IRS scandal solved!Posted By Dave Snope |
Amazing resemblance.
Posts Made By: Dave Snope
May 18, 2013 08:44 PM
Forum:
Politics
May 19, 2013 06:36 PM
Forum:
Politics
Typical Rightwing NutjobPosted By Dave Snope |
Fred Dase said:
This should make some of the posters here feel all warm and cuddly.
Fascinating, Fred. Can you name these posters who have shown a fondness for the concepts of maiming, sexual mutilation, and slow torture killing of a political figure? I missed that, so please support your horrific malediction with examples so we better understand the makeup of our fellow posters.
May 20, 2013 10:45 PM
Forum:
Politics
Obama is in real trouble when this happensPosted By Dave Snope |
He was right about the 4th shoe, now he says it goes much deeper:
Joseph Curl @josephcurl
CIA source says Fox News scandal the "4th Shoe"; says it goes much deeper; says WH also sitting on "something" that has top aides terrified.
12:40 PM - 20 May 2013
Joseph Curl @josephcurl
CIA source says Fox News scandal the "4th Shoe"; says it goes much deeper; says WH also sitting on "something" that has top aides terrified.
12:40 PM - 20 May 2013
May 21, 2013 05:29 PM
Forum:
Global Warming - REAL or NOT
AGW science confirmedPosted By Dave Snope |
I hate to dignify the cartoonist's "study" with further discussion. It's a horrible paper for so many reasons, but here is an article that hits on the crux of why the volunteer word-search survey approach is total junk. They classified papers that were at odds with AGW theory as pro-AGW, simply because they got certain word-search hits. I like how one of the scientists drives home the point that ethical science papers do not take political positions, then slaps down Cook et al's mental capacity:
"I couldn't write these things more explicitly in the paper because of the refereeing, however, you don't have to be a genius to reach these conclusions from the paper."
97% Study Falsely Classifies Scientists' Papers, according to the scientists that published them
The paper, Cook et al. (2013) 'Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature' searched the Web of Science for the phrases "global warming" and "global climate change" then categorizing these results to their alleged level of endorsement of AGW. These results were then used to allege a 97% consensus on human-caused global warming.
To get to the truth, I emailed a sample of scientists who's papers were used in the study and asked them if the categorization by Cook et al. (2013) is an accurate representation of their paper. Their responses are eye opening and evidence that the Cook et al. (2013) team falsely classified scientists' papers as "endorsing AGW", apparently believing to know more about the papers than their authors.
Idso: "That is not an accurate representation of my paper.
Scafetta: "Cook et al. (2013) is based on a strawman argument... What my papers say is that the IPCC view is erroneous...
Shaviv: "Nope... it is not an accurate representation.... as you can see from the above example, the analysis itself is faulty, namely, it doesn't even quantify correctly the number of scientists or the number of papers which endorse or diminish the importance of AGW."
http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html
"I couldn't write these things more explicitly in the paper because of the refereeing, however, you don't have to be a genius to reach these conclusions from the paper."
97% Study Falsely Classifies Scientists' Papers, according to the scientists that published them
The paper, Cook et al. (2013) 'Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature' searched the Web of Science for the phrases "global warming" and "global climate change" then categorizing these results to their alleged level of endorsement of AGW. These results were then used to allege a 97% consensus on human-caused global warming.
To get to the truth, I emailed a sample of scientists who's papers were used in the study and asked them if the categorization by Cook et al. (2013) is an accurate representation of their paper. Their responses are eye opening and evidence that the Cook et al. (2013) team falsely classified scientists' papers as "endorsing AGW", apparently believing to know more about the papers than their authors.
Idso: "That is not an accurate representation of my paper.
Scafetta: "Cook et al. (2013) is based on a strawman argument... What my papers say is that the IPCC view is erroneous...
Shaviv: "Nope... it is not an accurate representation.... as you can see from the above example, the analysis itself is faulty, namely, it doesn't even quantify correctly the number of scientists or the number of papers which endorse or diminish the importance of AGW."
http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html
May 22, 2013 05:47 PM
Forum:
Politics
Repocrites...Posted By Dave Snope |
This is the "hot" scandal story running around all of the liberal websites this week. It's all they have, a coordinated and warped cheap shot in a feeble attempt to distract the American people from the ongoing abuse-of-power scandals of the Obama administration.
Not surprising at all. Now we have liberal bloggers and columnists seen going into the West Wing on Tuesday, then write similar pieces on the IRS scandal on Wednesday morning. It's an Obama world.
Not surprising at all. Now we have liberal bloggers and columnists seen going into the West Wing on Tuesday, then write similar pieces on the IRS scandal on Wednesday morning. It's an Obama world.
May 23, 2013 06:00 PM
Forum:
Off Topic Discussions
When is enough enough?Posted By Dave Snope |
Enough is enough when you convert.
Quran (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them".
Quran (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them".
June 3, 2013 11:48 PM
Forum:
Politics
IRS Scandal About To Explode?Posted By Dave Snope |
The Treasury Inspector General who uncovered the improper targeting of Tea Party groups by the Internal Revenue Service said Monday he was stunned by what his investigation uncovered.
Russell George, the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA), said the targeting at the IRS his probe discovered was “unprecedented,” and the closest comparison that came to mind was the targeting of political enemies by the administration of Richard Nixon.
Russell George, the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA), said the targeting at the IRS his probe discovered was “unprecedented,” and the closest comparison that came to mind was the targeting of political enemies by the administration of Richard Nixon.
June 3, 2013 11:59 PM
Forum:
Politics
R.I.P. Politics ForumPosted By Dave Snope |
David Cotterell said:
" ' The left is right about everything. ' " There.
Play nice!
Dave
here’s the Top 10 list of political philosophers that liberals on BlueStateDate listed as their favorite:
1. JOHN LOCKE
2. ARISTOTLE
3. JON STEWART
4. STEPHEN COLBERT
5. JOHN F. KENNEDY
6. PAUL KRUGMAN
7. PLATO
8. THOMAS JEFFERSON
9. MARK TWAIN
10. MAHATMA GANDHI
Bwaaaahahahahahaha! Yay, comedians! Throw in the extremely smug and nasty name-caller Krugman to the mess. Wait, speaking of name-callers, where's Bill Maher on the list?
Here is the top 10 list of political philosophers that conservatives on RedStateDate rated among their favorite:
1. Thomas Jefferson
2. Ayn Rand
3. Milton Friedman
4. Thomas Sowell
5. Adam Smith
6. Thomas Paine
7. Edmund Burke
8. Fredreich Hayek
9. Benjamin Franklin
10. Alexis de Tocqueville
Well, there is common ground in Thomas Jefferson.
June 7, 2013 02:45 AM
Forum:
Off Topic Discussions
Yep - we sell thesePosted By Dave Snope |
Can I get a combo deal with a Borg 71FL on top?
June 7, 2013 06:01 PM
Forum:
Politics
Unemployment Rate StinksPosted By Dave Snope |
It's really 11.3%. Unless you are black. Or latino. Or young and in the prime of your energy and drive to work and achieve. Then it totally sucks. But you young and minorities voted for him and here is your reward for believing in the tooth fairies of socialist economics:
So how does the narrow unemployment rate (U-3, not to be confused with the wider, Underemployment U-6 rate) look if one applies a longer-term average Labor Force Participation rate of 65.8%?
In a word: not pretty. As of May, assuming realistic LFP assumptions, the real U-3 unemployment rate should have been not 7.6% but 11.3%.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-06-07/real-unemployment-rate-113
So how does the narrow unemployment rate (U-3, not to be confused with the wider, Underemployment U-6 rate) look if one applies a longer-term average Labor Force Participation rate of 65.8%?
In a word: not pretty. As of May, assuming realistic LFP assumptions, the real U-3 unemployment rate should have been not 7.6% but 11.3%.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-06-07/real-unemployment-rate-113
Funding Member
