Cable News Ratings for Tuesday, January 8, 2013

Categories: '

(166) Comments - Add Yours!

1. Raz

   Posted January 10, 2013 at 9:38 AM

   Apple, got to meet Soupy Sales back in 2004 at Dragon Con in Atlanta, GA. He was such a sweet little old man.

2. Coffee Steve

   Posted January 10, 2013 at 10:24 AM

   *Wyoming Lawmakers Propose ‘Gun Protection’ Legislation

   Several Wyoming lawmakers are proposing legislation designed to protect gun-owners from any potential federal firearm ban. The “Firearms Protection Act” bill, introduced this week, would make any federal law banning semi-automatic firearms or limiting the size of gun magazines unenforceable within the state’s boundaries.

   Anyone trying to enforce a federal gun ban could face felony charges under the proposal. It also includes a provision allowing the Wyoming Attorney General’s office to defend any state resident against any federal firearm ban.

   ***Kentucky is considering such a law as well…

3. d.d.

   Posted January 10, 2013 at 10:53 AM

   Australian Gun Control

   Frightening !

   https://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=fGaDAThOHhA

4. Ratboy

   Posted January 10, 2013 at 11:02 AM

   In regards to gun control, Why dont EVERY memeber of the house and EVERY memeber of the Senate go back to thier states and districts and hold a couple of open meetings ALL using the same format of information NOT partisan BS then take a vote at those meetings of those in attendance (promote the events to increase attendance)and then go back to Washington and vote the result ONLY! If their district voted to contol then that would be the vote they would cast in congres and visa versa!

   PS – Obama has to keep his mouth SHUT throughout the entire process (kinda like he did with fast and furious, solyndra, and Bengazi so we know he can stay silent)

5. cathy

   Posted January 10, 2013 at 11:20 AM

   Matthew, You need to learn to read my words and not interject your believes of what you think I’m saying. I never said which theory I believed. As for evolution being a scientific fact. Evolution within a species is a fact and proven by science. Inter species Evolution (we all evolved from a single cell) is theory. By looking at DNA we can see the evolution of a species but we have not seen one species transform to another. Until that happens we only have theories. If you want to close your mind, like the government has, and not let scientist study anything other then inter species evolution you may never learn important information. Intelligent Design and many parts of Evolution work hand in hand. I don’t know how I feel about I.D. but I think it should be allowed to be researched and discussed openly.

   I see the same problem with climate change. The government is not supporting an open conversions about it. We are being told the climate change is have and man is the major cause of it. When scientist show data that support climate change their are praised. When a scientist shows data that this is the earth normal cycle they are called nuts and crack pots.

   I’m not telling you what to believe or not believe. But to keep an open mind. You say you are but your statement say you are not. I posted a link from MIT that stated their belief that humans are not causing climate change and you decide not to comment on that but to call me a creationist. I state other science methods that prove climate changes are a part of the earths cycle and you again jump on Evolution being a proven science.

   Learning is only done with a truly open mind. I don’t openly disregard any study. But you should ask yourself could there be a different answer. Through our history what we thought was a scientific fact at one time turns out to be wrong 5, 10, 15, 20, etc… years later.

6. Doug Z

   Posted January 10, 2013 at 11:20 AM

   usa Jeff, Matthew

   BHO has his own war on woman right now.

   It’s embarrassing as hell. We’ve been through all of this with [2012 GOP presidential nominee] Mitt Romney. And we were very hard with Mitt Romney with the women binder and a variety of things,” Rangel said on MSNBC. “And I kind of think there’s no excuse with the second term.”

   If it’s the first term, you could see people got to know who is around that’s qualified in order to get this job, No. 1. I had thought, and maybe it’s so, that it could be the Harvard problem where people just know each other, trust each other and women and minorities don’t get a chance to rub elbows and their reputations and experience is not known,” Rangel said.

7. debsafan

   Posted January 10, 2013 at 11:21 AM

   Looks like people came back from the dark side and are watching Fox again.

8. Doug Z

   Posted January 10, 2013 at 11:32 AM

   Jeff
   Posted January 10, 2013 at 8:10 AM

   Bush 41 issued an Executive order banning particular assult weapons after a violent inncodent. So you like Bush now.

9. Doug Z

   Posted January 10, 2013 at 11:38 AM

   Jeff

   The coldest weather for 30 years brought temperatures as low as minus 40 degrees Celsius and left about 260 000 people in need of emergency aid in northern China’s Inner Mongolia region, state media said Sunday.

10. Coffee Steve

    Posted January 10, 2013 at 11:53 AM

    @d.d.

    Scary video d.d.

    Lets just hope after time Washington wises up and can’t get enough support to do much.

    Have a Great afternoon folks and evening, I’ve some meetings to attend.

    Peace.

11. RedBarSoup

    Posted January 10, 2013 at 12:24 PM

    Really? Is that why my health care went up 30 dollars a pay check for coverage that is not as good as last years?

    That has happened every year for the past 10 years or so BEFORE Obama even came into office. Same thing with shortage of nurses. 2 or so years ago Fox News tried to blame that on Obamacare yet, it’s always been a trend even before Obama was President, it’s just Fox News’ way to distort the truth.

12. Matthew

    Posted January 10, 2013 at 12:24 PM

    @Letmethink:

    This is the last post I’ll make about AGW for a while, as frankly, I’ve had this exact conversation here several times before with several different posters (and several times with Hillbilly alone). The number I cited for scientific consensus isn’t from thinkprogress, nor the IPCC, it’s an aggregate of research surveys of scientists, such as the Anderagg poll, Vision Prize, Doran, etc., as well as an aggregate of all published, peer-reviewed research, the bulk of which aligns with AGW theory.

    Again, this doesn’t mean that I accept AGW as absolute fact, or that I think it’s impossible for the data to be wrong, it’s just my conclusion that that AGW is the most plausible scenario. It’s not a black and white choice; amongst a multitude of options, the skeptics have a less plausible argument. They have less data, less credentials, and almost no unification of their theories.

    As an example, you have people like Spencer, who accept that warming is happening, but offer an alternative scenario. Or Lindzen, who again accepts that warming is happening, but offers a scenario that contradicts Spencer’s findings, as well as AGW. THEN you have people like Watts, who thinks SOME warming is happening, and SOME human activity contributes, but that neither are significant enough to worry about. Finally, you have a whole crew of non-experts who think no warming is happening at all, and that it’s all a massive, purposeful hoax.

    Given such variability amongst the skeptic community, perhaps you might understand why I find the AGW crew to be more valid. Further, most of the criticisms you might raise of mainstream climate science is just as applicable to the skeptics. Start with funding: You’d be very hard-pressed to find a major, peer-reviewed work that disagrees with AGW consensus that wasn’t funded by Heartland, or one of a variety of libertarian think tanks. That doesn’t automatically invalidate all of that work, but it does raise the same ethical questions that, say, a green energy company funding climate research might raise.

    Above all, the one factor that seems to unify all ‘skeptics’ is an ideological aversion to government intervention to reverse AGW. Inevitably, that’s where my debates here will lead; the person I’m arguing with eventually will win about carbon credits etc. Now, to have strong policy opinions is fine, but it clearly shades your ability to look at AGW in a non-partisan matter. I’ve never once advocated for cap & trade; it’s always been my position that the only real solution to AGW is scientific progress that will allow us to lower the footprint on industrial farming, and energy production. Regulations are a band-aid, not a solution.

    The Long Story Short Version: For me, it’s not a matter of taking one side or another in blind faith; it’s not that I take at face value what climate scientists say vs skeptics, it’s just a bottom-line comparison of the two arguments, and in that scenario, AGW theory is the most compelling argument at this point in time.

    @Cathy:

    If you want to close your mind, like the government has, and not let scientist study anything other then inter species evolution you may never learn important information. Intelligent Design and many parts of Evolution work hand in hand. I don’t know how I feel about I.D. but I think it should be allowed to be researched and discussed openly.

    Again, you’re BSing here. It’s not up to the government to ‘let’ people research anything, excluding things with serious ethical questions like human cloning, or genetic modification of humans. It’s not that I.D. isn’t ‘allowed’ to be researched, it’s that it’s essentially impossible to research under present technology; we don’t have the ability to ‘prove’ intentional creation. If researchers want grants for I.D. research, or professors want to teach it, there are Universities (mostly religious) that will allow this, it’s not as if there’s some government ban on I.D. research. You’re substituting your feelings for fact.

    When a scientist shows data that this is the earth normal cycle they are called nuts and crack pots.

    False. ALL climate scientists believe that natural cycles are a part of warming. The question has always been what role, if any, human activities might play in worsening warming, or causing warming during a cycle where it wouldn’t normally occur. A small minority of scientists, such as the MIT team you cite, believe that human activity is only a secondary factor. An even smaller minority believe that it’s entirely natural, and they are not treated as ‘nuts,’ within the scientific community. This is your willfully partisan interpretation.

    Learning is only done with a truly open mind. I don’t openly disregard any study. But you should ask yourself could there be a different answer.

    Ugh, you and DB both need to cut this garbage out. The fact that I disagree with you doesn’t mean I’m not open minded. I’ve read probably more skeptic research papers than anyone else here, besides maybe Hillbilly. I read Spencer’s work, I read Lindzen’s work, I read Singer’s work. I don’t accept AGW consensus, to the exclusion of their work, I accept AGW consensus because their work isn’t compelling enough in comparison to the climate science that affirms AGW. I accept that there could be a different answer, and none of those different answers are, as of yet, as good as AGW theory. It’s as simple as that.

13. AppleStinx

    Posted January 10, 2013 at 12:41 PM

    No questions asked. It sounds like a good chance to get rid of guns used to commit crimes and get money towards buying new ones. Marin + San Francisco, Contra Costa and Sonoma Counties.

    Marin county district attorney announces gun buyback program

14. Doug Z

    Posted January 10, 2013 at 12:56 PM

    Matthew

    China sees coldest weather in 28 years, ships stranded
    NitiCentral-Jan 5, 2013
    China sees coldest weather in 28 years, ships stranded … minus 15 and minus 20 degrees, the coldest in almost 30 years, forecasters said.

15. Doug Z

    Posted January 10, 2013 at 12:57 PM

    Matthew

    Brrrrrrrr! Last year coldest in three decades for Anchorage
    Alaska Dispatch-Jan 3, 2013
    On Thursday, the National Weather Service confirmed those suspicions, reporting that 2012 was the coldest in 30 years for Alaska’s largest city …

16. Matthew

    Posted January 10, 2013 at 12:58 PM

    Weather is not climate. And, if you’re going to go that route, you’re conveniently leaving out all of the droughts, all of the locations that had record warm winters, as well as all of the countries for whom 2012 was their coldest year. So intellectually lazy

17. Matthew

    Posted January 10, 2013 at 12:59 PM

    @warmest year

18. Doug Z

    Posted January 10, 2013 at 12:59 PM

    Matthew

    Brutally cold Russian winter kills 123 people
    Sydney Morning Herald-Dec 25, 2012
    Temperatures have plunged to around minus 30 degrees Celsius in the … of a winter being described by local media as the coldest in 70 years.

19. Doug Z

    Posted January 10, 2013 at 1:01 PM

    Matthew

    You call me names.Russia and China are big.

20. Matthew

    Posted January 10, 2013 at 1:04 PM

    @Doug Z: And? Is there a point to this, other than to display that you have so little understanding of the subject that you think AGW = it’s no longer cold in the winter?