Posts Made By: Pete Brayton

Gary Heath said:

If Plossls don't work as advertised, do they have Plossable deniability? :S

Doug Matulis said:

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=229373

Jack Day said:

Since she apparently is not saying enough dumb things, let's just make some up!

http://www.usmagazine.com/moviestvmusic/news/sarah-palin-tells-us-i-never-bashed-christina-aguilera-2011102

Nice...

Darian Rachal said:

This is just a short opinion article that I think may have some merit. The more I think about the characterization of Obama as the first "affirmative action" President, the more the label seems appropriate. AFAIC, 'affirmative action' is nothing more than giving a job to a less-qualified applicant simply because of skin color.

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/05/09/easiest-incumbent-to-beat-since-1980/

Dave Snope said:

This is going to cause quite a moral dilemna for warmist liberals because liberals are predominately cat people.

http://notrickszone.com/2011/06/03/cats-leave-biggest-carbon-paw-print-among-house-pets-study-finds/

German daily Bild, which has more readers than the WSJ, USA Today and NYT combined, reports that cats leave huge carbon paw-prints and so make a significant contribution to climate change. Each househiold cat is repsonsible for the emissions of 2.2 tons of CO2 annually.

The information is based on a story appearing in health magazine Healthy Living and on a study from climate company ClimatePartner.

According to Bild, internet portal utopia.de tested the impacts of five different pets on climate. Bild writes:


Catfood, cat litter, waste… every cat leads to 2.2 tons of CO2 emissions annually. No other house pet leaves such a terrible ecological paw-print.

Just the manufacture of cat food and its packing leads to about one ton of CO2 per cat. The waste disposal of food cans and cat litter burdens the climate with an additional 1250 kg of carbon dioxide. Then you have to include the water consumption for cleaning the cat potty.�

The house cat is an even bigger climate sinner than a dog, says Bild.

Dave Snope said:

In a rare case of scientists actually doing real long-term measurement studies of glaciers (rather than the common computer simulations or short-time observatons combined with hysterically speculative press releases force-fed en masse to the public) we learn some hard facts about glacier retreat.

What was done
Working in the Nanga Parbat region of northern Pakistan, which constitutes the northwestern limit of the high Himalaya, Schmidt and Nusser used a multi-temporal/multi-scale approach based on historical data, repeat photography and satellite imagery to develop a 70-year history of the behavior of that region's Raikot Glacier.

What was learned
The two German scientists report that visual comparison of repeat photography indicates "relatively small rates of recession and surface changes over the last seven decades," and they say that "in the 1994 image, no significant retreat of the glacier margin can be detected in comparison with 1985." In addition, they state that "given that some well-defined large boulders remain in the same position in 2006 as in 1934, one can assume a high stability of the proglacial area and lateral moraines," which observation, in their words, "casts doubt on the catastrophic break-out flood from four new portals in 1993 or 1994 suggested by Shroder et al. (2000)," which they say their own field visits in 1993, 1994 and 1995 "did not verify."

With respect to glacier-front variations, the pair of researchers finds that "similarly to most debris-covered glaciers in the northwest Himalaya and in the nearby Karakoram, Hindu Kush and Kun Lun ranges, Raikot Glacier shows only minor retreating rates since the 1980s," and they report that "glacier fluctuations over the past 70 years are characterized by retreat between the 1930s and 1950s, a marked advance between the 1950s and 1980s, and a relatively stable situation after 1992," adding that "a general trend of reduced glacier thickness does not appear significant over the whole observation period."

What it means
Although not highlighted by Schmidt and Nusser, their results tell a much different story than the now-discredited one that was strongly promoted in the IPCC (2007) Fourth Assessment Report, further attesting to the many excursions from reality found within that pre-settled policy-driven document.

http://www.co2science.org/articles/V14/N23/C1.php

Dave Snope said:

That is, never again will the Narcissist in Chief be allowed to be publicly embarrassed by a superior intellect.

Shortly after the photo-op meeting and “working lunch� with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the one that saw President Obama openly chastised by the Prime Minister for Obama’s earlier public comments regarding wanting to see Israel return to its 1967 borders, the president verbally “went off� on Richard Daley in the private study area that adjoins the Oval Office. President Obama’s verbal attack was clearly heard by numerous staff up and down the West Wing hallways.

The essence of the president’s rage and embarrassment can best be summed up with him yelling out very loudly, “What the f-ck was that!?� That phrase was apparently repeated a number of times in the span of about five minutes, a time period in which Obama’s voice became “louder and louder� and culminating in Obama exclaiming, “Never again! Do you understand me? Never again!� Any response by Bill Daley back to the president, if given, was not overheard.

Daley was soon after seen walking slowly down the hallway back toward his own office. He appeared “unconcerned� and was walking alone. His mood was apparently good enough that he took the time to speak briefly with some junior staffers before continuing down the hall. There was no sign of the president, though Valerie Jarrett did make an appearance on her way into the Oval Office. This was viewed as somewhat of a rare thing as Jarrett has apparently not been seen much on the lower levels of the West Wing for the last month or so. Neither she nor the president was seen for some time after that.