Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel

Full story: Newsday 70,989
Safety pins and screws are still lodged in 15-year-old Ami Ortiz's body three months after he opened a booby-trapped gift basket sent to his family. Full Story

“Legumes of the World Unite ”

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#52717 May 17, 2013
Voluntarist wrote:
<quoted text>
I really have been struggling to summon up much enthusiasm for the
inanities of John Cook's paper, but Brandon Schollenberger has
written an extraordinary analysis of the data , which really has to be
seen to be believed. Readers are no doubt aware that the paper
involves rating abstracts of a whole bunch of research papers to see
where they stand on the global warming question.
The guidelines for rating [the] abstracts show only the highest
rating value blames the majority of global warming on humans.
No other rating says how much humans contribute to global
warming. The only time an abstract is rated as saying how much
humans contribute to global warming is if it mentions:
that human activity is a dominant influence or has caused
most of recent climate change (>50%).
If we use the system’s search feature for abstracts that meet this
requirement, we get 65 results. That is 65, out of the 12,000+
examined abstracts. Not only is that value incredibly small, it is
smaller than another value listed in the paper:
Reject AGW 0.7%(78)
Remembering AGW stands for anthropogenic global warming, or
global warming caused by humans, take a minute to let that sink
in. This study done by John Cook and others, praised by the
President of the United States, found more scientific publications
whose abstracts reject global warming than say humans are
primarily to blame for it.
I'm speechless.
Read the whole thing.
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2013/5/17/coo...
From Cooks work

"....We took a conservative approach in our ratings. For example, a study which takes it for granted that global warming will continue for the foreseeable future could easily be put into the implicit endorsement category; there is no reason to expect global warming to continue indefinitely unless humans are causing it. However, unless an abstract included (either implicit or explicit) language about the cause of the warming, we categorized it as 'no position'.

“Legumes of the World Unite ”

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#52718 May 17, 2013
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warmin...

We fully anticipate that some climate contrarians will respond by saying "we don't dispute that humans cause some global warming."

First of all, there are a lot of people who do dispute that there is a consensus that humans cause any global warming. Our paper shows that their position is not supported in the scientific literature.

Second, we did look for papers that quantify the human contribution to global warming, and most are not that specific. However, as noted above, if a paper minimized the human contribution, we classified that as a rejection. For example, if a paper were to say "the sun caused most of the global warming over the past century," that would be included in the less than 3% of papers in the rejection categories.

Many studies simply defer to the expert summary of climate science research put together by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which states that most of the global warming since the mid-20th century has been caused by humans. According to recent research, that statement is actually too conservative.

Of the papers that specifically examine the human and natural causes of global warming, virtually all conclude that humans are the dominant cause over the past 50 to 100 years.

----------
NOTE the last paragraph
Voluntarist

United States

#52719 May 17, 2013
Frijoles wrote:
http://www.skepticalscience.co m/global-warming-scientific-co nsensus-advanced.htm
We fully anticipate that some climate contrarians will respond by saying "we don't dispute that humans cause some global warming."
First of all, there are a lot of people who do dispute that there is a consensus that humans cause any global warming. Our paper shows that their position is not supported in the scientific literature.
Second, we did look for papers that quantify the human contribution to global warming, and most are not that specific. However, as noted above, if a paper minimized the human contribution, we classified that as a rejection. For example, if a paper were to say "the sun caused most of the global warming over the past century," that would be included in the less than 3% of papers in the rejection categories.
Many studies simply defer to the expert summary of climate science research put together by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which states that most of the global warming since the mid-20th century has been caused by humans. According to recent research, that statement is actually too conservative.
Of the papers that specifically examine the human and natural causes of global warming, virtually all conclude that humans are the dominant cause over the past 50 to 100 years.
----------
NOTE the last paragraph
Lol! dolt!

The ipcc is the UN you know the ones pushing carbon taxes?
Voluntarist

United States

#52720 May 17, 2013
The 97% consensus – a lie of
epic proportions
Posted by Anthony Watts
To John Cook – it isn’t ‘hate’, it’s pity,– pity
for having such a weak argument you are
forced to fabricate conclusions of epic
proportions
Proving that crap can flow uphill, yesterday,
John Cook got what one could consider the
ultimate endorsement. A tweet from the
Twitter account of the Twitterer in Chief,
Barack Obama, about Cook’s 97% consensus
lie.
I had to laugh about the breathless headlines
over that tweet, such as this one from the
Washington Post’s Valerie Strauss at The
Answer Sheet:

Here’s the genesis of the lie. When you take a
result of 32.6% of all papers that accept AGW,
ignoring the 66% that don’t , and twist that
into 97%, excluding any mention of that
original value in your media reports, there’s
nothing else to call it – a lie of presidential
proportions. From the original press release
about the paper:
Exhibit 1:
From the 11 994 papers, 32.6 per cent
endorsed AGW, 66.4 per cent stated no
position on AGW, 0.7 per cent rejected AGW
and in 0.3 per cent of papers, the authors said
the cause of global warming was uncertain.
Exhibit 2:
“Our findings prove that there is a strong
scientific agreement about the cause of
climate change, despite public perceptions to
the contrary.”
I pity people whose argument is so weak they
have to lie like this to get attention, I pity even
more the lazy journalists that latch onto lies
like this without even bothering to ask a single
critical question.
Of course try to find a single mention of that
32.6 percent figure in any of the news reports,
or on Cook’s announcement on his own
website .

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/17/to-john...
former res

Cheshire, CT

#52721 May 17, 2013
Voluntarist wrote:
<quoted text>
See there is the difference between you and I, I actually physically help people and you hand your money over to institutions thinking that you are doing good.
I help people like you to understand people like me and
the world around them.

You're welcome.

I always say "give till it hurts."

Seriously though I agree with another bumper sticker that reads
"Think globally but act locally."

I do stuff for folks in my life who need help. I don't have to go far to find them. Plus I send gift when I can.
HughBe

Kingston, Jamaica

#52722 May 17, 2013
former res wrote:
<quoted text>
I help people like you to understand people like me and
the world around them.
You're welcome.
I always say "give till it hurts."
Seriously though I agree with another bumper sticker that reads
"Think globally but act locally."
I do stuff for folks in my life who need help. I don't have to go far to find them. Plus I send gift when I can.
Why are you not talking to me?
former res

Cheshire, CT

#52723 May 18, 2013
HughBe wrote:
<quoted text>
Why are you not talking to me?
Very odd indeed.

I know you asked me why I paid taxes a day
or two ago and I know I responded.

Now I can't find either the question or
the response.

Of course you can scroll back and read the
give and take I've had on the subject with Volunterist/ATF
but the short answer is I pay them because it's a debt and
if one does not pay he is subject to legal proceeding/entanglements
which would result in fines, high legal costs and possible imprisonment.

Google "Al Capone" for a good example.
former res

Cheshire, CT

#52724 May 18, 2013
HughBe wrote:
<quoted text>
Why are you not talking to me?
ps

And of course I would never ignore you, Huggybear.

Happy Saturday to you.
Voluntarist

United States

#52725 May 18, 2013
former res wrote:
<quoted text>
Very odd indeed.
I know you asked me why I paid taxes a day
or two ago and I know I responded.
Now I can't find either the question or
the response.
Of course you can scroll back and read the
give and take I've had on the subject with Volunterist/ATF
but the short answer is I pay them because it's a debt and
if one does not pay he is subject to legal proceeding/entanglements
which would result in fines, high legal costs and possible imprisonment.
Google "Al Capone" for a good example.
Taxes might be a debt in your mind but they aren't in a legal sense.
former res

Cheshire, CT

#52727 May 18, 2013
Voluntarist wrote:
<quoted text>
Taxes might be a debt in your mind but they aren't in a legal sense.
1040 Line 76

Amount You Owe
Amount you owe. Subtract line 72 from line 61.

Since when do you care about the law?

You claim the law doesn't even apply to you.

You sound inconsistent.

The gov't can place a lien on your house if you don't pay your taxes. Same with any other debt.
We speak in terms of "tax liability."
Liabilities are debts. any way you look at it.

Consider yourself schooled yet again.

No charge.
HughBe

Kingston, Jamaica

#52728 May 18, 2013
former res wrote:
<quoted text>
ps
And of course I would never ignore you, Huggybear.
Happy Saturday to you.
HughBe ---Why are you not talking to me?

Former--And of course I would never ignore you, Huggybear.

HughBe--- I am reassured and comforted.

Former---Happy Saturday to you.

HughBe--- Happy Sabbath to you too.
HughBe

Kingston, Jamaica

#52729 May 18, 2013
former res wrote:
<quoted text>
Very odd indeed.
I know you asked me why I paid taxes a day
or two ago and I know I responded.
Now I can't find either the question or
the response.
Of course you can scroll back and read the
give and take I've had on the subject with Volunterist/ATF
but the short answer is I pay them because it's a debt and
if one does not pay he is subject to legal proceeding/entanglements
which would result in fines, high legal costs and possible imprisonment.
Google "Al Capone" for a good example.
Former---I pay them because it's a DEBT and
if one does not pay he is subject to legal proceeding/entanglements
which would result in fines, high legal costs and possible imprisonment.

HughBe--- I would use the word DUTY instead of DEBT even if legally it is called a DEBT.

I am inclined to see it as FORCED payments that are determined by others without my input.

I am also inclined to see it as COVETOUSNESS by those who have power to take my money against my will.

In essence it is a type of extortion.
former res

Cheshire, CT

#52730 May 18, 2013
HughBe wrote:
<quoted text>
HughBe ---Why are you not talking to me?
Former--And of course I would never ignore you, Huggybear.
HughBe--- I am reassured and comforted.
Former---Happy Saturday to you.
HughBe--- Happy Sabbath to you too.
You're a Jew of color like Sammy Davis, Jr.

He was a great entertainer who could do it all.

Singing, dancing, acting, jokes etc.

A real credit to the chosen people.

I had thought you were Christian.

I don't think you actually ever put a name to your religion.

Not that you're under any obligation to do so.
former res

Cheshire, CT

#52731 May 18, 2013
HughBe wrote:
<quoted text>
Former---I pay them because it's a DEBT and
if one does not pay he is subject to legal proceeding/entanglements
which would result in fines, high legal costs and possible imprisonment.
HughBe--- I would use the word DUTY instead of DEBT even if legally it is called a DEBT.
I am inclined to see it as FORCED payments that are determined by others without my input.
I am also inclined to see it as COVETOUSNESS by those who have power to take my money against my will.
In essence it is a type of extortion.
Well then you agree more with the other fellow, Voluntarist.

He and I have had a long discussion on the subject.

Taxes are certainly forced on us but I would argue partially with my own input as I'm a voter and agree with some though not all uses of my tax money.
Voluntarist

United States

#52732 May 18, 2013
former res wrote:
<quoted text>
1040 Line 76
Amount You Owe
Amount you owe. Subtract line 72 from line 61.
Since when do you care about the law?
You claim the law doesn't even apply to you.
You sound inconsistent.
The gov't can place a lien on your house if you don't pay your taxes. Same with any other debt.
We speak in terms of "tax liability."
Liabilities are debts. any way you look at it.
Consider yourself schooled yet again.
No charge.
Gee I looked at a form where it states "amount you owe" and it was blank.
Are you insisting that some words on a piece of paper mean that there is a debt?

So would that be payment on a contract or a tort?

“Legumes of the World Unite ”

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#52733 May 18, 2013
former res wrote:
<quoted text>
Well then you agree more with the other fellow, Voluntarist.
He and I have had a long discussion on the subject.
Taxes are certainly forced on us but I would argue partially with my own input as I'm a voter and agree with some though not all uses of my tax money.
In Jamaica it just might be the case that taxation is implemented without representation. If so, I can certainly understand how that might frustrate someone like Hughbe, who craves control.

Here in the US, obviously we do have an input.

“Legumes of the World Unite ”

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#52734 May 18, 2013
Voluntarist wrote:
<quoted text>
Lol! dolt!
The ipcc is the UN you know the ones pushing carbon taxes?
And your point is?

“Legumes of the World Unite ”

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#52735 May 18, 2013
Voluntarist wrote:
The 97% consensus – a lie of
epic proportions
Posted by Anthony Watts
To John Cook – it isn’t ‘hate’, it’s pity,– pity
for having such a weak argument you are
forced to fabricate conclusions of epic
proportions
Proving that crap can flow uphill, yesterday,
John Cook got what one could consider the
ultimate endorsement. A tweet from the
Twitter account of the Twitterer in Chief,
Barack Obama, about Cook’s 97% consensus
lie.
I had to laugh about the breathless headlines
over that tweet, such as this one from the
Washington Post’s Valerie Strauss at The
Answer Sheet:
Here’s the genesis of the lie. When you take a
result of 32.6% of all papers that accept AGW,
ignoring the 66% that don’t , and twist that
into 97%, excluding any mention of that
original value in your media reports, there’s
nothing else to call it – a lie of presidential
proportions. From the original press release
about the paper:
Exhibit 1:
From the 11 994 papers, 32.6 per cent
endorsed AGW, 66.4 per cent stated no
position on AGW, 0.7 per cent rejected AGW
and in 0.3 per cent of papers, the authors said
the cause of global warming was uncertain.
Exhibit 2:
“Our findings prove that there is a strong
scientific agreement about the cause of
climate change, despite public perceptions to
the contrary.”
I pity people whose argument is so weak they
have to lie like this to get attention, I pity even
more the lazy journalists that latch onto lies
like this without even bothering to ask a single
critical question.
Of course try to find a single mention of that
32.6 percent figure in any of the news reports,
or on Cook’s announcement on his own
website .
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/17/to-john...
Washington Post?

You mean the SAME paper that adamantly predicted a Romney win because they actually believed all of the other polls where biased DESPITE evidence to the contrary?

lol
Voluntarist

United States

#52736 May 18, 2013
former res wrote:
<quoted text>
1040 Line 76
Amount You Owe
Amount you owe. Subtract line 72 from line 61.
Since when do you care about the law?
You claim the law doesn't even apply to you.
You sound inconsistent.
The gov't can place a lien on your house if you don't pay your taxes. Same with any other debt.
We speak in terms of "tax liability."
Liabilities are debts. any way you look at it.
Consider yourself schooled yet again.
No charge.
You can not lien without a judicial order, and liens could and have been removed.
Voluntarist

United States

#52737 May 18, 2013
Frijoles wrote:
<quoted text>
Washington Post?
You mean the SAME paper that adamantly predicted a Romney win because they actually believed all of the other polls where biased DESPITE evidence to the contrary?
lol
You are always attacking the messenger yet you use the UN as some kind of authority.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Pinos Altos Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Do you have VERIZON and you didn't have service... Dec 13 yankeedudell 2
Experience Victorian Christmas tonight at Silve... (Dec '09) Dec 9 billie 4
Dr. Twana Sparks (Dec '09) Dec 9 MSGT Don 49
* the Silver City Daily Press * Dec 9 billie 1
Getting into the spirit of Christmas, a look at... Dec 9 billie 1
Grant Co.---rotten corner of NM (Sep '11) Dec 7 Insect Trust 44
Their view: No clear gain in dispute over Falkl... (Mar '10) Nov '14 Realist 615
Pinos Altos Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Pinos Altos People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Pinos Altos News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Pinos Altos

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 9:00 am PST

Bleacher Report 9:00AM
NFL Playoffs 2014-15: AFC, NFC Postseason Predictions Heading into Week 16
Bleacher Report 9:00 AM
NFL Playoffs 2014-15: AFC, NFC Postseason Predictions Heading into Week 16
NBC Sports10:18 AM
Peyton Manning ducks out of practice for treatment
NFL10:41 AM
Peyton Manning exits practice for thigh treatment
ESPN11:33 AM
Bengals' Iloka: Manziel-Peyton talk 'foolish'