Pages

Monday, February 6, 2017

A challenge to liberals...

Think for yourself 

Here is the text of the law in question:
Whenever the president finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. 
 (https://www.uscis.gov/laws/immigration-and-nationality-act)
Explain to me how why the President's actions are not consistent with this law? To be clear every President going back to Ronald Reagan has used this power at one time or another and never was challenged in court.

_______


Regarding section 202 of the 1964 amendments that:
"prohibits discrimination in the issuance of immigrant visas on the basis of race, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence."
First of all (ironically) this amendment allow for discrimination based on religion, politics, or ideology. That would suggest that in order to get around it, Trump would have to replace the countries in question with an order banning Muslims (which would then be legal).

However, the issue addressed by the amendment is in regards to "immigrant visas". Trump's executive order addresses the admission of refugees and limits travel. Neither refugee admissions or travel bans are addressed by the 1964 amendment.

Btw, this makes sense, as most immigration visas are work related or H1 type visas. These would be people who have specific skills (such as engineering, medical, technical) and would have been well vetted. I don't believe that terrorists are completing four to six year college degrees, in order to come to Microsoft to work as a technical engineer as cover for their terrorist acts.

______ 

Ten to one states that the resident liberals will make the broad determination that their own idea of thinking for themselves will be to cut and paste someone else's opinion.  Any takers? 

78 comments:

rrb said...

Explain to me how why the President's actions are not consistent with this law? To be clear every President going back to Ronald Reagan has used this power at one time or another and never was challenged in court.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

it's plainly obvious that trump's actions are completely consistent with the law. and i would submit that the various courts legal actions against trump have nothing at all to do with the law. this is about opposing trump at every turn.

period.

we might as well get used to it as we'll have at least 4 and perhaps 8 years of liberal temper tantrums like this. basis in fact? basis in law? basis in reality? no, no and no.

since we are hell bent on committing suicide by muslim we might as well get on with it.



Roger Amick said...

This is epic. We are a nation of immigrants who came here for a better life. We did not come here to deal with drugs, or commit murder. Hispanic, Arabic, the Jewish fleeing the holocaust, people of all origins come her to make a better life for themselves and our great country in general. Discrimination against a specific ethnic group is contrary to what OUR nation stands for.

C.H. Truth said...

Above all else, Roger... We are a nation of Laws.

There is nothing in our constitution that allows for us to simply pick and choose which laws we should follow, depending on whether or not they follow someone's political ideology at the moment.

If you don't like the laws, then you work to change them through congressional legislation. Otherwise you abide by them.

The fact that liberals keep going to court to challenge laws (because they cannot win enough elections to change them) is the main reason why a vast majority of the County want's Justices who follow the actual words of the constitution and follow the actual letter of the laws in question. Americans by wide margins do not accept that the constitution is designed to be "changing" at the whims of whichever Justice wants to see something different. They believe that changes to the constitution and our existing laws should be made by the people and by our elected legislators.

This is why people will overwhelmingly support Trump's pick for the USSC, and will overwhelmingly support his subsequent picks (should they arise).

To a large degree, it's also exactly why we currently have a President Trump, a Republican House, a Republican Senate, majority Republican Governorships, and a majority of Republican state legislatures.

Every time the left tries to overturn the will of the electorate through the courts, all they do is push more and more and more people from the middle and to the right.

Except of course, in the land of the nuts, fruits, and flakes... you should really venture out of California occasionally to see how the rest of the Country thinks.

Roger Amick said...

2,790,000 (approximately) more Americans voted for the opposition.

The fact that liberals keep going to court to challenge laws (because they cannot win enough elections to change them)

To quote your President: "The electoral college is joke".

We did get enough votes to challenge the actions of a documented liar, who is trying to govern via executive orders and tweets.

CH, I have been thinking about, studying and learning politics, since before you are conceived.

This President will continue to act above the law, and if we allow him to continue his irresponsible behavior, we will be as divided as we were in 1861. He will continue and intentionally provoke a Constitutional crisis.

He will ignore the courts and even the congress, that already is deeply troubled by the actions of your President. And you, having been conned by Trump, and will stand beside him, no matter what he does.

I was born and raised in South Dakota. I came to my beliefs on my own, and were not, and not been, influenced by my location.

wphamilton said...

"Ten to one states that the resident liberals will make the broad determination that their own idea of thinking for themselves will be to cut and paste someone else's opinion. Any takers? "

You lose that bet, because I agree that the President does have that authority and that it's a good idea to increase restrictions on who is entering the country.

However, I think that Trump's implementation is a bad idea and poorly executed. Too broad, too drastic. Surely there are some criteria that can be applied to filter out the potentially most dangerous individuals.

rrb said...

We did get enough votes to challenge the actions of a documented liar, who is trying to govern via executive orders and tweets.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

no, actually you did not.

we are the united STATES of america. not the united PEOPLE of america. that's how this works. and all the temper tantrums in the world aren't going to change that.

and from the turn of the last century up until 1965 our immigration laws and processes were very highly selective. we didn't import the diseased or the deadbeat. that was who we were then, and that's what we should seek to return to.

no one has a right to immigrate to america. what they have available to them is a legal process they must follow, and if they do they are ALLOWED to come here.

look, we get it. you leftists need to import voters. you only give a shit about these people every two years on election day. that's been obvious with every single minority group for as long as i've been alive.

the president takes an oath to protect our nation. travel bans are well within his legal purview. you can fuck with him for a little while if you like, but in the end he will prevail.




Commonsense said...

This is epic. We are a nation of immigrants who came here for a better life.

You did not address one point of the law CH cited not explain why Trump is violating that law.

Or why that law doesn't give him the authority to ban travel from those seven countries.

That's why nobody takes you seriously.

rrb said...

CH, I have been thinking about, studying and learning politics, since before you are conceived.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

mmmmm hmmmm.

and considering how epically wrong you are on every issue, i mean, by a landslide wrong, it's obvious that all that thinking, studying, and learning has all been for nought.

wphamilton said...

Roger, Trump is not ignoring the courts. Federal agencies are complying with the Seattle court's order and allowing travel from the seven nations, while re-instating the 60,000 or so affected visas.

Your charge is therefore unfounded. It reminds me of similar false accusations levied against Obama by the Tea Party types. If we go down that road from the Left, we're going to wind up with a socialist version of Trump making a career with fake news echo chamber claims as our next candidate. We don't really want that, do we?

Trump is going to do a LOT of things that we don't like, and I think that he'll fail at most of them. I don't see any need for embellishment and hyperbole.

Roger Amick said...

When I was growing up in South Dakota, I remember party line telephones and often traveled to farm country, that just a dozen years or so before, by the farmer's electrical act, where the government acted to provide electricity to rural areas where the private sector was unwilling to act.

Capitalism is not a form of government. A properly regulated capitalist system is the best form of government. It brought us out of the Great Depression, saved capitalism and made us the most prosperous nation in history. The dismantling of that system, has created a deeply divided economic structure.

C.H. Truth said...

2,790,000 (approximately) more Americans voted for the opposition.

1.5 million more Americans voted for Republicans than Democrats in the Congressional races. The fact that Trump ran behind Republicans only highlights the possible landslide that someone like Kasich or Rubio might have gotten.

The fact of the matter is that the GOP ran a reality television person against Hillary Clinton... and the GOP still won. That should be a matter of grave concern, certainly not some indication that Democrats enjoy some sort of popularity.

Democrats still are at electoral lows that they have not seen in nearly a century. You cannot brush that off with "Hillary won the popular vote" arguments. That argument is completely moot... and quite frankly a matter of serious denial.

_____

Secondly, I have said it before and I will say it again... I don't like executive orders, and I believed that his order went to far (possibly by design) and that the Justices who ruled against the order in the limited scope that they did (as well as the Boston Justice who ruled that a continued stay was not required because ultimately the guts of the order would stand up in court) were all fundamentally correct. I even wrote that to the degree that these justices ruled on the permanent resident Visa holders who were detained at the airports, that I felt they were correct.

That being said, the order was well within the scope of the Presidential powers laid out in the law that I quoted. The fact you don't "like" the law is irrelevant to whether the law is valid.

______

However, Roger...

I do (and will always) take issue with Justices who believe it's their job to interject their own ideological positions into the mix, and substitute their own political judgement over the judgement of those the constitution gives authority to. Justices (by definition) are supposed to be arbitrators who use the constitution and existing laws to settle legal disputes. They are not supposed to ignore the old laws or make up new laws as they go to justify their judgement.

Their job is fundamentally no different from a criminal or civil trial Judge in terms of how they are supposed to conduct themselves. These Judges are bound by their own oaths to follow the procedures and conduct themselves under the guidance of the laws that are in place. Ever see a trial judge try to change the law in the middle of a trial because he didn't like the way it was written? Ever see a trial judge choose to ignore the laws in place, because they don't fit in with the result they would like to see? We fundamentally believe those judges should be independent arbitrators, with out any bias against either party. We fundamentally believe that they should follow the laws and regulations in place in order to offer their guidance and ultimate conclusions if need be. We would never accept any trial judge who had open hostility towards prosecution or defense. We expect them to be completely fair and impartial...

The vast majority of Americans feel that our Justices should be just as fair and impartial, and that they should not every have hostility or preference for any preconceived ideals. That they should follow the constitution and the laws that are in place in order to fairly and objectively arbitrate disputes between two Parties. Someone has to be fair, impartial, and objective.

Liberals want the Justices to be playing the game. They want them to take preset sides. They want them to judge according to ideology and not the constitution of the law...

They want all those things, because it's the only way they can achieve any results.

Roger Amick said...

He is actually planning to ignore the courts and continue to discriminate by a religious beliefs.

You wp, and I will be the only ones who will think he's wrong.

Roger Amick said...

Conservatives want the Justices to be playing the game. They want them to take preset sides. They want them to judge according to ideology and not the constitution of the law... Scalia is a prime example of your hypocrisy.

rrb said...

Blogger Roger Amick said...
Conservatives want the Justices to be playing the game. They want them to take preset sides. They want them to judge according to ideology and not the constitution of the law... Scalia is a prime example of your hypocrisy.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

scalia was a justice, not an example. the fact is you can't provide a single example to back up your bullshit claim.

c'mon. give us just one example of a conservative judge doing the bidding of a conservative politician.

C.H. Truth said...

Let's recall the Justice who blocked the Obama EO on immigration. In this particular case the administration (like the Trump administration) argued that the State had no standing to bring the lawsuit.

In that case, the state had to prove that there was a substantial financial burden before they could be seen as having standing. Many legal scholars questioned whether the issuing of driver's licences and the potential government aide that they would have to provide was enough to give them standing.

As it was pointed out in that lawsuit (something I assume a genius like you would have remembered) was that the State cannot simply demand standing because it effects their citizens. They are not allowed to sue on "behalf" of their citizens. They must show actual tangible harm would come to the State (not the citizens of the State).

Now unless the constitutional aspects of standing is different today than it was a couple of years ago... what legal standing does Washington and Minnesota have to bring the suit. They cannot (as it was explained by every legal scholar) bring suit on the behalf of anyone else. They must show tangible measurable harm is done to the State itself to show standing. What tangible measurable financial harm is being done?

Secondly, when the Two states ask for relief... what requirement was there for the Judge to make a blanket ruling for the other 48 states who were not asking or relief? Not only does he probably not have authority to do so, he very specifically made rulings that effected States that quite frankly may want the ban in place. He's a district Court Justice who represents a District).

These are just a couple of common sense issues with the ruling that pretty much anyone should be able to see.

rrb said...

Roger Amick said...
He is actually planning to ignore the courts and continue to discriminate by a religious beliefs.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

for that to be true you'll need an actual mention of religion in the ban.

keep digging.

C.H. Truth said...

Scalia was a constitutionalist. He felt that you should rule based on the words of the constitution as written, not try to decipher what those words may or may not mean in today's world.

He felt that if there was a reason to make a fundamental change to what the founding fathers had written... that those changes should come from constitutional amendments, referendums, or new laws... not from the "opinions" of other Justices.

It's a simple concept Roger. One most Americans agree with. They don't care to know how a judge feels about any particular social issue... they just want to know that if the time comes to rule on something like that, that they will rule based on the constitution and laws in place... and not based on their personal feelings.

C.H. Truth said...

Read the transcripts of the hearings on recent supreme court nominees. You will see that most of the questions regarding Elena Kagan from Republicans focused on her academics and her believe in an activist court. They did not demand that she be pro-life or that she must believe that a marriage was between a man and a woman... they only asked that she put aside her own personal beliefs and rule according to the constitution and laws in place.

Let's stay tuned for the Gorsuch hearings, where every Democrat that questions him will hit try to hit the various litmus tests as having to be pro-choice, pro-same-sex-marriage or they will demand he is "out of the mainstream" as if how a Justice personally sees the social issues is what makes them a good or bad Justice.

Fundamentally the American people agree that there should be no litmus tests, that Justices should leave their personal opinions aside, and that they should strictly rule based on the constitution, precedent, and laws in place.

Roger Amick said...

A prime example of unbelievable arrogance.


"and considering how epically wrong you are on every issue, i mean, by a landslide wrong, it's obvious that all that thinking, studying, and learning has all been for nought."


You can't conceive that intelligent and thoughtful individuals can come to rational different conclusions.

Get a grip.

Later, life will continue without me here to keep you strait. Oh that is impossible, arrogance will continue unhinged.

rrb said...

Fundamentally the American people agree that there should be no litmus tests, that Justices should leave their personal opinions aside, and that they should strictly rule based on the constitution, precedent, and laws in place.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

that's exactly what roberts did when upholding the ACA. my cynical reading of his fundamental premise was that since we're stupid enough to elect politicians that would subject us to such lousy legislation, we have to live with the consequences.

galactically shitty law can be constitutional.

rrb said...

You can't conceive that intelligent and thoughtful individuals can come to rational different conclusions.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

"The trouble with our Liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."

- Ronald Reagan

C.H. Truth said...

Roger -

As a general rule... smarter people tend to be correct most of the time.
As a general rule... stupid people tend to be wrong most of the time.

You don't get an "A" on a school test by getting all the answers wrong, but claiming a rational thought process led you to being wrong over and over. Eventually you have to come to the conclusion that if the thought process was "rational" it wouldn't lead you to be wrong all the time.

KD said...

Explain to me how why the President's actions are not consistent with this law? "

HB took the time to post 8 times, and not once did he address your question.

Par for the course, It required the one thing HB does not posses , independent thought.

Roger Amick said...

You believe in an alternative truth. If Trump says it, it's true.

Facts are debatable.
You have been conned.

Roger Amick said...

Trump also seemed to equate the charges against Putin to the lives lost in wars by the United States.

"We have such incompetent leadership that we're going all over the place," Trump said during a WABC interview. "We're killing people. They're killing people."

"We're not killing journalists," Trump clarified. "But we're certainly at a lot of different wars with a lot of different people, and maybe with good diplomacy and, you know, better leadership, things could work out a lot better than they're working out right now, you never know."

rrb said...

Roger Amick said...
You believe in an alternative truth. If Trump says it, it's true.

Facts are debatable.
You have been conned.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

oh, you mean like when your buddy lil bobby reich said the bezerkely riots were coordinated and conducted by breitbart as a false flag operation?

yeah, i got quite a good laugh out of that one, rog.

KD, I love Crying Chuck said...


Sen. Charles Schumer (N.Y.), the third ranking member of the Senate Democratic leadership, on Tuesday said it may be necessary to halt the resettlement of Syrian refugees in the United States.

Republicans immediately seized on Schumer’s comment, which breaks with other Democrats who have argued against halting the program.

Schumer, however, declined to take the option off the table ahead of a special briefing scheduled for Wednesday afternoon on the process that is now used to vet refugees entering the United States.

“We’re waiting for the briefing tomorrow, a pause may be necessary. We’re going to look at it,” he said…

…A spokeswoman for Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) highlighted Schumer’s statement as an example of “bipartisan concern” over refugees

KD, said...

Explain to me how why the President's actions are not consistent with this law? " CHT

HB took the time to post UPDATE Make that 10 times, and not once did he address your question.

KD, Job Losses Clinton Explains said...

This is a lot offensive, Unless your a liberal.


"Clinton said. “It’s really hard when you’re the one who has lost the job. When you are at Disney in Orlando and you’re told to retrain your successors and then kicked out the door, or when you’re on a construction site and all of a sudden you show up the next morning and they tell you they don’t need you anymore because they’ve picked up a bunch of folks at a job corner in the neighborhood.”

Loretta Russo said...

"Later, life will continue without me here to keep you strait. Oh that is impossible, arrogance will continue unhinged."

Good Lord.

opie said...

As a general rule... stupid people tend to be wrong most of the time.

Like those low information white voters in the mid west who voted for trump in spite being against their best interests.....IE the ACA. Those people, unlike you CH, aren't as learned as you and knee jerk at the rhetoric of lying donald, the judge hater. LOL

KD, World did not end Trump Still President said...

Ette, we can just continue to "bless his heart"

KD, Trump's Buddy Brady WON BIGGLY said...

Turns out wood burning heat is better for the Air Quality in the USA then other historical fuels.

Feels good to us a true renewable to keep my family warm for the last 35 years burning wood.

Politically the Left is again Devastated this time by the Patriots Win.

Has the left been able to block a single Trump Nominee?

I see they are going after the Ed Sec, going to Fillerbuster until Mid Night tonight.

LOL @ Liberals every day even more then before Nov 8th, 2016

Roger Amick said...

Alex Jones: “I’m Ready To Die For Trump”

This should be the new name for the blog.

http://www.iwilldiefortrump.com

KD said...

US Stock Markets are very strong.

They did not drop as the left was praying they would and destroy Wealth of Hard Working Americans, nope, just the reverse has been true, running up over 1 K points that fastest ever rise following a Election of a new President.

Cool, Right.

KD said...

Missouri Governor Signs Right-To-Work Bill Passed By GOP Legislature

Republicans and business groups win another round"

Yes, The Right to work without being forced to pay union shop dues, but, IF you want to pay the union IF where you work has a union feel free, see that is the thing about freedom, it is yours to use or not to use, your choice.

Cool, Right!

C.H. Truth said...

Like those low information white voters in the mid west who voted for trump in spite being against their best interests...

I would say more like any White Male who votes for a Party that openly states that you represent the one demographic that they will never cater to.

unless you consider voting against your own interests due to "white guilt" to be an intelligent decision.

Roger Amick said...

This is a challenge for the conservatives:

From multiple sources, it is apparent that the President does not know, what the job includes. He has not read more of the executive orders, and has not been asking those who know the legality, or what they really do. He spends a considerable amount of time, watching television.

Most of, or all of our allies don't think that he's got even a bit of knowledge about the countries, their leaders, or even a basic understanding of the complexity of foreign affairs. They are getting worse, as the more they see, it's very disturbing. The worst issue is Russia. He has compared them to us as equals. Putin has been brutal with reporters, as many as 35 of them have been murdered. McConnell and Ryan, as well as other Republicans have distanced themselves from his comments on Putin and Russia.

It has been reported from various sources, that he did not read the directive putting Steve Bannon on the National Security Council. Bannon himself wrote the directive. Multiple, very credible veterans of the National Security Council, have harshly criticized the President. A domestic affairs advisor, has no business in that position.

His 3:00 AM Tweeting, oh my.

Our esteemed host said the other day, that he should just shut up! I have very conservative relatives, are also very concerned.
How many time does he have to learn about his responsibilities, effective governing our country?

Roger Amick said...

This is a challenge for the conservatives:

From multiple sources, it is apparent that the President does not know, what the job includes. He has not read more of the executive orders, and has not been asking those who know the legality, or what they really do. He spends a considerable amount of time, watching television.

Most of, or all of our allies don't think that he's got even a bit of knowledge about the countries, their leaders, or even a basic understanding of the complexity of foreign affairs. They are getting worse, as the more they see, it's very disturbing. The worst issue is Russia. He has compared them to us as equals. Putin has been brutal with reporters, as many as 35 of them have been murdered. McConnell and Ryan, as well as other Republicans have distanced themselves from his comments on Putin and Russia.

It has been reported from various sources, that he did not read the directive putting Steve Bannon on the National Security Council. Bannon himself wrote the directive. Multiple, very credible veterans of the National Security Council, have harshly criticized the President. A domestic affairs advisor, has no business in that position.

His 3:00 AM Tweeting, oh my.

Our esteemed host said the other day, that he should just shut up! I have very conservative relatives, are also very concerned.
How many time does he have to learn about his responsibilities, effective governing our country?

Loretta Russo said...

Spam by the drunkard.

Loretta Russo said...

Spam by the drunkard.

Commonsense said...

Trump’s Best Asset May Be His Unhinged Opponents

Sensible Senate Democrats know that if they filibuster Gorsuch, the likely result will be that Senate GOP leader, Mitch McConnell, will simply scrap the filibuster and leave Democrats with even less power to influence the fate the next nominee, which would seriously tilt the balance of the court rightward. But for now, such practical considerations are being pushed aside in the rush to portray Donald Trump as some kind of “fascist in chief” occupying the White House. In California, Democratic assembly member Reggie Jones-Sawyer of Los Angeles has predicted that the anti-Trump resistance will be “a looming, long, ferocious and hard-fought legal war with bloodshed stretching from the Golden State to Washington D.C.”

If Democrats believe that this kind of hyper-partisan opposition will carry the day or appeal to moderates, I say, “Good luck with that.” Donald Trump has a knack for alienating many voters and saying stupid things. But his biggest asset may be that his over-the-top adversaries are even better at painting themselves in negative terms.


You go Roger. You're only helping Trump.

Commonsense said...

Yeah, global warming is a con.

Exposed: How world leaders were duped into investing billions over manipulated global warming data

A high-level whistleblower has told this newspaper that America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) breached its own rules on scientific integrity when it published the sensational but flawed report, aimed at making the maximum possible impact on world leaders including Barack Obama and David Cameron at the UN climate conference in Paris in 2015.

The report claimed that the ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’ in global warming in the period since 1998 – revealed by UN scientists in 2013 – never existed, and that world temperatures had been rising faster than scientists expected. Launched by NOAA with a public relations fanfare, it was splashed across the world’s media, and cited repeatedly by politicians and policy makers.

But the whistleblower, Dr John Bates, a top NOAA scientist with an impeccable reputation, has shown The Mail on Sunday irrefutable evidence that the paper was based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data.

It was never subjected to NOAA’s rigorous internal evaluation process – which Dr Bates devised.

His vehement objections to the publication of the faulty data were overridden by his NOAA superiors in what he describes as a ‘blatant attempt to intensify the impact’ of what became known as the Pausebuster paper.

Commonsense said...

With president Trump in charge mayde NOAA will go back to being the science base agency it has historically been instead of a shill for a liberal agenda.

Myballs said...

And NASA will go back to being a space agency.

opie said...

Myballs said...
And NASA will go back to being a space agency.

IOW's, they should stop reporting temperature measurements and WX data from the satellites they operate. Then, NOAA, needs to stop any research on the planet via the NWS that they are in charge of. Then, unbeknownst to you, disband the NOAA branch of the military since they are a branch of soldiers you feel we don't need. I'm confused to which one of you, ballz or menstral, are in need of a brain transfusion with comments like that. LOL

KD, Wood Heat is the Best said...

And NASA will go back to being a space agency." Balls

And stop global Muslim out reach programs and Hoax GOREBal warming, great.

opie said...

Commonsense said...
Yeah, global warming is a con.

Daily Mail, the shill of deniers like you. LOL

All you published was right wing speculation and opinions. All their claims have been thoroughly been debunked from this anonymous source. Nice try.

KD, Are you over the Election Yet? said...

This is a challenge for the conservatives" ACLU Barbie

No it is not.


KD said...

President does not know" Barbie

vs.

How many time does he have to learn about his responsibilities, effective governing our country? " Barbie


Hey, doll can do you see your error? I do.

Are You over the Bush Election Yet?
We know Trump has you by your pussy.

KD said...

I like it, From the Dems OccupyWALLStreet and BlackLiesMatter to Trump OccupyWHITEhouse.






Did Obama keep his promise and buy a volt YET?

KD said...

Want to know why Hillary lost, look no further then this post defeat bs.


"Hillary Clinton praised the recent Women's March on Washington, D.C., as evidence of a bright tomorrow for women.

"Despite all the challenges we face, I remain convinced that yes, the future is female," she said Monday in her first video statement since President Trump's Jan. 20 inauguration.

"Just look at the amazing energy last month as women organized a march that galvanized millions of people all over our country and across the world," the 2016 Democratic presidential nominee continued.

"And remember, you are the heroes and history-makers, the glass ceiling breakers of the future. As I've said before, I'll say again - never doubt that you are valuable and powerful and deserving of every chance and opportunity in the world." HillBilly

opie said...

third time, CH. I like your censoring, it is the republican way. LOL. The CH massacre.....From real climate. org


There was no pause
Filed under: Climate Science Instrumental Record Oceans RC Forum — rasmus @ 22 January 2017
I think that the idea of a pause in the global warming has been a red herring ever since it was suggested, and we have commented on this several times here on RC: On how data gaps in some regions (eg. the Arctic) may explain an underestimation of the recent warming. We have also explained how natural oscillations may give the impression of a faux pause. Now, when we know the the global mean temperature for 2016, it’s even more obvious.

Easterling and Wehner (2009) explained that it is not surprising to see some brief periods with an apparent decrease in a temperature record that increases in jumps and spurts, and Foster and Rahmstorf (2012) showed in a later paper how temperature data from the most important observations show consistent global warming trends when known short-term influences such as El Niño Southern oscillation (ENSO), volcanic aerosols and solar variability are accounted for.

A recent paper by Hausfather et al. (2017) adds little new to our understanding, although it confirms that there has not been a recent “hiatus” in the global warming. However, if there are doubts about a physical condition, then further scientific research is our best option for establishing the facts. This is exactly what this recent study did.

The latest findings confirm the results of Karl et al. 2015 from the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), which Gavin described in a previous post here on RC. The NOAA analysis received unusual attention because of the harassment it drew from the chair of the US House Science Committee and the subpoena demand for emails.


Science is convincing because it builds on independent assessments, which either confirm or disagree with previous findings. A scientific consensus is established when many independent lines of evidence underpin the same conclusions.

caliphate4vr said...

where did you purloin that from, fatty?



The most serious example of a climate scientist not archiving or documenting a critical climate dataset was the study of Tom Karl et al. 2015 (hereafter referred to as the Karl study or K15), purporting to show no ‘hiatus’ in global warming in the 2000s (Federal scientists say there never was any global warming “pause”). The study drew criticism from other climate scientists, who disagreed with K15’s conclusion about the ‘hiatus.’ (Making sense of the early-2000s warming slowdown). The paper also drew the attention of the Chairman of the House Science Committee, Representative Lamar Smith, who questioned the timing of the report, which was issued just prior to the Obama Administration’s Clean Power Plan submission to the Paris Climate Conference in 2015.

In the following sections, I provide the details of how Mr. Karl failed to disclose critical information to NOAA, Science Magazine, and Chairman Smith regarding the datasets used in K15. I have extensive documentation that provides independent verification of the story below. I also provide my suggestions for how we might keep such a flagrant manipulation of scientific integrity guidelines and scientific publication standards from happening in the future. Finally, I provide some links to examples of what well documented CDRs look like that readers might contrast and compare with what Mr. Karl has provided.

Commonsense said...

It's another episode of Opie in denial.

opie said...


Anonymous caliphate4vr said...
where did you purloin that from, fatty?

Unlike you pauline....I cited the post. Judith Curry is a known liar and deceiver, Her research stinks and is usually opinion based rather than fact based just like the post you put up which is an opinion. You on the other hand are nothing more than an overgrown punk with a drinking problem and an ego based mentality. NEXT!!!

Commonsense said...

You can almost hear Opie chanting Ooooooommm, Ooooommmmm. to his global warming gods.

opie said...

Some reading about Judith and her opinions. LOL

https://www.skepticalscience.com/Judith_Curry_blog.htm

opie said...

Commonsense said...
You can almost hear Opie chanting Ooooooommm, Ooooommmmm. to his global warming gods.

God???? Menstral, You are the women, hating cultist who thinks the world is 6,000 years old. LOL Idiot.

Commonsense said...

Some reading about Judith and her opinions.

You posted a blog of opinions from nuts.

Thanks for the laugh.

caliphate4vr said...

. Judith Curry is a known liar and deceiver

Except Judith didn't write that fatty.

John Bates received his Ph.D. in Meteorology from the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1986. Post Ph.D., he spent his entire career at NOAA, until his retirement in 2016. He spent the last 14 years of his career at NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center (now NCEI) as a Principal Scientist, where he served as a Supervisory Meteorologist until 2012.

Dr. Bates’ technical expertise lies in atmospheric sciences, and his interests include satellite observations of the global water and energy cycle, air-sea interactions, and climate variability. His most highly cited papers are in observational studies of long term variability and trends in atmospheric water vapor and clouds.

NOAA Administrator’s Award 2004 for “outstanding administration and leadership in developing a new division to meet the challenges to NOAA in the area of climate applications related to remotely sensed data”. He was awarded a U.S. Department of Commerce Gold Medal in 2014 for visionary work in the acquisition, production, and preservation of climate data records (CDRs). He has held elected positions at the American Geophysical Union (AGU), including Member of the AGU Council and Member of the AGU Board. He has played a leadership role in data management for the AGU.

He is currently President of John Bates Consulting Inc., which puts his recent experience and leadership in data management to use in helping clients improve data management to improve their preservation, discovery, and exploitation of their and others data. He has developed and applied techniques for assessing both organizational and individual data management and applications. These techniques help identify how data can be managed more cost effectively and discovered and applied by more users.

wphamilton said...

Opie is right that Judith Curry is near the bottom of the list of authorities you'd want to quote in a scientific discussion, if you wanted any credibility.

With respect to Bates, the NOAA is undertaking a review of his claims about data archiving procedures, and it's far too early to have an opinion on the veracity or significance of his complaints. It should be noted however that independent groups have validated the data that Bates is impugning.

opie said...

Amazing that the NYT's published an article questioning the integrity of Rose that was cited in the Mail POS. The funny part, they used the name of the alleged whistleblower that said the data was not proper. Dayum this is fun to watch, especially for the deniers here who want the earth to melt.

Mr. Rose, who has made climate-related claims in the past that did not hold up to scrutiny, said a “high-level whistle-blower,” John J. Bates, a recently retired scientist at NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information, had told him that the agency “breached its own rules on scientific integrity” in publishing the study in June 2015.

According to Mr. Rose, the study, which refuted earlier work that suggested global warming had slowed in the first decade of this century, “was aimed at making the maximum possible impact on world leaders” at the talks in Paris in December 2015 that led to the agreement by more than 190 nations to set limits on carbon emissions.

After Mr. Rose’s article was published, the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology and its chairman, Representative Lamar Smith, Republican of Texas, wrote about it on Twitter.

And the idiots of the right now are dribbling down their leg trying to show how how smart they are and GW is a hoax. LOL

opie said...

Except Judith didn't write that fatty.

It's from her blog which has as much credibly as you do as a expert in sales. LOLOL Especially the part is your expert bates, thinks rose is full of it. Good one Pauline, you sure know you stuff.

Commonsense said...

Judith Curry is near the bottom of the list of authorities you'd want to quote in a scientific discussion, if you wanted any credibility.

Judith Curry

PhD degree in Geophysical Sciences from the University of Chicago in 1982.

Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology

NASA Advisory Council Earth Science Subcommittee

NOAA Climate Working Group

National Academies Space Studies Board and Climate Research Group.

Published over 130 scientific peer reviewed papers.

So WP what does she have to do to be credible in your eyes? Drink the global warming kool-aid?

wphamilton said...

So WP what does she have to do to be credible in your eyes?

More than the body of derivative works early in a career as a professor. A current body of work beyond arguing pseudo-science on fringe sites - a view shared by a very large majority of her former peers in the real scientific community.

Judith Curry apparently lost her objective reasoning when a criticism of hers was poorly received among her peers, and then went off the deep end making her arguments on skeptic blogs rather than peer reviewed research. What she did publish was roundly rejected. It's a shame - she might have been a respectable scientist had she not fallen prey to the notion of some climate change conspiracy directed against herself and the world.

Arguing psuedo-science to tinfoil hat bloggers places her about at the level, as a scientist, as any of us here.

opie said...

Good answer WP which probably will fly over menstra's head. His C&P of her credentials does not include the body of work she has been criticized on. The creds are great, but they don't mean she is competent in her field or how she now blogs from the fringe of reality.

Commonsense said...

You mean she's a heretic in the religion of global warming and doing work that is skeptical of the theory (what we use to call real science) is called pseudo-science by the high priests.

Just because the AGW mob called the "scientific community" believes in a theory does not make the theory true.

As history has proven the "scientific consensus" is more often than not wrong and it is the heretic who makes that history.

Commonsense said...

Karl’s neglect of the IPCC data was purposeful, according to John Bates, a recently retired scientist from the National Climactic Data Center at the NOAA. Bates came forward just days ago to charge that the 2015 study selectively used misleading and unverified data – effectively putting NOAA’s thumb on the scale.

In an interview with the Daily Mail, Bates said Karl was “insisting on decisions and scientific choices that maximized warming and minimized documentation… in an effort to discredit the notion of a global warming pause, rushed so that he could time publication to influence national and international deliberations on climate policy.”

For example, Karl allegedly adjusted temperature data collected by robot buoys upward to match earlier data from ocean-going ships. That was problematic, Bates said, because ships generate heat and could cause readings to vary.


Real science doesn't need to falsify data or ignore legitimate data sets. Pseudo-science does.

opie said...

Fox news, that bastion of scientific denialistls. John bates is the same name used to discredit another Mail report and he himself is a denier. Oh well, opinions are like you menstral, not fact based. Again, karl allegedly did something is proof enough for you. Idiot.

wphamilton said...

commonsense said "As history has proven the "scientific consensus" is more often than not wrong and it is the heretic who makes that history."

I struggle to even imagine possible mind-sets that would believe this is true. The only explanation I can come up with, that might justify this claim in someone's mind is a misunderstanding of the meaning of paradigm shifts in scientific theories. Is that it? Or do you just believe that science is more wrong that right about things in general?

Commonsense said...

How about a few examples to help you.

1. The geocentric universe
2. Newtonian mechanics.
3. The aether theory of wave mechanics.

Just to name a few.

Commonsense said...

Oh and you don't have "paradigm shifts in scientific theories" if they were right in the first place.

wphamilton said...

A paradigm shift in scientific theory is an evolution towards truth, as more becomes known in greater specificity. In your examples, for instance:

Newtonian mechanics are still perfectly valid in newtonian reference frames. That this is "wrong" in your view does partially explain your erroneous opinion.

Aether theory was more rooted in philosophical musings and was never a scientific consensus of fact nor considered proven.

Earth-centric universe was a literal religious dictate. It's a good example of what goes wrong when true science is overwhelmed by religious reasoning.

Even if these were valid examples, can three examples prove a generality that "science is more often wrong?" I think this betrays a fundamental misconception of science and the scientific method.

Commonsense said...

Boy you are sure doing some mental gymnastics to try to argue "scientific consensus"was always right.

The statement that "Earth-centric universe was a literal religious dictate" and not a scientific theory is absolute nonsense. The theory was proposed by the greek philosopher-mathematician Aristotle and cannot be found in any religious text whatsoever. It was adopted as a natural truth by nearly all philosopher-scientist all the way up to the 15th century when Copernicus made observations about the planets that contradicted the model.

And pray-tell what the hell is a Newtonian reference. There was never such a scientific concept.

If you are talking about an "inertial frame of reference", then Einstein pretty much put that idea to bed. But it was pretty much in trouble when it was discovered that the speed of light was constant in all frames of reference.

Aether theory was the consensus of all 19th century physicist because it was thought at the time light waves like sound waves needed a medium in which to propagate. It was never a "philosophical musing."

And again if you have a "A paradigm shift in scientific theory is an evolution towards truth" then you didn't have truth to begin with. Just everybody agreeing on a false or erroneous idea.

You have a branch of "science" that proposes a theory and then alters data to fit the theory while ignoring data that contradicts the theory.

And then you have it's advocates tar and ostracized other scientist skeptical of the theory.

That is not science, it is a religion and not a very good religion at that.

wphamilton said...

Are we talking about 4th Century BC philosophers or science?? Aristotle, LOL.

Galileo was tried by the Inquisition because the Catholic Church disagreed. THAT is your example of a religious dictate. Science disproved church dogma, not the other way around.

And no, paradigm shifts in theory don't mean that the theory was wrong.

There are three conditions for Newtonian mechanics to be the appropriate description for a system. The system is closed (all forces are from within the system), the system is non-relativistic, and the system is nonquantum (the "scale" I referred to). None of this means that classical mechanics is wrong or disproven. It all DOES mean that the paradigm shifts described other systems.

You have it wrong about aether as well. The concept, and the word itself, came from Greek mythology, and was indeed a "philosophical musing" by Plato and his student Aristotle. As far as modern science goes, it was hypothesized as a medium for light, but no scientist claimed that it was any more than a potentially correct theory. Certainly there was no "scientific consensus" that an unknown quintessence permeating the universe was an accepted fact.

Do you understand that in science, a "theory" is something that is proposed as a potential explanation? And that there is a vast body of scientific work which is indubitably correct, irregardless of whether clerical laymen (I presume that's your ultimate source) quibble about classical vs quantum mechanics without understanding either field?

Commonsense said...

You have it wrong about aether as well. The concept, and the word itself, came from Greek mythology, and was indeed a "philosophical musing" by Plato and his student Aristotle. As far as modern science goes, it was hypothesized as a medium for light, but no scientist claimed that it was any more than a potentially correct theory.Nonsense.

Condescension seldom wins an argument.

wphamilton said...

Your own link, "the concept was the topic of considerable debate throughout its history, as it required the existence of an invisible and infinite material with no interaction with physical objects"

Which should mean to you that there was no "scientific consensus" that the theory was true.

It's not an argument, and condescending, at least on my part - I'm just trying to figure out where your misunderstands lie so that I can help you learn. It's immediately clear that you don't understand the physics of classical mechanics and relativistic reference frames, let alone quantum wave theory, but you believe that you have some knowledge about them. That's not condescending, and there's no particular reason that you have to, or should know about this science, but you really should listen to people who do instead of contriving some sort of "argument" about it.