Comments on: Lord Monckton – Fact Check

By: Thraxxus

Thraxxus — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 14:13:20 +0000

Person of the Year (formerly Man of the Year) is an annual issue of the United States newsmagazine Time that features and profiles a man, woman, couple, group, idea, place, or machine that “for better or for worse, …has done the most to influence the events of the year.” is from the wiki.

I like my idea of changing the title, less confusion. Good find BayAreaDM.

By: Thraxxus

Thraxxus — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 14:11:54 +0000

I think the term implies positive energy – if it is not meant in that way, perhaps a change of the title is in in order. I’d bet if you took a consensus you’d find that most people think that title means that.

“The Person who has affected (infected) more people than anyone else this year be it directly or indirectly, for better or for worse.”

Does that make you happy?

By: BayAreaDM

BayAreaDM — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 01:16:57 +0000

Ummm…the designation as “Person of the Year” as never been a wholly positive or negative title. Check out the Wiki for the history of the title. In the context of how many people in the world he has affected, he has earned that title. But so has just about every “leader” in the field of finance.

By: scanjack

scanjack — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 15:41:41 +0000

So has anyone seen the data on the CO2, etc. emissions from volcano’s and thermal vents? Until someone puts that data into even one of the equations calculating human CO2, toxic gas contributions, I consider them all pretty much mute, null and void.

Oh, Hack the planet! http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126102247889095011.html?mod=yhoofront

and stop killing brown people!

By: scanjack

scanjack — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 15:53:44 +0000

I couldn’t agree more. Step 1 – Identify the problem.

Also I learned today that all of the Carbon Offset, financial commitment calculations and so forth, with the Copenhagen Treaty is based on each countries GDP. Here’s the joke: There IS NO STANDARD for calculating GDP’s across the board for all countries. IF I bought into this, and wanted to move forward, Step 1 would be: Consensus on GDP calculation.

By: carravaggio

carravaggio — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 15:38:48 +0000

Agreed. Agreed. Agreed.

Also, why are we awarding Bernake? Under his leadership the meltdown began.
Under his leadership he used the very rudimentary tool of spending our way out.
Now under his leadership we’ve debased the dollar and set ourselves up to default
on trillions.

Where do I turn-in my membership card from being embarrassed at our country?
Collectively, we’ve turned into a joke.

By: Thraxxus

Thraxxus — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 14:14:30 +0000

Bernanke is a tool. Perhaps Sears should have given him the “Tool of the Year” award.

By: Thraxxus

Thraxxus — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 14:14:05 +0000

Caravaggio – I like your thinking here – I think that it should be applied across the entire argument spectrum. Why does Al Gore only bring up a certain time frame and not talk about the environment over the epochs? Perhaps if REAL (not sure what that is any more) data was used and mapped over the life span of the world, we might see something.

I do know this: the world works on cycles. Look it up! When you heat things up, ice melts, more water enters the atmosphere, atmosphere cools, water freezes. Rinse repeat. Only an idiot would debate that. That said I think the real debate here is HOW that happens and at what rate. The simplifications, dramatizations, and over generalizations by all involved is actually disgusting to me. Everything appears to be agenda driven.

Step 1 – Identify the problem. I have yet to see that done.

By: scanjack

scanjack — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 13:53:34 +0000

I’m posting here as I find myself very close to speechless – Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke has been named Time magazine’s Person of the year. Well smack my ass, and call me a bitch! At least it’s a rag – sadly it has a fairly wide readership.

http://feeds.reuters.com/~r/reuters/topNews/~3/HLp20h-FLzo/idUSTRE5BF20920091216

By: caravaggio

caravaggio — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 23:31:01 +0000

Yee Lord Numbnuts spouts numbers without proper context which provide for a rather ambiguous (easy) justification of significance. I can, if properly empowered, extract information showing that eating boogers is a great way of reducing electric bills. However, the booger-eating research was undertaken for a very limited time upon a very narrow demographic stratum (note: this was a real experiment, at least the booger-eating part). To truly grasp the power of the lowly booger and its negative correlation to energy-use, proper research protocols mandate I take upon a more holistic observational stance. In metaphorical relationship to the primary debate topic, this stance should be from the first day of modern electrical service forward. Sir Littledong’s stance was predominantly data derived and arranged specific to the last decade only. Environmental data is slowly being qualified from a quantifiable degree (in some cases centuries and even millenia – as in tree and ice rings)

This is really an easy, binary problem set. If he is right, we wreck the world economy. If I am right, we die.

By: Thraxxus

Thraxxus — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 22:54:11 +0000

So are you saying that the numbers he spouted were incorrect? He was supposedly citing other experts’ findings, not his own.

By: scanjack

scanjack — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 22:52:09 +0000

LMFAO – Well said. I am glad that there is at least some truth peeking out, on both sides of the issue, from what would be a 2nd, 3rd world mass starvation death sentence with the original proposed Global Green Tax.

By: caravaggio

caravaggio — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 22:12:38 +0000

Thy Honorable Lord Monckton is geologically correct in his assertion that climate change has taken place for four billion years. Where the old chap goes off is his position (established within the first two questions to who seems to me as a rather daff lady) by asking why do we care now.

Well, Sir BeKnighted One, we care because billions (with a B) will perish… and not just the people that the Western world find so easy to forget (e.g.; everyone except us). Climate change (up or down and regardless of human causality) will enable catastropic change in food availability, water availability, pace and impact of viral transmission, animal kingdom extinction, plant kingdom extinction, and assorted other evil nasties.

So, although, his Highness is absolutely correct in his offered logical basis. He is gone quite mad in his calculation of consequence. Then the little evil twit did a math switch-a-roo on the stupid blonde who was obviously absent the day her school introduced the concept of statistical significance (’cause she has a “day job” and all – dumb bitch).

I’d like Lord Monckton to stick that bulbous microphone in my face with his snotty math riddles. He’d understand a tangible definition of “being buggered by an inanimate object” thereafter. In addition to a fully cited research bibliography etched on his forehead with the edge of my Kindle.

I’ve done the reading, you pompous English fomp. Leave red-scarved Northern European idiots, named Kristin Lowrick, alone. Pick on me next time, Lord Dingleberry Meanie.