Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey Spreads False Climate Denial Claim: No Warming in Last 10 Years

The lie that refuses to die
Environment • Views: 25,720

It’s become both an article of faith and a litmus test for conservatives to claim that global warming is a “hoax,” presumably staged by evil scientists bent on world domination. This incredibly dangerous ostrich-like thinking is nearly universal on the right wing and in the Republican Party, and yesterday we saw another example at far right blog Hot Air, as Ed Morrissey cited an article by climate change denier James Taylor at Forbes, pushing the long-discredited, utterly false claim that global warming has “stopped” in the last 10 years: Where’s the warming?

Carbon emissions over the past decade actually exceeded predictions by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), no thanks to the global economic recession. According to their anthropogenic global-warming theories, global temperatures should have risen significantly as a result. James Taylor at Forbes wonders what happened:

Global greenhouse gas emissions have risen even faster during the past decade than predicted by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other international agencies. According to alarmist groups, this proves global warming is much worse than previously feared. The increase in emissions “should shock even the most jaded negotiators” at international climate talks currently taking place in Bonn, Germany, the UK Guardian reports. But there’s only one problem with this storyline; global temperatures have not increased at all during the past decade.

Morrissey is greatly impressed by the charts included by Taylor, but apparently can’t be bothered to investigate the truth; he’s more interested in continuing to spread falsehoods to the determinedly ignorant.

These zombie memes are endlessly recycled on the right, and this one has been debunked repeatedly, by many sources, yet it just keeps popping up again as a right wing article of faith, impervious to logic or evidence.

One of the best sites for actual scientific facts (instead of denialist spin funded by energy companies) is Skeptical Science, and a quick search reveals many articles showing how incredibly false this claim is. Just a few examples:

Did global warming stop in 1998?
2010: A Year of Record Warmth and Weird Weather
2009 - 2nd hottest year on record while sun is coolest in a century
Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant

And here’s an excellent video that examines this bogus claim in detail, showing that it’s based on a deliberate misinterpretation of temperature data.

Youtube Video

But none of this matters to the pig-ignorant base, and people like Morrissey know it. These are the kinds of people they’re appealing to; a Hot Air commenter lays it out:

It doesn’t matter what the science shows (or fails to show), AGW alarmists are marxists who have always known that AGW was b.s., but don’t care. They want to use this to destroy western economies in an effort to bring about the global revolution.

the religion isn’t AGW, it is world-wide socialism. They will use whatever they think will work to try and get there.

People like Bayam never cared about science and never will. There has never been any science associated with AGW. It’s always been a sham and it’s always had the same goal – bigger gov’t, less prosperity.

Monkeytoe on June 13, 2011 at 8:24 AM

It’s easy to mock this kind of idiocy, but it’s incredibly disturbing that people like this are preventing the US from taking action on the most significant threat to human existence. And this is just one comment, out of dozens just as bad.

Ed Morrissey and Hot Air (and the entire right wing for that matter) are going to have a lot to answer for in the coming decades, when denial will no longer be possible and the disastrous effects of their obfuscation are clear to the entire world.

Jump to bottom

216 comments
1 Kragar  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 10:37:40am

I wish these morons could just understand the fundamental difference between climate and weather.

2 theheat  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 10:37:49am

I got an email last week about marxist greenies going to make incandescent lightbulbs illegal so poor working families will only own expensive fluorescent bulbs. It had a flag, bolded and italicized print, and a fruit salad of fonts. It was sent to me because someone "cared and wanted to alert me of all the liberal lies destroying the country.

I wrote back, "This needs more fonts, more colors, and more hysteria."

Knee jerk, ignorant, dishonest, superstitious, simplistic, selfish - but damn they'll put a flag and some crazyfonts on it because they actually care, and those scientists need to be "exposed."

3 Bulworth  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 10:38:17am
Ed Morrissey cited an article by climate change denier James Taylor at Forbes

And Forbes is a completely fact-based, disinterested reporting institution, with no ideological agenda whatsoever...

4 (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was)  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 10:38:47am

In other news: Germany Recognizes Libyan Rebel Government (NY Times), Germany recognises Libya rebels as sole government (BBC), Germany says rebel council represents Libyans (Reuters)

5 Obdicut  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 10:39:25am

I can never tell if this is utter cynicism or actual denial of science.

Does the GOP and the right-wing media really disbelieve AGW? Or are they really, bitterly, clinging to their anti-green arguments even though they know them to be false?

6 Randall Gross  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 10:39:48am

La Nina just ended, so the warming is going to become more apparent in North America next year.

7 Interesting Times  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 10:40:43am
Ed Morrissey and Hot Air (and the entire right wing for that matter) are going to have a lot to answer for in the coming decades, when denial will no longer be possible and the disastrous effects of their obfuscation are clear to the entire world.

They don't care, because most of them are selfish old bastards who'll be dead by then.

...sometimes I seriously wonder if we should take away the right to make policy from those who won't live long enough to see the consequences thereof.

8 acfunk  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 10:40:58am

Disastrous effects? I guess if you attribute everything bad to global warming you might have a point. But you will still be wrong. Global warming can't be stopped by republicans, or democrats, or bloggers, or tweeters, or scientists, or anyone else. To put it plainly: Mother Earth is nobody's bitch. She gonna do what she gonna do.

9 Political Atheist  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 10:41:37am

A few hundred years ago a similar anti science superstitious mindset got Kepler in trouble as a Protestant and then Galileo with the Vatican. Before that we had the Salem witch trials.

How far from this mindset are the high profile deniers really? Not that far IMO.

10 Vicious Babushka  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 10:41:45am

re: #2 theheat

I got an email last week about marxist greenies going to make incandescent lightbulbs illegal so poor working families will only own expensive fluorescent bulbs. It had a flag, bolded and italicized print, and a fruit salad of fonts. It was sent to me because someone "cared and wanted to alert me of all the liberal lies destroying the country.

I wrote back, "This needs more fonts, more colors, and more hysteria."

Knee jerk, ignorant, dishonest, superstitious, simplistic, selfish - but damn they'll put a flag and some crazyfonts on it because they actually care, and those scientists need to be "exposed."

I hear the ads on the radio all the time from the "American Petroleum Industry" about how a tax on gas will just cause the "working class" to suffer more. Yeah, while the "American Petroleum Industry" passes on the cost to the consumers so that they can enjoy their luxurious lifestyle paid for by tax breaks for the bazillionaires.

11 Henchman 25  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 10:41:48am

re: #8 acfunk

Talking point bot ahoy.

12 3CPO  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 10:42:24am

Great news! Also, we no longer have to worry about earthquakes in the SF Bay Area, because we haven't had any major seismic activity since 1989!

13 Kragar  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 10:42:25am

re: #8 acfunk

Disastrous effects? I guess if you attribute everything bad to global warming you might have a point. But you will still be wrong. Global warming can't be stopped by republicans, or democrats, or bloggers, or tweeters, or scientists, or anyone else. To put it plainly: Mother Earth is nobody's bitch. She gonna do what she gonna do.

So of course, the best course of action is to do nothing to mitigate its effects and prepare ourselves for a worst case scenario and hold God saves the day.

14 rwdflynavy  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 10:42:26am

re: #6 Thanos

La Nina just ended, so the warming is going to become more apparent in North America next year.

So all this is the Mexicans fault?
//

15 Kragar  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 10:42:54am

re: #14 rwdflynavy

So all this is the Mexicans fault?
//

No. Just Nina's.

16 Decatur Deb  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 10:43:49am

re: #7 publicityStunted

They don't care, because most of them are selfish old bastards who'll be dead by then.

...sometimes I seriously wonder if we should take away the right to make policy from those who won't live long enough to see the consequences thereof.

Ageist Punk.

17 Interesting Times  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 10:43:58am

re: #11 SteelPH

Talking point bot ahoy.

Oh look, he dropped another turd on a dead thread. Stalker sock, most likely.

18 Shiplord Kirel  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 10:44:03am

(With the indulgence of our host, a re-post from Ausador's page on Fischer's latest craziness)

HOME OF THE DERANGED (to the tune of Home on the Range)

Oh, give me a home where the mountebanks foam
Where the deer and the antelope played
Where seldom is heard an intelligent word
And the skies are a dirty brown shade

Home of the deranged
Where the deer and the antelope die
Where seldom is heard a meaningful word
And the airwaves are filled with a lie

How often at night with the heavens ablight
with the exhaust of the S-U-Vs
Have I stood there amazed and asked as I gazed
If their profit exceeds that of Fox

Home of the deranged
Where the deer and the antelope rot
Where seldom is heard a coherent word
And the skies are a dingy gray blot

Then give me a land where the bright oil-sand
Flows leisurely down to the street
Where the graceful white swan goes struggling along
Then chokes to death trying to eat

Oh I would not exchange my home of deranged
Where the deer and the antelope fall
Where seldom is heard a rational word
And the skies can rain mud on us all.

19 Charles Johnson  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 10:44:31am

re: #8 acfunk

Disastrous effects? I guess if you attribute everything bad to global warming you might have a point. But you will still be wrong. Global warming can't be stopped by republicans, or democrats, or bloggers, or tweeters, or scientists, or anyone else. To put it plainly: Mother Earth is nobody's bitch. She gonna do what she gonna do.

Bullshit. Human beings are the cause of global warming, and there are things that can be done.

20 Vicious Babushka  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 10:44:46am

"But, but, but, we had record snowfalls this winter!"

Because:

Global warming-->polar icecap melt-->more moisture in the atmosphere-->more precipitation-->SNOW if it's winter-->RAIN if it's spring or summer.

Science!

21 Obdicut  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 10:44:52am

re: #8 acfunk

Okay.

Nobody actually believes mankind couldn't affect the climate, because we all know well what nuclear winter is-- humanity could, if it wanted, drastically and permanently rewrite the climate.

Furthermore, nobody actually believes that mankind can't affect the climate in other ways, since deforestation and the dust bowl are obvious examples.

So what you're specifically saying is that the actual mechanism of long-term climate change isn't being affected by CO2 and other greenhouse gas output.

That assertion is demonstrably false, since we can both show that greenhouse gases do trap heat in atmosphere, and that concentrations in them in atmosphere have risen in line with human production of them.

22 rwdflynavy  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 10:44:54am

re: #8 acfunk
LOL, Cock Puppet.

23 Kragar  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 10:45:18am

re: #19 Charles

Bullshit. Human beings are the cause of global warming, and there are things that can be done.

But...God has a plan...right?
///

24 Political Atheist  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 10:45:38am

re: #22 rwdflynavy

LOL, Cock Puppet.

Typo or not?
LOL

25 Kragar  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 10:45:48am

re: #22 rwdflynavy

LOL, Cock Puppet.

Do we have to talk about Wiener again?

26 rwdflynavy  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 10:46:01am

re: #20 Alouette

"But, but, but, we had record snowfalls this winter!"

Because:

Global warming-->polar icecap melt-->more moisture in the atmosphere-->more precipitation-->SNOW if it's winter-->RAIN if it's spring or summer.

Science!

Don't you guys get it?!?! It was unseasonably cool in Washington DC today. Therefore AGW is a H0AX!!!
//

27 rwdflynavy  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 10:46:29am

re: #24 Rightwingconspirator

Typo or not?
LOL

One of Iceweasel's creations. Not a typo.

28 Charles Johnson  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 10:46:33am

You can see how invested right wingers are in their ignorance on this subject -- we got a talking point parrot almost right away.

29 acfunk  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 10:46:43am

Amazing what Group Think can do to people. Congrats guys. You are so far off the deep end you are shallow.

30 Decatur Deb  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 10:47:07am

re: #23 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

But...God has a plan...right?
///

Yes.. He plans to roast our asses if we don't use the brains he gave us.

31 iossarian  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 10:47:16am

re: #29 acfunk

Amazing what Group Think can do to people. Congrats guys. You are so far off the deep end you are shallow.

Projecting talkbot ahoy.

32 Obdicut  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 10:47:31am

re: #29 acfunk

Ooh, sick burn!

33 Vicious Babushka  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 10:48:34am

re: #29 acfunk

Amazing what Group Think can do to people. Congrats guys. You are so far off the deep end you are shallow.

OOh how can anyone refudiate such impeccable facts and logic?

34 albusteve  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 10:48:36am

re: #29 acfunk

Amazing what Group Think can do to people. Congrats guys. You are so far off the deep end you are shallow.

and deniers are not Group Think?....wtf?

35 3CPO  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 10:49:27am

re: #29 acfunk

Yeah, because we never none of us disagree here with each other, right? Wow, I've seen much better trolling in the Craigslist discussion forums.

36 Shiplord Kirel  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 10:50:48am

I don't know 3 scientists who can agree on where to eat lunch. How are hundreds of thousands of them going to maintain a seamless conspiracy to do whatever it is the deniers think they are doing?

37 (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was)  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 10:50:52am

This was also a great recent gem:

Limbaugh: The National Academy Of Sciences Has "Lost All Credibility, [Climate Change Is] A Bogus Claim"

The National Academy of Sciences lost all credibility? Wow, just wow.

The topic being so much in the news recently probably got to do with the GOP presidential candidates getting put in the spotlight these days.

38 darthstar  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 10:50:56am

re: #29 acfunk

Sticks and stones, motherfucker...sticks and stones. Your words can't hurt me.

39 albusteve  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 10:51:04am

we need a comprehensive energy plan....it's a matter of national security and it logically parallels reducing AGW....seems pretty simple to me

40 Kragar  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 10:51:27am

re: #29 acfunk

Amazing what Group Think can do to people.

Its worked wonders for the Tea Party and the Evangelicals. They killed a whole political party with it.

41 Political Atheist  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 10:51:54am

re: #29 acfunk

Amazing what Group Think can do to people. Congrats guys. You are so far off the deep end you are shallow.

If you mean large groups of actual science professionals working climate data as where this group found what to think about then yes. But well not quite what you had in mind...

42 acfunk  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 10:52:41am

I am not anti-science. I am anti-bureaucracy. And it will take a massive, world-wide governmental intervention to halt anthropogenic global warming. But hey, good luck with that!

43 Decatur Deb  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 10:52:43am

re: #39 albusteve

we need a comprehensive energy plan...it's a matter of national security and it logically parallels reducing AGW...seems pretty simple to me

Sure--let a tiny wildfire toast your tonsils and you go all hippy-dippy.

44 Charles Johnson  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 10:53:01am

It's always nice when a right winger pops up and demonstrates the exact point I'm trying to make.

45 recusancy  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 10:53:10am

re: #8 acfunk

Disastrous effects? I guess if you attribute everything bad to global warming you might have a point. But you will still be wrong. Global warming can't be stopped by republicans, or democrats, or bloggers, or tweeters, or scientists, or anyone else. To put it plainly: Mother Earth is nobody's bitch. She gonna do what she gonna do.

Do you believe in the greenhouse effect? Or is that a conspiracy?

46 Obdicut  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 10:53:12am

re: #42 acfunk

That is the largest goalpost move I've ever seen. Congrats.

47 Kragar  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 10:53:35am

re: #39 albusteve

we need a comprehensive energy plan...it's a matter of national security and it logically parallels reducing AGW...seems pretty simple to me

And the Republicans wouldn't touch it with a 10' pole. Cuts into their lobbying and voter base.

48 Charles Johnson  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 10:54:05am

re: #42 acfunk

I am not anti-science.

Really? Then what did this comment mean?

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

49 Henchman 25  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 10:54:10am

re: #42 acfunk

Be gone, troll.

50 Vicious Babushka  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 10:54:47am

re: #42 acfunk

I am not anti-science. I am anti-bureaucracy. And it will take a massive, world-wide governmental intervention to halt anthropogenic global warming. But hey, good luck with that!

And yet you just said that global warming is not caused by humans! What do you think "anthropogenic" means?

51 Kragar  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 10:54:50am

re: #42 acfunk

I am not anti-science. I am anti-bureaucracy. And it will take a massive, world-wide governmental intervention to halt anthropogenic global warming. But hey, good luck with that!

Oh, you're an idiot. Why didn't you just say so from the start?

52 iossarian  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 10:54:56am

re: #42 acfunk

I am not anti-science. I am anti-bureaucracy. And it will take a massive, world-wide governmental intervention to halt anthropogenic global warming. But hey, good luck with that!

Choice A: global warming, hundreds of millions of people dead, "free markets"

Choice B: emissions control, hundreds of millions of deaths averted, "bureaucracy"

When you put it like that, I guess it's pretty clear which is the more attractive choice.

53 albusteve  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 10:55:00am

re: #42 acfunk

I am not anti-science. I am anti-bureaucracy. And it will take a massive, world-wide governmental intervention to halt anthropogenic global warming. But hey, good luck with that!

nothing ventured, nothing gained....consider yourself part of the problem, not the solution...nice going doofus

54 recusancy  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 10:56:01am

re: #42 acfunk

I am not anti-science. I am anti-bureaucracy. And it will take a massive, world-wide governmental intervention to halt anthropogenic global warming. But hey, good luck with that!

Well, you're probably right. It's either that or premature extinction of our species. But, ya, who cares. As long as we don't have bureaucracy.

55 Vicious Babushka  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 10:56:35am

Who gains by denying climate change?

Koch, Inc. & the Saudi royal inbreds.

Who else?

56 albusteve  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 10:56:44am

re: #43 Decatur Deb

Sure--let a tiny wildfire toast your tonsils and you go all hippy-dippy.

you can hear the trees crying....sounds something like a firetruck siren in fact

57 darthstar  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 10:56:48am

re: #48 Charles

It just goes to show...when you've reached the end of your petri dish it's time to stop cultivating.

58 recusancy  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 10:57:02am

re: #55 Alouette

Who gains by denying climate change?

Koch, Inc. & the Saudi royal inbreds.

Who else?

Republicans.

59 Interesting Times  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 10:57:16am

re: #39 albusteve

we need a comprehensive energy plan...it's a matter of national security and it logically parallels reducing AGW...seems pretty simple to me

Then you might appreciate this glimmer of hope: US military goes to war with climate sceptics

60 scienceisreal  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 10:57:34am

I'm so sick of hearing these claims that there has been no significant warming between year A and year B. This relies on such a blatant ignorance of statistics. Give me any data set with two correlated variables, and I can show you some set of point along the data set where the correlation doesn't appear (It's particularly easy if the subset only needs an n of 10, like the examples given by these morons).

61 Vicious Babushka  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 10:57:41am

re: #58 recusancy

Republicans.

They are owned by Koch, Inc. (who btw own quite a few Democrats too)

62 Obdicut  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 10:58:08am

re: #55 Alouette

In the short term, traditional energy companies and financial interests that are involved in those sources--which is a very large group.

In the long term, no one gains, other than people who really enjoy starvation in the third world.

63 acfunk  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 10:58:16am

re: #48 Charles

I believe that was a joke. Remember when you owned a sense of humor charles? What did you do? Sell that along with your Integrity?

64 Charles Johnson  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 10:58:29am

re: #60 scienceisreal

But... but... they have graphs!

65 iossarian  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 10:58:48am

I never understand the "it's just too complicated" argument. Especially when it comes from people who are otherwise happy to point out how amazingly, exceptionally brilliant the USA is.

Talk about capitulation.

66 albusteve  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 10:58:53am

re: #59 publicityStunted

Then you might appreciate this glimmer of hope: US military goes to war with climate sceptics

I finally got pissed and made some calls

68 Charles Johnson  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 10:59:09am

re: #63 acfunk

I believe that was a joke. Remember when you owned a sense of humor charles? What did you do? Sell that along with your Integrity?

And with that, I cordially invite you to fuck right off.

69 iossarian  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 10:59:10am

re: #63 acfunk

I believe that was a joke. Remember when you owned a sense of humor charles? What did you do? Sell that along with your Integrity?

Didn't you hear? Charles's integrity comes in six-packs.

70 jaunte  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 10:59:15am

re: #59 publicityStunted

The US military; another bureaucracy in on the conspiracy...

71 Vicious Babushka  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 10:59:21am

re: #63 acfunk

I believe that was a joke. Remember when you owned a sense of humor charles? What did you do? Sell that along with your Integrity?

And when you are shown to be a complete dumbass, say "it's satire!"

72 Shiplord Kirel  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 10:59:28am

Yeah, a little thing like no rain for six months and my farm blowing away to Oklahoma and I'm ready to join the hippies.

It was absolutely hellish in Lubbock last night. For months, we've held the dust in check by plowing deeper and deeper to bring up residual ground moisture. The limits of that were reached last month. The results were inevitable: Last evening a 30s style black blizzard blew in about 7:30. The setting sun was blotted out completely and visibility reduced to 1/8 mile. The wind stopped about 9. By 9:30 it was dead calm, still 98 degrees, and the sky was red orange from street lights reflecting off suspended dust. As I said, literally hellish.

73 (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was)  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 10:59:36am

re: #55 Alouette

Who gains by denying climate change?

Koch, Inc. & the Saudi royal inbreds.

Who else?

People they trickle down on?

//

74 Obdicut  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 10:59:41am

re: #63 acfunk

It was satire, dammit!

75 Interesting Times  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 10:59:51am

re: #54 recusancy

Well, you're probably right. It's either that or premature extinction of our species. But, ya, who cares. As long as we don't have bureaucracy.

Protect American freedom and prosperity. Kill people, not jobs.

76 ReamWorks SKG  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 11:00:31am

I've always wondered what the real motivation behind the climate-change deniers is. It seems deeper than a skepticism about climate change. It's more of a reaction to the rejection of the notion that G-d will, somehow, bail us out.
Or maybe they feel a big catastrophe would be welcome as "judgement day."

77 Decatur Deb  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 11:01:02am

re: #72 Shiplord Kirel

Yeah, a little thing like no rain for six months and my farm blowing away to Oklahoma and I'm ready to join the hippies.

It was absolutely hellish in Lubbock last night. For months, we've held the dust in check by plowing deeper and deeper to bring up residual ground moisture. The limits of that were reached last month. The results were inevitable: Last evening a 30s style black blizzard blew in about 7:30. The setting sun was blotted out completely and visibility reduced to 1/8 mile. The wind stopped about 9. By 9:30 it was dead calm, still 98 degrees, and the sky was red orange from street lights reflecting off suspended dust. As I said, literally hellish.

Time to dust off the ol' Woody Guthrie 78s.

78 recusancy  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 11:02:00am

re: #75 publicityStunted

Kill people, not jobs.

Holy shit. That should be their 2012 slogan.

79 Vicious Babushka  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 11:02:01am

re: #76 reuven

I've always wondered what the real motivation behind the climate-change deniers is. It seems deeper than a skepticism about climate change. It's more of a reaction to the rejection of the notion that G-d will, somehow, bail us out.
Or maybe they feel a big catastrophe would be welcome as "judgement day."

They think they will be "raptured" and the rest of us unbelieving heathens will have to deal with the consequences before we are sent to an eternity of torture in Hell by the "loving savior"

80 jaunte  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 11:02:06am

re: #76 reuven

Or maybe just a childish opposition to limits.

81 Decatur Deb  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 11:02:58am

Dust Bowl Blues:

82 ReamWorks SKG  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 11:03:11am

re: #80 jaunte

It's like the people who oppose same-sex marriage. I'm not sure that their stated reasons reflect their true motivation.

83 Charles Johnson  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 11:03:34am

Typical wingnut progression there:

1) Parrot bullshit talking point

2) Get defensive and accuse everyone of "group think"

3) Parrot another bullshit talking point

4) Piss on the carpet and spew insults

5) Buh bye

84 iossarian  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 11:03:50am

re: #76 reuven

I've always wondered what the real motivation behind the climate-change deniers is. It seems deeper than a skepticism about climate change. It's more of a reaction to the rejection of the notion that G-d will, somehow, bail us out.
Or maybe they feel a big catastrophe would be welcome as "judgement day."

I think a big part of it is the simply awful scale of the problem. It's not an easy thing to come to terms with. And yes, if you've been taught that there's no problem that you can't overcome as an individual, or in the absolute worst case as a nation, then it's hard to accept that here is a problem that is going to require a truly global solution.

85 theheat  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 11:04:17am

re: #63 acfunk

You're dumber than you look.

86 sagehen  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 11:04:48am

re: #23 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

But...God has a plan...right?
///

I'm pretty sure God's plan was to give us the intellectual capacity to discover and describe the laws of physics, the free will to make choices individually and collectively, and then said "nu? show me what you're going to do with it...."

(he's now shaking his head sadly, and working on his plan B -- evolving sentient life on Tau Ceti 3).

87 Shiplord Kirel  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 11:06:21am

re: #81 Decatur Deb

Coming to a farm near you.

88 Kragar  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 11:07:05am

re: #86 sagehen

I'm pretty sure God's plan was to give us the intellectual capacity to discover and describe the laws of physics, the free will to make choices individually and collectively, and then said "nu? show me what you're going to do with it..."

BLASPHEMER!!!!
///

89 scienceisreal  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 11:07:38am

By following the same statistical logic employed by these guys, I just ran a regression of income based on level of education. Turns out higher levels of education do not lead to higher income. Of course I restricted my model to 10 cases, which means it's virtually impossible to show significance. But hey, if it's good enough math for the Republicans, why can't it be good enough for my data?

90 Decatur Deb  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 11:07:59am

re: #87 Shiplord Kirel

Coming to a farm near you.

Already here--I'm keeping my small garden alive with city water. I've let the lawn and yard collapse into yellow straw.

91 3CPO  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 11:08:07am

re: #76 reuven

I think they just don't like to be shown up by the liberal elite educated egghead scientist types. If they don't understand it, if it isn't "common sense," then they refuse to even think about it. Gut feelings are always right. If you have to reason too much, then you're just twisting your brain into knots!

92 rwdflynavy  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 11:08:11am

re: #63 acfunk

Dear Daddy, I really hate you.
//

93 allegro  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 11:09:30am

re: #80 jaunte

Or maybe just a childish opposition to limits.

I've always suspected a continuation of hippie punching. These same people seem to have the same rather violent objections to simple, sensible things like recycling, organic farming, banning of DDT, etc. that make life better and healthier for everyone. If they can remotely associate any program as being liked by the left, aka DFHs, it's somehow an evil conspiracy.

94 jaunte  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 11:10:27am

re: #93 allegro

"They took our bulbs!"

95 sagehen  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 11:10:30am

re: #42 acfunk

I am not anti-science. I am anti-bureaucracy. And it will take a massive, world-wide governmental intervention to halt anthropogenic global warming. But hey, good luck with that!

Where's all that anti-bureaucracy, anti-governmental-invention fervor when the wingers are proposing bill after bill after bill after constitutional amendment after bill to declare zygote supremacy and empower the miscarriage police and a dozen other measures to deny bodily autonomy to women?

96 McSpiff  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 11:10:35am

re: #75 publicityStunted

I'm stealing "Kill people, not jobs". That sums up the modern TPGOP so damn well its not even funny.

97 Killgore Trout  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 11:10:53am

re: #76 reuven

I've always wondered what the real motivation behind the climate-change deniers is. It seems deeper than a skepticism about climate change. It's more of a reaction to the rejection of the notion that G-d will, somehow, bail us out.
Or maybe they feel a big catastrophe would be welcome as "judgement day."

I suppose I could speak to that. I used to be a skeptic about climate change but it's not a subject I ever spent a lot of time researching. Eventually it became clear to me that the skepticism is just a ruse designed to keep oil company profits up.I've since become much less skeptical.

98 iossarian  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 11:11:28am

re: #95 sagehen

Where's all that anti-bureaucracy, anti-governmental-invention fervor when the wingers are proposing bill after bill after bill after constitutional amendment after bill to declare zygote supremacy and empower the miscarriage police and a dozen other measures to deny bodily autonomy to women?

It's consistency you want? Sorry - this is bigotry. Consistency is down the hall.

99 3CPO  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 11:12:43am

We all believe the world is roughly spherical = groupthink

100 allegro  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 11:13:10am

re: #94 jaunte

"They took our bulbs!"

Eggz-acty! No matter that CFL bulbs cost much less in energy to operate and last about ten times as long to make them economically superior to save the jackasses actual money outa their pockets. And we wonder why they so often vote against their own interests?

101 jaunte  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 11:13:20am

re: #93 allegro

Their approach always seems to be about fear of being controlled by outside human forces (ignoring that we humans are going to have to do something to avoid being destroyed by outside natural forces).

102 watching you tiny alien kittens are  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 11:13:28am

Jesus effing crisps, how bad does it have to get before these people will acknowledge reality?

Don't answer that, it was semi-rhetorical. They never will and actually the poisoning of the Earth entirely fits within their religious hopes and dreams. They are going to FORCE Jesus to come back sooner by speeding up the process of making the earth un-inhabitable as quickly as possible...

He has to come back right now if we cause humanity to face imminent extinction...err...right?

103 Interesting Times  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 11:13:59am

re: #93 allegro

If they can remotely associate any program as being liked by the left, aka DFHs, it's somehow an evil conspiracy.

Which is why I'd love to tell them that "the left" is utterly heartbroken when they see people drinking untreated sewer water and smearing themselves with the remaining sludge.

104 Vicious Babushka  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 11:14:04am

Really it is so simple to explain "why there is so much more snow" with climate change, you have to be a special kind of dumbass not to understand.

105 jaunte  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 11:14:35am

re: #100 allegro

"If someone says it's good for me, then I'm determined to hate it."

106 Vicious Babushka  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 11:14:47am

re: #100 allegro

Eggz-acty! No matter that CFL bulbs cost much less in energy to operate and last about ten times as long to make them economically superior to save the jackasses actual money outa their pockets. And we wonder why they so often vote against their own interests?

But they don't fit in my chandelier!
/

107 theheat  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 11:16:22am

re: #100 allegro

They're hurting working [say it with a whimper] famblies!

108 allegro  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 11:16:39am

re: #106 Alouette

But they don't fit in my chandelier!
/

You found the one valid point. LOL

109 Kragar  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 11:16:53am

re: #99 3CPO

We all believe the world is roughly spherical = groupthink

Science has proven the earth to be banana shaped.

110 Vicious Babushka  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 11:17:08am

re: #102 ausador

Jesus effing crisps, how bad does it have to get before these people will acknowledge reality?

Don't answer that, it was semi-rhetorical. They never will and actually the poisoning of the Earth entirely fits within their religious hopes and dreams. They are going to FORCE Jesus to come back sooner by speeding up the process of making the earth un-inhabitable as quickly as possible...

He has to come back right now if we cause humanity to face imminent extinction...err...right?

G-D is going to say "I gave you the task of guarding and maintaining my garden and you failed, so I'm pissed!"

111 Batman  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 11:17:39am

Why combat AGW when combating reality is significantly easier.

112 3CPO  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 11:18:35am

re: #109 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Is that a banana in your solar system, or are you just happy to see me?

113 Lidane  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 11:19:10am
It doesn’t matter what the science shows (or fails to show)

Dear idiot,

Actually, yeah. It really does matter. It matters a whole hell of a lot. Just because you don't have the brain cells to comprehend it doesn't take away from the fact that there's a problem.

Deal with it.

No love,
Sane America

114 Vicious Babushka  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 11:20:09am

re: #107 theheat

They're hurting working [say it with a whimper] famblies!

Working famblies MUST SUFFER so that Koch, Inc. and Saudi royalty can maintain their standard of luxury!

And in gratitute, they will let you work in one of their "trickle down" jobs, for 35% less than you earned 10 years ago.

115 Kragar  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 11:20:12am

re: #112 3CPO

Is that a banana in your solar system, or are you just happy to see me?

Yes.

116 The Ghost of a Flea  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 11:20:12am

Not only does stuff like this make me headdesk, it is telepathically transmitted to my cousin at FSU with the meteorolgy PhD, so he's headdesking too.

re: #76 reuven

I've always wondered what the real motivation behind the climate-change deniers is. It seems deeper than a skepticism about climate change. It's more of a reaction to the rejection of the notion that G-d will, somehow, bail us out.
Or maybe they feel a big catastrophe would be welcome as "judgement day."

I think at the core of the geunine denialists there's two things: fear of a shift in the worldwide status quo; and fear of the interconnected, chaotic system that climate change implies.

117 albusteve  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 11:20:52am

meanwhile, more trouble brewing over Yucca Mt...I have never quite understood this situation

NRC chief in hot seat for scrapping work on Yucca Mountain dump
Since then, Jaczko has made a series of decisions that have aided the administration's goal of shutting down Yucca Mountain. His purported reasons for doing so have come under attack by Congress, his fellow commissioners and in-house experts as being contrary to the 1982 law that requires the NRC to review the government's plans for an underground repository in Nevada for the country's spent nuclear fuel.

Emails and documents gathered by investigators on three House committees and reviewed by The Associated Press, along with interviews with NRC staff members, paint an even more damning portrait of the NRC leader. They also raise questions about whether the agency's independence and scientific integrity have been compromised to advance a political agenda.

Read more: [Link: www.islandpacket.com...]

118 Shiplord Kirel  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 11:21:01am

re: #72 Shiplord Kirel

Yeah, a little thing like no rain for six months and my farm blowing away to Oklahoma and I'm ready to join the hippies.

It was absolutely hellish in Lubbock last night. For months, we've held the dust in check by plowing deeper and deeper to bring up residual ground moisture. The limits of that were reached last month. The results were inevitable: Last evening a 30s style black blizzard blew in about 7:30. The setting sun was blotted out completely and visibility reduced to 1/8 mile. The wind stopped about 9. By 9:30 it was dead calm, still 98 degrees, and the sky was red orange from street lights reflecting off suspended dust. As I said, literally hellish.

Incidentally, the deep-plowing for dust control is coordinated by the USDA through the Extension Service, ie bureaucrats. Without this, the whole county would have blown away by now.

119 Hal_10000  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 11:23:02am

I'm in the middle on AGW since I think it's real and dangerous but think the proposed solutions are bad ones. I'm more in the Lomborg camp, which make me persona non grata on both sides.

But the right wing seriously drives me nuts on this. If you read Morrissey's column and the comments, you'll find them throwing out arguments that have been so thoroughly debunked that it's ridiculous (hide the decline, Phil Jones says there is no warming, NASA's data worse than CRU, global cooling). They basically have a list of bullet points on why global warming is a fraud and NEVER pull anything off that list no matter how many times they've been shown to be garbage.

If someone wants to point out the big uncertainties in climate models, I'm with them. If they think the proposed solutions are poor, I'm willing to listen. But this is just BS. And un-conservative.

120 ReamWorks SKG  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 11:23:14am

re: #86 sagehen

My Rabbi always says "Prayer only works when followed by action."

121 Interesting Times  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 11:23:57am

re: #116 The Ghost of a Flea

I think at the core of the geunine denialists there's two things: fear of a shift in the worldwide status quo; and fear of the interconnected, chaotic system that climate change implies.

I think there's also something even more fundamental at play: ego. The thought of being wrong is more painful to them than anything else. Sometimes, this destructive human tendency is so strong, it overrides love, hate, the profit motive, and even the will to live.

122 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 11:24:05am

re: #120 reuven

He is a wise man.

123 Kragar  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 11:24:23am

Speaking of things wingnut's hate

Big Pharma Follows Gates' Lead By Slashing Rota Vaccine Prices

Last month in Geneva, Bill Gates laid out his vision for the impact that broadening access to vaccines can have on the world. Now, only a few weeks after his inspirational speech, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) has promised to cut a whopping 95% off its rotavirus vaccine for sale to the globe's poorest countries, while Merck has also said it would cut the price on its vaccine against the same illness. Sanofi Pasteur and Johnson & Johnson also promised cuts.

124 Obdicut  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 11:25:18am

re: #119 Hal_10000

Lomborg is just out to make a book by writing books. He's not a serious dude. He's also not a scientist.


If someone wants to point out the big uncertainties in climate models, I'm with them. If they think the proposed solutions are poor, I'm willing to listen. But this is just BS. And un-conservative.

But that's fine. For example, bio-diesel with corn is really goddamn stupid. It's not a solution, it's a problem. If we're doing bio-diesel, we need to do it right, with things that, oh, give a high amount of fuel compared to the resources invested in raising it.

Something like switchgrass, or hemp.

125 ReamWorks SKG  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 11:26:14am

re: #97 Killgore Trout

Well, I'm a little more pragmatic. If we have, say, 200 years of oil left, then we can assume that ever gram of CO2 that's locked up in those molecules will make its way into the atmosphere, whether it takes 50 years or 500 really doesn't matter that much.

What we have to do, now, is start developing technology that uses energy extremely efficiently, so that some sustainable solution would have a chance of being able to supply all our needs.

126 Vicious Babushka  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 11:26:26am

re: #124 Obdicut

Lomborg is just out to make a book by writing books. He's not a serious dude. He's also not a scientist.

But that's fine. For example, bio-diesel with corn is really goddamn stupid. It's not a solution, it's a problem. If we're doing bio-diesel, we need to do it right, with things that, oh, give a high amount of fuel compared to the resources invested in raising it.

Something like switchgrass, or hemp.

Burning food is fucking stupid.

127 ReamWorks SKG  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 11:26:28am

re: #122 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

He is a wise man.

SHE!

128 aagcobb  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 11:26:36am

re: #42 acfunk

I am not anti-science. I am anti-bureaucracy. And it will take a massive, world-wide governmental intervention to halt anthropogenic global warming. But hey, good luck with that!

Of course, there is no government bureaucracy associated with building and maintaining an interstate highway system for all those gas burning cars, or to regulate oil wells, or to deal with the effects of massive oil spills and mountaintop removal strip-mining; its all pure free market capitalism!/

129 albusteve  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 11:27:18am

re: #124 Obdicut

Lomborg is just out to make a book by writing books. He's not a serious dude. He's also not a scientist.

But that's fine. For example, bio-diesel with corn is really goddamn stupid. It's not a solution, it's a problem. If we're doing bio-diesel, we need to do it right, with things that, oh, give a high amount of fuel compared to the resources invested in raising it.

Something like switchgrass, or hemp.

I've raised the subject of hemp here several times and got laughed off...we are not ready for hemp it seems....yet few will admit the killer folly of burning corn

130 darthstar  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 11:29:44am

re: #68 Charles

And with that, I cordially invite you to fuck right off.

Best.Trounce.Ever.

131 theheat  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 11:30:28am

re: #124 Obdicut

Locally, the hay farmers for the past few years have claimed the reason hay prices went through the roof was because, as they like to threaten, people stopped growing hay to grow corn for ethanol.

"Shut up and don't bitch or we'll stop growing hay!"

Thing is, there's so much money in hay, and exporting it, they can't seem to help themselves. Of course, they never talk about the hundreds of thousands of tons exported they get mega cash for. That wouldn't seem salt-of-the-earth poooor farmer suffering enough. I've taken trips to the eastern side of the state (major hay growing) and I sure haven't seen any alfalfa fields planted with corn. The major growers are growing, just like before. What I have seen, is an increase in exports. Whenever exports go up, our local prices get jacked.

In some ways, the ethanol threat is like the boogeyman.

132 Vicious Babushka  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 11:32:24am

I will not feed corn to my car because it just seems so WRONG.

133 3CPO  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 11:32:24am

re: #121 publicityStunted

I think you may be onto something there.

I wonder... it seems that those at the top of the economic ladder have a lot to gain by denying climate change: larger profits, less regulation, lower clean up costs. Those on the shit end of the stick are frustrated and angry, and looking for someone to blame. So those at the top are telling them that along with the tree huggers who want them to give up their precious light bulbs and the smoking 1979 El Camino, the liberals are giving all their hard-earned money to welfare queens, and the Mexicans are sneaking over the border to take their jobs.

134 theheat  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 11:34:31am

re: #125 reuven

When it comes to investing, or costing money, all bets are off with the GOP. They claim it's fiscally irresponsible, while at the same time figuring out ways to lower corporate taxes.

Fact is, alternate energy is a huge investment. It's also non negotiable. There isn't going to be a "good" or more affordable time to do it.

135 garhighway  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 11:34:49am

re: #121 publicityStunted

I think there's also something even more fundamental at play: ego. The thought of being wrong is more painful to them than anything else. Sometimes, this destructive human tendency is so strong, it overrides love, hate, the profit motive, and even the will to live.

There is some of that, but there is also a big bunch of "if the government buys into this they will do stuff that makes it marginally harder for me to make my quarterly numbers". All kinds of crazy, stupid stuff happens in the quest to make the quarterly numbers. (See: Credit Crisis, The)

136 Interesting Times  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 11:41:54am

re: #133 3CPO

re: #135 garhighway

What led me to the "ego above all else" hypothesis was this (emphasis mine):

Why discriminate if it doesn’t profit?

why would they discriminate against a group when there’s more profit to be made by doing the right thing? That’s a good question, and one that deserves an answer...I think it boils down to the ego...Whatever the case, it’s not that hard to explain why people who claim to worship profit above all else sometimes actually worship what they want to believe is profitable.

Granted, she's talking about the movie and hair products industries, but I'd say her arguments apply very well to climate-change deniers, be they members of Team Stupid or Team Evil.

137 Kragar  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 11:43:30am

Sarah Palin fan's hijack twitter feed of the company that posted her emails

While the account was temporarily hijacked, numerous pro-Palin messages like "Weiner's America or Palin's America-That Is the 2012 Choice" (what an appealing choice) were tweeted.

PoliticsUSA has the screenshots of the hacker's messages and MSNBC followed up with the company to find out what happened:

"It appears that there is a 'hole' in one of the applications (we think Facebook) that links to Twitter," Art Crivella, founder and CEO of the company, Crivella West, told msnbc.com Sunday evening. "We've disabled them and mopped up the bile and changed all the passwords."

138 wrenchwench  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 11:45:32am

re: #119 Hal_10000

I'm in the middle on AGW since I think it's real and dangerous but think the proposed solutions are bad ones.

That sounds like you're not "in the middle on AGW", just "in the middle" on what to do about it.

139 theheat  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 11:49:59am

re: #137 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Curious: do you think Ron Paul or Palin's supporters are dumber? They're really making a horse race of it.

140 Obdicut  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 11:51:00am

re: #139 theheat

I think Paul's supporters are smarter and therefore dumber for falling for Paul's bullshit.

141 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 11:51:16am

re: #127 reuven

SHE!

Doh!

142 brennant  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 11:55:07am

re: #83 Charles

Typical wingnut progression there:

4) Piss on the carpet and spew insults

Walter, he peed on my rug!

143 brennant  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 11:56:35am

re: #142 brennant

That rug really tied the room together.

144 The Ghost of a Flea  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 11:59:14am

re: #136 publicityStunted

re: #135 garhighway

What led me to the "ego above all else" hypothesis was this (emphasis mine):

Why discriminate if it doesn’t profit?

Granted, she's talking about the movie and hair products industries, but I'd say her arguments apply very well to climate-change deniers, be they members of Team Stupid or Team Evil.

I'd add one other factor mentioned in the article: cowardice. Flat-out deniers are intellectual cowards in one fashion or another--intimidated by science because it makes them feel dumb or small, intimidated by a world whose shape they lack the faculties to reconcile with their worldview; cynical corporate deniers are cowards in that they're preserving their little capitalist province, and afraid of a speculative investment in a future technology...so much so that they're choking off the launch of that technology.

145 iossarian  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 11:59:54am

re: #140 Obdicut

I think Paul's supporters are smarter and therefore dumber for falling for Paul's bullshit.

I'm not sure about "smarter" per se, but "more educated" is probably true. There's a depressing number of people who took Econ 101 and think that any tax you collect reduces the general welfare.

146 Kragar  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 12:00:46pm

re: #143 brennant

Ve vant ze money, Lebowski.

147 aagcobb  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 12:01:28pm

re: #139 theheat

Curious: do you think Ron Paul or Palin's supporters are dumber? They're really making a horse race of it.

Paulians read "The Fountainhead" and fancy themselves intellectuals. Palinistas don't read.

148 garhighway  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 12:03:10pm

re: #147 aagcobb

Paulians read "The Fountainhead" and fancy themselves intellectuals. Palinistas don't read the comic book version.

FTFY

149 brennant  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 12:05:00pm

re: #146 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Ve vant ze money, Lebowski.

OK. now I want a White Russian.

150 Cannadian Club Akbar  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 12:05:58pm

re: #149 brennant

OK. now I want a White Russian.

Image: tumblr_kzvlwcesCh1qznne1o1_400.jpg

151 3CPO  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 12:07:05pm

re: #149 brennant

Come on over. I can see White Russians from my house.

152 BongCrodny  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 12:07:58pm

re: #137 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Sarah Palin fan's hijack twitter feed of
the company that posted her emails

While the account was temporarily hijacked, numerous pro-Palin messages like "Weiner's America or Palin's America-That Is the 2012 Choice" (what an appealing choice) were tweeted.


I, for one, would be proud to be known as a Weiner-American.

153 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 12:08:07pm

re: #149 brennant

OK. now I want a White Russian.

You gotta problem with Alexander Pushkin?

154 kirkspencer  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 12:09:00pm

re: #145 iossarian

I'm not sure about "smarter" per se, but "more educated" is probably true. There's a depressing number of people who took Econ 101 and think that any tax you collect reduces the general welfare.

It's amazing how many of them think the peak of the Laffer curve is zero.

155 iossarian  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 12:14:49pm

re: #154 kirkspencer

It's amazing how many of them think the peak of the Laffer curve is zero.

It's even worse than that (though I agree the Laffer curve nonsense is very damaging).

You get people who really don't get beyond the notion that a country where one guy earns $1M a year and the other 99 subsist on $1 might be worse off than a country where everyone earns around $5K a year.

What's particularly depressing about it is that an introductory Econ class would be the perfect environment to make the point that the relationship between income and utility/happiness is not linear, and that there is a huge social and individual value to minimum income levels.

156 brennant  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 12:16:38pm

re: #153 EmmmieG

You gotta problem with Alexander Pushkin?

I just want sweet, wonderful booze!

157 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 12:17:42pm

re: #156 brennant

I just want sweet, wonderful booze!

Well, yeah, but the black Russian was the best of them all.

158 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 12:18:39pm

re: #157 EmmmieG

Well, yeah, but the black Russian was the best of them all.

And I'll bet that gets left out of Black History month in February.

159 Kragar  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 12:21:26pm

Supreme Court upholds ethics laws


The Supreme Court upheld ethics laws across the nation that forbid legislators and city councilmen from voting on matters in which they have a conflict of interest.

Reversing the Nevada high court, the justices ruled that legislators do not have a free-speech right to vote as they choose. Therefore, the court said in a 9-0 vote, the 1st Amendment does not shield a legislator who is charged with an ethics violation.

Conflict-of-interest rules "have been commonplace for over 200 years," said Justice Antonin Scalia, and they have never been thought to infringe on the free-speech rights of lawmakers, he said.

In the past, the court has said the Constitution gives legislators a right to speak freely, but it does not give them a right to cast a vote on matters if they have a conflict of interest, Scalia said. The right to vote in a legislative body "is not personal to the legislator but belongs to the people. The legislator has no personal right to it," he said.

160 Obdicut  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 12:22:05pm

re: #159 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Now let's see Clarence Thomas apply that to himself.

161 Eventual Carrion  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 12:23:44pm

re: #20 Alouette

"But, but, but, we had record snowfalls this winter!"

Because:

Global warming-->polar icecap melt-->more moisture in the atmosphere-->more precipitation-->SNOW if it's winter-->RAIN if it's spring or summer.

Science!

I know, my 10 year old even figured that one out. After just a short talk on the water cycle (evaporation, condensation, precipitation, repeat).

162 BongCrodny  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 12:24:31pm

re: #159 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Supreme Court upholds ethics laws

9-0. For once I'm actually impressed with the Extreme Court.

163 William Barnett-Lewis  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 12:30:49pm

OT: B17 Crashes and burns near Chicago today

[Link: blog.seattlepi.com...]

164 Political Atheist  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 12:31:42pm

re: #160 Obdicut

What is your take on the gay judge that ruled Californias gay marriage ban unconstitutional? Should he have recused himself?

165 allegro  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 12:42:04pm

re: #164 Rightwingconspirator

What is your take on the gay judge that ruled Californias gay marriage ban unconstitutional? Should he have recused himself?

Should a straight judge recuse himself/herself from any such cases?

166 Political Atheist  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 12:45:10pm

re: #165 allegro

Now we start to see where confirmation bias applies in peoples opinions on when a judge is required to step back. If the hypothetical Judge you mention was a member of an anti gay marriage group then yes. If his wife is, then I'd say no.

167 Political Atheist  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 12:47:29pm

From Wiki
The general rule is that to warrant recusal, a judge's expression of an opinion about the merits of a case or familiarity with the facts or the parties must have originated in a source outside the case itself. This is referred to in the United States as the "extra-judicial source rule" and was recognized as a general presumption, although not an invariable one, in the 1994 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Liteky v. United States.

Often justices or judges will recuse themselves sua sponte (on their own motion), recognizing that facts leading to their disqualification are present. However, where such facts exist, a party to the case may suggest recusal. Generally, each judge is the arbiter of a motion for the judge's recusal, which is addressed to the judge's conscience and discretion. However, where lower courts are concerned, an erroneous refusal to recuse in a clear case can be reviewed on appeal or, under extreme circumstances, by a petition for a writ of prohibition.

168 allegro  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 12:47:49pm

re: #166 Rightwingconspirator

Now we start to see where confirmation bias applies in peoples opinions on when a judge is required to step back. If the hypothetical Judge you mention was a member of an anti gay marriage group then yes. If his wife is, then I'd say no.

Does that mean that a gay person is automatically assumed to be a proponent for same sex marriage?

169 flamingtoad  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 12:50:24pm

re:19 Charles

Bullshit. Human beings are the cause of global warming, and there are things that can be done.

Hmmm...maybe its actually the bullshit that causes it. BSGW. Sounds right to me.
banned in 5..4..3..2

170 allegro  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 12:52:32pm

re: #168 allegro

Likewise, should a heterosexual judge recuse himself if he believes that gays and lesbians should have equal rights before a case comes before him?

171 wrenchwench  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 12:53:25pm

re: #169 flamingtoad

You want to be banned already? But you haven't even learned to use the quote button yet!

172 Charles Johnson  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 12:58:01pm

re: #169 flamingtoad

Now why would I ban you, when you're making such cogent, intelligent arguments?

173 Political Atheist  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 1:00:40pm

re: #168 allegro

If Clarence Thomas should recuse himself over interests his wife holds, then sure based on an apparent conflict of interest the gay judge should have recused himself. My actual opinion is neither should. What I observe is some who are anxious to suspect conservative decisions, and unlikely to question progressive rulings. When anyone calls for a recusal they should read & cite the actual legal standard rather than guessing the standard applies to their wishes on outcomes.

See one way to pressure the judicial branch is with standards of conduct that blow around with the political winds. I object to that.
So from the link above at Wiki
The judge is related to a party, attorney, or spouse of either party (usually) within three degrees of kinship.
The judge is a party.
The judge is a material witness unless pleading purporting to make the Judge a party is false (determined by presiding judge, but see Substitution (law)).
The judge has previously acted in the case in question as an attorney for a party, or participated in some other capacity.
The judge prepared any legal instrument (such as a contract or will) whose validity or construction is at issue.
Appellate judge previously handled case as a trial judge.
The judge has personal or financial interest in the outcome. This particular ground varies by jurisdiction. Some require recusal if there is any interest at all in the outcome, while others only require recusal if there is interest beyond a certain value.
The judge determines he or she cannot act impartially.

174 flamingtoad  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 1:01:03pm

but i thought disagreeing with the all knowing Charles was all you had to do. Amazing how being a blogger imparts the wisdom of the ages.

175 flamingtoad  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 1:02:19pm

I heard how bad this place had become....wow, did I underestimate that.

176 Political Atheist  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 1:03:16pm

re: #175 flamingtoad

Were you thinking of this report?
Rearing cattle produces more greenhouse gases than driving cars, UN report warns

[Link: www.un.org...]

177 Decatur Deb  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 1:03:38pm

re: #175 flamingtoad

I heard how bad this place had become...wow, did I underestimate that.

Perhaps it will better when you make your next quarterly tour.

178 wrenchwench  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 1:13:50pm

re: #174 flamingtoad

but i thought disagreeing with the all knowing Charles was all you had to do. Amazing how being a blogger imparts the wisdom of the ages.

You have to do it while being a dick. C'mon, I know you can do it....

179 Obdicut  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 1:16:18pm

re: #164 Rightwingconspirator

What is your take on the gay judge that ruled Californias gay marriage ban unconstitutional? Should he have recused himself?

What? Why on earth should he have done that?


Makes no more sense than asking if every heterosexual judge who's ruled on gay marriage should recuse themselves.

Were you being serious?

180 Obdicut  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 1:18:00pm

re: #173 Rightwingconspirator

If Clarence Thomas should recuse himself over interests his wife holds, then sure based on an apparent conflict of interest the gay judge should have recused himself..

What is the conflict of interest? That it's a law affecting gay people?

Seriously, dude, this is piss-poor logic. Another analogy would be that a female judge couldn't rule on any issue that involved women's rights, or a black judge couldn't rule on any issue involving a hate crime against blacks.

181 freetoken  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 1:22:36pm

re: #174 flamingtoad

You've yet to address the material presented in the keypost.

Are you afraid of actually diving into the topic?

182 Political Atheist  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 1:23:17pm

re: #179 Obdicut
Serious in my conclusion, having a little fun by using the example I did.
IMO neither even really comes close to the established standard. So my feeling is neither Thomas nor the gay judge had a conflict of interest severe enough (looks minor to me in both instances) to recuse. I see a common tendency to call for it after the fact when we disagree. Confirmation bias.

183 William Barnett-Lewis  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 1:25:12pm

re: #175 flamingtoad

What a sad little fellow. You aren't even a good troll. I think your mommy is calling you upstairs for lunch so why don't you run along?

184 Political Atheist  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 1:25:21pm

re: #180 Obdicut

What is the conflict of interest? That it's a law affecting gay people?

Seriously, dude, this is piss-poor logic. Another analogy would be that a female judge couldn't rule on any issue that involved women's rights, or a black judge couldn't rule on any issue involving a hate crime against blacks.

If we are going to set the standard of conflict so low as to apply to all spousal interests (C. Thomas), then personal lifestyle would become another all too small reason to call for recusal.

185 Eventual Carrion  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 1:29:51pm

re: #175 flamingtoad

I heard how bad this place had become...wow, did I underestimate that.

Then leave.

186 Obdicut  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 1:30:14pm

re: #182 Rightwingconspirator

Serious in my conclusion, having a little fun by using the example I did.
IMO neither even really comes close to the established standard. So my feeling is neither Thomas nor the gay judge had a conflict of interest severe enough (looks minor to me in both instances) to recuse. I see a common tendency to call for it after the fact when we disagree. Confirmation bias.

I have no idea what you mean by confirmation bias in this case; it doesn't really apply.

The problem is that Thomas's wife has both advocated and profited on the issue. The gay judge had done neither. The comparison is utterly without merit.

187 Obdicut  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 1:31:09pm

re: #184 Rightwingconspirator

The two have nothing to do with each other.

Furthermore, the judge is either going to be gay, bisexual, or heterosexual. There's no one who wouldn't have a perceived stake.

Really, dude, worst analogy to possibly use.

188 allegro  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 1:31:51pm

re: #184 Rightwingconspirator

If we are going to set the standard of conflict so low as to apply to all spousal interests (C. Thomas), then personal lifestyle would become another all too small reason to call for recusal.

That "spousal interest" put several hundred thousand dollars into their bank account over a period of time that the case coming before the Supreme Court can ultimately affect. Yeah, I'd say that this represents a very direct conflict of interest that should result in his recusal from ruling on it. His wife wasn't a volunteer - THAT would make it applicable to your argument.

189 Political Atheist  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 1:32:27pm

re: #180 Obdicut

Judging by your ding in my post above you really think Clarence Thomas broke the established standard for Federal Judges as to when to recuse themselves. Well , we certainly do disagree on that point. As much as you disagree with my thinking above, I think you are lowering the standard for Judge Thomas to suit your own position, rather than looking at the legal standards.

190 Obdicut  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 1:34:14pm

re: #189 Rightwingconspirator

Judging by your ding in my post above you really think Clarence Thomas broke the established standard for Federal Judges as to when to recuse themselves.

No, I think your analogy is terrible, badly-thought out, and verging on the offensive.

Well , we certainly do disagree on that point. As much as you disagree with my thinking above, I think you are lowering the standard for Judge Thomas to suit your own position, rather than looking at the legal standards.

You're ignoring what I'm writing.

Clarence Thomas's wife both advocated and profited-- and since he's part of that household, he profited-- from her advocacy against gay marriage.

The judge had no financial interest, and it makes no more sense to say he should recuse himself than Clarence Thomas and the other Supremes should recuse themselves because they are (presumably) heterosexual

191 Political Atheist  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 1:34:52pm

re: #188 allegro

What legal authority agrees with you? This is just your read of the standard right?

Oh hell I should have just posted that neither instance rises to the standard of recusal and left it.

192 allegro  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 1:35:16pm

re: #189 Rightwingconspirator

Judging by your ding in my post above you really think Clarence Thomas broke the established standard for Federal Judges as to when to recuse themselves. Well , we certainly do disagree on that point. As much as you disagree with my thinking above, I think you are lowering the standard for Judge Thomas to suit your own position, rather than looking at the legal standards.

When the judge stands to benefit or lose significant income as a result of his ruling, if that isn't a standard to recuse himself, it sure as hell should be.

193 Political Atheist  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 1:37:07pm

re: #190 Obdicut

What legal authority agrees that was a violation?

194 allegro  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 1:37:26pm

re: #191 Rightwingconspirator

What legal authority agrees with you? This is just your read of the standard right?

Oh hell I should have just posted that neither instance rises to the standard of recusal and left it.

Then you believe that judges should rule on cases in which they have a strong financial interest in the outcome? Really?

195 Obdicut  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 1:38:20pm

re: #193 Rightwingconspirator

What legal authority agrees that was a violation?

Did I make the claim that a legal authority said it was a violation?

You decided I had by giving you a downding, which is nonsensical.

The justices themselves are given broad leeway in this issue. I'm not saying Thomas should be forced to recuse himself. I'm saying he should recuse himself.


If the gay judge in California had had a partner who advocated for and profited from attempting to get gay marriage passed, he should likewise have recused himself.

But he didn't. He was just gay.

196 Political Atheist  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 1:42:32pm

re: #192 allegro

Not really because Judges are allowed to invest and actually have lives and lifestyles while still being judges. See I'm a fan of the judicial branch as it is. I object to changing the standards over where the winds blow politically or what dominates the news. Which almost came into play in both cases I mentioned above.

Judges are specifically trained in setting aside inappropriate sources of information and sticking to the facts as presented. By analogy sometimes juries are told to ignore certain statements in court, and at a higher level of problems we get mistrials.

197 allegro  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 1:45:55pm

re: #196 Rightwingconspirator

Not really because Judges are allowed to invest and actually have lives and lifestyles while still being judges. See I'm a fan of the judicial branch as it is. I object to changing the standards over where the winds blow politically or what dominates the news. Which almost came into play in both cases I mentioned above.

Judges are specifically trained in setting aside inappropriate sources of information and sticking to the facts as presented. By analogy sometimes juries are told to ignore certain statements in court, and at a higher level of problems we get mistrials.

Good Lord, what WOULD you consider to be a conflict of interest then if not having a large financial interest in the outcome of a case?

198 Political Atheist  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 1:48:27pm

re: #195 Obdicut
You bet they get broad leeway, as they should given all the variety of cases and evidence. And my conclusion from your ding is a natural one, hardly nonsensical. But never mind that no biggie.

I'm saying (badly at first) the established standard is appropriate. And I'm saying the lack of legal authority challenging Judge Thomas indicates you are in error this time. Your opinion is different than what the law calls for.

This horse dead yet? :)

199 Political Atheist  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 1:51:18pm

re: #197 allegro

Good Lord, what WOULD you consider to be a conflict of interest then if not having a large financial interest in the outcome of a case?

My honest answer to you is see my post above with it's link. Comment #'s 167 and 173. Most specifically-The judge has personal or financial interest in the outcome. This particular ground varies by jurisdiction. Some require recusal if there is any interest at all in the outcome, while others only require recusal if there is interest beyond a certain value.

200 Obdicut  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 1:52:36pm

re: #198 Rightwingconspirator

I'm saying (badly at first) the established standard is appropriate. And I'm saying the lack of legal authority challenging Judge Thomas indicates you are in error this time. Your opinion is different than what the law calls for.

I never claimed the law called for anything. I have no idea why you're pretending I did.

Seriously, it's like you're just skipping over my posts and replacing them with something else.

It's pretty annoying.

A) Your analogy is terrible because anyone ruling on gay marriage is going to have a sexuality. A gay judge is no more biased on the issue than a straight judge.

B) I'm saying that Thomas, morally and ethically, should recuse himself, due to his wife's financial interest which is also his own financial interest in the case.

C) I'm not saying the law demands this. I'm saying ethics do. So please stop telling me the law doesn't require it-- I know it doesn't, and I'm not claiming it does.

201 sagehen  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 2:05:41pm

re: #186 Obdicut

I have no idea what you mean by confirmation bias in this case; it doesn't really apply.

The problem is that Thomas's wife has both advocated and profited on the issue. The gay judge had done neither. The comparison is utterly without merit.

And made speeches wherein she declared that she frequently discusses such matters with her husband and they're in complete agreement -- sounds like he's prejudged the matter, long before any evidence or arguments were brought into his courtroom.

202 Obdicut  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 2:09:29pm

re: #201 sagehen

The financial part actually is what bothers me far more than the advocacy. The advocacy is more of a gray area. But the financial involvement is, to me, a clear ethical conflict.

203 Political Atheist  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 2:13:49pm

re: #200 Obdicut
Perhaps I made the mistake of thinking your opinion would hold some regard or be somehow based on the existing standard. I'm wrong there. OK. So what that means is you want the time tested standard changed. I don't. I read your posts and took a shot at further supporting my own.

BTW genuinely sorry I annoyed you.

204 dragonfire1981  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 2:17:19pm

It seems so simple to me: We all live on this planet and share its resources. Is it not a human thing to do to look after it as best we can and preserve it for those who follow later?

205 Obdicut  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 2:19:40pm

re: #203 Rightwingconspirator

The standard is that it's largely left up to the individual judge to recuse himself. I don't want to change that. I want Thomas to recuse himself because of his financial involvement. I don't want him forced to do it. I have no idea how that, to you, is changing a standard.


BTW genuinely sorry I annoyed you.

The 'gay judges should recuse themselves on laws affecting gay people' is a terrible argument that really gets my dander up. it makes absolutely no more sense than saying a heterosexual judge should recuse himself, or that a black judge should recuse himself if the law deals with discrimination, etc.

Furthermore, it is not in the least bit comparable to the situation of financial involvement.

206 Political Atheist  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 2:33:28pm

re: #205 Obdicut

Just keep in mind my point was neither case called for recusal. So we agree in the case of the gay judge.

Of course we do have a single set of standards for recusal that must be applied to the full variety of cases and judges that come and go. In the end all cases are comparable to the legal recusal standards, albeit not to each other.

If you look up supreme court recusal demand in google you will see a pantheon of partisan demands for recusals. That fact helps me make up my mind that Judge Thomas was right to rule among his peers on the court, just as the gay judge had the right to rule. Perhaps that makes a better case than I did today.
[Link: www.google.com...]

207 Political Atheist  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 2:34:17pm

re: #206 Rightwingconspirator

Sorry gay judge "was right to rule" not had the right to rule.

208 Obdicut  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 2:36:35pm

re: #206 Rightwingconspirator

That fact helps me make up my mind that Judge Thomas was right to rule among his peers on the court, just as the gay judge had the right to rule.

I don't know what you mean by 'right to rule', but again, there's no comparison between their situations, at all. In the least, in any way, by any standard.

A gay judge has no more reason to recuse themselves than a straight judge from a decision defining marriage as a heterosexual privledge or not.

A judge who's spouse has financially benefited, and therefore he has financially benefited, has a definite reason to recuse himself. you may not feel it's sufficient reason, but it is an actual reason.

Please stop making the 'just as' analogy. The two situations have nothing to do with each other, because a gay judge or a straight judge are in the same position in regards to a bill about marriage.

209 Kronocide  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 5:20:27pm

re: #68 Charles

And with that, I cordially invite you to fuck right off.

Charles! Manners! You should say 'Fuck right off, Mr Moron, sir.' It's just a little more polite.

210 Kronocide  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 5:24:02pm

re: #174 flamingtoad

but i thought disagreeing with the all knowing Charles was all you had to do. Amazing how being a blogger imparts the wisdom of the ages.

Derp? Da derp dah derp, derr derp de derp dah derpaderp.

211 jrausta  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 7:07:28pm

And AGW has nothing, absolutely NOTHING, to do with greed or a money grab. The AGW crowd cares more than the rest of us and naturally we should follow your enlightened lead. You are, my friends, the radical religious left.

212 Charles Johnson  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 7:40:46pm

re: #211 jrausta

The idiocy. It burns.

213 freetoken  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 7:41:24pm

re: #211 jrausta

Did you even engage with the material presented?

What are the best policies to deal with climate change?

214 Charles Johnson  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 7:41:36pm

Another dead thread hero.

215 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 7:45:44pm

re: #211 jrausta

hey honey, what's your sign?

216 freetoken  Mon, Jun 13, 2011 7:53:36pm

re: #214 Charles

Heh, that's a good title for a song.


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ...
Cheechako
3 days ago
Views: 136 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1