Sandbox - 11nov17

[Will Mueller follow all the Russian collusion clues, or just the ones in sync with his political preferences?  gjr]

Comments

[Paul Emery]

Todd

Did you register a complaint to the Republican leadership about the incessant. "Lock her up" (Hillary) chants during the Presidential campaign? I'm sure you did because you are sp passionate about your "not guilty without a trial" belief.

[fish]

Posted by: Paul Emery | 14 November 2017 at 01:50 PM

VIDEO: Maxine Waters 'Impeach 45!' chant sends GLAMOUR awards into frenzy…

Thought I saw your face in the audience at this years "Glammys" Punch! Did you bring your presidential poll collection…..I hear thats pure gold with the ladies!?

http://www.theamericanmirror.com/video-maxine-waters-impeach-45-chant-sends-glamour-awards-frenzy/

[Steven Frisch]

Posted by: Gregory | 14 November 2017 at 09:35 AM

Yes because we know the only way you can defend your position is to tear down others people's percieved credentials in your critical thinking free mind.

[Walt]

Good point Steve,, just like what is happening to Moore.
In fact the swamp dwellers don't like us "little people".
Those who are sick and tired of the goings on in D.C. are now the enemy. "We" ain't picking the right representatives.(just the ones they don't like.. Like Moore.)
LIBS already had that problem solved,(mostly) at least where the guy running for President is concerned.(super delegates)

Nope The swamp dwellers don't like us.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/11/14/alex-marlow-establishment-hopes-stop-momentum-populist-voters-taking-roy-moore/

[Todd Juvinall]

Paul Emery 150. You really are a disconnected person in tour noggin. I actually know the gal that started the chant. She is a friend of mine. But what that chant and your convicting Moore without a trial have to do with one another is only something you can come with. Loony.

[Robert Cross]

So Walt... if the swamp dwellers don't like you little people why did you vote for Trump who has filled the swamp with alligators and Burmese pythons?

The 'americanmirror', come on fishy? Solidly rated as a "QUESTIONABLE SOURCE" with an extreme right wing bias and known for distributing propaganda via non-sourced or credibility challenged sources.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-american-mirror/

[Paul Emery]

Todd

Isn't Trump and his campaign team chanting "lock her up" assuming Hillary is guilty without a trial? I assume you agree because it is consistent with your concerns about Moore being assumed guilty without a trial.

[fish]

Posted by: Robert Cross | 14 November 2017 at 05:11 PM

The 'americanmirror', come on fishy? Solidly rated as a "QUESTIONABLE SOURCE" with an extreme right wing bias and known for distributing propaganda via non-sourced or credibility challenged sources

Uhhh.....Bobby.......all they do is show the video of Crazy Aunt Max spouting progressive gibberish for 4 minutes.....okay in that light I understand why you don’t want to watch it....it’s all her talking with no edits!

#bobbysapinhead

[Walt]

Just what are you smoking Bob? Moore backs Trump. Moore beat the guy the establishment wanted. Forget that? (you and Paul need to see the memory Dr.)
"Old" ruling class won't give up that power without a fight.

You LIBS accept the party rules. You should know full well your vote is meaningless in the primary. Your "establishment" made that obviously clear... TWICE. Yet no bitching... Imagine that.

[Walt]

OH Paul... You know damned well she's guilty. The court of public opinion has cast judgment. You just in the denial section of the populous.
You didn't vote for her. So why in HELL do you care?

[Todd Juvinall]

Paul Emery 522
You just are to dense to see the difference I guess.

[Gregory]

Stevie 2:30pm

I'm sure your VP of Climate and Energy writes beautifully and knows what side of the bread gets buttered.

One of the scientists who is high on my list of smart fellers (and spoken highly of by Freeman Dyson from their time together at Princeton's Institute for Advanced Study) astrophysicist Nir Shaviv, was invited to argue the Skeptic side in an Oxford Union debate last month. His draft statement was as follows:

Let me begin by asking you a question. What is the evidence that people, like the proponents here, use to prove that we humans are responsible for global warming and that future warming will be catastrophic if we don’t get our act together?

The fact is that this idea is a misconception and the so called evidence we constantly hear is simply based on fallacious arguments.

To begin with, any one who appeals to authority or to a majority to substantiate his or her claim is proving nothing. Science is not a democracy and the fact that many believe one thing does not make them right. If people have good arguments to convince you, let them use the scientific arguments, not logical fallacies. Repeating it ad nauseam does not make it right!

Other irrelevant arguments may appear scientific, but they are not. Evidence for warming is not evidence for warming by humans. Seeing a poor polar bear floating on an iceberg does not mean that humans caused warming. (Actually, the bear population is now probably at its highest in modern times!). The same goes to receding glaciers. Sure, there was warming and glaciers are receding, but the logical leap that this warming is because of humans is simply an unsubstantiated claim, even more so when considering that you can find Roman remains under receded glaciers in the Alps or Viking graves in thawed permafrost in Greenland.

Other fallacious arguments include using qualitative arguments and the appeal to gut feelings. The fact that humanity is approaching 10 billion people does not prove that we caused a 0.8°C temperature increase. We could have just as much caused an 8°C increase or an 0.08°C. If all of humanity spits into the ocean, will sea level rise appreciably?

In fact, there is no single piece of evidence that proves that a given amount of CO2 increase should cause a large increase in temperature. You may say, “just a second, we saw Al Gore’s movie, in which he presented a clear correlation between CO2 and temperature from Antarctic ice cores”. Well, what he didn’t tell you is that one generally sees in the ice cores that CO2 lags the temperature by typically a few hundred years, not vice versa! The simple truth is that Al Gore simply showed us how the amount of CO2 dissolved as carbonic acid in the oceans changes with temperature. As a matter of fact, over geological time scales, there were huge variations in the CO2 (a factor of 10) and they have no correlation whatsoever with the temperature. 450 million years ago there was 10 times as much CO2 in the atmosphere but more extensive glaciations.

When you throw away the chaff of all the fallacious arguments and try to distill the climate science advocated by the IPCC and alike, you find that there are actually two arguments which appear as legitimate scientific arguments, but unfortunately don’t hold water. Actually, fortunately! The first is that the warming over the 20th century is unprecedented, and if so, it must be human. This is the whole point of the hockey so extensively featured in the third assessment report of the IPCC in 2001. However if you would google “climategate” you would find that this is a result of shady scientific analysis - the tree ring data showing that there was little temperature variation over the past millennium showed a decline after 1960, so, they cut it off and stitched thermometer data. The simple truth is that in the height of the middle ages it was probably just as warm as the latter half of the 20th century. You can even see it directly with temperature measurements in boreholes.

The second argument is that there is nothing else to explain the warming, and if there is nothing else it must be the only thing that can, which is the anthropogenic contribution. However, as I mention below, there is something as clear as daylight… and that is the sun.

Before explaining why the sun completely overturns the way we should see global warming and climate change in general. It is worth while to say a few words on climate sensitivity and why it is impossible to predict ab initio the anthropogenic contribution.

The most important question in climate science is climate sensitivity, by how much will the average global temperature increase if you say double the amount of CO2. Oddly enough, the range quoted by the IPCC, which is 1.5 to 4.5°C per CO2 doubling was set, are you ready for this, in a federal committee in 1979! (Google the Charney report). All the IPCC scientific reports from 1990 to 2013 state that the range is the same. The only exception is the penultimate report which stated it is 2 to 4.5. The reason they returned to the 1.5 to 4.5 range is because there was virtually no global warming since 2000 (the so called “hiatus”), which is embarrassingly inconsistent with a large climate sensitivity. What’s more embarrassing is that over almost 4 decades of research and billions of dollars (and pounds) invested in climate research we don’t know the answer to the most important question any better? This is simply amazing I think.

The body of evidence however clearly shows that the climate sensitivity is on the low side, about 1 to 1.5 degree increase per CO2 doubling. People in the climate community are scratching their heads trying to understand the so called hiatus in the warming. Where is the heat hiding? While in reality it simply points to a low sensitivity. The “missing” heat has actually escaped Earth already! If you look at the average global response to large volcanic eruptions, from Krakatoa to Pinatubo, you would see that the global temperature decreased by only about 0.1°C while the hypersensitive climate models give 0.3 to 0.5°C, not seen in reality. Over geological time scales, the lack of correlation between CO2 and temperature places a clear upper limit of a 1.5°C per CO2 doubling sensitivity. Last, once we take the solar contribution into account, a much more consistent picture for the 20th century climate changes arises, one in which the climate drivers (humans AND solar) are notably larger, and the sensitivity notably smaller.

So, how do we know that the sun has a large effect on climate? If you search on google images “oceans as a calorimeter”, you would find one of the most important graphs to the understanding of climate change which is simply ignored by the IPCC and alarmists. You can see that over more than 80 years of tide gauge records there is an extremely clear correlation between solar activity and sea level rise - active sun, the oceans rise. Inactive sun - the oceans fall. On short time scales it is predominantly heat going to the oceans and thermal expansion of the water. This can then be used to quantify the radiative forcing of the sun, and see that it is about 10 times larger than what the IPCC is willing to admit is there. They only take into account changes in the irradiance, while this (and other such data) unequivocally demonstrate that there is an amplifying mechanism linking solar activity and climate.

The details of this mechanism are extremely interesting. I can tell you that it is related to the ions in the atmosphere which are governed by solar activity and in fact, there are three microphysical mechanisms linking these ions to the nucleation and growth of cloud condensation nuclei. Basically, when the sun is more active, we have less clouds that are generally less white.

So, the main conclusion is that climate is not sensitive to changes in the radiative forcing.

This means that we are not required to “cool the economy” in order to cool earth. In Paris and Copenhagen the leaders of the world said that we should make sure that the total global warming will be less than 2°C. It will be less than 2°C even if we do nothing. There are several red flags that people do their best to ignore. The lack of warming in the past 2 decades is a clear sign that sensitivity is low, but people ignore it.

Last point. People say that we should at least curb the emissions as a precautionary step. However, resources are not infinite. Most people in developed nations can pay twice for their energy, but for third world nations? It would mean more expensive food, hunger and poverty, and many in the developed world actually freezing in winter. So in fact, taking unnecessary precautionary steps when we know they are unnecessary is immoral. It is even committing statistical murder.

Now the really last point, I am also optimist that humanity will switch to alternative energy sources in less than 2-3 decades just because they will become cheap enough, and just for the reason that people want to save money. Just like the price of computers has plummeted exponentially (Moore’s law— number of transistors doubles every 18 months) so does the cost of energy from photovoltaic cells (cost halves every 10 years). Once they will be really cost effective, without subsidies, suddenly we won’t be burning fossil fuels because it would be the expensive thing to do!

Let us use our limited resources to treat real problems.

Statistical murder. That does fit what the warmistas are guilty of at the moment. Steven, perhaps your VP of Climate and Energy will write us a rhyming couplet to explain why that is not the case.

[Bill Tozer]

Semi-interesting read. Probably nothing illegal, but.
....
“Beginning in 2014, Fusion worked for a Russian businessman implicated in a $230 million money laundering scheme. Fusion’s job on the project was to investigate Bill Browder, a London-based banker who spearheaded the Magnitsky Act, a sanctions law vehemently opposed by the Kremlin.

Fusion was being paid by BakerHostetler, a law firm for the Russian businessman, Denis Katsyv, at the same time it was on the payroll of the Clinton campaign and DNC.”

And.....

“The Associated Press reported in Aug. 2015 that a portion of Prop 39 that promised to created 11,000 clean energy jobs per year had only created 1,700 jobs after three years. And more than half of the $300 million promised to public schools to improve energy efficiency had gone to consultants and energy auditors.”

http://dailycaller.com/2017/11/13/tom-steyer-billionaire-democratic-donor-and-fusion-gps-client/

“

[Clue-Sew]

Posted by: Bill Tozer | 15 November 2017 at 03:13 AM

Clean Energy Jobs Act,,,

http://sd24.senate.ca.gov/news/2016-01-20-california-clean-energy-jobs-act-proposition-39-progress-date

[Clue-Sew]

The trouble with too many bozos with guns,,,

'''Police say startled shoppers at the Colorado Walmart where a shooter opened fire and killed three stalled the search process after they drew their own handguns in defense.

The shoppers' immediate response to the violent event 'absolutely slowed' investigation as it left authorities scanning through surveillance tapes in pursuit of the single armed attacker.

The few innocent yet armed individuals were eventually weeded out as suspects, amid the several hour-long investigation which began Wednesday night and into Thursday morning.

A police spokesperson confirmed after the building had been deemed 'safe enough' to enter, officials quickly began examining footage from inside the supermarket, according to The Denver Post.

'That's when we started noticing that a number of individuals had pulled weapons,' said Victor Avila, who works in part for the Thornton Police Department.

'At that point, as soon as you see that, that's the one you try to trace through the store, only to maybe find out that's not him, and we're back to ground zero again, starting to look again. That's what led to the extended time.'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5045479/Walmart-shoppers-drew-handguns-shooting.html

[fish]

Posted by: Clue-Sew | 15 November 2017 at 09:29 AM

Concur……you really shouldn't be anywhere near a loaded firearm Bun-Sew!

[George Rebane]

The trade-off here is 1) do we have law-abiding citizens draw their guns and stop the carnage by the shooter, and thereafter slow the investigation (given a citizen did not fell the shooter), or 2) do you let the shooter continue killing undeterred so as to speed up the post-massacre investigation. I vote for #1.

[Todd Juvinall]

The worst Serial Killer in history was a Rooskie. He killed over a hundred. One at a time through strangulation. Mostly kids. This was in the 80's uf I can recall. Anyway, the cops finally got him but of course the commies did not want the world to knw they had one of thses nuts.

[fish]

Posted by: George Rebane | 15 November 2017 at 10:22 AM

"'That's when we started noticing that a number of individuals had pulled weapons,' said Victor Avila, who works in part for the Thornton Police Department.

'At that point, as soon as you see that, that's the one you try to trace through the store, only to maybe find out that's not him, and we're back to ground zero again, starting to look again. That's what led to the extended time.'

Interesting but not terribly surprising that Doug thinks it more important for you as a citizen to potentially take a bullet so the cops aren't inconvenienced.

[Paul Emery]

So Todds hero Roy Moore is apparently making the case that he asked for permission from the parents of underage girls to date them. This is part of a bizarre exchange with his lawyer this morning where he insinuates that one of his questioners comes from a culture that allows marriage to young girls.

“If Roy Moore doesn’t remember, why would he say it’s false?” Ruhle asked the lawyer. “And why would he need permission from these girls’ mothers if they’re not underage?”

Garman fumbled for an answer.

“Culturally speaking, obviously there’s differences,” Garmon started. “I looked up Ali’s background there, wow, that’s awesome that you have got such a diverse background ― it’s really cool to read.”

Velshi and Ruhle both appeared perplexed.

“Culturally speaking, obviously there’s differences,” Garmon started. “I looked up Ali’s (Ali Velshi) background there, wow, that’s awesome that you have got such a diverse background ― it’s really cool to read.”

Velshi and Ruhle both appeared perplexed.

“What does Ali’s background have to do with dating a 14-year-old?” Ruhle responded. “Please answer: What does Ali Velshi’s background have do with dating 14-year-old girls?”

“In other countries, there’s arrangements through parents for what we would refer to as consensual marriage,” Garmon said.

“Ali is from Canada,” Ruhle said.

“I don’t know where you’re going with this, Trenton,” Velshi said.

Garmon continued to fumble his responses, leading Ruhle to another line of questioning.

“You have young daughters,” she told Garmon. “If your daughter was 14, would you think it’s appropriate that she date a man in his 30s? Would you think it was normal that a random man sign her yearbook?”

“I would say no,” Garmon said. “If someone came to me like what was postulated there and said, ‘May I date your daughter ― don’t know her age’ ― I would say no.”

Garmon confirmed he would continue to support the senate candidate.

At least Todd has one other person in his camp.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/roy-moore-lawyer-msnbc_us_5a0c712be4b0b17ffce1d8ad?ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009

[Todd Juvinall]

Oh Paul Emery, you are too much. Your heroes, Bill Clinton and Harvey Weinstein are your mentors in perversion. Sad.

[Paul Emery]

Trump

What an idiot. Got mass He got gun shootings mixed up. Rancho Tehama Elementary School is in California not Texas.

Trump tweets yesterday

On Tuesday night, Trump tweeted this message:

"May God be w/ the people of Sutherland Springs, Texas. The FBI & law enforcement are on the scene. "

what an idiot.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-shooting-wrong-tweet_us_5a0bedf9e4b0bc648a0ebb0a

[fish]

Posted by: Paul Emery | 15 November 2017 at 11:59 AM

Oh I think a little latitude should be granted in this Punch:...unlike you the president is a busy man.

[Gregory]

"This is part of a bizarre exchange with his lawyer this morning where he insinuates that one of his questioners comes from a culture that allows marriage to young girls."-Punch-E

Like France and the Islamic State?

The Babes in Royland rhetoric is being aimed at Alabama, not Nirvana Silly, 'Frisco or New York. Moore is pushing an us-versus-them no holds barred. The GOP can't abide the message and will try to scuttle his win. Again. The Paul Emerys just want to muddy the waters.

[Paul Emery]

Todd

AS sleazy as Clinton and Weinstein are I don't believe there are any accusations of them molesting children like your guy Roy Moore. That's even below the standards of our Pussy Grabbing Braggart President.

[Todd Juvinall]

For news man you don't know much do you? Both Clinton and Harvey are accused of that. My goodnessClinton travels on the Pedophilia Express flights of E[stein to Pedophilia Island. And Harvey diddled young women on his couch or masturbated in front of them. You need to start reading something other than your on news.

[Gregory]

Googling...
http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/262853/why-bill-clintons-26-trips-lolita-express-child-daniel-greenfield

Bill Clinton reportedly ditched his secret service shadows for five of those trips, and his host did have a 14 year old sex slave purchased from her parents..

[Paul Emery]

Sorry Todd

Show me the specific example of Weinstein or Clinton being accused of sex with a minor.