindergartner's comprehension of earth's temperature, namely that there is a very special orifice on our planet into which you insert a very large thermometer, and then just read what it says. Pretty straight forward because that's what mom always did.

Steven Frisch

Posted by: Gregory | 11 September 2015 at 03:37 PM

I have not 'bailed' I am on vacation, and only checking back in for an occasional chuckle, which I got when I read Greg's post.

Of what relevance is it to anyone that I once lived in Chicago or San Francisco? It is of little relevance that I run a nonprofit organization and even less what my salary is.

And how cute of Greg to imply that might not have watched the IQ2 debate. Of course I watched it Greg, and several others.

I think this is illustrative of why you would be mincemeat in a debate--you are incapable of separating the emotional and irrelevant from pertinent fact.

Steven Frisch

Posted by: Larry Wirth | 12 September 2015 at 09:47 AM

Larry, as I stated somewhere else the "18 year pause' myth is predicated on atmospheric data and much of the warming takes place in oceans. But for a good explanation of the 'pause' and the assumptions it is predicated on go here:


Steven Frisch

Posted by: Walt | 10 September 2015 at 05:41 PM

Seriously Walt do you even understand how science works?


Todd Juvinall

Now I am wondering how far back a libnuts memory goes? It seems we were inundated with a "cooling" catastrophe in the 70's and 80's. Just 18 years before the "cooling" happened again. How can this be? Oh, computer models by "scientist" on grant funding came up with that. Then the money was running out so they tweaked those computers to show the planet heating up. Well, maybe a hundred years from now. The people that have exposed these thieves of tax dollars are now under attack for telling the world the truth. No wonder these libnuts are for Hillary. All liars.

And of course the local libnuts who have no common sense are much smarter than those who actually have worked and prospered in the real world.NOT!


That's rich coming from you "Frisco kid". I know plenty of scientists, and yes, "knows how it works". Your climate scamitists have REALLY come up short.
So your on vacation? And on someone else's dime no less. ( grant money paycheck) Back in China?
Your "science" is doctoring the information to gain that preconceived outcome. (book cooking)

Steven Frisch

Posted by: Walt | 12 September 2015 at 11:01 AM

Yah Walt, do you vacation in Hawaii on money from cooking meth?

George Rebane

re Steven Frisch's 1033am - The interested reader may note that in his citing the NASA monograph Mr Frisch gives no evidence that he understands that the piece corroborates the complexity of computing earth's temperature, the simplification of which he glibly cites in his 1028am. What I described in my 305pm is completely lost on the True Believers, where instead they should be raising droves of questions. We do live in different worlds - oh well.


That's the best you can do Steve? LOL!!! Nope,, my money came from working in the hot sun 60 hours a week building things. An honest living. Not filling out papers begging for other people's money, and preaching doom and gloom.

Todd Juvinall

Frisch is probably in China on the taxpayers dime. That is how they do it Walt. No sense of responsibility to those that actually work for a living. Read his 990'2 and you will see how these non-profits have to toe the line with the econuts or risk losing their bread.

I really just laugh at the Frisch nits anymore. They are so deceitful and no one believes them now after all the lies they tell.



Steven your credibility is in danger of flatlining, SkepticalScience has no credibility. John Cook has been proven to be a fraud, deleting, extending and amending user comments on his site. He totally changed what the commenter wrote. That is fraud!

He has updated-post publication revisions of article content after significant user comment, without posting a notice of correction, changes and revisions. That is fraud!

He is one of the people that started the 97% consensus fraud with another researcher. More fraud!

You can do better.

Todd Juvinall

No he can't.

Steven Frisch

Yes John Cook's team clearly sucks compared to your weatherman :)

Steven Frisch

Posted by: George Rebane | 12 September 2015 at 11:15 AM

Yes compared to Walt's childlike example of how we don't know what earth's temperature was in past epoch's my example is clearly lame. Really George, you are usually smarter than that. There are dozens of examples I could have provided of how we calculate past temperatures using temperature proxies, the NOAA piece was merely one. We have ice core data, pollen, fossil record, etc.

I think we are a little behind the, well cave men did not have thermometers stage.

Steven Frisch

I think we are a little beyond the, "well cave men did not have thermometers stage."

George Rebane

Russ 110pm - ToddJ (121pm) is right. SteveF's 131pm says it all. The messenger is always frozen at some irrelevant or minimizing point in his career/education/training - no learning is possible. Another example, I was a field hand (cut a lot of asparagus), machine shop welder, dishwasher and waiter in my time. Mr Frisch treats my understanding of and comments on science and technical matters as if I were forever frozen in some past epoch. And so is Anthony Watts. To the Frisches of the world, Anthony is forever a weatherman, no matter what he has learned and demonstrated in the interval, no matter the prestigious list of his contributors on climate matters. However, the speckled vitae of his own True Believer team (as cited) is inviolable, they are all climate experts. That is that, and that's the way it will stay.

As added evidence, his 136pm confirms that he doesn't have a clue about what I said in my 305pm.


Thank GOD for global warming. Otherwise there would still be an ice sheet over what's now Nevada County.
The ECO bastards think they can control the climate, and keep it just the way it is right now. " if we just do this or that, the Unicorn ranch will stay nice and pretty".
The ECO bastards dismiss what the Sun does. They dismiss what volcanoes do.
Nope,, it's all man's fault.

Steven Frisch

Posted by: George Rebane | 12 September 2015 at 01:42 PM

The funny thing is you guys talk a mean game about people who don't respect your life long quest for learning but you don't do a very good job of respecting anyone else's lifelong learning; you portray them as idiots or naifs, and stand by while Greg exhibits his intellectual arrogance on a daily basis.

What makes you stuck in a past epoch are your ideas.


Steve, couldn't say it better.

As reward for your honest assessment, prepare to be attacked the usual ways, by the usual suspects.



I we are using real world data, the latest analysis tools and applying valid logic, how can we be stuck in a past epoch? The data indicates the world has been warming since the last ice age, and now the data for the last 18 years indicates that the warming has stopped and over the last decade has started to cool about 0.5C degrees.

If we look back in climate history, we can find similar warming and cooling cycles. Many, but not all, of those warming and cooling cycles are related to cycles of the sun. Some of the warming and cooling cycles have been associate with the position of the sun, relative to the galactic plane. When our solar system is significantly above or below the galactic plane the earth is subject to more cosmic rays. Current experimental science tells us high energy cosmic rays produces more clouds, cooling the earth and creating more permanent ice features. Humans have no control over any of these cycles, yet they have a significant impact on the earth's climate. This is all new science, so what makes my ideas stuck in a past epoch?


Posted by: Jon | 12 September 2015 at 02:35 PM

Awwww....concern troll is concerned. If Steve wants applause every time he takes to keyboard there is a venue for that.

I think we all know where it is.


Yes, Stevey,, when junk science is used to inflict damage upon the masses.All under the excuse of "the greater good" and "we know best".
From fake dead polar bears, to claiming glaciers would be all gone.(yet they are still there) Yup,, "scientists" said so. Plenty of ice still at the North Pole despite a "scientist" predicting it all gone by THIS YEAR.
None of the ECO bastard doom and gloom predictions have even come close to being right.
In simple terms,, Horse shit...

With all the fires we are having, and ALL that "greenhouse gas" production from them, the Gov. should suspend all driving. ( Empty the freeways) to help the environment.
All the eco buggie's work has been in vain.

Todd Juvinall

GeorgeR, 1:42 PM, excellent points. But as we read later, Frisch cannot even accept the premise. He is stuck in some dungeon of denial that it is possible to evolve through life and education. He is stuck in the first press releases by the econuts back in the late 80's. (money to be made) He is stuck. He has not learned anything to better himself. He is a parrot. A lemming, a true believer. Then there is "jon" the lurker around elementary schools who shows up here to be the other parrot of the true believers in the hoax.

Steven Frisch

Posted by: Todd Juvinall | 12 September 2015 at 03:07 PM

Seeing you spin around the ad hominem maypole like some crazy whirling dervish is a perverse joy in my life. When your little pointy head explodes no one around you will even notice.

Larry Wirth

Steven F, upthread. I don't think you grok what I wrote; the 18+ year pause is real indeed, and yes, it is about the warming (not) of the atmosphere. The sea temperatures, about which you write, were revised earlier this Summer to discount the ARGO buoys, which are our best tool so far, and replace their findings with ship engine intake temperatures from prior years, which are suspect primarily because the depth of the sea at said intakes varies considerably from ship to ship.

IOW, bad data was substituted for better data. Do we really know anything about sea temperatures? That's what the ARGO buoys were supposed to answer, but the AGW folks would like to dilute that data with older, less reliable data.

So, tell us all, your real explanation for the flat lining of atmospheric temps for 18+ years. That is, after all, where we live.

Followed your link to SkS and found, surprisingly, that their prediction was for about 1.1C for this Century. Hmm- sounds fine to me, no problem.

It is a fact that the MWP was warmer than the present; why else would scientists keep finding thawing Viking settlements in Greenland- it must have been warmer back when they were settled. Took a course in Scandinavian literature back in the day, and I am sure that Eric 'the Red' and Leif 'the lucky' weren't lying in their accounts, they had no reason to do so, unlike today's climate "scientists," who have an very obvious reason to do so.

And, while we're on the subject, why would 1-2C increase in global temperature lead to catastrophe? So far, the measurable effect of increased CO2 in the atmosphere has led only to an increased greening of the planet and a resultant bounty of food crops. Address that issue, Mr. Green.

Steven Frisch

On another note, Australian government changed hands yesterday, climate denier Tony Abbott is out and Macomb Turnbull is in...fancy that :)


Todd Juvinall

Steve Frisch, I think you better start reading your links as the one you posted from the Sydney Paper says nothing of the sort. Here is a link to Reuters from yesterday


Abbott is possibly facing a challenge with his Liberal Party leadership from Turnbull and "climate change" is a side issue. The country has accepted 10,000 Syrians and that along with some economic issues is the story.

So, please link us to the "defeat" of Abbott and his replacement by Turnbull. Your veracity is now quite suspect.

Todd Juvinall

Hey George, we have a new loon from the left attacking you in the paper today. He is a lawyer who worked for the State for 30 years.


I responded with a ditty on the Union this morning. LOL!


Todd, it's up to you to stay up on the news. The column I posted was from 2009 and I posted it as an example of their differences on climate change.

Todd Juvinall

Stevenfrisch | 14 September 2015 at 08:27 AM

Where in that post do you say anything other than the link is today? My goodness are you off your meds?

George Rebane

ToddJ 752am - Thanks for the heads up Todd. Read it this morning. Besides the ad hominems, it is bland response directed to the informationally deprived. But it will deserve a response.

Todd Juvinall

The man is a lawyer who worked in the appellate system for California over thirty year. Is it possible he is grends with the Newsom's? Maybe those Newsome's are related to Gavin Newsome? And Gavin father was a judge and the boss of the Getty Trust? The Getty Trust owned the Loma Rica Ranch.

Steven Frisch

Posted by: Todd Juvinall | 14 September 2015 at 09:07 AM

What are you stupid or something? I posted a column to, a) illustrate my point that Abbott and Turnbull are at odds over climate change, and b) becuase in the past posters here have used Abbott's position to illustrate that other countries are rejecting AGW as a theory.

If you want to play with the smart people you need to keep up little man.

Oh, and it is "Newsom" not "Newsome"

Todd Juvinall

Steven Frisch | 14 September 2015 at 02:14 PM

Are you that stupid that you can't even read your own post? Apparently. What a twit. Abbott and Turnbull are the same party. The Aussie people did not booot Abbott, his own party did and it was because of the economy, not the climate change hoax. I am a little man compared to your girth so I will accept the compliment. My goodness the Truckee area is really stuck with a loser.

Steven Frisch

Are you a loon Todd?

I said, "On another note, Australian government changed hands yesterday, climate denier Tony Abbott is out and Macomb Turnbull is in...fancy that :)"

I did not say "the Aussie people" booted Abbott, I said the government changed hands, which is precisely what it did, it went from Abbott's hands to Turnbull's hands.

You have the reading comprehension of a 12 year old.

Todd Juvinall

Are you that dumb Steve Frisch? You don't even recall what you said and in the context you said it. God help the Truckee area if you are allowed any power there. You have things so screwed up I don't think you are recoverable.

Your reading comprehension is less than my four year old grand daughter. Try harder and stop being so transparently idiotic.


Here we go again,,, http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/09/15/climate-change-deniers-bad-hitler-yale-history-professor-goes-full-godwin/

Read the story, and just see "which side" is closer aligned with Hitler. ( and it's not us "deniers"...)

Steven Frisch

Just thought I would drop in here to congratulate the 11 Republican members of the United States House of Representatives that introduced this Resolution this week:



I would encourage readers here who know that climate change is a significant risk and the increased risk is substantively human caused to write personal letters of support to the brave vanguard of the Republican party who 'get it'. They should know we have their backs.

For those of you who disagree, just be your normal selves; the more you talk the better off those of us working to find a solution will be.

Steven Frisch

Posted by: Todd Juvinall | 14 September 2015 at 03:50 PM

By the way Todd, it should be obvious to any one other than you reading this thread that you are demonstrably dumber than a rock. My original post is right there for all to see.

Todd Juvinall

Steven Frisch | 18 September 2015 at 08:09 AM

I could not find a vote for this Resolution so maybe Frisch can supply the results?

Gibson is not running for re-election to the House in 2016. He is probably going to run for Governor of New York which explains this Resolution. 11 members of the R party signed on to this which does not surprise me as there are many Democrats who offset the hoax. I am urging the Congress to cut off all grant money for this hoax and to cleanse the Federal government of this virus that is wasting our money.

Bill  Tozer

Oh Steve, Gooood Morning sir.



When the science just isn't there......prosecute the dissenters!


Because science.....

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad