…and this is a 
The requirements to be a TV weather presenter are fairly slack: an undergraduate degree with some training in meteorology is preferred, but not required, and the main skills seem to be looking presentable with nice hair, being able to dance with a green screen, and being glib and cheerful. So I guess it's not surprising that the "scientists" leading the charge against global warming are climate-denier TV weathermen. That link takes you to a long list of quotes from various television weather personalities — including a couple from Minneapolis — who all deny reality and use their position as frontmen pretending to be scientists to delude the public. Take a look and see if your local television station has a conspiracy nut doing the weather.
Another interesting aside in that article is that all of the current Republican candidates for president are climate change deniers. Every single one. Huntsman was the only exception, and he's out.
That prompted me to look at the two front-runners positions on evolution.
Mitt Romney, the conservative establishment candidate, is a theistic evolutionist. He argues that evolution was the tool god used to create humans ("How?" I always wonder — evolution isn't a railroad track in which you can put a car at one end and expect it to arrive at the other). He also opposed teaching intelligent design creationism while governor of Massachusetts, which is good news — I wonder if it'll be used in attack ads against him? So on this one narrow issue, Romney is tolerable. On everything else the corporate plastic robot would never get my vote.
Newt Gingrich is the crackpot tea party candidate and is getting progressively wackier as the campaign goes on. While he made more vaguely moderate statements about evolution a few years ago, now that he's courting the ignorant wackaloon vote, he's sounding more like a member of the Insane Clown Posse.
I think we can safely say that no Republican should be allowed anywhere near the reins of government. They're anti-science through and through.
(Also on FtB)
Life Science
Environment
Comments
Posted by: mo
|
January 22, 2012 12:43 PM
Well educated theistic evolutionists believe that it's a chance and selection process like we do, but that god is the master of chance, like, with all the omnipotence and so on. He let's you trow the dice, but cheats the result.
The problem with regards to parsimony is of course that real chance in indistinguishable from god-determined chance.
Posted by: mo
|
January 22, 2012 12:45 PM
typos!
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
January 22, 2012 12:46 PM
What? Geoff Fox of WTIC in Hartford is a denialist? But he's so glib. He sounds so reliable. He has such nice hair!
Posted by: John Salerno
|
January 22, 2012 12:48 PM
"Huntsman was the only exception, and he's out."
::sigh:: I just keep wishing he had been more popular and a real contender. I like what I heard from him, though I'm sure there's plenty to disagree with too.
Posted by: Maxwell Fagin
|
January 22, 2012 12:59 PM
Perhaps. Or maybe it implies that no Republican (or ANY politician for that matter) should be allowed anywhere near the reins of SCIENCE EDUCATION. It is just to dangerous to leave the content of science education susceptible to a majority vote (ANY majority vote, be it by a court, a congressional panel or a local school board) when the "majority" don't accept the science in the first place.
Which is yet another reason to vote for Ron Paul; a candidate who, despite being just as wrong about evolution as Romney and Gingrich, is the only candidate who would never support teaching evolution "alternatives" in public schools, since he does not support the existence of government sponsored education in the first place.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
January 22, 2012 1:21 PM
I wouldn't vote for Ron Paul if he were running unopposed. That racist, know-nothing, America-hating, homophobic looneytarian would be a disaster as president.
Posted by: Emil Karlsson
|
January 22, 2012 1:42 PM
Preposterous as PZ Myers is clearly a good science education and have good hair.
@'Tis Himself, OM
Actually, Ron Paul is not a racist since he is against many government programs that differentially and unfairly target Afro-Americans (death penalty, war on drugs etc.) for this very reason (among other reasons).
Check out the YT video:
watch?v=i3EADdr-5AY
watch?v=Q5nGJWUBCvM
For instance, Ron Paul points out the unfairness that 14% of Afro-Americans use drugs, while around 60% of those incarcerated for non-violent drug-related offenses are Afro-Americans. He says that this has to change.
He also states that he is now against the death penalty because it unfairly falls on the poor and racial minorities and that there are too many death penalty convictions later overturn by DNA evidence for it to be reasonable.
Ron Paul also has Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King as heroes because they practiced libertarian principles such as civil disobedience. He also disowns racism as a "collectivist idea" and that people should be treated as individuals.
You have been taken in by political propaganda. To be sure, Ron Paul is a creationist and has many other problems that may make him unfit to become the President, but he is not racist.
Posted by: Maxwell Fagin
|
January 22, 2012 1:57 PM
But that is just my point. I don't think being a creationist makes someone unfit to be a president AS LONG AS THAT PERSON DOESN'T SEEK TO CONVERT SUCH RELIGIOUS CONVICTIONS INTO LAW. With 99% of politicians, that just isn't the case. Most creationist politicians not only believe evolution to be wrong, but want to use their position in government to impose such convictions on other people (like say, public school students).
But Ron Paul is one of the few politicians (and the only presidential candidate) who doesn't seem to want to do that, and for that, I think he deserves the respect of atheists and creationists alike. He recognizes that a politician should not be pronounced unfit to govern for being a creationist anymore than a dentists shouldn't be allowed to clean teeth for being a creationist. But you can only have such a situation if the government takes a considerably smaller role in people's lives.
Ron Paul (despite the fact that he has almost no chance of winning) seems to understand that.
Posted by: mumbly joe
|
January 22, 2012 2:01 PM
I hope that's meant to be tongue-in-cheek, because otherwise it's a pretty severe case of destroying-the-village-to-save-it. If the problem is theocrats intent on undermining the concept of non-sectarian education available to all children by attempting to supplant science education with religious propaganda, then electing someone who wants to do away with the one form education that's guaranteed to be non-sectarian and available to all children seems a bit... actively counterproductive
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
January 22, 2012 2:23 PM
Unfortunately for this argument, there's Paul's newsletters. You know them, they're the one's with cute little sayings like:
Please, don't give me some bullshit that "Paul was too busy to read his own newsletter." Paul is a politician. No politician is going to let something with his name on the banner go public without his approval.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
January 22, 2012 2:30 PM
I notice the Pauloids are claiming that Paul isn't really a racist and while he's a creationist, he's probably won't have creationism taught in schools because...well, just because. However they're not trying to defend their hero against charges of being a know-nothing, America-hating, homophobic looneytarian. I suspect that's because they know he's a know-nothing, America-hating, homophobic looneytarian.
Posted by: Emil Karlsson
|
January 22, 2012 2:49 PM
@'Tis Himself, OM
1. It is not certain that Ron Paul writes all of his own Newsletters, so at most you can claim that some of his staff is racist. It is customary for staff to write things like speeches, newsletters etc. Politicians makes mistakes. Even Ron Paul and Obama.
You also have to compare this with the many instances of him outright rejecting racism and wanting to end racist government ideas, like the war on drug or death penalty. Even if we accept your position that the Newsletters where personally written by him, the scale still tips in favor of him not being racist.
2. Even if he did write them, those claims are not racist because they may be taken out of context. Ron Paul hates the fact that the criminal justice system is racist (see above) and unfairly targets blacks.
Also to make the claim that a higher proportion of blacks happen to be more criminal or be on welfare in a certain geographical area is not racist. This high proportion is not because they are black, but because more blacks tend to have a lower socio-economic status due to contemporary and historical social injustice. This is probably the causal factor, not ethnicity per se. Ethnicity is just an illusory correlation and I'm sure Ron Paul gets this.
3. The reason Ron Paul most likely would not have creationism taught as science in school is because...well, he is a libertarian, so he is against federal micromanagement. We cannot rule it out for sure, of course, but we should not automatically think that a Ron Paul presidency will mean creationism taught as science.
4. I do not support Ron Paul and I think he should not be President because of some of the things I outlined earlier (he is a creationist, has bought into some anti-vaccine propaganda, is perhaps too old to last a term etc).
5. But even if I was, there would be no point in defending him against the vacuous charges of "know-nothing", "America-hating" or "looneytarian". Those terms have no rational meaning in a conversation about evidence-based politics. It is just pointless rhetoric.
Posted by: Maxwell Fagin
|
January 22, 2012 3:00 PM
...Because he doesn't support public schooling. Strong opposition to the notion of the EXISTENCE of public schooling would seem to logically imply that he would oppose the teaching of ID in public schools.
And have you considered the reason why we're not "rushing in to defend our hero" is because we don't think Ron Paul is a hero? Have you stopped to think of what kind of disappointment hero worship led to in the last election?
I'll be the first person to admit that Paul is not perfect. He has some major MAJOR flaws (Hos opposition to Abortion for example.) For all I know, he may even be a very stupid person; I can't tell having never met him. But smart people don't go into politics.
Paul isn't a hero to anyone I know, but he is the least undesirable of many bad alternatives. And like I said above, he is the only politician I see in this race who can keep his governing duties and his private superstitions separate. I think he deserves credit for accomplishing that in a political climate where most Republicans seem to want to legislate from their holy book.
Posted by: hibob
|
January 22, 2012 3:15 PM
It's really pretty simple: an opportunist will deny and/or disbelieve that which denies him opportunities; that behavior is almost the definition of the word.
And since Newt is pretty much the ultimate opportunist, it's almost a tautology to call him the ultimate denialist. In every field he touches he denies whatever is inconvenient to his own ends: marriage, academia, religion, war (chickenhawkery), law ("there is no Supreme Court in the American Constitution"), business, politics.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
January 22, 2012 3:17 PM
I understand he didn't write the stuff in newsletters WITH HIS NAME ON THE BANNER. What I won't accept is his fanbois pretending he didn't know what was in the newsletters WITH HIS NAME ON THE BANNER!
Paul made a big mistake. He got caught being responsible for racist statements going out on a newsletter WITH HIS NAME ON THE BANNER. He's now trying to lie (something else politicians are famous for doing) that the racist statements weren't actually his, even though they went out in a newsletter WITH HIS NAME ON THE BANNER. So we're left with two conclusions: Either Paul is a racist or he's such a poor manager that he didn't know someone else was making him look like a racist. Neither of these choices shine a good light on your hero.
It's kind of hard to misconstrue statements like: "I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal." Please explain to me how that's not a racist statement.
Yeah, he's against federal micromangement, except when it comes to abortion and same-sex marriage and women's rights. Then he's all for federal micromanagement. He wants the government off our backs, as long as we're doing things he approves of. If it's stuff he doesn't approve of, then the government will be all over us with Paul leading the charge.
For someone who doesn't support Paul, you're doing an excellent imitation of a Paul supporter.
Paul is an economic illiterate who would bring back the gold standard, abolish the Federal Reserve and FDIC, and turn Social Security, veterans' benefits and Medicare into voluntary programs. As Kevin Hassett, economic policy director for the American Enterprise Institute and chief economic adviser to John McCain’s 2000 presidential campaign, put it (quoted in the Washington Post):
I'm an economist. Do you want me to explain how Paul is an economic "know-nothing"? Because that's what he is, and all your whining isn't going to change that fact.
Paul is an America-hater. He's an anarcho-capitalist liberatarian. He rejects the idea of the social contract, he rejects the idea of an American society, and he pretends the country is made up of 312 million individualist. Plus he's a homophobic, misogynist racist.
"Looneytarian" is a term used by normal people to describe libertarians. If you don't like me calling libertarians "looneytarians" then that's your problem, not mine.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
January 22, 2012 3:26 PM
Maxwell Fagin #13
Silly me, not realizing that statements like
showed your disdain for Paul.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
January 22, 2012 3:37 PM
As I said before, I wouldn't vote for Paul if he ran unopposed. The man is a racist, homophobic, anti-abortion, know-nothing looneytarian. Just because he wouldn't push for teaching creationism in schools for philosophical reasons having nothing to do with promoting science is no reason for me to ignore his other qualities.
I wouldn't vote for a looneytarian under any circumstances. But Paul is worse than most other looneytarians. Most of them aren't too racist or too homophobic and some are even pro-choice. Not your boy Paul.
To put it simply, Paul is an America-hating douchebag.
Posted by: mumbly joe
|
January 22, 2012 4:37 PM
Umm, given that the whole reason that creationism is a problem is that it's an effort to inject religious curriculum into public science education, no it doesn't? If the only education options available are private, parochial, home schooling, and no education, would serve creationists' agenda just fine, quite frankly.
What you're saying only makes sense if something inherent to public education were the actual problem here. But it's not. The problem is a bunch of activists that want to morph public education into parochial education. Eliminating public education wholesale, or even the more milder, "let's leave it up to individual school districts, because there's a controversy" which Paul has alternately expressed now and again, is only an attractive solution if you're trying to promote creationism.
Posted by: tatarize
|
January 22, 2012 7:00 PM
@ Emil Karlsson
Actually, Ron Paul is not a racist since he is against many government programs that differentially and unfairly target Afro-Americans (death penalty, war on drugs etc.) for this very reason (among other reasons).
No. That doesn't make a person not racist. Racism doesn't work like that. Yes, the war on drugs is implemented in a racist fashion and Black and Hispanic offenders take an undue brunt of this policy. However, if it were done "properly". If there was nothing racist about the war on drugs at all. Ron Paul would still be against it!
He's not against these government programs because they are racist. He's against them because they are government programs. The racism is coincidental.
You do not get to say you are opposed to gun violence if you're too cheap to buy bullets.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
January 22, 2012 8:59 PM
Assertion without evidence. Which can and will be dismissed without evidence...And those programs that help people out of work due to liberturds taking their jobs overseas??? They deserve no help??? What a morally bankrupt turd you are...Posted by: The Laughing Man
|
January 23, 2012 2:15 AM
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn10971-cheap-safe-drug-kills-most-cancers.html
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1535610806003722 --the real source, for those with the expertise to parse it
This might have already cropped up. However, if you still believe that BigPharma is some sort of imagined boogeyman, then be my guest to keep your heads up your collective arses.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
January 23, 2012 2:16 AM
Tis...
I'm getting a sense you dislike Ron Paul a tad.
Not sure though... could you be a bit more clear?
:)
seriously though, all the current batch of "republican" candidates just make me glad I left when I did.
It's clear that vast swathes of Americans have simply lost their fucking minds.
I can't recall any group of candidates I've been alive to see that I would plaster the label "clowncar" on and think it a very apt description.
Watching the republican primary has been exactly like watching the entrance of a tiny clown car, and then watching all the clowns pile out on top of each other, use seltzer bottles, hit each other with pies....
I can't recall, how does that usually end? do they all pile back in the car, or does an elephant sit on them?
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
January 23, 2012 2:22 AM
...Because he doesn't support public schooling. Strong opposition to the notion of the EXISTENCE of public schooling would seem to logically imply that he would oppose the teaching of ID in public schools.
In a similar vein, the abolishment of the Civil Rights Act would eliminate that pesky racism problem.
god, I really do hate glibertarians.
Posted by: t.s.looney
|
January 23, 2012 3:34 AM
The link you provided with the list of "weathermen" that are climate change deniers includes Gary England from OKC and a quote by him is given:
"Climate is changing, always has and most likely always will until that thermonuclear engine in the sky, the sun, goes out"
How exactly is this quote wrong? What in it states that he doesn't believe that climate change isn't real? Seems to me that his statement is correct. You may say that the requirements to be a TV weathermen are nothing more than "looking presentable with nice hair, being able to dance with a green screen, and being glib and cheerful". For some locations that may be correct, but here in Oklahoma, we take weather pretty seriously due to the number of Tornadoes we get and Gary England has a Bachelor of Science degree in mathematics and meteorology. Perhaps you should check to make sure that you aren't lumping people into groups that they do not belong in. A quick google search for him pulls up his http://www.news9.com/Global/story.asp?S=7449859 from the TV station he works for.
Also, his hair isn't that good.
Posted by: Militant Agnostic
|
January 23, 2012 4:02 AM
@Icthyic
Well, race is a social construct and the Civil Rights Act refers to race. Abolishing the Civil Rights Act would cause the social construct of race to disappear and the "invisible hand" would take care of everything like it always does ;).
Posted by: Militant Agnostic
|
January 23, 2012 4:23 AM
@t. s. looney
This sounds exactly exactly like the typical AGW denialist talking points couched in subtle language.
1. The climate has always changed so what is happening now is nothing to worry out (never mind the unprecedented rate of change).
2. Warming is due to the sun (ignoring the effect of greater heat trapping by increased CO2).
If it quacks like duck... Gary England sounds like a very slick AGW denialist. This not surprising in an oil producing state. A BSc does not a scientist make and there is more money to be made in a comforting lie than in telling people what they don't want to hear.
Posted by: David Marjanović
|
January 23, 2012 6:13 AM
Nerd of Redhead, don't write faster than you can read.
He couldn't have become the candidate anyway. The same holds for Romney. He's a Mormon – the (other) Christian fundamentalists simply won't vote for him.
o_O
O_o
o_o
O_O
You're kidding, right?
Who else than the state can provide education? The churches? For-immediate-profit corporations that simply refuse to educate children of parents who can't afford the fee?
You are kidding. You can't be that stupid.
Education is one of the jobs of a state. It's one of the reasons for having a government in a free country at all.
See comment 18.
As has been pointed out, his name is on those newsletters.
Two possibilities:
1) He's a racist.
2) He's too stupid to be a politician, because he's too stupid to read what goes out under his name. If he doesn't have time to read what he signs, he can't sign it!
1) The claim is that 95 % of the Blacks in DC are "semi-criminal or entirely criminal". That's not merely "a higher proportion".
2) Nice how you lump "to be more criminal or be on welfare" together. Have you no shame?
Don't project your own morality into your idols. I'm immediately reminded of wenn das der Führer wüßte, a common saying in WWII that meant "if the Führer would know of this [horrendous iniquity that, unbeknownst to the deeply naive user of the phrase, he personally ordered], [he'd be deeply shocked and would stop it immediately]".
That's true only for "looneytarian" as opposed to "libertarian".
The other terms, however, do have rational meanings, and evidence can decide whether they apply to Paul. Do not make the mistake of believing that emotionally charged words must automatically be meaningless. How much does Paul know, and what does he feel about either the Constitution or the current state of the country?
Hero worship? How about fear of the greater evil?
He wants the government off our bags and into our genitals.
I prefer having the government on my back, thankyouverymuch.
*headdesk*
*headdesk*
*headdesk*
*headdesk*
*headdesk*
*headdesk*
He fulfills the definition of "know-nothing".
QFT.
No idea why you post this in this thread... Anyway, there's no conspiracy here. It's just that no for-profit company is willing to fund an expensive set of clinical trials for a drug they can't patent and therefore couldn't much profit from. Capitalism. Tragedy of the commons even.
I fear a country will have to step in and finance clinical trials by tax money.
...which sort of makes this topic relevant to this thread, because Ron Paul most definitely wouldn't approve of tax money being used to fund such trials!!!
The context?
Bachelor. He managed to sit in a room for 3 years. *eyeroll* Also, meteorology isn't climatology, so he wasn't commenting on his own field of experience.
Posted by: GravityIsJustATheory
|
January 23, 2012 7:06 AM
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | January 22, 2012 8:59 PM
Er, Nerd, unless there is some background that I am unaware of, I think you've just opened fire on the wrong target.
Tatarize wasn't defending Ron Paul. S/he was saying that - because Ron Paul is opposed to all government programs, regardless of their - Paulites can't use Paul's opposition to a government program that has racist consequences as proof that Paul is not a racist.
Posted by: BD
|
January 23, 2012 8:56 AM
I am more and more annoyed by this constant barrage of exaggerations, misinterpretations or outright lies about our climate.
Remember the claim from the (warm wintered) 70s, our children would know snow only from books? After some harsh winters, they claimed, this was a natural consequence of climate change. After the last warm December (in Europe only): that's a proof for climate change.
And that's not a singular event. Most predictions turned out either as completely wrong or as wildly exegerated. Remenber the IPCC announcing 50+ millions climate refugees? In 2010? They very silently dropped that.
An open-minded person with even basic scientific understanding, looking at these claims, will eventually turn into a sceptic. Today, climate panic is more of a religion than a scientific conclusion.
Posted by: Stanton
|
January 23, 2012 9:09 AM
If Ron Paul wouldn't approve of tax money funding clinical trials of drugs, and given that he seeks to monetarily and fatally unplug virtually all government assistance, up to and including even public education, what would he approve tax money being spent on?That is, besides to pay himself and his cronies.
Posted by: Anders
|
January 23, 2012 1:48 PM
How awesome to see PZ link to TYT. Makes me all warm inside.
And as for the issues. Let's assume for the sake of argument that Paul is in fact a racist. What does that mean, practically. He seems to be a man of principles. He's the only one running for president who points out the structural racism that is obvious in the american justice system. It seems to me that he's the only candidate running for president who might do something about the problem since he's principally opposed to it. If he sticks to his principles he might be the best candidate for the black population in the U.S. no matter how he feels about them, personally. It is possible to be a bigot in your personal sphere without it interfering with your professional duties.
In a way Ron Paul is like an inversion of our Christian Democratic Party here in Sweden. They love to run their mouth limiting the influence of government on peoples personal lives and then they turn around and veto the repeal of forced sterilizations of transsexuals. Like fucking nazis. I'd much prefer a politician that's openly bigoted but stands up for minorities as a matter of principle than one who claims to be for equal rights for all and then enacts policies that run contrary to that idea.
Also. I'm not a Paulfan. I would never vote for him and I advice everyone against it. For a number of reasons. Not this one though.
Posted by: starstuff
|
January 23, 2012 4:22 PM
I guess we are lucky here in Canada's capital. Our weatherman is almost bald. He is also very personable, intelligent, and does not trash talk scientists. He knows his weather (well, does get it wrong sometimes), but never assumes to know more than scientists working in the field of global climate. He does understand the difference between weather and overall global climate.
Posted by: Andyo
|
January 23, 2012 9:21 PM
Nice principles.Posted by: Ichthyic
|
January 24, 2012 2:53 AM
Remember the claim from the (warm wintered) 70s, our children would know snow only from books?
another common claim of climate change deniers; that scientists predicted an iceage in the 70s.
they didn't.
before you trot out more of your miremembrances and misinformation, please check if your wrongness has already been corrected:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
January 24, 2012 3:01 AM
He seems to be a man of principles.
I hearby Godwin this thread in the name of an obvious opening:
So was Hitler.
Posted by: David Marjanović
|
January 24, 2012 6:49 AM
No. Show me, please.
Dude, we're having a La Niña year. It's supposed to be colder than average. What do we get? The current "winter" is much warmer than average. It's the warmest I've ever seen, quite a bit warmer than that of the El Niño year 1998.
Posted by: Drolfe
|
January 24, 2012 11:02 AM
I know I'm sort of late to the party, but Tim Wise destroys this "Not a fan, but Ron Paul raises good points" on his blog last week.
Tis, David M., you might get a kick out of this: http://www.timwise.org/2012/01/of-broken-clocks-presidential-candidates-and-the-confusion-of-certain-white-liberals/
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawlw4oH0l6k2YD0NCQUeu7nC2owgujUl77U
|
January 24, 2012 1:06 PM
T.S. Loosney @24 "Climate is changing, always has and most likely always will until that thermonuclear engine in the sky, the sun, goes."
Ho exactly is this quote wrong?
It isn't out of context. HE is one of those who claim that climate changes, no one knows why, don't worry, be happy.
Here's another quote from him: "Increased CO2 actually increases crop production,” said England. “When CO2 drops to less than 150 (parts per million) plants will commence failing. If the plants die, then the livestock die and then guess who is next?"
True, and if the temperature reaches 160°F, I die pretty quickly. But also if it reaches -60 and stays there. Living things have ranges in which they thrive, and slightly larger ranges in which they will cling to life. He's good at saying misleading things which are literally true but which contribute to the larger gestalt of misunderstanding. This strikes me as profoundly dishonest.
Here's a quote which demonstrates his epistemological nihilism:
"Is all of this a result of global warming? Maybe it is and maybe it isn't. You see, no one really knows."
See this website:
http://desmogblog.com/gary-england
Kermit
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawlw4oH0l6k2YD0NCQUeu7nC2owgujUl77U
|
January 24, 2012 1:13 PM
Icthyic: I can't recall any group of candidates I've been alive to see that I would plaster the label "clowncar" on and think it a very apt description.
I have a dream...
I keep seeing a marching army of brown shirts(1), only they have big shoes, red noses, and orange Bozo wigs.
And they aren't funny.
(1) Now that you've brought it up...
Kermit
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawlw4oH0l6k2YD0NCQUeu7nC2owgujUl77U
|
January 24, 2012 1:40 PM
BD - No, I don't remember that. But I remember climate scientists saying that the Arctic ice might melt completely by century's end. Now they're saying perhaps by 2020. It's all happening faster than the scientific consensus expected.
Here's a report republished from Forbes (so you know you can trust it) and with lots of charts for the businessmen (so you know you can understand it):
http://tinyurl.com/6otq2tw
It has already cost us tens of billions of dollars just in the last year in the US alone, in crop loss and property damage. And it's just beginning.
Here's evidence of political motivation: when someone accuses the majority of scientists in a field of being politically motivated to produce their results.
Here's evidence for economic motivation: when someone accuses scientists in a field of being financially motivated for producing their results.
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawlw4oH0l6k2YD0NCQUeu7nC2owgujUl77U
|
January 24, 2012 1:46 PM
"Arctic ice might melt completely"
should be
"Arctic ice might melt completely in the summer"
...of course.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin, avec fromage
|
January 24, 2012 2:42 PM
Setting aside for a moment the question of whether Paul is explicitly racist (in my mind, the answer is quite obviously "yes," but I digress...), Paul's libertarianism is inherently racist for essentially the same reason his supporters claim he isn't racist: Because his ostensibly race-blind hatred of all government-based social welfare programs cannot help but defend and extend the existing racial inequality of society. At best, that is; at worst, the inevitable rich-get-richer-and-poor-get-poorer results of actually implementing a libertarian vision would severely exacerbate existing racial inequality (among vastly many other negative outcomes). Mama always told me: Racist is as racist does.
Also, the idea that anyone would seriously advance the argument that Paul wouldn't support teaching creationism in public schools because he wouldn't support public schools at all... and think that's a good thing... leaves me shaking my head in disbelief!
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
January 24, 2012 3:52 PM
Drofe,
Thank you for the link to the Tim Wise article. I particularly liked how Wise explained that just because some of Paul's (and Duke's) positions seem progressive is no reason to think either of them is actually progressive.
Posted by: mike.d.dean
|
January 26, 2012 4:06 AM
For being a science blog there seems to be a lot of misinformation and disinformation on this particular post. It segued from good hair bad science into a juvenile argument of Ron Paul is a terrorist, nazi, creationist, destroyer of worlds - is too - is not.
The EVIDENCE showing Ron Paul to be a racist is very thin - A FEW news articles written about 20 years ago by ghost writers supposedly expressing Ron Paul's views? Very thin. The question in relation to the topic should be does Ron Paul understand the significance of science and if so does he accept and defend it? Quibbling over did he OR didn't he say such and such in his own name 20 years ago is NOT science, it is actively using rumor mongering to pimp a populist IDEOLOGICAL political view. What laws did Ron Paul oppose or support over the last 20 years should be a scientist's first question when addressing Ron Paul's merits. Did Ron Paul's votes in congress over the past 20 years reflect an understanding of how important science IS for a sustainable society - economically and socially. I don't want to hear about the FAUX news, taken out of context, news letters written over 20 years ago I want the EVIDENCE of his voting convictions over those 20 years.
And IF YOU want voting conviction EVIDENCE on Obama look no further than File First Patent legislation, NDAA, chief of staff Rahm and chief of staff Bill Daley. I don't see science as a chief interest of our commander-in-chief, I see corporatism (another name for fascism). File Fist patent legislation overturns the 200 year history of rewarding by EVIDENCE an inventor or SCIENTIST who can prove they were the first to invent a new useful or novel product. The NDAA strips the Bill of Rights from the constitution. I DO NOT see Obama as using the science in OUR best interest, but merely a useful word for HIS best interest.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin, avec fromage
|
January 26, 2012 11:15 AM
mike.d.dean:
I guess your reading of the evidence is different than mine, but for the sake of argument let's set aside for the moment any suggestion that Ron Paul is personally racist. Deal with what I said @42: Any ideological opposition to social mechanisms for improving equality serve to lock in existing inequality, if not (almost certainly) exacerbate it. You can say all you want about Paul's character, but any doctrinaire libertarian approach to social justice can't help but be at least as racist as the culture already is.
Considering the flaming bag of shit he found on his desk when he came into office, it's not really surprising he hasn't exactly been Scientist-in-Chief... but his opposition party is aggressively, dogmatically anti-science; what more do you need to know?
Dr. Paul may be better on science than the Perrys, Bachmanns, Santorums, et al., of the world (or may not be: to be honest, I find Paul's basic ideology so inherently unacceptable that I haven't felt the need to study his specific positions in any detail), but that's a moot point: Any Republican-led government will be a disaster for science-minded people, and any president who opposes public education can't possibly claim to be a friend of science education.
Posted by: elmlish
|
January 26, 2012 12:27 PM
Here are some reasons why you might consider not voting for Ron Paul
http://www.littleredumbrella.com/2012/01/lets-be-clear-ron-paul-fucking-sucks.html
#18 is pretty funny:
"18. He thinks interstate highways are unconstitutional. You're probably getting the impression by now that Ron Paul thinks that pretty much everything the federal government does is unconstitutional. That's because Ron Paul thinks that pretty much everything the federal government does is unconstitutional. He has even argued against interstate highways, saying Eisenhower knew he was bending the law when he built them. Paul figures they're a violation of states' rights."
Posted by: elmlish
|
January 26, 2012 12:30 PM
Also: Ron Paul was implicated in a failed white supremacist island invasion.
Awesome headline, no?
http://newsone.com/nation/casey-gane-mccalla/ron-paul-was-implicated-in-attempted-white-supremacist-island-invasion/
Posted by: David Marjanović
|
January 26, 2012 1:13 PM
I did, thank you.
Posted by: David Marjanović
|
January 26, 2012 1:21 PM
I laughed and laughed and laughed...
Posted by: oicur12
|
January 26, 2012 3:45 PM
Why is Ron Paul still in this country? He should be in the libertarian utopia of Somalia. Everything he wants to create here already exists in Somalia. Every aspect of the federal government he wants to destroy here has already been destroyed in Somalia.
As a matter of fact all libertarians and other disciples of the Ayn Rand faith should be sent to Somalia. But we are not going to pay their way because that would be the offensive charity they despise. We will just put them on rafts of oil drums and inner tubes and push the rafts halfway across the Atlantic. With their self-avowed superiority those rugged individualists will have no trouble finishing the trip on their own.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
January 26, 2012 3:46 PM
Looking at number 18 on the list of RP inanities, the first thing that jumped to my mind was a reminder of RP's never ending insistence on total "state's rights", followed by...
so, RP want the US to be more like Europe?
How very unamerican of him.
Hell, if it went the way he talks, the US would actually be far, far LESS coherent than the EU.
with all that that would entail.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
January 26, 2012 3:49 PM
I see corporatism (another name for fascism)
?
so, to be a supporter of RP, you have to also be one of those special people that likes to completely make up their own definitions of words.
thanks for the head's up, but I'm pretty sure most of us already knew that RP supporters make shit up.
Posted by: mike.d.dean
|
January 26, 2012 9:17 PM
Hey guy's I'm sorry I stepped on your subjective feelings. Thanks for all of those ad hominem attacks, your arguments from authority, and the non-sequitor arguments. The out of context quoting were exquisite... You all make feel so welcome. It is as if I am debating a group of christians (gross ad-hominem ;).
You don't know me and you didn't ask why I would support Ron Paul when I greatly despise his theistic Ayn Rand belief system.
I am a Thomas Payne libertarian NOT an Ayn Rand pseudo libertarian. I fully understand that Ayn Rand's objectivism is an ideology and not just an economic and political ideology but like all ideologies it is a religion. Thomas Payne on the other hand was all about methodology and opposed to ideology. You might try reading Common Sense.
Ichthyic before you accuse me of making things up - you should DO YOUR HOMEWORK.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism
Corporatist types of community and social interaction are common to many ideologies, including: absolutism, capitalism, conservatism, FASCISM, liberalism, progressivism, reactionism, socialism, and syndicalism.[10]
CORPORATISM IS another name that can be used for each of those economic systems. In Obama's case - based on the EVIDENCE of his voting record and the people he associates with; the ideology he follows IS corporatist fascism - a top down control of the society through strict discipline imposed from above i.e. wall street and DC.
Obama supports mandatory public education. I as did Thomas Payne, also support public education. This is in complete opposition to Ron Paul's view of privatized non education. But, the present congress (both house and senate) and Obama support an education that is mandated from above i.e. a Federal body. I oppose this view as well as the poorly organized and often misled present system of state run education (just look what a creationist, nutjob, dentist on the Texas board of education got us). What I support is an educational system based on the peer reviewed, scientific methodology that Richard Feynman attempted to apply but no one supported - I was just kid at that time but where were you? What's your excuse?
Look, Ron Paul would be ineffectual as a president. He could break things but not too badly because congress and the public media; namely MSNBC, Disney ABC & Murdoch Faux news really hate Ron Paul. Obama, Romney & Gingrich are all about status quo. They all want status quo in their favor - but they all still want status quo. I want to see intellectual property laws repealed but congress is not too likely to do that and the supreme court and the president are supporters of intellectual property law. File First protects the corporation that in many instances - stole the intellectual property and Filed First with their battery of patent attorneys. After all Microsoft has never been found guilty of patent theft? Sony never violated privacy rights with DRM?
Obama WILL win this election but I WILL NOT support him. He STOLE liberties from We the People when he signed NDAA. I WILL support Ron Paul because he want's to repeal laws that take my rights to free speech from me. I support Ron Paul even though he CAN NOT get elected & also in spite of the many idiotic things he supports. Finally, I vote for Ron Paul because of the subjective fact that I hate him the least.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
January 26, 2012 10:02 PM
Okay, asshole, why would you support a racist, homophobic, America hater like Ron Paul? Is it because you're a racist, homophobic America hater? Or is it because you're fucking stupid? Those seem to be the only reasons why anyone would support Paul.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
January 26, 2012 10:15 PM
Having read the rest of the asshole's post, I see that he's a Ron Paul supporter because he's fucking stupid. He's possibly not racist and might not even be homophobic. But he's an America hater, just like every other fucking looneytarian.
The difference between an "Ayn Rand" looneytarian and a "Thomas Payne" looneytarian is the Payne folks like to pretend they're superior in some fashion to the Rand looneytarians. It's like Episcopalians feeling superior to Baptists. Different church, same Bible.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
January 27, 2012 2:47 AM
Hey guy's I'm sorry I stepped on your subjective feelings. Thanks for all of those ad hominem attacks, your arguments from authority
thanks for your endless barrage of logical fallacies that are only on exhibit by yourself.
do you enjoy being stupid?
is it working out well for you?
Posted by: mike.d.dean
|
January 27, 2012 5:31 AM
Oh well.
I tried, you can lead an ape to knowledge but you can't make it understand.
Ichthyic - "thanks for your endless barrage of logical fallacies that are only on exhibit by yourself." I noticed you did not list even ONE of my so called logical fallacies, but you did make a direct ad-hominem in response.
Tis Himself, OM - apparently I'm an American hating, asshole & I'm stupid because I think that I can learn something from Thomas Paine's book Common Sense. I noticed you did not correct my spelling Payne - Paine. I feel better now knowing that you think that Thomas Paine was some form of elitist. I learned about the so called elitist Thomas Paine from Carl Sagan in his series Cosmos. The section on Thomas Paine was in regards to how important Liberty & Free Speech are to Free Trade. He also pointed out that science is very hard to carry out in an oppressed society. Hence my oppostion to the NDAA. Interesting to find out your thoughts on Carl Sagan as well as Thomas Paine - elitist assholes, hmmm?
Posted by: David Marjanović
|
January 27, 2012 6:58 AM
No, why? Insults usually aren't ad-hominem arguments.
Posted by: mike.d.dean
|
January 28, 2012 4:56 AM
Well it looks like Obama and a corrupt congress got what they wanted - a police state. A Utah FedEx driver made a bad joke and now Kevin Coleman is being charged with a felony terrorism charge for making a really bad joke. Jan 26th 2012 not even 1 month after Obama signed the NDAA we already have felony charge for making an idiotic joke - not a threat but a really bad joke. Looks like the terrorist joke is on us - welcome back Joseph McCarthy.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
January 28, 2012 5:58 AM
No, Paine wasn't an elitist. But just because you usurp his name to label your form of looneytarianism doesn't mean you're not some form of elitist. Nor does it mean that you're not an America-hater, because that goes with being a looneytarian.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
January 28, 2012 6:12 AM
mike.d.americahatinglooneytarian is correct in one thing. Kevin Coleman made a dumb joke on a military installation and is being charged with "third-degree criminal terrorism." The point that 215 people were evacuated from the area because of Coleman's stupidity because people have to take such "jokes" seriously is glossed over.
But I don't understand why mike.d.americahatinglooneytarian is so down on Joe McCarthy, unless it's because McCarthy didn't hate America as much as mike.d's buddy Ron Paul.
Posted by: mike.d.dean
|
January 28, 2012 10:18 AM
Tis Himself, OM | January 28, 2012 6:12 AM
Man, I don't what kind of troll-crack you smoke but you should really give it up.
Being a Thomas Paine libertarian making me elitist is NOT a possible outcome. If you actually read any of the material Thomas Paine wrote and attempt to follow the views of Thomas Paine IT CAN NOT lead to elitism. It is counter intuitive to the methodologies he suggests in the "The Rights of Man", "The Age of Reason", "Common Sense"...
I'm sorry that YOU ARE OPPOSED to Liberty, Free Speech and individual rights. I say this because you choose to defend Mr. House Unamerican Act himself - one of the most Unamerican pieces of legislation in the 20th century. Joseph McCarthy was Anti-American.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
January 28, 2012 12:16 PM
Let me see if I've got this right. You CLAIM to follow the precepts of Thomas Paine and so you CLAIM you're not an elitist. I can claim to be a world class surgeon and violin player, but my claim has as much validity as your claim to be influenced by Paine, i.e., zip point shit.
You're a fucking looneytarian. The looneytarian motto is "I got mine, fuck you." You're an admirer of racist, homophobic, America-hating Ron Paul. Now I don't know if you're a racist or a homophobe, but if you think voting for Paul is a good thing then you're an America hater. Paul, like every other looneytarian, is a piece of shit hater of this country. And guess what, asshole, you fit right in with your god, St. Ron.
On the contrary, I'm in favor of these things. That's why I'm not a looneytarian like you. I want to make my country better, I want my fellow citizens to prosper, and I hate looneytarians for their efforts to drag this country and its citizens into the mud for the greater glory of the super-rich.
I see English is not your first language. I didn't defend McCarthy except to say he was less of an America-hater than you or Ron Paul.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
January 28, 2012 12:22 PM
mike.d.americahatinglooneytarian,
In case you haven't figured it out, and I realize that as a looneytarian you're not used to figuring things out, I hate, despise and detest looneytarians. It's your hatred of anyone and everyone who isn't you, your immediate family, and the super-rich that I abhor about you assholes.
Posted by: mike.d.dean
|
January 28, 2012 12:24 PM
Tis Himself, OM | January 28, 2012 12:16 PM If only you could compose a coherent message.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
January 28, 2012 2:46 PM
mike.d.looneytarianamericahater
What's incoherent about looneytarians hate America, your hero Ron Paul hates America, and you should all fuck off and die? What big words don't you understand, fuckwit?
Posted by: Bill Dauphin, avec fromage
|
January 30, 2012 9:52 AM
mide.d.dean (@62):
I know 'Tis has already dealt with this (and doesn't need my help, generally; he can take care of himself), but...
SRSLY? You actually thought 'Tis was defending McCarthy? You weren't just lying about thinking that so you could justify (to yourself) taking another verbal swing at him?
Honestly, some days I think folks ought to have to pass a test on irony, facetiousness, and snark before they're issued a Blog Commenting License®!
Also...
...joking about bombs in a transportation context has been serious business for decades; it has nothing to do with the NDAA or Obama. I came >this close< to getting arrested for making a joke about bombs in an airport as a smart-alecky teen in the mid-70s, and my (feeble, stupid) joke mas much more obviously not a real threat than Coleman's.
I actually think we have become hyperaware about anti-terrorism (over a period of decades, since the heyday of airliner hijackings in the 70s), and I think it makes us less safe... but attributing that to Obama is idiotic, and the idea of putting libertarians (no matter who they use as their hood ornament) in charge of public safety is terrifying. The (undisputed) fact that we're currently overdoing it does not mean there's no role for government in keeping the public safe.