User Profile: HonorTheOath


Member Since: April 18, 2013


123 To page: Go
  • August 22, 2016 at 1:35pm

    Lying liars lie.

    Come back to play after you’ve done your homework.

  • [1] August 22, 2016 at 1:34pm

    Dude, you forgot to rse in the obligatory ” . . . didn’t find any STOCKPILES of WMD . . . ”

    We found all kinds of WMD and evidence of his active WMD program. This was debunked YEARS ago. Hussein moved his STOCKPILES to Syria a couple of days before (he was tipped off about) our attack.

    The folks in the Bushies administation are still butt hurt over the fact that Shrub Jr. REFUSED to addrss the media’s “big lie” about the WMD. He told his ople “we won’t sink to their level” and “no rational person would bleve such an obvious lie.”

    He was right- look in the mirror- but he was absolutely wrong.

    Plenty of ignotards TO THIS DAY still “believe” that we found no WMD in Iraq.


  • [13] August 18, 2016 at 2:36pm

    1. “The temperature of the earth” is a very imprecise, ill-defined, and impossible to measure construct. We approximate it with a variety of instruments and methods. Values recorded prior to the 1950s are (at best) indirectly estimated from things like tree ring widths, glacier rubble, etc.

    2. “Atmospheric CO2″ is well defined but imprecisely measured and estimated. Values recorded prior to the 1950s are (at best) indirectly estimated from trapped gasses in ice core samples from the poles.

    3. Estimated “Atmospheric CO2″ and estimated “Global Temperatures” are indeed correlated. When two phenomena are correlated, this can be because: 1. A causes B; 2. B causes A; 3. something else causes both A and B; or 4. spurious correlation (statistical koinkydink)

    4. Look at the (in)famous “CO2 vs. Global Temps” charts. Hey, anybody else notice that the CO2 level changes AFTER the temperature change? Curious indeed. I thought the “cause” of something generally had to happen BEFORE the “effect.” Weird, huh?

    Oh By The Way: “Global Temps” track VERY CLOSELY with solar output. A better correlation than to CO2 actually. Bonus time: the solar output changes BEFORE the temperature does . . .

    Go figure . . .

    (ps read up on CO2 sequestration and how changes in temps in the complex, adaptive global climate result in CO2 being banked or released as a RESULT OF increases or decreases in temperature. I learned all about this in high school in the 1970s.)

    Responses (2) +
  • [8] August 18, 2016 at 2:27pm

    “Confirmation Bias” is a very powerful human motivator. In 7th grade, I had a science professor who gave us all thermometers to record the temperature with every day. He had an automated temperature sensor recording the actual temps (unbeknownst to us). So every day we would read our thermometers and write down the temperature.

    Some days he wore a sweater and scarf, and shivered and stamped his feet. Other days he went open collar and fanned himself while complaining about the heat. At teh end of class we would all troop outside and take our readings.

    Gee, guess what we discovered a the end of the semester when we compared OUR “subjective” thermometer readings to the “objective” thermal sensor?

    It was (on the average) a 1.5 degree Celsius differential in the direction of his little act . . .

    Responses (1) +
  • [6] August 18, 2016 at 1:54pm

    Bona Fides: I’m a research scientist at a Cat I university (transportation safety) doing research in this area with some colleagues. Started out in autonomous drones and now working on surface transport.

    1. Most people have zero freakin’ idea how complex the safe operation of a motor vehicle actually is. Yeah, I know, our streets are full of morons driving HOWEVER the most sophisticated stand-alone liquid nitrogen cooled super computers can’t make the same sophisticated decisions the average 16 year old texting while driving performs on a regular basis. Fact. Autonomous vehicles will require cloud-based, “top down” command and control of EVERY object on the road to work. Think about THAT.

    2. Hardware isn’t the only problem. The “business rules” of even the most simple activities (climbing a short on-ramp to merge onto the highway . . . making a left turn against traffic . . . how to pass a slower moving vehicle . . . ) are also incredibly complex. Many are counter-intuitive: how many of you are actually moving at highway speeds at the top of the on ramp prior to merging? Yeah. Didn’t think so. Consider the following: the driving rules being programmed into the software are all being written by twenty-something year old asian and persian doctoral students. “Yee-Haw!”

    Hard enough writing code and running systems of autopilots for aircraft (a much SIMPLER problem oh by the way); the Airbus A3xx series FMS has tasted human flesh and apparently likes it . . .

    Responses (2) +
  • [7] August 7, 2016 at 3:33pm

    Too funny.

    I am reminded of the vindication of Senator Joe McCarthy of “witch hunt” fame.

    Sometimes, there actually ARE witches to be hunted . . .

    (For the millinial obliviots out there: the “witch hunts” of Senator Joe McCarthy erred only in that they grossly UNDERESTIMATED the degree to which the administration had been successfully infiltrated by the communist party. Google “the Venona Papers.” To ths day ignotarded high school teachers spread the lie that Senator McCarthy was some delusional, paranoid right wing extremist. D’OH!)

    Responses (2) +
  • [8] August 7, 2016 at 3:27pm

    That Blaze CEO currently being sued?

    He staffed the entire Blaze organization with sociofascist HuffPo libtards.

    That’s why.

    The Blaze is now an arm of the MSM echo chamber . . .

  • [6] August 7, 2016 at 3:24pm

    Incredibly, the progressive sociofascists in the west support radical Islam.

    The Koran calls for the enslavement (or worse) of:
    - women
    - homosexuals
    - artists
    - dissenters
    - women who break their marriage vows
    - atheists/agnostics
    - believers in any religion other than radical islam (especially the Jews; who oddly enough worship and believe damn near everything they do!)

    In short, the true believers of Islam persecute, oppress, and deliver violence upon EVERY group the progressive sociofascists claim to support.

    And yet, the progressive sociofascists support radical Islam . . .

    Go figure.

    Responses (1) +
  • [1] August 7, 2016 at 3:07pm

    Because, Communism.

  • August 7, 2016 at 3:06pm

    Comunists and fascists (“progressives”) do.

    Fellow travellers and all that.

  • [1] August 7, 2016 at 2:52pm

    Unions are inherenlty communist/sociofascist and their philosophy is totaly incompatible with the US Constitution.

    That’s why they have always been forced to wrap themselves in the totems of patriotism . . .

  • [1] August 7, 2016 at 2:50pm


    The ONLY purpose of a union circa post-1960 is to force the price of “labor” above it’s value by restricting the supply. Unions traditinally restrict the supply of labor by a variety of racist and fascist scams that are very compatible with progressive sociofascism (the “democratic” [sic] party) and completely incompatible with free-market liberty (the “republican” party).

    So you are indeed correct.

    To expect ANY union to ditch the commies and support the US Consititution is puzzling indeed . . .

  • [10] August 6, 2016 at 9:11am


    Free markets with a minimal health safey net for those who don’t contribute enough of value to society in order to exchange their labor for the labor of health care professionals.

    Kinda the way ALL economic sectors are supposed to work, according to our Constitution. You know, that little known document that used to be “the law of the land” before we lost the war to the sociofascist progressives over the last 100 years.

    Responses (2) +
  • [3] August 6, 2016 at 8:42am

    Bet the bar owner bribed the government code enforcement officer to ignore safety violations.

    This is what happens when you live in a country that doesn’t respect the rule of law. Sociofascism sucks.

    America did not used to be that way. We are rapidly becoming France. In most of our major (“progressive” run) cities we already are.

    Get ready.

    Responses (1) +
  • [6] August 6, 2016 at 8:06am

    You have absolutely no idea how funded research works. Or the politics of promotion and tenure at research universities. Or how the research sponsors bend the results by how the research questions themselves are formulated.

    Consider: the NSF provides $350 million to “study the thinning of polar ice caps.”

    They did not provide one red cent to “study the changes in polar ice volume and mass.”

    Why not?

    I wish I kept the picture . . . A few years back there was an aerial shot of 7 countries’ research teams in the arctic on a huge ice sheet. About 12 temporary structures, with generators and floodlights, and snowmobiles with visible heat waves coming off the site.

    The entire encampment was sitting in a BOWL on the ice created by sublimation of about 9′ of the surface by the heat island effect of all those scientists drilling cores to measure how tjin the ice was getting.

    Confirmation bias is an incredibly powerful phenomena. Especially when bought and paid for by the sponsors of the “research.”

    (For extra credit: what HAS been the net change in polar ice over the last 50 years. Don’t forget the ANTarctic is also a “pole.” That was a hint.)

  • [7] August 6, 2016 at 7:55am

    Yep. Worse than the DuPont (about to lose the patent protection on Freon) and Sierra Club (President needed $1.5 millin to buy Colorado acreage) “Ozone Hole” scam.

    The ozone caps have been thinning and thickening in response to the 11.7 year solar energy cycle (observable as the “sunspot cycle”) for centuries.

    Recognizing this, DuPont ginned up the old fax machines using groups like the Sierra Club to push the theory that CFCs (like freon) magically drifted up into the Van Allen belt and destroyed the O3 layer protcting patagonian sheep from going blind.

    Oh look! The layer is getting thinner! Ban Freon! So we did. Just in the nick of time, too! Right on schedule the layer “healed itself” (like it had every 11.7 years since the beginning of time).

    Good thing DuPont had a New and Improved (and patented, of course!) Freon replacement all soooed up and ready to go . . .

    . . . And the Sierra Club president got to clear cut his old growth Colorado acreage in peace.

  • [1] August 6, 2016 at 7:47am

    I find your conflation of “gaining energy” with “trapping energy” to be a pretty fundamental rookie mistake.

    It would appear, based on available evidence, that you are neither a scientist nor particularly literate.

    Additional evidence, based on your track record of posts publicly available, also suggest something about your ability to understand complex issues and draw inferences from observed natural phenomenon as well.

    I’m sure you can find someone to translate that for you . . . Any high school english teacher would do.

  • [1] August 6, 2016 at 7:43am

    So what is your PhD in?

    Post some cites of your recent peer reviewed publications and maybe we can have an honest discussion about the weaknesses of the argument for the “greenhouse effect” and it’s role in thermal sequestration.

  • [6] August 6, 2016 at 7:40am

    The scientific method is indeed a very powerful tool for understanding the world around us.

    If they actually applied it in this case, we wouldn’t be falling for this crap.

    Changes in solar output directly affect the amount of energy the earth receives. When the suns output increases, the earth receives more energy. The “earth gets warmer.” Tjis is scientifically provable, consistent with what we know about the world around us, and is supported by the evidence.

    The role of the “greenhouse effect” is much less tenable. The three biggest problems are:

    1. The purported “cause” changes AFTER the purported effect
    2. The estimates of the values of the constructs of interest are ill defined and poorly measured (and can only recently be directly measured), and
    3. The change in the variables are well within normal ranges of statistical variation; ie, there is no evidence that they are actually changing at all

    Frankly, confirmation bias is a more credible explanation of why so many observers claim there has been “some warming” at all.

    We SHOULD be entering another warm period in the next 500 years or so.

    If you want to know WHY we SHOULD be warming soon, ask a REAL scientist.

    That would be an astrophysicist studying solar output . . .

  • [1] August 6, 2016 at 7:25am

    Just out of curiosity, WTF do “the Republicans” have to do with ANY of this?!?!

123 To page: Go