Search | Recent Topics
Author Message
arex1337
Senior

Joined: September 10, 2009 04:26:42 UTC
Messages: 115
Offline

There are people who don't accept reality here? Who don't believe in science? I can live with that
Domer
Sage
[Avatar]

Joined: October 25, 2007 07:13:37 UTC
Messages: 1749
Offline

How do you make that happen, Domer, without the economic incentive? Right now there is really NO market incentive for anyone to develop mitigation/adaptation techniques (which are still in the dreamware phase right now anyway). And meanwhile, right now everyone can keep polluting with their hands in their pockets - there's no market force for keeping the damage in check.

Mitigation versus adaptation is a debate, they are not one in the same. An example of a mitigation strategy is Cap and Trade. An example of an adaptation strategy is carbon capture. I'd consider Roger Pielke Jr. to be the foremost expert on this subject, and his blog is here: http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/ He has various ideas as to how it can be accomplished, and has a book that covers part of the topic.



If you sincerely believe that, then please go straight to 201*.GLOBALTEMP.TOP5 and make a killing. Do not pass go, but definitely collect more than $200 when they expire. All of them have a last price above 50, meaning that people with their money on the line believe we will be setting records each year. (I'm skeptical about 2011, for the record, because we are still in the throes of a La Nina. I'm long 2012 though and anyone who's seen the projections is too.)

There are multiple issues here. First and foremost is the time value of money. The EV is nowhere high enough to justify it. The second issue is that temperature is trending up, even in the satellite data. The final issue is that GISS is used as the measuring stick, and I think their global network of ground-based weather stations is contaminated through the UHI effect.



http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif

Monotonic increase is enough for me, thank you. Please don't beg for second order growth to be evident sooner - we'll get that soon enough as the albedo-snowballing effect kicks in fully due to Arctic ice loss.

I prefer this graph, our 30 year satellite record of temperatures:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_Jan_2011.gif

It is less susceptible to human error, especially with regards to the siting of weather stations. It is also over a period of time in which we were actually emitting large amounts of carbon into the atmosphere. For much of the GISS graph, we were not (and that 'warming' has thus nothing to do with humanity, except perhaps in terms of land use change/removal of carbon sinks, etc).



Oh good grief. Yes and today is slighly colder than yesterday. So the earth must be getting colder right? Snapshot much Domer? We're in the middle of an intense La Nina right now. There are forces at work that are superimposed on the long term trend. These appear as short term fluctuations. Hello January 2011.

I was simply stating a fact: that January 2011 is roughly equivalent to January 1980 in the satellite temperature record. It's context. Runaway global warming is not evident within the data.



That's from a peer-reviewed survey of actively publishing climatologists by EOS in January 2009. I didn't just make that number up.

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/01/19/eco.globalwarmingsurvey/

You are misrepresenting this. I would be part of that 97%.

To repeat myself, that 97% is not representative of those that believe in the predictive power of the climate models. And the climate models are what I was discussing.



I keep hearing this vague claim from the skeptic crowd, e.g. "a significant and growing number of scientists are starting to doubt/contradict/whatever the consensus for reasons X/Y/Z/W". But I never here WHO these scientists are, or where they have published their supposedly contravailing studies. In any event, they haven't put a dent in the stated consensus from all the major science organizations (or surveys such as the one in EOS).

Nothing I have posted is anywhere near vague. In fact, I pointedly explained to you the issues. Since you are pressing the fact, I will post the two rival papers in the current debate over cloud cover feedback:

http://geotest.tamu.edu/userfiles/216/dessler10b.pdf
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Spencer-Braswell-JGR-2010.pdf

I imagine the debate will be addressed in AR5, but I don't imagine much being altered in the climate projections.



You're comparing one scientist during a period much earlier who had access to a paltry data base and several orders of magnitude poorer computing/modeling faculties, to today's entire climate science field? Do you think that's a remotely fair side-by-side? Do you want to bet on it? You can here (see above). Go for it. I'll be buying from you (though probably not in large amounts since the election is much more volatile and profitable for me).

The sectors responsible for the predictions of catastrophic global warming are actually pretty small. Climate modeling and climate reconstructions are not overtly large groups of scientists. In fact, you have illustrated the problem quite clearly. Their access to information is imperfect, to say the least. With modelers, its the feedbacks, economic assumptions, etc. With reconstructions, its the proxies.



Oh good grief. You're not seriously still clinging to "Climategate" as evidence of some conspiracy, are you? Three separate independent investigations have concluded there was zero scientific malfeasance going on there. Which was no surprise to the climate community, as the taking out of context of a few choice phrases did not impress anyone who understood how deep the science is in the first place.

My response to this greatly misleading paragraph would probably take about 4 pages, but quickly I would say that none of the panels looked into the science of the matter (even the panels tasked to do so). They just didn't. So stating that there was a "conclusion" of zero scientific malfeasance is an out and out lie. Steve McIntyre's blog is a great repository for the whole saga.

The big takeaways are that (1) they clearly bypassed FOIA, (2) the collusion in both the journals and within the IPCC was apparent, and finally - and most importantly - (3) on the reconstruction graph in question, the proxy data from mid-20th century on was replaced with the temperature record to give the impression that the proxies and the temperature were in complete agreement. The Team, without a shadow of a doubt, hid the divergence problem. And the e-mail stated it in black and white.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at February 05, 2011 23:32:43 UTC

Domer
Sage
[Avatar]

Joined: October 25, 2007 07:13:37 UTC
Messages: 1749
Offline

To clarify, so I am not accused of being vague again, the divergence problem is the divergence of the temperature record and the tree-ring proxy record beginning around 1950. This is an unreconciled problem with the use of tree-rings as proxies for temperature. Why does it matter? Because the issue is one of whether the current temperature is unprecedented over an extended period of time (500 years, 1000 years, 2000, etc.).

In the first IPCC report, historians and anthropologists gave rough estimates of the temperature dating back hundreds of years. There was a 'little Ice Age' and a 'Medieval Warm Period' that were well documented in history. During the Medieval Warm Period, for instance, the Vikings famously set up colonies on an arable Greenland. The current temperature was thought to be below the height of the MWP.

The 'hockey stick' of Michael Mann (at the time a graduate student) changed that significantly. Gone was the MWP and the Little Ice Age, and in its place was fairly static temperature for hundreds of years and the incredibly rapid rise in temperatures beginning a century ago. This was based almost entirely on the use of tree-rings as proxies for temperature, and especially on a certain subset known as bristlecone pines.

To come back around, then, the "divergence problem" is basically the fact that these tree rings do not indicate a temperature increase in the latter half of the 20th Century....yet we had a fairly significant temperature increase. Thus, a problem.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at February 05, 2011 23:45:16 UTC

Delphi
Sage
[Avatar]

Joined: September 11, 2007 06:28:38 UTC
Messages: 2495
Offline

Well, it's hardly the place for definitively hashing this all out, but I'm not sure who or what I'm arguing with anymore. Unless I'm misunderstanding you you're kind of a moving target. You concur with the scientific consensus (no offense, but as if the world should care - correct me if you're actually a climate scientist, in which case your opinion would be relevant) of scientists that you then turn around and claim are perpetrating a fraud. Okay, um, then... um, huh?

This whole "hide the decline" thing taken out of context has served to froth up a lot of people who had no clue what the issue at hand was. The divergence of tree ring proxies from actual temperatures in the past few decades is a known problem with a still unknown explanation. The paper was not at all stealthy about what it was presenting, which is still considered the proper way to handle that data. But as I understand it the consequences of that do not even bear really on the major questions at hand.

We actually do not need to prove that today's temperatures are historically unprecedented - only that the sole reasonable explanation for the clear recent upward warming trend is increasing greenhouse gas concentrations. No climatologist anywhere disputes that the earth has been both much warmer and much colder than it is right now. There are known processes that cause those long term changes, which happen on thousands and tens of thousand year time scales. What is of concern is what's happened recently, and why. The long term proxies are of tremendous value academically and for lots of other purposes relating to long term climate. But not for sleuthing out what is changing now (in say 2010 vs 1960). At least this is how I understand it from the long term climate researcher I have living under my own roof (a PhD geologist).

As for the medieval warm, it was never clear that that was a real global phenomenon at all, versus just a Greenland/northern Atlantic/European one. But in any event it's now clear that we've surpassed even that much-hyped (by the "skeptics") MWP even for the northern hemisphere. Take a look at the temp reconstruction graphs and discussion at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period




Delphi
Sage
[Avatar]

Joined: September 11, 2007 06:28:38 UTC
Messages: 2495
Offline

Domer wrote: You are misrepresenting this. I would be part of that 97%.

To repeat myself, that 97% is not representative of those that believe in the predictive power of the climate models. And the climate models are what I was discussing.


I just wanted to add that I now understand your more nuanced position, though it's still seems like you're wrestling with an internal conflict. You accept a consensus that's been in part developed through the work of some scientists you believe to be dishonest (but who I try to point out have been exonerated, at no surprise to the rest of the community that's worked with both them and the data). I find that a little odd, but maybe you are just in a withdrawal stage from buying the whole denial camp's line for several years. (I could imagine that would come in fits and starts, for internal ego-survival. It probably would for me.)

In any case, I get that you agree with what's happening and why it is, though you would downplay it some by backing off to the lower atmosphere which makes the problem look less intense. And that furthermore your main beef is with predictions going forward of how bad it's going to get how fast.

The problem I have with that stance, coupled with an "adaptation only" pose is that you are endorsing banking on development of things like carbon sequestration technologies happening fast enough to overcome the rate at which we are concurrently (and with no objection by you) making the problem worse.

In colloquial terms, it is as if there is a house fire and we are pouring gasoline on it as it burns. You are fine with us keeping the flow of gasoline onto the fire going, because you are simultaneously in favor of someone somewhere sometime creating a big air tight Dome that one day we may be able to plop on top of the burning building to smother it. There is no timetable for when that Dome will or even if it will be ready, but it's okay to keep pouring on the gas meanwhile. We might call this the "Domer" approach (to a problem you believe is real even if we are being alerted to it by unethical scientists). Sorry if I have a little fun there.

But on top of that, you've offered no discernable mechanism to drive the development of this Dome. The only way I can think of to make private enterprises start work on developing the best Dome is for states to have limits on their net emissions (ie, emissions - amount sequestered, say) that would give them incentives for buying these Domes that would eventually appear on the market (we hope). I suppose alternatively we could have it be (gasp) a Big Government Project where we just budget some national labs to develop and implement it. But that seems like that should be less palatable for conservatives than Cap and Trade.

I should add that I don't disagree with you that developing adaptation techniques (btw I still say mitigation is virtually a synonym for that, and that you are really contrasting these with prophylactic/prevention approaches) is a noble direction. I'm just saying it appears clear that we cannot rely solely on that while we meanwhile keep making the problem worse.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at February 06, 2011 01:11:30 UTC

charles_in_charge
Novice
[Avatar]

Joined: April 30, 2010 03:45:20 UTC
Messages: 43
Offline

"Science-phobic crowd"? Phrases like this, and the viciousness seen when climate activists quash any dissent ("HE'S A HOLOCAUST DENIER!!1") lead me to believe that the global warming crowd is the true anti-science. If they believe in science, then let the debate continue. I am not afraid of science, and in fact I admire and trust science. But science is an idea, a method, and not trusting every practitioner of science does not make one a 'science-phobe'.


Sigh. To you. But nearly every climate scientist in the world (97%) is convinced of it. Perhaps you could share with us which climate-related field your PhD is in, and your list of data and papers you have published that contradict their consensus.

Well, the burden of proof is not on me. I'm not the one advocating a draconian system be forced on the nation. I am not a holder of a doctorate in any field of geology. My education on the subject is limited to two classes (one by an advocate of global warming) and personal reading. The more bombastic predictions are simply unsupported. I am not a yokel, and always approach things in an even manner. In fact, if your science is legit, I'm a potential convert.

Simply asserting "I don't agree" without a sound basis for it is not impressive.

Not impressive are the shrill predictions of doom. In any event, whether I care to or not, I am living a fairly low carbon life style... in fact, I likely use the same amount of carbon in a year that Al Gore does in a day. And yes, I know that has nothing to do with the science... but you were the one who brought up Gore. Care to explain his mansions and apparent enjoyment of private flying? Once I see The Prophet himself take his own predictions seriously, we'll talk about trading in my pickup for a bike and smart car.
Delphi
Sage
[Avatar]

Joined: September 11, 2007 06:28:38 UTC
Messages: 2495
Offline

charles_in_charge wrote: If they believe in science, then let the debate continue.


That was the point Charles, which it seems like you've missed. The debate in the scientific community took place between roughly 1990 and 2005. It's over now. I'm sorry you think it's still going on. You're like someone who's shown up to watch the Super Bowl in April. There are videotapes if you want - in the form of journal issues from those years. I hope you can find the library.
JonT
Senior

Joined: May 20, 2010 18:37:12 UTC
Messages: 284
Offline

charles_in_charge,

If your parenthetical "("HE'S A HOLOCAUST DENIER!!1")" was a direct quote from someone, please identify who and link to proof that they actually said or wrote it. If it was not a direct quote, would it be too much to ask that you refrain from putting words in the mouths of unidentified "climate activists"?
charles_in_charge
Novice
[Avatar]

Joined: April 30, 2010 03:45:20 UTC
Messages: 43
Offline

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2009/dec/04/climate-change-scepticism

One link JonT... but there are more. If you care to see them, I trust you can google more up. Vitriol hurled at anyone who questions climate science and its political manifestations is fairly common. If you are anything like me, you become immediately suspicious when one side attempts to cut off debate by intimidatory tactics. And so like any good scientist should, I retain skepticism.


Delphi wrote:
charles_in_charge wrote: If they believe in science, then let the debate continue.


That was the point Charles, which it seems like you've missed. The debate in the scientific community took place between roughly 1990 and 2005. It's over now. I'm sorry you think it's still going on. You're like someone who's shown up to watch the Super Bowl in April. There are videotapes if you want - in the form of journal issues from those years. I hope you can find the library.


I actually thought it would be more difficult to bring you to this point of shrill foaming, given that you are clearly more educated regarding climate science than myself, and apparently are closely connected to at least one subject matter expert. I guess I shouldn't underestimate my mind's excellent faculties of logic.

**Hint: If you wish to continue, please draw a fairly close connection between the cap and trade bill, and how it will change the "consensus" climate models and avert disaster. Simply saying "everyone shut up and vote yes" is insufficient.

**Bonus hint: The debate never ends... ever. Every year new voters turn 18. If you wish to place an economically onerous system upon them, you must convince them.

Happy intrading!

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at February 06, 2011 03:36:55 UTC

Delphi
Sage
[Avatar]

Joined: September 11, 2007 06:28:38 UTC
Messages: 2495
Offline

"I actually thought it would be more difficult to bring you to this point of shrill foaming..."

Well, thanks for at least admitting that your goal in entering this discussion was not to present some evidence that the consensus was not a consensus, but rather to goad someone into frustration at yet another childish presence on the web trying to drag out this pointless, destructive political stalling act. I have to say that your elfish behavior fits consistently with your choice of nicknames and ridiculous avatar. I'm imagining a big busted St. Pauli Girl beer ad picture next week in place of it. Speaking of which, I had thought Intrade had an age 18 minimum, but maybe I'm wrong on that.

On the chance that you are over 18, you might want to get a good textbook on this stuff Charles, because we're talking literal science history now. The scientific debate over the major questions is long over (though research on the details naturally goes on). Ask your old geology instructor if you still don't understand it. He or she was an "advocate" of global warming because he or she was filled in on what has happened in the research community during the last two decades (kind of a prerequisite for teaching, colleges are funny that way). Sort of like your biology professor was an "advocate" of evolution. (Or at least I hope he/she was.)

As for what to do about it, Cap and Trade is simply the best proposal so far (IMO) for getting people to slow down doing the thing that is causing the now agreed-upon (at least among scientists) problem. If your young mind has some creative new idea for how to accomplish that, then by all means you should put it forth.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at February 06, 2011 04:16:55 UTC

charles_in_charge
Novice
[Avatar]

Joined: April 30, 2010 03:45:20 UTC
Messages: 43
Offline

Delphi wrote: "I actually thought it would be more difficult to bring you to this point of shrill foaming..."

Well, thank you for at least admitting that your goal in entering this discussion was not to present some evidence that the consensus was not a consensus, but rather to goad someone into frustration at yet another childish presence on the web trying to drag out this pointless, destructive political stalling act. (I have to say that your elfish behavior fits consistently with your choice of nicknames and ridiculous avatar. I'm imagining a big busted St. Pauli Girl beer ad picture next week in place of it. Speaking of which, I had thought Intrade had an age 18 minimum, but maybe I'm wrong on that.)

On the off chance that you are over 18, you might want to get a good textbook on this stuff Charles, because we're talking literal science history now. The scientific debate over the major questions is long over (though research on the details naturally goes on). Ask your old geology instructor if you still don't understand this. He or she was an "advocate" of global warming because he or she was filled in on what happened in the research community during the last two decades. Sort of like your biology professor was an "advocate" of evolution. Or at least I hope he/she was.

As for what to do about it, Cap and Trade is simply the best proposal so far (IMO) for getting people to slow down doing the thing that is causing the now agreed-upon (at least among scientists) problem. If your young mind has some creative new idea for how to accomplish that, then by all means you should put it forth.



You didn't give my infamous "shrill foaming" comment a close enough read, good friend. I was not indicating that I set out to bring you to this unseemly display, but rather that I wished to avoid it, and sought to prevent it. Given your apparent expertise on this subject, I figured I didn't have to worry that your level of discussion would devolve so.

Rather than talk down to all who question... why not offer solutions? Do you have any specific books to recommend? Bonus points if they are obtainable at Half-Price.

You have said that my skepticism is not impressive, yet your centerpiece argument for cap and trade is "IMO". Surely the dizzying heights of awareness that your education has afforded you enable you to make a better case. Right now you are not convincing me any more than Mme Speaker Botox herself.

I see you have taken offense to my jolly nature (regarding my avatar and nick). I think the nick might me immutable, but if you have a better suggestion for an avatar, I am willing to take it into account. I don't prefer St Pauli beer, it's a bit watery for my taste.

You don't seem well adjusted, friend. Let me guess... academia?
GAW838
Sage

Joined: September 10, 2007 01:39:47 UTC
Messages: 1210
Offline

Just a quick point, carbon capture is not the sort of thing that people in the climate policy community are referring to when discussing adaptation. Depending on what exactly you mean by carbon capture (and also the lines can be kind of fuzzy), that would be classified as mitigation and/or geoengineering, both of which are design to reduce to the severity (mitigate) climate change.

Adaptation refes to measures design to reduce the costs associated with any particular severity of climate change. That means changing what crops you plant in certain places, moving shorefront infrastructure inland or putting buildings on stilts or building levees, etc.

Carbon capture generally refers to to preventing CO2 from fossil fuel combusion (or coal gasification) from getting into the atmosphere and instead sequestering it underground, but could alos refer to efforts to actually remove CO2 that is already in the atmosphere. In either case, these would measures designed to reduce influence the climate itself, not to adapt to changes in it. Geoengineering is a somewhat ill-defined concept, but it at least covers any mitigation measures that do not involved reducing atmospheric GHG concentrations (artificial volcanoes, painting rooves white, etc) and most people would consider efforts to remve CO2 from the atmosphere via artificial means to be geoengineering. The fuzzy part comes with afforestation projects, which are typically considered convention mitigation, but some people think of as geoengineering. CCS is generaly considered conventional mitigation, but its also a little fuzzy because you are still burning the fossil fuels. In any case, carbon capture is not a form of adaptation.

Delphi, thanks for starting this thread and reminding me of the dropoff possibility. I don't have anything to add right now on that specifically.

I do want to raise a related question about John Thune. Assume he wants to be president someday, should he run now? If not for TARP, I would say the answer is an obvious yes. Sure, he probably wouldn't win the nomination, but if anything that would put him in a better position for 2016 if he finishes strong. If he turned out to be an also-ran, then it was probably never going to happen. If he does win the nod, he's got at least a 1 in 3 shot of being President, especially given the state of the economy. The nomination might be worth more in 2016, but that's pretty speculative and his star might have faded by then. More important, his prospects in 2016 are likely only helped by running this time, given the GOP propensity for picking the next in line.


Except for TARP. So, if it's true that his vote for TARP kills him this time, his only hope is that the salience of that vote fades by 2016. I suspect it is a killer this time around, btw. The question is whether him running this time and giving people a chance to dump on him over TARP would negatively impat his 2016 chances. On balance, my guess is that it's probably better for him to run this time and if hope that if TARP is less salient in 2016 it won't matter what Romney said about him this cycle, but I'm not sure. Again, if not for TARP, (and again assuming he wants to be pres, is willing to work for it, etc.) I think this would be a no-brainer - but given his vote it's more complicated.

Thoughts...




Delphi
Sage
[Avatar]

Joined: September 11, 2007 06:28:38 UTC
Messages: 2495
Offline

That was my feeling as well GAW, that those terms were being misused somewhat, but I didn't press it as it's kind of a semantic point. I've always thought of "adaptation" as basically the "get used to it" measures like moving away from coastlines (although sea level rise would be one of the last worries to materialize) and - as Bjorn Lomborg recently ridiculously proposed - building dikes around the coast of the continental US. But yes, other measures to deal with the more immediate effects.


But back to the thread topic (whew!). There was an article recently in Politico about all the reasons Thune might not run. TARP was mentioned practically in passing, but the major thrust was just that Thune was really immersed now in being a senator, is now on two important committees (budget and finance) and has a clear avenue toward majority whip and then leader within a few years, and all the power and influence that goes with that. I'm short a little on Thune to run (at 78) basically because (1) he's got an uphill climb in terms of name-recognition (pulled a grand total of 0% in the NH straw poll) and (2) he's too damned busy with his day job to fit in a little thing like a presidential campaign.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/48743.html

It's an interesting reminder you bring up regarding the equation for these potential candidates, which boils down mathematically to:

P(president) = P(nomination) * P(victory|nomination)

Too often in what I read of these candidates' deliberations, the calculus is reduced to just the second term. I.e., whether they jump in should hinge on "could X beat Obama". But really if all the stronger candidates bow out because they don't want to go up against the incumbent, it could be that it presents a "best ever" opportunity for whoever is brave enough to go for the nom in 2012 anyway, since that first term in the equation goes way up due to the vacuum. That seems to get ignored, at least in the explicit discussion in many articles.

Taking a chance and slipping into the void is basically what propelled Bill Clinton to the White House in 1992. Nate Silver had an interesting column recently relating incumbent approval ratings to chance of re-election. He noted that GHW Bush was at 80% after the first Gulf War, which scared all the big Democratic names away. But he ended up at 40% on election day due to a variety of factors, and Clinton won. Silver links to a clever SNL skit (which I had never seen) where all the "likely suspects" from the Dems were fighting to not be drafted for the nod because Bush looked so unbeatable.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/28/approval-ratings-and-re-election-odds/#more-5685

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at February 06, 2011 05:54:27 UTC

Delphi
Sage
[Avatar]

Joined: September 11, 2007 06:28:38 UTC
Messages: 2495
Offline

I didn't really address TARP there. I was surprised to see you putting such weight on it. It is some baggage for him, but my feeling is that it's nowhere near as heavy luggage as say Romney's MassCare burden. I think TARP pales next to Obamacare on the tea partiers' list of grievances. They will "carp" about TARP, but they rage about health care reform. The latter is much more emblematic of what they see as a "national paradigm shift toward socialism". And in fact, Bush himself started TARP and many GOP lawmakers signed onto it. So in the "is he one of us or not in terms of values" mental calculus that primary voters unconsciously do, I think it's much easier to rationalize voting for Thune than Romney, at least in terms of just their respective baggage.

And in a world where Palin and Huckabee don't run, and Christie and Ryan et al stay out, Thune actually may have more solid conservative credentials than anyone else. Now ideology is not everything, and voters may still prefer Romney because he's had executive experience and all that sucess in the corporate world. But I just don't think TARP by itself kills Thune, given the competition he'd be in.
Delphi
Sage
[Avatar]

Joined: September 11, 2007 06:28:38 UTC
Messages: 2495
Offline

PS - Your bringing up Thune was actually right on topic for this thread, because within the last couple of days (maybe that Politico piece) he said he would probably make an announcement sometime this month. Which makes him the next potential shoe to drop. In fact after that piece came out the other day, his NOM price took a dip from 12 down to something like 6 (though it's recovered to around 10 now).

I really think he stays put in the Senate. His list of accomplishments seems a little thin to be running for president now anyway - although I guess that didn't stop Obama or Edwards in '08.
Go to:   
Powered by JForum 2.1.8 © JForum Team