Friday, June 23, 2017

Cruising the Web

When do progressives not care about women's rights - When the women suffering abuse, assault, and denial of human rights are Muslim. It always amazes me how progressives are more worried about seeming Islamophobic than they are about the suffering of women in Islamist societies. Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Asra Q. Nomani have a powerful column in the NYT about their experiences when they were invited to testify before the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs about women and Islamism. Four female Democratic senators refused to ask either of them any questions at all. Not one single question. They were more interested in the perception that such a hearing shouldn't focus on one religion. These are women who profess to be so concerned about women's issues. So why wouldn't they care about sexism and misogyny within Islam?
[W]hat happened that day was emblematic of a deeply troubling trend among progressives when it comes to confronting the brutal reality of Islamist extremism and what it means for women in many Muslim communities here at home and around the world. When it comes to the pay gap, abortion access and workplace discrimination, progressives have much to say. But we’re still waiting for a march against honor killings, child marriages, polygamy, sex slavery or female genital mutilation.

Sitting before the senators that day were two women of color: Ayaan is from Somalia; Asra is from India. Both of us were born into deeply conservative Muslim families. Ayaan is a survivor of female genital mutilation and forced marriage. Asra defied Shariah by having a baby while unmarried. And we have both been threatened with death by jihadists for things we have said and done. Ayaan cannot appear in public without armed guards.

In other words, when we speak about Islamist oppression, we bring personal experience to the table in addition to our scholarly expertise. Yet the feminist mantra so popular when it comes to victims of sexual assault — believe women first — isn’t extended to us. Neither is the notion that the personal is political. Our political conclusions are dismissed as personal; our personal experiences dismissed as political.

That’s because in the rubric of identity politics, our status as women of color is canceled out by our ideas, which are labeled “conservative” — as if opposition to violent jihad, sex slavery, genital mutilation or child marriage were a matter of left or right. This not only silences us, it also puts beyond the pale of liberalism a basic concern for human rights and the individual rights of women abused in the name of Islam.

There is a real discomfort among progressives on the left with calling out Islamic extremism. Partly they fear offending members of a “minority” religion and being labeled racist, bigoted or Islamophobic. There is also the idea, which has tremendous strength on the left, that non-Western women don’t need “saving” — and that the suggestion that they do is patronizing at best. After all, the thinking goes, if women in America still earn less than men for equivalent work, who are we to criticize other cultures?

This is extreme moral relativism disguised as cultural sensitivity. And it leads good people to make excuses for the inexcusable. The silence of the Democratic senators is a reflection of contemporary cultural pressures. Call it identity politics, moral relativism or political correctness — it is shortsighted, dangerous and, ultimately, a betrayal of liberal values.

The hard truth is that there are fundamental conflicts between universal human rights and the principle of Shariah, or Islamic law, which holds that a woman’s testimony is worth half that of a man’s; between freedom of religion and the Islamist idea that artists, writers, poets and bloggers should be subject to blasphemy laws; between secular governance and the Islamist goal of a caliphate; between United States law and Islamist promotion of polygamy, child marriage and marital rape; and between freedom of thought and the methods of indoctrination, or dawa, with which Islamists propagate their ideas.
That moral relativism and fear of being seen as Islamaphobic should cancel out any concern for women tells me that the supposed concern for women's rights and other human rights is just a political platitude for these female progressives. If they truly cared about the goals of feminism, they would be concerned about women women who suffer under Islamic rule.

Tools and Home Improvement

Today’s Deals

Fashion Sales and Deals

I don't know if it's any comfort to her, but James Freeman at the WSJ is defending her...somewhat. He argues that it isn't all her fault.
In a nutshell, the structural problem for the contemporary Democratic party is that its funding constituency in mostly urban areas on the coasts embraces Nancy Pelosi’s left-wing politics, but most voters don’t. Considering this situation, an increasingly vocal group of Democratic lawmakers now seem willing to risk fewer donations from Ms. Pelosi’s coastal check-writers in the hope of collecting more votes further inland....

Ms. Pelosi’s extremism won’t sell in many parts of the country. But if Democrats are thinking they’ve erred in not addressing voters’ top priorities, then the blame doesn’t just belong to the House minority leader. A broad swath of the Democratic caucus has been only too happy to spend months casting aspersions on the patriotism of President Trump without ever offering any “collusion” evidence.

Why have Democrats spent so little time addressing the concerns of average voters? The popular dinosaur who made this column famous once formulated the Taranto Principle, which held that favorable coverage by liberal journalists could actually harm Democrats by encouraging them to advocate media-friendly but politically-suicidal policies. Perhaps a related phenomenon has been at work in the Trump era, as many journalists reward pols who offer fact-free analysis about Russia rather than ideas to boost economic growth and create jobs. In this case it’s not that voters oppose the Russia investigation; they just don’t think it will solve their problems.

Fortunately for Republicans, Pelosi is vowing to stay on as Minority Leader. This line summarizes why Republicans are finding her one of their strongest assets.
During the news conference, Pelosi boasted about her effectiveness as a leader, even though Democrats lost their majority in 2010 under her watch and have never come close to winning it back.

“I am a master legislator,” Pelosi declared. “I am a strategic, politically astute leader. My leadership is recognized by many around the country. That is why I am able to attract the [financial] support that I do, which is essential to our election, I am sad to say.”

Pelosi also pointed out that she led Democrats to the majority in the first place back in 2006 after a dozen years out of power.
Yeah, but what master legislating has she done recently? Reportedly, some Democratic House members are meeting to try to figure out how to ease her out of leadership. They better first figure out who their candidate to oust her will be. I don't imagine that there are Democrats out there chanting, "Steny, Steny, Steny!"

In the wake of the George special election, Bret Stephens also identifies a long-term problem for the Democrats.
Whatever else might be said about the race, Democrats didn’t lose for lack of political talent, campaign financing and organization or enthusiasm among their base. They lost because of their brand.

What is that? Democrats may think the brand is all about diversity, inclusion and fairness. But for millions of Americans, the brand is also about contempt — intellectual contempt of the kind Nimzowitsch exuded for his opponent (the grandmaster Fritz Sämisch, who, in fairness, was no slouch); moral contempt of the sort Hillary Clinton felt for Trump (never more evident than last year when Hillary Clinton wondered, “Why aren’t I fifty points ahead?”).

That contempt may be justified. But in politics, contempt had better not be visible. Voters notice.

That seems to have been what happened in the Sixth District the moment Democrats decided to turn the race into a referendum on Trump. “Republicans saw Ossoff’s campaign omnipresence as a political siege and call for resistance,” notes Billy Michael Honor, a Presbyterian minister and resident of the district and self-described progressive, in an astute column at The Huffington Post. “The end result being the Republican base outperforming an energized Democratic Party voter turnout campaign.”

Whatever their misgivings about Trump, those Republicans weren’t about to give Nancy Pelosi the satisfaction of a national victory. Contemporary liberalism now expresses itself chiefly in the language of self-affirmation and moral censure: of being the party of the higher-minded; of affixing the suffix “phobe” to millions of people who don’t appreciate being described as bigots.

It’s intolerable. It’s why so many well-educated Republicans who find nothing to admire in the president’s dyspeptic boorishness find even less to like in his opponents’ snickering censoriousness. It’s why a political strategy by Democrats that seeks to turn every local race into a referendum on Trump is likely to fail.

Alan Dershowitz warns against using the standard that his liberal colleagues are advocating using to charge Donald Trump with obstruction of justice - corrupt intent. Do they want to risk establishing the precedent that obstruction is in the eye of the beholder?
This is a dangerous argument that no civil libertarian should be pressing. Nor would they be pressing it if the shoe were on the other foot.

If Hillary Clinton had been elected and Republicans were investigating her for asking the attorney general to describe the investigation of her as a "matter" rather than a "case," my colleagues would be arguing against an expansive view of existing criminal statutes, as they did when Republicans were demanding that she be locked up for espionage. The same would be true if Bill Clinton or former Attorney General Loretta Lynch were being investigated for his visit to her when she was investigating his wife's misuse of email servers.

"Corrupt motive" is an extraordinarily vague and open-ended term that can be expanded or contracted at the whim of zealous or politically motivated prosecutors. It is bad enough when this accordion-like term is used in the context of economic corruption, but it is far worse, and more dangerous to liberty, when used in the context of political disagreements.

In commercial cases where corrupt intent may be an element, the act itself is generally not constitutionally protected. It often involves a gray area financial transaction. But in political cases, especially those not involving money, the act itself is constitutionally protected, and the motive, which is often mixed, is placed on trial. It becomes the sole criteria for turning a constitutionally authorized political act into a felony.

What constitutes a corrupt motive will often depend on the political bias of the accuser. For some Democrats, the motives of all Republicans are suspect. The same is true for some Republicans.

Deals in Jewelry - under $80

Deals and Coupons in Beauty

Luggage and Travel Deals

So much for Trump's efforts to fix the economy one company at a time. That deal with Carrier that he bragged about earlier to keep the plant in Indians? Well, now a lot of those jobs are going to Mexico.
Carrier, the heating and air-conditioning manufacturer, is laying off more than 600 employees from its Indianapolis plant next month, the same plant Trump vowed to keep on American soil, per CNBC. Those manufacturing jobs will go to Mexico, where labor is significantly cheaper.

Why it matters: Trump heralded the November deal as proof he'd live up to his pledge to protect U.S. jobs. And this comes just one day after Ford reversed its promise and shifted jobs to China instead of Mexico.
You know, it's almost as if politicians shouldn't get involved in promising special deals to rent-seeking companies.

Mollie Hemingway is dumbfounded
by the FBI's report on the shooting of the GOP baseball players. THey're claiming that they don't think the gunman had any "concrete plan to inflict violence" against Republicans and that the attack appeared "spontaneous" and it wasn't clear that he was targeting Republicans. Hemingway summarizes what we know and the FBI acknowledges about James Hodgkinson. See if this sounds like a man who didn't have a plan to shoot Republican congressman while they were practicing for the House baseball game.
The FBI admits that Hodgkinson:

-vociferously raged against Republicans in online forums,
-had a piece of paper bearing the names of six members of Congress,
-was reported for doing target practice outside his home in recent months before moving to Alexandria
-had mapped out a trip to the DC area,
-took multiple photos of the baseball field he would later shoot up, three days after the New York Times mentioned that Republicans practiced baseball at an Alexandria baseball field with little security,
-lived out of his va-n at the YMCA directly next door to the baseball field he shot up,
-legally purchased a rifle in March 2003 and 9 mm handgun “in November 2016,”
-modified the rifle at some point to accept a detachable magazine and replaced the original stock with a folding stock,
-rented a storage facility to hide hundreds of rounds of ammunition and additional rifle components,
-asked “Is this the Republican or Democrat baseball team?” before firing on the Republicans,
-ran a Google search for information on the “2017 Republican Convention” hours before the shooting,
-and took photos at high-profile Washington locations, including the east front plaza of the U.S. Capitol and the Dirksen Senate Office.
Yet the FBI doesn't think that he had any particular target in mind. Just imagine if the victims had been Democrats.
the media’s big problem right now is that everyone in the country knows how they’d be covering the shooting if the parties were reversed. Can you imagine if a shooter had visited the office of Sen. Ted Cruz and corresponded with two Republican senators? Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) gave emails to investigators last week but it was treated mostly as local news.

With trust in institutions at historic lows, and the bureaucracy beset by fears of politicization, the FBI made a poor decision to gaslight Americans by claiming that the assassination attempt wasn’t premeditated terrorism but a spontaneous “anger management” problem.

....The FBI’s briefing appears so contrary to the facts as to be insulting. When a man with a history of hating Republicans cases a location, takes pictures, verifies the targets are Republicans before opening fire, has a list of Republican politicians in his pocket, and shoots and nearly kills Republicans, it’s hard to swallow the FBI’s contention that the shooting was “spontaneous” with “no target.” The agency should reconsider whether it wants to troll Americans about something this serious.

As Sean Davis points out
, The NYT had reported where the GOP practiced baseball in that Alexandria park. On April 15 Hodgkinson went to this otherwise ordinary park and took pictures of it. Yet the FBI don't believe that those pictures represented any sort of surveillance of an intended site for shooting GOP congressmen.

David French explains why the desire that so many leftists have to limit speech that they regard as hate speech.
here is no limiting principle. If “How does this speech make you feel?” is the core question, it incentivizes victim politics and overreaction. Robust debate triggers robust emotions, and robust debate on the most sensitive issues — issues like race, gender, and sexuality — trigger the most robust of responses.

Lest anyone wonder about the actual definition of “hate speech,” look to campus and liberal activist groups. At Evergreen State College in Washington, a progressive professor’s statement against racial separation and division was deemed so hateful that he couldn’t safely conduct classes on campus. Influential pressure groups such as the Southern Poverty Law Center label the Ku Klux Klan and other genuine racists “hate groups” but also apply the same label to mainstream Christian conservative organizations such as the Family Research Council. The SPLC has branded respected American Enterprise Institute scholar Charles Murray a “white nationalist.” Moreover, it’s far more forgiving of leftist extremism than of moderate speech that is conservative or libertarian.

As we start to hear all the dire predictions of what the Senate health care bill would mean, Guy Benson takes a trip down memory lane to remind us what Republicans and Democrats were saying at the time about Obamacare. Who had the better track record of predicting what would happen? Hmmmm.
Many Conservatives warned that Obamacare would increase rates and cost a lot more than $940 billion. They predicted that many people would not be able to keep their plans and doctors as promised, that adding millions of new people to a heavily-strained Medicaid program wasn't wise or sustainable, that Obamacare's exchanges weren't going to be ready for primetime, and that the law's co-ops were going to fall apart. For questioning the Democratic line, these since-vindicated critics and skeptics were routinely attacked as haters, liars, and even racists.
He then links to a lot of the predictions that Obamacare's defenders were making at the time about how premiums wouldn't rise but would actually decline. However, since Obamacare went into effect in 2013, in the 29 states using the federal exchanges have increased 105%. So keep all these accusations in mind during the debates over the next weeks.
Every single one of the people and entities above are now frantically admonishing Americans about the parade of horribles that will befall them under Republican Obamacare alternatives.... itizens should bear these people's histories in mind as they assess the credibility of their latest pronouncements -- having been wildly, catastrophically, embarrassingly wrong in their faulty or deceitful cheerleading for Obamacare.
I don't hold any brief for either the House or Senate bill. But I do wish people would stop comparing them to some Platonic ideal repeal bill and look at what is politically possible to get through the Congress as it is now constituted.

Echo and Alexa Devices

Amazon Fire TV

Hot New Releases in All Categories

After watching the NBA draft last night, I was struck at how Jayson Tatum's mother, Brandy Cole, is the anti-Lavar Ball. As a single mother, she sacrificed all her life to provide for him and raise him to be a good person, working part-time and taking him to class as she studied to get through college and then get two other degrees including a law degree. She helped him achieve his dream. And now that she has, she is working with him, not to self-aggrandize and make a buck off her son's talent, but to help him found a charity to help other single moms. Of course, Lavar Ball gets all the media attention, but the real deal is Brandy Cole, a woman most people just heard of this week and probably won't hear from again except to see her cheering her son on.

35 comments:

tfhr said...

That’s because in the rubric of identity politics, our status as women of color is canceled out by our ideas, which are labeled “conservative” — as if opposition to violent jihad, sex slavery, genital mutilation or child marriage were a matter of left or right. ~ Ali / Nomani

Not only do these two women have to deal with the Dem hatred of conservative women, they must also suffer under the yoke of the leftists' doctrine of multiculturalism and it's insane relativism. What an incredible struggle they must endure just to be heard.

Shame on the four so-called women that value their place in the Democrat machine more than their place in western civilization. Senators Heitkamp, McCaskill, Hassan, and the new darling of the left, Kamala Harris, are willing participants by virtue of their deliberate silence in the abuse of women and girls around the globe.

It's another proud day in the Democrat annals of history as the four political handmaidens toe the party line.

trigger warning said...

Pelosi: I watched a video excerpt, including the text you cite above, and was gratified to see Nancy still sports Wilma Flintstone™ Beads. But, joking aside, the poor woman is so botoxed she can hardly speak. I felt sorry for her as she rambled, stuttered, and grimaced her desperate articulations. She knows the daggers are out on the steps of the Capitol in the Nation of Nietzche.

"So much for Trump's efforts to fix the economy one company at a time..."
--- Person Who Disparages and Condemns Snark and Incivility

:-D

tfhr said...

"Steny, Steny, Steny!" ~ no one


When was the last time a Maryland politician made a difference on the national stage? Probably Nancy Pelosi - when she moved to San Francisco from Baltimore (one of the early rats to jump that ship) not that the difference was a positive one for anybody.

This state is so blue - even without the gerrymandering - that these idiots (Steny, Cardin, et al) have a lifetime appointment to national office once they've paid their dues to the local party.

Steny Hoyer has been a US Congressman since just shortly after I graduated from high school. I moved away; went to college; got married; retired from the military; started a new career and Hoyer is still on the throne in the same job he's had - as a "public servant" since 1981.

He's quite comfortable where he is and along with all the other careerists in the House and Senate, he's helped guide this ship of state onto the rocky outcrop where it currently rusts. He'll be here until he dies, most likely, and he will not bother himself by volunteering for greater leadership responsibilities. He doesn't need the burden.

TERM LIMITS!

tfhr said...

The Hemingway article is telling. It appears that the FBI has gone the way of the State Department: political party agenda have made both beyond useless and actually counterproductive.

f0587c8c-581c-11e7-b8cf-7ba873f3534a said...

Should be noted that the Carrier jobs going to Mexico was part of the original plan. Nothing has changed. Some jobs stay, some go -- not all.

mardony said...

At this rate, Mueller will have a walk in the park. But Betsy's crib from Dershovitz is a desperate, hail Mary hypothetical, "If Hillary Clinton had been elected and Republicans were investigating her blah, blah, blah." Earth to Betsy: Hillary wasn't elected and Trump's presidency* is hanging by a thread.

Trump Admits Tweet on Tapes Was Meant to Affect Trump Testimony

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/23/us/politics/trump-indicates-tape-tweet-was-meant-to-affect-comey-testimony.html?smprod=nytcore-ipad&smid=nytcore-ipad-share

tfhr said...

"Trump Testimony"?

Your use of an asterisk ("Trump's presidency*") suggests that it is your sanity that is hanging by a thread.

When will you be coming to DC to meet with Bernie? What else will you do while you're here?

Bonus round: "Hillary wasn't elected"

Do you know why?

mardony said...

Again, Betsy dedicates her blog to the Republicans' one and only one brand: Democrats suck. Betsy ignored that the Repub-controlled Congress revealed its secret tax-cut plan (Trumpcare) that will make the lives of millions of sick and elderly Americans immeasurably worse, deprive low-income women of needed reproductive health services (axing Planned Parenthood), waxes mental health care and rural hospitals that depend on Medicaid, and, in general, provides less care for more money. But, never mind, because Democrats suck, and as Betsy astutely points out: "When do progressives not care about women's rights - When the women suffering abuse, assault, and denial of human rights are Muslim, etc."

Yes, Repubs really care about Muslims. Remember Trump's campaign speeches?

How rich, Betsy. When do Repubs care about women minorities here at home? Not in Trumpcare, drafted by 13 white male senators, that's for sure. Not ever.

Betsy, have you ever sought services at a Planned Parenthood clinic? I have, and I was grateful for the quality care. Why do you hate PP so much? Repubs credited Trump's victory with his special connection to our working class, and Hillary failing to do so. Those rewarded Trump voters will love Trumpcare.

.

tfhr said...

"Betsy, have you ever sought services at a Planned Parenthood clinic?" ~ mardony

Did you really ask her that? Well, yes, you did. Unbelievable!

That's even more surprising than your latest switch from male to female. Is it sequential hermaphrodism or your desperate politics that causes this phenomenon? I know it's your lack of decency that permits you to ask such an invasive question of Betsy.

tfhr said...

As for the rest of your rant about ObamaCare and its overwhelming failure based on performance, intent, and the deliberate deception used to foist it on Americans, why should anyone believe ANYTHING that comes out of your mouth about programs or policies designed to reverse ObamaScam?

You won't answer that question but give this some thought:

Why would you think government involvement would make anything cheaper without raising costs somewhere else, if not adding additional costs for the service or product already in question?

trigger warning said...

"Betsy, have you ever sought services at a Planned Parenthood clinic? I have..."

Hopefully, that means mardony hasn't successfully spawned. Tis' a relief to know the peeing section of the gene pool is slightly less likely to contaminate the remainder.

trigger warning said...

"McDonald's shares hit an all-time high on Tuesday as Wall Street expects sales to increase from new digital ordering kiosks that will replace cashiers in 2,500 restaurants."
--- CNBC

Heh.

You go, Boinie Slanders! Fight for Fifteen!

mardony said...

toad ~
You graduated from high school, went to college? They had mail order degrees back in those antebellum years you're stuck in?
Started a new career? You call what you do a career, dropping your personal moment-to-moment detritus on this blog for the last 12 years while mooching a pension and healthcare while on the public dole? That's a new career? Go seek care at a Planned Parenthood clinic. I hesr they can check your hormones and offer you the substance abuse referral services you badly need.

tfhr said...

mardony,

Still spewing that hate on the veterans...I just don't get it.

In a related note, though one that has gone largely unnoticed because of the media / leftist obsession with "collusiongate", President Trump just signed legislation today to give Veterans Affairs leadership actual authority to remove low-performing employees and to protect whistleblowers.

This is long overdue and whether or not it is enough to help remains to be seen, it should be noted that successive administrations and Congresses have all failed for decades to properly care for veterans, so I don't hold out much hope if this is all that is attempted.

mardony, when you fantasize about the wonders of government health care just remind yourself about the plight of veterans and the feckless government attempts to make improvements, lower costs, etc., at the VA and where that led: dead vets on waiting lists.


http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trump-signs-one-of-the-largest-reforms-to-the-va-in-its-history/article/2626924

tfhr said...

trigger,

Knowing that my tax dollars - shoveled into the autoclave at Planned Parenthood - have either failed to cure mardony's sequential hermaphrodism or even contributed to it, is very disturbing. As an extensively published "journalist", it's also pretty sad that our mardony has to go to a place like Planned Parenthood when he/she/it could have gone some place so very dependent on tax dollars for it's simple existence. Either he/she/it was taking advantage of Planned Parenthood when he/she/it could have reduced the burden on them by going somewhere else or he/she/it wasn't very well compensated as a "journalist" and "faculty member".


One other thing: I saw an article in the past few days about how Boinie Slanders actually pays his interns less that $15/hour. I'm not surprised that Boinie is sticking it to his useful idiots but to be fair, they're getting a better deal than Bill Clinton's interns!

"Here darlin', take this to the dry cleaners for me, will 'ya?"

mardony said...

bigger warming ~
My sympathy for McDonald's eliminating your best career option. You'll miss the employee discounts for the chocolate softserve you crave. But, no worries, you can get a paying gig helping toad with his waste disposal problem so it will no longer slop over onto this page. Using his mail order degree smarts, he can probably figure a way to get his government subsidies to pay you.

And, bw, spin this if you can. Ford will shift production of its Focus from the U.S. to China, and then sell them back to the U.S.

http://money.cnn.com/2017/06/20/news/companies/ford-focus-china/index.html

mardony said...

bigger warming ~

Spin this if you can. You were so masterful in splainin' Carrier's job exodus. Maybe you can help toad with his global warming exam that he has to take in summer school, because he flunked it.

It’s so hot in the Southwest that airplanes can’t take off
Extreme heat is one of the clearest and more defining characteristics of global warming.

https://thinkprogress.org/southwest-heat-wave-2017-6ff097b3dd53

trigger warning said...

"more than 18 inches of snow has fallen in less than 24 hours on May 18, 2017 in Nederland [CO]. Up to 36 inches is expected over the next day with the late spring storm pushing out tomorrow afternoon."

http://www.denverpost.com/2017/05/18/may-18-colorado-snow-totals/

Extreme cold is also a prediction of "climate change" digimancy. Also extreme dry. And wet. In fact, I think all the bases are covered.

:-D

mardony said...

bigger warming ~

Spin this.

"Our results support and strengthen previous findings of a large human-caused contribution to warming. Studies involving patterns of tropospheric temperature change (rather than the global averages considered here) yield even stronger evidence of a human fingerprint in the thermal structure of the atmosphere."

Could this be more clear? (read the summary; the rest is over your head)

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-02520-7

tfhr said...

Mardony,

Did the climate on Earth change before mankind appeared? If so, what might have caused these subtle changes, such as the formation of ice caps miles deep and their subsequent disappearance?

If the climate on Earth was dynamic - and we can agree that man was not always here, idling a SUV in traffic - how can we conclude that the factors that changed Earth's climate are no longer capable of changing Earth's climate (as they have done before) independent of man's conceit?

I like asking questions. You like pretending that you have all the answers!

trigger warning said...

Regression. Correlation. Causation.

Look it up.

"Unambiguous partitioning of observational temperature records into internally generated and externally forced components is an aspirational goal, but not attainable in practice."

Same posting.

:-D

tfhr said...

trigger,

It looks like mardony has bailed, so I'll fill in for him/her/it.

Racist! Racist! Racist!

Democrats suck!

Guns! Guns! Guns!

The planet is on fire!

Griner is a lesbian!

Russians! Russians! Russians!

Tell me about your personal medical history!


That pretty much covers everything he/she/it has said for the past two or three weeks.



mardony said...

bigger warming and her/his loyal toad(y) ~

Statistics For Dummies is where you should start.

Repeating Santer et al.: "Our results support and strengthen previous findings of a large human-caused contribution to warming."

This research's primary finding is that internal variability in the climate system is unable to account for the much higher observed tropospheric temperatures. Internal variability is modeled (primarily by simulation here by the standard CMIP5) using measurable data such as cloud cover, El Nino, volcanic eruptions, earth reflectivity, etc. that climate deniers/skeptics frequently use to try to explain warming. This research shows that internal variability greatly underestimates natural, or forced, variability data that are actually observed, in this case from satellite and other ongoing tropospheric temperature measurement means (from which trends can be calculated and further projected).

I urge you to read the last paragraph of the summary. (note: this research was published in Nature)

If you two jamokes have any intellectual curiosity beyond checking out Nancy Pelosi's face and attire, you could read this consensus summarization of climate change research.

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/scientific-consensus-on.html

tfhr said...

Nancy Pelosi's face? Why would I want to "check out", as you put it, Nancy Pelosi's face? I'm not a masochist, mortician or a paleontologist, just someone that thinks TERM LIMITS are needed because the sooner careerism (and the corresponding peonage to the party) takes a backseat to the nation's best interests, the better.

When you stop expecting politicians to control the weather, we can have a conversation about science, dumb ass.

mardony said...

Toad ~
You've come totally unglued. See your lord and master's 7:17 A.M. post re Nancy Pelosi. You're giving mouth-breathing shut-ins a bad name. The VA mental healthcare folks shouldn't take away your restraints, cut back on your thorazine, and impose term limits on your treatment. And you're playing the veterans' card because you're not getting all that tax payers owe you? Hah!

I hope you can get well, so you can learn from Statistics For Dummies. But those odds are both very long.

tfhr said...

"Unglued"?

Is that what the church says you must call a global warming heretic?

tfhr said...

mardony,

I know I told you we could talk about science when you stopped trying to convince yourself that politicians can control the weather but we can always talk political science.

I think we should talk about the Kennedys and the future. No, not those Kennedys, they have no future. I'm talking about Anthony Kennedy and his future as he looks toward retirement, or so the rumors say. Can you imagine if he retires? Trump will get a second Supreme Court appointment in his first term! And what about Ruth Buzzy Ginsberg? How much longer can she last?

Something to think about...you've obviously lost yourself in the hopes that the left, unable to control politics where people can still choose their leaders, but somehow you you hold onto the hope that you can convince people that they need politicians to control the climate and the left is direction to turn. How has that been going since, say, 2010?

You've lost the House, the Senate, the White House, and you're still hanging onto Al Gore's scam! You'd think you could figure it out from recent elections - there are some incontrovertible statistics there.

It'll be a while before the next election, but in the meantime, we'll see you in court, the Supreme Court!

tfhr said...

mardony,

I've consulted with Maureen Dowd and this is what she has to say about your precious, crypto-socialist Dem party:

Trump’s fatal flaw is that he cannot drag himself away from the mirror. But Democrats cannot bear to look in the mirror and admit what is wrong.

If a party stalwart at the DNC newsletter can see that, why can't you?

But wait! There's more:

Democrats cling to an idyllic version of a new progressive America where everyone tools around in electric cars, serenely uses gender-neutral bathrooms and happily searches the web for the best Obamacare options. In the Democrats’ vision, people are doing great and getting along. It is the opposite of Trump’s dark diorama of carnage and dystopia — but just as false a picture of America.

And then this:

Democrats are going to have to come up with something for people to be for, rather than just counting on Trump to implode. (Which he will.) The party still seems flummoxed that there are big swaths of the country where Democrats once roamed that now regard the Democratic brand as garbage and its long-in-the-tooth leadership as overstaying its welcome. The vibe is suffocating. Where’s the fresh talent?

Which leads people like me to say that politicians cannot be trusted to do the right thing or to somehow defy nature's laws of obsolescence. That's why we need TERM LIMITS but either as a result of your lack of creativity as a writer or satisfaction with the status quo brought to you by the current generation of political elite holdovers, you find the concept we've applied to the Executive branch something to mock, based on your most recent contemptuous effort to insult veterans. Again, you need some new ideas - or at least some better ideas.

mardony said...

toad ~

You want a conversation about physical science? OK, you're on. I started it with my 10:41 a.m. post on the climate change issue (modeled internal variability as an approximation of continuously-measured external variability) that I summarized re Santer et al.'s important recent journal article in Nature. To show off your fabled science chops that you brag about, speak intelligently to that paper and any of its peer-reviewed findings and implications.

Specifically, refute how the paper lays waste to the denier/skeptic position. The TMT data sets may be a good place to start (see graphs). Alternatively, give scientific refutation of the validity of external variability. Be specific.

No more of your perseverating tiresome booshwah about how politicians can't control weather and what happened 100M yrs ago. It's your turn. If you've got nothing, I won't be surprised, because you always post pure bubkis here. (for 12 years?)

tfhr said...

With your reading skills evident - I clearly said political science(2:40), so you've either incorrectly or deliberately come to a place in your head where you believe I said "physical science" - I have to question whether it is fair to you to engage in these "debates", though I will allow that you are unable to distinguish the difference between science and political science or reality and that thing going in your head.

I am greatly amused that you feel it is somehow possible to examine a complex system such as the climate without regard to what that system was doing through its entire evolution to date. Instead you think it is "scientific" to isolate some element that you believe supports your political view of the system while ignoring any information that challenges you. You're a better cherry picker than you are a scientist. Back in the 1970's you would have made an extraordinary advocate for the New Ice Age theory.

Ah, science and socialism, what a wonderful pairing they've made over the years, especially in the twentieth century and it persists, with the help of useful idiots that make themselves available as a means to an end! The same politics cloaked in "science" brought us eugenics. Margaret Sanger's legacy lives on in that temple of science you so admire, Planned Parenthood. We can (and should) question her motives and we'll probably never know if she imagined that her life's work would boil down to a method for raising campaign cash but nobody has any illusions about the most infamous socialist, Adolf Hitler,and his goals with regard to eugenics, but what about Woodrow Wilson, Winston Churchill, Alexander Graham Bell, or Charles Darwin's son? What could they have wanted from eugenics? Science is often used to manipulate public policy - don't kid yourself that it isn't.

In so much that science is used to shape/misshape policy, the reverse is often true. Politics can even be used to create "science". Read a little about Lysenkoism. The emphasis on science in the Soviet Union gave way to Stalin's political reality with disastrous effect. An entire field of psuedo-science was created to satisfy the Party leader and advance his aims. Famine arrived wearing a white lab coat but Pravda hailed its genius! Everyone agreed.

Mardony, your complete buy-in on the belief that the scientific process includes consensus in the way that politics relies on consensus is either a glaring weakness in your understanding of science or evidence of a level of intellectual dishonesty (needed to support a corrupt political agenda) that inspires complete contempt.

I've never claimed to be a scientist, as you willfully misrepresent in your latest post, and as far as I know, you've yet to pitch yourself as something other than a gender morphing "extensively published" journalist and an erstwhile academic somewhere. I've seen nothing from you that resembles anything close to having scientific credentials but I do see that you selectively cut and paste what you believe supports your political vision but you are blind because you lack the healthy skepticism needed to question contrived orthodoxy.

If you believe that there is some great value in "scientific consensus" then I wonder what you think of the great scientists that have made their mark for breaking the consensus of the day. But if you insist on maintaining the notion that political science and physical science are reconcilable and if you think your data can only be interpreted one way, then go back to November and make the election turnout the way the expert consensus told you it would.

Put on some goggles and a lab coat, maybe it will help.

mardony said...

toady ~
As predicted, pure bubkis. Evasive ducking. Totally cowardly, and you're a proud subsidized veteran?

You just wrote (11:23 A.M.): "I've never claimed to be a scientist, ..". then you were just faking it in your Friday post (below) pontificating on climate science, which is a branch of physical sciences.

You either have dementia with memory loss or are a complete fraud. Maybe both.

Blogger tfhr said...
Mardony,

Did the climate on Earth change before mankind appeared? If so, what might have caused these subtle changes, such as the formation of ice caps miles deep and their subsequent disappearance?

If the climate on Earth was dynamic - and we can agree that man was not always here, idling a SUV in traffic - how can we conclude that the factors that changed Earth's climate are no longer capable of changing Earth's climate (as they have done before) independent of man's conceit?

I like asking questions. You like pretending that you have all the answers!

5:40 PM
Here you are again pretending to be a physical scientist (it's "not settled") on Feb. 9. (there are other examples).
tfhr said...
Mardony,

While you're searching for some more inanities to copy and paste, let me know what the ideal temperature is for the Earth. You seem to think there is one and that mankind has the key to the thermostat. What's the ideal pH for the oceans? Do they all have to be the same?
Should the Arctic Ice Cap extend only as far as land, to the Arctic Circle, or Detroit and Moscow? Granted, Detroit would be a friendlier place to live under those circumstances than it is now but the Russians would be terribly upset and they’d probably hack your email again just to piss you off.

And what about Greenland? Since you brought it up – it used to be green and had a lot of Vikings living there but then it iced over because…the Vikings weren’t burning enough baby seals? The climate changes – we can agree on that – but it’s a huge leap from logic to think there is anything of a consensus as to why.

This debate, and it is a debate no matter how much you want to kick and scream that it is “settled”, should be tempered by healthy skepticism when it is so easy to see that the topic is interwoven with political agendas that include redistribution of wealth, crony favoritism, and government research grants. There is no such thing as pure science in a laboratory with that much distortion built into the mix. You ought to be confident enough with yourself to see the pitfalls that exist here and NOT accept claims based on faith.

But back to your concerns about “shrinkage”. I know guys like you are quick to blame the weather when they have a shrinkage problem but really, Mardony, it’s a small detail. Maybe you can see someone about tht but it's probably just a confidence thing.

And don’t worry about the Antarctic, the ice there is actually growing according to NASA.
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses/
3:03 PM

tfhr said...

Mardony,

First, I want you to know that I am proud that you find it necessary to save my comments. I just wish your reading comprehension were better. Here, once again, you seem to imply that I've said that I'm a scientist. I've never made that claim and the copy/paste frenzy in your latest effort does nothing to refute that.

What is boggling to me is that you seem to believe that you have all the answers when it is clear that you run from the facts that challenge your assumptions, hence, your cherry picking and wish to limit the debate to information that you choose.

Anything new on the Lysenkoism front? Perhaps you can consult with Bill Nye but I think you might be better off in you took a look at Maureen Dowd's mirror. She's holding it for you...waiting....

mardony said...

toad ~
I cite findings from recently published research in Nature, perhaps the world's most highly-regarded journal of multi-disciplinary science. The study used both established modeling techniques and actual physical measurements. It concludes:

"Our results support and strengthen previous findings of a large human-caused contribution to warming."

What facts are this study running from? What facts in this paper are you challenging?

Your argument is basically that these scientific findings are incorrect because Republicans win elections. Wingnuttia!

All your 12 years of comments are available online, so your flatulating ignorance can't be hidden.

tfhr said...

Mardony,

I don't have a problem with Nature, it's been around in various forms for a long time but let's be honest, when a publication or forum known for science for over 100 years decides to endorse a politician for the very first time in 2008, I really take notice. How did you miss that they actually endorsed Barack Obama on their editorial pages in 2008? That's pretty momentous for a science publication, don't you think? And it's about as justifiable and handing a US President a Nobel Prize for getting elected, but I digress.

https://scholarsandrogues.com/2008/10/31/nature-endorses-obama/


Here's something you probably didn't know, and while it isn't obvious, it is important since the peer review process is critical to any serious science publication. With a little research I determined that there are scientists that believe this article was rushed through peer review rather quickly. Did you know that Nature merged with Springer Science+Business Media? Did you know that they had to retract 64 science papers after they were caught conducting a fake review process?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/08/18/outbreak-of-fake-peer-reviews-widens-as-major-publisher-retracts-64-scientific-papers/

Now, I know you're intellectually lazy and incurious, but why would you assume that others are as well? You found the Nature article only because Huffington and ThinkProgress decided that "Tropospheric Warming Over The Past Two Decades" met their political agenda and threw it to their unquestioning followers, not because you've done any real research into the topic.

We can play cut and paste or I can refer you to scientists that disagree with the conclusions reached by Santer and his associates, but something tells me you lack any desire to see your position challenged.

What would you like to do? Would you like to tell me that you didn't know about the Obama endorsement or would you prefer to make a case that you didn't hear about the article from Huffington Post or ThinkProgress. (You might try one of those because you'll never convince me that you have the skepticism or objectivity needed to see past your politics on just about anything, especially science).

mardony said...

Toad ~
You may want to read this letter to Rick (oops) Perry from the American Meteorological Society. I'll anticipate your usual ignorant response: "What do they know, they always predict the weather wrong."

https://www.ametsoc.org/ams/index.cfm/about-ams/ams-position-letters/letter-to-doe-secretary-perry-on-climate-change/