Monday, January 26, 2015

[tt] Computer World: Patrick Thibodeau: Displaced IT workers are being silenced

Patrick Thibodeau: Displaced IT workers are being silenced
http://www.computerworld.com/article/2855642/displaced-it-workers-are-being-silenced.html

Dec 4, 2014 2:16 PM PT

Patrick Thibodeau covers cloud computing and enterprise
applications, outsourcing, government IT policies, data centers and
IT workforce issues for Computerworld.

A major problem with the H-1B debate is the absence of displaced IT
workers in news media accounts. Much of the reporting is one-sided
--and there's a reason for this.

An IT worker who is fired because he or she has been replaced by a
foreign, visa-holding employee of an offshore outsourcing firm will
sign a severance agreement. This severance agreement will likely
include a non-disparagement clause that will make the fired worker
extremely cautious about what they say on Facebook, let alone to the
media.

On-the-record interviews with displaced workers are difficult to
get. While a restrictive severance package may be one handcuff, some
are simply fearful of jeopardizing future job prospects by talking
to reporters.

Now silenced, displaced IT workers become invisible and easy to
ignore.

This situation has a major impact on how the news media covers the
H-1B issue and offshore outsourcing issues generally. To illustrate,
The New York Times published a story Nov. 23, "[180]Workers in
Silicon Valley Weigh In on Obama's Immigration Action," which looked
at the reaction to President Barack Obama's executive actions on
immigration.

The Times spoke with visa-holding employees at tech firms who were
frustrated by U.S. immigration policy. There were photographs of
some of the people being interviewed, which means their employers
welcomed the newspaper's attention.

The employee stories that the newspaper reported on are an important
dimension of the H-1B story, but it's not the major issue. It is not
what makes people angry or tugs at the soul. (See: [181]This IT
worker had to train an H-1B replacement).

The H-1B visa program is used as an engine of displacement by
offshore outsourcing companies that employ visa-holding workers by
the thousands. From the government data Computerworld has collected
in recent years, these firms are applying for visas [182]in
ever-increasing shares squeezing out smaller firms. The tech
industry's solution is simple: Significantly raise the H-1B cap or
remove it entirely.

When a U.S. company signs an agreement with an IT services firm,
that firm will bring in its visa-holding workers. The U.S. workers
will train the foreign workers and then exit their jobs. They are
often older workers. But the story that people will see in print or
read about online, is the one about the promising [183]tech start-up
that's having trouble hiring an H-1B worker. The national news
coverage is skewed, with no simple fix to the problem.

The system of job displacement involves silencing the workers most
injured by the process.

References

180.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/24/technology/workers-in-silicon-valley-weigh-in-on-obamas-immigration-order.html
181.
http://www.computerworld.com/article/2490610/it-outsourcing/this-it-worker-had-to-train-an-h-1b-replacement.html
182.
http://www.computerworld.com/article/2489146/technology-law-regulation-offshore-firms-took-50-of-h-1b-visas-in-2013.html
183.
http://www.computerworld.com/article/2852250/silicon-valleys-h-1b-immigration-position-has-some-holes.html
184. http://www.computerworld.com/author/Patrick-Thibodeau/
_______________________________________________
tt mailing list
tt@postbiota.org
http://postbiota.org/mailman/listinfo/tt

[tt] Computer World: Patrick Thibodeau: New H-1B bill will 'help destroy' U.S. tech workforce

Patrick Thibodeau: New H-1B bill will 'help destroy' U.S. tech workforce
http://www.computerworld.com/article/2868428/new-h-1b-bill-will-help-destroy-us-tech-workforce.html
Jan 14, 2015 1:04 PM PT

Patrick Thibodeau covers cloud computing and enterprise
applications, outsourcing, government IT policies, data centers and
IT workforce issues for Computerworld.

New legislation being pushed by Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) to hike
the H-1B visa cap is drawing criticism and warnings that it will
lead to an increase in offshoring of tech jobs.

IEEE-USA said the legislation, introduced by a bipartisan group of
lawmakers on Tuesday, will "help destroy" the U.S. tech workforce
with guest workers.

Other critics, including Ron Hira, a professor of public policy at
Howard University and a leading researcher on the issue, said the
bill gives the tech industry "a huge increase in the supply of
lower-cost foreign guest workers so they can undercut and replace
American workers."

Hira said this bill "will result in an exponential rise of American
jobs being shipped overseas."

Technically, the bill is a reintroduction of the earlier "I-Square"
bill, but it includes enough revisions to be considered new. It
increases the H-1B visa cap to 195,000 (instead of an earlier
300,000 cap), and eliminates the cap on people who earn an advanced
degree in a STEM (science, technology, education and math) field.

Hatch, who is the No. 2 ranking senator in the GOP-controlled
chamber, was joined by co-sponsors Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Marco
Rubio (R-Fla.), Chris Coons (D-Del.), Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) and
Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) in backing the legislation.

The bill also makes it easier for U.S. advanced degree graduates to
get a green card. One problem may be whether this bill will
restrict, in any way, visa mills from churning out STEM master's
degree holders for either green cards or H-1B visas.

Daniel Costa, director of immigration law and policy research at the
Economic Policy Institute (EPI), said the bill doesn't include
reforms such as higher prevailing wages and requirements to recruit
U.S. workers. Nor does the bill limit the use of the H-1B visa by
offshore outsourcing firms, he said.

"This bill is basically a wish list for the tech industry," said
Costa.

The number of H-1B visas today is capped at 65,000, with an
additional 20,000 allowed for advanced degree holders in STEM
fields. The number of H-1B visas issued is actually higher, when
groups exempt from the cap such as non-profits and research
institutions, are added.

EPI estimates that between 2007 and 2012 nearly 776,000 H-1B visas
were issued--an average of almost 130,000 per year.

Hatch has made an H-1B increase a priority issue for the new Senate.
Previous efforts to pass stand-alone bills to hike the cap were
blocked by supporters of comprehensive immigration reform, who
didn't want to dilute support for a broader bill. But Republican
leaders in both chambers are much more open to the idea of a
stand-alone high-skill immigration bill.

The bill's backers include senators from states that have seen
workers displaced by offshore outsourcing firms. In Connecticut,
Blumenthal's state, IT workers at Northeast Utilities were laid off
last year after the company brought in H-1B visa workers by two
India-based offshore firms. In Minnesota, represented by Klobuchar,
Cargill, a food and agricultural firm, last year announced cuts in
the IT department in an offshoring move.

But this law, or the announcement about it, makes no mention of the
H-1B's use as a job outsourcing vehicle. "This bill is a common
sense approach to ensuring that those who have come here to be
educated in high-tech fields have the ability to stay here with
their families and contribute to the economy and our society," Hatch
said in a statement.

Costa said his main problem with the I-squared bill is that it
doesn't propose any wage or recruitment reforms that the H-1B
program needs. Even the prior Senate's comprehensive immigration
bill, which failed to get a vote in the House of Representatives,
"at least pushed things in the right direction by slightly raising
the prevailing wage level, having an H-1B job database, and phasing
in the 50/50 rule." That rule limits a firm's use of H-1B workers to
50% of its workforce.

The IEEE-USA has favored green card immigration over an expansion of
the H-1B program.

"There are simply no arguments for H-1B increases that aren't better
made for green cards," said Russ Harrison, IEEE-USA government
relations director, in a statement. "The primary, practical function
of the H-1B program is to outsource American high-tech jobs. Do the
bill's supporters really think that's the direction American
immigration policy should go?"

The IEEE estimates that bill will actually increase the H-1B use to
about 300,000. It includes non-profits, and believes as many as
50,000 H-1B users will be advanced degree holders.

An H-1B visa is good for six years, the IEEE estimates (assuming all
the visas are used) that it represents at least an additional 1.8
million employees competing for jobs in a U.S. STEM workforce of
about 5 million.
_______________________________________________
tt mailing list
tt@postbiota.org
http://postbiota.org/mailman/listinfo/tt

[tt] NYT: Seth Stephens-Davidowitz: Searching for Sex

Best to click the URL.

Seth Stephens-Davidowitz: Searching for Sex
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/25/opinion/sunday/seth-stephens-davidowitz-searching-for-sex.html

Seth Stephens-Davidowitz is an economist and a contributing opinion
writer.

ARE you confused by sex? I certainly am.

One of the many reasons sex is puzzling is that we lack reliable
data. People lie to friends, lovers, doctors, surveys and
themselves.

Three years ago, when I was a graduate student in economics, I began
to write about how new data, particularly Google searches, could
give us fresh insights into socially sensitive topics. Since then,
many people have asked me to write about sex.

I was wary because I wanted to do more research. Now I'm finally
ready to report. Call it everything you always wanted to know about
sex, but didn't have the data to ask.

Let's start with the basics. How much sex are we having? Traditional
surveys are no good at answering this question.

I analyzed data from the General Social Survey, a classic source.
Heterosexual men 18 and over say that they average 63 sex acts per
year, using a condom in 23 percent of them. This adds up to more
than 1.6 billion heterosexual condom uses per year.

Heterosexual women say they average 55 sex acts per year, using a
condom in 16 percent of them. This adds up to about 1.1 billion
heterosexual condom uses per year.

Who is telling the truth, men or women?

Neither. According to Nielsen, fewer than 600 million condoms are
sold every year.

Americans may also be exaggerating how often they have unprotected
sex. About 11 percent of women between the ages of 15 and 44 say
they are sexually active, not currently pregnant and not using
contraception. Even with relatively conservative assumptions about
how many times they are having sex, we would expect 10 percent to
become pregnant every month. But this would already be more than the
total number of pregnancies in the United States (which is one in
113 women of childbearing age).

Men who have never been married claim to average 29 condom uses per
year. This is more than the total number of condoms sold in the
United States to married and single people combined.

Married people probably exaggerate how much sex they have, too. On
average, married men under 65 tell surveys they have sex once a
week. Only 1 percent say they have gone the past year without sex.
Married women say there is a little less sex but not much less.

Not Getting It

What online searches reveal about sexual frustration and insecurity.
[10x10.gif]

LET ME GUESS: TOO TIRED AGAIN?

Lack of sex is a big complaint by those in relationships, especially
husbands and wives. Top 5 complaint-related search terms for these
phrases:

"______ marriage"
sexless
unhappy
loveless
sex starved
no sex
21,090
6,029
2,650
1,658
1,300

AVG. MONTHLY SEARCHES
"______ relationship"
abusive
sexless
complicated
unhappy
bad
5,867
3,675
3,563
1,450
1,363

REJECTS OF DESIRE

Boyfriends seem to avoid sex more than girlfriends. Average number
of monthly searches worldwide for this exact phrasing:

"my boyfriend ...
"my girlfriend ...
"... won't have sex with me"
805
413

... won't talk to me"
218
209

... won't text me back"
137
85

Among married couples, sex avoidance is closer to a draw:
"my wife...
"my husband ...
... won't have sex with me"
972
1,048

... won't talk to me"
49
78

... won't text me back"
45
50
[10x10.gif]

LET ME GUESS: TOO TIRED AGAIN?

REJECTS OF DESIRE

Lack of sex is a big complaint by those in relationships, especially
husbands and wives. Top 5 complaint-related search terms for these
phrases:

Boyfriends seem to avoid sex more than girlfriends. Average number
of monthly searches worldwide for this exact phrasing:

"my boyfriend ...
"my
girlfriend ...

"______ marriage"
sexless
unhappy
loveless
sex starved
no sex

21,090
6,029
2,650
1,658
1,300
805
413

AVERAGE MONTHLY SEARCHES
... won't have sex with me"
... won't talk to me"
... won't text me back"

218
137
209
85

Among married couples, sex avoidance is closer to a draw:
"______ relationship"
"my wife...
"my husband ...
abusive
sexless
complicated
unhappy
bad

5,867
3,675
3,563
1,450
1,363
972
1,048

... won't have sex with me"
... won't talk to me"
... won't touch me"
49
45
78
50

All monthly search numbers are approximate and derived from
anonymous and aggregate web activity.
Source: analysis of Google data by Seth Stephens-Davidowitz

Google searches give a far less lively picture of sex during
marriage.

On Google, the top complaint about a marriage is not having sex.
Searches for "sexless marriage" are three and a half times more
common than "unhappy marriage" and eight times more common than
"loveless marriage." There are 16 times more complaints about a
spouse not wanting sex than about a married partner not being
willing to talk.

Even couples not yet married complain somewhat frequently about lack
of sex. Google searches for "sexless relationship" are second only
to searches for "abusive relationship." (Abusive relationships are
obviously a very important topic that I will return to in the
future.)

On Google, there are five and a half times more complaints about an
unmarried partner not wanting sex than an unmarried partner refusing
to text back. There are more complaints that a boyfriend "won't have
sex" than that a "girlfriend" won't. Complaints about "husbands" and
"wives" are roughly equal. (One quick point about sexuality. I am
assuming that a large majority of searches with "my girlfriend" or
"my wife" are by men. In a previous article, I argued that more men
are gay than surveys suggest and that the closet remains a cause of
huge amounts of secret suffering. But I also found that about 95
percent of men are heterosexual.) Taken altogether, the data suggest
that Americans manage to have sex about 30 times per year--or once
every 12 days.

Sex can be quite fun. Why do we have so little of it?

Google searches suggest one predominant reason: enormous anxiety,
with much of it misplaced.

Start with men's neuroses. It isn't news that men worry about their
genitals, but the degree of this worry is rather profound. From a
Google search alone, we cannot know the gender of a user. However,
we can often make a pretty good guess for searches about sex and
body parts, like "my penis ____."

Men Google more questions about their sexual organ than any other
body part: more than about their lungs, liver, feet, ears, nose,
throat and brain combined.

Men make more searches asking how to make their penises bigger than
how to tune a guitar, make an omelet or change a tire. Men's top
Googled concern about steroids is whether taking them might make
their penis smaller. Men's top Googled question related to how their
body or mind changed as they aged was whether their penis got
smaller.

Side note: One of the more common questions for Google about a penis
is "How big is my penis?" That men turn to Google, rather than a
ruler, with this question is, in my opinion, a quintessential
expression of our digital era.

Do women care about penis size? Rarely, according to Google
searches. For every search women make about a partner's phallus, men
make roughly 170 searches about their own.

TRUE, on the rare occasions women do express concerns about a
partner's penis, it is frequently about its size, but not
necessarily that it is small. More than 40 percent of complaints
about a partner's penis size is that it is too big. "Pain" is the
most Googled word used in searches with the phrase "___ during sex."
("Bleeding," "peeing," "crying" and "farting" round out the top
five.)

One percent of searches looking to change one's penis size are
seeking information on how to make it smaller.

Another major sexual concern is climaxing prematurely. Men's
second-most-common sex question is how to make their sexual
encounters longer.

Once again, the insecurities of men do not appear to match the
concerns of women. There are roughly the same number of searches
asking how to make a boyfriend climax more quickly as climax more
slowly. In fact, the most common concern women have related to a
boyfriend's orgasm isn't about when it happened but why it isn't
happening at all.

We do not often talk about male body insecurity. And while it is
true that overall interest in personal appearance skews female, it
is not as lopsided as stereotypes would suggest. According to my
analysis of Google AdWords (also based on anonymous, aggregate web
activity), interest in beauty and fitness is 42 percent male; weight
loss is 33 percent male; and cosmetic surgery is 39 percent male.
Among all searches with "how to" related to breasts, about 20
percent ask how to get rid of man breasts.

What can this new data teach us about women's insecurities? Every
year, in the United States, there are more than seven million
searches looking into breast implants. Official statistics tell us
that about 300,000 women go through with it annually.

Women also show a great deal of insecurity about their behinds,
although many women have recently flip-flopped on what it is they
don't like about them.

In 2004, in some parts of the United States, the most common search
regarding changing one's butt was how to make it smaller. The desire
to make one's bottom bigger was overwhelmingly concentrated in areas
with large black populations. Beginning in 2010, however, the desire
for bigger butts grew in the rest of the United States. This
interest has tripled in four years. In 2014, there were more
searches asking how to make your butt bigger than smaller in every
state. These days, for every five searches looking into breast
implants in the United States, there is one looking into butt
implants.

So Much to Worry About

What searches reveal about our anxieties.
[10x10.gif]
PENIS 100, BRAIN 5
Among body parts, men seem to worry most about genitals. For every
100 questions about penises, there are this many questions about
other body parts:

67
57
40
35
31
26
21
18
12
100

heart
eyes
head
hands
stomach
feet
ears
nose
throat
brain
liver
lungs

5
3
2

BIG INSECURITIES

Of the Top 10 questions about "my penis," nine involve size. Average
monthly searches for this phrasing:

4,250
3,667
3,192
2,408
1,975
1,967
1,933
1,921
1,863
1,663

how to make my penis bigger
how to make my penis longer
how big is my penis
why is my penis small
how can i make my penis bigger
how big should my penis be
why does my penis smell
how do i make my penis bigger
how to enlarge my penis
why is my penis so small
[10x10.gif]

PENIS 100, BRAIN 5

BIG INSECURITIES
Among body parts, men seem to worry most about genitals. For every
100 questions about penises, there are this many questions about
other body parts:

Of the Top 10 questions about "my penis," nine involve size. Average
monthly searches for this phrasing:

4,250
3,667
3,192
2,408
1,975
1,967
1,933
1,921
1,863
1,663

how to make my penis bigger
how to make my penis longer
how big is my penis
why is my penis small
how can i make my penis bigger
how big should my penis be
why does my penis smell
how do i make my penis bigger
how to enlarge my penis
why is my penis so small

67
57
40
35
31
26
21
18
12
100

heart
eyes
head
hands
stomach
feet
ears
nose
throat
brain
liver
lungs

5
3
2

This includes all questions with the phrase "my [body part]." It
assumes that men ask all questions about "my penis" but only half of
questions about the other body parts.
Source: analysis of Google data by Seth Stephens-Davidowitz

Does women's growing preference for a larger behind match men's
preferences? Interestingly, yes. "Big butt porn" searches, which
also used to be concentrated in black communities, have recently
shot up in popularity throughout the United States.

What else do men want in a woman's body? In the no surprise
department, men show a preference for large breasts. About 12
percent of nongeneric pornographic searches are looking for big
breasts. This is nearly 20 times higher than the search volume for
small-breast porn.

That said, it is not clear that this means men want women to get
breast implants. About 3 percent of big-breast porn searches
explicitly say they want to see natural breasts.

Google searches about one's wife and breast implants are evenly
split between asking how to persuade her to get implants and
perplexity as to why she wants them.

Or consider the most common search about a girlfriend's breasts: "I
love my girlfriend's boobs." It is not clear what men are hoping to
find from Google when making this search.

Women, like men, have questions about their genitals. In fact, they
have nearly as many questions about their vaginas as men have about
their penises. Women's worries about their vaginas are often
health-related. But at least 30 percent of their questions take up
other concerns. Women want to know how to shave it, tighten it and
make it taste better. A strikingly common concern is how to improve
its odor.

Women are most frequently concerned that their vaginas smell like
fish, followed by vinegar, onions, ammonia, garlic, cheese, body
odor, urine, bread, bleach, feces, sweat, metal, feet, garbage and
rotten meat.

In general, men do not make many Google searches involving a
partner's genitalia. Men make roughly the same number of searches
about a girlfriend's vagina as women do about a boyfriend's penis.

When men do search about a partner's vagina, it is usually to
complain about what women worry about most: the odor. Mostly, men
are trying to figure out how to tell a woman about a bad odor
without hurting her feelings. Sometimes, however, men's questions
about the odor reveal their own insecurities. Men occasionally ask
for ways to use the smell to detect cheating--if it smells like
condoms, for example, or another man's semen.

I know I am obsessed with Google searches and other new data sets. I
ask myself all the time whether I am taking it too far. Every
researcher, no matter how grounded in data, can let his biases get
in the way of the truth. This data is all public. Other researchers
will undoubtedly add their own interpretations and ask new
questions.

Dan Ariely, a psychologist at Duke, offers a reason for caution in
interpreting this data. While most data sources underestimate sexual
thoughts, he suspects that Google may overestimate them.

As Professor Ariely put it, "Google is a reflection of what people
don't know and need extra information about." If you want to know
how to make omelets, you may just ask a relative. You are less
likely to ask your relatives about penis enlargement.

Another surprising thing about "big data" is how small it often is.
Many people expect that any given Google search will be made
millions of times. You may look at the accompanying graphic that
includes the total monthly search volumes for various phrases and
think, "That's it?"

People do not type everything they think into Google. Google data is
a small sample of everybody's thoughts and concerns. It is
suggestive, not definitive.

I AM hardly an expert on sex. Professionally, I am neither a
psychologist nor a sex therapist.

But here's what I think.

Just about every study I have done relying on Google searches made
me feel worse about the world. Huge numbers of people are racist and
sexist; far too many children suffer from unreported abuse. But
after studying the new data on sex, I actually feel better.

This data makes me feel less lonely. In my previous studies of
Google data, I had found the viciousness that humans often hide. But
this time around, I have seen our hidden insecurities. Men and women
are united in this insecurity and confusion.

Google also gives us legitimate reasons to worry less than we do.
Many of our deepest fears about how our sexual partners perceive us
are unjustified. Alone, at their computers, with no incentive to
lie, partners reveal themselves to be fairly nonsuperficial and
forgiving. In fact, we are all so busy judging our own bodies that
there is little energy left over to judge other people's.

Maybe if we worried less about sex, we'd have more of it.
_______________________________________________
tt mailing list
tt@postbiota.org
http://postbiota.org/mailman/listinfo/tt

Sunday, January 25, 2015

[tt] NYT: Sheelah Kolhatkar reviews Nicholas Carlson: Marissa Mayer and the Fight to Save Yahoo!

Sheelah Kolhatkar reviews Nicholas Carlson: Marissa Mayer and the Fight to
Save Yahoo!
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/25/books/review/marissa-mayer-and-the-fight-to-save-yahoo-by-nicholas-carlson.html

Sheelah Kolhatkar, a features editor at Bloomberg Businessweek, is
working on a book about the government crackdown on insider trading.

MARISSA MAYER AND THE FIGHT TO SAVE YAHOO!
By Nicholas Carlson
Illustrated. 357 pp. Twelve. $30.

One day in 2012, Marissa Mayer was whirling around Yahoo's office in
Sunnyvale, Calif., directing a redesign of the home page and the
company's uncool but still widely used email application. The next,
she was the proud mother of her first child, who was nicknamed BBBB
in the hospital, for Big Baby Boy Bogue (her husband's last name).
This would hardly be considered extraordinary if it weren't for the
fact that she had recently been named the company's C.E.O. Female
chief executives typically live in glass boxes where every move they
make is held up for intense public scrutiny, and most get themselves
there through brutal amounts of work and by avoiding anything that
draws attention to the fact that they're women. Yet right after
starting her job running a troubled $30 billion technology giant,
Mayer announced that she would be taking a maternity leave, albeit a
stunningly short one. (She took two weeks.) The audacity of the move
--accepting a top executive job knowing that she was five months
pregnant and then taking so little time off--prompted an Internet
outcry ("The Pregnant C.E.O.: Should You Hate Marissa Mayer?" Forbes
asked in one representative example), in which even progressives
grumbled about the privilege involved, including Mayer's household
staff and in-office nursery. And so it was that her upsetting of the
women's-issues industrial complex became all that most people know
about Mayer. Yet there is much more to the picture.

As Nicholas Carlson demonstrates in "Marissa Mayer and the Fight to
Save Yahoo!," a vivid account of her vertiginous career climb, Mayer
is worth paying attention to for reasons that transcend gender.
Carlson presents her as a complex personality who defies most
stereotypes. "Marissa Mayer is fascinating for her contradictions,"
he writes. "Onstage, in front of hundreds or thousands, she is warm
and charming and laughing. But in a room with just a few others,
she's cold and direct and impersonal." She also "calls herself a
geek, but she doesn't look the part," he points out, the result of
an understanding of personal branding that she developed early in
her career; since then she's embraced haute couture and posed for a
Vogue photo spread. Not looking the part has only amplified her
appeal.

Most important, Carlson argues, Mayer earned her shot at running
Yahoo through years of innovative thinking in an industry that
prides itself on novel ideas. She was one of the early engineers at
Google and had a central role in building the company into the
success that it is, playing the hidden curator behind the clean,
uncluttered "look and feel" of Google's sites and products. Written
in a chatty, bloggy tone that may work for some readers and grate on
others--it grew out of several pieces for the financial news site
Business Insider, where Carlson is the chief correspondent, and it
is loyal to the style found there--the book is likely to appeal
most to Silicon Valley obsessives, as well as anyone who is curious
about what lies behind Mayer's coating of sunny confidence. The
author brings juicy scenes and new details to Mayer's story, whose
major turns are well known, although the lack of detailed source
notes (there is a bibliography) makes it difficult to evaluate some
of the information he presents.

The question hanging over the narrative is whether Mayer can save
Yahoo, or even make it great, and the answer is far from certain.
It's a brand that had been neglected or mishandled for years by
those who were in charge before her, and almost half of Carlson's
account retraces the well-worn history of Yahoo, which began in the
1990s as an Internet directory and then morphed into a web "portal"
that became overly dependent on dot-com companies for its
advertising revenue before the bubble exploded in 2000. The story
becomes much more interesting when Mayer takes center stage. The
daughter of an art teacher-homemaker and an environmental engineer
in a tiny town in Wisconsin, Mayer was programmed to achieve, loaded
up with extracurricular activities in school, like Tracy Flick. She
joined Google right out of a graduate computer science program at
Stanford and thrived, ultimately becoming one of its most
influential executives. She generated resentment, though, especially
among colleagues who were jealous of the extraordinary amount of
press attention she got--not that it was her fault she was a
photogenic female computer nerd, a breed as rare as a ghost orchid.
"There was nothing especially abhorrent or uncommon about Mayer's
behavior as an executive," Carlson writes, hinting at the sexism
that seems to have motivated some of her enemies. "She was
headstrong, confident, dismissive, self-promoting and clueless about
how she sometimes hurt other people's feelings. So were many of the
most successful executives in the technology industry."

Mayer was handpicked by Daniel Loeb, an aggressive hedge fund
manager and a Yahoo investor who seems to have informed long
stretches of Carlson's narrative, to take on the role of Yahoo's
savior. She tried to make the company's work force more productive
and to focus the company on making applications for mobile phones,
with some success. Two years later, even though Mayer managed to
prevent mass layoffs and invigorated the culture of the company,
Yahoo is still in deep trouble. In the end Carlson himself seems
unconvinced that she can turn things around: "Maybe not even Marissa
Mayer, with her incredible work ethic, genius sense of what made an
Internet product usable, worldwide fame and talent-attracting
charisma, would be enough to save Yahoo." Mayer deserves to be
remembered as someone more than just the woman who took a big job in
a male-dominated industry while pregnant, even if it means being
known for failing to save Yahoo.
_______________________________________________
tt mailing list
tt@postbiota.org
http://postbiota.org/mailman/listinfo/tt

Saturday, January 24, 2015

[tt] Reason: A. Barton Hinkle: Aversion to Truth Isn't Specific to Any Ideology

Comments don't seem to very good.


A. Barton Hinkle: Aversion to Truth Isn't Specific to Any Ideology
http://reason.com/archives/2015/01/19/aversion-to-truth-isnt-specific-to-any-i

A. Barton Hinkle is senior editorial writer and a columnist at the
Richmond Times-Dispatch.

If "the truth has a well-known liberal bias," as liberals are fond
of saying, then you have to wonder why some of them feel compelled
to embellish it.

Granted, conservatives and other non-liberals are not exactly
allergic to what Stephen Colbert, the much-lionized author of the
aphorism above, calls "truthiness": the quality a belief has of
feeling it must be true, even if it isn't, because one so badly
wants it to be true. Many conservatives seem all too eager to
believe that President Obama is a closet Muslim who was born in
Kenya; that America was founded as a Christian nation; that Saddam
Hussein was stockpiling WMDs; that climate change is nothing but a
liberal lie; and so forth. Fox News embarrassed itself just the
other day with a claim that Birmingham, England, was off-limits to
non-Muslims.

Some conservatives believe such things in good faith, in the sense
that they have rationalized away evidence to the contrary and
sincerely think they are right. But others lack even the weak
defense of confirmation bias. Some years ago the now-defunct Global
Climate Coalition, an industry-funded group, publicly insisted that
"the role of greenhouse gases in climate change is not well
understood"--even though a report for its own internal consumption
conceded that "the scientific basis for the Greenhouse Effect and
the potential impact of human emissions ... on climate is well
established and cannot be denied." The group's leaders were lying to
the public, but not to themselves.

***

The latest manifestation of such mendacity goes by a different name:
Jonathan Gruber, the MIT economist who was caught on video conceding
that the Affordable Care Act was written "in a tortured way" to
prevent the Congressional Budget Office from spelling out its true
costs. "Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage," he
said, because of "the stupidity of the American voter." In other
words, the architects of Obamacare, including Gruber, knew telling
people the real price would keep it from passing.

In that instance, the truth had a clear conservative, or
libertarian, or at least non-liberal bias. Ditto for President
Obama's frequently repeated claim that if you like your health care
plan, you can keep it. This turned out to be false for a large
number of people, and wound up as PolitiFact's Lie of the Year for
2013. All of which makes you wonder: If the ACA was such a wonderful
piece of legislation, then why such great need to lie about it?

If non-liberals fall prey to truthiness, then liberals fall prey to
FBA: "fake but accurate." That was how The New York Times described
a set of memos, publicized by CBS, ostensibly impugning George W.
Bush's service in the Texas National Guard. By a remarkable
coincidence, the memos surfaced in the heat of the 2004 presidential
election. They turned out to be fake, but they said things liberals
were eager to believe.

For a long time Neil deGrasse Tyson, the popular astrophysicist,
told another fake-but-accurate story about Bush, which illustrated
both Bush's ostensible stupidity and his ostensible religious
bigotry. As Tyson told the tale, in the wake of 9/11 Bush--wishing
to distinguish Christians from Muslims--said, "Our God is the God
who named the stars." When challenged late last year, Tyson defended
the quote, claiming he had an "explicit memory of those words being
spoken by the president." Eventually, Tyson conceded his memory was
faulty and backed down.

Tyson's story had a grain of truth: Bush had said something about a
God who had named the stars, but he had made those remarks in a
vastly different context: the explosion of the space shuttle
Columbia. In the wake of 9/11, Bush stressed that Islam was not
America's enemy. But those truths were less politically satisfying
than the truthier version Tyson told in speeches.

***

There also was a grain of truth to the church-burning scare in the
late 1990s. After several predominantly black churches in the
Southeast burned, civil-rights leaders and the media suspected a
racist plot.

"There's no question in my mind that there's a conspiracy," said
Spiver Gordon, a leader of the Southern Christian Leadership
Conference. When a Justice Department investigation found no
conspiracy, activists said that made it even worse: The spike in
arsons was being fueled by a general atmosphere of racial hostility
in the country at large. The panic inspired a radio address by
President Clinton and state legislation imposing stiffer penalties
for arson.

A national task force was convened. Just one minor detail was
overlooked: Over the previous two decades the frequency of church
arson actually had fallen by almost two-thirds. Heaven knows America
was not free of racism by the late 1990s. Yet the media credulously
reported a church-burning epidemic because the reality was not
good--or, in this case, bad--enough.

Other media embarrassments have occurred after various outlets
attacked other stock villains in the liberal narrative. The San Jose
Mercury News blamed the CIA for the crack cocaine epidemic, then had
to back off the claim. CNN and Time magazine had to retract coverage
claiming the American military had used sarin gas to kill defectors
during the Vietnam War. NBC's "Dateline" had to apologize to GM for
staging an explosion in a truck's fuel tank. The Cincinnati Enquirer
had to apologize to Chiquita for accusing it of nefarious business
practices. ABC had to pay more than $5 million to Food Lion for a
story about "'what can happen when the pressure for profits is great
and you break the rules," as Diane Sawyer put it. Examples multiply.

When it comes to the truth, the real bias is thinking any one side
has a monopoly on it.

COMMENTS

* Jackand Ace|1.19.15 @ 10:46AM|#
Well, well, well.
"Many conservatives seem all too eager to believe....that
climate change is nothing but a liberal lie; and so forth."
"Some conservatives believe such things in good faith, in the
sense that they have rationalized away evidence to the contrary
and sincerely think they are right. But others lack even the
weak defense of confirmation bias..."the scientific basis for
the Greenhouse Effect and the potential impact of human
emissions ... on climate is well established and cannot be
denied." The group's leaders were lying to the public, but not
to themselves."
And you think all that applies to Conservatives, ABH? Check
again, and expand your accusation to Libertarians, particularly
on the issue of climate change.
Just this week I suggested that the many Libertarians who
frequent these pages are all too willing to believe in the
biggest conspiracy theory making the rounds today, that being
that the majority of climate scientists have been bought off,
and are lying about the science just so they can get funding. Oh
boy! I had to argue that point with about 10 or so
"Libertarians" who took real umbrage at that. And here you say
exactly the same thing about believing in a big lie, but you
think it applies to a different group. Not one "Libertarian"
here could offer proof of their worldwide conspiracy that
science is engaging in...just their assertion that it had to be
so.
Check the mirror, ABH. Pot and kettle.

* Jackand Ace|1.19.15 @ 11:15AM|#
By the way, ABH, I might add that Libertarians here don't
suggest that AGW is a "liberal lie." They're worse...they
actually think its a scientific lie.
Good luck with all that.

* Plàya Manhattan.|1.19.15 @ 12:04PM|#
There's no science about it.

* mikeangellogy|1.19.15 @ 12:05PM|#
My Aunty Abigail just got an awesome twelve month old Lexus LS
460 Sedan by work part time using a lap-top. go to this web-site
I started with my online business I earn $58 every 15 minutes.
It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you
don't check it out.
LB LIFETIME OPPORTUNITY LB
->->->->->->-> www.jobsfish.com
(5029404) reply to this

* Paul.|1.19.15 @ 12:55PM|#
Is that a fact?
(5029513) reply to this

* Chumby|1.19.15 @ 12:09PM|#
The science of advocacy. When Group A gains money, notoriety,
and influence by taking Position B, game theory tells us they
will almost always take Position B.
(5029421) reply to this

* Vulgar Madman|1.19.15 @ 12:29PM|#
When this bit of flim-flam, falls apart, what's next?
Ice age? Nah, how GMOs are going to kill us all?
Vaccines?
(5029468) reply to this

* Chumby|1.19.15 @ 5:05PM|#
I chase down my GMOs with a bottle of atrazine. The feds and
crony capitalism gave us the food system we have so it has got
to be a good thing.
(5030140) reply to this

* MJBinAL|1.19.15 @ 2:28PM|#
Sir, the science of climate change is established. The impact of
man on climate change is completely up in the air.
Presenting the result of any of the in excess of 20 models as
fact displays little understanding of science and less of
complete computer models.
(5029819) reply to this

* Mark22|1.19.15 @ 11:35PM|#
It's neither a scientific lie nor a scientific truth, it's just
incomplete and preliminary science. It took half a century for
quantum mechanics and general relativity to become widely
accepted, and they are self contained and can be verified in
pretty simple experiments. Climate models are hugely complex,
rely on numerous untested assumptions, and are updated and
corrected every year.
Furthermore, the science says nothing about the policy. Sure,
it's getting warmer, so what? The policies and actions are
political choices, and people like you misrepresent the
political choices as if they were scientific choices. You are
being dishonest.
(5030734) reply to this

* William Walsh|1.20.15 @ 9:12AM|#
Warmism relies upon four premises, all of which must be true or
Global Warming is false.
1. It is getting warmer.
2. It will be bad for us.
3. We caused it.
4. We can stop it.
The odds are low that all four are true and fairly high that all
four are false.
Combine that with the money and tenure, systematic suppression
of dissenting opinions, reliance on the ludicrously
un-scientific term "consensus" and the fact that not a single
prediction has been fulfilled and it is impossible to take
Warmism seriously.
It's not a scientific conspiracy, it's just wrong.
(5030884) reply to this

* sarcasmic|1.19.15 @ 12:08PM|#
We must repent our carbon sinning ways!
Repent, else the planet will be engulfed in fire!
Carbon is the devil! Yes! It is the devil! And since we're all
made of carbon, we are ourselves the devil! And we're destroying
the planet!
We must end our carbon sinning ways, punish the evil
corporations that make it possible, and submit to our god
Government!
Only Government can save us from our carbon sinning ways!
Repent!
Submit!
Or the world will come to a fiery end!
For more information, and where to send a contribution, contact
your local Church of Anthropogenic Global Warming.
(5029417) reply to this

* Plàya Manhattan.|1.19.15 @ 12:16PM|#
Fun fact: Algore failed out of preacher school. That didn't
seem to slow him down much, though.
(5029438) reply to this

* Derpetologist|1.19.15 @ 12:24PM|#
He also flunked out of law school.
(5029456) reply to this

* Plàya Manhattan.|1.19.15 @ 12:27PM|#
Preacher school is a lot more embarrassing, though. The correct
answer is always "Jesus".
(5029462) reply to this

* Derpetologist|1.19.15 @ 12:30PM|#
Yes. Flunking out of divinity school means you failed where Al
Sharpton succeeded.
(5029469) reply to this

* Notorious G.K.C.|1.19.15 @ 12:50PM|#
That depends on the school and the course of study.
Some people found divinity school so difficult that the felt
obliged to cheat in order to pass.
Oops, not supposed to mention that, I'm such a racist.
(5029506) reply to this

* Fist of Etiquette|1.19.15 @ 12:51PM|#
Yes, but which of the two made more money from his collection
plate?
(5029507) reply to this

* Paul.|1.19.15 @ 12:56PM|#
Pimpin' ain't easy...
(5029514) reply to this

* MJBinAL|1.19.15 @ 2:29PM|#
Hmmm, I am pretty sure that we won't see accurate accounting
from either of them!
(5029826) reply to this

* sarcasmic|1.19.15 @ 12:25PM|#
Why bother to preach an existing religion when you can invent
one?
(5029458) reply to this

* Protagoronus|1.19.15 @ 12:32PM|#
+1 thermonuclear bomb in a volcano
(5029476) reply to this

* Res ipsa loquitur|1.19.15 @ 5:46PM|#
Xenu ?
(5030265) reply to this

* SQRLSY One|1.19.15 @ 8:54PM|#
Scienfoology is The Answer!!!
(5030584) reply to this

* John Titor|1.19.15 @ 12:16PM|#
I especially love the way in which JackandAce's smug
condescension on the subject mirrors religious fundamentalists.
"Yes, you're all sinners and deny it, while *smirk* I will go to
heaven!"
(5029440) reply to this

* Paul.|1.19.15 @ 12:56PM|#
I believe "heaven" in this case is a position at the UN.
(5029517) reply to this

* Rhywun|1.19.15 @ 4:21PM|#
LOL
(5030031) reply to this

* KevinP|1.19.15 @ 12:12PM|#
Climate change is the religion of the left for today.
The Earth's actual mean temperature is the same as it was 18
years ago, and is now at the lowest end of what the climate
models predict. Links:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/201.....rs-1-month
(5029430) reply to this

* Jim Smithy|1.19.15 @ 12:20PM|#
there you have it. some random dudes blog on the web disproves
thousands of peer reviewed scientific papers. You read it here
first!
(5029447) reply to this

* John Titor|1.19.15 @ 12:22PM|#
So if this were the 19th century you'd take phrenology seriously
because it had large-scale acceptance?
(5029451) reply to this

* GregMax|1.19.15 @ 12:25PM|#
Peer review? Peer review is a publishing requirement, not a
component of the scientific method.
Peer review! Put peer review into a sentence and it magically
becomes ... Truth!
(5029457) reply to this

* sarcasmic|1.19.15 @ 12:26PM|#
Consensus!
(5029460) reply to this

* GregMax|1.19.15 @ 12:28PM|#
Don't get me going!
(5029466) reply to this

* sarcasmic|1.19.15 @ 12:30PM|#
The scientific method is like hard and stuff, you know?
It's like so much easier to like get a bunch of really smart
people to like take a vote and stuff, you know?
So all these people who like deny global warming by claiming
science are all like wrong and stuff because they're not as
smart as the guys who like voted, you know?
(5029470) reply to this

* NotAnotherSkippy|1.19.15 @ 12:26PM|#
Says the man who just loves him some government subsidy for his
shiny panels.
Refute this or this.
(5029459) reply to this

* Cytotoxic|1.19.15 @ 1:39PM|#
Link #2 is broken.
(5029690) reply to this

* NotAnotherSkippy|1.19.15 @ 2:33PM|#
Same Nature paper I linked elsewhere.
(5029832) reply to this

* EV|1.19.15 @ 12:51PM|#
Weather you believe the world is roughly 10,000 years old or
over a billion, roughly 150-200 years of climate data is not
enough information to say that the Earth is historically
anything.
It may or may not be warming, but it could be completely normal.
I need you to figure out exactly what the Earth's temperature
should be. Maybe you should dig a hole in the ground and stick
your dick in it to measure it.
(5029508) reply to this

* Cliché Bandit|1.19.15 @ 2:12PM|#
"Weather" I see what you did there.
(5029786) reply to this

* Cytotoxic|1.19.15 @ 1:22PM|#
"Thousands"? What are you talking about? The satellite record is
clear that 2014 is tied for third with 2013 and 2005 in that
36-year record. NOAA has a different data set that does have
2014 as the warmest but warming is still far below what was
predicted. HADCRUT4 isn't even out yet.
(5029626) reply to this

* Tommy_Grand|1.19.15 @ 1:53PM|#
Is there 39% chance that is true?
(5029726) reply to this

* Cytotoxic|1.19.15 @ 1:56PM|#
100%. The satellite record of lower atmosphere temps is clear
that there is no trend since 2000, and 2014 is not the warmest
year.
(5029738) reply to this

* JWatts|1.19.15 @ 2:48PM|#
The 39% chance comment is in reference to an admission by NOAA
that there's only a 38% chance that 2014 is the hottest year.
"We said 2014 was the warmest year on record... but we're only
38% sure we were right"
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new.....right.html
(5029863) reply to this

* Cytotoxic|1.19.15 @ 3:05PM|#
Thank you.
(5029907) reply to this

* MJBinAL|1.19.15 @ 2:31PM|#
There are NO, repeat NO, peer reviewed scientific papers. The
various "research teams" have refused to share raw data or
details of computer data conditions that would make that
possible.
(5029828) reply to this

* Cytotoxic|1.19.15 @ 3:05PM|#
The CRU Leaks shared some of that from Anglia and what we saw
was pretty frightening.
(5029909) reply to this

* Bill Dalasio|1.19.15 @ 6:02PM|#
You clearly have no fucking clue about what science is. Is the
"random dude" wrong? Okay. Prove it. Provide evidence that
contradicts his hypothesis. Show where his methodology is
lacking. That is science. Dismissing him because he disagrees
with "thousands of peer reviewed scientific papers" is appealing
to authority. It is the antithesis of science.
(5030323) reply to this

* Mark22|1.19.15 @ 11:37PM|#
Apparently, you don't know how peer review works, do you.
(5030736) reply to this

* NotAnotherSkippy|1.19.15 @ 12:24PM|#
It's not even at the lowest levels. It has breached the 97%
confidence interval and it's still falling.
Refute this, Jackie.
(5029455) reply to this

* BigT|1.19.15 @ 4:04PM|#
Even better is Fig 6 from Dr John Christy.
Not to mention that there are over 1350+ peer-reviewed papers
that call into question the models and their conclusions.
(5030006) reply to this

* Cytotoxic|1.19.15 @ 1:25PM|#
http://judithcurry.com/2015/01.....more-17601
An important update from Judith Curry. She notes the inaccurate
reporting by media. She also notes that while there was no
*exact* el nino during 2014, there was a similar ENSO phenomena
that would have pushed temperatures up.
(5029634) reply to this

* NotAnotherSkippy|1.19.15 @ 1:29PM|#
Depends on who you ask. NOAA conveniently only looks at a
specific region to define an El Nino. All of the surrounding
regions fit the criteria. In fact, the Japanese declared an
(mild) El Nino.
At best NOAA is being pedantic, at worst they are being
disingenuous. But there's the truthiness thing again...
(5029655) reply to this

* Cytotoxic|1.19.15 @ 1:38PM|#
Either way, it would have a similar warming effect as an NOAA
pedant-nino, no?
You seem knowledgable. I have heard, I think from Bailey, that
while the original hockey stick was a farce and a product of
laughably bad statistics, good follow up work has more or less
replicated the hockey stick. Is it true?
(5029685) reply to this

* Tommy_Grand|1.19.15 @ 1:54PM|#
why was the original a farce? random chance?
(5029732) reply to this

* Cytotoxic|1.19.15 @ 1:57PM|#
Terrible statistics. They did not have a statistician-a
dedicated one-on board when they were constructing their hockey
stick using principal component analysis. It was stats butchery.
(5029739) reply to this

* NotAnotherSkippy|1.19.15 @ 2:41PM|#
Yes, that was my point. 2014 was an El Nino year and even with
that it barely edged (within the margin of error) out 2010 as
the hottest. It's disingenuous of NOAA to claim that it did do
even with 'ENSO-neutral' conditions, because we didn't have
ENSO-neutral conditions.
To my knowledge the hockey stick has never been salvaged unless
you're a true believer. '98 MBH et al was pretty severely
debunked by M&M, and their trashing was confirmed by Wegman. The
cult tried to discredit Wegman for some plagiary in some
appendix on bias or something like that, but no one was able to
actually rescue the analysis itself.
Every now and then they try to trot out other studies that
'confirm' the stick like Marcott. It never takes much effort to
find the flaw. In the case of Marcott, the authors were forced
to admit that their proxies were incapable of determining events
of lengths less than 3-4 centuries, so to splice on the modern
temp record of ~100 years and claim that it's unprecedented was
in my opinion fraudulent, but that's hardly new with this crowd.
(5029848) reply to this

* NotAnotherSkippy|1.19.15 @ 12:14PM|#
You keep denying it, so I'll keep posting it:
http://www.nature.com/nclimate.....ATE-201309

Recent observed global warming is significantly less than that
simulated by climate models. This difference might be explained
by some combination of errors in external forcing, model response
and internal climate variability.
(emphasis mine)
And let's not forget the truthiness of one of the pioneers of
CAGW, Steven Schneider,

That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we
have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic
statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have.
This 'double ethical bind' we frequently find ourselves in cannot
be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right
balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that
means being both.
There shouldn't be any hope about it. You're either truthful or
not. But the high priests of CAGW decided that the ends
justified the means years ago.
(5029433) reply to this

* Jordan|1.19.15 @ 12:15PM|#
Oh, it doesn't require a grand conspiracy, as we've seen with
the EU being fooled about bees dying off, or with the Lipid
Hypothesis. A few hardcore scoundrels are all that's necessary
to get the ball rolling. After that, basic psychology and
economics take over.
(5029435) reply to this

* See Double You|1.19.15 @ 12:32PM|#
How about the EU's irrational aversion to GMOs?
(5029474) reply to this

* Tony|1.19.15 @ 12:50PM|#
It's not a "few scoundrels," it's the entire scientific
community. The only people you have on your side are the exact
bubble-dwelling loons this article talks about. Even oil
companies are professing to be interested in reducing global
warming. Are they scoundrels and charlatans too? It must take a
monumental effort to be this poorly informed.
(5029504) reply to this

* Scruffy Nerfherder|1.19.15 @ 1:07PM|#
Oil companies want to be in on the government payoff too.
They're pretty well versed in how crony capitalism works.
And since you used "entire scientific community" in your
statement. The onus is now on you since that is a demonstrably
false statement.
(5029550) reply to this

* Tony|1.19.15 @ 1:12PM|#
I think it's down to you to show a single shred of credible
evidence for what you are positively claiming--that the
near-unanimous consensus of experts in this field are part of
history's most successful and large-scale conspiracy to defraud
the entire planet... for some reason.
(5029578) reply to this

* Scruffy Nerfherder|1.19.15 @ 1:15PM|#
that the near-unanimous consensus of experts in this field are
part of history's most successful and large-scale conspiracy to
defraud the entire planet
Nice straw man there. Don't forget to set fire to it.
(5029592) reply to this

* Roger the Shrubber|1.19.15 @ 1:17PM|#

the near-unanimous consensus of experts in this field are part of
history's most successful and large-scale conspiracy to defraud
the entire planet
Thank goodness that's not the case.
(5029611) reply to this

* Rebel Scum|1.19.15 @ 1:23PM|#
consensus of experts
C'mon you guys. Don't you see?! All you need is some people to
agree with each other and voila! Scientific fact!
Tony, if the world was flat could an unscientific experiment
conducted by a disingenuous "expert" make it round?
(5029631) reply to this

* pogi|1.19.15 @ 10:46PM|#
Has anyone polled the millennials on this issue?
(5030713) reply to this

* Ayn Random Variation|1.19.15 @ 2:37PM|#
You lying scumbag. There are links and explanations in this very
thread that you are ignoring. To name one, the climate models
themselves have not come close to predicting the, uh, climate.
I guess in your pea brain that means the models were made by rat
fucking christ fags.
(5029840) reply to this

* MJBinAL|1.19.15 @ 2:39PM|#
There is not now, and there has not been, any "near-unanimous
consensus of experts".
There have been extensive petitions signed by large numbers
(hundreds of thousands)of science and engineering professionals
objecting to this portrayal.
Of course, if the definition of "expert" as someone who agrees
with AGW, then the statement would be plausible.
(5029845) reply to this

* Ballz|1.19.15 @ 4:02PM|#
+1
This is how the "believers" get you off topic. It's dishonest
and lazy.
Screw the consensus and look at the facts. Not much there to
base policy on. There's a model that discounts gamma rays, solar
radiation, troposphere - stratosphere interaction, clouds, etc.
No wonder it isn't accurate.
We'll need a better model before the argument is worth having.
(5029999) reply to this

* wwhorton|1.19.15 @ 9:06PM|#

...a single shred of credible evidence...
Credible meaning in support of your opinion, right? A little bit
of the ol' No True Scotsman, eh? Typical.
AGW cultists whom I've encountered share much in common with
creationists, with the main difference being that creationists
tend to be better company. They're both very concerned with
signaling--being seen to advocate the right things. They paint
themselves as the true advocates of rational science, presenting
research and publications that support their views, but are
ultimately only interested in the "right" science. Evidence or
arguments in opposition are scorned and attacked due to a deeply
personal, emotional investment in their positions that leads to
a profound insecurity. When cornered, a creationist will
eventually point to a divine creator as their ultimate
"argument", while the AGW points to "consensus", which serves
largely the same role--it's a deus ex machina that steps outside
of the rules of science and rational thought, and so can't be
argued against.
(5030608) reply to this

* |1.19.15 @ 1:18PM|#
" it's the entire scientific community."
That is why we still believe in the Ether.
(5029616) reply to this

* rbenchley|1.19.15 @ 2:44PM|#
"There is nothing more helpless and irresponsible than a [DEL:
man :DEL] progtard in the depths of an ether binge"
(5029856) reply to this

* Cytotoxic|1.19.15 @ 1:26PM|#
The only people you have on your side are the exact
bubble-dwelling loons this article talks about.
But we have DATA on our side so we win.
(5029636) reply to this

* NotAnotherSkippy|1.19.15 @ 1:30PM|#
Why do you deny science, Tony?
http://www.nature.com/nclimate.....ATE-201309
(5029659) reply to this

* BigT|1.19.15 @ 4:07PM|#

Even oil companies are professing to be interested in reducing
global warming.
Oil companies have PR departments and know that since they are
blamed for all of this crap they need to look and sound like
they are on the side of being cautious. Yes, I worked for a
major and saw it firsthand.
(5030013) reply to this

* Mark22|1.19.15 @ 11:39PM|#

Even oil companies are professing to be interested in reducing
global warming.
Of course: there are big government handouts to be had.

It's not a "few scoundrels," it's the entire scientific
community.
You're full of shit. The scientific community agrees that it has
been getting slightly warmer and that humans likely contributed
to it. That's all that the scientific community agrees on. The
rest is speculation and policy.
(5030738) reply to this

* HeteroPatriarch|1.19.15 @ 12:23PM|#
Jackand Ace: I once erected a straw man
t
h
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
s
big.
(5029453) reply to this

* SMcBride|1.19.15 @ 12:26PM|#
Ok, fine, I'm ready to believe CAGW. Now, what do you have as a
solution besides less freedom and more taxes?
(5029461) reply to this

* See Double You|1.19.15 @ 12:30PM|#
Nope. [DEL: Totalitarianism :DEL] Dictating every aspect of your
life is the only solution.
(5029471) reply to this

* NotAnotherSkippy|1.19.15 @ 12:31PM|#
If they're serious? Lots of nukes. If they're not, well, the
plan you see before you involving lots of 1000 year old
technology and some shiny panels that have a fatal flaw I like
to call 'night' and 'clouds.'
(5029472) reply to this

* Warren's Strapon|1.19.15 @ 2:07PM|#
Nuke plants get a fuckton of subsidies, so I would file them
under the "more taxes" category.
(5029777) reply to this

* Illocust|1.19.15 @ 2:15PM|#
I think he means causing a nuclear winter.
(5029792) reply to this

* NotAnotherSkippy|1.19.15 @ 2:17PM|#
To counter the fuckton of stupidity of regulation they undergo.
I'm not advocating for more nukes even though I personally like
them. I'm simply saying that if you must rock yourself to sleep
at night knowing you've done something to absolve your carbon
sins, then nuke plants are the only true option available.
(5029793) reply to this

* JWatts|1.19.15 @ 3:02PM|#
"Nuke plants get a fuckton of subsidies, so I would file them
under the "more taxes" category."
When I've looked into it that's not really true. There are few
direct substantial subsidies for Nuclear power plants in the US.
At least nothing at the scale of what wind/solar power/ethanol
gets on a per MWh basis.
Generally, most of the "studies" that indicate as much, get
there by counting decades of nuclear research by the DOE as a
subsidy and then by drumming up some tremendous implicit and
unsubstantiated value for the Price-Anderson act. That's typical
Liberal "truthiness" in my book.
(5029899) reply to this

* sarcasmic|1.19.15 @ 12:34PM|#
Freedom is asking permission and obeying orders.
What you speak of is liberty. As in being able to go about your
life without asking permission and obeying orders, as long as
you don't interfere with other people. That's also called
anarchy, or chaos. There must be order for there to be freedom.
That's why no one should be allowed to do anything without
asking permission and obeying orders from Top. Men. Duh. Don't
you know anything?
(5029481) reply to this

* Tony|1.19.15 @ 12:51PM|#
Are you implying that any phenomenon that might require more
taxes to respond to isn't real, because you don't like taxes? Is
this how your brains really work?
(5029509) reply to this

* Derpetologist|1.19.15 @ 12:59PM|#
Please explain how higher taxes will save the world from the
horrors of Manbearpig.
(5029523) reply to this

* See Double You|1.19.15 @ 1:02PM|#
I'm not even sure how higher taxes saves anyone from anything.
(5029528) reply to this

* sarcasmic|1.19.15 @ 1:04PM|#
Higher taxes make people feel good. You see, the government is
us: We The People. And the rich are them. So when government
sticks it to the rich, it's us sticking it to the rich. And that
feels good because the rich are icky and stuff. That's the point
of hiking taxes on the rich. To feel good.
(5029542) reply to this

* Ayn Random Variation|1.19.15 @ 2:45PM|#
"Higher taxes make people feel good"
In one of Obama's off teleprompter moments, he actually said
this in the interest of fairness, when asked if he would still
be in favor of higher tax rates even if they didn't produce more
revenue.
(5029859) reply to this

* sarcasmic|1.19.15 @ 3:50PM|#
The fact that rich people exist is proof that they don't pay
their fair share.
(5029984) reply to this

* Gadianton|1.19.15 @ 1:58PM|#
They save me from the burden of financial solvency.
(5029741) reply to this

* BigT|1.19.15 @ 4:10PM|#
Paying taxes to the state and buying indulgences from the Church
- same benefit (feeling good) same impact (hierarchy gets
wealthy).
(5030018) reply to this

* Tony|1.19.15 @ 1:02PM|#
I suggest that the cost, including real dollars, is much greater
if we do nothing. I believe taxes should be raised to pay for
worthy collective efforts. For what hypothetical purpose would
you ever entertain the idea of raising taxes? Or are you content
being a caricature of a stupid old coot with a singular dogmatic
fixation? Rah taxes! Rah!!
(5029530) reply to this

* Free Society|1.19.15 @ 1:05PM|#

I believe taxes should be raised to pay for worthy collective
efforts
Collective efforts so worthy that you're forced to finance them.
(5029544) reply to this

* See Double You|1.19.15 @ 1:06PM|#
Rah the rich! Rah!!!
(5029546) reply to this

* Grand Moff Serious Man|1.19.15 @ 1:11PM|#
I suggest that the cost, including real dollars, is much greater
if we do nothing.
Holy False Dilemmas, Batman! Why can't private actors find
solutions to problems as they come along?
I think the 20th century has irrefutably shown that markets are
better and more efficient at problem solving than governments.
(5029575) reply to this

* Derpetologist|1.19.15 @ 1:14PM|#
My advice is that you should read more books and fewer bumper
stickers.
Since the govt is wasting vast sums of money already on bullshit
like corn ethanol, I see no reason to raise taxes.
(5029587) reply to this

* The Bad Captain Madly|1.19.15 @ 1:18PM|#
The cost will be greater - when?
100 years ago, the Titanic just sank, there were a few cars and
airplanes around, and pollution control meant shoveling horse
shit out of the street.
The concept of global warming was unknown, nuclear power was
unheard of, and radio was an experimental novelty. Don't even
think about space travel or the internet.
In short, nobody 100 years ago had any clue as to how we would
live, what our problems might be, or could have possibly had any
useful suggestion as to how to resolve them.
Unless you know something about the next 100 years the rest of
us don't, I suggest leaving the future alone to solve it's own
problems, instead of turning present society upside down to
resolve the problems of a future you know absolutely nothing
about.
(5029614) reply to this

* Cytotoxic|1.19.15 @ 1:27PM|#
I suggest that the cost, including real dollars, is much greater
if we do nothing.
The data is clear that this is probably not the case.
(5029641) reply to this

* NotAnotherSkippy|1.19.15 @ 1:33PM|#
It's more than clear.
(5029666) reply to this

* Tommy_Grand|1.19.15 @ 2:00PM|#
And, in the very near future, the *entire* entire! ENTIRE!!
scientific community demands that we LOWER taxes. ALL Scientists
will soon agree. [proof of unanimous agreement
forthcoming...just accept my premise & act today]
(5029750) reply to this

* Zeb|1.19.15 @ 1:39PM|#
I suggest that the cost, including real dollars, is much greater
if we do nothing.
And I suggest that it isn't.
The problem with that is that it presumes that 1) we correctly
understand the costs of CO2 emissions 2) we correctly understand
the costs of proposed policies to combat warming and 3) the
proposed policies will actually have the intended effect.
I am very doubtful that any of those are the case at the moment.
For what hypothetical purpose would you ever entertain the idea
of raising taxes?
Since most people here think that the federal government is at
least 10x bigger than it should be, there is no reason why any
libertarian would raise taxes from current levels.
What's the carbon footprint of all of the useless or harmful
stuff that the government does today?
(5029687) reply to this

* Cytotoxic|1.19.15 @ 1:41PM|#
The benefits of a warming world and of a world with more CO2
(better plant growth) are not being included.
(5029692) reply to this

* Knarf Yenrab!|1.19.15 @ 2:27PM|#

I suggest that the cost, including real dollars, is much greater
if we do nothing.
As David Friedman has pointed out time after time, the "cost"
may not even be a "cost." Not only do we not know the magnitude
of the economic/environmental impact of warming, we don't know
the direction. The social cost of carbon could well be negative.
We don't know, just as we didn't know about the population
crisis or the global cooling fad a few years later.
It's unpopular to point this out to fans of technocracy who
envision science! as a big red button that you push to receive
The Truth, but there are many phenomena that do not lend
themselves easily to positivist examination. These are exactly
the ones that lead to moral panics like the population bomb or
CAGW--where uncertainty exists, the human imagination runs wild,
usually straight into cultic behavior. Ehrlich isn't a cynical
huckster, and neither are climate prophets--they legitimately
believe their gospel, but they'll never accept that they've been
objectively wrong for the same reason religious adherents won't.
The psychic blow is too great.
If you can understand why using science!, peer review, and
consensus to try to predict literary and social trends is a
ridiculous task, you might understand why some view climate
science as a political football rather than a valuable science
that offers prediction and control of the world. To date, it has
done neither.
(5029816) reply to this

* JWatts|1.19.15 @ 3:05PM|#
"I suggest that the cost, including real dollars, is much
greater if we do nothing. "
Then you have the burden of proof on your side. And complaining
because others aren't convinced by your proof and refuse to act
on it is just whining.
(5029906) reply to this

* Tony|1.19.15 @ 4:17PM|#
Fine. Except none of you guys accept the evidence.
(5030024) reply to this

* R C Dean|1.19.15 @ 5:50PM|#
We don't accept projections that come from models that are badly
flawed, no.
(5030281) reply to this

* BigT|1.19.15 @ 4:19PM|#

I suggest that the cost, including real dollars, is much greater
if we do nothing.
One of those costs is that tens of thousands, perhaps even
millions of people would not die due to lack of energy for heat,
sanitation, medicines, and food. It will be very expensive to
feed all those people if we do nothing, so let's do something to
reduce our energy supply to be sure they all perish.
(5030028) reply to this

* Bill Dalasio|1.19.15 @ 6:22PM|#
I suggest that the cost, including real dollars, is much greater
if we do nothing.
And presumably, you have a detailed global climactic projection
and econometric analysis of those cost projections? If so, you'd
probably have the first one in actual existence. Or by
"suggest", do you mean TEH FEEELLZZ!
(5030367) reply to this

* OneOut|1.19.15 @ 8:03PM|#
Tony have you ever paid any taxes worth counting.
Sales taxes don't count.
(5030522) reply to this

* Skyhawk|1.19.15 @ 5:51PM|#
Same way hiking cigarette taxes to fund anti-smoking education
worked.
Even though less than 1% of the money ever went to anti-smoking
education, it gave thieving politicians enough money so they
forgot about it for a while.
(5030284) reply to this

* Free Society|1.19.15 @ 1:03PM|#
Anyone whose proposals requires investors to be brought to the
table at gun point probably has a shit proposal. They certainly
don't have the best interest of their victims in mind.
(5029534) reply to this

* Tony|1.19.15 @ 1:05PM|#
What proposal? Are you talking about something specific, or are
you just substituting in meaningless hysteria and tired
libertarian buzzwords for thought?
The main proposal is to get people to stop harming other people
via negative externalities. Even a libertarian can get on board
with that. You just apparently don't want to.
(5029543) reply to this

* Scruffy Nerfherder|1.19.15 @ 1:09PM|#
I breathe, therefore I consume some of the oxygen that would
otherwise be available to you. Pardon my negative externality.
(5029556) reply to this

* Free Society|1.19.15 @ 1:11PM|#

What proposal?
To forcibly separate people from their property to pay for your
political schemes.
Tony:

I believe taxes should be raised to pay for worthy collective
efforts.

The main proposal is to get people to stop harming other people
via negative externalities.
The norms of property rights, where not interfered with by
statutes, can handle that. It's not written in stone that the
solution every perceived global problem requires diminished
freedom and crippling taxation for all. As you seem to imply,
some sort of mechanism should exist to mitigate the harm caused
to others, like say.... a court? As opposed to the legislature
and bureaucracy you support to address it.
(5029574) reply to this

* Tony|1.19.15 @ 4:18PM|#
Please be more specific, because "diminished freedom and
crippling taxation" is not one anyone, including me, has ever
proposed. You seem to be openly admitting that your problem here
is dogmatic, not factual.
(5030025) reply to this

* Knarf Yenrab!|1.19.15 @ 2:42PM|#

The main proposal is to get people to stop harming other people
via negative externalities. Even a libertarian can get on board
with that. You just apparently don't want to.
Those are called property rights, and you're wholly against
them. Libertarians have always taken a hard stance on pollution
& damage to others' lives and property, so to see you lecturing
us about caring about the harm done to others is odd, to say the
least. Two generations ago, Rothbard called for the absolute end
to pollution, and that's a stance many of us still take. In a
libertarian world, smog wouldn't exist.
The chief issue is that no one has demonstrated any negative
"externality" yet in that they haven't shown carbon to be a
pollutant by any reasonable standard. Once you demonstrate
definitively how burning fossil fuels harms others, then you'll
have reasonable cause to end the behavior completely. Or, if
you're a politician who's wishy-washy on the whole compassion
and respect for others thing, to impose a Pigouvian tax on the
polluter that's earmarked for the pollutee.
And to do that, all you have to do is demonstrate the assumption
that's fundamental to your whole argument: that emitting carbon
harms others and their property. You don't even have to
demonstrate that the damage is catastrophic: just show 1) that
it causes warming, cooling, or whatever, and 2) that
warming/cooling/whatever would be considered harmful by a
reasonable person.
(5029851) reply to this

* wwhorton|1.19.15 @ 9:28PM|#

You don't even have to demonstrate that the damage is
catastrophic: just show 1) that it causes warming, cooling, or
whatever, and 2) that warming/cooling/whatever would be
considered harmful by a reasonable person.
Ah, but then how could you justify taxing the behavior at such a
level that it would generate revenue without driving the
polluters out of business? After all, if you could actually
prove that emitting carbon directly caused the death of sixteen
children annually--and sixteen is a comically low figure
statistically speaking--how could a moral person possibly allow
it to continue? Put another way, if the performance of actions
which produced carbon cost a certain number of human lives per
year, no moral person could allow it to continue.
But they can't do that, and that's not the goal. It's all about
anti-corporatism, anti-capitalism, and social signalling. The
same fuckers who argue for CAGW argue against GMOs, even though
genetically-modified foods are responsible for giving people
whose means would otherwise prevent it a surplus of affordable
and varied produce. Without GMOs you'd have widespread
starvation, and actual people would really die as a result. But
the Tony's of the world would see that as an acceptable cost.
These are the same fucking shitheels who 1.) protested the
opening of Wal-Marts in DC and then 2.) complained about a "food
desert" in the inner city.
(5030653) reply to this

* Chumby|1.19.15 @ 10:48PM|#
The federal government and crony capitalists support GMOs.
(5030715) reply to this

* BigT|1.19.15 @ 4:24PM|#

I believe taxes should be raised to pay for worthy collective
efforts.
Who judges what is worthy?
Actually we have agreement on that. We have a Constitution
written to give collective powers to Congress and the President.
If we stick to that dusty, moldy old parchment we will be OK.
But it never happens - every generation simply stretches the
powers of the govt to do more than is included in the
Constitution. I don't see a Global Warming Clause.
(5030040) reply to this

* Tony|1.19.15 @ 4:49PM|#
What makes you think the Constitution (as interpreted by you, of
course, not any official body like the courts) is a perfect
document capable of handling all eventualities in American
society?
(5030098) reply to this

* BigT|1.19.15 @ 4:56PM|#
The courts haven't done themselves too proud - cough cough Dred
Scott cough cough Kelo cough cough plessy v ferguson cough
cough.
The Constitution is not perfect, but it is the best yet devised


and it allows for amendment so that it is capable of being
modified to fit truly new circumstances. But its abuse by those
in power on both sides of the aisle is a shame.
(5030114) reply to this

* Roger the Shrubber|1.19.15 @ 1:03PM|#
He's implying the exact inverse, Tony. Statists latch on to
theories where they can argue that more taxes are an appropriate
response because they love taxes and the power that comes with
them. Not only do they get to decide who pays them, they get to
decide who, beside themselves, gets to share in the spoils.
(5029536) reply to this

* Tony|1.19.15 @ 1:06PM|#
This conspiratorial horseshit trumps the entirety of the
scientific literature?
(5029545) reply to this

* Roger the Shrubber|1.19.15 @ 1:11PM|#
It's not a conspiracy to point out that people respond to
incentives.
(5029572) reply to this

* Tony|1.19.15 @ 1:16PM|#
It's not just these phantom power-hungry tax-lovers who are
pushing the idea of global warming, it's the entire scientific
community. Why are climatologists so much more easily corrupted
by government largesse than researchers in any other field?
Is it really this difficult to see that maybe its your
incentives that are causing you to believe in nonsense? You
admit that you hate taxes and regulation--this is a problem that
seems to require more of both. So you deny the problem. (Like a
toddler might.) It's really baffling that this much delusion can
exist among otherwise seemingly sentient people.
(5029604) reply to this

* Free Society|1.19.15 @ 1:30PM|#

power-hungry tax-lovers who are pushing the idea of global
warming,
He is of many names. I knew him as 'Tony'.

Why are climatologists so much more easily corrupted by
government largesse than researchers in any other field?
Because the state had a hard time making good use of of
dermatologists and geologists as proponents of theories that
would expand their power.
Climatology is the perfect vessel. Unlike asteroid impacts whose
potential for catastrophic loss is based on trajectories that
can be accurately predicted, changing climate is much more
uncertain and complex and much more in the daily life of nearly
every human.
(5029656) reply to this

* Tommy_Grand|1.19.15 @ 2:02PM|#
Tony, as a consequentialist, do you have any problem with
activists who fudged climate science facts to create popular
hysteria?
(5029762) reply to this

* Tony|1.19.15 @ 4:19PM|#
I would if that ever actually happened.
The stupidity on this thread is painful.
(5030027) reply to this

* Tommy_Grand|1.19.15 @ 4:58PM|#
Wait, you don't think that *EVER* happened? LOL. Everyone agrees
it happened. All the dems agree, they just excuse it as
good-hearted if over-zealous advocacy. Everyone agrees but you.
(5030120) reply to this

* Knarf Yenrab!|1.19.15 @ 6:38PM|#

The stupidity on this thread is painful.
Perhaps you could make us less stupid by providing the
falsifiable hypothesis that convinced you that CAGW is a
reality. Or even just moderately harmful global warming. Just
explain to us the foundation of your certainty, outside of the
usual tribalism that divides the faithful from those dirty,
inhuman infidels who disagree with you.
Do an infidel a favor and spell out, in terms that stupid
scientists and philosophers can understand, why warming 1) will
certainly continue and 2) will be harmful.
(5030386) reply to this

* sarcasmic|1.19.15 @ 1:18PM|#
It's not a conspiracy to point out that people respond to
incentives.
Except that Tony refuses to see power as an incentive. He
believes the myth that once people attain government power, that
they discard all selfish motivation and instead work only for
the people. They deserve unquestioning trust.
Whereas teh corporations with their icky profit motive cannot be
trusted at all.
So when studies defy the AGW claims, then cannot be trusted
since they must be funded by evil corporations seeking profits.
Whereas studies funded by people in government are The Word Of
God.
(5029615) reply to this

* OneOut|1.19.15 @ 8:21PM|#
"Whereas studies funded by people in government are The Word Of
God."
Especially those in government who are immune to insider trading
laws.
(5030546) reply to this

* Free Society|1.19.15 @ 1:13PM|#
Axiomatic truth defeats squishy literature.
(5029583) reply to this

* Cytotoxic|1.19.15 @ 1:28PM|#
No. Contrary to your lies, the entirety of the scientific
literature does not agree with your position.
(5029644) reply to this

* Sam Grove|1.19.15 @ 2:38PM|#
The entirety of scientific literature?
I think you might be stretching it a bit.
(5029843) reply to this

* sarcasmic|1.19.15 @ 1:11PM|#
Tony doesn't understand that power is a motive, and has zero
reasoning skills.
He understand the profit motive, and would outlaw it if he
could, but he cannot comprehend power as a motivator.
So he'll jump up and down and scream about how scientific
studies that disagree with AGW cannot be trusted because the
people who fund them are motivated by profits, and absolutely
cannot apply that same reasoning to studies that are funded by
people who are motivated by power.
(5029568) reply to this

* See Double You|1.19.15 @ 1:19PM|#
Of course, plenty in the AGW cult are motivated by profit. And
I'm not talking only about Algore and grant-guzzling
scientists.
Plenty of developing countries see it as an opportunity for
extortion. It's also a great way to pursue a cushy "advisor"
job, advising all kinds of governments and corporations on how
to "green" their operations.
(5029619) reply to this

* Rebel Scum|1.19.15 @ 1:27PM|#
Are you implying that any phenomenon that might require more
taxes to respond to isn't real, because you don't like taxes?
Hmmm...
SMcBride|1.19.15 @ 12:26PM|#
Ok, fine, I'm ready to believe CAGW. Now, what do you have as a
solution besides less freedom and more taxes?
Ah, I see. Tony does not know what words mean, and he inferred
something that was not implied.
(5029642) reply to this

* MJBinAL|1.19.15 @ 2:42PM|#
No Tony, we are implying that you are a fascist asshole.
See how simple that was? Just being direct and to the point!
(5029850) reply to this

* Mark22|1.19.15 @ 11:42PM|#

Are you implying that any phenomenon that might require more
taxes to respond to isn't real, because you don't like taxes?
I can't think of any phenomenon that "requires" more taxes to
respond to.
In particular, if you're serious about cutting climate change
short, reducing taxes, fostering economic growth, and stopping
fossil fuel subsidies would be the best thing to do.
(5030744) reply to this

* Ballz|1.19.15 @ 4:09PM|#
"Ok, fine, I'm ready to believe CAGW. Now, what do you have as a
solution besides less freedom and more taxes?"
Right. Think of it, world government that can dictate which
industries /companies will be permitted to operate. All will
prostrate themselves to survive.
(5030015) reply to this

* R C Dean|1.19.15 @ 12:47PM|#
all too willing to believe in the biggest conspiracy theory
Just ignore those emails where the leading lights of AGW were,
what's the word? consipiring, that's it, to keep their rivals
out of peer reviewed publications.
(5029500) reply to this

* Zeb|1.19.15 @ 1:31PM|#
And about 10 people explained to you why it isn't a conspiracy
theory.
(5029661) reply to this

* Jackand Ace|1.19.15 @ 2:52PM|#
When one of you can supply the proof that an organization such
as National Academy of Sciences (and you can take your pick from
all of the science organizations in the country) is falsifying
their conclusions on AGW for the money, then you may be on your
way out of a conspiracy theory.
But until then, its all you've got. Not one person here,
including you ZEB, is able to.
(5029868) reply to this

* Chumby|1.19.15 @ 5:16PM|#
See my early comment regarding advocacy.
(5030177) reply to this

* Jackand Ace|1.19.15 @ 5:55PM|#
Well, we will leave it to you, Chumby. Do tell...what is the
proof you have that they took any money to change reach a
conclusion in science. Hmmmm? Why were they saying the same

exact thing in early 2000's when the GOP (the drill here drill
now crowd) controlled both Houses and the Oval Office? If they
were so enthralled with money, why did they not reach the
conclusion the GOP wanted?
Go ahead, tell us all.
(5030298) reply to this

* Chumby|1.19.15 @ 7:01PM|#
I like your strawman. I plan to burn it to create additional
AGW. (Sarcasm)
And the top folks atthe GOP embrace AGW. It allows their cash
cow, the federal government, to expand.
And voting on a poltical position is not science.
Just curious - are ypu carbon neutral? If not, why not? And if
so, does it include unsustainable offsets and/or theorized
renewable production capabilities that are often much less once
built?
(5030417) reply to this

* Jackand Ace|1.19.15 @ 2:49PM|#
Hey, Barton...all the Libertarians here corrected both of us.
Yeah, they disagree with you that science is clear about man's
impact on global warming and that only conservatives deny it.
Hopefully you see the errors of your ways.
I had said I had to argue with about 10 Libertarians here on the
science. Oops! After reading the comments, its about 30!! And
counting!
(5029865) reply to this

* GregMax|1.19.15 @ 3:22PM|#
You know what Aristotle said about argument (or persuasion) -
there are three types: argument by authority, argument by
emotion and argument by logic.
You indeed "argue" with 30+ people here, the difference is we
argue using logic and you argue referring to authority and
emotion.
Make a logical argument and see how that goes. (you can get
help)
(5029942) reply to this

* Jackand Ace|1.19.15 @ 5:59PM|#
Just agreeing with A. Barton, my friend. The science is in, and
its silly and juvenile (and I say conspiratorial) to just say
its all based on lies.
Here is the difference, which I proved in abundance today.
Barton is wrong that such a thing regarding climate science is
not the purview of conservatives alone...the Libertarians are
out in front. And you are right there. Congrats! Barton would be
ashamed of you.
(5030310) reply to this

* wwhorton|1.19.15 @ 9:31PM|#
Still waiting on that logical argument...
(5030660) reply to this

* Mark22|1.19.15 @ 11:46PM|#

Yeah, they disagree with you that science is clear about man's
impact on global warming
No, your problem is that you simply cant distinguish (1)
"observed global warming", (2) "predicted global warming", and
(3) "government action on global warming". Science is fairly
clear only on (1); (2) is fraught with problems, and (3) isn't
even a scientific question.
(5030747) reply to this

* Eggs Benedict Cumberbund|1.19.15 @ 4:31PM|#
Jackass,
Stop with your stupid bullshit about CAGW.
The scientific basis for how CO2 effects climate is most
definitely up for grabs. Nobody really knows what the doubling
sensitivity is for instance. Or even whether or not the water
vapor feedback is positive or negative.
Add in the inability of the models to predict most anything
about the temp to CO2 relationship with a big dose of the
realization that the CAGW fanatics have yet to predict
anything...polar amplification, tropospheric hot spot, ocean
heat content, ocean acidification, hurricane frequency/power,
etc..
It ain't science if you can't accurately predict something or if
your theory dodges falsification.
(5030055) reply to this

* Jackand Ace|1.19.15 @ 6:00PM|#
Hey, eggs, tell it to your weekly contributor A. Barton. He is
the one castigating conservatives for such juvenile beliefs. You
all are proving he should have expanded his accusation.
And that is all I pointed out in the first comment...you just
proved it.
(5030316) reply to this

* Eggs Benedict Cumberbund|1.19.15 @ 9:30PM|#
Uh what are you talking about everything thing I said is
verifiable. Nobody really knows what doubling sensitivity is,
all of those things that were supposed to be cagw signals have
been shown to be incorrect. There is no increase in hurricane
power and or freq. There is no tropospheric hot spot, no polar
amplification, models are diverging from the experimental data,
etc.
You have serious issues with reality.
(5030657) reply to this

* Jackand Ace|1.19.15 @ 6:04PM|#
By the way, at least conservatives according to A. Barton only
think its liberals that are lying...Libertarians think science
is lying.
You're worse than conservatives.
(5030332) reply to this

* Eggs Benedict Cumberbund|1.19.15 @ 9:33PM|#
what do you think you are saying when you accuse me of thinking
that science is lying? From my pov I'm just looking at the data
as it is.
You are just a layman kook.
(5030664) reply to this

* gaoxiaen|1.19.15 @ 5:03PM|#
Most star names are Arabic in origin. I don't know if that means
Musims named them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L.....star_names
The question that burns in my mind isn't addressed. Is marijuana
really legal in North Korea?
(5030133) reply to this

* OneOut|1.19.15 @ 8:27PM|#
Simply because the stars are named in Arabic has nothing to do
with Islam.
Arabs existed long befoe Islam.
(5030552) reply to this

* OneOut|1.19.15 @ 7:58PM|#
I am unqualified to engage in a scientific discussion of whether
or not GW is man made or not ( not that that stops you from
doing so but that is another topic).
However this historical item I know to be a fact.
In 1850 George Ross was the first to do a marine survey of what
was later named the Ross Ice Shelf. In 1912 Robert Falcon Scott
was the second. Both expidition leaders reached their
destination in sail boats. In the 62 years between the firat two
marine surveys of the ice shelf it had shrunk over 50 miles.
So when the Ross Ice Shelf was first discovered during "The Age
of Sail" it was already melting almost 1 mile per year. This was
almost a century before "The Age of SUVs".
Class dismissed.
(5030513) reply to this

* OneOut|1.19.15 @ 7:59PM|#
In this case You = Jackland.
(5030515) reply to this

* Mark22|1.19.15 @ 11:28PM|#

Just this week I suggested that the many Libertarians who
frequent these pages are all too willing to believe in the
biggest conspiracy theory making the rounds today, that being
that the majority of climate scientists have been bought off, and
are lying about the science just so they can get funding. Oh boy!
Climate scientists haven't been "bought off" and they aren't
"lying", they suffer from confirmation bias and publication
bias, and their proposals and funding are driven by peer review
and political pressures. These mechanisms exist in all
scientific disciplines and mean that, fundamentally, we cannot
take recent scientific results and translate them directly into
policy. Science works slowly, and it takes many decades to
verify and recheck results. People who actually understand
science know this. Progressives support scientism and
pseudo-science, not scientific rationalism.

Check again, and expand your accusation to Libertarians,
particularly on the issue of climate change.
I think the libertarian position on climate change can be
summarized simply as: it doesn't matter how the climate is
changing, because the proposed policies are invariably much
worse than even the worst case climate change scenarios. Again,
it's your own ignorance that results in you misrepresenting this
position as "climate change denial".
(5030732) reply to this

* Rich|1.19.15 @ 12:06PM|#
When it comes to the truth, the real bias is thinking any one
side has a monopoly on it.
"NO!! It is YOU who are wrong!!"
(5029408) reply to this

* MJBinAL|1.19.15 @ 2:43PM|#
LOL
Love it!
(5029853) reply to this

* Doctor Whom|1.19.15 @ 12:12PM|#
When the other side does it, it's truthiness. When our side does
it, [insert vague bullshitting about higher truth].
(5029427) reply to this

* Grand Moff Serious Man|1.19.15 @ 12:18PM|#
The UVA Rolling Stone rape hoax wasn't about the gullibility of
feminists and their media allies, it's about the epidemic of
rape on campus that makes false stories like 'Jackie's'
plausible.
So we must act as if it really did happen and create byzantine
anti-rape policies that seriously threaten the civil rights of
accused persons.
(5029444) reply to this

* Swiss Servator, CHF... genug!|1.19.15 @ 12:17PM|#
You must all contemplate the errors of your ways....on the Tree
of Woe!
(5029441) reply to this

* Derpetologist|1.19.15 @ 12:19PM|#
Vox plagiarizes Reason?
http://www.vox.com/xpress/2014.....fbi-letter
(5029446) reply to this

* Fist of Etiquette|1.19.15 @ 12:28PM|#
Reason plagiarized Drunk History.
(5029465) reply to this

* Swiss Servator, CHF... genug!|1.19.15 @ 2:00PM|#
Can we have Drunk Reason?
(5029753) reply to this

* Marshall Gill|1.19.15 @ 3:17PM|#
Can we have Drunk Reason?
Is there a sober one of which I am unaware? Remember, this is
the place that invents the drinking games where if you follow
the rules, you will die from alcohol poisoning.
(5029933) reply to this

* Swiss Servator, CHF...gah!|1.19.15 @ 3:53PM|#
I want all writers and contributors and editors liquored up for
one issue of Reason.
(5029989) reply to this

* BigT|1.19.15 @ 4:30PM|#
You mean they aren't liquored up? I am disappoint
(5030051) reply to this

* Derpetologist|1.19.15 @ 12:22PM|#
Rule Britannia!
Britain wants to spy on toddlers to prevent future terrorism:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new.....anded.html
(5029452) reply to this

* Rich|1.19.15 @ 12:33PM|#
"Senior management and governors should make sure that staff
have training that gives them the knowledge and confidence to
identify children at risk of being drawn into terrorism"
Probably the promise of imprisonment would instill the
"confidence"; but I'd like to see the implementation plan for
the "knowledge" part.
(5029477) reply to this

* Notorious G.K.C.|1.19.15 @ 12:53PM|#
Let me guess - future terrorists are raised to hate their
society and its government - so they must be monitored, harassed
and imprisoned by their society and government to avoid them
becoming terrorists?
(5029511) reply to this

* Marshall Gill|1.19.15 @ 3:19PM|#
Britannia rule the waves.
Britons never, never, never will be slaves.
Isn't is sad what collectivism has done to a once great people?
(5029937) reply to this

* kinnath|1.19.15 @ 12:33PM|#
What a drag it is getting trolled.
(5029478) reply to this

* gaoxiaen|1.19.15 @ 5:08PM|#
+5 decades
(5030156) reply to this

* Ken Shultz|1.19.15 @ 12:34PM|#
Have you ever dealt with people that are such pathological liars
that when you accuse them of lying, they don't seem to
understand why that's a problem?
Lying is so thoroughly ensconced in the left's political
strategy that many self-identifying liberals are no longer
offended when you accuse them of lying--and don't understand why
lying is a problem.
(5029482) reply to this

* Concerned Citizen|1.19.15 @ 12:39PM|#
Ends justify means. Pointing that out upsets them.
(5029487) reply to this

* Ken Shultz|1.19.15 @ 12:50PM|#
It goes all the way back to Plato's "noble lie"; however,
they've taken that to such depths that they've come to believe
their own lies.
It gets to the point where, for instance, they don't care what
impact of a capital gains hike will be. And they don't believe
anything anybody says about the issue--not even themselves.
It's come to the point where they don't care what the truth is
or whether it's on their side. They just want a hike in the
capital gains tax.
You saw the same thing in the ObamaCare full time = 40 hours
legislation the House took up the other week. They don't care if
the working poor have to go get an extra job. They don't care if
the working poor are having to learn to live on less money. They
wouldn't care if lifting ObamaCare's 30 hour a week limit would
cure cancer and save the world from global warming.
They don't care what the truth is. They just want to fine
employers for not giving health insurance to anyone who works
more than 30 hours a week.
(5029505) reply to this

* sarcasmic|1.19.15 @ 12:45PM|#
That's what happens when you are raised to emote, not think.
When you emote then it's OK to lie. I mean, it feels like the
truth, right? And that's all really matters.
(5029494) reply to this

* Ken Shultz|1.19.15 @ 12:56PM|#
There's also something deeply authoritarian about the left's
blind obedience to experts.
You should just do what the experts say because they know what's
best for us. And the people who oppose experts are ignorant.
In fact, being educated, to them, seems to mean knowing that you
should obey the experts*.
*who couldn't possibly know more about my qualitative
preferences than I do, much less take them into consideration
when they make [DEL: choices :DEL] rulings for all of us.
(5029516) reply to this

* Tony|1.19.15 @ 12:59PM|#
What alternative are you suggesting? That you know everything,
even in subjects you have no training or expertise in
whatsoever? Do you really begrudge people for preferring to
drive on bridges designed by engineers to bridges designed by
non-engineers?
(5029524) reply to this

* sarcasmic|1.19.15 @ 1:02PM|#
It doesn't take an engineer to observe that a bridge made of
toothpicks won't handle the weight of a car.
(5029529) reply to this

* Tony|1.19.15 @ 1:03PM|#
And obviously those are the only types of choices the world
offers us: a bridge that works or one that obviously doesn't.
Why do we even bother training engineers at all?
(5029535) reply to this

* Zeb|1.19.15 @ 1:48PM|#
If you want to compare climate science and engineering, climate
science is at the stage where engineering was a couple thousand
years ago. It is starting to do some interesting things, but
people are really just barely starting to see how things really
work.
This isn't a criticism of any scientist or even the field of
climate science. The study of enormously complex dynamic systems
like the climate is extremely difficult and couldn't even really
be approached before computers were a thing. It is certainly an
important field. But until it can start regularly making
accurate predictions, it really is in its infancy.
(5029711) reply to this

* sarcasmic|1.19.15 @ 1:59PM|#
The study of enormously complex dynamic systems like the climate
is extremely difficult and couldn't even really be approached
before computers were a thing.
Oh yeah? Well it is a scientific fact that CO2 is a greenhouse
gas! That's all you need to know! None of the other variables
matter! CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and we're filling the
atmosphere with it! Government must save us or we're all going
to die!
(5029749) reply to this

* JWatts|1.19.15 @ 3:12PM|#
" But until it can start regularly making accurate predictions,
it really is in its infancy."
This is the Gold standard. And the "scientific" community should
insist upon it, instead of getting deep in the tribal warfare.
I still believe that AGW is a good theory, just exaggerated in
an ideological manner. However, if it turns out that AGW is
obviously flawed, science will suffer a tremendous blow that
will take decades to recover from. And all because various
"scientists" couldn't keep their desires from tainting the
scientific methodology.
(5029924) reply to this

* Tony|1.19.15 @ 4:20PM|#
Maybe, maybe not, but the basic facts that everyone here are
disputing are not actually controversial among experts.
(5030030) reply to this

* BigT|1.19.15 @ 4:39PM|#

If you want to compare climate science and engineering, climate
science is at the stage where engineering was a couple thousand
years ago.
No, the Romans had some great engineering expertise, as did the
Egyptians.
Climate science is about where the atomic theory was a couple of
thousand years ago. People had proposed atoms but had almost no
evidence to back it up. But at least they didn't make
apocalyptic predictions and try to sponge off of the public to
support their theories.
(5030074) reply to this

* |1.19.15 @ 1:03PM|#
I agree with Tony. All Republicans and right-wingers should just
be killed.
(5029533) reply to this

* JWatts|1.19.15 @ 3:15PM|#
Come on, you never state it that way!
Instead you say, "They need to be sent to "reeducation" camps.
And, ff a large percentage don't make it out, well, we just call
that bad luck."
(5029930) reply to this

* gaoxiaen|1.19.15 @ 5:14PM|#
They should be given "retirement".
(5030172) reply to this

* See Double You|1.19.15 @ 1:04PM|#
Sounds like he's suggesting a critical perspective, even against
"experts."
(5029541) reply to this

* Tony|1.19.15 @ 1:08PM|#
An intelligent person knows what he doesn't know, and a humble
person is willing to admit it. Hard to go through life always
distrusting experts.
Of course Ken doesn't do that--he only distrusts a tiny
selection of experts because his political ideology requires it
(though I don't know why it should).
(5029552) reply to this

* See Double You|1.19.15 @ 1:15PM|#
Critical examination of experts is what Ken's advocating,
instead of blind deference to them.
Moreover, climate science is closer to theoretical physics than
a hard science. It is incapable of any repeatable, controlled
experiments.
But of course your side always likes to scream "SCIENCE SCIENCE
SCIENCE" since it benefits your ideology: ever more centralized
control over life. Even where the "science" isn't really a
science, or at least not one that is capable of double-blind
experiments.
(5029593) reply to this

* sarcasmic|1.19.15 @ 1:23PM|#
Critical examination of experts is what Ken's advocating,
instead of blind deference to them.
That would require intelligence and honesty, neither of which
are in Tony's toolbox.
(5029630) reply to this

* Tony|1.19.15 @ 1:26PM|#
Ken is advocating blind deference to bullshit. If pretty much
all the literature says something, you probably should assume
the experts know what they're talking about. I've been here a
long time. I know with certainty that Ken is not advocating an
open-minded approach. Libertarians are so specific in their
views about how the world should be that they have an especially
difficult time being open-minded. So much so that they make
idiots of themselves by acting like common creationists whenever
this subject comes up.
We can't do repeatable experiments with global warming because
we don't have a collection of identical Earths to run different
scenarios on. Science isn't all about what you did in 11th grade
lab. A lot of science is about observation and recording of
data. What repeatable experiment has convinced you that the sun
engages in nuclear fusion? That Saturn has rings?
(5029638) reply to this

* Roger the Shrubber|1.19.15 @ 1:34PM|#

We can't do repeatable experiments with global warming because we
don't have a collection of identical Earths to run different
scenarios on.
True. But we can create models, make predictions based in these
models, and test the veracity of those predictions by comparing
them with the actual system that we are trying to model. Climate
scientists seem to fail at that last part.
(5029670) reply to this

* Tony|1.19.15 @ 1:43PM|#
No they don't. The models have been quite accurate.
(5029697) reply to this

* |1.19.15 @ 1:46PM|#
"The models have been quite accurate."
When you say shit like this I am reminded why I should never
bother reading any comment you write. You are a troll. And a
commie. Go fuck your lying self.
(5029706) reply to this

* Cytotoxic|1.19.15 @ 2:14PM|#
That's a lie Tony.
(5029790) reply to this

* Tony|1.19.15 @ 4:21PM|#
No it isn't. But you're not remotely interested in finding out
whether it is or not, are you?
(5030032) reply to this

* Cytotoxic|1.19.15 @ 4:57PM|#
Yes it is you lying POS.
http://climateaudit.org/2014/1.....screpancy/
Did you think I had left, and you could just post your insipid
'comeback' without my noticing? #REKT
(5030118) reply to this

* Tommy_Grand|1.19.15 @ 9:09PM|#
In 1995, based on their "accurate" global warming model, the
IPCC predicted that: "most of the beaches on the East Coast of
the United States will be gone in 25 years [2020]"
Less than 5 years now until **total beach apocalypse** tick tick
tick
(5030610) reply to this

* See Double You|1.19.15 @ 1:34PM|#
You do need to have those conditions when you're trying to
determine the ultimate cause among several potential causes. I
can certainly observe that Saturn has rings. No shit. But I
can't truly know the ultimate cause of those rings.
Moreover, the data regarding warming trends is incomplete,
cherry-picked, and doesn't discount other possible factors.
Plenty of sources dissenting from the so-called "consensus" have
raised a lot of reasonable doubt as to AGW. But they're just
arguing in bad faith, while the "consensus" scientists are noble
and good, right?
There are bad-faith motives on both sides of the debate, sure.
But your ideology requires you to only examine one side.
(5029673) reply to this

* Free Society|1.19.15 @ 1:41PM|#

Libertarians are so specific in their views about how the world
should be that they have an especially difficult time being
open-minded.
I hope you'll offer us an example.
(5029693) reply to this

* R C Dean|1.19.15 @ 5:54PM|#
Libertarians are so specific in their views about how the world
should be
We are specific in our views about how the government should be.
Not the whole world. Just the government.
Of course, to progs, there's no difference.
(5030294) reply to this

* Free Society|1.19.15 @ 1:43PM|#

What repeatable experiment has convinced you that the sun engages
in nuclear fusion? That Saturn has rings?
Sound theory in the case of the sun and observation in the case
of Saturn. Neither of which your ever changing theory of climate
change has.
(5029701) reply to this

* Ken Shultz|1.19.15 @ 1:46PM|#
"If pretty much all the literature says something, you probably
should assume the experts know what they're talking about."
Experts cannot account for other people's qualitative
preferences.
It's impossible.
I agree that science is a consensus, but that consensus is
always changing as new data becomes available. Even if it were
only for that last bit about the consensus always changing
because of new data, science will always remain to a certain
extent uncertain--in that the consensus can, will, and should
change given new information that conflicts with the current
consensus.
The problem scientists run into when they impose themselves on
public policy is that public policy is not science. The question
of whether the use of fossil fuels will kill off the polar bears
is a scientific question. The question of whether I should care
more about the polar bears than I do my own financial well being
is not a scientific question. It's a qualitative preference.
Whenever science tries to impose itself on the qualitative
preferences of individuals by way of public policy, it is no
longer science. It is political advocacy masquerading as
science.
The only way an expert could measure my qualitative preferences
for things like polar bears over my own money is to observe how
I, as an individual, behave in the marketplace. Indeed, there is
no one of higher expertise about an individual's qualitative
preferences than the individual himself.
(5029709) reply to this

* Rebel Scum|1.19.15 @ 2:03PM|#
because we don't have a collection of identical Earths to run
different scenarios on.
Modeling is a thing. But it is only effective when all the
variables are completely understood. That is not the case with
climate "science".
A lot of science is about observation and recording of data.
This statement, alone, I agree with. But recording data and
determining what is means has its own problems, such as
consistency of methods of gathering said data.
(5029764) reply to this

* Cytotoxic|1.19.15 @ 2:17PM|#
we don't have a collection of identical Earths to run different
scenarios on.
This statement is pathetic and demonstrates that Tony has no
understanding of science. Yes Tony sciences where experiments
can't be used have a very hard time testing hypotheses. This
does not lower the bar for critical analysis at all. It's a case
of 'too bad'.
(5029794) reply to this

* sarcasmic|1.19.15 @ 2:22PM|#
Tony has no understanding of science.
He has admitted that on numerous occasions. That's why he defers
to experts. By experts he means people who actively study AGW
with government funding. People like engineers and computer
scientists who apply science on a daily basis do not count,
because many of them have applied critical thinking to AGW and
determined that it is a load of crap.
(5029807) reply to this

* sarcasmic|1.19.15 @ 2:54PM|#
Modeling is a thing. But it is only effective when all the
variables are completely understood. That is not the case with
climate "science".
Well, according to Tony, only one variable is needed: Man made
CO2.
That's it. Because it's the only variable that matters.
(5029874) reply to this

* Tommy_Grand|1.19.15 @ 8:59PM|#
Tony,
What scientific evidence would convince you that global warming
is exaggerated? Would would possibly convince you? Everyone
admits the doomsday prediction made in the mid to late 1990's
HAVE BEEN PROVEN FALSE. We still have glaciers. We still have
vast fields of sea ice. We still have polar bears, and the
populating is growing. No arcadian island nations have vanished
beneath the waves.
If no evidence could convince you that the emperor is running
nude, then it's a religious belief.
(5030591) reply to this

* Zeb|1.19.15 @ 1:55PM|#
Moreover, climate science is closer to theoretical physics than
a hard science. It is incapable of any repeatable, controlled
experiments.
Uh, what? There are shit loads of experiments in physics and
lots of back and forth between theorists and experimenters.
I suppose maybe that's the case with some really bleeding edge
theory where the energies involved are far beyond anything we
can reproduce.
The problem with climate science is that it is really new and
really complicated. Most science so far has been reductive. You
break things down into small, simple parts and figure out how
they work. When studying a very complex dynamic system, you just
can't do things that way. Climate science is like physics before
Einstein or quantum theory. Some major theoretical breakthrough
is needed to really be able to make any predictions about
climate.
(5029733) reply to this

* See Double You|1.19.15 @ 3:09PM|#
Zeb,
Maybe "theoretical physics" is too broad a label for what I was
getting at. I was thinking of theories like dark matter and dark
energy. The only proof at this point of their existence is the
observation that galactic bodies don't behave like we expect
them to based on our understanding of the way gravity works at
the planetary level.
(5029917) reply to this

* Tony|1.19.15 @ 4:23PM|#
The science everyone here is brazenly disputing with absolutely
no justification is really basic stuff that nobody (except these
idiots) has a problem with. The greenhouse effect is understood.
We may not know with total certainty the effects in 100 years,
but we can say they will likely be bad.
(5030037) reply to this

* BiMonSciFiCon|1.19.15 @ 1:18PM|#
An intelligent person knows what he doesn't know, and a humble
person is willing to admit it. Hard to go through life always
distrusting experts.
So you're renouncing your support for top-down big government
solutions, then?
(5029617) reply to this

* Tony|1.19.15 @ 1:27PM|#
How about we agree about the basic facts of the world before we
get to policy discussions? I'd love to get there someday,
though.
To me, you're admitting that the only policy solutions you can
think of involve big government. Otherwise you'd accept reality
and throw out your own ideas. An intelligent person would
realize this represents significant flaws in his assumptions
about the world.
(5029643) reply to this

* Cytotoxic|1.19.15 @ 1:31PM|#
Ken is advocating blind deference to bullshit.
Stop projecting.
A lot of science is about observation and recording of data.
The strongest science is always verifiable by experiment.
"Strong Inference". Sometimes observational science is the best
you can do. Saturn's rings appear pretty obviously real.
Extrapolating temperature from tree rings has less solid
grounding.
(5029662) reply to this

* BiMonSciFiCon|1.19.15 @ 1:35PM|#
To me, you're admitting that the only policy solutions you can
think of involve big government.
No, these aren't the only policy solutions I can think of. But
they are the ones you consistently propose.
And about the basic "facts," well, those aren't as cut and dried
as you believe. The world is "warming" but at a much slower rate
than predicted. And emissions are falling, at least in the U.S.
I think the logical approach on global warming is to "wait and
see." I say this as a former progressive who campaigned for
Kerry in 2004.
(5029677) reply to this

* |1.19.15 @ 1:43PM|#
Policy solution: Plant trees. Excess carbon is easily sunk by
simply planting trees. There is more than enough room to plant a
sufficient number.
Prediction: If we recapture all of the 'excess' carbon in the
atmosphere the climate trends we see now will continue
unchanged.
(5029699) reply to this

* Cytotoxic|1.19.15 @ 1:45PM|#
Trees suck. They devour water and that would eliminate grassland
habitat.
Better idea: more forestry logging. Your wood table is a carbon
sink. Young healthy trees planted after the logging eat up CO2.
If you don't love logging, you hate Gaia.
(5029705) reply to this

* Zeb|1.19.15 @ 2:02PM|#
Trees suck. They devour water and that would eliminate grassland
habitat.
That depends a whole lot on where you are putting the trees. In
a lot of places too much water is more of a problem than too
little.
(5029760) reply to this

* Tony|1.19.15 @ 1:43PM|#
I haven't proposed anything other than facts are facts.
(5029702) reply to this

* Cytotoxic|1.19.15 @ 1:46PM|#
Thanks for your banal self-regarding tripe Tony.
(5029707) reply to this

* NotAnotherSkippy|1.19.15 @ 2:25PM|#
Fact.
Your models have failed, Tony. That is a fact.
(5029812) reply to this

* BigT|1.19.15 @ 5:02PM|#

Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.
- Richard Feynman

Nullius in verba; (Take nobody's word for it)
- motto of the Royal Society
Experts may be given a platform upon which to speak, but have to
bring evidence and predictions need to stand up to scrutiny.
(5030131) reply to this

* Grand Moff Serious Man|1.19.15 @ 1:07PM|#
Government isn't an engineer and people aren't parts of a bridge
to be constructed in a way bureaucrats deem fit.
The fact that you think in such terms shows exactly why
scientists are the worst people to dictate policy. Utter
ignorance of how society actually functions and what the proper
role of government should be.
(5029548) reply to this

* Tony|1.19.15 @ 1:10PM|#
We can't talk about policy until we agree on the basic facts of
reality. Which you guys refuse to do. Do you think being
science-denying cretins will get you a prominent seat at the
policy table? Why are you shooting yourself in the foot by
acting like idiots?
(5029557) reply to this

* Free Society|1.19.15 @ 1:15PM|#

a prominent seat at the policy table?
The policy table is the problem. Not that being told such
repeatedly will ever sink in.
(5029597) reply to this

* Grand Moff Serious Man|1.19.15 @ 1:16PM|#
People like you have been screaming doomsday scenarios for the
past 50 years, from the population bomb to the Statue of Liberty
being underwater and you expect to be taken seriously despite
being proven wrong time and time again?
The Earth might be warming but you know fuck all about what life
will be like in 50 years.
(5029606) reply to this

* Tony|1.19.15 @ 1:19PM|#
The earth is warming--it is fact. Do you suppose that refusing
to accept fact positions you better to predict what life will be
like in 50 years? Or are you saying that we can't ever possibly
know anything (except of course that all of your policy
preferences are God's One True System)?
(5029622) reply to this

* Grand Moff Serious Man|1.19.15 @ 1:25PM|#
Do you suppose that refusing to accept fact positions you better
to predict what life will be like in 50 years?
Again, you know fuck all about what the next 50 years will
bring. It's an utter conceit to pretend otherwise.
As for facts, I do know it's an incontrovertible fact that the
last century has seen the greatest increase in human well-being
in the history of our species thanks to capitalism and
innovation, two things the climate luddites want to dismantle
and hand over to government, the most incompetent and utterly
ill-equipped entity around.
So yeah, I'll gladly adopt a skeptical position on global
warming solutions if it means protecting the welfare of billions
of people from petty tyrants such as yourself.
(5029635) reply to this

* Free Society|1.19.15 @ 1:33PM|#

As for facts, I do know it's an incontrovertible fact that the
last century has seen the greatest increase in human well-being
in the history of our species thanks to capitalism and innovation
ah ha! child labor and poor working conditions existed in the
20th century and of course never existed prior to capitalism...
/Tony
(5029665) reply to this

* Cytotoxic|1.19.15 @ 1:32PM|#
The earth is warming--it is fact.
Not according to the satellite data record.
(5029664) reply to this

* Tony|1.19.15 @ 1:44PM|#
False.
(5029703) reply to this

* Cytotoxic|1.19.15 @ 1:49PM|#
Stop lying.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/pl.....set:0.3124
You see that graph Tony? Do you fucking see it? Do you see a
statistically significant trend in there since 2000? You
shouldn't because THERE FUCKING ISN'T ONE.
(5029717) reply to this

* Tony|1.19.15 @ 4:25PM|#
Why 2000? Why pick that year? Do you even know what the fuck
you're trying to say? How about go back to 1990 (the more years
we have the better picture we have of the overall trend,
right?). Pretty clear warming trend, huh?
(5030043) reply to this

* Cytotoxic|1.19.15 @ 5:00PM|#
Because 2000 is when the warming either stopped or dramatically
decelerated depending on which dataset you look at you stupid
fuck. Not looking at it doesn't make it go away Toney.
the more years we have the better picture we have of the overall
trend, right?
You're an imbecile but that's no surprise. If you want to look
at recent trends, you look at RECENT YEARS.
(5030126) reply to this

* Ken Shultz|1.19.15 @ 3:02PM|#
"The earth is warming--it is fact. Do you suppose that refusing
to accept fact positions you better to predict what life will be
like in 50 years?"
This is a good example of what I was talking about when I was
talking about conflating science with personal qualitative
preferences.
Assume, for the sake of argument, that it is a scientific fact
that the earth is warming.
Why does Tony think that "fact" makes it okay for him to
extrapolate about other people's qualitative preferences?
That isn't science!
Once science starts making generalizations about what other
people's personal preferences should be, it stops being science,
and it starts being political advocacy. One of Tony's many
problems is that he can't tell the difference between science
and political advocacy.
There is no scientific expert that can tell me what my
qualitative preferences should be. How bad the environment may
get is a scientific question, but whether my personal
preferences should change isn't a scientific question at all.
Tony can't see that!
(5029901) reply to this

* Ken Shultz|1.19.15 @ 3:02PM|#
Tony can't see the difference between a scientist telling me
what the consensus or the scientific facts are, on the one hand,
and a scientist telling me how I should change my personal
preferences on the other--but one of them is science, and the
other one isn't.
Here's a hint, Tony. When a scientist faces Mecca and gets down
on his knees to pray, he is not doing science. Science isn't
something done by experts--by virtue of their being experts. And
when scientists are engaging in political advocacy--what they
are doing is not science. The question of whether you should
care more about polar bears than coal miners is not a scientific
question. But those are exactly the kinds of questions in which
you want us to defer to scientists!
(5029902) reply to this

* JWatts|1.19.15 @ 3:21PM|#
"The earth is warming--it is fact. "
Except that there's plenty of evidence that it's not warming
very fast and hasn't warmed withing the margin of error for over
a decade. So no, it's not a fucking fact.
At best that statement is a hypothesis. If you are going to
pretend to understand science, then at least attempt to use the
basic terminology correctly.
(5029938) reply to this

* Tommy_Grand|1.19.15 @ 10:01PM|#
If everyone who matters already agrees Planet Earth is getting
much hotter by the minute, why did we need to back up and
re-brand "Global Warming" as "Climate Change"???
(5030691) reply to this

* Cytotoxic|1.19.15 @ 1:33PM|#
Don't forget the "straight AIDS epidemic". UNAIDS is fraud and a
disgrace.
(5029667) reply to this

* |1.19.15 @ 1:39PM|#
Tony, more than a small number of the people here are
scientists. Does that ever cross your mind when you are
squawking about them being science-deniers?
You really should go fuck your stupid self.
(5029689) reply to this

* sarcasmic|1.19.15 @ 1:51PM|#
Tony, more than a small number of the people here are
scientists. Does that ever cross your mind when you are
squawking about them being science-deniers?
He has already said that engineers and software people, as in
people who apply science on a daily basis, do not know anything
about science. Only experts who are paid by some alphabet-soup
government agency count as scientists. They are the only ones
who can be trusted.
(5029722) reply to this

* Tony|1.19.15 @ 4:27PM|#
Are you suggesting that engineers and computer people are hard
scientists?
(5030047) reply to this

* Chumby|1.19.15 @ 5:13PM|#
Tony, I'm going for a pint. Would you like one?
(5030171) reply to this

* Zeb|1.19.15 @ 2:03PM|#
We can't talk about policy until we agree on the basic facts of
reality.
Which facts? Vague predictions about future climate that keep
failing to come true?
(5029771) reply to this

* NotAnotherSkippy|1.19.15 @ 2:25PM|#
Fact.
(5029814) reply to this

* Tony|1.19.15 @ 4:26PM|#
Do things only count as facts if they come from crank denier
websites?
(5030046) reply to this

* Cytotoxic|1.19.15 @ 5:01PM|#
Can you find anything actually wrong on that crank denier
website and substantiate that claim of wrongness?
(5030129) reply to this

* Scruffy Nerfherder|1.19.15 @ 1:11PM|#
Perhaps we should just ignore Lindzen then.
(5029564) reply to this

* Tony|1.19.15 @ 1:18PM|#
Don't ignore him, but place him in the proper context. Otherwise
it's a black-and-white case of confirmation bias.
(5029613) reply to this

* Scruffy Nerfherder|1.19.15 @ 1:23PM|#
The context is that he consistently and effectively skewers the
popular arguments espoused by the IPCC. "Truth" requires no
context, no consensus. It is either demonstrably true or false.
Every climate model has been inaccurate up to this point, the
heat has not been hiding in the ocean, etc....
Generate the biggest most well funded, most popular scientific
proposal that you can dream of, all it takes is one person to
prove an inaccuracy to make it demonstrably false. THAT is
science.
(5029629) reply to this

* sarcasmic|1.19.15 @ 1:36PM|#
Generate the biggest most well funded, most popular scientific
proposal that you can dream of, all it takes is one person to
prove an inaccuracy to make it demonstrably false. THAT is
science.
"No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single
experiment can prove me wrong."
-Albert Einstein
What an idiot. Hasn't heard of consensus?
(5029682) reply to this

* NotAnotherSkippy|1.19.15 @ 2:28PM|#

It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter
how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's
wrong.
Richard P. Feynman
(5029818) reply to this

* JWatts|1.19.15 @ 3:28PM|#
"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't
matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with our models,
it's wrong."
The IPCC
(5029949) reply to this

* Eggs Benedict Cumberbund|1.19.15 @ 9:53PM|#
Guy's Tony doesn't really understand the scientific method,
Popper, testability, falsification, etc. When you quote Feynman
or Einstein he just sees:
Blah, the national retail vdub Zuma given airport his Lehman and
driver of Ghanaians yoyo pleather.
He doesn't understand shit. He doesn't even know that a sealed
glass greenhouse and the earth's atmosphere do not hold heat via
the same mechanisms.
(5030683) reply to this

* Cytotoxic|1.19.15 @ 1:29PM|#
What alternative are you suggesting?
Critical thinking.
(5029649) reply to this

* sarcasmic|1.19.15 @ 1:37PM|#
Critical thinking.
That isn't in Tony's toolbox.
(5029683) reply to this

* Cytotoxic|1.19.15 @ 1:42PM|#
A tool's toolbox? TOOLCEPTION
(5029695) reply to this

* Roger the Shrubber|1.19.15 @ 2:03PM|#
toolularity
(5029763) reply to this

* Ken Shultz|1.19.15 @ 1:36PM|#
"What alternative are you suggesting?"
I think individuals should be free to make choices for
themselves--each with their own set of unique qualitative
preferences in mind.
So, for instance, in the example I used above, instead of
effectively prohibiting the working poor from working for more
than 30 hours per week, I think each of us should be free to
make those kinds of choices for ourselves--instead of having the
qualitative preferences of experts imposed on them.
It's basically like gay marriage. How could experts make
qualitative choices for other people about who they should and
shouldn't be allowed to marry? Imposing the qualitative
preferences of experts on people who don't share them isn't just
morally wrong--it's also incorrect. It is impossible for experts
to consider and account for the qualitative preferences of other
individuals. Those are choices that individuals can only make
accurately for themselves.
(5029679) reply to this

* MJBinAL|1.19.15 @ 2:52PM|#
Tony,
THINKING
You ought to try it some time.
And don't preach to me (a licensed engineer) about bridges
either. The nice thing about building stuff, is that we can
actually create experiments, repeatedly test them and derive
mathematical relationships to design and engineer by.
Most, nearly all, of the stuff you are talking about is a
swirling cesspool of opinions. AGW is a great example of a
cesspool of opinions. There is no ability to carry out the kind
of testing and validation used in engineering, or even most
science.
Is is poor data, conditioned in methods based on opinion,
wrapped up in models with missing data relationship filled in
with made-up constants and/or formula sourced in more opinions.
In short, it is OPINIONS of experts made somehow more holy by
running it through a computer.
(5029869) reply to this

* Ken Shultz|1.19.15 @ 3:10PM|#
"In short, it is OPINIONS of experts made somehow more holy by
running it through a computer."
Tony's running a bait and switch.
He says that the earth warming is a fact--and calls that
science.
Then he says that we should sacrifice things dear to us because
keeping the temperature lower is worth the sacrifice--and he
thinks that's science, too!
Science is not a personal preference. Science is not political
advocacy. Science is not a willingness to make questionable
sacrifices for the sake of a questionable common good.
But Tony thinks all of those things are science--so long as
they're being advocated by someone with a PhD.
When a scientist gets down on his knees and prays, he is not
doing science, and when a scientist advocates for his own
personal preferences, he's not doing science either. He may be
using science to persuade, but science is not advocacy.
(5029918) reply to this

* Mark22|1.19.15 @ 11:57PM|#

Do you really begrudge people for preferring to drive on bridges
designed by engineers to bridges designed by non-engineers?
Engineers are generally competent, and when their bridges
collapse or their ships don't work, they face stiff penalties
and generally don't get to do it again.
The experts we are talking about here, government economists,
the fed, climate scientists, social scientists, affirmative
action policy makers, etc. screw up again and again and are
never held liable.
(5030754) reply to this

* Tony|1.19.15 @ 12:57PM|#
Do you consider repeating the same dried bullshit and cliches
over and over constitute "thinking"? You seem to.
(5029519) reply to this

* sarcasmic|1.19.15 @ 1:12PM|#
It's not my fault you're too stupid to understand them.
(5029580) reply to this

* MJBinAL|1.19.15 @ 2:52PM|#
Nope, but you still keep trying it.
(5029871) reply to this

* Ayn Random Variation|1.19.15 @ 3:03PM|#
If you believe it, it's not a lie.
George Costanza
(5029903) reply to this

* gaoxiaen|1.19.15 @ 5:27PM|#
Now I know why there are 343 posts on this thread.
(5030200) reply to this

* |1.19.15 @ 12:36PM|#

we shall [DEL: fight :DEL] spy on the beaches, we shall [DEL:
fight :DEL] spy on the landing grounds, we shall [DEL: fight
:DEL] spy in the fields and in the streets, we shall [DEL: fight
:DEL] spy in the hills
Fixed it for you, Winston.
(5029484) reply to this

* |1.19.15 @ 12:44PM|#
Successful troll was successful.
(5029493) reply to this

* ElDuderino|1.19.15 @ 12:45PM|#
We need a special anti-truth-monopoly law to prevent any one
side from having a monopoly on truth. Federal fact checkers
could check for the truth of a statement by researching it on
the information super highway. If one group starts to have too
many truths, they must either admit some are false, pay a hearty
fine, or give their truths to the competition.
(5029495) reply to this

* Harold Falcon|1.19.15 @ 1:19PM|#
Outsource it to Politifact to fact check every statement made by
either side, then have Candy Crowley announce the results each
week during a special countdown on the Daily Show.
(5029621) reply to this

* JWatts|1.19.15 @ 3:29PM|#
Can we call it: "The Moment of Truthiness"?
(5029951) reply to this

* |1.19.15 @ 12:57PM|#
"When it comes to the truth, the real bias is thinking any one
side has a monopoly on it."
If you choose truth as your side and leave the teams alone, this
is much less of a problem. That is exactly what science is
supposed to be. Lying shits like the fake scientist Tyson are
spoiling that.
(5029520) reply to this

* Fist of Etiquette|1.19.15 @ 12:58PM|#
You know who else pitched a fit when told the truth?
(5029522) reply to this

* Roger the Shrubber|1.19.15 @ 1:06PM|#
Nein. Wer?
(5029547) reply to this

* Doctor Whom|1.19.15 @ 1:14PM|#
Voters?
(5029591) reply to this

* Swiss Servator, CHF... genug!|1.19.15 @ 2:08PM|#
Our CFO?
(5029780) reply to this

* gaoxiaen|1.19.15 @ 5:28PM|#
Hirohito?
(5030205) reply to this

* Derpetologist|1.19.15 @ 1:04PM|#
WaPo columnist said women should never go to prison:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....-anything/
(5029540) reply to this

* |1.19.15 @ 1:08PM|#

What purpose is served by subjecting the most disempowered,
abused and nonviolent women to the perpetually negative
environment of prisons?
Good question. On the other hand, why doesn't she care about
disempowered, abused, nonviolent men? She must be some kind of
racist.
(5029553) reply to this

* |1.19.15 @ 1:09PM|#

The argument is actually quite straightforward: There are far
fewer women in prison than men to start with--women make up
just 7 percent of the prison population. This means that these
women are disproportionately affected by a system designed for
men.
Prisons are only "designed for men" if one assumes that only men
could be criminals.
(5029555) reply to this

* Doctor Whom|1.19.15 @ 1:13PM|#
Whoever designed prisons for men did a crap job of it, even by
government standards.
(5029584) reply to this

* Notorious G.K.C.|1.19.15 @ 1:17PM|#
"There are far fewer women in prison than men to start with--
women make up just 7 percent of the prison population."
Which raises the question - how bad does a woman have to behave
to get a punishment "designed for men?"
(5029608) reply to this

* R C Dean|1.19.15 @ 1:49PM|#
a system designed for men.
What, are there urinals in the women's bathrooms?
(5029715) reply to this

* Ayn Random Variation|1.19.15 @ 4:09PM|#
Even men's jails/prisons don't have urinals.
Damn Matriarchy.
(5030017) reply to this

* wwhorton|1.19.15 @ 9:46PM|#
If prisons are designed for men, then why doesn't each cell have
a 50' plasma? Why don't you get a free membership to RedTube?
Where's the kegerator? How come the toilets don't have padded
seats?
(5030679) reply to this

* Doctor Whom|1.19.15 @ 1:11PM|#
There's a surprising amount of non-derp in the comments.
(5029567) reply to this

* |1.19.15 @ 1:33PM|#
Tommorrow's headline:
WaPo columnist takes convicted con artist and murderer into her
home in lieu of going to prison because the convict is a woman.
*I agree that non-violent offenders do not belong in prison, men
or women, but the argument she presents is absurd.
(5029669) reply to this

* Derpetologist|1.19.15 @ 1:38PM|#
I'd bet my last dollar the author also thinks it's sexist to ban
women from combat. Because women are just as tough as men, damn
it!
(5029686) reply to this

* BigT|1.19.15 @ 4:34PM|#
Don't we need affirmative action for combat? Only women should
be in combat to make up for the 230 years when only men went
into combat.
(5030062) reply to this

* Heroic Mulatto|1.19.15 @ 4:37PM|#
Well, those Kurdish women are pretty badass. But, then again,
knowing that the stakes of losing are gang rape and sexual
slavery will do that to a gal.
(5030069) reply to this

* BigT|1.19.15 @ 4:52PM|#
You think American girls could do what those Kurds do?
Actually, I know a gal in her late 20's that served two tours in
Afghanistan as a Marine. She was involved in communicating with
the local women because they were not permitted to talk with
American men. Great gal, really grew up in the Marines and
married a wonderful Marine.
(5030103) reply to this

* paezjulie35|1.19.15 @ 1:07PM|#
Earning money online was never been easy as it has become for me
now. I freelance over the internet and earn about 75 bucks an
hour. Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only
require for you to have a computer and an internet access and
you can have that at your home.A little effort and
handsome earning dream is just a click away.............
www.Work4Hour.Com
(5029549) reply to this

* John|1.19.15 @ 1:16PM|#
The easiest person to fool is yourself. People would do well to
remember that axiom.
(5029605) reply to this

* Notorious G.K.C.|1.19.15 @ 1:17PM|#
My wife, Morgan Fairchild, agrees.
(5029610) reply to this

* ElDuderino|1.19.15 @ 1:22PM|#
You are fooling yourself. The easiest person to fool is the one
who allows the tribe to do all of the thinking for him.
(5029624) reply to this

* John|1.19.15 @ 1:28PM|#
No. You have no clue how people actually think. No one wakes up
every day and says "I want the tribe to do my thinking". If you
think they do, you are just telling yourself a lie to make
yourself feel good. People always believe that what they are
doing it totally rational and the right thing to do, no matter
how wrong or irrational their actions actually are. "Fooling
yourself" is just another way of describing rationalizing what
you want to do. And that is what people do. They don't just
think "follow the tribe". People don't work like that.
(5029645) reply to this

* Scruffy Nerfherder|1.19.15 @ 1:29PM|#
They don't just think "follow the tribe". People don't work like
that.
Well Tony does. In fact he believes in it.
(5029653) reply to this

* MJBinAL|1.19.15 @ 2:56PM|#
Actually, I believe Tony is pretty typical of progressives. Here
is a quotation that fits pretty well.
"Half of the harm that is done in this world is due to people
who want to feel important. They don't mean to do harm, but the
harm does not interest them. Or they do not see it, or they
justify it because they are absorbed in the endless struggle to
think well of themselves."
-T. S. Eliot
(5029880) reply to this

* sarcasmic|1.19.15 @ 1:54PM|#
People always believe that what they are doing it totally
rational and the right thing to do, no matter how wrong or
irrational their actions actually are.
Except Mooslems. Right, John?
(5029728) reply to this

* |1.19.15 @ 1:28PM|#
It would be completely ridiculous to assert that mankind's
activities have zero effect on the climate. One can easily see
microclimates that have formed around large cities on satellite
data. Too much deforestation causes rainwater to run off too
quickly which depletes groundwater causing ground temperature
fluctuations, which in turn affects airflow.
What we don't know is how much our activity affects climate.
There are easy solutions to every problem our activities might
cause. Fortunately most of those solutions are fairly simple and
cost is minimal. No tax hikes are necessary.
Having said that, the global warming movement as it exists today
is nothing more than a straight up scam.
(5029646) reply to this

* JWatts|1.19.15 @ 3:34PM|#
I often wonder if differences in perception in the affects of
mankind on the environment aren't largely a case of the
observers personal environment.
If you live deep in a large city or even a suburb you perceive
that man has a great effect on the environment. If you live a
mile away from the nearest human, you probably get the idea that
man still isn't the dominant force on the ecology.
(5029956) reply to this

* Tony|1.19.15 @ 4:29PM|#
Sounds like you're afraid of tax hikes and are letting that
dogmatism cloud your judgment. I want a single shred of fucking
evidence for this "scam." Anything.
(5030048) reply to this

* Chumby|1.19.15 @ 5:20PM|#
Any person that wants to be free should be afraid of any taxes.
Using thm to "solve" a problem or provide a good or service
exchanges the +/- 9% private sector profit and +/- 9% overhead
for many times that in overhead with less effeciency and
accountability. And many times the goods and services are
neitjer wanted nor needed.
(5030184) reply to this

* gaoxiaen|1.19.15 @ 5:37PM|#
In many cases, I'd pay higher taxes to get government to stop
providing certain goods or services.
(5030233) reply to this

* Rebel Scum|1.19.15 @ 1:34PM|#
When it comes to the truth, the real bias is thinking any one
side has a monopoly on it.
Haven't you heard? CONSENSUS=TRUTH
(5029672) reply to this

* Cytotoxic|1.19.15 @ 1:35PM|#
Where are the AM Links!?!?
(5029675) reply to this

* rts|1.19.15 @ 2:00PM|#
It's a holiday from links.
(5029754) reply to this

* blimp|1.19.15 @ 1:35PM|#
You're five for seven today Reason:
Firs,t you create some flimsy pretext to discuss MLK's private
shortcomings. Next, you question our black President's integrity
*(author: Scott Shackford). Then, you go after our black
Attorney General; including a photo so we remember that he is
black. After that, you go back to your not so subtle character
assassination of MLK *(author: Jesse Walker). Now, you
needlessly disparage America's most prominent black scientist. I
guess this is how libertarians celebrate the MLK holiday. I
shudder to think what types of articles you will be posting next
month (black history month).
* Reason only allows two links per post.
(5029676) reply to this

* |1.19.15 @ 1:49PM|#
I didn't think there was any question at all about Obumbles
integrity. Not in my mind anyway.
(5029718) reply to this

* R C Dean|1.19.15 @ 1:52PM|#
Alternate universe blimp:
You're 0 for 7 today, Reason. Not one single article on a black
person, not our black President, not our black attorney general,
not our most prominent black scientist.
You might not have noticed, blimp, but aside from the occasional
article on a recently deceased libertarian, Reason rarely has
nothing but good things to say about anyone. Especially people
involved in helping build the Total State. Like our President,
AG, and even prominent scientists.
(5029725) reply to this

* blimp|1.19.15 @ 2:32PM|#
You're 0 for 7 today, Reason. Not one single [positve] article
on a black person, not our black President, not our black
attorney general, not our most prominent black scientist.
That is my point. Nobody else sees all the black faces
associated with negative character traits prominently displayed
throughout most of today's posts. Today, of all days, we should
be celebrating the contributions of our African-American
citizens. Instead, Reason wants to talk about how many white
prostitutes MLK plowed or how he was a secret communist. If this
wasn't bad enough, they opt to chastise Mr. Obama and Mr Holder
rather than illustrating how far we have come by highlighting
the postives of our President and Attonery General. Finally,
what is the point of attacking Neil deGrasse Tyson on MLK day?
At least, why not use a picture of Colbert or Gruber? Reason's
hostility is so palpable I thought at first I might have
stumbled onto Stormfront by mistake.
(5029830) reply to this

* wareagle|1.19.15 @ 2:38PM|#
you have totally missed the point re: King and his dream. As
they reach positions of prominence, blacks like Obama, deGrasse,
and Holder are subject to the same scrutiny and the same
criticism as their white counterparts. It's not the job of
Reason or any other media outlet to pump race-based sunshine up
your ass.
deGrasse fell victim to being too clever by half by, well, by
lying. King's life includes some unsavory chapters, much like
the lives of many prominent whites. And most of the Reason staff
voted for Obama, I would wager, only to see the emperor
revealed.
If you can't handle blacks of prominence being criticized JUST
LIKE WHITES OF PROMINENCE HAVE BEEN AND ARE, then I suggest you
revisit the Dream speech and its foundational point.
(5029844) reply to this

* MJBinAL|1.19.15 @ 2:59PM|#
Well said, the good news is that Obama, Holder, et al are the
fulfillment of King's Dream.
They are being judged on the content of their character, not on
the color of their skin.
(5029890) reply to this

* R C Dean|1.19.15 @ 2:52PM|#
blimp, I especially like the way you take the two articles on
white people's paranoia about King as being critical of King.
If you can hear the dog whistle ....
(5029870) reply to this

* Knarf Yenrab!|1.19.15 @ 2:58PM|#

Reason's hostility is so palpable I thought at first I might have
stumbled onto Stormfront by mistake.
At least we have moral paragons like you to remind us of how
good, non-judgmental people behave: by seizing the moral high
ground via comparisons of advocates of personal liberty to white
supremacists.
In all seriousness, do you have any shame or decency at all?
(5029887) reply to this

* blimp|1.19.15 @ 3:14PM|#
In all seriousness, do you have any shame or decency at all?
You are right. That was too far. I was just perplexed and a
little disappointed in what I was seeing. Thanks to some of the
other commentors I think I understand what Reason is doing. They
are being hipster contrarians. On the one day a year when
America celebrates African-American contributions to society
Reason has chosen to denigrate prominent African-Americans and
remind its readers of the character flaws of the eponymous hero
of the holiday. This is just Reason's attempt to be cool and
gain "rebel" credibility. It is quite pathetic and laughable but
it probably is not racially motivated.
(5029929) reply to this

* See Double You|1.19.15 @ 3:37PM|#
Or maybe Reason, like most self-described libertarians, view
people as individuals and not some collective with one shared
trait?
Maybe there is something ironic about "celebrating black people"
for being black when the very person you want Reason to
celebrate said not to judge someone by the color of his skin but
by the content of his character?
(5029961) reply to this

* John Titor|1.19.15 @ 4:58PM|#
Because nothing says 'respecting African Americans' like
refusing to hold them to the same standards as white people.
I don't give a shit about the President's skin colour, I care
that he's a massive narcissistic fool. I don't care about
Holder's skin colour, I care that he's corrupt and supported bad
policies. If these are the people you are seriously holding up
as examples of the 'contributions of our African American
citizens' then African Americans aren't apparently contributing
anything positive (which I disagree with).
(5030119) reply to this

* Libertarian|1.19.15 @ 1:53PM|#
Wait. Obama is black? Who knew?
(5029727) reply to this

* MJBinAL|1.19.15 @ 3:01PM|#
Nope, I believe Obama is 50% white and 50% black/arab. Not that
it matters a great deal. He is 100% Progressive.
(5029893) reply to this

* Chumby|1.19.15 @ 5:22PM|#
The som of a black man from Kenya and a white man from Kansas.
(5030190) reply to this

* |1.19.15 @ 5:19PM|#
Born into wealth, raised by whites, attended elite predominantly
white schools- yeah, there's no question he is a product of the
Black Experience.
(5030183) reply to this

* Cytotoxic|1.19.15 @ 1:58PM|#
I actually thought this was a joke.
(5029744) reply to this

* R C Dean|1.19.15 @ 2:07PM|#
It is.
I doubt it was intended as one, though.
(5029776) reply to this

* The Laconic|1.19.15 @ 2:27PM|#
I think it's a joke.
(5029817) reply to this

* Crusty Juggler|1.19.15 @ 2:22PM|#
I too am against showing photographs of black men.
(5029806) reply to this

* Notorious G.K.C.|1.19.15 @ 2:25PM|#
Hi, blimp, if by any chance you are serious, then go and fuck
yourself up the arse with an oversized dildo with Super Glue
spread on the tip.
(5029813) reply to this

* wareagle|1.19.15 @ 2:34PM|#
I have a dream today that black politicians and black scientists
and black public figures in other arenas can be judged by the
value of their actions much like their white brothers and
sisters. I have a dream today that a man's blackness will not be
used to shield him from criticism any more than it will be used
to bar him the exercise of his rights.
(5029834) reply to this

* sarcasmic|1.19.15 @ 2:41PM|#
nice
(5029847) reply to this

* MJBinAL|1.19.15 @ 3:01PM|#
yes, nicely done!
(5029898) reply to this

* Knarf Yenrab!|1.19.15 @ 3:13PM|#
I don't think you need a "flimsy pretext" on the federal holiday
named after him to remind people that MLK Jr. was not a good
man, what with all the plagiarizing and cheating and telling
crass jokes about the recently widowed. The idea that King was
some compassionate paragon of integrity--these Jesus meek and
mild bs that's become the standard narrative--is ridiculous. Ke
was an important political and social leader, and like most
political and social leaders, he was an unbearable narcissist
who inspired many with his speeches.
King's historical identity has become a major problem for those
who want to sell him as a saint rather than a political
activist, and thus they have to berate anyone who reminds people
that they might want to be careful in idolizing anyone, much
less a philandering plagiarizer of a politician.
The elevation of deeply flawed modern political figures to
mythical status--Gandhi, MLK, and Lincoln come to mind
first--has a lot to tell us about the myth-making that gave us
the images of Jesus, Mohammed, and Buddha. We know a lot about
the lives of Gandhi, Lincoln, and King, but that hasn't stopped
people from rewriting their lives to fit a particular and
appealing narrative.
(5029928) reply to this

* blimp|1.19.15 @ 3:19PM|#
Ke was an important political and social leader, and like most
political and social leaders, he was an unbearable narcissist
who inspired many with his speeches.
Have you seen Selma yet? 99% on Rotten Tomatoes. The movie
offers a small glimpse of what African-Americans and MLK had to
endure. After seeing the movie you might change your mind.
(5029936) reply to this

* See Double You|1.19.15 @ 3:40PM|#
How would someone's fictional portrayal of a historical figure
change the actual facts of that figure?
(5029965) reply to this

* Monty Crisco|1.19.15 @ 3:51PM|#
Oh, for fuck's sake!!! ARe you fucking SERIOUS?!!?
(5029985) reply to this

* Swiss Servator, CHF...gah!|1.19.15 @ 4:02PM|#
That is some pretty effective trolling, you must admit!
(5029998) reply to this

* blimp|1.19.15 @ 4:19PM|#
That is some pretty effective trolling, you must admit!
Reason's two articles about MLK:
The FBI might have sent a letter to MLK threatening to expose
his MANY ADULTEROUS LIAISONS WITH WHITE PROSTITUTES.
People sent letters to the FBI because they were concerned that
MLK WAS A COMMUNIST.
Those are the only posts about MLK on MLK day. Yeah, I am the
troll.
(5030029) reply to this

* Heroic Mulatto|1.19.15 @ 4:26PM|#
If Reason were trolling, they would have at least have had the
balls to post something about Malcolm X.
(5030044) reply to this

* See Double You|1.19.15 @ 4:46PM|#
Yeah, I am the troll.
Yes, yes you are. Because only an idiot would conclude that "MLK
WAS A COMMUNIST" was what Reason was getting at in that article.
(5030092) reply to this

* BigT|1.19.15 @ 5:09PM|#

People sent letters to the FBI because they were concerned that
MLK WAS A [DEL: COMMUNIST :DEL] REPUBLICAN.
(5030161) reply to this

* blimp|1.19.15 @ 4:06PM|#
ARe you fucking SERIOUS?!!?
Yes, I am serious. In addition to already mentioned 99% Rotten
Tomatoes score the movie is also an Oscar nominee for best
picture.
As we observe Martin Luther King Day, I hope you went out and
saw Selma. And if you already did, I hope you saw it again. And
again. Take different friends.

That said King was not a perfect man. Nor was Selma a perfect
movie.
But it's our perfect cinematic reminder that we had the feeling
in 1965--a big year for society's biggest ideas. Fifty years
later, our ambitions for equality only seem to shrink.
Lost the feeling? See the movie. Dream again.
This is what Reason should be writing about on MLK day.
(5030008) reply to this

* Ayn Random Variation|1.19.15 @ 4:22PM|#
"Fifty years later, our ambitions for equality only seem to
shrink."
Rick Trolled.
OK, so Tony, Blimp and Bo are the same person?
(5030033) reply to this

* Heroic Mulatto|1.19.15 @ 4:29PM|#

OK, so Tony, Blimp and Bo are the same person?
I don't know. Is Blimp a virulent anti-Semite like Tony and Bo
are? Post something about how you were overcharged for a bagel
and lox plate and let's find out!
(5030049) reply to this

* John Titor|1.19.15 @ 5:06PM|#
Because holding historical or present day figures to any kind of
standard undermines their struggles because...
Oh right, it's not about the truth, it's about making a
hagiography.
(5030150) reply to this

* blimp|1.19.15 @ 6:08PM|#
Oh right, it's not about the truth, it's about making a
hagiography.
I don't understand why no one can see how ridiculous Reason is
being with their poorly masked hostility to MLK day. This is a
once a year event why would not post something positive? Why are
they posting this passive-aggressive nonsense about prominent
African-Americans?
How about this?
or
This seems appropriate for today.
(5030341) reply to this

* blimp|1.19.15 @ 6:18PM|#
Don't present trivial letters as a pretext to launch
accusations. If you wanted to challenge the sanitized,
corporatized version of MLK, come out and do it.
Like this
or
This works too.
(5030357) reply to this

* John Titor|1.19.15 @ 6:22PM|#
You really are profoundly stupid if you think the Martin Luther
King information today was 'hostile' to anyone but the FBI for
trying to get him to off himself or the people who saw him as
'dangerous'.
Again, you're not looking for a man. You're looking for a saint
constructed to fit your bias. If he was such a great man, then
it speaks for itself, and mentioning his flaws shouldn't matter.
But you are obsessed with ignoring them for your own sake.
(5030366) reply to this

* blimp|1.19.15 @ 6:50PM|#
You really are profoundly stupid if you think the Martin Luther
King information today was 'hostile' to anyone but the FBI for
trying to get him to off himself or the people who saw him as
'dangerous'.
No, Reason's hostility is evident. They are hostile to the
ideals that MLK championed:
Dangerous ideas that Reason actively opposes

When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights
are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of
racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being
conquered.
"The Labor Movement was the principal force that transformed
misery and despair into hope and progress."
Every man must decide whether he will walk in the light of
creative altruism or in the darkness of destructive selfishness.
(5030399) reply to this

* John Titor|1.19.15 @ 6:59PM|#
Oh no, Reason disagrees with the great St. MLK on economic
issues, the horror! What heretics!
Again blimp, this may shock you, but MLK was not a god. He was
fully capable of being wrong. Like leaning towards a system that
murdered millions of people.
(5030414) reply to this

* John Titor|1.19.15 @ 6:46PM|#
I should also mention that by all means, if you want a
sanitized, cocksure version of MLK to make you feel good inside
there's plenty of empty platitudes being posted by other sides.
But it's also not real.
(5030391) reply to this

* John Titor|1.19.15 @ 6:50PM|#
Those examples you posted are not 'challenging the sanitized,
corporatized' version of MLK, that's lifting him up into a saint
or Messiah for their ideology.
(5030398) reply to this

* blimp|1.19.15 @ 6:51PM|#
Happy MLK day Reason

King knew that white supremacy, in various forms, was a global
phenomenon. It remains shot through our hearts and minds,
institutions and structures, smart phones and unwise politicians.
The modes of racist domination--from barbaric slavery to bestial
Jim Crow, Sr., to cruel Jim Crow, Jr.--are never reducible to
individual prejudice or personal bias. Empire, white supremacy,
capitalism, patriarchy, and homophobia are linked in complex
ways, and our struggles against them require moral consistency
and systemic analyses.
(5030400) reply to this

* John Titor|1.19.15 @ 6:54PM|#
And he also cheated, was a womanizer and was fairly
pro-Communist. There, is that so hard to say?
(5030404) reply to this

* blimp|1.19.15 @ 7:31PM|#
And he also cheated, was a womanizer and was fairly
pro-Communist. There, is that so hard to say?
If, as Reason has done today, this is the only thing you have to
say about MLK on MLK day then it is clear that you have a
problem with MLK and this holiday. The question now is what
specifically makes Reason hostile to MLK? His race? Most likely
not. His ideas? Yes, I just posted many of the ideas he espoused
and from this one can see how libertarians would oppose the
celebration of MLK. That was the point I was trying to make.
(5030470) reply to this

* John Titor|1.19.15 @ 7:59PM|#
Actually, the point you were trying to make from the very start
was that we should somehow refrain from criticizing certain
black public figures today for some vague reason. Even though
King was all about holding African Americans to the same
standards as everyone else.
Funny how you don't seem to hold certain ideas he espoused
seriously.
(5030514) reply to this

* Knarf Yenrab!|1.19.15 @ 6:46PM|#
No. He's not serious.
(5030393) reply to this

* John Titor|1.19.15 @ 5:04PM|#
And that is not relevant at all to the concept of holding people
accountable for their actions regardless of their skin colour.
I live in a country that was founded by drunks. There's constant
attempts to whitewash that away for propaganda purposes. It's
not about skin colour, it's about political icons being
recognized as flawed people, not gods.
(5030136) reply to this

* BigT|1.19.15 @ 5:06PM|#

I live in a country that was founded by drunks.
that could be anywhere!
(5030148) reply to this

* John Titor|1.19.15 @ 5:09PM|#
Sir John A MacDonald used to give speeches while drinking
massive amounts of hard liquor. Eventually the Opposition got a
rule established that banned alcohol in Parliament in the hopes
of screwing up his speeches. MacDonald switched to gin and
pretended it was water.
He may have been a drunk, but he was a clever drunk.
(5030163) reply to this

* Knarf Yenrab!|1.19.15 @ 6:55PM|#
Had me going there for a while, nicely done. Sometimes I forget
how insane this forum and its playful trolls get when I stay
away too long.
(5030405) reply to this

* Ayn Random Variation|1.19.15 @ 4:16PM|#
judged by content of character rather than by color of skin
bitches
(5030023) reply to this

* BigT|1.19.15 @ 5:05PM|#

Firs,t you create some flimsy pretext to discuss MLK's private
shortcomings. Next, you question our black President's integrity
*(author: Scott Shackford). Then, you go after our black Attorney
General; including a photo so we remember that he is black. After
that, you go back to your not so subtle character assassination
of MLK *(author: Jesse Walker). Now, you needlessly disparage
America's most prominent black scientist. I guess this is how
libertarians celebrate the MLK holiday. I shudder to think what
types of articles you will be posting next month (black history
month).
What's next? Cartoons of Muhammed? Wow, you've really gone off
the tracks Reason.
/s
(5030145) reply to this

* wwhorton|1.19.15 @ 9:52PM|#
Oh, wait, you're being serious. I thought you were being deeply
sarcastic.
Yeah, you're right, how dare Eric Holder be black in
photographs! Racist motherfucker! I think it's fucked up that
all these black people wound up in prominent positions where
they'd have the gall to be discussed in news articles and
op-eds, thus forcing publications and their readers to
write/read about them, ALL WHILE THEY'RE BEING ALL BLACK AND
STUFF!! Scumbags!!
(5030682) reply to this

* Derpetologist|1.19.15 @ 1:36PM|#
Tony:
I agree the world has warmed slightly over the past 100 years
and that human activity is one of the reasons.
Here are the things you still need to prove:
1. that the warming will lead to catastrophe
2. that the govt has a solution to the problem
3. that the cost of the solution is practical
Malaria will kill about a million people this year. Many of
those deaths will be very young children. Almost all these
deaths could be prevented through the prudent use of DDT. Are
you willing to lift the ban on DDT in light of these facts? If
not, congratulations, you're science-denying ideological moron.
(5029681) reply to this

* BiMonSciFiCon|1.19.15 @ 2:18PM|#
I am shocked Tony has declined to respond.
(5029796) reply to this

* Derpetologist|1.19.15 @ 3:11PM|#
Don't worry- he'll be back in few hours to corpse fuck this
thread.
(5029922) reply to this

* Swiss Servator, CHF...gah!|1.19.15 @ 4:03PM|#
Ah, I see your expertise in derpetology is backed up with prior
observation as well. Nicely done.
(5030003) reply to this

* Tony|1.19.15 @ 4:35PM|#
Christ the talking points are stale. DDT? Really? There are
already exceptions for malaria, and dealing with climate change
doesn't preclude dealing with malaria. I don't even know why you
brought it up.
Define catastrophe. There are all sorts of frightening
predictions that are quite credible, and I think at this point
you need to explain what the benefit of doing absolutely nothing
about them is.
I don't see capitalism dealing with this problem (environmental
harm being a classic example of something capitalism handles
poorly), so if you accept the facts, you tell me what
alternative you propose to government action. Governments are
the means by which we do big things. Capitalism is the means by
which some people make money for themselves. You guys are a bit
confused and think the latter is sufficient for all problems,
but that is of course an absurd claim.
There are costs associated with doing nothing, and those costs,
even if we don't know them precisely, will certainly be more
than policy approaches.
Again, science isn't optional, no matter how much you don't like
the implications. You need to get the fuck over yourself and
realize that the world ticks along just fine without moron
libertarians deciding they know everything. You are stupid
people with a lazy, simplistic dogma and you insist that not
only other people live by all of its religious-like bullshit,
but that natural reality conform as well. Tedious beyond belief.
(5030066) reply to this

* Heroic Mulatto|1.19.15 @ 4:38PM|#

Governments are the means by which we do big things.
Like the Holocaust!
Go 12 million deaths or GTFO, I say.
(5030073) reply to this

* Derpetologist|1.19.15 @ 4:47PM|#
Yes, Tony, the govt is such a responsible steward of the
environment. Why, just look at the bang-up job they did at the
Hanford nuclear site.
http://www.scientificamerican......-problems/
(5030094) reply to this

* See Double You|1.19.15 @ 4:49PM|#
The only tedious person on this thread today is you, Tony.
Dozens of commenters have given you evidence to back their
arguments, all the while you pretend like they haven't or accuse
them of relying on "crank theories" (without explaining how that
is so other than your bald assertions).
Just fuck off already.
(5030099) reply to this

* Cytotoxic|1.19.15 @ 1:43PM|#
Re AGW: stop arguing. None of this matters: the war is over and
natural gas has won. US emissions are down and it's because of
fracking. That's a wrap.
(5029700) reply to this

* Libertarian|1.19.15 @ 1:52PM|#
Number one: natural gas has helped the U.S. meet the Kyoto
goals.
Number two: even IF agw is reality, the most cost-effective way
to deal with it is to DEAL WITH IT, not prevent it, or
ameliorate it.
(5029724) reply to this

* Cytotoxic|1.19.15 @ 1:55PM|#
Excellent points.
(5029734) reply to this

* |1.19.15 @ 2:26PM|#
It does matter because the thieves and charlatans will never
stop in their efforts to use this scam as a means to loot
people's bank accounts. They must be slapped down hard,
repeatedly.
(5029815) reply to this

* Cytotoxic|1.19.15 @ 2:33PM|#
True, but my point was that we already have a solution to the
carbon 'problem' and we can just whip it out whenever they bring
it up. If they seriously use the term 'bridge fuel' just laugh
in their faces.
(5029833) reply to this

* Libertarian|1.19.15 @ 1:50PM|#
Tyson's "my bad" is not quite as contrite as Hinkle implies.
http://thefederalist.com/2014/.....ns-my-bad/
(5029720) reply to this

* Nosea|1.19.15 @ 1:55PM|#
I don't think you are ever going to stop people from
lying/embellishing anything.
What is so unnerving is that people have quit questioning. When
I went
back to school, I sat in classrooms of nonparticipants-tell me
what I need to know and how I need to pass this class. It was
only the older
going-back-group that fired away questions and offered reasons
why
something was inaccurate. I honestly felt sick staring at all
those mute kids. When we were their age we still asked the same
damn questions.
(5029737) reply to this

* Cytotoxic|1.19.15 @ 1:59PM|#
Too many people go to University.
(5029747) reply to this

* MJBinAL|1.19.15 @ 3:07PM|#
This is probably true. We give many university degrees of
dubious value to help people get jobs that didn't need
university degrees.
In our drive to get nearly everyone into university, we have
lowered the requirements until the university degree takes on
the value formerly associated with a high school diploma.
Years ago a high school graduate could manage and own a
appliance store successfully doing accounting, purchasing, and
managment on ledgers.
Now we claim you need a university degree to manage a Radio
Shack store with all of the management done by computer.
(5029915) reply to this

* Ayn Random Variation|1.19.15 @ 2:18PM|#
How about the fake scene from the anti fracking movie where
fracking made water flammable?
(5029795) reply to this

* |1.19.15 @ 2:22PM|#
Six months ago I lost my job and after that I was fortunate
enough to stumble upon a great website which literally saved me.
I started working for them online and in a short time after I've
started averaging 15k a month... The best thing was that cause I
am not that computer savvy all I needed was some basic typing
skills and internet access to start... This is where to
start..........
|>|>|>|>|>|> WWW.JOBS-MILL.COM
(5029805) reply to this

* Swiss Servator, CHF...gah!|1.19.15 @ 2:59PM|#
BUGGER OFF, IIFY! I AM A JOBSFISH.COM MAN!
(5029889) reply to this

* gaoxiaen|1.19.15 @ 6:00PM|#
Can I make enough to buy a Ford Fiesta?
(5030314) reply to this

* OldMexican|1.19.15 @ 3:44PM|#
Re: Jackand Ace,

Just this week I suggested that the many Libertarians who
frequent these pages are all too willing to believe in the
biggest conspiracy theory making the rounds today, that being
that the majority of climate scientists have been bought off, and
are lying about the science just so they can get funding.

There may be some libertarians who believe this - there has to
be at least one - but most of us think that AHW is just another
case of confirmation bias shown by some climate scientists who
want to believe that humans are indeed hurting Gaia, and there
is quite a lot of Appeal to Authority and Question-Begging from
the part of the other scientists who have not the time to
thoroughly go through every paper and publication that the
climate scientists issue and so trust the claims are true
because "why would they lie?"
(5029969) reply to this

* Tony|1.19.15 @ 4:39PM|#
That's still a conspiracy theory, and many of the libertarians
are endorsing the "they're paid off" version. It's all
ridiculously idiotic of course. Why is this one field of
research somehow immune from the checks and balances of the
scientific process? Why shouldn't we call into question every
single other field?
(5030075) reply to this

* Cytotoxic|1.19.15 @ 5:04PM|#
That's still a conspiracy theory
Dipshit Toney doesn't understand what a conspiracy is. Here's an
example of a conspiracy:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/pa.....icide-ban/
Why is this one field of research somehow immune from the checks
and balances of the scientific process?
This one is politicized and, like other soft sciences, tends to
attract soft scientists who are at least as much activist as
scientist.
(5030139) reply to this

* Tony|1.20.15 @ 12:17PM|#
It's politicized because powerful interests have made it so.
Instead of talking about solutions to the problem we're arguing
about the existence of the problem. A perfect scenario for those
who profit from the status quo--and an indictment of capitalism
as psychopathic.
(5031662) reply to this

* |1.19.15 @ 5:30PM|#

Why is this one field of research somehow immune from the checks
and balances of the scientific process? Why shouldn't we call
into question every single other field?
We do. That's the thing which separates science from bullshit-
scientists generate hypotheses which allow falsifiable
predictions. That's the "calling into question" part which is
the heart of good science. The predictions are tested
experimentally. If the predictions are no good (i.e., do not
predict the results of experiments/observations), they're
discarded. Doubling down and post hoc excuse-making are why much
(most) of modern climate "science" isn't.
(5030209) reply to this

* R C Dean|1.19.15 @ 6:02PM|#
Why shouldn't we call into question every single other field?
Trust me, when they start acting as paid shills for the Total
State, we have, can, will, and do call them into question.
(5030322) reply to this

* Tony|1.20.15 @ 12:18PM|#
But generally the predictions of climate science have been borne
out, and if you take the IPCC projections, if anything the
predictions have been too optimistic.
(5031665) reply to this

* The artist known Dunphy|1.19.15 @ 6:27PM|#
Thank you Mr Hinkle for stating this obvious truth
It never ceases to amuse me how people of all ideologies (even
elitist libertarians who think Americans are dumb and they are
privy to special truth and are eerily similar to progressives)
engage the same prejudices, confirmation bias, rhetorical
garbage tactics, confident belief that they know how the world
REALLY works, etc etc
It's a source of constant amusement
Much like the recent article writer who finally used the correct
term 'paid leave' vs the hoary lie of 'paid suspension', it's a
welcome bit of hard truth
(5030375) reply to this

* FUQ|1.20.15 @ 5:04AM|#
You got schooled on this issue repeatedly slaver
smooches
(5030798) reply to this

* buybuydandavis|1.19.15 @ 6:36PM|#
"the truth has a well-known liberal bias,"
What delusional schmucks. The world spent a century and millions
of lives proving that their fundamental economic premises were
*false*. Who buried who, schmuckos?
(5030383) reply to this

* alinenache|1.19.15 @ 6:36PM|#
Liberal politicians against liberty
http://waltherpragerandphiloso.....berty.html
(5030385) reply to this

* buybuydandavis|1.19.15 @ 6:40PM|#
"the role of greenhouse gases in climate change is not well
understood"--even though a report for its own internal
consumption conceded that "the scientific basis for the
Greenhouse Effect and the potential impact of human emissions
... on climate is well established and cannot be denied."
Both of their claims can be true at the same time. There is a
large gap between "well understood" and "potential impact".
This is one thing I hate. People playing the "gotcha" game, and
being lazy ass putzes about it. If you're going to play gotcha,
make sure that you're *right*.
(5030387) reply to this

* buybuydandavis|1.19.15 @ 7:01PM|#
"If the ACA was such a wonderful piece of legislation, then why
such great need to lie about it?"
Because the peasants are too stupid to know what is good for
them.
(5030416) reply to this

* Jimm|1.19.15 @ 7:11PM|#
tyson should stick to physics in every other subject he is an
intellecutal dilettante
(5030429) reply to this

* |1.19.15 @ 7:18PM|#
He's not a great physicist. It's been a long time since he did
anything pertinent. His strength is education, publicity, and
administration, not research.
(5030442) reply to this

* checkdempremises|1.19.15 @ 9:00PM|#
Since I've seen a lot about the AGW consensus, I'll bring up an
interesting book called 'The Deniers' by Lawrence Solomon which
goes through and examines world renowned scientists who deny the
widely believed catastrophic effects of AGW as they pertain to
their area of expertise. People forget that 'climate science' is
not a monolith, it brings under one big tent scientists from a
variety of fields, and in 'The Deniers' Solomon demonstrates
that often scientists who are part of the consensus dispute the
claims that pertain to their field of study, while accepting the
claims about fields they have no expertise in. For instance, a
scientist who studies hurricanes will dispute that they are
becoming stronger and more frequent due to AGW, but will believe
glaciers are receding at an unnatural rate, while a scientist
that studies glaciers won't believe glaciers are receding at an
unnatural rate, but will believe hurricanes are increasing in
intensity and frequency. You can't have a consensus about
'climate science' when you include claims about disparate fields
of study together - and if you do have a 'consensus' it is
meaningless.
(5030592) reply to this

* MSimon|1.19.15 @ 10:18PM|#
"the role of greenhouse gases in climate change is not well
understood"
Yes, it is well understood by some. And the answer is none. CO2
continues rising temperatures - despite the press releases - do
not.
The sun controls climate. Maunder Minimum.
(5030700) reply to this

* dpbisme|1.20.15 @ 11:41AM|#
Not as an interesting article as I hoped. I mean, when I point
out that Blacks (13% of the population) commit about 50% of the
crime Liberals call me a racist... When all I am doing it
pointing out a problem. The Left hates simple FACTS because it
goes against it's narrative. Everything with them has to be
nuanced and watered down to the point where no problem can be
identified so no solution can be used. They are so scared of
loosing a voting block or solving a problem because they might
loose votes...
(5031493) reply to this

* mikeangellogy|1.20.15 @ 12:01PM|#
My friend's mother makes $61 an hour on the internet . She has
been without a job for ten months but last month her pay was
$15622 just working on the internet for a few hours.
over here. www.jobsfish.com
(5031591) reply to this