TGIF Wild Card — 12.11.09

36 comments on this post so far. Add yours!

• 

  Phaedrus on December 11 at 10:38 a.m.

  Huckleberries is on pace to hit 2 million page-views by Wednesday or Thursday of next week.

  Do you really think that you’ll have that many Palin threads between now and then ?
  ;-)

• 

  DFO on December 11 at 10:42 a.m.

  @ Phaedrus re: “Do you really think that you’ll have that many Palin threads between now and then?”

  Goodness, Phaedrus, thanx for the head’s up. I was planning to cut down on the Palin threads. But now I’m not sure. How many more Palin threads do you think I need between now and the end of the year to ensure that I hit the big 2-000-000 — 4, 4, 6 per day? ;-)

• 

  Phaedrus on December 11 at 10:53 a.m.

  At least 4 per day. Maybe MamaJD can help you out with some inside info and pics?

• 

  DFO on December 11 at 11:10 a.m.

  Ah … um … Phaed … MamaJD did provide one more photo from the Palin book signing in Sandpoint. BTW, would you like to do a book review of “Going Rogue” for me — just in case Katie Couric asks you sometime in the near future about the books you’ve been reading? ;-)

• 

  Phaedrus on December 11 at 11:21 a.m.

  would you like to do a book review of “Going Rogue” for me —dfo

  I tried, but my eyes started bleeding.

• 

  Sisyphus on December 11 at 12:10 p.m.

  Here’s a really good big picture assessment of what scientists know and don’t know on climate change.

  http://solveclimate.com/blog/20091211/big-picture-what-scientists-do-and-do-not-know-about-climate-change

  Earth’s history tells us that the leading driver of climate change is the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Not the only driver, but the leading one. It also reveals that climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide is possibly much higher than discussed in policy-making circles. About five million years ago, carbon dioxide was as high or only slightly higher than 2009 values, and Earth reached temperatures 4 degrees Celsius warmer than now, with sea levels tens of meters higher. The present-day location of Yale University was underwater.

  Many lines of evidence and study tell us about the effects of carbon dioxide release. In the past, large increases in carbon dioxide corresponded to major warming events. It is unwise to think that today’s increase in carbon dioxide will, for some reason, produce a different outcome.

• 

  redman on December 11 at 1:23 p.m.

  thank Sarah Palin and all the Palin fans on this site.

• 

  Bent on December 11 at 1:32 p.m.

  Sis, you are just trying to get the page hits up aren’t you… Is DFO paying you?

  “Earth’s history tells us that the leading driver of climate change is the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide.” — this is possibly the most contentious statement among most of the Global Warming skeptics.

  Sis, when you find an article on those green blogs that addresses Carl Sagan’s PROVEN “Faint Young Sun Paradox” and the PROVEN “mid-evil warming period,” both of which defy that statement, then I’ll give it some credibility…

• 

  TerryHarris on December 11 at 2:09 p.m.

  @bent The “green” National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has this to say about your Medieval Warm Period

  http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/medieval.html

  The “green” National Academy of Sciences has this paper from UCSD regarding your Faint Sun paradox.

  http://www.pnas.org/content/106/35/14784.abstract

• 

  Sisyphus on December 11 at 2:11 p.m.

  Oh now Bent, I’ll continue to listen to scientists regarding global warming rather than conservatives with an axe to grind. Or a lobbyist with a motive. ;-)

• 

  redman on December 11 at 3:33 p.m.

  Sis, scientists have axes to grind and funding to get…you know that

• 

  JeanC on December 11 at 5:07 p.m.

  “Do you hear what I hear” should NOT be done as a hip hop song!!!!!!

  GRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!!!!

• 

  Digger on December 11 at 5:25 p.m.

  So I’ve been thinking alot latley about my involvement in HBO. I’ve been a part of this blog since its inception and was on DFO’s list of early “regulars” who he would rely on for feedback on how he was doing. I used to think I was a somewhat respected authority on HBO History and my comments held some weight.

  I’ve realized that is no longer true.

  Someone recently made a comment about “Why would you post this online?!” The answer is simple. HBO has never been “online” for me.

  HBO has been a web home, a civil place where we had some comradare between posters and we were friends. As Cis once put it, paraphrasing… “like the group of guys who get together for coffee in the morning.” Everyone has an opinion and there is a livley discussion.

  So I’ve always thought of HBO as my “coffee shop” or, after hours, my “bar”… where I sit back, have a couple beers and review the events of the day on HBO.

  I do not feel that HBO is any longer that place. I have put myself out there, been honest, open and frank with my opinions for everyone to see.

  Which has backfired on more than one occation.

  And I can’t trust HBO anymore because all it takes is for a commenter to go nuts and level the guns at me and all hell breaks loose. (Its happened here before with someone else, it can happen again.) Quite frankly, some of you know more about me than I’m comfortable with - details that I haven’t shared on HBO or in my print column.

  So, with deep frustration I will be ceasing to post on HBO. As much as this has been my “web home” for the past almost 6 years, it is no longer.

  So I bid adeau to you, my fellow HBO-ers. Hope you all have a great time without me.

  Cheers -
  Digger

• 

  hhuseland on December 11 at 7:03 p.m.

  I personally feel bad that Digger has made this choice. He is a fine young man that is articulate, but unfortunately, as I have learned, this society has become a verbal lynch mob. I had just tonight someone that picked up my comments on teabagging probably off of Google. He ranted and raved about how us conservatives have it coming after all of the jokes, etc, about Obama and now it was out turn. The flaw in his argument is that I have never posted anything derogatory about the current president. My feeling about that is that he is making his own bed, so to speak and will sink or swim on how fast he learns the reality of governing. I do not pick on him in print, yet many of his supporters assume that because I’m not flagrantly ultra liberal, that I must be undercutting the administration somehow. False. I preach for considerate behavior and at least middle of the road moral standards. I do not hurl insults at anyone, other that when Spencer attempted to slander our fire shief, and even then I only spoke to the facts.

  The bottom line is that (speaking of bottom) The bottom feeders that misuse their intellect for sarcasm and insults, need to take one more class in college. Civility. You were a valuable contributor to the blogesphere, Digger, and I hope you stay in touch. Dial up Bayviews once in a while and don’t be afraid to comment on my blog. I don’t allow the shrill online defecaters to comment here.

• 

  spokelooneh on December 11 at 8:46 p.m.

  Young Hank runs off blaming others for his self-created drama on this blog, in a classic “Checkers speech” fashion. How utterly predictable.

  Here’s hoping Hank has a serious “come to Jesus” reckoning with his conservative leanings and all those cons who would throw him under the bus in a heartbeat for his “lifestyle choice”.

  Good luck with that Hank, you’ll need it.

• 

  Bent on December 11 at 10:15 p.m.

  Digger, never say never, man… and keep in mind burned bridges serve no one… Take a break, enjoy the holidays and when you come out the other side, maybe things will look different…

• 

  Bent on December 11 at 10:41 p.m.

  ” Oh now Bent…” — Sis

  Lol…BTW, I totally respect your opinion on the Brannon challenge. I find it intriguing… keep that up ;-)

  @Terry Harris. Man… where do I start??? You post a link to the IPCC AR4 Report to refute the Mid-Evil warming period??? Seriously???

  At the risk of going Godwin on this thread, that post is like linking to the Aryan Nation’s website to prove the holocaust didn’t exists.

  The skeptics refute the IPCC AR4 report’s assertion that the mid-evil warming period didn’t exists. They say tree data and historical record prove it existed, but the UEA/NASA/NOAA have contiually refused to provide the raw data to prove it didn’t.

  That is the simplest way I can put it for you right now… Man, you really need to catch up on this stuff…

  BTW, what the heck is that blurb you posted on the young faint moon paradox??? what the heck is that supposed to mean man…Really??? Care to explain what you are trying to say with that post???

• 

  spokelooneh on December 12 at 12:13 a.m.

  I think the argument about the Medieval Warming Period is moot, and that more recent (150 years back) climate data is far more relevant to the topic.

  “young faint moon”, Bent? Do tell!

• 

  JIMMYMAC on December 12 at 1:01 a.m.

  I’ve always been a fan of HBO, always will be. I’ve taken the stance on not commenting as much on the hot topics as it’s the same back and forth every time. The outspoken posters can play that serve and volley all they want. That is totally fine and I applaud them for doing so, I just don’t see that I am going to change anyone’s minds and vice versa. Me, I stick to the sports comments. It’s good natured and I feel like I have more to add to the discussion and nobody gets their feelings hurt. I’ve also been overwhelmingly buried in my job over the past year, thankfully so, and it’s not as fun to post on those topics unless you can ride it out and respond back and forth. Also, by the time I’m ready to engage in the wee hours, I don’t have enough night owls around to participate with.
  I’m saddened to see Digger’s post. Like his views or not, he is and alwasy has been a very engaging person on here and I would be sad to see him go. Do I agree with everything he writes? No. Do I disagree with everything he posts? No. It would be scary to find someone you agree with 100% of the time. I like everyone here because I think you all have good hearts and are passionate people. Some I may disagree with on politics, the weather, music, sports, etc but I’d gladly help you out if you were in trouble. I think it’s positive that we all keep that in perspective as I suspect you all are the same way.
  DFO, keep up the good fight.
  Warm regards,
  JIMMYMAC

• 

  JBelle on December 12 at 7:40 a.m.

  JIMMYMAC,

  Warm regards,
  JBelle

• 

  JBelle on December 12 at 7:44 a.m.

  And Digger,
  because I know you are out there,

  DFO originally developed his technique and expertise in the delete function here on HBO in taking out mean, perjorative and suggestive comments directed at me. Dude. You have no idea. Why not sit on the fence for awhile? Herb’ll bring you a beer and I’ll go round up some chips. I like barbecue? Do you like barbecue?

• 

  Stickman on December 12 at 10:00 a.m.

  Good luck in whatever you do Digger. As I have met you and have always liked you, it’s sad to read your post. If this is to be, you know where I live and hopefully someday when you are in these parts you will come to visit. As JBelle mentioned, sitting on the fence might give you a little break. I have done that myself and it worked somewhat.

• 

  Bent on December 12 at 10:04 a.m.

  Heck I know how to BBQ… just sayin’

  @Spoke, “young faint sun paradox” excuse me for the brain cramp…

• 

  Bent on December 12 at 11:04 a.m.

  This is a great quote: “Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.” – George Orwell, 1984

  Seriously Spoke, the midevil warming period is not relevant to this discussion??? Is that just because you have made up your mind???

  Yep , sure, let’s just ignore hard proven science and replace it with an ever-weakining global warming theory… Below is a exerpt from pretty good piece on this subject:

  “Climate scientists want to eliminate contradictions

  Until about the mid-90s of last century the Medieval Warm Period was for climate researchers an undisputed fact. Therefore in the first progress report of the IPCC from 1990 on page 202, there was the graphics 7c [12], in which the Medieval Warm Period was portrayed as clearly warmer than the present. However, the existence of this warm period became quickly a thorn in the side for the scientists responsible. When in 12th century without human influence the climate has been even warmer than at the height of industrialization, why should the current warming have non-natural causes? ”

  http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/29/the-medieval-warm-period-a-global-phenonmena-unprecedented-warming-or-unprecedented-data-manipulation/

  So, Spoke, the Vikings are sipping Mia-Tais and tanning on the beaches of Greenland between 800-1200 AD and last I checked the smoke stacks and automobiles were few and far between back then… how do you explain that??

  According to Michael Mann (climategate’s king of spades) and those “evily-hacked” emails …The only way to explain it is to make it go away.

  If you hide the warming period and then you ignore that the earth actually started cooling 11 years ago and publish a graph that shows catastrophic projections for gobal warming over the next two decades, well then you have Gobal Warming… then all you have to do is mix it all up in a big batch of koolaid and refuse to show anyone the recipe for your koolaid … and merely say “trust me have a drink, you’ll be fine…”

  Spoke, it is certainly you right to ingnore hard science in order to accept the questionable theories on global warming that match your ideoogy, but I don’t buy it…

  The warming alarmists have spent weeks trying to downplay, discredit and minimize the impact of these exposed emails. It isn’t working… The emails and history on this issue is clear.

  Unfortunately the outcome isn’t as clear…

  My position remains the same… these emails expose a trend in science that will forever cast doubt on this issue and for good reason. These emails show how arrogant idealists (who call themseleves scientists) will stop at nothing to get to their end game, they will lie, commit fraud and evade public scruitiny at all costs… and then use unethical and slanderous tactics in an attempt to discredit their skeptics.

  Almost 60% of the public believes this climate change rhetoric is over-hyped and unproven. You can count me in that group at least until the IPCC will allow traditional unencumbered peer review to be conducted on its work, which results in 100% replication — starting with ALL of the raw data, not the so-called “value-added” data.

• 

  Arch_Druid on December 12 at 11:43 a.m.

  Apparently, Digger had a lot more sensitivity to the criticisms because I shall make an assumption here, being that he is a friendly guy and never lacked in friends. Then suddenly he gets roughed up by people who choose to be offended over a comment and go after him with guns blazing.

  Would you guys STILL like to know why I can post here and return fire? Because I am not Digger. Unlike Digger, I’ve been through the wars. I wish him well.

• 

  TerryHarris on December 12 at 11:50 a.m.

  @Bent, I guess we’re just goign to disagree about the utility of the data used by, well, pretty much everyone. I suppose I’ll use the flip-side corollary of your argument and just say that until you can provide clean unadulterated data from a legitimate source that says otherwise, I’ll go with the vast majority of scientists on this one. As I said before, those emails are not causing glaciers to disappear in our lifetimes.

  And you were the one who asked about the faint sun paradox, so I posted the science that explains why it’s probably not so much a paradox after all. Basically the study says that at the time of the so-called paradox, much more sulfur was in the atmosphere according to geological records, which would account for the climatological effects.

  I’ll agree that the emails lead to legitimate skepticism about the motivations and behavior of the (relatively few) scientists involved. But the data remains the same. And so far, uncontroverted.

• 

  Arch_Druid on December 12 at 11:55 a.m.

  And one of the reasons for the faint sun and tons of sulfur had to do with a lot of volcanic activity. Just in case anyone would like to factor THAT in to the equation.

• 

  Bent on December 12 at 12:15 p.m.

  Good for you Terry, I wish I could allow myself to accept convienient theories over hard sceince…life would be so much easier that way…

• 

  OrangeTV on December 12 at 12:16 p.m.

  This place does have a rather acrid pong these days. A taint in the air. Ah well, it is what it is. Carry on. Happy holidays all, I shall return afterwards.

• 

  spokelooneh on December 12 at 11:06 p.m.

  “then you ignore that the earth actually started cooling 11 years ago “
  -Bent

  Um, no it didn’t. That’s absolutely false.

  Just as it absolutely false as you have promoted that scientists in the 60’s and 70’s were predicting a new ice age. The vast majority of scientific papers published during that time on the subject were neutral or pro-warming.

  If you’re going to continue to promote falsehoods, your opinion is completely tainted.

• 

  Bent on December 13 at 12:46 p.m.

  Hmmmmm. in the 70’s Newsweek front covers the looming ice age prediction, and you say it never happened…Hahahahah…

  Lo ‘effin L…

  It’s all documented Spoke…

  “If you’re going to continue to promote falsehoods, your opinion is completely tainted….” — Spoke

  You crack me up!!!!

  Yep, Spoke, I am pretty OK with my opinion being “tainted” by PROVEN science that was generated with documented and verifable facts that haven’t been destroyed… I know I will never convice you, but that’s OK, too…

  You just go ahead and keep the faith in those THEORIES of your’s that are based on destroyed data…

• 

  Stickman on December 13 at 3:39 p.m.

  Nice thoughts Orange, I agree.

• 

  hmoffsuite on December 13 at 3:55 p.m.

  Otv. If you check in here, I would like to let you know that I really enjoyed your music article in the paper this morning. Well done and of interest to me. I knew Charlie Ryan.

• 

  spokelooneh on December 13 at 7:15 p.m.

  Bent:

  “The graph shows the cumulative articles predicting cooling, warming, and those remaining neutral. During that time (60’s and 70’s), the survey counted a total of 7 papers expecting cooling, 19 neutral papers, and 42 for warming.

  So if warming outnumbered cooling 6 to 1, why were so many in the popular press talking about cooling?”

  http://cce.890m.com/a-new-ice-age/

  Just because Newsweek hyped a coming ice age does NOT mean science was saying so.

  You’re ill informed about what the SCIENTISTS of that era actually concluded.

  Try getting educated on the matter.

  Newsweek is NOT peer-reviewed scientific journal. By a margin of 6 to 1, the peer reviewed climate change studies done in the 60’s and 70’s indicated global WARMING was what they predicted and expected.

  Quit promoting the MYTH that science said the opposite.

• 

  Bent on December 14 at 6:49 a.m.

  “Quit promoting the MYTH that science said the opposite…” — Spoke

  Nope, you are right all of the sources in that article were probably made up (including some of the same leading climatologists who are claiming global warming now) …

  I’ll just go back an educate myself, but I’ll probably have to stop by your place for a glass koolaid first…

• 

  spokelooneh on December 14 at 10:21 a.m.

  Climatologists by a SIX to ONE margin were predicting global warming in the 60’s and 70’s.

  That SOME in the MEDIA were screaming about a new ice age is simply sensationalistic journalism that apparently many of the sheeple believed. Dupes.

« Back to Huckleberries Online

• ›Scanner traffic