Darrel Issa Is Joe McCarthy???

Share Button

That’s what this story says.

I’m sorry… But this is a horrible comparison. McCarthy used the full weight of his congressional powers to go after citizen for no valid reason. Issa’s actions are very much different from Ken Starr. Starr, first of all, was an independent investigator, and he was given cart-blance by the idiot Janet Reno to do whatever he wanted. Issa, though he has several things burning in his fires….

Oh… Oops… Bad pun….

His abilities are quite limited when compared to Starr.

And Bill Clinton, for all his political genius, DID lie to the grand jury, leaving himself wide open to his eventual fate!

If the IRS did indeed use greater scrutiny against one political faction than the other… That is clearly wrong and against the law. Though they did look at both conservative AND liberal groups, the IRS inspector general is on record as saying the Tea Party filers were indeed treated to a much higher standard than their progressive counterparts.

If that was the case, it was wrong and illegal. If the roles were reversed, and it appeared that progressives were treated unequally by the IRS over conservatives, your side would be screaming for investigations.

In my opinion, Issa may be overzealous, but we need people like him in every congress. Wish there would have been more of this in the previous administration.

How To Respond To People With Different Views On Stuff… Dan… Bruce… Are You Listening???

Share Button

This is from the comments section of the Conservative “Human Events”, which highlights the New Yorker magazine featuring a cover strongly sugesting Seasame Streets Ernie and Bert are indeed gay:

West_Coast • 2 hours ago

The goal of the hom0sexual community and its ‘pushers’ are clear: Destroy the traditional family unit, destroy institutions that support it (i.e. churches, the BSA), indoctrinate the mush brain youth, so they can carry on the water of the ’cause’ for future generations, and elevate your ‘struggle’ to equal that of race.

(Oh, and cover up the lies and deceit of the lifestyle so that people don’t figure out how it destroys your dignity and self-worth)

Have i missed anything?

Here is my reply

Michael J Alexander West_Coast • 2 hours ago

“”Have i missed anything?””

Yes. You certainly have.

First – When I was lying to myself and others by pretending to be straight, I was destroying my dignity and self worth by perpetuating an untruth and hurting myself and others by not being honest. Being honest is something that the traditional values crowd is supposed to support, no? I’ve often heard people say “Well, gays can get married the same as straight, they just need to marry someone of the opposite sex”. You say you value traditional marriage so much, yet how do you square lying not only to myself, and the woman I would be marrying, but ultimately lying to God, as the marriage would ultimately a fraud.

Second – Being gay, and being able to marry ones same sex partner does nothing to interfere with traditional marriage at all. Do you lose privileges that are bestowed on you if you are in a traditional marriage???…


Does your traditional marriage cease to exist if you are in a traditional marriage???…


The only thing that expanding the marriage privilege to gays affects is you, and those like you. It’s the huge let down for yourselves that you no longer can dictate to society and rule from your self created pious throne of imagined superiority.

There. Filled in some of the blanks for you.

PS. I’m gay, and I think the New Yorker cover is stupid.

Note: In both responses, there are no ad-homs or obvious logical fallacies. We both get straight to the point.

Of course, you do have plenty of this:

Kramula • 25 minutes ago

Bert & Ernie couldn’t just be friends?? They had to be a couple of poo packers? For goodness sake, WHY?? What is wrong with these people?


Sam_Handwich • an hour ago

All the homosexual news this week will likely force Newt Gingrich to launch an adulterous affair with another good little catholic girl who can put her feet behind her ears.

And there is also some sensible comments to be found:

Todd Sargent • 2 hours ago

Please allow innocent childhood models of friendship to remain just that. If we reduce everything in life to sex, we have lost much of what it means to be human.

Now, compare that to the comment at gay Patriot, here, and here and here, and here, and here, and… Well you get the picture.

And you wonder why it saddens me so to see what has happened to that blog that I once enjoyed reading and sharing my thoughts on.

Prop 8 – How Valid Are The Critiques Concerning The SCOTUS Decisions?.

Share Button

There are two main lines of argument being offered about why the Supreme Courts decision to send Prop 8 back to the lower court ruling is wrong. Ed Morrissey writes:

The voters in California amended the state constitution by referendum legally, to define a legitimate government policy regarding the recognition of marriage. The court is making the case that this is a matter for California to settle, not the federal courts, and there is a very good case to make there. However, the effect of this is to overturn an election whose legality was never in doubt just because some people didn’t like the outcome. That to me is a more dangerous outcome than a precedent-setting decision on standing.

This is wrong. It wasn’t because some people “didn’t like” the outcome, it was because those people were directly impacted by the result of the outcome. The law directly affected them in a personal AND material way. Thus, the challengers of Prop 8 did have standing. The people defending the law had a “like” issue: they were the ones who “didn’t like” that the law was being challenged. But as the Supreme Court correctly showed today, you have to have more than an issue of liking or not liking a law or ruling to have standing and challenge a law in the courts… You have to have been directly affected by that law, or, in this case, the outcome of a lower court trial.

Remember, due to lack of standing, Michael Newdow failed in his bid to get “Under God” taken out of the “Pledge Of Allegiance”. If you were going to grade on a curve, because his case involved his daughter, one could argue that he actually had more standing in his Supreme effort than the defenders of Prop 8 did, yet Conservatives had no problem with the dismissal of that case due to lack of standing at the time.

Another criticism concerning this ruling is that it short circuits the initiative process. Here is how Kevin Drum puts it:

In California, it’s routine for the people to pass initiatives that neither the governor nor the legislature supports. In fact, that was the whole point of the initiative process when it was created. In cases like these, of course the governor and legislature are going to decline to defend the law in court. With today’s decision, the Supreme Court is basically gutting the people’s right to pass initiatives that elected officials don’t like and then to defend them all the way to the highest court in the land.

To me, this has neither the flavor of justice nor of democratic governance, regardless of whether I like the outcome.

I think this point does have some merit, especially since the initiative system was put into place to bypass what was at the time viewed by the public as an unresponsive and corrupt California government. But what are the options here? Should an initiative that is passed be immune to the scrutiny of the court?

I ask you, if the citizens of this strongly liberal state decided to put an initiative on the ballot to ban the Republican Party from the state, which would probably almost certainly pass…. Conservatives; wouldn’t you absolutely demand to take this to court to challenge it and have it overturned? Of course, maybe this is a bad example. They wouldn’t need that initiative, as the Republican Party is almost non-existent anyway. 🙂

On the state deciding to defend or not defend a law…. If the state, which doesn’t like the law, is forced to defend it, there is every likelihood that they will not defend the law to the best of their capabilities, thus still resulting in a short circuit of the system anyway.

Note, there have been several cases in the Federal realm where the Dept of Justice had decided not to defend a law, under G W Bush, under Clinton, under G H W Bush, and even under Ronald Reagan. The circumstances in each case has some differences, but the gist of it is that the executive and law enforcement branch felt there was no way to mount a serious and winnable defense of said laws that each ended up refusing to defend.

I have been able so far to find only one other case to point to on the state level where the state has taken the same path and not defended a statute. It does again deal with same sex marriage, so take this with a grain of salt:

Some legal ethics experts say that prosecutors are obligated to defend the laws of their jurisdiction. “A state’s attorney doesn’t get to pick and choose what laws she wants to prosecute,” says David A. Erickson, a retired justice of the Illinois Appellate Court and the director of the criminal litigation program at the Illinois Institute of Technology’s Chicago-Kent College of Law. “What if the state’s attorney was a person who doesn’t believe in hate crimes? You can’t just say I’m not going to enforce this law or defend it because I don’t believe in it or I don’t think so. That’s flat-out wrong.”

But R. Michael Cassidy, who teaches prosecutorial ethics at Boston College Law School, counters that a prosecutor facing the enforcement of a controversial law may actually have a duty to refuse the case. First off, Cassidy says, states generally have a definition of a prosecutor’s role and responsibilities. In Illinois, for example, the state’s attorney has a duty to defend the state constitution.

“You can’t really say the responsibility to defend statutes outweighs the responsibility to defend the constitution,” Cassidy says. “If they truly believe the statute violates the constitution, their responsibility to uphold the constitution trumps the duty to defend the statute.”

In addition, Rule 3.1 of the American Bar Association’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct, which Illinois has adopted, says that a lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding or assert or controvert an issue unless there’s a basis in law and fact.

“Essentially we don’t want lawyers asserting frivolous claims. It’s be-neath the dignity of the profession and wastes resources,” Cassidy says. “If a state’s attorney decides there is no reasonable likelihood of success, then they have an ethical responsibility not to defend the statute because such a defense would be frivolous.”

I don’t think this is an easy question that can be easily brushed aside. In the case of Prop 8, I think it’s more of a problem with the initiate system out here in California; it’s so easy to push one of these things through, if you sneeze in just the right way, you likely to accidentally get an initiate on the ballot, and even amend the state Constitution, as was the attempt here. Amending the Constitution, should be a difficult process, not the mere passing of a single ballot. The Federal procedure to amend the Constitution, with all it’s hoops to jump through, is to my mind a great safeguard against passing such a thing on public whim, as was done here.

I guess here is the question – should we hold states to a different standard when defending laws they don’t think are Constitutional than is applied to at Federal level?

PS. When time permits, I’ll see if I can find some more state cases and get a better feel for how often this refusal to defend a law is on the state level.

NSA Whistleblowers….. Snowden Isn’t The Only One

Share Button

There’s been a lot of focus on Eric Snowden’s role in exposing the Big Government spy machine operating under the NSA. However, going almost unnoticed, there have been two Democrat Senators who have done their best to try and alert the American citizenry of some of the things that are going on, Oregon’s Rob Wyden and Colorado’s Mark Udall.

Back in 2012, both Senators, who are on the eight member Senate Intelligence Committee and get briefed by the NSA, were trying to sound the alarm concerning the alarming over-reach of the NSA, that the government was using loopholes in the Patriot Act to go much further in data collection than the American public could dream of. Of course, because the details of the SIC briefings are classified, they can’t go into detail about the details about exactly what’s going on. In a letter to AG Eric Holder last year, they warned:

We believe most Americans would be stunned to learn the details of how these secret court opinions have interpreted section 215 of the Patriot Act. As we see it, there is now a significant gap between what most Americans think the law allows and what the government secretly claims the law allows. This is a problem, because it is impossible to have an informed public debate about what the law should say when the public doesn’t know what its government thinks the law says.

The NSA recently issued a fact sheet to try and clarify exactly what the NSA is doing, and appease the public concern over the growing surveillance state. Writing to the General Director of the NSA, they state:

“We were disappointed to see that this factsheet contains an inaccurate statement about how the section 702 authority has been interpreted by the US government,” Wyden and Udall wrote to Alexander, in a letter dated 24 June and acquired by the Guardian.

“In our judgment, this inaccuracy is significant, as it portrays protections for Americans’ privacy as being significantly stronger than they actually are,” the senators write. Yet they specified the “inaccurate” statement only in “the classified attachment to this letter”

According to the Guardian article that appeared today,

Wyden and Udall are backing legislative efforts to disclose more information about how the government interprets its surveillance authorities, and also to restrict the surveillance on Americans’ phone records, which depends on a different legal rationale than section 702 of the Fisa Amendments Act. Both senators have warned for years that the government secretly claimed broader surveillance powers than a plain reading of the laws permitted, but said they were barred from elaborating because of laws protecting classified information. They have also questioned the efficacy of the NSA’s database of millions of Americans’ phone records.

Back in 2011, Wyden wrote this:

“The intelligence community can target individuals who have no connection to terrorist organizations. They can collect business records on law-abiding Americans.”

Too bad the American public wasn’t listening then… But the government certainly was.

The War Ends… Gay Patriot Wins… I Think…. UPDATE – Or Not.

Share Button

Dan and Bruce are discussing what options to pursue on the matter. So things are indeed going to get resolved.

Meanwhile, things have gotten much worse! On a thread started by Gay Patriot West Dan (the one I supposedly wanted to kill himself) which is entitled STOP THE PERSONAL ATTACKS, it’s gone all serious meltdown with nuclear waste.

And the thread that launched my crusade against the guy who accused me of wanting Dan to kill himself?

Well, I officially dropped out of the thread at comment 162 or so, and it’s gone to 193, all pretty much vileness.

I think I’m going to suggest to Dan that he turn off the comments for a week or something. There is going to have to be a major purge to save that blog. Hope the guys are up to it.



It’s now been a couple of weeks…. And nothing has changed.

And I still have gotten no apology from NDT, accused me of wanting Dan to kill himself.


Liberals Boo’ing Pelosi????

Share Button

Has the bloom finally started to fall off the rose that has been the putrid part of the Democrat party???

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi has disappointed some of her liberal base with her defense of the Obama administration’s classified surveillance of U.S. residents’ phone and Internet records.

The San Jose Mercury News reported that some of the activists attending the annual Netroots Nation political conference Saturday booed and interrupted the San Francisco Democrat when she commented on the surveillance programs carried out by the National Security Agency and revealed by a former contractor, Edward Snowden.

Oh… I’m licking my political chops!

The progressives are FINALLY starting to revolt against the liberal proponents of the surveillance state! Just a few years ago, the Republicans experienced a major purge of a lot of the old guard. Are we poised to see the same with the Democrats????? Could this finally lead to the ouster of Feinstein…. And Boxer????

Oh. I shouldn’t get my hopes up.

More In The Gay Patriot Wars. Looking More And More Animal Farmish Everyday.

Share Button

Jeff, also known as ILC, has firmly inserted himself into the spat between NDT and myself. That’s me commenting in the first paragraph:


And I do hope you’re not saying that Conservative are more equal under the law than non-conservatives, because, my libertarian friend, that would also sooner or later put you in the cross hair, and you would also be insinuating that Gay Patriot operates in the same fashion as Animal Farm, where all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others, which would, by your interpretation, also make you a candidate to be banned.

Here’s the part where it get’s interesting.

[Jeff adds: Apparently you have still not read my post on that subject. Please go do so, before you continue further.

Overall comments: Your one-sided recitation of the thread was unnecessary. Whatever NDT’s personal attacks on you have been, you have undoubtedly made personal attacks on him. *IF* a fair and consistent application of the rules were to lead to anybody being banned, sf (and again, that is NOT anything I favor; I’m only discussing what you keep bringing up) – to be truly fair the ban would have to include you. As for what I meant by trashing your hosts’ home and friends…First and foremost, the thread is trashed because you (like he) did not take the conflict to your blogs, where it would fit better. You’ve also trashed a conservative friend of Dan and Bruce. Again, regardless of whether that other guest has done likewise to you; I do not make observations here about your justifications or your reasons, but only of your behavior. Please note that I never accused you of trashing Bruce or Dan themselves; you have apparently misinterpreted what I wrote.]

Comment by Sonicfrog — June 23, 2013 @ 3:00 pm – June 23, 2013

To which I reply:


Jeff… I did read what you wrote, which includes this:

By analogy: if this blog is a home for gay conservatives, then non-conservatives should not invoke the consistency game from within the blog. They should do it on the outside: on their blog, in private e-mail, etc. At least if the analogy holds.

Thank you point this out… That you think the rules are different for conservative over non-conservatives. Conservatives, by your own admission, get a free pass. That is NOT in the rules laid out by Bruce and Dan.

As I myself am a guest, I do not proclaim any sort of rule here;

You suggestion is noted. However, as you also acknowledge, you are also a guest. But that’s not quite true. You are more than a guest. You do have some administrative powers, as you show here and in other threads.


I really hope this is not the case, but it sure does look like some animals are more equal than others. I do hope that Dan and Bruce don’t agree with that.

The War At Gay Patriot Continue….

Share Button

More on the war at gay Patriot. Here is the latest.


Jeff, also known as ILC, wrote:

Since sf talked yesterday about rules, enforcement and banning people, I’ve been thinking about those questions.

Again, it’s not my role to ban people here and I’m not about to. But hypothetically, before I did, I’d want to summarize things in my mind. Here is my view of the fight. (Yours may vary…as may Bruce’s or Dan’s, if they were here.)

1) Opened the fight, by calling sf a bigot. (Personal attack on another commentor, violates GP rules.)
2) Has thankfully not called for sf to be banned.
3) Is a conservative, here at “the Internet home of the American gay conservative.”

1) Attacked NDT’s integrity. (Personal attack on another commentor, violates GP rules.)
2) Called for NDT to be banned. (The ‘nuclear weapon’ of personal attacks. Only the making of threats would be more of an attack.)
3) Is not a conservative, here at “the Internet home of the American gay conservative.”

Point (3) has the following dual relevance: Conservatives have an obligation to be good hosts to their non-conservative guests…and the latter have an obligation to be good guests, not trashing their hosts’ home or friends. I think there’s a breakdown here, on both sides of that equation.

Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 23, 2013 @ 12:25 pm – June 23, 2013


If you’re going to make a list, let me help you here. Here is the specific rule for comments at Gay Patriot:

Remember that the people under discussion are human beings. Comments that contain personal attacks about the post author or other commenters will be deleted. Repeated violators will be banned. Challenge the ideas of those with whom you disagree, not their patriotism, decency, or integrity.

Here are the litany of accusations and falsehoods NDT made on this post. Note that I had not made a single comment on this thread prior to this, which makes it an unprovoked attack:

Dan, honest question: when are you going to get mad about this?

Don’t you realize that bigots like Pat, like Sonicfrog

Personal attack # 1

like rusty, like Vince Smetana, like concern-troll mike, actually believe, support, and endorse this?

Personal attack # 2.

Kirsten Gillibrand and Chris Coons get votes BECAUSE they say these things from people like Pat, Sonicfrog, rusty, Vince Smetana, and concern-troll mike — plus the people whose Facebook pages you cite.

Both those politician do not even live in the state I’m in, so I couldn’t vote for them. Even if they did, they would not have my vote, no matter what party they are in. This is not a personal attack.


Every one of them [on his list of villains, which includes me] is calling you a racist.

He’s accusing me, with no evidence what-so-ever of calling me a racist. THAT is slander, and personal attack # 3.

Every one of them is calling you an extremist.

Personal attack # 4.

And every single one of them believes the government, the FBI, DOJ, IRS, EPA, the works, should harass and punish you because you do not vote for or obey Barack Obama.

More slander. Personal attack # 5.

Indeed, they even think you should kill yourself.

Personal attack # 6.

One can no longer assume leftists are misguided.

Am I a “leftist”???? No… And he knows it. But I’ll let this slide, even though he’s wrong, ones view on whether someone is conservative or liberal is, in the end, a matter of personal opinion.

Next bit, still talking about his list of malevolents, which includes me:

As statements like these from SENATORS show, they simply are evil and malicious bigots who will say and do anything to hold on to power.

Personal attack # 7.

When are you going to get mad about this, Dan? When are you going to stand up and say that these people [those of us on his list of malevolent] cannot call you names any more and tell you to kill yourself?

Personal attack # 8.

Again. note that I had not offered a single comment on this thread, so there is no way anyone can claim he is responding to something I said.

Further. When I asked him to back up his claim that I had done ANY of the things he accuses me of, he can not and does not offer any proof what-so- ever that I done any of them. And since, for at least five years, I have been contributing some material here via Dan, comment on this blog almost from its inception, and have myself been blogging for the last 8 years… You would think if AY of the things he says is true, there would be ample enough evidence that would confirm his accusation.

But he didn’t. Because he can’t. He can’t find a single thing to substantiate his claims, especially the most serious, that I have called Dan a racist, and extremist, that I want a Government agency of any type to harass and punish Dan, and especially that I want Dan to kill himself.

Here are the offenses that merit a ban as laid out by Bruce and Dan:

Remember that the people under discussion are human beings. Comments that contain personal attacks about the post author or other commenters will be deleted.

And now, the key section of the rule:

Repeated violators will be banned.

This behaviors as you know is nothing new. He has been making these same types of false, slanderous, and mischaracterizing accusations against me for at least three years, if not more. Multiply this post by three years and the number of “personal attacks” infractions is… well… quite large to be kind.

Are the rules enforced, or not?

Here is last part of the rule.

Challenge the ideas of those with whom you disagree, not their patriotism, decency, or integrity.

Did I violate that part of the rule?

Yes. There is no denying that.

However, here is what you wrote concerning my violations of the rules:

1) Attacked NDT’s integrity. (Personal attack on another commentor, violates GP rules.)

Yep. Note, the rule does not specific ally state that commenters who challenge another integrity will also get banned. But that’s legal parsing. I accept that challenging the integrity of another commenter is bannable.

2) Called for NDT to be banned. (The ‘nuclear weapon’ of personal attacks. Only the making of threats would be more of an attack.)

Are you kidding? Pointing out that a commenter should be banned due to multiple…. no, hundreds… of very specific and irrefutable violations (even you admit he’s guilty) is a “personal attack”?????? By that logic, those in the State Department are indeed guilty of personally attacking Hillary Clinton as the Democrats defending her claim!

Sorry. You lose on this one.


3) Is not a conservative, here at “the Internet home of the American gay conservative.”

Point (3) has the following dual relevance: Conservatives have an obligation to be good hosts to their non-conservative guests…

Why is that not required of NDT? Obviously it’s not, or else you’d be jumping on his case with the same veracity that you are with me.

and the latter have an obligation to be good guests, not trashing their hosts’ home or friends. I think there’s a breakdown here, on both sides of that equation.

Trashing hosts…

I’ve NEVER said a bad word about either Dan or Bruce! NEVER! Have I sometimes been critical of one political position or another? Sure! But isn’t that what this is all about, discussing similarity and differences about things?

I’m kind of thinking that one commenter, NDT, falsely accusing another, me, of wanting the host to kill himself, is trashing the host much much more than my defending myself and proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that NDT is not only wrong in his accusations, but broke the rules of this blog multiple times.

And I do hope you’re not saying that Conservative are more equal under the law than non-conservatives, because, my libertarian friend, that would also sooner or later put you in the cross hair, and you would also be insinuating that Gay Patriot operates in the same fashion as Animal Farm, where all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others, which would, by your interpretation, also make you a candidate to be banned.

The War At Gay Patriot – Reply To Jeff and NDT.

Share Button

To many people , this will not make sense. But to the two people mentioned up above….



He accused you of something different, of believing that Dan ought to kill himself. I won’t get into whether that’s true

I won’t get into whether that’s true

You KNOW it’s not true! There is not one iota of evidence to support any such claim. You know that I have considered Dan a friend, and can prove it here:

Proprietor Dan Blatt, someone I consider a friend, has posted a number of my blog posts on GP in years past.

and here

Note: The guys who founded and built the Gay Patriot site, two individuals that I do feel some kinship to despite our differences (we started blogging at about the same time), are no longer much involved with the site.

and here

My friend Dan at Gay Patriot commented on the significance of Obama’s comments in relation to the Clinton budget, but everyone is missing the real significance of the “Social Darwinism” comment.

and here.

My blog-pal Dan at Gay Patriot has glowing praise for John Huntsman’s economic plan, published in the Wall Street Journal yesterday. Dan writes:

and here

My friend Dan at the Gay Patriot blog asked if we will ever contain the size of government, which immediately led to comments about Ronald Reagan and his battles to decrease the size of government. He may have battled, but he never acheived it.

There are a lot more on my blog that I could link to, but since there are EIGHT years worth, I figure that would be overkill. Note, some of those are posts where I disagree with Dan or Bruce. Unlike you, I have a blog of my own, and have been writing stuff for the last eighth plus years, some of which has been linked here my Dan, the guy NDT claims I want to kill himself.

There is no way you walk away from reading this and not know that exactly what my feeling are toward Dan Blatt. I don’t always agree with him. But, for eight plus years, I have, and still do, consider him a friend.

Now that I have definitively proved that the accusations against me by NDT, that I want Dan to kill himself, are proven very CLEARLY false, are you still going to support him?????

You say:

But now sf, saying that NDT has misrepresented him and attacked his integrity,

I’m not just saying it… I proved it!

I happen to know that NDT has integrity by the truckload.

Then encourage him to show it… Just once.

Meanwhile,  I’ll now up the ante.

NDT also accuses me of calling Dan a racist. And of calling him an extremist.

Either he backs that claim with proof that I did those things. Or he admits he’s wrong and apologizes. Right now his claims against me are as false as your claim that he has integrity. If he apologizes, that brings both issues to a close.

NDT. You slandered me. I do not and never have advocated that Dan kill himself. I have never called him a racist, or an extremist. Apologize.

Climate Science Writer…. Smack Down!!!!

Share Button

Over at Juduth Curry’s excellent climate blog Climate Etc, there is an interesting conversation going on concerning a rebuttal by The Economist against an article from The New Republic which was a rebuttal against a previous article from the Economist!

Got that? Yeah, it gets complicated after a while. But it’s fun to watch as things don’t go a planned for the Consensus crowd. David Appell, who is a science journalist, and who should know better than to make this next statement, makes this unequivocal statement:

David Appell | June 20, 2013 at 9:34 pm |

Where exactly did the IPCC say surface temperature would rise 0.2 C each and every decade?

In which AR was that?

To which this response is immediately offered:

David Springer | June 20, 2013 at 9:44 pm |

Yer a science righter, Appell? Is it past the kid’s bedtime who does your research for you? This took me 10 seconds to find. Google ipcc warming per decade. It’s the top hit.

Answer: AR4

Climate Change 2007: Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis

Projections of Future Changes in Climate

For the next two decades, a warming of about 0.2°C per decade is projected for a range of SRES emission scenarios.


Step up your game or go back to the junior league where you belong.

Ouch! That had to hurt.

There’s more on that thread, but I’ve got to go work now. Will revisit later.