With 60 votes, the GOP just filibustered. More time then ever. A lot more. I suppose that is the Dems fault too, right? That the Dems couldn't get anything done because the GOP filibustered constantly?
The real mendacious claim here is that the Democrats weren't given and fumbled a huge opportunity on a silver platter.
Look into the claim. Try and find which specific dates the democrats had 60 seats in congress.
Scott Brown was sworn in until a full year into Obama's presidency, and then Ted Kennedy was hospitalized. Al Franken was also not counted until July 7, 2009, because of an electoral dispute. But even then it was 59-40, because Kennedy was in hospital. It wasn't until Sept 24, 2009, when Paul Kirk was sworn in that the democrats had a filibuster proof 60-40, and that lasted until Feb 4, 2010.
The graph you linked to is indeed from Doran (2009), and shows about 88% and up for everyone except the unwashed masses. If you want to argue that ~88% is a "good bit LESS than 95%", then you are or course welcome. I am sure, in your imagination, this is a smoking gun on bias. OUTRAGE!!!!!
No, they wouldn't. If they are doing scientific studies, they carefully measure and calibrate their samples, estimate the sampling error and uncertainty, and gauge from that. They don't just pull a percentage out of the air and call it good.
From this statement, I can only gauge that you are too incompetent to judge your own incompetence. Then again, you are denier *cough* skeptic *cough*. And as today's linked peer-reviewed academic article demonstrates quite aptly: AGW denial is comorbid with a number of other cognitive handicaps.
Gee, you don't work for one for those right-wind "think" tanks to you?
What makes you think I haven't read it? You don't pay attention very well, do you?
The fact that you said this: Statistically, if the group they cited is 95%, it is almost certain that the broader domain of experts is a good bit LESS than 95%.
I have already pointed out that Doran is a straw-man argument
I see you've now moved from quoting the statistics to impugning the paper. The only people who agree with you are in your cognitive bubble. This type of study has been done lots of different ways, and the results converge.
indeed, a joke when it comes to valid arguments.... was talking about specific instances of misleading comments...
They are only misleading in your imagination. This is the cognitive bubble in action? Indeed, how *do* you tell what is real!
There is denial on both sides of the argument
Indeed, you will be able to troll through what scientists have said and find your piece of evidence. That is why people like Doran (2009) did surveys of scientific opinion.
But so YOU are arguing then, by implication, that less than 95% is "nearly all"?
Doran (2009) found approx. than 95%, not less. Others have found more. But that's just splitting hairs.
And anybody who does any work in the social sciences would read a poll of 95% (or even 85%) as "nearly all", 'cause that is just the nature of polls.
And no, I did not argue that 98% is nearly all, and 97% is not. What I argued was that given the criteria stated in the link to Skeptical Science that I was referring to, then the "domain of experts" is quite a bit larger than their narrow sample. Statistically, if the group they cited is 95%, it is almost certain that the broader domain of experts is a good bit LESS than 95%.
If you actually read the study that produces the 95% figure (Doran 2009), you'll see what the broader domain of experts say -- all the way down to those on the blogsphere.
I am not interested in more studies. Get a f*cking clue here, dude. I am not arguing with you about climate science. What I was criticizing were THE PARTICULAR STATEMENTS MADE BY THE PARTICULAR PEOPLE TO WHOM I WAS REFERRING.
Learn to read then. The wikipedia page I linked to links to a whole bunch of studies that show: NEARLY ALL climate scientists agree with the consensus opinion.
If you want to get in a general argument about climate science, go elsewhere.
The cognitive bubble is of professional interest to me -- as a scientist. As such, I fully appreciate the many ways ignorance protects itself. So... I have no interest in debating climate science with you, and never did.
On the other hand, it is indisputable that NEARLY ALL climate scientists agree with the consensus position. Given that 10% of people will agree to anything in a survey (yes, I have a degree in statistics as well as psychology), Doran 2009 also shows that NEARLY ALL scientists agree with the consensus full stop.
Well, I checked skeptical science, and their "basic" version is: "97% of climate experts agree humans are causing global warming.". Gee, are you going to argue that 98% is nearly all, and 97% isn't.
Oh wait, there is an intermediate tab!!! Let's see what it says. There's *another* study, (Doran 2009) that says *greater* than 95%. Well, if 98% is "nearly all", then >95% is clearly *not* "nearly all"
It is so interesting that wall street is so thoroughly behind the GOP. That Citizens United gave the GOP an advantage in fund raising. The typical GOPer thinks of the democrats as encouraging crony capitalism, and seem quite forgiving to the long list of corporate shills who call themselves GOP senators. The Dems are beholden to corps as well -- fund-raising is just too important -- but it just isn't the same ballpark as the GOP.
Romney has been skyrocketing in terms of female popularity lately...
Keep up with the wishful thinking.
< You can't win with so much of the electorate unhappy with your policies.
I presume you're talking about 0bama? heh
You already sound impervious to any contrary evidence. And hence, it is because of "red-meat" partisan ideologues like you that political discourse resembles children fighting. Sad fact is: propaganda works. You are an exemplar.
"It is easier to fool a man than convince him he has been fooled" -- Twain.
Romney may have given some broad brushstrokes in his speech, but the GOP has no actual plan. There is nothing that anybody can crunch numbers on. The Dems *do* have such a plan.
We all see what we want to see, and GOP followers (most likely to watch fox) are the most misinformed. The media is more reality biased than Foxys can bring themselves to admit.
he had a democrat congress for at least a year or more.
You should really check this oft repeated mendacious claim. Obama used his very small window of opportunity to pass health-care reform. You should also look at some of the details of the bill yourself, instead of getting 3rd hand information from "four-legs-good, democrats bad" pundits.
I think communism works great at a community level but doesn't scale very well.
Communism doesn't account for human nature, which is why it was such a horrendous failure. Capitalism makes no claims on peoples goodness, but curiously, economists generally believe that it only works because of strong cultural moral norms. (Like paying people for work, and not stealing.)
very strongly indicate that this paper is anything but unbiased
It is natural for scientists to take climate science as a given truth, since it is science, and the consensus is accepted as scientific by every major scientific organisation in the world.
You see, the truth is not in between scientists and "skeptics", which is why scientists talk about *denial*, because that is was it is -- scientifically speaking.
While I do see how this is an attractive conspiracy, I would think that people would be more likely to think that the companies are conspiring against science to further their economic goals.
It all depends on where you see the social threat coming from. Some people are terrified of the power of government. Mix in a proclivity for paranoia, and the mind generates the story-line. And it is *believed*.
Incidentally, Friedrich Hayek, in many ways the original market fundamentalists, believed that government should exercise its power to break up powerful corporate institutions so that they do not rig the system for themselves. Hayek saw this as the only primary role of the government in the economy, in stark contrast to Keynes.
Jesus advocated for equality, including gender equality. He was also against the hierarchies of the status quo. There is a social order in there, and it ain't what conservatives are pushing.
If you want to know our best understanding of what he taught, and how it sometimes differs from modern bibles and why, then I recommend Misquoting Jesus.
No everyone. Just you, and a minority in the world. That's right, we're burning up the world because of the tyranny of a small special interest group and a few loud gullible follows.
Humans could have no greater nor swifter impact on the CO2 balance than the evolution of white-rot fungus.
Gee. Let me draw an analogy. I once saw a forest fire. The forest burnt down. Therefore, if I intentionally light a fire and destroy another forest, that forest wasn't really effected by my actions. Because that other forest was destroyed by natural causes.
If you think climate scientists are too stupid to know about such things, then you are too incompetent to recognize how incompetent you are.
The focus should be on enhancing our understanding of the climate model and figuring out how we might directly and actively control it.
Because a pound of cure is better then an ounce of prevention. Right?
Because skeptics are um skeptical. There are many of us who don't adopt a position of belief on this subject.
But those who call themselves skeptics have almost universally adopted a belief on the subject. That their 1-3 climate scientists are correct about climate science -- even thought they are creation scientists, but skeptics don't think about that.
As for those cries of economic armageddon from the ostensibly rational skeptics: they are also not founded in any reality. We have had various carbon trading and/or tax systems in place. In America. In Germany. The evidence is in, and just like the economists said, the net effect on the economy is negligible.
No, they are idealistic. The republicans are the new liberals, and the liberals are now the old-school conservatives. You see, a liberal has this arrogant belief about how things should be, and thinks they know so much, that they should just uproot the institutions of society in order to promulgate their utopian vision. The true conservative appreciates what they do not know.
There is a slippery slope in the other direction too. Once corporate interests control the interwebs, then goodbye to everything we love about it. Slippery-slope arguments are funny like that.
There is a type of republican who thinks that any type of regulation is bad. This is simply black and white thinking. If we ever think of no regulations, then move to Somalia. It is always a question of how much regulation, and what regulations create the right incentive structures. As such, it is a question of economics and law, and a little too nuanced for political discussion.
If you really believe that the proponents of net-neutrality want the government regulating every last bit of the internet, then you're living in bizarro world. If you really believe that corporate interests wouldn't do what special interests want (you scratch my back...), then you're an idiot. It is this type of corporate back-scratching that has destroyed real journalism in modern times. (You'd never say something bad about one of your advertises, for example.)
Slashdot Mirror
With 60 votes, the GOP just filibustered. More time then ever. A lot more. I suppose that is the Dems fault too, right? That the Dems couldn't get anything done because the GOP filibustered constantly?
The real mendacious claim here is that the Democrats weren't given and fumbled a huge opportunity on a silver platter.
Look into the claim. Try and find which specific dates the democrats had 60 seats in congress.
Scott Brown was sworn in until a full year into Obama's presidency, and then Ted Kennedy was hospitalized. Al Franken was also not counted until July 7, 2009, because of an electoral dispute. But even then it was 59-40, because Kennedy was in hospital. It wasn't until Sept 24, 2009, when Paul Kirk was sworn in that the democrats had a filibuster proof 60-40, and that lasted until Feb 4, 2010.
That is *FOUR MONTHS*.
Check the facts for yourself.
No, they wouldn't. If they are doing scientific studies, they carefully measure and calibrate their samples, estimate the sampling error and uncertainty, and gauge from that. They don't just pull a percentage out of the air and call it good.
From this statement, I can only gauge that you are too incompetent to judge your own incompetence. Then again, you are denier *cough* skeptic *cough*. And as today's linked peer-reviewed academic article demonstrates quite aptly: AGW denial is comorbid with a number of other cognitive handicaps.
Gee, you don't work for one for those right-wind "think" tanks to you?
What makes you think I haven't read it? You don't pay attention very well, do you?
The fact that you said this: Statistically, if the group they cited is 95%, it is almost certain that the broader domain of experts is a good bit LESS than 95%.
I have already pointed out that Doran is a straw-man argument
I see you've now moved from quoting the statistics to impugning the paper. The only people who agree with you are in your cognitive bubble. This type of study has been done lots of different ways, and the results converge.
indeed, a joke when it comes to valid arguments. ... was talking about specific instances of misleading comments ...
They are only misleading in your imagination. This is the cognitive bubble in action? Indeed, how *do* you tell what is real!
There is denial on both sides of the argument
Indeed, you will be able to troll through what scientists have said and find your piece of evidence. That is why people like Doran (2009) did surveys of scientific opinion.
But so YOU are arguing then, by implication, that less than 95% is "nearly all"?
Doran (2009) found approx. than 95%, not less. Others have found more. But that's just splitting hairs.
And anybody who does any work in the social sciences would read a poll of 95% (or even 85%) as "nearly all", 'cause that is just the nature of polls.
And no, I did not argue that 98% is nearly all, and 97% is not. What I argued was that given the criteria stated in the link to Skeptical Science that I was referring to, then the "domain of experts" is quite a bit larger than their narrow sample. Statistically, if the group they cited is 95%, it is almost certain that the broader domain of experts is a good bit LESS than 95%.
If you actually read the study that produces the 95% figure (Doran 2009), you'll see what the broader domain of experts say -- all the way down to those on the blogsphere.
I am not interested in more studies. Get a f*cking clue here, dude. I am not arguing with you about climate science. What I was criticizing were THE PARTICULAR STATEMENTS MADE BY THE PARTICULAR PEOPLE TO WHOM I WAS REFERRING.
Learn to read then. The wikipedia page I linked to links to a whole bunch of studies that show: NEARLY ALL climate scientists agree with the consensus opinion.
If you want to get in a general argument about climate science, go elsewhere.
The cognitive bubble is of professional interest to me -- as a scientist. As such, I fully appreciate the many ways ignorance protects itself. So... I have no interest in debating climate science with you, and never did.
On the other hand, it is indisputable that NEARLY ALL climate scientists agree with the consensus position. Given that 10% of people will agree to anything in a survey (yes, I have a degree in statistics as well as psychology), Doran 2009 also shows that NEARLY ALL scientists agree with the consensus full stop.
Well, I checked skeptical science, and their "basic" version is: "97% of climate experts agree humans are causing global warming.". Gee, are you going to argue that 98% is nearly all, and 97% isn't.
Oh wait, there is an intermediate tab!!! Let's see what it says. There's *another* study, (Doran 2009) that says *greater* than 95%. Well, if 98% is "nearly all", then >95% is clearly *not* "nearly all"
And if you go to wikepedia's page on scientific opinion on climate change, you will find *more* studies. All showing the same thing. I actually opened up and read one of them.
So no. "Nearly all" is just wrong. You are wrong. Live with it.
You don't believe any another other wack-job conspiracies do you?
Did you read the Tanenbam link, or do you just talk at someone.
It is so interesting that wall street is so thoroughly behind the GOP. That Citizens United gave the GOP an advantage in fund raising. The typical GOPer thinks of the democrats as encouraging crony capitalism, and seem quite forgiving to the long list of corporate shills who call themselves GOP senators. The Dems are beholden to corps as well -- fund-raising is just too important -- but it just isn't the same ballpark as the GOP.
Romney has been skyrocketing in terms of female popularity lately...
Keep up with the wishful thinking.
< You can't win with so much of the electorate unhappy with your policies.
I presume you're talking about 0bama? heh
You already sound impervious to any contrary evidence. And hence, it is because of "red-meat" partisan ideologues like you that political discourse resembles children fighting. Sad fact is: propaganda works. You are an exemplar.
"It is easier to fool a man than convince him he has been fooled" -- Twain.
That's all it takes for item (1) to happen and bring us a lot of home-brewed energy very quickly.
The energy goes on the international market. It will not cheapen the price of oil one iota.
Romney may have given some broad brushstrokes in his speech, but the GOP has no actual plan. There is nothing that anybody can crunch numbers on. The Dems *do* have such a plan.
We all see what we want to see, and GOP followers (most likely to watch fox) are the most misinformed. The media is more reality biased than Foxys can bring themselves to admit.
he had a democrat congress for at least a year or more.
You should really check this oft repeated mendacious claim. Obama used his very small window of opportunity to pass health-care reform. You should also look at some of the details of the bill yourself, instead of getting 3rd hand information from "four-legs-good, democrats bad" pundits.
Although nearly all domain experts agree that human CO2 emissions are altering the world’s climate,
98% is nearly all.
I think communism works great at a community level but doesn't scale very well.
Communism doesn't account for human nature, which is why it was such a horrendous failure. Capitalism makes no claims on peoples goodness, but curiously, economists generally believe that it only works because of strong cultural moral norms. (Like paying people for work, and not stealing.)
very strongly indicate that this paper is anything but unbiased
It is natural for scientists to take climate science as a given truth, since it is science, and the consensus is accepted as scientific by every major scientific organisation in the world.
You see, the truth is not in between scientists and "skeptics", which is why scientists talk about *denial*, because that is was it is -- scientifically speaking.
While I do see how this is an attractive conspiracy, I would think that people would be more likely to think that the companies are conspiring against science to further their economic goals.
It all depends on where you see the social threat coming from. Some people are terrified of the power of government. Mix in a proclivity for paranoia, and the mind generates the story-line. And it is *believed*.
Incidentally, Friedrich Hayek, in many ways the original market fundamentalists, believed that government should exercise its power to break up powerful corporate institutions so that they do not rig the system for themselves. Hayek saw this as the only primary role of the government in the economy, in stark contrast to Keynes.
Sometimes the best way to "love your neighbor" is not to hand them a check every month
This is true. And most liberals are against this type of cruel "kindness".
But the political discussion on entitlement programs cannot suffer such subtleties.
Jesus advocated for equality, including gender equality. He was also against the hierarchies of the status quo. There is a social order in there, and it ain't what conservatives are pushing.
If you want to know our best understanding of what he taught, and how it sometimes differs from modern bibles and why, then I recommend Misquoting Jesus.
We don't have to give up our "western" lifestyle to have a sustainable economy. That is just the strawman of terrified market fundamentalists.
Everyone wants *everyone else* to deal with.
No everyone. Just you, and a minority in the world. That's right, we're burning up the world because of the tyranny of a small special interest group and a few loud gullible follows.
Humans could have no greater nor swifter impact on the CO2 balance than the evolution of white-rot fungus.
Gee. Let me draw an analogy. I once saw a forest fire. The forest burnt down. Therefore, if I intentionally light a fire and destroy another forest, that forest wasn't really effected by my actions. Because that other forest was destroyed by natural causes.
If you think climate scientists are too stupid to know about such things, then you are too incompetent to recognize how incompetent you are.
The focus should be on enhancing our understanding of the climate model and figuring out how we might directly and actively control it.
Because a pound of cure is better then an ounce of prevention. Right?
Because skeptics are um skeptical. There are many of us who don't adopt a position of belief on this subject.
But those who call themselves skeptics have almost universally adopted a belief on the subject. That their 1-3 climate scientists are correct about climate science -- even thought they are creation scientists, but skeptics don't think about that.
As for those cries of economic armageddon from the ostensibly rational skeptics: they are also not founded in any reality. We have had various carbon trading and/or tax systems in place. In America. In Germany. The evidence is in, and just like the economists said, the net effect on the economy is negligible.
... so by definition ....
The world is not so black and white.
No, they are idealistic. The republicans are the new liberals, and the liberals are now the old-school conservatives. You see, a liberal has this arrogant belief about how things should be, and thinks they know so much, that they should just uproot the institutions of society in order to promulgate their utopian vision. The true conservative appreciates what they do not know.
There is a slippery slope in the other direction too. Once corporate interests control the interwebs, then goodbye to everything we love about it. Slippery-slope arguments are funny like that.
There is a type of republican who thinks that any type of regulation is bad. This is simply black and white thinking. If we ever think of no regulations, then move to Somalia. It is always a question of how much regulation, and what regulations create the right incentive structures. As such, it is a question of economics and law, and a little too nuanced for political discussion.
If you really believe that the proponents of net-neutrality want the government regulating every last bit of the internet, then you're living in bizarro world. If you really believe that corporate interests wouldn't do what special interests want (you scratch my back...), then you're an idiot. It is this type of corporate back-scratching that has destroyed real journalism in modern times. (You'd never say something bad about one of your advertises, for example.)