Scrub-a-dub-dub.

When Brandon Friedman took to Twitter to plant the seeds for another attack on Bowe Bergdahl’s whistle-blowing platoon mates, his bio proudly announced his role as deputy assistant secretary for public affairs at the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

What if [Bergdahl’s] platoon was long on psychopaths and short on leadership?” he tweeted, before calling for everyone to “withhold judgment” about allegations that Bergdahl deserted. “I’m not a fan of such speculation,” he added. Uh huh.

And then Friedman scrubbed his Twitter bio. Here’s the Google cache from Jun 3, 2014:

brandon-friedman-twitter-bio

Here’s how it appears now, after his “blame the platoon” tweets:

brandon-friedman-twitter-bio-new

The Twitter bio still links to Friedman’s Tumblr “About” page, which includes his work for HUD, the Department of Veterans Affairs and VoteVets.org, as well as his U.S. Army service.

Gosh, we wouldn’t want to speculate.

Chicago-on-the-Potomac’s attacks on those who served with Bergdahl just get more and more unreal. And yet, is anyone truly shocked?

Related:

Obama administration official Brandon Friedman floats ‘psychopaths’ smear of Bergdahl’s platoon mates

‘Wow!’ And so it begins: White House smears vets, claims ‘swift boating’ of Bergdahl

  • http://www.GONINERS.com/ Kristine ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ
    • mrspinky85

      What were the responses you received?

      • http://www.GONINERS.com/ Kristine ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

        For that one, none.

        I am outnumbered by liberals on my friend’s list. They tend to ignore me.

        Though two did engage regarding my posting about Obama blatantly and intentionally breaking the 30-day law. And they did the expected “Well, so-and-so did THIS and so-and-so did THAT” blah blah. Told them I don’t give a flying squirrel’s butt what anyone else did, I am talking about NOW and the current law that was blatantly broken. What anyone else did is entirely irrelevant.

        • mrspinky85

          What everyone else did is entirely irrelevant when Obama promised us he would be different. That excuse never flies with me. Obama cried so loudly that he would do things different so I don’t accept that other people did it as an excuse at all.

          I am out numbered by liberal in my family and friends too. None of them can intellectually explain to me why I should be one. They just think I changed because I live in the “South” now.

          • http://www.GONINERS.com/ Kristine ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Like I posted over in another thread, it’s 100% irrelevant if another president in the past broke the law. That doesn’t excuse Obama or make it okay.

            That by that logic, someone who gets commits speeding or robbery or murder should get a pass every single time another speeder, robber, or murderer doesn’t suffer consequences for his actions.

            These are liberals verbally flailing their arms about trying to distract from the relevant topic. People shouldn’t engage other than to say it’s irrelevant.

            The big difference I see between myself and all the liberals who surround me is that they appear to be so dependent on emotions for everything. I prefer looking at issues, scandals, laws, etc with a detached cold logic.

            And they all seem to constantly make excuses for everyone on the planet for not taking control of their own lives rather than believe people are responsible for their own choices.

            I will never understand it.

          • Suzyqpie

            Once people accept residence in Victimville, they can never get out of town. In Victimville, excuses substitute for performance. Additionally, in Victimville there is no personal responsibility, everything is someone else’s fault.

          • KHSoldier(Ret)&Writer

            Blame it on “Affluenza”…

          • Donnie Mac Leod

            Nixon did a lot less against American citizen rights when put into perspective then Obama has and the media still ignores that reality as does the moon bat crazy citizens who still support the lies of this administration along with the blatant destruction of the US Constitution.

          • http://www.GONINERS.com/ Kristine ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Nixon had a far superior foreign policy than Obama does as well.

            Alas, the media was a completely different animal back then. Dare I say some had integrity and ethics?

            Though the media was still complicit in covering things up like affairs & illnesses (JKF, Roosevelt, etc) so their standards have always been rather wishy-washy.

          • Dwayne Jackson

            They’re to busy blaming Bush for everything to notice how Odipshit is destroying the country.

          • mdtljt

            And we’re damn proud to have ya here!!!

          • Rio

            When I was young having come home from doing something wrong and in big trouble then told my Mom I did it because other people did it!!! Oh my, was I in even bigger trouble!! That is never, never an excuse and I hold my children to that and I hope my children’s children are held to that as well.
            The immaturity of our reps with Liberal leanings is atrocious. I say representatives not voters.

        • checker99

          Give ’em the old “so your argument is that since _____ was a bad President in your opinion, we should all allow Obama to be a worse President?” Shuts ’em down and usually ends the discussion in my experience.

        • Roger Reid

          The liberal’s complaint is that Bush drove down the wrong road at 50 mph and nearly crossed the yellow line a time or two! They are happy with Obama staying on the exact same road at 150mph and weaving across all lanes of traffic puting us all in danger. Makes no sense to me!

        • Cindy Tannen

          didn’t Obama sign that 30 day law into law during his administration?

          • francesca9

            yes he did and then he broke it! his laws mean nothing to him and neither do ours. fraud of a president!

        • pen44

          Kristine, as per usual with BamBam and his minions, it’s just the usual excuses and deflect, deflect, deflect!!

          • mike boles

            Am I delusional or has anyone here been on Huff Post b4? Their keyword censor is outrageous. They deleted my post because I said the Sec.Def. was a blooming idiot.

        • Guest

          You should change friends then. You can start with teddy6139. You won’t be ignored by this freedom lover.

        • ja

          Gosh, we might have the same liberal friends (and relatives)….Can not focus on current events happening NOW without talking about George Bush…

    • CO2 Producer

      Friedman said that Bergdahl may be worthy of sympathy, which would give his former platoon mates all the more reason to “smear him publicly now.”

      Yes, because maybe–no, likely, if you’d rather believe them than him–he does not deserve the sympathy that the Administration and its supporters want everyone to think he deserves. If not for these men speaking up, everyone would be celebrating another Obama “victory.” Instead, people are pissed, and rightfully so. Tough break there, Obamites.

      • http://www.GONINERS.com/ Kristine ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

        Even if Bergdahl didn’t desert, I would still be asking questions. Actually, I’m still asking those questions. Why was he worth these 5 highly dangerous terrorists? Why was the 30-day law intentionally broken? Was there really NO other option than to give up these 5 terrorists?

        The desertion thing is just icing on the cake really. The whole thing stunk to high heaven before that bit was revealed.

        We still have 11 Americans being held in Muslim countries. I want to know, what about them?

        Anyway, yeah, this whole thing just stinks.

        • CO2 Producer

          I’ve been thinking those same questions. But to ask them is to play partisan politics. Also probably racist. But the answers? Not motivated by politics at all. Obama just saved an American’s life at the eleventh hour. He can’t help that he’s a hero. You and I will see.

          • psycho francis

            Hey Obama how about getting our marine out of freakin Mexican prison? The guy took a wrong turn, he didn’t commit treason. Leave it to Obama to rescue the wrong guy.

          • mike boles

            Let’s give him another Nobel! (not)

        • arturo

          Turns out, Barry didn’t go to Afghanistan to surprise our troops on Memorial Day. He was also supposedly negotiating with the Afghan gov’t. What did he bring home? A deal with our enemies.

          Barry failed in Iraq. That’s why we had to totally withdraw our troops. Dollars to donuts, he’ll fail in Afghanistan as well .

          • http://teresainfortworth.wordpress.com/ Teresa in Fort Worth, TX

            Don’t forget that in the process, he also “inadvertently” outed the Kabul CIA Chief.

            Given this administration’s past actions, it’s a toss-up as to whether that was a mistake or done on purpose…..

            I would hate to think that it was done as part of the “deal” he made with the Taliban, but he has always said that he stands with Islam.

          • http://www.GONINERS.com/ Kristine ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            It was the Bush Administration that negotiated the timeline for withdrawal from Iraq.

            http://www.cfr.org/iraq/us-security-agreements-iraq/p16448

          • arturo

            Yes, it was Bush who set the timeline. Barry took credit, but failed to fulfill duty to complete the job as mandated.

          • http://www.GONINERS.com/ Kristine ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Which part did he fail to complete?

          • Steve in Katy

            Maintaining a stable government without insurgent influences for one. Heck, Iraq could have been a great legacy for American influence since we set up only the second secular democracy in the middle east.

          • http://www.GONINERS.com/ Kristine ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            What specific provision of the signed agreement was not completed?

          • Steve in Katy

            My God, You’re starting to sound like Who Dat. Obama left Iraq to fend for themselves when he should have offered protection for not only them, but the world.

          • http://www.GONINERS.com/ Kristine ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            No, actually I’m not. I just asked a question for clarification purposes.

            However, for some unknown reason, you decided to make it more than it is and make a stupid accusation.

            Bush & Obama BOTH offered protection and it was tied to the immunity. They said no.

          • Steve in Katy

            Sorry ’bout that.

          • arturo

            We were supposed to leave troops behind for security. Obama failed to negotiate protection for our troops from Iraqi prosecution. That’s why the pullout was total.

          • http://www.GONINERS.com/ Kristine ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Bush also failed to get immunity for troops.

          • Steve in Katy

            Bush did kick the can down the road on a few things as his Presidency was coming to an end. He left the Iraq details, Georgia, and auto industry to Barry.

          • BuckTard

            And we all know how those turned out.

          • arturo

            It wasn’t Bush’s job. It was Obama’s job and he failed. Watch what happens in Afghanistan.

          • Steve in Katy

            Agreed.

        • AMSilver

          The discussion on whether to free those 5 had come up earlier in Obama’s administration and the idea had been rejected. The original plan was to release them as a show of good faith to encourage the Taliban to further negotiations. I guess after that one didn’t fly, Obama needed a slightly better excuse to let them go. Personally, I tend to think the release of the Gitmo 5 was a solution in search of a problem. Obama wanted them free.

          • francesca9

            it came up more than once, in 2011 and 2013 and congress was against it both times as they knew it was desertion and did not want to risk it to save a traitor! knowing that congress would not approve it again, Obama broke the law and did it anyway. he is lawless! imp

    • KHSoldier(Ret)&Writer

      I don’t trust the “leadership” in Washington, does that mean I can go and just whatever the *#& I want? Cause I have a very long list of people I’d like to see out of a job…

  • Jack Deth

    Geeeeee….

    Who didn’t see that coming?

    Liberals are not very big on the concept of “Cause and Effect”!

    • Suzyqpie

      When their man 0bama is on the hot seat, liberals lose their ability to think through the implications, ritualistically followed by an epidemic of logorrhea.

  • Richard Nightwood

    Friedman was afraid his book might become too popular and he wouldn’t be able to go out in public without mobs of fans trying to get his autograph.

    Amazon rank: 404,702

    • Mark81150 Never/Trump/Hillary

      I might take a copy someone gave me, if I needed to prop up a table leg in the shed.. couldn’t imagine anything that choad wrote being worthy of anything else.

      • SturJen

        You know, I hear torn up pages of crap books makes great tinder. I’d add a few pages to my bugout bag so I can start fires quickly.

        • CO2 Producer

          But that would mean having to care enough to acquire it.

          • SturJen

            True.

    • KHSoldier(Ret)&Writer

      Hot damn I’m ahead of him on amazon. My ranking is 311,591.

    • Jay Stevens

      But, but the Daily Kos calls it one of the best books of the decade.

      • TomJB

        Ahh.. so THATS why it broke the top million

      • Mark81150 Never/Trump/Hillary

        If the kos praised me for anything, I’d go see a shrink, because something has got to be broken..

        was he a good little boot licking prog when he enlisted to “expose” that evil Booosh, or did he suffer a brain injury?

        • Jay Stevens

          Yes.

  • Linda

    Hope he falls into obscurity as easily as his twitter bio went away.

    • Hey, That’s Pretty Good

      Why? We all know you agree with him. We know that anyone who isn’t praising Bergdahl is human garbage to you libs.

      • Linda

        You know, your rage and rants against me get old. There is a far-left just as there is a far-right. Are you so far right that you cannot acknowledge that not all Democrats/liberals are the same? Or, are you just a jacka$$ who has no sense of decency? Probably both, thinking back over your posts.

        • Malcolm Reynolds

          QUICK, the meds are wearing off! Take another dose

          BTW, disagreement = ‘so far right’ is the hallmark of those on the EXTREMIST left.

          • Linda

            crickets…crickets…crickets…crickets

          • mike_in_kosovo

            Sleep with your mouth open and they might just climb out of your brainpan and leave.

          • Linda

            hmm…

          • Malcolm Reynolds

            babble…babble…babble…babble….babble

          • Linda

            tsk…

          • Corey Dennison

            Yeah…the whole “crickets” meme, you’re doing it wrong. usually you break that out after asking something substantive, which can possibly disprove someone else’s point.

            What you’ve done with it…not so much.

          • Linda

            It’s used to break awkward silences (say in a debate or bad joke) or during conversation stoppers (bold text indicates my additional comments or emphasis):

            “For example, if a group of people are sitting around a table (or are in a forum, exchanging ideas) talking between themselves, somebody says something that causes everybody else to suddenly stop, and there’s a pause where nobody is talking, you might “hear crickets” because it is so quiet. The “something” that the person says will typically be something very shocking, very dumb, or very unconnected to anything else going on.

            http://askville.amazon.com/phrase-'hearing-crickets'/AnswerViewer.do?requestId=25815787

  • JD Son

    Nothing like having some outrage against those that serve and protect the country and then have it backfire on you. Well done there. Useful idiot.

    • http://www.almarquardt.com/ almarquardt

      I was impressed how Bergdahl’s home town decided to cancel his welcome home festivities after all this came out.

      • therealguyfaux ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

        Lest anything untoward happen (like protestors outnumbering townspeople?), supposedly.

  • Txgirlinnh

    Just so very sick and tired of these boot-licking a$$holes

    • Jack Deth

      I think R. Lee Ermey expressed it best with the phrase:

      “Jack wagon!”

  • Stephen L. Hall #NonquamTrump

    Apparently, he is no longer a “Southerner.” I smell an anti-southern conspiracy.

    • mrspinky85

      I saw that too like he is trying to say he is of the same type of people criticizing this situation. Little do they know is the military is made up of all kinds of people no matter how badly they want to make this partisan.

      • Mark81150 Never/Trump/Hillary

        It is.. most of the guys I served with were not openly political, save for a visceral disgust for Jimmy Carter.. and a love for Reagan.. but that was easily addressed in how they treated the military.

        Carter was a liberal tool, he was openly disdainful of the services, of vets. He essentially blamed us for his own failings policy wise, and absorbed the left wing radicalism of post Vietnam democrats..

        Reagan was having none of that.. he raised our pay out of poverty levels, increased spending on troops, new equipment, praised us, apreciated us..

        the military is not so much pro republican, as we were pro servicemen supporters.. it trends republican, because all the democrats do is deploy us, everywhere, then cut funding as they demand more of us, and oh.. you vets?… shut up..

        • maggiegirl

          First, thank you for your service. Secondly, you’ve stated this perfectly, with 100% accuracy. Thank you again.

        • therealguyfaux ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

          Jimmuh Cracker was a career naval officer who served under Admiral Hymie Rickover in developing the “Nuclear Navy.” “Rick” was a somewhat-insubordinate troublemaker who needed the intercession of Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower and JFK to keep his position, as the Pentagon types were not enthralled by him. “Rick” basically recruited tech weenies who were non-threatening to him to work on the project. Of course, a hatred for the “brass” was cultivated in “Rick’s” men. This may explain Carter’s antipathy to some extent.

          Reagan, an Army reserve officer since 1937, was initially rejected for overseas service for poor eyesight, but when the army training films command was set up, Reagan was assigned to it, in order to contribute in that way. Supposedly Reagan was so thorough about what he was doing that he needed very few retakes, and the producers had to importune him to blow lines and curse, just so they could have a gag-reel to show their Pentagon bosses.

          Just to give you some idea about the relative attitudes to military service of the two men.

          • Steve in Katy

            Have you ever thought of going on Jeopardy?

          • therealguyfaux ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Tried once– they never called back. I guess I wasn’t what they were looking for, for whatever reason.

  • Jack Deth

    Who pays attention to someone named Brandon, anyway?

    • mrspinky85

      I know you are trying to be funny but one of my best military buddies is named Brandon. He is still a good friend after we all get out. This is going to make this brandon look so dumb.

    • Mark81150 Never/Trump/Hillary

      Who pays attention to someone who worked for HUD, and the VA?…. then touts a book he wrote no body ever heard of?

  • Brad Donald

    Cowardly little piece of progressive troop hating garbage. Remember this is the type that thinks John Kerry who lied to congress is a hero. So of course he sides with the guy that betrayed his own and deserted. Typical liberal troop hater, he is attracted to his own kind, so its no surprise he likes bargdahl and kerry.

    • http://twitter.com/thetugboatphil TugboatPhil

      Let us not forget that more than just lying to Congress about “the Winter Soldier Project”, Kerry admitted having met with North Vietnamese personnel in Paris, while still a member of the Naval Reserves, and while we were still at war with them.

      http://www.americanthinker.com/2004/08/did_navy_lt_kerry_violate_the.html

  • Klaatu barada nikto

    Another Obama pajama boy with one hand on his book and the other on his Tweeter.

  • MARIO V ALBANO

    Now the dog has its tail tucked between its hind legs, no fangs on this one.

  • Republicanvet

    What a POS. Perfect fit for this administration.

    • mrspinky85

      I think that has to be on your resume’ to get an interview.

  • Tanker74

    He served in the US Army? Perhaps he’s the psychopath.

    • Mark81150 Never/Trump/Hillary

      Doing what?….

      • Jay Stevens

        wikipedia bio sketch:
        “Prior to his work in government, politics, and the media, Friedman served as an infantry officer in the U.S. Army’s 101st Airborne Division in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Kuwait, and Iraq. In March 2002, he led a rifle platoon into Afghanistan’s Shah-e-Kot Valley in order to engage Taliban and al Qaeda fighters as part of Operation Anaconda—a battle later written about by journalist Sean Naylor in Not a Good Day to Die.

        A year later, Friedman commanded a heavy weapons platoon during the invasion of Iraq. He led troops during combat and counterinsurgency operations in Hillah, Baghdad, and Tal Afar.

        Friedman left active duty in 2004 after having spent the latter portion of his Iraq tour as an executive officer managing troop movements, security issues, and logistics throughout northern Iraq as the insurgency intensified. He was awarded two Bronze Stars for his service in Afghanistan and Iraq.”

  • CrossHugger

    No liberal dare call a warrior a baby killer seeing how liberals kill more babies per day with abortion than any soldier ever has.

  • therealguyfaux ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

    Listen, with all that’s going on in the VA Dept, I wouldn’t want to brag about it either, setting to one side the whole Bergdahl matter:

    “Say, Bran, I’m not big on speculation here, but– are YOU the cause of vets dying because of ‘secret waiting lists’?”

  • bicentennialguy

    Coward.

  • Republicanvet

    What a POS. Perfect fit for this administration.

  • CO2 Producer

    From Wikipedia:

    The War I Always Wanted (2007) is a nonfiction war memoir by Brandon Friedman. The story details Friedman’s experiences in combat in Afghanistan and Iraq between 2001 and 2004, roughly tracing his metamorphosis from a young, eager cadet into a disillusioned-but-wiser adult and veteran. The book received favorable reviews upon publication and within three years had been named one of the best memoirs of the past decade by media outlets like the Military Times and Daily Kos.

    Friedman only wishes he was as cowardly as Bergdahl seems.

    • Mark81150 Never/Trump/Hillary

      Kos?….. REALLY?

      Well that’s about as good as having JFK’S Memoirs praised by the Japanese Imperial Navy..

      the same kos that said screw those guys when US vets working ss security contracters were killed?

      This douche went to war, and came back blaming everyone else for his hurt physche, blamed Bush, blamed the right.. but not one widdle peep about All the democrats who were on board at the start, then later bolted for the exit screaming how they was lied too… when it was the same intell they used under Clinton..

      I have zero tolerance for would be warriors who turn on those who didn’t loose their faith in Ametica..

  • tops116 ✓Quipper

    Putting aside the fact that calling Bergdahl’s platoon mates is offensive, you’d think Brandon would’ve scrubbed his bio first and then posted that crap. He’s not only offensive; he’s rock stupid.

    • http://youhavetobethistalltogoonthisride.blogspot.com/ keyboard jockey

      Yep America is a great country, and how well he’s done in his life is proof (bless his heart).

    • Common Man

      He is also a Liberal amongst many of his kind in D.C. that are living off the teat of the American Taxpayer.

  • http://youhavetobethistalltogoonthisride.blogspot.com/ keyboard jockey

    Well someone is awake and had their coffee this morning at the White House. Now smack him upside his head, and tell him to simmer down. lol!

  • OLLPOH ~ OurLifeLiberty

    You are the 0’Sugar Daddy boy aren’t you…and yes, he loves you sooo, much!

    We will not allow a white flag planted on her soil…
    OLLPOH ~ Our Life Liberty Pursuit Of Happiness
    (Mr. and Mrs.)

  • jumper297

    And the DC Amateur Hour rolls on….

  • copperpeony

    This is one way of combining the VA Scandal with the Bergdahl Scandal. Thank you @BFreidmanDC for not letting us forget that all veterans are psychopaths and therefore are on the secret waiting lists for medical treatment.

    You people have no shame.

  • OLLPOH ~ OurLifeLiberty

    Hey 0’sugar daddy boy. . .if you’re able to wipe the crap away from your nose. . .read this….

    Source: time.com

    Taliban Commander: More Kidnappings to Come After Bergdahl Deal

    Aryn Baker @arynebaker 7:36 AM ET

    http://time.com/2826442/taliban-kidnappings-bergdahl/

    • Common Man

      Thank you for the link.

      • OLLPOH ~ OurLifeLiberty

        You are quite welcome. Please share with your Congressperson’s all 3 of them please. As, our military still on the battlefield/in theater, and we here at home are bigger targets for the tali/alqai…

    • mike_in_kosovo

      “But we’ve proved it again and again,
      That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld
      You never get rid of the Dane.” – R. Kipling

      • Thale Taxurfeet

        Lessons forgotten, over and over again.

        • mike_in_kosovo

          Yup.

          Cruz nailed it:

          “What does this tell terrorists?,” Republican Senator Ted Cruz saidon ABC’s This Week the day after Bergdahl’s release. “That if you capture a U.S. soldier, you can trade that soldier for five terrorist prisoners?”

          Now, every American overseas is a much higher-value target than would have been the case prior to the release.

  • Republicanvet

    What a POS. Perfect fit for this administration.

    • CO2 Producer

      Tell us how you really feel, veteran.

  • Heather Atkinson

    How can we have an honest discussion about -anything- when Leftwingnuts are intellectually incapable of dealing honestly … or even being honest?

  • Squiddy

    Ok, now I know what VoteVets is about …

  • spaceycakes

    iowahawk is the bomb

  • ConservativeTexan

    The “impeachment” phrase is appearing a lot more often in the press recently because of the release of these terrorists.
    Watching Obama get drilled on national T.V., then removed from office is at the top of my bucket list! Please Lord, just this one simple request, that’s all I ask.

    • jeanie6

      Can I just add that Obama then move out of the country and never be heard from again, please?

      • Red Fred

        Kinda worries me, in that he knows all US secrets….

        • Common Man

          I’m sure he gave a few secrets away with the Ale Quita 5 to help them along as they re-generate terrorist networks in Afghanistan.

      • MyrmidoNOT

        …hmmm…while ‘he’ is out-of-country;
        “good luck” with the second request…
        😉

      • ConservativeTexan

        You sure can – and with my blessing!
        Dang, why didn’t I think of that?

    • Jay Stevens

      “The ‘impeachment’ phrase is appearing a lot more often in the press recently because of the release of these terrorists.”

      That is a real possibility if we pick up oh, say, 25 more senate seats during the mid-term elections, in other words, not real likely.

      • ConservativeTexan

        Unfortunately, it appears that a 2/3 majority of the Senate is required to put him on trial. Dang!

        • MaxVoltz

          If and when the GOP takes the Senate, change the rules just like Harry Greed did with the filibuster rule.

          • ConservativeTexan

            Exactly! What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

      • sez-who

        Republicans don’t have to pick up 25 more senate seats. We just need Democrats with a conscience and love of countr . . oh . never mind.

        • Jay Stevens

          Like I said, not real likely.

    • Ms. Abigail van Beagle

      I figure it this way: voter fraud aside, the majority of people apparently wanted this creature in office and fully support everything he’s doing or not doing. They cheer as he pursues socialism, wealth redistribution and sympathy for terrorists. Maybe at this point the US isn’t fit to survive.

  • Dandee

    As usual, you can call this another VA Scandal. This admin has no respect for our veterans or the military.

  • Republicanvet

    What a POS. Perfect fit for this administration.

    • KHSoldier(Ret)&Writer

      POS – Plethora Obama Scandals…

      Dual meaning, but still same ol’ POS!

    • Stephen L. Hall #NonquamTrump

      While I do not disagree . . . I think your needle is skipping.

      • MyrmidoNOT

        Venting and frustration…good reason to ‘pound the drum’…

  • 3niaj3

    It sounds like something only a boyfriend would do to prove his loyality.

  • no_more_deceit

    Obama loves comparing himself to former presidents, maybe he can compare himself to Richard Nixon this time in the way of Nixon’s Western White House, only Barry can call his the “Southeastern White House” and the rest of us can call it Gitmo – which is where he and all of his cabinet and hanger-ons belong.

    • Stephen L. Hall #NonquamTrump

      I would think James Polk, but he doesn’t rise to that level of competency.

    • MyrmidoNOT

      …if we are lucky…”teh oone” will be ‘comparing himself’ to
      his former presidency. Hopefully sooner then later

  • Republicanvet

    What a POS. Perfect fit for this administration.

  • waterytart

    They are surely releasing the full complement of “SQUIRRELS!” on this aren’t they? What’s left? Debbie Washyerhair-Schlitz flashing some boobage?

    • MyrmidoNOT

      It’s a girl?

      • CO2 Producer

        Depends on what the meaning of ‘s is.

        • MyrmidoNOT

          …also ‘depends’ on “what” is considered a girl!?!

    • no_more_deceit

      What’s left? Debbie Washyerhair-Schlitz flashing some boobage?

      Well, there went my breakfast.

      • waterytart

        Sorry! I’m just laughing that they’re now needing distractions from their distractions!

      • Common Man

        I just puked in my mouth too.

    • Acethepug

      Isn’t that what nearly got Perseus turned to stone in ‘Clash of the Titans’?

    • Kris Langley

      Please…since I live in Alaska, that came right after I ate breakfast. ..

  • [email protected]

    B Clinton never said “But…JFK cheated, too…….!?!”

  • Common Man

    “Iron Sharpens Iron…”

    Everyone associated with the with this Democrat Shiite Administration smells like Shiite. Eisenhower is rolling in his grave over this too.

  • Doug Ragan

    He hasn’t scrubbed LinkedIn yet :-)

  • Acethepug

    Brave, brave Sir Brandon, brave Sir Brandon ran away!

  • SophieRo3

    What if the Obama administration is long on psychopaths and short on leadership?

    • SophieRo3

      ‘If’ being merely rhetorical.

  • Cindy Munford

    Oh look, he has already written a book!!! And got props from Wesly Clark. Somebody wants to run for office.

    • BOKEEKEEYO

      Nailed it.

  • http://lnsmitheeblog.blogspot.com LN_Smithee

    Whoever says conservatives can’t be funny has either 1) Never read David Burge’s blog, or 2) Has had their sense of humor severely wounded by political correctness.

  • Robert Caleb Potter

    ‘Reporting for Duty?’ There has not been a Democrat who has reported for duty in years.

  • LegalizeShemp

    Yes, Democrats always defend the traitorous anti-US slimeball and smear the decent soldiers. Nothing new, they’ve been doing it since the 60’s when they rooted for Communists and against the US military. At least they’re consistently pro-Communist and anti-American, that’s all that can be said for them.

  • LegalizeShemp

    It’s easy to spot a Democrat Communist sympathizer, ripping into the US and defending traitors, cowards and turncoats.

  • Right Wired ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

    Ronald Reagan would not stand all this bull(*&(.

    • Zeeba Neighba

      You mean the guy who traded arms to the Iranians in exchange for
      hostages? Then used the proceeds to fund an illegal war in Nicaragua?
      You mean that Ronald Reagan? More likely he would have been asking what
      took so long.

      • Right Wired ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

        You speak about them like they were enemies at the time. Quit spouting liberal revisionist history.

        • Zeeba Neighba

          You’re saying the Iranians were not our enemies? The same people who held our embassy staff for a year and a half? Talk about revisionist history!

          • no_more_deceit

            They were not our enemies until Democrat Hero Carter brought the Ayatollah Khomeini out of exile from France

      • Christopher Noell

        Yeah, and the desperate Dems tried (and failed) to get Reagan impeached over that, remember? But instead of impeachment of Obama for doing what Reagan did, you want BO to get another illegitimate Nobel Peace Prize, right? Oh, by the way, the result of Iran Contra was the defeat of the Sandinistas (free elections that deposed Daniel Ortega in the late 1980s), the release of several western hostages from the Middle East, and a vast reduction of anti-American, Iranian-sponsored terrorism in the years after. So, if you want to try another pathetic attempt to compare a man-child leftist like Barack Obama to a proven patriot and leader as Reagan, bring it on!

        • nickshaw

          Not to mention some of those Iranian weapons were used on Iraqis.
          I have no problem with muslims who want to kill each other over which end of the egg should be opened according to mohammad (piss be upon him).

      • mike_in_kosovo

        “You mean the guy who traded arms to the Iranians in exchange for hostages?”

        Just *how* did he manage that, when the hostages were released the same day Reagan was sworn in for his first term?

        Idiot.

        • Zeeba Neighba

          LOL!!!! These were the seven hostages in Lebanon that Ollie North tried to trade for. Completely different group.

          What was that about an idiot?

          • mike_in_kosovo

            “What was that about an idiot?”

            I’ll take the hit on that one – you still win for being gullible enough to buy the global warming bs, however.

          • Zeeba Neighba

            Yeah, me and 97 percent of the climate scientists in the world. I’d say you’re the gullible one for buying into the notion it’s all a conspiracy so convoluted that it makes the DaVinci Code look absolutely pedestrian by comparison.

          • Ms. Abigail van Beagle

            If you really want to drag the global warming bs into this-delusional is believing that the earth doing what it’s done millions of times before is suddenly caused by the last 180 years or so of human pollution (180/4.5 billion years=just about 0%), and believing that if you give Obama enough money to give to his cronies who claim to make “green” technology yet tend to go out of business before cranking out a product, he will fix it all for you. That right there is faith beyond rationality, and lucky for Obama and his buddies, you guys are low on rationality and high on cult-like blind faith.
            http://environmentblog.ncpa.org/green-energys-bankruptcy-blackout/

          • Zeeba Neighba

            Yeah, do you know what happens every time the climate makes a major shift? Mass extinctions. Just because something happens by itself from time to time doesn’t mean you seek it out or don’t try to avoid it. That’s like saying auto accidents happen all the time, so you might as well drive drunk.

            Not only that, but this global temperature change is happening a lot faster than any we can find in the geologic record.

          • Ms. Abigail van Beagle

            And Obama can fix this phenomenon how?

          • Zeeba Neighba

            It can’t be fixed, but it can be slowed and minimized – and without giving up cars or pickup trucks or other perks of modern life. The measures needed to moderate it are actually quite modest – but we lose that opportunity the longer we delay.

          • Corey Dennison

            Wow, you’re…special. I’ll give you credit though: you’re the only troll in days who has even tried to offer any kind of defense for this rotten move. Granted, you’ve had to result logical fallacy and non-sequitor, but hey, you tried right?

            /pats zeeba on it’s head

          • nickshaw

            Wrong!

            Ø The RSS satellite dataset shows no
            global warming at all for 213 months from September 1996 to May 2014.
            That is more than half the entire 425-month satellite record.

            Ø The fastest measured centennial warming
            rate was in Central England from 1663-1762, at 0.9 Cº/century – before
            the industrial revolution. It was not our fault.

            Ø The global warming trend since 1900 is
            equivalent to 0.8 Cº per century. This is well within natural
            variability and may not have much to do with us.

            Ø The fastest warming trend lasting ten
            years or more occurred over the 40 years from 1694-1733 in Central
            England. It was equivalent to 4.3 Cº per century.

            Ø Since 1950, when a human influence on
            global temperature first became theoretically possible, the global
            warming trend has been equivalent to 1.2 Cº per century.

            Ø The fastest warming rate lasting ten
            years or more since 1950 occurred over the 33 years from 1974 to 2006.
            It was equivalent to 2.0 Cº per century.
            (H/T to Christopher Monckton)

          • Zeeba Neighba

            Wrong yourself. Temperature increases have only slowed since 1996, not stopped. And NASA measures of land-ocean temps continue to show increases during that period.

            Furthermore, the sun has shown a slight reduction in output since 1975, but temperatures have generally risen during that time.
            http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=43

            And citing trends from Central England is meaningless – it’s a small dot on the face of the Earth and doesn’t tell you anything about the globe as a whole.

          • mike_in_kosovo

            Yeah, do you know what happens every time the climate makes a major shift? Mass extinctions.

            Nice argument from hyperbole – got something to back it up that shows *every* time the climate shifts, there’s mass extinctions?

          • Zeeba Neighba

            Uh – the fossil record?

          • mike_in_kosovo

            Show your work, specifically tied to climatic shift.

          • mike_in_kosovo

            Yeah, me and 97 percent of the climate scientists in the world.

            Sorry to break it to you, but that 97% bs was debunked, too.

            Maybe you (or they) can explain why the Medieval, Roman and Minoan Warm Periods all had higher temps than today…with lower CO2?

            Maybe you (or they) can explain why CO2 is supposedly the main issue…when CO2 only has a R^2 correlation of 0.44 to temperature? When solar (TSI) has a R^2 correlation of 0.54 to temperature? When PDO/AMO has a R^2 correlation of 0.83 to temperature? When PDO/AMO/Solar (TSI) has a R^2 correlation of 0.96??

            When CO2 has a R^2 correlation to the 1998-2007 temps of…. (laughing)… 0.02?

            Maybe your or your mythical 97% of scientists can explain why the models not only can’t forecast temps, but can’t back-cast them without changing the data to fit the model (*great* professional integrity, there!)? When PDO/AMO matches observed temps back to 1905?

          • Zeeba Neighba

            The Medieval Warm Period wasn’t a global phenomena – records show that SE Asia and the Philippines were cooler than normal during that time.. And there’s no reliable global data for either the Roman or Minoan periods – in fact, historical writings showing where date palms could grow during the supposed warm Roman period suggest temps in the Mediterranean were about the same then as they are now.

            You’re also citing low-level atmospheric temps, which are highly unreliable. Things like ocean temps, glaciers worldwide and the state of the Arctic ice cap are far more reliable. Quit getting your info from oil and coal company stooges.

          • mike_in_kosovo

            The Medieval Warm Period wasn’t a global phenomena

            Actually, it was.

            Rosenbrock/Lindsey/Oppo:

            “We used high-resolution proxy records from sediment cores to extend these observations in the Pacific 10,000 years beyond the instrumental record. We show that water masses linked to North Pacific and Antarctic intermediate waters were warmer by 2.1 ± 0.4°C and 1.5 ± 0.4°C, respectively, during the middle Holocene Thermal Maximum than over the past century. Both water masses were ~0.9°C warmer during the Medieval Warm period than during the Little Ice Age and ~0.65° warmer than in recent decades. Although documented changes in global surface temperatures during the Holocene and Common era are relatively small, the concomitant changes in OHC are large.”

            ecords show that for SE Asia and the Philippines were colder than normal during that time

            Yeah, about that:

            http://joannenova.com.au/2009/12/fraudulent-hockey-sticks-and-hidden-data/

            I was *completely* unaware that +1.5 and +2.0 were considered “colder than normal”.

            in fact, historical writings showing where date palms could grow during the supposed warm Roman period suggest temps in the Mediterranean were about the same then as they are now.

            And “Greenland” was, well….*green* instead of white.

            Idiot.

            You’re also citing low-level atmospheric temps, which are highly unreliable.

            You mean the USHCN temperature data? If it’s so unreliable, why do the climate ‘scientists’ keep using it?

            Way to pull that out of your ass absent *any* proof – but I guess that I shouldn’t be surprised by that from a global warming adherent.

          • Zeeba Neighba

            Joanne Nova is not a climate scientist. She has a BS degree in microbiology but that doesn’t equip her to produce a survey paper assembling data on 700+ papers. And I know you’re citing low-level atmospheric data because that’s where those trends come from.

          • mike_in_kosovo

            Joanne Nova is not a climate scientist.

            Then neither is *physicist* Michael Mann, nor *mathematician* Gavin Schmidt.

            And I know you’re citing low-level atmospheric data because that’s where those trends come from.

            Actually, it’s the same USHCN *surface* temperature data that global warming alarmists use to try to convince us that the planet is going to melt ANY. DAY. NOW.

            And I notice that you can’t seem to refute it.

          • Zeeba Neighba

            Mann and Schmidt have advanced degrees, have been trained as climate scientists and have done extensive peer-reviewed climate research. They ARE climatologists. Nova has an undergraduate degree and is trained in writing about science, not doing it. And her work is not peer-reviewed.

          • mike_in_kosovo

            “Nova has an undergraduate degree”

            BS in microbiology and molecular biology, actually.

            “is trained in writing about science, not doing it.”

            Honors research in DNA markers referring to muscular dystrophy, actually.
            “And her work is not peer-reviewed”

            Must *suck* when you can’t refute the actual data and have to put out weaksauce like that…and you think that compiling data from peer-reviewed papers needs to be peer-reviewed itself, why?

            Other than the opportunity it provides to discount it out-of-hand, that is; I’m sure that’s worth it’s weight in gold.

          • Zeeba Neighba

            Actually, a survey of peer-reviewed papers DOES have to be reviewed to ensure you’re representing them faithfully – which she is not. And she still has no training in climate study.

          • mike_in_kosovo

            You just focus on the few things that don’t seem to fit and ignore the big picture.

            Says the guy that’s throwing out USHCN (which gets used all the time as ‘proof’ by alarmists) because it supposedly ‘doesn’t fit’.

            Meanwhile, you can’t explain things like rising ocean temperatures,

            You mean the temps that are *still* lower than during the MWP?

            melting glaciers

            The same glaciers that have been melting since *before* the supposed CO2 crisis?

            and polar ice

            Would that be the Antarctic polar ice or the Arctic polar ice (both of which are expanding)?

            Actually, a survey of peer-reviewed papers DOES have to be reviewed to ensure you’re representing them faithfully – which she is not.

            And you know this, how? Other than Mann or Schmidt saying so, that is? *SPECIFIC* examples of how she misrepresented findings, if you please.

          • Zeeba Neighba

            Arctic polar ice expanding? Where did you get that crazy idea? And your notion that glaciers have been melting since the early 1800s?

            As for Antarctica, the ice there is melting as well. I guess you’ve missed all the reports of the massive ice shelves that have been breaking away every year. The only thing that’s expanded has been seasonal sea ice – which is relatively thin – and has expanded solely because changing wind currents are blowing fresh ice out to sea, allowing new ice to form immediately behind it. So you’ve got a big, thin crust that melts in summer. But the total volume of Antarctic ice is shrinking, same as the Arctic.

            And I don’t need to review the work of a PR flack with no graduate degree or training as a climatologist to doubt her work. If you’re going to hold it up as an example, show me why I should be persuaded by the claims of a dilettante. Better yet, explain why you should accept her claims over that of established researchers.

          • mike_in_kosovo

            Arctic polar ice expanding? Where did you get that crazy idea?

            From NOAA data. Pretty obscure, I’m sure you’ve never heard of it from your perch inside Mann’s fourth point of contact.

            And your notion that glaciers have been melting since the early 1800s?

            I didn’t say early 1800’s – do you always misrepresent what others say?

            But let’s go with Nat Geo studies (emphasis mine) ….

            “Davidson has summarized the information based on the maps and reports of Vancouver, Tebenkof and the Russian navigators and agrees with Wright and Reid that Muir Glacier and the other ice tongues of Glacier Bay extended 25 to 40 miles farther to the south in 1794. He also refers to native legends of the greater extension of these glaciers.”

            As for Antarctica, the ice there is melting as well.

            NSIDC begs to differ.

            I guess you’ve missed all the reports of the massive ice shelves that have been breaking away every year.

            Haven’t missed it at all… I get quite the laugh out of idiots trying to explain how supposedly retreating ice sheets are somehow breaking off.

            The only thing that’s expanded has been seasonal sea ice – which is relatively thin – and has expanded solely because changing wind currents are blowing fresh ice out to sea, allowing new ice to form immediately behind it. So you’ve got a big, thin crust that melts in summer. But the total volume of Antarctic ice is shrinking, same as the Arctic.

            Actual scientists (as opposed to global warming hacks) seem to disagree (again, emphasis mine):
            In a new study in the Journal of Climate, Zhang finds both strengthening and converging winds around the South Pole can explain 80 percent of the increase in ice volume which has been observed.

            “The polar vortex that swirls around the South Pole is not just stronger than it was when satellite records began in the 1970s, it has more convergence, meaning it shoves the sea ice together to cause ridging,” the study’s press release explains. “Stronger winds also drive ice faster, which leads to still more deformation and ridging. This creates thicker, longer-lasting ice, while exposing surrounding water and thin ice to the blistering cold winds that cause more ice growth.”

            And I don’t need to review the work of a PR flack with no graduate degree or training as a climatologist to doubt her work. If you’re going to hold it up as an example, show me why I should be persuaded by the claims of a dilettante. Better yet, explain why you should accept her claims over that of established researchers.

            Sorry, doesn’t work that way. You made the claim that she’s misrepresented data, the onus is upon you to prove it true.

          • Zeeba Neighba

            A single season where polar ice exceeds the previous year does not constitute “expanding” – particularly when it’s still less than half what it was a few years ago. And Zhang’s article states exactly what I was saying about sea ice expanding because the winds blow it offshore and allow more ice to be created inshore.

            Zhang also said ““The overwhelming evidence is that the Southern Ocean is warming. Why would sea ice be increasing? Although the rate of increase is small, it is a puzzle to scientists.” He then goes on to suggest his theory of stronger winds pushing ice offshore to explain the increase in sea ice extent, and says that he expects warming waters will eventually overwhelm it.

            It’s right here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2013/09/23/antarctic-sea-ice-hit-35-year-record-high-saturday/

            You’ll note that he’s also talking about sea ice, whereas most of the ice in Antarctica is on land – and that ice is shrinking.

            You’re taking bits of a report and putting your own interpretation on them despite the fact the authors of the report say the exact opposite about their findings. Not only are you lying to me, you’re lying to yourself as well – and that’s pretty pathetic.

            PS – historical records of the extend of ice on glaciers in a single bay don’t say anything about global patterns.

          • mike_in_kosovo

            A single season where polar ice exceeds the previous year does not constitute “expanding”

            Continuing expansion year-on-year from the low of 07, however, does.

            And Zhang’s article states exactly what I was saying about sea ice expanding because the winds blow it offshore and allow more ice to be created inshore.

            “Blows it offshore”? Cool story, bro – too bad it doesn’t work that way. Winds *compact* ice.

            From your own link: ““The polar vortex that swirls around the South Pole is not just stronger than it was when satellite records began in the 1970s, it has more convergence, meaning it shoves the sea ice together to cause ridging,” the study’s press release explains.”

            You’ll note that he’s also talking about sea ice, whereas most of the ice in Antarctica is on land – and that ice is shrinking.

            From Cryosphere: “However, a clear increase in accumulation of more than 10% has occurred in high SMB coastal regions and over the highest part of the East Antarctic ice divide since the 1960s.”

            Not only are you lying to me, you’re lying to yourself as well – and that’s pretty pathetic.

            The data supports me – I don’t care what the author’s OPINION of the data was.

            And you’d certainly know about that ‘lying’ thing, given how many of YOUR lies I’ve exposed.

          • Zeeba Neighba

            “The data supports me – I don’t care what the author’s OPINION of the data was.”

            Yeah, that sums it up, doesn’t it? You don’t care about the conclusions of the professionals who actually investigate these things, you just insist on making your own interpretations based on the few items you pick out of it. I think the authors of these reports understand the data and the dynamics of the system a lot better than you do.

            You are so full of it. The The Zhang research you cited specifically says the wind is blowing the ice offshore and creating new areas of open water where new ice forms. And Arctic ice has most definitely been shrinking, particularly by volume: See: http://www.skepticalscience.com/Has-Arctic-sea-ice-recovered.htm

            Face it, you either take information from non-scientists, or you extract bits of info from reports and interpret it in ways that directly contradict the author’s conclusions – as you’ve done repeatedly here and I’ve shown.

            You’ve just made up your mind climate change isn’t happening because you don’t want it to, you afraid of being inconvenienced by measures to address it and you just plain don’t like those professor-types who do research at those liberal universities. Admit it. This is all about doing whatever you can to support your biases, rather than looking at what the data shows.

          • mike_in_kosovo

            Yeah, that sums it up, doesn’t it? You don’t care about the conclusions of the professionals who actually investigate these things, you just insist on making your own interpretations based on the few items you pick out of it.

            Wrong. I stated the conclusion of the paper – YOU were the one that seems to beleive that the author’s OPINION is of more importance.

            The The Zhang research you cited specifically says the wind is blowing the ice offshore and creating new areas of open water where new ice forms.

            Then why did their press release state differently, as I quoted?

            And Arctic ice has most definitely been shrinking, particularly by volume:

            The data (as opposed to your climate alarmist religion) disagrees.

            You’ve just made up your mind climate change isn’t happening because you don’t want it to

            You get an AWFUL lot of exercise jumping to conclusions, don’t you? You may now show the *EXACT QUOTE* where I said that I don’t believe climate change is happening.

            Admit it. This is all about doing whatever you can to support your biases, rather than looking at what the data shows.

            You’re obviously addressing this to your mirror.

          • Zeeba Neighba

            Ok – then explain to me the difference between the conclusion of a paper and the author’s opinion? Because the conclusion IS the opinion of the author(s) regarding the findings.

            And you did NOT state the conclusion of the Zhang paper, you misstated it – the increase was in the extent of sea ice, not the volume of Antarctic ice overall – which is IS shrinking, as Zhang and many, many others have noted. And you blithely ignore the repeated studies cited in the link I provided where radar studies show conclusively that the volume of Arctic has been shrinking and continues to do so, despite occasional fluctuations of thin surface ice.

            And if you do believe that anthropomorphic climate change is happening, why are you having this discussion in the first place?

            You’re a real piece of work

          • mike_in_kosovo

            Because the conclusion IS the opinion of the author(s) regarding the findings.

            Unfortunately for your argument, Zhang didn’t say that it blew the ice apart. Guess you should have read more carefully.

            And if you do believe that anthropomorphic climate change is happening

            More words in my mouth – I didn’t say I believed man is causing the changes. For someone that *thinks* they know so much about science, you really suck at precision and accuracy issues, don’t you?

          • Zeeba Neighba

            Keep dodging and bobbing. And Zhang most explicitly DID say the wind blew the ice offshore – I even quoted him directly for you.

            So you admit the climate is changing? Then why have you put nearly all of your effort here into disputing evidence of change itself, rather than focusing on alternative explanations for that change?

            You must work at the Waffle House.

          • mike_in_kosovo

            And Zhang most explicitly DID say the wind blew the ice offshore – I even quoted him directly for you.

            Feel free to provide the direct quote from the WaPo page that says the ice blows offshore.

            Then why have you put nearly all of your effort here into disputing evidence of change itself, rather than focusing on alternative explanations for that change?

            Because your ‘evidence’ is bogus and so is the claimed mechanism.

          • Zeeba Neighba

            Ok, so the exact phrase about driving the ice offshore wasn’t in the WaPo article – I guess I came across that in another place. But still, Zhang specifically attributes the increase in sea ice to wind patterns that create patches of open water, so the mechanism is the same as if it were winds blowing northerly from shore – and the *volume* of ice in Antarctica is shrinking.

            You’ve spent this whole thread denying climate change and now you deny denying it.

          • mike_in_kosovo

            But still, Zhang specifically attributes the increase in sea ice to wind patterns that create patches of open water, so the mechanism is the same as if it were winds blowing northerly from shore

            No, it’s not. Convergence of the ice thickens it, which exposes water and thinner ice to winds that cause freezing – an increase in ice area. *That* ice is then pushed into existing ice by converging winds, repeating the process.

            and the *volume* of ice in Antarctica is shrinking.

            Nope… see the Cryosphere paper, above.

            You’ve spent this whole thread denying climate change and now you deny denying it.

            Nope – I’ve denied the bogus “anthropogenic” global warming. I’ve never said the climate hasn’t changed.

            Again, for someone that *thinks* they know so much about science, you’re certainly lacking in the accuracy and precision departments, aren’t you?

          • Zeeba Neighba

            Sigh. You get a greater spread of ice because the winds create more open areas after the ice piles up. The piling just lets it stick around longer.

            The paper you cite only addresses surface mass balance, not total. Total ice balance – which is what matters – has been shrinking and continues to do so. See: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/338/6111/1183

            or the simplified version: http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice-intermediate.htm

            As for lacking accuracy and precision, you’re the one who’s twisting study findings into making conclusions that are the exact opposite of what the authors said and singling out points from individual papers that support your case while ignoring the broad body of research.

          • mike_in_kosovo

            The paper you cite only addresses surface mass balance, not total. Total ice balance – which is what matters – has been shrinking and continues to do so. See:http://www.sciencemag.org/cont

            NASA disagrees: http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20120013495.pdf

            you’re the one who’s twisting study findings into making conclusions that are the exact opposite of what the authors said

            Says the guy that claimed the study showed ice scattering instead of compression. Sorry, any credibility you *might* have had is long, LONG gone.

          • Zeeba Neighba

            So a single abstract outweighs a broad survey that reconciles the results of a large number of studies – including the one in the abstract? I don’t think so.

            And the difference between scattering and compression is pretty inconsequential – in fact, scattering is a factor, because the stronger winds *are* blowing ice and fresh water away from shore, which you probably know but refuse to acknowledge.

            Anyone who tries to use multiple studies to claim the exact opposite of what the authors found is in no position to talk about credibility.

          • mike_in_kosovo

            So a single abstract outweighs a broad survey that reconciles the results of a large number of studies – including the one in the abstract? I don’t think so.

            You mean something like the Jo Nova survey of MWP data? Funny, you said that didn’t count… then scarpered when asked to provide proof of malfeasance.

            And the difference between scattering and compression is pretty inconsequential

            Except it’s not – see the difference between scattered patches of snow on a lawn and a snowdrift, as temperatures increase.

            Bro, do you even science?

            in fact, scattering is a factor, because the stronger winds *are* blowing ice and fresh water away from shore,

            Too bad your study didn’t prove that, hmm?

            Anyone who tries to use multiple studies to claim the exact opposite of what the authors found is in no position to talk about credibility.

            Yes, I know – that’s why I called you out on it.

          • Zeeba Neighba

            So you’re equating a peer-reviewed article in Science, a collaboration by nearly 50 scientists with advanced degrees with a journalistic report put together by a PR specialist? And a highly biased one at that? While making pointless haggling over minor points of terminology?

            You seem to have some technical knowledge – I’m guessing you may be an engineer, or perhaps someone from one of the actual sciences who’s getting on in his career and thinks he knows more about other peoples’ specialties than they do – that seems to be pretty common with deniers. But you don’t show much integrity, or respect for science.

          • mike_in_kosovo

            But you don’t show much integrity,

            “Says the guy that claimed the study showed ice scattering instead of compression. Sorry, any credibility you *might* have had is long, LONG gone.”

            or respect for science.

            I have plenty of respect for science. Unfortunately for your point, climate alarmism doesn’t clear the bar.

            Make sure you get back to me when the ‘models’ can forecast (and back-cast) and can come up with an R^2 better than 0.02 for the last decade.

          • Zeeba Neighba

            See, there you go again. Your R^2 is based solely on surface temperature readings in the continental U.S. – which have been skewed by, among other things, the long drought that led the Dust Bowl and is nowhere near suitable proxy for global conditions. You also claim solar heating has a higher correlation to observed temps than CO2, when solar influence has declined since the 1970s. You also point to the Atlantic and Pacific oscillations as more relevant factors than CO2 – when again, you’re only looking at their effect on the US.

            You keep picking isolated examples – this is only one of many – that don’t reflect the global or historical picture.

            And your repeated whining about compression vs. scattering is simply juvenile. Since you insist, here’s another take on it – check out the direct quotes from Paul Holland. And don’t start whining that the wind driving the ice offshore is not the same thing as scattering. http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2012/11/12/how-climate-change-is-causing-antarctic-sea-ice-to-expand/

            And if you have respect for science, why don’t you show some and address why virtually every climate scientist in the world disagrees with you? Or are you going to pull up another piece from WUWT or the World Net Daily or some other cuckoo journal to support your dubious assertions yet again? It’s not like it isn’t obvious where you’re getting this stuff.

          • mike_in_kosovo

            Your R^2 is based solely on surface temperature readings in the continental U.S. – which has been skewed by, among other things, the long drought that led the Dust Bowl and is nowhere near suitable proxy for global conditions.

            When the climate alarmists quit using it to claim ‘ZOMGWARMING’, get back to me.

            You also claim solar heating has a higher correlation, when solar influence has declined since the 1970s, and point to the Atlantic and Pacific oscillations as more relevant factors than CO2 – when again, you’re only looking at their effect on the US.

            No. The data *shows* that solar combined with AMO/PDO has a higher correlation…and back-casts back to 1900. Pity that the alarmists ‘models’ can’t come anywhere close.

            You keep picking isolated examples – this is only one of many – that don’t reflect the global or historical picture.

            Feel free to provide R^2 correlation graphs using global temp data in rebuttal. I’ll wait.

            As to historical data, it back-casts back to the turn of the 20th century – the alarmist models can’t even get 0.02 correlation for the last *decade*, much less a century.

            Must *suck* when you can’t refute the actual data and have to grasp at straws.

            And your repeated whining about compression vs. scattering is simply juvenile.

            No, the juvenile part was your attempt to equate the two.

            I’m unsurprised that wind drives drifting ice offshore. Again, unfortunately for your argument, that *still* doesn’t change the Zhang paper.

            And if you have respect for science, why don’t you show some and address why virtually every climate scientist in the world disagrees with you.

            Appeal to consensus. Sorry, skippy, but ‘consensus’ isn’t part of the scientific method and neither is changing data to fit the hypothesis (Dust Bowl era temps, anyone? Inverted proxies? Reliance on limited scope proxies? The “nature trick”?).

            Or are you going to pull up another piece from WUWT or the World Net Daily or some other cuckoo journal to support your dubious assertions yet again?

            I’ve brought up stuff from WUWT, yes – you know, the guys that showed where NASA had made mistakes in the GISS data.

            Nothing from World Net Daily, sorry – best not give up your day job for the Amazing Kreskin gig, because you suck at it.

          • Zeeba Neighba

            You’re something else. You keep harping about secondary details while ignoring the main point. For example:

            “The data *shows* that solar combined with AMO/PDO has a higher correlation.”

            Which completely glosses over the fact that you’re still correlating to U.S. data alone – which is not a proxy for global data. And no one who knows this stuff points to U.S. patterns alone. (there’s a hint in there, if you’re sharp enough to pick it up, btw)

            Meanwhile, you make a big deal out of compression vs scattering – when the only thing that matters is that it’s stronger winds, not cooler temperatures, that are generating a small increase in surface ice – thereby undermining claims that increase is evidence against a warming climate. But you’d rather focus on linguistics.

            And consensus has a lot to do with scientific method. It’s how a team of scientists decide how to present and interpret their results for publication. It’s how a scientific journal decides whether to publish that research based on the feedback it gets from peer-reviewers. And it has everything to do with deciding what to do about the implications of those findings, even if you’re one of the tinny voices out in the snow yelling that you’re right and everyone else is wrong.

            Good luck with your job in the petroleum industry or finishing your undergraduate degree or whatever environment you’re in that makes you cling to the insistence that all is is not happening.

          • mike_in_kosovo

            Which completely glosses over the fact that you’re still correlating to U.S. data alone – which is not a proxy for global data.

            And again…feel free to provide R^2 correlation graphs using global temp data in rebuttal. I’ll wait.

            And no one who knows this stuff points to U.S. patterns alone.

            Except all those ‘climate scientists’ that use it to crow about global warming.

            Meanwhile, you make a big deal out of compression vs scattering – when the only thing that matters is that it’s stronger winds, not cooler temperatures, that are generating a small increase in surface ice – thereby undermining claims that increase is evidence against a warming climate. But you’d rather focus on linguistics.

            Word mean things – most people pick that up somewhere around, oh…kindergarten. Present company is evidently excepted.

            And consensus has a lot to do with scientific method.

            Claiming ‘consensus’ as a (laughable) point of proof in a lame attempt to stifle discussion isn’t. For that matter, neither is changing the data to fit the hypothesis – you know, like changing data from the 30s and 70’s to make the recent warming seem more severe.

            Good luck with your job in the petroleum industry or finishing your undergraduate degree or whatever environment you’re in that makes you cling to the insistence that all is is not happening.

            ANOTHER lame attempt to put words in my mouth? Tch… and again, don’t give up your day job for the mind-reading gig, you *suck* at it.

          • Zeeba Neighba

            You’re the one trying to rebut the findings of the global climate community by using U.S. temperature data. When you have global findings that are peer-reviewed and deal with long-term trends, please share them.

            Words mean things, but arguing over terminology while avoiding the fundamental issue is what’s called quibbling. Is that a word you’re familiar with?

            As for changing the data to fit the hypothesis, are you familiar with what “projection” means in psychological terms? It seems rampant among deniers.

            I don’t know what you actually do for a living, but it’s pretty clear this isn’t your area of expertise – yet you seem to think you’re qualified to critique the work of the people who actually do this stuff.

          • mike_in_kosovo

            You’re the one trying to rebut the findings of the global climate community by using U.S. temperature data.

            And you’re the one saying they’re wildly in variance with global data – prove your claim.

            Then you can explain *why* the alarmist keep using it if it’s so messed up – something you’ve consistently shied away from answering.

            Words mean things, but arguing over terminology while avoiding the fundamental issue is what’s called quibbling. Is that a word you’re familiar with?

            Said fundamental issue being your claim that Zhang said ‘winds scatter ice’? Or some different claim, now?

            As for changing the data to fit the hypothesis, are you familiar with what “projection” means in psychological terms? It seems rampant among deniers.

            Claims of projection, from the guy that keeps wanting to put words in my mouth – irony score…*OVER 9000!!!*

            https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/data-tampering-at-ushcngiss/

            I don’t know what you actually do for a living, but it’s pretty clear this isn’t your area of expertise

            Funny, that – I didn’t *need* to be an expert to debunk and destroy your points. If this *is* YOUR line of work, you evidently suck as badly at it as you do at your amateur mind-reading gig.

          • Zeeba Neighba

            You’re the one trying to take on the global climate research community and say they’re all wrong. You’re the one who needs to present evidence to the contrary.

            And you continue to miss the point that the fundamental issue isn’t a question or scattering vs. compressing – it’s that winds, not lower temperatures, are responsible for the *very small* increase in surface ice. Do you even know what quibbling means?

            And my claim isn’t that US temperature trends are widely at odds with global trends, only that they aren’t a valid representative of them. You’re the one making the claim that they stand for something, so the burden is on *YOU* to show that they’re a valid indicator.

            As for linquistics, “debunk” is another term you don’t seem to know the meaning of, since you haven’t done squat.

          • mike_in_kosovo

            You’re the one trying to take on the global climate research community and say they’re all wrong. You’re the one who needs to present evidence to the contrary.

            Already done – see all the R^2 info, above.

            And you continue to miss the point that the fundamental issue isn’t a question or scattering vs. compressing – it’s that winds, not lower temperatures, are responsible for the *very small* increase in surface ice.

            Winds and not temps, eh? Tell us all how much ice you’re going to get in 50 degree temperatures … regardless of the wind speed.

            Do you even know what quibbling means?

            Judging from evidence it’s “Zeeba’s frantic scrambling to rescue *any* sort of point”.

            And my claim isn’t that US temperature trends are widely at odds with global trends, only that they aren’t a valid representative of them.

            Feel free to show how they’re *NOT* representative.

            You’re the one making the claim that they stand for something, so the burden is on *YOU* to show that they’re a valid indicator.

            Nope, sorry – YOUR claim is that they’re not valid. Prove it.

            As for linquistics, “debunk” is another term you don’t seem to know the meaning of, since you haven’t done squat.

            R^2 stats. 17 *YEARS* of flat temps, falling out of the bottom of even the best-case IPCC scenarios. Historical data on the WMP, RWP and MWP.

            Looks like we can add ‘delusional’ to list of words you just don’t get.

          • Zeeba Neighba

            “Already done – see all the R^2 info, above.”

            Which only correlates to U.S. surface temps, as previously noted – in other words, 1.6 percent of the globe and a notoriously unreliable method.

            “Feel free to show how they’re *NOT* representative.”

            Sorry, you’re the one rejecting the body of established evidence – you need to show they are.

            ” 17 *YEARS* of flat temps”

            No, 17 years of slower-than-expected increases – with ocean temperatures steadily rising, as expected – and during a time of a longer-than-normal solar minimum.

            Give it up.

          • mike_in_kosovo

            notoriously unreliable method.

            So you’re saying that GHCN (which USHCN is part of) is notoriously unreliable? Then why do the alarmists keep using it to try to convince us that the world is going to melt any. day. now?

            “Feel free to show how they’re *NOT* representative.”

            Sorry, you’re the one rejecting the body of established evidence – you need to show they are.

            Already did, as shown above. Now the onus is upon you to prove *YOUR* claim.

            ” 17 *YEARS* of flat temps”

            No, 17 years of slower-than-expected increases – with ocean temperatures steadily rising, as expected – and during a time of a longer-than-normal solar minimum.

            Wrong (again).

            HADCRUT3 – flat since 1997:
            http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997.6/normalise/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997.6/normalise

            RSS – flat since 1997:
            http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1996.9/normalise/plot/rss/from:1996.9/normalise/trend

            HADCRUT4 – flat since 2001:
            http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2001/normalise/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2001/normalise/trend

            GISTEMP – flat since 2001:
            http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:2001.6/normalise/plot/gistemp/from:2001.6/normalise/trend

            UAH – flat since 2005:
            http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:2005/normalise/plot/uah/from:2005/normalise/trend

            Ocean temps?

            HADSST – flat since 1997:
            http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997.1/normalise/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997.1/normalise/trend

            Give it up

            Indeed, you should – you look more and more the fool every time you regurgitate your talking points.

          • Zeeba Neighba

            So you biased the data by selecting a date range that produces your desired outcome. Cute. Even to the point of using 1996.9 or 1997.6. But using 1997 as the value across the board shows a clear, but slight increase in the data as a whole.

            Besides, a period of diminishing solar Irradiance, such as we’ve been experiencing, should have produced diminishing temperatures – so even flat temps would be an indicator that other factors are at work to keep temps warmer than they ought to be. You yourself argued that solar has a far stronger correlation than CO2 (the oscillations are global climate effects, not causes- they’re part of the system). Yet total solar irradiance and global temperatures have been heading in diametrically opposite directions since 1970. See graph at: http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm

            You should come here to Michigan – the farmers will be needing lots of cherry-pickers shortly. Seems like employment you’d be suitable for – you clearly don’t know how to do science or data. Or even worse, you do and just don’t care that you’re skewing the figures.

          • mike_in_kosovo

            So you biased the data by selecting a date range that produces your desired outcome. Cute.

            And the data proves *my* point and not yours.

            Besides, a period of diminishing solar Irradiance, such as we’ve been experiencing, should have produced diminishing temperatures – so even flat temps would be an indicator that other factors are at work to keep temps warmer than they ought to be

            You mean things like AMO / PDO? Amazing how they just slot right in….and CO2 doesn’t.

            You should come here to Michigan – the farmers will be needing lots of cherry-pickers shortly.

            I wouldn’t want to horn in on your action.

            you clearly don’t know how to do science or data.

            Says the guy that has had his argument destroyed over and over and over.

          • Zeeba Neighba

            Wrong. The data tables you provided, when set to a start date of 1997 across the board (rather than cherry picking 1996.9, 1997.6, 2001 or 2005) shows a distinct increase across the data – thereby refuting your claim temps have been flat. And PDO/AMO are part of the climate cycle – and they certainly can’t be used to explain the runup in temps over the past half-century while solar output has declined.

            “Says the guy that has had his argument destroyed over and over and over.”

            You need to spend less time worrying about climate and more time studying language – you clearly don’t know the meaning of the words youre tossing around.

          • mike_in_kosovo

            Wrong. The data tables you provided, when set to a start date of 1997 across the board

            I must have missed where I stated that every single indicator showed flat for 17 years. Must *suck* when the only way you can even *try* to make a point in an argument is to make up sh*t.

            And PDO/AMO are part of the climate cycle – and they certainly can’t be used to explain the runup in temps over the past half-century while solar output has declined.

            Maybe you can utilize that expert realty knowledge and tell us all just *why* AMO / PDO can’t be used to explain the rise….this should be good.

            You need to spend less time worrying about climate and more time studying language – you clearly don’t know the meaning of the words youre tossing around.

            But enough about you.

          • Zeeba Neighba

            You posted those links in a support of your claim of 17 years of flat temps – so if any of those links didn’t support that claim, why include them?

            Not only that, but setting those links to actually show trends over a uniform 17-year period shows a small increase, as i said – so the very source you used to make your claim supports me and refutes you.

            And the AMO/PDO cycles don’t correlate to the past half century of temps. If you think they do, I’d like to see evidence for it..

            But you’ll just go back to saying you didn’t mean what you said or that the data you supplied doesn’t mean what it says or some other such nonsense. Maybe you should focus on claiming humans co-existed with dinosaurs. The folks who claim that use the same stunts you do and have just as much credibility.

            I think we’re done here.

          • mike_in_kosovo

            You posted those links in a support of your claim of 17 years of flat temps – so if any of those links didn’t support that claim, why include them?

            Says the guy that keeps accusing *ME* of latching onto specific things instead of looking at the big picture. Way to show that double standard, skippy.

            I think we’re done here.

            You’ve been “done” since the first time you opened your mouth.

            You can’t refute the temperature record, you can’t refute the R^2 correlation, all you can do is try to move goalposts and spread bullshit.

            I notice you didn’t have anything to say about the temps falling out of the bottom of the IPCC’s ‘best case’ scenario…. can’t imagine *why* you wouldn’t want to admit that all the models show we should be much hotter than we are…

          • Zeeba Neighba

            I’ve done all that and more. The face you keep bringing up R^2 despite me pointing out you’re basing that only on North American surface temps shows you’re either ignoring inconvenient facts or are just too thickheaded to admit when you’re wrong.

            The NASA GISS temperature record shows a steady increase since 1880 and a sharp convergence from total solar radiation since about 1960, with temps continuing to rise and solar dimishing – you can’t answer that.

            The AMO fluctuations have been showing gradual increases from peak to peak, which is what you’d expect in a warming climate – and illustrates why they are a part of the climate an and not a driver of change over 130 years.

            And as I said before, the general consensus as to why temperatures have not increased as quickly as expected since 1990 is an unexplained reduction in solar output – but you ignore that as well.

            I haven’t moved any goalposts, but you don’t seem to have a very good idea of where the playing field even lies, or what the rules of the game are.

          • Zeeba Neighba

            “Says the guy that keeps accusing *ME* of latching onto specific things instead of looking at the big picture. Way to show that double standard, skippy.”

            This makes absolutely no sense – you’re simply evading the point. You provided links to tables that on closer examination, refute your position rather than supporting it.. Then you claim I’m not looking at the big picture? Talk about moving the goalposts!!! You don’t even know where the field of play is, let along the rules of the game!

            You keep dragging up the R^2 correlation despite the fact your data is based on US surface temps only. The temperature record – shown in the last skepticalscience link – shows definite increase since 1880 and a sharp divergence between solar activity and temperature trends over the past half century. The downturn in solar activity since 1990 is also generally accepted as the reason temps rose slower than IPCC predictions – which I’ve pointed out several times.

            You’re either too dense or too stubborn to recognize when your claims don’t stand up.

          • mike_in_kosovo

            This makes absolutely no sense – you’re simply evading the point.

            Nice projection.

            Points you have yet to counter:

            Horribly inaccurate USHCN. *STILL* nothing from you showing it’s gross disparity with other datasets.

            Refusal to answer why USHCN (and it’s parent, GHCN) is still being used by the alarmists to make their ‘hottest year ever’ claims (among others) if it’s so horribly inaccurate.

            Refusal to answer why the temps have dropped out of the bottom of even the most pessimistic of IPCC scenarios.

            You’re either too dense or too stubborn to recognize when your claims don’t stand up.

            Says the guy that evidently thinks that all datasets must match and move in unison.

          • Zeeba Neighba

            Your own tables proved your claim of flat temps over the past 17 years is wrong. Admit it.

            As for USHCN – their data meshes very nicely with an independent assessment of historic weather station data by scientists at Berkeley – http://rankexploits.com/musings/2012/a-surprising-validation-of-ushcn-adjustments/

            Critics like to harp about the adjustments made to the data, but the fact is that there have been significant changes in the way weather stations collect temperature data over time – notably a trend toward morning readings rather than evenings, urbanization around formerly rural stations, station relocations, etc. So you have to adjust for that and tests have shown the algorithms work pretty well. As you should know if you follow this at all.

            As for USHCN being used by “alarmists,” I don’t know of any researchers who base their conclusions solely on national as opposed to global data. You don’t seem to have that problem, though.

            It’s interesting to note that one of the primary critics of the USHCN data – and I suspect one of your sources – is Dr. Roy Spencer, a climatologist at the University of Alabama – and a literal believer in creationism and intelligent design. In other words, a crank.

            And as I’ve told you I don’t know how many times, the decline in solar output accounts for temps rising more slowly than IPCC projections. Yet you keep coming back with it again and again. This strongly suggests that you simply ignore inconvenient information – it just doesn’t get through your thick skull.

            And when did I say all data sets must move in unison? You’re the one who’s asserting that by singling out individual studies that don’t fit the larger pattern and insisting these are proof the whole thing is wrong. I simply showed you the tables you presented actually undermined your claim.

            Idiot.

          • mike_in_kosovo

            Your own tables proved your claim of flat temps over the past 17 years is wrong.

            I never claimed ALL datasets showed 17 years of flat temps. But thanks for (again) showing the hypocrisy in your “take one point” screed.

            As for USHCN – their data meshes very nicely with an independent assessment of historic weather station data by scientists at Berkeley

            So, you’re saying Berkeley is an inaccurate as USHCN?

            So you have to adjust for that and tests have shown the algorithms work pretty well.

            Work pretty well at injecting warming, you mean?

            https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/01/19/just-hit-the-noaa-motherlode/

            As for USHCN being used by “alarmists,” I don’t know of any researchers who base their conclusions solely on national as opposed to global data. You don’t seem to have that problem, though.

            So, you’re *STILL* unaware that USHCN is a part of GHCN? Maybe should actually *LEARN* a bit about what you’re talking about before running your mouth mindlessly repeating your talking points – would save you some embarassment.

            It’s interesting to note that one of the primary critics of the USHCN data – and I suspect one of your sources – is Dr. Roy Spencer, a climatologist at the University of Alabama – and a literal believer in creationism and intelligent design. In other words, a crank.

            Ah, more attacking the player when you can’t play the ball.

            And as I’ve told you I don’t know how many times, the decline in solar output accounts for temps rising more slowly than IPCC projections.

            More strawmen – I’ve never disputed that solar is the primary driver.

            Yet you keep coming back with it again and again. This strongly suggests that you simply ignore inconvenient information – it just doesn’t get through your thick skull.

            Indeed – it just *doesn’t* get through your skull.

            And when did I say all data sets must move in unison?

            When you laughingly tried to show that disunity between the datasets regarding the length of flat temps somehow debunked the flat temps.

            You’re the one who’s asserting that by singling out individual studies that don’t fit the larger pattern and insisting these are proof the whole thing is wrong.

            You mean like going on and on about how *in*accurate USHCN is? Like pretending that the Medieval, Roman and Minoan Warm Periods aren’t useful data because they’re (supposedly) not global events?

            I simply showed you the tables you presented actually undermined your claim.

            By creating a strawman argument against them, sure. Yet the data itself shows 17 years of flat temps for HADCRUT3, HADSST and RSS. Over a dozen years for HADCRUT4 and GISTEMP and 9 years for UAH.

            Idiot

            Why yes…yes you are.

          • Zeeba Neighba

            If they didn’t support your claim, why did you include them? Oh, I know – because you tried to bias the data by using 2001 and 2005 start points, as well as tweaking the 1997 date itself.

            Which Steven Goddard? You mean this Steven Goddard?

            http://reallysciency.blogspot.com/p/who-is-steven-goddard.html

            Your sources are cranks with zero credibility. Face it.

            “More strawmen – I’ve never disputed that solar is the primary driver.”

            This is simply mind-boggling. You demand to know why the IPCC predictions didn’t pan out – I explain it was solar – and you come back with this? I thinking you’re not only clueless, but quite likely insane as well.

          • Zeeba Neighba

            Wrong. Your sources show an increase in temperatures since 1997 when all of them are set to the same start date of 1997, rather than trying to finagle the results using 1996.9, 1997.6, 2001 or 2005. Go try it. What they do show is that you’re deliberately trying to skew the results.

            And AMO/PDO are part of the climate cycle, not outside drivers. And they certainly don’t correlate to the general increase in temps over the past half century that as ocurred even as solar irradiance has fallen, as show in the link I provided.

            “Says the guy that has had his argument destroyed over and over and over.”

            You need to spend less time worrying about climate and focus more on learning English – you keep using these words that clearly don’t mean what you think they do.

          • mike_in_kosovo

            And AMO/PDO are part of the climate cycle, not outside drivers.

            So, you’re claiming that ocean temp changes don’t affect the climate? Thanks for proving you really DON’T know what you’re talking about.

            And they certainly don’t correlate to the general increase in temps over the past half century that as ocurred even as solar irradiance has fallen, as show in the link I provided.

            Unfortunately for you and ‘skepticalclimate’, the data doesn’t agree.

            http://woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-amo/plot/esrl-amo/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/detrend:0.765/plot/hadcrut4gl/detrend:0.765/trend

          • nickshaw

            Ahh there it is!
            Jo Nova’s not a climate scientist!
            The appeal to a higher authority!
            In this case, an authority that doesn’t exist.
            LOL!

          • Zeeba Neighba

            You’re also ignoring the primary conclusion of the Rosenbrock/Lindsey study, which is that the Pacific Ocean has been warming 15 times faster over the past 60 years than at any other time they can detect over the past 10,000. Or, as co-author Braddock Lindsey put it ” “We’re experimenting by putting all this heat in the ocean without quite knowing how it’s going to come back out and affect climate. It’s not so much the magnitude of the change, but the rate of change.”

            Nice attempt to misrepresent the data – as usual.

          • mike_in_kosovo

            You’re also ignoring the primary conclusion of the study

            Got a link for that?

            Funny how you dropped the “MWP wasn’t global” argument – good thing, too, given the summary of the paper:
            “We show that water masses linked to North Pacific and Antarctic intermediate waters were warmer by 2.1 ± 0.4°C and 1.5 ± 0.4°C, respectively, during the middle Holocene Thermal Maximum than over the past century. Both water masses were ~0.9°C warmer during the Medieval Warm period than during the Little Ice Age and ~0.65° warmer than in recent decades. Although documented changes in global surface temperatures during the Holocene and Common era are relatively small, the concomitant changes in OHC are large.”

            Another funny thing… they don’t seem to mention your point in the summary.

            Nice attempt to misrepresent the data – as usual.

            I bow to the expert on misrepresenting data.

          • Zeeba Neighba

            The North Pacific and Antarctica are pretty far from SE Asia – and can be attributed to changes in ocean currents, which one would expect during a period of unusual warming and cooling in different parts of the world. As for the quote, just Google part of it and I’m sure you’ll find it quickly.

            At any rate, your fundamental error is that you’re trying to cherry pick data, ignoring the fact there’s a massive body of evidence against you. Science rarely, if ever, presents a totally unambiguous picture of anything – there are always a few pieces that don’t fit the overall puzzle. But when 99 percent of the puzzle fits together, you try to figure out how the 1 percent can be made to fit the bigger picture, rather than throwing out what the 99 percent is telling you.

            What you’re doing is akin to someone in the 19th century arguing that Newton’s entire theory of gravity is wrong because it can’t account for the progression of Mercury – as opposed to Einstein further refining it through his Theory of Relativity, which left Newton largely intact. Right now, the inconsistencies you cite are mere irregularities in an otherwise overwhelming body of evidence. Can’t you see that?

          • mike_in_kosovo

            At any rate, your fundamental error is that you’re trying to cherry pick data, ignoring the fact there’s a massive body of evidence against you.

            Says the global warming guy ignoring all the data already presented.

            Science rarely, if ever, presents a totally unambiguous picture of anything – there are always a few pieces that don’t fit t he overa ll puzzle.

            You mean like trying claim the MWP wasn’t global because of *supposed* cooler temps in a small region? That type of ‘piece that doesn’t fit’?

            But when 99 percent of the puzzle fits together, you try to figure out how the 1 percent can be made to fit the bigger picture, rather than throwing out what the 99 percent is telling you.

            Which, of course, is why you threw out the 99% (R^2 already shown) and kept the 1% (ZOMG CO2!!!!)

            Right now, the inconsistencies you cite are mere irregularities in an otherwise overwhelming body of evidence.

            See above, re: MWP, RWP, MWP…R^2 levels, etc…. vs. ZOMG CO2!!!

          • Zeeba Neighba

            Ok, so you got those numbers from the WUWT site or one using the same data. Here’s the problem – those are based on USHCN2 temperature records, which are for the continental U.S. alone. That’s 1.6 percent of the globe, all in one spot. That’s not a reliable sample and it’s air temperatures, which are not considered particularly reliable. The sharp increase in temps in the early 20th century in USHCN2 correlates to an extended period of reduced precipitation that culminated in the Dust Bowl, which throws off a big part of the data. It just isn’t a good proxy for global temperatures.

            Meanwhile, you can’t explain things like rising ocean temperatures, melting glaciers and polar ice – which ARE dependable indicators of global temps. You just focus on the few things that don’t seem to fit and ignore the big picture.

          • nickshaw

            The “data” is models.
            And we already know how accurate they are.
            17 years 9 months, no warming baby!

          • nickshaw

            “The Medieval Warm Period wasn’t a global phenomena”
            And yet a couple of trees in Siberia were enough to start this crazy train.
            Talk about getting info from stooges!

          • Corey Dennison

            Boom! goes zeeba’s little cranium…

          • Ms. Abigail van Beagle

            Augghh!
            You Blinded me with Science!

          • nickshaw
          • http://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/1181/6595/original.jpg filter

            So where’s the heat?

          • Ms. Abigail van Beagle

            How about addressing what your leader is doing NOW instead of saying it’s no worse than what someone else did 30+ years ago? I’m sure what Obama is doing is better than what Hoover did way back when, too. Now get with the program and speak to what is happening NOW.

  • cscape

    With all due respect, the only member of the platoon who looks like (during his release), has acted like (going over the hill), and sounds like (emails) a psychopath is Mr. “Abdullah”

  • Zeeba Neighba

    An asst. deputy secretary at HUD – who started his job in July 2008 – so he’s career professional staff, not an “administration official.” And one whose work doesn’t even touch on military or security matters. Way to wallow in irrelevancy, Michelle – but should we be surprised?

    And who is David Burge and why should anyone give a crap what he thinks?

    • nickshaw

      LOL! Let’s put the shoe on the other foot, shall we?
      http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/06/climate-fantasy-watch-part-1.php
      If you don’t get the connection, it tells me all I need to know.
      And Dave is one of the clearest, most rational thinkers on the planet in 140 characters or less.
      I can only surmise you’re one jealous little person.

      • Zeeba Neighba

        And what does climate change denialism have anything to do with this, other than as evidence of your own psychosis?

        • nickshaw

          Like I said, you couldn’t see the connection and it has nothing to do with “climate change”.

          • zeeba

            And if you’d simply take your anti-psychotics like the doctor told you too, you’d no longer see a connection either.

          • nickshaw

            Yep, another “deep thinker” of the left.

          • Ms. Abigail van Beagle

            But the left wingers told us that anti-psychotic meds are the reason why people commit mass shootings!
            BTW-insulting people with medical issues that they inherited and are managing the best way they can is not very sensitive of you. Of course, you would probably call a person in a wheelchair a ^(&% cripple if you found out he wasn’t a lefty.

          • Zeeba Neighba

            No, we told you that a failure to take such meds is why people take such shootings. And nickshaw is not managing his issues the best he can, because he’s refusing to take his meds.

            And btw, I have pretty extensive personal experience with someone very close to me who suffered a complete psychotic breakdown as the result of therapy for a brain tumor. In fact, trying to reason with her that the neighbors were not using the radio to monitor her was very much like talking with you people, so I think the analogy is appropriate.

            I also don’t need lectures from someone who thinks Bush was out of office in July 2008, as your comment on the other article indicates – the election was in November and Obama took office in Jan. 2009. Then again, that’s a pretty typical level of awareness for a right-wing voter.

          • Wonder Pony

            Oh my God. Please keep talking. You are adorable!

          • http://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/1181/6595/original.jpg filter

            How old are you?

    • Acethepug

      Ah, I see the same order as always;

      President Boyfriend must be protected.

      At. All. Costs.

      Keep shilling that Leftist narrative, Zeeba! Don’t ever let facts or reality get in your way!

    • Rogue Cheddar

      Zeeba the Dweeba has spoken. You sir, are not worthy to drink Iowahawk’s bathwater.

    • Corey Dennison

      “Shut up!” he explained.

      And who is David Burge

      He’s the one making your preezy boyfriend look like a ginormous knob-head.

  • 94912070

    So, smearing Bergdahl is bad, but smearing his mates by calling them psychopathic is good?

  • Lafango

    This idiot’s parents were probably spitting on REAL Vietnam Vets upon returning home.

    Now they are openly welcoming a war deserter!

    Oh, What a country!!!!!!!!!!!!1

  • Mark

    Morons! If today is wild theory day then how about this one:

    Obama is in cahoots with terror leaders. They want the 5 Gitmo terrorists released. Obama says ‘ok but I can’t just let them go. You’ve got to give me something to make this look good’. Terror leaders say ‘we’ll give you Bergdahl back. We don’t want him anyways’. Obama is happy. Terrorists are happy. American people are screwed. They win!

    • R0nin

      Just because it’s wild doesn’t mean it’s invalid. Especially under this president.

  • Richard Jefferies

    Disgusting that this was said by a former Infantry officer. I hope Friedman’s former NCOs come out and tell us some good stories about their time with this Obama sycophant.

    • Ms. Abigail van Beagle

      You gotta wonder how that weenie made it through basic training.

  • VerminMcCann

    “What if [Bergdahl’s] platoon was long on psychopaths and short on leadership?”

    What if one of them slapped the crap out of you?

  • SophieRo3

    Seconded…

  • jclittlep

    Leave it to Iowahawk to nail it down far in advance!

  • Justin

    So, Friedman insulted the other members of the platoon and when the response got hot, he deserted too?

  • NickGranite

    If they were psychopaths, they would be lefty cleansing in Washington D.C.

  • jaded

    this makes me so angry. I am so frustrated by these idiots that worm their way into the government. Come on voters! Let’s bring some dignity back.

    • R0nin

      Unfortunately, no one voted for this excuse for a man. He’s an unelected, lifetime bureaucrat feeding at the public teat while advancing the leftist agenda.

  • Randy C. Lindsey

    “Swift-boating” is a term meaning to tell the unerring truth…just like
    honorable men once did about John Kerry (another notorious liar). True
    to form the Obama administration (caught once again in an awkward web of
    deception) lashes out and starts calling anyone who questions them
    names. It’s like Little Bobby, caught with HIS hand in the cookie jar,
    calls his sister who told on him a “doo-doo head.” Never mind that he is
    guilty as hell.

    • Ms. Abigail van Beagle

      Changing the meaning of existing words and expressions to suit their needs is one of the talents of the left. Be prepared for “swiftboating” to now be declared to mean setting some poor innocent boy up for treason when all he wanted was a break from his psychotic platoon mates and to enjoy the local culture.

  • Hey, That’s Pretty Good

    The libs are out in force to attack Bergdahl’s platoon. They are so eager to defend that deserter that they are making everyone but the deserter look like the bad guy.

    • Bustin Cheeto’s Everywhere!

      This is what leftist extremist do, they go against the good guys and stand up for the scumbag. It’s mind boggling!

  • Rogue Cheddar

    Hey Brandon, what if you were long on stupidity and short on integrity?! Oh wait, that is the reality! What a poinyoin!

  • Jim

    What if Brandon Friedman was a child-molesting Holocaust denier who tortures puppies in his basement for sport? I’m not prone to those kind of wild speculations, you understand, I’m just throwing it out there as a possibility.

    • R0nin

      The left wouldn’t care if he was. As long as _he’s_ a leftist, he has the right “intentions”– his actions don’t matter.

      Besides, Holocaust Deniers are coming into vogue on the left, along with anti-Antisemitism in general.

      • Tom Winegar

        Yep, it’s why they are called Yellow-Dog-Democrats.

  • beachmom2

    Freidman won’t speculate on Burgdahl being a deserter because he doesn’t like speculating while he speculates the entire platoon (except Burgdahl) are psychopaths.

    Really? Do these people ever think beyond that first second a thought pops into their heads?

    • old motorcycle enthusiast

      No they don’t think beyond how far they can stride in 1 step.

      There is the sweet whiff of panic emanating from form 1600 Penn. Ave.

      Think back to just last week when the WH Tweeted to his troops: “Don’t do anything stupid!”

  • old motorcycle enthusiast

    I haven’t enjoyed such a week of WH panic since Nixon’s Watergate.

    I’m officially calling a “Jump the Shark” moment.

    • Corey Dennison

      There’s almost a feel in the air, no?

      • old motorcycle enthusiast

        Yup, I was a 20 something during Nixon’s Watergate. Nixon’s Jump the Shark Moment was John Dean.

        For the 1st time since then, I too can FEEL it.

    • LegalizeShemp

      My homies !

  • ELC

    The only psychopath here is the disgusting Brandon Friedman. To disparage the other men in the platoon by implying they are psychopaths just shows what a bunch of low-lifes including Odumbo are in this administration. He may have wiped away what he tweeted, but he is a disgrace-shame on him.

  • JDSoCal

    Why does Twitchy always bury the lede? Post the friggin tweet first, then the response. Did anyone on this site ever take a news writing course?

    • tedlv

      I agree.

  • Len Mullen

    Let’s not dismiss his words out of hand. Brandon Friedman has a LOT of experience in organizations long on psychopaths and short on leadership.

  • whateverdear

    Wow, they’ll do and say literally anything to muddy the waters and create doubt in the narrative, huh?

    So mind-boggingly sleazy! I’m kinda … amazed? Impressed? Boggled?

    • LegalizeShemp

      Yes, they will say or do anyting to obfuscate, pettifog and obstruct investigations which will reveal them to be liars, criminals and anti-American Communist sympathizers.

  • lemieuxmc

    I can’t wait to hear from the grunts who served under Friedman when he was a clueless butterbar.
    I’m sure the young LT would have been very supportive if one of HIS privates went native in the Stan.

  • Tom Winegar

    Isn’t it odd how Jimmy Carter as President and private citizen and Obama go out of their way to weaken our country and then go overseas and talk $hit on us?

  • ConservaDave2

    What if Brandon Friedman is long on speculation and short on brains? What if Brandon Friedman is long on vicious innuendo and short on truth perception? What if Brandon Friedman is long on psychotic love for the lying Obama and short on living in reality? What if when Brandon Friedman talks about a group that is long on psychopaths and short on leaders he’s confusing a U.S. Army platoon with a Senate sub-committee?

  • Chip

    Well, one need not guess as to why this “guy” didn’t make the military a career…..

  • ToyZebra

    Hey Brandon, the South just called. You have been excommunicated.

  • docscience

    I guess they will just go on with the IRS audits and the review of all the web browsing habits of the men until the new improved smear is ready.

    • prado4587

      Only Nobama will lower himself to attack a soldier and their family in the court of public opinion.

  • https://twitter.com/UnicornOfMayhem Hi This Is My Username

    It pains me to say this, but… I would keep a close eye on the men from Bergdahl’s platoon. I wouldn’t be surprised if something started happening to them one by one.

  • JR48

    Asshat.

  • Jimni27

    I was trying to figure out all night last night who that smarmy little weasel reminded me of and it finally hit me- Littlefinger from Game Of Thrones. http://media.tumblr.com/5b19d6d8e7b5b909b5b05648b2d4fbc9/tumblr_inline_mqkjqo5gCn1qz4rgp.gif

  • Donnie Mac Leod

    Try as they could they had no choice. There was just no way to use their prominent card of attack within those troopers speaking out about Bergdahl. Calling them racists which is normal for Obama shields, just didn’t fit the narrative this time but I am positive they are working on finding a way to make it fit and then everything will be fine along Humpty Dumpty, Obama’s wall.

  • stuckinIL4now

    Hmmmm…”full of psychopaths”–sounds like an accurate assessment of the SADministration and the Dembecile Party.

  • Linda Lee

    Mr. Deputy Assistant…….. stop the playground name calling. I could call you buffoon, but there are too many in the Obama administration by the same name, so I will abstain. Why should I use the same childish name calling that you do. You and the “Dude” kid must be hanging around each other .

  • craigzimmerman12

    The truth about this episode is coming out every day. It is too late for Obama to try and suppress it.

    • RJohnston

      He doesn’t care, what is anyone going to do about it. How many times must he commit treason before someone uphold their oath.

  • Donnie Mac Leod

    They couldn’t suppress it so they fell back on their old standby. They are attacking the folks that are telling the truth and dragging their names through the mud. Disgusting backstabbing administration in the White House circles today.

  • Pie Thon

    While liberty provides principles that guide us toward what the law should be, democratic methods can help determine what the law will be.

  • jr61020

    Friedman…you are just an idiot , pure and simple

  • Patty Kane

    We do not let children use the excuse, “Well, Billy, did it!” Why would let our government use such a lame excuse?

  • cherise

    the whitehouse admin are pshycos cause they cant stop lying and dishonoring our fighting men and women in the armed services. not one of them has served our country in uniform. they are extremely dispicable. they lie and lie, and make up lies about everything. sounds like facisism, nazism and communism all in one.