April 2012 Open thread

More thread.

Comments

  1. #1 ianam
    April 25, 2012

    Many of our Denier friends really should read it to find out why they are as they are; and why even overwhelming evidence can’t change them.

    Because of that, they won’t find out anything by reading it.

  2. #2 John Mashey
    April 25, 2012
  3. #3 Betula
    April 25, 2012

    “And yes, some of those contenders have since dropped out – but they were serious possibilities for a while.”

    Shorter chek:

    John Edwards for President….and Father of the year!

  4. #4 ianam
    April 25, 2012

    @545

    There’s a “Karen Bracken” who is a member of the Bradley County Tea Party … that may or may not be our sunspot/Karen and/or the Forbes writer. The latter certainly sounds exactly like sunspot.

  5. #5 ianam
    April 25, 2012

    Give what turns up when one googles “karen bracken” + “global warming”, I consider my previous comments about Karen/sunspot’s gender to be vindicated. Even if that’s not our Karen, some woman named Karen is capable of virtually the same nonsense.

  6. #7 Betula
    April 25, 2012

    “I consider my previous comments about Karen/sunspot’s gender to be vindicated. Even if that’s not our Karen, some woman named Karen is capable of virtually the same nonsense”

    The logic of ianam:

    1. I’m vindicated because it might be Karen. And if it’s not Karen, I’m vindicated because her name is Karen and she seems like the other Karen.

    2. I’m certain polar bears are dying from climate change. And if it’s not from climate change, I’m still certain that they are dying from climate change because they are polar bears and it seems like climate change would cause them to die.

    3. Betula is a liar because I claim he lies. And even if he’s not lying, he’s a liar for claiming I claimed he lied.

  7. #8 Geoff Beacon
    April 25, 2012

    ianam

    Perhaps you’re dim. Check the Journal Reference at the end of the article.

    OK, that’s was a sloppy mistake but what about the other comment on missing feedbacks: It’s rare that scientists publish what they don’t know, which is often crucial. Although the honest and decent ones will admit the failings. And the ones that don’t have Republican brains will sometimes admit they are wrong.

    However, it is possible to be too non-Republican (Is that “too Liberal”?) and change your mind too much. In my view James Lovelock has just shown that.

    As for the sloppy mistake thanks for pointing it out.

  8. #9 ianam
    April 25, 2012

    I already responded in `#`553.

  9. #10 Geoff Beacon
    April 25, 2012

    ianam

    OK, you did answer – an answer with which I agree.

    Sorry I missed it. I have a mild visual problem in scanning text – as well as being careless.

  10. #11 ianam
    April 25, 2012

    If at any point it had not been demonstrated that Betula is an imbecile, his/her/its next post would do the trick. Quite obviously to anyone who isn’t one, since others have claimed that sunspot must really be a man because women don’t (or rarely) write the sort of crap sunspot does, a woman writing crap exactly like sunspot’s goes against them (and for me, since I rejected that argument).

    Beyond that, the odds are pretty good that our karen/sunspot and the Tennessee Tea Partyer Karen Bracken who wrote to Forbes are the same person.

  11. #12 John
    April 26, 2012

    What a surprise. Karenmackspot is revealed to be an ideologically-bound nutcase. It certainly explains her unhinged behaviour.

  12. #13 bill
    April 26, 2012

    Speaking of ideologically bound nutcases, I see Cameron and Osborne have managed to run the UK economy right through the ditch and into the long-grass beyond, where it may never be found again, and all by diligent application of the unkillable Zombie theorems of the likes of Rand and Hayek to a recession.

    Result: absolute disaster, but The Rich continue to make out like bandits, which is what the parties of the Right are really all about, so chin chin, eh? Well done your team, eh, Duff?

    Why mention it?

    One; because if ‘Karen’ is indeed the person identified above, I’ll point out – there’s no point in warning, as heeding politically-undesirable information is, of course, impossible – that thanks to the gang of hapless mackerel your ‘Tea Party’ got elected to Congress last time around, and doubtlessly will again, should the Oval Office indeed be delivered to your guy – the almost universally unloved, but potentially pliable, Romney – your economy will doubtlessly shortly thereafter also do the Titanic thing, as a kind of belated commemoration, and for the same reasons.

    The Rich, of course, will be fine – and some day you, and the rest of your little posse, may very well win the lottery, so, never mind, it’s still a just world.

    Two: because this is what all Zombie imbecility, and all zealot ideological aversion to incovenient facts gets you.

    I mean, your team’s latest article of faith is now apparently ‘the Astrologers were right, after all‘. Watts was in such raptures – read the introductory paragraphs – that he nailed the post to the head of his blog for a couple of days.

    ‘Skeptics’? [*snort*]

    Yep, given the right opportunity,this ruggedly self-possessed cadre – ‘no Marxist’ll be tellin’ me what ta think’- just leaps at the chance to truly believe (it’s what they’re good at, after all!) some magic silver bullet – be it cosmic rays or ultra-deregulation – is really going to deliver them from the nasty, difficult liberal world of science, the lessons of history, and hard-won evidence…

  13. #14 Wow
    April 26, 2012

    “but The Rich continue to make out like bandits, which is what the parties of the Right are really all about”

    Of course, that’s what the New Left are all about too.

    In fact, the problem is that we have a politician class. A class whose work experience is ENTIRELY politics. Look at Gordon. His expertise that put him as PM? A university degree on the History of the Labour Party.

    In The Old Days ™, the right had experience in leading (or at least financing and keeping tabs on) industry and landholds. And the left had experience in being workers, or at least officials in the union which had to work on issues for workers. So either side could bring some actual real-life experience to the table.

    Now? We have people whose entire career (and, indeed their career choice) has been party politics.

    And, once they get in power, they only meet the people with power enough to meet with the people with power.

    So 100% of the people they meet and talk to about the issues of the country are the rich and powerful.

    It is an inevitable consequence of the capitalist system and the homily that you need money to make money.

    It’s the reason why there are no political parties, just different branding of the same ones: the people who the ones in power meet are the same ones each time.

  14. #15 bill
    April 26, 2012

    Wow, I essentially agree.

    But I was glad that when the GFC struck Australia we had a PM and a Treasurer who both kept some dusty old copies of Lord Keynes* – one of the greatest Britons, to my mind – in their back-pockets, and still had some remnant notion that the Labor Party was something to do with justice and managing the economy in the interests of all. Between that and a healthy export partnership with China we’ve done amazingly well, a story that the incumbent party is apparently too dense to effectively broadcast.

    The ‘new’ PM is, to my mind, a product of the very system your describe, but they’re still the lesser of evils – and that’s important, given the opposition; I shudder to think what manifestations of the Shock Doctrine would have been inflicted on the country had the other crew been in power in ’08.

    We’ll probably yet find out…

    *’karen’ – sort of like Karl Marx and Joseph Stalin rolled into one! Not; but you’ll think so, anyway…

  15. #16 Wow
    April 26, 2012

    “but they’re still the lesser of evils”

    It’s still evil.

    Until the UK gets a “None of the above” option WITH that being given some power (i.e. no seat if it wins, no parliament if it gains majority), there is absolutely no way to fix this problem.

    Except with churn.

    Keep churning through each and every voting term a new politician. Get them in, get them out as soon as possible.

    It’s the worst way of managing political reform, except for all the others.

  16. #17 adelady
    April 26, 2012

    “except for all the others”

    Right. There’s no use complaining about the lack of the one true, good, pure choice in politics, economics or evne personal moral decisions. By and large, when we’d really like a straight choice between good and evil, we don’t get it.

    On a good day, the choices are good, better or best. Doesn’t happen often but mark the day in your diary with a big asterisk. Because most days it’s between OK and marginally better, or between bad and least worst, and on very special days it’s between OMG that smells and I-never-thought-I’d-say-this-but….

  17. #18 David Duff
    April 26, 2012

    Oh, no, say it ain’t so! Honestlly, guys and girls, I am searching desperately for anything to keep you well supplied with ‘Apocalypse Now’ stories but, and I know you’ll find this hard to beleive, there really aren’t that many around. Just today they tell us that all that crap about mobile phones causing brain cancer is, er, crap!

    And now some unutterable swine has written a book on the history of New Zealand – must be a jolly slim volume, don’cha think? Anyway, apparently this cove found an old map (1912, so ancient by NZ standards, just yesterday to us Little Englanders) and guess what? When compared to a contemporary aerial photo it shows absolutely no sign of any sea level rise since 1912!

    Now it’s no good you all throwing your toys out the pram at me. I didn’t write the bloody book. It comes out this week and is called “The Great Divide” so now’s your chance not to read it!

  18. #19 chek
    April 26, 2012

    Fear not Duffer, everyday is a Zombie (non-argument) Apocalypse of Stupid when you’re around.

    I wonder if you’re even aware that [sea level increase in one area of the globe need not be the same as in another area,](www.epa.gov/climatechange/effects/coastal/index.html)
    and all that melting ice has to go somewhere.

    Probably not – they wouldn’t teach you that for when you’re pontificating and playing pretend admirals.

  19. #20 SteveC
    April 26, 2012

    Duff:

    some unutterable swine has written a book on the history of New Zealand – must be a jolly slim volume, don’cha think?

    Only an ignoramus or someone with a wildly inflated opinion of their own “wit” would believe so.

    Anyway, apparently this cove found an old map (1912, so ancient by NZ standards, just yesterday to us Little Englanders) (etc etc)

    Entertain my curiosity – is this cheap snobbery an artifice contrived to give the impression you’re wittier than you really are, or is it an affliction you were born with?

    When compared to a contemporary aerial photo it shows absolutely no sign of any sea level rise since 1912!

    Gosh – a scaled down reproduction of a century old map derived using century old technology that you compared with a modern aerial at an unspecified scale that you claim backs up your own precooked dogma.

    Obvious troll trolls. 1/10, must try harder.

  20. #21 David Duff
    April 26, 2012

    So tell me, chek, how are the Maldives doing? Thinking of a hols for me and the ‘Memsahib’, you see, and everyone keeps telling me, well they have for the last 10 years, that they’re about to sink under the ocean. Is that right? Only I notice that the airport was recently sold to an Indian and Malaysian conglomorate who are spending ‘zillions’ on up-grading it, and that 28 different airlines use it on a regular basis. So, doesn’t look as though the sea is lapping round their ankles, does it?

  21. #22 adelady
    April 26, 2012

    Maldives? Just as well you can’t see any effects there.

    Remember, when it comes to sea level, the Maldives is in the same position as New York. At least the Maldives doesn’t have subway transport systems or other tunnels to worry about.

  22. #23 Wow
    April 26, 2012

    “Right. There’s no use complaining about the lack of the one true, good, pure choice in politics, economics”

    That’s why I

    a) said that the lesser evil is STILL evil.

    b) said that we need better ways.

    c) said, until we have those better ways, we still have churn

  23. #24 lord_sidcup
    April 26, 2012

    I’ve just looked at the map that is getting Duff so excited. It’s a lagoon separated from the sea by a bar made up of pebbles “less prone to erosion than shifting sands”, but prone to erosion nevertheless (and long shore drift I shouldn’t wonder). How anyone can draw any conclusion from a fairly crude map is simply beyond my comprehension.

    There is an upcoming climate change conference in New Zealand focussing on sea level rise. No doubt this non-story of the 100 year old map has been dredged up to try to give NZ deniers some material, no matter how flaky, to work with.

  24. #25 Rattus Norvegicus
    April 26, 2012

    Bill,

    Ah yes, the recent howler I like to call “Svensmark’s Cosmic Crackpot”. He really has lost the story, hasn’t he?

  25. #26 lord_sidcup
    April 26, 2012

    On the topic of sea level rise here is a story that is important:

    [World’s glaciers ‘out of balance’](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17843648)

    Earth’s glaciers are seriously out of balance with the global climate and are already committed to losing almost 40% of their volume.

    That is the assessment of scientists after studying a representative group of 144 small and large glaciers around the world.

    Their figures assume no further warming of the climate.

    However, if temperatures continue to rise as models predict, the wastage will be even higher, the team says.

  26. #27 Marco
    April 26, 2012

    Adelady, the Maldives may not have a subway, but its main island, Male, is losing its mango trees due to saltwater penetration, at least in part due to sea level rise. Reportedly, 90% has already died.

  27. #28 David Duff
    April 26, 2012

    “Their figures assume no further warming of the climate.”

    I think, m’Lord, that would be a fairly safe assumption not least because there hasn’t been any for the last dozen years when the, er, models all said there would be on account of CO2 production going through the roof!

  28. #29 Betula
    April 26, 2012

    Marco 582…

    “Male, is losing its mango trees due to saltwater penetration, at least in part due to sea level rise. Reportedly, 90% has already died”.

    I was going to ask you to link your source, but that’s okay, I decided to provide a link myself.

    Is it possible something else may be the cause of all those mango trees disappearing?

    I had visions of dying Mango groves dancing in my head, but, as they say, a picture is worth a thousand words. Open the link and click on the picture of Male, top left. Hilarity ensues…

    http://alimata.fr/06-maldives/male-nord-atoll.htm

  29. #30 Ian Forrester
    April 26, 2012

    Duffer the puffer shows his ignorance of climate science once again.

    Why not check out an actual science paper and see if there has been CO2 induced warming over the past dozen or so years?

    You see ignorant deniers like you assume that only CO2 affects global temperature whereas as most scientists know, at any one time there are a number of factors, volcanic eruption, variations in solar output, oceanic cycles which all have to be included. The funny thing is that it is the cabal of deniers who claim that “scientists only include CO2 in their models” whereas the truth is the exact opposite, it is the deniers who only look at CO2.

    [This recent paper](http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044022) shows what happens when you account for the short term natural variations.

  30. #31 Lionel A
    April 26, 2012

    lord_sidcup #579

    How anyone can draw any conclusion from a fairly crude map is simply beyond my comprehension.

    Didn’t Pat Michaels try that, and similarly failed, with a bit of Greenland and ice awhile back.

    Meanwhile,

    David Duff behaves like a frog fish, flopping around on his pseudo limbs trying to frighten us whilst at the same time not having the wit to answer straight questions. That is all he can achieve – the occasional drive by. What a twerp.

  31. #32 chek
    April 26, 2012

    Watching Betula and Duffer trying to be clever seems somewhat similar to watching a hippo trying to tap dance.

    there hasn’t been any (warming) for the last dozen years when the, er, models all said there would be on account of CO2 production going through the roof!

    The…er…question…er…is then ‘which models’.. er Duffer?

    But as we know, Duffer is just a hopeless, hollow conduit repeater with no thinking ability or cranial activity whatsoever, and will just disappear for a month or two when challenged, like the coward he is.
    “There seems to be something wrong with our bloody deniers today” Cap’n ‘beatoff’ Watts might be entitled to comment as Duffer’s hulk pops and sinks beneath the waves under the mildest of enquiries.

    And of course there’s Betula:

    I had visions of dying Mango groves dancing in my head

    who quite apart from wanting to share his unwelcome fantasies, further seems to think that the developed island of Male
    (a)shouldn’t have any trees to provide shade from the tropical sun
    and
    (b) is the sole constituent of both the north and south Male atolls.

    Keep puttin’ on the Ritz, fellas.
    Hilarity always ensues.

  32. #33 ianam
    April 26, 2012

    Is it possible something else may be the cause of all those mango trees disappearing?

    Yes, just as it’s possible that, if someone shoots you in the head, you’ll die of something else before the bullet reaches you. But that’s irrelevant to the fact that shooting people in the head kills them and that saltwater penetration kills mango trees … though it is a good illustration of your poor grasp of basic logic, the sort of failure of logic that permeates denier thinking.

  33. #34 ianam
    April 26, 2012

    “Their figures assume no further warming of the climate.”

    I think, m’Lord, that would be a fairly safe assumption not least because there hasn’t been any for the last dozen years when the, er, models all said there would be on account of CO2 production going through the roof!

    Again we see the fundamental inability of deniers to reason logically. Even if all the models did say that there would be warming over the last dozen years but there wasn’t any (which is not true), that would not make it a safe assumption that there will not be any further warming of the climate — that’s a complete non sequitur. The “reasoning” of the duffer seems to be that if a model made an incorrect prediction, then it’s safe to assume that future reality will be the opposite of whatever the model predicts it to be. How fortunate we would be to have such astoundingly reliable models.

  34. #35 Ian Forrester
    April 26, 2012

    In case Duffer the puffer likes [pretty pictures](http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1999/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1999) here is the HadCrut4 global temperatures for the past dozen years.

    Seems like temperatures have been going up at a rate of 0.1 degrees C per decade, which makes nonsense of [puffer’s comment](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/03/april_2012_open_thread.php#comment-6263358):

    that would be a fairly safe assumption not least because there hasn’t been any [warming of the climate] for the last dozen years

    I am glad to see that Wood for Trees has now got Hadcrut4 into their data base.

  35. #36 chek
    April 26, 2012

    I somehow overlooked this Duffer gem:

    So tell me, chek, how are the Maldives doing? Thinking of a hols for me and the ‘Memsahib’, you see, and everyone keeps telling me, well they have for the last 10 years, that they’re about to sink under the ocean. Is that right?

    Given that the President of the Maldives has declared his intention [to make his country carbon neutral by 2020](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7944760.stm), and while there haven’t been any ‘memsahibs’ since 1947 at the latest, I’d suggest your old bones still just about have time yet – if you’re not too busy indulging your preference for soaking up uncorroborated denialist trash information in the meantime.

    Better yet and probably more economically justifiable, take her to Bognor for a long weekend and drop a couple of E’s before you die in total retro-loving ignorance, if your heart could stand it.

  36. #37 Chris O'Neill
    April 26, 2012

    because there hasn’t been ANY for the last dozen years

    He can’t even get that right. What hope is there of him understanding something requiring an IQ higher than 50?

  37. #38 Betula
    April 26, 2012

    ianam @588…

    “Yes, just as it’s possible that, if someone shoots you in the head, you’ll die of something else before the bullet reaches you. But that’s irrelevant to the fact that shooting people in the head kills them and that saltwater penetration kills mango trees”

    Again with the violence.

    Anyhow, ianam and chek are vacationing in the overdeveloped isle of Male…

    As they sit in their air conditioned high rise, chek looks out over the vast display of buildings, not thinking about how many plants were destroyed in the process of developement or the strain such overdevelopment must put on any fresh water supply or wondering where all the septic goes, when he notices a tree off in the distance…

    chek: Hey ianam, is that a mango tree?

    ianam: Could be, I heard there was one left after all the developement, however, I thought that died many years ago when someone shot it.

    chek: I read a report from 1989, one year after reclaimed areas were flooded by storms, that a no named source claimed a mango tree died from exposure to salt water…

    ianam: Saltwater? That would never happen on an island in the indian ocean where the highest point is 2.4 m above sea level unless someone in particular caused the salt water to reach the mango tree and then shot it.

    chek: You know, that Betula thinks that “the island of Male (a)shouldn’t have any trees to provide shade from the tropical sun”, I bet he had something to do with this…

    ianam: He must have used one of those CO2 powered pellet guns!

    chek: Yes! Now it’s all making sense…

  38. #39 DarylD.
    April 26, 2012

    I am curious, did anyone watch the half hearted mocumentary on ABC TV “I Can Change Your Mind About..Climate” link:-http://www.abc.net.au/tv/changeyourmind/

    During the show, quite a few of the denialati canards were floated and went completely unchallenged. Although, I did like the conclusion of the small video of Richard Muller, being forced to formally admit the temperature database is not wrong. He validated the climate change data of HADCRU/NOAA/BOM/CSIRO and the work of Matthew Menne, to completely demolish JoNova and David Archibald/Anthony Watts alchemy fictional urban heat island myth.

    Intriguingly, “Denial in Chief” Anthony Watts boasts not once but twice of how he commanded his tiny “spambot army” to corrupt the results not once but twice.

    Link 1 first attempt :http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/22/on-earth-day-another-global-warming-opinion-poll-goes-horribly-wrong/

    Link 2 second attempt :http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/26/getting-your-mind-right-in-australia-round-2/

    One can clearly see, the ABC TV applied a small touch of IP address filtering to eliminate non Australian Sources, to eliminate 99% of the majority of spambots sham voting.

    John Cook, article “The how and why of climate denial” shows how Naomi Oreskes, in a short video interview, clearly nailed former retired Senator Nick Minchin’s denial in this article.

    link: http://www.abc.net.au/environment/articles/2012/04/26/3489290.htm

    Skeptical Science link to to the show includes Naomi Oreskes interview : http://www.skepticalscience.com/ABC-documentary-demonstrates-how-why-climate-denial.html

    An old American Native saying :

    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents,
    it was loaned to you by your children.
    We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors,
    we borrow it from our Children.

  39. #40 John
    April 26, 2012

    I see Duff has spent the last two days Googling facts he can use to dispute sea level rise, even though he admits he has no idea, and the best he can do is a photo from 1912!

    Come on Duff, you tepid, gormless little mouthbreather. Is that the best you can do? You are intellectually bankrupt. Do you think anybody is worried by a photo over the actual data?

  40. #41 Fran Barlow
    April 27, 2012

    Wow @571 said:

    Until the UK gets a “None of the above” option WITH that being given some power (i.e. no seat if it wins, no parliament if it gains majority), there is absolutely no way to fix this problem.

    That would certainly be a step forward. I’m not sure though that a more deliberative process isn’t called for. Perhaps what is needed is a process in which people could be selected at random — in something of the fashion juries are. Let’s call it sortition — though I’ve seen “demarchy” used.

    Instead of candidates selecting themselves, people qualified to vote would tick a box to indicate their willingness to serve the electorate. About 2 years or so before the scheduled election, a short list of say — 20 people — would be selected. They’d get a case manager who could check out their skillset and advise them on what they needed to do the job, and then they’d be enrolled in relevant courses so they could get up to speed. The state would pay them an allowance so that they could take time off work to do this and provide them with a couple of PAs and researchers so that they could begin to refine their ideas and publicise them. About three months into the cycle we’d have a kind of you-tube based reality show going. They’d be running a website and blog where people could give them feedback on their ideas. During this time they’d nominate 10 policy areas they felt strongly about and what they would like to see happen in broad terms to address the issues. They’d also report on their skills and other things germane.

    12 months out there’d be a vote — in which people would (by electronic means) indicate their support for the person’s ideas, the importance they attached to these policies relative to others (you’d get a score out of 100% to play with) and their confidence in the person successfully advancing them. You could vote for as many candidates as you wanted.

    All the candidates would then be scored and ranked in order. A barrel with the candidates’ id’s in little lotto balls would be set up. A person who had, for argument’s sake an average 60% support would get 50% more balls than someone with 40% and so forth. Six candidates would be drawn lotto-style from the barrell and they would be the candidates at the election. Should some became unavailable for any reason, a new draw would occur.

    When the time for the election arrived, the process would be repeated and the winner would go to parliament. These folk would be obliged to devise a management plan for the next five years (or affirm/amend an existing one). When they did, that plan would be voted on in a plebiscite and if approved this would govern policy until the next election. Every year parliament would have to report on progress made towards realisation of the plan. Members who were underperforming could be removed by a common vote of the parliament in which an absolute 75% voted to expel someone. In that case, the replacement procedure above would be brought into play. The ministry would be answerable to the parliament not just in theory, but in practice. Amongst the tasks of members would be to chair committees on various matters of public importance to produce reports and lead debates over policy. Where proposals consistent with the national plan achieved 25% support in polling, they would be made the subject of a parliamentary commission of inquiry to determine their feasibility. If they were deemed plausible, they would be put to a plebiscite and if carried become specified in the national plan.

    The beauty of a system such as this is that it would pretty much marginalise all of the political parties, reducing them to mere sources of policy ideas — which is, in theory, what political parties are supposed to be — rather than vehicles for the careers of supporters. Ideas that were both popular and plausible would have a chance of getting up because no political party would have a means to prevent it being discussed and examined or fear they could be wedged and lose power (since they wouldn’t directly have any). Politicians would not fear speaking their minds because their chances of re-election would be near zero whether they were popular or not. The parliament would be composed of civic minded folk rather than careerists, and they’d be a lot more like the population as a whole rather than the elite. Nobody could count on winning a vote in parliament so they’d have to work out consensus principles and of course contentious ideas that left them deadlocked could be thrashed out via a plebiscite. The pool of people who missed out on getting elected would have learned a bit more about both their own ideas and the constraints on implementing them and the general wisdom of the populace over time should edge upwards as more and more people returned to their communities to explain how stuff works on the fringes of, or in, parliament. The idea that one person really could make a difference is an exciting one.

    Most importantly the sortition method, as I’ve outlined it, while privileging the chances of those closest to the public consensus, would not prevent those well outside it from playing a role in debate. People who were original thinkers with novel and lateral ideas would not be excluded just because they were considered a bit eccentric or ‘out there’. Even if it turned out that 90% of what they were saying was irredeemable nonsense, it would be no bad thing for that nonsense to get a public bollocking because there’s a lot of nonsense going about. Having a parliament with absolute legitimacy debunk it would be a healthy thing. And of course, if the person proved a total ratbag he or she could be ejected. There’s a lot to be said for democracies ensuring that significant minority opinion being catered to. The system as it stands struggles to do that.

    In the final analysis — on election morning, nobody could know for sure who would win. Even if the person you weanted to win in your electorate missed out, it could be that likeminded persons elsewhere would win. In a sense, in that election everyone could harbour the hope that their ideas might find favour. That would be an excellent reason for everyone getting involved in the polity.

  41. #42 chek
    April 27, 2012

    @ #593, in which Betula demonstrates that he thinks a ‘water table’ is probably an item of garden furniture.

    The point here Betula is that your ill-informed, third hand ‘imaginings’ are no substitute for how the real world works. Which pretty much sums up the Wattsian brand of denialism.

  42. #43 David Duff
    April 27, 2012

    Oh dear, what a bunch of mouth-foamers you are! Do you ever read yourselves? You may be right or you may be wrong on global warming but why are you all, without a single exception, so deeply unpleasant?

    Jest askin’!

    Oh, and by the way, there doesn’t seem to be as many of you as there used to be, just a dwindling band of the same tired, haggard ‘faces’ staring into the abyss. Cheer up, it may take me a while but I’ll find you another ‘End of the World’ scenario to keep you all miserable! Pip pip!

  43. #44 lord_sidcup
    April 27, 2012

    Lionel #586

    Didn’t Pat Michaels try that, and similarly failed, with a bit of Greenland and ice awhile back.

    Yes – [Michaels Mischief #3: Warming Island](http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?n=1020http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?n=1020) – and this latest effort is very reminiscent of that. There must be a whole team of deniers scouring old photos and maps trying to find stuff like this.

  44. #45 John
    April 27, 2012

    I love the sound of a simpering denier demanding we all “cheer up!”. I can picture Duff now – hunched over his keyboard, brow furrowed, spittle flying, angrily banging out his passive aggressive tirades with two fingers.

    You don’t fool anyone Duff. Behind the jolly exterior hides an angry, lonely, frightened man. You are a shameful disgrace.

  45. #46 chek
    April 27, 2012

    why are you all, without a single exception, so deeply unpleasant?

    Perhaps the unpleasantness you perceive may be related to your ridiculous affectation of an anachronistic, post-colonial, ignorant wannabee-military blimp, adding nothing but relaying the right-wing drivellings of a five year old book of drivel by ex-clown Christopher Booker and the even more right-wing drivellings of a well-fed, Republican has-been, ex-TV weather poppet pretending he knows climate science?

    I can see why some might find such quite offensive and react accordingly.

  46. #47 Wow
    April 27, 2012

    “why are you all, without a single exception, so deeply unpleasant?”

    Yes, it must be everyone else’s fault, mustn’t it. It’s the only logical conclusion.

    Why are deniers, without a single exception so thin skinned yet so prone to virulent, vicious abusive attacks on anyone who dares not accept the premise that AGW is false?

  47. #48 adelady
    April 27, 2012

    Thin-skinned?

    I’ve long believed in the remarkable phenomenon of the one way thin skin. Noteworthy for grossly insensitive outwardly directed unpleasantness combined with tissue paper thin sensitivity for imperceptible wafts of the least breeze of possible impending bad weather from the other direction. A bit like those invasive plants with foliage that shivers even when there’s no breeze but drops copious seeds everywhere to choke out and take over vast regions of surrounding natural vegetation.

  48. #49 Mikem
    April 27, 2012

    @598

    David Duff, as unpleasant as you appear to categorically state that I am despite my relatively rare posts here, I don’t post a lot here anymore because, well, it is very much like arguing with young-earth creationists, tobacco denialists, vaccine denialists, and so on.

    No matter how much scientific evidence, no matter how many empirical observations, and no matter how much contradiction is pointed out in your arguments, it just fails to have any effect.

    Your entire position can be summarised thus:

    I don’t believe in global warming. So there!!

    It really doesn’t matter what is actually happening, or what the actual observations are, or what the actual scientific data says. You simply don’t care. So what is the actual point in continually arguing with you? It is like arguing with someone who denies that smoking causes lung disease, right up until the day they die from lung cancer. They don’t care. They don’t want to hear about it. It’s all a big lie. And……….(sound of flatline heart monitor). It’s just so totally pointless.

  49. #50 Wow
    April 27, 2012

    It’s worth arguing the points for someone else to read, Mikem.

    However, after a while, the troll ensures that there is only repetition again to procure and at that point, it’s wise to create a playground for the troll to be impounded in where nobody will go unless

    a) to have a laugh at the idiot

    b) they believe the idiot implicitly

    in either case, others will go there to argue the troll as a form of recreation or to hone their arguments for other, less insane, interlocutors.

  50. #51 Betula
    April 27, 2012

    “why are you all, without a single exception, so deeply unpleasant?”

    I wouldn’t call them unpleasant.

    There is a certain charm about someone who would consider “vigilante assassination” against those that disagree…

    There is a certain charisma about those who’s every thought about other people is based on assumptions…

    There is something humorous about people who find the cause of everything bad to be based on one conclusion…

    I find it invigorating to listen to someone preach about the evils of the rich, while discussing the non-polititical science of climate change…

    There is something alluring about people who project all negative all the time…

    There is a feeling of excitement while waiting for their next illogical comments followed by insults…

    There is a certain thrill to discovering that every link they provide, to prove what the future will bring, is loaded with unknowns, doubts, uncertainties, projections, speculations, hypotheticals, incomplete data, one way scenarios, exaggerations, could’s, if’s, hopes, wishes and assumptions.

    That’s why I keep coming back.

  51. #52 luminous beauty
    April 27, 2012

    Betula is so funny! (In his own mind.)

    What is truly risible is that for solipsists like Betula and Duff, everything is axiomatically psychological projection.

  52. #53 Wow
    April 27, 2012

    > There is a certain charm about someone who would consider “vigilante assassination” against those that disagree…

    [That’s why you love them so much](http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/06/09/983390/-Climate-Scientists-threatened-with-death) Betty.

  53. #54 Lionel A
    April 27, 2012

    Duff offers the Murdoch excuse:

    ‘…why are you all, without a single exception, so deeply unpleasant?’

    it is everybody else at fault not him.

  54. #55 Betula
    April 27, 2012

    LUMY!

    “What is truly risible is that for solipsists like Betula and Duff, everything is axiomatically psychological projection.”

    Lumy, you’re close, but I believe you meant to say “telepathic psychological projection”

    It’s simple really.

    You see, when Gingerbaker (@239) wondered aloud if vigilante assassination was moral, and then advocated it with this statement: “it seems to me, no other way to stop them” – this was actually me, denying my own thoughts and then using telepathy to project them through the writings of Gingerbaker. So my responses to Gingerbaker were in fact responses to myself.

    Boy, it’s getting harder and harder to slip these things by you Lumy. A real genius you are. Kudos!

    And thank you Gingerbaker! You have helped me by providing the vessel that has allowed me to deny my own denial, which, of course, must mean I’m cured.

  55. #56 chek
    April 27, 2012

    Betula reveals himself in his final paragraph Gish-gallop to be overly influenced by what the french would call objections d’unfuckwit.

    In a saner world, such people would occasionally murmur in the coffee shops and bars about what scientists were discovering and the inevitable lag in practical action.

    Unfortunately in this actual world such people desperately and gullibly prefer to hang on to the wishful thinking of cynical industrial organisations and their mouthpieces, religious nutters, quacks, has-beens and fantasists. I can’t think of a primary source for Betty’s alleged ‘reservations’ that isn’t covered by one or a combination of those.

  56. #57 Stu
    April 27, 2012

    Need better trolls. Down to asinine projection only. 3 out of 10.

  57. #58 Chris O'Neill
    April 27, 2012

    why are you all, without a single exception, so deeply unpleasant?

    Just try arguing against the propositions put up at websites like climateaudit, whatsup, etc and you’ll find out all about unpleasant individuals.

  58. #59 ianam
    April 27, 2012

    Betula is proud of being a dishonest ignorant moron troll. Whatever.

  59. #60 bill
    April 27, 2012

    Diddums, Duffer – drink up!

    Tone-trolling coming from a living anachronism who wants – I kid you not – Rupert Murdoch for Prime Minister (Wormtongue – or, perhaps, ‘Browntongue’? – here despises Leveson – ‘the oleaginous little creep‘ – for daring to challenge his beloved dark lord) and thinks black lesbians are intrinsically funny.

    One could barely hope to insult you enough, you silly, shallow, spiteful old man!

    Hey, by the way – have you noticed the complete absence of ‘karen’ since we outed what I suppose we now have to assume is a ‘her’?

    Running on that assumption, here’s a quote for you, assuming you’re still lurking around, regarding the alleged ‘Christian motivation’ of that scrawny hybrid of Uriah Heap and a B-movie Lord Voldemort that you and your followers have have helped foist upon your Congress:

    “I am afraid that Chairman Ryan’s budget reflects the values of his favorite philosopher Ayn Rand rather than the gospel of Jesus Christ,” said Father Thomas Reese, a fellow at the Woodstock Theological Center at Georgetown, in a press release Tuesday. “Survival of the fittest may be okay for Social Darwinists but not for followers of the gospel of compassion and love.”

    Hang on – of course – it doesn’t go far enough, does it? That’s the Tea Party line?

    Seriously – $15 million turkeys not only voting for Christmas – they’re positively basting themselves for it!

    With daft old Colonel Blimps cheering you on from across the channel…

    I note that you’re a pensioner*, Duffer. Succoured by the very teat of the State! Any reliance on the NHS, too, perchance?

    Would that the consequences of your own advocated idiocy – and this applies across the range of issues confronting us and equally to ‘Karen’ and Betty and the Scandinavians – could be visited upon you alone!

    Teh Stoopid – it burns…

    *

    Of course, I could do the decent, principled thing and send the money back but alas, dear reader, that would break an even higher duty to which I needs must bow the knee; it is enshrined in The Honourable Company of Second-hand Car Dealers: ‘Never Give a Sucker an Even Break!’ Perhaps one of my many well-educated readers could translate that into Latin, give it more of ring, ‘know wot I mean, John?’

    Begone, old man.

  60. #61 zoot
    April 28, 2012

    Duff, why are you so unremittingly unpleasant?

  61. #62 MikeH
    April 28, 2012

    @615

    One of the miserable old Duffer’s readers – actually she/he appears to be the only one – has the sad old misanthrope worked out.

    I’ve paid all my taxes all my adult life and am therefore rather pleased when I get a bit back, rather than much of it being handed over to undeserving twats.

  62. #63 John
    April 28, 2012

    Duff is a taxeater. Oh the irony.

  63. #64 Lionel A
    April 28, 2012

    And for those who still cannot grasp the peril that we are in here is an article that mentions something that I have been pointing out for some time at various places:

    Nature: Antarctica Is Melting From Below, Which ‘May Already Have Triggered A Period of Unstable Glacier Retreat’ .

    Puts any supposed growth in Antarctic sea ice into context does it not.

    Those topologically challenged can go find the application GeoMapApp which can also be used to find areas of tectonic activity such as earthquakes.

  64. #66 Gingerbaker
    April 28, 2012

    ianam:

    “…as opposed to GingerBaker, who obviously is advocating putting people to death when he suggests rethinking the morality of doing so and offers justifications for doing so.”

    No. You still do not understand my point.

    ianam:We’ve discussed the ethics … it’s unethical, like all “preventative” murder is unethical. …you stupid dishonest jackass.

    It it unethical? Always?

    I think you might find this interesting. From a series of lectures at Harvard on ethics:

    Justice: What’s The Right Thing To Do?

    Episode 01 “THE MORAL SIDE OF MURDER”

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBdfcR-8hEY

  65. #67 GSW
    April 28, 2012

    @GB,

    “Is it unethical? Always?”

    Yes it is. As soon as you accept a good argument can be made for ‘bumping’ people off, you become a very worrying individual indeed. Best to keep you under close supervision in my view.

  66. #68 chek
    April 28, 2012

    Gingerbaker, I would suppose that many here take the view that most civilised countries and peoples (with glaring exceptions) have abolished the death penalty even for judicially proven crimes, so re-introducing it on the grounds you suggest is not going to happen, nor should it.

    I’d personally also suggest that a system that says things would be better if only group ‘x’, ‘y’ or ‘z’ were killed is barbarism reborn, regardless of intent.

    Nor is there even any need to. Widening company liability to include not just company assets and employees and directors as at present but also associate companies and shareholders (with appropriate safeguards to prevent shell corporations nullfying the intent) would provide the financial incentive to achieve what is needed.

  67. #69 ianam
    April 28, 2012

    @621

    That post seems to have been stuck in the moderation queue for over week. I already wasted more than enough time on the topic, but I will say that GB seems to have misunderstood the point and purpose Sandel’s lectures.

  68. #70 Geoff Beacon
    April 29, 2012

    I hope the Austrailian Government are helped by the recent Fraser Economic Commentary which advocates taxing carbon to subsidise employment.

    See [Tax carbon. Subsidise the jobs of the young](http://www.brusselsblog.co.uk/tax-carbon-subsidise-jobs-for-the-young/).

  69. #71 Billy Bob Hall
    April 29, 2012

    Lovelock admits he’s wrong. Where’s the ‘white flag’ Tim ?

  70. #72 Betula
    April 30, 2012

    GB @621..

    “It it unethical? Always?”

    Yes. And because you need to be told this, there is now a consensus among scientists that you’re a moron, which of course, makes it a fact…

  71. #73 Wow
    April 30, 2012

    “As soon as you accept a good argument can be made for ‘bumping’ people off, you become a very worrying individual indeed”

    So most people in the USA who whooped and hollered when OBL was offed are bad, right? And when Saddam was offed: bad again.

    No ifs, no buts.

    PS who and where are people saying “off with their heads” apart from you chicken-little deniers? cf Glenn Beck’s “Not enough knives” comment.

  72. #74 ianam
    April 30, 2012

    It’s because Betula is in fact a moron that there is consensus, just as it’s because AGW is a fact that there is a consensus. Of course consensus is not universal, because there are always, ignorant and/or stupid and or/dishonest people who reject the valid inferences from the evidence.

    As for what is unethical … being ethical or unethical is not a fact, but there are facts about what ethical principles people adhere to, and whether people take these facts into account. It is fascinating that GingerBaker offers Sandel’s lectures in support of a consequentialist view of ethics when Sandel’s whole point is to undermine it in favor of a more categorical view by, as he puts it, “confronting us with what we already know” … but it’s not what we know, but what have been enculturated to feel. Well, some of us.

  73. #75 Betula
    April 30, 2012

    “just as it’s because AGW is a fact that there is a consensus.”

    AGW could very well be happening, but since there is no consensus that AGW is a fact, we can say with “90% certainty” that ianam is an imbecile and “very likely” delusional.

  74. #76 bill
    April 30, 2012

    Does it strike us that there no discernible content beyond ‘nuh-uh / nyaah nyaah’ in Betty’s posts?

    Seriously, this you think is a worthwhile way to spend your time? What on earth do you imagine you are achieving?

  75. #77 Bernard J.
    April 30, 2012

    Betulant.

    Human-caused global warming is a fact, just as gravity is a fact.

    Put your semantic wrigglings about the word “consensus” aside and learn to deal with these facts.

  76. #78 Betula
    April 30, 2012

    Bernard…

    “Human-caused global warming is a fact, just as gravity is a fact”

    So, when scientist say with “90% certainty” that mankind is driving global warming, they really mean it as a 100% fact.

    Does this mean for gravity to be a 100% fact, scientists need to say it “most likely” exists?

  77. #79 user-illusion.myopenid.com
    April 30, 2012

    Bill, indeed any exchange with Betty is not worthwhile.

  78. #80 Mikem
    May 1, 2012

    Well, Betula, nothing in science is ever 100% certain as you know, though we generally describe as “facts” things which have large volumes of overwhelming evidence supporting them, or because we define an observation a certain way.

    While there are no known observations in the scientific literature of anyone leaping off a tall building and floating upwards, or levitating back to safety, we could never say with 100% certainty that this isn’t possible due to a weakness in our understanding of gravity.

    Why don’t you try it out? Or are you suddenly willing to accept overwhelming scientific consensus as a sensible way of applying risk analysis? Let me guess……yes, but only if it doesn’t contradict your political views?

  79. #81 bill
    May 1, 2012

    This is so friggin’ dense that I still wonder if it’s not a satire and I’ve missed it! – Fox explains how wind farms ‘Cause Global Warming’.

  80. #82 bill
    May 1, 2012

    And here was I thinking no-one outside Fox would be dumb enough to run with this…

    Still, the other day it was more-or-less ‘the Astrologers got it right!’… ;-)

  81. #83 chek
    May 1, 2012

    Bill, I’d go with ‘cause global warming’ being Fox’s fossil-fuel-friendly spin. But presumably the SUNY paper shows some local effect, perhaps due to the cooling effect of wind being locally diminished?

    In any event, the global surface area affected by wind farms is going to be miniscule.

  82. #84 bill
    May 1, 2012

    I’ll let one of the commenters at WUWT handle it.

    Did anybody here read the paper[?]!

    (And bless him or her for doing so!)

    All very interesting, of course, and it may well be that frost-affected crops may do well adjacent to turbines, and vice-versa.

    Plus, of course, as you said, the area affected is ludicrously small.

    It all rather reminds me of the Freakonomics nonsense re solar panels.

  83. #85 Betula
    May 1, 2012

    Bill @638 links…
    “Did anybody here read the paper[?]!”

    I read the comment. He/she claims “This is a highly local event” and goes on to say…”In some contries you have to pay helicopters to do excatly this job, yet you would not ague that this would cause global warming.”

    So he/she is playing down the significance of this warming affect, as is Bill with this comment….”Plus, of course, as you said, the area affected is ludicrously small” and chek with this comment….”In any event, the global surface area affected by wind farms is going to be miniscule.”

    It would appear that the significance of the impact these things have on climate change (wind farms and comparatively, helicopters) correlates with how they are being packaged to meet the ideology. For example, they become very significant when selling carbon credits…

    “The engines of your airplane or helicopter emit Carbon Dioxide (CO2) in the exhaust, which is a greenhouse gas that has a significant impact on climate change and global warming.”

    http://www.carbonadvicegroup.com/us/ (under business solutions)

    “Ludicrously small” and “miniscule” because wind farms are involved, yet, not small enough they we won’t soon be selling carbon credits to wind farms in order to save the planet.

  84. #86 Wow
    May 1, 2012

    “So he/she is playing down the significance of this warming affect”

    Effect, Betty. Effect.

    And yes, this is the same “playing down” that you get when you do the back-of-the-envelope calculation to work out what the “warming effect” of lightbulbs in the home when people whine about how the banning of incandescents have a “problem” in that you then need to spent more to heat your home when using efficient lightbulbs.

    Please try to keep up, Betty.

  85. #87 Betula
    May 1, 2012

    “in that you then need to spent more to heat your home when using efficient lightbulbs.”

    Spend, Wow. Spend.

  86. #88 Wow
    May 1, 2012

    However, unlike you, I then proceeded to educate you.

    Well, tried to, Betty, but you don’t want no learnin’.

  87. #89 chek
    May 1, 2012

    What Betty, in his zeal to trash renewables, is missing is that wind turbines are not creating any extra heat, merely redistributing it: [“At night, air above ground level tends to be warmer than the ground. Dr Zhou and his colleagues believe the turbine blades are simply stirring up the air, mixing warm and cold, and bringing some of the warmth down to ground level.”](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17871300)

  88. #90 bill
    May 1, 2012

    Thank you, Betty, for taking the time to demonstrate to us all that you really, really don’t get it. Not even at a junior-High-School science class level.

    It’s hard not to conclude that efforts such as those of Fox and WUWT are created specifically with cynical, ascientific and emotionally labile people like you in mind. Of course, there’s a strong element of collaborative self-delusion in the mix, so to some extent the level of awareness / intentionality is neither here nor there.

    Because the upshot is this: you’ll always remember that ‘hurr hurr, it turns out that its the Greenie’s wind farms that are warming the planet, hurr hurr’, and similarly ‘hurr hurr, that paper totally proved the MWP was global, and that, like, totally proves there’s no AGW now, hurr hurr’, and ‘hurr hurr, it turns out that everything’s actually determined by cosmic rays, like evolution and temperature and everything, hurr hurr’.

    The facts, of course, overwhelmingly lay elsewhere. That may be acknowledged – even cheerfully-conceded – back at the source, but will make little difference to your recollection, and none to your unshakeable belief.

    Sadly, there’s a lot of you. And, equally sadly, we may yet discover what happens when such a combination of manipulative/delusional elite cynicism/zealotry and populist idiocy is allowed to prevail…

  89. #91 Betula
    May 1, 2012

    Whoa @ 640…

    “However, unlike you, I then proceeded to educate you.
    Well, tried to, Betty, but you don’t want no learnin'”

    I do want learnin’! I remember everything you taught me, just like it was today…

    Professor Whoa: And that class, is why we need to sell more carbon credits to the evil corporations to offset their helicopter usage. Any questions?

    Betula: Yes professor, I read in a link provided by your friend Bill, that one would not argue that helicopters cause global warming,so why would you sell carbon credits to offset their usage?

    Professor Whoa: For the same reason that any localized warming caused by wind farms is insignificant.

    Betula: You sell carbon credits to wind farms?

    Professor Whoa: No, because like I said, the warming effect is insignificant, the same way the warming of an incandescent bulb is insignificant in terms of saving money on heating bills.

    Betula: But aren’t we banning incandescent bulbs because they waste energy by throwing off a lot of heat?

    Proffessor Whoa: Yes, a significant amount. By switching to CFL’s, we will use less energy and save a significant amount of money on air conditioning bills.

    Betula: So this is about saving money!

    Professor Whoa: No, it’s about saving polar bears.

    Betula: But what about my original point, you know, selling carbon credits for helicopter usage even though one would not argue that they cause global warming?

    Professor Whoa: We use the Helicopters to push warm air down to prevent frost on the crops, much the same way we believe wind farms do. Didn’t you read the article Betula?

    Betula: Yes I did. So the warm air redistribution from wind farms can be beneficial to crops…

    Professor Whoa: No you moron, the warm air from wind farms is insignificant! Didn’t you hear me say that in the learnin’ I’ve been giving you?

  90. #92 chek
    May 2, 2012

    I suppose that Betty at [#645](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/03/april_2012_open_thread.php#comment-6265619) effectively demonstrates how a Möbius strip of apparently infinite, point-missing stupid might appear.

  91. #93 bill
    May 2, 2012

    Oh, for God’s sake! It’s like a little festival of Thick. If you’re older than 16 Betty, your education was entirely wasted. Chek nails it.

  92. #94 Betula
    May 2, 2012

    Wow @642…
    “However, unlike you, I then proceeded to educate you”.

    Bill @647…
    “If you’re older than 16 Betty, your education was entirely wasted.”

    So there you have it. Just as I expected, the learnin’ Wow gave me @640, the link provided by Bill @638 and the comment by chek @643 – all nicely summarized @645… entirely wasted.

    Fortunately, it didn’t cost me a dime, but that won’t stop me from filing a complaint with the Deltoid school board…

  93. #95 Bernard J.
    May 2, 2012

    As this thread is past its use-by date, I’ll use it to remind the courageous amongst us that the Jonas thread is also past its use-by date (it never had a ‘best-before…).

    I note from the ‘Recent comments’ list that Jonas is back. Has he tried to resurrect his false meme that climatologists haven’t actually worked out the confidence intervals for human attribution of global warming? If so, there’s no point engaging him – he’s already been asked what literature he read and which professional climatologists he spoke to in order to arrive at his stance, and he’s been shown a number of papers that do exactly what he says hasn’t been done.

    He’s also ignoring a century and a half of physics, and the parsimonious inclination of the scientific process. No-one who’s simply lurking to find information is going to mire themselves so deeply in that rat’s-tooth of a thread, so the only numpties who will hear you are the galahs who can’t hear reason.

    Leave them to their screeching. Whilst they waste their time here, they’re not gumming up the works somewhere else where it might actually matter.

    Although, having said this, perhaps you are doing the world a favour by keeping the Scandinavian Troll Collective occupied… Yeah, ignore the above and just keep at it. We need to keep such serious Stupid off the streets.

Current ye@r *