OCinBuffalo

How about you quit playing the victim and/or mucking about with the distractions, and address the question, about the substance of this thread, that has been put to you 4 times? How do you explain the data showing not-warming? We'll get to why, and what could be the reason, or, we will get to who's been lying, and why, and how this could have happened, but not before we acknowledge that the DATA doesn't support the(your?) assertion.

But, when Big Oil does something like this, which is solely done based on protecting their interests, and asks the US Govt. to interfere with other countries/people, it's evil. When Big Gay Hollywood does it, it's "fairness". Again, stealing is stealing, but, using political influence to get what you want is...using political influence to get what you want. It can't be Ok for some people and not for others. Either it is all bad, or all good, as that is the only: "fairness".

I wrote something...but then I thought: better to see what comes of it, as it has a chance to be funny. Meh. What I wrote was funnier. The homo thing was a sure bet, so, meh. It's hysterical that the emoticon thing is still relevant after all these years of doing this. I thought that gag would die in 2007. Instead, it has provided years of haze. Death, Taxes, and the surety that some tool is going to say something about emoticons, without realizing that it has nothing to do with me, and is actually just an eternal haze of another poster...it's almost comforting really.

GG is right, of course. However, the next time you hear: Big Oil, Big Corporations, or Big anything....you had better add Big Gay, or Big Hollywood to that list. They are acting, in every way imaginable, and in some ways worse, than the caricatures they promote.

Still waiting...for an assertion that has been now proven to be false...to be defended, orally, in written form, anally? Yes, I want something, even if it is extracted anally, that explains why CO2 emissions soar, and temps are flat. Btw, if accurate, that means there isn't even a correlation, never mind a causation, between these things. What happens when the models fail? Why is the DATA (isn't science supposed to be about data?) showing us that they most likely will? One thing I know for sure? This board is going to be a very fun place to be in 2 years.

Darn. I was gonna ask "what is so hilarious about regarding"..... Edit: As far as the "scorekeeping" discussion? There is a giant difference between Iran Contra...and Benghazi: The first was done by...a massively competent president/admin that was trying to get something done in spite of idiocy. They achieved their goals, and only faced media trouble, not real trouble, many months later, when somebody opened their mouth. The second happened upon...a massively incompetent President/Admin who had no idea it could happen, and then spent the real time either ignoring it, or covering it up, and did such a poor job if it, that any rational person immediately knew it was a failure and a cover up, nobody had to tell us months later. Real trouble came in the form of Americans dying, and still exists in the form of: we haven't done schit about it. The circumstances, workflow, and outcomes of these two events...tell us all we need to know about what a competent presidency looks like, vs. what an incompetent one looks like.

You would think this matters. It does not.

Right, that's what happened. You didn't haul out the " I have a masters degree and I've been doing advanced stats for 3 years". You didn't try to posit that as a "I know this and you don't" argument...on a board that is rife with know it alls, from all sorts of fields, all of whom use stats on a daily basis, and many of whom have been doing it for a lot more than 3 years. None of that happened.

I'm still waiting for Gene Frenkle, or BF2 to explain how any of this matters, since global temps have not increased for the last 15 years. http://tinyurl.com/bvaer8q Also, and I know this comes as a shock to many of you: the "warming" is not hiding at the bottom of the ocean. So, where is it hiding? Instead of it causing more NEOs to hit earth, is it being transferred to passing NEOs? Perhaps we should just include both Gene and BF2 in the "some unexplained reason" group? This is fair, since I have yet to hear either of them account for where the warming, that isn't, is hiding. Once again, this: "The mismatch between rising greenhouse-gas emissions and not-rising temperatures is among the biggest puzzles in climate science just now." followed immediately by this: "It does not mean global warming is a delusion." ...is all we need to know about how this entire thing is going to play out. They are going to cling for a while, and then call it a "puzzle", and eventually hope that most people just move on. Then they will find some new religious belief to cling to, and the rest of you better pray it doesn't affect your work. Our farmboy here better pray that milk and/or fertilizer don't become the next target, because they are "making the world's water disappear"....or something else that violates the laws of physics, but, given enough boost, after starting out as a whisper campaign at Phish shows, turns out to be a Presidential election issue. This assertion, http://tinyurl.com/bvaer8q, is false. Now deal with it. Read the first sentence: "OVER the past 15 years air temperatures at the Earth’s surface have been flat while greenhouse-gas emissions have continued to soar." then, watch the magazine who has spent the last decade propagating this story try to play save ass for the rest of it. WTF else do you need to know? Orwell said: "To see what is front of one's nose requires constant struggle". Are you even going to try, never mind struggle?

Hmmm. If this continues, should I develop a database to track meta-strawman data? I bet I could get some enthusiastic early adopters at http://www.ncpssm.org/

Aptitude in Sociology, couched in the false assumption that this is the only field in which advanced statistical methodology is used, being put forward as an "argument ender", on this board, of all places? Nice. The phrase: "thrown to the wolves" comes to mind. I know that an experienced marketing(the only useful application of sociology) person would at least ensure that they knew the audience first, right?

If this were Al Davis, we would have drafted multiple fast RBs and not fast WRs. And, yes, I'm well aware of Tim Brown. So, if this were the raiders, after drafting 2 RBs in the 2nd, Marquisse Goodwin would still be the 3rd round pick, as he was the fastest WR on the board at the time.

Yes, but I wonder if that is less about good scouting, and more about having an awful team that attracts UDFAs, because they have a better chance to make and stick on it. Case in point: there were 14 teams looking to sign Da'Rick Rogers. I think it's probably true that he liked the coaches, the system, etc., The fact that 2 of his workout buddies were already, and his agent having a good relationship with Brandon and Overdorf, helped out. But, if it was me, and I knew that the Bills only had 1 proven guy on a roster that will almost definitely use 3-4 WRs, all of that is nice, but I'm going there to play. And, that puts us ahead of at least some of the other 13 teams. Of course, Rogers and the other 2 WR could have taken a look at the Pats or Jets, as they now have 1-0 proven WRs on their rosters. Thus, the other stuff, besides best chance to play, cannot be completely meaningless. IF I'm Tuel(why do we always end up with players with the worst possible names?), I think I would take a look at our current QBs and think that I have an even money chance of beating at least one of them out.

Hmmm....sounds like one hell of an argument against the PC people. Does it not? "Find and fix" says we start with them. Yeah. Of course "we" do. Except, for most of my life, those words refer to me, and I'm white. Should I be offended by your presumption? But, I do get that when suburb people talk about "the hood" they are talking about black people. That's because they are suburb people, and therefore, by definition, don't know WTF they are talking about. It's just ignorance. There are a lot of ingorant people who espouse their unfounded opinions about all sorts of things. I just don't see anybody looking to string them up/get them fired/mass attack them on twitter, anywhere near as much as the guy who says: "I don't think that black QB can handle the playbook...because he's an idiot". The focus, in EJM's case, should be squarely on "then you are ignorant, beause the man is halfway to his master's degree, as an undergrad, and that doesn't happen with idiots". But, if we take the focus away from the ignorance, and put it on "you're only saying that because he's black, you racist!", then what exactly have we accomplished? As I said, I hope Geno does just well enough to get their hopes up, but then the rest of our J Crew dashes the hell out of them. That is the best outcome. Abject failure for Geno serves little purpose for us. The Jets already suck. No, it's better if they get better, but just enough to psych them up, so that us hanging 40+ pts on them in a half(speed kills) hurts even more. Why do you expect people to flame you? I don't see anything here that is flameworthy. If you know it's right, why do you have to say it?

I was an enterprise technical architect and project manager, before I was a CEO. The notion that I am scared of technology...that's hilarious. I know about forming a new team, and how important it is to keep the distractions around that new team to minimum, so that strong interpersonal relationships, and trust, get a chance to develop unhindered by external buffoonery. I know this because I've seen first hand what happens when you don't manage those things properly. Russ Brandon's #1 job is to move as many things as he can out of his people's way, so they can do their jobs. It's not to put marketing boondoggles, that hinder operations for little value add, in their way. If he doesn't know this, then he should be fired yesterday. EDIT: Let's define "boondoggle". If it is true that Hard Knocks doesn't mean more wins, then that is the definition of "little value add". If it is true that playing a game in Canada = more $, and less need to raise prices, then that is a value add, and we can howl all we want, but, it's not a boondoggle. A CEO who has earned the job, because he's done all the jobs on the way up, knows this. A CEO who got the job from his dad(ahem, Woody Johnson) doesn't. That's why I would never have this nonsense anywhere near my new team, or my new head coach, and, that's why Woody chose to treat his team like it was some new bar of soap/feminine hygiene product that needed "buzz". But, yeah...the real reason I don't want this is: I'm a fuddy duddy who is scared of technology.

The Economist, in the link I provided above absolutely proves that the climate is nowhere near as "sensitive" to man made carbon emissions as has been previously claimed. And...the current explanation offered for why this is occurring...is "some unexplained reason". Now, you chose to use the words "reputable" and "debunked". The Economist has been publishing "alarmist" Global Warming stories(hey if people are going to causally throw around the word "denier" then you bet your sweet A I am going to throw "alarmist" back at them) for a solid decade. So there goes...reputable. The Economist then proceeded to provide data, that clearly shows that the models are about to the "debunked". Which takes care of that. The worst thing? The very worst thing for you: Rush Limbaugh, the Ultimate Enemy of Science, has had a count down running on his website for years, and guess when it ends? 2016. Yeah, exactly timed to when the models, if the data we have holds, will fail. How awful will that be for you? Actually, how awful will that be for ALL of us? To find out that Rush Limbaugh's fat ass ended up being right, while doing nothing more scientific than running Javascript?

What exactly have you missed? "For some reason"? WTF? Are you retarded? The situation has been explained to you properly at least 3 times in this thread. Any of those explanations suffice. Did you miss the part when Obama signed a Exec. Order that had 0 chance of ever being followed? Did Bush make him sign that order? Would any competent commander give an order he knows won't be followed? Either Obama is an incompetent for not knowing, or, he is an incompetent for giving the order in spite of knowing. Pick one. But go ahead...say "what a mess" again, and tell us you missed something again. Now that would be hilarious. In fact, why not? Then, using Fan in San Diego simplistic reasoning, we would have to blame Obama for American Imperialism.

This is literally out of the Democratic/Environtologist talking point memo. Especially the word "transitional". This makes the 3rd time in 2 days I've heard that word/phrase used by a leftist to describe their position on natural gas. I had never heard that word associated with natural gas until last week. In 2006-11, Natural Gas was included in The Heresy of Global Warming Deniers as the devil's sneakiest fossil fuel. Now? It is merely....transitional? Is this kinda like not making us eat fish every Friday anymore? No, but clearly you also haven't claimed to be unwilling to regurgitate what you heard your favorite talking head say on MSNBC, without crediting them for saying it. I don't know if you missed it, but, I asked you 3 questions above. To save you time: 1. Do you think the East Anglia Emails are the only evidence of wrongdoing WRT Global WarmingTM? 2. Read this, http://tinyurl.com/bvaer8q,and please tell us what you plan to say when those models fail? Will you tell us about a consensus? 3. The author in the link tells us that the Not-Global WarmingTM is happening for "some unexplained reason". What exactly is that reason today? What exactly will be that reason 2 years from now, when the models start to fail? (I wonder if political convenience, grant money, ego, fame, real money to be made, or any sort of political or personal gain is involved in the "unexplained reason" why these models are failing?) And now I have a new one: 4. Are you including The Economist now, on your black list of heretical deniers? Can we expect a bonfire for their vanities? Why not? They denied you more than 3 times in that article. Over and over, despite their valiant attempt to hold the line on the story they themselves have been propagating for years...they deny you in that link. They say that the temps aren't going up, AND, that the warming isn't hiding at the bottom of the ocean. That was the final excuse, and now they've denied you that too. Are you and the rest of the environtologists preparing to label them Suppressive Persons (http://en.wikipedia....pressive_Person), and start suing them, and/or going on TV and claiming to be victimized by them?

Pats fans? I've been reading/on their boards for years. They are not even close to this one in terms of football acumen. They spend all of their time on easy targets(they love to start year-long "Jets Suck" threads), and none of their time explaining why they've drafted 10 DBs in the last 5 years with 1.5 starters to show for it. Imagine, for a second, what this board would be like today, had we done that. From what I've seen: the average Pat's fan approaches football the same way your wife/girlfriend approaches TMZ. I can't blame them too much though, it has to be difficult wading through the ESPN et al manufactured hype-->click traffic nonsense and try to stay focused on what matters: the actual game itself. The other problem: Tom Brady makes it impossible for Pats fans to view football objectively. Ask them how it's possible the "defensive genius" has drafted and failed on all those DBs, or, why his D can't get off the field in big games, or, why they haven't made a running game a priority, or fixed their awful O line, so that Brady doesn't have to be perfect every time(see: last year's AFCCG)? Their universal response? Tom Brady is God, and so is Bill Belechik. Remeber all the big Pats FA signings last year? Remember him then cutting all those FAs? Pats fans don't either. They have no opinion, because they don't even know about their biggest ?s coming into this year. But, ask them about the latest thing Giselle said to Tom? They can post you a link in 5 seconds flat. I say again: Pats fans? This is why you don't see Jaworski anywhere near as much is you should. It's also why they haven't canned Jaworski, as they have to have at least 1 guy who can actually deliver some quality content. I am starting to wonder if the new "analytics" department had anything to do with manuel. (Um...that is a joke.) However, analytics department or not, I am sure that these stats were on hand at OBD, long before ESPN compiled theirs.

Hell No. In fact, I'd rather have us completely ignored this camp. You know, the usual from ESPN, etc.

You must have missed it. We may or may not have caught them red handed. That is not the issue. We did catch some of them hanging out at the Terrorist Club, parked next to the guys we know are guilty. Even if their home country wanted them back, should we let those guys go? Are you willing to bet your life on that answer? Or...are you only willing to bet somebody else's life on it?

Yes there are other reasons, and yes those other reasons are contained in my election analysis above. Obama needs what is left of the Environtologist $ for his attempt to save the Senate and win the House in 2014. That's reality, not analysis. He's not going to get any more Big Gay $, because that issue is on hold. He sure as hell isn't going to get any $ from Wall Street. Wall Street makes their living on spotting trends. Which way is Obama trending? That leaves the labor unions as the only other viable source of cash. He has to try and get the Big Green $ now, because he is going to turn around and F them over 6-8 months before the 2014 elections, and approve the Keystone pipline, which is the price Big Labor will charge for its $. Or something like that He can't be asking Big Green and Big Labor for money at the same time. 3 things Frenkle: 1. Do you really think the emails are the ONLY source of evidence of idiocy, wrongdoing, and flat out lies from the left, "climate scientists" and their ilk? I assure you there are many more and varied pieces of evidence. They have all been discussed here. In fact, the East Anglian Emails are tired and old...like AL Gore. But put that aside. Do YOU think the emails are the only issue? 2. You might as well tell us now: what are you going to say when, not if, the computer models fail? See: http://www.economist...-and-technology /21574461-climate-may-be-heating-up-less-response-greenhouse-gas-emissions?zid=313&ah=fe2aac0b11adef572d67aed9273b6e55 3. Citing the link above, what do you expect the "unexplained reason" will be when the models fail? Are you willing to concede, right now, that there has been some "wishful thinking" and not science, included in these "scientific" models, because that is where the grant money is, and, because the agenda, and not the science, has been driving this? 1-3 are serious questions. I am trusting you to answer them seriously, and not acting like the Frenkle we know. Why? Because it's been a while, and I want to see if anything has changed.

A lot of this stuff is coming to a head. In your post above this one, Steyn talks about it being "effective". He is right. But, as I have been saying about lots of things, all of this has a shelf life. You can only shrink the skulls for so long, and then all it takes is one zinger that makes fun of that, and boom, it's over. You can only treat people as if they are murderous thugs for so long, until they and their neighbors ask "Specifically: to whom are you referring?" I've been saying this pretty much since I've been here, the using Iraq for political gain, the Global Warming Hysteria, Gay Marriage....all of these things are merely temporary issues that the left exploits. They have jumped from one to the other and back, trying to gain the max benefit from each. But, none of it will last. It may get them power today, but, in the end, it doesn't replace sound judgement and sound policies that will work in the real world. The left has neither. That is also why the whole "demographics mean we win" argument is both racist and false. Americans don't vote for suck, and they won't start, just because they are Latino, or got their citizenship yesterday. They may vote arbitrarily or because they were told to one time...but that is also: temporary. There are serious reasons for this behavior from the left: 1. Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare, SSI, and the entire liberal agenda since the 60s...is in major trouble in very practical ways. This is a matter of fact, not opinion, or political wishful thinking. This is not due to Republicans. This is due to the fact that these programs were never, like most liberal programs, thought through. But, more work was done on them, than was done on Obamacare, that is why they have lasted a lot longer than Obamacare will. The smart and serious liberals know this. That is why they will try to avoid all discussion of them, and do the above jumping around instead. 2. Economic policy that comes from the far-left has been an unmitigated disaster. Barney Frank and his friend Chuck Todd have sealed the fate of leftist economics.This is also a matter of fact. Clinton's economics came from nowhere near the far left. Neither did Bush's. No, the last time we tried to monkey with the economy using far left "ideas" and failed this miserably? Richard Nixon/Jimmy Carter. Again, rather than allowing the focus to settle on economics, we have run the gamut of liberal issues, some nonsense, and some of minor import. But none as serious or important as the failure of the left, economically, yet again. None of this jumping around can last. None of this is a replacement for: results. Results aren't class-specific. Results aren't race-specific. All classes, and all races, know the difference between results...and what the Democrats have delivered since 2006.

You know...I was gonna just write that. But I thought hammering away at Obamacare, Keynesian Stimulus FAIL Orchestrated by Keynesians, and mass feminist hypocrisy was better. I don't know why I thought that. Responding to the stupid, with fact, dignifies the stupid. I must do better.

Read the article. On second thought....don't. I'll tell you faster and better why: 1. Nobody wants them, or, we know if we release them, there's a good chance they will be killed/tortured in their own country. Which is more moral, keeping somebody locked up, or throwing them to the wolves? So...release them to...where? How can we release somebody to nowhere? 2. There's a better than average chance that many of these guys will go right back out and start trouble again. This sucks because we don't have anything to charge them on, but, we know that if we let them go, they will re-offend. With a 90% recidivism rate...why would you let them go? Whose child has to die...so that far-left turds can have their phony moral superiority? These guys are prisoners of, illegal, war. However, they are also responsible for the choices they made. It's not our fault that the only rational outcomes here don't match with the legal standards afforded to US citizens. These turds put themselves into the situation they are in. Should we just execute them and get it over with? See? These are complex questions that require the attention of adults. These are not questions for children like Obama, or his supporters, to be issuing executive orders on, as though that was an answer, on the first day they get into office. An adult would have known that, and never would have signed that order. We have the Child in Chief, so he did.