Update: video link added below at 730PM PST (H/T to Joe S.)
From C-SPAN, Click for video player
When you watch this video it is clear Ms. Boxer does not have any interest in listening to what Dr. Spencer had to say, nor does she apparently care that she just insulted him on national television. Ms. Boxer, have you no shame?
From the Rush Limbaugh show, some sparks flew when Boxer beclowns herself at the end of Dr. Roy Spencer’s testimony. (Link to testimony here)
Excerpt-
Limbaugh transcript: I’m going to make Barbara Boxer the official clown of the Excellence in Broadcasting Network. Can you believe this? Folks, I can’t tell you how much I wish my mom and dad were alive to see all of this. To have a brilliant and independent scientist, a former NASA scientist, be insulted simply because he has an association, a tongue-in-cheek association. We don’t have an official climatologist here. I just know Dr. Spencer and I learn from him. He’s a scientist, a scientist that we all know and love and trust here. He’s written a great book about global warming, and these snide little Democrats, these little liberals just have to go, eh, eh, eh. Dr. Spencer is now going to be more famous than he ever thought he would be. (laughing) Can you believe this? “I just want everybody to make sure they know what’s really happening.” What’s really happening, Senator Boxer? What’s really happening? (laughing) “I just wanted to point that out for people to understand.” Yeah, like I wrote his testimony, I wrote his talking points, I even had a secret wireless communication in his ear. I was answering questions they were asking. (laughing) And Obama says there’s going to be unity.
Transcript follows:
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_072208/content/01125107.guest.html
At Hearing, Official EIB Clown Attacks Official EIB Climatologist
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: The official climatologist of the EIB Network, Dr. Roy Spencer, a brilliant independent climatologist and scientist, former NASA, he’s now at University of Alabama at Huntsville, testified before Senator Boxer’s committee on climate change research, and they had the following exchange.
SPENCER: In conclusion, I am predicting today that the theory that mankind is mostly responsible for global warming will slowly fade away in the coming years, as will the warming itself, and I trust you would agree, Madam Chair, that such a result deserves to be greeted with relief. That concludes my testimony, and I’d be willing to answer any questions.
BOXER: Okay. I also want to point out on that on your own blog you said you never were told you couldn’t speak about your scientific views. And lastly, I guess is a certain congratulations, Rush Limbaugh referred to you as the official climatologist of the Rush Limbaugh Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
SPENCER: Yeah, that’s tongue-in-cheek reference.
BOXER: Right. But I just want to point that out for people to understand. I just want to make sure everybody knows what’s really happening.
RUSH: Oh, my, poor Dr. Spencer! Poor Dr. Spencer! Barbara Boxer attempts to disqualify his expertise by linking him to this program. Yes! (laughing) “I just want everybody to know what’s really happening.” What’s really happening is that, what, did I write his testimony? Did I write his opening remarks? What happened, Senator? I’m going to make Barbara Boxer the official clown of the Excellence in Broadcasting Network. Can you believe this? Folks, I can’t tell you how much I wish my mom and dad were alive to see all of this. To have a brilliant and independent scientist, a former NASA scientist, be insulted simply because he has an association, a tongue-in-cheek association. We don’t have an official climatologist here. I just know Dr. Spencer and I learn from him. He’s a scientist, a scientist that we all know and love and trust here. He’s written a great book about global warming, and these snide little Democrats, these little liberals just have to go, eh, eh, eh. Dr. Spencer is now going to be more famous than he ever thought he would be. (laughing) Can you believe this? “I just want everybody to make sure they know what’s really happening.” What’s really happening, Senator Boxer? What’s really happening? (laughing) “I just wanted to point that out for people to understand.” Yeah, like I wrote his testimony, I wrote his talking points, I even had a secret wireless communication in his ear. I was answering questions they were asking. (laughing) And Obama says there’s going to be unity.
END TRANSCRIPT
Nancy Pelosi has a very, very small intellect.
WHoops. Looks like I’m one to talk. Are Nancy Pelosi and Barbara Boxer interchangeable?
Are Nancy Pelosi and Barbara Boxer interchangeable?
Yeah, pretty much.
“Be assured that a walk through the ocean of their combined intellect
Would scarcely get your feet wet.”
with apologies to Christopher Guest, Deteriorata
What do you expect Boxer to say? She does not even understand Roy Spencer’s presentation, let alone refute them, or even ask a pertinent question.
And Hansen and Schmidt are the “official climatologists” for Al Gore and George Soros…
So, what? Who can not understand that in twenty years there has been no net warming in the UAH data?
Being associated with Rush Limbaugh probably will do nothing good for Dr. Spencer’s scientific career. Although, I can see why would do it. Rush’s show gives him the biggest soap box to stand from. Senate committee hearings aren’t bad either. Too bad the wicked witch of the left is the head of inquisition. LOL!
Is it true that Spencer said on his blog that he “never were told you couldn’t speak about your scientific views”?
Boxer seems to be explicitly claiming a contradiction to his testimony today: “during the Clinton-Gore Administration I was told what I could and could not say during congressional testimony”.
Does Botox affect the brain?
This is simply one more example of the fringe left wetting their pants (panties) as they continue witnessing their fraud disintegrate before their eyes.
Jack Koenig, Editor
The Mysterious Climate project
http://www.climateclinic.com
my oh my….
And we are going to pay Boxer the Clown a huge retirement from our own pockets!!!!!
The media will fawn all over Boxer (and Pelosi) while ignoring Spencer. Most of their viewers will never see anything that doesn’t follow the One True Path. The Rev’s website may be one of the best things going, but it will touch only a tiny fraction of the voters.
The bandwagon rolls on. As Newton said, “things in motion tend to stay in motion”
Interesting that Spencer’s work matches up with the empirical data and the climate models don’t.
But then, we shouldn’t expect Boxer to be as familiar with the actual empirical data as we might be and Spencer certainly is.
The big problem here is that Boxer and the advice she will get from Hansen et al is to shut down Spencer and the other independent data analysis agencies and satellites. We need the MSU and MODIS satellite data etc. to keep the Hansens reasonably honest and testimony like this puts these agencies and instruments at risk.
“But I just want to point that out for people to understand. I just want to make sure everybody knows what’s really happening.”
Doesn’t that just get under your skin? I don’t know how I could have stayed silent if I were Spencer.
Glenn, I’m interested in that question too.
Do we have any verification on whether or not he was told that he couldn’t say certain things under testamony? I would enjoy pointing this out to several people I know, but I want to know it’s strong before doing so.
[Over the top. Inappropriate~Charles the moderator]
I’m inclined to believe Spencer regarding being told what could and could not be said. I recall Bruce Babbit’s (Clinton’s Interior Secretary) public statement that it was immoral and unamerican to question the administration’s (Clinton-Gore) position regarding global warming.
I had Rush on today and totally missed this. Mostly, he was ragging on Obama and I guess I was filtering too much out.
Rush only has Roy Spencer (or is it James Spann) on the air a couple of times a year, is my best memory. I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s on because of this in the coming days if not tomorrow. hahaha Love it!
That is the same Senator Bouncer… I mean Boxer that was elected after bouncing 153 checks in the House banking scandal. If she can’t even keep her own checkbook, how is she going to deal with the comlicated issues of climate?
We’re so blessed to have these clowns in the government. In the old days, all they had to do was tell the drive by parrot to make it so, and they did. In the Internet age, it simply is not going to work out that way.
In the end, only the truth will survive.
What clown would have thought that ‘pay more in taxes so government can pretend to control the weather’ was a good idea.
Limbaugh has a video link up on his front page to Roy Spencer’s testimony. Here it is…
http://www.redlasso.com/ClipPlayer.aspx?id=a30b7a81-d051-45d9-b075-d9f3e3dca368
World’s Greatest Deliberative Body tackles CLIMATE CRISIS.
I always thought that was a bit of a joke as applied to the U.S. Senate, this absolutely confirms it to be a joke.
By her performance Senator Boxer has brought disgrace upon herself and the Senate. Such smear by innuendo is not the way to treat a respected scientist of Dr. Spencer’s stature. Disagree with specific findings of the scientist’s presentation but don’t engage in such ad hominem attacks. I would expect the same respect from Senator Inhofe were he to question a scientist presenting a study favorable of AGW.
The Democrat party people that are in the press the most, why do they seem to be so out of touch with the real world? Why do women seem to make more stupid comments vs. men in the same positons?
Is anyone on line noticing how Dr. Spencers testimony dovetails with Viscount Monckton’s paper? I don’t have the link but if you search for Dr. Spencer’s new paper “The holy grail of climate sensitivity” there are some graphs that show how changing variations in cloud cover naturally skew the estimates of sensitivity (higher) . When I looked at the graphs (very briefly) I thought (it seemed to me) that the variations may line up with the variations postulated to be caused (over the six year study period) by the changing level of cosmic radiation related to the solar cycle. On the other hand, perhaps I haven’t gotten enough sleep lately.
Perhaps the beginning of the end of the AGW movement is at hand.
Earlier in the month Barbara Boxer was very concerned about alleged White House interference with scientists.
http://www.azstarnet.com/allheadlines/247491
Interesting that only two weeks later she didn’t care, and apparently didn’t even bother to listen. She most likely sat there the entrie time waiting for the right moment to mumble her pr4epared question about Rush Limbaugh.
“Resistance is futile. Why do you resist us? We only want to raise the quality of life of all species.”
Locutus of Borg
For ideologues like Boxer their dogma trumps all facts. Those who disagree only do so from evil intent. Marx took a few facts, wrapped a dogma around it and created Marxism. It took a hundred plus years to beat that back. AGW is popular with this group because it supports their central belief that capitalism is in itself evil. If they had total control we would be in paradise. Of course she looks at Spencer with hate, he’s interfering with her cadre to gain more control.
Locri: “Do we have any verification on whether or not he was told that he couldn’t say certain things under testamony? I would enjoy pointing this out to several people I know, but I want to know it’s strong before doing so.”
That wasn’t my question, and I imagine it would be unlikely to find hard evidence in the form you want with “verification”, regarding any whistleblower’s testimony. I have no problem accepting this sort of thing happens all the time, and am not judging the right or wrong of it.
What I am getting at is whether Boxer lied. She claimed Spencer said one thing on a blog and another before the Senate. She should have the evidence, the blog. If it is not true, it should be pushed into the news. It was silly enough, and unethical in my opinion, for her to mention Limbaugh at all, but isn’t really libelous; the former claim may be.
It is really frustrating how this issue seems to be so politically polarized. It is as if a US Democrat is a “believer in” warming and a Republican isn’t supposed to be. It is very frustrating that a political party has hijacked a scientific hypothesis in order to further their overall agenda of expanded government regulation and control.
Regardless of one’s politics, we are either in a crisis caused by extremely rapid warming caused by human use of carbon fuel or we aren’t … period … regardless of politics. So far there is no evidence in the data that this is the case. There is SOME evidence of varying amounts of warming in certain “adjusted” data sets with the sets adjusted by the most adamant supporters of the hypothesis showing the greatest amount of warming. Unadjusted satellite data shows no such trend.
The only thing these people have left is the models. And so their current line is something along the lines of “these models show warming, until you develop a different model that gets as much support as these models, we stand by their predicitions the current physical reality notwithstanding”.
I am sure I could build a model of a massive invisible three-headed dinosaur that stomps on roads and show how that stomping will degrade our transportation infrastructure unless a lot of money is given to some friends of mine to “fight” three-headed dinosaurs. And I could show roadway degradation that is consistent with the projections I create (and I could adjust to raw data to make it an even better fit). And then I could challenge anyone to disprove my model. Just because you can’t find it doesn’t mean it isn’t there; it is, after all, invisible in my model.
Regardless of the model, the physical reality remains. We are simply not seeing the predicted warming. The model is plain flat wrong. I suspect that they will now attempt to claim the warming is there but invisible, hiding at the bottom of the deep blue sea or something where it can not be measured.
Think about that for a moment. Someone dreams up warming, produces models which predict warming when we are, coincidentally, in a period of natural cyclic warming, then the cycle ends before they have a chance to use it to get their programs in place. It is now panic time and so the only thing left is to make it invisible and get the correct group of people to go along with it. So my prediction is that they will very shortly come up with a hypothesis which can not be proved (nor proved wrong) that makes the warming invisible. Invisible yet somehow the greatest threat to all mankind.
What a load of hooey.
I believe we would be better served by having the Mafia in congress instead of the present occupants.
Definitely not. Pelosi is not an Official Clown of the Rush Limbaugh Show. With Pelosi we don’t know what is really happening.
Tom in Florida (17:02:35) wrote: “And we are going to pay Boxer the Clown a huge retirement from our own pockets!!!!!”
That goes for most others in the Congress (both Houses) also!
When you think that Bush could have killed this entire nitwittery instead of simply putting delaying actions in place, it almost make you puke. Bush could’ve asked Hastert to cut funding, call for hearings, or any number of other things to expose this sham for what it is. Instead, they allowed it to gather momentum and feed their ADM thank you package in the form of ethanol.
Jack Koenig, Editor
The Mysterious Climate Project
http://www.climateclinic.com
Yes we can’t use the official Excelence in Broadcasting Networks Climitologist.
We have the far better Official I Accepted the Free Legal Assistance before I Opted for the Escape Clause Climitologist of Boxer.
Spencer is so much more honest.
I think this only goes to prove that “climate change” (or whatever the current buzz-word for weather related hysteria is) is so incredibly sensationalized, politicized, and polarized, that we as a society are unable to discuss it in a logical and rational manner.
I believe it also goes to show that very little, if anything, of a scientific nature should be handled by governments of any type. Government is an excellent means of coming up with a poorly implemented, over budget solution that is nearly equally disagreeable to everyone. 🙂
Glenn:
True, I suppose that happens. I was basically aiming for the same thing you describe, but my wording might have been off. I believe Spencer, but if he did say what Boxer claims on his blog, it’s sadly not a very good ground to point out to the AGW proponents as they’ll just point to the blog and say it’s his word against his word.
Steven Hill (18:16:47) wrote: ” The Democrat party people that are in the press the most, why do they seem to be so out of touch with the real world? Why do women seem to make more stupid comments vs. men in the same positons?”
Steve, I’ve noticed the exact same thing… especially in the case of newly minted PhD’s. My theory is so many skirted (no pun intended) the rigorous requirements placed on their male counterparts due to their gender, they’re not suited for real world realities and feel the necessity to publish ANYTHING just to keep the cash cow going.
I might also add that 97% of those unsubscribing from the Mysterious Climate Project are women (there are now 117,000+ subscribers since it debuted in May of ’07).
Just a theory!
Jack Koenig, Editor
The Mysterious Climate Project
http://www.climateclinic.com
Guys, these sexist exclamations are really stupid. Not spoken as a moderator, but as simple poster.
Really really stupid. It brings down the quality of the site.
REPLY: I agree, stop it or I’ll begin the wholesale deletion of comments and put some commenters on a time out. -Anthony
There is at YouTube what seems to be Spencer’s entire spoken testimony
REPLY: Thanks Joe, I’ll make use of this one too, Anthony
Hmmm. I checked the CNN site. Nothing.
If this were a “heroic” and censored leftist-funded climatologist abusing his position as a US government employee testifying before a congressional committee and the ranking republican chairman had done *anything* other than appear to be grateful to be in the same room, much less spewed vitriolic nonsense one fifth as potent, it would be front page news. Guaranteed.
For the dozen or less of you left in the country who haven’t figured any of this out, why, perhaps it’s time to consider that maybe the democrats have staked *everything* on the global warming issue.
Someone mentioned George Soros in connection with ‘Carbon Trading’. Is this the George Soros who made megabucks on currency speculation on ‘Black Wednesday’ in Europe back in the 1990’s? If so, does anyone know the extent of Mr Soro’s involvement in ‘Carbon Trading’ and how much would such a person lose if the much hyped AGW was proven to be, at least mainly, to put it mildly, untruthful?
No wonder so much resource is being thrown at even the mildest criticism of received dogma. Does one detect the faintest reek of vested interest in the air?
For deletion
Please shoot me an email–I don’t remember intending to be offensive.
I will confess to getting seriously annoyed about some of this.
Sorry I made you yank my chain.
Its not her fault, global warming made her do it.
This shows the entire meeting. After regaining my composure, I decided to share this one observation, testimony of Dr. Kevin E Trenberth (a lead IPCC author): “Many skeptics are involved in the IPCC process.” Yet a few momemts later said “There are a few people who dissent from that [IPCC consensus] view”.
I suppose that means most skeptics (many-few) do not dissent from the consensus view of the IPCC. Which makes one wonder what they are skeptical of.
Incidentally, Trenberth identified Spencer as being among those who dissent from the consensus view.
An ad hominem attack (a la Boxer) is the last retort of the clueless.
Boxer is resorting to Ad Hominem to try and make her point. Her debating skills don’t leave her any other options. This is desperation. If you have to belittle your opponent to try and prop up a disintegrating conclusion, it won’t be long before truth comes knocking.
Boxer’s statement was a disgrace and tells more about Boxer than Spencer. I doubt wether she has listened, let alone understood a single word of Spencer’s speech. It again proves politicians do have a brain of an amoebe.
BTW I saw Boxer was the CHAIRMAN of the hearing? I mean what qualifications do you need to become a chairman of a Senate Hearing?? Apparently not very much…
I’ve debated global warming with a lot of people, and sooner or later the warmists typically give up on debating the merits and switch to ad hominem attacks and arguments from authority.
When you think about it, what other choice to they have? When you scrutinize the actual merits, the case for CAGW turns out to be surprisingly flimsy.
By the way, in my experience, women are just as good at men at mindless dogmatism. That said, I sometimes wonder how many male environmentalists are in it to get laid. Certainly the movement has a lot of attractive, gullible women who don’t object to pre-marital sex.
Jack,
Agreed, I would have asked directly, “Senator, what is happening?” She’s a bully and bullies need to be confronted, although Congressional Testimony is VERY intimidating, it is very hard to be aggressive in that setting (which is why I admire Ollie North so much, his response, when asked by some breathless Senator “Isn’t it true that the arms dealers you dealt with were known liars?” was, paraphrased, “Yes, Senator, it’s true, we tried to get Mother Teresa, but she was busy.”
Jeff B.
Of course, she’s a lawyer, and all lawyers are taught, 1. If you’re short on the facts, attack the law, 2. If short on the law, attack the facts, 3. If you’re short on the facts and the law, attack the person.
Senator Boxer’s tactics of “character assassination by association” were apparently learned from watching left-wing documentaries about the tactics of Senator McCarthy in the 1950s.
The left is only interested in power and control of Washington. Ethics, human decency, and honesty are invoked only when can be used towards that end.
On the previous post, I asked:
I wonder if Sen. Boxer had the guts to pay attention to the info presented here. I can hope she did, but knowing how entrenched her opinion is on AGW, I doubt it.
Question answered.
Joe S
Thank you for the link. In my humble opinion Dr Spencer made a very clear exposition of where the science is now – that there is doubt about climate sensitivity, that there is little funding going in to the examination of natural causes and that the “consensus” appears to be politically driven.
Such a testimony might cause one to wonder whether the global policy on reducing carbon emissions was the most efficacious, whether we had identified, if at all, there was a problem with climate change and indeed whether we should be re-examining the whole issue before pusuing major policy initiatives with such wide ranging consequences.
Sadly, it would appear the Chairwoman of the committee chose not to focus on such matters of importance.
I have long held the belief that the quality of political debate in the House of Commons and in Select Committees in the UK is of a standard below that we might reasonably expect – would our friends in the US concur that this is case there also?
Everyone seems to give Spencer too much credit for his paper but I hope some of that credit also goes to Richard Lindzen. Several years ago (may be a half a dozen years ago) he postulated that the clouds acted like the eye’s iris to regulate the earth’s temperature. Spencer followed up with his work on Lindzen’s theory, which by the way, was ridiculed by the AGW crowd, Seems like Lindzen may have the last laugh.
I watched most of that yesterday and saw where Boxer associated Spencer with Limbaugh. The intent of this move by Boxer in my opinion was to diminish Spencer’s credibility.
I also noticed that Spencer didn’t get much air time.
What a pathetic joke that meeting was…
As a follow up to Boxer’s attempts to embarrass Spencer regarding whether the Clinton administration muzzled climate skeptics I am reminded of Richard Lindzen’s remarks about this issue. He said many skeptics were silenced by the Clinton administration’s refusal to issue grants submitted by AGW skeptics. Unfortunately, this will go unnoticed by the public since too many people have a very short attention span.
N. O’Brain (16:32:17) : Does Botox affect the brain?
Stick the needle in far enough and it has to.
BarryW (18:34:28) : Marx took a few facts… and created Marxism. It took a hundred plus years to beat that back.
Really? Could have fooled me. Looks like that three-headed dinosaur is alive and well.
When you know the One True Way, no objection or discussion is allowed. Trials and jail terms for those who disagree. This poses a far greater danger than even the ‘solutions’ to AGW. On this blog, we don’t all agree. That’s good. We try to (or at least should) avoid attacking each other, but rather the ideas presented. Some are good, some bad. With everything laid out, we may be able to determine the truth, or at least that we don’t know the truth.
Absent that, and the bandwagon runs off the cliff.
On Kevin Trenberth, he and Josh Willis (of Hansen et al “smoking gun”) were interviewed by NPR a few months back.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88520025
These are two of the most vehement supporters of AGW, yet acknowledge something is wrong.
Keep in mind it was Trenberth after Katrina promoting the hurricane/global warming connection.
It is odd Trenberth didn’t attend or assign someone from NCAR to attend Spencer’s seminar. What could be the reason for that? Hmm?
Joe S
“I have long held the belief that the quality of political debate in the House of Commons and in Select Committees in the UK is of a standard below that we might reasonably expect – would our friends in the US concur that this is case there also?”
When was the last time a political candidate used their IQ as a campaign point? Pandering trumps intelligence by a wide margin.
It’s not “What can you do” that counts, it’s “What will you do for me?”.
I think the average IQ in DC is somewhat lower than the national average…. (Tongue in cheek).
cc of email to Senator Boxer at
https://boxer.senate.gov/contact/email/policy.cfm
———————–
Petition: Apologize to Dr. Spencer
Senator Boxer
I respectfully submit that your caustic comment against Dr. Roy Spencer seriously demeans your office. (See text below).
You unjustly besmirched Dr. Spencer’s character when he is a courageous scientist of very high integrity. His effort to give scientific evidence redressing the political correctness of global warming is to be commended.
I petition you to redress this grievance by publicly apologizing to Dr. Spencer for your demeaning statement.
David L. Hagen, PhD
cc Dr. Spencer, Anthony Watt
“BOXER: . . .And lastly, I guess is a certain congratulations, Rush Limbaugh referred to you as the official climatologist of the Rush Limbaugh Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
SPENCER: Yeah, that’s tongue-in-cheek reference.
BOXER: Right. But I just want to point that out for people to understand. I just want to make sure everybody knows what’s really happening.”
Paul H Clark,
To me the most telling part of the YouTube video begins at the 5:00 minute thru the 6:00 minute mark where Dr. Spencer relates a story he had never told before which essentially says (my words) that from the beginning, science was shaped for an agenda. Watch that part if you have time.
Joe S (10:35:02)
Joe S,
Thank you again.
I had not perhaps focussed as much on this point as I might have.
It is certainly not beyond the bounds of man that there are machinations in the system beyond our ken.
Interesting video. Any details on the Colorado meeting with Climatologists Dr Spencer mentioned?
There is a book, from the 1980s, but still very relevant today, called “The Clustering of America.” The primary audience is marketeers, but there are many sociological insights in that book.
If one were to deconstruct how someone like Boxer can be elected Senator, in terms of the market segments mentioned in that book, two of them, “Money, Brains and Power” and “Urban Gold Coasts” figure prominently. More traditional bourgeois segments such as rural folk, and even some urban working people, are not her key battleground groups.
This says a lot, none of it good, about those who run our corporations, invest the most money, and purport to know better than the salt of the Earth.
Boxer and other Leftist dolts/boors of her ilk have quite a gift for insulting my intelligence and offending me. Her treatment of Dr. Spencer was reprehensible.
I too am appalled at Boxer’s treatment of Spencer. It’s not only indefensible, but unethical given her position as the chairman of the committee.
But what I find nearly equally offensive are the sexist, woman-hating comments of some fellow wattsupwiththat posters. You might consider that there are probably many more female readers than you know who are anti-AGW and supportive of good quality science over politics.
Oh well, I visited Jack’s climateclinic website once and was entirely unimpressed. Now I have a good reason never to visit again.
REPLY: I agree and Jack has been chastised for his remarks. – Anthony
It may be a small comfort, but it was not just women who were offended by those comments.
Spencer is too much of a gentleman, but wouldn’t it have been fun if he’d asked Boxer, “Senator, do you believe the AMO, or the PDO, has more influence on the climate?”
Maybe she’s worried that this climatologist has been too high from hanging out with Rush and
[snip – no ad hom attacks on character based on speculation]
Plus, he’s not funny.
“She’s right to cast aspersions on anyone associated with him because he’s an absolute fraud and a horrible person on all levels.”
I don’t have an opinion of Mr. Limbaugh, not being a listener, but when I hear claims such as this — a mixture of classless/clueless mendaciousness and vitriolic partisan politics — it sure doesn’t make me want to listen to anything you or anyone like you may have to say. You already said everything I’ll ever need to hear. Yes, you impressed me, although you may not care to hear precisely what my impression is.
At this link is a similar thought to mine —
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/22/channel4.ofcom
Essentially Mr. Mykura is saying that it’s the nastiness of the attack that makes for many a skeptic where there may not have been one before, and to a large degree he’s right. Mr. Mykura is the guy who runs Channel 4 in the UK. He seems a great deal smarter than Senator Boxer; at least he’s exhibited an understanding of how people react to attacks.
Retired Engineer
Really? Could have fooled me. Looks like that three-headed dinosaur is alive and well.
Didn’t say it was dead, there are always fools that believe what they want to believe regardless of reality. The major oligarchies aren’t presently using it as their justification, and it has been replaced by eco-facism as the fashionable ism with the intelligentsia. It could, of course, rear back up anytime.
“I have long held the belief that the quality of political debate in the House of Commons and in Select Committees in the UK is of a standard below that we might reasonably expect – would our friends in the US concur that this is case there also?”
“Let’s suppose that I am a member of Congress. Let us further suppose that I am
a scoundrel……Wait I repeat Myself” Mark Twain
Last year I read Twain’s biography (the newer one and I have forgotten the author’s name). Such a man. Reminds me of Ben Franklin in the pithiness of their one-liners.
And talk about being pithy! I got rather pithy at the afore mentioned female bashing!
I could say more about pithing but I will leave it at that.
Meanwhile, it is still COLD! I think this weekend I may have to put a fire in the wood stove!
Pamela – this AM in coastal Nor Cal it was back down in the upper 40s. That usually does not happen until at least mid August. I am on the verge of calling onset of climatic autumn here. Of course it will be a retrospective call. But I should know within a couple weeks whether or not climatic autumn started on the 20th of July (!).
[even though this was a positive, we are done talking about this~Charles the moderator]
“I think this weekend I may have to put a fire in the wood stove!”
Jutht be careful where you pith letht you inadvertantly put the fire out.
Apologies – this really isn’t relevant to this topc but I was half listening to the Obama speech in Berlin and the last few sentences caught my attention
Quote:- The terrorists of September 11th plotted in Hamburg and trained in Kandahar and Karachi before killing thousands from all over the globe on American soil.
As we speak, cars in Boston and factories in Beijing are melting the ice caps in the Arctic, shrinking coastlines in the Atlantic, and bringing drought to farms from Kansas to Kenya
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/text-obama-speech-berlin/story.aspx?guid={E4036BB1-ABD7-471B-BD6D-1E26F6878BB1}&dist=msr_1
[…] topics and use them as the focal point for forming opinions. For example, as reported here, The last time Dr. Roy Spencer testified before Congress, committee chair Barbara Boxer appeared more interested in discussing Rush Limbaugh than she did […]
[…] topics and use them as the focal point for forming opinions. For example, as reported here, The last time Dr. Roy Spencer testified before Congress, committee chair Barbara Boxer appeared more interested in discussing Rush Limbaugh than she did […]