tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post7375656442234728897..comments2024-03-19T03:14:04.172-04:00Comments on Rabett Run: Senate Hearing Live BlogEliRabetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comBlogger54125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-76704293364501139092015-12-18T13:04:12.375-05:002015-12-18T13:04:12.375-05:00angech,
Nice, you appear to want to move the goal...angech,<br /><br />Nice, you appear to want to move the goalposts aka an informal logical fallacy.<br /><br />Speaking of Abbott and Costello, err Christy and Spencer (Christy is the straight guy, Spencer not so much (not that there's anything wrong with that, mind you)).<br /><br />But wait ... I found the NOAA before and after data, v3.5.4 (thru 2014-12) versus current v4.0.0 (as of 2015-10) ... and all I can say it's absolutely despicable and diabolical what those political scientists did, I tell you, despicable and diabolical ...<br /><br />Group, Linear Trend (degrees C per century)<br /><br />NOAA v3.5.4 (1979-01 thru 2014-12),1.48<br />NOAA v4.0.0 (1979-01 thru 2014-12),1.48<br /><br />OMFG! NOAA has the EXACT same linear trend over the common 36 years. NOAA must of cheated with Osama's help just in time for COP21 there can be no other explanation.<br /><br />RSS v3.3 (1979-01 thru 2015-09),1.21<br /><br />So according to Ted Cruz and Lamar Smith (and Watts and Curry and Monkers) this is the so called "gold standard" of MSU measurements. Now when I hear the words "gold standard" I immediately think of price FIXING, as in the "gold standard" is set to a FIXED price or a FLATLINED price if you prefer.<br /><br />So in keeping with this "idea" of "gold standard" and "price fixing" what does UAH do ...<br /><br />UAH v5.6 (1979-01 thru 2014-12),1.39<br />UAH v6.0b4 (1979-01 thru 2014-12),1.12<br /><br />It does appear that the UAH "fixed" their data (for the upteenth time even)<br /><br />Difference NOAA versions,0.00 degrees C per century<br />Difference UAH versions,-0.27 degrees C per century<br /><br />For some rather odd reason Curry showed certain versions of UAH and RSS data together to redefine or establish a FIXED "gold standard" but the "official nasa.gov UAH "gold standard" is nowheres to be seen. I wonder why?<br /><br />Maybe its just me, but I'm sort of thinking that the House and Senate are looking the wrong way on purpose (looking at plots by Monkers and Godtard and Curry no less) and that their timing is rather remarkable considering the COP21 meeting timeline (see previous comment above).Everett F Sargenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00201577558036010680noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-6675017179517776732015-12-18T09:56:16.143-05:002015-12-18T09:56:16.143-05:00You've obviously made the big breakthough, ang...You've obviously made the big breakthough, angech.<br /><br />You need to publish. Right away!<br /><br />The world awaits.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-72152460425025473882015-12-18T08:01:54.130-05:002015-12-18T08:01:54.130-05:00Everett nice post on models of middle troposphere ...Everett nice post on models of middle troposphere as opposed to observations and the difference between them at Climate etc<br />Re recent Christy house of reps presentation.<br /> Much more obvious how wrong the models are when all those sliding ice sheets do not get in the way.<br />I guess the only real way of measuring the earth's real temperature would be by satellites measuring the emitted radiation level.<br />Technically possible and avoids all those thermometers being hit by the sliding ice.<br /><br />8c thank you for input.<br />You certainly know how to run a good convincing argument.<br />So you win🙂<br />Random string apology generated by being beaten by a great argumentangechhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00843502144151902195noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-88696897872853230892015-12-17T13:11:37.793-05:002015-12-17T13:11:37.793-05:00Mr. Random Number --
you can avoid tracking. Cre...Mr. Random Number --<br /><br />you can avoid tracking. Create an OpenID account any of the dozen or more sites, or roll your own as they explain. If you want to avoid the tracking, you have to jump through two simple hoops.<br /><br />1) sign in to the account in order to post a comment here, and<br />2) sign out of the account after you post your comment.<br /><br />Yeah, if you're using Google, they'll give you a pre-selected checkbox you have to uncheck each time so you don't stay logged into their "everything via Google" system. Same I'm sure for everything else.<br /><br />Yeah, they do want to track you and do want to sell you to advertisers.<br /><br />But, in fact, not everyone already knows who you are, and any of the comments posted under those random number strings might be someone just spoofing you. <br /><br />Try the OpenID string. Leave minimal info at the site you sign up with (WordPress, Google, AIM, whatever); use a throwaway email address. Pull the shades. Don't talk on the phone. Avoid the tracking.<br /><br />But get a unique ID here so we can tell you from the parodies and poes, eh?<br /><br />My prior posts use a Google identity (signed in, posted, signed out)<br />This one uses a WordPress identity (ditto)<br /><br />Click the name with the link to see how little info you need to provide.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-84255070589628853232015-12-17T09:43:39.777-05:002015-12-17T09:43:39.777-05:00"Is one layer the better one to use?"
H..."Is one layer the better one to use?"<br /><br />How about when pigs fly then we'll use the TLT.<br /><br />How about when the ice sheets float kilometers above the surface then we'll use the TLT.<br /><br />In other words, ice sheets sublimate and melt and slide and calf on the surface.<br /><br />Last time I checked the surface is not a "layer" in the strict sense, the "layer" thickness of the SAT is at most 0.003 km thick (that's like 3 meters or 10 feet for the math impaired).<br /><br />What are the "assumed" layer thicknesses of the TMT, TTT and TLT?<br />https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2e/Weighting_Function.png<br /><br />Very roughly, TMT ~ 20 km, TTT ~ 15 km and TLT ~ 10 km (that's like 20,000 meters, 15,000 meters and 10,000 meters for the math impaired).Everett F Sargenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00201577558036010680noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-85448877410853217932015-12-17T09:22:38.844-05:002015-12-17T09:22:38.844-05:00I don't agree with anything you say because:
...I don't agree with anything you say because:<br /><br />1) You're a crank who already thinks you have all the answers.<br />2) You're an innumerate crackpot without a clue how physics works.<br />3) You're a fascist who thinks everyone should agree with you.<br />4) You're a fake. A fraud. A flim flam man, huckster, etc.<br />5) You are transparent, easily recognized for what you are (see above).<br /><br />The random string which appears to be identical every time I comment, is a result of some weird obsolete google software this blog uses. I am unable to comment here any other way since I don't participate in social media whose only purpose is stealing personal information for profit. But I do happen to have an usable email which for some reason gets converted by authentication to a string.<br /><br />Also, everyone who critically thinks about evidence knows me already.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-84353486917629842882015-12-17T06:56:57.229-05:002015-12-17T06:56:57.229-05:008cetc
Great name
Can we agree that both are legiti...8cetc<br />Great name<br />Can we agree that both are legitimate measuring systems and that they are in fundamental disagreement?<br />Good.<br />Do you really want to argue whose is bigger or better?<br />Fine.<br />At the end of the day both are legitimate measuring systems .<br />I can match you fault for fault or better value for value on each.<br />I can point out that it took a lot of money to put the satellite up and the system up and very clever scientists derived ways of measuring information that is continuous, has data that covers 90% of the world from the same instruments, that measures one uniform layer independent of the vagaries of the surface composition itself .<br />The sceptical problems with measuring and merging two different surfaces, with inconsistency of measuring sites, with failing instruments giving dodgy readings, with failed instruments needing averaged readings, with human observers past and present who entered data at different times or when they felt like it, with 30,000 sites listed but over half only estimated readings and the rest a mixture of failing failed and made up sites ,moved sites and adjusted sites is not the problem.<br />The fact that I can state this and "believe" it<br />While you can state and believe the opposite , and put your fingers in your ears when you hear my comments is the problem.<br />I would love for our host to find a way to communicate across this unbridgeable gap.<br />But as he and I know attempts are futile.<br />You just get more flack the more you try.<br />The answers will come in time, but when you argue it would be good to argue with a sound argument , not a comparison.<br />There are differences. Between two good measuring systems.<br />Is it purely due to the difference in the two adjacent layers?<br />Is one layer the better one to use?<br />Is there a flaw in the measurers or measurements?<br />If you found out tomorrow you had been gamed would it really alter your or my view<br />(If I found out tomorrow I had been gamed would it change my view)<br />Probably not for either of us.<br />But you could at least ask yourself the question.<br />Or as the Climate Conference said you "should" ask the question , not shall.<br />Thanks for your input, seriously.<br />angechhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00843502144151902195noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-8743787224580035382015-12-16T09:43:55.370-05:002015-12-16T09:43:55.370-05:00Or angech, you could refer to the numerous and far...Or angech, you could refer to the numerous and far more direct proxies for surface warming. Like thermometers and physical observations in direct contact with the surface. Optical imaging of surface features works pretty well too. But I understand how inconvenient reality is for people like yourself.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-42166570402141526462015-12-16T01:14:02.982-05:002015-12-16T01:14:02.982-05:00Good one Wussell,
Fancy getting a sign wrong .
He...Good one Wussell, <br />Fancy getting a sign wrong .<br />He did correct it then?<br />UAH still showed a pause?<br />And we cannot think of others that have got there sums wrong and were man enough to admit it , ATTP on several occasions <br />I recall .<br />And someone else who used the wrong sign and refused to correct it?<br />So go ahead and use snigger, <br />Or admit that he is using very complex science, government approved, at a level you can only dream of.<br />You do not like the results .<br />Perhaps you should show a little humility, acknowledge that your opponents are real people too and some are very bright and have reasons to doubt your faith.<br />If you wish to use dogma instead , fine, whatever, go ahead and snipe and denigrate.<br />If it makes you happy and stops you thinking I do not want to mar your happiness.angechhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00843502144151902195noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-37068407451962799542015-12-16T00:46:58.849-05:002015-12-16T00:46:58.849-05:00"So expert in the example of Dr Spencer that ..."So expert in the example of Dr Spencer that he was one of the scientists put in charge of using satellite information to give a map earth's atmospheric temperatures"<br /><br />So great were Woys powers of satellite data integration that he got the sign of the temperature change wrong.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />THE CLIMATE WARShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02578106673226403151noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-8421106749790865112015-12-15T09:17:13.506-05:002015-12-15T09:17:13.506-05:00You think that your faith is dogma. I get that.
N...You think that your faith is dogma. I get that.<br /><br />No evidence is required in your case.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-23826999380907260132015-12-15T08:29:05.721-05:002015-12-15T08:29:05.721-05:00Cruz1 Trump 0
What a great debate. Tired of the s...Cruz1 Trump 0 <br />What a great debate. Tired of the same old , same old?<br />Listen to some alternative views.<br />Without criticising or denigrating the people concerned.<br />Easy? Apparently not.<br />The scientists here, and we are talking 4 real scientists are experts in their fields.<br />So expert in the example of Dr Spencer that he was one of the scientists put in charge of using satellite information to give a map earth's atmospheric temperatures.<br />No one commenting here is even close to understanding the work he has done.<br /> But because he has the temerity to question the dogma, you mock him, and science rather than try to open your minds to the fact that hey, maybe once in a hundred years I might have got it wrong.<br />The more moaning drivel the better I feel.<br />It confirms that the blinkers are on full force<br />angechhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00843502144151902195noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-58874120933256313412015-12-10T21:24:32.361-05:002015-12-10T21:24:32.361-05:00Yep, Republicans really do not like Cruz.Yep, <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/12/08/bob-dole-really-really-doesnt-like-ted-cruz/?tid=hybrid_experimentrandom_1_na" rel="nofollow">Republicans really do not like Cruz.</a>Victor Venemahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02842816166712285801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-82316650179959132472015-12-10T16:15:47.862-05:002015-12-10T16:15:47.862-05:00Interesting that Republican Senators hate Cruz mor...Interesting that Republican Senators hate Cruz more than they love climate denialism. I wish that got out in the mainstream media. So Democrats and the Titley got the lion's share of exposure.<br /><br />Cruz managed to lose the moment that he stacked in his favor because he's such a hated figure, even on issues where the Republicans (except for a few) don't disagree. My guess is he doesn't try this again, unless he can repair a few bridges with Republicans.<br /><br />There's an interesting parallel between Cruz and John Edwards, who was also widely disliked in the Senate. Maybe it's just showboating, but maybe it's something more about personalities.Brianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09301230860904555513noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-15559212927431423982015-12-10T15:07:02.741-05:002015-12-10T15:07:02.741-05:00Science is rough and tumble, with researchers alwa...<i>Science is rough and tumble, with researchers always looking for something new or overturning</i><br /><br />Speaking of 'overturning', it's too bad most of you haven't noticed that because of this decadal level dithering there are some laws of physics that must be ... ahem ... let's just say 'tuned', because now you are committed not only to a fully solar powered electric society, but you are also committed to several times that amount of solar powered energy in order to just decarbonize the atmosphere from the damages done by that dithering. Fortunately, you guys are in luck.<br /><br />And that's if you quit cold turkey right now. So yes, overturning.<br /><br />Seriously, you are way beyond adaptation and remediation. From my seat, a Manhattan style physics overturning extravaganza is required.<br /><br />And again, it appears that you are going to luck out on that too.<br /><br />It would be nice of you helped out a bit too.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-26318144728723518152015-12-10T14:31:06.275-05:002015-12-10T14:31:06.275-05:00Great posts, Bernard.Great posts, Bernard.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-42350348126226280782015-12-10T12:14:19.889-05:002015-12-10T12:14:19.889-05:00Bernard, being of southern heritage you may not ha...Bernard, being of southern heritage you may not have picked up on the red team/team B that Christy (and Happer or Curry) pushed. It's roots go back to the 1970s when the right wing was claiming that the CIA underestimated the military threat from the Soviet Union. They set up (Bush was CIA director) a Team B which in turn delivered the required scary document.<br /><br />After the USSR fell apart it turned out that the CIA had over weighted USSR military capability. Team B was simply delusional.<br /><br />There remain familiar names that took part, and some of them showed up after 9/11. Others had passed.<br /><br />When Eli heard Team B in two of the opening statements of the witnesses, the Bunny thought, oh no, that is going to be what this farce is about, setting up another Team B, but fortunately the hate of the Rs for Cruz and Cruz's losing the thread delivered us. EliRabetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-38970433188653779872015-12-10T09:35:41.704-05:002015-12-10T09:35:41.704-05:00So, Happer...
Now there's someone who gives e...So, Happer...<br /><br />Now there's someone who gives emeriti a bad name.<br /><br />He says that CO2 is not a pollutant, because we breath it out "at forty thousand parts per million". Right. There's a reason why we breathe it <i>out</i>... We also shit, and shit is <i>also</i> great for plants, but too much of it in too constricted an environment...<br /><br /><br />Shit, piss, CO2. You work it out.<br /><br />Happer says that "...many plants are having a hard time performing as well as they're designed to perform because the CO2 levels are too low and the oxygen levels are too high. I won't go into the details because there's not much dispute about that."<br /><br />Gack. What tosh. Modern plants are well adapted to the CO2 levels of today, levels that have been stable for many millennia, and indeed if CO2 levels are artificially increased plants close their stomata to save water - <i>because they're not needing the extra CO2 at the rate that it comes in under artificial increase</i>. Happer himself makes the point about plants better surviving droughts in these conditions, which should be a clue that he's run afoul of Sprengel's/Leibig's law of the Minimum...<br /><br />Further, under increased CO2 levels some plant taxa are unable to metabolise carbon and nitrogen in appropriate ratios, leading to issues both for themselves and for herbivores that depend on them (including humans...). Also, different taxa have different responses to increased CO2, and many plants that respond best under high CO2 are prone to weediness...<br /><br />It never ceases to flummox me that the Denialati conflate increased growth under artifical conditions of water, nutrient and/or CO2 increase with increased planetary benefit. Humans too can growth well and to extremes under increased calory intake, but as the epidemic of obesity and obesity-related diseases indicates this is not good for our physiologies: shifting global CO2 concentration will have many adverse ecological consequences too, quite apart from the climatological and ocean chemistry effects - the latter of which Happer completely ignores...<br /><br />And oxygen is too high?! FFS, this is so nonsensical that one doesn't know where to start un-knotting the ball of tangled Stupid.<br /><br />Happer thinks, like Christie, that we need a "Team B" because apparently the scientific method is not adversarial enough. He says that "we don't have two labs for climate, we have one organisation, one world organisation, the IPCC. We have one funding agency that follows the IPCC..." and he wants to "set aside funding that is designed to be for the 'other side'..." because "there's nothing adversarial in the [climate] science."<br /><br />What bollocks.<br /><br />Apparently Happer doesn't realise that the IPCC doesn't conduct or even dictate who does what science when, where or how, or that there is more than one organisation in the US - let alone the world - that conducts research into the science of climate. It's astounding that he displays no clue about what the IPCC actually does...<br /><br />And he seems to have totally and utterly missed how science operates. For my own I know damned well the joy in the labs, offices and tea rooms when a paper is published refuting someone else's work. Science is rough and tumble, with researchers always looking for something new or overturning, and the existence of consensus after so much work and so much retesting in climatology indicates not a conspiracy or a club but the soundess of the underlying principles.<br /><br />"Team B" isn't about scientifically challenging prior theories and conclusions, it's about pseudoscientific cherry-picking and obfuscation to produce grist for the propaganda mills of the ideological ratbaggery.<br /><br />Speaking of ratbags, I'm pausing at Steyn. I feel the need for some better culture in my own humble opinion than what I'm about to see, so I'm going to talk to some pond scum.<br /> Bernard J.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16299073166371273808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-7077533157394663962015-12-10T09:03:46.540-05:002015-12-10T09:03:46.540-05:00"..his non-acceptance of a large part of the ..."..his non-acceptance of a large part of the science was due to a personal scientifically-ideological blindspot,.." - Bernard J, the à priorì is there is no innocence in climate revisionm. <br />Assume the worst every time.<br />These people are now drowning Cumbria, Chennai et cetera. Accuse!cRR Kampenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07571285063752477448noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-66614699175882334382015-12-10T08:30:44.326-05:002015-12-10T08:30:44.326-05:00And isn't Curry a piece of work...?
She says ...And isn't Curry a piece of work...?<br /><br />She says in her introductory paragraphs that there is "considerable [scientific] uncertainty and disagreement whether the warming has been dominated by human causes <i>versus</i> natural variability." Really? Only if by "uncertainty and disagreement" one stretches to include the ravings of the ignorati...<br /><br />She also lists "how much the planet will warm in the 21st century." This is actually a two-part issue. Whilst there is some variance in the estimation of climate sensitivity the best evidence still points to 3 °C, but even taking a hugely optimistic leap to half this, the long-term consequences of doubling the amount of atmospheric CO2 would still be profoundly serious. And this leads to the second issue - the effects of global warming will continue to increase in magnitude beyond 2100, and we have as much responsibility to generations and species two, three, four hundred years hence, as we do to those twenty, thirty and forty years hence.<br /><br />Then she goes to "whether warming's dangerous." <a href="http://judithcurry.com/2015/03/30/is-climate-change-a-ruin-problem/#comment-688778" rel="nofollow">By her own admission she has no experience in ecology</a>, so she really has no place saying that the ecophysiology of climate shifts are not understood.<br /><br />This is followed by repeated assertions of the above, assertions which are at odds with a vast corpus of literature of which she is either ignorant or which she is choosing to ignore. She repeats again her meme of uncertainty, which seems to be an attempt to progress one of the limited number of concepts in atmospheric modelling to come from her <a href="http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2015/11/turned-not-tossed-judith-curry-denier.html?showComment=1448891582466#c7939917151036014467" rel="nofollow">proportionately small number of first authored papers</a>. (As an aside, one-trick ponies like this would be under the microscope in my institution, if they continued to peddle a notion but didn't support their work with a defensible body of evidence...)<br /><br />The rest is basically what Professor Rabbet noted - Curry threatening to go eat worms. Oh, and if anyone is wondering whether Curry's apparent difficulty in getting funding is a result of a conspiracy against her, go read the link in the previous paragraph.<br />Bernard J.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16299073166371273808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-10257961376607541962015-12-10T07:48:28.926-05:002015-12-10T07:48:28.926-05:00I've started watching the full hearing and the...I've started watching the full hearing and the very first and immediate impression is that your buddy ted Cruz is nuttier than a squirrel's winter stash.<br /><br />What has me gobsmacked at the moment though is how politically-partisan and -ideological is John Christy, with respect to his assertions about the science of climate change. Prior to this I'd thought that his non-acceptance of a large part of the science was due to a personal scientifically-ideological blindspot, but it seems that it's inextricably welded to his politics and general social/economic conservatism.<br /><br />And seriously, a call for "red science"?! He could have whole Republican Institutions for the Study of Climate Change, but they will no more change the physical facts* of global warming and of climate change than Pope Paul V was able to achieve when he ordered helicentrism be declared heretical. These modern-day Galileo wannabes need to seriously look at themselves in their mirrors, and think about one of Galileo's comments to Kepler:<br /><br />"<i>My dear Kepler, I wish that we might laugh at the remarkable stupidity of the common herd. What do you have to say about the principal philosophers of this academy [the </i>Collegium Romanum<i>] who are filled with the stubbornness of an asp and do not want to look at either the planets, the moon or the telescope, even though I have freely and deliberately offered them the opportunity a thousand times? Truly, just as the asp stops its ears, so do these philosophers shut their eyes to the light of truth.</i>"<br /><br />Christy obviously wants his own <i>Collegium Romanum</i> but the (lunar...) mountains of scientific evidence supporting the physics of global warming will not be dissuaded by any such endeavour. And certainly outside the States, the rest of the world's science will continue to show what it has for over a century and a half - that human emissions of the 'greenhouse' gas CO2 are warming the planet, and that warming is a Bad Thing.<br /><br />And one day, when the ecological and geopolitical consequences of human-caused warming come knocking on the door, these conservative ideologues will be some of the loudest to bleat and rail and gnash their teeth and pull their hair. By then though there's little that will be able to be done to stem the implacable behemoth of climate impact and the tide of people fighting* to survive it.<br /><br /><br />[*of course it's not ever about changing the facts, but about the political outcomes that might be achieved by distorting them...<br /><br />** For any and all interpretations of "fighting" that one might wish to observe...]Bernard J.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16299073166371273808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-5920128118933113552015-12-09T22:26:10.274-05:002015-12-09T22:26:10.274-05:00The best part of this is watching Willard Tony and...The best part of this is watching Willard Tony and the bish declare victory.EliRabetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-54230175127070359712015-12-09T22:12:07.965-05:002015-12-09T22:12:07.965-05:00So, five Democrat Senators and only two GOP, inclu...So, five Democrat Senators and only two GOP, including Cruz himself. Titley therefore ends up doing most of the talking, even though the witness panel was stacked in advance, and does a good job handling Cruz's questions to him.<br /><br />Teddy Cruz comes to the plate..he swings...and StirrrIKE!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15427410783634375334noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-10143262038631444722015-12-09T11:48:14.041-05:002015-12-09T11:48:14.041-05:00Thanks for the careful detail. Looks like popcorn...Thanks for the careful detail. Looks like popcorn time. Good to see the realists chugging along on all cylinders.<br /><br />Interesting that even the Republicans don't like Cruz. So this is grandstanding for his peculiar little corner of the sicko universe.<br /><br />Glad Steyn made himself look ridiculous, looking forward to checking that too.<br /><br />Titley is marvellous!Susan Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16935228911713362040noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-32765510979246843572015-12-09T09:59:18.457-05:002015-12-09T09:59:18.457-05:00Sou,
Per the linked video above, at ~2:42:50 afte...Sou,<br /><br />Per the linked video above, at ~2:42:50 after a l-o-o-o-o-o-o-n-g rambling high vocal volume rant/screed/manifesto by Steyn, Cruz goes ...<br /><br />"So ... I'll leave that aside for a moment" room then has a dull roar of laughter, Steyn laughs too for whatever reason.<br /><br />Bozo the Clown earns pay for entertaining the crowd.Everett F Sargenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00201577558036010680noreply@blogger.com