saluki’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Who is at fault?

  "You right wingers need to get your stories straight."

  Unlike you left wingers we have minds of our own and we don't check with the party leadership or with the talking heads to get our daily dos of talking points. Pun intended.

  "Not to mention that Freddie and Fanny are not the sole cause of this meltdown."

  Fanny and Freddie bought subprime loans from mortgage institutions.  The standards that they used for buying those loans set the standards that the mortgage companies used to make the loans.  In addition to that, there were law firms like the one that Obama belonged to that sued companies that didn't make subprime loans.

  "The car companies have been heading for insolvency for some time now"

  Gee I wonder why.  Living in Denver I occasionally drive through Boulder.  Boulder is the ultra left wing capital of the state.  The thing that you don't see there is American cars.  It seems that if you are going to be a member in good standing with the pompus left of Boulder, then you need to be driving a European car.  Oddly enough, it doesn't seem to matter if it's a high or low gas mileage car, but the thing that a true left wing snob of Boulder cannot be seen in is an American car.  Since Boulder has such a high concentration of lefties, this difference is easily recognized while driving through town.  Of course the contradiction here is that the American car is made by people belonging to labor unions, a group that leftists are suppose to be strong supporters for.  Yet if it were up to the leftists of Boulder (and I suspect the leftists of anywhere), no one in those unions would have a job.  I guess the snob factor is more important to them than their philosophical ideals.  As for me, I won't drive anything but an American car.  I figure those auto workers families need the employment.

   On Michael Pollan lays out a national food agenda posted 1 year, 1 month ago 8 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  More on climate sensitivity

  "THAT is empirical evidence, and it makes 0.6C sensitivity look fairly uncertain."

  That is emperical evidence, but it does nothing to dispute the 0.6C.  First, we were still comming out of a little ice age near the start of the modern industrial period.  So some warming would have been expected regardless.  We have also had an increase in solar activity in the last 100 years.

  http://reallyrealclimate.blogspot.com/2008/07/20th-centur ...

  In addition to this, Spencer has been able to show that 70% of the warming of the last 30 years can be accounted for using ENSO, PDO, AMO, etc.

  So the .8C that we already have is not meaningful in determining climate sensitivity, because other climate factors were at work at the same time.

  On top of that, we have had no warming for the past 11 years, and ENSO does not account for it.  So if the overwhelming 3C per doubling that the IPCC advertises is at work, what has been strong enough to overcome that for the past 11 years?

  "Now = Arctic melting more each year, well below previous averages for summer sea ice extent. The North-sea passge open for the first time in many millenia. Seems like at least one "serious effect"."

  I don't really care about the Arctic melt.  The Holocene optimum had temperatures that were 2C warmer than today for a very long time, and most species seem to have done great.

  Concerning the passages; the Northwest passage has been sailed through about a dozen times since 1904.  Concerning the passage on the European side, we have no clue how often it has been open.  We only have 30 years of satellite records of the Arctic.
  On Toyota may develop "Prius on steroids" posted 1 year, 1 month ago 22 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  More climate sensitivity

  "There hasn't been any evidence refuting the anthropogenic global warming theory for years."

  There hasn't been any evidence supporting the magnitude of the anthropogenic global warming claims - ever.

  "You can choose to side with the radicals or the conservatives, but either way, now, or some point in the future, climate change is a serious issue."

  No, it's not a serious issue.  If Lindzen, Spencer and others are right, climate sensitivity would be around .6C per CO2 doubling.  It's doubtful that there would be any serious effect on the earth until we get more than 2.5C.  It would require 4 CO2 doublings to get to this point.  Starting at 280 PPM, 560 would be one doubling, 1120 would be 2, 2240 would be three, and 4480 would be four.  So far we have moved from 280 PPM to about 385 PPM.  The odds of getting even that second doubling that would take us to 1120 PPM before we run out of fossil fuel is extremely remote.  And that second doubling would only give us 1.2C total of global temperature change.  So there is only danger if the higher numbers for climate sensitivity - like 3C per doubling - are true.  So far we have zero emperical evidence to support such a number.  All we have for that number is models that make feedback assumptions that have never been verified.  So their acceptance is really no different than the inquisitors believe about people's immortal soul.

  The global warming editor of wiki ran for the green party in the UK.  He is a certified eco nut.  Try giving me impartial links if you don't mind, because I don't waste my time with the enviro sections of wiki.
  On Toyota may develop "Prius on steroids" posted 1 year, 1 month ago 22 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  The inevitable pattern.

  "The left may see corporations as big bags of free money, but the right sees taxpayers in the same way."

  No, it is only the right who ever tries to lessen the load on the taxpayer.  Bill Clinton's ecomomy was due mostly to a Republican Congress.  Bill never wrote any legislation.

  The excessive spending that has occured during the Bush administration is no reflection on conservatives.  All the conservatives that I know hate Bush's free handed spending.  The problem is that it was tough for Republican Senators and Congressmen to oppose Bush's spending plans since he was their President and since he was from their party.  Their refusal to pass the first bailout bill was one of the first times that they went against him.  Even the second bailout bill was not voted for by the majority of Republicans.

  "And as for all of that 150 billion dollars of pork?  The difference between passing the bill and not passing the bill was that House Republicans refused to pass it unless it was full of pork."

  No, you are full of crap.  The bill that was passed was a Senate bill, and it was the Senate Democrats that loaded it up with pork.  A few more House Republicans voted for the bill the second time because it had more taxpayer protections and because it didn't give Paulsen a free hand at spending taxpayer money as he pleased.

  "the economy wasn't waiting until the election to take a nosedive because the markets knew that they were screwed with either one of these clowns."

  With McCain at times trying to out-Democrat the Democrats, that is probably true.

  The nice thing about Obama being elected is that Republicans won't have to take the blame for the kind of leftist policies that McCain would undoubtedly compromise his way to.  With McCain in the White House, Republicans would never get Congress back.  The Democrats have controlled Congress for the last 2 years; the courts forever, and starting in January they will control everything.  Then they won't be able to blame their failures on anyone else, though lord knows they will try.  People will quickly recognize that they are getting screwed; they will be desperate to stop the extreme policies of Obama, and Congress can then be returned to the Republicans.  This pattern seems to repeat itself as people need to be reminded periodically that the Democratic utopian pretentions are good for nothing but making them miserable.
  On Town hall again reveals just an anti-science, out-of-touch McCain posted 1 year, 1 month ago 10 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  The corporate enemy

  "Our next president will have to be for the people and against corporate control."

  Much like they were for the people when they told financial institutions that they should give the people subprime loans - and therby created a market crash that has cost many people their jobs and that has cost most people 25% of their retirement due to investment losses.

  Where do you left wing nuts get this corporate control idea.  I don't see any corporations controlling anything.  No one is coming up to me and pointing a gun at my head to make me buy their products.  I can choose to use or not use whatever I like.  The government, on the other hand, steals 50% of my money in the form of taxes and gives me very little back for it.  It is they who will throw me in jail if I don't obey the millions of laws that they have on the books.  The government are the control freaks and nuts like you rant on about corporations. Those corporations provide people with jobs, the things they need to live, and they provide billions in taxes to the goverment.  It seems to me that you have your issues exactly backwards.  If it were up to the government you wouldn't be complaining about flat tasting tomatoes, you'd be complaining about starving.  Raise your own damn tomatoes and stop your bitching.

  "Obama has said he's fighting for the people."

  Oh, then it must be true.  Obama has a half brother in Kenya that lives on 1 dollar a month to whom he has never given a nickle of help, but you are going to trust that he is for the people because he says so.  This is the Obama who was friends with terrorists like Ayers and buddies with crooks like Resko; the Obama who's priest and mentor is a racist and an American hater and a very rich man.  This is the Obama that you are sure is "fighting for the people".  It's apparent that Obama is going to get the ignorant vote.

  "He's also shown his support for corporate america by his tax plan."

  Yeah, go ahead and elect a president that will destory our corporations.  That should give us about 60% unemployment and return our economics to the dark ages. On Michael Pollan lays out a national food agenda posted 1 year, 1 month ago 8 Responses