StrangeSox

More on how terrible the WSJ editorial (and the Daily Mail piece) are here: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastro...ts-reach-lower/ This is why "present both sides" isn't really a workable solution, because it's not two equal sides making a case for a subjective decision like "coke is better than pepsi, here's why!" It analogizes very well to the evolution/creationism issue. The denialist side simply is not interested in the truth of what an overwhelming majority of the science says. The Daily Mail piece even went so far as to ask the Met Office (where the data came from) about the paper, and then published an article making claims that are in direct contradiction with what the Met Office told the author. There's no real debate here, no two sides to present. There's the actual work done by scientists, and then the political and ideological backlash against it.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jan 31, 2012 -> 10:41 AM) The title is mis-leading. 7-year-old Anna Kimball kicked off baseball team just because she’s a girl Should be 7-year-old girl Anna Kimball cut from baseball team because she's not as good as other players But the coach admits that she's better than her brother, who's still on the team. Maybe it's because I played park district baseball, but I don't remember anyone being cut at those ages.

Basically agree with what you said. They're 6 and 7. How "competitive" is any league at that age? My guess is the coach has some issues and is trying to live his dream through youth baseball.

QUOTE (Felix @ Jan 16, 2012 -> 04:13 PM) I know exactly what I'm missing. I've watched the majority of the first season as I had roommates in college that absolutely loved it. I think it's complete trash that relies on the same overused schtick of nerds being nerdy. It's relies too heavily on a laugh track and has very little comedic value. My statement about prefering to watch Human Centipede might have sounded like a hyperbole, but it honestly wasn't. I would seriously start laughing mid-way through the first viewing, which is more than Big Bang Theory could do for me. EDIT: To be perfectly honest, I find it hard to enjoy any show with a laugh track these days. If a comedy feels the need to tell you when you should be laughing, then it's probably not doing it's job particularly well. It's another reason why I have immense respect for Sports Night, which didn't want a laugh track but was refuted by the network. As the series progressed, the laugh track became rarer and quieter, before finally disappearing completely in season two. Watching a scene without the laugh track really highlights how awkward the pacing is. (there's plenty more)

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 31, 2012 -> 08:53 AM) LOL, shocker. That place has had a rep like that for decades. lol I bet. Not sure how bars like Kam's get away with so much of it down in Champaign. Then again, it ends up being a drinking ticket cash-cow for the police, so....

The Pats guy seemed under-qualified. I think that would have been a disastrous hire, trying to chase after the Patriots' system with someone who wasn't really all that important to it.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jan 30, 2012 -> 01:53 PM) Howard is a better defender than Noah. Howard is probably better than Noah at everything except for dribbling and energy. And hating on Cleveland.

Well, there's a bit of a difference between the gesturing that Williams did and the more angry, accusatory gestures of Brewer. edit: to be fair I haven't seen video of Brewer because I don't care about this dumb issue. But who cares, the President isn't some monarch above reproach.

It seems that this would be a non-issue if he wasn't a prominent politician.

Skeptical Science goes through a point-by-point breakdown of the WSJ op-ed. It's a little heavy on the "argument from authority" stuff (namely, that these people aren't really authorities in this field) in the beginning but digs into the actual data.

Waiting for my W2 to show up before I dump all my documents on my dad. It's nice having an IRS agent do your taxes.

The Daily Mail (another Murdoch paper) has a related piece on how, hey, it's not really warming at all! Let's regraph that data twice: (via kevin drum) "They lie continually, they lie prodigiously, and they lie because they must"

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 30, 2012 -> 09:46 AM) There have been a couple, hugely0-publicized retractions from the IPCC 2007 report, but out of 2000 pages, that does happen. And it's astonishing how much press those have gotten Retractions due to making things up or just being wrong?

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jan 30, 2012 -> 09:42 AM) My only issue is the one side is not the only one printing blatantly false information. I'm not aware of any papers being retracted for falsified data.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jan 30, 2012 -> 09:40 AM) What would you have them trot out? They're the people advocating for the status quo...all they must do is point out how wrong those seeking drastic change have been. I'd rather they not trot out wrong ideas and keep denying reality. They have the right to continue being wrong and advocating for the status quo, but they have no right to be immune from criticism for those positions.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jan 30, 2012 -> 09:38 AM) WSJ obviously comes down on one side and has every right to publish whichever article they choose. Every paper in the world does this. SS, and yourself, obviously come down on the other side and are offended by this. As if there are not enough forums or venues from which to get climate change/global warming information...why are you both so incredibly offended that the WSJ would only publish the side that furthers their agenda? I'm not offended. I'm laughing at how terrible and hackish they are. They have a right to publish dumb, hack articles full of crap ideas refuted hundreds of times, and I and others have the right to point this out. There's plenty of venues to get AGW information, and not all of it good. We don't need more venues printing blatantly false information, and places that do are rightfully subjected to harsh criticisms.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 30, 2012 -> 09:28 AM) Did you even read what he posted? The whole point of it was not to cheerlead, but instead to see both sides. WSJ elected to post an article that tried to apply argumentative logic to prove the falsehood, but turned down the one that instead used scientific principles. Even if you believe only one or the other, publishing one without the other is a pretty good indicator of bias. That was the point. They trotted out the same denialist crap again, there was nothing new to their assertions at all.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jan 30, 2012 -> 09:25 AM) Come on...both sides obviously have an agenda and will martial their resources to fight for it at all costs...all you're doing is cheerleading for the side you happen to agree with here. All I'm doing is "cheerleading" for the side that has the overwhelming amount of evidence and the agreement of every major scientific body in the world against the often-wrong WSJ editorial page. There's no equivalency here between the two sides.

Forbes does a good job of laying out how hackish and terrible the WSJ's editorial pages are:

The Germans want to annex territory, shocking.

http://deadspin.com/5879169/a-plea-to-joe-...n-state-scandal

New Hampshire Republicans Propose Bills That Prevent Police From Protecting Domestic Abuse Victims You know, I can usually understand the motivations behind bills I find awful. But seriously, wtf? What would ever be the motivation behind these proposals?

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Jan 27, 2012 -> 05:21 PM) haha, remember when you guys where in here calling Hillary Clinton a racist? that was great. no?

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Jan 27, 2012 -> 02:00 PM)