Roy Mark Blog - marksremarks's Blog

Roy Mark Blog - marksremarks's Blog - Victoria Advocate http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/marksremarks Politics and the human race Politics and the human race en-us THE SKY'S NOT FALLING THE SKY'S NOT FALLIN G http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/marksremarks/7482 http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/marksremarks/7482 <div><span style="COLOR: black">The claim that we need to clamp down CO2 generation to save the planet relies on three alleged statements of fact:<br /> <br /> 1) The earth is warming;<br /> 2) Man caused it; and<br /> 3) We can do something about it.<br /> <br /> Of the three, until recently only the first item was truly not debatable. Today, ALL of them are debatable.<br /> <br /> In the first place, global temperature readings have shown no warming at all since 1998, and temperatures plunged in 2007.<br /> <br /> In the second place, the alleged warming in the 1990s was almost certainly the result of the loss of the Soviet Union's temperature stations. The Soviets provided a huge percentage of the world's cold-weather readings, and when the Soviet Union collapsed, they stopped reporting. It would be like measuring average height in an elementary school over several years, and the school stopped serving Kindergarten and 1st grade halfway through the study.<br /> <br /> In the third place, temperatures were artificially inflated due to a Y2K error, making the 21st century seem hotter than it was.<br /> <br /> In the fourth place, urban encroachment has introduced a hot-side bias into US temperature readings sufficient to explain ALL of the warming of the 20th century.<br /> <br /> Summary: global warming may not even exist.</span></div> <div></div> <div></div> <div>Roy Mark </div> <div style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"> </div> Hurricane study puts less blame on global warming http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/marksremarks/7467 http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/marksremarks/7467 <div><strong><span style="FONT-SIZE: 7.5pt"><font color="#ef4d15">May 18, 2008, 11:13PM</font></span><span style="FONT-SIZE: 7.5pt; COLOR: #ef4d15"><br /> </span><strong><span style="FONT-SIZE: 16pt">Hurricane study puts less blame on global warming</span></strong></strong></div> <div style="MARGIN: auto 0in"><strong><span style="FONT-SIZE: 7pt">By ERIC BERGER<br /> </span><span style="FONT-SIZE: 8.5pt">Copyright 2008 Houston Chronicle </span></strong></div> <div style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><strong><span style="FONT-SIZE: 7.5pt; TEXT-TRANSFORM: uppercase; COLOR: white">RESOURCES</span></strong></div> <div style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><strong><span style="FONT-SIZE: 9pt">STORM SIMULATION </span></strong></div> <div style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="FONT-SIZE: 9pt"><br /> Scientists recently simulated 21st century Atlantic hurricane activity in a warming world. What they found: </span></div> <div style="MARGIN: 12pt 0in"><span style="FONT-SIZE: 9pt">• <strong>27 percent </strong>fewer tropical storms formed </span></div> <div style="MARGIN: 12pt 0in"><span style="FONT-SIZE: 9pt">• <strong>18 percent </strong>fewer hurricanes formed </span></div> <div style="MARGIN: 12pt 0in"><span style="FONT-SIZE: 9pt">• <strong>8 percent </strong>fewer major hurricanes formed (Category 3 and above) </span></div> <div style="MARGIN: 12pt 0in"><span style="FONT-SIZE: 9pt">• <strong>3 percent </strong>increase in storm maximum wind speed </span></div> <div style="MARGIN: 12pt 0in"><span style="FONT-SIZE: 9pt">• <strong>10 percent </strong>increase in average storm rainfall </span></div> <div style="MARGIN: 12pt 0in"><span style="FONT-SIZE: 9pt">Source: Nature Geoscience </span></div> <p style="MARGIN: 12pt 0in"><span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Cyclone Nargis recently made international headlines for dealing death and destruction to Myanmar.</span></p> <div style="MARGIN: 12pt 0in"><span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Yet unlike the immediate aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, global warming received little blame for the intensification of Nargis. That's possibly because, in the nearly three years since New Orleans flooded, the science of hurricanes and climate has matured.</span></div> <div style="MARGIN: 12pt 0in"><span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt">A new scientific paper authored by prominent National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration scientists, published this weekend, reinforces the changing landscape.</span></div> <div style="MARGIN: 12pt 0in"><span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt">The paper, which simulated Atlantic hurricane activity during warming 21st century conditions, found 27 percent fewer tropical storms, and 18 percent fewer hurricanes. The strongest hurricanes, researchers found, had slightly higher wind speeds than before.</span></div> <div style="MARGIN: 12pt 0in"><span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt">"This does not support the idea that we've already seen a large positive trend in hurricane activity emerging from greenhouse gases," said lead author Tom Knutson, a Princeton, N.J.-based research meteorologist for NOAA. "In fact, it points in the other direction."</span></div> <div style="MARGIN: 12pt 0in"><span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Published online Sunday in the journal Nature Geoscience, the paper is notable for finding such a striking reduction in Atlantic activity. Earlier research has suggested a small reduction in total storms, or little change in a warming world.</span></div> <div style="MARGIN: 12pt 0in"><span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt">By suggesting a marked decrease in activity, the new work bolsters the views of Chris Landsea, science and operations officer at the National Hurricane Center, who has argued that the apparent recent increase in Atlantic storm counts is due solely to better observational tools — satellites and the like — which blanket coverage of the Atlantic hurricane basin.</span></div> <div style="MARGIN: 12pt 0in"><span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt">"After taking into account the changes in monitoring, the number of storms we're seeing now is on par with previous busy periods in the Atlantic," Landsea said.</span></div> <div style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"> </div> George and Wes both lie? http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/marksremarks/7459 http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/marksremarks/7459 <p><strong><font face="Times New Roman">Ran across some old blog material<o:p></o:p></font></strong></p> <p><strong><font size="3"><font face="Times New Roman"> </font></font></strong><font size="3"><font face="Times New Roman"><strong>Wesley Clark, 2004 Democratic presidential candidate, discusses Saddam's WMD:</strong>  <br />  <br /> WESLEY CLARK: He does have weapons of mass destruction.  <br />  <br /> MILES O'BRIEN: And you could say that categorically?  <br />  <br /> WESLEY CLARK: Absolutely.  <br />  <br /> MILES O'BRIEN: All right, well, where are, where is, they've been there a long time and thus far we've got 12 empty casings.  Where are all these weapons?  <br />  <br /> WESLEY CLARK: There's a lot of stuff hidden in a lot of different places, Miles, and I'm not sure that we know where it all is.  People in <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Iraq</st1:place></st1:country-region> do.  The scientists know some of it.  Some of the military, the low ranking military; some of Saddam Hussein's security organizations.  There's a big organization in place to cover and deceive and prevent anyone from knowing about this.  <br />  <br />    <strong><em>Wesley Clark, Democratic Presidential Candidate<o:p></o:p></em></strong></font></font></p> <p> </p> AND THE RACE(CARD WAR) IS ON http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/marksremarks/7408 http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/marksremarks/7408 <div style="BACKGROUND: white"> <div style="BACKGROUND: white"><strong><span style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt">Democrats and Blacks only allowed to speak like this</span></strong></div> </div> <div style="BACKGROUND: white"></div> <div style="BACKGROUND: white"> <div style="BACKGROUND: white">Hillary has touched off a mini-uproar with her latest interview, with <a href="http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/05/clinton-rationa.html"><span style="COLOR: #0c4790">Andrew Sullivan</span></a> leading the jeers</div> <div style="BACKGROUND: white">Hillary goes there: </div> <div style="BACKGROUND: white"><strong><em>" 'I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on,' she (Hillary)said in an interview with<a href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-05-07-clintoninterview_N.htm"><span style="COLOR: #0c4790">USA TODAY</span></a>. As evidence, Clinton cited an Associated Press article 'that found how Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me.'</em> </strong></div> <div style="BACKGROUND: white">"Does she hear herself? 'Working, hard-working Americans, white Americans.' 'Whites in both states.<strong><span style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt">' If a Republican said this about a black opponent, his career would be in jeopardy for racism</span></strong>." </div> <div style="BACKGROUND: white">Americablog's <a href="http://www.americablog.com/2008/05/vote-for-hillary-shes-whiter.html"><span style="COLOR: #0c4790">John Aravosis</span></a> is also upset: </div> <div style="BACKGROUND: white">"Hillary is race-baiting again. Gee, no one could have predicted that one . . . </div> <div style="BACKGROUND: white">"There sure is a pattern emerging here. The Clintons are using racism to try to win the nomination against a black man . . . Is it any wonder blacks aren't voting for Hillary? They shouldn't vote for Hillary, ever again." </div> <div style="BACKGROUND: white">National Review's <a href="http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZmQ4MDIyZmFhZGZhM2FhZGViZDFmMTFlZTkwNjI0Zjg="><span style="COLOR: #0c4790">Jim Geraghty</span></a> makes this point: </div> <div style="BACKGROUND: white"><strong><span style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt">"African-Americans are voting overwhelmingly for a candidate who shares their skin color, but it's being repeatedly suggested that white working-class voters are motivated by racism." </span></strong></div> <div style="BACKGROUND: white"><span style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt">All depends on what color the ox being gored is. </span></div> </div> REPORT SAYS HILLARY AND OBAMA PRESSURING TO BOMB IRAN http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/marksremarks/7400 http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/marksremarks/7400 <strong><font size="5"> <p>REPORT SAYS HILLARY AND OBAMA PRESSURING TO BOMB IRAN </p> <font size="4"> <p>http://community.victoriaadvocate.com</p> <p>/home/ViewPost/27472</p> </font></font> <p> </p> <strong><font size="4"></font> <p> <font size="4"></font> <p> </p> </p> <p>New Yorker coumnist Seymour Hersh says Hillary and Obama pressuring to bomb Iran.</p> <p>Our intrepid reporter mike says </p> <p>"Of course Seymour Hersh (New Yorker columnist) has been warning us for years" and mike wonders "Whatever happened to that bill requiring the administration to come to Congress before taking military action on Iran?"<br /> </p> <strong> <p>reporter Jon Weiner on *Huffington Post says When I asked Hersh who wants to bomb Iran, he said, "Ironically there is a lot of pressure coming from Democrats. Hillary Clinton, Obama, and Edwards have all said we cannot have a nuclear-armed Iran. Clearly the pressure from Democrats is a reflection of - we might as well say it - Israeli and Jewish input." He added the obvious: "a lot of money comes to the Democratic campaigns" from Jewish contributors.</p> <strong> <p> *WOW The Huffington Post no less not the hated Fox News</p> </strong> <p> </p> </strong> <p>http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/ViewPost/27472<br /> <br /> </p> </strong> <p> </p> <p>First reported on here by noted Democrat mike in Forum:<strong>Iran says explosion in mosque last month was deliberate </strong></p> </strong> "If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it's free." http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/marksremarks/7391 http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/marksremarks/7391 <strong> <p>"</p> <p>When I hear middle-class Americans complain about how they want Washington to do something to pick up their health tab, I always want to ask them: If you don't want to pay for your own health care, what makes you think someone else wants to pay your doctor bill? </p> <p>For that matter, why not "innocently" inquire as to whether any mandatory social program, in any society, at any time, has ever maintained a balanced budget? (The answer is "yes", but they won't know that and the example of the Shaking Quakers wouldn't do them any good anyway.)<br /> <br /> So: 1) take at face value the claim that socializing medicine will improve service AND save money. 2) Reply, "Wonderful!" 3) Remind them that Medicare and Medicaid are financial basketcases. 4) Offer to support them fully in this inspired reformation of health care, once they've proven their genius by fixing the mess that lesser minds have made of Medicaid and Medicare.</p> <p> </p> <p>Roy Mark  Open Blog all welcome No Deletes</p> </strong><br /> <br /> BOTH DEVOUT BELIEVERS IN INNERRANCY http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/marksremarks/7382 http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/marksremarks/7382 <p> </p> <div style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt">After reading the numerous forum messages all anonymous of course extolling the virtues of the Democrat party and declaring their everlasting loyalty to that party. I thought the Democrat party is like a religion to them The anonymous authors declare they had never and would never vote anything but the straight Democrat ticket. That does save any thinking of course just pull the Straight Democrat lever, even if it means voting for someone on the ticket whom they declare is “no better than a Republican.”</div> <div style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt">I thought about the resemblance to Evangelical Christians who believe that if one iota of the Bible is wrong, then the entire Bible could be wrong. The Bible is their absolute. The anonymous Democrat extollers on here demonstrate that the need for an absolute is not limited to religion – at least religion in the theocratic sense. Liberals, too, have a religion, but a secular one: their faith in, and fealty to the Democrat party There is a special quality to their posts, if you will notice. There is evidence of a determination to parrot certain erratic and unsupportable theories and talking points, which are easily disproved. The history for both of them however, indicates that becoming knowledgeable about a subject is not their goal, thus, the same mistakes in comprehension and presentation are made endlessly.</div> <div style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"> </div> <div style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt">They both display a kind of frenzied eagerness to make unsupportable accusations, with a manner that shows a certain urgency to state their opinion. Equally as evident, is the fact that neither is willing to consider any in depth analysis of their subject matter.</div> <div style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"> </div> <div style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt">It appears both are simply reading from a script, and expect everyone else to accept any bizarre and outlandish assertion they make.</div> <div style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"> </div> <div style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt">When the same people perform the same way, day in and day out, to their own detriment, you have to understand there is a larger agenda at stake for them. The belief system has been accepted as being more important than fact.</div> <div style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"> </div> <div style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt">Questioning the facts, and conducting research, generates information eventually. Their predisposition is to reject any fact that conflicts with what they choose to believe.</div> <div style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"> </div> <div style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt">Their entire world view is structured on unquestioned acceptance of several unsupportable assertions about the world which are easily shown to be in error.</div> <div style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"> </div> <div style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt">The ramifications of having to accept factual reality are so threatening as to be strenuously resisted at every encounte</div> <div style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"></div> <div style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt">Roy Mark   </div> <div style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"></div> <div style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt">This blog open to any and all who wish to comment.YOU WILL NOT BE DELETED</div> <div style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt">AS ON SOME</div> GOTTA GO WHERE THE DUCKS ARE http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/marksremarks/7330 http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/marksremarks/7330 <p> </p> <p>In spite of all the Fox haters rationlizations that Fox is not REALLY that popular the leading Democrats recognize that  Fox has more listeners than any othe cable news channels. </p> <p> </p> <p>Mike Allen on POLITICO http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0508/10032.html</p> <p> </p> <p>The nation’s top Democrats are suddenly rushing to appear on the Fox News Channel, which they once had shunned as enemy territory as the nemesis of liberal bloggers. <br /> <br /> The detente with Fox has provoked a backlash from progressive bloggers, who contend the party’s leaders are turning their backs on the base — and lending credibility and legitimacy to the network liberals love to hate — in a quest for a few swing votes. <br /> <br /> In a span of eight days, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY.) and Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean are all taking their seats with the network that calls itself “fair and balanced” but is widely viewed as skewing conservative. <br /> <br /> With the party’s presidential contest reduced to hand-to-hand combat, Democrats are turning to the ratings leader among cable news channels in a clear rebuff to the liberal activists known as the Netroots. </p> <p>The Democratic leaders’ new openness to Fox reflects the liberal left’s diminishing power, at least at this point in the political cycle. Once feared by the Democratic candidates, these activists are now viewed at least in part as an impediment to winning the broad swatch of support needed to clinch the nomination. <br /> <br /> Goaded in part by a taunting “Obama Watch” clock displayed by Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace, Obama appeared last Sunday after resisting the show’s entreaties throughout the campaign. </p> <p>Contrary to some liberal blogs on here no comments will be deleted by blogger.</p> <p><br /> <br /> </p> OBAMA SEZ CONDEMN THE PROFANE PASTOR http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/marksremarks/7285 http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/marksremarks/7285 <p>Well that didn't take long for St Obama's followers on here to have their <span style="FONT-SIZE: 9pt">epiphany. </span>St Barry has put the word out Throw the loony toons pastor over board, under the bus and to the wolves. But of course as the pastor said Obama is a politician and will say whatever he thinks is necessary</p> OH BUT MINORITIES CAN NOT BE RACIST ! http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/marksremarks/7269 http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/marksremarks/7269 <p><font face="Verdana" size="2"></font></p> <p><font face="Verdana" size="2"></font></p> <p><font face="Verdana" size="2">Here is my favorite form of liberal hypocrisy though. Liberals cry and stamp their feet about racism in America, led by two racist caucuses known as the Hispanic and Black Caucus, then profit from it mightily.<br /> <br /> We will always have racism in this country as long as our government continually puts it's stamp of approval on it. Racism is big business!</font></p> <p><font face="Verdana" size="2">I understand The Rev Wright pointed out that he served 6 years in the military. I would remind every one that the most famous traitor in American history one Benny Arnold also was in the the miltary service. </font></p> <p><font face="Verdana" size="2"></font></p> <p><font face="Verdana" size="2">Roy Mark</font></p>