Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel

Full story: Newsday

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.
Comments
47,301 - 47,320 of 68,371 Comments Last updated 6 hrs ago

“Legumes of the World Unite ”

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#52710
May 17, 2013
 
former res wrote:
<quoted text>
Funny!
I think ATF has a perfect record of being wrong.
Yeah, he pretty much hand fed that one to me
Voluntarist

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#52711
May 17, 2013
 
former res wrote:
<quoted text>
You're overthinking this.
I told you why I pay taxes and why.
Do you evade your tax obligations?
No I evade no obligations.
Voluntarist

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#52712
May 17, 2013
 
former res wrote:
<quoted text>
I vote for the pols who support the safety net programs.
And I willingly pay my taxes.
You said you care about poor folks.
What does this look like?
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.
Voluntarist

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#52713
May 17, 2013
 
Frijoles wrote:
5. Conclusion
The public perception of a scientific consensus on AGW is a necessary element in public support for climate policy (Ding et al 2011). However, there is a significant gap between public perception and reality, with 57% of the US public either disagreeing or unaware that scientists overwhelmingly agree that the earth is warming due to human activity (Pew 2012).
Contributing to this 'consensus gap' are campaigns designed to confuse the public about the level of agreement among climate scientists. In 1991, Western Fuels Association conducted a $510&#8201;000 campaign whose primary goal was to 'reposition global warming as theory (not fact)'. A key strategy involved constructing the impression of active scientific debate using dissenting scientists as spokesmen (Oreskes 2010). The situation is exacerbated by media treatment of the climate issue, where the normative practice of providing opposing sides with equal attention has allowed a vocal minority to have their views amplified (Boykoff and Boykoff 2004). While there are indications that the situation has improved in the UK and USA prestige press (Boykoff 2007), the UK tabloid press showed no indication of improvement from 2000 to 2006 (Boykoff and Mansfield 2008).
The narrative presented by some dissenters is that the scientific consensus is '...on the point of collapse'(Oddie 2012) while '...the number of scientific "heretics" is growing with each passing year'(Allègre et al 2012). A systematic, comprehensive review of the literature provides quantitative evidence countering this assertion. The number of papers rejecting AGW is a miniscule proportion of the published research, with the percentage slightly decreasing over time. Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW.
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...
Voluntarist

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#52714
May 17, 2013
 
Marcel Crok at Lucia's (Cook just lumped in the maybe, implied, etc
to make the 4000)
----------
Ok here are the numbers following Brandon’s search method:
Category 1: 65
Category 2: 934
Category 3: 2933
Category 4 (neutral): 7930 [the reported number, not Brandon's
method]
Category 5: 53
Category 6: 15
Category 7: 10
What Cook et al did is adding the numbers of category 1-3. In this
way you get the almost 4000 abstracts supposed to “endorse” AGW.
However of these 3932 abstracts (Brandon’s method) 2933 (75%) fall
in category 3. Now here http://www.skepticalscience.co .....guidelines
is the description of ratings in category 3:
3. Implicit Endorsement of AGW
3.1 Mitigation papers that examine GHG emission reduction or carbon
sequestration, linking it to climate change
3.2 Climate modelling papers that talks about emission scenarios
and subsequent warming or other climate impacts from increased CO2
in the abstract implicitly endorse that GHGs cause warming
3.3 Paleoclimate papers that link CO2 to climate change
3.4 Papers about climate policy (specifically mitigation of GHG
emissions) unless they restrict their focus to non-GHG issues like CFC
emissions in which case neutral
3.5 Modelling of increased CO2 effect on regional temperature – not
explicitly saying global warming but implying warming from CO2
3.6 Endorsement of IPCC findings is usually an implicit endorsement.
(updated this so it is more than just reference to IPCC but actual
endorsement of IPCC)
So the fair and meaningless result of their whole exercise is that 75%
of the abstracts that say something about AGW at all “link CO2 to
climate change” or “imply warming from CO2&#8243;.
Even the other >24% of category 2 is pretty meaningless:
2. Explicit Endorsement of AGW without quantification
2.1 Mention of anthropogenic global warming or anthropogenic
climate change as a given fact.
2.2 Mention of increased CO2 leading to higher temperatures without
including anthropogenic or reference to human influence/activity
relegates to implicit endorsement.

“Legumes of the World Unite ”

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#52715
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...
Not impressed. For one thing there are no methods - just a narrative.

And secondly, noone is going to convince me that ONLY 65/12000 papers make the claim for AGW.

That is preposterous.

Reality check here.

“Legumes of the World Unite ”

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#52716
May 17, 2013
 
Voluntarist wrote:
Marcel Crok at Lucia's (Cook just lumped in the maybe, implied, etc
to make the 4000)
----------
Ok here are the numbers following Brandon’s search method:
Category 1: 65
Category 2: 934
Category 3: 2933
Category 4 (neutral): 7930 [the reported number, not Brandon's
method]
Category 5: 53
Category 6: 15
Category 7: 10
What Cook et al did is adding the numbers of category 1-3. In this
way you get the almost 4000 abstracts supposed to “endorse” AGW.
However of these 3932 abstracts (Brandon’s method) 2933 (75%) fall
in category 3. Now here http://www.skepticalscience.co .....guidelines
is the description of ratings in category 3:
3. Implicit Endorsement of AGW
3.1 Mitigation papers that examine GHG emission reduction or carbon
sequestration, linking it to climate change
3.2 Climate modelling papers that talks about emission scenarios
and subsequent warming or other climate impacts from increased CO2
in the abstract implicitly endorse that GHGs cause warming
3.3 Paleoclimate papers that link CO2 to climate change
3.4 Papers about climate policy (specifically mitigation of GHG
emissions) unless they restrict their focus to non-GHG issues like CFC
emissions in which case neutral
3.5 Modelling of increased CO2 effect on regional temperature – not
explicitly saying global warming but implying warming from CO2
3.6 Endorsement of IPCC findings is usually an implicit endorsement.
(updated this so it is more than just reference to IPCC but actual
endorsement of IPCC)
So the fair and meaningless result of their whole exercise is that 75%
of the abstracts that say something about AGW at all “link CO2 to
climate change” or “imply warming from CO2&#8243;.
Even the other >24% of category 2 is pretty meaningless:
2. Explicit Endorsement of AGW without quantification
2.1 Mention of anthropogenic global warming or anthropogenic
climate change as a given fact.
2.2 Mention of increased CO2 leading to higher temperatures without
including anthropogenic or reference to human influence/activity
relegates to implicit endorsement.
At the very end, there is no way you are ever going to come up with 11935/12000 scientific papers that dodge the issue

You can spin as much as it titillates you...

“Legumes of the World Unite ”

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

Other Recent Pinos Altos Discussions

Search the Pinos Altos Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
Review: High Country Collision Specialist 15 hr Jeff 1
Hall retires from magistrate judge post (Dec '10) Tue Jim Spainhower 9
To ban or not to ban - the future of plastic ba... Jul 22 Duh 4
Grant Co.---rotten corner of NM (Sep '11) Jul 13 troll 23
Review: 180 Trade And Pawn Jul 13 mar bear 2
Lawsuit filed in federal court alleges murder c... Jul 3 RobertJose 1
Passion fruit: Sweet, tasty watermelon may be h... (Jul '08) Jun 24 Carroll 16
•••
•••
•••
•••

Pinos Altos Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

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 ]
•••