But the establishment Democrats (Clinton et al) don't deserve a mention. Riiiigggghhhttt........
Let me clue you in, no conservative likes Jeb Bush, period. At least we can call a spade a spade.
My states senators (who are not in danger of being voted out) are both SOLIDLY onboard the TPP train.
Why not screw the tax? For fucks sake there are less than 4 million people in the entire state and the yearly budget is over $36 billion?!?!?
The amount of money is NOT the problem here.
Maybe the state could also put a GPS on my car so it knows where I went? That way certain roads and times could be charged premium?
Maybe certain days could be premium as well?
Yeah, good job politicians, we still don't have enough jobs and our rents and real estate prices are sky freaking high, but good work on this....boneheads.
What she means: We women want to be equal, unless it does not prove positive for us, then we want an advantage.
Dear women, Ellen does not think you can negotiate shit, and that you really are inferior.
Exactly, and add that this has forced a bunch of drone development and manufacture out of the USA. Canada and Australia have managed to get legislation on the books. Yet here, we are letting the FAA pick the winners. Noice.
Especially since the ARGO data gives us VERY little ocean temperature rises, like the Northern Pacific at 0.02 deg C per decade. Hardly catastrophic.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...
A lot of the "drone" development has already shifted out of the USA due to shitty government handling of the entire industry.
Australia and Canada already have working policy.
THIS is what we mean when we say government regulations are stifling the economy and making us less competitive.
But then, I am a conservative republican, so fuck me, right?
Aaaaaand they don't have to pay for their own maintenance, WE DO.
My power company made an "agreement" with the state to be more "green" and one of the only ways to meet the target was to PURCHASE a shitty farm of now non tax break funded wind turbines. Woohoo, I am buying that shit whether I want to or not, the definition of a liberal cause.
Fuck man, the Seattle area population is 3.61 million, of which 45k might work for Amazon. Sounds different now huh?
And the entire NW united states if pretty fucking lily white, so we should bus the minorities in? Recruit outside the area exclusively?
There is no conspiracy, Amazon would hire green fucking monkeys if it could make money off them.
So please women, take the job and then work until you die, don't have kids, and don't sue your employer. You will fit right in.
Climate Change Denier!? You are a Climate Fact Molester then sir. You obviously do not even understand the debate. Everyone on WUWT, JoNova, ClimateAudit, and ClimateETC, DO NOT arbitrarily embrace an opposite. They merely object to so called "scientists" voting amongst themselves that the debate is over than their particular view of their "models" constitutes irrefutable fact. That in the last 10k year over the Holocene, with it's multitude of temperature excursions up and down, whatever made it do it then is simply POSSIBLE that it is doing it now. But we are clubbed over the head with 97% horse shit by people looking only to use this for political purposes, read "get into my wallet".
Reprint from one of those dumb ass blog guys:
rgbatduke says:
February 7, 2014 at 10:34 am
A) The increase in temperature we have experienced during the 20th century is nothing unusual and is quite normal, and,
B) the rain and storms suffered by the people of the UK are also nothing unusual.
A) Which half? The increase in the first half of the 20th century is almost identical to the increase in the second half. The two halves are so nearly identical in form that unless you have studied them enough to be able to pick out specific features, you won’t be able to tell which one occurred with the hypothetical help of CO_2 and which one occurred without the hypothetical help of CO_2 when they are plotted on the same vertical relative scale and the same horizontal relative scale but with the actual dates obscured.
In the first half of the 20th century, not even the most ardent warmists claim that there was enough anthropogenic CO_2 in the atmosphere to have any measurable effect. The global industrial revolution that started the CO_2 crank was 1950s on, and there was supposedly a lag of 30 years before that had any effect (to explain the fact that through the 50s, 60s, and early 70s the temperature was pretty close to flat, which didn’t fit in well with the instantly well-mixed, instantly more strongly forcing picture of CO_2 emissions.
So as a matter of pure fact, the increase in temperature experienced during the 20th century was not unusual or abnormal in any way that can be definitively linked to anthropogenic activity as far as we can tell from the data! We had little to no impact on the first half, the warming in the second half matched that of the first half (with our hypothetical help), both halves were part of a perfectly reasonable continuing century-scale rebound from the lowest temperatures experienced on Earth since the Holocene Optimum during the Little Ice Age.
It’s amazing how ignorant people who participate in this debate with total certainty that our climate is unusual are of the “patient’s” history. I like to keep the patient’s chart for the last 12,000 years handy to help them learn:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w...
Note well, this is smoothed. Note also that the error bars (never, ever shown in climate science) are probably as wide as the total variability envelope of all contributing reconstructions — an easy 1 to 2 C. As Lief pointed out above, reconstructing things like solar activity or temperature in the pre-instrumental era is neither easy nor precise, and the tiniest hint of bias or prior belief in the part of the researcher can effortlessly further cloud the proxy-based extrapolations by causing them to make countless small, almost harmless decisions that ultimately are cherrypicking of the data, comparing low temporal resolution data to high temporal resolution data to make erroneous statements about extremes, or ignoring the possibility of confounding causes or degradation of the data sources in those sources that match their “preferred” narrative at the expense of those that do not. If you count the assumptions — most of which cannot possibly be verified in the present — that go into reconstructions, there are many and each one contributes to incre
Of course our reelected governor Kitzhaber was an emergency room doc in an earlier life, so thinks he knows medicine. Unfortunately that did not translate to government or anything more technical than a Simon game. These types of government contracts are written specifically so there can be no real responsibility attached, and this is really an exclusive government problem. Do you think Intel and Nike in Oregon write contracts without performance clauses and penalties? These contracts are designed this way so they can be abused. But hey, we deserve Johnny K. When he first became governor in 1995 our state budget was $10 billion. Now it is over $30 billion a year for 3.8 million of us plebes. Additionally, if you work (using this word loosely) for the state, city, county and are due to retire before 2026 with 30 years in, as of today you will receive 110% of your base pay in retirement, forever. Oregon is a wonderful place, we just have a severe lack of people pulling the wagon versus in the wagon.
Could all the smug bastards that keep posting in climate threads that there is no way a bunch of scientists end up colluding/conspiring however loosely, or just not doing the right thing please come back and apologize for their utter lack of understanding of the process and human condition? Dickheads.
rgbatduke says:
February 7, 2014 at 10:34 am
A) The increase in temperature we have experienced during the 20th century is nothing unusual and is quite normal, and,
B) the rain and storms suffered by the people of the UK are also nothing unusual.
A) Which half? The increase in the first half of the 20th century is almost identical to the increase in the second half. The two halves are so nearly identical in form that unless you have studied them enough to be able to pick out specific features, you won’t be able to tell which one occurred with the hypothetical help of CO_2 and which one occurred without the hypothetical help of CO_2 when they are plotted on the same vertical relative scale and the same horizontal relative scale but with the actual dates obscured.
In the first half of the 20th century, not even the most ardent warmists claim that there was enough anthropogenic CO_2 in the atmosphere to have any measurable effect. The global industrial revolution that started the CO_2 crank was 1950s on, and there was supposedly a lag of 30 years before that had any effect (to explain the fact that through the 50s, 60s, and early 70s the temperature was pretty close to flat, which didn’t fit in well with the instantly well-mixed, instantly more strongly forcing picture of CO_2 emissions.
So as a matter of pure fact, the increase in temperature experienced during the 20th century was not unusual or abnormal in any way that can be definitively linked to anthropogenic activity as far as we can tell from the data! We had little to no impact on the first half, the warming in the second half matched that of the first half (with our hypothetical help), both halves were part of a perfectly reasonable continuing century-scale rebound from the lowest temperatures experienced on Earth since the Holocene Optimum during the Little Ice Age.
It’s amazing how ignorant people who participate in this debate with total certainty that our climate is unusual are of the “patient’s” history. I like to keep the patient’s chart for the last 12,000 years handy to help them learn:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w...
Note well, this is smoothed. Note also that the error bars (never, ever shown in climate science) are probably as wide as the total variability envelope of all contributing reconstructions — an easy 1 to 2 C. As Lief pointed out above, reconstructing things like solar activity or temperature in the pre-instrumental era is neither easy nor precise, and the tiniest hint of bias or prior belief in the part of the researcher can effortlessly further cloud the proxy-based extrapolations by causing them to make countless small, almost harmless decisions that ultimately are cherrypicking of the data, comparing low temporal resolution data to high temporal resolution data to make erroneous statements about extremes, or ignoring the possibility of confounding causes or degradation of the data sources in those sources that match their “preferred” narrative at the expense of those that do not. If you count the assumptions — most of which cannot possibly be verified in the present — that go into reconstructions, there are many and each one contributes to increased uncertainty in the final claim.
Still, taking it for what it is worth — a possibly accurate reconstruction of the planet’s temperatures in the Holocene (post the Wisconsin glaciation, but including the Younger Dryas) that is at any rate the best we can do with the data and methods available (biased or not) at this time, what does it tell us?
First, the climate now is not warmer than it was in the Holocene Optimum (do not make the mistake of conflating the high frequency, high resolution “2004 data point with the smoothed low frequency, low resolution data in the curve — even the figure’s caption warns against doing that — for the very good reason that in every 300 year smoothed upswing it is statist
Guys, since the "global temp" rise is not cooperating with the models, and extreme weather is not really doing it for us either, we need some other catastrophe to link to energy mostly used in developed countries. How about lead in sea water? It ain't rising any faster, but it's dirty right? And money is available for specifically FOR AGW causes, right? But wait, what is the base level of Pb in the ocean? Who cares, don't put that shit on the graph. Keywords upside down Tijander, 17 bristlecone pines tree ring data with measured temps tacked on after 1960 for effect, hide the decline, Mike's nature trick, please delete IPCC emails, etc, etc.
No reason for me to be skeptical, I mean, I know what happened is Auschwitz, Chelmno, Treblinka, Sobibor, Betzec. But i still am not sure if we landed on the moon.
They don't. They take DNA and then see who is predisposed to drink and drive. Get it yet?
In the future your DNA will dictate your healthcare and insurance rates.
So, the brakes cannot override the engine power, since when?
The ignition key would be rendered inoperable?
The emergency brake would not work?
The transmission would lock in gear?
No effing way.
All the best features:
When it THINKS it is out of ink, printer shuts down, cannot even use the scanner!
No actual ink measurement capability.
Chip on ink cartridge keeps tabs on # pages and cleaning cycles and ESTIMATES when ink should be out, no relation to reality.
SUCK IT EPSON.
The Oregon state budget is currently north of $30 BILLION PER YEAR. That is $7800 per man, woman, and child. Then Gov. Taxhober (Kitzhaber) came back in a special session for another $250 million, cause $30 bil is just not quite enough.
Can't wait for the exemptions to start flowing.
One other note, if you are Tier 1 Public Employee Retirement System participant in Oregon(pre 1996) at 30 years you now retire at 110% of current pay.
Yes, MORE than you were making working. So you could be 50 years old and we will be paying for your ass for 50 years.
PERS is currently $3 billion+ cost for Oregon taxpayers. Nice gig when you can get it!!
Slashdot Mirror
But the establishment Democrats (Clinton et al) don't deserve a mention. Riiiigggghhhttt........ Let me clue you in, no conservative likes Jeb Bush, period. At least we can call a spade a spade. My states senators (who are not in danger of being voted out) are both SOLIDLY onboard the TPP train.
But these is a liberal progressive shows, and conservatives are too busy out working to comment about it.
Well, WHEN you post those studies, please also post a comparison of pesticides needed with Monsanto's corn vs natural corn, OK?
http://imgur.com/jAGzqB4 It is NOT about climate or science, sorry.
Uh, no. If you as a Democrat or Republican are planning on voting for Hillary or Jeb Bush, then FUCK YOU.
Why not screw the tax? For fucks sake there are less than 4 million people in the entire state and the yearly budget is over $36 billion?!?!? The amount of money is NOT the problem here. Maybe the state could also put a GPS on my car so it knows where I went? That way certain roads and times could be charged premium? Maybe certain days could be premium as well? Yeah, good job politicians, we still don't have enough jobs and our rents and real estate prices are sky freaking high, but good work on this....boneheads.
What she means: We women want to be equal, unless it does not prove positive for us, then we want an advantage. Dear women, Ellen does not think you can negotiate shit, and that you really are inferior.
Yeah, but the fucking grant money sure does!!
Que Snowpiercer climate solution here.......oops......
Exactly, and add that this has forced a bunch of drone development and manufacture out of the USA. Canada and Australia have managed to get legislation on the books. Yet here, we are letting the FAA pick the winners. Noice.
Especially since the ARGO data gives us VERY little ocean temperature rises, like the Northern Pacific at 0.02 deg C per decade. Hardly catastrophic. http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...
A lot of the "drone" development has already shifted out of the USA due to shitty government handling of the entire industry. Australia and Canada already have working policy. THIS is what we mean when we say government regulations are stifling the economy and making us less competitive. But then, I am a conservative republican, so fuck me, right?
Aaaaaand they don't have to pay for their own maintenance, WE DO. My power company made an "agreement" with the state to be more "green" and one of the only ways to meet the target was to PURCHASE a shitty farm of now non tax break funded wind turbines. Woohoo, I am buying that shit whether I want to or not, the definition of a liberal cause.
Fuck man, the Seattle area population is 3.61 million, of which 45k might work for Amazon. Sounds different now huh? And the entire NW united states if pretty fucking lily white, so we should bus the minorities in? Recruit outside the area exclusively? There is no conspiracy, Amazon would hire green fucking monkeys if it could make money off them. So please women, take the job and then work until you die, don't have kids, and don't sue your employer. You will fit right in.
Climate Change Denier!? You are a Climate Fact Molester then sir. You obviously do not even understand the debate. Everyone on WUWT, JoNova, ClimateAudit, and ClimateETC, DO NOT arbitrarily embrace an opposite. They merely object to so called "scientists" voting amongst themselves that the debate is over than their particular view of their "models" constitutes irrefutable fact. That in the last 10k year over the Holocene, with it's multitude of temperature excursions up and down, whatever made it do it then is simply POSSIBLE that it is doing it now. But we are clubbed over the head with 97% horse shit by people looking only to use this for political purposes, read "get into my wallet". Reprint from one of those dumb ass blog guys: rgbatduke says: February 7, 2014 at 10:34 am A) The increase in temperature we have experienced during the 20th century is nothing unusual and is quite normal, and, B) the rain and storms suffered by the people of the UK are also nothing unusual. A) Which half? The increase in the first half of the 20th century is almost identical to the increase in the second half. The two halves are so nearly identical in form that unless you have studied them enough to be able to pick out specific features, you won’t be able to tell which one occurred with the hypothetical help of CO_2 and which one occurred without the hypothetical help of CO_2 when they are plotted on the same vertical relative scale and the same horizontal relative scale but with the actual dates obscured. In the first half of the 20th century, not even the most ardent warmists claim that there was enough anthropogenic CO_2 in the atmosphere to have any measurable effect. The global industrial revolution that started the CO_2 crank was 1950s on, and there was supposedly a lag of 30 years before that had any effect (to explain the fact that through the 50s, 60s, and early 70s the temperature was pretty close to flat, which didn’t fit in well with the instantly well-mixed, instantly more strongly forcing picture of CO_2 emissions. So as a matter of pure fact, the increase in temperature experienced during the 20th century was not unusual or abnormal in any way that can be definitively linked to anthropogenic activity as far as we can tell from the data! We had little to no impact on the first half, the warming in the second half matched that of the first half (with our hypothetical help), both halves were part of a perfectly reasonable continuing century-scale rebound from the lowest temperatures experienced on Earth since the Holocene Optimum during the Little Ice Age. It’s amazing how ignorant people who participate in this debate with total certainty that our climate is unusual are of the “patient’s” history. I like to keep the patient’s chart for the last 12,000 years handy to help them learn: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w... Note well, this is smoothed. Note also that the error bars (never, ever shown in climate science) are probably as wide as the total variability envelope of all contributing reconstructions — an easy 1 to 2 C. As Lief pointed out above, reconstructing things like solar activity or temperature in the pre-instrumental era is neither easy nor precise, and the tiniest hint of bias or prior belief in the part of the researcher can effortlessly further cloud the proxy-based extrapolations by causing them to make countless small, almost harmless decisions that ultimately are cherrypicking of the data, comparing low temporal resolution data to high temporal resolution data to make erroneous statements about extremes, or ignoring the possibility of confounding causes or degradation of the data sources in those sources that match their “preferred” narrative at the expense of those that do not. If you count the assumptions — most of which cannot possibly be verified in the present — that go into reconstructions, there are many and each one contributes to incre
Of course our reelected governor Kitzhaber was an emergency room doc in an earlier life, so thinks he knows medicine. Unfortunately that did not translate to government or anything more technical than a Simon game. These types of government contracts are written specifically so there can be no real responsibility attached, and this is really an exclusive government problem. Do you think Intel and Nike in Oregon write contracts without performance clauses and penalties? These contracts are designed this way so they can be abused. But hey, we deserve Johnny K. When he first became governor in 1995 our state budget was $10 billion. Now it is over $30 billion a year for 3.8 million of us plebes. Additionally, if you work (using this word loosely) for the state, city, county and are due to retire before 2026 with 30 years in, as of today you will receive 110% of your base pay in retirement, forever. Oregon is a wonderful place, we just have a severe lack of people pulling the wagon versus in the wagon.
Could all the smug bastards that keep posting in climate threads that there is no way a bunch of scientists end up colluding/conspiring however loosely, or just not doing the right thing please come back and apologize for their utter lack of understanding of the process and human condition? Dickheads.
rgbatduke says: February 7, 2014 at 10:34 am A) The increase in temperature we have experienced during the 20th century is nothing unusual and is quite normal, and, B) the rain and storms suffered by the people of the UK are also nothing unusual. A) Which half? The increase in the first half of the 20th century is almost identical to the increase in the second half. The two halves are so nearly identical in form that unless you have studied them enough to be able to pick out specific features, you won’t be able to tell which one occurred with the hypothetical help of CO_2 and which one occurred without the hypothetical help of CO_2 when they are plotted on the same vertical relative scale and the same horizontal relative scale but with the actual dates obscured. In the first half of the 20th century, not even the most ardent warmists claim that there was enough anthropogenic CO_2 in the atmosphere to have any measurable effect. The global industrial revolution that started the CO_2 crank was 1950s on, and there was supposedly a lag of 30 years before that had any effect (to explain the fact that through the 50s, 60s, and early 70s the temperature was pretty close to flat, which didn’t fit in well with the instantly well-mixed, instantly more strongly forcing picture of CO_2 emissions. So as a matter of pure fact, the increase in temperature experienced during the 20th century was not unusual or abnormal in any way that can be definitively linked to anthropogenic activity as far as we can tell from the data! We had little to no impact on the first half, the warming in the second half matched that of the first half (with our hypothetical help), both halves were part of a perfectly reasonable continuing century-scale rebound from the lowest temperatures experienced on Earth since the Holocene Optimum during the Little Ice Age. It’s amazing how ignorant people who participate in this debate with total certainty that our climate is unusual are of the “patient’s” history. I like to keep the patient’s chart for the last 12,000 years handy to help them learn: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w... Note well, this is smoothed. Note also that the error bars (never, ever shown in climate science) are probably as wide as the total variability envelope of all contributing reconstructions — an easy 1 to 2 C. As Lief pointed out above, reconstructing things like solar activity or temperature in the pre-instrumental era is neither easy nor precise, and the tiniest hint of bias or prior belief in the part of the researcher can effortlessly further cloud the proxy-based extrapolations by causing them to make countless small, almost harmless decisions that ultimately are cherrypicking of the data, comparing low temporal resolution data to high temporal resolution data to make erroneous statements about extremes, or ignoring the possibility of confounding causes or degradation of the data sources in those sources that match their “preferred” narrative at the expense of those that do not. If you count the assumptions — most of which cannot possibly be verified in the present — that go into reconstructions, there are many and each one contributes to increased uncertainty in the final claim. Still, taking it for what it is worth — a possibly accurate reconstruction of the planet’s temperatures in the Holocene (post the Wisconsin glaciation, but including the Younger Dryas) that is at any rate the best we can do with the data and methods available (biased or not) at this time, what does it tell us? First, the climate now is not warmer than it was in the Holocene Optimum (do not make the mistake of conflating the high frequency, high resolution “2004 data point with the smoothed low frequency, low resolution data in the curve — even the figure’s caption warns against doing that — for the very good reason that in every 300 year smoothed upswing it is statist
Guys, since the "global temp" rise is not cooperating with the models, and extreme weather is not really doing it for us either, we need some other catastrophe to link to energy mostly used in developed countries. How about lead in sea water? It ain't rising any faster, but it's dirty right? And money is available for specifically FOR AGW causes, right? But wait, what is the base level of Pb in the ocean? Who cares, don't put that shit on the graph. Keywords upside down Tijander, 17 bristlecone pines tree ring data with measured temps tacked on after 1960 for effect, hide the decline, Mike's nature trick, please delete IPCC emails, etc, etc. No reason for me to be skeptical, I mean, I know what happened is Auschwitz, Chelmno, Treblinka, Sobibor, Betzec. But i still am not sure if we landed on the moon.
http://jalopnik.com/the-feds-are-spending-8-million-to-take-your-blood-at-1469600527 good article and vid in comments
They don't. They take DNA and then see who is predisposed to drink and drive. Get it yet? In the future your DNA will dictate your healthcare and insurance rates.
So, the brakes cannot override the engine power, since when? The ignition key would be rendered inoperable? The emergency brake would not work? The transmission would lock in gear? No effing way.
All the best features: When it THINKS it is out of ink, printer shuts down, cannot even use the scanner! No actual ink measurement capability. Chip on ink cartridge keeps tabs on # pages and cleaning cycles and ESTIMATES when ink should be out, no relation to reality. SUCK IT EPSON.
My freaking fridge beeps if I leave if open.....my car door......
The Oregon state budget is currently north of $30 BILLION PER YEAR. That is $7800 per man, woman, and child. Then Gov. Taxhober (Kitzhaber) came back in a special session for another $250 million, cause $30 bil is just not quite enough. Can't wait for the exemptions to start flowing. One other note, if you are Tier 1 Public Employee Retirement System participant in Oregon(pre 1996) at 30 years you now retire at 110% of current pay. Yes, MORE than you were making working. So you could be 50 years old and we will be paying for your ass for 50 years. PERS is currently $3 billion+ cost for Oregon taxpayers. Nice gig when you can get it!!