Climate and Weather

nononono said:
I have the TRUTH, you post regurgitated LIES from leftist hack rags who have been proven time and time again to twist or misrepresent the facts til they fit their narrative.
Just as the votes were recounted over and over again until the desired outcome was achieved which put Al Franken in the senate. The senate seat they needed to achieve their goals.
I don't know what alternative universe you inhabited at that time but it sure was not the reality that transpired in Minnesota.

This recaps pretty damn close how Al ( scumbag ) Franken stole the senate seat from Coleman.



How Al Franken Won In Minnesota…If He Did
Friday Jan 23, 2009 3:01 AM





The number who voted for Alan Stuart Franken, 58, for United States Senator was 1,212,431, give or take a few hundred. No one knows for sure. How many double-counted ballots did he get? How many felons’ votes? Other illegals? How many votes (to the nearest thousand, please) did ACORN scrape up for him, tossing voter registration forms like confetti in Democratic strongholds?

To cap it off, how many “votes” did Franken’s acolytes dig up after the election to cover Senator Norm Coleman’s 725-vote advantage on election night? Enough, it seems.


Fraud not so much after Election Day, as before, might have thrust Franken into greatness — er, the Senate. Unless a Hail Mary pass in final proceedings propels incumbent Senator Coleman back into the lead, fraud will have won. Period.



A sufficient number of new votes would have been added to what’s still called a recount. Informed Minnesotans ought to hang their heads in utter shame that it was even close.

Coleman was a respected member of the Senate, an independent mind, a conciliator, a man of principles and fair play. He is far superior, in terms of intellect and experience and cool judgment, than the angry, hate-filled, demagogic, expatriate Minnesotan Al Franken.

Coleman’s expected cakewalk to a second term — by as much as 60-30 percent, it was thought, with a third guy in the race — seemed a certainty. In the polls, he led by double digits up to the very end. In the courts today, he is rated as a long shot.

What the hell happened?

The election was a virtual tie. At it stands now, Franken has a 225-vote lead and the state is shy one senator. If he “wins,” this surreal saga will bring to life his book-length parody, Why Not Me? (1999). To some it will recall his Stuart Smalley sketch of being “good enough, doggone it!”

Think of it: Reality mocks comedy.

When the smoke clears, mirrors put away, the chunky, snarly, obviously unqualified onetime pornographer (for Playboy), a delinquent taxpayer in several states, not paying even workers’ comp premiums for his talk radio employees in New York will have assembled enough votes to “win” — again, if he did.

Get-out-to-vote was all the rage. Minnesota’s goofy same-day registration law kicked in. State election officials swear by this law as “enfranchising.” They are myopically naïve not to see the law serves fraud. No telling how many, at this stage if ever, illegals’ voted. Local election judges, running tainted ballots twice for Franken, helped juice up the total. Shhh. The recount might have been a Potemkin Village, but election day hijinx remains problematical.

Anyone at all can vote in Minnesota, short of plucking names off grave markers. Legitimacy does not count. Election officials choose to trust, but not to verify. Mischief happens in razor-thin elections such as this one in my native state.

Post-election maneuvering nailed down Franken’s perhaps faux “victory.” Coleman’s lawyers were far too kind, practicing “Minnesota Nice.” They faced a pack of snarling partisan tigers out for blood. Truth did not matter. The aim was to “take down Coleman” by any and all means.

Some of Al’s team were imported from Washington state where they had done late deeds before, for the supposed winner there, Gov Christine Gregorie (D-Wash.), in 2004. They “found” enough votes, mainly in King County, to put the former state attorney general in office. What’s not to work in Minnesota? Coleman’s toothless legal team was clearly outlawyerd by crafty outsiders.

They were aided by a wobbly state canvassing board and local courts which bowed to Franken’s demands. It was uncanny. Secretary of State Mark Ritchie, a Democrat Party and ACRORN activist, was chairman of that board. Secretary Ritchie had the audacity — but not the legal authority — to ask all 87 counties to check again (would they please?) for presumed “mistakenly rejected” ballots to count. No uniform standards, each county was on its own. (It was Florida 2000 all over again.)
Selective searching for votes in Democrat-rich counties, sans standards, is inherently unfair, of course. Just as it was when the United States Supreme Court finally ruled in Bush v. Gore (2000) by 7-2, not 5-4. (Thank heavens Miami-Dade stopped the counting nonsense, spawned by the outrageously partisan Florida Supreme Court.)

So, too, in Democrat-rich Minnesota counties, including the one-party Mesabi Iron Range, and in urban areas, trolling for Franken votes went deep. Franken’s people even phoned voters, from lists supplied by friendly counties, seeking to get their intent on rejected ballots. Call this real chutzpah.

It was farcical, if not so tragic, that votes appeared out of the ether, nearly all for Franken — 100 here, another 39 there. It all adds up. At the end, the 725 Coleman margin was breached. The number coming in for Franken was all out of proportion to those coming in for Coleman and the third man in the race, Dean Barkley.

Statistically, it made no sense. Still doesn’t, when you do the math.

Votes for Franken seemed weighted “heavier,” it seems, than for Coleman. “Equal protection” is a thing of the past, although key in Bush v. Gore. In this blue state, Obama got 300,000 more votes than Franken, however, proving a certain alertness to realities among some above-average bears in the Gopher state.

Naturally, the “D” rich counties, same as in Florida in 2000, were tapped for “new” votes for the “recount.” One recalls Gore’s slick attorney David Bois casting about for more “votes” only in four Democrat -rich precincts in Florida, and no where else, such as in the western panhandle, and calling it fair.

If Franken gets the nod, this election will live on in infamy. Loony tunes will have prevailed. One could laugh, or cry, about the result. Maybe both. In any event, its will seem a nightmare sketch from SNL and Franken will laugh all the way to Washington, D.C.

This election from hell turned on one of the nastiest campaigns in state history. The potty-mouth comic employed blatantly false TV spots and print ads besmirching his foe’s reputation, fabricating his record. Vile name calling actually worked. Big-headed Franken said Coleman was a Bush lapdog, a pushover for Big Oil, a sell-out of his Senate votes, and “the fourth most corrupt senator in Congress.” (The latter smear was a non-fact gleaned from Franken ally’s nutty “survey.”) The scummy excrement Franken used to blast Coleman was apparently enough to pass muster with uninformed, gullible, juvenile, celebrity-struck loony tunes of Minnesota — 1.2 million of them! Dumbness carries with it the lack of critical facilities.

It is no surprise, either, that Coleman’s defamation suit against Franken late in the campaign was swept off the table by a see-no, hear-no, speak-no-evil minor court. Just another ruling for the Democrat on the road to dubious, always-to-be-tainted “victory.” Someone ought to write a book!

Whether the 1.2 million voters know it, or care, they’ve besmirched Minnesota’s reputation of sending thoughtful, sensible, skillful politicians to the U.S. Senate — such as Hubert Humphrey, Walter Mondale, David Durenburger and Rudy Boschwitz– with the notable exception lately of the forgettable Mark Dayton, but he’s another wacky story.

Will the legal Franken voters, later recognizing their error in judgment, be ashamed? The short answer is no. Partisan hubris will set in. (Besides, guilt is easily pardoned when "winning is everything.") Rules, who needs ’em? And what did Stalin say about the ballot boxes? Who controls them, wins. Case in point: Minnesota Senatorial Election, 2008
Click to expand...
Where's the link Mr. Potato Head?
 
Bernie Sanders said:
Smells suspiciously familiar to what we have going on in my district, as we speak.
Click to expand...
You are nothing if not predictable, whine, whine, whine or gloat, gloat, gloat . . . do you ever hold anyone accountable for what they do or is it just party based? (Cuz' I know it's not purely ideology because you have fallen in love with all things Trump . . . have you ordered the $149.50 "Make America Great Again!" Christmas tree ornament? . . . or maybe the dress Ivanka wore for yourself or someone special?)
 
EvilGoalie 21 said:
Evidence that the ice sheets in the Antarctic are not disappearing as fast as predicted in the last IPCC report is not exactly news at this point. The Antarctic behaves very differently from the open sea ice of the Arctic, and effort has been put into figuring out why. The Cryo paper is an interesting historical contribution. It would be quite something to get to go into the Royal Society reading room and peruse the actual log from the Discovery. Recent findings indicate that in the Antarctic, the outer ice is older and rougher, with the new ice located more internally. That’s different from the Arctic where the younger sea ice is located on the periphery. In the Antarctic it also appears that wind patterns and currents cluster the ice band around the continent, basically acting like one of those sleeves you can pull out of the freezer to keep drinks cool. So the model is it's a homeostatic mechanism to insulate the land ice sheets. And that’s a good thing. The bad thing is that it means that the component of sea level rise that IPCC attributed to melting in the Antarctic must be coming from somewhere else. Either thermal expansion of the oceans predominates more than has been attributed, or something else (the Greenland ice sheet comes to mind) is melting faster than expected. Anyway, that's the view from false premise land.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0034425716301481
Click to expand...

This canard seems to come around every year or so, waxing and waning with the Antarctic sea ice. As I recall the best responses, the floating ice surrounding Antarctica consists of two parts - the thin portion that freezes up every winter and melts off almost completely in the summer, and the thick sort-of-permanent ice sheets that project out from the toes of upland glaciers. From the standpoint of ice mass balance, the frozen-then-thawed sea ice doesn't much matter because it is the same water changing phases back and forth. What matters for the ice sheets is the rate of icebergs breaking off at the northern extremities, and the total volume of new glacier ice being formed by snowfall and the rate at which the glaciers deliver ice to the shelves.

Good discussion here -- https://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htm
 
Hüsker Dü said:
The underlying inevitability of the situation is that water levels have continued to rise, leading many to ponder the impact on ocean levels by global warming. From 1996 to 2015, water levels for Miami Beach for high and low tide rose about 4.2 inches, according to data from the University of Miami.

https://weather.com/news/news/miami-beach-state-florida-sand-shortages
Click to expand...
The University of Miami Hurricanes you say? Interesting. The Insurance companies will let us know where Florida is at and, whether (NPI) or not rising seas are manageable.
 
Bruddah IZ said:
The University of Miami Hurricanes you say? Interesting. The Insurance companies will let us know where Florida is at and, whether (NPI) or not rising seas are manageable.
Click to expand...
Yes, yes, the "market" will work it all out, nothing to see here, nothing to worry about, the "market" cures all evils . . . eventually.
 
Hüsker Dü said:
Yes, yes, the "market" will work it all out, nothing to see here, nothing to worry about, the "market" cures all evils . . . eventually.
Click to expand...
On the contrary. The market is not there to cure climate change but rather to put a price on that change. But again, the government is bailing out yet another industry, Tourism:

From your article:

Before Hurricane Matthew struck, a $13.5 million project was underway to replenish Jacksonville area beaches with 650,000 thousand cubic yards of sand over seven miles. Local officials were certain that the same amount of sand was lost from the hurricane and the amount of sand needed for the project will likely double.

The Program for the Study of Developed Shorelines at Western Carolina University has cataloged erosion and beach nourishment programs through the years and has stood at the forefront of understanding for popular beach destinations such as Miami Beach that are quickly losing sand.
Miami Beach specifically has had only one completed nourishment episode – paid for the by federal government – that supplemented the beach with 350,000 cubic yards of sand in 1987, the program reported.

The single project alone carried a $5 million price tag, or more than $10 million in 2016.

The entire state of Florida is faced with a similar dilemma. With 495 different nourishment projects listed, $1.4 billion has been spent to keep sand on the beaches of Florida.
 
Bruddah IZ said:
On the contrary. The market is not there to cure climate change but rather to put a price on that change. But again, the government is bailing out yet another industry, Tourism:

From your article:

Before Hurricane Matthew struck, a $13.5 million project was underway to replenish Jacksonville area beaches with 650,000 thousand cubic yards of sand over seven miles. Local officials were certain that the same amount of sand was lost from the hurricane and the amount of sand needed for the project will likely double.

The Program for the Study of Developed Shorelines at Western Carolina University has cataloged erosion and beach nourishment programs through the years and has stood at the forefront of understanding for popular beach destinations such as Miami Beach that are quickly losing sand.
Miami Beach specifically has had only one completed nourishment episode – paid for the by federal government – that supplemented the beach with 350,000 cubic yards of sand in 1987, the program reported.

The single project alone carried a $5 million price tag, or more than $10 million in 2016.

The entire state of Florida is faced with a similar dilemma. With 495 different nourishment projects listed, $1.4 billion has been spent to keep sand on the beaches of Florida.
Click to expand...


Husky poo and Weezy could learn a thing or two by just reading your posts and the intent there in instead of automatically disputing the subject matter.
 
nononono said:
Husky poo and Weezy could learn a thing or two by just reading your posts and the intent there in instead of automatically disputing the subject matter.
Click to expand...

Yea, BIZ cut and pastes are an endless rabbit hole, I listen to experts and mock fools like you, I'm good with that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top