Recent Comments

1. 2 minutes ago on Adult Children

   That reference reminded me of a cute rainy Sunday movie I watched decades ago, With Six You Get Eggroll

2. 19 minutes ago on Prickly City

   Such a great series with absolutely great writers producing great storylines in spite of them being overworked.

3. 22 minutes ago on Non Sequitur

   “Now, when you chant your spell against the “Deniers” to dispel away other studies and analysis of studies you don’t like, "

   Here’s the thing, and Limbaugh used to do it too to prove false conclusions, if one only looks at part of a data set, then all sorts of erroneous conclusions can be made. That was one of the issues mentioned in regards to one of your sources. Data should be all inclusive and not just that that fits your proposed hypothesis.

4. 30 minutes ago on Non Sequitur

   “Sad to think you are involved somehow at the NIH "

   More imaginative thinking on your part? As I have never said, typed, nor implied any connection with the NIH.

   “at the NIH (Where I once too spent time)”

   As was asked, doing what exactly?

5. 34 minutes ago on Non Sequitur

   " “The link got erased”? Really, you don’t know how to use the interwebs magical search engines?"

   I guess my comment above discussing the merits of your two “sources” was missed. And usually a search phrase requires a little bit more detail than what can be garnered from, "The amount o data is immense. I have spent decades reading and analyzing it. I am not your research monkey. Go read some.Here, I will sum it up for you: ". And then, in a reply claiming that there was actually something searchable in those five sentences, you post an obfuscated address as a search phrase? You are precious.

   And yet, all those words trying to make light and fun of me, in your own childish way and still no reply to my question, “But again, what exactly is your background in this or any field?”

   P.S. climatechagereconsidered.Org comes up as a site that is not secure and as such Opera can not reach it…imagine that. And as to your other source, I’ll quote, "Watts’s blog has been criticized for inaccuracy. The Guardian columnist George Monbiot described WUWT as “highly partisan and untrustworthy”." A blog, you have the audacity to post a blog to defend your opinions…WOW, just wow.

6. about 11 hours ago on Non Sequitur

   OMG, you can’t see the thermometer through the feces.

   “The amount o data is immense. I have spent decades reading and analyzing it.I am not your research monkey. Go read some.Here, I will sum it up for you: ( )”

   Your linky got erased, but considering the sources that you are fond of, I am sure that it doesn’t matter.

   “Climate change is a natural phenomenon and man plays no significant role in impacting the climate.”

   Proving that you can say that over and over and over again, but it still does not make it true. I would suggest that it is you that refuses to read and assimilate and analyze anything that exists outside of your comfort zone—that being anything that does not deny anthropomorphic climate change.

7. about 12 hours ago on Non Sequitur

   “But one can help someone find Faith in God.”

   Sorry sport, I only believe in the real world as it is far more dependable than any of those “mysterious ways” or “miracles” that all are merely a matter of happen chance good and bad luck. But I will say that I have no issues with those that need to believe because of the solace, community, or the feeling of supreme protection that religion gives those that need it. As Dave Allen use to say, all those years ago, when signing off on his comedy show, “May your god go with you.”

8. about 12 hours ago on Non Sequitur

   But again, what exactly is your background in this or any field?

9. about 12 hours ago on Non Sequitur

   “if you don’t want to read the work they do,”

   Hahaha, you are a funny sort, aren’t you.

   “But the climate Cultists refuse to read anything out of their Cult’s approved reading list.”

   Umm, hate to burst your bubble, but I prefer facts and figures—actual collected data, verses what someone “thinks” or presumes or is paid to say. It’s the scientist in me.

10. about 12 hours ago on Non Sequitur

    “You only pretend not to pray to anything. Your faith is in the secular religion of humanism and climate cultism.”

    You really need to look up the meaning of the words you use and realize that faith and scientific studies are at opposite ends of the spectrum—otherwise you will look like a fool bending the meaning of those words to paint an imaginary landscape.

    “Now, you don’t know ANYTHING about me either.”

    Au contraire, little one. I know what you have typed and from that make my judgments of your level of knowledge of man and his world.

    “But it doesn’t matter. Titles and status matter little compared to the truth.”

    Aww, but some of that does matter—ion fact it is crucial to critically analyzing what one hears and reads as it relates to the real world. I am not going to be willing to give credence to someone who pontificates about the power of pyramids and crystals verses someone who actually has a degree in any real scientific field. This reminds me of a young woman that went on and on about chem-trails and how they were effecting plant growth while claiming that she had “studied science that I would not believe”. She had the last part right, as I have studied extensively in Physics, Biology, Chemistry, Bio-Chemistry, Organic Chemistry, as well as a huge chunk of credits in Psychology; in other words, enough of a background to know when someone is blowing smoke and hoping the mirrors work. So, what exactly is your background?