Brian Ross’s crack investigative team at ABC:
Hillary Clinton spent the night in the White House on the day her husband had oral sex with Monica Lewinsky, and may have actually been there when it happened, according to records of her schedule released today by the National Archives.   ÂÂ
While she was there!!!1eleventy! ÂÂ
The dirty, dirty bastard! Why, I’m scandalized!  Color my gob smacked!
More: 3000 Robots Missed “An Inconvenient Truth”
Some 3,000 scientific robots that are plying the ocean have sent home a puzzling message. These diving instruments suggest that the oceans have not warmed up at all over the past four or five years. That could mean global warming has taken a breather. Or it could mean scientists aren’t quite understanding what their robots are telling them.
They are due to be recalled for re-education reprogramming.
Comment by MayBee on 3/19 @ 3:05 pm #
Because of the crack investigation!!!
Comment by Sarah Connor on 3/19 @ 3:15 pm #
“John! Get the diving gear!”
“Cameron! Steal a boat!”
Comment by Kevin B on 3/19 @ 3:16 pm #
So is that who he meant when he said, “I did not have sex with that woman?
Comment by JD on 3/19 @ 3:19 pm #
FWIW – Ross is a douchenozzle.
Comment by MC on 3/19 @ 3:33 pm #
Outrageous? Bill Clinton? Who’d o’ thunk it?
Comment by B Moe on 3/19 @ 4:09 pm #
So is that who he meant when he said, “I did not have sex with that woman?
I remember someone remarking that seemed to be what he was saying, with that weird pause and the way the sentence was structured:
“I did not have sex with that women. Miss Lewinsky.” Like he was addressing Lewinsky and denying sex with some other woman.
Comment by B Moe on 3/19 @ 4:10 pm #
Here it is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiIP_KDQmXs
Comment by Slartibartfast on 3/19 @ 4:16 pm #
What’s really needed is an underwater species of tree. Trees are really dependable thermometers, ya know.
Comment by Jeffersonian on 3/19 @ 4:19 pm #
Robots are made by corporations. Corporations, red in tooth and claw, serve only their capitalist masters who rape shrieking Gaia for profit. QED
Comment by Carin on 3/19 @ 4:32 pm #
Robot data is no threat to Scientific consensus.
Comment by noshitimmageniuz on 3/19 @ 5:42 pm #
Do you have any concrete evidence that Bill Clinton had sex with anyone? Because nothing in his speeches or writings give any indication that he was an advocate of extramarital sex!
Comment by Spies, Brigands, and Pirates on 3/19 @ 7:18 pm #
Do you have any concrete evidence that Bill Clinton had sex with anyone? Because nothing in his speeches or writings give any indication that he was an advocate of extramarital sex!
Nice try, but the standard spelling and close-to-complete sentences gave you away.
Comment by Radish on 3/19 @ 7:19 pm #
In the house while her husband philandered? Ffft. Dina Matos-McGreevey was in the same bed. The bar for offense has moved in the past ten years…
Comment by charles austin on 3/19 @ 7:21 pm #
Option 3: It isn’t getting warmer. But then any option 3 rarely occurs to Manichean dichotomists.
Comment by charles austin on 3/19 @ 7:22 pm #
Do the archives say anything like she was too busy reading FBI files to have interrupted Bill in flagrante delicto?
Comment by fmfnavydoc on 3/19 @ 7:47 pm #
noshitimmageniuz,
To answer your question – have you seen Hill and Bill’s “love child”, Chelsea? If that isn’t their progeny, then the milkman/mailman/postman or plumber must have gotten to Hill before Bill did….
Pingback by Progressive Dogwhistle [Dan Collins] on 3/20 @ 6:06 am #
[...] already dealt with this, here. We feel the same way about [...]
Comment by datadave on 3/20 @ 7:04 am #
Actually a cooling ocean might be a result of global warming as the melting of ice of the arctic fringes (Greenland, etc) and de-glaciation which is totally substantiated by all researchers could decrease ocean temps while at the same time increasing the ocean’s volume. Melting ice would conversely lower temps in the water in which that ice water is being added to while at the same time the ambient air melting that ice is warming up the earth in general.
A rather thin reed to base g/w/denial upon.
Comment by mac on 3/20 @ 7:26 am #
…or maybe the narrative of agw is flawed …
Comment by BJTexs on 3/20 @ 7:47 am #
Datadave: Perhaps you haven’t noticed that the Arctic Circle ice packhas recovered to near record levels and the northern hemisphere snow pack is the deepest since 1966? Or that the Antarctic ice pack is at a reasonably high level? Or that the concerns for the size of thre ozone hole over the Antarctic is due to the unusual cold? Or that there is a reason that Greenland was named Greenland by those pesky vikings over a thousand years ago? Or that many of those readings were taken near the equator where the effects of the ice that is not currently melting would not affect the temperatures?
Or that your mindless puking up of Teh AGW Narrative™ brands you as a lobotomized Goron?
Comment by abadman on 3/20 @ 7:49 am #
data dave,
Of course that ignores the claim the oceans were warming in the 90’s. Remember rising temps killing off all of the coral? I guess the glaciers weren’t melting in the 90’s. oh wait, they were.
Comment by charles austin on 3/20 @ 8:21 am #
Reading the global warmening article again and datadave’s comment, perhaps an application of Occam’s Razor is warranted. Stop multiplying unnecessary hypotheses and check your assumptions. When the data doesn’t fit your theory your first response shouldn’t be to question the data.
Comment by Rob Crawford on 3/20 @ 8:25 am #
But the theory’s so useful for generating reasons to control people’s lives and impoverish them!
Comment by Slartibartfast on 3/20 @ 8:31 am #
Actually, questioning the data fits into any decently thorough analysis of said data. Sometimes the data isn’t what you think it is. Sometimes the data is bad because the experiment design isn’t as good as you thought it was. Case in point: urban temperatures are sometimes elevated because the dryer exhaust is directed right at the thermometer.
Comment by McGehee on 3/20 @ 9:53 am #
It depends on what your definition of “bad” data is.
Comment by Slartibartfast on 3/20 @ 10:50 am #
Strike “bad”, insert “inconsistent with expectations”.
Comment by JD on 3/20 @ 11:04 am #
If global warming is going to keep causing ski seasons like this one, then bring it on !!!
Comment by datadave on 3/20 @ 12:39 pm #
abadman.. pollution was also killing off coral not just warming…..Florida Keys are a case in point…more boats, less coral with particularly fuel or oil in the water…..and rising sea levels which rise faster than coral can keep up, as they only prosper at a certain shallow subsurface level of the sea. Particulates in the water also prevent needed light for growth. Multiple man-made factors…. from most of the evidence.
And I just threw that idea I had out there about the robot data as I just thought about how the Glaciers are melting and the glacier’s closest to the sea are in the Northern cold reaches…thus cooling the water while glaciers in temperate Zones are more likely to melt into rivers which would be warmer by the time they got to the sea…leading to a counterintuitive event of warming land but colder oceans. Idea’s happen. I’ll await peer review…I didn’t get funding for that one. I have been known to spout off what at’s the top of my noggin…which even as I almost shave my head as a late Justice Renquest (sp?) aspect.
BJTexas ..hmm, I hear the walking on thin ice as well as reaching for the straws. Just how thick is that ice ol’ Rush Limbaugh is telling us about? It used to be fairly permanent and now it’s (maybe?) inches after a brief cool winter caused by El Nino…? The trends seem to be clear, the ice has been retreating consistently over time. Come back in the summer and tell me how thick that ice is.
JD, more snow and global warming co-exist in the mountains as really cold temps don’t allow much snow as the air is much less likely to hold moisture….Arctic areas have notoriously low snowfalls.
Now, McCain said it well. Why squash the science researching into climate change while attacking the hypothesis because it threatens a feeling of entitlement or an economic interest. I think the g/w/denialists are reacting in an emotional way to what most ‘naturalists’ see out of experience and record keeping. To say as Rush Limbaugh says that Environmentalists are merely Watermelon people (green on the outside and red on the inside) is, well, Rush-like. Spoken like a untutored maritally (and probably sexually?) depraved, arrogant, druggie who sits on his ass in a cubicle most of the time even if he may have a well-tuned sense of humor and entitlement issues. You’d deny a hundred scientists and take Rush’s word for it?
Okay, Maybe global warming isn’t the problem some have suggested as I certainly want my grandchildren (whenever?) to inherit a livable earth and just let the research continue to go on, rather than do what the Bush administration attempted to do…: blocking funding for research and denying that a problem existed.
I deleted a sarcastic bit about Dan’s recent alarmist link to a webpage that was highly entertaining but seemed a bit SciFi. Forgot if Yellowstone is supposed to blow up every 600 K years or 600 M years? And we’re overdue by a few thousand years. And the solar flares are maybe going to get us. But why not focus on what we can prevent and maybe even grow the economy as a result. About the only economic metric that’s in the positive these days are companies dealing with wind energy, solar, etc..(except for the war profiteers….).
Comment by Rob Crawford on 3/20 @ 3:30 pm #
Or, maybe the GW fanatics are reacting in an emotional way to what the “denialists” see as natural processes that have no connection to human activity.