StrangeSox

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 8, 2012 -> 09:13 AM) And those people are clearly morons, preying on an ignorant public. But yet again, you are attempting to say that because some responses to AGW are garbage, that must mean ALL of them are. I disagree. I am demonstrating that empirical evidence indicates that all legitimate scientific attempts at refuting the existence and magnitude of AGW have either confirmed AGW (recent BEST study) or have been bad, overstated science (Spencer, Lindzen). The next paper that seriously undermines AGW will be the first.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Feb 8, 2012 -> 08:54 AM) But there is a good faith debate over the issue. Yes, I believe that human behavior has an effect on the climate of the Earth. Beyond that, there are all kinds of things to debate. What should we do? What is the most cost-effective manner in which to act? How much of what humans are doing is causing the problem and how much are other factors involved? Can we actually cause a dramatic shift in human behavior? If we did, is it too late? What kinds of new businesses/industries would be created/enhanced? And on and on and on... There's absolutely good discussion to be held over policy response to a major issue, but this is distinctly different from the complete denial of the simple existence of the issue. GOP politicians and pundits do not hesitate to call the entire concept of AGW a "hoax." The entire point of the WSJ and Daily Mail articles is to deny the very existence of a global warming problem.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Feb 8, 2012 -> 08:23 AM) What does this matter? I keep seeing you refer to this? Since when do opposing sides of an argument require "co-equal sides worthy of presentation" in order for me to be able to discuss the issue? The point is that there's no legitimate, good-faith debate over the issue. When I said ignorance before, I knew it could come across as a slight, but it really isn't meant to be. Each and every one of us is ignorant about a great many things and don't have time to study much of anything in great detail. That's precisely why such dishonesty on the part of denialists is dangerous--the general public isn't going to see much beyond the headline-type information, they're never going to see the detailed rebuttals. I'd like to note that this is, similar to creationism, uniquely an American problem. It's not just about the WSJ editorial but the ongoing battle against disinformation. Also boredom and a slow period at work.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 8, 2012 -> 08:00 AM) Well SS just showed you one interesting aspect along these lines... not 100% of climatological scientists agree on the topic. 90% is not 100%. Do 100% of all peer-reviewed scienfitic papers find that 100% of the net global warming is caused by humanity? Every one of them? Of course not. This means that there are true experts in the field (not talking about the screaming ostriches here) who feel that there may ALSO be other factors at play. And this only makes sense, really, because you cannot possibly control for everything in your study when you are talking about something as complex as the earth's climate. You can identify correlations... and you can show individual causal links, like say, between CO2 presence and warming of the atmosphere, or between certain polluting sources and atmospheric CO2 levels... but you can't possibly explore every link and every cause and effect. It simply isn't possible. What you CAN do, is show that over decades of peer-reviewed scientific studies, demonstrating not only the raw data but the statistically-tested probabilities of causal relationships in the main factors at play, that there is a very high probability that some of climate change occurring is caused by humanity. You can even say a large chunk of it is so. And you will have 95% confidence in it. I am in total agreement with this, by the way - the science has spoken decisively ENOUGH on this topic that it has convinced me that AGW exists, and represents some significant part of the shifting climate. That is NOT the same thing as saying there is no valid other side, as you two keep pointing at. You are characterizing as fact, something that by its very nature, cannot be fact. There's biologists who are creationists, astronomers who are geocentricists, doctors who are anti-vaxxers or anti-HIV-causes-AIDS, geologists who are young-earthers, historians who buy into ancient aliens or deny the holocaust. In all of those cases, just as with AGW, there really is not a valid 'other side.' The 'other side' is composed almost entirely of editorialized arguments and not actual science. On the rare occasion they do publish something scientific (young-earthers and the Zircon studies for example), it is quickly and completely picked apart.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 4, 2012 -> 01:26 PM) Everyone took a cut in this case...except the high level taxpayers, who got a nice tax cut. Which contributed to the state being in the red and having no money. Maybe not the biggest reason, but you can't say "The state had NO MONEY" when they found money for tax cuts. But then, we demand teachers sacrifice, we demand workers sacrifice, but we never demand the rich sacrifice. And then, things improve for the state, but the "Emergency sacrifices" stay in place. Tennessee is doing this one right now. Massive cuts to the education budgets over the last 3 years, financial situation now improving, first thing that happens...tax cuts. Alabama State Rep. says raising teachers' salaries is unchristian

Not-Romney part VI wins all three contests yesterday.

No, you continue to miss that there are not two co-equal sides worthy of presentation. The anti-agw side has no more to present on the actual scientific merits than creationism or geocentricism. This isn't people who "happen" to be on the denialist side, it is the core of denialism. I'm not saying that they don't have a first amendment right to be wrong and to publish it, or that no science potentially critical of agw should be performed, but that we need to recognize denialism for what it is-unsupported propaganda. Trying to have an uninformed public decide the "truth" when one side is largely scientists not concerned with PR and the other side is entirely PR is asking for failure. Here is the result of "let both sides present:" actual scientists accept AGW by an overwhelming majority while the general public does so only by a very slim majority. http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/01/97...ologists_ag.php edit: maybe we're talking past each other. I'm not referring to discussions of policy over what, if anything, should be done by the government. I'm referring to the base-level acceptance of the reality and the impact of AGW. You can't get to policy discussions when you can't get past step 1. AFAIK the GOP is the only major political party in the Western world that actively denies climate science and has many of its members refer to it as a "hoax"

I reiterate my early "burn it to the ground" comment.

QUOTE (Heads22 @ Feb 7, 2012 -> 09:18 PM) If Romney would have had a big night tonight, it'd have been like going into the fourth quarter with a sizable lead. He's left it as a 10 point game right now, and is punting. I just don't see how the Republican party could seriously let Santorum ultimately win this, either. Despite the fact he won Iowa, I guarantee that the state stays blue if he was the nominee. I still have zero doubt that Romney walks away with this thing, but his general favorability numbers have been steadily declining since early January. Any other GOP candidate would lose in a historic landslide.

Over at the Volokh Conspiracy, Ilya Somin has a sort of Equal Protection 101 post detailing why SSM bans are sex discrimination and not sexual orientation discrimination: http://volokh.com/2012/02/07/same-sex-marr...discrimination/

QUOTE (Heads22 @ Feb 7, 2012 -> 09:09 PM) The Republicans really don't care about winning the presidency this fall, apparently. None of the candidates look very strong right now.

Part 3 of Frum's review is up, and this opening two paragraphs made me lol:

Interesting examination of how right-wing climate denial myths start and propagate, and another refutation of the "equal time for both 'sides'" idea. How the 'wind farms increase climate change' myth was born University of Illinois wind farm researcher responds to how his paper was reported in the media and on the internet They lie continually, they lie prodigiously, and they lie because they must.

There is nothing more evil than calling a white man prejudiced.

I am enjoying "what's racist about discussions over fiscal policy and Chinese trade?!!?" re-reaction.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Feb 7, 2012 -> 04:09 PM) This is pretty offensive. Fake pidgin english? Seriously? www.debbiespenditnow.com The best part is her trying to fake a heavy accent and bad English because it only starts about half way through.

That's a good point, this ruling only applies to California's specific history and implementation.

Murray's book also contains this interesting assertion: Highlighting the many issues with this paragraph is left as an exercise for the reader.

David Frum has a pretty good on-going review of Charles Murray's (of The Bell Curve infamy) latest book, Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010. The main thesis of Murray's book appears to be that white working-class people are to blame for their stagnant economic situation because they've failed morally by not staying married and having children out of wedlock. Frum's main counter-point in part I is that Murray has his causality completely backwards and let's this blind him to literally every other factor.

9th Circuit rejects Prop. 8 This is inevitably being appealed to the SC.

He threw Daniels under the bus in his statement accusing him of the same thing from what I read.

Mitt was never in Washington anyway.

You really want to bring a charge of "media bias" because of a 'flip-flopper' moniker? Really?

Dumb cover stories for blatantly political moves the result in less medical care for poorer women lose again.

Karen Handel, the Komen exec responsible for the push to dump PP and former gubernatorial anti-choice candidate, has resigned. http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/07/komen...od-controversy/