Posted by Tina
They stepped up the security at the Oscars tonight. After the big black stars matter flap I guess they thought there might be trouble. So far I haven’t heard any reports of protesters or violence of any kind. The biggest protest was made by some of the stars who wore gun control bracelets. This was likely supposed to be the theme for tonight’s ceremonies but it got derailed by the black thang that went on this week. Is it or is it not a problem?
In other news, Hillary doesn’t want anyone to take pictures of her boarding a plane, Trump says he doesn’t know anything about the KKK, Cruz suggests Trumps tax returns might show “extensive dealings” with the Mafia and a couple of papers link Trump to George Soros. The high point of the day was reading that Michael Mann has joined climate “deniers” and finally agreed that there’s been no “global warming” since 1998. But then I read that Venezuelans can’t find bread to buy and all of the men in an Iranian village were hanged for drug offenses.
I’m afraid if I continued with “other news” we’ll all be depressed on a Sunday evening. I’d just as soon call it a day. Night guys…sleep well.
The disgruntled black actors who weren’t nominated ostensibly because of their skin color are free to hold their own award show.
They can have little Trayvon statuettes and can modify the award categories to include Best Director of Protests and Best Supporting Thug.
In fact they already do have one award ceremony that could be expanded to include movies…the BET awards.
I thought the academy was way off base when The Color Purple didn’t receive a single nomination. I was very happy to see The Help receive 11 nominations with five wins. Denzel Washington has two Oscars for roles in Glory and Training Day but he’s been in several outstanding movies that I think deserved consideration. They contained violence, however so maybe that plays a part…it isn’t as arty. The Oscars are a mystery, beloved entertainer Barbra Streisand’s, Yentl, didn’t get a single nomination…perhaps because she was determined that a woman would win. She wrote, produced, directed, starred in and wrote the music…and that tactic p’d off the Hollywood establishment.
Hollywood is a strange mix of power, politics, and talent.
J. Soden, your racism is showing.
Chris, your ignorance is showing.
No, what’s ignorant is associating black actors with “thugs” and expecting no one to call you on your blatant racism.
When the Lefties accuse those who do not agree with them of racism, you know they have no argument left.
Love it when I can get steam to come outta either Chris or Dewey’s ears!
J. Soden:
“When the Lefties accuse those who do not agree with them of racism, you know they have no argument left.”
What other argument is there against what you said? You said, about black actors forming their own awards show:
“They can have little Trayvon statuettes and can modify the award categories to include Best Director of Protests and Best Supporting Thug.”
That is racist, plan and simple. There is nothing else that needs to be said. The “thug” reference was an unprovoked, unnecessary slur on the black acting community. How dare you? What is wrong with you, that this thought would even pop into your brain?
That was racist. Own it.
Tina: “Michael Mann has joined climate “deniers” and finally agreed that there’s been no “global warming” since 1998.”
Highly misleading, as usual when it comes to this subject.
Climate scientists have been debating over the existence of a pause or slowdown for years. What they haven’t really been debating over is whether the existence of such a thing disproves AGW entirely. The position of so-called “deniers” is that it does disprove AGW, so to lump Mann in with those who reject AGW entirely is dishonest.
Furthermore, Mann knew that conservatives would misrepresent this new study, but said he couldn’t let that interfere with actual scientific work. From Scientific American:
Meanwhile, skeptics have seized on the mismatch to suggest that global warming stopped in 1998. Almost all scientists disagree with this. But there are questions about the rate of warming. Most recently, the NOAA study suggested that rising temperatures never even slowed.
NOT WORRIED ABOUT FUELING SKEPTICISM
The NOAA study’s release last summer coincided with a science meeting in Colorado where scientists were discussing how to engineer models to accurately predict climate changes in the coming decades on a regional scale. To do so, they would first have to figure out why models had not projected the global warming slowdown.
With the NOAA study’s release, there was this perception that, “Oh, there’s been no slowdown in warming,” said Gerald Meehl, a climate scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research and a co-author of the new commentary.
The scientists decided to counter the narrative in the boxing ring of academia. That is, a science journal.
“It is possible that the scientific disagreement could spill over into the skeptic blogosphere. But that is not reason enough to sweep the slowdown under the rug,”
said Michael Mann, a climatologist at Pennsylvania State University and a co-author.
“As scientists, we must go where the evidence takes us, we can’t allow our worries about climate contrarians and how they might seek to misrepresent our work to dictate what we do and do not publish,” he said.
The blowback against the NOAA study has been some time coming. Tom Karl, lead author of the NOAA study and director of NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information, and his colleagues compared warming over the past 15 years with the long-term temperature trend between 1950 and 1998 (a 48-year stretch).
But scientists say Karl’s comparison of a 15-year stretch with a 48-year stretch was somewhat arbitrary. It is meant to answer the question, has global warming stopped in the long run? The answer to that is a resounding “no,” they say.”
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/did-global-warming-slow-down-in-the-2000s-or-not/
Conservative bloggers have attempted to paint climate scientists as a lockstep cult where disagreement is not tolerated. The debate over the pause shows that this is not true. But what scientists are not debating is whether or not anthropogenic global warming is happening. There is no scientific controversy over that, there is only a political controversy. Intentionally misleading people over what scientists are saying makes the work of actual science harder.
Well Chris wag your finger all you want but it is these very people, who have been sweeping information under the rug, hiding it, and lying about it for a couple of decades who have been “highly misleading. Some have been propagandists! They have refused to utilize the scientific method, instead labeling qualified scientists who disagree and question as deniers. And they have tried to control and win the argument by controlling what is published and by “consensus” that wasn’t legitimate.
In the process they have cost people jobs, they have burdened people wit unnecessary taxes, and they have indoctrinated an entire generation (Or more) of kids who blindly believe things as fact that have not been proven. That they have often done this for personal gain is criminal. It amounts to gross fraud and abuse if you ask me.
“Conservative bloggers have attempted to paint climate scientists as a lockstep cult where disagreement is not tolerated. ”
Conservative bloggers don’t have to attempt to paint climate scientists as a lockstep cult for several obvious reasons: 1. a group of them painted themselves with the consensus rap, 2. Not all scientists agree, something conservative bloggers have been excoriated for having the gall to say, and 3. Disagreement HAS NOT been tolerated by the very people you defend!
What I wrote is simple truth. Mann now admits to the pause. NOW they have to find a way to explain it and “make it fit” in their position. I’m sure they will come up with something and it’s bound to be hilarious.
“Saving the planet” is a political hammer and fundraising tool. Actual concern for the planet and ALL living things was left behind long ago when the word conservation was dumped and substituted with ever changing labels…global cooling, global warming, and climate change being a the most prominent.
“What I wrote is simple truth. Mann now admits to the pause.”
That is NOT all you wrote, and you know it. This is what you wrote:
“Michael Mann has joined climate “deniers” and finally agreed that there has been no “global warming” since 1998.”
As the Scientific American article makes clear, that is not Mann’s position. His position is that global warming has slowed since then, not stopped. And this is a position held not by “deniers,” but by many scientists who accept AGW.
Your belief that climate scientists have lied does not give you ethical license to lie about their positions in return.
If your arguments challenging the positions of these scientists were strong, you would not have to misrepresent their positions.
But you consistently do, because you don’t actually know what their positions *are.* You don’t read scientific studies; you get your information second hand from conservative sources. These sources misrepresent the views of scientists, and you parrot those misrepresentations. Then when you are called on it, you shrug and say “Who cares, they lie too.”
“global cooling”
The fact that you would even bring this up is enough to show you have no idea what you are talking about. Global cooling was never, ever a widely accepted belief in the scientific community. Those who want to cast doubt on science today cherry-pick a few articles published in the 70s warning of global cooling to basically say “Oh, those silly scientists have no idea what they’re talking about with all their fancy book learnin’,” ignoring the fact that even at the time global warming was more widely accepted than global cooling.
http://www.factcheck.org/2015/03/cruz-on-the-global-cooling-myth-and-galileo/
You have bought into several myths, lies and distortions while at the same time criticizing those who know better than you for doing the same. You are not qualified to have this conversation.
Chris: “His position is that global warming has slowed since then, not stopped.”
Duh! There has been no warming since then, hence, the perceived “slow down” for one who refuses to recognize natural warming and cooling patterns. One way or another the planet showed no warming during that period…my statement was NOT misleading.
“Global cooling was never, ever a widely accepted belief in the scientific community. ”
it was certainly hawked in the media and it also went unchallenged. The difference? Back in those days it was not politicized. that took al Gore and the UN both of which have become activists for AGW and both of which are invested in the monetary return for schlocking the fallacies and myths…as have many of the “published” scientists who wanted grant money, had signed on to the scam for that reason, and who participated in controlling what got published.
My positions have been political for the most part. My personal OPINION is that the natural cycles of the earth and the sun account for most of what happens and whatever contribution man makes is so minuscule it is barely worth mentioning. My position is also that American industry has spent a lot of money to greatly improve its “footprint” and should be acknowledged as an partner in conservation, but as always left activists need a villain for their causes and the oil and coal industries were perfect targets. There’s a reason the left coast in particular, which relies heavily on coal for electricity generation, does not look like cities in China…it’s because the coal industry has greatly improved emissions.
You are not qualified to judge whether I’m qualified…heck you aren’t even qualified to know when you’re being had.
“My positions have been political for the most part.”
Yes, I know. You don’t understand the science, and you admit you only know what the media tells you about it.
In other words, you dispute AGW because that is what other conservatives tell you to do.
Again, Mann did not say there has been no global warming since 1998, and that is not his position; he believes that some warming has occurred since then, just at a lower rate than before. Your statement that he said “there has been no global warming since 1998” was clearly a misrepresentation of his position.
“It was certainly hawked in the media and it also went unchallenged.”
No. Again, the majority of scientists at the time “global cooling” is cited as having made the news predicted warming, not cooling. So to say the idea of “global cooling” went unchallenged is preposterous. You simply have no idea what you are talking about.
“Yes, I know. You don’t understand the science…”
And you IMAGINE that you do. What a farce. The English major imagines he understands more than any of these scientists, some of whose written positions have made sense to me.
“and you admit you only know what the media tells you about it.”
NO! My information comes from sources who cite scientists in disagreement! My information also comes from sites that have exposed the lies and tricks found in the green political and scientific community. My position has been formed after long observation and evaluation. That’s a VERY big difference.
“the majority of scientists at the time “global cooling” is cited as having made the news predicted warming, not cooling.”
Sounds like revisionist history to me. There may well have been scientists who believed the opposite BUT THEY DID NOT MAKE THE NEWS. At least not in any significant main stream way. I was there; I remember. You were not and it’s arrogant to imagine you know better than I.
An ice age was predicted with the same scare tactic headlines. There just wasn’t a big political activist group at the time behind it. See a list of scare articles at WUWT and remember there was no internet at the time. We had PBS and just three networks, ABC, CBS, and NBC. CNN didn’t broadcast until 1980. Talk radio was centered around things like humor, book reviews, the arts and entertainment, and recipe ideas.
This is where politics plays into the warming fanaticism…politics and activism. Al Gore kicked it off with that ignorant book and activist organizations like Greenpeace jumped on the bandwagon to promote it. But it really kicked into gear when the UN saw an opportunity to control and tax at the level of “world government.”
I’m willing to go where the science takes us but I want solid science and political truth, not hype. I am not willing to be played for tax money and politicians picking winners and losers. I’m not willing to see the scientific community discredited with political games and opportunism. I’m not willing to have children brain washed.
Chris I don’t know why you act like such a contentious ass on this issue but I’d like you to know it’s incredibly annoying.
Readers who enjoy reading articles written by “skeptics” will enjoy The Current State of Climate Alarmism at the American Thinker. The authors website is here.
Tina you are wrong.
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/thick-melt.html
Also Exxon and other oil companies reported decades ago on their effect on Global warming.
But forget all that do you realize there was a massive carbon monoxide explosion over CA? Feb 25th? The cause unknown. Some say maybe a release before an earthquake but that is pure speculation.
NOAA captured it.
No Dewey I am not wrong but thanks for sharing.
Tina” The English major imagines he understands more than any of these scientists”
No, I believe the 97% of climate scientists who accept AGW understand more than the 3% who do not. That is rational. If I go to a hundred doctors and 97 of them recommend one procedure while only three of them recommend another, I am going to listen to the 97. That’s literally the opposite of arrogance, which is what you are accusing me of.
“My position has been formed after long observation and evaluation.”
And yet nearly every time you post one of your observations and evaluations on this topic here, you’re wrong. And when I prove you wrong, by showing that the scientists you’ve referenced never said what you claimed they said–which has happened multiple times–you ignore it and try to change the subject. This would indicate your evaluation sucks, because you’re unwilling to admit you are wrong even when faced with undeniable proof.
“There may well have been scientists who believed the opposite BUT THEY DID NOT MAKE THE NEWS.”
So what? Who cares? Are you saying science is irrelevant unless the media reports their findings accurately?
“I was there; I remember. You were not and it’s arrogant to imagine you know better than I.”
You are wrong about nearly every major historical event you lived through, from the Vietnam War all the way up to Iraq. It isn’t arrogant to respond to your “I was there, man” nonsense with documented facts; by that logic, no younger person could ever debate history with any older person. That’s preposterous.
An ice age was predicted with the same scare tactic headlines.”
By a minority of scientists with no widespread backing in the scientific community. The comparison to AGW, which is backed by nearly the entire scientific community, is absurd.
“Al Gore kicked it off with that ignorant book”
He brought the issue to the media’s attention, but the scientific consensus existed long before Gore. (Like “global cooling,” citing Al Gore as the end-all be-all of the climate change debate is a red flag that someone has no idea what they’re talking about.
“But it really kicked into gear when the UN saw an opportunity to control and tax at the level of “world government.””
Conspiracy theorist, World Nut Daily garbage.
“I’m willing to go where the science takes us but I want solid science and political truth, not hype.”
No, you want science that tells you what you want to believe. And when it doesn’t, you’ll lie and say it did tell you what you wanted to believe even when it didn’t. Case in point, your false claims about Mann.
“I’m not willing to see the scientific community discredited”
*You* are the one trying to discredit the scientific community.
“Chris I don’t know why you act like such a contentious ass on this issue but I’d like you to know it’s incredibly annoying.”
Expecting a modicum of honesty isn’t being a “contentious ass.” You could have easily said “I was wrong about Mann’s position.” Instead you doubled down on your misrepresentation of what he said.
You aren’t honest Chris. If you were you wouldn’t believe that 97% bologna after it was revealed that the figure is bogus as we explained over and over again.
You are a true believer in the hype that human beings have the power to destroy the earth…what a silly, silly person you are. It’s not all your fault; you were raised on crap like this:
Newsbusters:
And that’s not the only prediction that’s come and gone over the years. Find more here:
Get down off your high horse, open that brick of a mind, and read something besides all of the discredited green hype. It wouldn’t hurt to show a little respect for the brilliant scientists who disagree and ask as they do, what if.