Time for a new open thread.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Time for a new open thread.
Time for a new open thread.
Time for a new open thread.
Time for a new open thread.
Advertisment
Time for a new open thread.
Inactivism Labs have discovered that climate inactivists prefer debates to bets. Can we have a Nobel Prize now? ;)
Are any of you familiar with this guy: Dash RIPROCK III ? He showed up on my blog (I made the mistake of posting about Monckton and, especially, Beisner ( Faith over Facts Every Damn Time. He does a wonderful joby of using ad hominem attacks (Al Gore is FAAAT!) and arguments from authority (literally thousands of scientists don't think global warming is happening).
Anyway, just wonder if you, or any others, are familiar with this joker.
Thanks
I'm curious if the press reports that 90% of the guns used by Mexican drug cartels come from the US, and that there is a river of guns from the US to Mexico, is simple lying, or ordinary ignorance.
ben,
How many more shooting rampages would there need to be before you reconsidered your opposition to strict gun control--or even the banning of guns?
Ben: After one of the recent seizures of guns in the borderlands of Mexico, out of 400 weapons, more than 350 could (fairly quickly) be traced to sales in 20 different US states, mostly at gun shows. I don't know if the figure of 90% is correct, but it would appear that a majority of the weapons are coming through unregulated sales in the US. So I guess the media is, what? Getting it close to right?
It's simple reporting of figures from federal, state, and mexican law enforcement agencies.
The latter are all part of the global conspiracy to impose an international communist government on we unwitting fools who believe their lies regarding gun trafficking, climate science, the cause of AIDS, age of the earth, evolution, harmfulness of smoking tobacco, and the roundness of the earth.
(((Billy))) the Atheist:
> Are any of you familiar with this guy: Dash RIPROCK III ?
No, but...
> Join The Great Movie Boycott
> [...] Why should Republicans continue to stuff dollars into Hollywood coffers when ultimately these dollars end up in the hands of spoiled, immoral, promiscuous, drug taking, liberals who obviously hate American Democracy and would like to see us spread the wealth around to the point of becoming a socialist nation? Given the tax breaks entertainers receive, it won't be their wealth that gets spread around, it will yours and mine!!!!
> Loud, vulgar protests are simply not the conservative way. It would be great to see conservatives wielding anti-Hollywood signs show up outside the theater for the next Matt Damon or Sean Penn movie, but I'm not going to hold my breath waiting on it. In a year when we all need to be pinching pennies anyway, why not make movie tickets the first thing we cut from the monthly family budget? If celebrities start behaving by the time Palin takes office in January
of 2013, we might start making our way back to the theater.
This has to be a parody, right?
My first guess was that he generates money through hits via adverts. However, I don't see too many adverts. Lots of stupid. He seems to be channeling Limbaugh and Beck. I was just curious if he had shown up at any other blogs which have commented unfavourably on the AGW-denialist movement.
Scary, though. If he is a Poe, he needs a life.
How many more shooting rampages would there need to be before you reconsidered your opposition to strict gun control--or even the banning of guns?
How many more fatal highway accidents would there need to be before you call for banning of automobiles?
It's simple reporting of figures from federal, state, and mexican law enforcement agencies.
Not true. It's bogus reporting of figures, with no attempt to get at the truth:
Are you also claiming then that all the actual machine guns, grenades, grenade launchers and other heavy weaponry are coming from the US? It's pure BS and another attempt by the idiots in the MSM to stoke demand for gun control and another bogus "assault weapons ban." The last ban didn't do anything, a new ban won't make any difference either. The notion that the lapse of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban made any difference is laughable. Go ahead, try to support it, I will laugh at you.
Let's settle for equal regulation, OK?
Car's are registered and licensed, and in most states liability insurance is required. Let's do the same for guns.
A driver's license is required to drive, so let's make people take a written and practical tests and undergo eye exams before they can legally carry a gun.
Driving while under the influence is illegal. Let's make GUI (Gunning Under the Influence) illegal.
You need special licensing in order to drive busses, trucks, etc. Let's require different licensing for guns. Lowest level for those most often used in hunting. Much higher level for handguns.
Etc.
Let us follow your analogy to its logical conclusion, Ben.
Assertion with no data to back it up.
What percentage are traced? If only 19% are traced, 90% traced back to the US would yield 17% overall traced to the US, if it's a valid statistical sample.
In which case the gun, stolen in the US, has come from the US. Since it's illegal in almost all circumstances to sell guns in Mexico, the last legal sale took place in the US, making the source of the stolen weapon the US.
The reports I've seen in the MSM don't claim that heavier weapons are mostly coming from the US.
The reports I've seen are that
1. It's a relatively recent and growing problem.
2. They're coming from the armed forces of Central America
Which undermines your claim that
And, the MSM reports I've seen report that the feds and mexico are calling for various ways to try to stem the flood of weapons south through
1. interdiction.
2. bagging dealers who knowingly sell weapons to those feeding them south.
Not by "banning assault rifles".
Ben's as paranoid as that fruitcake in Pittsburgh.
Ben, are you claiming that there's no legitimate law enforcement interest in stemming illegal shipments of guns to Mexico? That our government should just turn its back?
Let us follow your analogy to its logical conclusion, Ben.
Posted by: dhogaza | April 5, 2009 4:18 PM
Brilliant. One of the best troll smackdowns ever!
Not by "banning assault rifles".
Not true. At the last meeting between US and Mexican government officials they asked Holder and Napolitano if they would reinstate the AWB. Holder, miraculously, said no. I read the transcript.
You are right! We should build a giant fence to keep the guns out of Mexico.
dhogaza, I've read more than one MSM opinion stating that we need to reinstate the AWB. As if that would do any good. What would you do to stem the illegal "flood" of arms to Mexico? I'd do away with our ridiculous drug laws that make illegal drug running profitable.
Of course they should bust illegal gun sellers, but the last guy they tried to bust the judge threw the case out for lack of evidence. The ATF sucks.
Troll smackdown my butt. I don't know what country you live in, but in the USA the right to own and drive a car is not included in our bill of rights. The right to keep and bear arms is.
Second, no licensing nor registration of any kind is required for automobiles if you only operate them on your own private property.
ben:
> but in the USA the right to own and drive a car is not included in our bill of rights. The right to keep and bear arms is.
Who was it who tried to strike an analogy between guns and cars in the first place?
* * *
In yet other news, The Register has another idiotic article up on the 'cost' of green jobs.
The CATO ad lists "Colin Barton, CSIRO (retired).
Any trace of him?
dhogaza @ 10, what you are proposing sounds a lot like the firearms laws we enjoy in Australia, which are eminently sensible and work extremely well. I speak as the owner of several licensed firearms.
John Mashey:
Found this - C. M. Barton: Bore Hole Sampling of Saturated Uncemented Sands and Gravels in Ground Water Volume 12 Issue 3, Pages 170 - 181. May 1974.
Author note says: B.Sc., Ph.D., Senior Research Scientist, CSIRO, Division of Applied Geomechanics, Syndal, Victoria, Australia.
No idea if it's the same guy but the geology angle fits the usual profile though.
More recently (on a geological time scale) someone called CM Barton was lead author of this:
"Latrobe Valley, Victoria, Australia: A world class brown coal deposit"
In International Journal of Coal Geology. Volume 23, Issues 1-4, September 1993, Pages 193-213
The author's footnote says "State Electricity Commission of Victoria, Geoengineering Division, Mine Technology Department, Morwell, Vic. 3840, Australia"
No idea if it's the same guy. There can't be that many CM Bartons around.
Also there are some citations around, eg one referring to this, co-authored paper:
Brumley, J. C., C. M. Barton, G. R. Holdgate, & M. A. Reid; Dec. 1981; Regional Groundwater Investigation of the Latrobe Valley : 1976 - 1981; State Electricity Commission of Victoria & Victorian Department of Minerals and Energy Joint Report, Dec. 1981.
Gaz: many thanks, I think you've got it.
I'm updating my big spreadsheet, and this omission was irksome.
In a magnificent display of own-goal scoring, Andrew Bolt publishes a rant claiming [melting antarctic ice is no threat](http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comme…) on the same day that [the Wilkins Ice shelf collapsed](http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/04/06/2535739.htm).
That's a fair question, so to show my question isn't a "gotcha," I'll try to answer it as best I can.
The danger of automobiles are evident, but so is their importance in terms of enjoyment of life and trade. In terms of banning, their utility to society is very high, so I'd be more apt to consider restrictions: increased driver testing, stricter penalties for non-compliance with laws, etc. In fact, I think it would be irrational not to consider those thing if there were a substantial increase in highway fatalities.
Wouldn't it also be rational to consider stricter control of guns when faced with higher gun crime rates? Do guns have a higher utility to society than automobiles?
Further to James Haughton's post, Andrew Dolt really revels in leaving a permanent trail of his stupidity.
His comment, "...when sea ice melts, sea levels do not rise" completely ignores the main point that it is the glacial ice, retained on land by (unmelted) sea ice, that is the potential cause of sea-level rise.
In his graphic of sea-level rise he is completely oblivious of signal versus noise, and of the fact that there is no statistically significant deviation from the consistent upward trend over decades. Heck, even the residuals are consistent with the current statistically significant trend.
His "sea ice in the Arctic has failed to melt as predicted" graphic is a summer to winter fallacious logic gem, and additionally ignores that the current year's extent is still notably below the 1979-200 average.
And most deliciously, he replicates Roy Spencer's graphic with the high-order polynomial line of "best fit", a construction that so embarrassed [Jon Jenkins](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/01/sixth-degree_polynomial_fits_j…) that he declined to continue justification of his clumsiness on a [thread devoted to him](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/01/sixth-degree_polynomial_fits_j…).
This is Bolt. See Bolt lie. Lie, Bolt, lie!
Wouldn't it also be rational to consider stricter control of guns when faced with higher gun crime rates?
Or maybe we could have stricter criminal control. You know, actually put them in jail and leave them there.
ben:
> Or maybe we could have stricter criminal control. You know, actually put them in jail and leave them there.
In the light of recent shootings which show the utter uselessness of this sort of 'deterrent', I'm forced to conclude (again) that ben is deliberately trying to be an idiot.
I know! I know! It was ben ... caught trying to run away from his own analogy.
Not sure I'd give him that much credit ... I think it's native talent, not a deliberately honed skill.
ben, when you're ready to have a serious discussion, let me know. The recent shootings have been committed by non-criminals, so your post makes no sense and doesn't even attempt to confront the problem.
Let's be fair.
Credit ben with the courage to share his masturbation fantasies in a public forum.
Now, for something completely different:
Escape from the Zombie Food Court
But we bleeding-heart liberals didn't even lock up the shooter in the citizenship class case!
He wasn't even handcuffed when taken to the morgue!
I tried making a comment at American Tinker but it wasn't accepted:
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/04/surprise_trees_grow_bigger_…
The 'opinion' is about trees growing bigger as a result of an increase in atmospheric CO2.
Apologies for the duff URL for American Tinker, here is a Tiny URL:
http://tinyurl.com/d2n7x4
Boris, the Pittsburgh shooter was a felon and was not allowed to own guns. So much for shootings by non-criminals. The others were non-criminals right up until they pointed their guns at other people.
> How many more fatal highway accidents would there need to be before you call for banning of automobiles?
How many more deaths under anaesthetic will there need to be before you call for the return to the stick between the teeth?
How many more deaths from falling from height will there need to be before you call for a global ban on ladders?
The primary purpose of a car is transportation - killing is an accidental side-effect. The primary purpose of a gun is to kill as efficiently and effectively as possible - any other use is purely secondary.
True. You can't defend liberty with pancakes.
Oh yeah?
I remember back in the early 1970s (I think) seeing a TV news report of a guy in Germany who lived under the flight path of planes landing at a busy airport.
He protested against the noise by constructing a catapult for launching pancakes into the path of the planes.
The pancakes only went bit bit higher than his house, but they still arrested him.
The question is whether he would have been more successful by firing a gun at the planes.
This is just a wild guess, but I'd say not.
I don't know if the pancakes had maple syrup.
Speaking of which:
http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/maple-syrup-glob…
Neat, now I have something new to add to my arsenal.
Some science to discuss!
Nuclear Energy could cause global warming if it was used on a massive scale:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20227026.800-essay-the-heat-to-co…
Opinions?
Liberty is best defended, not with a gun, but with a trowel.
Right, so even the green's cherished wind turbines will lead to increased global temperatures, but probably moreso because they remove energy from the wind and therefor decrease the convective effect of the wind that probably helps wisk heat out of the atmosphere.
But then they love the turbines because they know that if that's all we have then we'll never be able to produce as much energy as with other means.
Trowel? Those look more like little shovels. What are you gonna do when the man comes and takes your little shovels away?
I know you all don't like John Lott, and I'm not fond of him either, but the facts remain:
Those "gun free" zones just aren't working out.
Apparently Monckton thinks that a debate on global warming should be thought of as some sort of medieval duel.
"...probably helps wisk heat out of the atmosphere."
Hehehe.
As far as I can tell, the only way to remove heat from the planet into outer space is for the atoms/molecules to radiate out more energy than comes in from the sun.
This is very difficult as the various energy processes on earth tend to reduce the intensity and frequency of the energy involved.
Ben, what you need is a device that can not only whisk the heat out of the atmosphere but also measure the temperature while it's at it.
Voila: http://www.popgadget.net/2005/10/index.php?page=2
Is nuclear energy on a vast scale (probably using fusion) something we should be wary of?
Can everyone on the planet have access to it, without causing another warming problem?
Interesting stuff.
LB,
Your video had me right up to the "hand powered appliances" reference. My wife will give up her dishwasher when you pry the soft touch instrument panel from her cold dead hands.
Also, speaking as a guy who has only about 300 sq ft of grass left on my 1/3 acre lot, I can tell you that the family in the video clip spends WAY more money and time tending that garden than my neighbors spend on their Scott's Turf Builder and riding lawn mowers.
I have a 100' x 60' vegetable garden, two pond/water gardens, a shade garden and perennial flower gardens everywhere else (including the six window boxes on my house).
I enjoy the work it takes to keep all of this flora (and a considerable amount of fauna) growing and thriving but it IS work.
The average Joe isn't going to commit to the work, expense, planning and organization it takes to pull off the very impressive results the guy in the video is bragging about.
I much prefer to have neighbors that commit to the boring "carpet-o-grass" lawns than live next to a person that jumps into the whole lawn as nature preserve/victory garden and then abandons the project when they realize the effort, expense and planning that is required to pull it off.
The hideous, fragmented weed patches left by these well intention but overwhelmed "Johnny Apple Seed" wanna be's look far worse than the boring green lawns of the average suburbanite.
Do you have one of those "Is your yard TOXIC green?" bumper stickers? Did you once live in a commune?
A group that is so congruent with the set of scientists who don't think at all, that those who think, and think global warming isn't happening, probably will fight to get out of that group just to avoid stupidity by association.
Marc Morano rides again: April Fool's Report? French Reversal on Climate Policy? Outspoken Skeptical Scientist May Be Tapped as Environmental Minister!
Yes, it most certainly was an April Fools joke Morano is reporting on, and it was indicated as such in the comments section of the source article on Primaklima (See the comment at 01.04.09 23:05). It does not stop Morano from milking it on April 16th.
An interesting NPR report from a few months ago on the death toll in Iraq--
Link
The most interesting part to me is the unnamed morgue worker who says the government has always lied about how many bodies have been collected. It's anecdotal, but it agrees with common sense and supports the idea that the toll is much larger than the official death toll.
OMG, I fell for the Allegre April Fool's, 2nd hand, when I saw it in Morano's weekly newsblast. Whew, what a relief to know that was only a joke.
Meanwhile, not to intrude on the lively gun control debate, but I've been updating my own list of climate scientists and people who've signed climate petitions (both activist and skeptic). I've just finished updating to get all 206 names from the Manhattan Declaration's list of "qualified experts." Props to them for sorting these out so I don't have to wade through all the non-experts - except for the fact that a lot of their experts have zero scholarly publications. So far I've done stats on 100 of the 206, and the pile-up in the bottom of the citation rankings for Manhattan signers continues:
http://www.eecg.utoronto.ca/~prall/climate/climate_authors_table.html
Check out the concentration between line 1485 (where h=1 starts) and the end of the numbered list ranked by stats, currently around 1530. Lots of unpublished, and just above that a cluster of h=1 or 2, on the h-index scale (my stats let you see h-index up to h=4, since my stats have the four most-cited works found via Google Scholar.
I've filled in Colin M Barton (retired, ex of CSIRO) with 15 total papers, all related to coal geology, zero mentioning "climate", and cited 5-4-3-2 times for the 4 most cited (so h=3).
- Jim
Dang, the bare URL got eaten. I'll format it the markdown way:
[Jim's list of climate scientists and wannabes](http://www.eecg.utoronto.ca/~prall/climate/climate_authors_table.html)
Better?
Who's for Gun Control Besides the State?
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/026428.html
Boris:
> ben, when you're ready to have a serious discussion, let me know. The recent shootings have been committed by non-criminals, so your post makes no sense and doesn't even attempt to confront the problem.
nanny_govt_sucks:
> Who's for Gun Control Besides the State?
You, Sir, are an idiot.