Oddems, The Oscitance Edition: new media kitchen slut, naked malkinian wrath; beslubbering motley-minded lewdsters rock! safe clench-dancing; erstwhile dave; buying the ranch; KTTH is pravda; the bad lieutenant suits up

 ~ Talk radio, Paris Hilton notwithstanding, is sticking its knife into the President just like everybody else- too bad he's already dead! (Wish we had a pickle for every talk radio hour spent last week by hosts getting callers to agree that the bad, bad media pays too much attention to Paris Hilton!) We always like to say that talk radio is losing its clout, but the heavy shit-fall brought down on the immigration reform bill was pretty impressive. The R's are torn asunder, and the Dems, through no fault of their own, are looking pretty good.

~ "Unlike Nixon, President Bush is less an overreaching Machiavelli than an epic blunderer surrounded by Machiavellis." ~ Frank Rich

~ Who knew, dep't? It's probably puerile to note this in this prestigious Blog of Record, but as usual, we can't help ourselves: according to a Shakespearean dictionary, a "malkin" is a kitchen slut. Perhaps (perchance?) that explains why one of the most common Googly key phrases that will fetch up BlatherWatch is "Michelle Malkin naked." Posting this, we risk the Malkinian wrath and the Elizabethan  epithet: "Thou beslubbering motley-minded lewdster!"

~ David Goldstein (KIRO Saturdays, Sundays, 7-10p) pointed out this week that the Moscow newspaper's name, Pravda translated means The Truth. Was it ignorance or was there something sinister going on at the right wing talk station KTTH when they picked their slogan? (we're betting it was the latter) In Soviet days, "The Truth" was the lying-est publication on the planet. Perhaps "The Truthy" might be a better fit for the station with such known liars such as Big Pants, Michael Savage and Billo Reilly.

~ Our favoritest words entered into the magic Google box that brought readers our way this week was: "booty clench dance." Fucking poetry, no?

~ Another scoop that turned to poop: we thought we had a big one last week when Crosscut editor Chuck Taylor referred to David Postman as "the erstwhile Seattle Times chief political reporter" in his piece, "What the Seattle bloggers are saying about Al Gore." Since 'erstwhile' means 'former,' we thought Postman had lost his job; we might be able to entice him to work for BlatherWatch; and that at least we had a big, big media scoop. We fired off a volley of what-the-fuck??? emails to everyone involved. Seems David still has his job, and neither Chuck nor David knew what 'erstwhile 'means. Taylor, consummate grownup that he is, acknowledged the error, and changed the word to 'veteran.' David wrote, "You're paying the price of being literate. Hacks like me didn't know what the word meant, so it caused no alarm." After an embarrassing grammar skirmish a few months ago which we lost to Chuck's boss, David Brewster, we shoulda stood in bed. By the way: downtown venture capital apparently isn't everything to the young, struggling upstart: click here to drop a few shekels in the Crosscut tip jar.

~ It's been pretty quiet aund radio town lately so as filler we're including this photo Lt. Bryan Suits (KVI m-f, 3-6p) sent us of him (in the swim-mask) and an Iraqi kid who may be in an upcoming roSeahawk draft.

~ Buying the ranch. Liberal Los Angeles talk host, Bree Walker (KTLK ) is buying peace mom Cindy Sheehan's 5-acre ranch near President Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas to make into a "peace park." Sheehan refused to sell it to the vile San Francisco KSFO Melanie Morgan whose right-wing front organization ITMove America Forward sponsored "You Don't Speak for Me, Cindy!" tour. Sheehan, in August 2005, camped in ditches near Bush's ranch for 26 days, demanding to talk with him. She gets credit for making the first cracks in the wall of public acceptance of the cursed Bush/Cheney war. Her son Army Spc. Casey Sheehan was killed at 24 in Baghdad in 2004. Thank-you for your service, Cindy.

Comments

[nevets]

"Thirty to fifty years is a worthless time frame for deducing (or is it inducing?) anything."

Again Joanie puts her foot in her mouth with this absurd statement. But then again she has been doing this often lately. When you said he was "smart" earlier did you really mean it because from that statement you would now be calling Mr. Mote an idiot.

[nevets]

From what I've read, Mr. Albrect was asked to sign a new communications policy from Mr. Mote that would have prevented him from sharing his concerns about misleading facts without approval. When he refused, he was stripped of his title, while on vacation to boot. Did Gov. Gregoire have a hand in his firing? Or maybe Mayor Nichols? Maybe, we'll never know for sure.

[joanie]

As usual, you reference evidence that has nothing to do with your argument.

Oh, dear, nevetS. Guessing, guessing, guessing, as usual. What else do you have up your ass you'd like to show us?

[Duffman]

Be careful what you ask for Ms joanie...you might be in for a hemorrhoidal surprise! :)

[joanie]

lonely again, duff?

[Duffman]

ha...a lone-ee may be, but never lonely. :)

[coiler]

That was George Taylor in Oregon who ass ummed he was the State Climatologist. Spare Parts Radio, Lars Larson was trying to stir the pot in that one.

“He is Oregon State University's climatologist. He is not the state of Oregon's climatologist,” Kulongoski said.

[cowpotpi3]

There are a couple of points that need cleared up here.

1) Steve, if you re-read the article about Albrecht you will see that he was not prevented "from sharing his concerns about misleading facts without approval." He was asked to clear findings under the auspices of the WA State Dept. of Climatology with the Director, Mote. Now you could make the claim that he was suppressing discussion but please be accurate in what actually occurred.

2) All of this George Taylor stuff...First of all he isn't even a Climatologist, he is a Meteorologist by trade. He also gave himself that title and when he started going on right wing radio and appearing in right wing print spreading his opinion which is totally at odds with the scientific consensus, he lost his self given title (not because he was fired as was falsely claimed in said right wing sources but because the Governor of Oregon appointed a real State Climatologist).

Debate on the issues are great but let's at least set some facts instead of getting them from Sean Hannity or Dori Monson. Thanks.

[Duffman]

"..but because the Governor of Oregon appointed a real State Climatologist.."

Where do you get that? I thought Oregon was sans a 'Climatologist' and Governor was in essence de facto? Is that wrong.

[sparky]

There is no OSU Climatologist.

[Duffman]

..but is there an official State of Oregon climatologist?

[cowpotpi3]

Actually I believe that is correct, that the Governor hasn't yet appointed one. Therefore, Oregon doesn't have one until that point in time.

[cowpotpi3]

There is neither at this time, OSU decided that he couldn't go around with a self appointed title I guess.

[Duffman]

..ergo:
"..let's at least set some facts instead of getting them from Sean Hannity or Dori Monson" or CPP3. :)

[cowpotpi3]

Duff that changes nothing really, the guy still is not the state climatologist as Monson and Hannity claimed. The fact that I'll actually correct a minor error like that pretty much shows you the vast great difference between some people around here. So act smug if you like however ask yourself what would Jesus do?

[Duffman]

no smugness; just helping you 'set the facts'...no need for apology by the way..as I understand what you really meant...and you're welcome! :)

[Duffman]

..as an aside for what its's worth I'm no fan of Sean Hannidy as I feel he is (like Rush) just a RW spokesperson...but I do like Dori Monson for his entertainment value (not his 'facts')

[cowpotpi3]

I owed you an apology? Duff you really need to get a reality check. Recall all those times you posted factually inaccurate data (ie the Gore stuff you were incorrect on and the holocaust denier WMD stuff you were incorrect on). Shall I ask you for an apology? Ridiculous. However tell you what, you start apologizing for the disgusting spilt milk comment and I'll consider it.

[Duffman]

you owe me nothing; you have my respect for owning up and not unchaining merci the blathering pit bull of cut-and-paste fame for yet another regurgitation. [although I somehow feel that may be coming] but, what's new...ha :) Over & out on the subject!

[nevets]

Well Capt. I'll buy your argument after I read it. Can you provide a link please. Maybe we are not reading the same article(s).

And Joanie, which evidence, I only referenced two bits of information and they were both quotes from you. But if you want me to provide proof that Mr. Mote.(Along with 45 other Ph'd's) approved of a report that spanned 45 years( "Thirty to fifty years is a worthless time frame for deducing (or is it inducing?) anything"). I can. But I think it would be best to give you a chance to retract that statement so I wouldn't have to show the rest here how stupid you really are.

[nevets]

Maybe someone needs to tell the Oregon Climate Service that Taylor was stripped of his title as State Climatologist.

[cowpotpi3]

Steve, its the same article from the Times you referenced above. It just doesn't say what you spun it as saying: "from sharing his concerns about misleading facts without approval." That's all. From your post I kind of assumed you had read it. FYI here is a link to the article in question:

Seattle Times Article

The second part about the governor of Oregon's decision can be found here:

OSU Climatology Tiff

[cowpotpi3]

I don't know how an out of date web page is germane to the discussion. And to clarify, how would the governor exactly strip him of a title he really never had? That's the rub here. By the way do a google search for "Oregon State Climatologist" and just look at all the right wing sites who are making this seem like the guy was kicked out in the cold by the evil liberal government. LOL.

[sparky]

IOIYAR

[KS]

"Finally, anybody who compares global warming and thinks fifty-five years is more significant than thirty years is on his/her face an idiot. Thirty to fifty years is a worthless time frame for deducing (or is it inducing?) anything."

Do you choose to be full of emotion, ignorant and brain dead ?
When you consider just over 100 years of record, it is, that's as plain as the nose on your face, but arguing with you is pointless as once again demonstrated.

Mote would have more credibility if he kept politics out of the debate . . .

I would say that Albrecht is the one who put politics into the debate. Thanks to Mote for keeping science in the debate and firing Albrecht to get politics out of the debate.

Joanie, J(Ph)oanie - you are once again full of yourself. I'd say that Mote pushed politics and Albrecht was applying science - that's my take and I'm sticking to it, whistle blowing - if you will. Libs like you can't separate feelings from logic. Keep reading those tabloid journalism masquerading as urban daily newspapers.

[KS]

Did you bother to view the You Tube link on Dr. Mote ? The Medford Mail Tribune was an older link and incomplete. My condolensces to those of you who stayed stuck on that and those who can't seem to get over it...

[cowpotpi3]

KS did you by chance ever listen to a speech or interview given by Phil Mote? There was even one posted in this very thread. Mote is extremely even handed in dealing with the issue and explicitly avoids taking this so called liberal agenda you keep talking about but producing no evidence other than "I hate Joanie" to support.

I have logic...watch the interview and listen to his conclusions. He doesn't sound like some emotional lefty to me. Then again I actually listened to what he had to say rather than reading an article about his falling out with Albrecht and superimposing my version of what I would like the truth to be over it.

So do you have actual proof that Mote injected politics or is that just your interpretation of the events?

[cowpotpi3]

Deflecting again I see. So answer the question...do you have some kind of source or evidence that he made this political? Anything? If so we haven't seen it.

Also you still haven't answered the question: do you even understand the peer review process? Are you aware that your statements are bunk (that there is some kind of huge division in science over this issue)? Again recall that science deals in probability not law (save a few instances). Given your complete rejection of the consensus, I wonder if you even believe in the Theory of Gravitation (scientists are a bunch of lefties who may be trying to trick you).

[joanie]

hahahahhahahaha . . .hahahahahaha . ., . hjahahahahahja . . . .god, this is funny!

As if a hundred years is even significant! Try a thousand and you're still not even close!

And the link I gave was only days old and had the most current evidence! I teach my first graders to check copyright dates!

And a podcast of Mote answering every single question was available . . . you could hear the man himself. You didn't need to go to a sound bite from You Tube!

hahahaqhahaq . . .hahahahaha....hgahahha. I'm laughing so hard, I'm crying!

[joanie]

As for "climatologist?" Both taylor and Mote call themselves climatologists. They can be whatever they say they are as far as I'm concerned.

I don't know Taylor's actual credentials - he does get an OSU paycheck. Mote is a fully credential atmospheric scientist - I think that is a little higher than meteorologist but who the Eff cares?

A rose by any other name. . . looking at Mote's understanding and acceptance of peer-reviewed empirical science sells me.

Although, as I said before, Galilieo was hanged as a heretic for believing the earth was round and that it orbited the sun.

[Nevets]

Ah Capt. maybe we are both reading to much into it.

And for you Joanie, quit contradicting yourself ok.

"Finally, anybody who compares global warming and thinks fifty-five years is more significant than thirty years is on his/her face an idiot. Thirty to fifty years is a worthless time frame for deducing (or is it inducing?) anything."

"As if a hundred years is even significant! Try a thousand and you're still not even close!"

"looking at Mote's understanding and acceptance of peer-reviewed empirical science sells me."

Isn't the Global Warming IPCC peer-reveiwed report all about trends in weather data over a certain period of time.

Is this proof enough that we can now just call you an overpaid babysitter.

[Nevets]

And Capt, here was the other article I found on the subject that was, referenced in the Times article.

[joanie]

Steven, you substantiate your insipidness with every post. Yes, dear, stats do usually cover a time frame. And the time frame in this case is not thirty, not fifty, not a hundred, not even a thousand year . . . but many, many more. What is there about that you don't get, sweetheart?

Come back to first grade and let mama teach you. Mmmmmm. :)

[Nevets]

Joanie, you should know better, where are your facts on this, show some proof, link us a reference or something. Oh, I forgot, Randi isn't on tonight so you need to wait till monday and see what she says.

[joanie]

Steven, perhaps you should aim for Kindergarten? I still love you.

[nevets]

As I figured, no proof. You are losing your credibility here Joanie. Very sad.

[nevets]

Joanie is this the proof you were looking for on man-made Global Warming. If it is, you made a believer out of me.

(EPOD 19June2007)

[joanie]

Well, at least you're getting closer to the appropriate time frames. Good for you . . . and keep trying, Stevie.

[nevets]

C'mon Joanie, I want to be a believer, I really do but I need proof. Help me Joanie, no, help us all understand. Share with us your wisdom on this Global Warming that will surely kill this earth if we don't stop it's fever.

[joanie]

Ah, Steven or is it nevetS? Smarter people than I have given evidence. If they cannot convince you, you will not be convinced.

Closed minds will never see light and progress may be impossible. So, we will sit in the mire created by your side and will eventually be swallowed up. Then, you will wonder how it all happened. That is the curse of ignorance - you never get it.

[cowpotpi3]

I have to give Joanie +1 points for using 'insipid' as an insult...I thought I was the only liberal elite bastard to utilize that one.

Steve, the problem with global warming is that we are talking about a scientific phenomena that do not distill tidally into a talking point that fits in the space of a bumper sticker. Science, by its very nature, requires vast amounts of empirical data that are not open to intuition, guesses or feelings in the pit of your stomach. If you even look at the statements of the most vilified "liberal extremists" in this thread (Mote), you will see and hear very measured statements on the topic. Mote el al say things like "to the best or our understanding" and "there is not enough data to support a definitive analysis" when speaking about global warming. The great trap that GW deniers and those of the political right fall into is a lack of general understanding of science and its method. To illustrate, there is no scientific proof that smoking 2 packs of Camel Ultra Wides a day causes cancer...but there is overwhelming quantitative analysis that is does. Would you have us believe it doesn't? Of course not. It is much the same with global warming. I guess I am hopelessly biased, having a Masters in Chemistry.

[joanie]

You've really set yourself up here, cowpot. NevetS will respond with his usual "prove it."

All we can do with him is laugh. I can't waste tears on him . . . so might as well get a good belly laugh out of him.

[nevets]

You don't have to sell me Capt on GW, just sell me that it is man-made. As by the link above we all know GW has been going on for ages. But in Joanies case, and the start of all this mumble jumble, is she has proven herself a hypocrite yet again. She calls this Mote guy "smart" in one post, but then will criticise the very methods (time frames) he (Mote)uses to call another person on this site an idiot. Then she does her best to distance herself from her mistake by making up this mumble jumble that she believes that trends need to go back further when we all know what her stance on GW is and that she very well knows Man-made GW has only been going on since the Industrial revolution or early 1800's.

As for smoking, if I die of lung cancer (ex smoker) then you and all the others will be right after all.

[joanie]

keep trying . . . someday you might make some sense if only by accident. :)

[Duffman]

Dave Ross had an interesting guest on his show today. A fellow by the name of Anthony Watts - a meterologist from Chico, CA who is apparently doing a study of all of the earth surface monitoring stations and so far finding potential factors that could affect their readings other than natural temperature? A variety of things, location, nearby objects that hadn't been there before, etc.
NOAA is apparently aware of this (from another study by CSU) and is trying to account for differences?
Sounds complicated at best?

[nevets]

Hey Duff, how about that wise crack Dave made. "So a Fire Chief's car is melting the Glaciers in Greenland." After Mr Watts told him a temperature sensor was 10 ft from the Fire Chiefs parking spot. Where does he get his wit.

As for the topic, I hope this Mr Watts does more research. NOAA does seem to be looking into it. After the IPCC releases their final report can thier data be called tainted and become suspect?

[nevets]

But to be honest on this Duff, he is not looking into all of the Earths Surface monitoring Stations, just local ones for now but I think he mentioned he was going to try to look at all the stations in the US. He has looked at 50 or so in the western states.

[Duffman]

Yeah that was kind of funny.
Is there global warming, YES, is there global cooling, YES, is there climate change YES.
Exactly what causes it and to what extent human kind affects it is still an 'unsettled science'.
I think that's a fair statement.

[Duffman]

Can we be so affirmative to the following questions?

Does Al Gore have all the answers?

Did Al Gore invent the internet?