March 13, 2014

Alex Sink "could not outrun the tsunami of advertisements tying her to President Obama’s health care law."

That's the analysis, by Lizette Alvarez, in the NYT:
The defeat was devastating at a time when Democrats are desperate to change the prevailing story line that 2014 could cost them the Senate, with the House already out of reach....

While both Republicans and Democrats said the health care law was not the only factor in the race, Mr. Jolly’s victory guarantees it will become a focus in competitive races elsewhere....


As early as Monday, the White House political director, David Simas, expressed anxiety about the race, phoning reporters to pre-emptively play down the health law as a factor, something that Democratic leaders continued to do on Wednesday.

Mr. Jolly said he would vote to repeal the law. Ms. Sink said it had problems but should be fixed rather than discarded.

“The one thing we do have to reckon with and acknowledge is that the Affordable Care Act was a motivating issue for Republicans to turn out and vote,” [said Ms. Sink’s pollster, Geoff Garin]...
The NYT goes pretty far in revealing how freaked out the Democrats are about the fall election. Here — for contrast — is the Rush Limbaugh perspective:
[T]he reason that the Democrats thought this was a slam dunk for them, Obama won this district in 2008 and 2012, handily....

This race duplicated strategically the way the Republicans ran House races in 1994. They nationalized them....

This was about Obamacare. That's a big-time national issue, and it was huge in the defeat of the Democrat and the victory for the Republican. It was the primary factor in the election, and it was people voting against. They did everything they could, the Democrats did, to try to take Obamacare out of the race, but they couldn't because people are living....

The interesting thing, too, about this race -- and this is a little piece here from Forbes. "Alex Sink Rides Global Warming Alarmism to Surprise Congressional Defeat." The Democrats had this global warming talk-athon earlier this week, and they are doing that primarily to raise money, but they actually think they have a winning campaign issue....
The NYT article referred to the existence of factors other than Obamacare but did not mention climate change/global warming. The Forbes article, written by a man who lives in the district (which is pretty far south in Florida, so you'd think they'd be more worried about the approaching warmth than most Americans), said "it seemed I couldn't go 15 minutes into my limited viewing schedule without seeing the same Sierra Club/League of Conservation Voters commercial excoriating Jolly for being a global warming skeptic." Rush continues:
The point here is the Democrats lost on two of their fundamental issues. The Democrats were rejected big time on two of the most important issues they are pushing: Obamacare and global warming. And I hope they keep it up. I'm tempted to shut up about it....

Now, in this little bellwether election last night, we found -- and the Drive-Bys are not reporting this. AP is strictly relating this election to Obamacare. But this guy at Forbes who lives there has made it known that trying to tag the Republican as a global warming denier -- and therefore a tool of Big Oil and a tool of Big Energy and a tool of planetary destruction -- bombed out big time.

84 comments:

Bob R said...

The Forbes article is pretty shaky. "I don't watch much television, but..." is not exactly an exhausted analysis of ad buy times. I'd be interested in an article by someone who actually did the research.

Bob R said...

exhausted = exhaustive.

Phil 3:14 said...

I don't see Global Warming motivating voters to go to the polls this fall, especially after such a cold winter

Ann Althouse said...

Maybe if we get a really hot summer and early fall, the Democrats will do well in November.

Who will remember how cold it was in the previous winter?

Shouting Thomas said...

Why can't we wait until 6 weeks before the midterms to talk about them?

The fact that the two parties were willing to spend $11 million on some crappy congressional election tells me everything I need to know about this shit. Must be one hell of a financial payoff to justify that kind of investment.

A pox of both sides.

I'm gonna learn some tunes for the kid band today.

Do something useful with my time.

paminwi said...

This was an election based on the Republican's War on Women. There could be no other reason for Alex Sink not to be elected.

When do you think we will hear that because this area was mostly "old" people that the "old women" don't care about the issues that "young" women do?

T Rellis said...

Really cold winter and
People will remember what they paid for heating oil
People will remember what they paid for natural gas
People will remember what they paid for em electricity
People will remember what they paid at the pump(record for this time of year, what will it be in summer?)
Drill baby drill
Frack baby crack

traditionalguy said...

The interesting point is that two Dem 20 year developed alternate reality contexts have both been shown to be complete lies.

Obama knew this day was coming. Therefore he will rule us by Totalitarian Executive Order and veto any law that orders President/King Obama to enforce that law.

Obama thinks the USA is ready for Chavez/Maduro logic. He was elected King so he will be our King and arrest any resistance.

Michael K said...

Based on a sample of one Obamabot comment, I would suggest we will hear about "War on Womyn" until we throw up this summer and fall.

RecChief said...

I've seen several polls that rank the top 10 voter issues. "Climate change" usually comes in around 9 or 10.

I've also read a couple of analyses that said Jolly, because of his lack of cash coming out of the primary, focused on his ground game. Sounded like he had an excellent GOTV effort considering he was considered a 3rd tier candidate. It will be interesting to see if the GOP learns anything from that.

Where did the Libertarian's 5% of the vote come from? That is, did he siphon votes from Jolly? If so, leftism lost even bigger than the straight Jolly/Sink matchup numbers indicate.

What about Sink's GAAAAFFFEEESSSS?

Bruce Hayden said...

When do you think we will hear that because this area was mostly "old" people that the "old women" don't care about the issues that "young" women do?

Of course they don't. The older women are being forced to give up their Medicare Advantage so young women can get free birth control and maternity.

Beta Rube said...

Why do liberals always talk about conservative money in politics as if it is a purely one-sided affair and responsible for every Republican win. Obama and his Dem minions are extremely well funded. Dumping millions into ad buys goes both ways.

Henry said...

If it's hot in Florida this summer, people will be grateful for air conditioning.

The democrats' problem with making global warming an immediate, topical political issue is that it isn't an immediate topical problem. It's not causing more severe weather (nor are the models conclusive that it would). It's not making southern states much hotter (temperatures will increase more in the poles). The ocean is not swallowing the Atlantic coast (the world ocean continues to be determined to rise very very slowly).

Climate politicians have turned themselves into fabulists, and transparent ones at that.

Bruce Hayden said...

You have to have drunk a lot of the Kool-Aid to put AGW, or more recently, AGCC, at the top of your priority lists. The scientific "consensus" is falling apart, almost as fast as the "science", and we have had a pretty cold winter across much of the country. Sure, a hot summer could turn things around - a little. But I suspect that a lot of those who had their epiphanies while digging themselves out for the umpteenth time this winter aren't going to rediscover their inner AlGore so easily.

Still, what do the Dems have besides AGW and their War on Womyn to counter Obama and ObamaCare? Sink didn't even vote for it - she just mumbled some platitudes that it should be tweaked, not replaced, and gave generalities about how to tweak it.

Bruce Hayden said...

You have to have drunk a lot of the Kool-Aid to put AGW, or more recently, AGCC, at the top of your priority lists. The scientific "consensus" is falling apart, almost as fast as the "science", and we have had a pretty cold winter across much of the country. Sure, a hot summer could turn things around - a little. But I suspect that a lot of those who had their epiphanies while digging themselves out for the umpteenth time this winter aren't going to rediscover their inner AlGore so easily.

Still, what do the Dems have besides AGW and their War on Womyn to counter Obama and ObamaCare? Sink didn't even vote for it - she just mumbled some platitudes that it should be tweaked, not replaced, and gave generalities about how to tweak it.

Curious George said...

"Beta Rube said...
Why do liberals always talk about conservative money in politics as if it is a purely one-sided affair and responsible for every Republican win. Obama and his Dem minions are extremely well funded. Dumping millions into ad buys goes both ways."

Seriously? They do it to get their donors to cough up cash. Do you think that will happen with "We are really well funded but send money anyway."

Scott M said...

Who will remember how cold it was in the previous winter?

If we have another mild summer, everyone. Last summer, every time someone mentioned how mild it was, someone else would say something like, "If this summer is mild, I bet we have a rough winter" and that turned out to be true. Not scientifically, maybe, but certainly conversationally.

Beta Rube said...

I think you're right CG, but the complicity of the media in this form of analysis is largely universal, which is what bothers me.

PB Reader said...

Democrats are relativists about everything. Before this election it was very important that Sink win as they gave lots of money and Bill Clinton's time. After the election, they're pushing the message, "nothing to see here"

PB Reader said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Larry J said...

RecChief said...
Where did the Libertarian's 5% of the vote come from? That is, did he siphon votes from Jolly? If so, leftism lost even bigger than the straight Jolly/Sink matchup numbers indicate.


Libertarians tend to pull mostly from the Republicans. That's why if there isn't an official Libertarian candidate in the race, Democrats will often create one as they did in Virginia. Being able to pull several percent of the vote from the Republicans can go a long way to swinging an election.

harrogate said...

"Obama thinks the USA is ready for Chavez/Maduro logic. He was elected King so he will be our King and arrest any resistance."

Prescription for this commenter: Get thee some fresh air, and stay away from the computer screen for at least two hours in a row.

David said...

Or Sink was just a bad candidate, a creation of politico-media hype with no real substance and a propensity to think that the great benefit of immigration is to have people who will do laundry and yard work and clean toilets.

cubanbob said...

Did the Democrats think that no one in Bill Young's district didn't get an insurance cancellation notice and that the replacement policies with their ObamaCare mandates didn't cost them more in premiums, higher deductibles or shrinking number of providers? South Florida gets pretty hot in the spring to early fall. What northerners pay for heating we pay for cooling. Did those same Democrat solons think that that their AGW nonsense that will result in much higher electric bills is going to be popular with voters? Everything the Democrats are running on will cost the middle class more money with no offsetting gain. It takes a special kind of stupid to believe that those policies are electoral gold. There is a reason that the Republican hold thirty governorships. Fortunately the Democrats at the national level have a brain dead and gutless RNC as the opposition party. Otherwise they would be a regional party.

Seeing Red said...

..."electricity costs would necessarily skyrocket."

Just what we need to hear.

Pogo is Dead said...

Regardless, Althouse and the cognoscenti will argue that if only Republicans will never win until they start voting more like Democrats.

The economy sucks and is worsening, Obamacare is a fucking disaster, and the Preezy is fast becoming a dictator.

But come summer, all we'll be talking about is pro-immigration, gay marriage, affirmative action, reparations, white privilege, blah blah blah. All the looney tunes Dem bullshit topics of avoidance.

Why?

Because a lot of people are really really stupid.
They voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012.
And no reason to believe they won't bite the moron apple one more time.

Seeing Red said...

Tom Skilling already said it's going to be a hot summer.

My father said years ago Mother Nature makes up for it.

If it's a cold winter, she'll give us a hot summer. People are checking their Farmer's Almanac. What does that book say? If the book us correct, why was it?

Seeing Red said...

If he can delay Obamacare mandates for 2 years, what else can he delay? We are now a nation of whims. This will not end well.

Pogo is Dead said...

I hope I'm wrong, but shit.
Obama got re-elected.
Re. Elected.

People voted for him twice.
Twice!

cubanbob said...

Or Sink was just a bad candidate, a creation of politico-media hype with no real substance and a propensity to think that the great benefit of immigration is to have people who will do laundry and yard work and clean toilets."

David I live in Florida and Sink was not a bad at being the state CFO. People do remember her. Her problem is that she ran as a Democrat. Had she run as a Republican she would have beaten Jolly like a rented mule.

Xmas said...

The Libertarian candidate in the race was a vocal pro-pot-legalization candidate. I don't have the link handy, but one exit poll I saw showed the Libertarian pulling more votes from the Democrat than the Republican candidate.

cubanbob said...

If he can delay Obamacare mandates for 2 years, what else can he delay? We are now a nation of whims. This will not end well.

3/13/14, 8:58 AM"

Red the question never asked of the left is if ObamaCare is such a godsend why do the Democrats have to keep delaying it? ObamaCare was passed in 2009. Here we are in 2014 and most of it hasn't been implemented. With the new delays the earliest it will be fully implemented will be in late 2016, seven years after becoming law. And that is assuming no further delays. Something no reasonable person would expect to happen. Obama would have served out both of his terms before his signature piece of legislation goes fully in to effect.

Pogo is Dead said...

"...if ObamaCare is such a godsend why do the Democrats have to keep delaying it?"

Because its intent is not to provide insurance, but to kill off insurance companies one by one until only the government remains.

The end-game is a single payer system.

Pushing off implementation just kills the Evil Insurance Company Beast more slowly.

Provision of health care was never the point of Obamacare.

The end-game was always a single payer system.

Henry said...

Beta Rube wrote: Why do liberals always talk about conservative money in politics as if it is a purely one-sided affair and responsible for every Republican win.

Trying to figure out how the money was raised and spent by reading articles in the New York Times is a word problem for the ages. A train leaves Cleveland heading west at 83 mph. In Chicago a door swings in the wind. At 11:55 am a dog barks. At what time does the train go off the rails?

Here the problem can be summed up as follows:

* A total of $12M was spent on the election.
* Ms. Sink outspent Jolly 3 to 1 on television ads.
* $9M was spent by outside groups
* Of that $9M, conservative groups outspent liberal groups by $1.3M

How much money was spent on each campaign?

MadisonMan said...

I don't see Global Warming motivating voters to go to the polls this fall, especially after such a cold winter

South Florida had one of its warmest winters ever.

chickenlittle said...

Because its intent is not to provide insurance, but to kill off insurance companies one by one until only the government remains.

Somewhere, from the waters below or the waters above, Stanley Ann is still looking down on you and smiling.

Matthew Sablan said...

"Here we are in 2014 and most of it hasn't been implemented."

-- I'd like to see a compare/contrast list of what HAS been implemented, what was supposed to be implemented, what is just late due to the fact things are late, and what has received a government waiver.

Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...

South Florida had one of its warmest winters ever.

That would be news to my father down in Sarasota. He complained about the cold all winter. Maybe he needed to be even further south to experience all the warmth.

Henry said...

My answer:

Sink and her supporters outspent Jolly and his supporters 6.1M to 5.9M

cubanbob said...

I don't see Global Warming motivating voters to go to the polls this fall, especially after such a cold winter

South Florida had one of its warmest winters ever."

Really? Who knew? I live in South Florida-it's 70f and breezy right now in Miami. That's pretty cool for us. Last night it was in the mid to upper sixties-cool enough to turn off the a/c. Normally at this time of the year it's in the upper seventies or low eighties. Now as you were saying....

Kristian Holvoet said...

The interesting thing is that most of the left/dem post mortems aren't blaming the loser. Usually, the after action reports talk about how the winner was a better candidate than they realized, that the loser made some critical mistake. Here, the analysis basically said in a dem trending district, a well known and success candidate lost to a mediocre Republican candidate. To me, that signal more fear / anxiety about this fall than anything else I have seen / read.

MadisonMan said...

That would be news to my father down in Sarasota.

I was talking Miami.

Third warmest. I've been looking for the link I read it at -- I think at the NWS site from Miami.

Key West and Miami, for example, had a normal January but were 4 degrees above normal in December and 3-4 degrees above normal in February.

Maybe that was a monthly value I was reading about.

Sarasota did have its 6th warmest December on record. Your father's memory is as bad as mine!

mccullough said...

Obamacare is now a local issue throughout the US.

The war on women is a worn out theme. Obama will now switch to the War on the Rich. Republicans should run on Obama's War on the Middle Class.

Bruce Hayden said...

Whether or not this was a warm winter in Florida, I suspect that nationally that is almost irrelevant. What is more important nationally is that it was a cold winter, and may be a warm summer. And, the question is, if there actually is a warmer than average summer, will that change that many minds about AGW, and get people to vote for Dems, because, you know, they are for the people, and against global warming, climate change, fossil fuels, nuclear energy, fracking, the Keystone Pipeline, etc. And, I don't think that it is going to help them, or get the focus off of the economy, ObamaCare, and the increasing lawlessness of the Obama Administration. They can try, but I don't think it will work. Didn't work for Sink, and she didn't vote for the bad economy and ObamaCare, while a lot of vulnerable Dems, esp. in the Senate did.

Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...

Sarasota did have its 6th warmest December on record. Your father's memory is as bad as mine!

Actually his memory is still pretty good. However, he did spend Christmas in Wisconsin so he missed some of December. Most of the cold complaints were from January and February.

cubanbob said...

Pogo one of the problems for the single payer advocates is that they haven't figured out what to do if the payee refuses to with the program.

Now no one loves insurance companies but when the policies become so burdensome to so many people it won't be long before at least one state insurance commissioner and legislature come the conclusion that health insurance policies are intrastate commerce and not interstate commerce and within that state repeal the ObamaCare mandates on the policies. When this finally happens Obama will be out of office. So unless there is a Democrat president forcing the state(s) to comply along with the inevitable Supreme Court decision ( something that could blow up in the face of the Democrats along federalism and commerce clause issues) it's not likely a Republican president is going to force the issue. If it turns out that way watch the leftist shout about selective law enforcement.

cubanbob said...

Bruce the thing about AGW advocates don't consider is that even if they are right the effects won't really be felt for at least another fifty years but the costs of implementing their policies will be felt immediately. Come August with the heat waves and brown outs and higher electric bills that isn't going to be the winning position for them. Try telling people to consume a lot less and pay a lot more today to avoid a problem that may not occur in their lifetimes.

MadisonMan said...

And, the question is, if there actually is a warmer than average summer, will that change that many minds about AGW,

People forget warm summers pretty quickly. Summer of 2012 was brutal here. That's been forgotten, mostly.

My opinion is that by the time it's obvious to most people that AGW is occurring is when it'll be too late to do anything about it in any kind of cost-effective manner.

hawkeyedjb said...

"Maybe if we get a really hot summer and early fall, the Democrats will do well in November."

But weather isn't climate.

Except when it is.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

In addition Alex Sink basically said that we need immigration reform....aka lots of illegals, because otherwise who will clean her house and mow her lawn. Hispanics are cheap labor and willing to do the dirty work.

We have a lot of employers over on the beaches that rely upon workers and especially in this high-growth environment, where are you going to get people to work to clean our hotel rooms or do our landscaping? We don’t need to put those employers in a position of hiring undocumented and illegal workers.

Gee Alex. Maybe if you liberals didn't have most of the population already on the gravy train, getting free money, EBT cards and trained NOT to work, you wouldn't HAVE to rely on third world imports to do the "jobs that Americans won't do". Why should the lazy ass 'Mericans work? They get paid more NOT to.

damikesc said...

Maybe if we get a really hot summer and early fall, the Democrats will do well in November.

Who will remember how cold it was in the previous winter?


Thing is, climate change has never been a driving issue in campaigns. For Dems to choose this as one of their big issues is baffling. It's one of the bigger non-winners out there. It'd be like basing a campaign on campaign finance reform.

Obama and his Dem minions are extremely well funded

The media used Obama's fund raising as proof of his popularity.

Bruce Hayden said...

Bruce the thing about AGW advocates don't consider is that even if they are right the effects won't really be felt for at least another fifty years but the costs of implementing their policies will be felt immediately.

I would agree with that - except that a lot of the supposed costs are really pretty bogus, if we are talking a 50-100-200 year time frame. Take, for example, the worry that buildings will go underwater. That would be fine, except that the replacement life for most such buildings is probably less than the 50 years, and clearly less than the 100 or 200 year time frames. Simple solution - rebuild next time a bit higher up. Problem solved without much, if any, cost. Sure, the older buildings in NOLO, along with some national monuments might have to be moved, or at least levees of some sort put up. But that is de minimis in the scheme of things.

And, don't forget, that global warming may not be all bad, and, indeed, might be advantageous. Plants like two things - more CO2 and a warmer climate. Sure, some plants don't do well with warmer weather, but they are mostly less efficient plants that are planted in cooler climates because the warmer climate plants don't thrive there. So, we replace wheat with rice. BFD. Human history seems to strongly suggest that humans have done best in warmer times, and worst in cooler times. And, there is some evidence that we are naturally entering a cooler period anyway, which AGW could help ameliorate.

MadisonMan said...

But weather isn't climate.

Except when it is.

Extreme events are part of a location's climate, and are also weather when they occur.

Larry Nelson said...

Shouting Thomas said...
Must be one hell of a financial payoff to justify that kind of investment.



Bingo. A politicians job is to get elected. Once their job has been completed, the rush to cash in starts at the cocktail circuit. That's why the desperation.

As for the issues the public cares about, James Carville summed it up: "It's the economy, stupid".

Doesn't mean the stupid party will pick up much, but the dems desperately trying to change the debate is delicious.

Tom said...

I think we should move Tax say to coincide with Election Day.

Andy Freeman said...

> My opinion is that by the time it's obvious to most people that AGW is occurring is when it'll be too late to do anything about it in any kind of cost-effective manner.

The Stern report, oft cited by AGW proponents, disagrees.

It says that the mitigation costs now are larger than the adaptation/damage costs later.

However, since said report used a negative interest rate in its present-value calculations, it concluded that going all-in now was cheaper.

If, on the other hand, wealth continues to increase and the folks who use a positive interest rate turn out to be correct (said folks being everyone else doing time-value-of-money calculations), it will be much cheaper to do something later.

Curious George said...

"MadisonMan said...
My opinion is that by the time it's obvious to most people that AGW is occurring is when it'll be too late to do anything about it in any kind of cost-effective manner."

If you believe in AGW, and it sounds like you do, then you must believe in the "scientists", and therefore understand that it has never been possible to do anything about it in a cost effective manner.

Then again, if you believe in AGW then you are an idiot. So maybe not.

SGT Ted said...

Of course, the reason the Democrat lost is "advertising", not that the Democrats are screwing up the country via ObamaCare and people are pissed off about it.

tim maguire said...

It doesn't matter what kind of summer we have. Nobody whose vote is in play will cast it on global warming. I suspect Democrats know that but are throwing out the issue now as a trial balloon.

cubanbob said...

Bruce Hayden said...
Bruce the thing about AGW advocates don't consider is that even if they are right the effects won't really be felt for at least another fifty years but the costs of implementing their policies will be felt immediately."

Bruce you are right about the long term costs but if Obama/the EPA and the progressives have their way the costs will be immediate and apparent in terms of utility bills.


"
MadisonMan said...
But weather isn't climate.

Except when it is.

Extreme events are part of a location's climate, and are also weather when they occur.

3/13/14, 10:46 AM"

That would also include polar vortexes.

cubanbob said...

SGT Ted said...
Of course, the reason the Democrat lost is "advertising", not that the Democrats are screwing up the country via ObamaCare and people are pissed off about it.

3/13/14, 11:41 AM"

Advertising is so effective in convincing people to disbelieve their lying eyes. After all we are now in the fifth year of a remarkable economic boom all thanks to the brilliance of the Democrats but those evil Republicans running those awesomely brilliant propaganda ads have convinced the public we are in a near depression. truly the Republicans are masters of mind control.

MadisonMan said...

If you believe in AGW

Belief has nothing to do with it.

Look at the data.

As an example of a local data point, when was the last time Madison broke a record low temperature? February 2008. How many record high temperatures have been set since then? 35? 40? Of course, Madison is not the Globe, so events here (or even in the eastern 2/3rds of the US do not equate to the Global climate, as evidenced by this year's very warm Northern Hemisphere winter -- globally).

One could posit many things to try to explain away this lack of extreme cold.

baddog12 said...

Ann Althouse said:

"Maybe if we get a really hot summer and early fall, the Democrats will do well in November.

Who will remember how cold it was in the previous winter?"

What? Is Ann an Al Gore true believer? WTF?

Here in the worker's paradise of Massachusetts, on the North Shore, it is 19 degrees, wind is gusting, and snow is blowing into drifts in my driveway. Doubt that I'm going to forget that and all the other real inconvenient climate truth.

Sheesh.

the wolf said...

Nobody whose vote is in play will cast it on global warming. I suspect Democrats know that but are throwing out the issue now as a trial balloon.

Dems like peripheral issues like AGW and gay marriage because they lose badly on substantive issues like the economy, jobs, fracking, etc. Of course they want distractions.

cubanbob said...

MadisonMan said...
If you believe in AGW

Belief has nothing to do with it.

Look at the data.

As an example of a local data point, when was the last time Madison broke a record low temperature? February 2008. How many record high temperatures have been set since then? 35? 40? Of course, Madison is not the Globe, so events here (or even in the eastern 2/3rds of the US do not equate to the Global climate, as evidenced by this year's very warm Northern Hemisphere winter -- globally).

One could posit many things to try to explain away this lack of extreme cold.

3/13/14, 11:58 AM"


The data is only useful and valid in context of the planet's cycles which aren't in synch with human life spans. The earth has managed to have periods of warmth followed by periods of cooling to be followed by warmth all without any human agency.
The models have yet shown to be accurate backward predictive so there is no reason as yet to trust them going forward. There are too many variables and the models don't include all of them so basing policy on them is a fools errand unless one has a political agenda to socialize the economy under the guise of 'science'. Notice that most if not all of the global warming advocates are on the left.

Lionheart said...

Good to see a DBQ post. Winter is over, Spring is here.

Marshal said...

David said...
Or Sink was just a bad candidate


She won the vote in this district while running for Governor in 2010 (lost by about 1% statewide). Did she become a bad candidate in the last three years?

Birkel said...

MadisonMan:

We've had this debate before and you were unimpressed when I showed you the work of two German physicists who disputed the viability of greenhouse theory. You may remember they called the greenhouse theory "unscientific" because the greenhouse theory violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics. And they wrote those findings in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

But I won't let you forget the "A" in AGW: anthropogenic. The entire theory assumes men are causing the fluctuation in the Earth's weather. And the evidence for that is lousy.

Warmer or colder in Madison? Or Madison as a proxy for ROW? Who gives a damn?

The question is whether mankind caused the temperature increases of the second half of the 20th Century and if not, then what? Give it a stab because to date the evidence is lacking.

Brennan said...

NY Times on Morning Joe from 3/12: "Obamacare wasn't a factor according to my Republican and Democrat sources."

NY Times from 3/13: "Yea. It was Obamacare."

The paper of lying liars can't even make it interesting.

Brennan said...

But I won't let you forget the "A" in AGW: anthropogenic. The entire theory assumes men are causing the fluctuation in the Earth's weather. And the evidence for that is lousy.

Lousy? There is NO EVIDENCE. None. Anthropogenic Global Warming isn't even up to par with a cunning con artists standards. Unless you presume the con is not over.

Seeing Red said...

When England can hold ice festivals on the frozen Thames again, I'll pay attention.

Mike said...

You know, I like Madison Man, even though I'm pretty sure he used to sound just like Garage almost everything he writes now has good some sense.

Except for the AGW bullshit. There have been at three extended periods of warmer Earth, followed by three returns of the ice age. Each of the last three warm periods were successively less warm than the prior warming periods. So how in hell can you justify the A in AGW when we don't really know what the "right" temperature is for Earth? We only know what our limited direct experience tells us is "normal."

My opinion is that we have luxuriated in a temporary warming cycle ever since the Little Ice Age in Midieval times. Winter is coming.

MadisonMan said...

We've had this debate before and you were unimpressed when I showed you the work of two German physicists who disputed the viability of greenhouse theory. You may remember they called the greenhouse theory "unscientific" because the greenhouse theory violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics. And they wrote those findings in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

A paper that claims the Earth is not warmed because of the so-called Greenhouse Effect (an effect I will admit is not well-named -- just like Ocean Acidification isn't well named) will not impress, despite its publication in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Sadly, I'm not well-versed in mathematical physics like those authors to be able to comment cogently on their work. But I'll ask:

Why is the moon so much colder than the Earth? It absorbs the same amount of solar energy, after all.

Do not think of appearance in a peer-reviewed journal as some kind of imprimateur of truth. My last review (JGR-Atmos -- meteorology, not climate) had another reviewer who completely missed a horribly gaping error. I was shaking my head at that one.

We are following a very non-straight line towards knowing what is happening. Some of what you see published will stand with time, some will not.

The Cracker Emcee said...


"Why is the moon so much colder than the Earth? It absorbs the same amount of solar energy, after all."

Why is the moon also hotter than the Earth? No atmosphere and no oceans.

Todd said...

The Cracker Emcee said...

Why is the moon also hotter than the Earth? No atmosphere and no oceans.


Now that there is funny!

MadisonMan said...

Cracker, I did mean in the mean sense, not extreme.

Sorry for the non-clarity.

Strelnikov said...

Sure, it was just the ads about Obamacare that sunk Sink. Not the thing itself. If they can just think of some way to bar anyone form talking about it...

Sam Hall said...

The earth is warmer than the moon because earth has an atmosphere with water vapor in it. Water vapor is THE greenhouse gas, many many times stronger than any other gas.

Unknown said...

vI don't see Global Warming motivating voters to go to the polls this fall, especially after such a cold winter

South Florida had one of its warmest winters ever."

Yeah, sure. I went to FL for the first time in Feb trying to escape the sub zero cold and it was in the 30s and 40s.

Meanwhile coldest 6 month period in the Midwest since 1912 - over a hundred years! Lots more of us live here than in your little peninsula

Unknown said...

---Extreme events are part of a location's climate, and are also weather when they occur


Except when they go in the religious believer's direction, then its the global warming tornado from hell!!

Unknown said...

---when was the last time Madison broke a record low temperature? February 2008. How many record high temperatures have been set since then? 35? 40?


And you guys are the ones who believe in Science !?!?!?!?!?! You are looking at the navel of a flee but ,,,Madison!!!!!1!.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/us-having-its-coldest-six-month-period-since-1912.html

The overall average temperature of 7.5 degrees for 2014 was 10.1 degrees below the overall average for a winter season, 17.6 degrees. Eau Claire also recorded the coldest low temperature average on record, -2.7 degrees. Finally, with 59.5 inches of snow during the three month stretch, the winter of 2014 is the 4th snowiest on record.

http://www.wqow.com/story/24859849/2014/03/01/record-cold-winter-of-2014-tops-the-list

http://www.alexcityoutlook.com/2014/02/13/state-climatologist-confirms-january-set-cold-records/

http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2014/01/07/weather-polar-vortex-cold/4354945/



Your self centered approach to measurement of climate is typical of liberals.



Unknown said...

--"Why is the moon so much colder than the Earth? It absorbs the same amount of solar energy, after all."

Why is Mars experiencing warming?

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/research/2007/marswarming.html

MadisonMan said...

Unknown, you should read my entire postings, not just the parts you want to quote.

Birkel said...

And you, MadisonMan, must still prove the 'A' in AGW.

Good luck with that. Nobody else can so don't feel bad about your failure.