Michael Ryan regurgitates Conservative Bloggers' Lies about Global Warming

Re: "Today's forecast: Increased doubt," from the February 16th edition of the Augusta Chronicle editorial page.

I can't find the original source of these lies. There are many conservative bloggers in addition to Fox News pundits who have been giving misleading interpetations of some comments made by Phil Jones, a British climate scientist. Nevertheless, this column is potentially another example of Mr. Ryan's plagiarism. I'm 100% sure he didn't come up with the idea to intentionally mislead people about what Dr. Jones said. Here are the facts:

Mr. Ryan (repeating what many other conservative bloggers and Fox News pundits said and wrote) claimed that Dr. Jones said that there has been no significant warming since 1995 and that the earth may have been warmer in medieval times.

According to www.realclimate.org, this is what Dr. Jones actually said. "While the globe has nominally warmed since 1995, it is difficult to establish the statistical significance of that warming given the short nature of the time interval (1995-present)."

That's a big difference from what conservative bloggers are claiming. In other words Dr. Jones is merely stating that the time interval wasn't long enough to determine whether the warming (which is occurring) is of statistical significance. Conservatives try to make it sound like no warming is occurring. Furthermore, Dr. Jones said there isn't enough data to determine whether the earth may have been warmer in medieval times, not as conservatives claim, he was saying it may have been warmer. BTW, that the earth was warmer during medieval times is fed into climate scientists' models, so this isn't some big gotcha point.

Mr. Ryan's column cites a poll showing that 29% of meteorologists think global warming is a scam, and he comes to the conclusion that the science is in doubt. This is another sample of Mr. Ryan's stupidity. Meteorologists are not climate scientists. Most are not even college graduates. Meteorologists are basically pretty people trained to forecast short term weather. Their main attribute is to look good in front of the camera.

Mr. Ryan notes, as further evidence casting doubt on global warming, some typos in the IPCC report. A few typos in a scientific report don't disprove greenhouse gas theory. This is a pretty asinine claim.

And finally, Mr. Ryan states, "Now that there is considerable doubt about the data being relied upon to push such policies (cap and trade, etc.)..."

This last statement is just wrong. There is no debate within the scientific community that man is contributing to global warming. The debate is entirely political with conservatives taking the anti-science side. The best proof of this is that Mr. Ryan's column is on the political opinion page--not a scientific journal.

***********************************************************************************

Re: "Don't cry for Bayh," from the February 18th edition of the Augusta Chronicle editorial page.

I don't take issue with the main point of this editorial--that Bayh really quit because he was being more seriously challenged than the media reported. I take issue with Mr. Ryan's statement that "Bayh bows out after a year of consistent votes for the far left and wildly unpopular Obama agenda."

What far left agenda could that be? Does Mr. Ryan mean the tax cuts for 95% of Americans, the increase in troops sent to Afghanistan, or the approval of two nuclear power plants in Burke County that the Mr. Ryan supported in the column above this one. Oh yeah, that sounds like a real far-left agenda.

And if Obama's agenda is so unpopular, how did he get elected just last year?

********************************************************************************

I guess Mr. Ryan thinks he needs support. The guest editorial written by James Sanderson is merely a regurgitation of Mr. Ryan's lies about cap and trade causing job losses. The biggest lie in this column is when Mr. Sanderson wrote that democrats are raising taxes on people. No they aren't. They reduced taxes on 95% of us.

I happen to disagree with tax cuts at the current time. I think taxes should be increased on everybody too, but especially the rich. I know that's unpopular, but taxes are always unpopular. That doesn't make them unnecessary.

**********************************************************************************

Star Parker's column ("Social Security reform cooking again after years on the back burner.")from February 16th is just stupid. In this column she demonstrates her ignorance over where payroll taxes go. She writes as if it goes into the Social Security fund. There is no Social Security fund--payroll taxes go into the general tax fund along with income taxes.

She remarks how Social Security and Medicare "reflects the inevitable failure of social engineering." She needs to study census statistics on poverty rates which have dropped decisively since these programs have been implemented.

Star Parker is just an idiot hypocrite as I've noted on earlier blogs. She's alive today, thanks to the social programs she's so critical of. Without them, she would've likely starved to death long ago.

Are Michael Ryan and Conservatives Capable of Rational Thought?

Re: "Obama's Dangerous Show Trial," from the November 17th edition of the Augusta Chronicle.

The decision to try criminal terrorists in New York has caused the latest conservative outrage and, of course, Michael Ryan jumped on the bandwagon this week. Their arguments prove they are incapable of rational thought.

It's a lie for conservatives to say that trying the case will give terrorists "as of yet undetermined access to valuable and sensitive national security intelligence." First of all, if the information is yet to be determined, how do conservatives know that terrorists will get access to it? Second of all, the U.S. government's not going to give terrorists information they can use to hurt us. That's just a ridiculous naive assumption.

It's a lie for conservatives to say the trial will give "terrorists a pedestal to spew anti-American propaganda." Nonsense. No judge is going to let that happen in a trial they precide upon.

And there's no way, these guys are going to be acquitted, as Mr. Ryan fears. The federal government has lots of evidence against these criminals. The feds are not like local prosecutors, such as in the OJ case Mr. Ryan uses as an example. When the feds get an indictment, they get a conviction 90% of the time, and in this case I'm confident they will nail these guys. They wouldn't put them on trial unless they had lots of convincing evidence.

The case will not become a circus. The U.S. government already convicted a 9-11 terrorist in a trial in New York and it never became a circus. Why should this one?

Mr. Ryan claims that the decision to put these terrorists on trial is "an abomination...and a most dangerous and regrettable precedent." It's not a precendent--the Bush administration put a 9-11 terrorist on trial already. And to say that it's dangerous is completely unfounded.

Here's the real reason conservatives don't want these trials: It will look good for the Obama administration when these terrorists are finally brought to justice, and it's likely the convictions will come just in time for the 2012 elections.

************************************************************************************

The Augusta Chronicle runs Star Parker's column . This is the woman who supports the legal loan shark industry. She's absolutely opposed to abortion and government welfare, yet she's had 4 abortions and survived poverty, thanks to the grace of welfare and foodstamps. Can anyone say, hypocrite?

************************************************************************************

RE: "The White House numbers racket," from the November 19th edition of the Augusta Chronicle.

Here, Mr. Ryan is making far too much of a real Obama administration gaffe. In fact, his column is a hysterical overreaction to it.

Mr. Ryan accuses the Obama administration of being guilty of deliberate fraud or outright stupidity when reporting the number of jobs created by the stimulus package.

I'm sure the Obama administration didn't deliberately inflate numbers because they're aware the media can easily keep track and debunk them. The whole problem is due to a data collecting glitch. The Obama administration made a big mistake because they decided to rely on outside reporting sources.

However, there is no doubt the stimulus package did save jobs--just not as many jobs as the Obama administration is claiming.

Mr. Ryan is just outright lying when he claims the stimulus package is a massive failure. It has helped a little, but was never meant to completely turn the economy around. The natural business cycle will right the economy no matter what the government does. The stimulus package was more of a band-aid and was about all the government could do in the short term.

Here's the real reason Mr. Ryan want to label the stimulus package a massive failure: He wants Obama to fail.

Michael Ryan thinks "Washington should start over" on health care

Re: "Ship of state appears rudderless," from the October 13th editorial of the Augusta Chronicle editorial page.

It's taken democrats nearly a year to get a health care reform plan passed in just one Senate committee. And Mr. Ryan thinks "Washington should start over." I've got news for him-- Washington already started over, when the democrats won the election in 2008. So basically, Mr. Ryan thinks "Washington should start over," because he doesn't like the health care reform plan.

I wonder what his response would've been, if when President George W. Bush rammed his initial tax cuts through Congress, a liberal pundit suggested that Washington should start over.

He probably would've considered it laughable.

The excuse Mr. Ryan uses to suggest we need to start from scratch on the health care reform plan is the completely faux propaganda concocted by the PricewaterhouseCoopers report--an insurance company misinformation group. Mr. Ryan admits that "an insurance industry report must be taken with a grain of salt." But he thinks it may have merit anyway. Why? Because he's obviously on the side of businesses profiting, while millions suffer in sickness and bankruptcy. In other words he's in favor of sick people dying quickly, as are all business-crook, conservatives.

His editorial includes the fantasy that government should get out of the way and let the free market solve our health care problems. "Let folks buy insurance across state lines," is their idiotic solution. But it's the free market that has caused the current health care mess. Letting people buy insurance across state lines would reduce competition, not increase it, because big insurance company monopolies would dominate the market, collude, and wipe out smaller insurance companies.

It's obvious, Mr. Ryan thinks we should start over, because he wants no insurance reform. If there's no insurance reform, it will make President Obama look like a failure, and Mr. Ryan, along with all other conservatives, want the president to fail.

************************************************************************************

That Mr. Ryan would allow Star Parker's column on his editorial page proves he has no integrity.

In her column "Consumers need protection all right--but from their government," she espouses support for the legalized loan shark industry, the payday loan companies which are criminal business enterprises.

I address her column in my article at www.useless-knowledge.com/1234/09oct/news014.html

************************************************************************************

I found the original source for Mr. Ryan's plagarized idea that Obama should "politely decline," the Nobel Prize. It's Doug Heye, a blogger for USA Today who on October 9th, a day before Mr. Ryan's column came out, wrote that President Obama should "politely decline," the award. Of course, all the conservative pundits, including Glen Beck and Michelle Malkin jumped on this silly idea.

In today's Chronicle editorial page Cal Thomas too expresses his jealousy that Obama won the award, while his hero, Ronald Reagan didn't. Mr. Thomas subscribes to the myth that it was Reagan who liberated Europe from the "totalitarian hand of Soviet communism."

I think Gorbachev had a lot more to do with that than Reagan. He's the one who actually tore down that wall.

Michael Ryan's Unfounded Accusation that Liberals Weaken America

Re: "Does the Left Want a Weakened America," from the October 6th Editorial Page of the Augusta Chronicle.

The very first sentence of Mr. Ryan's unsigned editorial is a rather obvious lie I've debunked on a previous entry on this blog. The claim that President Obama was indoctrinating children received the full ridicule of Jon Stewart and deservedly so. The Obama administration was not behind this spontaneous gesture of support. School children sang the praises of President Bush too, and conservatives didn't cry "indoctrination." Conservatives look silly telling this lie, and as we all know, telling the same lie over and over again doesn't convert it to truth.

A second lie in this editorial is Mr. Ryan's claim that President Obama's health care proposal is more unpopular the more he talks about it. It's not Obama's proposal--the bills and resolutions considered originated in the halls of Congress. Perhaps Mr. Ryan needs a refresher course in constitutional law.

Then, Mr. Ryan quotes some unfair criticism coming from George Will who ticks off a list of foreign policy goals that President Obama has failed to accomplish. But these are the same issues that previous presidents, republican and democrat, have failed to solve or in the case of Bush even address.

Finally, Mr. Ryan writes that Obama "springs from a wing of the democratic party that's ashamed of America and its power." What unfounded nonsense. Mr. Ryan doesn't cite a single fact to support this blanket statement.

***********************************************************************************

On today's editorial page Lee Benedict regales us with another incoherent, rambling letter. This one was about an argument he had with a protestor at Joe Wilson's rally. It's apparent from his version of the debate that Mr. Benedict doesn't understand historical change. Yes, at one time there was a wing of the democratic party that opposed civil rights. They were conservative democrats who have since evolved into conservative republicans. All the racists who used to vote for this wing of the democratic party (the southerners), now vote republican.

*************************************************************************************

Star Parker's column was another example of her hypocrisy. She's against planned parenthood, yet in other columns she's demonstrated her opposition to welfare. In her world women should be forced to bear unwanted children, but after they're born the children can all starve as far as she's concerned because she's against the government programs that would feed them. She only cares about children when they're microscopic specks of goo in the uterus. After they're born, well, they can "die quickly," so to speak.