Weather Channel To Breitbart: Stop Citing Us To Spread Climate Skepticism (weather.com)

Breitbart.com published an article last week that erroneously claims global warming is coming to an end, claiming "global land temperatures have plummeted by 1 degree Celsius since the middle of the year -- the biggest and steepest fall on record." The Weather Channel finds this report especially upsetting as it's not only inaccurate but it features a video from weather.com at the top of the article. The Weather Channel reports: Breitbart had the legal right to use this clip as part of a content-sharing agreement with another company, but there should be no assumption that The Weather Company endorses the article associated with it. The Breitbart article -- a prime example of cherry picking, or pulling a single item out of context to build a misleading case -- includes this statement: "The last three years may eventually come to be seen as the final death rattle of the global warming scare." In fact, thousands of researchers and scientific societies are in agreement that greenhouse gases produced by human activity are warming the planet's climate and will keep doing so. Along with its presence on the high-profile Breitbart site, the article drew even more attention after a link to it was retweeted by the U.S. House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. The Breitbart article heavily references a piece that first appeared on U.K. Daily Mail's site. The Weather Channel went on to refute the Breitbart article's hypothesis: This number comes from one satellite-based estimate of temperatures above land areas in the lower atmosphere. Data from the other two groups that regularly publish satellite-based temperature estimates show smaller drops, more typical of the decline one would expect after a strong El Nino event. Temperatures over land give an incomplete picture of global-scale temperature. Most of the planet -- about 70 percent -- is covered by water, and the land surface warms and cools more quickly than the ocean. Land-plus-ocean data from the other two satellite groups, released after the Breitbart article, show that Earth's lower atmosphere actually set a record high in November 2016.

Comments

You know what?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's getting close to the point that the schadenfreude of seeing morons get their due makes up for the fact that we all will be screwed.

So by all means lets call climate change a hoax. When the inevitable calamities fall, I suspect the deplorables and Breitbart readers will be disproportionately affected and not only will I not shed a tear but I will kick dirt in their faces.

Re:You know what?

[Narcocide]

"An eye for an eye" will blind the whole world.

Re:You know what?

[Anonymous Coward]

If climate change does destroy human life as we know it, who cares if everyone is blind?

Re:You know what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not you, you are already blinded by your own bias. A conjecture has become your faith, and you are a zealot of the cause.

Re:You know what?

[Anonymous Coward]

as opposed to..
"God hates gays"
"Tax cuts for the rich have a trickle down effect"
"Trump will make America great again"
?

surely no zealotry there.

Re: You know what?

[__aaclcg7560]

This is no different than the paranoid Christians who believe that the book of Revelation describes the imminent end of the world.

I used to belong to a church that preached being faithful to the end. When 1999 came and went, we waited. When 2000 came and went, we waited. When 2001 came and went like previous years, and the founder started preaching being faithful to the end of your lifetime, he got tossed to the curb. After 30 years of waiting, no one wanted to put with him for another 30 years.

Re: You know what?

[Anonymous Coward]

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/rIRJSTGOPkPWuofaFewb2osbq9a4mZSe85jGH9zH1-V3oXfFr0RSX2DHMFTrxRc-_BIov8Rk9UJrVqtLrOwfFobGugW-TPwxtrOPgkC-yxp-yJd9Qvk36bVBCUyf5UhF .

Re: You know what?

[Anonymous Coward]

I used to be a kid, and we used to have long winters with a lot if snow, and summers when the temperatures would rarely go above 30C.

Now I am an old fart, I scarcely see any winters anymore, temperatures of 20C in December and January are not rare, and in the summer it gets above 40C for weeks.

Thank you, US citizens, for the gift.

I will laugh when your economy crashes in three years, and you have to start a war with Mexico for your new Orangutan president to get reelelcted, because, unlike the baboon in 2003, he won't have cash to fight one overseas.

Die in a fire, all if you.

Re: You know what?

[__aaclcg7560]

Thank you, US citizens, for the gift.

Is this anti-Christian or anti-American? Hard to tell with fake comments.

Re:You know what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, if hillary and the democrats weren't such crooks, and so conceited that they thought they could win with the worst candidate possible, we wouldn't have this situation.. That basket of deplorables is a lot larger than you think, and it covers most of the spectrum.

Re: You know what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Make that anti-US, fucker. The Americas neither begin, nor end with your swamp.

Re: You know what?

[__aaclcg7560]

Make that anti-US, fucker. The Americas neither begin, nor end with your swamp.

Tough crowd tonight.

Re: You know what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Call what your group of dummies is doing science if you want, I'll call it what it is: children playing at being grownups.

Re: You know what?

[Anonymous Coward]

When the Weather Channel stops naming winter storms then I might start giving a shit about their "integrity" in climate related matters.

Re: You know what?

[coteriescavenger]

Enough time has passed since global warming was a scare. There is enough evidence, now, to show that global warming is most likely not a real threat. However, for some reason certain parties aren't accepting the new science. I wonder why?

But wait, if this is true, surely I would have heard about it on legacy mainstream media. They don't support corrupt agendas... only breitbart and those other alternative media outlets are the ones that can't be trusted. That's what my news feed says anyway.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=WCU6bzRypZ4

Re:You know what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeh, the Trumplthinskins are really going to get what they deserve when cheeto hitler gets going.

Re: You know what?

[Anonymous Coward]

I am using this useful twitter user to target the vile fake news of Breitbart.
https://mobile.twitter.com/slp...

Re:You know what?

[Anonymous Coward]

When the inevitable calamities fall, the blame will turn and it won't be climate change that caused it but the evil white males.

Re: You know what?

[Type44Q]

There is enough evidence, now, to show that global warming is most likely not a real threat.

Physicists in Los Alamos hammered out the basics of global warming during the Manhattan Project (as well as plans for future large-scale geoengineering). In the late 80's, NATO held a summit where further plans and details (re: offsetting global warming) were discussed . So, if we've been witnessing a drop in observed temperatures, perhaps TPTB are actually doing something about it. Either way, use that goddamn excuse for a brain and don't be so fucking gullible.

Re: You know what?

[Barsteward]

if you are going to troll, make it original.

Re: You know what?

[Anonymous Coward]

> aren't accepting the new science.

What's this "new science" you're talking about? Is that something like Aryan Physics?

Do you have a newsletter I can subscribe to?

Re:You know what?

[Anonymous Coward]

No one is arguing that there isn't climate change. There has always been and will always be climate changes. What they are arguing is how much of it that is due to humans. That a new ice-age is coming, every body knows that. The question is when and are _we_ influencing when it will happen.

Re: You know what?

[drinkypoo]

Die in a fire, all if you.

If that happens, you go too. Keep whistling your way right into the grave.

Re: You know what?

[polar red]

> There is enough evidence, now, to show that global warming is most likely not a real threat

wrong.

Re: You know what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Such a hater

Re: You know what?

[fodder69]

I know right? The temperature drops every fall in my part of the world so of course global warming isn't real....

Re: You know what?

[fbobraga]

There is enough evidence, now, to show that global warming is most likely not a real threat.

I think you are very much wrong, and contributing to spread FUD about it...

Re: You know what?

[fbobraga]

The "new science" expression is clearly a irony/joke: you don't got it, huh?

Re: You know what?

[fbobraga]

There's no evidence to support that the earth is getting warmer, let alone that humans are causing global warming.

In what planet do you live, AC?

Re: You know what?

[pipingguy]

"So, if we've been witnessing a drop in observed temperatures, perhaps TPTB are actually doing something about it."

Don't Stop Believin', it'll hurt yer brane and you'll feel bad about yourself.

I bet you use the word, 'irony' in non-traditional ways.

Re:You know what?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you will find its not the change that they are resisting, its the NWO agenda that is attached to it. If you think your going to be one of the lucky that survive that, you better rerun your odds again.

Re: You know what?

[fredrated]

You, sir, are a fool and an ass and one of the dumbest humans ever born to Woman.

Re:You know what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Can't trust the data when your fear mongering "scientists" fiddle with datasets, use climate modeling software (none of them have been right), do everything they can to discredit anyone with an opposing thought, and my favorite; the science is settled argument. Never mind the "godfather" (James Lovelock) of "modern" man is causing "climate change" has said anyone is an idiot trying to project such things further than five years. Of course we have to forget science says the planet has come out of the last ice age. Which means things have to warm up.

Climate change isn't a hoax. Why just last night here it rained and was cooler. Gasp! People believing in climate change are weak minded, easily deceived and hoaxters themselves.

Re: You know what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Evidence shows, warmer temperatures mean a longer growing year. Better harvasts mean more food, what's so wrong with feeding people? Less things to fight for? Therefore global warming, more co2is bad? Why?

Re:You know what?

[Anonymous Coward]

If man-made climate change is real the calamities are already inevitable. Nobody will not stop burning fossil fuel overnight, which is exactly what we need to do just to limit the damage. Like in the nuclear war, the goal is not wining but losing the least; If we wreck our economy we will be ill-prepared to face the calamities. And honestly I don't want my nation to fall prey of the communist Chinese or Muslim Arab supremacist just because we impoverish ourselves in a foolish quest to prevent the inevitable.

We will adapt, like we always did. Sure the African might all die in a drought but so will Ebola and other natural calamities that belong there. As long as there is a future my children, their children and their children's children it is a struggle worth fighting. This is what life is about and this is the most rational thing to do.

TL;DR If you want to commit suicide, go head. The rest of us could used the resource you are consuming.

Re:You know what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, they will be disproportionately affected. It affects most of them, living in the midwest, much less than it affects the more urban, liberal coasts. That's exactly part of the problem. They don't believe it exists (or just don't want to believe) because if it did, they might have to give up their 7.8L engines, coal mining, NASCAR, and other environmentally deleterious means of work and recreation. But the bad side effects of those (climate change) aren't going to hit them first.

You want to get them on board stopping climate change? Tell them it's going to make beer and bacon production impossible. Then they might listen to you.

Re:You know what?

[Jawnn]

Not you, you are already blinded by your own bias. A conjecture has become your faith, and you are a zealot of the cause.

By what twisted reasoning do you arrive at this conclusion? Surely not by any path that includes a dispassionate assessment of readily discernible facts.
Oh, right. You're just parroting bullshit you've been getting from your echo chamber "news" sources.

Re:You know what?

[h4x0t]

Most are simply a product of what has been put in. Education is not equitably distributed in the states. Hard to feel hate a dumb puppy for eating it's own shit.

The assholes training them to vote the way they do are already set for the climate end game, they just want more time to stuff the coffers and diversify before it kicks off.

Re: You know what?

[wheelbarrio]

Please cite this new science. Or are scientific journals now part of the "legacy mainstream media"? People like you give even dumb ignorance a bad name.

Re: You know what?

[Sique]

Because most of our crops don't grow in tropic weather. Because the trade winds will cause an inversion between the Tropics and halfway to the equator, independent of the global temperature, meaning that there will be deserts north and south of the equator anyway. Because rising sea levels mean lost agreable land, which not necessarily gets replaced by the same amount of newly agreable land in the North (In the South, there is just ocean and no new land to be gained by moving climate zones closer to the Southpole). Because the amount of food we grow is a limiting factor to mankind. In fact, the total amount of land used to grow crops is slightly shrinking in most regions of the world, be it due to urban sprawl or re-forestation.

Re: You know what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup. It's snowing here.

Re:You know what?

[fbobraga]

*Britefart

the correct spelling!

Re:You know what?

[Grishnakh]

This is a dumb comment. The AC is not threatening to physically harm anyone in any way, or proposing any kind of punishment for climate deniers to be performed by humans. He's only saying that he'll be happy to see them "hoist by their own petard". There's nothing wrong with feeling satisfaction after watching someone suffer due to their own stupidity and bad decisions, especially when their actions are in fact harmful to the rest of society.

Honestly, at this point, there's nothing we can do to stop massive climate change because of the deplorables and their mouthpieces like Breitbart. We're not going to change their minds; people like this fundamentally do not believe in science. So the next best thing is to just wait for the apocalypse to happen, and then take satisfaction in watching these morons suffer due to it.

Re:You know what?

[fbobraga]

That a new ice-age is coming, every body knows that. The question is when and are _we_ influencing when it will happen.

with global warning in the actual rate, the human race is not going to see something like "new ice-age"...

Re:You know what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not true. "An eye for an eye" leaves the whole world blind... except the last guy, who still has one eye because he wasn't dumb enough to just stand there and let a mob of blind people poke it out. He's king, now.

Re:You know what?

[Anonymous Coward]

I was in Jr High during the Carter regime and recall spending a semester of public school science class being taught:

1. why oil was going to be $200.00 per barrel in 15 years and we'd be completely out of it in 30 years.
2. how the earth was progressively cooling and we were all going to starve in due to the cooling and overpopulation.
3. how acid rain was killing all the trees in the Appalachians.

#3 was fixed by new technology, but now they are teaching that it is the warming that is causing wildfires - more to do with a wood boring pestilence killing the trees and then they become dried out torches

#2. did not happen, and textbooks were and are rewritten

#1. really did not happen

Re: You know what?

[budgenator]

Get back to me when "Climatologists" are argueing about what the second decimal point of Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity is, not the whole number portion. For Christ's sake even Hansen is dialing back the alarm level!

Re: You know what?

[Anonymous Coward]

It may mean longer growing seasons in northern latitudes, but potentially shorter ones in equatorial areas, or those subject to drought, and so it's nut clear that there will be more food, and even less clear that distribution of it will ensure that people have sufficient access everywhere even if there is more overall

Re: You know what?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're absolutely right.

I hear people are so duped that coastal real estate prices are dropping in Florida.

You DEFINITELY should invest there. Great arbitrage!

Re: You know what?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure. It was snowing yesterday, but it's mostly melted now. Perhaps we need a theory of differential global cooling and warming. I'm somewhere that's experiencing global warming, so if my extrapolations are correct, the lake should boil off completely come February. Meanwhile where you are, there will be a mile-thick glacier.

Re:You know what?

[jellomizer]

It isn't going to work.
People will keep denying even if they are swimming off the torch from the statue of liberty. Once you get into conspiracy logic, nothing is going to change their minds.

While I am a fan of free speech. These people need to get their soap boxes removed, as they are just confusing the issue. Plus the fact that Trump won in spite of the poll numbers, causes the people on the edge to slip into conspiracy reasoning, and not trust the data.

What I think we needed is some trusted method to broadcast the validity of a statements people makes over our media. To let people know what the BS Meter is.

Re: You know what?

[Anonymous Coward]

An yet an ice-age would be far, far worse. The vast majority of the population would die from starvation. Glaciation is much tougher to adapt to than warming.

The truth is that the initial climate sensitivity guesses were off by large enough margins that the model predictions were proven wrong time and again.

We do not have the ability to accurately model climate to the level of precision required to make the sorts of predictions you are touting. Those insane alarmist predictions have done more to harm public good-will and thinking than real science would have. Instead you stacked the decks with nut-job politicians and scientists who made money from the most dire predictions.

You are crying wolf yet again. The more you cry wolf the less the public pays attention. You can't publish shit like the arctic will be ice free, and have piles of arctic ice without consequences. You can't publish that shit and not have a negative backlash.

If anything the nut-job alarmists are responsible for the skeptical views of many. Those skeptics have been proven correct time and again. Instead of trying to have a rational discussion, you've demonized them. By demonizing them, and ostracizing them you have directly harmed the public trust in the very science and scientists you want the public to take seriously.

So really, good fucking job. Good job being nut-job alarmists. Good job rolling back science where the results matter and people follow the scientific method. Good job pushing agenda and politics over science, and great job making it even less likely human civilization will get it's shit together, should we need to.

Re:You know what?

[a_mari_usque_ad_mare]

Better still would be to beat the deniers in the next election and save our civilization.

Chances are, Trump's administration is going to be a complete shitshow and people are going to screaming for change in 4 years. It tends to happen when fanatics get unchecked power.

If the Democrats can find their spine, fight gerrymandering at the Supreme Court, and rub everyone's nose in the mess made by Trump and the Republicans, the true majority of people who care about the future can get back power and get us off carbon fuels.

Re: You know what?

[Sique]

Completely different from what you say, the predictions for the second decade of the 2000s (where we are right now) are closely matched by the predictions in the first climate report to the IPCC of 1990. The following reports moved the error bars a little down, maybe because of political pressure to not paint the future too black, but in fact, the first report was right.

Re:You know what?

[HiThere]

Maybe the House will change after the next election, but the Senators up for election pretty much guarantee that Republican control of the Senate will continue. Unless, of course, something even worse happens. (Pick any one of hundreds or thousands of possibilities.)

Re: You know what?

[HiThere]

You have a really weird way of judging validity. Mind you, I do think that Hurricanes should have female names, but to think that has anything to do the validity is ... hard to understand.

Re:You know what?

[HiThere]

Guess what..... Those two choices aren't contradictory.

Re:You know what?

[HiThere]

You are correct that it is already too late to prevent global warming. It's been happening to some degree since we started farming rice. OTOH, a mild global warming has been advantageous. Without it we'd be entering an ice age. The ramped-up-on-steroids global warming that we've been pushing since the start of the industrial revolution, however, is something else again. We don't know just how bad it's going to get, but I do know that the actual projections have had the higher ends trimmed to avoid political repercussions. (Were the lower ends also trimmed? If so I haven't heard so.) Some of the model results that were excluded actually DO have Antarctica melting, and not just around the edges. Well, that's a lot worse than the mean projections, but the mean projection is that its going to be more than the 2 degrees Celsius that people talk about, probably closer to 4 degrees. That's nearly 8 degrees Fahrenheit. And that's going to mean LOTS of ice melting, and lots of deserts where there used to be farmland. It means that Canada will probably become good farmland...if it can get enough water. Oh, yes. It also means that the temperatures are going to get so high that we can't rely on any of the current models, because wind and ocean currents will shift too much. So we can't be sure where it's going to be wet, where it's going to be dry, or how wet or how dry.

My personal expectation (I'm no specialist, and a bit of a pessimist) is that we'll see over a meter sea level rise before the end of the century. Please note that this is not more extreme than some of the models predict, as some of them talk about 10's of meters, though I'm not sure of the timeline for that. I'm sort of expecting the Tethy's sea to form again for the first time since the Jurassic, but it would be a pretty shallow sea, I'm guessing less than a meter deep in most places...but how deep, of course, depends on the actual rise in sea levels. Maybe some genetic engineer will recreate the pleasiasaur to swim in it.

Re:You know what?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Trickle down economics" is real, it's called capitalism, comrade.

Re: You know what?

[Anonymous Coward]

We aren't going to an ice age. So what was the point of hypothesising?

Re: You know what?

[Anonymous Coward]

No that is what Gushing Upwards are called

Re: You know what?

[ChrisMaple]

The temperature rises each day while the sun is shining, so by your logic global warming must be true.

Re:You know what?

[david_thornley]

Republican control of the Senate will be seriously up in 2022.

Re: You know what?

[ChrisMaple]

Do you know that FUD stands for Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt? Do you understand that "global warming is most likely not a real threat" is the opposite of spreading fear?

I didn't think so. You didn't think either.

Re: You know what?

[Anonymous Coward]

What part of "uncertainty and doubt" you don't understand?

Re:You know what?

[ChrisMaple]

Sorry, you've become dangerously confused and need a minder.

fight gerrymandering at the Supreme Court

I know your words form a sentence, but beyond that they bear no relation to reality.

"People who care about the future" have level heads and experience in making thinks work, unlike Obama's firebrand theoreticians whose goal remains to tear things down. Trump, despite his many faults, has been choosing people who are honorable and accomplished, people who will remove barriers to production, people who will remove zealots from federal agencies.

Re: You know what?

[fbobraga]

contributing to spread FUD

"global warming is most likely not a real threat" is the opposite of spreading fear?

"FUD" != "fear": logic FAIL!

Re:You know what?

[Aisha.Washington]

People who believe the scientific studies which find differences among races are bad people. People who believe the studies that show that women have lessor geospatial abilities than man are bad people. People who don't believe the studies that show the earth is warming are CRAZY MORONS WHO DSERVE TO SUFFER! I mean, who wouldn't believe the science? It's SCIENCE! You can't refute SCIENCE! I mean, unless you don't like what it says.

How can smart people be such hypocrites?

Narcissism.

That, and amen corners. People can self-select news now, which makes them more convinced than ever that they are not only right, but also divinely self-riteous.

And of course, everyone else is evil. Pure evil. And stupid. And ignorant. And whatever else amen corners tell each other to keep the amen corner going. Amen corners feel good. Science even says so.

Re: You know what?

[Anonymous Coward]

An ice age would, indeed, be bad, but we are not expecting one for thousands of years so it seems odd to bring up concern about that.

In terms of predictions, Hansen's late 1980s projections based on a BAU emissions schedule (which has pretty much been the case) have been pretty much on the nail to present. The good news here is that many governments have committed to reducing emissions so the rate might fall from mid century.

Re: You know what?

[Anonymous Coward]

The basic fact remains that if given the choice of dealing with warming or glaciation, warming is easier to adapt to than cooling. You should check Hansen's 1988 predictions. They were off by a wide margin, greater than one-hundred percent off.

Human evolution has wired us to pay attention to alarm. It is a helpful evolutionary trait, to pay undue attention when a predator could eat you.

This is wired in our brains, so when someone shouts "ICE FREE ARCTIC!", we pay that a lot of attention. Yet the Arctic is not ice free. As a human we are wired to consider that person to have poor judgement.

There are consequences to destroying your own credibility. We will never know exactly how much the false predictions turned negatively impacted the elections in the United States.

The good news is that the non-alarmist suggestions for mitigation help. Replacing wasteful devices with efficient devices makes good economic sense and helps the environment. Solar continues getting cheaper. People are realizing that burning coal is bad news. We have cheap natural gas from fracking, and perhaps the saner voices can prevail to build more nuclear. The planet is not doomed.

Re: You know what?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you have any expertise in statistical analysis, I strongly suggest you to take some of the data and analyze it yourself. I've done this myself, starting twenty years ago with global warming, and was shocked at what I discovered. Where I saw no sign of warming, I'd read articles from major sources saying the results were dire. So I re-checked the data, and sure enough the published reports were so far beyond what I was seeing I wasn't sure what to make of it. I assumed my data was either bad, or my methods were wrong, so I checked them both, and I was doing things right. The disparity was shocking. I didn't expect that result.

The worst news is when you apply the same principle to all kinds of data (not just climate change). You discover that many of the conclusions are more faith than science. This has been widely reported.

http://www.nature.com/news/1-500-scientists-lift-the-lid-on-reproducibility-1.19970

My overall results of analysis of climate change is that we are experiencing slight warming. It's not drastic, and yes there really have been pauses. Do I think all climate scientists are liars? No. Do I think some are not being scientific, absolutely, just as I believe that many many scientists in general are not really following the scientific method.

Which shouldn't I suppose surprise anyone. My conclusion was this belief in "The fearless scientist who follows the data" was make-believe. It turns out scientists are very fallible. The population of scientists also has bunches of people, like any population of humans who are very arrogant. You'd hope that the scientific method would stop that arrogance, but it doesn't

It takes real character to spend years and years on a theory to discover it is wrong. It is psychologically painful to build what you think is a beautiful cathedral (theory), and then discover it's really a pile of rubbish. Combine the pain with the scream to publish (or starve), and you end up where we are now.

The scariest shit isn't global warming. It's medicine. If you have any sort of training in statistical analysis and you dig into drug trials, prepare to have your mind scream.

Re: You know what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Tl;dr (no time: GP here)

Re: You know what?

[K. S. Kyosuke]

And yet, an onset of a glacial period could be mitigated by burning coal or releasing methane - the things we're already doing.

Re: You know what?

[K. S. Kyosuke]

You should check Hansen's 1988 predictions. They were off by a wide margin, greater than one-hundred percent off.

What a strange way to spin it...

Re: You know what?

[K. S. Kyosuke]

So it's not about spreadIng fear of taking action? Or about spreading fear that costs of the action will be too high relative to the benefits? Or about spreading fear of science?

Re:You know what?

[RespekMyAthorati]

Trump, despite his many faults, has been choosing people who are honorable and accomplished,

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Like that dignbat Carson, you mean?

Re: You know what?

[Rakarra]

Do you know that FUD stands for Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt? Do you understand that "global warming is most likely not a real threat" is the opposite of spreading fear?

Fear: "Global warming is a hoax spread by income redistributors. Stopping the use of fossil fuels will negatively impact the pocketbooks of Americans."
Uncertainty/Doubt: Pretty sure I don't need to explain those ones.

Re:You know what?

[Rakarra]

"Trickle Down Economics" is not Capitalism, most capitalistic countries don't believe in it. It was an economic theory that gained prominence with Reagan's administration, though even George H.W. Bush called it "voodoo economics." Trickle-Down is the belief that if you slash taxes for the rich, they'll reinvest all their money and spur the economy.

We've had a good 40 years now to see that Trickle-Down is bullshit -- the rich kept their money in that time and the wealth gap is much further than it's been since the Gilded Age.

Re:You know what?

[segedunum]

We're going to be waiting a long, long time.........

Re:You know what?

[segedunum]

All the Weather Channel is actually telling us is that the temperature data they all so heavily rely on is not all that accurate and how easily they can be manipulated to suite an agenda. However, we knew this when they started bunging tree ring and 'measured' data together to suite 'their' agenda. The only thing the Weather Channel cares about, like all these organisations, is their grant money. They also pull out the usual 'science by consensus' as an argument again.

Is there some major climate change happening? Possibly. Is there any evidence for it? Nope. Is the public any the wiser? Nope.

Re:You know what?

[Methadras]

No, you aren't going to really change anyone's mind because the subject is simply to large for people to generally grasp in total anyway. People will simply adapt to 'climate change' and move on. The left has harped on it for so long and cried wolf about it for so long, that they've lost their power behind it. Whether you are a believer in it or not, is irrelevant because there are more important issues to deal with than how we affect the weather or not. So continue to demonize people who don't agree with you, make the claim they don't believe in science when in fact they simply don't agree with the science and then place the blame for an apocalypse on them because the only thing your ideological ilk do is blame shift.

Re: You know what?

[bane2571]

From that very article: " FUD is generally a strategy to influence perception by disseminating negative and dubious or false information and a manifestation of the appeal to fear."

So saying "Global warming ain't so bad, calm down and breath a little" is actually the opposite of FUD. FUD would be "Global warming is probably going to kill your children and ruin your crops so we must ban coal everywhere immediately." or if you want the "denier" FUD option: "Banning coal will completely ruin the electric grid leading to nation wide blackouts and killing your children because they don't have heating to keep them warm in the winter"

Re: You know what?

[coteriescavenger]

Did you read my comment?

Re: You know what?

[coteriescavenger]

You're acting as a pawn of social justice. You're attacking a legitimate information resource because it tells a different narrative that *certain groups* find "offensive". You're helping them limit free speech, and retain their control of information dissemination. Don't be their useful idiot in their war against net neutrality.

Re: You know what?

[coteriescavenger]

Look at the YouTube link in the comment, and share it with everyone else in this thread who has a strong opinion without knowing the facts. If propaganda was like STDs, Slashdot is a hive mind of zombie prostitutes trying to catch them all.

Re: You know what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Since I'm feeling nice - I'll write you a summary. Scientists who actually practice science starve. Those who follow the latest trends and publish bullshit that can't be replicated get cited, and make money and publish more shit which gets cited.

Re: You know what?

[wheelbarrio]

I'm sorry, are you suggesting that a link to a Youtube video of a self-published and self-publicising "mens movement" crank interviewing a liar and fossil-fuel industry shill is a scientific citation? I had something more traditional in mind - you know, links to original peer-reviewed research.
I retract my previous assertion. Folks like you aren't remotely interested in the truth when it might impinge upon your own cuddly childish fantasy world. Grow up.

Re: You know what?

[coteriescavenger]

Don't kid me. If you read the scientific journals and knew how to interpret them, we wouldn't be having this discussion. You would already know that with existing data, there's no substantial scientific cause for alarm, and that scientists agree more often than not. Furthermore, the original model was proven wrong, leaving pro-global warmists without even a predictive model to cling to.

Naturally, politicians never changed their stance, and here slashdot is beating the old sound board too. If I were you, I would go back and ask myself who got me passionate about global warming, and why didn't they keep me updated? There you will find the trail to the source of modern propaganda. Then, we can talk about legacy media, Donald Trump, and the age of the internet. Good luck.

Re: You know what?

[wheelbarrio]

Furthermore, the original model was proven wrong, leaving pro-global warmists without even a predictive model to cling to.

Seriously, what the righteous fuck are you talking about? Is your argument going to consist of a series of utterly unsupported assertions, or are you ever going to back up this shit with citations?
Oh, and I do read the journals, and know how to interpret the results - I'm a physics PhD so better than you, I almost guarantee it - and that plus the fact that I have kids and care about the world they are going to inherit is what made me and makes me passionate about the subject, not some fucking shill with an agenda in a Youtube video. Look, it occurs to me now from your language that you're actually 16 years old, in which case I forgive you, and suggest you get an actual education and stop looking at Youtube so much. Otherwise, again, grow up.

Re: You know what?

[Anonymous Coward]

But what we do know is that so far the additional CO2 and shorter winters have yielded a net increase in food production. What we do know is that the warming is happening primarily in the Arctic, not the tropics and not the Antarctic.
What we do know is that so far adaption has been easy and cheap compared to the money spent on climate change research, and especially compared to the measures suggested to reverse the slight warming that has occurred over the last century.

Re: You know what?

[Anonymous Coward]

I really doubt your PhD assertion. Your arguments are too weak and naive for to have convinced your "peers".

If I am mistaken, please forgive me, and accept my sincere thanks for letting me know how easy it now is to get a PhD. (It is a world wide standard isn't it? I'd hate to think that I would need to work my but off here in Australia for one, when they appear to come in cereal boxesin the US)

Re: You know what?

[Coren22]

Clearly he lives on Mars. He really wishes global warming would come to finally thaw out his frozen heart.

Once truth gasps its last breath...

[Anonymous Coward]

then our democracy truly is dead. We aren't there yet. I still have hope, but any government that relies on propaganda to gain and hold power is the opposite of a democracy, and that is the road we are traveling toward.

There are no excuses. Neither candidate or party was that impressive, but one was and clearly is so much worse. No elected representative should ever excuse a single blatant lie just to keep their political capital, let alone the nonsense that is beginning now. We are living in a time when post truth is the word of the year, and not without reason.

Demand honesty from our politicians. Demand it from our news sources and anything that presents itself as legitimate news. If we have any hope of building a more perfect union, then we have to move past and ever be on guard for lies and deception, and never make excuses for them. We may never get a 100% honest candidate. Sadly I don't think one would make it in politics, but we can at least value that highly and penalize those severely who really do continually violate the public trust.

Re:Once truth gasps its last breath...

[Curunir_wolf]

then our democracy truly is dead. We aren't there yet. I still have hope, but any government that relies on propaganda to gain and hold power is the opposite of a democracy, and that is the road we are traveling toward.

"Traveling toward"? Really? Take a look in the rear view mirror, buddy, that fork in the road is WAY back behind you. You've been on the road for a LONG time!

Re: Once truth gasps its last breath...

[Anonymous Coward]

Since there is Nothing but proof you can ignore it all you want.
We are already in over population so the weather will not destroy us any more than that.

Re: Once truth gasps its last breath...

[Anonymous Coward]

praise the lord! I say 1+1=3 because god told me so. It's only fair my beliefs are given equal weight. I demand you respect my freedoms!

Re: Once truth gasps its last breath...

[Anonymous Coward]

Amen to that. If these so-called "meteorologists" and "climatologists" truly valued free speech, they would keep their precious "data" and "facts" and expert "opinions" to themselves and quit voicing their opinion every time a (fake) news outlet publishes deliberately misrepresents these experts' facts for political reasons and then cites them to make it sound legit.

After all, climate change is nothing more than a scientific *theory*, like evolution, quantum mechanics, gravity, and magnetism. Provide as large a mountain of evidence as you want--it will never be proof and it will never give you the right to speak your mind in cases where your mind disagrees with the inhabitants of the swamp that is currently overtaking Washington DC.

Re:Once truth gasps its last breath...

[dwywit]

Demand it from our news sources and anything that presents itself as legitimate news. I

Put in a bit of work - make a list of companies who advertise on (for example) Breitbart, then divide that list into companies whose products you buy (or might buy), and those whose products don't interest you.

Write a letter (a letter, not an email, not a phone call) to the PR departments of those in the first category, and tell them that you will not buy their products while they advertise on Breitbart, and their competitors who don't advertise on Breitbart will get your $$$ instead.

A guideline for marketing used to state that for every 1 person motivated enough to actually do this, there's roughly 8 others who feel the same way who can't be bothered to complain, they just take their business elsewhere. If enough people write such letters, companies will respond, especially if it's backed up by falling sales - and maybe they'll do a Kellogg's on Breitbart. If there's one thing media companies respond to, it's loss of advertising.

You can write similar letters to the second category if you want to, but to preserve your own integrity, you shouldn't be lying about buying products you never had an intention of buying. Don't bring yourself down to their level.

Re:Once truth gasps its last breath...

[Anonymous Coward]

Your "democracy" never happened. The US was born an oligarchy, continued to be one throughout its history, and will disappear from history as an oligarchy sometime before 2050.

Re:Once truth gasps its last breath...

[drinkypoo]

any government that relies on propaganda to gain and hold power is the opposite of a democracy, and that is the road we are traveling toward.

The USA has never been a democracy, by design. Like Athens, they originally gave the vote to landed white males like themselves, and the vote does not elect the president. This was rich white men's means of protecting their oligarchy. It's written right into the constitution.

Re:Once truth gasps its last breath...

[houghi]

"One is worse than the other" is like saying you have a coice when knee they break if you do not pay your insurance to Mario "Kneebreaker" Spumanti.
What is needed is a reform of government. And instead of repeating what some dead guys 200+ years ago said, you need to say things that are valid NOW. 200+ years ago the situation was not what it is today. If the situation is different, you can not do the same and hope for a good result, because that is obviously failing.
It is that not enough people are pushing for a real reformation of politics. The longer you wait, the harder it will be to change and the more resistance there will; be.
Change will happen and just as two tectonic plates will cause an earthquake. The longer you wait, the more violent it will be.

Re:Once truth gasps its last breath...

[Anonymous Coward]

"When a word not approved by the majority can no longer be uttered, then our democracy truly is dead." Fixed that for you!

Re:Once truth gasps its last breath...

[dave420]

It is a democracy - a representative democracy. It's not particularly well functioning, but it's a democracy.

Re:Once truth gasps its last breath...

[Anonymous Coward]

As much as it pains me to agree with drinkypoo, he's right. It's a republic, not a democracy.
If the USA had been a democracy, we would still have slavery.

Re:Once truth gasps its last breath...

[ChrisMaple]

It is a constitutional democratic republic with separation of powers, checks and balances, and a bill of rights. No part of that is inessential.

The federal court system itself is incompatible with anything that can be properly defined as a democracy.

Re:Once truth gasps its last breath...

[ChrisMaple]

The founders had unique experience and brought to the job of creating a new nation a depth of study and understanding that is unavailable today. Those smearing "dead guys" and advocating "reform" with their ignorance are like blind men playing with grenades in a crowded stadium.

The ignorant changes already made - direct election of Senators and an income tax - have caused immense damage, and yet here you are clamoring for more.

Re: Once truth gasps its last breath...

[ChrisMaple]

So you think it's OK that several Democrat politicians have proposed imprisoning people who oppose the global warming hypothesis.

Breitbart = Traitors to Humanity

[Anonymous Coward]

Greedy fucking pieces of grinning alt right shit.

Re:Breitbart = Traitors to Humanity

[Anonymous Coward]

faggot

What makes the Weather Channel think they can?

[Anonymous Coward]

Who gave them the right to control their own image and authority? Nobody, that's who. So I can use it as a like. --signed, Andrew Breitbart, posthumous.

Re:What makes the Weather Channel think they can?

[hambone142]

Agreed. Do they wish to stifle free speech?

I see people ragging Fox News, CNBC, MSNBC et. al.

Fuck 'em. I can (and they can) say whatever they wish. This isn't China or Afghanistan.

Steps...

[wbr1]

1. Get popcorn
2. Wait for increased global temperature to pop my corn
3. Find global warming article on Slashdot
4. Enjoy my popcorn while the denialists claim my popcorn should be frozen
5. ????
6. Profit!

Re:Steps...

[Anonymous Coward]

You and your parents and grandparents are no different. You and your actions are the reason there is CO2 in the air and you are responsible for the consequences, and it is you and your parents and grandparents that did nothing for decades, despite warnings since the 70s. The "denialists" are just like you, except they don't even pretend to care. Die in a fire, the whole bunch of you.

It's gonna be fun

[Patent Lover]

Idiocrocy, here we come. Electrolytes!

Re:It's gonna be fun

[hambone142]

People want Brawndo!

People want to read their news on Facebook as long as reading that dull news tells us what to think.

News shouldn't take too long to read (maybe 10 seconds or so) because I need to get my latte at Starbucks and when I'm waiting in line, my attention span is short.
It must have a headline starting with "your jaw will drop ...." and have some ditz with big boobs or a deck of credit cards fanned out.

Walter Cronkite would have wanted it that way.

Re:It's gonna be fun

[mwvdlee]

You'll still be able to get a latte at Starbucks?

Re:It's gonna be fun

[Anonymous Coward]

You'll still be able to get a latte at Starbucks?

With electrolytes.

The Alt+Right is stronger than the Back button

[tepples]

You underestimate the power of the Alt+Right. It can undo presses of the Back button in your web browser. If you end up on a Dimbart article, and you click the Back button to escape what you see as reactionary bullcrap, pressing Alt+Right will bring it right back.

Re:The Alt+Right is stronger than the Back button

[Anonymous Coward]

"Dimbart" fucking lol.

How butthurt must this leftard be to call it "dimbart" and mod everyone down in the comments section of a dead techblog that doesn't march in lockstep with their SJW ideology?

Enjoy 8 years of President Trump.

Stop calling it "skepticism".

[hey!]

Skepticism is doubt.

Unqualified disbelief is just another kind of orthodoxy.

Re: Stop calling it "skepticism".

[hey!]

Saying that is so doesn't make it so. There's overwhelming empirical evidence that the Earth has been warming since middle of the twentieth century, particularly from around 1970 onward. This is shown both in the surface instrumental record and in the satellite record.

Re: Stop calling it "skepticism".

[hey!]

The difference is my belief is falsifiable. So in that respect I think you're belief system resembles faith more than than mine.

Re: Stop calling it "skepticism".

[deathguppie]

the only thing climate change has in common with the book of Mormon is that you are uneducated about either.

Re: Stop calling it "skepticism".

[Anonymous Coward]

I do not refer to the IPCC assessment reports. I pulled raw data into mysql and did it myself.
Same as Richard Muller did at the behest of the Koch Brothers (though mine was less sophisticated).
We all get the same result.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html

Re: Stop calling it "skepticism".

[Anonymous Coward]

What exactly are you arguing against?

The fact that CO2 absorbs IR, or the fact that human beings increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere? If it's neither (which it should be since both are easily provable), then it follows logically that human beings are increasing the earths temperature. Seriously this is grade 4 stuff.

Re: Stop calling it "skepticism".

[Anonymous Coward]

And I am Xenu, and I say your post is just your R6 implant at work.

Re: Stop calling it "skepticism".

[PopeRatzo]

I work at a major research institution along the east coast. I am paid well, well into six figures, as a climate researcher. My job is to fabricate data

I don't want to give my real name for reasons that would be obvious, but I am Stephen Hawking and I just gave it to your mom in the butt.

Re: Stop calling it "skepticism".

[PopeRatzo]

I can contribute to this discussion, but I have to post anonymously for reasons that will be obvious. I work at a major research institution along the east coast. I am paid well, well into six figures, as a climate researcher. My job is to fabricate data, but to make it believable enough that people accept our research is true. I can assure you that most climate research, like my own, is fabricated and completely false.

My favorite part of this is that this numbskull thinks there's a climate scientist who makes six figures.

Re: Stop calling it "skepticism".

[Anonymous Coward]

it isn't the "humans" that are increasing the CO2 in the atmosphere, it is the "Americans", that is, the citizens of the US, and Western Europe that have done so. Interestingly, these are the citizens that oppose bearing the cost of their actions that have lead us here. This is why you elect people like Trump and parties like the Republicans to lead you. Because YOU DON'T WANT TO PAY. Die in a fire, you hypocritical bunch.

Re: Stop calling it "skepticism".

[clovis]

I can contribute to this discussion, but I have to post anonymously for reasons that will be obvious. I work at a major research institution along the east coast. I am paid well, well into six figures, as a climate researcher. My job is to fabricate data, but to make it believable enough that people accept our research is true. I can assure you that most climate research, like my own, is fabricated and completely false.

My favorite part of this is that this numbskull thinks there's a climate scientist who makes six figures.

It's like a riddle, and the answer is:
The AC climate researcher is working for the Koch brothers.

Re: Stop calling it "skepticism".

[hey!]

The history of greenhouse effect theory is interesting and well worth reading up on. It was first raised as a possibility in the 1890s, but rejected quickly based on two erroneous beliefs: (1) that the oceans would rapidly absorb any increase in atmospheric CO2 and (2) that the absorption spectra of water vapor and CO2 mostly overlapped. Together these implied that CO2 could not increase in the atmosphere, and even if it did it could not capture any heat that water vapor wouldn't have anyway.

There are a lot of twists and turns in the story, which Wikipedia does a pretty good job of summarizing. I highly recommend reading that article.

Re: Stop calling it "skepticism".

[TheGratefulNet]

grab him by the kotch!

Re: Stop calling it "skepticism".

[BlueStrat]

The difference is my belief is falsifiable.

And that's the problem right there.

CAGW alarmists don't/won't provide falsifiable evidence that can be independently tested. They refuse to release un-'adjusted' data sets, even going so far as to attempt to use copyright claims on publicly-funded research They will not release the actual programs, algorithms, and data used in their computer models, which still are unable to both track past climate changes while modeling the future global temperature rise rates claimed. Models which most accurately track past changes do not show the predicted increases, while models that show predicted increases in global temperature averages do not track against past climate records.

In order to assume this is reason enough to greatly disrupt the US national economy (guaranteed other nations like China, Russia, and India will not harm *their* economies b/c of CAGW alarmism) requires a 'leap of faith' equal to that of a religion. It requires faith without any more proof than Christians have to believe in the God of Abraham.

The way that CAGW alarmists have been acting has not been that different from the Westboro Baptist Church nutters. They try to shout-down and silence opposing voices, substituting outrage, anger, and argument/appeal from/to authority for reason and logic.

Even their precious IPCC/Dr. Roy Cook "97% scientific consensus" is bullshit. The "97%" includes scientists who think humans have *some* effect on climate, which humorously includes many on the "Denier(TM)"-side. Hell, *I* believe humans have *some* effect, I've simply seen no evidence that justifies massive immediate changes.

https://youtu.be/PHyd-Y6haMg

CAGW==Religion(or scam)

Strat

Re:Stop calling it "skepticism".

[aristotheron]

Then define qualification and prove that your truth is not propaganda also

Re: Stop calling it "skepticism".

[hey!]

They refuse to release un-'adjusted' data sets, even going so far as to attempt to use copyright claims on publicly-funded research

Knock yourself out. However unadjusted data is pretty useless for drawing conclusions from.

Re:Stop calling it "skepticism".

[hey!]

"Qualification" means conditions you set on the belief, without which you are willing to withdraw your belief.

Re: Stop calling it "skepticism".

[locofungus]

You can lead an ass to knowledge but you cannot make him learn.

Re: Stop calling it "skepticism".

[bazorg]

Can someone please mod this up.

Re: Stop calling it "skepticism".

[Anonymous Coward]

> You can lead an ass to knowledge but you cannot make him learn.

This is... beauty!

May I take you up in my .sig file (with attribution, of course).

Re: Stop calling it "skepticism".

[hackertourist]

This unmitigated drivel is modded 'Insighful'? The evidence is stacked to the rafters, and available to anyone who cares to look. China is working hard to reduce its reliance on fossil fuels.

It's getting warmer, and we caused it. You think it's a scam? Come up with some evidence, instead of frothing at the mouth.

Re: Stop calling it "skepticism".

[locofungus]

Of course. And no attribution required. It's public domain :-)

Re: Stop calling it "skepticism".

[dbIII]

Wrong on every point anarchist, even your definition of religion. It has to be deliberate to get everything so wrong so why are you deliberately lying so much to the readers? What are your really doing with this? I know you hate the United States, but this different - WTF are you up to with trying to turn the kiddies against reality?

Re: Stop calling it "skepticism".

[hackertourist]

You're like the kid with his fingers in his ears going "lalalalalalalala I can't hear you". Just because it's news you don't want to hear doesn't mean it's not true.

Thousands of studies done by different, independent parties all agree Earth's climate is warming up rapidly due to human action. How much more extraordinary do you need the evidence to be?

Re: Stop calling it "skepticism".

[Anonymous Coward]

Not here to argue or take sides. Something you said just gave me an epiphany.

Models which most accurately track past changes do not show the predicted increases, while models that show predicted increases in global temperature averages do not track against past climate records.

It just dawned on me that *none* of the modelling is taking into account the Younger Dryas Impact event. We don't have the computing power to factor it in, even if we wanted to.

It was big enough to end the last ice age in a few *seconds* and released enough water into the system to raise sea levels globally by ~125m, caused mass extinctions. Impact was in Canada, it released sufficient energy to melt glaciers in Patagonia and create nano-diamonds in what is now Sth USA.

Now, one would imagine that the post-event climate over the next few thousand years is not going to be representative of the natural equilibrium, right?

It would mean that any models that accurately model the past 12000 years without fudging data must be incorrect and conversly, if the model used is representative of the way things normally work, then they must be wrong for that period.

QED

Re: Stop calling it "skepticism".

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks!

Re: Stop calling it "skepticism".

[jandersen]

I envision the headlines:

"Stephen Hawking working on brown holes"

Re: Stop calling it "skepticism".

[dunkelfalke]

Dude, you are the one who is religious and believes that there is some unknown invisible hand that regulates the climate.

Re: Stop calling it "skepticism".

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure an adjustment that ignores ~70% of the data (e.g., the entire ocean area) will yield the result they want.

Re: Stop calling it "skepticism".

[gtall]

Err...this year is the hottest on record. We should stop believing in science...after all, what's it ever done for us, eh?

Re: Stop calling it "skepticism".

[hackertourist]

And what would you accept as credible?

Re: Stop calling it "skepticism".

[Anonymous Coward]

The difference is my belief is falsifiable.

And that's the problem right there.

CAGW alarmists don't/won't provide falsifiable evidence that can be independently tested. They refuse to release un-'adjusted' data sets, even going so far as to attempt to use copyright claims on publicly-funded research They will not release the actual programs, algorithms, and data used in their computer models

The principle of falsifiability is only one of the legs of science. Another leg is the idea that an experiment done in one place should yield the same result as the same experiment done independently in another place, at another time. In other words someone else can duplicate the experiment, and expect to get the same result. Thus the ability to hold the theory false is held by others too, starting with nothing more than the theory.

They scientists who have tested the theory so far are under no obligation to give you the tools they used to test the theory. And indeed, for a truly independent test of the theory, they shouldn't. If you wish to test it yourself, do so, and if you find it to be false please let us know, specifically where it fell down.

(I see someone else in this thread posted a link to some raw data. That would seem like a possible starting point).

...which still are unable to both track past climate changes while modeling the future global temperature rise rates claimed. Models which most accurately track past changes do not show the predicted increases, while models that show predicted increases in global temperature averages do not track against past climate records.

I'm curious as to where this opinion regarding the congruence of the output of the various climate models and reality comes from. Certainly a number of the models described within the various IPCC assessment reports seem to track with what we have been and are currently observing. There is of course an element of uncertainty but even that can be bounded over time. Some of the basic details of the models also exists within the reports, should you want to check the workings (in principle) of any model you create against theirs.

The way that CAGW alarmists have been acting ... They try to shout-down and silence opposing voices, substituting outrage, anger, and argument/appeal from/to authority for reason and logic.

I've replied to a number of your posts now*. I don't recall ever trying to shout you down, and while I can get slightly angry I rarely stray far from logic or reason. Instead, from my perspective, I've tried to engage with you based on a shared understanding, that is to say the words you (and then I) wrote. If I may say, you look to be becoming quite strident in your opposition.

*Alas, too many mod points again, and too quick to spend them in topic, hence posting anon. Whibla

Re: Stop calling it "skepticism".

[PopeRatzo]

Whichever one of you yeggs modded that "Informative", you are my sunshine.

Re: Stop calling it "skepticism".

[dywolf]

again you post completely wrong information.

They refuse to release un-'adjusted' data sets, even going so far as to attempt to use copyright claims on publicly-funded research

Wrong.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data...
https://www.newscientist.com/a...
http://berkeleyearth.org/data/

Also, BS on the copyright claim.

They will not release the actual programs, algorithms, and data used in their computer models,

Wrong.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data...

which still are unable to both track past climate changes while modeling the future global temperature rise rates claimed.

Wrong.
http://www.skepticalscience.co...
https://www.wunderground.com/c...

Models which most accurately track past changes do not show the predicted increases,

Wrong.
See above.

while models that show predicted increases in global temperature averages do not track against past climate records.

Wrong.
see above.

In order to assume this is reason enough to greatly disrupt the US national economy (guaranteed other nations like China, Russia, and India will not harm *their* economies b/c of CAGW alarmism) requires a 'leap of faith' equal to that of a religion.

That is a completely BS talking point.
No one is harming anyone's economy as a result of fighting this.
The idea that this somehow requires harming your economy is complete BS.

China and India are already more committed to it than the US is, and have, relatively, done more. And China's economy is both the largest in the world, and fastest growing, growing at a whopping 8% GDP every year for the past decade and a half, including during the global recession (ie, they weren't even hit by the recession), and while they are enacting more and more environmental regulations to do their part.

And in the US the "Green Energy Revolution" has created thousands of jobs and economic opportunity.
But that's what happens when a new industry grows; the naysayers (like you) who said it would be different this time, that it would harm people, were idiots.

It requires faith without any more proof than Christians have to believe in the God of Abraham. The way that CAGW alarmists have been acting has not been that different from the Westboro Baptist Church nutters.

This only shows that you are ignorant about both groups of people.

They try to shout-down and silence opposing voices, substituting outrage, anger, and argument/appeal from/to authority for reason and logic.

No, that's what you're doing.

Even their precious IPCC/Dr. Roy Cook "97% scientific consensus" is bullshit. The "97%" includes scientists who think humans have *some* effect on climate, which humorously includes many on the "Denier(TM)"-side.

Not sure what your point is here.
Best I can tell is that you're disproving your own point and not even realizing it.

This is essentially what you just did:
-You said gravity wasn't real
-You threw an apple in the air
-It hit you on the head.
-You then said "See? Gravity is BS."

Hell, *I* believe humans have *some* effect, I've simply seen no evidence that justifies massive immediate changes

Well, the willfully ignorant typically remain that way until forced into action.
Especially when they are as determined to ignore reality as you are.

Re: Stop calling it "skepticism".

[parkinglot777]

I'm sure an adjustment that ignores ~70% of the data (e.g., the entire ocean area) will yield the result they want.

If you believe so, then please show us how they do it? ;)

Re:Stop calling it "skepticism".

[Anonymous Coward]

Silencing skeptics leads to unqualified disbelief.

If your "science" depends on asking people to "stop spreading" ideas, maybe it's not science. That's unqualified disbelief because it has nothing to do with what your "science" actually says, but it's not unreasonable unqualified disbelief. You are acting like a fraud when you do that.

Re:Stop calling it "skepticism".

[hey!]

I'm not silencing any skeptics. I'm stripping credulous people of the conceit that they're skeptics.

Re: Stop calling it "skepticism".

[Anonymous Coward]

erm what? there are several high profile climate scientists at my big 10 university. their salaries are public, many well into the middle 6 figures. Of course these are highly regarded internationally renowned experts at the pinnacle of their career. (fyi, 200 - 400K).

Re: Stop calling it "skepticism".

[Anonymous Coward]

Liar

Re: Stop calling it "skepticism".

[Anonymous Coward]

So... you're an asshole? Climate researchers really don't make that sort of money, unless of course they're working for an oil-companies PR wing... As that is the only "research institution" that would have sufficient money to invest in such assholitry.

Re: Stop calling it "skepticism".

[phantomfive]

I don't know how real this is, but I wouldn't be surprised if Richard Lindzen made six figures as a professor salary at MIT.

Re: Stop calling it "skepticism".

[PopeRatzo]

I'll bet there are as many climate scientists (actual researchers) who make six figures as there are NFL quarterbacks making over $24 million a year.

In other words, about as many as you can count on two fingers.

Re: Stop calling it "skepticism".

[hyades1]

You're a lying sack of shit who could do the world a great service by leaving it.

Re:Stop calling it "skepticism".

[aristotheron]

What a practical definition! Not.

Do you have a sound theory of information and perception or are you just blah blah blahing about people who don't bow to the same authority you do and take its word as truth?

Re:Stop calling it "skepticism".

[ChrisMaple]

Yes I do, but I'm not going to help those who oppose me by telling them what it is.

Re: Stop calling it "skepticism".

[ChrisMaple]

However unadjusted data is pretty useless for drawing conclusions from.

Thanks for admitting that you're wrong.

Re: Stop calling it "skepticism".

[ChrisMaple]

It's quite easy to propose a scenario in which humans make CO2 and CO2 absorbs IR does not result in humans cause temperature increase. If all the CO2 is produced by burning methane that's already in the atmosphere, then cooling may result because methane is a more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2.

It's not true (because we aren't making all CO2 from methane already in the atmosphere), but my point is that your logic is hopelessly flawed. Until we know all significant inputs, all significant mechanisms, and can properly model the process, we have no chance of valid predictions, nor can we expect to know that if we make a particular change it will cause a particular amount of difference.

Re:Stop calling it "skepticism".

[aristotheron]

haha nailed it

Re: Stop calling it "skepticism".

[phantomfive]

Average professor salary: $114,000. Many climate scientists are professors, so you're probably wrong. Not that "six figures" == "rich"

Re: Stop calling it "skepticism".

[Anonymous Coward]

Let me just answer for the previous idiot... "Nothing you say is credible cause I'm (alt-)right, and you're clearly left! Please let me waste more of your time by telling you how wrong you are, so you have to tell me how I'm wrong again!"

Re: Stop calling it "skepticism".

[Anonymous Coward]

CO2 absorbs IR radiation. Humans increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. The case for earth warming due to an increase in CO2 emissions would be slam dunk, if the climate is a single-variable system as you propose.

Oh were have the hackers gone..

[bored]

Obvious solution, is to play climate science videos when the http referer matches breitbart... Of course such a thing should only kick in after the first 100 views...

We knew this going in

[Okian Warrior]

It's getting close to the point that the schadenfreude of seeing morons get their due makes up for the fact that we all will be screwed.

So by all means lets call climate change a hoax. When the inevitable calamities fall, I suspect the deplorables and Breitbart readers will be disproportionately affected and not only will I not shed a tear but I will kick dirt in their faces.

Ok, so which is more important: everyone in the country slipping into poverty and terrorist attacks from immigrants next year, or...

Global warming, only [our] part of which can fixed by us, is driven by political corruption, and won't affect us for a couple of decades?

Of these issues, political corruption is the biggest impediment to rational climate change action. Getting rid of that has to come first, and only then can we expect to make progress on the other issues.

Do you think anything would get done under a Clinton administration?

We knew Trump had shortcomings, and still elected him - warts and all. We did it because he promised to fix certain issues that we felt were more important in the near term. Global warming will kill us, but, mass poverty will kill us sooner.

I'm completely happy taking steps to curb global warming, but a) I want to be safe doing it, and b) I want to eat first.

Get some perspective. Not everything Trump is going to do will be bad, and you always have 2024 to look forward to.

Re:We knew this going in

[Anonymous Coward]

So... you are completely happy with Trump's choices for his cabinet and advisors? No possible corruption there? Isn't giving people who are unqualified positions of power the textbook definition of corruption?

Trump took a call based on lobbying work done by Dole on behalf of Taiwan, no corruption there? Imagine Hilary taking the same call?

How can you be so attuned to political corruption if Hillary's name is attached to it, but blind to Trump's?

And do you truly believe billionaires would reform the tax code so that poor people are lifted out of poverty? Not just regular filthy rich people but Goldman Sachs alums? Seriously, are you crazy?

Re:We knew this going in

[grcumb]

Global warming will kill us, but, mass poverty will kill us sooner.

A) No, poverty won't kill us. Income inequity and the gutting of health, education and social services will kill some people—far too many, to be sure— but mostly it will reduce the quality of life for a generation or so. Undesirable? Yes. Deadly? Not for most people.

B) The reason for climate action today is not because it's going to affect us today. It's because every day of delay compounds the problem. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you're the type of person who changes their oil regularly and sticks to the vehicle maintenance schedule, because ignoring things until they become critical is costly and stupid....

C) If I have to carry B)'s analogy any further, there's really no point in even responding.

Not everyone assumes Trump is unalloyed evil. But Breitbart, on the other hand, is deliberately indulging in the kind of corrupt, amoral behaviour you claim that Donald Trump needs to deal with as his first priority.

[editor's note: Here is where the poster loses his shit at the willful blindness of this defender of the indefensible.]

In layman's terms, they fucking lie and lie and lie about climate change, and you can't get that through your fucking head. Instead, you defend the very fucking liars you claim are ruining this globe by pooh-poohing the fact that they fucking lied and claiming that the thing they fucking lied about isn't that big a deal.

Here's the problem with that situation: If you're so fed up with political corruption, why the fuck are you defending the very people who are perpetuating the problem? And don't give me any 'but Hillary' shit. I don't give a flying fuck about Hillary. I don't care if she's the devil. I am specifically concerned that you, sir, are defending liars in your paean to the need to end a culture of corruption. Because I don't fucking get it.

Re:We knew this going in

[Anonymous Coward]

Except for Carson which of his potential and actual appointments are unqualified? Unless you measure that based on idiology or maybr "career political hack"...giving people positions of power in exchange for favours is the definition of corruption, just because you disagree with the attitude/leanings of his appointments doesn't make it corruption.

As for Taiwan. That situation has been stagnate for 40 years, they are a democratic country, why should we continue to pander to China? What are they going to do, start a fight? That's so unlikely as to be of no concern. The only thing maintaining the status quo does is keep career diplomats in a job. Seriously any fight over "systems of government" are long over, nobody is trying to invade China, if the powers that be there lose power it will be because they lose controol internally. Lastly its not like China has been alot of help with North Korea, so other than all the shit they make and send us they've done little to make the World a better place. Again the point is that we don't need to pander to China over this when the people of Taiwanhave made their wishes clear.

As for billionares running the economy, i'd rather they do it than a bunch of career politicians who have never run a real business and just try to buy votes.

Re:We knew this going in

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a nonsense shill post where someone pretends to care about global warming.

Re:We knew this going in

[Anonymous Coward]

Try to answer the fucking question without the word Hillary:

How can you be so attuned to political corruption if Hillary's name is attached to it, but blind to Trump's?

Re:We knew this going in

[Anonymous Coward]

Government isn't a Business and Shouldn't Be Run Like One!

Re:We knew this going in

[Anonymous Coward]

Hillary lost. Get over it.

sin sear lee, AC

Re:We knew this going in

[ClickOnThis]

I fail to understand why you think Trump will do anything about climate change.

During the campaign, he said that climate change was a hoax, perpetrated by the Chinese, to make American industry less competitive.

He has appointed a climate-change denialist to oversee the power-transition at the EPA.

Recently he has allowed that there may be some connection between climate change and CO2 emissions, and he has met with Al Gore. Encouraging, but weigh that against the above, and his mercurial tendencies when it comes to policy positions.

Re:We knew this going in

[Motherfucking Shit]

Of these issues, political corruption is the biggest impediment to rational climate change action. Getting rid of that has to come first, and only then can we expect to make progress on the other issues.

Ah yes, getting rid of political corruption. Draining the swamp. I'm glad to see Trump is making great strides there, appointing Goldman Sachs alum left and right.

Re:We knew this going in

[ClickOnThis]

Hillary lost. Get over it.

Yes, she did. And that means she is irrelevant now. As far as politics are concerned, she's in a rocking chair with a glass of lemonade. And now it's up to you to get over that.

Trump, on the other hand, is fair game for the next four years. Bringing up Hillary in an argument regarding him is just pathetic.

Re:We knew this going in

[Anonymous Coward]

Despite her being gone, there is absolutely no way she would have put a 2nd generation goldman sachs billionaire with zero government experience in as head of the treasury. Nor would she have installed a goldman sachs alum as her "chief whitehouse strategist." No one in her party, especially not Sanders or Warren, would have stood by and let that happen, even if she were so tone-def as to try.

Re:We knew this going in

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't giving people who are unqualified positions of power the textbook definition of corruption?

And yet when Trump appoints a military man to run the military or financial people to run financial things he's criticized and attacked for it. Make up your mind, champ.

Re:We knew this going in

[Anonymous Coward]

Trump took a call based on lobbying work done by Dole on behalf of Taiwan, no corruption there? Imagine Hilary taking the same call?

I'm no Trump fan but that was a good thing. Taiwan is a separate country, it's time to stop pretending otherwise. The only reason we're pretending is so China will stop letting Russia transport military supplies through their territory to North Vietnam. Talk about outdated.

China shouldn't be led to believe they can just annex other countries who don't want to be annexed (and that's true of the US, too. No one should be going around conquering countries anymore).

Re:We knew this going in

[LordLucless]

Isn't giving people who are unqualified positions of power the textbook definition of corruption?

Uh, no? Giving people positions of power in exchange for favours, or due to pre-existing relationships (e.g. nepotism) are textbook definitions of corruption. Their qualification or lack their of is irrelevant to whether the appointment is corrupt or not.

Re:We knew this going in

[Anonymous Coward]

Trumps choices for staff doesn't matter.

Remember? You told me trump is a dictator.
So it doesn't matter who his staff is. They'll do as they're told.

Or maybe you were wrong again.

Re:We knew this going in

[mbone]

We knew Trump had shortcomings, and still elected him - warts and all. We did it because he promised to fix certain issues that we felt were more important in the near term.

The perspective that I have is that anyone who believes anything Trump promises has totally lost touch with anything resembling reality. The man burns everyone who trusts him.

Re:We knew this going in

[gumbi west]

He campaigned against Wall Street bankers running things and then nominates a Wall Street banker to run things. How's that swamp draining going?

Re:We knew this going in

[gumbi west]

Jeff Sessions (the attorney general nominee) is a career political hack. Even Republicans refused to confirm him to the federal bench. I'm confused, is Trump draining or trying to fill up the swamp?

Re:We knew this going in

[Anonymous Coward]

Firstly, Taiwan is not a separate country so long as it has the same aims towards China as China has towards it, and that's what made Taiwan in the first place.
Secondly, conquering countries is always going to happen because conquest is part of human nature and the real world demands it, nature demands it, limited resources demand it, financial inequality born of inadequate borders and land and climate (as history shows) demand it, a sense of inequality is all that's required to produce it.
The only difference in today's conquest is that the ones conquering are the ones with positive birth rates, while the ones being inevitably conquered are those with negative birth rates who self-exterminate.
As history would always have it, when those with positive birth rates, and values that produce this effect, reach a high enough percentage, they will stop "acting in Rome as Romans do" and will not only replace you, but also shatter the self-righteous condescending values of the losing collective that proportionally contributed to negative birth rates but are not welcomed by those who have them positive.

Re:We knew this going in

[guises]

What you're describing is quid pro quo corruption. According to the supreme court, that is the only kind of corruption punishable by law and that decision has probably made it into some textbooks by now. There are other kinds of corruption mentioned in other textbooks, though they no longer have legal weight. For example: appointing an unqualified person to a position of power because that person's actions are likely to benefit you, even though those actions may not be best for the country.

Re:We knew this going in

[mwvdlee]

He's draining the swamp out into the government buildings.

Re:We knew this going in

[Anonymous Coward]

We knew Trump had shortcomings, and still elected him - warts and all. We did it because he promised to fix certain issues that we felt were more important in the near term. Global warming will kill us, but, mass poverty will kill us sooner.

Huh? But Trump will make both even worse. Yes, I know that he made promises, but he also promises subcontractors that they will be paid and then that doesn't happen.
Trump isn't going to bring in more jobs.
At best he will push money into dead end industries that should have gone into creating jobs that actually won't need life support a few years from now.
(But that is of course based on the idea that he might actually keep a promise and he isn't really known for that.)

Re:We knew this going in

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it remains valid to compare them as long as there are still so many people trying to get recounts, and protesting etc, but yeah, once that is over (which I think it almost is) you are right.

Re:We knew this going in

[dbIII]

We did it because he promised

The slick salesguy promised? Were the operators standing by? Do you get a free set of steak knives with your order?

political corruption is the biggest impediment

You thought there wasn't enough of it or something and voted for obvious scum?

I think compulsory voting would make room for a third party and avoid such obvious mistakes in the future.

Re:We knew this going in

[AmiMoJo]

True, but Trump does that as well. He gives jobs to friends, people who helped him out and the owner of his favourite media organization.

The guy is incredibly corrupt. His only criteria for assigning jobs seems to be who as bought their way in with favours.

Re: We knew this going in

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're asking why someone supported Trump, then "because he was better than the alternative" (in the opinion of the person you're asking) is a perfectly legitimate response.

Re: We knew this going in

[Anonymous Coward]

The rest of the world does. It's only the mind-numbingly retarded Americans who think its a conspiracy theory thanks to centuries of being brainwashed by elites.

Re: We knew this going in

[Anonymous Coward]

If Annoying Orange runs it could split the Trump vote at the next election.

Re:We knew this going in

[Anonymous Coward]

How can you be so attuned to political corruption if Hillary's name is attached to it, but blind to Trump's?

Sorry, the President of the United States doesn't take orders from the PRC.

Not anymore, anyway.

Re:We knew this going in

[drinkypoo]

I'm completely happy taking steps to curb global warming, but a) I want to be safe doing it,

Safety is an illusion.

and b) I want to eat first.

If you want to continue to eat, you're going to do something about it.

Get some perspective. Not everything Trump is going to do will be bad,

Literally the only good thing I think might happen is that he might can the TPP. But I'm not even sure that's going to happen. He's hiring the people from the bottom of the swamp so fast that I can believe he will backpedal on literally anything.

Re:We knew this going in

[Anonymous Coward]

Elected Trump?

I thought the voters in the USA told their state electors to elect Trump.

Whether they do or not is up to them, except for some states,

https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/electors.html#restrictions

This seems to be quite authoritative on the subject?

Donald J Trump is not yet the president of the USA.

He might not ever be.

[captcha was sentinel, seems quite appropriate, who or what generates these?]

Re:We knew this going in

[Applehu Akbar]

Jeff Sessions is the nominee that I'm most concerned about. He supports civil forfeiture forfeiture and is against states' rights.

Re:We knew this going in

[Anonymous Coward]

You should try a proportional election system, like all countries with something resembling sanity have.

Re:We knew this going in

[gtall]

I beg to differ on Taiwan. My own belief is that Trump simply stepped in a pile of shit without malice of forethought or any forethought at all. When the shit hit the fan, his people realized he looked like a bull in a China shop (I should be shot for that reference). His people rummaged about, finally pulling out the Dole connection to make it look like he intentionally went to find the pile, walked up to it, and purposely stepped in it.

I don't believe his campaign intentionally did anything except as a shoot from hip sort of action. He saw what got their crowds excited, and like a true reality host, he just gave them more of that. He has the attention span of gnat, whatever he sees last is what he believes.

I don't think people elected him to solve certain problems. They projected on to him the anger they'd been taught is okay, then back-assward argued he'd fix "their problems". He will fix nothing because he has no firm policies nor any idea how to implement them. Think of him as blank slate that gets written to every day but erased again at night.

I don't think it bad that he kicked China in the shins over Taiwan, but I cannot believe it was thought out ahead of time.

Re:We knew this going in

[houghi]

The REAL pathetic thing is that people still think there is somehow a difference between the two parties. Spoiler alert: there isn't. Not really.
Well, there are differences, but those are pretty small. It is like asking the kids what fast-food restaurant they are wanting to go and one kid wants to go to Burger King and the other to McDonals.
Pretty big decisions for the kids, but for the parents, not so much. They don't want to go to either, but giving in to one or the other gives the kids the idea they have something to say and they stop yelling.

Re:We knew this going in

[fbobraga]

we are ranking problems by "importance" now? (can I consider the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... , a disease that I had, as the most important problem of human race now?)

Re: We knew this going in

[Anonymous Coward]

Say that after the coming battle over the very existence of Social Security.

Re:We knew this going in

[sudon't]

Global warming is not so much driven by corruption, as we're prevented from acting by those who've drunk the "hoax" Kool-Aid. Republican politicians, many of whom admitted privately that they understand the problem, are beholden to their voters. That is the biggest impediment to the Republican Party, and thus the rest of us. But "our part" got fixed under the last administration. If Trump simply does nothing, we'll at least meet the Kyoto goals.
You have a very short-sighted, not to mention selfish, view of the matter. No one is going to bring back the old industrial jobs because no one can. The very simple reason for that is that we can't compete on the wage level. And many of those old jobs are done by machines now, anyway. And yes, climate change is more important than the occasional "terrorist" attack. If you're worried about mass poverty, you should be worried about climate change. Sure, we have a number of years before it gets really bad, and there are other problems to solve, but they're not mutually exclusive.
Either way, I don't see Trump being the one to solve them. He's not even in office yet, and he's already backed down from almost every major campaign promise he made - the great wall, "lock 'er up!", "drain the swamp", "ban the Muslims", "end Obamacare", and others. If those are some of the reasons you elected him, I would think that would give you some pause. Does it?

Re:We knew this going in

[KozmoStevnNaut]

Yeah, not really much difference between Trump and Hillary, honestly.

https://www.politicalcompass.o...

Re:We knew this going in

[Anonymous Coward]

Right, the worst thing that could happen is WW3. Who cares!

Re:We knew this going in

[Anonymous Coward]

How is it that Republicans managed to dumb themselves down so much? They used to be as educated and reasonable (within their strict bounds of conservative values) as anyone else, they used to have no particular problems with science and morality. But lately, during the past decade or so, their own party seems to have been infested with an immense quantity of complete morons who have no regard for facts, scientific studies or sometimes even minimal moral standards that used to be respected by everyone (such as do not torture). How did this happen?

Or am I just misperceiving this trend and there has been no real change? As someone who is always interested in what's going on in the US, I'm wondering about this a lot. AFAIK the same trend has not occurred anywhere else, e.g. European conservatives seem to be just the same old conservatives as they were before. I mean, I can understand Christian concerns about abortion, but it's just bizarre that a purely factual matter like global warming has become some sort of political issue in the US, as if the question whether global warming is man-made or not had something to do with politics.

Re:We knew this going in

[Anonymous Coward]

then it is valid to keep calling for a recount whilst the trumpers are trying to shut down the political speech from others with "Hilary lost, get over it", since we need to prove that this happened.

And while Trumpers insist that there were 3 million illegal immigrants voting for Hilary in California, even they are making the case for investigating the voting actions in the USA.

Re:We knew this going in

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh wait, its not this satalite thats important, its these other 2 we didn't use. yea that it, its clearly brietbart!!!! You have your hat screwed on tight yet? Your going to need it in the wind.

Re: We knew this going in

[utahjazz]

Except, Hillary wasn't the only other alternative. Lots of other people were running, who were not corrupt and believed in climate change. And, don't tell me they weren't an alternative because your 1 vote for them wouldn't have changed the outcome of the election. That is the case no matter who you voted for. Picking one of the alternatives and saying he's better than that is not a legitimate argument for him being the best one.

Re:We knew this going in

[dave420]

Luckily the scientists have the drop on you and have been working for decades to answer those questions. Their answers exist, and are available to everyone and anyone wishing to read them, but you are having too much fun pretending to want to care to read them.

Re:We knew this going in

[Anonymous Coward]

How much connection? READ THE IPCC REPORTS. For all your complaints about spending money on the science of climate change, how the hell are your queries supposed to be answered WITHOUT spending money to find out? And why are you complaining when the reason so much is being spent is you keep denying there's a problem, demanding "ACTUAL proof"?

Re:We knew this going in

[Anonymous Coward]

Saying there is no real difference between the Democratic and Republican parties isn't ignorant if you are over the age of 21. It's stupidity. The research material has been available for you, my fellow citizen of the earth, and you obviously have shirked your responsibility to do even the most basic reading on the subject. You didn't vote did you?

Re:We knew this going in

[fbobraga]

I don't understand why people tend to vote in "good (not always...) business administrators"

Re:We knew this going in

[NetNed]

So is attacking every thing a person does, even without proof, before he is in office but make excuses for the person that is STILL IN OFFICE and making bad, self serving political moves every day.

Re:We knew this going in

[Anonymous Coward]

Who's this "we"? Do you have a mouse in your pocket?

Re:We knew this going in

[fbobraga]

and it's ever good to remember that this crazy folks are in charge to run atomic bombs starting 20/Jan/2017...

Re:We knew this going in

[fbobraga]

Taiwan is a separate country

Taiwan is not a separate country

This subject is really complicated: I recommend you two (and others) to watch https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:We knew this going in

[fbobraga]

Ha Ha! Donald Trump supporter/voter detected (that's why you post as AC: shame, right?)

Re:We knew this going in

[fbobraga]

what "PRC" stands for?

Re:We knew this going in

[shilly]

"The only reason we're pretending is so China will stop letting Russia transport military supplies through their territory to North Vietnam. Talk about outdated."
Really? That's the only reason you can think of? Off the top of my head:
- The Chinese now have practical guidance to how to push Trump's buttons in relation to US foreign policy stances towards China. They could, if they wished, put a hundred clever people in a room with the sole task of spending the next three months building a plan of action for taking advantage of that
- China could choose to make life difficult for US companies, both overtly and covertly, in response
- China could bring North Korea into play as a lever
- China could disengage from the US and turn towards other economies
etc etc

Re:We knew this going in

[NetNed]

Yes, tell us more while ignoring how the 97% number was achieved, the tolerance for the "warmest year EVER!" claim was bigger than the claim of how much warmer it was, the year of record cold all over the world 3 years ago but claimed "warmest year ever", the ignoring of satellite data in temp measurement for the "warmest year ever" claims. Ignoring ice production at Antarctica while claiming it's melting then a bunch of climatologist get stuck frozen in the ice upon a ship that the believers make excuses as to why it happened. The list goes on, but yeah, tell us all about the "lies" you "uncovered". It means SOOO much when you ignore the misinformation, claim you "don't give a flying fuck" about someone that the climate change community used to extort funds out of governments, and then go off about "defending liars" and ending corruption but ignore everything President Obama has done while in office and most likely think he has actually had "the most transparent administration EVER!!!". It's like a crack head telling a heroin addict that he is despicable.

Re:We knew this going in

[shilly]

Since when do dictators not need staff? What a dumbass thing to say

Re:We knew this going in

[fbobraga]

nice post (I miss my mod points now!)

Re:We knew this going in

[necro81]

I'm confused, is Trump draining or trying to fill up the swamp

If he fills it enough, it'll be an ocean.

A beautiful ocean; best in the world; believe me. And do you know what stimulates a real estate economy? Seafront property! America is going to have so much new seafront property, everyone will be able to have some. You will all win! You will win so much you will get tired of it. And when you get tired of winning, enjoy sitting on the beach. No need to thank me.

Re: We knew this going in

[Anonymous Coward]

Unluckily for us, everyone doing this type of "research" is a brain dead soft scientist which everyone knows translate as "not smart enough for engineering school."

Science requires prediction. They simply dont have the ability to predict it because their understanding of the big picture, earth, isnt complete.

Re: We knew this going in

[Anonymous Coward]

Better than the woman who presented Putin with a button marked "overload" in the name of resetting relations with Russia...

Re: We knew this going in

[Anonymous Coward]

You of course go straight for a fallacious argument.

Re:We knew this going in

[jbengt]

why should we continue to pander to China? What are they going to do, start a fight?

Yes. They consider Taiwan being part of China one of their few core issues that they are willing to start a war over.

Re: We knew this going in

[Anonymous Coward]

Frankly, dealing with climate change doesn't make sense until we deal with the supervolcano under Yellowstone. Because climate change theory depends on a reasonably stable understanding of the atmosphere, which would all go out the window if Yellowstone erupted destroying a good part of the United States and throwing huge quantities of ash into the upper atmosphere.

Work out the science for mitigating a supervolcano first, then come talk to me about limiting carbon, etc. Otherwise any measures you plan to take are minor noise level compared to the atmospheric changes that could be in play.

Re: We knew this going in

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing in this crazy woman suggests tath she would not respect the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction - Donald Trump will respect it?

Re:We knew this going in

[Anonymous Coward]

It was a fucking phone call, get over it.

Re:We knew this going in

[Xyrus]

Ok, so which is more important: everyone in the country slipping into poverty...

That has little to do with politics. That's plain old fashioned greed. The top 20% really don't need to have almost all the wealth. They really don't. And they certainly aren't using it to "create jerbs" or whatever lame excuse the right/alt-right is using to justify their multi-million dollar paychecks. And if you think Trump is going to do anything to prevent these greedy bastards from hoarding you really have another thing coming. King Crony and the fascism clan are already planning to remove taxes and regulation from businesses, with an eye on removing worker protections. His policies will wreck the economy and transfer even more wealth to the elite in the process.

He's going to use the presidency to make himself and his friends and family a huge bucket of cash. Anything else will be lip service and exaggeration just like the rest of his life.

terrorist attacks from immigrants next year, or...

You're an idiot. Heart disease alone is going to kill over a million Americans next year. Cancer will be a close second. Then you have car crashes, gun violence, and about a million other things that can kill you before you get down to "terrorist attack". Yet I don't see you or anyone else in a breathless panic about all the other things that have a much higher chance of killing you on any given day.

Terrorism is an irrational fear. If you voted for Trump because of terrorism fears, you've only demonstrated that you can be swayed by irrational rhetoric, which Trump is a master of.

Re:We knew this going in

[Xyrus]

He campaigned against Wall Street bankers running things and then nominates a Wall Street banker to run things. How's that swamp draining going?

Well it's gone from swamp draining to a backed up toilet.

Re: We knew this going in

[JackieBrown]

That battle that we here from democrats that every republican president will wage... yet so far, only Obama has actually taken extra steps to defund it.

Re:We knew this going in

[HaZardman27]

People's Republic of China.

Re:We knew this going in

[JackieBrown]

Really? All the people who see fake historical patterns between Trump and Nazi Germany can't see the historical pattern of letting countries get forcible annexed just to keep peace for our time

Re:We knew this going in

[Anonymous Coward]

He's draining the swamp and building a cesspit.

Re:We knew this going in

[Anonymous Coward]

>Do you get a free set of steak knives with your order?

Yes, but you are legally obligated to only use them on Trump steaks that are well done.

Re:We knew this going in

[dywolf]

Partial List:

Rorberbach (sp?) as Sec State, Putin's biggest cheerleader in congress.
Palin as Sec Energy
Harold Hamm as Energy, oil biollionare from OK who basically paid/extorted OK's earthquake researchers to blame anything else but fracking
Mary Failin as Sec Interior, after all, who better to be in charge of the park system, than someone loves to sell state land to private companies for profit
Carson as HUD
Sessions as Atty General, a man who thinks a) racism doesn't exist, b) civil rights laws are needed, c) has history of racist treatment of minorities, in charge of enforcing civil rights protections
Tom Price as HHS, a man who wants to end medicare/Medicaid/aca.
Devos as Sec Ed, a woman who want to kill the public education system and turn it into a profit driven industry
Mnuchin, as Treasury, a man who opposes all regulation of banking/wall st.
Ross as Commerce, who actively supports the idea of starting a trade war
Joe Arpaio as Homeland, a racist and recently fired sheriff who routinely violated prisoners rights
David Clarke as Homeland, sheriff for milwaulke who thinks all people who disagree with him/trump should be sent to Gitmo and have citizenship revoked
Sam Brownback as agriculture, the gov of Kansas who ran the state into the ground by making it a "red state utopia" of every conservative economic policy wet dream.

Re: We knew this going in

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you read your link? The only way that works is if one side believes the other side will actually use them.

Re:We knew this going in

[dcollins117]

I think compulsory voting would make room for a third party and avoid such obvious mistakes in the future.

I think if people can't be bothered to vote you don't want their vote. They clearly don't understand the importance of voting therefore likely ignorant of each candidate's policies and demonstrably incapable of making good decisions.

Re: We knew this going in

[fastest fascist]

Climate change is an existential threat to the whole species. None of the issues you listed even begin to compare in severity.

Re:We knew this going in

[dywolf]

china is an ascendant power.
they have the worlds largest economy.
they have the worlds fastest growing economy, growing at 8% GDP year after year for the past 14 years or so, including during the global recession.

they even surpassed the US in Purchasing Power Parity , giving rise to a new ascendant middle class in their country.
many European nations had already done so, having more social programs that support people and so stretch their money further.
But the fact china, seen still as a 3rd world hell hole by many (ignorant) americans, has also done it now.

China has in fact been a bit help with NK, being one of the few countries capable of restraining them, that NK is willing to listen to.

Start a fight?
Yes.
They very well might.

Learn your history, specifically Thucydides’s Trap.

We risk China being the Athens to our Sparta, even without Trump throwing all diplomatic caution to the wind.
Hint: it didn't turn out well for Sparta, nor most of the rest of the greek peninsula.

Re: We knew this going in

[fbobraga]

I can speak for Brazil: very few doubt about global warming being real or not, here...

Re: We knew this going in

[Anonymous Coward]

Since the supervolcano is currently not doing anything to change the climate, what do we need to do about it? Start it blowing up????

Re:We knew this going in

[fbobraga]

The man burns everyone who trusts him.

Ah, a real business man!

Re:We knew this going in

[fbobraga]

voting day on weekends may not cause any harm too...

Re:We knew this going in

[Jawnn]

We knew Trump had shortcomings, and still elected him - warts and all. We did it because he promised to fix certain issues that we felt were more important in the near term.

Holy shit. Only the most inattentive, uninquisitive, and gullible moron would have actually believed those promises. Now, weeks before he even takes office, Trum is already rubbing their ignorant noses in it. Or have you not been paying attention... again. He promised to save jobs, then conned Indiana's voters into paying 7 million dollars to send 1,300 jobs to Mexico, while "saving" a few hundred, and also while funding studies to replace those with automation. That's a shitty deal for those who thought he was going to be their salvation. So yeah, you're right. His actions are going to cause way more suffering in the short term than global warming. Of course, those short term things we might be able to actually fix.

Re:We knew this going in

[Anonymous Coward]

Uhm, I honestly have no idea from where you got this "historical pattern" idea or any relation of my post to WW2. Certainly not from my post.

FYI, an armed conflict between China and Taiwan into which the US is drawn is one of the most probable and most realistic possible causes for a third world war among all alternatives that are considered credible, and it has been studied and taken seriously by the US military for decades. China has always been extremely aggressive about this issue and there were several times in recent history when an invasion of Taiwan appeared to be imminent.

Re:We knew this going in

[skids]

We did it because he promised

Let me stop you right there. Meditate on that. A guy that conned people out of their life savings promised you something so you elected him.

Re:We knew this going in

[Grishnakh]

Oh please. You're probably right that she wouldn't put a goldman sachs billionaire with zero government experience in as head of the treasury, but not installing a GS alum, I don't buy it. She was good buddies with GS people, and Warren and Sanders had zero pull over Hillary. There's no limit to her tone-deafness; that's why she picked Kaine as VP, she hired DWS right after she resigned after being shown by WikiLeaks to have helped rig things in the DNC against Sanders, and she told Sanders supporters that she didn't need them. Picking a GS alum as her strategist (or some other position) would have been perfectly in-line with her tone-deaf actions.

Re:We knew this going in

[Grishnakh]

Not only that, but they're most likely just going to pick one of the main candidates anyway. This "we need compulsory voting" is an example of extremely wishful thinking. Forcing people to vote isn't going to force them to get informed or to care about their vote.

Re:We knew this going in

[harperska]

I heard he was considering El Chapo for heading the DEA.

Re:We knew this going in

[Anonymous Coward]

You're wrong about at least one thing... He said that in 2012... long before he ever campaigned.

Re:We knew this going in

[budgenator]

B) The reason for climate action today is not because it's going to affect us today. It's because every day of delay compounds the problem. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you're the type of person who changes their oil regularly and sticks to the vehicle maintenance schedule, because ignoring things until they become critical is costly and stupid....

If there really and truly were a reasonable chance that a catastrophic anthropologically caused climate change was occurring, wouldn't the people studying the problem be advocating an effective reduction in CO2 emissions on a Global Scale? The European Union is Reducing Emission, The United States is Reducing Emissions, Russia is Reducing Emissions; do you know who isn't, China is Increasing Emissions and India is Increasing Emissions! Every day of delay compounds the problem , but we'll let 2.5 billion people Reducing Emission, when they feel like getting around to it.

Re: We knew this going in

[0100010001010011]

You are correct. Some of us voted for Sanders in the Primary. We were told on facebook we weren't needed in November.

The DNC wanted their queen and they got it.

Re:We knew this going in

[khallow]

C) If I have to carry B)'s analogy any further, there's really no point in even responding.

Ultimately, this is where we go. It isn't the analogy that's the problem. It's the lack of evidence for the supposed seriousness of global warming, both the actual degree of warming and the cost of the supposed harm of global warming.

Poverty is such a serious threat because there is a well known correlation between poverty and high human fertility. And overpopulation already is a key driver of many big human problems like war, disease, habitat destruction, pollution, global warming, etc.

To claim that global warming is bigger than one of the biggest problems on Earth requires more than analogy, it requires evidence.

Re:We knew this going in

[oh_my_080980980]

I think the point moron is that we have been kicking the can down the road for the past 40 fucking years! At some point you need to start doing something. If we had started 40 years ago we would be in a better position. Now with all the delays, we will need to do something big which will have impact on people's lives.

It's the difference of a small change or a really big change.

Re: We knew this going in

[khallow]

Say that after the coming battle over the very existence of Social Security.

Why haven't Social Security payouts already been trimmed back by the necessary quarter or more to bring future liabilities in line with future revenue? It makes little sense to complain about fights over the existence of Social Security if no one has done anything for the long term viability of Social Security ever since its inception.

The dissolution of Social Security is inevitable unless one is willing to stabilize it fiscally.

Re:We knew this going in

[nasch]

My own belief is that Trump simply stepped in a pile of shit without malice of forethought or any forethought at all.

The phrase is actually "malice aforethought".

Re: We knew this going in

[Anonymous Coward]

thanks for a textbook example of "post-truth"

Re: We knew this going in

[Anonymous Coward]

nice attempt to move the goalposts beyond making sure people in the highest levels of our government have some baseline of contextually appropriate experience

Re:We knew this going in

[pnutjam]

Well, technically the Republicans could still block some of these nominations...

And someone help me find that horse, with all the horseshit in here there must be one.

Re:We knew this going in

[pnutjam]

Exactly, the recounts are paid for by the Green Party, who cares.
If GOP really thinks there is voter fraud, then they should be ecstatic.

Re:We knew this going in

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh wow really? And how will we grow that food we so badly need and have to have sooner when we can't grow anything thanks to the effects of climate change? Or are just going to feast on each other in the short term? A growing world population, more climate change that is affecting our ability to feed it....wait...what...the two are related?

Re:We knew this going in

[Anonymous Coward]

And yet when Trump appoints a military man to run the military or financial people to run financial things he's criticized and attacked for it. Make up your mind, champ.

It might make a difference if the military man in question hadn't been guilty of worse security breaches than the ones they attacked Hillary for or if the financial person wasn't instrumental in one of the biggest Wall Street screwups ever.

Re:We knew this going in

[Anonymous Coward]

So all we need to do is kick the Chinese into a well then.

Re: We knew this going in

[pnutjam]

Sure, that wasn't a necessary compromise to deal with an obstructionist Congress or anything...

Re:We knew this going in

[a_mari_usque_ad_mare]

Trump's voters are at the stage of the con where they start to wonder, "Odd, I thought that nice man would be back with my watch by now."

Re:We knew this going in

[phantomfive]

No, you are wrong. It's been planned for months. Here are some quotes:

Some of the GOP’s most ardent Taiwan proponents are playing active roles in Trump’s transition team.......Several leading members of Trump’s transition team are considered hawkish on China and friendly toward Taiwan, including incoming chief of staff Reince Priebus.

It was planned weeks ahead by staffers and Taiwan specialists on both sides, according to people familiar with the plans.

At the Republican National Convention in July, Trump’s allies inserted a little-noticed phrase into the party’s platform reaffirming support for six key assurances to Taiwan

Trump did the right thing. China should not be allowed to conquer Taiwan. Why would you think allowing that's a good idea?

Re: We knew this going in

[Nidi62]

Say that after the coming battle over the very existence of Social Security.

Why haven't Social Security payouts already been trimmed back by the necessary quarter or more to bring future liabilities in line with future revenue?

Because if a politician touches Social Security they commit political suicide. Most of the people drawing Social Security are the people most active in the political process: retirees. Since many of them don't work they are the ones working polls, canvassing, attending rallies and, most importantly, they are a significant number of the people actually voting. Touch Social Security and it will look like the Grey Dawn South Park episode.

Re:We knew this going in

[phantomfive]

Their answers exist

Lies.

"but the question is: how much?" = huge unknown.
"We should spend trillions of dollars" = political question, not a science question.

Re:We knew this going in

[vel-ex-tech]

He's not even in office yet, and he's already backed down from almost every major campaign promise he made - the great wall, "lock 'er up!", "drain the swamp", "ban the Muslims", "end Obamacare", and others. If those are some of the reasons you elected him, I would think that would give you some pause. Does it?

We'll see. One thing is for certain. It's looking like cannabis legalization will be halted with heavy-handed big government action, and Roe v. Wade will be overturned. And that will make them happy. At the very least, on the Roe v. Wade thing, I hope Women for Trump are fucking happy, because Roe v. Wade doesn't affect me personally in any conceivable (!) way.

Re:We knew this going in

[amicusNYCL]

We did it because he promised to fix certain issues that we felt were more important in the near term. Global warming will kill us, but, mass poverty will kill us sooner.

I sense a certain level of cognitive dissonance when I hear people suggest that a man who literally lives inside of a gilded tower with his name on it might push to solve poverty or has some keen sense of understanding of the problems of the common people. This person is a narcissist of the highest order, he's only interested in making himself look good. Hopefully he has enough of a desire for a positive legacy to actually address real problems with meaningful solutions, but I think a safer bet is that he's going to do something illegal just because he thinks he should be able to do that, and end up getting impeached for it.

Re: We knew this going in

[Anonymous Coward]

It's an even worse thought process when you follow it through:
All the people who think a business man needs to run the Govt. also want the government to be smaller.
But have you ever met a business man trained to make anything smaller? Absolutely Not! Business's are supposed to Grow that's what business men know how to do: make things bigger. It's complete nonsense when you apply the slightest logic.

Re: We knew this going in

[Anonymous Coward]

Hillary was obviously corrupt and knew how to get away with it to the point where we risked corruption becoming legitimized with more than just a wink and nod. Trump is likely corrupt, but will have difficulty getting away with it because the media hates him and he has less political experience and no filter. The choice was clear. The proper lizard for the next four years was selected.

Re:We knew this going in

[cyberchondriac]

Ah yes, getting rid of political corruption. Draining the swamp. I'm glad to see Trump is making great strides there, appointing Goldman Sachs alum left and right.

Left and right?? Other than Steven Mnuchin, for the Dept of theTreasury (and obviously the guy knows finance) who else in the cabinet is a Goldman Sachs executive/alumni?
Here's the list so far. None of these other than Mnuchin were affiliated with GS as far as I can tell. You can bet Hillary would've had more.

• Department of Defense: James N. "Mad Dog" Mattis
• Department of Treasury: Steven Mnuchin
• Department of Transportation: Elaine L. Chao
• Department of Health and Human Services: Tom Price
• Department of Commerce: Wilbur Ross
• Department of Education: Betsy DeVos
• United Nations Ambassador: Nikki Haley
• Department of Housing and Urban Development: Dr. Ben Carson
• Central Intelligence Agency: Mike Pompeo
• Attorney General: Jeff Sessions
• National Security Adviser: Michael T. Flynn
• Chief of Staff: Reince Priebus
• Chief Strategist: Stephen K. Bannon

Re:We knew this going in

[david_thornley]

Who said anything about letting China conquer Taiwan? Heck, is there a better way to get China interested in that than in favoring Taiwan?

Re: We knew this going in

[david_thornley]

As a guy who took Sanders advocacy to the level above the precinct caucus, I seem to remember him urging us to support Clinton, which I did.

Re:We knew this going in

[david_thornley]

Let's see. The 97% figure was from observing papers that said something about climate change. Calling a year the warmest ever because it's measured as the warmest ever, and is statistically likely to be, is reasonable. If it bothers you, call it the warmest year measured, since we have no measurements that exceed it. You're clueless about Antarctic ice,I see. Land ice seems to be melting, and this produces less saline water on the ocean, which freezes easier.

The conclusion is that you like to talk trash about things you have an irrational attachment to but don't understand. Got it.

Re:We knew this going in

[david_thornley]

Right. We'll have a crack team of climate scientists overthrow the Chinese and Indian governments. We'll start tomorrow.

Re:We knew this going in

[ChrisMaple]

Trump's re-engagement with Taiwan is the most brilliant move in global politics since Reagan collapsed the USSR. It's time to shut down the pus-filled facades of tyrannies.

Re:We knew this going in

[ChrisMaple]

Since when is government experience a good thing? It's like experience in a brothel.

Re:We knew this going in

[ChrisMaple]

The federal land grab in the West is a national shame. If Failin reverses it and the government makes money in the process, it will be a tremendous boon for the country. Your evaluation of Joe Arpaio is libelous. If Price shuts down Medicare/Medicaid/ACA, it will mean an effective 20% boost in the wealth/income/productivity of America.

Re:We knew this going in

[pipingguy]

Have another bong hit, duuuuude.

Re:We knew this going in

[dbIII]

I think if people can't be bothered to vote you don't want their vote

That way eventually leads to revolt once those people whose votes you do not want build up into a majority and decide to involve themselves in the political process by force.
Of course the gun nuts have wet dreams about that sort of stuff, but they don't understand that most of them would be among the corpses if things go that far to shit.

Re:We knew this going in

[LordLucless]

For example: appointing an unqualified person to a position of power because that person's actions are likely to benefit you, even though those actions may not be best for the country.

But that would be just as corrupt if the person was qualified - it's not their qualification or lack thereof that makes it corruption, its the fact that they're being appointed to benefit you, rather than the country.

Re:We knew this going in

[dbIII]

It seems to result in a wider range of choice where it is done. Plus that "force" is typically an empty threat of a possible small fine, but that's enough in some places to get most people to turn up.

Re:We knew this going in

[ChrisMaple]

China has more than 3 times the population of the US. Having more than 1/3 of the US's per capita income is nothing to brag about.

Your Athens-Sparta analogy to China-US is backwards, and the Atlantic article is based on inessentials instead of fundamental characteristics. Sparta was a very rigid militaristic society with enforced poverty, in many ways similar to China (at least China in 1970). Athens was much freer, with some wealthy individuals, and to the degree to which comparisons may be made over the time gap, more like the US than China. Neither was large enough to be a dominant military power by itself, each had a large number of allied city-states.
Alas, Sparta won the Peloponnesian War, but the reasons are irrelevant to today. The causes of the Peloponnesian War look more like the causes of WWI, and need not be the causes of new global war today. There are too many confounding factors to make that sort of prediction.

Re:We knew this going in

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd guess most people who voted for Trump didn't do so because they *really* wanted him - it's because they thought Hillary was a worse choice. So if you point out his many flaws, Trump supporters will respond with Hillary's because Hillary's flaws are the reason Trump won.

Really though, this discussion is completely irrelevant. The constant back and forth bickering of the voters is the real reason that our country is in trouble. The media, the Democrats, and the Republicans have played you all against each other. You're being manipulated. Want proof? If you weren't being manipulated, then why were the final choices for President Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump? Do you really think that's the best we have? Wake up.

Re: We knew this going in

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do you say that? Why do you trust and reap the benefits of science when it comes to medicine, electronics etc but not this one field? What special insight do you have that thousands of the greatest scientific minds who have made this their life's work have somehow missed?

Re:We knew this going in

[ChrisMaple]

Their answers exist

and are mutually contradictory.

Re:We knew this going in

[ChrisMaple]

It's a matter of responsibility. I am responsible for acting in a manner that doesn't cause me to get heart disease or cancer. It's not the government's responsibility to do that. It is the government's responsibility to protect me from all enemies, foreign and domestic.

Re: We knew this going in

[ChrisMaple]

Certainly. Some time in the next trillion years the Earth's climate will be incapable of supporting human life.

Re:We knew this going in

[ChrisMaple]

Consider the alternative, a woman whose only way to stop lying was to stop speaking.

Re:We knew this going in

[gumbi west]

Don't forget the potential Secretary of State nominee who had to tell his parole officer that he was considering a new job (no joke).

Re:We knew this going in

[Aisha.Washington]

The generation which gleefully tells anyone who will listen that they are "too selfish to have children", desperately, DESPERATELY cares about the climate my great-grandchild will be exposed to.

Makes perfect sense.

I mean, every day I walk to work, and I see the good progressive people of Seattle step over homeless folks, offering nary a look. But these same people care very, very, very passionately about the weather homeless people will have to endure in 50 years.

Either that, or they desperately want to be part of the group which has all of the disposable income, and makes all the movies, and which staffs all the keen professorships, and carries Macbooks around ... we're herd animals and we'll believe damn-near anything to belong.

Nah, they care about my grandchildren. That's what I believe. No, really, I do. It makes the most sense.

Re:We knew this going in

[guises]

No, appointing a qualified person would benefit everyone, including yourself presumably. That is not corrupt. It's only when you do things to benefit yourself to the exclusion of others that you're crossing that line.

Re: We knew this going in

[0100010001010011]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

During an April 2016 MSNBC appearance, Sen. Bernie Sanders stated it was incumbent upon Hillary Clinton to earn the votes of his supporters.

(She didn't)

Re:We knew this going in

[phantomfive]

Who said anything about letting China conquer Taiwan? Heck, is there a better way to get China interested in that than in favoring Taiwan?

......so says you and everyone who didn't know about Taiwan three weeks ago......

Re: We knew this going in

[drinkypoo]

Hillary was obviously corrupt and knew how to get away with it to the point where we risked corruption becoming legitimized with more than just a wink and nod

Becoming? You must be new.

The choice was clear. The proper lizard for the next four years was selected.

He actually hasn't been selected yet, though of course I presume that he will be.

Re:We knew this going in

[Anonymous Coward]

Wanna know how I know you're a conservative? Because you are taking a literal reading of his statement. You guys are always too literal and bite on one stupid nitpick because you don't have anything better to argue. It's like how many gun debates get totally off track cause some Sheldon-like bastard starts a flame war because someone called it a clip and not a magazine so their entire argument it shit. There's a fallacy on the wiki about that btw. MFer up there is talking in innuendo and you aren't catching the drift. Yes, he has literally only appointed one, but that one is an example that refers back to the "draining the swamp" comment and not the Goldman Sachs part. That has an implied "like" Goldman Sachs. Everyone on that list you provided has some shady shit going on that appears antithetical to the desired outcome that t-dawg has publicly stated. You probably also already know all this and are simply being a know-it-all, a Mr Technicality if you will. You know what he meant and are being purposefully facetious.

Re:We knew this going in

[skids]

Since Trump lied more than even Hillary, we can cancel out the terms:

Consider the alternative, a woman whose only way to stop lying was to stop speaking.

This leaves:

Consider the alternative, a woman

...and thus, the mask is removed.

Re:We knew this going in

[david_thornley]

Hopefully he has enough of a desire for a positive legacy to actually address real problems with meaningful solutions,

I was hoping for that, but his Cabinet choices, among other acts since the election, indicate that he doesn't.

Re:We knew this going in

[Anonymous Coward]

This is perhaps the most brilliant comment I've read regarding the election. I am sooo stealing it.

Re:We knew this going in

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd be willing to bet thousands of dollars that you've just made this up and have never, ever in your life read even just a single article about climate change in a reputed scientific journal. That's the problem with turning matters of fact into political topics (for no rational reason, but at the involuntary service of powerful lobby groups).

Re:We knew this going in

[david_thornley]

I assure you that {me} and {people who didn't know about Taiwan three weeks ago} are a completely disjoint set, and I've been aware of the situation for over forty years now. The mainland Chinese government considers Taiwan to be part of China, and the government in Taiwan agrees. China allows the situation to exist currently, but does not have diplomatic relations with countries that have diplomatic relations with Taiwan. My read is that China is willing to let Taiwan continue to be de facto independent for now, and I'd hate to change their minds. I'd also not want the US and China not to have diplomatic relations.

Re:We knew this going in

[phantomfive]

My read is that China is willing to let Taiwan continue to be de facto independent for now, and I'd hate to change their minds.

They are not 'willing,' they have no choice. When they start making threats, the US sends a carrier into the straits to defend Taiwan.

Re:We knew this going in

[Anonymous Coward]

Trump's re-engagement with Taiwan is the most brilliant move in global politics since Reagan collapsed the USSR.

So a total bogus hokum that didn't happen, yet people believe it was good since they completely forgot cause and effect?

Reagan rebuffed Gorbachev. It was his advisors who took advantage of his growing senility to try to defuse that.

Re:We knew this going in

[Rakarra]

True, but Trump does that as well. He gives jobs to friends, people who helped him out and the owner of his favourite media organization. [boingboing.net]

The guy is incredibly corrupt. His only criteria for assigning jobs seems to be who as bought their way in with favours.

I'm not sure of that either. He doesn't seem to reward loyalty either, as the two most loyal guys close to him, Chris Cristie and Rudy Guilliani, are either kicked out or on the ropes.

Re:We knew this going in

[Rakarra]

Reagan rebuffed Gorbachev. It was his advisors who took advantage of his growing senility to try to defuse that.

Reagan could have rebuffed Gorbachev, but like with Kennedy and Khrushchev, what is said in public is different from what is said in private.
It was Margaret Thatcher who convinced Reagan to deal with Gorbachev ("we can do business together"), and their first meetings were quite productive.

Re:We knew this going in

[Rakarra]

Hillary lost. Get over it.

sin sear lee, AC

You're strawmanning again. You keep bringing Hillary into the debate, the GP was talking about Trump's cabinet, not Hillary's.
If someone doesn't like Trump's cabinet, the counter to that is NOT "but Hillary would be worse." That is the lowest bar you could possibly set.

Re:We knew this going in

[cyberchondriac]

No, facts are facts. One can justifiably level many arguments against the Orange One but he is not filling his cabinet up with Goldman-Sachs exec, lobbyists, or white nationalists. If anyone gets way too literal, it's people on the left who hang on every tweet he makes.

Re:We knew this going in

[Rakarra]

There's no limit to her tone-deafness; that's why she picked Kaine as VP

Eh? I think most people might admit that this was maybe the only good move she made.
I'd believe many Democrats wish they were voting Kaine for President rather than Hillary.

Re:We knew this going in

[Rakarra]

So all we need to do is kick the Chinese into a well then.

It was a cute scene, but in the end that decision didn't work well for the Athenians who were all slaughtered.

Re:We knew this going in

[Rakarra]

Really? All the people who see fake historical patterns between Trump and Nazi Germany can't see the historical pattern of letting countries get forcible annexed just to keep peace for our time

Yeah, Trump should be really taking it to Putin for Russia's forcible annexing of parts of the Ukraine. Something tells me that's not going to happen.

Re:We knew this going in

[Rakarra]

If there really and truly were a reasonable chance that a catastrophic anthropologically caused climate change was occurring, wouldn't the people studying the problem be advocating an effective reduction in CO2 emissions on a Global Scale? The European Union is Reducing Emission, The United States is Reducing Emissions, Russia is Reducing Emissions; do you know who isn't, China is Increasing Emissions and India is Increasing Emissions! Every day of delay compounds the problem , but we'll let 2.5 billion people Reducing Emission, when they feel like getting around to it.

This is pretty much the reason why George W. Bush backed the US out of the Kyoto accords -- it was slanted to punish the first world, while India and China had no imposed limits. In other words "the US has to pay for the rest of the world to modernize, because the US has money to spare, right?"

Re:We knew this going in

[Anonymous Coward]

True, but Trump does that as well. He gives jobs to friends, people who helped him out and the owner of his favourite media organization.

The guy is incredibly corrupt. His only criteria for assigning jobs seems to be who as bought their way in with favours.

And Hillary is, what, *credibly* corrupt?

OK. I'm hanging up now.

Re:We knew this going in

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, so which is more important: everyone in the country slipping into poverty and terrorist attacks from immigrants next year, or...

Global warming, only [our] part of which can fixed by us, is driven by political corruption, and won't affect us for a couple of decades?

Gee... I don't know... how much do you love your children, and how much do you think the money you make right now is going to help you in retirement age when farmland turns to waste and the political and economic strife hits from mass migrations of human populations from areas of the globe too hot to live in anymore?

Re:We knew this going in

[LordLucless]

No, appointing a qualified person just means they have been determined to have the skills required to do the job. It doesn't mean they'll actually be good at it. For example, Fiorina was qualified to run HP (education, experience, etc) but ran it into the ground.

Re:We knew this going in

[Grishnakh]

Sorry, no. She royally pissed off all the Bernie voters with that move (plus hiring DWS). This election was basically about establishment vs. non-establishment. People who wanted a big change were screaming for either Trump or Bernie, because they were both non-establishment. Hillary did absolutely nothing to get the Bernie voters back on her side after winning the primaries (or is it "winning" the primaries?), except getting Bernie to stump for her which just wasn't enough after she picked the most pro-establishment democrat she could find to be her running mate. So lots of Bernie voters either sat out the election, or voted 3rd party, or possibly even for Trump.

Of course, Trump seems to be picking a bunch of establishment people to surround himself with (including his VP), but that's another issue. I never said the anti-establishment Trump voters were smart.

Re:We knew this going in

[Rakarra]

You have a point. I suppose Bernie would have been a more interesting pick.
On one hand, I was happy that she chose someone I'd have rather had as President, but that probably says more about my expectations for her than anything else.

Re:We knew this going in

[Grishnakh]

She didn't even have to pick Bernie; there's other not-so-establishment people should could have picked out of the Democratic party. Elizabeth Warren for one, would have been an interesting choice as then they'd have had two women on the ticket, with the VP pick at least being fairly popular among the progressives and Bernie voters. I honestly think even doing this would have won her the election, as it probably would have brought more young voters to the polls, hoping that Hillary would croak early on leaving Warren in charge.

Re:We knew this going in

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok double down on the derp, you're conservative after all, that's kinda your thing. I was ready to concede the argument to you and would have if you didn't elaborate. Originally we were just talking about GS execs, but you had to follow that up with lobbyists and white nationalists. Google each one of the names you put in the list and tell me they aren't a lobbyist. Bannon is a white supremacy nationalist. Carson is probably the only person on that list who isn't a lobbyist or supremacist.

Re:We knew this going in

[JackieBrown]

That's up to Obama. He's the president

Re:We knew this going in

[cyberchondriac]

None of those are "supremacists". I'm not crazy about Bannon, but I don't see any valid evidence he's quite as bad as the accusations being leveled against him. The whole anti-semite thing was debunked. You must be a liberal. I'm a moderate conservative, but I'm afraid I don't see "conservative" as an insult the way you do.

Re:We knew this going in

[david_thornley]

So, what do they do when there's a US carrier there? They can attack Taiwan, and let the USN decide whether to start a war with China. If the carrier does intervene, the Chinese can attack the carrier task force. China can doubtless at least neutralize the task force by throwing in enough air superiority fighters. A surprisingly small portion of the capabilities of a carrier task force is available for offensive operations, considering its cost and structure.

Alternatively, China could skip the threats and head right in to the invasion, trying to have a fait accompli before a carrier can arrive.

So, yes, China does have options that involve the conquest of Taiwan. They haven't exercised them. We don't want to make them determined to do so.

Re:We knew this going in

[phantomfive]

We don't want to make them determined to do so.

They're determined to do so.

Re:We knew this going in

[harperska]

It's official. http://www.newyorker.com/humor...

Re:We knew this going in

[Rakarra]

Boy, I think Warren would have turned her down (and for we know, she might have). I don't think Elizabeth Warren would want her political career hitched to Hillary's cart. Maybe she wasn't ready; she refused to run.. was it because she wasn't ready? She thought she would have a better chance as a senator? She didn't want to run against Hillary? If the latter, I'll bet she's regretting that decision now..

Re:We knew this going in

[Grishnakh]

Running against Hillary probably wouldn't have gotten her anywhere anyway; Bernie tried it and look where it got him. The DNC had everything rigged in Hillary's favor, so Warren wouldn't have had a chance there. Maybe that's why she didn't want to run. But if offered a VP spot, that might have gotten her interest because then she wouldn't have had to run against Hillary, and would have at least been able to supposedly have an effect on Hillary's positions. Maybe she wasn't ready, but it's not like she's some youngster either, she's in her 50s or 60s now I think.

Re:We knew this going in

[david_thornley]

If they're determined, why haven't they? Mainland China is capable of upsetting the situation, but they don't.

Re:We knew this going in

[phantomfive]

If they're determined, why haven't they?

What do you think? Can you not think of any possible reasons?

Re:We knew this going in

[budgenator]

Plenty of people are arguing the Anthropogenic Global Climate Change is an existential threat, wouldn't sacrificing 2.5 billion to save the remaining 5 billion fit their social engineering agenda; sacrifice the few for the benefit of the many?

Re:We knew this going in

[david_thornley]

Sure I can think of reasons why not. They're not all that compelling. My conclusion is that the PRC is willing to accept the status quo for now, and probably for a long time, unless the situation changes. Recognizing the Republic of China, or having some sort of diplomatic relations with them, costs the PRC face and raises the danger that Taiwan will become harder to conquer in the future.

Re: We knew this going in

[Coren22]

In your opinion perhaps, but not in everyone's opinion. Hillary screwed up in politics in a pretty major fashion. She also showed a complete disreguard for classified information. Personally, I didn't vote for Trump either, but in my mind, he was far ahead of her in every fashion.

Re: We knew this going in

[Coren22]

Why do you say that? I haven't heard of anyone wanting to end Social Security. SS needs to have a course correction before it becomes insolvent, but frankly, most of us paid into SS, and deserve to be paid out from SS.

Re:We knew this going in

[phantomfive]

Sure I can think of reasons why not. They're not all that compelling.

Because they don't want to risk war with America. You don't find that reason at all compelling? Really?

Re:We knew this going in

[david_thornley]

How much is the US going to risk war with China over Taiwan? That's the big question here.

Re:We knew this going in

[phantomfive]

How much is the US going to risk war with China over Taiwan?

When it comes to Trump, your guess is as good as mine.

Breitbart to Weather Channel:

[Anonymous Coward]

*Take a chill pill and shut the fuck up! We're making money with this shit. We can cite anybody we want.*

Re:Global Warming seems lesser since Trump

[Layzej]

We've just seen the hottest November on satellite record. http://blog.hotwhopper.com/201...

It's freezing outside

[Anonymous Coward]

Where's your climate change theory now?

only cold over land .. eh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Warmist droolers care, but I don't care what temps are over the ocean. Mebby wet-hots kill a few polar bears ... but they would kill me and the dead California sea-rats ... fuck 'em for eating my crustacia. So pad're find an ice-floe moving south. Get on. It's hot out there .

Cherry picking data, you say?

[DNS-and-BIND]

My, cherry picking data to support a pre-existing conclusion? Where did anyone get that idea? Oh, right the mainstream media uses this tactic all the time.

If we were only as skeptic and hostile towards the MSM as we were towards alternative media and citizen journalists. The MSM is frightened as it has never been frightened before. People are reading the news without their hostile filter and it's a scary new world out there. What's the point of being a journalist if you can't bias reality in the guise of "providing context"? They went to J-school to change the world, not to be some kind of impartial fact recorder, like a baseball umpire calling balls and strikes.

"Media which got everything wrong will now tell you all the things that will happen as a result of the thing they said wouldn't happen."

-- Dave Rubin

Re:Cherry picking data, you say?

[DogDude]

Oh, please. "Citizen journalists" are citizens without the training or knowledge to be journalists. The "biased MSM" garbage is largely just that: garbage. Shove it up your ass. Assholes like you either believed the Trump bullshit, or encouraged other and/or encouraged other dim bulbs to believe that bullshit, putting us in the horrible place we are in now.

Human-caused global warming is a serious problem.

Re:Cherry picking data, you say?

[Mashiki]

Considering that they don't teach journalism anymore? They only teach political propaganda and how to write in order to sway your point of view while ignoring objectivity. In the last decade, some of the most egregious offenders of "journalism" have been those with actual degrees like Ezra Klien and Sam Biddle.

Assholes like you who'd rather use the media as propaganda mouth pieces in order to sway people into the "right kind of view" or "right kind of thinking" are the reason why Trump won. Learn from it, or you can learn the real hard way when it all burns down around you. People will only put up with propaganda for so long before they grab the torches and pitchforks. For example, ask Germany and the rape-and-murder of a teenage girl. Many people knew the media was lying over the migrant crimes, it only took someone with a high profile and a family member being slaughtered before everyone started coming out against the system in play.

Re:Cherry picking data, you say?

[Anonymous Coward]

This post is the necessary counterpart to the "fake news" narrative (as the original post itself is, see the "department" tag.) It's meant to discredit any information that doesn't come from The Anointed Ones, an effort to maintain the influence of designated propaganda channels. It's far too little, far too late, but that only increases the zeal with which they push their lies.

Re:Cherry picking data, you say?

[hyades1]

I couldn't have said it better, my friend. Every asshole in the world thinks they can report a news story. Most of them are wrong.

And the stunned cunt you're replying to isn't even aware that the problem with mainstream news media is that reporters aren't allowed to do their job. Risk-averse lawyers and bean counters decide what stories will be covered, and their drivers are profit from high ratings and fear of getting hit with a lawsuit by a somebody with deep pockets and a hatred of having their evil exposed.

Re:Cherry picking data, you say?

[Anonymous Coward]

If a doctor does a bad job and kills your child because a beancounter wouldn't let them do it the correct way, it is not the beancounter that is the murderer.

Re:Cherry picking data, you say?

[hyades1]

Ridiculous false analogy based on an apples/oranges comparison.

You fail.

Re:Cherry picking data, you say?

[Yunzil]

People are reading the news

Almost. The problem is that people are reading other "news".

Re:Cherry picking data, you say?

[jodokast98]

You can bet the beancounter is probably just as liable in a malpractice suit, due to their negligence in the situation.

Re:Cherry picking data, you say?

[SoftwareArtist]

I'm trying really really hard to strip away the sarcasm and insinuation from your post and figure out what you're trying to say underneath it all. I think you're claiming mainstream news sources are less honest or accurate than Breitbart. Is that it? If so, could you please justify that claim? I don't mean more name calling and innuendo, I mean specific concrete facts to back up your claim. And keep in mind that you posted in response to an article in which Breitbart clearly and intentionally distorted the facts, and got called out for it by the very source they were citing to justify their claims.

Re:Cherry picking data, you say?

[GonzoPhysicist]

If that's so then why would the alternative news sources be any more trustworthy? They seem to have even more at stake to politicize and skew to their point of view.

Re:Cherry picking data, you say?

[ChrisMaple]

The only journalist I've ever known personally wore a shirt with a black panther "kill whitey" fist on it. Nope, no bias there.

Re:Cherry picking data, you say?

[Anonymous Coward]

It won't be a democrat or liberal standing there holding the torch when it caches fire either.

Re:The Founder

[Anonymous Coward]

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/rIRJSTGOPkPWuofaFewb2osbq9a4mZSe85jGH9zH1-V3oXfFr0RSX2DHMFTrxRc-_BIov8Rk9UJrVqtLrOwfFobGugW-TPwxtrOPgkC-yxp-yJd9Qvk36bVBCUyf5UhF

If your belief system is so weak...

[Anonymous Coward]

If your beliefs are so weak that they can't survive one word: Skeptic, then you're wrong.

Are you one of the President Ponzi faithful?

Re:If your belief system is so weak...

[hey!]

I have no problem with my belief system, which is evidence-based and falsifiable. I do have to live with people who are intellectual sheep but who've been deluded into believing they're free-thinkers.

Re:The Founder

[Anonymous Coward]

So you make a case that a _reporter_ of weather is a climate sceptic and dismiss all the _researchers_ of weather and climate that says otherwise.
I cannot see why we should listen to John Coleman based on his credentials.

One thing's for sure

[93 Escort Wagon]

The immediate vicinity of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is going to get a lot hotter once Meliana moves in. /rimshot

Re:One thing's for sure

[stabiesoft]

Except I don't think she is coming for 2 reasons. First, there is no way that woman still sleeps with that fat orange pig. Second, it is a step down from the gold leaf walled castle she sleeps in now.

Re:One thing's for sure

[PopeRatzo]

The immediate vicinity of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is going to get a lot hotter once Meliana moves in.

Melanomia already said she's not moving to the White House. She has to stay in New York because she's banging Carmelo Anthony.

Re:One thing's for sure

[Anonymous Coward]

First, there is no way that woman still sleeps with that fat orange pig.

Women will do for money things you can hardly imagine. So will men. Don't believe me? Go check out redtube, youporn, xvideos or xhamster.

Re:One thing's for sure

[Anonymous Coward]

The immediate vicinity of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is going to get a lot hotter once Meliana moves in. /rimshot

You can keep her. In close-up photos, she looks like a man with female features.

The last real woman in the White House was Laura Bush.

Re:One thing's for sure

[Anonymous Coward]

Ha, going by those sites, they'll also do almost anything for free.

I like how this is just now a problem

[nimbius]

When neoconservatives spread outright fabrications and lies about obamacare, nobody took the time to correct them. When they spread lies about the iraq war, we just went along for the ride. when they bullshit their way through school vouchers for religious schools and tax breaks for the rich we never seemed to care, and when they launched an all out ban on abortion and started jailing women for miscarriages nobody seemed to bat an eyelash. When they stood firmly against gay marriage and firmly against trans rights, it was unfortunate but all we could do was hope for a boycott.

but oh god, now that Hillary has lost the election its a coalition the likes of which weve never seen. Every media conglomerate, every online site, every technological oligarch is now combining forces to fight even the most mundane attempts --breitbart-- at conservative shilling. the conservative brand is being labelled alt-right fake news, and anything so much as potentially bullshit is being hammered into the ground quickly and mercilessly. part of me thinks this would never have happened if we just gave the woman her damn dream job. then again, part of me cant seem to get past the fact that Trump is the only reason in 2016 we have this type of car-torching, block-wrecking catharsis against the brand at all.

Re:I like how this is just now a problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Some of us spent years fighting against the intransigent disingenuous pablum of the right.

There was a whole campaign against Mitt Romney's tendency to mendacity. Months were spent arguing about the Affordable Care Act.

Ok, I will grant that Nancy Pelosi chose a poor expression for that one, and they turned it against her, to the point where people can't even recognize the context of what she was saying, but that doesn't mean there isn't anything else was never challenged.

Oh well, perhaps the media will just spend their time asking "Why is the President lying today?" until it drives somebody crazy.

Re:I like how this is just now a problem

[Mashiki]

When neoconservatives spread outright fabrications and lies about obamacare, nobody took the time to correct them.

You mean like it would be astronomically expensive? That rates would go up, that you'd never keep your doctor? That health plans would disappear? That yes Virginia, death panels really do exist? Oh...those lies. That turned out to be facts, but the media wouldn't report on them.

Re:I like how this is just now a problem

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean like it would be astronomically expensive? That rates would go up, that you'd never keep your doctor? That health plans would disappear? That yes Virginia, death panels really do exist? Oh...those lies. That turned out to be facts, but the media wouldn't report on them.

Posts like yours are why slashdot desperately needs a ::rolleyes:: emoji.

Re:I like how this is just now a problem

[Anonymous Coward]

> I like how this is just now a problem

Yeah, so?
You are correct, the right has been running what is essentially a disinformation strategy for decades. But in the past not just the left, but civil society in general, has believed in the ability of enough people to see through the bullshit. The election results have disabused them of that belief and so now recognizing that it is serious problem they are mobilizing to fix it. If Hillary or any of the qualified republican primary candidates had won they would have continued to tolerate the disinformation as just a fact of life in a democracy until the disinformation chalked up some other serious win.

Your complaint doesn't sound like much more than base conspiracy theorism. Its utterly normal to react to a problem in proportion to the effects of the problem.

Re:I like how this is just now a problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Have the death panels actually formed yet? I kind of thought they weren't actually in the bill, but were a natural consequence of things in the bill.

I have noticed a lot more editorials about the virtue of choosing not to be a burden to your loved ones (i.e. opting out of expensive treatments to prolong life for just a bit longer) and on the dignity of death versus the pain of struggling (expensively) against a serious condition.

Re:I like how this is just now a problem

[serviscope_minor]

... death panels ...

Wow there really is no conspiracy so nutso you won't fall for it. Also, jet fuel can't melt steel beams, but the power sources used by the Lizard-men can.

Can you provide me a link now which is utterly unrelated to the pint you're trying to prove? Pretty please?

Re:I like how this is just now a problem

[dbIII]

Trump declared war on the media and some of them have accepted his challenge. An MIT journalism professor had a lot of interesting things to say about it in a radio interview but I've lost track of details (no summary or transcript on the net). I'm sure more on this topic will turn up.

Re:I like how this is just now a problem

[drinkypoo]

Death panels are real. They are called insurance companies. They decide whether or not you will receive treatment on a cost basis. And the insurance companies are written right into the ACA. So yes Virginia, there are death panels. But they were not created by the ACA, only protected by it.

Re:I like how this is just now a problem

[Mashiki]

I do so enjoy showing you're an idiot. Don't worry if the media isn't telling you what you want to hear.

Maybe you can still keep your doctor?

Re:I like how this is just now a problem

[serviscope_minor]

Did not disappoint!

I'll give you this: you are consistent.

Re:I like how this is just now a problem

[Mashiki]

Facts have a reality bias. You ever figure out how to click on a link? Or are you still busy burying your head in the sand over them.

Re:I like how this is just now a problem

[Hulfs]

You have no clue what Advance Care Planning is, do you? This is mostly about creating an Advanced Directive so hospitals, doctors and your families know what your wishes are should you be in the unfortunate condition of not being able to make medical decisions for yourself due to an illness or accident. This is about laying out your desires to let them go to extreme measures to revive you (the default case) or if you choose letting yourself to pass so you're not laying around braindead and force the decision of what to do with you on your loved ones. Those are both extreme cases on the care spectrum and care planning involves much more than just this.

The reason it was written into the ACA is because you really do need a doctor to go over what can happen with you medically and what an Advanced Directive covers. Doctor's time is money and very few people are doing them, even though it really is a pretty important document to make for yourself, so the proposal in the ACA was to force reimbursement of that time by insurance to allow more people to fill out advanced directives. This is a good thing.

BTW...your first fortune link labels the "Death Panels" comment by Palin the biggest lie of the year. The second latimes link indicates the Death Panels comment was "universally discredited". In short, you are a moron and have been hoisted by your own petard.

Re:I like how this is just now a problem

[Anonymous Coward]

when you think you are making a provocative observation; you should probably consider you just weren't paying very close attention....

Re:I like how this is just now a problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you even bother reading those articles? Unless your intent was to prove serviscope_minor's point, in which case you succeeded. "Death Panels", as described by looney Palin and the rest of the fact-hating crowd do not exist, did not exist, and have not been proposed.

Re:I like how this is just now a problem

[budgenator]

That's not a Death Squad, It's a Resource Allocation Panel; they use the same thing at the VA where people die with maggots in their wounds.

Re:I like how this is just now a problem

[ChrisMaple]

Paraphrasing because it's too much trouble to look up the quote for an obvious liar:
Your grandma should just take a pain pill and wait to die - Barack Obama

Re:I like how this is just now a problem

[ChrisMaple]

That's the same MIT that has protected villains like Noam Chomsky and Jonathan Gruber. My alma mater, and I'm ashamed of it.

Re:I like how this is just now a problem

[dbIII]

villains like Noam Chomsky

I forgot that free speech is now a crime. What other bits of the Constitution are going to be criminal now in your opinion?

Re:The Founder

[Anonymous Coward]

Because looking at the data shows they're right?

How do you demand honesty

[rsilvergun]

if you're not able to tell the difference? Sure, maybe 20 million could and didn't care. But I'd say there's at least 40 million who couldn't...

Re:How do you demand honesty

[Anonymous Coward]

if you're not able to tell the difference? Sure, maybe 20 million could and didn't care. But I'd say there's at least 40 million who couldn't...

It's more or less the same thing as anything else computer related. Assume anything you read is a lie until proven otherwise. Check the pedigree of any web site you visit. Is the name really spelled correctly? Are you connecting via https as expected? Do not automatically assume just because it is on or linked from some site you visit that it is correct. Check the little i on your address bar to see what the web site is, look for misspellings, etc.

If you think a story is from a popular web site, but can't tell for sure, then you can always clear your cache and then reload your browser and go directly to the correct site. (Personally, I'd recommend not starting your news search at Facebook and all the rest, but that is another matter.)

Also, if you haven't already point your router to some legit DNS servers. Do not assume your ISP is providing your valid results. I personally use opendns servers, with google's as backup. It is debatable if I should leave google as the fallback, though it should I think only hit them if opendns fails to respond.

In fact, a DNS server that does some basic filtering is the first line of defense against a lot of crap, though I doubt it would help much here. Still, it is something. Adding ublock probably doesn't hurt either. A compromised system is liable to show anything fake as real. I suppose you could also make it a point to say reimage with an updated linux distro and keep it updated at least once a year, and of course occasionally change passwords of personal systems. Yearly wouldn't hurt, though i'm doubting much is really compromised that way.

Beyond all that, people need to double check any suspect or suspicious results. Google will generally tell you pretty quickly if it is a scam. Search for the topic plus scam or fake as a keyword and 24 hours or something like that. Of course you also have to be wary about fake sites saying real news is a scam, so always check the sources. One thing to be especially wary of is well established narratives. A lie is easier to believe if you can link it to a pattern of other similar things, but in today's world it is possible that pattern was made up of a string of false stories, with one lie building on the previous. Oddly enough wikipedia usually seems to be relatively neutral, eventually, though you may see wild edits on some things before an article is locked down. Check the revision history. If the article suddenly changed tone, well I think you can look at the author's other edits.

Look for the reason behind the likely lies. Sometimes it is not entirely obvious. There was probably enough fake news generated this election to shift the election for no other reason that to harvest the click money. Of course much of it had darker reasons, and some of it was brought attention to for darker purposes. As you might have read in a story like Naruto, Learn to look underneath the underneath. If you see a story that politician x is responsible for running a child slaver ring, well, unless you see it on a legit site complete with the police in pursuit, then suspect it is bs. Also, think things through. Is politician X stupid? Is he or she basically competent and intelligent? If so, why exactly would they be doing something so guaranteed to destroy their whole career? Occasionally Anthony Weiner's do happen, but it is certainly the kind of thing you want to double check.

Look for evidence of editing. Is a clip suspiciously short? Can you find the full length version? Was their context missing? Does the source have a reputation for editing things deceptively? Is the source credible at all? What other kinds of stories has the source been responsible in the past? It sholdn't be hard to check.

Actually even if you can't find a way to disprove a current story right away, you can often find reason to doubt

Re:How do you demand honesty

[Darinbob]

They didn't care that lies were told because they decided that their top priority was to get their guy elected, higher priority than doing what's right for their fellow citizens or the country. This is the worst aspect of politics, which already has so many negatives. The partisans pick sides and defend them no matter what, no matter how wrong they are, no matter how much it hurts, they assume that the only thing that matters is winning. It's like when the US made allies with some of the most brutal dictators in the world because they agreed to help fight communists and socialists and unions, because they felt that winning that political contest was more important than maintaining honor and decency.

There's also the group that just doesn't care about the lies. Logic and reason are tossed out because they think that the gut feeling is always right. I was on a jury once with a guy like this. All but him voted for not guilty, but he was convinced the guy was guilty. We went over the evidence point by point and showed that the prosecutor had a very weak case. But he just kept getting madder about all this, until he blurted out "well if he's not guilty of these charges at least he must be guilty of *something*". That's how I see a lot of voters, in all political parties, they stick with what their gut tells them.

And then the last group, they can't tell if something is a lie because they lack the ability to determine true from false. Their only information comes from what they are told and they won't bother trying to corroborate or investigate independently. Sometimes they'll justify it by saying "all media lies, so I refuse to believe anything the media tells me" while turning around and believing whatever their Facebook friends say. Other times they just don't know how to sift through information or differentiate between a story with shaky evidence and a story with good backing.

(and it doesn't help that most journalists have turned into walking tape recorders and only parrot whatever they hear politicians say)

Re:How do you demand honesty

[locofungus]

they assume that the only thing that matters is winning

This is, unfortunately, an inherent trait in humans.

There was, many years ago, a "competition" in Scientific American to win up to $1M

The rules were:
1. Random draw from all the entries received
2. You could enter as many times as you liked - to make this easier you could write multiple entries on a single postcard. (write the number of entries you wanted to submit on your postcard)
3. Final prize was $1M divided by the total number of entries.

It was estimated that there was in the order of 10K readers of the column. (Actually I think it was less than this but I can't be bothered to try and track down the columns again now) There had also been a detailed discussion of the prisoners dilemma and other related problems in the previous weeks.

It's immediately obvious that to win $1M you need to be the only entrant and send in a postcard with a single entry on it.

If every subscriber sent in a single postcard with a single entry on it then someone would win of the order of $100.

But some people sent in huge numbers - the postcard filled with '9's. Others went one better and put a 9 and then filled the postcard with '!'s (factorial). Others went even further.

IIRC the author (Douglas Hofstadter) wasn't actually able to determine who the winner was. He lacked the ability to randomly select from the total number of entries. He couldn't even tell which of the numbers was actually the largest.

However, whoever won, the number of entries was so large that the prize was zero for all intents and purposes.

Some people got it - some wrote in to say that they hadn't submitted an entry because they had metaphorically "tossed a coin" and lost and so allowed someone else to win a bigger prize. But so many people were more interested in winning nothing than someone winning something.

Re:How do you demand honesty

[Quirkz]

Hadn't heard that story before. That's fascinating. I wonder if besides being driven to win, some didn't understand that the prize would be divided by entries or, worse, don't understand division at all. Because a single person submitting *only* 100 million has already turned the prize into a penny all by themselves. Anyone going beyond that is guaranteeing that nothing will be paid out. Someone filling a postcard with 9's could have stopped at ten digits, because they'd already burned the whole contest to the ground.

Re:How do you demand honesty

[Anonymous Coward]

Douglas Hofstadter referenced "The Luring Lottery" in _Metamatical Themas_.

Re:How do you demand honesty

[UnderCoverPenguin]

Also, if you haven't already point your router to some legit DNS servers. Do not assume your ISP is providing your valid results.

Are you using a resolver that properly implements DNSSEC? Otherwise, you can't be sure your ISP isn't silently redirecting DNS (port 53) requests to it's own DNS servers.

Re:How do you demand honesty

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you missed the part where he said "But so many people were more interested in winning nothing than someone winning something." Technically your ponderings above could be valid but you ought to know by now people are assholes. People always forget about the Asshole Factor because it is hard to quantify. People are inherently selfish so if they don't get what they want, no one else will either. I think electing t-dawg there proves it.

Re:How do you demand honesty

[Quirkz]

I didn't miss that part, I just don't think that alone explains it. If they're just out to troll or destroy, they could write "1 trillion" and be done with it. Someone who takes upwards of five minutes writing nine after nine and giving themselves a hand cramp to do it ... I've got to think they thought they'd get money out of it, beyond someone calling them up and saying "you won nothing." And paying for the stamp to send in the entry, to boot.

In summary, I think it's slightly more likely they're dumb and don't understand, than that they're jerks or desperate to "win" nothing. Not all of them, maybe, but an 80-20 split at least. Well, maybe 60-40.

Re: The Founder

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL! The fabricated data shows they're right. The data that hasn't been doctored shows that the earth isn't getting warmer.

#1TermDonald

[tepples]

Though you appear to decry use of derogatory nicknames, it is among the rhetorical tactics of the apparent President-elect.* During his campaign, he used such a nickname for each of his opponents: Low-Energy Jeb, Little Marco, 1 for 38 Kasich, Lyin' Ted (which some of his supporters attempted to reclaim as Lion Ted), and Crooked Hillary. Now watch leftards turn the practice back at "One-Term Donald".

* Faithless electors could yet keep Mr. Trump from officially becoming President-elect on December 19. There are eight so far.

Re:#1TermDonald

[someone1234]

Electors not following the voters' will would set a very ugly precedent. Or, did this happen before? Was a winning president ever rejected by electors?

Re:#1TermDonald

[Falconhell]

Isnt that like the whole idea of having an electoral college? To prevent a popular but terrible candidate from getting in.
Why would it working as intended be a problem?

Re:#1TermDonald

[Anonymous Coward]

"One-Term Donald".

Half-Term Donald
Donald J Duck
Cheater Trump

* Faithless electors could yet keep Mr. Trump from officially becoming President-elect on December 19. There are eight so far.

John Kasich for teh win!

Re:#1TermDonald

[drinkypoo]

Electors not following the voters' will would set a very ugly precedent. Or, did this happen before? Was a winning president ever rejected by electors?

Not following the voters' will is the entire purpose of the electoral college. They have disagreed with the popular vote five times in history. The last time was this last time. Before that, the last time gave us a Dubya presidency. Tell us again what the EC should do, please.

Re:#1TermDonald

[Zak3056]

Though you appear to decry use of derogatory nicknames, it is among the rhetorical tactics of the apparent President-elect.* During his campaign, he used such a nickname for each of his opponents: Low-Energy Jeb, Little Marco, 1 for 38 Kasich, Lyin' Ted (which some of his supporters attempted to reclaim as Lion Ted), and Crooked Hillary. Now watch leftards turn the practice back at "One-Term Donald".

* Faithless electors could yet keep Mr. Trump from officially becoming President-elect on December 19. There are eight so far.

There is actually one, not eight. The seven people who already were not going to vote for Trump (because they're pledged to Hillary) don't count.

That said, "One Term Donald" sounds like a great nickname. Here's hoping.

Re:#1TermDonald

[tepples]

Donald J Duck

Be careful. Bringing a core Disney character to top-of-mind awareness could cause Mr. Trump to align with the entertainment industry even more closely than he already is and lead to yet another copyright term extension.

Re:#1TermDonald

[Anonymous Coward]

Election of 1876, it was clearly Tilden's, but Hayes was given the office. Arguably the Election of 1860, since many of the electors went to war themselves.

Re:#1TermDonald

[Grishnakh]

Your comment makes no sense at all. Why would it set an "ugly precedent"? Why do you think the Electoral College system even exists? If the Founders wanted the voters' will to be followed without question, they wouldn't have come up with the Electoral College at all, they would have just had a popular vote. Instead, they wanted to give more power to smaller states, and to remove the ability of the people to directly choose the President, so they invented the EC system.

If the Electors choose someone else for President, because they think the voters' choice is harmful for the nation, they'll be doing exactly what the Founders intended.

Re:#1TermDonald

[Anonymous Coward]

You're making a circuitous route around the truth though. They DO follow the popular vote... of the state they are representing. It is technically the states who vote in the Presidential election, not the people.

Re:#1TermDonald

[Anonymous Coward]

Vote no confidence, and call for an emergency re-election. Only this time Trump and Clinton are both disqualified (they created this mess together).

Let's be honest, neither of them needed to be in the oval office. We'd be better served by the janitor who cleans the oval office.

Re:#1TermDonald

[Nikkos]

Not following the voters' will is the entire purpose of the electoral college.

Uh, no. They're following the voters' will IN THEIR STATE. Trump won the popular vote in 30 of the states. Clinton won in 20 - including California, and that state's electors will vote for her.

Complaining about the unfairness of the electoral college while pining for the ONE state that gave her the extra 4 million votes to have the power to sway the election is just ludicrous.

Re:#1TermDonald

[Anonymous Coward]

>Not following the voters' will is the entire purpose of the electoral college.

This is a side effect, not the purpose. The PURPOSE was to combine an entire state's numbers into one value, (a winner take all), lest the multitudes of individual votes become too overwhelming to manage when combining all the states. Reduce each state to a value equating its population.

Now, to continue, the Elector is supposed to represent that value. To carry it forward like a delivery boy. But that is viewed as too low a duty by some office holders, who then lobby, argue, petition, and cry until they can get 'their way'. Read that again: 'their way', (or really their party's way).

When they've countered the popular vote it was always with great distain by the people upon learning of it, and a cock-block if anyone's ever seen one. Just because it's happened before does not make it right. Original purpose was to distill votes into a more manageable, trackable, comprehensible number to carry into a pool of other distilled numbers.

Re:#1TermDonald

[Anonymous Coward]

>Tell us again what the EC should do, please.

They should publicly announce their decision, wait to deliver it, and have to defend it against the popular vote.

Look, if the people watch debates and then 'make a decision'... well the person who can reverse that decision must go and 're-educate' of the people by highlight the debate's issues... and explain how the population must have misunderstood what the Elector is oh so enlightened on.

Legislation, paperwork, legal arguments- NONE can obscure common sense, and people will know when they've been dissed by the Elector. If their role is to intercept the population's voice they should translate it properly. And IF the official want to do otherwise, they damn well better publicly explain themselves before turning it in.

Re:#1TermDonald

[drinkypoo]

Original purpose was to distill votes into a more manageable, trackable, comprehensible number to carry into a pool of other distilled numbers.

They didn't need electors with the legal right to cast their vote any way they wanted to have a system that did that. All they would have to do in order to have that system is assign x number of votes to each state and then deliver those votes to whoever won the vote in that state. Obviously, they had some other intent, or they wouldn't have made a more convoluted system than necessary to accomplish that end.

Re:#1TermDonald

[ChrisMaple]

Madison's argument generally was that the federal government would be run by the best of the best. Thus, populace -> electors -> president has two stages of refinement in order to get that goal. Too bad it hasn't always worked out that well, but the process we use does have some other built-in advantages.

Re:#1TermDonald

[david_thornley]

The intent was to inject some judgment into the process. Federalist Paper 68 describes the intention in self-congratulatory detail, and specifically says the EC should prevent an unqualified but popular person from becoming President.

According to original intent, the Trump electors should vote for somebody actually qualified, not Trump.

Re:#1TermDonald

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, it has happened before. http://www.fairvote.org/faithl...
Many times. Most recent mass (more than 1 elector) "not voting for people's will" was Republicans in 1912 because of death of VP candidate.

That's not the only time, nor the only reason. Ten seconds of google really. You might want to look stuff up like that before "just asking questions"

Re:#1TermDonald

[Anonymous Coward]

Tell us again what the EC should do, please.

I think it's pretty clear they were talking about what would happen if enough Faithless Electors violated their pledges to award Hillary the Presidency. But you deliberately misunderstood because you never miss a chance to be an asshole.

Never

[Anonymous Coward]

Never Trump!

Re: Climate Alarmists In Full Metal Panic

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope. Liberals don't react to a loss in an election like Republicans do. A thief thinks everyone is stealing from him because he steals. A Republican thinks every Democrat is corrupt because Republicans are corrupt.

Stop quotng our facts to prove your point

[frovingslosh]

Northern Hemisphere temperatures have plummeted in the last six months proving global warming is fake news.

And, given that there is far more land mass in the northern hemisphere it seems obvious that global temperatures have plummeted also.

Re:Stop quotng our facts to prove your point

[PopeRatzo]

Northern Hemisphere temperatures have plummeted in the last six months proving global warming is fake news.

And, given that there is far more land mass in the northern hemisphere it seems obvious that global temperatures have plummeted also.

Who wants to be the one to break it to him?

Re:Stop quotng our facts to prove your point

[93 Escort Wagon]

I'm pretty sure he was being sarcastic.

Re:Stop quotng our facts to prove your point

[Anonymous Coward]

Northern Hemisphere temperatures have plummeted in the last six months proving global warming is fake news.

And, given that there is far more land mass in the northern hemisphere it seems obvious that global temperatures have plummeted also.

I had dinner tonight proving that claims people are hungry is fake news too.

Re:Stop quotng our facts to prove your point

[serviscope_minor]

How can you tell? The genuine deniers come up with far nuttier things here on a regular basis.

Poe's law, my man, Poe's law.

Re:Global Warming seems lesser since Trump

[PopeRatzo]

We've just seen the hottest November on satellite record.

You believe those leftard satellites and liberal thermometers? kek.

There is no real evidence for the laws of physics, just conjecture by Soros-funded so-called "scientists". It's all an SJW marxist plot, and the brave journalists at Breitbart have confirmed this, but of course, you don't want to see the truth because it doesn't fit your fact-based agenda.

Re: The Founder

[PopeRatzo]

LOL! The fabricated data shows they're right. The data that hasn't been doctored shows that the earth isn't getting warmer.

And pizzagate is real.

Re:Global Warming seems lesser since Trump

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently, enough Americans don't believe in these things as well, that's why chose an ape to lead your country for a third time since the beginning of the New American Century. Hopefully, this New century will be the one that sees the US gone by its own stupidity.

Re:I do not!

[pseudofrog]

And here again we see the goddamn problem. You're presented with a fair argument, outlined in easy-to-reply-to numbers, and your only response is "bu-bu-but Hillary lol."

Conservatives used to make serious arguments, sometimes reasonable, sometimes specious. Not anymore. What the fuck happened? Decades of right-wing radio and Fox News? Trump's magical promises to make literally everything better without ever explaining how? An addiction to #pizzagate-style conspiracy-mongering? Come on.

Re:Global Warming seems lesser since Trump

[ClickOnThis]

Alas, PopeRatzo forgot to add a /sarcasm tag, and was modded down.

Or maybe the moderator is a victim of Poe's Law.

Or maybe the moderator is not a victim of Poe's Law, but just doesn't like the fact that the essential practice of science is not political.

Yeh a Trumpette

[Anonymous Coward]

Lots of fine words, but it comes down to : evidence and facts are false because I don't want to believe them.

You IGNORE the evidence, you don't CHALLENGE the evidence. There's no hypothesis from you or your lot that can be tested. It's basically "la la la, I don't believe it because CO2 doesn't causes warming, and if it does, it doesn't cause much, or maybe we're not causing the CO2, or it will be beneficial increases in temperature..." lots of contradictory things.

Your choice of President-unelect is bankrupt. A simple look at his accounts shows you he's lying about almost every number in that Federal Election Disclosure. Comparing two sets of accounts (the ones disclosed in the US on tax disputes, and the ones reported in the UK, as required by British law, they don't match, he's a FRAUDSTER).

And I bet you were part of the minority of Americans who voted for him.

Re:Yeh a Trumpette

[hey!]

???

I think you meant to spew at someone else.

Re:Global Warming seems lesser since Trump

[Anonymous Coward]

We've just seen the hottest November on satellite record.

You believe those leftard satellites and liberal thermometers? kek.

Of course all right minded people believe them! But only when they show us the right numbers. When the satellites show less warming than land thermometers, we use the land thermometers and dismiss the satellites. When the satellite records are more enticing, we use the land records.

When someone quotes The Weather Channel, and the Weather Channel has to come back and say "All that stuff we said was wrong!", it isn't Breitbart that's embarrassed.

Re:I do not!

[EmeraldBot]

Here's the problem with that situation: If you're so fed up with political corruption, why the fuck are you defending the very people who are perpetuating the problem?

I do not defend or support Hillary Clinton in any way!

I really don't get it, to be honest. Your parent is right - Trump is EXACTLY the kind of person you claim he's supposed to deal with. Let me help you understand; we're going to 'trumpify' Hillary Clinton. She:

* puts NYT's head reporter on her cabinet team because he relentlessly supported her throughtout her campaign (which they didn't really btw, they had plenty of critical articles, and when they did it was largely based on facts and policy details, not publishing blatant lies)
* puts a guy convicted of selling state secrets to a hooker in a national security position
* built a luxury estate and then refused to pay the people who built it
* is completely dependent on Russian banks to not revoke her credit, actively serves them, and caves in on policy decisions to wealthy people
* refuses to release any tax returns or details on her finances

Honestly, I'm just getting started. Can you seriously compare Trump and Clinton, and then tell me that he's the model who's going to clear corruption? I'd argue he's faaaaar more corrupt than she is, because unlike her, he is completely dependent on the establishment for power - the instant he crosses the line, they can simply impeach him and replace him with Pence. And if Pence isn't the image of an establishment Republican, I think you're not really anti-establishment, but anti-democrat. Which makes you partisian, and that isn't really a necessarily a bad thing (even though I disagree with that philosophy), but don't even pretend that you want an outsider if that's the case.

And seriously, the whole Hillary thing has got to go. She's gone, you need to get over it, and deal with our current presidential canidate, the one with with blantant ties to the mafia. Do you honestly expect a man dependent on Putin, the mafia, and the existing establishment, to prevent any new form of corruption, let alone actually clear the existing situation out?

The one shining light in all this hell is Mrs. Ivanka, who actually seems to be pretty resonable and agrees with climate change, but we'll see how long that lasts.

The reasons I read /. for sure are changing

[Opportunist]

Years ago, I came here for insightful and informative exchange of arguments on a topic.Not that long ago, it was for witty and cynical but still topic commentary.

Today, all I come for is to watch the entertaining, ballistic mud slinging of Trump supporters and opponents. Independent of topic. But climate change themes sure add another layer of vitriol to it.

In movie terms, I came for the documentaries, stayed for the mocumentaries and now I'm here for the Michael Bay popcorn flick. I used to care about the story, but today, all I watch are the explosions, whether there is a script anymore or not isn't important, I'm just here to watch the pretty pictures and don't give a shit about the content anymore.

Re:The reasons I read /. for sure are changing

[MrKaos]

Years ago, I came here for insightful and informative exchange of arguments on a topic.Not that long ago, it was for witty and cynical but still topic commentary.

I can't remember ever seeing the amount of politiking that has been happening on /. lately, perhaps this is some new phase. Slashdot was discussing climate change long before Al Gore came onto the scene because it was science. There is only so much you can read before you say you accept that something is happening beyond the immediacy of your own senses.

I think because the coal and oil industry have so much resources they can buy or make any study they want, it confuses those in denial about the science into thinking that all science is politicized, instead of an observation about our world.

I suspect the inevitability of climate change will radically alter the political landscape.

Re:The reasons I read /. for sure are changing

[Anonymous Coward]

Amen, brother. Pass the popcorn.

Re:The reasons I read /. for sure are changing

[Nikkos]

I'm positive we're all Russian trolls paid for by both Soros and the Koch Brothers.

Re:The reasons I read /. for sure are changing

[eaglesrule]

Don't forget about the paid trolls and shills. According to that article:

In all, 140 foundations funneled $558 million to almost 100 climate denial organizations from 2003 to 2010.

Is it any wonder there are so many AC trolls and shills that are AGW deniers?

Re:The reasons I read /. for sure are changing

[MrKaos]

Thank you for the article.

Is it any wonder there are so many AC trolls and shills that are AGW deniers?

Absolutely, they've come here to disrupt the conversation. Slashdot came up on a white board, in some planning and strategy meeting, which was put on a list, then distributed to several n amount of paid shillers with a script, some of whom have gone to the trouble getting pseudonyms.

I usually browse at -1 but lately, it has been getting waaaaaaay too tedious to to find any original or sincere thought in there.

Re:The reasons I read /. for sure are changing

[Rakarra]

I feel like this is what came of adding the Politics section. All of that nonsense that was posted during the fallout from the Columbine Massacre, and then the "Bush Defeats Gore" story got far more comments than the previous record-holder. Slashdot editors found that politics stories got views and hits, and the technology decline on Slashdot began.

Re:The reasons I read /. for sure are changing

[Opportunist]

Here you go. Hope it's corny enough.

One thing I don't get is this

[Anonymous Coward]

Ice cores show that CO2 is cyclical, and we're in the upswing of the cycle. These cycles have historically been followed by glaciation (AKA ice ages). There were MANY times when CO2 concentration in the atmosphere was significantly higher than it is today (no lie, look it up; the highest recorded CO2 was 17x higher than what we have today), and yet the planet has not turned into Venus. How is it possible that: a). We had such high concentrations, b). The Earth not only did recover, it became much cooler during recovery. Does anyone know?

Re:One thing I don't get is this

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it doesn't show CO2 is cyclical. It shows that it varies. Dumbass.

17 higher is 4 doublings, and it was 6C warmer, whilst the sun was much less active, so that shows just what effect CO2 has: over 1.5C per doubling.

Nobody says the earth will turn into a Venus within the next few score million years.

And the questions? yes, someone knows. They wrote it up in the IPCC Reports. Go read it. Where you've looked clearly isn't sufficient to inform you.

funny

[Anonymous Coward]

I find it funny how quickly global warming advocates point out cherry picking in data when it does not support their claims. Especially with as many instances of cherry picking have been found in their own data.

Re:I do not!

[gumbi west]

Interesting that you think Clinton is corrupt. What makes you think that?

Hell

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a special circle of hell reserved for editors of the Daily Fail and Breitbart.

Re:Hell

[Damouze]

"Hell, where the softer bits of your nether regions, are everybody else's favourite lunch!"

Re:I do not!

[TheConway]

Why are you all talking about Clinton constantly whenever discussion of Trump comes up? Why can't you discuss Trump? Hilary is gone. I know that the dude can't just be doing it for the money that comes with the ties made through being in office, and with the massive ego he clearly has he is obviously not going to want people to look back on his presidency and say he was utterly crap at the job. What about discussing the jobs he claims he is going to be making? The improvements to infrastructure? Making the US more self sufficient? Yes there are a lot of potentially/definitely bad things that are going to come out some of his plans, like reopening huge numbers of coal mines, but it's time to discuss him, not the person he won against. If I were arrested for stabbing somebody I wouldn't rest my entire defence on somebody else stabbing 2 people the previous week. Get a fucking grip, America.

Nuance is the key

[Damouze]

Global warming is basically a misnomer. The concept of global temperatures rising in the past hundred years or so has been debunked many times now. However, climate change - other than that caused naturally - is a fact, especially with global weather patterns becoming more and more erratic and local weather patterns becoming more and more extreme as a result of that.

Re:Nuance is the key

[wheelbarrio]

No friend, you are flat-out wrong. No such debunking has taken place (care to provide even one citation?). Global temperatures have indeed risen in the last hundred years, and faster in the last 50 than in all of recorded history. See https://xkcd.com/1732/ for an excellent easy-to-read chart. Given even optimistic scenarios more rise is already unavoidably locked in. Rising temperatures caused by human emissions is a real effect, is unprecedented in its speed compared to natural variation, and is a big problem.

Re:Nuance is the key

[drinkypoo]

Global warming is basically a misnomer. The concept of global temperatures rising in the past hundred years or so has been debunked many times now.

[citation needed]

However, climate change - other than that caused naturally - is a fact, especially with global weather patterns becoming more and more erratic and local weather patterns becoming more and more extreme as a result of that.

What do you think brings more chaos to a chaotic system? Yes, that's correct, more energy. What kind of energy is involved in global weather? Yes, right again, kinetic and heat. Where does the kinetic energy come from? Oh yeah, thermal differentials. Again, heat. If you've got an alternate explanation for where the energy driving the climate is coming from, we're all interested in hearing about it.

Re:Nuance is the key

[Anonymous Coward]

The energy is coming from the sun, not "thermal differentials."
The problem is that the energy is being trapped more.
I'm pretty sure that's one of the most asinine questions I've ever heard.

Re:Nuance is the key

[Anonymous Coward]

Even if that was all true (and many argue it's not), it's not entirely driven by man, and Earth has lots of history of the climate changes long before man could ever have the ability to impact it, so that can't be ignored either.

But let's assume it is caused 100% by man. As the politicians push for a "carbon tax", they promote big factories constantly pouring toxic chemicals into our rivers, atmosphere, and land. They promote fracking and oil piplines full speed ahead, all without regard to our wishes and decades of protest and objections. WE are not to blame for it, THEY are, and I will not pay any carbon tax or the like.

mod parent down

[serviscope_minor]

Parent post is not insightful, apart perhaps from offering insight into the mind of someone deeply confused.

He has confused (intentionally?) and conflated a whole bunch of different things from "alarmists" which presumably is almost exclusively related to the popular media and scientists which are the people he accuses of not releasing data. He then goes on to use economic predictions to dismiss the underlying science. That's not insight, that's desperately confused reasoning.

And finally, of course the entire thing is predicated on the false claim that scientists haven't released data or models. They have, the parent is just too lazy to find and use them.

Re:I do not!

[drinkypoo]

Conservatives used to make serious arguments, sometimes reasonable,

Point to history and show us where their arguments were based on anything but fear.

Meanwhile in Europe

[anarcobra]

In the past month temperatures have plummeted by about 20 degrees.
At this rate we will soon reach absolute zero.

Re:Meanwhile in Europe

[ChrisMaple]

And beyond. On the plus side, room temperature superconductivity will be so much easier.

Re:I do not!

[wbr1]

Conservatism, by it's very definition is to be conservative, to resist change. The primary motivation to resist change is fear of what change may bring. Elicit that fear in others and you have power over them. Both parties wield fear in this way to (only slightly) differing ends.

Guess what though... change is inevitable.. all things change both physical and societal. Entropy always increases, and entropy is change.

Re:I do not!

[Anonymous Coward]

Nicely put, very nicely put.

Trump is weak, he is owned by the establishment. He either obeys or gets impeached. I don't think he will last 2 years in the job.

Clinton took bribes

[Anonymous Coward]

Story explaining how Clinton took BRIBES from Russia to sell them a large chunck of US uranium.

Lets repeat that, Clinton took BRIBES FROM RUSSIA to approve the sale of Uranium to them.
Please give me an example of how a politician can be more corrupt than that. I'm not sure how it could be possible.
This is just a single example of her taking $600 million in bribes from companies/foreign countries for state department favors.

Re:Clinton took bribes

[dywolf]

http://www.politifact.com/trut...

First, the State Department did approve of Russia’s gradual takeover of a company with significant U.S. uranium assets, but it didn’t act unilaterally. State was one of nine government agencies, not to mention independent federal and state nuclear regulators, that had to sign off on the deal.

Second, while nine people related to the company did donate to the Clinton Foundation, it’s unclear whether they were still involved in the company by the time of the Russian deal and stood to benefit from it.

Third, most of their Clinton Foundation donations occurred before and during Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential bid, before she could have known she would become secretary of state.

Re:Clinton took bribes

[jbengt]

Story [nytimes.com] explaining how Clinton took BRIBES from Russia to sell them a large chunck of US uranium.

I read that story you linked to. Here are some quotes from it:

Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for national security, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of United States government agencies.

Whether the donations [to the Clinton Foundation] played any role in the approval of the uranium deal is unknown.

In a statement, Brian Fallon, a spokesman for Mrs. Clinton’s presidential campaign, said no one “has ever produced a shred of evidence supporting the theory that Hillary Clinton ever took action as secretary of state to support the interests of donors to the Clinton Foundation.” He emphasized that multiple United States agencies, as well as the Canadian government, had signed off on the deal and that, in general, such matters were handled at a level below the secretary.

The committee comprises some of the most powerful members of the cabinet, including the attorney general, the secretaries of the Treasury, Defense, Homeland Security, Commerce and Energy, and the secretary of state. They are charged with reviewing any deal that could result in foreign control of an American business or asset deemed important to national security.

American nuclear officials, too, seemed eager to assuage fears. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission wrote to Mr. Barrasso assuring him that American uranium would be preserved for domestic use, regardless of who owned it. “In order to export uranium from the United States, Uranium One Inc. or ARMZ would need to apply for and obtain a specific NRC license authorizing the export of uranium for use as reactor fuel,” the letter said.

So while the situation might smell bad, the linked article does not explain how Clinton took bribes from Russia to sell them a large chunk of US uranium.

Re:Clinton took bribes

[Anonymous Coward]

How is that relevant in a discussion about Trump? That's right, not at all.

Re:Clinton took bribes

[Anonymous Coward]

Not sure if you were trying to refute my claim, but...

You confirmed State department, under Clinton, did approve sale.
You confirmed 9 people involved gave Clinton Foundation "donations"
That is conflict of interest, by its root definition. You can't do that as a political figure, so you basically said she is guilty by what you quoted.

I mentioned that Russia ALSO bribed her in the deal. I didn't even bring up the additional conflict of interest you did.

Re:I do not!

[houghi]

At the end of his 4 years, I hope he says one of these things:
1) Just click your heels together.
2) The change to make things better were within you all the time.

Re:Global Warming seems lesser since Trump

[pipingguy]

"Warmest" by how many statistically-calculated tenths of a degree (plus or minus 5 degrees, of course)? Isn't the planet coming out of an ice age? What's the "ideal", "average" (whatever that is), and how you calculate and control it? Hot Whopper, indeed.

Re:Global Warming seems lesser since Trump

[Anonymous Coward]

No, we're not coming out of an ice age. If anything, we were going INTO a new ice age.

Re:I do not!

[Anonymous Coward]

So when you complain about Hilary, someone who says "Shut up about Hilary" will get, from you, "Stop talking about Hilary!"?

How does that work? Or do you not care?

Re:Global Warming seems lesser since Trump

[Anonymous Coward]

Look, weather is climate now. 1 month is proof of climate change.

The only way that would be possible is if it agreed with AGW, if it was the other way people here would be screaming "weather is not climate"

Carry on with your hypocrisy.

The Official U.S. News Agency Will Be Named

[Anonymous Coward]

Breitbart.com and the National Enquirer will be named the official U.S. News Agency. The Trump Corporation will buy Twitter and make it the official U.S. Social Media Platform. By the end of 2017, the official triad of U.S. Government News will be renamed Pravda out of respect of the greatness of the all past, current and future USSR leaders.

Sounds silly? I may have gone overboard with the "USSR" portion but if you switch it out for the word Russian, there's a good chance we'll see it come to fruition.

Re:Global Warming seems lesser since Trump

[Anonymous Coward]

This is like arguing against the germ theory of disease because you don't have an accurate thermometer. You actually need to provide a different theory that fits the observations. The foundations of global warming were set down by Tyndall in the 1860s, because CO2 and H2O and heat aren't exactly hard to come by. You can probably manage the confirmatory experiments yourself. I mean, let's be honest here, you would reject the evidence of your own eyes if it contradicted your political principles, and if you had the idea of actually trying to prove any of your empirical beliefs we wouldn't be having this discussion, but you could certainly do so if you wanted to.

Re:Global Warming seems lesser since Trump

[Layzej]

Plus or minus 5 degrees

That would have us swinging in and out of an ice age.

What's the "ideal", "average"

The ideal temperature is approximately what it's been since the dawn of civilization. Only for the reason that we built this civilization, (the farms, the coastal properties, the dykes, the infrastructure, etc), with that climate in mind. Transport all that to a different climate and it no longer fits. It's expensive to have to redo it all.

and how you calculate and control it?

Best way to calculate it: http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs... (IMHO, YMMV, but all methods produce roughly the same results.

Best way to control it: https://www.theguardian.com/en...

Re:Global Warming seems lesser since Trump

[Layzej]

Look, weather is climate now. 1 month is proof of climate change.

Fortunately we have more than one month of data. Check the green line for the climate change signal: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/g...

Winter is Coming

[Roger W Moore]

So, if we've been witnessing a drop in observed temperatures, perhaps TPTB are actually doing something about it.

The quote was that we have been observing a global drop in land temperatures since the middle of the year. There is far more land in the northern hemisphere than the southern which means seasonal effects will not balance out. So rather than evidence of geoengineering I'd just take this as a sign that winter is coming.

Re: Winter is Coming

[Anonymous Coward]

We all know that WINTER is coming!

Re:Winter is Coming

[ChrisMaple]

Pay attention. It's year-to-year comparison.

Re:Winter is Coming

[Roger W Moore]

Actually it is you who needs to pay attention. The article claims that temperatures have plummeted since the middle of this year. It is not multi-year comparison if you are comparing to the same year. They go on to describe this as due to a "la nina" event which is happening now and so would make no sense to use this as an explanation if you were averaging over multiple years. What the article is talking about is this year's weather, not climate.

And then, there's this ...

[gregraven]

http://realclimatescience.com/...

Re:I do not!

[Zak3056]

And here again we see the goddamn problem. You're presented with a fair argument, outlined in easy-to-reply-to numbers, and your only response is "bu-bu-but Hillary lol."

That's a human thing, not a conservative thing. Ask almost anybody about the horrible thing that $PERSON_THEY_SUPPORT did, and the answer is almost ALWAYS going to be, "but $OTHER_GUY did the same thing!" Ask them about something they personally did, and they'll complain about something you did. It comes down to education (or lack thereof) and emotion--most people cannot think critically anymore, have no desire to do so, and allow their emotions to rule their arguments.

Conservatives used to make serious arguments, sometimes reasonable, sometimes specious. Not anymore. What the fuck happened?

Again, same problem on both sides. The arguments on the conservative side are largely devolving into conspiracy theories, while the arguments on the liberal side these days largely consist of repeating the words "you racist, misogynist, fuck!" over and over.

I'm not being entirely fair--there are quite a few people on both sides that still make really good arguments. But their numbers are relatively small, and their signal is being lost in the sea of noise. The conservative thinkers appear to be letting this go because their side is (currently) "winning." The liberal thinkers appear to be letting this go because if they open their mouths, they'll be ripped apart by the shrieking hordes of SJWs.

Re:Earth has always had climate anomalies

[SumterLiving]

Where do you get your weather from if not from the unscientific Weather Channel? I'm sure you download the NAM and do your own forecasting like any true scientific icon would do. Or maybe you are studly enough to forgo any model data and just use the raw observations? Skew-Ts are quite useful if you're a weather stud.

To Weather channel

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop spreading propaganda.

Re:I do not!

[jebrick]

Conservationism, by Reagan's definition, was slow change not no change. He ( and others) felt that progressives wanted change too quickly. Modern Republicans have lost this in their zeal for the purist form of Conservationism.

And Trump is not a Conservative nor a Republican in his views. He is a Populous or Nationalist ( depending on the day of the week and what crowd he is talking to).

who gives a fuck?

[Bender Unit 22]

Sorry but who gives a fuck about this?

Re:I do not!

[parkinglot777]

At the end of his 4 years, I hope he says one of these things: 1) Just click your heels together. 2) The change to make things better were within you all the time.

Nah, he will do what he always does -- blame someone or something about why things go wrong before the end of his term if he ever stays in his term...

Re:The Founder

[dywolf]

one is backed by science.
the other is not.
end of story.

Re:Earth has always had climate anomalies

[dave420]

Science, unlike you, is not ignoring anything. You seem to have missed out on a few decades of findings.

Re:The Founder

[dywolf]

who says they are less experienced?
who says they aren't an authority?

TWC actually has climate scientists and researchers on staff who participate and contribute to the body of research on the subject.
members of TWC staff have gone on to join other groups performing some of the leading edge research.

dismissing TWC staff as just "less experienced meteorologists" is ignorant and does them a disservice.

of the two groups, it is the founder who is lacking in experience.
Yes, he was a TV meteorologist for some 50 years.
But he never performed, published, or was involved in ANY climate research.
Nor did he ever become qualified to do so.
And when he tries to make scientific arguments, they are not based on any scientific data, and are soundly disproven the data that does exist.

He's sole claim to fame is he looked and sounded good on TV, and was a successful entrepreneur (starting up TWC).

To try and claim any sort parity between him and the current TWC staff, or even worse try to claim he is the more qualified....is a complete denial of reality.

further reading:
https://www.washingtonpost.com...

Re:Hypocrisy, thy name is "Weather Channel"

[dywolf]

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

Re:I do not!

[Anonymous Coward]

Conservatives used to make serious arguments, sometimes reasonable, sometimes specious. Not anymore. What the fuck happened? Decades of right-wing radio and Fox News? Trump's magical promises to make literally everything better without ever explaining how? An addiction to #pizzagate-style conspiracy-mongering? Come on.

No the real problem is that Trump's actual policies and ideas are not very compatible with conservatism. But many conservatives identify with the Republican party (because it is a better match than the Democratic party and most people see it as a binary choice) so then Trump is on their team. So they feel the need to defend him. That's where the cognitive dissonance sets in so use one of the classic deflection arguments, that something else is worse. All this happens at an unconscious level unfortunately.

Hopefully as we get further from the election (some) Republicans will start thinking about what Trump is doing to the country and present reasonable intra-party opposition. There is already some of this happening in the media with some conservatives speaking out against the Carrier jobs deal.

Slashdot Once Again Posts a Slanted Climate Piece

[Anonymous Coward]

How long before Slashdot starts treating scientific controversies as scientific controversies?

Re:I do not!

[Anonymous Coward]

Clinton isn't an important part of the political landscape at this time. Why can't people stop talking about her?

Re:The Founder

[Curunir_wolf]

Nope. They are both meteorologists. Both backed by meteorological science. You can argue that Coleman has more experience and credentials in the field than the younger meteorologists working for the weather center. But that's it. You accept both as an authority or neither.

To only accept one as an authority and not the other is nothing but confirmation bias on your part.

Sort of like the confirmation bias that immediately buried my comments regarding this hypocrisy.

Re:The Founder

[Curunir_wolf]

Well now that is a cogent and reasonable argument, thank you.

However, you didn't cite any source to the claim that the Weather Channel has climate scientists on staff, or what their credentials or peer-reviewed papers may have been or said. The Post article (hit piece, really, but that's expected) quotes the current CEO of TWC, David Kenny, provides some glowing praise of his staff, but it's just an attempt to distance the company from Coleman's statements (might be bad for business). There is nothing there that justifies TWC or their meteorologists (and, yes, "people that look good on TV") as authorities on climate change.

No power-whining

[RogueWarrior65]

It comes down to this: if you're going to be in the business of making life-changing predictions, you'd better do a good job and own up to it when you fail. Miss Cleo was busted by the FTC for deceptive trade practices. The Weather Channel should think of Breitbart as their version of the FTC.

Land and Satellite show similar warming

[Layzej]

Land and sat are pretty similar: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/g...

Ironic

[Anonymous Coward]

It's ironic that The Weather Channel refutes Breitbart by pointing to the fallacy of "cherry picking," but in doing so engages the fallacy of "call to authority" (thousands of researchers and scientific societies agree greenhouse gases ...). If instead of trying to fight poor logic on its own terms, news organizations, candidates and the like simply stuck to making reasoned arguments, we would all be better off. The problem is we know the climate is changing; that is well measured, but the climate has been changing for 4.5 billion years. While it might be relevant to know to know the contribution of our industrialization, the larger questions are can we and should we take steps to try to alter or control that change.

Re:Global Warming seems lesser since Trump

[Anonymous Coward]

Hottest November since 1979!?!? HOLY SHIT. We are all gonna die. Probably this weekend.

unfortunately...

[publiclurker]

They will cry to their politicians that nobody could have foreseen these calamities and that, since we are all in this together, it is the responsibility of those who have been warning them to clean up their messes and pay for the privilege.

obvious troll

[publiclurker]

is obvious.

Re:Global Warming seems lesser since Trump

[Layzej]

For perspective, here's how 1979 compares to the last 10,000 years. 1979 was at the time already a record hot year.

Re:Slashdot Once Again Posts a Slanted Climate Pie

[Anonymous Coward]

What scientific controversy are you talking about? On the issue of man-made global warming, there is currently no controversy among climate scientists, unless you're talking about the details of various models who all predict the same trend. This was shown not too long ago by a large metastudy about peer-reviewed publications. But hey, don't let facts get in your way...

Re:I do not!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd like to thank you -- for real, not sarcastically or ironically. A genuine Thank You for this AC, for calling out Okian Warrior for his hackneyed bullshit. He's been shitting-up Slashdot for years, and his most recent cheerleading of Trump (by way of crying about Hillary forever) has been nauseating. And it's not nauseating because it's in support of Trump; instead, it's nauseating because of the willful ignorance in the arguments he repeats.

Providing links to Breitbart in an anti-Hillary stance is all Okian Warrior has left here these days. Sure, he'll provide links to other sources, but have you noticed that each source is really specifically sought-out to prop-up a story that's been posted on Breitbart?

The only reason I think Okian Warrior is here is because there's money in it for him. Nerds are just as willfully ignorant as him unless there's an agenda.

Re:I do not!

[Anonymous Coward]

That was the old definition. Today, conservatives want less government and more personal responsibility while liberals want larger government and the government to do things we used to do for ourselves.

Re:The priesthood has spoken

[Anonymous Coward]

Take a look at the bright side, as long as idiots like you are modded -1, not all has been lost for humanity.

Re:Global Warming seems lesser since Trump

[budgenator]

Global land temperatures are dropping faster than a cheerleader's panties on Prom night. The significance of land temperatures is the land has less thermal inertia than oceans so changes are more apparent over land. What does it mean, firstly El Nino is over and La Nina is starting and secondly all of the "record high temps" that were mostly due to the El Nino lately will come to and end and possibly the Hiatus will return.

Where is 'anonymous' when you need them?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, wait . . . I'm anonymous . . . Hey Breitbart, we're comin' for ya!

D'oh!

No warming since 2016!

[Layzej]

The last time the global monthly average was this cool was 2014, which at the time was the hottest year on record. See this link in case a longer term perspective is of interest. Note that the cheerleader now has her panties higher than she has for over 97% of her life, and she's been around since 1850. Assuming she's had her panties in the normal place for most of her life she's probably looking for a doctor to perform a surgical extraction.

Re:No warming since 2016!

[budgenator]

Apparently you haven't noticed it because of the width of your plot, but there has been a very precipitous 1K drop in the temperatures anomalies over land and slightly less dramatic over the oceans in the temperatures form September to November; even the arctic temperature spike might be reducing.

Re:No warming since 2016!

[Layzej]

What do you suppose that means?

Re:No warming since 2016!

[budgenator]

Weather is going to be very strange for a while.

Re:I do not!

[pnutjam]

You know, I am starting to come around. Maybe this all is Obama's fault. If only he'd been born white we could have avoided so many problems.

(This is a sarcastic post not to be taken literally, I disavow all bigots and racists)

Re:I do not!

[Anonymous Coward]

We have been energy independent for a couple years now. Also, your major point seems to be in agreement with the post you're responding to.

Re:I do not!

[Anonymous Coward]

>Conservatism, by it's very definition is to be conservative, to resist change.
No, conservatism means being conservative, (holding, preserving, accumulating), instead of wantonly using, expending, having no savings. A SIDE-EFFECT can appear to be inaction, but that's the point -> Is conserving your money into a savings account and not touching it, watching it accumulate for that big 'round the world trip- is that "inaction" a terrible thing? Should it be changed &stirred up just to make it look like you are not afraid of change? You are applying psychology and levying negative judgments against to a system.

>The primary motivation to resist change is fear of what change may bring.
    Yep, bingo, finally you got something right except you're applying it to conservatism. Which again, is not fearful or has a goal of inaction. Of course some PEOPLE may be attracted to that because of their own qualities, but hey we can't all be liberal yoga masters. Had you started your paragraphs with this sentence, which is correct, nothing else you say would make sense because you're really argue about something else.

>Guess what though... change is inevitable.. all things change both physical and societal. Entropy always increases, and entropy is change.
Yep again! But again this has nothing to do with your apparent subject at hand- trying to define & pick apart conservatism. You offer a fantastic, zen-like, fortune cookie reading of life. And it is correct. But please re-read my first rebuttal. Your understanding of conservatism is shallow, (and you are trying to apply psychology to a system that can in fact grow, change, and accumulate, (though some humans may not).

Fact Based Rebuttal

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/12/07/weather-channel-attacks-breitbarts-climate-science-fake-news-climate-change/

AGW = religion

Enact the Final Solution for stupid people?

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems to be a global pandemic. Maybe it is time to cull a majority from the bottom and the enabling tumors at the top.

Anonymous Coward to Slashdot:

[Anonymous Coward]

Please quit referring to what they do as "skepticism".

Call it "lies" or "spreading FUD" or "Shilling for the fossil fuel industry" or anything else that describes what they are actually doing.

Re:I do not!

[cyberchondriac]

Your argument here is the same old tripe: "bu-bu-but Fox news".. just stop already, that's a canned response. They're a necessary counterbalance to the left wing shilling of CNN, MSNBC, and the rest. And for the record, Fox doesn't deny climate change. They don't particularly champion it, but they don't officially deny it either.

Re:I do not!

[david_thornley]

The arguments that global warming isn't happening devolved into conspiracy theories long ago. After all, if all the climate scientists say something that you find personally uncomfortable, there must be a global conspiracy, right? The people who think it is happening have real scientific arguments, which are disregarded by the turkeys that trust a con man rather than a scientist.

Re:I do not!

[Anonymous Coward]

point to history and show an example of ANYONES argument being based on anything but fear

Re: I do not!

[Anonymous Coward]

Personally I didn't realise childrens fiction counted as a news source.

Re:I do not!

[ChrisMaple]

Point to history and show us where their arguments were based on anything but fear.

Tiananmen Square.

Re:I do not!

[ChrisMaple]

If true, that would be no different than Obama, who has been blaming Bush Jr. for seven years after Bush Jr. stopped doing anything.

--
Egads, I must have enemies. -- Daffy Duck.

Re:I do not!

[Anonymous Coward]

Stupid change is not inevitable nor required, though.

Like blowing a few trillion dollars around the globe to line the pockets of greeny globalists like Gore.

Once they stop fucking with the raw data and get rid of non-scientist activists like Hansen then maybe the "AGW deniers" will pay attention. Until then, it's just a cult based on faith like believing in Jesus or Buddha or the FSM.

Re:I do not!

[Anonymous Coward]

Tell us how she left the White House so dead broke she stole the furniture but a few years later she's worth $240,000,000?

Good investing like how she turned $1000 into $100,000?

If a conservative did the exact same thing you'd have absolutely no trouble seeing the blatant and obvious corruption.

No, I did not vote for Trump.

Fixed that definition of conservatism for you

[GPS Pilot]

Conservatism seeks to conserve those things that make civilization great. If change is required to achieve that goal, conservatives will be the first to embrace change.

A good example of change that is needed is repealing and replacing the ironically-named Affordable Care Act. (The large premium increases reported a few weeks ago simply compound the large premium increases that the ACA has caused every year since its inception.)

Re:Fixed that definition of conservatism for you

[Anonymous Coward]

But being white, male, and wealthy is only good if you're white, male, and wealthy. You guys know what you mean when you say "make america great again" and it's nothing you'd have us believe.

It's Tragic That People As Smart As All of You

[Aisha.Washington]

Understand so little about human nature. It truly is. You, the educated class, the best and brightest of this planet, most likely, are every bit as delusional as the "ignorant rednecks" you are ostensibly superior to. You've spent so much time in amen corners that you have lost the ability to see the extraordinary hypocrisy in your positions. All you do is point the finger elsewhere, because no one you actually know every holds you to account.

Look, if climate change is the issue of our time, then stop driving. Stop flying. See, it's not just about what everyone else should do. Did you know that self-identifying "progressives" take more flights, and fly more miles each year the those who consider themselves to be conservative.

Yet, everytime the climate change issue comes up, there are "progressives", wagging their fingers at the lessor polluting group, swearing the whole thing is caused by their non-belief.

Why do they need to believe, though? If everyone who believed on global warming stopped driving and flying, it would go a long way toward slowing down said warming. You don't want to hear that, though, do you? You all have a endless stream of snark for those who dare blame you for the problem.

See, I don't own a car, and "progressives" seem disappointed when they hear that. They certain never thank me for living their values when they can't. They could not care less how little I pollute, they still criticize me for not talking the talk. I could drive a Hummer and commute by Space Shuttle, but as long as I was saying all the right things, I'd be a-okay with the climate change proponents.

People's actions simply don't match their supposed fear, and actions are more honest than words.

The sole purpose of the climate change debate is to give affluent progressives means with which to differentiate themselves from the tragically-unhip white working class. The last decade has seen an endless stream of "progressive" moral panic. "Oh no, it's called a civil union and not marriage", "Oh no, gender is not binary, even though XX and XY are the only documented chromosomal configurations found in humans (two, by definition, is binary)","oh no, transgender people have to choose a bathroom instead of having a third option", and of course, "oh no, the kid from the trailer park who had to go into the miltary after high school doesn't believe what my UW professor says about Climate Change! My god, isn't he lame? Man, the poor folks are so lame! Unlike me! I'm good. I learned all the right things to say to get attaboys from the ruling class!"

Tomorrow, it will be something else.

It's full-blown brainwashing, only this time, it's the "educated" class who are the victims.

If you care about climate change, forget about the people that don't care about it. Statistically speaking, you and your believer peers pollute WAY more than they do. Clean up your own acts, then maybe, maybe, worry about the stubborn working-class. Judging from the cars on the road and the airplanes flying into "progressive" Seattle, you're going to have your work cut out for you.

Assuming it's actually about the climate, which we all know, and let's face it, we ALL know ... climate is the last thing most of you care about. Regardless of whatever snark you come up with to justify your own behavior, every piece of existing evident supports what I just said. You guys pollute more than anyone.

Re:It's Tragic That People As Smart As All of You

[admin7087]

The main problem in this artificially constructed pseudo-"debate" are people like you, who apparently believe that "being for climate change" or "being against climate change" are political positions. They aren't. Whether or not there is man-made climate change is an entirely factual matter which is decided by reality, not by the pope and certainly not by politicians or radio talkshow moderators. The question has absolutely nothing to do with human nature, world views, or political stances. Most of what you call "believers" do not even believe any firm position about climate change, they just rightly revolt against the US-only phenomenon of ideologizing a debate that should have nothing to do with ideology. So should you, the alleged "debate" is an unbearable display of stupidity. It's the 21st Century, the times when factual questions were answered by vague 'intuitions' or 'beliefs' are long gone, so grow up and quit whining about "progressives".

Re:I do not!

[gumbi west]

The Clintons stole nothing from the White House, and I'm sure you know that and the whole back story so I'm not going to repeat it here.

you can see the earnings breakdown at Forbes which indicates that it was all declared on their taxes.

Corruption requires a "this is for that" exchange where "this" or "that" is a government service. I have seen no indication that there was any actual evidence of any such behavior.

Black Lives Matter!

[Aisha.Washington]

Say the gentrifiers, who have gentrified every black life out of inner-Seattle. "Climate Change is the issue or our generation!", then tell us in the next breath.

What does the evidence say?

Well, it says that self-identified progessives take more flights, and fly more miles each year than their non-progressive counterparts. Sea-Tac just saw it's busiest year ever. Why, the precious dewdrops are flying back home for the holidays as I type this and, oh boy, Daddy got them the latest iThing straight from the best Chinese sweatshops the world has ever seen! Woo-hoo!

Oh yes, but um, ah-hem, Climate Change is bad, shame on you, shame on you! Shame on all of your poors who had to go into the military instead of getting a free ride to the college of your choice from mommy and daddy. If only you'd come from a slightly wealthier background, you too could pollute with impugnity, while still holding yourselves about the people who pollute less than you do. Now THAT's white privilege, and let me tell you, it ain't you local janitor's white privilege.

No, this is 1000x times better. It's affluent white privilege, and it's SPECTACULAR.

So don't forget, Climate Change, gay marriage, transgender rights, oh and, gender isn't binary even though there are only two chromosomal configurations, XX and XY.

Wait, you believe the science that says there are only two chromosomal genders?

Barbarians!

But what's this, you DON'T believe the science that says the earth is warming?!

BARBARIANS!

We don't have to be consistent. We have affluent white privilege, we live in The Bubble, and it's awesome. Just awesome.

I Don't Know About You

[Aisha.Washington]

But I blame everybody else for Climate Change.

Re:Global Warming seems lesser since Trump

[ChrisMaple]

I'm particularly interested in the ways we built dykes with climate in mind. Please elucidate.

You Should All Be Like Me

[Aisha.Washington]

No, really, the world would be a better place if you all were like me. Most, strike that, all of the world's problems are caused by people who are not like me. People who aren't me, or aren't very, very similar to me, are bad. I know this because ever since I was two, my parents told me that I was special. Believe them? Of course I believed them, why would they lie? I mean, I'm pretty sure somebody would have told me by now if I wasn't special. Besides the conservatives who weren't born in affluent suburbs like me. They don't count anyway. Heck, they're barely even human. I hold all the right positions, and I'm not afraid to express them when it's risk-free, either when I have numbers or online. I like being special. You should be special to. You should be like me. All of my friends are like me. Everyone should be like me. Everyone should be exactly like me. Diverse and tolerant.

Re:You Should All Be Like Me

[gumbi west]

I'm confused, is this text from a Trump speech?

Remember, It's Not Hate

[Aisha.Washington]

When you have the right opinions. When I march against hate, it's common knowlege that I'm marching against your hate. Not my hate. My hate is divine. Why? Because I'm me. You're not me, though. So your hate is bad. My hate is tolerance and diversity. I know this because everyone I know says so. We all say and think the same things. If that's not diversity, then I don't know what is.

I Understand

[Aisha.Washington]

The anger if the poor black children who grow up in the ghetto. They are uneducated, and sometimes turn to crime and violence, but I never call them stupid or criminal. That would be racist and intolerant. Instead, I seek to understand.

Poor white people with wrong views disgust me, though. Those kids who grow up in trailers with racist, alcoholic fathers. They should know better. They should somehow, someway, know what I know, and they should speak like well-educated affluent suburban white kids. There is no excuse for poor white unpopular views. Regardless of income or background, people should go to good colleges, and learn what their professors have to say. Like I did. If they don't, I just think they're racist slime, and it's all their fault for not giving themselves the same opportunities that I had. Those poor who grew up in entirely different environments from me just make me so mad, and I have NO tolerance for any of them.

That's what makes me tolerant. And diverse. That's right, I said hello to a black guy in the hall the other day, so I'm both tolerant and diverse.

Unlike you.

You don't even believe in Climate Change.

Ewwwww.

Re: I Understand

[koomba]

Are you having fun setting up your ridiculous strawmen and knocking them down? You've done it (at least) 3 times that I've noticed so far. We get it, you think all liberals and anyone who thinks it might be worth trying to deal with climate change are all just out of touch hypocrites. They all hate poor people and don't really care about preserving the planet for future generations, but instead just want to be rich and have nice shit and feel smugly superior to everyone around them. And we get it, you think it's a double standard to help vulnerable and minority populations, when everyone hates on poor whites and shits on them constantly. Because of course we have a long history in this country of white oppression, from segregation, to denying home loans to those from "bad" neighborhoods, to systemic police bias, and gutting all the suburban, rural, largely white school districts of funding. Sound about right? When you want to come back and have a discussion with actual facts and not just ridiculous strawmen, then maybe we can get somewhere.

Re:Global Warming seems lesser since Trump

[ChrisMaple]

Given that the ice-age cycle period is closer to 100,000 years than 10,000 years, any records not considering a period of at least a half million years are pretty much meaningless. And since we don't have good records for even 1000 years (and the older the records are, the more imprecise they get) claiming that something is a record is just silly. It's publicity with a likely monetary aspect attached, and does not deserve serious consideration.

sociopath

[Anonymous Coward]

"There's nothing wrong with feeling satisfaction"

Umm, yes there is something wrong with that. Reveling in the misfortune of others whether they cause themselves or not makes you an asshole. The word we have to describe such persons are sociopaths. That comment along with so many others you have made in other threads reaffirms that you are, indeed, a sociopath and have little care for your fellow man. You can be that way, sure, just like you can be a racist prick but it doesn't make it right, good, or ok.

just cause you said so

[Anonymous Coward]

I am going to tell you that there were no alternatives because my one vote DOES NOT count. In my state(TN) it's demonstrably true and if you look at those swing states, the people voting for the independents clearly fucked it all up for the rest of us. The percentages show it. But you keep on repeating that bullshit get out n vote crap, and I'll keep telling you it's bull. You need to show me my vote counts and I have yet to see that.

Re:just cause you said so

[Rakarra]

In my state(TN) it's demonstrably true and if you look at those swing states, the people voting for the independents clearly fucked it all up for the rest of us.

If Democrats are crying into their beer about how their candidate lost, then perhaps next time they ought to nominate a better candidate rather than blame folks who want to vote for a candidate who isn't quite as shitty.

But you keep on repeating that bullshit get out n vote crap, and I'll keep telling you it's bull. You need to show me my vote counts and I have yet to see that

Your vote counted. You were outvoted. That doesn't mean your vote didn't contribute.

Is Breitbart 2 to declare war weather channel?

[Anonymous Coward]

Like they did with Kellog's? Or will they inform us of the child sex slavery ring in the basement of the Weather Channel?

Re: The Founder

[Anonymous Coward]

ignorant retard

Meh. Statistics and Perspective.

[DarthVain]

I deal with and manage a lot of data on various topics. I get data requests all the time. The folks that use this data will be from all over the map, both left and right of the political spectrum, or on one side or another of a particular argument. I've had many try to restrict what information we release specifically because they believe that it will be used to misrepresent or be manipulated to prove whatever argument they are trying to make. Bottom line is there is little you can do about how people use your data, "improperly" or not. I've been asked to comment on some external analysis, and I'm more than happy to say "well they conveniently omitted X from their analysis and thus were able to come up with Y conclusion".

Most data of any kind has some sort of issues with it, and just about any data of sufficient complexity can be used statistically to prove whatever point somebody wishes to make. In many cases it really doesn't matter if the target audience hears what they want to hear anyway (i.e. breitbart). Do you think the readers of said news really want to look deeper into any analysis that supports whatever ideology they adhere to?

Bottom line is that other than in terms of some licencing agreements for commercial use or what have you, you cannot really control how other people use your data. All you can do is level the playing field in accessibility so that if one party wants to use it to support their claim another opposing party can do the same. As data owner it isn't your job to say how it should or should not be used, though if appropriate there is nothing wrong with presenting your own analysis and why it is more significant or correct than someone who you think has misrepresented the data (if you have skin in the game so to speak).

Science by concesus

[Anonymous Coward]

"thousands of researchers and scientific societies are in agreement that greenhouse gases produced by human activity are warming the planet's climate and will keep doing so."

Its a good thing real science isn't done by consensus; else the earth would still be flat and at the center of the universe.

Re:Global Warming seems lesser since Trump

[penandpaper]

You believe those leftard satellites and liberal thermometers?

Satellites are a fiction. A conspiracy of the UN and NASA. Space doesn't exist and the earth is flat with a dome. How can you keep something above the flat earth without it falling down? Check mate "scientists".

Some good laughs.

Re:I do not!

[Anonymous Coward]

Emails! Emails! Emails! Benghazi! Pizzagate! Theories! Reasons!

Also, I'm a gullible moron!

Re:I do not!

[Rakarra]

And here again we see the goddamn problem. You're presented with a fair argument, outlined in easy-to-reply-to numbers, and your only response is "bu-bu-but Hillary lol."

In his defense, he's just parroting the (successful) strategy of the Man Who Can Do No Wrong, our President-Elect.
Trump's never made a mistake, and if he ever said anything wrong, it's because some asshole misled him. The buck doesn't stop with him, it's always someone else's fault.

Re:I do not!

[Rakarra]

That's a human thing, not a conservative thing. Ask almost anybody about the horrible thing that $PERSON_THEY_SUPPORT did, and the answer is almost ALWAYS going to be, "but $OTHER_GUY did the same thing!" Ask them about something they personally did, and they'll complain about something you did. It comes down to education (or lack thereof) and emotion--most people cannot think critically anymore, have no desire to do so, and allow their emotions to rule their arguments.

Everyone has to 'win' an argument. When you're arguing with someone, you're picking a side, and supporting that side in every way you can is paramount. Eroding that side is weakness. Admitting the other side has good arguments is weakness. Your side good, other side bad. Black and white thinking is important. Shades of gray are "wishy washy" and again, weak.

Re:I do not!

[gumbi west]

So long as you are comfortable in your own skin.