Democrats try to hide anti-global warming report
Irish Mike
bullshit global warming and tax and cap energy politics. This time the
Democrats got caught trying to supress an anti-global warming report from
the EPA.
"Sen. Inhofe Calls for Inquiry Into 'Suppressed' Climate Change Report
Republicans are raising questions about why the EPA apparently dismissed an
analyst's report questioning the science behind global warming.
By Judson Berger
FOXNews.com
Monday, June 29, 2009
EPA analyst Alan Carlin raised questions about the impact of global warming
on areas like Greenland. The 98-page report, co-authored by EPA analyst Alan
Carlin, pushed back on the prospect of regulating gases like carbon dioxide
as a way to reduce global warming. Carlin's report argued that the
information the EPA was using was out of date, and that even as atmospheric
carbon dioxide levels have increased, global temperatures have declined.
"He came out with the truth. They don't want the truth at the EPA," Sen.
James Inhofe, R-Okla, a global warming skeptic, told FOX News, saying he's
ordered an investigation. "We're going to expose it."
The controversy comes after the House of Representatives passed a landmark
bill to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, one that Inhofe said will be
"dead on arrival" in the Senate despite President Obama's energy adviser
voicing confidence in the measure.
According to internal e-mails that have been made public by the Competitive
Enterprise Institute, Carlin's boss told him in March that his material
would not be incorporated into a broader EPA finding and ordered Carlin to
stop working on the climate change issue. The draft EPA finding released in
April lists six greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, that the EPA
says threaten public health and welfare.
An EPA official told FOXNews.com on Monday that Carlin, who is an
economist -- not a scientist -- included "no original research" in his
report. The official said that Carlin "has not been muzzled in the agency at
all," but stressed that his report was entirely "unsolicited."
"It was something that he did on his own," the official said. "Though he was
not qualified, his manager indulged him and allowed him on agency time to
draft up ... a set of comments."
Despite the EPA official's remarks, Carlin told FOXNews.com on Monday that
his boss, National Center for Environmental Economics Director Al
McGartland, appeared to be pressured into reassigning him.
Carlin said he doesn't know whether the White House intervened to suppress
his report but claimed it's clear "they would not be happy about it if they
knew about it," and that McGartland seemed to be feeling pressure from
somewhere up the chain of command.
Carlin said McGartland told him he had to pull him off the climate change
issue.
"It was reassigning you or losing my job, and I didn't want to lose my job,"
Carlin said, paraphrasing what he claimed were McGartland's comments to him.
"My inference (was) that he was receiving some sort of higher-level
pressure."
Carlin said he personally does not think there is a need to regulate carbon
dioxide, since "global temperatures are going down." He said his report
expressed a "good bit of doubt" on the connection between the two.
Specifically, the report noted that global temperatures were on a downward
trend over the past 11 years, that scientists do not necessarily believe
that storms will become more frequent or more intense due to global warming,
and that the theory that temperatures will cause Greenland ice to rapidly
melt has been "greatly diminished."
Carlin, in a March 16 e-mail, argued that his comments are "valid,
significant" and would be critical to the EPA finding.
McGartland, though, wrote back the next day saying he had decided not to
forward his comments.
"The administrator and the administration has decided to move forward on
endangerment, and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for
this decision," he wrote, according to the e-mails released by CEI. "I can
only see one impact of your comments given where we are in the process, and
that would be a very negative impact on our office."
He later wrote an e-mail urging Carlin to "move on to other issues and
subjects."
"I don't want you to spend any additional EPA time on climate change. No
papers, no research, etc., at least until we see what EPA is going to do
with climate," McGartland wrote.
The EPA said in a written statement that Carlin's opinions were in fact
considered, and that he was not even part of the working group dealing with
climate change in the first place.
"Claims that this individual's opinions were not considered or studied are
entirely false. This administration and this EPA administrator are fully
committed to openness, transparency and science-based decision making," the
statement said. "The individual in question is not a scientist and was not
part of the working group dealing with this issue. Nevertheless the document
he submitted was reviewed by his peers and agency scientists, and
information from that report was submitted by his manager to those
responsible for developing the proposed endangerment finding. In fact, some
ideas from that document are included and addressed in the endangerment
finding."
The e-mail exchanges and suggestions of political interference sparked a
backlash from Republicans in Congress.
Reps. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., and Darrell Issa, R-Calif., also wrote a
letter last week to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson urging the agency to
reopen its comment period on the finding. The EPA has since denied the
request.
Citing the internal e-mails, the Republican congressmen wrote that the EPA
was exhibiting an "agency culture set in a predetermined course."
"It documents at least one instance in which the public was denied access to
significant scientific literature and raises substantial questions about
what additional evidence may have been suppressed," they wrote.
In a written statement, Issa said the administration is "actively seeking to
withhold new data in order to justify a political conclusion."
"I'm sure it was very inconvenient for the EPA to consider a study that
contradicted the findings it wanted to reach," Sensenbrenner said in a
statement, adding that the "repression" of Carlin's report casts doubt on
the entire finding.
Carlin said he's concerned that he's seeing "science being decided at the
presidential level."
"Now Mr. Obama is in effect directly or indirectly saying that CO2 causes
global temperatures to rise and that we have to do something about it. ...
That's normally a scientific judgment and he's in effect judging what the
science says," he said. "We need to look at it harder."
Irish Mike
Very proud to be one of the 55,000,000+ Americans who did not vote for Obama
or his bullshit global warming energy policies.
smk17
> Just the latest round in Obama's strong arm tactics to jam through his
> bullshit global warming and tax and cap energy politics. This time the
> Democrats got caught trying to supress an anti-global warming report from
> the EPA.
>
> "Sen. Inhofe Calls for Inquiry Into 'Suppressed' Climate Change Report
> Republicans are raising questions about why the EPA apparently dismissed an
> analyst's report questioning the science behind global warming.
> By Judson Berger
>
> FOXNews.com
>
or his bullshit global warming energy policies.
FOX news is not news. Say that 1,000 times. Turn the channel. Any news
corporation that hasn't reported ONE positive thing about President
Obama has flipped over it's hand and can hide no more behind its
"we're a legitimate news corp" facade. Look at their website, it's
just SEX, SKIN, LIES, and VIDEOTAPE. Quite sickening. The reason you
think global warming is bullshit is solely because of the station you
decided to tune your TV/Radio to.
Dave the Clueless
> FOX news is not news. Say that 1,000 times. Turn the channel. Any news
> corporation that hasn't reported ONE positive thing about President
> Obama has flipped over it's hand and can hide no more behind its
> "we're a legitimate news corp" facade. Look at their website, it's
> just SEX, SKIN, LIES, and VIDEOTAPE. Quite sickening. The reason you
> think global warming is bullshit is solely because of the station you
> decided to tune your TV/Radio to.
So, the report is false? There is no investigation into suppressed
information at EPA?
The mainstream media is not news. They are liberal cheerleaders. Say that
1000 times. Any news corporation that hasn't reported ONE negative thing
about President Obama has flipped over it's hand and can hide no more
behind its "we're a legitimate news corp" facade. Look at their websites,
it's just MICHAEL JACKSON, JON AND KATE PLUS 8 , OBAMA WORHSIP , and
GLOBAL WARMING BULLSHIT. Quite sickening. The reason you think global
warming is real is solely because of the stations you decide to tune your
TV/Radio to.
______________________________________________________________________�
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
JerseyRudy
Alan Carlin is an economist, not a scientist. This Fox News article does
mention it, but relegates it to minor importance. It is not of minor
importance that we want SCIENTISTS to be providing analysis regarding
climate change, not ECONOMISTS.
Another important fact not mentioned in this article is that Carlin's
report was factually incorrect. His report stated that "global
temperatures have declined for 11 years." The facts are that annual global
average temperatures have both risen and fallen over the past 11 years,
and while there have been some relatively cooler years during that period,
climate scientists reject the idea that those temperatures are any
indication that global warming is slowing or does not exist.
So here you have the EPA refusing to publish an unsolicited and factually
incorrect scientific report from an economist. That's a no-brainer
decision for the EPA. But no surprise that a flat-earther like Inhofe
would try to use it to score a political point.
garycarson
> On Jun 30 2009 9:41 AM, smk17 wrote:
>
> > FOX news is not news. Say that 1,000 times. Turn the channel. Any news
> > corporation that hasn't reported ONE positive thing about President
> > Obama has flipped over it's hand and can hide no more behind its
> > "we're a legitimate news corp" facade. Look at their website, it's
> > just SEX, SKIN, LIES, and VIDEOTAPE. Quite sickening. The reason you
> > think global warming is bullshit is solely because of the station you
> > decided to tune your TV/Radio to.
>
> So, the report is false? There is no investigation into suppressed
> information at EPA?
The only report of it I've seen was from Sean Hannity who has a history of
misrepresentation and sometimes just making stuff up.
____________________________________________________________________�
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
La Cosa Nostradamus
> On Jun 30 2009 9:41 AM, smk17 wrote:
>
> > FOX news is not news. Say that 1,000 times. Turn the channel. Any news
> > corporation that hasn't reported ONE positive thing about President
> > Obama has flipped over it's hand and can hide no more behind its
> > "we're a legitimate news corp" facade. Look at their website, it's
> > just SEX, SKIN, LIES, and VIDEOTAPE. Quite sickening. The reason you
> > think global warming is bullshit is solely because of the station you
> > decided to tune your TV/Radio to.
>
> So, the report is false? There is no investigation into suppressed
> information at EPA?
>
> The mainstream media is not news. They are liberal cheerleaders. Say that
> 1000 times. Any news corporation that hasn't reported ONE negative thing
> about President Obama has flipped over it's hand and can hide no more
> behind its "we're a legitimate news corp" facade. Look at their websites,
> it's just MICHAEL JACKSON, JON AND KATE PLUS 8 , OBAMA WORHSIP , and
> GLOBAL WARMING BULLSHIT. Quite sickening. The reason you think global
> warming is real is solely because of the stations you decide to tune your
> TV/Radio to.
The climate is changing.
CHANGING !
GET IT ?
C H A N G I
N G
Not in an Al Gore kinda way either.
All planets are presently warming, in about 3.5 years they will start
COOLING
EVERY molecule on our planet, in our solar system and in our galaxy is
warming for another 3.5 years.
December 21,2012 playlist
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=D3A0E9D9365E4D5B
______________________________________________________________________�
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
La Cosa Nostradamus
> On Jun 30 2009 10:37 AM, Dave the Clueless wrote:
>
> > On Jun 30 2009 9:41 AM, smk17 wrote:
> >
> > > FOX news is not news. Say that 1,000 times. Turn the channel. Any news
> > > corporation that hasn't reported ONE positive thing about President
> > > Obama has flipped over it's hand and can hide no more behind its
> > > "we're a legitimate news corp" facade. Look at their website, it's
> > > just SEX, SKIN, LIES, and VIDEOTAPE. Quite sickening. The reason you
> > > think global warming is bullshit is solely because of the station you
> > > decided to tune your TV/Radio to.
> >
> > So, the report is false? There is no investigation into suppressed
> > information at EPA?
>
> The only report of it I've seen was from Sean Hannity who has a history of
> misrepresentation and sometimes just making stuff up.
Can you provide a link to Sean making up stuff ?
December 21,2012 playlist
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=D3A0E9D9365E4D5B
________________________________________________________________________�
Bea Foroni
wrote:
> The only report of it I've seen was from Sean Hannity who has a history of
> misrepresentation and sometimes just making stuff up.
It was the lead story this morning on FOX and Friends.
I try to watch FOX and Friends every morning, just to see where
Traitor Mike and others will be coming from. This morning I heard them
talking about it, but I just didn't have the stomach for it.
The thing with FOX News is that the present rumor and supposition as
facts. They present them one after another rapidly so that one doesn't
really have time to question what one is told. If the rumor presented
as fact later proves wrong, they just never bring it up again.
The hysteria over Cap And Trade on FOX makes it sound like the world
as we know it is coming to an end, we will be driving Flintstone cars
and Al Gore will personally come to the door to turn down our
thermostats.
I switch channel to watch the stock market and I see little or no
reaction. Yesterday I watched a half hour of FOX where they told me
that life will never be the same and the stock market is having the
typical mixed results day. WTF? There must be two parallel universes
or something.
I don't understand what is wrong with the goverment encouraging
alternative energy sources. Jobs will be created, the air can only
become cleaner if we stop burning things and we won't be sending all
out money to countries that don't like us. Even if there isn't global
warming, it sounds win-win to me.
Puppytoes
The global warming pundits have all the scientific proof they need
.. from Al Gore!
-----�
Bea Foroni
>
> - Show quoted text -
This seems to be one of the first,
--Sean Hannity (1/26/01): "Look, we've had these reports, very
disturbing reports -- and I have actually spoken to people that have
confirmed a lot of the reports -- about the trashing of the White
House. Pornographic materials left in the printers. They cut the phone
lines. Lewd and crude messages on phone machines. Stripping of
anything that was not bolted down on Air Force One. $200,000 in
furniture taken out."
smk17
Slow down. I never said global warming is real. How would I know? I'm
not a scientist or meteorologist. I just can't figure out why people
like Irish Mike are 100% positive it's fake.
smk17
wrote:
> On Jun 30 2009 12:14 PM, garycarson wrote:
>
>
> > The only report of it I've seen was from Sean Hannity who has a history of
> > misrepresentation and sometimes just making stuff up.
>
> Can you provide a link to Sean making up stuff ?
>
How about this, just for starters.....
As Media Matters for America has demonstrated time and again, Fox
News' Sean Hannity has been a prolific and influential purveyor of
conservative misinformation. But never has he so enthusiastically
applied his talents for spreading misinformation as he did to the 2008
presidential race, focusing his energies primarily on President-elect
Barack Obama. Day after day, Hannity devoted his two Fox News shows
and his three-hour ABC Radio Networks program to "demonizing" the
Democratic presidential candidates, starkly explaining in August:
"That's my job. ... I led the 'Stop Hillary Express.' By the way, now
it's the 'Stop Obama Express.' " Hannity's "Stop Obama Express"
promoted and embellished a vast array of misleading attacks and false
claims about Obama. Along the way, he uncritically adopted and
promoted countless Republican talking points and played host to
numerous credibility-challenged smear artists who painted Obama as a
dangerous radical. When he was not going after Obama, Hannity attacked
members of Obama's family, as well as Sen. Hillary Clinton and other
progressives, and denied all the while that he had unfairly attacked
anyone.
Hannity's attacks may have also influenced mainstream media coverage.
ABC News' George Stephanopoulos appeared on Hannity's radio program on
April 15, during which Hannity suggested to Stephanopoulos that he ask
Obama at the Democratic presidential debate the following evening
about his "association with Bill Ayers, the unrepentant terrorist from
the Weather Underground." Stephanopoulos assured Hannity that he was
"taking notes right now." Stephanopoulos then did ask Obama at the
debate to "explain that relationship for the voters, and explain to
Democrats why it won't be a problem," though he later denied that
Hannity had exerted any influence on his questioning.
Because of the unending stream of falsehoods and character attacks
that fueled the "Stop Obama Express," and the countless other
distortions he promoted throughout 2008, Sean Hannity is Media Matters
for America's Misinformer of the Year.
Among the myriad falsehoods and attacks that Hannity promoted
throughout 2008, several found their way into regular rotation:
Obama will "invade" Pakistan
In an August 1, 2007, speech, Obama said of terrorists in Pakistan:
OBAMA: I understand that President [Pervez] Musharraf has his own
challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up
in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to
strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a
chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have
actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and
President Musharraf won't act, we will.
Almost immediately afterward, Hannity began attacking Obama over the
comment, claiming he made a "rookie mistake" by saying "I'll invade an
ally." In fact, Obama never said he would "invade" Pakistan, and
Hannity's co-host Alan Colmes corrected Hannity and accurately quoted
Obama. Nevertheless, Hannity repeated the accusation several times
throughout 2008, even once to former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who
had just two days earlier advocated a position on Pakistan very
similar to Obama's.
"Air-raiding villages"
At an August 13, 2007, campaign stop, Obama said regarding the war in
Afghanistan: "We've got to get the job done there and that requires us
to have enough troops so that we're not just air-raiding villages and
killing civilians, which is causing enormous pressure over there." As
Media Matters noted at the time, Obama's comments were accurate --
U.S. airstrikes in Afghanistan and accounts of resulting civilian
casualties were widely reported in the media and reportedly provoked
criticism from Afghan President Hamid Karzai and a British commander
stationed there. Time and again, however, Hannity used these comments
to attack and denounce Obama, even after Defense Secretary Robert
Gates acknowledged and apologized for Afghan civilian deaths caused by
coalition airstrikes. Hannity has called the statement a "lie" and
evidence that Obama was "the most radical and unqualified candidate";
mischaracterized Obama's remarks as an "accus[ation]" against
"American troops" and praised Gov. Sarah Palin for attacking Obama
over the comments; and cited Obama's remarks to question his
"experience to be commander in chief."
Most liberal senator
When the National Journal announced that Barack Obama was the "most
liberal" senator in 2007, according to their ranking system, Hannity
was one of many conservative media figures to tout the statistic
despite the facts that the National Journal considered just 99 votes
in its survey and that the publication admitted that its previous
surveys' methodologies had been flawed. Moreover, a separate study by
political science professors Keith Poole and Jeff Lewis that used all
388 non-unanimous Senate votes during 2007 produced a different
result, placing Obama in a tie for the ranking of 10th most liberal
senator. Hannity, however, has attacked Obama as "the number one
liberal -- National Journal -- in the United States Senate" and called
him the "No. 1 radical liberal in the Senate" and "the most liberal
senator in Washington" (Hannity's America, July 13). On the October 26
Hannity's America, Hannity listed his "top 10 reasons" not to vote for
Obama, and introduced his sixth reason -- "Barack Obama is anything
but mainstream" -- by saying: "Obama's position on many issues has
earned him the spot as the most liberal senator in the United States."
Defense spending
In October 2007, Obama told Caucus4Priorities:
OBAMA: I will cut tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending. I
will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems. I will not
weaponize space. I will slow our development of Future Combat Systems.
And I will institute an independent defense priorities board to ensure
that the quadrennial defense review is not used to justify unnecessary
spending.
At several points throughout 2008, however, Hannity mischaracterized
this statement, claiming that Obama "talked about in the campaign
cutting tens of millions of dollars in defense spending," when Obama
clearly said he would cut wasteful spending.
Attacks on Obama's family, associations
In addition to assailing Obama, Hannity also falsely attacked Obama's
wife, Michelle, and mischaracterized Obama's associations with certain
controversial figures in order to make Obama appear radical or
corrupt:
Hannity repeatedly distorted Michelle Obama's 1985 senior thesis from
Princeton University, suggesting that she was asserting her own views
when she wrote that "[i]t is possible that Black individuals either
chose to or felt pressure to come together with other Blacks on campus
because of the belief that Blacks must join in solidarity to combat a
White oppressor." As the context of the quote makes clear, however,
she was purporting to document attitudes among black Princeton alumni
who attended the school in the '70s and not expressing her own
opinions. Hannity employed this distortion at one point to ask: "Do
the Obamas have a race problem of their own?"
Hannity also frequently attempted to link Obama to Nation of Islam
leader Louis Farrakhan, claiming that Obama "associated" himself with
Farrakhan and pointing to an award given to Farrakhan by Trumpet
Newsmagazine, a publication founded by Obama's former church. What
Hannity consistently failed to note in asserting this linkage,
however, is that Obama issued a statement disagreeing with the award
and criticizing Farrakhan, and that Obama has said he has been "a
consistent denunciator of Louis Farrakhan."
Hannity also repeatedly suggested that Obama was able to purchase his
Chicago home at a discounted price because convicted Chicago
businessman Antoin Rezko purchased an adjacent lot on the same day. As
Media Matters noted, the sellers of the Obama's house reportedly told
Bloomberg News that they did not cut the price of the house for Obama
"because a campaign donor bought their adjacent land," and that the
Obamas had made the "best offer." Nevertheless, Hannity asked on the
June 5 broadcast of his radio program: "Did Obama know at the time
that Rezko was saving him three hundred grand on the purchase of his
home?"
GOP mouthpiece
Hannity helped to boost Republicans throughout 2008, parroting false
McCain campaign talking points, touting unscientific polling to
promote Sen. John McCain's debate performances, and embellishing
President George W. Bush's economic record:
On January 3, Hannity interviewed then-Republican presidential
candidate Rudy Giuliani and failed to disclose that he had reportedly
helped raise money for Giuliani's campaign. The New York Daily News
reported on August 19, 2007, that Hannity "introduced the Republican
front-runner at a closed-door, $250-per-head fundraiser Aug. 9 in
Cincinnati, campaign officials acknowledge." Bill Shine, Fox's senior
vice president of programming, was quoted in the article saying, "Sean
is not a journalist -- Sean is a conservative commentator."
On July 26, the McCain campaign released an ad claiming that Obama for
"cancelled a visit with wounded troops" at the Landstuhl Regional
Medical Center in Germany because "the Pentagon wouldn't allow him to
bring cameras." This claim was quickly debunked by NBC chief foreign
affairs correspondent Andrea Mitchell, who accompanied Obama on the
overseas trip. Mitchell said on MSNBC on July 28: "There was never any
intention -- let me be absolutely clear about this. The press was
never going to go. The entourage was never going to go. There was
never an intention to make this political. ... And the McCain
commercial on this subject is completely wrong, factually wrong."
Nonetheless, Hannity claimed on the July 29 edition of Hannity &
Colmes that Obama "abandon[ed] the troop visit because the cameras
weren't around -- allowed and the campaign wasn't allowed," and
repeated the allegation on July 30.
On September 10, the McCain campaign released a web ad claiming that
Obama "smear[ed]" Palin when he said at a campaign rally the previous
day: "But, you know, you can -- you know, you can put lipstick on a
pig; it's still a pig." On a September 9 McCain campaign conference
call with reporters, former Massachusetts Gov. Jane Swift (R) claimed
Obama "[c]all[ed] a very prominent female governor of one of our
states a 'pig.' " As Media Matters noted, Obama was actually alluding
to McCain's policy platform in those comments, Swift herself later
admitted not "know[ing] if it was aimed at Governor Palin," and the
phrase "lipstick on a pig" is in common parlance and has been used by
many political figures, including McCain. Hannity, however, insisted
that Obama was "talking about Sarah Palin," even after McCain
supporter Mike Huckabee told Hannity: "I do not think he was referring
to Sarah Palin. He didn't reference her."
On September 18, McCain released an ad citing The Washington Post in
claiming that former Fannie Mae CEO Franklin Raines "advises" Obama
"on mortgage and housing policy." Both Raines and Obama denied the
allegation, and the washingtonpost.com Fact-Checker determined that
the McCain ad "exaggerat[ed] wildly" in its claim about Raines'
purported role with the Obama campaign. On the September 23 edition of
Hannity & Colmes, however, Hannity went beyond the McCain campaign's
allegation, claiming that Raines was "a chief economic adviser" to
Obama. Hannity later claimed that Raines was "an economic adviser" to
Obama, citing The Washington Post, even though the Fact-Checker had
already called such claims "exaggerat[ed]."
Following the September 26 presidential debate, Hannity touted the
results of a Fox News text-message poll that found that McCain won the
debate, saying: "[W]e have gotten around 50,000 text votes so far.
Eighty-two percent are correct: They say John McCain won." Unmentioned
by Hannity was the fact that Fox News started conducting the poll
while the debate was still going on. On-screen text had invited
viewers to vote on "who [they] thought won" the debate as early as
9:12 p.m. ET, 10 minutes after the candidates began responding to the
moderator's questions. Media Matters has documented Hannity's shifting
opinions of text-message polls, depending on who the results favor.
On the December 8 Hannity & Colmes, Hannity claimed, "We had a good
six and a half years with the economy" under Bush, adding: "We created
10 million new jobs, lower unemployment than in the last four decades'
average." In fact, the United States has gained 2,866,000 net private-
sector jobs between 2001, when Bush took office, and the first quarter
of 2008, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Also,
Hannity's claim about the unemployment rate is misleading, given that
Bush inherited from Clinton an employment rate that was lower than the
average unemployment rate during the Bush years.
Smears of Democrats
When not promoting the "Stop Obama Express" or the "Stop Hillary
Express," Hannity found time to falsely attack other prominent
Democrats:
On the December 4 editions of Hannity & Colmes and his radio program,
Hannity suggested that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's use of a military
jet was unprecedented, despite the fact that the White House and the
Defense Department agreed in 2001 that military planes should be made
available to the speaker of the House for national security reasons.
The first speaker to use such a plane was Dennis Hastert (R-IL).
Hannity has repeatedly attacked Minnesota Democratic Senate candidate
Al Franken. Hannity baselessly accused Franken of "stealing an
election" by challenging ballots that appeared to favor Franken's
opponent, Republican Sen. Norm Coleman, failing to note that Coleman
also challenged ballots that appeared to favor Franken. Hannity also
claimed that by challenging ballots, Franken was "trying to litigate
his way into the Senate seat," even though Franken and Coleman had
challenged roughly the same number of ballots at the time.
Hannity was one of many conservatives to baselessly blame "the
Democrats" and the Community Reinvestment Act, passed in 1977 under
President Jimmy Carter, for the current financial crisis, saying: "The
federal government and the Democrats ... forced these banks, through
the Community Reinvestment Act, to make these risky loans," adding:
"The risky loans started the subprime mortgage crisis, which impacted
all these financial institutions, which needed government bailouts."
As Media Matters has noted, the allegation that the Community
Reinvestment Act is the cause of the financial crisis has been widely
discredited.
Following Obama's selection of Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) as White House
chief of staff, Hannity attacked Emanuel as "one of the hardest left-
wing ... radicals," citing no evidence. Contrary to Hannity's
assertion, a study using every non-unanimous vote cast in the House in
2007 to determine relative ideology placed Emanuel in a tie for the
ranking of 126th most liberal Democratic congressman, while several
news reports cast Emanuel as "a centrist" who has "worked at good
relations with Republicans."
Hannity falsely accused former President Bill Clinton of "taking a
shot at Senator McCain" during July 5 remarks at the Aspen Ideas
Festival, airing a deceptively cropped video of Clinton's comments. As
the full context of Clinton's remarks made clear, however, he was not
discussing McCain, but rather what former South African president --
and political prisoner -- Nelson Mandela means to him.
Conspiracy conjecture
Hannity frequently launched attacks on Obama and other progressives
that were totally unsubstantiated or wildly speculative and which were
often contradicted by available evidence:
Commenting on the State Department's admission that Obama's passport
records had been repeatedly accessed without authorization by three
contract workers, Hannity said on the March 20 edition of Hannity &
Colmes: "Seems to me Barack Obama is looking for anything to distract
from the story of Jeremiah Wright."
On the July 30 broadcast of his radio show, Hannity repeated the
already-debunked allegation that Obama had distributed to the press a
prayer he had written and left at the Western Wall in Jerusalem: "[E]
verything was well orchestrated, all the timing -- you know, for
example, even the release of the note that he put at the Western Wall,
that was all leaked to the press, and that was a big deal as well."
After airing a deceptively cropped recording of Hillary Clinton
commenting on the October 2 vice-presidential debate, Hannity said on
the October 6 broadcast of his radio show: "I just had to play that
'cause you just know the Clintons are just -- why do I bet, and this
is just a guess on my part, that Hillary and Bill go in there, and
they vote for John McCain? I just know it. I really believe it."
On the December 9 edition of Hannity & Colmes, Hannity disregarded the
context in which the word "president-elect" appears in the criminal
complaint filed against Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D), declaring:
"The pres -- the word 'president-elect' is mentioned 44 times in the
document. Pretty troubling." Hannity never explained what he found
"troubling" about those mentions, given that there are no allegations
of wrongdoing against Obama in the document. Indeed, with one
exception, none of the 44 instances in which "president-elect" was
used in the complaint actually mentioned any alleged conduct or
statement by President-elect Barack Obama, much less any conduct or
statement amounting to wrongdoing. The one exception was an allegation
that Blagojevich complained that Obama would not give him anything
other than "appreciation."
Selective amnesia
Even though Hannity and the rest of the conservative media spent much
of the 2008 election cycle falsely attacking Obama and other
progressives, he stridently denied that such attacks were happening
and constantly rallied to the defense of Republicans and conservatives
accused of smearing Democrats and liberals.
On the September 8 broadcast of The Sean Hannity Show, Hannity accused
Obama of an "outright falsehood," asserting that Obama said "Fox News
and Republican commentators suggest that, in other words, that he is a
Muslim. No one has ever suggested that." In reality, Fox News was
quite infamously the home of E.D. Hill and the "terrorist fist jab,"
and several other Fox News personalities promoted false reports about
Obama's religion, including the claim that Obama was educated in a
madrassa.
On the August 4 broadcast of his radio program, Hannity claimed that
Obama could not "point to a single instance in which ... Sean Hannity
or talk radio or any other major Republican has made an issue of
Obama's race." On the October 13 edition of Hannity & Colmes, he
claimed that "[n]obody in the Republican Party" resorted to overtones
of "race and fear" in attacking Obama. Months earlier, however,
Hannity had claimed that Obama "has all the same problems with race as
those before him," and asked: "Do the Obamas have a race problem of
their own?" As Media Matters noted, Hannity was joined by Rush
Limbaugh, John Gibson, and several Republican officials and supporters
in making "an issue of Obama's race" or name.
On the July 31 Hannity & Colmes, Hannity incredulously challenged a
guest: "Can you name any prominent Republican that has brought up --
that has said that [Obama] is not patriotic, or that he's got a funny
name, or that he doesn't look like those presidents on dollar bills?
Do you know any prominent Republican that has said any of these
things?" In fact, Hannity himself had raised questions about Obama's
patriotism, as had Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA), while Rep. Steve King (R-
IA) claimed that if Obama was elected, "radical Islamists" would "be
dancing in the streets because of his middle name."
On the August 25 edition of Hannity & Colmes, Hannity proclaimed that
he thought was "more fair to the Clintons" during the 2008 Democratic
primaries. He claimed this despite the fact that in February he
proudly declared himself the leader of the "Stop Hillary Express," and
throughout 2007, he attacked Clinton as a socialist, suggested she was
a co-conspirator in a murder cover-up, and denounced her for "hate
speech" against Republicans, among other things. Less than a week
after claiming he was "more fair to the Clintons," Hannity declared
that "demonizing" Clinton was his "job," and acknowledged having
rechristened the "Stop Hillary Express" as the "Stop Obama Express."
On the September 1 edition of Hannity & Colmes, Hannity, referring to
Internet rumors about Palin's daughter, said: "Is that fair that they
would attack that? I mean, I don't remember Chelsea Clinton being
attacked. I don't remember Al Gore's children being attacked. I
thought there was a general rule that children of candidates ought to
be left alone." Hannity's memory notwithstanding, Chelsea Clinton was
not "left alone." McCain reportedly told a "joke" about Chelsea
Clinton in 1998, saying: "Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly? Because her
father is Janet Reno." Radio host Rush Limbaugh is alleged to have
referred to Chelsea Clinton early in the Clinton administration as the
"White House dog."
Character assassins
Hannity, on his Fox News shows and his ABC Radio Networks program,
hosted several controversial guests who attacked Obama, despite their
documented credibility problems and histories of inflammatory
rhetoric.
Andy Martin
Self-described "Internet Powerhouse" Andy Martin's years-long crusade
against Obama has taken on many forms, almost all of them completely
divorced from factual accuracy. Martin has been credited as the
originator, in 2004, of the false rumor that Obama is actually a
Muslim. Shortly before Obama launched his presidential campaign in
February 2007, Martin promoted his "CIA-style psychological profile"
on Obama that "will cast more light on Barack's supple psyche and his
ability to seamlessly deny objective reality." Months later, Martin
baselessly attacked Obama for "lock[ing] the grandmother who actually
raised him away in a closet" in "one of the cruelest and most
mendacious political kidnappings this nation has ever seen." Prior to
all this, Martin reportedly attacked a federal judge as a "crooked,
slimy Jew, who has a history of lying and thieving common to members
of his race," expressed "understand[ing] for how the Holocaust took
place," and the Illinois Supreme Court reportedly noted that,
according to his Selective Service records, Martin possessed a
"moderately-severe character defect manifested by well documented
ideation with a paranoid flavor and a grandiose character."
Despite Martin's glaring credibility issues and history of "viciously
anti-Semitic assertions," he featured prominently in the October 5
edition of Hannity's America, titled "Obama & Friends: History of
Radicalism". On the program, Martin, identified as an "author &
journalist," baselessly claimed that Obama's work as a community
organizer was "training for a radical overthrow of the government" and
that if Obama were elected president, "we're basically going to be ...
in the throes of a socialist revolution, which attempts to essentially
freeze out anybody who's not part of this radical ideology."
As Media Matters noted, Fox News reportedly later "express[ed] regret
for booking" Martin on Hannity's America, and Fox News Senior Vice
President Bill Shine called Martin's appearance a "mistake." Hannity,
however, has not yet expressed any on-air misgivings about hosting
Martin. Confronted by Obama adviser Robert Gibbs, Hannity defended
Martin's appearance, saying, "I'm a journalist who interviews people
who I disagree with all the time." (Hannity, who has both embraced and
rejected the "journalist" label, did not challenge any assertion or
statement by Martin, nor did he mention any of Martin's anti-Semitic
and racially charged statements.) Challenged again by Fox News
political contributor and NPR news analyst Juan Williams about
Martin's appearance, Hannity once again declined to express regret.
Jerome Corsi
Jerome Corsi, co-author of the falsehood-ridden 2004 book Unfit for
Command, returned to presidential politics in 2008 with The Obama
Nation: Leftist Politics and the Cult of Personality. The book, which
FactCheck.org described as a "mishmash of unsupported conjecture, half-
truths, logical fallacies and outright falsehoods," was widely and
thoroughly discredited by Media Matters, the Obama campaign, various
media outlets, and even some conservatives. Corsi, however, appeared
several times on Hannity's various programs to promote the book, with
no challenge from Hannity regarding the book's many falsehoods. Corsi
even appeared on Hannity & Colmes on August 20, just days after it was
revealed that Corsi -- who has previously made inflammatory comments
about Islam, Muslims, and Catholicism -- was reportedly scheduled to
promote The Obama Nation on the August 17 edition of The Political
Cesspool Radio Show, a program described by its own producers as
representing "a philosophy that is pro-White." Corsi had appeared on
the program in the past, but did not appear on August 17.
Since the release of The Obama Nation, Corsi has promulgated (without
evidence) several conspiracy theories regarding Obama -- for example,
suggesting that the true purpose of Obama's pre-election trip to
Hawaii was not to visit his ailing grandmother, but to address rumors
-- widely debunked -- that he had failed to produce a valid U.S. birth
certificate.
Jill Stanek
As Media Matters noted, Hannity was one of many media figures to cite
anti-abortion activist and WorldNetDaily columnist Jill Stanek's
criticism of Obama's opposition to certain bills amending the Illinois
Abortion Law of 1975 while he was in the Illinois state Senate --
without noting facts that undermine her credibility. Stanek has
suggested that domestic violence is acceptable against women who have
abortions; supported billboards in Tanzania that say "Faithful Condom
Users" in English and Swahili next to a photo of a skeleton; and
credulously cited a report that "aborted fetuses are much sought after
delicacies" in China. Hannity interviewed Stanek on the August 20
edition of Hannity & Colmes, during which Stanek claimed that Obama
attempted to "lure" Illinois state senators into "vot[ing] to endorse
infanticide." She also repeated her allegation that at Christ Hospital
in Oak Lawn, where she worked as a nurse, "a little baby boy who had
been aborted alive" was taken to a "soiled utility room to die because
his parents didn't want to hold him." According to the Chicago
Tribune's Eric Zorn, however, an Illinois Department of Public Health
spokesperson said that the agency conducted an investigation into
Stanek's allegations about Christ Hospital and concluded that they
could not be substantiated.
Exit "balance"...
In early October, it was reported that Hannity had signed a new
contract with Fox News "that will keep him at the network through the
next presidential election in 2012." In late November, Alan Colmes
announced that he was leaving Hannity & Colmes at the end of 2008,
leaving unresolved whether another liberal would be brought in to
"balance" Hannity. On December 11, that question was answered:
Fox News host Sean Hannity, who is losing his liberal counterpart Alan
Colmes at the end of the year, will not be getting a new on-air
partner. Instead, the conservative commentator will headline his own
show, called simply "Hannity," beginning Jan. 12, the network
announced today.
The program -- running in the same 6 p.m. Pacific time slot -- will
include several segments in which three guests from across the
political spectrum, dubbed the "Great American Panel," will weigh in
on the topics of the day. The show will also include regular
commentary and interviews by Hannity, as well as a feature called
"Hate Hannity Hotline" that will highlight the critical comments he
receives from listeners of his syndicated radio show.
La Cosa Nostradamus
All i was able to read was blahblahblah.
Can you write some original thoughts ?
I could cut and paste some bs i copied from some assclown site too, i just
dont go to assclown sites.
December 21,2012 playlist
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=D3A0E9D9365E4D5B
------�
La Cosa Nostradamus
> On Jun 30, 11:49�am, "Dave the Clueless" <fract...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > On Jun 30 2009 9:41 AM, smk17 wrote:
> >
> > > FOX news is not news. Say that 1,000 times. Turn the channel. Any news
> > > corporation that hasn't reported ONE positive thing about President
> > > Obama has flipped over it's hand and can hide no more behind its
> > > "we're a legitimate news corp" facade. Look at their website, it's
> > > just SEX, SKIN, LIES, and VIDEOTAPE. Quite sickening. The reason you
> > > think global warming is bullshit is solely because of the station you
> > > decided to tune your TV/Radio to.
> >
> > So, the report is false? There is no investigation into suppressed
> > information at EPA?
> >
> > The mainstream media is not news. They are liberal cheerleaders. Say that
> > 1000 times. Any news corporation that hasn't reported ONE negative thing
> > about President Obama has flipped over it's hand and can hide no more
> > behind its "we're a legitimate news corp" facade. Look at their websites,
> > it's just MICHAEL JACKSON, JON AND KATE PLUS 8 , OBAMA WORHSIP , and
> > GLOBAL WARMING BULLSHIT. Quite sickening. The reason you think global
> > warming is real is solely because of the stations you decide to tune your
> > TV/Radio to.
> >
> Slow down. I never said global warming is real. How would I know? I'm
> not a scientist or meteorologist. I just can't figure out why people
> like Irish Mike are 100% positive it's fake.
Why suppress information ?
Suppression = censorship.
I am pretty darn sure any study that is honest would include what i
mention here on a daily basis.
ALL planets are PRESENTLY warming. This TREND is normal and man has a tiny
affect on it.
Look back in history and you will find the number 25,200 is the factor
involved in most climatechanging events.
On a smaller scale you will find the number 3600 is important also.
3600 X 7 = 25,200
Every 3600 years nibiru/eris/planet X comes by
Every 25,200 years we are in the middle of the galaxy.
in 2012 we will be in the middle of the galaxy.
Take a magnet and place it on the edge of a circle of magnetic dust, not
much happens.
Place the same magnet in the middle of the pile of magnetic dust and tell
me what happens.
Can Al gore explain how man made the magnetic field of the east coast of
South America vanish ?
The poles are supposed to change every........... 25,2000 years.
Maybe when you clowns get off the partisan bus to incineration you will
able to watch the bus continue on its route to hell.
Will we get cooked ? Maybe.
December 21,2012 playlist
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=D3A0E9D9365E4D5B
---�
Bea Foroni
>
> - Show quoted text -
Hey PP, maybe you could share your meds with this guy. There seems to
be a shortage.
thepixelfreak
<a6f...@webnntp.invalid> said:
> All planets are presently warming, in about 3.5 years they will start
> COOLING
>
> EVERY molecule on our planet, in our solar system and in our galaxy is
> warming for another 3.5 years.
If this pathetic attempt at scientific knowledge weren't so fucking
funny it would be a very sad commentary on the state of scientific
understanding on this newsgroup.
Carry on as usual. It's really good entertainment!
--
thepixelfreak
FL Turbo
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Carlin has an undergraduate degree in physics from CalTech and a PhD
in economics from MIT.
His Web site lists papers about the environment and public policy
dating back to 1964, spanning topics from pollution control to
environmentally-responsible energy pricing.
----------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------
A physic degree from CalTech not good enough for you?
Having studied environmental and public policy issues since 1964 not
good enough?
--------------------------------------------------------------
>Another important fact not mentioned in this article is that Carlin's
>report was factually incorrect. His report stated that "global
>temperatures have declined for 11 years." The facts are that annual global
>average temperatures have both risen and fallen over the past 11 years,
>and while there have been some relatively cooler years during that period,
>climate scientists reject the idea that those temperatures are any
>indication that global warming is slowing or does not exist.
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
After reviewing the scientific literature that the EPA is relying on,
Carlin said, he concluded that it was at least three years out of date
and did not reflect the latest research.
"My personal view is that there is not currently any reason to
regulate (carbon dioxide)," he said. "There may be in the future. But
global temperatures are roughly where they were in the mid-20th
century.
They're not going up, and if anything they're going down."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, he didn't say that they have been uniformly going down every
single year of the 11, but the trend was still down, not up.
For your information, there are plenty of climate scientists who have
come to reject the theory that global warming is bound to occur, and
it is all due to human activity.
The claims of "overwhelming consensus" are losing ground year by year.
>So here you have the EPA refusing to publish an unsolicited and factually
>incorrect scientific report from an economist. That's a no-brainer
>decision for the EPA. But no surprise that a flat-earther like Inhofe
>would try to use it to score a political point.
>
It's no surprise that a power hungry bureaucracy like EPA would want
to issue reports that they need to expand their power, and suppress
any and all contrary opinion.
But let us continue in the same article.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------
One reason why the process might have been highly charged politically
is the unusual speed of the regulatory process. Lisa Jackson, the new
EPA administrator, had said that she wanted her agency to reach a
decision about regulating carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act by
April 2 -- the second anniversary of a related U.S. Supreme Court
decision.
"All this goes back to a decision at a higher level that this was very
urgent to get out, if possible yesterday," Carlin said. "In the case
of an ordinary regulation, these things normally take a year or two.
In this case, it was a few weeks to get it out for public comment."
(Carlin said that he and other EPA staff members asked to respond to a
draft only had four and a half days to do so.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Uh huh.
The EPA report was sent on the same railroad that Friday's Tax and Cap
monstrosity was railroaded through the House.
Personally, I hope that Carlin will be protected by a "Whistleblower"
law.
He is going to need it.
PS
Fox bashers need to note that the site I quoted is a CBS report.
Imagine that.
-------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------
�In general, we look for a new law by the following process.
First, we guess it. Then we compute the consequences of the guess to
see what would be implied if this law that we guessed is right.
Then we compare the result of the computation to nature, with
experiment or experience; compare it directly with observation to see
if it works.
If it disagrees with experiment it is wrong.
It�s that simple statement that is the key to science.
It does not make any difference how beautiful your guess is.
It does not make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess,
or what his name is � if it disagrees with experiment it is wrong.�
-Dr. Richard Feynman, �The Character of Natural Law,� The MIT Press,
1965, p. 156.
thepixelfreak
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Carlin has an undergraduate degree in physics from CalTech and a PhD
> in economics from MIT.
> His Web site lists papers about the environment and public policy
> dating back to 1964, spanning topics from pollution control to
> environmentally-responsible energy pricing.
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> --------------------------------------------
>
> A physic degree from CalTech not good enough for you?
> Having studied environmental and public policy issues since 1964 not
> good enough?
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------
Do you know what the difference between an undergrad degree in physics
and a doctorate in physics is? Hell, the gulf between even a masters
and doctorate in Physics is immense.
My cat has a B.S. in Chemistry FFS.
--
thepixelfreak
FL Turbo
wrote:
--------------------- snippety, snippety, snip ----------------------
Wow!!
This Hannity guy has to be a very important person.
Media Matters must have at least 2 full time employees just devoted to
recording every word he says and transcribing them, not to mention the
time devoted to fact checking.
Maybe even 3 full time employees.
I wonder where MM gets all the money to afford that?
Heh. I'm only joking.
I know who funds them.
It's a secret, though.
I'm not telling.
JerseyRudy
> >> That's normally a scientific judgment and he's in effect judging what the
> >> science says," he said. "We need to look at it harder."
> >>
> >> Irish Mike
> >>
> >> Very proud to be one of the 55,000,000+ Americans who did not vote for
Obama
> >> or his bullshit global warming energy policies.
> >
> >
> >Alan Carlin is an economist, not a scientist. This Fox News article does
> >mention it, but relegates it to minor importance. It is not of minor
> >importance that we want SCIENTISTS to be providing analysis regarding
> >climate change, not ECONOMISTS.
> >
>
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/06/26/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5117890.shtml?tag=contentMain;contentBody
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Carlin has an undergraduate degree in physics from CalTech and a PhD
> in economics from MIT.
> His Web site lists papers about the environment and public policy
> dating back to 1964, spanning topics from pollution control to
> environmentally-responsible energy pricing.
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> --------------------------------------------
>
> A physic degree from CalTech not good enough for you?
> Having studied environmental and public policy issues since 1964 not
> good enough?
>
No. But then again those of us who rely on the overwhelming scientific
consensus on this issue are not as desperate to find anyone with a degree
who can write a report.
His job title for the EPA is "economist." His post-graduate degree is in
economics. An undergraduate degree is physics (while certianly impressive)
does not make someone a climate scientist.
> --------------------------------------------------------------
>
> >Another important fact not mentioned in this article is that Carlin's
> >report was factually incorrect. His report stated that "global
> >temperatures have declined for 11 years." The facts are that annual global
> >average temperatures have both risen and fallen over the past 11 years,
> >and while there have been some relatively cooler years during that period,
> >climate scientists reject the idea that those temperatures are any
> >indication that global warming is slowing or does not exist.
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> After reviewing the scientific literature that the EPA is relying on,
> Carlin said, he concluded that it was at least three years out of date
> and did not reflect the latest research.
> "My personal view is that there is not currently any reason to
> regulate (carbon dioxide)," he said. "There may be in the future. But
> global temperatures are roughly where they were in the mid-20th
> century.
> They're not going up, and if anything they're going down."
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Well, he didn't say that they have been uniformly going down every
> single year of the 11, but the trend was still down, not up.
>
I was referring to what was in his report. His report says that "global
temperatures have declined for 11 years." You are now changing the topic
to other statements made by Carlin...that's irrelevant. The EPA is not
preventing Carlin from speaking out on his beliefs to the media or anyone
else who wants to listen to him. The issue here is his written report that
he submitted to the EPA. Stick to the topic.
> For your information, there are plenty of climate scientists who have
> come to reject the theory that global warming is bound to occur, and
> it is all due to human activity.
>
> The claims of "overwhelming consensus" are losing ground year by year.
>
If that's the case, then so be it. I totally disagree, unless you define
"plenty" as a few. But if you are correct, then why do you even care if
some economist was unable to get his report published by the EPA? You
should instead be content to rely on all those climate scientists who you
claim are rejecting man-made climate change as a problem that needs to be
addressed. I would be interested in a list of all these climate scientists
you refer to...my internet doesn't seem to recognize them.
Actually based on that comment, Carlin is more likely going to need a
refresher course in basic math. As that article states, it has been two
years since the Supreme Court directed the EPA to issue a decision on
regulating carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act. As Carlin himself
says: "In the case of an ordinary regulation, these things normally take a
year or two."
So it took them a full two years, and yet Carlin still complains that the
process was rushed. He obviously was much more comfortable serving the
EPA during the Bush Administration when nothing got done and everyone sat
on their hands.
________________________________________________________________________�
FL Turbo
Then go ask your cat to explain it.
smk17
>
> Wow!!
>
> This Hannity guy has to be a very important person.
>
> Media Matters must have at least 2 full time employees just devoted to
> recording every word he says and transcribing them, not to mention the
> time devoted to fact checking.
> Maybe even 3 full time employees.
>
> I wonder where MM gets all the money to afford that?
>
> Heh. I'm only joking.
> I know who funds them.
>
> It's a secret, though.
> I'm not telling.
Here's some more for ya..... :-)
HANNITY: "You're not listening, Susan. You've got to learn something.
He had weapons of mass destruction. He promised to disclose them. And
he didn't do it. You would have let him go free; we decided to hold
him accountable." (4/13/04)
FACT: Hannity's assertion comes more than six months after Bush
Administration weapons inspector David Kay testified his inspection
team had "not uncovered evidence that Iraq undertook significant
post-1998 steps to actually build nuclear weapons or produce fissile
material" and had not discovered any chemical or biological weapons.
(Bush Administration Weapons Inspector David Kay, 10/2/03)
HANNITY: "Colin Powell just had a great piece that he had in the paper
today. He was there [in Iraq]. He said things couldn't have been
better." (9/19/03)
FACT: "Iraq has come very far, but serious problems remain, starting
with security. American commanders and troops told me of the many
threats they face--from leftover loyalists who want to return Iraq to
the dark days of Saddam, from criminals who were set loose on Iraqi
society when Saddam emptied the jails and, increasingly, from outside
terrorists who have come to Iraq to open a new front in their campaign
against the civilized world." (Colin Powell, 9/19/03)
HANNITY: "And in northern Iraq today, this very day, al Qaeda is
operating camps there, and they are attacking the Kurds in the north,
and this has been well-documented and well chronicled. Now, if you're
going to go after al Qaeda in every aspect, and obviously they have
the support of Saddam, or we're not." (12/9/02)
FACT: David Kay was on the ground for months investigating the
activities of Hussein's regime. He concluded "But we simply did not
find any evidence of extensive links with Al Qaeda, or for that matter
any real links at all." He called a speech where Cheney made the claim
there was a link "evidence free." (Boston Globe, 6/16/04)
HANNITY: "[After 9-11], liberal Democrats at first showed little
interest in the investigation of the roots of this massive
intelligence failure...[Bush and his team] made it clear that
determining the causes of America's security failures and finding and
remedying its weak points would be central to their mission." (Let
Freedom Ring, by Sean Hannity)
TRUTH: Bush Opposed the creation of a special commission to probe the
causes of 9/11 for over a year. On 5/23/02 CBS News Reported
"President Bush took a few minutes during his trip to Europe Thursday
to voice his opposition to establishing a special commission to probe
how the government dealt with terror warnings before Sept. 11." Bush
didn't relent to pressure to create a commission, mostly from those
Hannity would consider "liberal" until September 2002. (CBS News,
5/23/02)
HANNITY: "First of all, this president -- you know and I know and
everybody knows -- inherited a recession...it was by every definition
a recession" (11/6/02)
HANNITY: "Now here's where we are. The inherited Clinton/Gore
recession. That's a fact." (5/6/03)
HANNITY: "The president inherited a recession." (7/10/03)
HANNITY: "He got us out of the Clinton-Gore recession." (10/23/03)
HANNITY: "They did inherit the recession. They did inherit the
recession. We got out of the recession." (12/12/03)
HANNITY: "And this is the whole point behind this ad, because the
president did inherit a recession." (1/6/04)
HANNITY: "Historically in every recovery, because the president
rightly did inherit a recession. But historically, the lagging
indicator always deals with employment." (1/15/04)
HANNITY: "Congressman Deutsch, maybe you forgot but I'll be glad to
remind you, the president did inherit that recession." (1/20/04)
HANNITY: "He did inherit a recession, and we're out of the
recession." (2/2/04)
HANNITY: "The president inherited a recession." (2/23/04)
HANNITY: "The president inherited a recession." (3/3/04)
HANNITY: "Well, you know, we're going to show ads, as a matter of
fact, in the next segment, Congressman. Thanks for promoting our next
segment. What I like about them is everything I've been saying the
president ought to do: is focusing in on his positions, on keeping the
nation secure in very difficult times, what he's been able to do to
the economy after inheriting a very difficult recession, and of
course, the economic impact of 9/11." (3/3/04)
HANNITY: "All right. So this is where I view the economic scenario as
we head into this election. The president inherited a
recession." (3/16/04)
HANNITY: "First of all, we've got to put it into perspective, is that
the president inherited a recession." (3/26/04)
HANNITY: "Clearly, we're out of the recession that President Bush
inherited." (4/2/04)
HANNITY: "Stop me where I'm wrong. The president inherited a
recession, the economic impact of 9/11 was tremendous on the economy,
correct?" (4/6/04)
HANNITY: "[President George W. Bush] did inherit a
recession." (5/3/04)
HANNITY: "[W]e got [the weak U.S. economy] out of the Clinton-Gore
recession." (5/18/04)
HANNITY: "We got out of the Clinton-Gore recession." (5/27/04)
HANNITY: "We got out of the Clinton-Gore recession." (6/4/04)
FACT: "The recession officially began in March of 2001 -- two months
after Bush was sworn in -- according to the universally acknowledged
arbiter of such things, the National Bureau of Economic Research. And
the president, at other times, has said so himself." (Washington Post,
7/1/03)
HANNITY: "The Hispanic community got to know him in Texas. They went
almost overwhelming for him. He more than quadrupled the Hispanic vote
that he got in that state." (9/16/03)
FACT: Exit polls varied in 1998 governors race, but under best
scenario he increased his Hispanic vote from 24 to 49 percent – a
doubling not a quadrupling. He lost Texas Hispanics to Gore in 2000,
54-43 percent. (Source: NCLR, NHCSL)
HANNITY: "Look, we've had these reports, very disturbing reports --
and I have actually spoken to people that have confirmed a lot of the
reports -- about the trashing of the White House. Pornographic
materials left in the printers. They cut the phone lines. Lewd and
crude messages on phone machines. Stripping of anything that was not
bolted down on Air Force One. $200,000 in furniture taken
out." (1/26/01)
TRUTH: According to statements from the General Services
Administration that were reported on May 17, little if anything out of
the ordinary occurred during the transition, and "the condition of the
real property was consistent with what we would expect to encounter
when tenants vacate office space after an extended occupancy." (FAIR)
HANNITY: "I never questioned anyone's patriotism." (9/18/03)
FACT:
HANNITY: (to attorney Stanley Cohen) "Is it you hate this president or
that you hate America?" (4/30/03)
HANNITY: "Governor, why wouldn't anyone want to say the Pledge of
Allegiance, unless they detested their own country or were ignorant of
its greatness?" (6/12/03)
HANNITY: "You could explain something about your magazine, [the
Nation]. Lisa Featherstone writing about the hate America march, the
[anti-war] march that took place over the weekend..." (1/22/03)
HANNITY: "'I hate America.' This is the extreme left. There is a
portion of the left -- not everybody who's left -- that does hate this
country and blame this country for the ills of the world..." (1/23/02)
HANNITY: (speaking to Sara Flounders co-director of the International
Action Center) "You don't like this country, do you? You don't -- you
think this is an evil country. By your description of it right here,
you think it's a bad country." (9/25/01)
HANNITY: "It doesn't say anywhere in the Constitution this idea of the
separation of church and state." (8/25/03)
FACT: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." (1st Amendment)
"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of
the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial
Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall
be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no
religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office
or public Trust under the United States." (Article VI)
HANNITY: "You want to refer to some liberal activist judge..., that's
fine, but I'm going to go directly to the source. The author of the
Bill of Rights [James Madison] hired the first chaplain in 1789, and I
gotta' tell ya' somethin', I think the author of the Bill of Rights
knows more about the original intent--no offense to you and your
liberal atheist activism--knows more about it than you do." (9/4/02)
TRUTH: The first congressional chaplains weren't hired by James
Madison--they were appointed by a committee of the Senate and House
in, respectively, April and May, 1789, before the First Amendment even
existed. James Madison's view: "Is the appointment of Chaplains to the
two Houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the
pure principle of religious freedom? In strictness the answer on both
points must be in the negative." (James Madison)
HANNITY: "But the Alabama Constitution, which Chief Justice Roy Moore
is sworn to uphold, clearly it says, as a matter of fact that the
recognition of God is the foundation of that state's
Constitution." (8/21/03)
FACT: While the preamble of the Alabama Constitution does reference
"the Almighty," section three provides: "That no religion shall be
established by law; that no preference shall be given by law to any
religious sect, society, denomination, or mode of worship; that no one
shall be compelled by law to attend any place of worship; nor to pay
any tithes, taxes, or other rate for building or repairing any place
of worship, or for maintaining any minister or ministry; that no
religious test shall be required as a qualification to any office or
public trust under this state; and that the civil rights, privileges,
and capacities of any citizen shall not be in any manner affected by
his religious principles." (Alabama Constitution, Section 3)
HANNITY: Betsy, they're not going to lose it [public housing], because
if you work less than 30 hours a week -- if you work more than 30
hours a week, you don't have to do it. If you're between the ages of
18 and 62 and you're not legally disabled and you have free housing --
in other words...
BETSY MCCAUGHEY: No. Wait a second, Sean. Let me correct you. Most
people in public housing are not receiving free housing. Many of them
are paying almost market rates.
HANNITY: Betsy, that is so ridiculous and so false, it's hardly even
worth spending the time. (10/23/03)
FACT: Residents of public housing pay rent scaled to their household's
anticipated gross annual income, less deductions for dependents and
disabilities. The basic formula for rent is 30 percent of this monthly
adjusted income. There are exceptions for extremely low incomes, but
the minimum rent is $25 per month. No one lives in public housing for
free. (Department of Housing and Urban Development)
HANNITY: "The Kerry campaign wants to cut taxes on people who make two
hundred thousand dollars. She [Teresa Heinz Kerry] only paid 14.7
percent of her income in taxes, because their plan doesn't go to
dividends, only income. So they don't want to tax
themselves." (5/12/04)
FACT: Kerry's plan would "Restore the capital gains and dividend rates
for families making over $200,000 on income earned above $200,000 to
their levels under President Clinton. (Kerry Press Release, 4/7/04)
HANNITY: "He's [Kerry's] flip-flopped all over the place... on the
issue of Iraq. All the munitions that we have built up, most of them
wouldn't be there." (1/30/04)
HANNITY: "But he wanted to cancel�???every major weapons system.
Specific votes that he would have canceled the weapons systems we now
use." (2/26/04)
FACT: "In 1991, Kerry opposed an amendment to impose an arbitrary 2
percent cut in the military budget. In 1992, he opposed an amendment
to cut Pentagon intelligence programs by $1 billion. In 1994, he voted
against a motion to cut $30.5 billion from the defense budget over the
next five years and to redistribute the money to programs for
education and the disabled. That same year, he opposed an amendment to
postpone construction of a new aircraft carrier. In 1996, he opposed a
motion to cut six F-18 jet fighters from the budget. In 1999, he voted
against a motion to terminate the Trident II missile." (Slate,
2/25/04)
HANNITY: "If he (Kerry) had his way and the CIA would almost be
nonexistent." (1/30/04)
FACT: John Kerry has supported $200 billion in intelligence funding
over the past seven years - a 50 percent increase since 1996.
Kerry votes supporting intelligence funding:
FY03 Intel Authorization $39.3-$41.3 Billion
[2002, Unanimous Senate Voice Vote 9/25/02]
FY02 Intel Authorization $33 Billion
[2001, Unanimous Senate Voice Vote 12/13/01]
FY01 Intel Authorization $29.5-$31.5 Billion
[2000, Unanimous Senate Voice Vote 12/6/00]
FY00 Intel Authorization $29-$30 Billion
[1999, Unanimous Senate Voice Vote 11/19/1999]
FY99 Intel Authorization $29.0 Billion
[1998, Unanimous Senate Voice Vote 10/8/98]
FY98 Intel Authorization $26.7 Billion
[1997, Senate Roll Call Vote #109]
FY97 Intel Authorization $26.6 Billion
[1996, Unanimous Senate Voice Vote 9/25/96]
Jason Pawloski
No, it's not.
--
Voted RGP's Stupidest Poster on 3/22/09
"BART [Bay Area Rapid Transit] is rather new." - Jerry Sturdivant chiming
in on how little he knows about a train system that's been operational
since 1972
______________________________________________________________________�
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
La Cosa Nostradamus
> On 2009-06-30 10:39:13 -0700, "La Cosa Nostradamus"
> <a6f...@webnntp.invalid> said:
>
> > All planets are presently warming, in about 3.5 years they will start
> > COOLING
> >
> > EVERY molecule on our planet, in our solar system and in our galaxy is
> > warming for another 3.5 years.
>
> If this pathetic attempt at scientific knowledge weren't so fucking
> funny it would be a very sad commentary on the state of scientific
> understanding on this newsgroup.
Gosh, your commentary is sad. You say someone is wrong then run off and
hide. How hard is that ?
>
> Carry on as usual. It's really good entertainment!
> --
>
> thepixelfreak
December 21,2012 playlist
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=D3A0E9D9365E4D5B
_______________________________________________________________________�
garycarson
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> After reviewing the scientific literature that the EPA is relying on,
> Carlin said, he concluded that it was at least three years out of date
> and did not reflect the latest research.
> "My personal view is that there is not currently any reason to
> regulate (carbon dioxide)," he said. "There may be in the future. But
> global temperatures are roughly where they were in the mid-20th
> century.
> They're not going up, and if anything they're going down."
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Well, he didn't say that they have been uniformly going down every
> single year of the 11, but the trend was still down, not up.
Well, no, he didn't say anything about trend. Globald temp has a lot of
noise. It's hard to identify the signal. He's talking about his
"personal view"? What the hell does that mean?
Just because this years temp is the same as the temp in 1950 says very
little about trend -- it could well have an upward trend but just be the
same in those two years because of noise (variance).
eleaticus
one with the cover showing an Iranian woman examining a punch card for
hanging chad - has a great article about global warming and its main
scientific bell-ringer.
Including the new belief that the tipping point for catastrophe is not 450
parts CO2 per zillion, but 350, and we're already at 370-380.
Paul Popinjay
>
> Including the new belief that the tipping point for catastrophe is not 450
> parts CO2 per zillion, but 350, and we're already at 370-380.
>
>
Thank God it's 350 parts per zillion and not 350 per gazillion. We'd
really be fucked.
da pickle
If the "new" belief is correct, it is already "too late" ... wine, women and
song is all we have left.
Bob T.
That's certainly not true. There's also gambling.
- Bob T.
da pickle
> >> Including the new belief that the tipping point for catastrophe is not
> >> 450
> >> parts CO2 per zillion, but 350, and we're already at 370-380.
>
> > Thank God it's 350 parts per zillion and not 350 per gazillion. We'd
> > really be fucked.
>
> If the "new" belief is correct, it is already "too late" ... wine, women
> and
> song is all we have left.
That's certainly not true. There's also gambling.
==========================
There is that too. Just because you are playing bridge does not mean that
you cannot come to BARGE.
Bea Foroni
You'll can make jokes and deny or wring your hands or wear a tin foil
hat, but one fact is certain; If we exploit alternative energy
sources, America would be more secure from economic blackmail.
I think the whole global warming thing is just a big dog and pony
show, meant to calm any anxiety felt by our oil suppling 'allies'.
Every time the gasoline tax is raised, @PEC becomes antsy and cuts
production. Imagine the reaction if we told them what we really were
up to, planning to drop them like a bad habit.
Remember when we stopped putting lead in gasoline? There were people
saying it was goverment intrusion and no one would be able to afford
to get to work? Now the idea of burning leaded fuel seems barbaric.
When I was a little child everyone rode horses. But the price of hay
went up and the cities were becoming full of horse shit (hey N.H. guy,
I don't remember if it steamed). As the price of keeping a horse went
up, the price of owning an automobile seemed more reasonable. There
were those who complained about the price of hay and poop removal, and
there were those who embraced the new technology.
I can't wait until roofing shingles are replaced with photoelectric
cells. My backyard would have a windmill, decorated to go with my
garden. And from the basement will be a pipe that conveys geothermal
power from the deep well drilled in the neighborhood.
Don't you guys read science fiction? In the future there are no
internal combustion engines. Everything is done with magnets and
electrons. The only future where oil is used are those that resemble
Mad Max and Water World, post apoctolyptic.
Don't bring up that old chestnut about drilling off shore, if we are
sticking with oil it serves us best to not use up ours.
da pickle
Don't you guys read science fiction? In the future there are no
internal combustion engines. Everything is done with magnets and
electrons.
=====================
Cars mostly work on magnets and electrons now.
Bob T.
Well, it kinda does, at least for now. I've got a couple of big long-
term projects going on this year, and I can't take too much time off.
- Bob T.
Clave
news:FPm2m.1921$bq1....@nlpi066.nbdc.sbc.com...
<...snip the usual FAUX-news horseshit...>
The analyst in question is Alan Carlin, an economist who
has been with the EPA since 1972. Although this has been
presented as if his report was skeptical of the received
wisdom regarding climate change, a report found on his
website (Why a Different Approach Is Required if Global
Climate Change Is to Be Controlled Efficiently or Even
at All), suggests that he is not a skeptic at all, but
rather advocates geoengineering as opposed to limits on
greenhouse gases. Some of his opinions differ from the
IPCC consensus and most probably differ from the EPA
proposal to treat CO2 as a pollutant. But the idea that
Carlin is a skeptic whose ideas are being suppressed is
probably far from the truth.
<...>
Response from the EPA:
"This Administration and this EPA Administrator are fully
committed to openness, transparency and science-based
decision making. These principles were reflected
throughout the development of the proposed Endangerment
finding, a process in which a broad array of voices were
heard and an inter agency review was conducted. In this
instance, certain opinions were expressed by an individual
who is not a scientist and was not part of the working
group dealing with this issue.
Nevertheless, several of the opinions and ideas proposed
by this individual were submitted to those responsible for
developing the proposed endangerment finding. Additionally,
his manager allowed his general views on the subject of
climate change to be heard and considered inside and outside
the EPA and presented at conferences and at an agency
seminar. The individual was also granted a request to join
a committee that organizes an ongoing climate seminar
series, open to both agency and outside experts, where he
has been able to invite speakers with a full range of views
on climate science. The claims that his opinions were not
considered or studied are entirely false."
- EPA Press Secretary Adora Andy
brewmaster
That would be very interesting if zillion where actually a number.
Brew
--
Hatred is purity...weakness is disease!
-----�
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
bub
<BeaF...@msn.com> wrote:
>If we exploit alternative energy
>sources, America would be more secure from economic blackmail.
barry says iran can have nuclear power
we get fucking windmills
Bea Foroni
> On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 16:29:21 -0700 (PDT), Bea Foroni
>
> >If we exploit alternative energy
> >sources, America would be more secure from economic blackmail.
>
> barry says iran can have nuclear power
>
> we get fucking windmills
Who's barry?
DaVoice (recgroups)
> On Jun 30 2009 10:37 AM, Dave the Clueless wrote:
>
> > On Jun 30 2009 9:41 AM, smk17 wrote:
> >
> > > FOX news is not news. Say that 1,000 times. Turn the channel. Any news
> > > corporation that hasn't reported ONE positive thing about President
> > > Obama has flipped over it's hand and can hide no more behind its
> > > "we're a legitimate news corp" facade. Look at their website, it's
> > > just SEX, SKIN, LIES, and VIDEOTAPE. Quite sickening. The reason you
> > > think global warming is bullshit is solely because of the station you
> > > decided to tune your TV/Radio to.
> >
> > So, the report is false? There is no investigation into suppressed
> > information at EPA?
>
> The only report of it I've seen was from Sean Hannity who has a history of
> misrepresentation and sometimes just making stuff up.
Libertarian GLENN BECK reported on it, as well.
Rick "ADB DaVoice" Charles
http://www.voiceofpoker.com
-----�
bub
<BeaF...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>Who's barry?
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/1/18/181128/082
who is beatrice?
"Look Paul or WC or sue or whatever your name is at this second"
bea foroni 6/02/2009
garycarson
> On Jun 30 2009 9:14 AM, garycarson wrote:
>
> > On Jun 30 2009 10:37 AM, Dave the Clueless wrote:
> >
> > > On Jun 30 2009 9:41 AM, smk17 wrote:
> > >
> > > > FOX news is not news. Say that 1,000 times. Turn the channel. Any news
> > > > corporation that hasn't reported ONE positive thing about President
> > > > Obama has flipped over it's hand and can hide no more behind its
> > > > "we're a legitimate news corp" facade. Look at their website, it's
> > > > just SEX, SKIN, LIES, and VIDEOTAPE. Quite sickening. The reason you
> > > > think global warming is bullshit is solely because of the station you
> > > > decided to tune your TV/Radio to.
> > >
> > > So, the report is false? There is no investigation into suppressed
> > > information at EPA?
> >
> > The only report of it I've seen was from Sean Hannity who has a history of
> > misrepresentation and sometimes just making stuff up.
>
> Libertarian GLENN BECK reported on it, as well.
>
Oh, Glenn Beck. Is he the one that never misrepresents anything?
Why do you always feel the compulsion to yell? This isn't shock radio.
--------�
Pepe Papon
<a6f...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
>i think obama sent more troops to the paki border?
>All i was able to read was blahblahblah.
Sorry you have this problem.
>Can you write some original thoughts ?
You asked for a link, and he posted a link. If you're looking for
original thoughts, don't request a link.
>I could cut and paste some bs i copied from some assclown site too, i just
>dont go to assclown sites.
>
>On Jun 30 2009 1:07 PM, smk17 wrote:
>
>> On Jun 30, 1:40�pm, "La Cosa Nostradamus" <a6f4...@webnntp.invalid>
>> wrote:
>> > On Jun 30 2009 12:14 PM, garycarson wrote:
>> >
>>
>> >
>> > > The only report of it I've seen was from Sean Hannity who has a history
>of
>> > > misrepresentation and sometimes just making stuff up.
>> >
>> > Can you provide a link to Sean making up stuff ?
>> >
>>
>>
>> How about this, just for starters.....
>>
>> As Media Matters for America has demonstrated time and again, Fox
>> News' Sean Hannity has been a prolific and influential purveyor of
>> conservative misinformation. But never has he so enthusiastically
>> applied his talents for spreading misinformation as he did to the 2008
>> presidential race, focusing his energies primarily on President-elect
>> Barack Obama. Day after day, Hannity devoted his two Fox News shows
>> and his three-hour ABC Radio Networks program to "demonizing" the
>> Democratic presidential candidates, starkly explaining in August:
>> "That's my job. ... I led the 'Stop Hillary Express.' By the way, now
>> it's the 'Stop Obama Express.' " Hannity's "Stop Obama Express"
>> promoted and embellished a vast array of misleading attacks and false
>> claims about Obama. Along the way, he uncritically adopted and
>> promoted countless Republican talking points and played host to
>> numerous credibility-challenged smear artists who painted Obama as a
>> dangerous radical. When he was not going after Obama, Hannity attacked
>> members of Obama's family, as well as Sen. Hillary Clinton and other
>> progressives, and denied all the while that he had unfairly attacked
>> anyone.
>>
>> Hannity's attacks may have also influenced mainstream media coverage.
>> ABC News' George Stephanopoulos appeared on Hannity's radio program on
>> April 15, during which Hannity suggested to Stephanopoulos that he ask
>> Obama at the Democratic presidential debate the following evening
>> about his "association with Bill Ayers, the unrepentant terrorist from
>> the Weather Underground." Stephanopoulos assured Hannity that he was
>> "taking notes right now." Stephanopoulos then did ask Obama at the
>> debate to "explain that relationship for the voters, and explain to
>> Democrats why it won't be a problem," though he later denied that
>> Hannity had exerted any influence on his questioning.
>>
>> Because of the unending stream of falsehoods and character attacks
>> that fueled the "Stop Obama Express," and the countless other
>> distortions he promoted throughout 2008, Sean Hannity is Media Matters
>> for America's Misinformer of the Year.
>>
>> Among the myriad falsehoods and attacks that Hannity promoted
>> throughout 2008, several found their way into regular rotation:
>>
>> Obama will "invade" Pakistan
>>
>> In an August 1, 2007, speech, Obama said of terrorists in Pakistan:
>>
>> OBAMA: I understand that President [Pervez] Musharraf has his own
>> challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up
>> in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to
>> strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a
>> chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have
>> actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and
>> President Musharraf won't act, we will.
>> Almost immediately afterward, Hannity began attacking Obama over the
>> comment, claiming he made a "rookie mistake" by saying "I'll invade an
>> ally." In fact, Obama never said he would "invade" Pakistan, and
>> Hannity's co-host Alan Colmes corrected Hannity and accurately quoted
>> Obama. Nevertheless, Hannity repeated the accusation several times
>> throughout 2008, even once to former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who
>> had just two days earlier advocated a position on Pakistan very
>> similar to Obama's.
>>
>> "Air-raiding villages"
>>
>> At an August 13, 2007, campaign stop, Obama said regarding the war in
>> Afghanistan: "We've got to get the job done there and that requires us
>> to have enough troops so that we're not just air-raiding villages and
>> killing civilians, which is causing enormous pressure over there." As
>> Media Matters noted at the time, Obama's comments were accurate --
>> U.S. airstrikes in Afghanistan and accounts of resulting civilian
>> casualties were widely reported in the media and reportedly provoked
>> criticism from Afghan President Hamid Karzai and a British commander
>> stationed there. Time and again, however, Hannity used these comments
>> to attack and denounce Obama, even after Defense Secretary Robert
>> Gates acknowledged and apologized for Afghan civilian deaths caused by
>> coalition airstrikes. Hannity has called the statement a "lie" and
>> evidence that Obama was "the most radical and unqualified candidate";
>> mischaracterized Obama's remarks as an "accus[ation]" against
>> "American troops" and praised Gov. Sarah Palin for attacking Obama
>> over the comments; and cited Obama's remarks to question his
>> "experience to be commander in chief."
>>
>> Most liberal senator
>>
>> When the National Journal announced that Barack Obama was the "most
>> liberal" senator in 2007, according to their ranking system, Hannity
>> was one of many conservative media figures to tout the statistic
>> despite the facts that the National Journal considered just 99 votes
>> in its survey and that the publication admitted that its previous
>> surveys' methodologies had been flawed. Moreover, a separate study by
>> political science professors Keith Poole and Jeff Lewis that used all
>> 388 non-unanimous Senate votes during 2007 produced a different
>> result, placing Obama in a tie for the ranking of 10th most liberal
>> senator. Hannity, however, has attacked Obama as "the number one
>> liberal -- National Journal -- in the United States Senate" and called
>> him the "No. 1 radical liberal in the Senate" and "the most liberal
>> senator in Washington" (Hannity's America, July 13). On the October 26
>> Hannity's America, Hannity listed his "top 10 reasons" not to vote for
>> Obama, and introduced his sixth reason -- "Barack Obama is anything
>> but mainstream" -- by saying: "Obama's position on many issues has
>> earned him the spot as the most liberal senator in the United States."
>>
>> Defense spending
>>
>> In October 2007, Obama told Caucus4Priorities:
>>
>> OBAMA: I will cut tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending. I
>> will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems. I will not
>> weaponize space. I will slow our development of Future Combat Systems.
>> And I will institute an independent defense priorities board to ensure
>> that the quadrennial defense review is not used to justify unnecessary
>> spending.
>> At several points throughout 2008, however, Hannity mischaracterized
>> this statement, claiming that Obama "talked about in the campaign
>> cutting tens of millions of dollars in defense spending," when Obama
>> clearly said he would cut wasteful spending.
>>
>> Attacks on Obama's family, associations
>>
>> In addition to assailing Obama, Hannity also falsely attacked Obama's
>> wife, Michelle, and mischaracterized Obama's associations with certain
>> controversial figures in order to make Obama appear radical or
>> corrupt:
>>
>> Hannity repeatedly distorted Michelle Obama's 1985 senior thesis from
>> Princeton University, suggesting that she was asserting her own views
>> when she wrote that "[i]t is possible that Black individuals either
>> chose to or felt pressure to come together with other Blacks on campus
>> because of the belief that Blacks must join in solidarity to combat a
>> White oppressor." As the context of the quote makes clear, however,
>> she was purporting to document attitudes among black Princeton alumni
>> who attended the school in the '70s and not expressing her own
>> opinions. Hannity employed this distortion at one point to ask: "Do
>> the Obamas have a race problem of their own?"
>> Hannity also frequently attempted to link Obama to Nation of Islam
>> leader Louis Farrakhan, claiming that Obama "associated" himself with
>> Farrakhan and pointing to an award given to Farrakhan by Trumpet
>> Newsmagazine, a publication founded by Obama's former church. What
>> Hannity consistently failed to note in asserting this linkage,
>> however, is that Obama issued a statement disagreeing with the award
>> and criticizing Farrakhan, and that Obama has said he has been "a
>> consistent denunciator of Louis Farrakhan."
>> Hannity also repeatedly suggested that Obama was able to purchase his
>> Chicago home at a discounted price because convicted Chicago
>> businessman Antoin Rezko purchased an adjacent lot on the same day. As
>> Media Matters noted, the sellers of the Obama's house reportedly told
>> Bloomberg News that they did not cut the price of the house for Obama
>> "because a campaign donor bought their adjacent land," and that the
>> Obamas had made the "best offer." Nevertheless, Hannity asked on the
>> June 5 broadcast of his radio program: "Did Obama know at the time
>> that Rezko was saving him three hundred grand on the purchase of his
>> home?"
>> GOP mouthpiece
>>
>> Hannity helped to boost Republicans throughout 2008, parroting false
>> McCain campaign talking points, touting unscientific polling to
>> promote Sen. John McCain's debate performances, and embellishing
>> President George W. Bush's economic record:
>>
>> On January 3, Hannity interviewed then-Republican presidential
>> candidate Rudy Giuliani and failed to disclose that he had reportedly
>> helped raise money for Giuliani's campaign. The New York Daily News
>> reported on August 19, 2007, that Hannity "introduced the Republican
>> front-runner at a closed-door, $250-per-head fundraiser Aug. 9 in
>> Cincinnati, campaign officials acknowledge." Bill Shine, Fox's senior
>> vice president of programming, was quoted in the article saying, "Sean
>> is not a journalist -- Sean is a conservative commentator."
>> On July 26, the McCain campaign released an ad claiming that Obama for
>> "cancelled a visit with wounded troops" at the Landstuhl Regional
>> Medical Center in Germany because "the Pentagon wouldn't allow him to
>> bring cameras." This claim was quickly debunked by NBC chief foreign
>> affairs correspondent Andrea Mitchell, who accompanied Obama on the
>> overseas trip. Mitchell said on MSNBC on July 28: "There was never any
>> intention -- let me be absolutely clear about this. The press was
>> never going to go. The entourage was never going to go. There was
>> never an intention to make this political. ... And the McCain
>> commercial on this subject is completely wrong, factually wrong."
>> Nonetheless, Hannity claimed on the July 29 edition of Hannity &
>> Colmes that Obama "abandon[ed] the troop visit because the cameras
>> weren't around -- allowed and the campaign wasn't allowed," and
>> repeated the allegation on July 30.
>> On September 10, the McCain campaign released a web ad claiming that
>> Obama "smear[ed]" Palin when he said at a campaign rally the previous
>> day: "But, you know, you can -- you know, you can put lipstick on a
>> pig; it's still a pig." On a September 9 McCain campaign conference
>> call with reporters, former Massachusetts Gov. Jane Swift (R) claimed
>> Obama "[c]all[ed] a very prominent female governor of one of our
>> states a 'pig.' " As Media Matters noted, Obama was actually alluding
>> to McCain's policy platform in those comments, Swift herself later
>> admitted not "know[ing] if it was aimed at Governor Palin," and the
>> phrase "lipstick on a pig" is in common parlance and has been used by
>> many political figures, including McCain. Hannity, however, insisted
>> that Obama was "talking about Sarah Palin," even after McCain
>> supporter Mike Huckabee told Hannity: "I do not think he was referring
>> to Sarah Palin. He didn't reference her."
>> On September 18, McCain released an ad citing The Washington Post in
>> claiming that former Fannie Mae CEO Franklin Raines "advises" Obama
>> "on mortgage and housing policy." Both Raines and Obama denied the
>> allegation, and the washingtonpost.com Fact-Checker determined that
>> the McCain ad "exaggerat[ed] wildly" in its claim about Raines'
>> purported role with the Obama campaign. On the September 23 edition of
>> Hannity & Colmes, however, Hannity went beyond the McCain campaign's
>> allegation, claiming that Raines was "a chief economic adviser" to
>> Obama. Hannity later claimed that Raines was "an economic adviser" to
>> Obama, citing The Washington Post, even though the Fact-Checker had
>> already called such claims "exaggerat[ed]."
>> Following the September 26 presidential debate, Hannity touted the
>> results of a Fox News text-message poll that found that McCain won the
>> debate, saying: "[W]e have gotten around 50,000 text votes so far.
>> Eighty-two percent are correct: They say John McCain won." Unmentioned
>> by Hannity was the fact that Fox News started conducting the poll
>> while the debate was still going on. On-screen text had invited
>> viewers to vote on "who [they] thought won" the debate as early as
>> 9:12 p.m. ET, 10 minutes after the candidates began responding to the
>> moderator's questions. Media Matters has documented Hannity's shifting
>> opinions of text-message polls, depending on who the results favor.
>> On the December 8 Hannity & Colmes, Hannity claimed, "We had a good
>> six and a half years with the economy" under Bush, adding: "We created
>> 10 million new jobs, lower unemployment than in the last four decades'
>> average." In fact, the United States has gained 2,866,000 net private-
>> sector jobs between 2001, when Bush took office, and the first quarter
>> of 2008, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Also,
>> Hannity's claim about the unemployment rate is misleading, given that
>> Bush inherited from Clinton an employment rate that was lower than the
>> average unemployment rate during the Bush years.
>> Smears of Democrats
>>
>> When not promoting the "Stop Obama Express" or the "Stop Hillary
>> Express," Hannity found time to falsely attack other prominent
>> Democrats:
>>
>> On the December 4 editions of Hannity & Colmes and his radio program,
>> Hannity suggested that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's use of a military
>> jet was unprecedented, despite the fact that the White House and the
>> Defense Department agreed in 2001 that military planes should be made
>> available to the speaker of the House for national security reasons.
>> The first speaker to use such a plane was Dennis Hastert (R-IL).
>> Hannity has repeatedly attacked Minnesota Democratic Senate candidate
>> Al Franken. Hannity baselessly accused Franken of "stealing an
>> election" by challenging ballots that appeared to favor Franken's
>> opponent, Republican Sen. Norm Coleman, failing to note that Coleman
>> also challenged ballots that appeared to favor Franken. Hannity also
>> claimed that by challenging ballots, Franken was "trying to litigate
>> his way into the Senate seat," even though Franken and Coleman had
>> challenged roughly the same number of ballots at the time.
>> Hannity was one of many conservatives to baselessly blame "the
>> Democrats" and the Community Reinvestment Act, passed in 1977 under
>> President Jimmy Carter, for the current financial crisis, saying: "The
>> federal government and the Democrats ... forced these banks, through
>> the Community Reinvestment Act, to make these risky loans," adding:
>> "The risky loans started the subprime mortgage crisis, which impacted
>> all these financial institutions, which needed government bailouts."
>> As Media Matters has noted, the allegation that the Community
>> Reinvestment Act is the cause of the financial crisis has been widely
>> discredited.
>> Following Obama's selection of Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) as White House
>> chief of staff, Hannity attacked Emanuel as "one of the hardest left-
>> wing ... radicals," citing no evidence. Contrary to Hannity's
>> assertion, a study using every non-unanimous vote cast in the House in
>> 2007 to determine relative ideology placed Emanuel in a tie for the
>> ranking of 126th most liberal Democratic congressman, while several
>> news reports cast Emanuel as "a centrist" who has "worked at good
>> relations with Republicans."
>> Hannity falsely accused former President Bill Clinton of "taking a
>> shot at Senator McCain" during July 5 remarks at the Aspen Ideas
>> Festival, airing a deceptively cropped video of Clinton's comments. As
>> the full context of Clinton's remarks made clear, however, he was not
>> discussing McCain, but rather what former South African president --
>> and political prisoner -- Nelson Mandela means to him.
>> Conspiracy conjecture
>>
>> Hannity frequently launched attacks on Obama and other progressives
>> that were totally unsubstantiated or wildly speculative and which were
>> often contradicted by available evidence:
>>
>> Commenting on the State Department's admission that Obama's passport
>> records had been repeatedly accessed without authorization by three
>> contract workers, Hannity said on the March 20 edition of Hannity &
>> Colmes: "Seems to me Barack Obama is looking for anything to distract
>> from the story of Jeremiah Wright."
>> On the July 30 broadcast of his radio show, Hannity repeated the
>> already-debunked allegation that Obama had distributed to the press a
>> prayer he had written and left at the Western Wall in Jerusalem: "[E]
>> verything was well orchestrated, all the timing -- you know, for
>> example, even the release of the note that he put at the Western Wall,
>> that was all leaked to the press, and that was a big deal as well."
>> After airing a deceptively cropped recording of Hillary Clinton
>> commenting on the October 2 vice-presidential debate, Hannity said on
>> the October 6 broadcast of his radio show: "I just had to play that
>> 'cause you just know the Clintons are just -- why do I bet, and this
>> is just a guess on my part, that Hillary and Bill go in there, and
>> they vote for John McCain? I just know it. I really believe it."
>> On the December 9 edition of Hannity & Colmes, Hannity disregarded the
>> context in which the word "president-elect" appears in the criminal
>> complaint filed against Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D), declaring:
>> "The pres -- the word 'president-elect' is mentioned 44 times in the
>> document. Pretty troubling." Hannity never explained what he found
>> "troubling" about those mentions, given that there are no allegations
>> of wrongdoing against Obama in the document. Indeed, with one
>> exception, none of the 44 instances in which "president-elect" was
>> used in the complaint actually mentioned any alleged conduct or
>> statement by President-elect Barack Obama, much less any conduct or
>> statement amounting to wrongdoing. The one exception was an allegation
>> that Blagojevich complained that Obama would not give him anything
>> other than "appreciation."
>> Selective amnesia
>>
>> Even though Hannity and the rest of the conservative media spent much
>> of the 2008 election cycle falsely attacking Obama and other
>> progressives, he stridently denied that such attacks were happening
>> and constantly rallied to the defense of Republicans and conservatives
>> accused of smearing Democrats and liberals.
>>
>> On the September 8 broadcast of The Sean Hannity Show, Hannity accused
>> Obama of an "outright falsehood," asserting that Obama said "Fox News
>> and Republican commentators suggest that, in other words, that he is a
>> Muslim. No one has ever suggested that." In reality, Fox News was
>> quite infamously the home of E.D. Hill and the "terrorist fist jab,"
>> and several other Fox News personalities promoted false reports about
>> Obama's religion, including the claim that Obama was educated in a
>> madrassa.
>> On the August 4 broadcast of his radio program, Hannity claimed that
>> Obama could not "point to a single instance in which ... Sean Hannity
>> or talk radio or any other major Republican has made an issue of
>> Obama's race." On the October 13 edition of Hannity & Colmes, he
>> claimed that "[n]obody in the Republican Party" resorted to overtones
>> of "race and fear" in attacking Obama. Months earlier, however,
>> Hannity had claimed that Obama "has all the same problems with race as
>> those before him," and asked: "Do the Obamas have a race problem of
>> their own?" As Media Matters noted, Hannity was joined by Rush
>> Limbaugh, John Gibson, and several Republican officials and supporters
>> in making "an issue of Obama's race" or name.
>> On the July 31 Hannity & Colmes, Hannity incredulously challenged a
>> guest: "Can you name any prominent Republican that has brought up --
>> that has said that [Obama] is not patriotic, or that he's got a funny
>> name, or that he doesn't look like those presidents on dollar bills?
>> Do you know any prominent Republican that has said any of these
>> things?" In fact, Hannity himself had raised questions about Obama's
>> patriotism, as had Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA), while Rep. Steve King (R-
>> IA) claimed that if Obama was elected, "radical Islamists" would "be
>> dancing in the streets because of his middle name."
>> On the August 25 edition of Hannity & Colmes, Hannity proclaimed that
>> he thought was "more fair to the Clintons" during the 2008 Democratic
>> primaries. He claimed this despite the fact that in February he
>> proudly declared himself the leader of the "Stop Hillary Express," and
>> throughout 2007, he attacked Clinton as a socialist, suggested she was
>> a co-conspirator in a murder cover-up, and denounced her for "hate
>> speech" against Republicans, among other things. Less than a week
>> after claiming he was "more fair to the Clintons," Hannity declared
>> that "demonizing" Clinton was his "job," and acknowledged having
>> rechristened the "Stop Hillary Express" as the "Stop Obama Express."
>> On the September 1 edition of Hannity & Colmes, Hannity, referring to
>> Internet rumors about Palin's daughter, said: "Is that fair that they
>> would attack that? I mean, I don't remember Chelsea Clinton being
>> attacked. I don't remember Al Gore's children being attacked. I
>> thought there was a general rule that children of candidates ought to
>> be left alone." Hannity's memory notwithstanding, Chelsea Clinton was
>> not "left alone." McCain reportedly told a "joke" about Chelsea
>> Clinton in 1998, saying: "Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly? Because her
>> father is Janet Reno." Radio host Rush Limbaugh is alleged to have
>> referred to Chelsea Clinton early in the Clinton administration as the
>> "White House dog."
>> Character assassins
>>
>> Hannity, on his Fox News shows and his ABC Radio Networks program,
>> hosted several controversial guests who attacked Obama, despite their
>> documented credibility problems and histories of inflammatory
>> rhetoric.
>>
>> Andy Martin
>> Self-described "Internet Powerhouse" Andy Martin's years-long crusade
>> against Obama has taken on many forms, almost all of them completely
>> divorced from factual accuracy. Martin has been credited as the
>> originator, in 2004, of the false rumor that Obama is actually a
>> Muslim. Shortly before Obama launched his presidential campaign in
>> February 2007, Martin promoted his "CIA-style psychological profile"
>> on Obama that "will cast more light on Barack's supple psyche and his
>> ability to seamlessly deny objective reality." Months later, Martin
>> baselessly attacked Obama for "lock[ing] the grandmother who actually
>> raised him away in a closet" in "one of the cruelest and most
>> mendacious political kidnappings this nation has ever seen." Prior to
>> all this, Martin reportedly attacked a federal judge as a "crooked,
>> slimy Jew, who has a history of lying and thieving common to members
>> of his race," expressed "understand[ing] for how the Holocaust took
>> place," and the Illinois Supreme Court reportedly noted that,
>> according to his Selective Service records, Martin possessed a
>> "moderately-severe character defect manifested by well documented
>> ideation with a paranoid flavor and a grandiose character."
>>
>> Despite Martin's glaring credibility issues and history of "viciously
>> anti-Semitic assertions," he featured prominently in the October 5
>> edition of Hannity's America, titled "Obama & Friends: History of
>> Radicalism". On the program, Martin, identified as an "author &
>> journalist," baselessly claimed that Obama's work as a community
>> organizer was "training for a radical overthrow of the government" and
>> that if Obama were elected president, "we're basically going to be ...
>> in the throes of a socialist revolution, which attempts to essentially
>> freeze out anybody who's not part of this radical ideology."
>>
>> As Media Matters noted, Fox News reportedly later "express[ed] regret
>> for booking" Martin on Hannity's America, and Fox News Senior Vice
>> President Bill Shine called Martin's appearance a "mistake." Hannity,
>> however, has not yet expressed any on-air misgivings about hosting
>> Martin. Confronted by Obama adviser Robert Gibbs, Hannity defended
>> Martin's appearance, saying, "I'm a journalist who interviews people
>> who I disagree with all the time." (Hannity, who has both embraced and
>> rejected the "journalist" label, did not challenge any assertion or
>> statement by Martin, nor did he mention any of Martin's anti-Semitic
>> and racially charged statements.) Challenged again by Fox News
>> political contributor and NPR news analyst Juan Williams about
>> Martin's appearance, Hannity once again declined to express regret.
>>
>> Jerome Corsi
>> Jerome Corsi, co-author of the falsehood-ridden 2004 book Unfit for
>> Command, returned to presidential politics in 2008 with The Obama
>> Nation: Leftist Politics and the Cult of Personality. The book, which
>> FactCheck.org described as a "mishmash of unsupported conjecture, half-
>> truths, logical fallacies and outright falsehoods," was widely and
>> thoroughly discredited by Media Matters, the Obama campaign, various
>> media outlets, and even some conservatives. Corsi, however, appeared
>> several times on Hannity's various programs to promote the book, with
>> no challenge from Hannity regarding the book's many falsehoods. Corsi
>> even appeared on Hannity & Colmes on August 20, just days after it was
>> revealed that Corsi -- who has previously made inflammatory comments
>> about Islam, Muslims, and Catholicism -- was reportedly scheduled to
>> promote The Obama Nation on the August 17 edition of The Political
>> Cesspool Radio Show, a program described by its own producers as
>> representing "a philosophy that is pro-White." Corsi had appeared on
>> the program in the past, but did not appear on August 17.
>>
>> Since the release of The Obama Nation, Corsi has promulgated (without
>> evidence) several conspiracy theories regarding Obama -- for example,
>> suggesting that the true purpose of Obama's pre-election trip to
>> Hawaii was not to visit his ailing grandmother, but to address rumors
>> -- widely debunked -- that he had failed to produce a valid U.S. birth
>> certificate.
>>
>> Jill Stanek
>> As Media Matters noted, Hannity was one of many media figures to cite
>> anti-abortion activist and WorldNetDaily columnist Jill Stanek's
>> criticism of Obama's opposition to certain bills amending the Illinois
>> Abortion Law of 1975 while he was in the Illinois state Senate --
>> without noting facts that undermine her credibility. Stanek has
>> suggested that domestic violence is acceptable against women who have
>> abortions; supported billboards in Tanzania that say "Faithful Condom
>> Users" in English and Swahili next to a photo of a skeleton; and
>> credulously cited a report that "aborted fetuses are much sought after
>> delicacies" in China. Hannity interviewed Stanek on the August 20
>> edition of Hannity & Colmes, during which Stanek claimed that Obama
>> attempted to "lure" Illinois state senators into "vot[ing] to endorse
>> infanticide." She also repeated her allegation that at Christ Hospital
>> in Oak Lawn, where she worked as a nurse, "a little baby boy who had
>> been aborted alive" was taken to a "soiled utility room to die because
>> his parents didn't want to hold him." According to the Chicago
>> Tribune's Eric Zorn, however, an Illinois Department of Public Health
>> spokesperson said that the agency conducted an investigation into
>> Stanek's allegations about Christ Hospital and concluded that they
>> could not be substantiated.
>>
>> Exit "balance"...
>>
>> In early October, it was reported that Hannity had signed a new
>> contract with Fox News "that will keep him at the network through the
>> next presidential election in 2012." In late November, Alan Colmes
>> announced that he was leaving Hannity & Colmes at the end of 2008,
>> leaving unresolved whether another liberal would be brought in to
>> "balance" Hannity. On December 11, that question was answered:
>>
>> Fox News host Sean Hannity, who is losing his liberal counterpart Alan
>> Colmes at the end of the year, will not be getting a new on-air
>> partner. Instead, the conservative commentator will headline his own
>> show, called simply "Hannity," beginning Jan. 12, the network
>> announced today.
>>
>> The program -- running in the same 6 p.m. Pacific time slot -- will
>> include several segments in which three guests from across the
>> political spectrum, dubbed the "Great American Panel," will weigh in
>> on the topics of the day. The show will also include regular
>> commentary and interviews by Hannity, as well as a feature called
>> "Hate Hannity Hotline" that will highlight the critical comments he
>> receives from listeners of his syndicated radio show.
>
>
>December 21,2012 playlist
>
>http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=D3A0E9D9365E4D5B
>
>------�
>: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
--
~ Seth Jackson
MySpace URL - http://www.myspace.com/sethjacksonsong
Songwriting and Music Business Info: http://www.sethjackson.net
Pepe Papon
wrote:
>Wow!!
>
>This Hannity guy has to be a very important person.
>
>Media Matters must have at least 2 full time employees just devoted to
>recording every word he says and transcribing them, not to mention the
>time devoted to fact checking.
>Maybe even 3 full time employees.
Do you have a point? Anyone with an audience the size of Hannity's
is important.
>I wonder where MM gets all the money to afford that?
>
>Heh. I'm only joking.
>I know who funds them.
>
>It's a secret, though.
>I'm not telling.
So what? Where does Fox get its money?
Pepe Papon
<a7e...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
> The global warming pundits have all the scientific proof they need
>.. from Al Gore!
Fail.
DaVoice (recgroups)
It's just my RGP style, man. Go with it! Glenn Beck (as do all talking
heads, including myself) have opinions, some of them may be misleading,
some of them may be completely false. I will say that Hannity has lost a
lot of his appeal without the (light) counter-balance of Alan Colmes, who
is a fantastic radio talker, and always has been. I don't listen to
Hannity's radio show and his TV show is a DOG w/o Colmes. Hannity has
become a "mini-Rush". I stopped listening to Rush a LONG time ago.
I used to shout at the radio when Colmes was on, but he is very
entertaining and very smart even though I disagree with about 90% of his
opinions. He used to (don't know if he still does or not) do a bit called
"Radio Graffiti", one sentence and one sentence *only* at the top of his
hours when he was in his pre-Fox syndication. It was phenomenal radio.
Rick "ADB DaVoice" Charles
http://www.voiceofpoker.com
_______________________________________________________________________�
eleaticus
"brewmaster" <a1...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
news:rhsqh6x...@recgroups.com...
> On Jun 30 2009 2:28 PM, eleaticus wrote:
>
> > If you want the real deal on global warming, the current New Yorker -
the
> > one with the cover showing an Iranian woman examining a punch card for
> > hanging chad - has a great article about global warming and its main
> > scientific bell-ringer.
> >
> > Including the new belief that the tipping point for catastrophe is not
450
> > parts CO2 per zillion, but 350, and we're already at 370-380.
>
> That would be very interesting if zillion where actually a number.
That would be a good point if it where well done.
Brandii
>
> I think the whole global warming thing is just a big dog and pony
> show, meant to calm any anxiety felt by our oil suppling 'allies'.
> Every time the gasoline tax is raised, @PEC becomes antsy and cuts
> production. Imagine the reaction if we told them what we really were
> up to, planning to drop them like a bad habit.
>
Almost completely correct.
Regards,
Busted
yinchang2427
"Clave" <ClaviusNo...@cablespeed.com> wrote in message
news:IYOdnbWzWKRLNNfX...@cablespeedmi.com...
irish mike has no reply?
RazzO
Iraq, possibly.
On Jul 1 2009 2:36 AM, yinchang2427 wrote:
> > has been able to invite speakers with a full range of views
> > on climate science. The claims that his opinions were not
> > considered or studied are entirely false."
> > - EPA Press Secretary Adora Andy
>
> irish mike has no reply?
RazzO
"Socialists are just as much censors as people motivated by religious
convictions, the latter want to control your behavior, the former your
thoughts." - bo dark
_______________________________________________________________________�
Irish Mike
"Brandii" <bust.ed...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:44cde4b2-f734-428f...@b9g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
Almost completely correct.
Regards,
Busted
The whole global warming hysteria is a bullshit scam and always has been.
It's become an industry in itself and many people, besides ol' lard ass Al
Gore,h ave a vested interest in keeping it going. The only thing OPEC is
afraid of is if America began seriously drilling for it's own extensive oil
reserves - including off shore and shale. Even the announcement that we
were doing this would instantly force OPEC to lower oil prices
significantly. But thanks to Obama's decision not to drill for American
oil, combiwith his idiotic cap and tax energy plan, OPEC will be able to
maintain it's strangle hold on the American economy. Meanwhile, we have a
president who thinks the key to solving our energy problems is for every one
to inflate their tires and his action plan is to dictate what kind of light
bulbs we are allowed to use. And if you think this economy is hurting now
and the 2,000,000 private sector jobs we're lost since Obama was sworn in to
office and the 10% national unemployment rate is bad, you ain't seen nothing
yet. If Obama passes his insane "tax and cap" energy plan, he will further
cripple American business, reduce business investment and send even more
American jobs over seas. The sad fact is that Obama's massive pork barrel
spending plan, his huge multi-trillion dollar deficits that we have no money
to pay, his increased taxes on small businesses and corporations and his
stupid energy policies are destroying this country's economy. Bottom-line:
we are learning what conservative economists said from the beginning. You
can not spend your way out of a recession with borrowed tax payer money
while punishing the private sector and investors.
Irish Mike
Very proud to be one of the 55,000,000+ Americans who did not vote for
Obama.
da pickle
> > If the "new" belief is correct, it is already "too late" ... wine, women
> > and
> > song is all we have left.
>
> That's certainly not true. There's also gambling.
> ==========================
>
> There is that too. Just because you are playing bridge does not mean that
> you cannot come to BARGE.
Well, it kinda does, at least for now. I've got a couple of big long-
term projects going on this year, and I can't take too much time off.
============================
No excuse. I was going to write pu77y ... but I am not really sure what
that really means in BARGE-talk.
FL Turbo
<garyc...@alumni.northwestern.edu> wrote:
>On Jun 30 2009 2:07 PM, FL Tur
>> >
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> After reviewing the scientific literature that the EPA is relying on,
>> Carlin said, he concluded that it was at least three years out of date
>> and did not reflect the latest research.
>> "My personal view is that there is not currently any reason to
>> regulate (carbon dioxide)," he said. "There may be in the future. But
>> global temperatures are roughly where they were in the mid-20th
>> century.
>> They're not going up, and if anything they're going down."
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Well, he didn't say that they have been uniformly going down every
>> single year of the 11, but the trend was still down, not up.
>
>Well, no, he didn't say anything about trend. Globald temp has a lot of
>noise. It's hard to identify the signal. He's talking about his
>"personal view"? What the hell does that mean?
>
My guess is that he has personally looked at the data and tried to
separate the wheat from the chaff.
Statistical analysis is a tricky business, ain't it?
>Just because this years temp is the same as the temp in 1950 says very
>little about trend -- it could well have an upward trend but just be the
>same in those two years because of noise (variance).
>
Here are a few handy dandy little "blink comparison" charts showing
the NASA data from 2000 and comparing it to the 2009 data graphs.
The basic point there being that NASA has made "adjustments" to their
data chart over the years, presumably to reflect the more accurate
measurements in later years.
(I say "presumably")
Now, I don't know any more about statistics than I could get from a
"Statistics for Dummies" book, but I think you could probably get
through the wonky dissertations on this site.
NASA GISS: adjustments galore, rewriting U.S. climate history
28 06 2009
Contiguous U.S. GISTEMP Linear Trends: Before and After
Guest post by Bob Tisdale
Many of us have seen gif animations and blink comparators of the older
version of Contiguous U.S. GISTEMP data versus the newer version, and
here�s yet another one. The presentation is clearer than most.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Chart shown on site)
-------------------------------------------------
http://i44.tinypic.com/29dwsj7.gif
It is based on the John Daly archived data:
http://www.john-daly.com/usatemps.006
and the current Contiguous U.S. surface temperature anomaly data from
GISS:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt
In their presentations, most people have been concerned with which
decade had the highest U.S. surface temperature anomaly: the 1940s or
the 1990s. But I couldn�t recall having ever seen a trend comparison,
so I snipped off the last 9 years from current data and let EXCEL plot
the trends:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Chart shown on site)
-------------------------------------------------
http://i44.tinypic.com/295sp37.gif
Before the post-1999 GISS adjustments to the Contiguous U.S. GISTEMP
data, the linear trend for the period of 1880 to 1999 was 0.035 deg
C/decade. After the adjustments, the linear trend rose to 0.044 deg
C/decade.
----------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------
FL Turbo
<elea...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>If you want the real deal on global warming, the current New Yorker - the
>one with the cover showing an Iranian woman examining a punch card for
>hanging chad - has a great article about global warming and its main
>scientific bell-ringer.
>
>Including the new belief that the tipping point for catastrophe is not 450
>parts CO2 per zillion, but 350, and we're already at 370-380.
>
Then it's already too late, eh?
Okay.
I'm moving to Canada as soon as I can.
Beautiful country, friendly people, only mildly Authoritarian
government.
Soon to be the Breadbasket of North America.
FL Turbo
wrote:
>On Jun 30, 2:50�pm, FL Turbo <noem...@notime.com> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Wow!!
>>
>> This Hannity guy has to be a very important person.
>>
>> Media Matters must have at least 2 full time employees just devoted to
>> recording every word he says and transcribing them, not to mention the
>> time devoted to fact checking.
>> Maybe even 3 full time employees.
>>
>> I wonder where MM gets all the money to afford that?
>>
>> Heh. �I'm only joking.
>> I know who funds them.
>>
>> It's a secret, though.
>> I'm not telling.
>
>Here's some more for ya..... :-)
>
>HANNITY: "You're not listening, Susan. You've got to learn something.
>He had weapons of mass destruction. He promised to disclose them. And
>he didn't do it. You would have let him go free; we decided to hold
>him accountable." (4/13/04)
>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, gee, thanks.
I'm overwhelmed with gratitude.
BTW
Who are you, anyway?
Are you the Cornell Campus correspondent for Media Matters?
NTTAWTT
mo_charles
> >
> > Why do you always feel the compulsion to yell? This isn't shock radio.
>
> It's just my RGP style, man. Go with it! Glenn Beck (as do all talking
> heads, including myself) have opinions, some of them may be misleading,
> some of them may be completely false. I will say that Hannity has lost a
> lot of his appeal without the (light) counter-balance of Alan Colmes, who
> is a fantastic radio talker, and always has been. I don't listen to
> Hannity's radio show and his TV show is a DOG w/o Colmes. Hannity has
> become a "mini-Rush". I stopped listening to Rush a LONG time ago.
>
> I used to shout at the radio when Colmes was on, but he is very
> entertaining and very smart even though I disagree with about 90% of his
> opinions. He used to (don't know if he still does or not) do a bit called
> "Radio Graffiti", one sentence and one sentence *only* at the top of his
> hours when he was in his pre-Fox syndication. It was phenomenal radio.
olbermann and maddow don't have opinions. they also don't have guests
that disagree with the truth. big difference between them and fox.
mo_charles
----�
garycarson
> arles
Maddow actually does have opinions, other than that I can't tell much
difference between those two and fox. I liked Olbermann before he started
doing those little special rants at the end of the hour. He got so much
attention from doing that he just went completely over the top, I can
barely watch him these days, he's an embarressment. Less so than Sean
though.
FL Turbo
<a44...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
>On Jun 30 2009 2:07 PM, FL Turbo wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 09:30:57 -0700, "JerseyRudy"
>> <a44...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
>>
-------------------------------- SNIP -------------------------------
>> >
>> >Alan Carlin is an economist, not a scientist. This Fox News article does
>> >mention it, but relegates it to minor importance. It is not of minor
>> >importance that we want SCIENTISTS to be providing analysis regarding
>> >climate change, not ECONOMISTS.
>> >
>>
From what I read about PhD level Economics studies are that they deal
heavily with econometric data collection, computer modeling and
statistical analysis.
From what I read about Climate Scientists, they are also heavily
dependent on data collection, computer modeling and statistical
analysis.
It seems to me that Carlin's studies fit right in when you add his
history since 1964 in writing about environment and public policy
issues.
Not good enough, of course, if he comes to a different conclusion than
the EPA hierarchy.
>http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/06/26/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5117890.shtml?tag=contentMain;contentBody
>>
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Carlin has an undergraduate degree in physics from CalTech and a PhD
>> in economics from MIT.
>> His Web site lists papers about the environment and public policy
>> dating back to 1964, spanning topics from pollution control to
>> environmentally-responsible energy pricing.
>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>> --------------------------------------------
>>
>> A physic degree from CalTech not good enough for you?
>> Having studied environmental and public policy issues since 1964 not
>> good enough?
>>
>No. But then again those of us who rely on the overwhelming scientific
>consensus on this issue are not as desperate to find anyone with a degree
>who can write a report.
>
See? There's your problem.
You are still relying on that mythical "overwhelming scientific
consensus" that says all questions have been answered.
Sorry, but new data and new questions about global climate are still
coming in.
>His job title for the EPA is "economist." His post-graduate degree is in
>economics. An undergraduate degree is physics (while certianly impressive)
>does not make someone a climate scientist.
>> --------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> >Another important fact not mentioned in this article is that Carlin's
>> >report was factually incorrect. His report stated that "global
>> >temperatures have declined for 11 years." The facts are that annual global
>> >average temperatures have both risen and fallen over the past 11 years,
>> >and while there have been some relatively cooler years during that period,
>> >climate scientists reject the idea that those temperatures are any
>> >indication that global warming is slowing or does not exist.
>> >
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> After reviewing the scientific literature that the EPA is relying on,
>> Carlin said, he concluded that it was at least three years out of date
>> and did not reflect the latest research.
>> "My personal view is that there is not currently any reason to
>> regulate (carbon dioxide)," he said. "There may be in the future. But
>> global temperatures are roughly where they were in the mid-20th
>> century.
>> They're not going up, and if anything they're going down."
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Well, he didn't say that they have been uniformly going down every
>> single year of the 11, but the trend was still down, not up.
>>
>I was referring to what was in his report. His report says that "global
>temperatures have declined for 11 years." You are now changing the topic
>to other statements made by Carlin...that's irrelevant. The EPA is not
>preventing Carlin from speaking out on his beliefs to the media or anyone
>else who wants to listen to him. The issue here is his written report that
>he submitted to the EPA. Stick to the topic.
>
>
>> For your information, there are plenty of climate scientists who have
>> come to reject the theory that global warming is bound to occur, and
>> it is all due to human activity.
>>
>> The claims of "overwhelming consensus" are losing ground year by year.
>>
>If that's the case, then so be it. I totally disagree, unless you define
>"plenty" as a few. But if you are correct, then why do you even care if
>some economist was unable to get his report published by the EPA? You
>should instead be content to rely on all those climate scientists who you
>claim are rejecting man-made climate change as a problem that needs to be
>addressed. I would be interested in a list of all these climate scientists
>you refer to...my internet doesn't seem to recognize them.
>
http://www.climateaudit.org/
http://www.drroyspencer.com/
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog
http://www.john-daly.com/stations/stations.htm
http://www.globalwarmingheartland.org/
http://climatedebatedaily.com/
If you prefer a google, you can go there and type in this, with the
quote marks.
"global warming is"
>> >So here you have the EPA refusing to publish an unsolicited and factually
>> >incorrect scientific report from an economist. That's a no-brainer
>> >decision for the EPA. But no surprise that a flat-earther like Inhofe
>> >would try to use it to score a political point.
>> >
You don't get any Brownie points for chanting the mantra
"flat-earther"
>>
>> It's no surprise that a power hungry bureaucracy like EPA would want
>> to issue reports that they need to expand their power, and suppress
>> any and all contrary opinion.
>>
>> But let us continue in the same article.
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>> -------------------------------------------
>> One reason why the process might have been highly charged politically
>> is the unusual speed of the regulatory process. Lisa Jackson, the new
>> EPA administrator, had said that she wanted her agency to reach a
>> decision about regulating carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act by
>> April 2 -- the second anniversary of a related U.S. Supreme Court
>> decision.
>>
>> "All this goes back to a decision at a higher level that this was very
>> urgent to get out, if possible yesterday," Carlin said. "In the case
>> of an ordinary regulation, these things normally take a year or two.
>> In this case, it was a few weeks to get it out for public comment."
>> (Carlin said that he and other EPA staff members asked to respond to a
>> draft only had four and a half days to do so.)
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Uh huh.
>> The EPA report was sent on the same railroad that Friday's Tax and Cap
>> monstrosity was railroaded through the House.
>>
>> Personally, I hope that Carlin will be protected by a "Whistleblower"
>> law.
>> He is going to need it.
>>
>Actually based on that comment, Carlin is more likely going to need a
>refresher course in basic math. As that article states, it has been two
>years since the Supreme Court directed the EPA to issue a decision on
>regulating carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act. As Carlin himself
>says: "In the case of an ordinary regulation, these things normally take a
>year or two."
>
>So it took them a full two years, and yet Carlin still complains that the
>process was rushed. He obviously was much more comfortable serving the
>EPA during the Bush Administration when nothing got done and everyone sat
>on their hands.
>
It depends on exactly how long they had actually been working on it,
doesn't?
I don't know.
If they are anything like me, I do 90% of the work in the last 10% of
the time allotted.
garycarson
> On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 15:22:56 -0700, "garycarson"
> <garyc...@alumni.northwestern.edu> wrote:
>
> >On Jun 30 2009 2:07 PM, FL Tur
> >> >
> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> After reviewing the scientific literature that the EPA is relying on,
> >> Carlin said, he concluded that it was at least three years out of date
> >> and did not reflect the latest research.
> >> "My personal view is that there is not currently any reason to
> >> regulate (carbon dioxide)," he said. "There may be in the future. But
> >> global temperatures are roughly where they were in the mid-20th
> >> century.
> >> They're not going up, and if anything they're going down."
> >> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>
> >> Well, he didn't say that they have been uniformly going down every
> >> single year of the 11, but the trend was still down, not up.
> >
> >Well, no, he didn't say anything about trend. Globald temp has a lot of
> >noise. It's hard to identify the signal. He's talking about his
> >"personal view"? What the hell does that mean?
> >
>
> My guess is that he has personally looked at the data and tried to
> separate the wheat from the chaff.
>
> Statistical analysis is a tricky business, ain't it?
I'm not a meterologist, but I am an economist. I've done graduate work in
economics, taught economics, and published in economics journals. I've
also done graduate work in statistics and taught statistics.
The standard econometric model is as you suggest, Y = X + e where X is a
deterministic component (wheat) and e is a random component (chaff or
noise). I know of no reason to think that model or general approach to
data analysis is appropriate for global tempature estimates.
It could well be that a more appropriate model treats the noise as an
inherent part of the process rather than some external shock or
measurement error. In fact, there's a recent article in management
science about something like that in finance, just looking at portfolio
risk and ignoring expected returns. Such a model outperforms one that
tries to maximize expected returns. Because that basic model above is
flawed.
>
> >Just because this years temp is the same as the temp in 1950 says very
> >little about trend -- it could well have an upward trend but just be the
> >same in those two years because of noise (variance).
> >
>
> Here are a few handy dandy little "blink comparison" charts showing
> the NASA data from 2000 and comparing it to the 2009 data graphs.
So?
>
> The basic point there being that NASA has made "adjustments" to their
> data chart over the years, presumably to reflect the more accurate
> measurements in later years.
> (I say "presumably")
So?
>
> Now, I don't know any more about statistics than I could get from a
> "Statistics for Dummies" book, but I think you could probably get
> through the wonky dissertations on this site.
>
>
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/28/nasa-giss-adjustments-galore-rewriting-climate-history/#more-8991
Actually, I'm more of a fan of science -- observation, theory, testing,
iterate.
What's your suggesting is more a process of observation followed by
conclusion. That kind of leaves out the science part.
-------�
thepixelfreak
> On Jun 30 2009 12:47 PM, thepixelfreak wrote:
>
>> On 2009-06-30 11:07:06 -0700, FL Turbo <noe...@notime.com> said:
>>
>>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> Carlin has an undergraduate degree in physics from CalTech and a PhD
>>> in economics from MIT.
>>> His Web site lists papers about the environment and public policy
>>> dating back to 1964, spanning topics from pollution control to
>>> environmentally-responsible energy pricing.
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>>> --------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> A physic degree from CalTech not good enough for you?
>>> Having studied environmental and public policy issues since 1964 not
>>> good enough?
>>>
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Do you know what the difference between an undergrad degree in physics
>> and a doctorate in physics is? Hell, the gulf between even a masters
>> and doctorate in Physics is immense.
>>
>> My cat has a B.S. in Chemistry FFS.
>> --
>>
>> thepixelfreak
>
> No, it's not.
Ah, just because you say so eh? Brilliant. You clearly have no clue.
--
thepixelfreak
Bea Foroni
wrote:
> I'm not a meterologist, but I am an economist. I've done graduate work in
> economics, taught economics, and published in economics journals. I've
> also done graduate work in statistics and taught statistics.
I forget is it, "liar, damn liar, weather man, economist" or is it
"liar, damn liar, economist, weather man"?
garycarson
> On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 13:04:42 -0700, "JerseyRudy"
> <a44...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
>
> >On Jun 30 2009 2:07 PM, FL Turbo wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 09:30:57 -0700, "JerseyRudy"
> >> <a44...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
> >>
> -------------------------------- SNIP -------------------------------
> >> >
> >> >Alan Carlin is an economist, not a scientist. This Fox News article does
> >> >mention it, but relegates it to minor importance. It is not of minor
> >> >importance that we want SCIENTISTS to be providing analysis regarding
> >> >climate change, not ECONOMISTS.
> >> >
> >>
>
> From what I read about PhD level Economics studies are that they deal
> heavily with econometric data collection, computer modeling and
> statistical analysis.
And the models they deal with are structurally very different from models
that are relevant for analysis of weather data.
>
> From what I read about Climate Scientists, they are also heavily
> dependent on data collection, computer modeling and statistical
> analysis.
And they both use pencils.
> >> >decision for the EPA. But no surprise that a flat-earther like
Inhofe
> >> >would try to use it to score a political point.
> >> >
>
> You don't get any Brownie points for chanting the mantra
> "flat-earther"
Uh. Inhofe is pretty much a flat-earther How could the earth get round
in only 6,000 years? I live in Oklahoma.
________________________________________________________________________�
FL Turbo
<garyc...@alumni.northwestern.edu> wrote:
It seems to me that a whole lot of the AGW proponents rely on computer
models and statistical analysis to support their conclusions.
Is my concept of what constitutes statistical analysis wrong?
>It could well be that a more appropriate model treats the noise as an
>inherent part of the process rather than some external shock or
>measurement error. In fact, there's a recent article in management
>science about something like that in finance, just looking at portfolio
>risk and ignoring expected returns. Such a model outperforms one that
>tries to maximize expected returns. Because that basic model above is
>flawed.
>
Well, you lost me here.
I don't understand what you're talking about.
>>
>> >Just because this years temp is the same as the temp in 1950 says very
>> >little about trend -- it could well have an upward trend but just be the
>> >same in those two years because of noise (variance).
>> >
>>
>> Here are a few handy dandy little "blink comparison" charts showing
>> the NASA data from 2000 and comparing it to the 2009 data graphs.
>
>So?
>
So their suggestion is that NASA has been "cooking the books" when
they made adjustments to the raw data.
What is your explanation for the differences?
>>
>> The basic point there being that NASA has made "adjustments" to their
>> data chart over the years, presumably to reflect the more accurate
>> measurements in later years.
>> (I say "presumably")
>
>So?
>
So ditto to the above.
>>
>> Now, I don't know any more about statistics than I could get from a
>> "Statistics for Dummies" book, but I think you could probably get
>> through the wonky dissertations on this site.
>>
>>
>http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/28/nasa-giss-adjustments-galore-rewriting-climate-history/#more-8991
>
>Actually, I'm more of a fan of science -- observation, theory, testing,
>iterate.
>
>What's your suggesting is more a process of observation followed by
>conclusion. That kind of leaves out the science part.
>
Oh, bullshit.
I suggest that we keep on making more observations and then adjusting
our conclusions based on the latest evidence.
It's the opposite of the GWA's, with the horrible example of AlGore
insisting that all the science is settled, and we must act NOW.
garycarson
So?
>
> Is my concept of what constitutes statistical analysis wrong?
Yes.
>
> >It could well be that a more appropriate model treats the noise as an
> >inherent part of the process rather than some external shock or
> >measurement error. In fact, there's a recent article in management
> >science about something like that in finance, just looking at portfolio
> >risk and ignoring expected returns. Such a model outperforms one that
> >tries to maximize expected returns. Because that basic model above is
> >flawed.
> >
>
> Well, you lost me here.
> I don't understand what you're talking about.
You might model the noise as something external to the system thatneeds to
be extracted and ignored. That's what most economists do. Or you might
model the noise as the system itself, something that should not be ignored
but should be the focus.
Sometimes you get a stronger signal by using a model that has a focus on
the noise rather than on the signal.
That means economietric type approaches just might not be appropriate at
all.
Is that clearer?
>
> >>
> >> >Just because this years temp is the same as the temp in 1950 says very
> >> >little about trend -- it could well have an upward trend but just be the
> >> >same in those two years because of noise (variance).
> >> >
> >>
> >> Here are a few handy dandy little "blink comparison" charts showing
> >> the NASA data from 2000 and comparing it to the 2009 data graphs.
> >
> >So?
> >
> So their suggestion is that NASA has been "cooking the books" when
> they made adjustments to the raw data.
>
> What is your explanation for the differences?
I'm not a meteorologist.
Sometimes adjustments are appropriate. For example, the raw measurements
might include a known measurement bias and you'll get better estimates by
making adjustments to compensate for that bias.
The US census is an example. Every 10 years there's a debate in the
statistics community about whether or not we should do census counts or do
sampling estimates. Sampling estimates actually work better than attempts
to do direct counts. But, the law specifies counts. So we do a census
that we know we could do better with less money by making adjustments to
the raw data.
>
> >>
> >> The basic point there being that NASA has made "adjustments" to their
> >> data chart over the years, presumably to reflect the more accurate
> >> measurements in later years.
> >> (I say "presumably")
> >
> >So?
> >
>
> So ditto to the above.
>
> >>
> >> Now, I don't know any more about statistics than I could get from a
> >> "Statistics for Dummies" book, but I think you could probably get
> >> through the wonky dissertations on this site.
> >>
> >>
>
>http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/28/nasa-giss-adjustments-galore-rewriting-climate-history/#more-8991
> >
> >Actually, I'm more of a fan of science -- observation, theory, testing,
> >iterate.
> >
> >What's your suggesting is more a process of observation followed by
> >conclusion. That kind of leaves out the science part.
> >
>
> Oh, bullshit.
>
> I suggest that we keep on making more observations and then adjusting
> our conclusions based on the latest evidence.
That's not the way science works.
>
> It's the opposite of the GWA's, with the horrible example of AlGore
> insisting that all the science is settled, and we must act NOW.
Maybe we should. It's kind of a Pascal's wager sort of analysis.
FL Turbo
<garyc...@alumni.northwestern.edu> wrote:
>On Jul 1 2009 12:55 PM, FL Turbo wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 13:04:42 -0700, "JerseyRudy"
>> <a44...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> >On Jun 30 2009 2:07 PM, FL Turbo wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 09:30:57 -0700, "JerseyRudy"
>> >> <a44...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
>> >>
>> -------------------------------- SNIP -------------------------------
>> >> >
>> >> >Alan Carlin is an economist, not a scientist. This Fox News article does
>> >> >mention it, but relegates it to minor importance. It is not of minor
>> >> >importance that we want SCIENTISTS to be providing analysis regarding
>> >> >climate change, not ECONOMISTS.
>> >> >
>> >>
>>
>> From what I read about PhD level Economics studies are that they deal
>> heavily with econometric data collection, computer modeling and
>> statistical analysis.
>
>And the models they deal with are structurally very different from models
>that are relevant for analysis of weather data.
>
How so?
Aren't they both subject to GIGO?
It seems to me that the economic models didn't prevent the recent
financial meltdown.
Couldn't they predict what was going to happen next?
>
>>
>> From what I read about Climate Scientists, they are also heavily
>> dependent on data collection, computer modeling and statistical
>> analysis.
>
>And they both use pencils.
>
> > >> >decision for the EPA. But no surprise that a flat-earther like
>Inhofe
>> >> >would try to use it to score a political point.
>> >> >
>>
>> You don't get any Brownie points for chanting the mantra
>> "flat-earther"
>
>Uh. Inhofe is pretty much a flat-earther How could the earth get round
>in only 6,000 years? I live in Oklahoma.
>
Uh huh.
You don't get any Brownie points, either.
I don't care where you live.
Sorry.
garycarson
> On Wed, 01 Jul 2009 11:52:10 -0700, "garycarson"
> <garyc...@alumni.northwestern.edu> wrote:
>
> >On Jul 1 2009 12:55 PM, FL Turbo wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 13:04:42 -0700, "JerseyRudy"
> >> <a44...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Jun 30 2009 2:07 PM, FL Turbo wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 09:30:57 -0700, "JerseyRudy"
> >> >> <a44...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> -------------------------------- SNIP -------------------------------
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Alan Carlin is an economist, not a scientist. This Fox News article
does
> >> >> >mention it, but relegates it to minor importance. It is not of minor
> >> >> >importance that we want SCIENTISTS to be providing analysis regarding
> >> >> >climate change, not ECONOMISTS.
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >>
> >> From what I read about PhD level Economics studies are that they deal
> >> heavily with econometric data collection, computer modeling and
> >> statistical analysis.
> >
> >And the models they deal with are structurally very different from models
> >that are relevant for analysis of weather data.
> >
>
> How so?
> Aren't they both subject to GIGO?
I don't think you understand mathematical modeling well enough for me to
explain it to you.
>
> It seems to me that the economic models didn't prevent the recent
> financial meltdown.
So you think we should take models that are flawed for the purposes they
were designed forand use them in a functional area completely different?
Is there some point to that?
>
> Couldn't they predict what was going to happen next?
The financial risk models were not prediction models. They did, however
focus to much on expected value and not enough on risk.
>
> >
> >>
> >> From what I read about Climate Scientists, they are also heavily
> >> dependent on data collection, computer modeling and statistical
> >> analysis.
> >
> >And they both use pencils.
> >
> > > >> >decision for the EPA. But no surprise that a flat-earther like
> >Inhofe
> >> >> >would try to use it to score a political point.
> >> >> >
> >>
> >> You don't get any Brownie points for chanting the mantra
> >> "flat-earther"
> >
> >Uh. Inhofe is pretty much a flat-earther How could the earth get round
> >in only 6,000 years? I live in Oklahoma.
> >
>
> Uh huh.
> You don't get any Brownie points, either.
> I don't care where you live.
> Sorry.
I'm on Inhofe's mailing list. He's my Senator. The guy is insane. He's
popular in Oklahoma. He's still insane.
-------�
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
Pepe Papon
Here, I'll save him the trouble:
Irish Mike
Thanks bucko. That is, without question, the most honest assessment of
global warming hysteria and accurate description of Obama's socialist
economic policies I have read.
Sometimes, what I post on RGP is so spot-on, dead solid accurate that it
impresses even me.
Irish Mike
FL Turbo
<garyc...@alumni.northwestern.edu> wrote:
So how do you determine whether that "noise" is internal or external?
Maybe a personal judgment?
>Sometimes you get a stronger signal by using a model that has a focus on
>the noise rather than on the signal.
>
It depends on your personal selection of the model, doesn't it?
>That means economietric type approaches just might not be appropriate at
>all.
>
>Is that clearer?
>
So it "just might not", but that then leaves it open to "just might".
From what you have told me, it depends on personal judgment about what
approach is more valid.
>
>
>> >>
>> >> >Just because this years temp is the same as the temp in 1950 says very
>> >> >little about trend -- it could well have an upward trend but just be the
>> >> >same in those two years because of noise (variance).
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Here are a few handy dandy little "blink comparison" charts showing
>> >> the NASA data from 2000 and comparing it to the 2009 data graphs.
>> >
>> >So?
>> >
>> So their suggestion is that NASA has been "cooking the books" when
>> they made adjustments to the raw data.
>>
>> What is your explanation for the differences?
>
>I'm not a meteorologist.
>
Well, you're a statistical guru, aren't you?
Couldn't you express an educated opinion if you saw the raw data and
the "adjusted" data?
Here is a site run by a statistics wonk.
Opportunism and the Models
by Steve McIntyre on July 1st, 2009
Many CA readers have probably been checking out some interesting post
at Lucia's about Stefan Rahmstorf's opportunistic smoothing of
temperature observations in Copenhagen.
See here here and here at Lucia's. Also see David Stockwell's recent
post here and his recent E&E paper on Rahmstorf et al (Science 2007)
(Rahmstorf here).
Also see the recent Copenhagen Synthesis Report here.
[Update - Jul 2] David Stockwell had an excellent comment on this
issue in April 2008 here - see Rahmstorf comment at #14 (thanks to
PaulM for drawing this to my attention).
----------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------
Figure 1. Excerpt from Rahmstorf et al 2007. "All trends are nonlinear
trend lines and are computed with an embedding period of 11 years."
Commenters at Lucia's and David's state that Rahmstorf refused to
disclose his smoothing method (which proved ultimately to be a sort of
Mannian smoothing) on the basis that he did not hold the copyright.
Eventually Jean S figured it out and his method was used in David
Stockwell's E&E paper. David has an R-port of the method online (using
an R-package ssa presently unavailable for Windows).
Secondly, Rahmstorf has zeroed both models and observations on 1990. I
recall some controversy about Willis Eschenbach zeroing GISS models on
1958; I have a vague recollection of Hansen's dogs saying that this
was WRONG. I don't vouch for this recollection, but, if the events
were as I vaguely recall, I don't see any material difference in
Rahmstorf's centering here.
In David Stockwell's E&E article, he observed that Rahmstorf's method
applied to updated GISS and CRU resulted in the smooth tapering off.
See the online article for the following image. Obviously the tapering
off diminishes the rhetorical impact considerably.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jean S once again figured this out - Rahmstorf opportunistically
changed the smoothing parameter to one that yielded an image that was
rhetorically more effective and failed to disclose the change in
accounting procedure, falsely reporting that he used the same
parameter as in the prior article. This is what the "Community" calls
"GARP" - Generally Accepted Realclimate Procedure.
I've done a few experiments comparing AR4 A1B models to updated CRU
data. More on this tomorrow. I've done my own port of Rahmstorfian
smoothing to R without using the ssa package - working from first
principles. It uses nothing more complicated than svd and a
quasi-Mannian padding. (Rahmsdorf's "copyright" pretext is absurd BTW.
The Community really has to tell the Team to stop such nonsense.)
---------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------
Needless to say, my eyes crossed and my brain glazed over right at
Fig. 1.
Maybe a statistics guru would know exactly what they are talking
about?
>Sometimes adjustments are appropriate. For example, the raw measurements
>might include a known measurement bias and you'll get better estimates by
>making adjustments to compensate for that bias.
>
And again, some one or group has to make a decision on exactly how to
make the adjustments.
>The US census is an example. Every 10 years there's a debate in the
>statistics community about whether or not we should do census counts or do
>sampling estimates. Sampling estimates actually work better than attempts
>to do direct counts. But, the law specifies counts. So we do a census
>that we know we could do better with less money by making adjustments to
>the raw data.
>
So then again, we come back to the basic problem of just exactly who
should be doing the adjustments in question.
It shouldn't surprise anyone that as an Associate member of the VRWC,
I don't trust the Census Bureau, with the help of ACORN under
President 0 , to make that adjustment.
You're a World Class Cynic yourself, aren't you?
Can you say that you trust them any more than I do?
>> >>
>> >> The basic point there being that NASA has made "adjustments" to their
>> >> data chart over the years, presumably to reflect the more accurate
>> >> measurements in later years.
>> >> (I say "presumably")
>> >
>> >So?
>> >
>>
>> So ditto to the above.
>>
>> >>
>> >> Now, I don't know any more about statistics than I could get from a
>> >> "Statistics for Dummies" book, but I think you could probably get
>> >> through the wonky dissertations on this site.
>> >>
>> >>
>>
>>http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/28/nasa-giss-adjustments-galore-rewriting-climate-history/#more-8991
>> >
>> >Actually, I'm more of a fan of science -- observation, theory, testing,
>> >iterate.
>> >
>> >What's your suggesting is more a process of observation followed by
>> >conclusion. That kind of leaves out the science part.
>> >
>>
>> Oh, bullshit.
>>
>> I suggest that we keep on making more observations and then adjusting
>> our conclusions based on the latest evidence.
>
>That's not the way science works.
>
Oh, really?
Science says to disregard the latest data?
I don't think so.
>>
>> It's the opposite of the GWA's, with the horrible example of AlGore
>> insisting that all the science is settled, and we must act NOW.
>
>Maybe we should. It's kind of a Pascal's wager sort of analysis.
>
Funny.
You would surely reject a Pascal's Wager argument about god, yet you
think that maybe we should adopt it about GW.
My Irony Meter gives that an 8/10.
garycarson
> >>
> >> Is my concept of what constitutes statistical analysis wrong?
> >
> >Yes.
> >
> >>
> >> >It could well be that a more appropriate model treats the noise as an
> >> >inherent part of the process rather than some external shock or
> >> >measurement error. In fact, there's a recent article in management
> >> >science about something like that in finance, just looking at portfolio
> >> >risk and ignoring expected returns. Such a model outperforms one that
> >> >tries to maximize expected returns. Because that basic model above is
> >> >flawed.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Well, you lost me here.
> >> I don't understand what you're talking about.
> >
> >You might model the noise as something external to the system thatneeds to
> >be extracted and ignored. That's what most economists do. Or you might
> >model the noise as the system itself, something that should not be ignored
> >but should be the focus.
> >
>
> So how do you determine whether that "noise" is internal or external?
> Maybe a personal judgment?
Sigh.
You make observations.
You develop a theory to explain those observations.
You formulate a model of that theory.
You test the model/theory by trying to generate new observations that
contradict it.
Repeat.
It's called the scientific method.
>
> >Sometimes you get a stronger signal by using a model that has a focus on
> >the noise rather than on the signal.
> >
>
> It depends on your personal selection of the model, doesn't it?
Yes.
>
> >That means economietric type approaches just might not be appropriate at
> >all.
> >
> >Is that clearer?
> >
>
> So it "just might not", but that then leaves it open to "just might".
That's right.
>
> From what you have told me, it depends on personal judgment about what
> approach is more valid.
I think your definition of personal judgement and mine aren't the same.
>
> >
> >
> >> >>
> >> >> >Just because this years temp is the same as the temp in 1950 says very
> >> >> >little about trend -- it could well have an upward trend but just be
the
> >> >> >same in those two years because of noise (variance).
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Here are a few handy dandy little "blink comparison" charts showing
> >> >> the NASA data from 2000 and comparing it to the 2009 data graphs.
> >> >
> >> >So?
> >> >
> >> So their suggestion is that NASA has been "cooking the books" when
> >> they made adjustments to the raw data.
> >>
> >> What is your explanation for the differences?
> >
> >I'm not a meteorologist.
> >
> Well, you're a statistical guru, aren't you?
> Couldn't you express an educated opinion if you saw the raw data and
> the "adjusted" data?
No, I couldn't. I'd have to know something about the model used to make
the adjustments.
You can't measure or estimate a global tempature directly. It's going to
require some sort of adjustments to observed data.
I gotta go -- didn't read the rest of this.
_____________________________________________________________________�
FL Turbo
For sure.
You always have to test the model/theory by looking at new
observations.
Isn't that what I've been advocating?
>>
>> >Sometimes you get a stronger signal by using a model that has a focus on
>> >the noise rather than on the signal.
>> >
>>
>> It depends on your personal selection of the model, doesn't it?
>
>Yes.
>
>>
>> >That means economietric type approaches just might not be appropriate at
>> >all.
>> >
>> >Is that clearer?
>> >
>>
>> So it "just might not", but that then leaves it open to "just might".
>
>That's right.
>
>>
>> From what you have told me, it depends on personal judgment about what
>> approach is more valid.
>
>I think your definition of personal judgement and mine aren't the same.
>
That could be.
>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >Just because this years temp is the same as the temp in 1950 says very
>> >> >> >little about trend -- it could well have an upward trend but just be
>the
>> >> >> >same in those two years because of noise (variance).
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Here are a few handy dandy little "blink comparison" charts showing
>> >> >> the NASA data from 2000 and comparing it to the 2009 data graphs.
>> >> >
>> >> >So?
>> >> >
>> >> So their suggestion is that NASA has been "cooking the books" when
>> >> they made adjustments to the raw data.
>> >>
>> >> What is your explanation for the differences?
>> >
>> >I'm not a meteorologist.
>> >
>> Well, you're a statistical guru, aren't you?
>> Couldn't you express an educated opinion if you saw the raw data and
>> the "adjusted" data?
>
>No, I couldn't. I'd have to know something about the model used to make
>the adjustments.
Well, the model should be in there, somewhere.
If a scientist wants to be taken seriously, surely he must disclose
the model he used to come to his conclusions.
Shouldn't that be a basic requirement?
>
>You can't measure or estimate a global tempature directly. It's going to
>require some sort of adjustments to observed data.
>
>I gotta go -- didn't read the rest of this.
>
Okay.
I realize that asking anyone to go back and review about 50 years of
data and studies is asking too much.
And that statement is not intended by me as snark.
I'm serious.
mo_charles
phds on wall street tried to model something impossibly complicated. the
reason the phds in liberal universities are all right is because modeling
climate change is a snap.
mo_charles
-----�