Patterico's Pontifications

1/31/2010

Obama Bows to Tampa’s Mayor

Filed under: Obama — DRJ @ 11:52 pm

[Guest post by DRJ]

“U.S. President Barack Obama bows to Tampa Mayor Pam Iorio at MacDill Air Force Base on Thursday, Jan. 28, 2010 in Tampa, Fla.”

H/T Hot Air and GatewayPundit, because I didn’t believe it the first time I saw it.

— DRJ

161 Responses to “Obama Bows to Tampa’s Mayor”

  1. He’s bowing to everyone but reality.

    [yuck, yuck]

    Thanks everyone. I’ll be here all week. Be sure to take care of your cocktail servers; they take care of you.

    JVW (48cbba)

  2. Perhaps someone pointed out to him that, if he bows to everyone, then he can claim that he is simply being his usual courteous respectful self ? (grin)

    Alasdair (205079)

  3. That can’t be right, he’s never bowed to a Republican. Maybe when he meets Scott Brown?

    Kevin Murphy (3c3db0)

  4. Well, that’s what happens when voters elect the least qualified, least experienced presidential candidate in our nation’s history. No one with an intelligence quotient higher than that of a pomegranate should be surprised by this.

    Mike LaRoche (8dcfe1)

  5. He’s bowing to Mayor Iorio because she has
    a name whose ethnic antecedents he mis-identifies
    as Asian. She looks a little Asian, too,
    so he bows.

    Or maybe he’s forgotten which country he is
    in.

    Or maybe, Obama is losing it.

    Jack (e383ed)

  6. > He’s bowing to everyone but reality.

    No, he’s not bowing to the will of the American people, either.

    For them his automatic response seems to be more along the lines of an extended middle finger.

    But, as you note, he’s certainly got nothing but contempt for reality, too.

    IgotBupkis (79d71d)

  7. > No one with an intelligence quotient higher than that of a pomegranate should be surprised by this.

    Oy!!!

    A. T. Pomegranate (79d71d)

  8. .

    Scheisse!

    Must resist bow UND ckicking heels, -not- **chust** verdammt habit uf clicking heels!

    Heil Me!!

    .

    B H. Obama (79d71d)

  9. Ha ha ha ha…

    Leviticus (090a4c)

  10. I’ve come to the conclusion that he’s seeking to sniff something, like a dog does, his nose giving him his environmental clues.

    nk (db4a41)

  11. He’s checking his fly.

    davidt (bdd901)

  12. I think she’s a wise Latina, so that would explain it.

    Patricia (e1047e)

  13. Nah, she’s secretly a Muslim, so Captain Awesome’s making sure not to offend anyone – except for those bitter God clingy mouth breathers.

    Dmac (539341)

  14. Sheesh, what a dork.

    Blacque Jacques Shellacque (efef8c)

  15. Perhaps she is of royal descent? Has anyone checked?

    The historian Dana (3e4784)

  16. There is a distinct behavioral contrast from…THIS INTERACTION.

    There are bows and there are sterns. Action follows form?

    political agnostic (9ef5b0)

  17. Looking for the reflection upskirt from her patent leather pumps!

    Should just pull a John Candy ala “Splash” and drop a handful of coins!

    Earl T (d96b36)

  18. Maybe he thinks she’s distantly related to Mao, the all-father.

    Icy Texan (8c88ae)

  19. This is more and more embarrasing.

    Vivian Louise (eeeb3a)

  20. What is so incredible about this repeated faux pas is how dammed unnecessary it is. There is a gentlemanly way to bow as a formal greeting — George Washington himself disdained shaking hands and preferred to bow — but it involves maintaining eye contact with your subject while you nod your head slightly downward. What Obama is doing by lowering his gaze and tucking his chin to his chest, as we said when he bowed to the Saudi King and to the Japanese Emperor, is a sign of being weak and servile.

    I can’t believe that no one at this dysfunctional White House has sat him down and worked with him on this. He looks like an absolute ass.

    JVW (48cbba)

  21. […] Debt deluge: Here comes the $1.6 trillion flood of red ink Video: Specter jumps onstage, interrupts Sestak Gallup, Blue states, and Red elections Obama Bows to Tampa’s Mayor […]

    Tea Parties, Tempests, and DEMOCRATIC “tea-baggers”! « Temple of Mut (6673e4)

  22. Would you prefer our leaders shoot their friends in the face instead?

    Intelliology (00d844)

  23. Are those the only two choices in Obama’s Presidency?

    DRJ (84a0c3)

  24. DRJ – It is just embarassed at how badly it was abused in the global warming BS thread, and it is acting out. Petulant little child, idiotology is.

    JD (7fecfd)

  25. Would you prefer our leaders shoot their friends in the face instead?

    Not given to such melodrama, I would suggest the president simply approach other leaders with respect, courtesy and for godsake, some dignity. That’s not too much to ask, is it?

    Dana (1e5ad4)

  26. This arrogant, narcissistic, man-child, is completely incapable of projecting feelings of respect, courtesy, and dignity.
    When he isn’t kow-towing, he’s looking down his nose at those around him.
    “There Will Be Blood” – ours, not his.

    AD - RtR/OS! (810a60)

  27. JD. I am still waiting to be amazed at your side’s “CO2 is not a greenhouse gas” claim. Please, provide this explanation, or (for some reason you love to use this lingo) admit you’re a fool for ever and ever and you’ve been beclowned and etc. etc. you get the idea. You should be embarrassed.

    Oh. And explain unprecedented CO2 levels. While you’re at it, maybe you can explain ocean warming and the stronger hurricanes? Go ahead and do that and I’ll drop by tomorrow to grade your work.

    Intelliology (00d844)

  28. Then you can continue to be amazed, since not one person in that thread made that fucking claim. Unprecedented C02 levels?! Lying just comes natural to you. People, many people pointed out how aggressively dishonest that was of you to note, yet you ignored same and continue to do so. Dishonest fucking piece of cow dung, you are. So Yoda says.

    [Released from spam filter. — DRJ]

    JD (61d2c1)

  29. I got filtrated.

    JD (61d2c1)

  30. It is nice to know that the rules of decorum are different for JD than they are for those of us visiting from reality, read: trolls.

    Intelliology (00d844)

  31. Oops. Sorry, DRJ. Rules of decorum usually suggest that people not lie lie lie, idiotology. In polite society, that is what would be known as a good start. Community based realities do not count.

    JD (61d2c1)

  32. So in your humble opinion I lied, and you drop a few f bombs. I sure hope you’re not raising any kids to react as you do. You’re why men build prisons.

    Intelliology (00d844)

  33. I lied,

    Opinion has nothing to do with it.

    You lied, repeatedly, voluminously, egregiously and continuously.

    In short, you are a bloody liar.

    EW1(SG) (edc268)

  34. Apologies for this post, ahead of time.

    “…JD. I am still waiting to be amazed at your side’s “CO2 is not a greenhouse gas” claim. Please, provide this explanation, or (for some reason you love to use this lingo) admit you’re a fool for ever and ever and you’ve been beclowned and etc. etc. you get the idea. You should be embarrassed…”

    Here is a place to start educating yourself:

    http://www.climate-skeptic.com/

    And even a slide show to take the bad taste of Al Gore’s nonsense away:

    http://www.climate-skeptic.com/phoenix

    I hope you will go away and read and watch and think a little bit.

    But I’m sure you won’t. This is why you are a troll. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, though both water vapor and methane are far more effective greenhouse gases. Nobody’s “side” disagrees with that, though calling it a “poison” or “pollutant” is silly.

    My guess is that your own studying on this issue has not gone much farther than Wikipedia. Fact is, carbon dioxide levels have certainly been far higher in the past, before people were burning fossil fuels. That isn’t open for argument, even to climate researchers.

    And keep in mind that many of the so-called climate researchers aren’t…well…climate researchers.

    This is, as it has been all along, about politics. Your posts demonstrate that amply, as do your silly straw man arguments trying to distract from own lack of education in this area.

    Any time you want to stop acting like a troll, why, people will stop calling you a troll. But you aren’t here to honestly engage people in discussion. You are here to play silly games.

    Your entire history on this blog is a testament to that fact.

    Again, folks, sorry for the interruption.

    Eric Blair (c8876d)

  35. It is not an opinion. You objectively lied. And you acted like a coward trying to come here and resume a discussion here rather than address the countless on point responses to you in the thread about this topic. It is who you are. You cannot help it. I get that.

    oh, did I hurt your little feelings? I am so sorry. I will work on being more new agey and thoughtful, since I know you have such delicate feelings.

    JD (61d2c1)

  36. And another place you can, well, study, oh troll:

    http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2007/09/table-of-conten.html

    Eric Blair (c8876d)

  37. “…I sure hope you’re not raising any kids to react as you do. You’re why men build prisons…”

    Now that is getting a bit personal. But then, why does “Intelliology” post?

    The goal is to anger people, apparently. And don’t hand me that “he did it first.” You have been trolling in an insulting fashion from day one.

    Sigh.

    Eric Blair (c8876d)

  38. I am why men build prisons? Really? What laws have I broken?

    JD (61d2c1)

  39. Intelliology,

    There are certain words that send comments to the spam filter automatically but if that’s the only reason the comment is there, we always release it.

    DRJ (84a0c3)

  40. Stating one’s position in clear terms is apparently grounds for imprisonment in Idiotology’s world.

    JD (61d2c1)

  41. #34 Eric Blair:

    Again, folks, sorry for the interruption.

    Well, it does bring a bit of relief to a thread devoted to that infernally protocol iggerant occupant of the Oval Office.

    Might I also suggest as a link for reference, the Global Warming Petition Project. While I doubt the troll would have heard of people like Freeman Dyson, or Edward Teller, there is a pretty impressive list of credentialed individuals who have signed on.

    Including some the guys that I used to work with in earth sciences research.

    EW1(SG) (edc268)

  42. Hmm…dropped an “o” and an “f” someplace on the floor…think the cat got ’em.

    EW1(SG) (edc268)

  43. That was prolly racist, EW, and Idiotology would prolly have you imprisoned.

    JD (61d2c1)

  44. #43 JD:

    That was prolly racist, EW, and Idiotology would prolly have you imprisoned.

    Prolly. Well then, allow me to denounce myself and be done with it. And if imprisonment would spare me being subjected to the constant fountain of falsehood…I’d consider it.

    P.S.: Notably, Von Braun’s buddy wasn’t on the list of petitioners I referred to above. Must have been an oversight, I’m sure.

    EW1(SG) (edc268)

  45. EW, I can’t get your petition link to work. Is it okay on your end?

    Eric Blair (20b3a8)

  46. @45 Eric, I think EW1 was linking this: Global Warming Petition Project. It is an impressive list, boasting 31k scientist and 9k PhD’s.

    Pons Asinorum (ffeb5e)

  47. @22 Intelliology — Would you prefer our leaders shoot their friends in the face instead?

    Uh, no.

    (with Intelliology, it is important to keep it simple).

    Pons Asinorum (ffeb5e)

  48. I am going to jail, Pons. Write, will ya?

    JD (61d2c1)

  49. @21 Intelliology — I am still waiting to be amazed at your side’s “CO2 is not a greenhouse gas” claim.

    I did a word search on the phrase that Intelliology quoted: “CO2 is not a greenhouse gas”, at DRJ’s post: More Climate Change Questions (Updated x2).

    Result, one hit: @221 Comment by Intelliology — 1/31/2010 @ 6:45 pm.

    Nobody used those words, but you.

    Please feel free to return the climate thread as your questions have been answered, sources cited and evidence presented (over and over by several writers). Indeed there are several questions put to you that you have ignored, and there are zero citations whatsoever for the facts that you claim as true.

    We were looking forward to them but you ran away.

    (Apologies for the threadjack).

    Pons Asinorum (ffeb5e)

  50. Because I am why men build prisons. No lie. It is true.

    JD (61d2c1)

  51. @48 — No worries JD:
    a) I think Intelliology fibbed and maybe he might go to internet jail.

    b) worse case; according the the movie Office Space — just find the toughest guy on day one and beat his a**, or become his beeeetch!

    Pons Asinorum (ffeb5e)

  52. I luv that movie 😉

    Pons Asinorum (ffeb5e)

  53. Office Space is one of a handful of movies that I ever made it a point to purchase. Tombstone. The Hangover. Old School.

    JD (61d2c1)

  54. Because I am why men build prisons.

    JD, I think Intelliology really believes that. What a bizarre statement.

    I am so glad I am not Intelliology’s shrink/therapist/counselor/drug dealer/whatever.

    That dude is messed-up.

    Pons Asinorum (ffeb5e)

  55. Tombstone. The Hangover. Old School.

    Like them all. Just recently saw the Hangover, ILMAO, but my wife, not so much.

    “Man on Fire” — the one with Denzel Washington, on my A list.

    Pons Asinorum (ffeb5e)

  56. I think that increased CO2 levels cause inordinate bowing. It’s just a theory, but evidence is mounting.

    Ag80 (1592cc)

  57. yeah, some sort of gas anyway!

    Pons Asinorum (ffeb5e)

  58. Goodnight, folks. I am going to go sleep in my non-prison bed before Idiotology and the thought-Nazis send me off to prison/re-education camp.

    JD (61d2c1)

  59. Goodnight, JD.

    DRJ (84a0c3)

  60. Sorry ’bout the f-bombs, DRJ. Truth hurts, apparently.

    JD (61d2c1)

  61. I don’t care if you don’t care that the comments won’t post until someone sees them.

    DRJ (84a0c3)

  62. I still say the india delta ten tango sock has lint amazingly similar to other lint left by the Ultimate Up-Chuck, other than the lack of WoT. (Ciphers at the ready.)

    John Hitchcock (b082bd)

  63. I don’t know who the other old troll is (that John is referring to), but intelliology is clearly much more bothered than he is bothering. I don’t know why you’d even want to comment on a site you weren’t welcome on.

    I may not be smart enough to crack the cipher, but it’s pretty plain to see that he’s wasting his time.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  64. That is fine, DRJ, but don’t for one second believe that a left-leaning (or centrist, for that matter) would be allowed the same leash with language that you allow JD.

    Just sayin’.

    Intelliology (00d844)

  65. Intelliology sure is a fuckin’ whiner!

    [note: released from moderation. –Stashiu]

    Icy Texan (0781f2)

  66. Comment by Intelliology — 2/1/2010 @ 7:52 pm

    27.JD. I am still waiting to be amazed at your side’s “CO2 is not a greenhouse gas” claim. Please, provide this explanation, or (for some reason you love to use this lingo) admit you’re a fool for ever and ever and you’ve been beclowned and etc. etc. you get the idea. You should be embarrassed.

    — This ^^^ would be why you proudly wear the mantle of “Troll”. Okay, right now (RIGHT NOW!) provide evidence to back-up your statement that the conservative “side” claims “CO2 is not a greenhouse gas”. Either give proof, retract your statement, or rephrase your statement to say what you really mean.

    Oh. And explain unprecedented CO2 levels. While you’re at it, maybe you can explain ocean warming and the stronger hurricanes? Go ahead and do that and I’ll drop by tomorrow to grade your work.

    — 1) More mammals, fewer plants; 2) test equipment has only become accurate in recent years, and therefore the data is suspect; 3) What “stronger hurricanes”? 5 out of the 10 most intense hurricanes in the US occurred prior to WORLD WAR II! Yep, there’s more damage if they actually hit something; and that’s more likely nowadays, with more people (and their buildings) in existence. In no way does this prove that hurricanes are worse now than they were in the past.

    Oh, and stop me if you’ve heard words like “cyclical” & “sunspots”, as that only reflects theories based on rational scientific investigation — and not wishful (based on an agenda) thinking.

    Icy Texan (0781f2)

  67. CO2 is a very minor greenhouse gas in comparison to others like methane and water vapor, just to name two. However, its main purpose is plant food. Without it, plants cannot exist, and without plants all animal life will cease to exist.

    Assioslogy is just a total DUMBASS.

    peedoffamerican (422035)

  68. Egad, it just hit me!!! Since libturds want to eliminate CO2, this is proof positive that they do want to destroy the world.

    peedoffamerican (422035)

  69. #45 Eric Blair:

    Is it okay on your end?

    Nope. But Pons Asinorum was kind enough to provide the correct link.

    EW1(SG) (edc268)

  70. What is the optimal temperature of the earth, Idiotology. And, why? I have never seen one of these trolls answer such a simple question.

    JD (61d2c1)

  71. @21 Intelliology — Oh. And explain unprecedented CO2 levels.

    (can’t resist, sorry).

    Today’s CO2 levels are unprecedented when compared to the last 600 million years of the Global Climate Record.

    Unprecedentedly low — and almost entirely by an order of magnitude over that time.

    Gonna-be a good day today. Intelliology is getting spanked (again!) and so far, the President has not bowed to anyone.

    If he can just make it till lunch…

    Pons Asinorum (ffeb5e)

  72. Oh, the day gets better!. @64, Intelliology is providing a little whining to go along with her “science”.

    Pons Asinorum (ffeb5e)

  73. Intelliology actually claimed that global warming is causing stronger hurricanes? That’s among the claims by the IPCC WGII report that have been specifically debunked by the experts in the field like Pielke. That’s one of the specific areas of the report that relied on unpeer-reviewed reports, claims by insurance industry reps, and even outright misrepresentation of reports. Its among the claims that the IPCC have made without any scientific basis and I’ve specifically linked to proof of that – and here Intelliology is repeating the claim.

    That’s just yet another example of the utter BS Intelliology believes, that ain’t so.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  74. “Oh. And explain unprecedented CO2 levels. While you’re at it, maybe you can explain ocean warming and the stronger hurricanes? Go ahead and do that and I’ll drop by tomorrow to grade your work.”

    Now that is funny, and surprisingly ignorant. It just proves what I wrote before: this is politics, not science, as other people have illustrated with carbon dioxide levels over geological history. Too bad those dinosaurs didn’t have carbon credits, huh?

    First, unprecedented carbon dioxide levels. Oh my. I wish we had this character online to make him list his data he finds convincing. I won’t even touch the other comments. This is just Al Gore movie stuff. And it is looking more and more like a put up job, isn’t it?

    This guy is intellectually lazy. “Grade work” indeed.

    But no worries. A new straw man will be set up to divert attention.

    Because when you think about it, this troll wants folks to scurry around, look up things (which he does not have to do) and then change goals posts. And most of all, to threadjack.

    That is why the lady is a tramp, to mix metaphors.

    Eric Blair (c8876d)

  75. http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=16226

    Unprecedented rise in CO2. Intellectually lazy that, Eric.

    Intelliology (00d844)

  76. Intelliology, you were challenged on your statement about CO2 levels.

    So, like the ignorant person you are, you cite to an article that discusses the rate of rise.

    Not levels. Rise.

    Not the same thing. So I think you are not intellectually lazy. I think you are intellectually deficient.

    And that is ignoring the hilarious false claims in the piece you cite.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  77. Let’s see…the current “ticker” headline at http://www.globalresearch.ca is:

    Haiti: Is it a Humanitarian Operation or an Invasion?

    Coupled with a motto of:

    Centre for Research on Globalization

    and the fact that they can’t even spell Glikson’s name correctly?

    We’ve gone from intellectually lazy to a credibility level of this “scientist” who recommends Velostat®.

    Actually, I highly recommend Velostat® as well.

    But not for the same purpose.

    Give it up, stupid. Using other’s lies as your own doesn’t help any.

    EW1(SG) (edc268)

  78. Oh. That is weird. You don’t like my source. Well then you site a source and I’ll go ahead and discredit it in my opinion. We can go around and around with this, boys. The fact is politicians are making your points, while scientists are confirming mine.

    Intelliology (00d844)

  79. while scientists are confirming mine.

    I think you missed the part where I pointed out that I worked at a basic research institution doing, among other things, earth science research.

    Try blowing smoke up somebody else’s skirt.

    EW1(SG) (edc268)

  80. Which institute would this be, if I may ask? The heritage foundation? The national review’s official science department? Please enlighten us with your fantastically objective viewpoints. You know, the ones that are totally and completely objective yet ‘coincidently’ are shared by the party with which you agree on economic and social issues as well. Yeah… I thought so.

    Intelliology (00d844)

  81. So, Idiotology endorses the lies and pseudo-science of the global warming alarmists. SHOCKA.

    JD (c7bd69)

  82. Intelliology, your “source” did not confirm your point. It confirmed your new goalpost. And you didn’t even realize it because you actually don’t understand the topic.

    Meanwhile, you still have not retracted your false claim about worsening hurricane intensity. Note that the IPCC has been spanked on this by the very person that they misrepresented at the source of their claims. Here that source points out where the IPCC misrepresented his position on the topic.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  83. Which institute would this be

    Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory.

    From the ocean bottoms to the outer limits of the solar system.

    I continue to be unimpressed by your stupidity.

    EW1(SG) (edc268)

  84. 81.So, Idiotology endorses the lies and pseudo-science of the global warming alarmists. SHOCKA.

    Comment by JD — 2/2/2010 @ 4:49 pm

    Is Forrest Gump the Arnold Schwarzenegger to your Danny Devito? You’re a f*cking dumb@ss. (Yeah, I had to censor since I am not a reich-winger and can’t get away with the crap you do)

    Intelliology (00d844)

  85. Intelliology, Roger Pielke would like to know just who is responsible for lying about his views, a lie you echoed with your claims about hurricanes.

    Since you echoed it, are you responsible? Or are you just gullible? Pick one.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  86. Watch out, folks. The tard of thunder is going to blow!

    JD (c7bd69)

  87. As I said yesterday, profanity sends comments to the spam filter and while someone will release them as soon as possible, I don’t know how long that will take. If you want to avoid that possibility, don’t use profanity or use symbols the way Intelliology did.

    DRJ (84a0c3)

  88. A link to a blog, SPQR? I’ll pass. Why don’t you try again.

    Intelliology (00d844)

  89. Intelliology, its the blog of an expert in the topic, and in fact the very expert that the IPCC falsely claimed supported their conclusion.

    In other words, it has more credibility than your link.

    You are a clown, Intelliology.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  90. That is so typical. Intelliology is pointed to the comments by the very expert cited in the IPCC WGII paper and refuses to even look.

    That’s exactly the kind of cult behavior I’ve come to expect from AGW adherents.

    It isn’t science, its a religion with these clowns.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  91. So you would like me to source my own blog as an ‘expert’ in a field on a subject?

    Intelliology (00d844)

  92. Intelliology, can you not read english? Are you completely and utterly incompetent? Pielke is cited as an expert in the topic by the IPCC.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  93. “So you would like me to source my own blog as an ‘expert’ in a field on a subject?”

    No, Mr. Intelliproctology… I want you to… die.

    GeneralMalaise (55c598)

  94. I declare that it is the “consensus” in the scientific community that Intelliology is completely and utterly incompetent.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  95. “I declare that it is the “consensus” in the scientific community that Intelliology is completely and utterly incompetent.”

    Now that’s some settled science, my friend.

    GeneralMalaise (55c598)

  96. @85 Intelliology — Is Forrest Gump the Arnold Schwarzenegger to your Danny Devito?

    Intelliology, one reason it is important to cite sources is so that creditability can be objectively ascertained.

    Here are some more stories that globalreasearch.ca has in addition to its “science” section, as pointed-out by EW1:

    CIA Assassination Squads Target US Citizens

    Good Morning America: US Public Wakes up to the Destructive Nature of Capitalism

    The Battle of the Titans: JP Morgan Versus Goldman Sachs

    The Day De Klerk Changed the Course of History

    The funniest part is the cited article this does not even justify your position, as the article is focused on the rate of change, as pointed out by SPQR.

    Here is your phrase:
    “…unprecedented CO2 levels…”

    Here is their phrase:
    “…the current rate of CO2 rise (2005-08: 1.66-2.55 ppm/year) is unprecedented …”

    The fact that you choose a source that is not beyond approach is hardly surprising. The fact that you will cling to this source with feverish devotion is quite amusing. But the best part; it does not even support your claim, indeed it is talking about an entirely different topic, but you didn’t know it!

    Keep believing, and uh, I totally understand why you were so reluctant to cite your sources.

    You’re a f*cking dumb@ss.

    That’s the spirit, when your arguments fail and you can not figure out an intelligent reply, do what a good leftist does.

    (Yeah, I had to censor since I am not a reich-winger and can’t get away with the crap you do)

    Victimhood and whining! You go girl.

    Pons Asinorum (ffeb5e)

  97. “…Unprecedented rise in CO2. Intellectually lazy that, Eric….”

    Um. Do you literally not know the difference between rates of change and absolute levels? Go get a geology textbook.

    The trouble with you, troll, is that you buy into the falsehood that science is decided by fashion, rather than data. The IPCC has been shown to be capable of falsifying reports, hiding contrary evidence, and so forth.

    This is all about politics, troll. You know that. Heck, I’m pretty sure you couldn’t tell me anything about climate studies at all. You are just reading talking points.

    Is that your “grading homework”? Puh-leeze.

    Eric Blair (c8876d)

  98. Pons, and then Intelliology sneered at my link to Roger Pielke’s blog.

    What a clown.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  99. SPQR, yeah, she’s out there. It is one thing to be ignorant. It is quite another to willfully desire it.

    I mentioned this before, but I think it is bottom-of-the-barrel time for leftist AGW ideology. The smarter ones are abandoning AGW (and really anything IPCC) in favor of other approaches, issues, or causes. Those that remain and continue to champion proven falsehoods are perhaps are not the sharpest pencils in the box, sort of speak.

    Pons Asinorum (ffeb5e)

  100. Well, Pons, it looks like Intelliology is going for AGW and CIA assassination squads.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  101. #98 Eric Blair:

    Go get a geology textbook.

    I think its problems are much more fundamental.

    EW1(SG) (edc268)

  102. Mock and scorn. Point and laugh.

    JD (24e83b)

  103. “Mock and scorn. Point and laugh.”

    Jail and re-educate.

    GeneralMalaise (55c598)

  104. Comment by SPQR — 2/2/2010 @ 6:51 pm

    Could we have the CIA squads hit the AGW liars?

    AD - RtR/OS! (eadee4)

  105. Here’s the bottom line with the AGW adherents. No one makes them pop up claiming to be smarter and more knowledgeable. I didn’t compel Intelliology here and in the other thread into making specific, factual claims that were false. I can’t force that.

    But they do it anyway. Enthusiastically. Because they are in possession of special knowledge denied to the rest of us.

    And they are so easy to take apart. Note that we are not using any “tricks” to this. We are not doing whacky 911 Truther or Creationist nuttiness where we take some obscure side detail and try to trip up people with topics that they are not prepared upon.

    This is core stuff. And its stuff that the AGW adherents pick to focus on and demonstrate their superior command of the facts. And fail completely.

    That’s the state of the debate. The skeptics are more knowledgeable than the adherents.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  106. Wrong, General. Idiotology told us last night that behavior like mine is why men build prisons. He/she/it would criminalize disagreement.

    JD (24e83b)

  107. SPQR, this is all about politics controlling science. And the deeply amusing part is a troll who, when faced with evidence showing it to be factually incorrect, responds with the following attack on sources as being partisan:

    “..You know, the ones that are totally and completely objective yet ‘coincidently’ are shared by the party with which you agree on economic and social issues as well. ..”

    Leave out that this troll didn’t even understand the post it cited. The troll literally cannot see the irony of its own supposedly critical words.

    Eric Blair (20b3a8)

  108. Its especially funny, Eric, because Pielke is not a skeptic about AGW in general, is cited by the IPCC for his papers on weather disasters, and happens to be “Progressive” in his politics.

    It is not AGW skeptics that made this an ideological issue. Its the nuttier advocates like Al Gore and James Hansen.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  109. http://co2now.org/

    Absolute levels, Eric. Looks like we are approximately 40 ppm (10.9% above the ‘safe level’, according to this site)

    This is the part where you tell me that their data is wrong because (insert a non-partisan yet extremely partisan reason here). Go ahead, let me hear it. But but but… that is not the same absolute levels as I was talking about.

    Do you also agree, Mr. Devito?

    Intelliology (00d844)

  110. Here’s your second opportunity to respond, pantywaist! (or should it be “a waste of panties”?)

    66.Comment by Intelliology — 2/1/2010 @ 7:52 pm

    27.JD. I am still waiting to be amazed at your side’s “CO2 is not a greenhouse gas” claim. Please, provide this explanation, or (for some reason you love to use this lingo) admit you’re a fool for ever and ever and you’ve been beclowned and etc. etc. you get the idea. You should be embarrassed.

    -– This ^^^ would be why you proudly wear the mantle of “Troll”. Okay, right now (RIGHT NOW!) provide evidence to back-up your statement that the conservative “side” claims “CO2 is not a greenhouse gas”. Either give proof, retract your statement, or rephrase your statement to say what you really mean.

    Oh. And explain unprecedented CO2 levels. While you’re at it, maybe you can explain ocean warming and the stronger hurricanes? Go ahead and do that and I’ll drop by tomorrow to grade your work.

    -– 1) More mammals, fewer plants; 2) test equipment has only become accurate in recent years, and therefore the data is suspect; 3) What “stronger hurricanes”? 5 out of the 10 most intense hurricanes in the US occurred prior to WORLD WAR II! Yep, there’s more damage if they actually hit something; and that’s more likely nowadays, with more people (and their buildings) in existence. In no way does this prove that hurricanes are worse now than they were in the past.

    Oh, and stop me if you’ve heard words like “cyclical” & “sunspots”, as that only reflects theories based on rational scientific investigation — and not wishful (based on an agenda) thinking.

    10.9% above the ’safe level’, according to this site . . . This is the part where you tell me that their data is wrong

    — YOU do not know that this data is accurate, and you especially do not know if this ‘safe level’ claim is accurate. You seem to be like the people taken in by Obama’s medical panel on health care. If a number of men in lab coats say it’s true, you believe it like it’s Holy Writ.

    The action heroes in all of those 1950’s science fiction/irradiated monster B-movies all said the same thing: “What does this mean, Doc?”

    Icy Texan (0c6a85)

  111. Whether or not the levels are 40ppm is not the issue, and was not your original claim of unprecedented levels. Do those goalposts get heavy while you run around with them?

    JD (ff4baa)

  112. Intelliogy: now you are getting boring. Your comment was NOT about “rate” but absolute. Because you don’t understand basic math or any science at all, I’m quite sure.

    I loved your “safe” level comment. Again, based on the geological record. Here’s your homework:

    1. What are the current levels of CO2 in the atmophere, percentage wise of total volume?

    2. Repeat the exercise 15,000 YBP. Then 50,000 YBP. And so forth.

    Those darned dinosaurs apparently drove SUVs. Ditto the trilobites.

    It’s the politics with you. That’s it.

    Pfft! Go away. Boring.

    Eric Blair (0b61b2)

  113. Intelliology wrote “… Looks like we are approximately 40 ppm “.

    Intelliology’s cited link says ” … 397 ppm ”

    See, Intelliology has no understanding of the subject at all.

    The idea that there is a “safe level” is of course utter nonsense in itself.

    Now why were we ridiculing Intelliology’s ignorant claim about CO2 being unprecedented. Because in past history of the Earth, it was as much as ten times greater concentrations of CO2. See this paper has a handy chart summarizing CO2 and temperature for quite a large amount of previous Earth history. Ordovician era –> 4000 ppm, Jurassic –> as much as 2500 ppm.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  114. Oh, and by the way Intelliology, the Earth actually had an ice age during the Ordovician. Think about it.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  115. By the way, there are a lot of references that reflect the statement above about the time lag between temperature and CO2 concentrations that is observable following glaciations.

    Here is just one. From the abstract:

    High-resolution records from Antarctic ice cores show that carbon dioxide concentrations increased by 80 to 100 parts per million by volume 600 ± 400 years after the warming of the last three deglaciations. Despite strongly decreasing temperatures, high carbon dioxide concentrations can be sustained for thousands of years during glaciations; the size of this phase lag is probably connected to the duration of the preceding warm period, which controls the change in land ice coverage and the buildup of the terrestrial biosphere.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  116. @110 Intelliology — Looks like we are approximately 40 ppm (10.9% above the ’safe level’, according to this site).

    Let’s see, 10.9% of 40 is 4.36 ppm, so that the safe level is about 36ish ppm.

    trying to hold back…must not laugh…decorum, must maintain…oh, no…

    Hahahahahahahaha!

    Pons Asinorum (ffeb5e)

  117. Intelliology — I guess for a true believer it is really that hard to discount scientists who have falsified findings and skewed data.

    Since their falsehoods are better than yours, you might want to try to present their views more accurately.

    In any event, thanks for the comic relief, highly enjoyable.

    Pons Asinorum (ffeb5e)

  118. Now I know that Intelliology is going to whine that I’m attacking he/she for a typo. But the point is that Intelliology is ignorant enough of the substance of the AGW debate not to recognize that it was a typo. Wherein, it was immediately obvious to me and others.

    SPQR (8475fc)

  119. @119 SPQR — she might, but her words seemed fairly clear: “Looks like we are approximately 40 ppm…”

    In a way, I would feel better for her if she were to claim a typo.

    But yes, she did not recognize it.

    Pons Asinorum (ffeb5e)

  120. @116 SPQR — By the way, there are a lot of references that reflect the statement above about the time lag between temperature and CO2 concentrations that is observable following glaciations.

    Here are three, but there are a whole bunch more; all from different scientists, different locations, even different methodologies and mediums.

    From references found in SPQR’s link:

    (Vostok ice core — central east Antarctica)
    Ice Core Studies Prove CO2 Is Not the Powerful Climate Driver Climate Alarmists Make It Out to Be
    Petit et al. (1999) reconstructed histories of surface air temperature and atmospheric CO2 concentration from data obtained from a Vostok ice core that covered the prior 420,000 years, determining that during glacial inception “the CO2 decrease lags the temperature decrease by several thousand years” and that “the same sequence of climate forcing operated during each termination.” Likewise, working with sections of ice core records from around the times of the last three glacial terminations, Fischer et al. (1999) found that “the time lag of the rise in CO2 concentrations with respect to temperature change is on the order of 400 to 1000 years during all three glacial-interglacial transitions.”

    (Antarctic Taylor Dome ice core)
    CO2 and Temperature: Who Leads the Dance of the Geophysical Parameters?
    Over the period of record, there were four distinct spikes in both the atmospheric CO2 concentration and air temperature histories, with temperature rising by approximately 2°C and CO2 concentration rising by about 20 ppm. One type of statistical test performed on the data by the authors suggested that the shifts in the air’s CO2 content lagged those in the air’s temperature by approximately 900 years. A second statistical test yielded a mean lag time of 1200 years; while a third such test, performed by Fischer et al. (1999) on data pertaining to early deglacial changes in the last three glacial-interglacial transitions, yielded a mean lag time of 600 years.

    (Sediment facies from the Bonaparte Gulf of Australia)
    http://www.co2science.org/articles/V3/N22/C1.php
    Among a number of other things discovered and discussed by the authors, Clark and Mix (2000) point out in a companion “news and views” article that the rapid rise in sea level, caused by the melting of land-based ice that began approximately 19,000 years ago, preceded the post-glacial rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration by about 3,000 years. Then, when the CO2 finally began to rise, it had to race to make up the difference; but it still took it a couple more thousand years to catch up with the sea level rise.

    The IPCC should be ashamed.

    (pdf article about Global temperatures)
    Has global warming stopped?
    The fact is that the global temperature of 2007 is statistically the same as 2006 as well as every year since 2001. Global warming has, temporarily or permanently, ceased. Temperatures across the world are not increasing as they should according to the fundamental theory behind global warming – the greenhouse effect. Something else is happening and it is vital that we find out what or else we may spend hundreds of billions of pounds needlessly.

    Pons Asinorum (ffeb5e)

  121. Pons, as for the fact that global temp has flattened over the last decade, I don’t have a link handy but there was some speculation that water vapor concentrations dropped over the last decade.

    Whether I think that explains it or not (I’m still leaning toward the solar variability given the unusual drop in sunspot activity over the last decade ), it shows that the AGW climate modeling is a joke with no predictive power at all.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  122. Yeah, I’m with you SPQR, my money is on that big-ball-of-fire in the sky, however I am open to any credible study.

    If a scientific study presented at least a correlation between CO2 and Average Global Temperature (AGT), then I would be more than open to the idea of anthropogenic global warming. The data presented by the IPCC did have me considering that possibility, until I learned that it was fraudulent.

    It may prove wise to conduct a new study into the relationship of the factors that influence AGT (extraterrestrial and otherwise); conducted, of course, by true scientists more interested in knowledge than controlling people’s lives. Look at everything from greenhouse gases to solar activity. Inherently, this knowledge is incredibly valuable.

    In light of the fraud committed by IPCC, the it should be disbanded — both as a practical step and a symbolic one. It is currently a rat’s nest of deceit. All of its results are suspect at best. What a waste of time and money. A statement about dishonest scientists ought to be made in the strongest possible terms.

    AGW is dead (with all due respect to its current believers, as the IPCC models have more to do with faith than science.)

    Pons Asinorum (ffeb5e)

  123. Whoever used tampons assnorum as an example of a lefty who was treated with respect on here should actually read the things that he or she posts.

    Intelliology (00d844)

  124. 117.@110 Intelliology — Looks like we are approximately 40 ppm (10.9% above the ’safe level’, according to this site).

    Let’s see, 10.9% of 40 is 4.36 ppm, so that the safe level is about 36ish ppm.

    …trying to hold back…must not laugh…decorum, must maintain…oh, no…

    Hahahahahahahaha!

    Comment by Pons Asinorum — 2/3/2010 @ 9:37 am

    Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Nobody on this site knows math? If the ‘safe zone’ is 350 ppm and we are at approximate 387 (roughly 40 ppm above the safe zone), then we are 10.9% above the safe zone (40/350)*100

    Intelliology (00d844)

  125. How do we know intelliology is smart?

    Because he felt the need to tell us he is the study of intelligence. People who tell us how smart they are usually have no insecurities about their intelligence.

    So even though Intelliology is flailing, he’s probably a brilliant man. It’s not embarrassing at all to have to swear that you’re smart.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  126. Are you challenging my 10% number? Would you like to demonstrate your mathematical stupidity as well, Dustin?

    Intelliology (00d844)

  127. LOL, you are so intimidating.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  128. LOL. Are you 13?

    Intelliology (00d844)

  129. Because I’m laughing at you? LOL. Yeah, only 13 year olds use acronyms and make fun of people who need to compensate for their intelligence on the internet.

    What’s the big problem with kids, anyway? It really gets your goat that you look like an idiot in this thread. Why? Who cares? Get a grip and a girlfriend.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  130. Unprecedented? You are still standing behind thayt objectively false statement, in light of the overwhelming evidence that shows you are lying? No wonder you are an AGW acolyte.

    JD (b6cb48)

  131. Thayt?

    Intelliology (00d844)

  132. HOLY SHIT, JD, you are an imbecile because you hit the key next to the “T” when you meant to just hit the “T”

    I’m sorry to break the news to you.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  133. My ability to type on a Blackberry does not minimize, in any way, the level of asshattery that Idiotology possesses.

    JD (17a2b8)

  134. Your problem, JD, is that you really don’t have anything to say other than to drop in and call someone a liar or use the word ‘meme’ every 2 or 3 comments.

    I understand that you disagree with me, but the word ‘liar’ loses its value when overused. If I honestly believe something to be true, expressing that feeling and providing data behind it does not make me a liar. I’ll give you an example. I can ask you if you are a gigantic tool-wad. I bet that you would answer in the negative because you honestly believe yourself not to be a tooly twatwaffle. And even though I know that you are both of these things, I would not call you a liar because I know that in your heart you believe yourself not to be.

    So, I know that you believe different than me, but this ‘overwhelming evidence’ you claim to have provided is no evidence. You have not provided anything but posts claiming me to be a liar.

    Intelliology (00d844)

  135. Your problem, JD, is that you really don’t have anything to say other than to drop in and call someone a liar or use the word ‘meme’ every 2 or 3 comments.

    I understand that you disagree with me, but the word ‘liar’ loses its value when overused. If I honestly believe something to be true, expressing that feeling and providing data behind it does not make me a liar. I’ll give you an example. I can ask you if you are a gigantic tool-wad. I bet that you would answer in the negative because you honestly believe yourself not to be a tooly twatwaffle. And even though I know that you are both of these things, I would not call you a liar because I know that in your heart you believe yourself not to be.

    So, I know that you believe different than me, but this ‘overwhelming evidence’ you claim to have provided is no evidence. You have not provided anything but posts claiming to be a liar.

    Intelliology (00d844)

  136. Replace the obvious typo, thayt, with the obvious correct word, that. Everything else is exactly right. You are objectively lying in service of the AGW narrative, with a cult-like fervor.

    JD (17a2b8)

  137. What agony it is to have a president deliver this barrage of physical faux pas.

    imdw (e66d8d)

  138. Intelliology, no, he won the argument. You indeed failed to backup your claims. You also are consistently ugly to people who dominate you and are defensive about your intelligence.

    You probably are a wonderful man with a great life.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  139. Intelliology, you did not pay any attention to how often in the history of the Earth that CO2 concentrations were above your fake “safe level”, did you?

    SPQR (26be8b)

  140. My ability to type on a Blackberry does not minimize, in any way, the level of asshattery that Idiotology possesses.

    Comment by JD — 2/3/2010 @ 4:41 pm

    Indeed, that little typo has led its level of asshattery to a record high.

    Matador (176445)

  141. Unprecedented is a lie. Objectively. You have been shown by many people people that the current CO2 levels are in no way unprecedented. It may not have been a lie the first time you said it, but once you chose to ignore or dismiss the evidence of your initial “mistake”, and began running around with the goalposts, what followed was dishonest and a lie, thus making you a liar. Ditto your other BS claims.

    JD (17a2b8)

  142. Wow, I’d think intelliology is an idiot for claiming the Earth is only 400,000 years old or that his source is proven reliable, but he told us he’s really smart, so he must be.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  143. It is like a cult. They do not even try.

    JD (17a2b8)

  144. Intelliology, I already showed you data that goes farther back, and you ignored it. Now you show a shortened time line and claim that it supports your false claim of unprecedented CO2 levels.

    You really are not impressing anyone with your lack of understanding of these issues.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  145. Oh, I see. So we should compare current CO2 levels with those from when the Earth was cooling? And we shouldn’t be alarmed at this why?

    Intelliology (00d844)

  146. Say, has anyone ever heard of “Carboniferous”?

    Hmmm. Wonder why they would call it that. Maybe because, by the same standards Intelliology uses to show modern carbon levels are unprecedented today, there was actually more than DOUBLE the CO2 levels THEN.

    WOW.

    Not that it matters. It’s just the typical unseriousness of the people who think of global warming almost as religion. The entire argument was stupid.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  147. What about peedoffamerican’s claim that the warm period we noticed 1500 years ago is causing unprecedented increases in CO2 levels now? That is just plain brilliant. And I stand by my absolute CO2 levels comment; the fact is that we have strayed quite far from the ‘normal’ up and down pattern of more recent (half a million years is pretty significant) history.

    Intelliology (00d844)

  148. By the way, Intelliology, the idea that 10% change in CO2 concentration is “dangerous” is silly nonsense. The natural variability of the Sun is greater than the change in the opacity of the IR bank window of the greenhouse effect of a 10% change in the concentration of CO2.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  149. Intelliology writes: “What about peedoffamerican’s claim that the warm period we noticed 1500 years ago is causing unprecedented increases in CO2 levels now?

    That’s not what he wrote. What he referred to was the observed fact that increased CO2 follows increased temperature in the historical record. And then he pointed out that 1000 years ago, we had a period of relatively high temperature.

    I know that you “stand by” your false claim. That’s what I find so amusing, your stubborn adherence to false claims.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  150. I may be wrong on what “unprecedented” means. I thought it mean this is the first time. Maybe it just means first in a “more recent history”, because, after all, intelliology is smarter than everyone else and that’s the definition he operates under.

    No matter that it appears like his entire argument is an act of faith.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  151. No. Actually that is exactly what he wrote SPQR. You’d better hurry up if you plan to catch the stupid train out of mediocre-blog-ville!

    Intelliology (00d844)

  152. Intelliology, I think that using a graph of 400 thousand years to refute my graph of 400 million years duration – as you just tried to do – is really the definition of mediocrity.

    Well, I’m wrong. Mediocrity would be an improvement over your performance to date.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  153. “the stupid train out of mediocre-blog-ville”

    Hey guys, he thinks this blog is mediocre. Of course, he probably has a better blog, right? or some other accomplishment. Oh, and he’s still smarter than us.

    :(

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  154. Unprecedented means something different to New Earters like Idiotology. The only way they can make their claims is by manipulating data, and by choosing to ignore all of the inconvention truths that do not fit in their narrative. I pity you, as you appear to be a true believer.

    JD (bc26c4)

  155. JD, I don’t think I’ve amused myself this much in some time.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  156. It is rather remarkable, isn’t it, SPQR. There appears to be nothing that would make it question even the most flawed of its underlying assumptions.

    JD (bc26c4)

  157. Oh, c’mon. Read this Intelliology’s posts and think about word choice and style. The guy is about twenty. And he is very, very ego involved in his opinions. Especially when data is involved.

    JAT. Nothing more.

    Eric Blair (c8876d)

  158. He makes a mess of the thread and moves on to make a mess out of the “fucking retarded” Rahm comment thread.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  159. Intelliology, from 124 on, you offer no arguments, just name-calling and pretenses. You have lost your arguments as you have nothing of substance left to say.

    Your:
    * confusion about “safe level” (since revised by you — your initial 40 ppm CO2 level has morphed into 350 ppm)
    * failure to defend/define “safe level”
    * failure to defend “unprecedented levels of CO2″
    * confusion between rate of change and absolute level
    * failure to prove global warming is causing stronger hurricanes
    * failure to prove your assertion that someone here claimed “CO2 is not a greenhouse gas”
    * failure to address allegations of fraud by the IPCC
    * failure to address historic CO2/Temp data that disprove any correlation between the two
    * failure to answer questions and defend your assertions at this thread, here.

    …says it all.

    Since you are done arguing substance, I must confess to enjoying your rejoinder on my pseudonym @124; it was quite funny (although my personal favorite is still “pons scum” — heh). Yours is number 2.

    For the record — I am not a leftist, but I am willing to learn.

    To date every leftist ideology I have encountered has been wanting. Admittedly some of the ideals expressed are beautiful, but are divorced from reality (although modern American liberal ideology has taken a caustic bent).

    Feel free to teach me — find something that is morally rational and does not require magic beans to implement. Show me not wishful thinking, but facts and historical examples. Show me something that does not require that I believe in unicorns or fairy-tales…or deceitful scientists and those that defend them… . I welcome such ideas.

    BTW: I can see from your comments @124 and @125 I struck the mark and hurt your feelings. The latter was not my intent. I figured you were secure in your beliefs and would not care about the sarcastic opinions of an anonymous person.

    My mistake.

    Pons Asinorum (ffeb5e)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.8728 secs.