Is The Honeymoon Ending?

The press has been easy on Obama since he decided to run for the White House. They treated him like royalty and protected him. They, in effect, became the media wing of his campaign and they remained his media after he was elected. Last week during his press conference he was grilled pretty good and he was on the defense. He was taken to task more than he had ever been. The thought at that time was that his numbers were dropping and the public is awakening to the fiasco that is his policies.

Today Press Secretary Gibbs was grilled over the Obama Town Hall meeting where the questions and the people are preselected or screened. Helen Thomas, of all people, was like a shark in the water. She stated:

“The point is the control from here. We have never had that in the White House. And we have had some control but not this control. I mean I’m amazed, I’m amazed at you people who call for openness and transparency and you have controlled…” veteran White House reporter Helen Thomas said Wednesday.

I am amazed that she would even say that the Obama White House is more controlling than the Bush White House. She said it when she said “…NEVER had that in the White House.”

It seems the media are beginning to go after him and are finally starting to do their jobs rather than be toadies who follow their master at the lectern. It is about time.

It was inevitable because the media eventually get around to being tough. They finally did it with Bill Clinton and they will do it with Obama. It seems that his failed policies and the lack of progress in the economy are beginning to take their toll.

It seems that maybe the media are also waking up to the idea that they helped elect a rookie who know not what he is doing.

Big Dog

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

Watch the video at Breitbart

Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

52 Responses to “Is The Honeymoon Ending?”

  1. […] link: Big Dogs House » Blog Archive » Is The Honeymoon Ending? […]

  2. Blake says:

    Some of that might happen, but when the government “bails out” some of the newspapers, his press will be more controllable- he will just call on the ones who are in the tank. That’s Chavez’ way, and with NBC the WH lapdog, and Jeffery Immelt licking Hussein’s boots, it’s going to be a long four years.
    This is worse than the Carter years.

  3. Darrel says:

    Bigd: “the public is awakening to the fiasco that is his policies.”>>

    They are? The first rule of critical thinking (and clear thinking) is realizing that wishing things does not make them so. Let’s check in with the public on some categories and see who is awakening to what. Let’s see who they trust.

    “Who do you trust to do a better job handling the threat of terrorism — (Obama) or the (Republicans in Congress)?

    Obama 55%

    Republicans in Congress 34%

    Washington Post/ABC News


    “[A] new Washington Post poll which asked respondents who they trust to handle health care, the economy, the budget deficit, and terrorism. On every issue, majorities of independents trust President Obama, while small minorities trust congressional Republicans.

    * On health care, 51% of indys trust Obama, and 26% trust GOPers in Congress.

    * On the economy, 51% of indys trust Obama, and 31% trust the GOP.

    * On the budget deficit, 52% of indys trust Obama, and 30% trust the GOP.

    * On terrorism, 53% of indys trust Obama, and 36% trust the GOP.


    You know what has really happened? The public has realized the fiasco that the republican policies represent, and they don’t want them any more.

    Whatever you’re doing Rush, FOX, Bigd, Blake, keep it up. It’s working. But not in the way you think!

    Michael Scheuer, on Glenn Beck’s show Wednesday, outlining the latest republican “hail mary” hope to save the country:

    Scheuer: “The only chance we have as a country right now is for Osama bin Laden to deploy and detonate a major weapon in the United States.”


    Wonder why republicans aren’t trusted on terrorism anymore?

    They love their ideology more than they love their country.

    Happy 4th.

    Congratulations Senator Franken.

    • Greg Robie says:

      “They love their ideology more than they love their country.”

      I find that critique, while a succinct sound bite, a bit disingenuous. How far can a society stray from the ideology of its founders before it is not the same country and render this comment obfuscation? Put quite another way, can a love/trust of those who share ones moral sensibilities, over time, allow the founding ideology of this country to be lost making a love of country an oxymoron?

      Correct me if I am wrong, but Big Dog and Blake seem to be federalists in the sense of the founders. They are arguing for a federal government that exercises the authority afforded it by the Constitution. Our existing government fails by this metric in at least four ways:

      — Its currency, as a fiat currency, is unconstitutional (and, by logical extension, the economy built on the US dollar as a reserve currency is also unconstitutional).

      — There are a bunch of presidential signing statements that were crafted to advance the unitary executive theory—an anti-federalist trend and a threat to the Constitution.

      — The 1886 Supreme Court decision affording corporations 14th amendment protection is as corrupting of the intent of the founders as was that Court. This egregious error requires redressing (not bailouts). Fascism, friendly or otherwise constitutes a treason—and the Constitution has something to say about that!

      — The separation clause (First Amendment) as been violated as “friendly” fascism has become the established “religion” (and this is in the emotional sense of the sensibilities of the founders). Fed by our unconstitutional fiat currency and fractional reserve banking, the Federal Reserve Note (a coinage of debt) has enabled a consumer credit bubble to inflate such that we now can be seen to be engaged in religious wars as to how best to recover it and continue the enslavement it is predicated on. And all, ironically, in the name of exercising/preserving freedom! Doesn’t the Constitution declare this “war” unconstitutional?

      If any of this makes any sense, I conclude fascism, starting with Nixion and extending through all the presidencies, including the current one needs to be exposed with both hard questions and reason shaped by the less confused thinking of our founders. They pledged their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor to oppose tyranny . . . while we invest and seek our security in it.

      • Blake says:

        Greg, this Fascism has gone back to Teddy Roosevelt and the “New Progressives”, and this has bee on both sides of the aisle. Wilson, FDR, Truman, all of them have slowly advanced this theory (now HERE theory is the correct word) that the government must take care of the people, and more government control is better than less control.
        What Dog and I have been arguing is for LESS government control in our lives.
        All anyone needs is for government to stay out of our way- provide the infrastructure for society, but little else, and the people will provide the energy to lift our country out of this morass.

        • Greg Robie says:

          I’ll bet some iteration of fascism (as in a melding of economic interests with tribal decision making) goes back as far as . . . well, the oldest profession (only it was better at staying in the shadows!)

          The “LESS” government thing is a paradoxical one. One thing history reveals is that the larger a civilization becomes, the bigger its government grows—until it collapses.

          The economy of our nation is now global and has grown based on leveraged indebtedness. Systemically, such becomes a ponzi scheme when it is not regulated. And if not, or to the degree it is not, welcome fascism (by whatever name ones wants to call it.

          Regardless, pursing security by promoting enslavement is an oxymoron. Doing so leads to another lesson that can be gleaned from history: the accumulation and redistribution of wealth. When freedom is confused with property ownership, eventually ownership is freed from the responsibility that goes with owning property. When taken to an extreme, as happened in the derivatives market, both the property and its freedom is lost.

          As an aside—and I appreciate the history of the theory you outline—I wonder what impact the fight for ratification of 19th Amendment and the change that made in the electorate has on the trend on the role of government?!?

          Regardless, and in the interest of less being better, is it better that the constitutional matters I have pointed out are things that are among the things that have been lessened?

        • Blake says:

          Greg- I was never in favor of “globalization” as such as it seems to lead to laws that are not in our interests, and as a nation, the laws should be as much in our interests as possible.
          Never relinquish control of your destiny, and we, as a country have done this when we went “global”- this is why the economy collapsed- we went global with the bundled securities, because we could. Absent that loophole, the banks and lending institutions wold not have lent as they did.
          It was the absence of risk on the part of banks.
          When you do not have a dog in the hunt, the hunt loses its importance.
          Less government is an important thing. It is true that the prime directive, if you will, of government, is to gain power, and limit freedoms, and this is why the eternal vigilance and also the main reason for the checks and balances that Hussein seeks to avoid by appointing “Czars” that answer to no one but the chief executive- not to Congress, not to the Supreme Court- to no one.

        • Blake says:

          The role of the nineteenth amendment was pivotal in the activism of the Democratic party, and although women want security, none of them want their child to go to war. This benefits the libs more than conservatives in the electorate, no doubt.
          As to security through voluntary enslavement, Samuel Adams had said that those who prefer the “tranquility of servitude” had best be prepared to ” crouch down and lick the hands which feed you.”
          There has been very little of this government, going back to the 1900s that has lessened in any form or fashion. Bureaucracy has a life of its own, and seeks its survival like a living thing. They never realize that bureaucracies are supposed to have a shelf life, not eternal life.

      • Darrel says:

        “Its currency, as a fiat currency, is unconstitutional”

        Fiat currency nuts are so lost, and so boring. Sorry, as with the “birther” issue, another category of loon I can’t take seriously. One has to have standards!


        • Greg Robie says:

          Hi Freethinker,

          If the standards one sets are to ride roughshod over the Constitution, doesn’t one have to at least be open to the possibility that the “standard” being protected is a means of avoiding what one is afraid of? In this case is it something to which one will pledge their life, fortune and sacred honor?

          Regardless, our fiat currency based on debt has enabled a bubble which, no matter how much additional paper is blown into it, is collapsed. Such is the nature of the periodic redistribution of wealth referenced in my last reply to Blake.

          And the dynamics of klimakatastrophe, which I am not yet sure how Dog and Blake feel can be undone short of massive government involvement (which I argue has to be one that aligns our greed with collapsing CO2e generation—that a Constitutional currency coined in CO@e credits can do) is THE crisis of our time if we care about anyone but ourselves. While I am sorry that I fit in your “boring” category, could you “bore” me with your solution to catastrophic global warming track our unmitigated pursuit of happiness/greed has gifted us with? Reference, if possible, what is in this report:


        • Darrel says:

          Greg: “our fiat currency based on debt has enabled a bubble which,…, is collapsed.”>>

          Not really. The dollar is holding well, and risen considerably against some currencies (Canadian for instance), and the stock market is 2,000 points above it’s earlier lows.

          Greg: “the dynamics of klimakatastrophe”>>

          I have no idea what you mean by using this term. Are you making fun of global warming or agreeing with it?

          GREG: ““bore” me with your solution to catastrophic global warming track…”>>

          Honestly, I haven’t spent much time on the issue of potential solutions to the problem. As I explained in a much earlier thread, I focus on the science and teaching basics to the deniers. It’s unfortunate that we have silly bunnies that are so opposed to the science, for political reasons, but… there it is. Ideology is a religion for many.

          For example, if this were the tobacco issue in the 1970’s I would be dealing with the stragglers who were still arguing that smoking doesn’t cause cancer. I tend to focus on issues that have good solid answers. I would leave it to others to pursue strategies for how to reduce the harm from smoking.

          If you can’t get people to admit there is a problem, it’s hard for them to understand that a solution is necessary.

          Ironically, the GW deniers ended up hiring, as PR hacks, some of the very same folks who used to lie, professionally, for the tobacco industry back when they used to deny the harms of tobacco.

          Greg: “what is in this report:”>>

          Yes, that’s solid stuff. That’s the science today. It’s material for grownups. My specialty is swatting down the silly denier stuff.

          Greg: “I am not yet sure how Dog and Blake feel… [about GW]…>>

          They are standard GW deniers. Sunspots, solar forcing, it’s “just a cycle,” not big deal, etc, etc.


        • Greg Robie says:


          Thanks for the clarification on the purpose of the posts made here. You may want to check out Drew Westen of Emery University and his work on Motivated Reasoning. It is something we all do, and at least I find it helpful to hold in my mind when dynamics appear to be as you say they are here.

          While my experience here is very limited, a fear of loosing ones wealth is certainly enough to explain the non-rational resolutions of contradictions I can see here. My sense of Dog and Blake, so far, is that they are well intended folk, and pretty smart guys.

          Another person’s work I would refer you to is Jonathan Haidt and his modeling regarding morality. Some of the “failure to communicate” I read in these threads can be explained by the differences that modeling point outs creates obstacles to communication.

          If you are following things closely, I may have answered you other questions in my last comment. Its getting late and I am going to call it a night. Anyway, as the Blog Title’s by line forewarns, Big Dog is always right! ;)

        • Darrel says:

          Greg, have you read the “about” link at the top of the page?

          Why don’t you have a look at that.


        • Blake says:

          I believe Greg is agreeing with global warming, and the reply I can only offer regarding this is that the bill of cap & tax will do nothing except burden the people of this country with ridiculous laws, which we do not need) while completely ignoring the fact that Chinese air becomes our air every two days, so where is the benefit, if the Chinese or Indians do not agree to the same laws? There is none- it just handcuffs us at a time when we cannot afford to be handcuffed, hobbling us with laws that enrich a few in and out of government, but making our lives harder.
          The “upside” is non existent, the “downside” extensive.

        • Blake says:

          Darrel, I do not believe anyone who truly cares about our country could disagree very much with what Dog and I believe- If you do, this is truly your right- We disagree, but it takes all kinds. You attempt to use this “about” link to show- What?
          What we believe in is not distasteful, except perhaps to a few, but I am sure you can deal with it.

        • Greg Robie says:

          A Good Morning Darrel, and a quick follow up—

          If you read and think about Haidts modeling regarding morality I think you could read the “about” statement differently. Liberals seem to have lost a sense of humor about themselves which does make them alternately funny/frightening/pathetic to people with a more complex moral system. Regardless, there are “inside” jokes on both ends of the moral spectrum that offense is often taken to by the other extreme . . . “and thats when the fight began” (to borrow a punch line from a joke about marital differences).

          For better or worse our Constitution marries us. As a dysfunctional marriage, together, we are letting our house and household fall apart. While fighting can be fun, doesn’t if just add to the dysfunction when it becomes and end in itself?

          Lets take klimakatastrophe as an example (a German, 2007 word-of-the-year term for all that follows—socially and environmentally—the passing the tipping points for runaway global warming). Lets set aside my contention that the fuse to the methane time bomb has been lit and we are past the tipping point and into positive feedback territory re: catastrophic global warming. Since you affirm the synthesis report, it reports—Key Message 3—as a threat, the setting of targets that are too low. ACES/W-M does this so it is a joke. A 1990 baseline is required, it set 2005 s a baseline. Thats is wrong.

          Adding insult to injury (and returning to my methane time bomb assertion), if you go to The Select Committee for Energy Independence and Global Warming web site and check out the last paragraph of its “Science Basics” page it is stated there that atmospheric methane has stabilized ( see ). Two things are wrong with this (besides it referencing a BBC 2006 report to authenticate this “science”). What did stabilize for a few years (and like for the reasons stated—and methane only lasting about 10 years in the atmosphere) is that it is a measurement that is a global average. If NOAA.s latest repot on atmospheric methane is referenced see ) the Committee is mistaken—and this makes me wonder if this is why ACES is such a bad global warming bill. Since I have twice contacted my congressperson, a member of the Committee concerning the error and it has remained, can one wonder if the error is intentionally misleading? If you consider how methane is distributed in the atmosphere of the planet—and look particularly at the Arctic (see —what is the strategic relevance of thinking about global averages?

          ACES does begin a process of moving the economy off a fossil carbon foundation. It is a jobs bill. But what does it do, in the context of the latest science and trends in that science, relative to global warming?

          Whether it is peak oil or ACES, and peak oil will come first, the economy is wrecked. I find it interesting that apparently both you, and Dog and Blake share different iterations of motivated reasoning relative to the economy. What is the difference between an argument that a 2000 point rebound from a low transforms that low to a floor, when the economy is global, its perception of wealth is coined in debt (for which the underlying creditworthiness is precipitously eroding), and the financial sector, but for rule changes, creative bookkeeping, and bailouts is insolvent (five banks collapsed last week, seven this week to total 52 this year—and last year the total for the year was 23, again with extra-ordinary/legal actions to slow the implosion of the sector), and trust that less government can fix an economic collapse that less government created? Is bit of self-effacing humor called for so we can really start to think different . . . and if that phrase makes you wonder, yes, I am a Mac user—to all you PC losers! ;)

          Attempts to inject humor aside, and considering the above regarding methane, how much motivated reasoning lies behind the “logic” of a lot of liberals/progressives who feel ACES is a meaningful first step for achieving a significant mitigative response to AGW? Relative to the motivated reasoning shaping the primary posts at this blog regarding AGW, systemically, is there much difference between what can be critiqued here, and this critiquing I am doing relative to ACES being a scientifically meaningful response to AGW? I don’t experience much difference. Given that dominate liberal/progressive iteration of motivated reasoning relates to a threat that is 90% certain, isn’t it far more destructive/ a threat to society?

          And isn’t confronting and overcoming liberals relative to such a socially destructive affect what Big Dog states he is about? While he may be perfecting his rightness relative to a 10% likelihood of being right in his current effort regarding the threat klimakatastrophe poses to this nation, he is, as far as I have seen, engaged, reasoned, civil, thoughtful, and tolerant in that process.

          The reason I asked for your plan to deal with global warming is that both cap and trade, and tax and rebate seem inadequate (though the latter may be is a less-bad strategy. If, as I posit, the economy has gone bust with the collapse of the consumer credit bubble, isn’t it rational to intentionally take it the rest of the way down so that, we sacrifice rather than lose our fortunes? To my way of thinking there is a world of difference between how one will feel, and thereby what one can think AND do, if one sacrifices ones economic security rather than getting stuck feeling disempowered and ripped off.

          OK, maybe that wasn’t such a quick comment! =)

        • Darrel says:

          GREG: “If NOAA.s latest repot on atmospheric methane is referenced see… [snip] the Committee is mistaken>>

          I strongly urge you to post your concern/question on a site like It’s a science site run by climatologists and does not deal with the politics, just the science (like me). Many times I have seen a question/concern posted, similar to yours, only to see a person who lives and breathes this stuff, gently correct you and give a cogent answer. No big deal.
          Sending a congressperson a concern like this would be useless. They don’t know anything about such things.

          Greg: “maybe that wasn’t such a quick comment!”

          No it wasn’t.


        • Greg Robie says:


          The Committee’s web site has the science wrong, thought not relative to the year the BBC new article they cite (2006). Back then the Arctic Ocean wasn’t going to have its melt off until what, 2070, 2100? At this point it will likely happen before 2020 and possible by 2012. Methane release from the Arctic (the methane time bomb) was perceived to be so unlikely that the 2007 IPCC report doesn’t factor it in. Reported at the ISCC, there are only 20 scientists studying atmospheric methane world-wide so our knowledge is limited while signals that a major positive feedback has been triggered is becoming obvious. This one is going to bit all of us, and it won’t matter what we have been calling one another, in the butt, big time.

          While I thank you for the suggestion (and I have made comments about this on Climate Progress without correction/explanation) I really don’t feel I have a question. I just see that the politicians have outdated science posted on their web site. If I am going to give them the benefit of the doubt relative to teh content of ACES, it looks like they stopped being flexible in their thinking and kicked into motivated reasoning in 2007 when professionally funded science (less Hansen) had a hopeful prognosis i.e. getting back to 1990 levels by 2050.

          That hope is rapidly becoming the stuff of fairly tales.

          As I said somewhere else (and, BTW, the thread organization here takes some getting used to if you are—as I am—more familiar with a sequential listing of comments) we all do motivated reasoning, and it can easily become the stuff of religious wars.

          quick or otherwise, last post for the day—seriously! ;)

        • Darrel says:

          Greg: “signals that a major positive [methane] feedback has been triggered is becoming obvious.”>>

          You may be right. My understanding is that there are still enough uncertainties as to when/how these tipping points will, or have been, reached. But I haven’t looked in a while.

          Greg: “I just see that the politicians have outdated science posted on their web site.>>

          I am not surprised. It is changing fast and the estimates are turning out to have been too conservative in many categories.

          Greg: “in 2007 when professionally funded science (less Hansen) had a hopeful prognosis i.e. getting back to 1990 levels by 2050.”>>

          I agree. This is why I don’t spend much time trading the opinions/speculations about what we can do. It’s rather depressing. And by the time the S hits the fan, most of these scientifically illiterate deniers, will be dead.

          Greg: That hope is rapidly becoming the stuff of fairly tales.>>

          You may be right.


        • Darrel says:

          GREG: “If you read and think about Haidts modeling regarding morality I think you could read the “about” statement differently. Liberals seem to have lost a sense of humor about themselves which does make them alternately funny/frightening/pathetic to people with a more complex moral system.”>>

          Spare me. I referred you to a link and provided no analysis, and from this you presume that I have no sense of humor? How is that not presumptuous?


    • Blake says:

      D- I see that Hussein’s numbers are going down- it is just a matter of time. I will let you know how that goat tasted- it’s very good with roasted Poblano peppers, and pico de gallo.

      • Darrel says:

        BLK: “I see that Hussein’s numbers are going down-“>>

        Good point. Maybe someday his average job approval numbers will be in the 50’s! Oh how will we go on with numbers like that?


        Wed May 21, 2008

        “Bush’s approval rating fell 4 percentage points to 23 percent, a record low for pollster John Zogby,…

        The number of Americans who believe the country is on the right track fell from 23 percent to an abysmal 16 percent, another record for pessimism, as uncertainty about the economy and rising gas prices fueled growing doubts about the future.”


        Oh, the good old days of republican rule eh?

  4. Obama thinks you’re stupid-
    he thinks everyone is as stupid as the people that voted for him.

    He makes the loosest, most general statements possible, to attempt to imply that Bush is responsible for all the rampant spending because it started under him.

    He lies and changes his story at-will on everything from his cabinet’s ethics to whether or not he ever met with Blago to discuss his senate seat, meanwhile the press is occupied with stories on his puppy vetting process and how Barack likes to play basketball.

    And Obama could care less if you catch him lying or flip-flopping too, he just changes the subject and moves right-on-along.

    Obama wants the state to be your mother and father- and it’s his right to lie to you if he wishes… just like your parents when you were five.

    Government will be one you come to for money, ask permission when you want to think or speak, and who handles all your finances for you since of course you can’t be trusted.

  5. Big Dog says:

    Darrel tries to “swat” down lies with his much better than ours sophistication that allows him to believe that the science of GW is settled when many scientists say it is not. There are plenty of reasons that the Earth warms and cools. It has done so for a long time and certainly long before man was here.

    Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, “There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth’s temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years.” Patterson asked the committee, “On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century’s modest warming?”

    Patterson concluded his testimony by explaining what his research and “hundreds of other studies” reveal: on all time scales, there is very good correlation between Earth’s temperature and natural celestial phenomena such changes in the brightness of the Sun.

    Canada Free Press

    Notice the CO2 levels then and the Earth was in an ice age.

    I believe that if there is a problem then we need to have reasonable solutions that will not waste money and will provide results.

    So far, the problem is poorly defined.

    • Darrel says:

      I roasted Tim Patterson’s junk back in 2006, when he was actually getting a little attention with his phony science, oil industry funded front group called “Friends of Science.”

      Canada’s premier newspaper, The Global and Mail did an incredibly through expose’ on these guys and their backdoor financing from Canada’s extensive oil industry (they’re out of Calgary).

      Read all about it here:

      As I already told you about this quack Patterson:

      His training is in Biology, and Geology. On climate change, on climatology, he has *NO* training and his head is up his arse and he is a prostitute/shill for deniers via the Friends_of_Science astro-turf group which I have written extensively about on our forum (they changed their name when busted for lying about their funding). He has no credibility whatsoever outside of his field of training, which has nothing to do with climate change. On GW he is a politically motivated, hack.

      What do the real experts think? Climatologists who actually have the training and do the work and science on this?


      “A new poll among 3,146 earth scientists found that 90 percent believe global warming is real, while 82 percent agree that human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures.

      The survey, conducted among researchers listed in the American Geological Institute’s Directory of Geoscience Departments*, “found that climatologists who are active in research showed the strongest consensus on the causes of global warming, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role”.

      …Doran said wide support among climatologists does not come as a surprise.

      “They’re the ones who study and publish on climate science. So I guess the take-home message is, the more you know about the field of climate science, the more you’re likely to believe in global warming and humankind’s contribution to it.”

      Writing in the publication Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union, Doran and Zimmerman conclude, “the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes.”


      You, Bigd, don’t know squat about this. That’s clear. You don’t even know what the word “theory” means in science. You don’t even believe in evolution, the foundation of modern biology.
      Why should anyone take *your* opinion, or the cut and paste opinions of these other politically motivated non-experts, over those who are actually experts trained in this field of climatology?



      Give me a reason.


      • Blake says:

        Talk about cut and paste, D- you are the undisputed king of that, this is true. You really should get out more- those goats of yours are feeding you falsehoods.
        Go ahead- feel morally superior- that’s ok- I am not threatened in the slightest. A swollen ego only hurts the one with the ego, as it prohibits reason and logic from intruding.

  6. Big Dog says:

    We have been through this. 97% of climatologists involved in research (those likely to make their living of research money) agree with GW.

    But what you are saying is that any scientist who is not a climate scientist cannot weigh in (unless he agrees then you say his training does not matter) because only climate scientists know the truth.

    But you will believe Al Gore who has no training because he happens to agree so his training does not matter. A guy like me who has as much training as Al Gore who does not believe, well I am all wrong because I happen to be skeptical of the cult (not science) of GW.


    • Darrel says:

      Let’s try again:

      Why should anyone take *your* opinion, or the cut and paste opinions of these other politically motivated non-experts, over those who are actually experts trained in this field of climatology?

      Why? Explain. Give me a reason.

      Now you try to float that maybe all of these climatologists are conspiring for research money. Spare me.

      Then you attack the messenger and complain that Al Gore, a person delivering the message confirmed by the scientists, hasn’t himself personally been trained in the field. But he’s never claimed to be nor does he appeal to any research of his. He’s just reporting the solid science, produced by the experts. That’s what I do.

      I asked you to give the peer-reviewed science from your side. You can’t do it because you’ve got jack.


      “Naomi Oreskes of the Department of History and Science Studies Program at the University of California analyzed 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals on the subject of climate change. The result? Not a single one rejected “the idea of man-made climate interference.”

      You can read the results of her test in this short article here:

      That was in 2004. The consensus and the science, has only grown stronger since then.

      BIGD: “any scientist who is not a climate scientist cannot weigh in…>>

      They can weigh in, but their uneducated opinion is not going to trump the case made by those who know the subject better. The only reason you can’t see this and are acting irrationally?

      Politics, ideology and scientific ignorance.

      “…the more you know about the field of climate science, the more you’re likely to believe in global warming and humankind’s contribution to it.” –ibid

      • Blake says:

        I do not generalize with calling something GW, or whatever you are choosing to call it, and I feel that many of the scientists are wrong; and if they are wrong about their causes and effects, how can they then be relied on to provide the corrective measures you want them to make?
        All these scientists have a “dog in the hunt”, and so give the answers they think will enrich themselves- at least that is the perception.
        I do know that today’s air in China is ours to breathe in two days, so what’s up with the onerous air restriction? It might make a difference if you could get China to sign on, but they give lip service and move on down the road- so does India.

        • Darrel says:

          BLK: “it might make a difference if you could get China to sign on, but they give lip service and move on down the road- so does India.”>>

          Not so. Observe:

          Looking at China’s immense deserts from an airplane, you would not imagine they could be productive. What they produce is wind, lots of wind. And China is harvesting the wind. China is on the verge of passing the United States as the world’s largest market for wind turbines. The wind power capacity of China has doubled every year for four years.”

  7. Big Dog says:

    Sending a congressperson a concern like this would be useless. They don’t know anything about such things.

    And yet we let them write the laws regulating it…

    • Darrel says:

      Who should write the laws Bigd?

      I don’t expect a congress person to have the knowledge of a scientist or climatologist. Greg has a science question, he should ask a scientist, climatologist, expert. If/when his concern is confirmed, then contact the congress person.

      How is this not *really* obvious?


      • Greg Robie says:

        I am much more cynical/realistic regarding the systemic dynamics of our soon-to-be-formerly “friendly” fascism. I experience it to be a better way to ask this question by considering who does write/rewrite the legislation. In the case of ACES, it seems to be Wall Street, the fossil fuel industry, and corporate agriculture. Regardless, what is assured is that is was not the science. If I understand Dog and Blake correctly, the professionals they trust and depend on to shore up their iteration of motivated reasoning, such would not write any legislation. What was written does not measure up to what the IPCC/ISCC reports explain is necessary, and the marketing of ACES as a postage-stamp-a-day cost in 2020 both a ruse and another iteration of motivated reasoning.

        Regardless, what congresspersons know is that given who the electorate is—and how they (dis)function, one needs a whole bunch of cash to get reelected. Again, for-profit corporate citizens hold all the trump cards in the current fascist gaming of the system.

        With AGW being a 90% certainty, we need a new electorate if we are to have less government—and self-destruct in an orderly fashion via a redressing of the four Constitutional crises I’ve outlined above (see ). While I appreciate the trust Darrel holds in the public implementing science-based answers, that, to me is another example of motivated reasoning. Books of such answers are published continually. Some are updated annually. And to what purpose?

        In general, men do try to think and act rationally. What motivated reasoning studies are showing is that if we have elevated emotions regarding a subject, there is a good probability that we aren’t doing what we are trying to do. Rather, we feeling we have thought something through while we have only deluded ourselves by thinking this is so thanks to dopemine—or so the fMRIs used to study the phenomena reveal. Going back to my inquiry relative to the changes in government the 19th Amendment effected. In my experience the *generally* more intuitive gender of the species does not place much value in facts/science and they constitute 51% of the population. Put these two dynamics together and the result is a dysfunctional dysfunctioning polity that is better at creating chaos than order–or at least so, as a microcosm of this dynamic, most of our marriages would suggest. I think the phrase I am going to use was the title of the humor section of “Boy’s Life”: grin and bear it! =)

        • Darrel says:

          Greg: “While I appreciate the trust Darrel holds in the public implementing science-based answers,”>>

          I have said nothing about “science-based answers.” In fact I specifically said I do not address the topic of potential answers, for the reasons I already gave.


    • Darrel says:

      Oh, and Greg is citing the Synthesis Report of the Copenhagen Climate Congress.

      Realclimate notes:

      “This is a peer-reviewed document authored by 12 leading scientists and “based on the 16 plenary talks given at the Congress as well as input of over 80 chairs and co-chairs of the 58 parallel sessions held at the Congress.”

      So this is how Congress, attempts, to keep itself informed about this and other issues. They asked to be informed about the best science by the best scientists. Seems reasonable. I’m not sure what else they are supposed to do.


  8. Big Dog says:

    Because Congress writes laws by listening to the scientists who agree with what they want to do.

    As I told Sav, the 97% is only of climatologists in research. Not of ALL climatologists and that is a big distinction.

    I look at the science and there are plenty of peer reviewed opinions. What peer review is done with regard to what you like except to allow other people with like minds to agree?

    I have a degree in a field of science so it is not like I don’t understand science. I also understand risk analysis, and cost benefit analysis.

    We are looking to overspend on a problem that even these scientists say will have just a little impact.

    Like I said, we had 10 times as much CO2 450 million years ago and it was an ice age.

    Obviously CO2 is not going to make us hotter.

    • Darrel says:

      Bigd: 97% is only of climatologists in research.”>>

      Right! And what do they know? They are only climatologists doing the research! I think we should ask nurses, biologists and economists what they think.

      Bigd: Not of ALL climatologists and that is a big distinction.>>

      Why is that “a big distinction?” When you have a 97% or even 90% consensus, how is that not a profound consensus?

      BIGD: I look at the science and there are plenty of peer reviewed opinions.>>

      Right, and almost without exception, they agree with me, and disagree with you.

      You know how you become a bigshot in science? Write a persuasive paper debunking the mainstream position. When is a denier, with the proper qualifications, going to do that?

      BIGD: I have a degree in a field of science so it is not like I don’t understand science.>>

      We found out your depth of knowledge regarding science when you revealed you didn’t understand that in science the word “theory” is not at all incompatible with “fact.” Not believing in evolution, puts your understanding of science, at least 130 years out of date.

      BIGD: I also understand risk analysis, and cost benefit analysis.>>

      Then you should have no trouble understanding that I, through my insurance premium, am paying for Blake’s risk of getting sick/hurt in excess of his net worth. These freeloaders on the system cost me about $900 a year.

      Bigd: “these scientists say will have just a little impact.”>>

      Estimates about the amount of impact in the future are of course debatable. No one knows for sure. But you, with your list of excuses, seem to want to pretend there is no impact. The scientific consensus is decidedly against you.

      Bigd: “Like I said, we had 10 times as much CO2 450 million years ago and it was an ice age.>>

      You also said it was cooler in the early part of the last century. A complete howler which once again revealed that you don’t know your bum from your elbow on this issue.

      Bigd: Obviously CO2 is not going to make us hotter.>>

      Ditto my above about elbows and bums.

      Where would anyone get the idea that C02 has any relation to warming? That chart goes back 425k years.

      Our understanding of the atmosphere and temperature decreases the further we go back. The chart above goes back over 400k and shows an undeniable correlation, and during much more comparatively, modern times.

      If you want to talk about the order of events and lag factors, do so.

      • Blake says:

        OOOh- I am costing you 900 dollars a year? Well then, what am I doing paying for my own way? You are beyond ridiculous- I do not know how you even have the brain power to draw a breath without mechanical aid, D- I pay my own way, although I will be glad to send you my bill, if you truly wish to “prove” that claim.
        Nope you are carrying other people, not me.

        • Darrel says:

          BLK: “I am costing you 900 dollars a year?>>

          Yes. Precisely. You, and your ilk.

          BLK: “Well then, what am I doing paying for my own way?”>>

          You don’t pay your own way, you don’t pay for your risk. That costs money, and you don’t pay it. Others (like me) do. Every month.

          I am sorry that you can’t understand what I said above:

          “I, through my insurance premium, am paying for [YOUR] risk of getting sick/hurt in excess of [YOUR] net worth.”

          “…the uninsured received $42.7 billion in care in 2008 that wasn’t paid for either out of pocket or by other private or public funds. A study by the Kaiser Family Foundation found a slightly higher amount of uncompensated care. KFF found that those who are uninsured for at least part of the year receive $84.3 billion in care during the time they are uninsured, $30 billion of which is paid for out of pocket, leaving $54.3 billion uncompensated.”


          You’re welcome.

  9. Blake says:

    I don’t know- especially after an evening’s heavy discussion, Is it just me, or who’s up for a Steel Cage Deathmatch between Helen Thomas and Joe Gibbs?
    My money’s on Helen.
    Happy Fourth of July!

  10. Big Dog says:

    I happen to understand the meaning of the word theory and how it is used in science. I also understand that some things still referred to as theories have long been proven, some have yet to be.

    Darrel, if 97$ of climatologists working for oil companies disagreed with GW would you give them credit or dismiss them because of where they work?

    97% of people who continue to get money based on research agree. I am skeptical when people get research money based on their answers. It motivates them to keep working for the money rather than the correct answers.

    • Darrel says:

      BIGD: “…if 97$ of climatologists working for oil companies disagreed with GW would you give them credit or dismiss them because of where they work?>>

      Why would climatologists be working for oil companies? Source of funding is something to consider, but come on, the agreement is overwhelming, the science is solid.

      Let me give you a little tip. You got nothing. Neither one of us are experts on this so we need to appeal to experts, the best science, on this issue.

      Ninty-seven percent, give or take, of the people doing the research, doing the science on this issue, agree with me.

      This is a hill you cannot over come by appealing to a hundred or so of the same crackpot denier claims that were knocked down years ago and are nicely referenced, all in a row HERE.

      BIGD: “I am skeptical when people get research money based on their answers.”>>

      But you haven’t shown it has anything to do with “their answers.”

      So we are to believe, upon this conspiracy hypothesis, that if a climatologist (or a group of them), during the eight years of Bush rule (and six years of congressional control), wanted to get funding to do some really good science going against the tide of scientific consensus, Bush and the republicans in congress (and the billion dollar oil companies) *just could not find a way to get the money to them?*

      Really? That’s what you are asking us to believe? It’s not an idea I can take seriously.

      Complaints of “funding” bias ultimately devolve to the genetic fallacy. The cure is, look at the science, educate yourself, consider the arguments on both sides. I did that years ago, not giving a flip which side won. My love of the truth, and desire to have my beliefs be in accord with the truth, vastly exceed any interest in picking a horse in this race. If I thought your side was right I would be arguing for it and giving lectures debunking the “GW myth.” Our skeptic club loves to debunk the junk. But my studying of this issue has found just the opposite. Overwhelmingly I have found the denier material similar to what those who denied the tobacco/cancer link put out in the 60’s and 70’s. This shouldn’t be too surprising since they hired some of the exact, same, people.

      If you want to knock down the science, you have to have better arguments, better evidence, better peer reviewed science. Your side doesn’t have that. It doesn’t have anything close to that. That’s why they lost this argument, in the scientific realm, about 15 years ago (at least).

      But, as with the issue of evolution, the public will continue to be confused for some time. See below.

      “Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air: How ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobacco’s Tactics to “Manufacture Uncertainty” on Climate Change details how the oil company, like the tobacco industry in previous decades, has…”

      “…adopted the tobacco industry’s disinformation tactics, as well as some of the same organizations and personnel, to cloud the scientific understanding of climate change and delay action on the issue.”


  11. Big Dog says:

    Taguba was assigned to investigates prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib. He did not report torture then. He made the accusations after he was forced to retire.

    Is this the same McCaffrey who was accused of murdering Iraqis who had surrendered?

    According to an article written by Seymour Hersh published in 2000 The New Yorker, General McCaffrey committed war crimes during the Gulf War by having troops under his command kill retreating Iraqis after a ceasefire had been declared. Hersh’s article “quotes senior officers decrying the lack of discipline and proportionality in the McCaffrey-ordered attack.” One colonel told Hersh that it “made no sense for a defeated army to invite their own death. … It came across as shooting fish in a barrel. Everyone was incredulous.”

    • Darrel says:

      Bigd: “He made the accusations after he was forced to retire.>>

      Different thread but… you have it backwards. He thinks he was forced to retire *because* he made the accusations of prisoner abuse. Again:

      “Taguba himself believes his forced retirement was ordered by civilian Pentagon officials in retaliation for his report on abuse of prisoners.”

      Hersh is a quacky left winger that reports all sorts of unsourced claims that don’t pan out. I stopped paying attention to him when he said we were shortly going to attack Iran. He has been trying to recreate his “My Lai” home run for sometime. Note:

      “These charges had been made by Army personnel after the war and an Army investigation had cleared McCaffrey of any wrongdoing.”


      “ABC interviewed Major General John LeMoyne, who oversaw the Army investigation into the charges against McCaffrey. LeMoyne denies the incident occurred: “Nobody was killed. None, zero. Soldiers–the Iraqi soldiers were never shot at, ever, at that point. None of us, hundreds and hundreds of us ever saw a body. None of us.”


      Don’t like the message, blame the messenger.

      “Gen. Colin Powell,… described the Hersh article as “attempted character assassination on General McCaffrey,”…”

  12. Big Dog says:

    He made the torture accusations after he retired. He BELIEVES he was forced to retire because of a report on ABUSE which might be different than torture.

  13. Big Dog says:

    The wind the Chinese harness will not stop the lax standards and poisoning that continues in their manufacturing.

    Ask Ted Kennedy about harnessing wind. He does not want to do it if it obscures his view.


    • Darrel says:

      Bigd: “Ask Ted Kennedy about harnessing wind. He does not want to do it if it obscures his view.”>>

      Actually, I used to believe that until Adam pointed out, here, on June 11, that it was a rightwing lie. Now I don’t believe it anymore. You shouldn’t either. Best to update your disinfo, so to speak.

      The debunk:

      “Kennedy rejected suggestions that he doesn’t like the wind farm because it would be near his Cape home, and said the project probably wouldn’t be visible from the Kennedy compound. He said he’s against the project because it would create a range of environmental and navigational problems and would hurt tourism, one of the area’s key industries.

      The Cape Wind developers, he said, want to erect a sprawling, for-profit field of giant windmills on public, state-owned territory. Kennedy noted that the project was the beneficiary of more lenient regulations included in last year’s energy bill, which could have put it on a faster track to construction; therefore, a special deal was warranted to stop it.

      Ultimately, Kennedy said, Massachusetts and its governor should get to decide yes or no on the site for the farm, Kennedy said.

      ”We had an opportunity to right a wrong,” he said of the provision in the Coast Guard bill. ”The people who ought to be irate ought to be the citizens of Massachusetts. I don’t shrink from my advocacy for them. I welcome it. I’m going to continue to make sure that . . . a wealthy developer is not going to ride roughshod over the state’s interests.”


  14. Big Dog says:

    Right, and Kennedy would never say what is politically correct to save face:

    The campaign to stop the wind farms was started by Cape Cod merchants and wealthy landowners. It’s also opposed by almost every town government. Sen. Ted Kennedy, who has a home overlooking the proposed wind farm, also opposes the project. So does one of Martha’s Vineyard most famous residents, former CBS anchorman Walter Cronkite.

    “Our natural treasures should be off limits to industrialization, and Nantucket is one of those treasures,” says Cronkite. CBS

    And this from an op-ed by Robert Kennedy:

    In his op-ed, Kennedy contended that “[h]undreds of flashing lights to warn airplanes away from the turbines will steal the stars and nighttime views. The noise of the turbines will be audible onshore … [and] the project will damage the views from 16 historic sites and lighthouses on the cape and nearby islands.”

    He framed the debate as a clash between industry and wilderness: “[S]ome places should be off limits to any sort of industrial development. I wouldn’t build a wind farm in Yosemite National Park. Nor would I build one on Nantucket Sound … All of us need periodically to experience wilderness to renew our spirits and reconnect ourselves to the common history of our nation, humanity, and to God.” grist

    All the Kennedy’s are hypocrites…

    • Darrel says:

      He framed it between industry and “tourism.” Both make money, have interests and are important. A good legislator needs to balance the interests of both.

      You made your accusation against Ted, not Robert. Try to remember who you are trying to smear.

      Anyway, we’ll never know. Ted Kennedy makes a cogent argument for opposing this particular plan without any appeal to the aesthetics of his property. I see no reason to not take him at his word. This is just a rightwing smear that you can never show. It got a lot of play and I even bought into it until Alan called me on it.

      Personally, I think windmills are beautiful. They represent humans intelligently gathering energy.


  15. Big Dog says:

    You act as if one Kennedy does not speak for the rest. Kennedy worked behind the scenes to have this defeated because of the aesthetics.

    I know you have a hard time understanding when a politician says one thing and acts a different way but Kennedy opposed it because of where it was.

    Read this at

    I know you will make excuses but there is a reason Teddy worked behind the scenes to defeat it and there is a reason Robert was involved. What Uncle Teddy wants, the other Kennedys give him.

    • Darrel says:

      BIGD: “You act as if one Kennedy does not speak for the rest.>>

      Why would anyone assume that? That would be guilt (if you could show guilt) by association. A fallacy.

      BIGD: Kennedy worked behind the scenes to have this defeated because of the aesthetics.>>

      Yes, I know this is the claim. Show this. I don’t think you can.

      BIGD: Kennedy opposed it because of where it was.>>

      Show this. There are many potential reasons for opposing this and Ted Kennedy cites them. You have provided no reason for me not to take him at his word. You are making the charge and have the burden of backing it up.

      BIGD: Read this at>>

      I did. The rightie Libertarian Jacoby makes similar charges/claims but can’t back them up any better than you. He says Ted put a poison pill amendment in to kill the bill. I didn’t check that claim to see if it holds up but I don’t need to. Because killing the bill would be an action completely consistent with Ted saying he was against the windmills for other, substantive reasons, not related to whether they could be seen from his property.

      BIGD: I know you will make excuses but there is a reason Teddy worked behind the scenes to defeat it…>>

      Maybe he knew you guys would make up stories like this? He’s been around a long time. Okay, now show it was the reason you claim it was.

      I read your article, now read this much more fair article which shows there is a lot more nuance and competing interests being balanced here than your simplistic article lets on.

      “Storm Over Mass. Windmill Plan
      Plan For Nantucket Sound Wind Farm Raises Debate”