Monday, Monday

How ironic that the loony Left will succeed in doing something our government refuses to do - stopping employers from taking advantage of illegal workers, even if only for one day.

Yes, Monday Monday:

Monday Monday, so good to me,
Monday Monday, it was all I hoped it would be
Oh Monday morning, Monday morning couldn't guarantee
That Monday evening you would still be here with me.

But now it seems some on the Left have discovered that this national whatever day could be, as was the legendary ham sandwich to Mama Cass, something they just might choke on in the end.

Well, Ms. Elliot didn't die from choking on a sandwich. But we can hope tomorrow's events prove a little more difficult to swallow for the majority of Americans than that myth. Kim at Wizbang has more.

Comments

[Jack Linblad]

What is this looney left bogeyman you keep talking about? The executive branch is in GOP hands, both chambers of the legislative branch, the majority of state houses have Republican governors, and most of the Supreme Court were GOP appointees. There are a few radical leftists in my town, but most are safely tucked away on the college campuses, where the big business school and sizable Campus Christian Fellowship presence provide an ample counterweight. There are people like me who voted for Kerry, but not because we or he are "leftists" or b/c we are under the influence of leftists. I believe in a balanced budget, support the war on terror (but not Iraq), am a weekly churchgoer, have voted for Republicans before (including the current president's father) and served 6 years in the Navy. I also happen to be a climatologist who understand the reality and the implications of global warming, realized from the get-go how ill-advised our foray into Iraq was, and recognize we have a national healthcare crisis. That must make me a "leftist." Dan, you will begin sounding a LOT more intelligent if you stop your name calling and undergo a rethink that enables you to focus on the REAL problems and threats to this country. You immediately blow your credibility when you use the word "leftist," as at that point the only people who still listen to you will be your amen choir.

[Dan]

Jack - I couldn't have been any more clear "But now it seems some on the Left"

So how is it in your eyes I characterized "everyone" as loony Left? I didn't. I have no idea what your particular political ideas are and I didnt prejudge them.

[tracker]

However, Mr. Jack Lindblad, you do-not recognize that the United States of America faces a crisis brought on by the unfettered, uncontrolled, ILLEGAL aliens constantly violating the country's borders who are now 'demanding' 'rights' that they do-not have because they are illegal aliens. They should be apprehended and deported. I served in the US Navy as well, and in Law enforcement, and I do-not have the difficulty you seem to have recognizing a clear threat to our national security. Wake Up!

[gahrie]

Mr. Climatologist Lindblad:

The Earth has been steadily getting warmer ever since the last mini-ice age in the middle ages. (when it got so cold in Europe that the Thames River would freeze solid)

1) What caused this warming before the industrial revolution?

2) How much of the current rise in tempatures is attritable to the same mechanisms?

3) Has the rise in tempature improved the climate of the Earth, it's ecology and it's carrying capacity?

4) What do you think about the theory (around since the 1970's) that the Earth should be entering another ice age (which would be even more disasterous for life on this planet than warming) but that human caused heat is preventing it?

[petunia]

I think the labels left and right are tossed around so often they get in the way of meaningful thoughts being exchanged. I'm not even referring to this specific story. The truth is, many people are somewhere in-between, or, as Mr. Linblad suggested, have mixed views--some in each category.

[Art]

"The Earth has been steadily getting warmer ever since the last mini-ice age in the middle ages. (when it got so cold in Europe that the Thames River would freeze solid)"

"1) What caused this warming before the industrial revolution?"

2) How much of the current rise in tempatures is attritable to the same mechanisms?

3) Has the rise in tempature improved the climate of the Earth, it's ecology and it's carrying capacity?

4) What do you think about the theory (around since the 1970's) that the Earth should be entering another ice age (which would be even more disasterous for life on this planet than warming) but that human caused heat is preventing it?"

I'm not Mr. Climatologist Linblad, but your statements show an incredible amount of ignorance. If Linblad is really a climatologist (and he could be making it up) and read this argument, he would make a laughingstock out of you. You'd get your ass beaten so badly you wouldn't know what hit you. Your ignorance doesn't even warrant a response, because everything you write is a half-truth at best. If you want to take a position that is becoming increasingly marginalized as even skeptics defect, then be my guest.

This discussion is about Immigration, anyway. I don't like the right/left tones of the argument either. The fact is, we have undefended sieve-like borders. The whole system is bad and dangerous for the illegals themselves. What we need to do is acknowledge the need for some guest workers, have a system in which we bring people in from all over the world instead of depending on a single country like Mexico, and then enforcing the fuck out of it!

I say:

Have a comprehensive guest worker program.

Pay them less than minimum wage for certain agricultural jobs.

Have a set of algorithms that determine how many you take in from each country.

Give most of them *seasonal* visas in which they alone come without their families.

Have the hiring done by agencies IN the countries of residence so nobody feels the need to cross the border illegally.

Improve border security.

Punish employers who hire illegals.

Impose sanctions on Mexico if they don't do what they need to do on their end.

[rwilymz]

"If you want to take a position that is becoming increasingly marginalized as even skeptics defect, then be my guest."

This isn't the first time science prostituted itself to gain notoriety, nor will it be the last.

The questions posed are valid, viable questions that do not have any good answers provided by those who assert anthropogenic causation for currently observed phenomena.

Additionally: how much of the "rising ocean levels" is glacial rebound?

Why does no one who pushes anthropogenic carbon seem to recognize the logorithmic function CO2 has with thermal energy trapped? Essentially, after a certain point, adding CO2 to the atmosphere traps no more heat. And some, like Moskalenko, suggest we're already there, and others, like Lindzen say we're past it and any lower tropospheric increases we see are due to other causes, and others, like Charnock, say we're so close to the max heating due to CO2 that any further CO2 won't cause anywhere close to the results predicted.

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/co2greenhouse-X4.png

In case you missed it, the anthropogenic chicken littles are not saying something as viable as "humans influence the environment"; they are claiming that humans are causing a secular, environmental armageddon. There's a significant difference between those two assertions, and it's not up to the critics of the assertion to demonstrate why the assertion is false; the asserter must demonstrate it true.

Largely, those pushing man-made global warming are preaching a Pascal's Wager and relying up the ignorant masses to be frightened enough to worry their governments into doing something.

[Porno Sex Pic]

Free porno pictures ! Free porn videos ! Hot porno movies at pornosexpic.com

[Daniel Luck]

"This isn't the first time science prostituted itself to gain notoriety, nor will it be the last."

Good lord! I'd like to see just ONE argument from a skeptic that doesn't invoke junkscience.com.

One of the biggest criticisms of global warming research is with the bias of those hoping to find a connection between the addition of CO2 to the atmosphere (as close to "fact" as can be in Science) and increasing global temperatures. You are correct. Many scientists seeking to find a smoking gun will purport to have found one. But this holds true of nearly any contribution science has made to society. The notion that science purports to objectively pursue truth is an exaggerated one, but as soon as people latch onto the fact that it is exaggerated they immediately pooh-pooh all good science if doing so supports the position that they have decided they want to take.

"The questions posed are valid, viable questions that do not have any good answers provided by those who assert anthropogenic causation for currently observed phenomena."

Any questions about scientific methods and findings are valid. You are correct with that assertion. You are incorrect, though, about good answers not being provided for anthropogenically-driven global warming. Like all critics of science and the scientific method, you confuse evidence with proof. Just like those who accept contemporary scientific dogma (which gains more and more momentum each day, like it or not) about global warming, you are obviously equally stubborn about opposing it. You've demonstrated with clarity that you've only accepted the arguments of the shrinking number of skeptics, many of whose arguments are ancient and not even considered valid any more even though they were at one point. You selectively accept what but a few critics state as "fact."

"Additionally: how much of the "rising ocean levels" is glacial rebound?"

Most scientists will tell you that rising ocean levels are largely attributable to thermal expansion. I can take a beaker into a lab and heat it up and tell you in five minutes that this is a plausible hypothesis.

"Why does no one who pushes anthropogenic carbon seem to recognize the logorithmic function CO2 has with thermal energy trapped? Essentially, after a certain point, adding CO2 to the atmosphere traps no more heat."

This is incredibly dishonest! Why lie to yourself? Many, many studies have addressed this. Curbash and Meehl (2001), Dixon (1994), Friedlingstein (2001), Jenkinson (1991), Prentice and Fung (1990), Sarmianto and Gruber, and Schlesinger all take this on. Your contention hasn't been substantiated at all! Most will acknowledge that much needs to be learned about the global carbon cycle. But there is increasing evidence that rising atmospheric CO2 levels DO trap heat!

And some, like Moskalenko, suggest we're already there, and others, like Lindzen say we're past it and any lower tropospheric increases we see are due to other causes, and others, like Charnock, say we're so close to the max heating due to CO2 that any further CO2 won't cause anywhere close to the results predicted."

Even if you and they are right (and again -- read the CURRENT literature to see what one-time skeptics are now saying), adding it could prolong heating.

"http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/co2greenhouse-X4.png

"In case you missed it, the anthropogenic chicken littles are not saying something as viable as "humans influence the environment"; they are claiming that humans are causing a secular, environmental armageddon."

Actually, most scientists aren't saying this. Most are, in fact, far, far more conservative and cautious than you realize.

"There's a significant difference between those two assertions, and it's not up to the critics of the assertion to demonstrate why the assertion is false; the asserter must demonstrate it true.""

You will only use this argument if it is your preformed notion to do so. You misunderstand what science is.

Good luck! Ignorance is bliss, I guess.

[rwilymz]

"Good lord! I'd like to see just ONE argument from a skeptic that doesn't invoke junkscience.com."

Why? You aren't, like, issuing a baseless *denunciation*, are you?

"Like all critics of science and the scientific method, you confuse evidence with proof"

I do?

Wow. You must be psychic.

"You've demonstrated with clarity that you've only accepted the arguments of the shrinking number of skeptics"

What I've "demonstrated", dilbert, is nothing of the sort. I haven't stated anywhere "what I believe" nor "what I accept" and if you think I have then you are reading a 'War and Peace' between my lines. Some doofus said that criticisms of the anthropogenic global-warming pseudo-science are not valid and, well, yes they are.

That's it.

Nothing more.

They are valid questions that have no good answers provided by the True Believers, or even their High Priests of Sciencism.

"Most scientists will tell you that rising ocean levels are largely attributable to thermal expansion."

And that's another one.

But since this is a message board, there's not much point in hitting everything, is there?

"This is incredibly dishonest!"

I know, but you still have the right to say it.

"Why lie to yourself?"

It ain't me lyin' bub.

"Actually, most scientists aren't saying this. Most are, in fact, far, far more conservative and cautious than you realize."

It's you lying to yourself that's the problem here. You lying to yourself and equivocating a great deal about me and what I've said -- or not said -- so that you can shoehorn me into a nice little package that's easily debunkable.

Grow up, por favor. I said nothing about "most scientists", I was talking about the "chicken littles". Look it up; it's still there. *You* are the one who equivocated "chicken littles" to "most scientists". *You*. Not me.

Even to the degree that certain scientists are themselves on the forefront of Chicken Littlery, they are not honestly expanded to "most scientists" in any event.

This wasn't the first such dishonest, equivocal, presumptive, indeed bullshit statement on your part. And if you respond, I doubt it'd be your last.

It's much easier to thrash those strawmen than anything else, ainnit?

The criticisms of anthropogenic global warming are valid and remain largely unaddessed. The doom-n-gloom models, which use self-named "fudge factors" for positive variables and ignore or understate known negative feedbacks.

... for one.

"You will only use this argument if it is your preformed notion to do so. You misunderstand what science is."

No I don't. You assert it: you prove it. That's basic scientific method.

Furthermore, you know that as well as I do. And you've stated so: "Any questions about scientific methods and findings are valid. You are correct with that assertion."

I know I was correct; I further know that all of the words you tried putting into my mouth so you could self-righteously mug me don't belong there.

[Daniel Luck]

Posted by: rwilymz | Tuesday, May 02, 2006 at 08:31 AM

LOL! After reading your self-description on your blog, I can understand why your feeble straw man rebuttal was so defensive in tone! I'm sure that it's rather painful when someone points out to you that you are what you purport to hate. But that's okay. Unlike some people, you have a clear idea of what the problem is. You just don't realize that it's *your* problem, Rossie-Boy.

[rwilymz]

You're excused for being unfamiliar with rhetorical concepts and the rules of scientific method. Few people who tout anthropogenic global warming are. If they were, they'd be far less likely to claim "Katrina was caused by global warming" and similar unprovable rubbish.

You assert it, you prove it. All skeptics are obliged to do is challenge. If you meet the challenges -- and anthropogenic global warming has not -- then you pass. Until then, you haven't. And for you to imply that I am anything other than a skeptic issuing challenges is for you to presume a great deal more than you have evidence for.

But that seems to be your forte. You *still* don't get to put words into my mouth, Danny-boy.