Americans Are Over Messiah Act: New Comrades

rightmostofthetime wrote: It always troubles me to see posters make statements regarding physics that they only partially understand. I'm an AGW skeptic, but I cringe whenever people state that melting icebergs won't raise sea level (they will) and that CO2 levels have zero effect on global temperatures. It's clear that that computer models climatologists are using are inadequate, and that the scientists do not fully understand the Earth system, but arguments that use incorrect science are worthless, and just make people look foolish.- The Drum Circle Beats for "AmEriKaN" Climate Change

But that’s to be expected. What I find amazing is how many of them actually understand these issues better than the so-called experts do.

I’m already on record as not just skeptic of AGW, but as a full-fledged DENIER of AGW. That doesn’t mean that I won’t acknowledge that C02 is likely affecting temperatures. What it does mean is that so far no one has demonstrated to me in a real, scientific way that the rise by way of C02 is significant.

None of the doomsday scenarios that have been predicted using what they call “science”-- which is really just wishful thinking of the pro-AGW movement—have been shown to be valid.

In fact, some of the things said in the name of science, like polar bear cannibalism is on the rise, are just science fiction.

When a poster on here makes a mistake it’s more or less harmless. When experts PERSIST in their mistakes it’s either because of institutional bias or because of bad faith. Often it’s both.

When those mistakes result in policy prescriptions that take away freedoms from us, when they threaten to undermine how we live, when they are used to justify ends that are in no way scientific but wholly political, that my comrade, is what should really trouble you.

Don’t you in any way find in troubling that the government pays for most of this research, conducted by people who are government experts who just happened to always come up with the exact conclusion that the government wishes them to?

People complain about the pittance the Koch Brothers spend to fund conservative causes, like they have no right to spend their own money on what they wish. Yet when the government spends 1000 times that amount every year on scientists who agree with the government, no one on the Left sees the conflict of interest. That’s either because of institutional bias or because of bad faith. Often it’s both.

When industry funds research they cook the books? But when government does it, they don't? Come on.

We live at a time when ordinary citizens who are accomplished in their own right can dig into information that the experts have and ask questions. And they are doing just that, as they should. Because whether you are liberal or a conservative we all agree that clowns are driving this car. And yeah, one of the clowns I blame is Obama. But by no means is he the only one.

All the people who brought us Sarbanes Oxley are clowns too. (Thanks Republicans). The people who brought us Dodd-Frank or our ridiculous border policies are clowns. The folks who support Fannie and Freddie and think the government should be guaranteeing mortgages are clowns too.

It’s not just in so-called climate change that the experts ought to be ashamed, but in a whole body of policies that have failed to preserve the American Dream for the generations that come after us.

Like Social Security: The cowards who passed it knew they designed a system that would fail after 75 years. They predicted the crisis we have in Social Security.

Those continuing mistakes are either institutional bias or bad faith. More often it’s both.

ericynot1 wrote: Gosh, using water canons and teargas to seal a border 1,954 miles long. That ought to work great! I'm thinking we plant marijuana the entire length of the border so we get double the benefit from the water canons. - Hey Obama: How Turkey Closed Their Border

I’ve always known that intellectually you didn’t really understand my columns. But now I know that you don’t even read them before commenting.

Because I never advocated using water cannon or tear gas on the border. I advocated using them on DC politicians.

And this is how I doubly know you’re a liberal: Somehow you managed to work growing pot into the argument. We could be talking about the IMF, and a liberal, as an aside, would interject how making dope legal somehow fits into the solution.

Dosborne wrote: Isn't that how we closed the border after Reagans amnesty, and then again after 9/11 ? What....? Are you trying to say we didn't close the border either of those times ? Huh..... Interesting. Makes one wonder why so many were apparently ok with that. But expect it to happen now. - Hey Obama: How Turkey Closed Their Border

Listen: You were a great operating system in your day, but as your ellipses demonstrate, you just don’t have sufficient memory to process today’s newer, more powerful programs. You also have some incomplete sentences that appear to be related to your limited ability to process these complex functions.

I would like to tell you that there is some fix, some hardware upgrade, some patch that can help you. But no. You’re in the process of being replaced by an entirely different operating system. In fact, you were replaced a long time ago.

Too bad so many Lefties still run on DOS. I'm literally crying on a five inch floppy.

mdibrezzo wrote: Oh John Random, finance editor for TownHall. Oh I get it now. He sends us all those finance columnists who help us invest on Wall Street. Let me see, John Ransom, Townhall, Republican bias, Wall Street...whoa a lot of dots for a moron like me to tie together. Aw shucks, maybe you can draw a straight line between all of that and the destruction of America. I bet a lot of your readers, conservatives that they be, certainly can. Keep breezing salary man, but we know who you are. - Hey Obama: How Turkey Closed Their Border

Dude, I’m not even sure you know where you ARE, yet alone who I am. Judging by what you wrote you seem to be having a stroke or some other catastrophic event involving the left frontal lobe.

r27cj wrote: Mr. Ransom is semi retired. He does about one to two columns per week, and his Sunday column, which used to be a 'must read first', is now often recycled, previously run columns. Mr. Ransom moved from Colorado to California. Methinks the water there is effecting him. - Pitiful Community Racism

You’re just jealous because I live at the beach. I may be semi-retired—actually, I’m not—but you are semi—or fully—RETARDED, comrade. That’s apparently what the “r” stands for.

I do 5 to 6 columns every week, work 7 days a week, 365 days a year. I also do an hour of live radio every week day and I host one weekly TV show and have a daily show in production.

Yes, I would love to get back to writing my weekly comrade column every week. And I’m taking steps to be able to do so. Because the truth is, I enjoy writing it as much as anyone enjoys reading it.

Don't get me wrong: I'm the luckiest guy in the world. I get paid to do work I've doing my whole life for free. And I get to live on a boat in one of the world's greatest natural harbors.

MoonbatExterminator wrote: Profits are the corporate equivalent of a paycheck. Without them, there is no income. Without income, there is nothing to tax, nothing to buy new plant and equipment, and nothing to pay new employees.Unfortunately too few of us understand this truth. - Clinton Promises World Without Profits

DoctorRoy wrote: We've had socialism in America for a long time. The question is will it continue to be socialism for the politically connected select few or socialism for all. You all can probably guess who will prevail on this one. - Clinton Promises World Without Profits

Seriously? You’re trying to argue that there is a type of socialism that somehow kicks the select few to the curb and serves everyone?

Give me one example of a socialist country where the select few aren't better off than everyone else? Don’t manipulate the system to serve their own needs at the expense of everyone else?

C4L wrote: when will mr. ransom tell his readers about his own participation in these wars? I just think people who promote something so much ought to participate in what is it - What Do You Call a War by Any Other Name? Defeat

I spent my 38^th birthday in boot camp at Naval Station Great Lakes as U.S. soldiers occupied Baghdad. The social highlight of boot camp was when they stopped everything to announce that we had killed Saddam’s sons. We pulled out the TV and got to watch news reports about it, including photos of their dead faces.

We applauded. We were proud of our country. Some of us still are. We recoil in horror that liberals and libertarians gave up in Iraq what was hard won by soldiers.

Liberals seem to think that because at times the war was fought foolishly, and sometimes fought for crass reasons—as wars always are—that it wasn’t worth it. These are the same discredited arguments that foolish people used against the crusade to end slavery during the Civil War.

War is terrible. But the firebombing of Dresden, where bomber pilots could smell the burning flesh from the ground up in the air, doesn’t obscure the benefits of getting rid of Hitler.

So, yes, I served honorably in the Navy and received a meritorious service medal. Few of us in the military get to serve in combat. In fact, I was too old to join the infantry in the Army or in the Marines, which would have been my preference. I claim no status as a hero, or nor do I claim that any honor is due me.

I will say however that our country is doing a grave disservice to the 500,000 sailors, soldiers and airmen who have been continuously at war for over a decade now. That goes for the intelligence contractors and private military contractors who also have done America’s heavy lifting in war. Some of these people are my friends. And I'm resentful of liberals like you who trivialize their service as a war on a bumper sticker.

So Comrade C4, what have you done to secure world peace? You ready to give up your IPhone for the cause? Or are you just another liberal Kennedy hypocrite?

Ortheadnew wrote: Hello, I'm 75 years old. I've worked union jobs and non-union jobs. Believe me, for the worker, unions are better. If the unions continue to decline and eventually disappear, the workers in the USA will become nothing more than slaves. Members of unions enjoy higher pay and a say in working conditions such as working hours, which seem to be in the news lately. Workers at Walmart and other service and retail establishments are upset because their hours not only vary from day to day on the weekly schedule, but also change from day to day at the whim of some scheduler. In many cases, that scheduler is a computer program. -- Bill Moore - Scrap Labor Day for 9/11 Day

Workers in the United States have never been slaves, except of course in the instance of true slavery, which I mentioned above. Unions have never occupied a place of honor in American history in the same way that they have in Europe. It’s impossible for Americans to understand how deeply rooted class and class consciousness is in the European experience, still.

The aristocratic system never existed in America. It did rule in Europe. Unions were a response to two things: 1) the devaluing of human labor in the wake of the industrial and machine revolution and 2) the lack of universal suffrage under aristocratic regimes.

These injustices were experienced by fathers and grandfathers who are still alive in Europe-- or at least they live in the memory of the current generation. There is a legacy there that will take some generations to fade away.

Unions in fact are medieval and feudal institutions that were recycled for modern times. They result in a feudal system where the top bands together with the bottom against the creation of a broad middle, just exactly as socialism does. It's aristocracy by other means.

DoctorRoy wrote: See this is what I'm talking about and have always talked about. This ban has been in place for over 40 years and you blame the Democrats? What about the six years from 2001 to 2007 when the GOP controlled the White House and both Houses of Congress. Seems to me that is plenty of time to change anything you didn't like. - The Post Obama Recovery Begins Here

The oil export ban made sense back then because we weren’t pulling an additional two million barrels a day out of the ground at home as we are now. We also have the capacity to produce enough oil to be totally self-sufficient. If we released the oil into world markets now it would crack the OPEC, BRIC domination of prices and supply. Previously we weren’t producing enough oil to do that.

NRMLUNIT wrote: Adding jobs every month instead of losing them at the rate of 750,000 EACH month under Bush is not hard to understand. - The Post Obama Recovery Begins Here

We didn’t lose 750,000 jobs under George W. Bush every month. In fact, the country set record low unemployment numbers under Bush twice. And unlike the Obama mirage with unemployment appearing to go down, under Bush the labor force participation rate went up, so unemployment really went down. Today unemployment appears to be going down only because fewer people are choosing to look for work because they are so discouraged.

Part of the problem is that liberals are trying to sell the American people a load of crap that they pretend is fudge.

Most polls peg Obama’s approval rating on the economy in the low 40 to high 30 percent area. Ask them what they don’t understand. Don’t ask me.

... I cringe whenever people state that melting icebergs won't raise sea level (they will) and ... "

I remember seeing an elementary science school experiment measuring the water level of a beaker of water with an ice cube and the same beaker water level when the ice cube had melted. The level was the same after the ice had melted.

I remember being told that ice expands when it freezes and contracts when it melts, that the liquid water an ice cube displaces is the same as the amount displaced when it melts because the mass is the same.

So there is no change in level when ice melts.

Water is a very unusual substance even though we take it for granted. It exhibits things that run counter to what is expected.

So I did a little internet search "water level when ice melts" and as expected there are many many, too many to be counted explanations as to why water level is the same when ice melts. Here's one explanation found:

http://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae389.cfm

Then I read again what was posted from this same fellow in the same paragraph:

It always troubles me to see posters make statements regarding physics that they only partially understand.

And I ask myself, Who is this guy?

And I answer to myself, I really don't want to know!

I agree, AGW appears to be horse hockey.
But . . .

Floating ice cubes affect water levels one way.
ice volume < water volume, no real rise.

Mountains of ice on land that melt into a body of water affect water levels differently. More akin to run-off during a flood.

proving the point of the article about posters and knowledge of science; Often just innocent mistakes versus scientists who know better, who persist in AGW tripe.

It is amusing that poor John Ransom does not seem to understand the very argument that makes him “cringe”... Not to say that any of the rest of us have not found ourselves making the same type of mistake, probably on numerous occasions.

I hate to preach to the choir, but... The best data from satellite imagery indicates that there has been no worldwide warming trend for nearly two decades despite rising CO2 levels. AGW theory depends on the concept of “positive feedbacks” where a small amount of warming from CO2 causes an increase in the amount of water vapor contained in the atmosphere. Water vapor is the primary “greenhouse gas” that the theory postulates will cause actual “global warming”.

It is becoming more and more obvious that CO2 in the trace amounts found in our atmosphere has little if any effect on the amount of water vapor absorbed by the atmosphere. In fact it is starting to seem likely that CO2’s alleged cooling effect in the stratosphere may be stronger than its alleged warming effects in the troposphere. The observational data demonstrates only that CO2 in the trace amounts we currently have in the atmosphere has little if any predictable effects on the temperature or worldwide weather trends.

???

. . . I cringe whenever people state that melting icebergs won't raise sea level (they will) . . .

Do ice cubes in your Coke cause the liquid level rise if they melt before you get to drink it? (they won't)(water expands when it freezes, contracts when it melts)

Floating ice cubes affect water levels one way. ice volume < water volume, no real rise.

The density of ice is less than water, especially of salt water. A floating ice cube/berg will displace a volume of seawater equal to the weight of the ice cube/berg. When the frozen fresh water of the iceberg melts, because it is less dense than the heavier saltwater of the sea, that freshwater will occupy more volume than what the iceberg displaced.

Still, if you took all the floating ice bobbing around on the great briny seas of the world, the total sea level increase would be... 4 centimeters.

4 centimeters!?!

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.