brenthutch

If Trump were the Manchurian candidate that people keep wanting to believe that he is, here are some of the things he’d be doing: Limiting fracking as much as he possibly could Blocking oil and gas pipelines Opening negotiations for major nuclear arms reductions Cutting U.S. military spending Trying to tamp down tensions with Russia’s ally Iran That Trump is planning to do precisely the opposite of these things may or may not be good policy for the United States, but anybody who thinks this is a Russia appeasement policy has been drinking way too much joy juice. Obama actually did all of these things, and none of the liberal media now up in arms about Trump ever called Obama a Russian puppet; instead, they preferred to see a brave, farsighted and courageous statesman. Trump does none of these things and has embarked on a course that will inexorably weaken Russia’s position in the world, and the media, suddenly flushing eight years of Russia dovishness down the memory hole, now sounds the warning that Trump’s Russia policy is treasonously soft.

It's strange that our military, specifically the Navy, is vocal about the effects of climate change and are actually planning ahead for rising sea level while the rest of our citizens hear no evil. The military is no different than any other government bureaucracy, they will be vocal about any thing that will generate more funding. Just take a look at the trillions of dollars spent/wasted defending freedom and democracy from the paper tiger of communism.

He was discussing the dollar value applied to CO2 emissions, something used to figure out how much to tax polluters. This was literally a metric of how we evaluate climate change. Two things, 1. CO2 is not a pollutant 2. The degree to which CO2 impacts the climate is unknown, making it a worthless metric for measuring climate change.

You say that like it is a bad thing.

He was not discussing climate change, he was discussing statistics. Two plus two is still four, even if the Heritage Foundation says so.

Yeah, I don't have the gumption to weed through it today. Will get back to ya later. It basically says that if the Obama administration had done a correct statistical analysis, they would have reached a negative Social Cost of Carbon (SCC).

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hV-05TLiiLU

I just turned on the news and, without context, heard Nikki Haley say "this is not a rational man, he is unhinged and does not behave in a rational manner". I thought she was talking about her boss but apparently she was referring to Kim Jung Un.

From your article, "When destructive storms, droughts and heat waves became increasingly alarming" Notice how the author only claimed increased alarm and not an actual increase in storms, droughts and heat waves. Also he doesn't address the observed greening of the planet.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YW5JHF_CJCU More math

I'll fully admit that I'm not even going to read through that. Sorry for departing from this dialogue, I can't take that website seriously. "Say what you will of the source Think Progress, they accurately quote and reference this material." Come on man!

There is a big difference between a prediction and an observation. His testimony was about what is actually happening whereas AGW alarmists make guesses about what might happen. Since you mentioned failed predictions, here are a few. http://www.c3headlines.com/predictionsforecasts/

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=t_-NnCBdQbA Congressional testimony from a scientist!

Did you smoke them first and then finish in sous vide? I typically smoke and the then finish in an oven but want to try finishing sous vide. No I just sous vide. I do the same with my ribs as well. Three hours on smoke, wrap them and back in the smoker or oven for the last two hours. I have seen smoke then sous vide and SV then smoke online, let me know how you make out.

Update: Ribs were perfectly done and super moist but no more then when prepared properly on the smoker and they lacked the bark and flavor of smoked ribs.

On the issue of climate change I have come to the personal conclusion that Brent and I will just have to agree to disagree.The right doesn't want to recognize this for two main reasons. First there are vested interests in big oil. Viewing solar-conservation, etc. as liberal elitist nonsense. No I view this through a lens of pragmatism. If one were to apply a cost benefit analysis to any of these silly programs there short comings would be self evident. I'm sorry I just can't get on board with "all pain and no gain." This is nothing more than a left wing, globalist fantasy, an esoteric discussion that belongs in a philosophy class not wasting band width in the real world.

Chicken Little Higher capital costs plus higher labor cost equals higher energy cost. Who is a Pollyanna now?

Pollyanna? He is a fellow of the American Physical Society and the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and a member of the National Academy of Sciences. He received an Alfred P. Sloan fellowship in 1966, an Alexander von Humboldt award in 1976, the Herbert P.Broida Prize in 1997, the Davisson-Germer prize and the Thomas Alva Edison patent award in 2000.[2] In 2003 he was named the Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics at Princeton University. I don't think so.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/will-happer-trump_us_58a384f6e4b094a129f01d6e? "So you really do see global warming as a non-problem, not as something worth investing in? Absolutely. Not only a non-problem. I see the CO2 as good, you know. Let me be clear. I don’t think it’s a problem at all, I think it’s a good thing. It’s just incredible when people keep talking about carbon pollution when you and I are sitting here breathing out, you know, 40,000 parts per million of CO2 with every exhalation. So I mean it’s shameful to do all of this propaganda on what’s a beneficial natural part of the atmosphere that has never been stable but most of the time much higher than now. Is there a finding that could emerge related to, say, sea level that could get you more focused or thinking about the downside of the relentless buildup of this gas? Remember, the thing that’s the issue here is the long-lived nature of CO2. So it’s kind of like a ratcheting mechanism. It’s hard to reverse. Well I think CO2 is good. I’m very happy that it’s long-lived. The longer the better. Look, I mean you can already see the Earth greening. [It is.] If you look at agricultural yields, they’re steadily going up. A lot of that is fertilizer, better varieties, but some of it is CO2. So I mean I can’t imagine why you would want to decrease CO2."

I have St. Louis style ribs in right now. Twelve hours down twelve to go. Last time I did just twelve, ribs were cooked but very tough. My first sous vide fail. Looking forward to ribs 2.0.

I missed this one in Vacation Bible School as a child. So we’ve got the most powerful force in the universe (created it in seven days as you posit) and the manifestation is a talking donkey? I thought that was Dream Works.

If I am a nationalist who is white, does that make me a white nationalist?

You forgot male Wendy P. That goes without saying.

Yep unfettered legal and unchecked illegal immigration gets you Brexit and President Trump. Congratulations you win.

I am using "White" as a stand-in for European, because it wa s the topic of the OP.