Patterico's Pontifications

5/12/2014

Politico Dishonestly Removes All Nuance from Rubio Statement on Climate Change

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 6:47 am

Politico claims:

Screen Shot 2014-05-12 at 7.27.24 AM

Brit Hume calls them on it:

Who’s right? Let’s roll the tape.


ABC US News | ABC Entertainment News

KARL: Miami, Tampa, are two of the cities that are most threatened by climate change. So putting aside your disagreement with what to do about it, do you agree with the science on this? I mean, how big a threat is climate change?

RUBIO: I don’t agree with the notion that some are putting out there, including scientists, that somehow, there are actions that we can take today that would actually have an impact on what’s happening in our climate. Our climate is always changing. And what they have chosen to do is take a handful of decades of research and say that this is now evidence of a longer term trend that’s directly and almost solely attributable to manmade activity. I do not agree with that.

KARL: You don’t buy that.

RUBIO: I don’t know of any era in history where climate has been stable. Climate is always evolving and natural disasters have always existed.

KARL: Let me get this straight. You do not think that human activity, the production of CO2 has caused warming to our planet?

RUBIO: I do not believe that human activity is causing these dramatic changes to our climate the way these scientists are portraying it. That’s what I do not — And I do not believe that the laws we pass will do anything about it. Except it will destroy our economy.

Who’s right? Brit Hume is right.

180 Responses to “Politico Dishonestly Removes All Nuance from Rubio Statement on Climate Change”

  1. Ding.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  2. This is an even more important excerpt:

    I don’t agree with the notion….that somehow, there are actions that we can take today that would actually have an impact on what’s happening in our climate

    And the truth is, anyone would have an extremely difficult time making any kind of a case for that.

    Whatever case there is, is based on the notion that maybe, we might be near a tipping point (an idea that gnores chaos theory) and anyway it is a step in the right direction.

    Sammy Finkelman (bcd7c8)

  3. It never fails to amuse that peoples who think Community Health is a science major bloviate about Climate Whatever.

    That train has left the station and is taking dirt roads.

    gary gulrud (e2cef3)

  4. he says “our climate” three times

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  5. The idea that a trace, low-pressure gas, at 5% of historic levels can tip Gaia into an unrecoverable positive feedback loop is just what it seems:

    The reason chimps never left the trees.

    Really, what might the point be?

    gary gulrud (e2cef3)

  6. When:

    Al Gore is charged with misdemeanors for using too much CO2

    Nuclear power and Hydroelectric power development programs are restarted

    The USA and EU threaten China and India with war over CO2 production

    Then I will believe that the AGW people believe their own BS.

    iconoclast (ef3927)

  7. No, he did say what they claim he said. And Sarah Palin can see Russia from her house.

    The truth people know is what they are fed.

    Amphipolis (d3e04f)

  8. Who’s right? Brit Hume is right.

    No. He’s dismissing it as plainly as the nose on your face.

    I do not believe that human activity is causing these dramatic changes to our climate the way these scientists are portraying it

    That’s denial, Mr. P. It’s a concerted effort, and it comes from the same roots that tobacco-cancer denial came from. It’s a pox on the Republican house, and we should purge it.

    carlitos (e7c734)

  9. I should be purged.

    JD (2bc676)

  10. i just think all the evidence shows that it’s far far far more dangerous for an incompetent fascist whorestate like America to try to control the weather than it is to do nothing

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  11. What if it’s not global warming and it’s just that the sun is racist and doesn’t like that Obama was elected? Or maybe the sun hates white men, and Bush’s election was the last straw? I have models that prove this….either hypothesis too.

    East Bay Jay (a5dac7)

  12. Carlitos, when the left’s data has clearly been compromised and pretty much all the left’s ideas to “fix” the climate are horsehockey pseudo science, it makes it difficult to take anything they say about climate change seriously.

    elissa (d97b71)

  13. I posted this yesterday elsewhere, but I think it belongs here.

    Marilyn Vos Savant had an interesting short piece in this week’s Parade magazine titled, “Do wind farms affect weather, at least locally?” I wonder how many of our Progressive climate change sustainable energy friends will pick up on this quote about man caused (unintended) consequences:

    Yes, and the more widespread they become, the more these changes will go beyond the immediate area. Some effects, such as ground warming and drying for miles around, are already known, but cumulative ­effects on the weather—especially if wind farming grows signifi­cantly—are unpredictable.

    One point to note is that while wind farms are a source of renewable energy, this doesn’t mean they—and other forms of renewable energy, for that matter—don’t cause change. Even ­improved engineering of the turbines (to reduce turbulence, etc.) cannot eliminate the fact that the machines remove energy from the wind, and this will have an impact on the weather and ultimately the climate.

    http://parade.condenast.com/291812/marilynvossavant/291812/

    elissa (d97b71)

  14. Comment by elissa (d97b71) — 5/12/2014 @ 9:37 am

    all the left’s ideas to “fix” the climate are horsehockey pseudo science,

    All of it, even according to their theories, amounts to bailing out the ocean with a teaspoon. They somehow think by arguing the danger is imminent, in fact already upon us, and extreely serious, their case can be made better.

    Another point: The remedy is never to do something to counteract the alleged effects of carbon dioxide, like fertilizing the ocean with iron (to help plankton grow and remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere) or spraying sulfer dioxide over the arctic (to cause more heat to be reflected) both of which are measures that have only a temporary effect and can be dropped if they turn out to do something wrong; but only to cease slightly reduce the rate of growth of what everybody has been doing for 150 years or more.

    Sammy Finkelman (bcd7c8)

  15. Mr. carlitos – What dramatic changes to our climate are we seeing?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  16. JD – I could purge you, but how ’bout we celebrate global warming with a round of golf this coming November instead?

    carlitos (e7c734)

  17. Mr. carlitos – What dramatic changes to our climate are we seeing?

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/12/2014 @ 11:28 am

    The loss of rationality when speaking about climate is probably the biggest dramatic change. Smart people denying reality. When thawing permafrost releases a once-dormant deadly disease, that will probably be more “dramatic.” YMMV.

    carlitos (e7c734)

  18. “Smart people denying reality.”

    Mr. carlitos – Put me in some knowledge please.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  19. I think a mistake many well meaning people make is to equate those of us who accept that “climate” is a natural ongoing fluctuating condition that does not require the attention of narcissistic power hungry and evil pols, with ignorant “climate change deniers“. The farmland just an hour and a half away from downtown Chicago in three directions is some of the finest most fertile growing land on the planet. Today It feeds Americans (and unfortunately our cars). The rich, life giving loam is there because of climate change when huge and thick ice age glaciers melted and deposited minerals. Through the millennia our earth has gone through stages of heat and cool and rain and drought and plenty and famine long before anyone ever heard of AlGore and Michael Mann.
    If you want to talk about air quality and water quality let’s do that. But don’t muck it up with fake science and costly regulations that can’t even pretend to be helpful to anybody besides political cronies.

    elissa (d97b71)

  20. Don’t vortex me, dood!

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  21. Regulations have nothing to do with climate change. Regulations are a proposed reaction to climate change, and can be discussed as robustly as any other topic. But denying the change is silly.

    Denying global warming at this point is akin to denying a link between tobacco and lung cancer. And similar protagonists are telling the tale.

    carlitos (e7c734)

  22. Carlitos – golfing in November in the snow is fun.

    JD (2bc676)

  23. But denying the change is silly.

    Raise your hand if you deny the climate has changed constantly over thousands of years.

    JD (2bc676)

  24. Today Robert Samuelson published an article in the Washington Post that is not too different from what Marco Rubio said (except that Marco Rubio added that not all climate change comes from mankind’s activities, which of course everybody should know,and you could also add it’s unknown what was caused by CO2, or if that’s the only important thing, and it hasn’t even been established that it’s bad)

    Robert J. Samuelson, Washington Post, May 11,2014: Climate change: We have no solution yet

    It would be healthy — in the sense of promoting honesty — if every report warning of global warming and climate change (the two terms are interchangeable) came with the following disclaimer:

    Despite our belief that global warming poses catastrophic threats to many of the world’s 7 billion inhabitants, we acknowledge that we now lack the technologies to stop it. The purpose of our analysis and policy proposals is to create the political and economic conditions that foster the needed technologies. But there is no assurance that this will happen, and much time and money may be invested in futile and wasteful efforts.

    Actually, the purpose to get people to do something stupid.

    And futile, as far as affecting climate is concerned.

    And much better would be mitigation- adjusting to it -if you could know what really would happen.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  25. You know something? As the evidence weakens, they escalate the rhetoric.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  26. Of course, there is no discussion of the medieval warming, (must have been those ox driven SUV’s), Maunder minimums, the shortcomings of the Yamal/Briffa samples,

    narciso (3fec35)

  27. I say something like this on every climate change post, I think.

    1. The first mercury thermometer was mass-produced in 1905. That’s why you see so many temperature charts begin in 1906 – before that time the United States had 5 or less temperature stations using hand-crafted thermometers that were not calibrated to one another.

    2. 1905-1910 were bitterly cold years, known for having daily death tolls in the New York papers of people freezing to death on the streets trying to get home.

    3. The Pacific Decadal Oscillation and the Atlantic Multi-Decadal Oscillation make a thirty year cycle – deadly cold in 1905-1910, amazingly hot in 1940-1945, global cooling to the new Ice Age in 1970-1975, and global warming to a spike in 1998 from which we have been declining since.

    luagha (5cbe06)

  28. And I always forget

    4. The only reason they are able to say that the temperature ‘has risen a full degree over this century!’ is because we started the clock at a low point in the cycle, and ended at a high point, even though the temperature really looks like a sine wave.

    luagha (5cbe06)

  29. Why do people spend so much time trying to inductively disprove man-made climate change when the deductive logic of the Greenhouse Effect makes so much intuitive sense?

    Leviticus (f9a067)

  30. at the very least we all need to take simple commonsense steps to raise our carbon footprints now for so we can lower them once a non-fascist is elected

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  31. Anyway, this is one of my least favorite arguments, so I probably won’t say much more than that.

    Leviticus (f9a067)

  32. the erf has a fever Mr. Leviticus

    carbon dioxide is like wrapping the erf in a warm blanket and making it dance like a monkey

    plus, feedback loops

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  33. There appears to be something fundamentally wrong with the way temperature and carbon are linked in all those faulty climate models the the alarmist community point to and claim with certainty that the science is settled, the debate is over, it’s time to move on…….or other versions of just shut up if you disagree with the narrative our faulty computer models create.

    I mean, what could possibly account for all that warming that can’t be explained by Carbon Dioxide (“The Invisible Killer”)? Oh, who knows. Cow farts? The heat the Free Masons hid at the bottom of the ocean when the dinosaurs died? Who really knows? Certainly not the alarmists. If only there were some… natural mechanism by which to explain variations in global temperature. It would have to be massive, though. On the scale of our own Sun.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  34. Global warming means more snow.
    And if you don’t subscribe to that theory of settled science and settled language, we’ll chastise you.
    In other news, Pluto has been de-commissioned as a planet. Apparently, new scientific information became available. Unexpectedly.

    But otherwise, all science is settled—until further notice !

    Winning ! Whining !

    Elephant Stone (6a6f37)

  35. I’m curious, Carlitos, and maybe I missed it. But what do you think should be done, or what specifically is being prevented from being done, by the “deniers” that urgently needs to be done with regard to “climate change” in your opinion?

    elissa (d97b71)

  36. first thing is we have to make all the carbon dioxides go away elissa

    and we don’t have time to lollygaggle

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  37. ==Why do people spend so much time trying to inductively disprove man-made climate change when the deductive logic of the Greenhouse Effect makes so much intuitive sense?==

    Weeel, maybe partly because scientific proof and “intuition” are not the same thing? :)

    elissa (d97b71)

  38. I’m curious, Carlitos, and maybe I missed it. But what do you think should be done, or what specifically is being prevented from being done, by the “deniers” that urgently needs to be done with regard to “climate change” in your opinion?

    Comment by elissa (d97b71) — 5/12/2014 @ 1:27 pm

    Honest answer – I have no idea. Really. I just resent the perversion of reality that the “denier” side takes as gospel. I don’t know what to do about it. What mostly happens is that (r) reps and senators, radio hosts, blogs, etc., postulate from a bully pulpit, with pithy phrases and what-not, and folks with AM radio smugly nod about how evil and corrupt scientists must be. How could this possibly help the problem?

    carlitos (e7c734)

  39. Since we are made of carbon, and we exhale Co2, a lot of Soylent Greening, would have to go on, pikachu, and I’m not even sure that would solve the problem,

    this does go along way to Ehrlich’s protege, Dr. John Holdren’s desire to de develop the US, because that’s exactly what we need now,

    narciso (3fec35)

  40. We should take away all the big screen tvs and SUVs from global warming deniers.
    And for global warming deniers who are snowed in due to the current May snowstorm in Colorado, we’ll take away your portable heaters.

    Because if you deny global warming, we’ll allow you to freeze to death ! That’ll teach you to deny that it’s getting hotter outside !
    Or something !

    Elephant Stone (6a6f37)

  41. the best way to make the global warmings go away is to enhance the erf’s albedo

    there are many ways to do this, the primary way being to paint everything white

    You will need:

    1. a can of white paint

    2. a paint brush

    Alright go save that erf!

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  42. Doctors used to put leeches on sick people to suck the ‘bad’ blood out of the patient.
    I’m sure glad that science wasn’t “settled.”

    Elephant Stone (6a6f37)

  43. OK, fair enough Carlitos. Then, what has convinced you that it’s a “problem” that needs to be “helped”? Did you see my post above where I suggest that many of us do not deny for a second that climate on this planet changes all the time, but we don’t see the problematic nature of it that you seem to? Can you fit that into your worldview at all?

    I’ve read articles that suggest little kids are being unduly scared by the global warming hysteria in some circles–especially their schools. I think that’s horrible.

    elissa (d97b71)

  44. That was the esteemed Energy Secretary, Stephen Chu,
    wanted to do that on roads,

    narciso (3fec35)

  45. it’s a measurable and cost-effective way to dissipate heat Mr. narcisso

    which is of course why they won’t actually do it

    the fascist soroswhore American government isn’t in the problem-solving business

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  46. measurable and cost-effective

    http://www.nytimes.com/1992/06/17/us/cooling-and-safety-trend-for-buses-white-tops.html

    Painting the bus tops white dropped the interior temperature an average of 10 degrees during the summer, with as much as a 17-degree difference at peak hours. Wintertime temperatures were lower by only 3 to 4 degrees.

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  47. Mr. *narciso* I mean

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  48. Okay, I am going to repeat myself. Sorry. Just ignore me if I irritate.

    1. Most people arguing about AGW or AGCC or whatever are arguing politics and policy, not science. Most of these people, like Al Gore, only had perhaps one science course, and it was not mathematically oriented.

    2. Most of the predictions are based on computer models. And if those models are accurate, they should be back predictable. That is to say, if a change in carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere equals a change in climate in a predictable fashion…then that change should also be predictable from historical records of both carbon dioxide and temperature (and we have decent records for both). Ever notice that people don’t want to talk about that? It’s because the models can’t do that.

    When pressed, the modelers will talk about feedback loops and “forcing parameters.” Notice, again, that the loops and forcing all work in the same direction—one that reinforces the conclusion stated in the beginning. And one that promotes a particular global policy.

    There isn’t anything new about this. In the 80s, we had that silly nonsense about nuclear winter. That model was based on the atmosphere of Mars, which is, ahem, rather different from our own. But the nuclear winter idea was useful to promote unilateral disarmament by certain politicians.

    I well remember that folks who suggested that Sagan and his coworkers were overstating things for political effect were accused of being “warmongers,” being “nonscientific,” and “denying” that bad things would happen during a nuclear war.

    Is any of this sounding familiar? It should. By the way, Trofim Lysenko is laughing down in Hell.

    Let’s be clear. I believe in (and have actually measured in the lab, in college) heat trapping by carbon dioxide.

    But most of this “debate” is about politics and policy.

    I look forward to seeing the climate models use historical concentrations of carbon dioxide to predict the measured temperature values.

    And if they can’t, what are we talking about?

    That is is bad to burn some things for energy? Okay, great. But nuclear is no good, according to the same freaking people. Solar? I have one word: Solyndra. Wind power? Please.

    Politics and policy and power, friends.

    And as Glenn Reynolds says, maybe we should treat this as a crisis if and when world leaders treat it that way.

    Oh, and one more thing. Remember the Kyoto Accords? Can you guess the name of the industrialized county that has reduced its carbon emissions the most?

    http://cnsnews.com/mrctv-blog/barbara-boland/us-co2-emissions-lowest-level-20-years-thanks-fracking

    Of course, that is due to nasty fracking.

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  49. And Ms. Elissa? I remember well the stories about children frightened by their nuclear disarmament promoting progressive parents and their bedtime stories.

    Things seldom change. It’s politics and power.

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  50. Simon, you know better then to blaspheme the Book of Mann, that’s a burning offense,

    narciso (3fec35)

  51. “And if those models are accurate, they should be back predictable.”

    Simon – Why are you so picky?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  52. Teh Narrative™ rules. And narcisco, you are far, far more right than you know.

    I’m kind of with Freeman Dyson on this:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CM9YR6PZKo

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  53. It has been obvious since this became a big issue in 1988, that, while increases in the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere might possibly cause higher temperatures, it cannot possibly the one, sole overriding cause of climate variation, because it has not moved in a 1 to 1 ratio.

    So of course the models don’t work, because they don’t look for other factors.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  54. Re: Persistence of this global warming narrative, which sometimes dies down but then comes back again:

    Noam Chomsky said it all many years ago:

    Colorless green ideas sleep furiously.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  55. I worked on private placements to finance wind farms back in 1982. They didn’t make sense without tax credits and forcing utilities to purchase their electricity at above market rates then and the same story is still true now.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  56. wind is good for pumping water for so the moo cows don’t get thirsty

    also, kites

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  57. The true global “warming” crisis is due to the hot air emanating from the mouths of all the fascists who are just looking to justify an increase of control over people and industry.

    Elephant Stone (6a6f37)

  58. Mr. Feets – That wind stuff just don’t grow like corn or beans.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  59. it’s most unfortunate but, sadly, you are correct Mr. daley

    I don’t know what to tell you wind people out there other than you stupid and you need to get your hand out my pocket.

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  60. please.

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  61. Leviticus, life is far more complicated than the increase in concentration of one gas that is a small component of the atmosphere.

    One need to give credit to the climate change deniers to have been at a work for a very, very long time. They had the foresight to name that island “Greenland” just so people 100′s of years later would think the earth had actually been warmer once.

    I actually think Rubio said it pretty well, some scientists took some data for a few decades and then found all kinds of ancillary ways to supposedly prove what they were claiming from a ridiculously small sample. The models were not correct at looking back, they have not been correct at predicting. Usually when the evidence is against a scientific theory, people look for a new theory, unless they have a reason to avoid looking at the truth.

    Hey, the science was settled about high fat diets, too:
    http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303678404579533760760481486?mod=trending_now_4

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  62. Mr Feets # 56 – them kites being scavengers can get their own water thankyouverymuch !

    Alastor (2e7f9f)

  63. they’re called greenhouse gases for a reason you know

    cause they turn the planet into a giant greenhouse!

    One very pernicious greenhouse gas is water vapor.

    Water vapors come from steam and evaporation and other technical processes.

    One way to make less water vapors is to not leave your dog’s water bowl in direct sunlight. Just nudge it into the shade! Your pup will enjoy the water more better cause of it will be cooler and more refreshing, and you’ll have struck a blow against the global warmings at the same time!

    The more you know.

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  64. My favorite ones are the japanese kind Mr. Alastor. I had one what looked like a dragon when I was little. I was the ninja khaleesi of south texas!

    But then the stupid kite broke.

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  65. Thanks for the link , MD. Dr. Atkins would be pleased.

    felipe (098e97)

  66. (h/t PowerLineBlog)

    Take a look at Correlation does not necessarily equal Causation

    As I have said before, and I will say again, I will start to be concerned about the seas rising when I can no longer gather cockles on the West Coast of Scotland … so far, I have been able to do it between the 1950s and the 2010s – at low tide, I can go look for ‘em, and, subject to their normal cycle of abundance and almost-absence, I have always been able to find some, and more often a lot …

    And I don’t deny “climate change” – I just call it “weather” …

    Actually, I’m just waiting for the Cultists to leave ‘climate change ‘ alone, and jump on “diurnal variation” as their next thing requiring that they and the government take more control …

    Alastor (2e7f9f)

  67. Leviticus, do you not realize that the greenhouse effect does not account for the warming that AGW activists predict?

    Do you not realize that the AGW crowd has to include other effects, so called “forcings” to make the greenhouse effect create the warming that they predict?

    And that much of the uncertainty in the models, and their failure to match actual climate reality, comes from the fact that those ‘forcings’ are poorly understood in the first place?

    Do you not also understand that historically, going back into Earth’s history, that in fact increases in the Earth’s temp _precede_ increases in CO2? By centuries?

    So your “deductive” understanding is in fact wrong.

    SPQR (1c89a2)

  68. Dear Paul Ehrlich,

    Next time you claim to see a wolf, please don’t cry out and expect us to believe you.
    Thanks.

    Signed,

    The World

    Elephant Stone (6a6f37)

  69. ES, unfortunately, you speak for a minority. Most people still scream, “Where?!?!?”

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  70. feets, you are an amazing writer. I’d pay to see you tell tall tales at a rancho near Austin.

    carlitos (e7c734)

  71. thank you Mr. carlitos… and I might be moving there sort-of soonly. I just want to get a little further down the road on my braces and maybe explore a few options here… after I enjoy the summer.

    But yeah – Texas or Florida it looks like, and since my Austin friends are toying with the idea of moving to Kansas in a couple years I’m leaning towards an Austin-then-maybe-Florida idea.

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  72. http://stubbsaustin.com/

    …with apologies if you prefer mustard-based. because that’s ok, in an inclusive diversity sort of way.

    I just bar-hopped in Austin a couple of weeks ago. Amazing.

    carlitos (e7c734)

  73. when you jump the shark, so obvious, Carlos Slim’s calls you out;

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/12/the-guardians-suzanne-goldenberg-jumps-the-shark-again-gets-called-out-by-nyt/

    narciso (3fec35)

  74. We should outlaw traveling and stuff. Even for cool lectures about omelettes and doggie water bowls.
    Because…carbon emissions. Or whatever.

    Someone needs to confiscate the Maserati from Al Gore’s daughter. And the Lear jet from Don Henley.

    Elephant Stone (6a6f37)

  75. i’ll try stubb’s – never been there

    in texas for bbq I do one of 3 places here

    http://www.lockhart-tx.org/web98/visitors/bbqcapitaloftexas.asp

    it’s a lil town between Austin and the town where those people made me spend my formative years

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  76. Mr. Stone I think the next president should *strongly* encourage all states and localities to enact a year-long moratorium on hotel/motel taxes

    Americans are becoming all too provincial and, worse

    they’ve forgotten how to love America apart from a twisted rah rah sports fan-like boosterism for some faction or other of its sadly repulsive government or politics

    and, worse

    too many people have forgotten what it feels like to be a free man in a free country

    I could cry

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  77. mister happy, i would submit that gasoline taxes are much more punitive and deterrent to traveling than bed taxes at hotels.

    i agree that traveling is good.
    in fact, i’ve traveled all over.
    i even made it out to rancho cucamonga.
    bet jack benny would be proud.

    Elephant Stone (6a6f37)

  78. Comment by carlitos (e7c734) — 5/12/2014 @ 4:57 pm

    Just two blocks away from Stubbs, on 6th street is Casino el Camino bar- great burgers in the back. I had one just last Saturday – the Pitts burger.

    felipe (098e97)

  79. I think bed bugs have put a crimp in hotel stays. A fear of them, and concern about bringing some home in the suitcase are a deterrent for some travelers now, too.

    elissa (203189)

  80. Why do people spend so much time trying to inductively disprove man-made climate change when the deductive logic of the Greenhouse Effect makes so much intuitive sense?

    Comment by Leviticus (f9a067) — 5/12/2014 @ 1:14 pm

    The only effect Linda Greenhouse has on me is she makes me laugh derisively…

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  81. Hotels make me itch just thinking about staying in one.
    Give me a good pad and a down bag.

    mg (31009b)

  82. bed bugs are fundamentally un-american I think

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  83. I’ve stayed at a bed and breakfast, last two times,
    reasonable prices, good service, very good food,

    narciso (3fec35)

  84. “a handful of decades of research”

    Just a handful of decades of research…

    cbuund (74098c)

  85. That’s denial, Mr. P.

    You can label it “denial” if that makes you happy, but he didn’t say what Politico claimed he said.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  86. He did say decades of research, but the issue is really about only decades of data out of thousands of years, with lots of reliance on fudged surrogate markers, producing models that predict neither the past nor the immediate future (now 15 years past).
    So, the reason the models didn’t predict what we have seen the last 15 years is because…there are factors we don’t understand or know how to account for…
    Yes, that’s the point.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  87. I just resent the perversion of reality that the “denier” side takes as gospel. I don’t know what to do about it

    I just resent the perversion of reality that the “global warming” (and now “climate change”) side takes as gospel. I don’t know what to do about it.

    Well, actually, I do. For one thing, let’s tell big mouths like Al Gore to stop living the high life, pretending to be a do-gooder environmentalist while he parades around in his big houses (with all their non-LEED characteristics), fancy (gas-guzzling) cars, and jet-set (non-low-carbon-friendly) travel itinerary.

    Also, all the environmentalists who pollute the atmosphere by breathing out carbon dioxide through their mouths and noses every few seconds should put a stop to that. If they turn blue in the face and pass out in the process, so be it.

    Meanwhile, I notice here in true-blue, environmentally hip California, there’s no shortage of brand-new vehicles I see out on the street every day that are friggin’ SUV-sized gas guzzlers. I guess buying something a bit smaller is too much of a sacrifice to such people? Whenever I see such drivers, I think they had better not dare be do-gooder liberals who bow at the feet of Al Gore and pray at the altar of global warming (or “climate change”).

    Mark (99b8fd)

  88. Again, Patterico, I am bemused by the “Denialist” tag placed on people who have questions about this political bum’s-rush. I’m with Freeman Dyson on this topic, and if you haven’t read his essays about this topic, you should. One of the brightest minds of the 20th century. Smarter than Feynman.

    I am always surprised by the people who literally know very little about science telling me how Republicans are “anti-science.” I usually ask them a few questions about climate.

    But you see, the goal is to follow the current meme, which is…


    Because shut up!

    Heck, I had a good friend of mine (a professor of English, who literally had had no science since high school decades before) insist to me that Republicans were anti-science, and didn’t “believe” in evolution or climate change.

    So I asked him to tell me what evolution was. He hemmed and hawed, but I wouldn’t let him off the hook. I asked him what “DNA” stood for, and he couldn’t tell me. I asked him about the difference between what Darwin found and Wallace found. He admitted that he didn’t know much about it.

    Then I asked about climate models. Forcing. Convection. Without looking, what the current concentration of carbon dioxide was in the atmosphere now was…and what it was 25,000 years ago. 250,000 years ago. And so on. Ditto.

    Nope. The goal is to create nice little bumper stickers, with half-clever nastiness, complete with the name-calling we see here all too often. No thought required. Just middle school nonsense.

    I wasn’t mean, but I suggested to my friend that he was just following a script written by other people, and I wondered about their own ability to answer simple questions.

    P.S. My friend will no longer speak to me. Because shut up.

    Simon Jester (8c61d8)

  89. And for global warming deniers who are snowed in due to the current May snowstorm in Colorado, we’ll take away your portable heaters.

    It’s interesting that I, a global warming denier, have long disliked hot weather, such as what California is currently experiencing. So I’m different from ding-dongs like John McCain who, on one hand, believes we should wring our hands over global warming, yet, on the other hand, apparently is perfectly happy living in a sweat-box place like Arizona.

    Actually, because I hate hot weather, I’ve long been aware of what causes high temperatures, and until the supposed experts in climate can truly draw a correlation between regions of high-pressure energy (which causes hot weather) and carbon dioxide, I invite them to go join the other “experts” (in the medical community) who originally believed that, for example, fat is worse than sugar (or is the main reason people become obese), and that Daylight Saving Time saves both energy and makes people more likely to go out and exercise.

    Mark (99b8fd)

  90. Global warming: 5″ of snow in my back yard this morning.

    This is almost the middle of *MAY*! I had to turn the blinkin’ furnace back on!

    ( … “Global Freaking Warming” my icy-cold tootsies … )

    A_Nonny_Mouse (87f68c)

  91. I believe. Who will join me in starting a White House petition?
    Outlaw immediately
    – private planes
    – motor yachts
    – more than one motor vehicle per household
    – more than 800 sq. ft. of total heated/air-conditioned living space per person (cumulatively fro people with more than one residence)
    – mechanized travel for leisure and recreational purposes (stay home for vacations and holidays)
    – heated/air conditioned recreational facilities including theaters, concert halls, and sports arenas
    – and all leisure and recreational activities outside one’s own home requiring artificial lighting, whether indoors or outdoors.

    It may not sound like much, but the longest journey begins with a single step. Carlitos?

    nk (dbc370)

  92. Yes. “The behind-the -scenes Boogymen” is a massive coordinated political attack from the left. Yes, it is sickening, and yes, “they” are scared. AL Gore today:

    Former vice president Al Gore says he sees the true motivation behind these remarks: currying favor with Republican megadonors like Charles and David Koch.

    Speaking at the University of Chicago’s Institute of Politics on Monday, ……
    “I don’t think it’s particularly complicated why they have all cowed into abandoning that position,” Gore said. “They will face primary opponents financed by the Koch Brothers, and others who are part of their group, if they even breathe the slightest breath of sympathy for the truth about climate science. It’s not really that complicated.”

    Gore continued: “And of course, Sen. Paul is from a coal state, but even if he were not, anyone who wants to set his or her aspirations on the Republican nomination for the presidency in 2016 already knows that they can’t possibly cross the Koch brothers and the others that are part of that group, the large carbon polluters and ideological anti-statists who are really terrified that the government will do anything new, so as Grover Norquist said famously years ago, they want to shrink the government to where it can be drowned in a bathtub.”

    ( from Huffpo)

    elissa (203189)

  93. I blame Bush. Since climate change is caused by people, the easiest way to reduce it is to reduce the number of people. 9/11 was a perfect excuse for the stupid Shrub to let loose America’s nuclear arsenal on half the world, and instead he settled for some silly invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. What kind of madman passes up a Heaven-sent opportunity to kill three billion people and save the planet?

    nk (dbc370)

  94. Temperatures rise logarithmically as CO2 increases.

    Every doubling of CO2 increases temps by 1.5 degrees.

    To put this another way, the marginal increase of temperatures decreases with the increase in CO2.

    From 50 to 100, the increase is 1.5 degrees.

    Add another 50, and the increase is 1.5*(log(1.5)/log(2), or 0.8774 degrees.

    Add another 50, and the increase is 0.6226.

    Add another 50 (to reach 250) and the increase is 0.4829.

    How can there be a tipping point?

    Michael Ejercito (becea5)

  95. “Actually, because I hate hot weather, I’ve long been aware of what causes high temperatures, and until the supposed experts in climate can truly draw a correlation between regions of high-pressure energy (which causes hot weather) and carbon dioxide”

    You’re looking for local changes in CO2 having local weather effects?

    cbuund (74098c)

  96. You can label it “denial” if that makes you happy, but he didn’t say what Politico claimed he said.

    Comment by Patterico (9c670f) — 5/12/2014 @ 7:25 pm

    And Rubio’s “nuance” is important because why? Because he’s using weasel words, is all.

    Rubio:
    “I don’t agree with the notion that some are putting out there, including scientists, that somehow there are actions we can take today that would actually have an impact on what’s happening in our climate,”

    And Marco Rubio knows more than the world’s scientific community because __________? I should care what he “believes” about this because ___________?

    carlitos (e7c734)

  97. 82. Comment by happyfeet (8ce051) — 5/12/2014 @ 6:10 pm

    bed bugs are fundamentally un-american I think

    years ago, they became practically extinct in the United States by the use of DDT.

    They are also killed by cold weather.

    They are actually harmful, not like cockroaches.

    Sammy Finkelman (bcd7c8)

  98. The problem with referring to “the world’s scientific community” is that there are thousands of scientists that do not agree with “the scientific community”, including people who went along until they started looking more seriously at the data themselves.
    Scientists are first people, just like politicians and journalists, and can be manipulated and can manipulate themselves.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  99. 38. Comment by carlitos (e7c734) — 5/12/2014 @ 1:39 pm

    What mostly happens is that (r) reps and senators, radio hosts, blogs, etc., postulate from a bully pulpit, with pithy phrases and what-not, and folks with AM radio smugly nod about how evil and corrupt scientists must be. How could this possibly help the problem?

    People might stop listening to the corrupt and evil scientists, and the scientists might feel impelled to be more accurate, and other scientists emboldened and encouraged to tell the truth, and scientific publications would not so readily allow peer review to stop thinbgs from beinbg published.

    Sammy Finkelman (bcd7c8)

  100. Y’all know that cbuund is imdw, right?

    JD (2bc676)

  101. Carlitos – what is the ideal temp for the Earth? Are we moving towards it, or away from it?

    If we wanted to raise or lower the average temp by 1-2 degrees, how would we go about doing so?

    JD (2bc676)

  102. cbuund is imdw? Eww.

    JD – it’s not that simple, which is why this is so frustrating. It’s a complex system. It’s not just the “earth” or local temperature. It’s the oceans, the atmosphere, how much ice melts, the ozone. You can’t just say “I got 5 inches of snow today” and dismiss the whole thing.

    The atmosphere only holds about 2% of the additional heat we’ve generated. That’s the part people observe with their local weather. 90% is in the oceans. If Rubio thinks that reducing greenhouse gases will “destroy our economy”, what about some more severe flooding in Manhattan? Building sea walls?

    carlitos (e7c734)

  103. Good Allah, you know the arrogance that we would be able to really impact an ecosystem, where we have been an industrial society, for a relative nano second, now the little ice age, that led to the famines that provoked the French Revolution, that’s something worth noting,

    narciso (3fec35)

  104. Comment by MD in Philly (f9371b) — 5/12/2014 @ 7:27 pm

    So, the reason the models didn’t predict what we have seen the last 15 years is because…there are factors we don’t understand or know how to account for…

    I think there are factors they do understand but are in denial about, like sunspots (which in itself doesn’t do anything but correlates with something else)

    Sammy Finkelman (bcd7c8)

  105. Comment by carlitos (e7c734) — 5/13/2014 @ 6:24 am

    If Rubio thinks that reducing greenhouse gases will “destroy our economy”, what about some more severe flooding in Manhattan? Building sea walls?

    Building sea walls is much more do-able, and what’s more, it would actually work!

    Sammy Finkelman (bcd7c8)

  106. 93. Comment by nk (dbc370) — 5/12/2014 @ 9:29 pm

    What kind of madman passes up a Heaven-sent opportunity to kill three billion people and save the planet?

    Al Qaeda’s backers in the People’s Liberation Army are not interested in a nuclear exchange, because that would cause nuclear winter (although they are interested in having one or two atomic bombs being used by some entity that gets away with it unscathed) but they are interested in reducing greenhouse gas emissions in places like Africa.

    What? They should reduce it in China??

    It is just as good and better for China if China uses its influence to prevent underdeveloped parts of the world from industrializing, or maybe even setting things back.

    There is strinbg evidence that this is Chinese foreign policy.

    Sammy Finkelman (bcd7c8)

  107. Heh

    carlitos (e7c734)

  108. Cute, carlitos, but note how the goalposts jump around in that little humor video. What is the contention that the 3% supposedly refute? That climate change exists? That man “causes” it? (To what extent is not discussed.) Sorry, I liked John Oliver in a couple of things I saw on the Daily Show, but it turns out that he has the same politics as Jon Stewart but isn’t even as funny.

    In truth, it appears that the 97% consensus number is cooked.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  109. From the link:

    Viewing the Cook paper [the 97% consensus paper] in the best possible light, Cook and colleagues can perhaps claim a small amount of wiggle room in their classifications because the explicit wording of the question they analyzed is simply whether humans have caused some global warming. By restricting the question to such a minimalist, largely irrelevant question in the global warming debate and then demanding an explicit, unsolicited refutation of the assertion in order to classify a paper as a ‘consensus’ contrarian, Cook and colleagues misleadingly induce people to believe 97 percent of publishing scientists believe in a global warming crisis when that is simply not the case.

    Well, shoot. I believe humans have caused “some” global warming. But if I take an eye dropper to the ocean and squeeze out a couple of drops, I have contributed “some” water to the amount of water in the ocean. I am not saying the two examples are equivalent. The example is provided to make the obvious point that “some” is not a helpful measure.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  110. If Rubio thinks that reducing greenhouse gases will “destroy our economy”, what about some more severe flooding in Manhattan? Building sea walls?

    Carlitos, I recall some other issue a few weeks ago where — based on an opinion you were taking — what I would describe as the little voice in the back of your mind — which leans left — was whispering and beguiling to you. Don’t listen to it. It tends to be dumb. It tends to give a person the emotions and maturity of a flaky teenager.

    c3headlines.com: Latest peer reviewed research determines that recent sea level rise along the coasts of northern Europe and the English Channel are within historical bounds experienced during the 19th and earlier 20th century periods. Per the scientists from Australia, France, Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, the actual empirical evidence points to a potential sea level rise by 2050 AD of 2.1 inches for the North Sea coast and 1.6 inches for the English Channel.

    “In light of the findings of the international team of scientists participating in this significant study, it would appear that there is nothing unusual, unnatural or unprecedented about the rate of sea level rise throughout both the North Sea and the rest of the Global Ocean over the entire CO2-emitting course of the Industrial Revolution.”

    Globally, scientists with solid empirical-based backgrounds are saying there are severe problems with many of the 2007 IPCC predictions. Namely, that many of the predictions are flat-out false based on the IPCC’s political agenda, or wildly inflated by failed climate models.

    New research by Houston and Dean has determined that the IPCC prediction of dangerously high acceleration of sea levels is likely both a combination of invalid climate models and desired political outcomes. They discovered that actual tidal gauge measurements over the last 80 years shows sea level increases decelerating, not accelerating per the IPCC prediction.

    “Working with the complete monthly-averaged records of 57 U.S. tide gauges archived in the Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level data base that had lengths of 60-156 years (with a mean time span of 82 years), however, they determined that there had not been any acceleration in the rate-of-rise of the sea level along the shorelines of the United States over that period of time, during which interval the world’s climate alarmists claim the planet had warmed at a rate and to a level that were unprecedented over the past one to two millennia. Quite to the contrary, in fact, they detected a slight deceleration of -0.0014 mm/year/year. And working with 25 of the tide gauge records that contained data for the period 1930-2010, they calculated an even larger deceleration of -0.0130 mm/year/year…..also report that they “obtained similar decelerations using worldwide-gauge records…..they rhetorically ask why the concomitant worldwide-temperature increase “has not produced acceleration of global sea level over the past 100 years,” and, indeed, “why global sea level has possibly decelerated for at least the last 80 years.”” [Houston, J.R. and Dean, R.G. 2011: Journal of Coastal Research]

    Mark (99b8fd)

  111. You’re looking for local changes in CO2 having local weather effects?

    Huh? Do you even know what ridges of high-pressure energy in the atmosphere throughout the planet are?

    Mark (99b8fd)

  112. the actual empirical evidence points to a potential sea level rise by 2050 AD of 2.1 inches for the North Sea coast and 1.6 inches for the English Channel.

    At the rate of 1 inch every ten years, the rough rule of thumb I heard, one inch every decade since the year 1900, that would be about 3.5 inches by 2050. (about 2.5mm a year)

    But this says the rate is decelerating by about maybe even 1/10 of a millimeter a year or more.

    Sammy Finkelman (bcd7c8)

  113. ==If Rubio thinks that reducing greenhouse gases will “destroy our economy”, what about some more severe flooding in Manhattan? Building sea walls?==

    In all respects trying to produce a reasoned proportional response to events (both natural and otherwise) is what living life has always been about. And yes, we do live in an increasingly complex system.

    I am sorry that you seem to be so frustrated, Carlitos. I’ve been trying to treat your concerns seriously even though I personally think your handwringing is misplaced and overwrought. You are clearly capable of discerning the possibility that others may be being manipulated for political purposes. Yet you seem utterly oblivious to the ways and examples in which you may be being manipulated by different people for different political purposes. Your much appreciated and honest response to my question yesterday– when you said you in fact do not know what to do, or what the deniers are actually preventing from being done, but that it’s a problem and we need to do something– makes that even more clear. I’d like it if you would at least ponder that contradiction.

    Do you accept that China is the largest polluter and/or contributor to greenhouse gasses on the planet? As a practical matter even if the U.S. government, and well intentioned do-gooders, and vile hypocrites like Al Gore succeed in further strangling our U.S. economy and cause even further permanent loss of employment, and severely weaken our leadership in the free world and cripple national defenses, what do you think it gains? Meanwhile China chugs along, becomes the largest economy and generally tells the rest of the world to pound sand.

    elissa (203189)

  114. Patterico, it alllllll about what the “cool kids” believe. Seriously. Does anything actually think that Stewart’s also-ran friend can define “Celsius”?

    But, just like high school, insecure people want to run with Teh Cool Kidz. Maybe they will get invited to a party and get to touch a cheerleader!

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  115. And Ms. Elissa, did you notice that all these folks are unaware of how well the US has been doing on carbon emissions, anyway?

    It doesn’t fit Teh Narrative.

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  116. Ms. Elissa, this supports Teh Cool Kidz principle:

    http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304536104579556063385347826

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  117. “it’s not that simple, which is why this is so frustrating. It’s a complex system. It’s not just the “earth” or local temperature. It’s the oceans, the atmosphere, how much ice melts, the ozone. You can’t just say “I got 5 inches of snow today” and dismiss the whole thing.”

    carlitos – That’s what makes the position of the alarmists so funny. They don’t understand how everything works but pretend reducing emissions of one simple gas which makes up a fraction of the atmosphere only a fraction of which is generated by man will solve all our problems. That makes tons of sense to me.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  118. Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/13/2014 @ 7:38 am

    only a fraction of which is generated by man

    And the amount generated could reasonably be reduced only by a fraction – in fact more likely you could only slow down the rate of increase.

    Sammy Finkelman (bcd7c8)

  119. I tell you, Common Core education is the answer, Simon!

    elissa (203189)

  120. I know, Ms. Elissa. I multiplied 88 x 16 and discovered it was equal to carbon dioxide.

    But I feel good about myself.

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  121. 113. Comment by elissa (203189) — 5/13/2014 @ 7:27 am

    Meanwhile China chugs along, becomes the largest economy and generally tells the rest of the world to pound sand.

    I think China (which tends to adopt ideas popular in the rest of the world, like population control) is actually a little bit more pro-active than that.

    They are tryinbg to reduce greenhouse gas (= carbon dioxide) emisisons – just not in China.

    And one way was to use their contacts with Pakistani military intelligence to create al Qaeda in 1988, which is when the issue first arose..

    All of al Qaeda’s actions, if you analyze them, are aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

    Sammy Finkelman (bcd7c8)

  122. Comment by Sammy Finkelman (bcd7c8) — 5/13/2014 @ 6:30 am

    yes, that’s true too.

    It’s a complex system. It’s not just the “earth” or local temperature. It’s the oceans, the atmosphere, how much ice melts, the ozone. You can’t just say “I got 5 inches of snow today” and dismiss the whole thing.
    Comment by carlitos (e7c734) — 5/13/2014 @ 6:24 am

    While that is absolutely true, in reality I think the bigger offenders are actually the pro-climate change people, from the beginning. The whole issue “picked up steam” when we had some hot summers like in ’88, etc., and since then it seems like with every major hurricane or tornado or something that event is touted as the result of “climate change”. Typically when one of us “deniers” makes comments about a snow storm in Europe when they are having an AGW or something our tongues are firmly planted in our cheek, and we are more parroting them than saying it seriously.
    Though I think it is up for debate whether something like the extent of the freezing over of the Great Lakes counts as weather or climate. It takes a lot more than a few cold days to do that.
    But then again, maybe that is explained more by shifting jet stream patterns than anything else.

    Careful if you want to start arguing that the heat is in the oceans, we have even less data on that than on land and atmosphere (though maybe that is good for the advocates). Tree ring data and atmospheric measurements may have little to do with ocean temps, so you just threw out a lot of the data that was the basis for the claim to begin with.
    I think you need to realize that the Murray Gell-Mann amnesia phenomenon may come into play with scientists too.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  123. By the way, Ms. Elissa, this says it best:

    http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/09/4f/01/094f016d01bb42282a0521081a29b448.jpg

    But the truth is more like this:

    http://larrycuban.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/farmers-love-cc.jpg

    Your government knows better than you do.

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  124. The WSJ article you linked at 116 is definitely relevant to this discussion and worth a read. Thanks, Mr. Jester.

    elissa (203189)

  125. I guess one could argue that China’s one child policy is designed to cut greenhouse gases, and some think it is a good idea,
    but I think it is a little draconian, cruel, inhuman, and downright evil myself.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  126. This is all a perfectly sensible thing for China to do – once you buy into global warming – provided they have no ethics (check) and can do it secretly (also check)

    What other explanation really is there for Pakistan to sponser terrorism, and do everything in its power to prevent the truiuth from coming out? To make money? They could get foreign aid other ways, or by just maintaining there is a threat. Besides it isn’t the country doing it. It’s individuals in the ISI.

    No, they are bribed.

    And who has both the money and the ability to bribe them and keep it secret?

    A. The People’s Liberation Army of China.

    Sammy Finkelman (bcd7c8)

  127. MD, thanks for pushing the Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect. It’s important to remember it.

    In case folks haven’t heard of it:

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/geneveith/2011/08/the-murray-gell-mann-amnesia-effect/

    And as you state, that also applies to scientists. We know our own field, sure. But outside our own field, our opinion is worth what you paid for it—zilch.

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  128. I’d say that the global-warming hysterics (Hi, Al Gore!) are reminiscent to me of all those supposed experts — in the fields of medicine and food — who for decades pushed the idea that fat was the big boogie man in terms of obesity and damaging health. That’s an important analogy to keep in mind since such a major myth or discrepancy arose even though the human body is generally easier to observe and study than the huge atmosphere that surrounds this planet.

    Even today I see more products that tout “low fat!” instead of “low sugar!”

    There are suckers born every minute, and we the sheeple prove that time and time again.

    wnyc.org, May 9, 2014: Producer Laurie David talks about the documentary “Fed Up,” which upends the conventional wisdom of why we gain weight and how to lose it. The film unearths the dirty little secret your favorite brands and restaurants don’t want you to know — far more of us get sick from what we eat than anyone ever realized and this is in largely due to added sugar in 80 percent of items sold in grocery stores.

    We should only be eating about 6-9 teaspoons of sugar a day, “But most of us are consuming about 22 teaspoons a day, which is an incredible amount of sugar. But the problem is, they’re not even aware they’re consuming it,” she said. “You don’t necessarily know you’re consuming sugar when you’re using store-bought salad dressing, or store-bought tomato sauce, or healthy granola bars. It’s added to all these foods.”

    Although many people think that cutting down on fat will lead to weight loss, fat is not the problem — sugar is what causes people to gain weight. When the food industry created low-fat and nonfat versions of foods, they added sugar to those products to make up for the flavor lost when fat was removed. “Fed Up” shows how powerful food companies are and how they’ve taken advantage of the confusion about what constitutes a healthy diet.

    Mark (99b8fd)

  129. 125. Comment by MD in Philly (f9371b) — 5/13/2014 @ 7:50 am

    I guess one could argue that China’s one child policy is designed to cut greenhouse gases,

    No, that started in the 1970s, when the Greenhouse Effect was not in the air. Talking about global warming started around 1988 (although I have a paperback book I bought on March 8, 1988 in the Barnes and Noble sales annex on 5th Avenue and 18 St, for 49 cents, that is entitled “The Greenhouse Effect” by Harold Bernard stuffed with circa 1988 newspaper clippings, but they were not extreme then.

    I think China’s population policy is more due to Paul Ehrlich.

    and some think it is a good idea,

    For Ehrlich type reasons, which do not include carbon dioxide emissions, although that also would apply.

    but I think it is a little draconian, cruel, inhuman, and downright evil myself.

    Of course it is, and could not be done in any country that was not a strong dictatorship.

    I brought that in, to say this is an idea that arose in the west that was adopted in China. (after Mao)

    Things got better in China after Mao in many respects, but not this one. Mao liked higher population numbers for China.

    Sammy Finkelman (bcd7c8)

  130. Comment by Mark (99b8fd) — 5/13/2014 @ 7:56 am

    who for decades pushed the idea that fat was the big boogie man in terms of obesity and damaging health.

    Starting about maybe 1957.

    ad don’t forget how they persecuted Herman taller, who wrote a now forgotten national best seller in 1961 (Calories Don’t Count)

    The FDA claimed that he had written the book – and what’s more it soon even claimed that he hadn’t written the book but laymen had – only to sell safflower oil capsules.

    Dr. Taller was later arrested and convicted of fraud (but apparently not jailed but fined $7,000.) The Supreme Court denied certorari.

    Some links:

    http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F70D10FF3E551A7B93C6AB178AD85F468685F9

    Or maybe this: if it works)

    http://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1962/01/24/89831624.html

    http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F00C12FA34591A7B93C7AB178AD85F468685F9

    Because of the First Amendment, the book could not be totally suppressed, but it was forgotten.

    So forgotten that Dr. Robert Atkins never gave him any credit and claimed to have come up with the idea of low carbohydrates himself in 1963, and nobody noticed.

    See Chapters 7 and 8 of Did You Ever See a Fat Squirrel by Ruth Adams.

    http://www.amazon.com/Squirrel-Naturally-Youll-Overweight-Hungry/dp/0878570144/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1397796508&sr=8-3&keywords=%22fat+squirrel%22

    Sammy Finkelman (bcd7c8)

  131. “But I feel good about myself.”

    Simon – I feel good about you too.

    Group Hug!

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  132. http://ar.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.19681014_0042328.SCT.htm/qx

    It would cost $7.95 to get the October 14, 1968
    decision in TALLER v. UNITED STATES.

    C.A. 2d Cir. Reported below: 394 F.2d 435.
    Certiorari denied.

    ————

    Here’s the 2nd circuit apeals court decision, handed down May 1, 1968.

    http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/394/435/235906/

    Dr. Taller also objects to the Government’s introduction of expert testimony that the entire theory of his weight-reducing diet was unsound, on the ground that the issue was not raised in the indictment and that a Government attorney had conceded as much at a pretrial conference.

    However, our reading of the indictment, which accords with Judge Dooling’s and defense counsel’s at the pre-trial conference, is that it does put the validity of Dr. Taller’s theory in issue. While the Government attorney indicated that he thought otherwise, this was treated as a disagreement in the interpretation of the indictment rather than as a waiver by the Government.

    Furthermore, appellant did not object or request a continuance when the Government made clear in its opening statement that it would introduce such testimony, or when such evidence was actually first introduced seventeen days later.

    Dr. Taller contends also that this evidence was inadmissible or was admissible only with cautionary instructions since it did not represent a “universality of scientific belief.” However, this testimony “was introduced only to establish that the advertising claims made for Dr. Taller’s diet] were scientifically false and was admissible for this purpose. McCormick, Evidence §§ 13-15 (1954).” United States v. Andreadis, 366 F.2d 423, 433 (2 Cir. 1966).

    While an instruction that proof of error in Dr.
    Taller’s theory did not establish that his intent was fraudulent would have been proper, the failure to give one was not “plain error.”

    decision.

    Sammy Finkelman (bcd7c8)

  133. Dr. Herman Taller apparently did not defend his weight loss theory in court. He may have considered it hopeless.

    The government apparently at one point claimed it was not at issue, and then introduced testimony that it was false.

    Sammy Finkelman (bcd7c8)

  134. Jon Karl’s initial question on the topic of climate change included the usual presumptive assumptions: Miami, Tampa, are two of the cities that are most threatened by climate change. So putting aside your disagreement with what to do about it, do you agree with the science on this? I mean, how big a threat is climate change?

    Marc Rubio rejected Karl’s assumption of scientific validity and pointed out that selective manipulation of evidence invariably results in false conclusions. Which, of course, isn’t science at all, it is however a deceptive practice which has proven to be all to common among both the charlatans and the true believing advocates of impending global doom desperate to prop-up their falsifications with pseudo science.

    Rubio’s response was a rebuttal or a refutation of Karl’s untrue statement: Rubio denied the underlying assumptions the question was predicated on and he did so in straightforward standard English.

    But carlitos at #8 isn’t using denial in the standard sense, he’s using the special meaning of denial employed by psychologists to identify a common defense mechanism. Such usage was first postulated by Freud, a person confronted by facts too disturbing or uncomfortable to accept rejects or denies the obvious reality even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. It’s important to note that psychological denial involves the rejection of facts, not the rejection of counterfeit conclusions. Which is why climate change pushers are so determined to quash any objective examination of the evidence by claiming the science is settled. On the contrary their so-called science is entirely bogus and can’t stand up to empirical observation, otherwise advocates would welcome skeptics rather than attempt to silence them through ridicule and vilification.

    carlitos at #8 is wrong on 3 counts. He’s applied a specialized meaning to the word denial to misrepresent the nature of Rubio’s response, he’s the one in denial of the actual evidence, and the cigarette makers’ denial of the relationship between smoking and cancer was based not on the mental inability to face an unpleasant reality, but on the very real potentially devastating financial and legal consequences those realities represented. It was self-serving lying, not denial

    ropelight (b236c8)

  135. daley, where is my Special Snowflake trophy?

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  136. Carlitos – that is not what the consensus is telling is.

    My biggest problem with this is that te people that claim the mantle of science, ignore the tenets of science. The data, at best, is compromised. They will not or cannot show what was done to manipulate the data. None of the modeling works for past patterns, and their future predictions haven’t proven to be true.

    JD (2bc676)

  137. “daley, where is my Special Snowflake trophy?”

    Simon – My bad. I put 365 gold stars for your forehead, one for each day of the year, in the mail.

    I didn’t know you wanted the trophy.

    How about some participation ribbons?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  138. Ah, but JD! If you don’t agree, you are a Denier™! Why, there are even people who think you should be jailed!

    Of course, those people don’t know a thermocline from a Barcalounger, but they are COOL. With it.

    Jon Stewart says so.

    Even though Mr. Leibowitz (who started out in Chemistry at William and Mary, which he somehow afforded all on his own, but soon changed to psychology) probably has some teeny-tiny problems with freshman science classes.

    He is with it.

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  139. Do you accept that China is the largest polluter and/or contributor to greenhouse gasses on the planet?

    Yes.

    carlitos (e7c734)

  140. Your much appreciated and honest response to my question yesterday– when you said you in fact do not know what to do, or what the deniers are actually preventing from being done, but that it’s a problem and we need to do something– makes that even more clear. I’d like it if you would at least ponder that contradiction.

    I’m pondering. What bugs me in the meantime is the dismissal and, indeed, ridicule of the scientific consensus. Even Patterico feels compelled to downplay the “97%” figure. Why? What if it’s 95%? 80%? Climate scientists (and even Patterico!!!) agree that man is warming the planet some. Which is kind of a no brainer, given carbon emissions. Why, then, must such a thing be ridiculed here? It’s happening. It’s a fact.

    In my not-so-humble opinion, denying the facts is the wrong strategy. Discussing the solutions is the right strategy. However, we belong to a political party where 20% of Americans disbelieve evolution and global warming, so our leaders have to tap dance around facts. The reason that folks don’t believe the facts is from well-heeled lobbying efforts from the Heartland Institute that are descendant of the tobacco lobby in the 60′s. It’s embarrassing to me. I haven’t given the NRC a dime in several years, and at this point, I don’t know if any of them warrant my support.

    carlitos (e7c734)

  141. My biggest problem with this is that te people that claim the mantle of science, ignore the tenets of science. The data, at best, is compromised. They will not or cannot show what was done to manipulate the data. None of the modeling works for past patterns, and their future predictions haven’t proven to be true.

    Comment by JD (2bc676) — 5/13/2014 @ 9:17 am

    Horseshit. Be specific.

    carlitos (e7c734)

  142. Carlitos, I am a scientist. And there are many scientists who are just as partisan or nutty deluxe as any late-night troll.

    I always ask who is wielding the axe, and why.

    I recommend you read some of Matt Ridley’s stuff. And then ask the question: how does one treat people with whom we disagree? By calling them names? Or, perish the thought, actually looking into a topic?

    I’m nervous about “consensus” in science. Data is more important.

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  143. All those expecting honesty or competency from Politico, please raise your hand.

    askeptic (8ecc78)

  144. Matt Ridley is a zoologist. So who’s wielding the axe about climatology? A zoologist. Your point?

    And there are many scientists who are just as partisan or nutty deluxe as any late-night troll.

    Now this I believe. The incidence of mental illness in any profession is probably higher than the crank/troll factor.

    carlitos (e7c734)

  145. Um. Carlitos? Did you, you know, actually read what Ridley wrote? Did you notice the books he has written? Honestly, it is worth your time.

    Did you read what Freeman Dyson wrote and has said?

    Or Bjorn Lomborg?

    This isn’t crazytown stuff. Heck, did you even read what I wrote, about back-predictive models? No one will apply historical carbon dioxide levels into the models…because they do not work.

    This is all about social engineering and philosophy, not about climatology.

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  146. Because, carlitos, if you had read Ridley’s essays, you would learn that he doesn’t necessarily say that global warming isn’t taking place.

    This is all bumper sticker posturing by people who should know better in science.

    Again, review the Nuclear Winter controversy in the 1980s. Or Paul Ehrlich’s jeremiads in the 1970s about overpopulation.

    I posted a link to Ridley’s list of troublesome “consensus” theories in science. He isn’t rude, he doesn’t call people names. He is thoughtful, smart, and understands data analysis.

    But he doesn’t make extremist statements that fit what our Media Overlords would like us all to bow down to…

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  147. I ridicule the scientific consensus because it is used to silence critics. It essentially says “If you don’t agree with us, you deserve to be mocked.” Now, I don’t remember reading about that being a valid scientific tactic when I was getting taught about science. And when Climategate happened, the emails showed that there was a concerted effort by Mann and other researchers at CRU to build a consensus in the journals by excluding criticism. A consensus is not proof, but it is being used to justify acceptance of the theory.

    There are a number of other problems with AGW too, one being the constant citing of secondary evidence as proof (like migration pattern change) and a stunning lack of primary data proof (like the mapping of a controlled experiment that measures CO2 content vs temperature).

    Then you mix in that the IPCC has been caught lying in their reports to force political change (With the Indian Glaciers melting forecast) and they don’t provide much reason to believe them.

    All the while the computer models used to justify the theories haven’t correlated with the rise in CO2 level.

    Then add in that the climate scientists are paid by the governments that advocate for AGW and the solutions are always raising taxes. HUGE conflict of interest. Way more worrisome than a lobbyist from the Heartland Institute.

    DejectedHead (a094a6)

  148. Um. Carlitos? Did you, you know, actually read what Ridley wrote? Did you notice the books he has written? Honestly, it is worth your time.

    Did you read what Freeman Dyson wrote and has said?

    Or Bjorn Lomborg?

    (my bolding)

    A zoologist, a physicist, and a political science major.

    Are you really not seeing a pattern here? The climate change deniers have no expertise in the topic.

    carlitos (e7c734)

  149. Or Paul Ehrlich’s jeremiads in the 1970s about overpopulation.

    Paul Ehrlich was an etymologist specializing in butterflies. See a pattern with my post above?

    carlitos (e7c734)

  150. Okay, carlitos, I get it. You love you some authority.

    Have fun. Oh, you might want to look up the expertise of the climatologists who “all agree” on the consensus. I mean, since you are all into expertise.

    And notice that you haven’t read what these individuals (who are decidedly not cranks) have written, or thought about it, nor does the “back predictability” of the modeling seem to matter to you.

    Peace be upon you.

    “Deniers.” Nice.

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  151. Next time your back is sore, good luck at the dentist office.

    carlitos (e7c734)

  152. Bad teeth can cause other neurological and physical ailments.

    askeptic (8ecc78)

  153. :roll:

    carlitos (e7c734)

  154. “The climate change deniers have no expertise in the topic.”

    Every damn one of them. Good one carlitos!

    Teh science is settled. Time to move on. The debate is over. Pay no attention to the fudged data and irreproducible results.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  155. Teh integrity and expertise of the 97% consensus is unimpeachable even if they falsify data a little bit!

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  156. It’s not clear at all even that the excess carbon dioxide comes from emissions (or burning of forests)

    It could be the other way around too: that global warming causes an inmcrease of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

    Of course it is reasonable to suppose that something is being added.

    But mnaybe not 100% comes from this.

    There’s actually circulatiuon back and forth into the oceans.

    Carbon-14 has a half life of over 5,000 years, but the level of Carbon-14 in the atmosphere has dropped by about half in the last 50 years.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  157. And if the Antarctic ice is melting, and that’s a problem – well spray sulfer dioxiode over the Antarctic and tear up all treaties that prevent that.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  158. We should just all give ourselves new titles and claim that we’re the only experts on certain subjects because we’re the only ones that hold expert titles in that particular field.

    Maybe like “Nuance Observer Expert”

    DejectedHead (a094a6)

  159. I am hereby forming the Kodiak Institute for Delivering Diversity, Inclusion, Naturalization, and Geojustice!

    Memberships available, no experience required.

    more info @ KIDDING(.)com

    felipe (098e97)

  160. Comment by carlitos (e7c734) — 5/13/2014 @ 12:37 pm

    Even Patterico feels compelled to downplay the “97%” figure. Why? What if it’s 95%? 80%?

    Because there’s no real agreement on the theory.

    There are papers that say nothing about what’s causing the (slight) warming. There are papers that take a position, and almost all of them assume – and it is really assuming – that manmade effects are causing it.

    This is proof of nothing more than it is easier to say that manmade causes are causing it than the opposite. You only say the opposite when you have a strong argument that something else is.

    Climate scientists (and even Patterico!!!) agree that man is warming the planet some. Which is kind of a no brainer, given carbon emissions.

    It’s plausible. There definitely are carbon emissions, but not all of the increase may be caused by emissions.

    The most plausible idea would be that, one way or another, people – which means the sum total of what everybody in the whole world did – some increase in global temperature was caused, and ALSO natural forces increased temperatire by about the same amount.

    But global warming seems to have halted. That’s where you get the “denal” because all these statistics have to reach way back into the past.

    If you start your trendline at 1998, there’s no more warming.

    This is logical because three things happen:

    1) Natural forces, some understandable, some not, can move the temperature up or down.

    2) Something people do may raise temperature.

    3) Something people do, or stop doing, may reduce temperature.

    It is well understood that STOPPING carbon emisisons should increase temperature, and that INCREASING the burning of coal should reduce them. This is because of he soot or dust factor.

    You reduce carbon emisisons (particularly from coal) and the temperature goes up for about 20 years, if coal burning is not resumed.

    The Great Depression,, which greatly reduced carbon emissions, caused temperatures worldwide to rise, and created the Oklahoma Dust bowl.

    You could also reduce temperature by spreading sulfer dioxide over the poles (if that is agood idea) Or by exploding a few nuclear bombs in the atmosphere. It doesn’t take many. The 1940-1970 period was an era of global cooling. Volcaes also reduce temperature. In fact it is a whole lot easier to cool the planet than to warm it.

    Why, then, must such a thing be ridiculed here? It’s happening. It’s a fact.

    What’s being ridiculed is the logic. And the apparent claim that some past year was perfect – that’s because the alarmists are in denial that climate change happens anyway. At most, what people do is superimposed on other variations.

    You could also ridicule the innumeracy.

    Sammy Finkelman (bcd7c8)

  161. carlitos,

    I’m just curious, what sacrifices have you made to your western industrialized lifestyle, in the name of reducing your carbon footprint ?

    Elephant Stone (6a6f37)

  162. Comment by MD in Philly (f9371b) — 5/13/2014 @ 7:46 am

    But then again, maybe that is explained more by shifting jet stream patterns than anything else.

    Shifting jet streams is global warming or cooling, as the case may be.

    The jet stream is the boundary between the cold air and the warm air. Global warming: it moves south. Global cooling: it moves north.

    Sammy Finkelman (bcd7c8)

  163. All other things being equal.

    Sammy Finkelman (bcd7c8)

  164. “Are you really not seeing a pattern here? The climate change deniers have no expertise in the topic.”

    The pattern I’m seeing is called mendacity. Michael Mann is not a climate expert either by your definition, he’s a Geology & geophysics PhD.

    SPQR (c4e119)

  165. I love how the many of the same people who deny the science of an unborn baby, and who are supporting the California state bill which enables a man to claim to be a ‘mother’ and a woman to be a ‘father’ on their newborn baby’s fetus’ birth certificate, are telling me that I am the one who is “anti-science.”

    Elephant Stone (6a6f37)

  166. If anything, I’d say the Climate Change Advocates have a very extreme position.

    They believe that the world has a fixed average temperature that it should not deviate from AND that they are capable of controlling the average temperature of the entire world.

    DejectedHead (a094a6)

  167. Note to Sammy:
    Atmospheric CO2 has been found, historically, to be a lagging indicator for temperature.
    The seas warm, and they ‘boil’ CO2 out and into the atmosphere. When the atmosphere cools – rainfall is a particularly effective method in local isolation – CO2 is washed from the air and returns to the ocean in suspension.
    Mother Nature is such a tease.
    El Nino/La Nina has been carrying on in this manner for eons.

    askeptic (8ecc78)

  168. Comment by DejectedHead (a094a6) — 5/13/2014 @ 3:41 pm

    Are their names ‘Honeywell’?

    askeptic (8ecc78)

  169. carlitos @ 147, Are you really not seeing a pattern here? The climate change deniers have no expertise in the topic.

    Dedicated advocates of AGW would line up and march in lockstep swearing undying allegiance to Algore’s cockapoo if the damn dog signed their paychecks.

    ropelight (b236c8)

  170. Please don’t miss the point: one ad hominem circumstantial argument is just as invalid as the other. Accuracy depends on a faithful interpretation of the facts, not on professional credentials or on who pays the rent.

    ropelight (b236c8)

  171. The climate change deniers have no expertise in the topic.

    This is one of my favorite attacks. Given that the field of climate science essentially did not exist 35 years ago, what qualifications are deemed necessary to comment in the field by the alarmists? A quick review of the backgrounds of prominent alarmists shows them to be all over the map.

    Having them turn around and claim other people are not qualified is just another “Shut up, they said” tactic.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  172. askeptic, I do not know the ‘Honeywell’ reference.

    Dejectedhead (06f486)

  173. I’m pondering. What bugs me in the meantime is the dismissal and, indeed, ridicule of the scientific consensus. Even Patterico feels compelled to downplay the “97%” figure. Why?

    Be . . . cause . . . it’s bullshit?

    Climate scientists (and even Patterico!!!) agree that man is warming the planet some. Which is kind of a no brainer, given carbon emissions. Why, then, must such a thing be ridiculed here? It’s happening. It’s a fact.

    But to what extent? How much of the warming (which hasn’t happened in years, btw) is attributable to manmade causes and how much is natural? I don’t know, you don’t know, and nobody really knows.

    When they try to cram a phony number down my throat it makes me skeptical about everything they say.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  174. A zoologist, a physicist, and a political science major.
    Are you really not seeing a pattern here? The climate change deniers have no expertise in the topic.
    Comment by carlitos (e7c734) — 5/13/2014 @ 1:06 pm

    I don’t think the pattern is what you think, and I’m thinking you have a limited experience with science and scientists.
    If you took the time to listen to Dyson, you would know he was doing “climate science” before there was a name for it. Climate science follows the rules of physics and chemistry, and many biological scientists are among those who get quoted as being climate science experts when they say things that go along with it.

    Simon Jester, myself, and others do not believe the AGW meme not because some media people or politicos tell us so, but because we have science backgrounds, have written theses (some, not me, for PhD’s), “do science”, teach science, and do not find the science compelling.
    Tell us we are stupid scientists if you like, but don’t tell us we listen to non-scientists.

    In quick summary as said above, the predictions of the theory are not valid for looking back, and have not been accurate going forward the last 15 years. In science, when the results do not support the theory, the theory is questioned. With AGW, when the results do not support the theory, so what???

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  175. I do not remember being taught that consensus is part of the scientific method.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  176. Comment by MD in Philly (f9371b) — 5/13/2014 @ 7:39 pm

    With AGW, when the results do not support the theory…

    Shout louder.

    Make more extreme predictions.

    Ridicule your opponents as “deniers”

    Misrepresent the claims both pro and con — the more capsulized the description, the more misrepresentation.

    Argue the numbers of people who you say agree and disagree with you, and who they are, and who the opponents are, but not the evidence. Don’t ever go into the evidence. When your opponents do, deride them but don’t dispute them.

    Say the safe thing to do is to believe your claims and to act upon them, even if doing what you say is futile, even according to your theory….because it is a first step, the United States is the indispensible country, and the United States should lead the rest of the world.

    And if it still would be futile even if every country went along…emergency, emergency, emergency, it’s already too late and therefore we must act yesterday. How much more so, then, tomorrrow?

    Pick a time frame for your models long enough so it is still somewhat plausible.

    Sammy Finkelman (bcd7c8)

  177. Also, silently and quietly, cut off all other alternatives for affecting the climate other than just not doing what everybody has been doing. (no seeding the oceans with iron, no spraying sulfer dioxide over the Arctic, probably no halting of hurricanes, or no building of sea walls or other mitigation…

    Just clamping down on carbon dioxide emissons by an amount that really should not make much of a difference. *

    It won’t affect the climate, but you can plead NOT GUILTY.

    * but it is a step in the right direction!

    Sammy Finkelman (bcd7c8)

  178. Science as McCarthyism

    “Another scientist gets blackballed for his skepticism about global warming.”

    Former prominent alarmist switches sides and gets tarred and feathered.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/378011/science-mccarthyism-rupert-darwall

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  179. The problem with the comparison to McCarthyism, is that Communists really were bad political actors. The only problem is, maybe accusing someone of being a Communist who wasn’t.

    But here, there’s nothing wrong with climate change theory denial.

    The proper comparison then, maybe is not to McCarthysim, but to Communist persecution of people who disagreed with certain things. Lysenko, let’s say.

    Sammy Finkelman (bcd7c8)

  180. “The problem with the comparison to McCarthyism, is that Communists really were bad political actors. The only problem is, maybe accusing someone of being a Communist who wasn’t.

    But here, there’s nothing wrong with climate change theory denial.”

    Sammy – The problem with your comment is that in contemporary liberal thought, liberals will still not acknowledge that communists were truly bad actors and that there was a valid purpose to McCarthy’s actions.

    In the same way, Climate Alarmists do not believe “deniers” have a legitimate point of view and act to silence and punish them at every opportunity lest support for the Alarmist cause diminish. In that way they are acting in exactly the same way as the liberal view of McCarthy.

    The comparison is apt.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.4517 secs.