Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sioux Nation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (102680)	3/21/2007 1:12:51 PM
From: SiouxPal	Respond to of 361332

The Rude Pundit Proudly lowering the level of political discourse 3/21/2007 Bushie Gets Pissy: What is it with this White House and its punk-ass nicknames? Karl Rove is "Turd Blossom," Irve Lewis Libby is "Scooter," and now to be devoted to the President is to be a "loyal Bushie." Fuckin' Bushie? Man, there's a couple of bars in Baltimore where if you call someone "Bushie," you're leavin' with a face full of bottle glass shards. Sure, sure, the Rude Pundit has always thought of himself as something of a "loyal bushie," but that's only because he prefers women with some carpeting downstairs than shaved clean. "Bushies" just sounds like what H.W. calls the maid's children at the Kennebunkport compound when they're running around the croquet field. The head Bushie hisself had a public snit yesterday over the coming subpoenas of Karl Rove and Harriet Miers over the whole U.S. attorney clusterfuck of firings. After laying out his offer that Rove and Miers have tea and crumpets with a couple of members of Congress, sans oath, sans transcript, and with only limited lumps of sugar for the tea, the President unironically said, "[W]e will not go along with a partisan fishing expedition aimed at honorable public servants." Karl Rove and the word "honorable" belong together like a baby and a bucket of bleach. Indeed, it's about as dissonant as the sound a man might make if he slammed his dick in an unabridged dictionary. And then a midget jumped on the book. Bush, though, is gonna go to the mat for his Blossoming Turd and for Miers (although, considering how quickly Bush folded on her Supreme Court nomination, she oughta be thinking about how many ways one can say, "Fifth Amendment"). Not for Alberto Gonzales, though. That motherfucker's gonna testify in order "to explain how the decision was made and for what reasons." See, Bush isn't concerned about the firings: "I regret these resignations turned into such a public spectacle." Oh, shit, that's right. We keep forgetting that they're resignations. Asked-for resignations, but resignations nonetheless. After his pissy little statement of how he needs to get his way and anyone who doesn't agree with him is full of partisan shit, he was asked questions by reporters that ranged from stupid to idiotic. Here's one: "Mr. President, are you still completely convinced that the administration did not exert any political pressure in the firing of these attorneys?" How the fuck does one come up with that one? It's essentially, "So you're convinced you didn't do anything wrong after telling us you didn't do anything wrong?" Of course, Bush talks about the "precedent" of his aides talking to Congress, that he wouldn't receive honest opinions and advice, although isn't this whole thing about firing people whose opinions and advice (and actions) didn't jibe with predetermined policy? And Bush also has a concern about the lighting of his aides in a hearing situation: "if you haul somebody up in front of Congress and put them in oath and all the klieg lights and all the questioning, to me, it makes it very difficult for a President to get good advice." Yes, the klieg lights. Those goddamned klieg lights. When you're used to hovering in shadows, squatting in dark corners to hiss out your counsel, klieg lights might reveal the pasty, sweaty face of evil. Bush brought up those lights again (really) at the end of his appearance, being appalled at "the idea of dragging White House members up there to score political points, or to put the klieg lights out there..." It's like fucking, you know. If you think it should only be done with the lights off, it's because you don't want anyone to see the moles, the dry patches of skin, the hair in weird places. To fuck with the lights on is to say there's nothing to hide: here is the body, all glorious and grotesque at the same time. If the Bush administration were a lover, it'd fuck in the pitch black in order to hide the herpes scabs, warts, and tumors.

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (102680)	3/21/2007 1:14:39 PM
From: Wharf Rat	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 361332

18 Jul 2005 Scientists respond to Barton by Gavin Schmidt and Stefan Rahmstorf Many readers will be aware that three scientists (two of which are contributors to this site, Michael Mann and Ray Bradley) have received letters from Representative Joe Barton (Texas), Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee specifically requesting information about their work on the 'hockey stick' papers (Mann et al (1998) and Mann et al (1999)) as well as an enormous amount of irrelevant material not connected to these studies. Many in the scientific community would welcome any genuine interest in climate change from the committee, but the tone and content of these letters have alarmed many scientists and their professional organisations. In the words of Alan Leshner, CEO of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the Barton letters "give the impression of a search for some basis on which to discredit these particular scientists and findings, rather than a search for understanding." Other organisations and individual scientists have also expressed strong concerns: A statement from the EGU The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) A Nature editorial A letter from US scientists (including leading members of the NAS, a Nobel Prize winner and two of us (ES, GS)) A letter from the head of the National Academy of Sciences, and A commentary from Tom Crowley in EOS Other politicians, the House Committee on Science and Henry Waxman. The individual responses have now been delivered (and you can read them here): Response of Michael Mann Response of Ray Bradley Response of Malcolm Hughes These responses emphasise two main points that we have explained in great detail in earlier postings on this site: There is no case for casting doubt on the scientific value and integrity of the studies by Mann et al. - they have been replicated by other scientists, the data and the computer code are available in the public domain (including the actual fortran program used to implement the MBH98 procedure), and many other studies with different data and methods have confirmed the prime conclusion: that it is likely that the late 20th Century is the warmest period of at least the past one thousand years. The above studies are just one small piece of evidence in a very solid scientific case that humans are now altering the climate - and with or without this piece of evidence, this case is firm (see our post "What if the Hockey Stick were wrong?" or the commentary on Prometheus). The real question we are faced with is not whether humans are changing climate. The science on this is clear, and decades of research have culminated in a scientific consensus on this point. The real question now is what we need to do about it. A Congressional committee concerned with energy could be - and indeed should be - a key player in exploring policy options to deal with the global warming threat. We hope that after studying the responses by the scientists, they will make a start. realclimate.org