Undocumented Intelligence wrote: Ransom wants to make climate change concern all about being liberal. Actually, it's all about being rational and not blinded–as Ransom is--by an ideology that is highly inconvenienced by an overwhelming body of expert scientific evidence. -Combat Global Warming: Be Gay for a Day
Dear Comrade Undoc,
Please note that the Ransom Style Book will no longer recognize the phrase Hooverville Follies. Just as the Associated Press has axed the term Illegal Immigrant, we have replaced the term Hooverville Follies with a more apt phrase: Undocumented Intelligence. Thank you.
Look, I’m not the one who declares every weather event a product of climate change. What I object to is that many scientists and most members of the media write ill-informed opinion pieces that they wrap in the fish paper of scientific discourse. And then if one disagrees with them, they pretend like we’re just too stupid to understand basic science.
For example, last year I wrote about scientists who were trying to make the case that polar bear cannibalism was more prevalent than previously understood – thanks to our friend, global warming. The basis of these “scientific” assertions was 3 (three) pictures that were taken “from the decks of ecotourism and research boats anchored a few hundred yards away.”
Getting past the fact that the scientist in question was the guy who waaaaay undercounted polar bears, setting off the “Oh my God. Those cute polar bears will ALL die!” hysteria, I don’t think you can actually make a scientific case of increased polar bear cannibalism without an underpinning of science.
But that doesn’t stop Global Warming Islamists from argue on behalf of utterly stupid science.
I don’t doubt that the earth is warmer than at some time in the past; and there likely is some man-caused component to it. But the dire predictions, based on flawed models of the alarmists, which have been going on three decades now, frankly have not come to fruition. It’s time for the global warming crowd to admit that there is something about their science that they have fundamentally wrong.
As my 5th grade science teacher, Ms. Gallaghan, would have recognized, three pictures of polar predation makes a hypotheses not a conclusion.
But too many scientists and practically all the media don’t recognize the difference between hypotheses and facts. I’m guessing the Associated Press has outlawed the use of the word hypotheses as too offensive because it calls their religion into question.
Remember: Never let science interfere with a good pro-global warming opinion.
Global Warming Islamist wrote: Ransom makes much of "the most accurate map ever (!) of how vegetation could change in the region.” Yet he never points out that the actual paper makes no such claim. The Daily Mail added that hyperbole. -Combat Global Warming: Be Gay for a Day
Dear Comrade Global Warming Islamist,
Please note that the Ransom Style Book will no longer recognize the phrase Hillinger, or Quiet Reason or any other AKA used by you. Just as the Associated Press has axed the term Islamist- pun we have replaced your handle with a more apt phrase: Global Warming Islamist. Thank you.
I didn’t have to mention that the paper makes no claim to be “the most accurate map ever!”
The Daily Mail, one of your propaganda rags, does it for them.
And here’s the question that I always ask you Islamist: Since you yourself have admitted that the newspaper inserted the hyperbole, why don ‘t you condemn the hyperbole?
It undermines your case by allowing people like me to point out the ridiculousness of the mainstream media when it comes to global warming. They huff and puff, taking things out of context and generally misinform people what the scientific conclusions mean.
And that’s not the worst of it. You then allow the conversation to be hijacked by ALGORE, Inc. who is nothing but a con man and whose only interest is in making money off of hysteria- all because he couldn’t be president.
Think of this: He lost to George W. Bush. You have to live with THAT.
Until you rid yourself of these fools, you’ll be a loser. And an Islamist.
You practice a religion, not science.
Myer2 wrote: I see you have a much better grasp of science than all the people who actually know something. What changes in the "universe" make it hot or cold on our planet? The av temp is higher today than anytime in recorded history despite the "snow in central Europe" -Combat Global Warming: Be Gay for a Day
Dear Comrade Number 2,
No, it’s not actually hotter now than anytime in recorded history.
“Our results indicate that global mean temperature for the decade 2000–2009 has not yet exceeded the warmest temperatures of the early Holocene (5000 to 10,000 yr B.P.),” writes researchers from Harvard and Oregon State.
I understand your confusion though because the study quoted above was used by the media to say: “We’re right. Pass the Carbon Tax! Ban automobiles. Ban Big Gulps.”
But, as usual their hyperbole has turned to hyperventilation. As the site RealClimate.org acknowledges: “This discussion needs to be conducted in a sober and unexcited manner; it does not help to overburden the [debate] with symbolic meaning. In some media reports, [some data] has even been hyped as “a pillar of the Kyoto protocol” …or as “proof that humans are warming the Earth”. This is a serious misunderstanding of the scientific meaning of these data.
And before you send email or make comments that point out that RealClimate,org and I have disagreements about global warming, I’ll make the simple observation that we can disagree about some things and still agree about others.
I agree with them that you guys aren’t sober.
Marie150 wrote: Ransom please talk to Paul Ryan. He said the only way we have right now to get rid of OBAMACARE is for the people to stand up and demand it. That is not going to happen. He is wimping out. - Obama's Legacy! Now with 32 Percent Higher Costs!
Dear Marie,
Mr. Ryan and I aren’t on speaking terms.
It’s not that we’re mad at each other. I just don’t rate high enough to know him or even have a personal conversation with the man. Not that I would anyway.
I let my column do the talking.
Jsullivan154 wrote: Marie do you not get it? Your right party on so many issues is only traveling into oblivion? Ryan wants to keep his job along w/Ransom spreading hatred and misinformation which is ok on a righty websites but in the real world real people know thru social media which by the way why is it that the great deregulators are trying to complicate free speech Hmmm? Move center or Move on? - Obama's Legacy! Now with 32 Percent Higher Costs!
Dear Comrade J,
Yeah, yeah, we heard that about Democrats in 2004 too, that they were headed to oblivion. And about Republicans in 2008.
Don’t get too excited about Obama’s victory over a guy with all the charisma of plain yogurt left out too long.
In the real world I love political campaigns.
See ya in 2014, comrade.
olewis wrote: Mr. Ransom, since it was deemed a tax, and did not originate in the congress as all taxes are by law supposed to, but in the senate, is there any chance it could be repealed on that fact? I read that somewhere the other day, the writer did not seem real hopeful on his own point. Or is that just wishful thinking on my part? - Obama's Legacy! Now with 32 Percent Higher Costs!
Dear Oh,
No, Allahpundit wrote about this at the time:
Just a quickie post to debunk an argument that we’re already seeing in threads and e-mails: Namely, doesn’t Article I, section 7 of the Constitution say that all bills that raise revenue must originate in the House? And didn’t ObamaCare pass the Senate before it passed the House? And doesn’t that in turn mean that our nifty new health care “tax” was passed according to unconstitutional procedures?
Unless I’m missing something, no. The bill that passed the Senate wasn’t technically a Senate bill. Reid took a bill that had already passed the House, stripped out the provisions to turn it into a “shell bill,” and then inserted the text of ObamaCare to get around this requirement. The bill that passed the Senate was H.R.3590, which initially had to do with tax breaks for military homeowners. And yes, they’ve used the “shell bill” strategy before. In fact, the conservative opinion today specifically mentioned Article I, section 7 at one point while raising no objection to Reid’s sleight of hand.
But there is still hope over legal action.
Our contributor from Cato, Michael Cannon- the evil, right-wing mastermind of all things healthcare, according to Politico- has discovered an oddity about ACA that may invalidate the whole law.
In short, the IRS has no authority to tax where state exchanges have not been set up, but that is exactly what the IRS intends to do, Cannon argues.
You can read his paper here.
Michael Bowler (formerly Michael) wrote: Has it occurred to you that they are not idiots, that the problems that are arising from the current policies are expected, intentional and right on track to achieve the goals they really have? - Creative Use of Jobs as Prop in Obama Comedy Hour
Dear Michael,
Well certainly their plans are evil and nefarious. But that doesn’t disallow them from being idiots too.
I stand by my assessment.
adrianvance wrote: Go to Dov.gov and in the search box input "Table A-15." Then, go down to line "U-6" and you will see the real unemployment rater for America, about 15%. See The Two Minute Conservative and when you speak ladies will swoon and liberal gentlemen will weep. - Obama's Foolish, Inexplicable and Predictable Economy
Dear Comrade Adrian,
Seriously. Go get your own marketing methods and stop squatting on my pages.
Besides: You’re economically illiterate- even if it only takes you two minutes.
Real unemployment isn’t U-6. Mike Shedlock explains what real unemployment is every month when the BLS publishes the employment situation report.
Shedlock explains this month that “Table A-15 is where one can find a better approximation of what the unemployment rate really is. Notice I said ‘better’ approximation not to be confused with ‘good’ approximation.”
You are now dismissed.
OHPerry wrote: “Despite lower demand and much higher inventories oil stands at $95 per barrel. The price of oil could easily reach $140 per barrel with even modest, sub-par 3 percent growth in our GDP. “ How does lack of demand and increased production make it easy for the price of oil to rise? - Obama's Foolish, Inexplicable and Predictable Economy
Dear Comrade Oh,
When the Federal Reserve injects $85 billion a month into the financial markets the money has to go somewhere.
Guess where?
In part, the money goes to oil prices.
That’s why despite anemic GDP growth of sub-2 percent, oil prices remain over $90 per barrel. If the economy started growing- here or in India or in China- we could easily see prices go to $140.
Adendulk wrote: John; You are going from bad to worse you need a vacation from your vacation and SwiferBoatCaptn388 wrote: He needs to take one giant step away from the stupid juice. -DC Misses Another Layup
Dear Comrades SwiferBoatCaptn and Your Mate Gilligan,
Really? That’s all you have?
You guys should run for congress. You’d be a big step up for Democrats.
Ericynot wrote: I wonder if Ransom, who so dislikes electric cars (especially the Chevy Volt), has seen the news (and attendant 16% stock price rise) from Tesla Motors this morning. - The Gun Rights of the Inbred, Snaggle-Toothed Alabamans
Dear Comrade Eric,
I don’t hate electric cars. I think the Chevy Volt makes no sense- not for the company, not for the consumer. And so far the financial, sales and historical facts are on my side.
Tesla? I spoke about it on the radio this week.
Buy one if you can afford to. Buy the stock if you like it too.
But I wouldn’t call a company trading at ten times sales an investment though.
For most investors, it’s more like speculation.
At least one writer at the Motley Fool likes Tesla, however:
Tesla has achieved the intended production capacity of 400 units a week (~20,000 units annually). With battery prices falling, Tesla’s production cost will decrease significantly over the medium to long-term. As a result, the company’s customer base will increase steadily. Gradually, Tesla will become the first company in the world to offer an electric car at an affordable price. Lower costs and higher sales will contribute to increased profitability.
Tesla stock price is reaping the advantages of accomplishing milestones set out by the management of company. When companies do that, it gives investors a sense of confidence.
GM should try it. Better yet…Obama.
Either way, Tesla is an investment opportunity I’m OK with missing. But still if they do well, I’ll be happy for them. I love new technology that works.
smokindave wrote: I'm wondering when the gun issue became a "race" issue? Why all the misplaced anger and outrage? Does the Representative not read the paper? Or watch the news? One could make the argument that the the two largest groups of Democratic voters-the black community and women-need the protection afforded by legally purchased firearms more than any other groups-yet these proposals seek to deny them that basic protection. It's not a black/white thing-unless that's how you plan to keep your seat in the House-by fanning the flames of a nonexistent issue. - The Gun Rights of the Inbred, Snaggle-Toothed Alabamans
Dear Smokin’,
Representative Mitchell says we have him all wrong. He’s not a racist, he’s just “racial.”
And he seems to agree with you:
“Anything that I have said that was taken as racist is a misconception,” Mitchell said, in a recent interview.
“If somebody got irked that’s on them. What I was saying is if my kin folk 400 years ago had guns, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. I’m in favor of guns and encourage everyone I know to have them because the last time we didn’t have them we were abused.”
So there.
That’s it for this week,
V/r,
JR