Page 27 of 228 FirstFirst ... 1725262728293777127 ... LastLast
Results 261 to 270 of 2276

Thread: OT: Politics

  1. #261
    Quote Originally Posted by d0cwho View Post
    Thanks for this. I'll take a look.

    - - - Updated - - -



    The article posted by the Federalist shows we have hit rock bottom...
    there is no bottom.
    Last edited by cockerpunk; 11-30-2017 at 02:56 PM.
    social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.

  2. #262
    Insider
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    2,303
    Though I disagree with the DNC position on a few key social points, the republican party has done an excellent job turning me away. It's not even a party of fiscal opportunity, it's a party that is doing a damn good job killing the middle class.
    They have been incompetent boobs since GWB. The least fiscally conservative, conservative since....ever? They just became the bloat party in my opinion. Turned me away right when I started flirting with conservative ideas, and shot me straight into the libertarian party really.

    Though, I did read a critic on the NYT and a WP position on the affect of the tax cut, and one was rather damning. They pay $17k in taxes on their house, and in the end they still end up saving $1000 on the standard deduction. Totally countering the NYT position. So there might be some opportunistic reporting and conclusions. I don't think it will kill the middle class. The reply to everything the GOP has done fiscally for 50 years has been "It will kill the middle class." Yet it keeps growing back, so...

    If they were smart, they would have done a bunch of simple and clear tax cuts instead of trying to ram a full Las Vegas Buffet of them at one huge unrecognizable mess, but that is how they get in the stupid shit. Gotta have it.

    Worst political class ever. We really need to stop it. Term limits are a good start. Tar and Feathers should be an option IMHO.
    Josh Coray
    J4 Paintball
    Lead Design
    www.j4paintball.com

  3. #263
    Insider
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    2,303
    Hillary would have kept the ship stable.
    The depth of her organization was flat out amazing. Her ties to other countries, the power ties and money ties were stunning. I think she would have been powerful.

    On the flip side, there was a huge deaf spot that can't be ignored. And those power ties came with strings.

    She simply didn't seem to know a huge portion of her party, nor the rest of the US, and was reacting to a small elite group who had her strings.

    Susan Surandon is pretty sure she would have us in all out war by now, though I doubt it.

    And the media would have gone along with whatever she did or said - as ugly as trump is, I am happy the media won't allow, shoot, make up some stuff, just to reign in the power.

    Both bad choices. Burn both parties. Start over. Kill the 2 party system. 50% of the US votes independant, fills the middle, and would be far more rational than this lot.
    Josh Coray
    J4 Paintball
    Lead Design
    www.j4paintball.com

  4. #264
    Quote Originally Posted by pbjosh View Post
    They have been incompetent boobs since GWB. The least fiscally conservative, conservative since....ever? They just became the bloat party in my opinion. Turned me away right when I started flirting with conservative ideas, and shot me straight into the libertarian party really.

    Though, I did read a critic on the NYT and a WP position on the affect of the tax cut, and one was rather damning. They pay $17k in taxes on their house, and in the end they still end up saving $1000 on the standard deduction. Totally countering the NYT position. So there might be some opportunistic reporting and conclusions. I don't think it will kill the middle class. The reply to everything the GOP has done fiscally for 50 years has been "It will kill the middle class." Yet it keeps growing back, so...

    If they were smart, they would have done a bunch of simple and clear tax cuts instead of trying to ram a full Las Vegas Buffet of them at one huge unrecognizable mess, but that is how they get in the stupid shit. Gotta have it.

    Worst political class ever. We really need to stop it. Term limits are a good start. Tar and Feathers should be an option IMHO.
    GWB wasn't fiscally conservative. He cut taxes while fighting two wars on debt, signing off on an expansion of medicare that was also paid for by debt, and helping create "No Child Left Behind" which was an expansion of the federal government. The country doesn't need a tax cut right now. Markets are awash in capital and the economy is humming along. If anything a tax increase to help start paying off the debt to keep upward pressure off interest rates would be the best idea. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to fix the tax code and simplify it.

  5. #265
    the "both sides are equally bad" narrative is bullshit.

    hillary would have made a fine president. a corporatist like obama before her, but she would have kept the country going on a good path, and we'd all be alright.

    we are now in danger of losing the free press, women losing healthcare opportunities, us all losing net neutrality, there is a good chance that putin has leverage over the president, we could literally be in a nuclear war with north korea at any time, the state department is gutted, the attorney general of the USA has repeatedly purjured himself, the president is defending a LITERAL pedophile, millions will loose healthcare under the new tax bill, millions of poor and working class people will have there taxes go up, academic research in this country will come to grinding halt if the house version passes, 9 million children have already been kicked off there medical insurance ....

    yeah, man, it was great when a national crisis was the fact that obama returned a marine's salute with a coffee cup in the other hand.

    jesus fucking christ.

    "burning it all down" sounds great in an internet post, it really does.

    but the reality of what burning it all down means? it means burning it all down.
    Last edited by cockerpunk; 11-30-2017 at 03:15 PM.
    social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.

  6. #266
    Insider
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    2,303
    Just out this week:

    Asia-Pac. J. Atmos. Sci., 53(4), 511-518, 2017 pISSN 1976-7633 / eISSN 1976-7951
    DOI:10.1007/s13143-017-0070-z

    Satellite Bulk Tropospheric Temperatures as a Metric for Climate Sensitivity

    John R. Christy and Richard T. McNider
    Earth System Science Center, The University of Alabama in Huntsville, Alabama, USA
    (Manuscript received 9 June 2017; accepted 14 September 2017)
    © The Korean Meteorological Society and Springer 2017
    https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpr..._mcnider-1.pdf

    The current tropospheric temperature trend from 1979-2016
    is influenced by large, natural, interannual fluctuations which
    if removed reveal a trend about a third less positive than is
    directly measured (+0.155 down to +0.095 K dec−1
    ). This
    underlying trend is essentially the same as calculated in CM94
    (+0.09 K dec−1
    ) when only 15 years were available and who
    determined the underlying trend at that time needed adjustment
    upward, from −0.04 to +0.09 K dec−1
    . We find that the influence
    of the tropical oceans and mid-latitude SST indices on
    the temperature trend has been essentially zero since 1979, so
    that removing the cooling in the early part of the record from
    the eruptions of El Chichon and Mt. Pinatubo dominates the
    adjustment.
    The assessment of tropospheric climate sensitivity from the
    calculation of the underlying trend above requires significant
    assumptions. If we assume, among other things, that the
    impact of the net of natural external and internal forcing
    variations has not influenced the observed trend and that
    anthropogenic forcing as depicted in the average of the IPCC
    AR5 models is similar to that experienced by the Earth, then
    observations suggest the tropospheric transient climate response
    (TTCR) is 1.10 ± 0.26 K. This central estimate is likely less
    than half that of the average of the 102 simulations of the
    CMIP-5 RCP4.5 model runs also examined here (2.31 ± 0.20).

    If this result is borne out, it suggests many explanations
    including the possibility that that the average feedbacks of the
    CMIP-5 generation of climate models are likely skewed to
    favor positive over negative relative to what is present in the
    actual Earth system.
    As noted, we cannot totally discount that
    natural variability or errors in forcing might also account for
    the discrepancy between modeled and observed TTCR. However,
    given the facts that the processes controlling the uptake
    of energy by oceans and the transfer of heat in the tropical
    atmosphere are largely parameterized, it is not scientifically
    justified to dismiss model error, possibly substantial, as one
    source of the discrepancy.
    Acknowledgements. This research was supported under the
    US Department of Energy, DE-SC0012638.
    We thank the
    reviewers and editor for their helpful suggestions.
    Edited by: Kyong-Hwan Seo
    Josh Coray
    J4 Paintball
    Lead Design
    www.j4paintball.com

  7. #267
    so still no increase in TSI.

    k. you still lose.
    social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.

  8. #268
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    1,581
    Most people I know pick a few key points and vote based on those only. I am somewhat guilty of the same. In fact, I'd be willing to bet if you asked most registered voters about the differences in the 2 parties, they'd probably mention things such as policies on guns, marriage, abortion and maybe the environment. Beyond that you'd probably get a lot of nothing. So people pick 1 category and cleave unwaveringly to it, not entertaining much beyond. Hillary is anti-gun... she's out. Trump clearly won because the novelty of having the first orange president was more appealing than having the 1st woman president.

  9. #269
    Quote Originally Posted by ironyusa View Post
    Trump clearly won because the novelty of having the first orange president was more appealing than having the 1st woman president.
    This made my day.

  10. #270
    Insider
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    2,303
    If we can't agree on what 1 paper says, I'm afraid we'll never be able to agree on what the entire corpus of literature says.
    I don't care how Santer wants to parse it, play semantics or say it was one variable over another. He is trying to justify models over data.

    The result is the models over warm, I think you can see that now. That is not changed even if his paper said it was from too many people loving MLP and that is a forcing. Just look above at my reply to Steve, the large numbers are changing every year, and how the 2007 report of the energy balance, the 2009, and 2014 energy balance all go together show the margin of error is in the tens of Wm^2.

    HOW he says it happens isn't an issue I care about, because he is trying to wave the elephants trunk*.

    THAT it does is my point. The HOW, as he understands it, is immaterial, a hang up, because it kinda sounds like my kid telling me how she ended up jumping off the dresser and hurting her head and how it is her brothers fault (real life example). I am not going to try and drive down to the factors of who left which toy on the floor when Santer was making the wrong jump to begin with, and is trying to correct it however he can because Reality, the Empirical Evidence, bit him in the ass and now he has to figure a way to massage the models factors to match the fact that the Earth didn't warm up anywhere close to what he has been screaming at us about the amount the sky is falling. Or warming. I have seen this all over in the computer models. Shoot, there was a note from a programmer in the original GISS stuff that said to use the aerosol or dust values as an adjustment if warming doesn't fall in place, from the Harry_readme.txt files. Just adjust this one variable. And that is before we get to how they 'Hid the Decline'.

    In the end, it is an admission that the models show too much warming. All of them.

    Trying to refute forcing vs variables is just trying to argue which chair to place where on the Titanic. I am not going to waste my time on it. Arguing HOW it sunk doesn't change that it sunk.

    Models failed. Empirical data falsified it. HOW they want to explain it matters less than the fact, for this argument, the models need to be improved.

    Or, do you think the models are correct?

    Do you still think the models correlate at 0.99?

    If we want to have a discussion of how to improve the models, I am all in, and will go through that paper tooth and comb with you. Sounds like fun actually. But until it can be accepted the models failed then the problems of why can't be addressed.

    It is like trying to discuss how to bury a dead dog, and the reply is "Well, maybe we can change what it eats."


    * = https://www.johndcook.com/blog/2011/...t-an-elephant/

    - - - Updated - - -

    so still no increase in TSI.
    You obviously didn't read it.
    Josh Coray
    J4 Paintball
    Lead Design
    www.j4paintball.com

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •