Women

Are Domestic Violence Statistics Bogus?

A dominant voice in victim-advocacy and research on domestic violence stands accused of flatly fabricating data.

|

Jacquelyn C. Campbell, a professor in the Johns Hopkins University School of Nursing, is accused of fabricating "key statements [about domestic violence] and then representing the statements as findings of a government survey." On January 14, the victim-advocacy organization Stop Abusive and Violent Environments (SAVE) filed a formal complaint with the Office of Research Integrity of the Department of Health and Human Services. SAVE wants the unit to "investigate these allegations of research misconduct by Dr. Campbell and colleagues, and take appropriate corrective action." (As of January 31, the complaint has been rejected and the rejection is being appealed.)

Specific Accusations

In two highly respected journals, Campbell and various colleagues claimed that "the leading cause of death in the United States among African American women aged 15 to 45 years" was homicide. In the American Journal of Public Health Vol. 93, No. 7, 2003, page 1089, the deaths were described as "femicide, the homicide of women." In the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) Journal 2003, page 18, the deaths were ascribed to "intimate partner violence" or domestic violence homicide.

Attorney General Eric Holder repeated the domestic violence version of the statistic in a 2009 speech; he stated, "Disturbingly, intimate partner homicide is the leading cause of death for African-American women ages 15 to 45." The statistic was posted in at least two places at the Department of Justice (DOJ) website. The conservative feminist Christina Hoff Sommers took exception. In USA Today (Feb. 4, 2011), she wrote, "That's a horrifying statistic, and it would be a shocking reflection of the black family, and American society generally, if it were true. But it isn't true."

Over two years later, the Washington Post fact checker, Glenn Kessler investigated Holder's statement and published his results. Kessler wrote that CDC "data show that, for the year 2008 (the year before Holder's speeches), cancer, heart disease, unintentional injury and HIV/AIDS all topped homicide. Then if you break out intimate-partner homicide, that ends up being seventh or eighth on the list (depending on whether you also include all homicides.)" As a basis of comparison, in 2008, cancer killed 1,871 black females; heart disease, 1,629; all homicides, 326.

Kessler next ran a forensic investigation of the claim. "As best we [Washington Post] and the Justice Department can determine," he stated, "this all started with a 1998 study by the Justice Department's Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), titled "Violence Against Intimates," that examined the data concerning crimes committed by current and former spouses, boyfriends and girlfriends." But that study did not find domestic-violence homicide to be the leading cause of death in black women aged 15 to 45 years. Indeed, the study even reported a marked decline in such homicides. "From 1976 to 1996, the number of murders of black spouses, ex-spouses, boyfriends and girlfriends decreased from 14 per 100,000 black age 20-44 to just under 4 per 100,000." Meanwhile, the general murder rate declined only an average of six percent a year.

Where did Holder get such a dramatically inaccurate statistic? Kessler fast forwarded to the 2003 studies in which Campbell was the principal researcher. The American Journal of Public Health study was published earliest, and it referred to "femicide" as the leading cause of death for African-American women aged 15 to 45. The later NIJ study stated "intimate partner violence" was "the leading cause of death." The 1998 BJS study was cited as a source in both cases but, as Kessler commented, "these facts cannot be found in the original BJS report."

Campbell did not respond to his request for clarification.

Since 2003, the inexplicable and unexplained statistic has assumed a life of its own. The University of Minnesota's Institute on Domestic Violence in the African American community Community reiterates it the claim on its website, citing the NIJ study as its source. Other journals, newspapers, and at least one book also use the statistic. According to Google, the American Journal of Public Health study has been referenced online 567 times as of January 13.

Kessler's Washington Post article was published on December 18, 2013. He noted that DOJ officials had assured him "that in coming days they planned to append a note to the Web pages in question making clear that the claim is not valid." The outrageous inaccuracy remains in the text of material on DOJ site, as it has for over four years. On January 17, changes were made, however. The following statement appears at the bottom of the page:

"These remarks, as originally delivered in 2009, cited a statistic naming intimate partner homicide as the leading cause of death for African-American women ages 15 to 45. This statistic was drawn from a range of reputable sources, including a 2003 study by the National Institute of Justice. However, recent figures indicate other causes of death—including cancer and heart disease—outrank intimate partner homicide for this age group."

This "clarification" vindicates the statistic as being from reliable sources and implies that it was once correct.

Killing a False 'Fact' Can Be Almost Impossible

Mark Perry is not surprised at the DOJ's failure to make a genuine correction. Perry is an economics professor at the Flint campus of the University of Michigan and a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI). The Washington Post fact checking occurred only because Perry pursued that avenue as a last resort. In an AEI article (Dec. 5, 2013), Perry stated that the false data was "being extensively quoted by universities, journalists, in books and YouTube videos, and by the American Bar Association." Perry called the DOJ failure especially disturbing in light of Obama's 2009 declaration, "Under my administration, the days of science taking a back seat to ideology are over… To undermine scientific integrity is to undermine our democracy."

Christina Hoff Sommers is also unsurprised. For years, Sommers has been battling bad data produced by politically correct feminism. She is perhaps best known for constantly correcting statistics which exclude men and boys or inaccurately represent them.

Sommers broke onto the scene in with 1995 with Who Stole  Feminism? and then in 2000 with The War Against Boys: ?How Misguided Feminism Is Harming Our Young Men, a book that meticulously debunked statistics and studies while expressing compassion for males who were ignored as victims and then revictimized by shoddy or dishonest research. Her USA Today article challenging Holder's statement proceeded in the same manner. Sommers commented:

Misinformation leads to misdirected policies that fail to target the true causes of violence. Worse, those who promulgate false statistics about domestic violence, however well-meaning, promote prejudice. Why do that? Anti-male misandry, like anti-female misogyny, is unjust and dangerous. Recall what happened at Duke University a few years ago when many seemingly fair-minded students and faculty stood by and said nothing while three innocent young men on the Duke Lacrosse team were subjected to the horrors of a modern-day witch hunt.

The call for the DOJ to genuinely correct its website comes not merely from a respect for the truth, but from a sense of fairness toward males and other victims of violence whom Sommers proclaimed "are best served by the truth."

As Sommers notes, PC feminism approaches males as perpetrators and women as their victims. The data frowns on this interpretation. The CDC's 2010 Summary Report of the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey reported the rates at which men and women had been victims of physical violence during the preceding year. The rate of male victimization was 6.5 percent; the rate of female victimization was 6.3 percent.

Martin S. Fiebert of the Department of Psychology at California State University (Long Beach) has analyzed hundreds of studies. In a report on his website he states, "This bibliography examines 286 scholarly investigations: 221 empirical studies and 65 reviews and/or analyses, which demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners. The aggregate sample size in the reviewed studies exceeds 371,600." And, yet, the studies overseen by Campbell, including her Danger Assessment form, continue the assumption that perpetrators are men and victims are women.

Are Campbell's Statistics Intentionally False?

Research misconduct includes the fabrication or falsification of research or in the reporting of research results. The SAVE complaint alleges that Campbell and her colleagues "made up key statements, presented them as the results of a prior Bureau of Justice Statistics survey, and then reported them in two journal articles. In the American Journal of Public Health report, the fabricated claim appears in the first sentence of the article and sets the tone for the remainder of the discussion."

Intentional falsification is a key aspect of research misconduct. But outright fabrication can be difficult to prove because it requires a judgment about the researcher's inner motives. In the presence of Campbell's silence, such a judgment must be based on the preponderance of evidence. The evidence includes: the lack of correction to debunked statistics; the absence of supporting data in the BJS report she cited; and, Kessler's observation that "[l]ogically, Holder's statement does not make much sense." Kessler continued, "Intimate-partner homicide is the leading cause of death? At the very least, intimate-partner homicide is a subset of all homicides, so one can easily see that a broader category of murder would be even higher. And, then, what about diseases?"

The foregoing might suggest intentional fabrication, but other explanations, such as ideological blindness, are always a possibility. While debunking the infamous World Cup myth—namely, that the UK World Cup (as well as the American Super Bowl) created a spike in domestic violence each year—Sommers noted an interesting response. The BBC had checked the proffered data and concluded that the World Cup claim was "a stunt based on cherry-picked figures." When journalists confronted a woman who spread the myth, she replied, "If it has saved lives, then it is worth it." The ideologically driven are notoriously willing to disregard truth in the name of a "noble" goal…or whatever they define as one.

Another reason that academics have falsified data is to gain more grants and academic respectability or power.

Whether intentionality can be proven in regard to the black "femicide" claim may be irrelevant in the end. SAVE clearly wants to shine a bright light on bad data upon which government policies and programs are based. The complaint and the appeal could accomplish this in and of itself. The respect for truth in domestic violence research will depend on the same factor that allowed falsehood to flourish: the media. Will the truth have the same media appeal as sensationalized falsehoods? Will cancer as a leading cause of death be reported with the same breathlessness as domestic-violence homicide? It remains to be seen. Perhaps the media can be shamed into valuing the truth.

NEXT: Video: Joe Trippi: "I don't see Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton having a big fight over the NSA."

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “Perhaps the media can be shamed into valuing the truth.”

    Perhaps a unicorn will balance the budget.

    1. Referring to President Obama as a “unicorn” plays on a cultural legacy of oppression, and is obviously racist.

      1. A unicorn balancing the budget is more likely than Obama doing it.

        1. An elected official who actually cares about liberty is kinda like a unicorn. Maybe slightly more common. Maybe.

          1. I just got paid $7500 working off my computer this month. And if you think that’s cool, my divorced friend has twin toddlers and made over $8k her first month. It feels so good making so much money when other people have to work for so much less. This is what I do, , WORKJURY.COM

        2. Yeah, what we need is a Republican President who can draw on the massive experience of his predecessors in balancing the federal budget.

          Idiot.

      2. Unicorns are white, Obama is half white, this is obviously an anti-black joke and I move that your first amendment rights be permanently stripped. Boatswain, prepare the yardarm!

        First amendment rights are the most abused of all rights…I read it in a government report so it must be true. This is why we need a regulatory and permitting process in place.

  2. “Killing a False ‘Fact’ Can Be Almost Impossible”

    You mean like the George HW Bush incident when he was “amazed” at an ordinary barcode scanner at a supermarket? It seems to get dredged up every presidential campaign and of course it was complete nonsense.

    1. Ronald Reagan thought ketchup was a vegetable!

      1. Pure ketchup is just pureed tomatoes. Maybe not the stuff you buy in a bottle, but real catsup is a vegetable. It is like saying pureed cauliflower ceases to be cauliflower once it has been pureed. Or, mashed potatoes aren’t a vegetable.

        1. Tomatoes are fruit.

          1. It’s a fruit! It’s a vegetable! It’s two food groups in one!

            Someone alert the Federal Department of Pyramids Turned Pie Chart guy.

        2. Pureed tomatoes is tomato paste, not ketchup. Ketchup needs at the very least vinegar and some other flavorings.

        3. Strangely enough, the same people who objected most loudly to the idea that ketchup was a vegetable also promote the idea that tofu is meat.

      2. Ketchup returned the compliment!

        1. Mustard returned the condiment

      3. Hell, the way school kids eat, it might be reasonable to count it as one.

      4. Both pizza and ketchup are now considered a vegetable by many school districts. It is a cheap way for them to follow the regulations that dictate the number of vegetables required in a school meal.

        1. It is a cheap way for them to follow the regulations that dictate the number of vegetables required in a school meal.

          While also providing something kids will actually eat.

        2. So can I redefine cocaine as wholemeal bread so that I’m following the law by not possessing cocaine? Private citizens don’t get to make up their own categories to avoid the law, why do government agencies?

    2. So, with WMDs available, THAT’S what you came up with?

      Idiot.

  3. Mr. Erhlich and Mr. Hanson, please meet Ms. Campbell. You have much in common and probably a lot to discuss.

    1. I don’t care what the data says, bring me the model results!

  4. I recall one of Dunphy’s talking points was that the war on domestic violence was as retarded as the WODs.

  5. “When journalists confronted a woman who spread the myth, she replied, “If it has saved lives, then it is worth it.” The ideologically driven are notoriously willing to disregard truth in the name of a “noble” goal…or whatever they define as one.”

    What we’re talking about is noble lies, here, if not perpetrated by the original teller, then certainly perpetuated in the media. And this story could just as easily been about global warming, gun ownership statistics, or anything else.

    We’re still living in an era when a lot of the people in charge of things were trained before their data and their work could be easily scrutinized by anyone with internet access.

    All those older people think fudging the data to get people to do what’s in their own best interests (as they see it) is a legitimate strategy for governance–if the consequences would be better if people believed certain things, then what does it matter whether those things are true?

    The problem is that other people don’t know what’s best for us, and the remedy is to debunk that appeal to authority. To accomplish that noble goal, we don’t have to lie to anyone. We can just watch people having their noble lies called out like they never used to before–now that it’s all out there on the interwebs.

    1. “We’re still living in an era when a lot of the people in charge of things were trained before their data and their work could be easily scrutinized by anyone with internet access.”

      I understand that when you turn a paper in in college these days, they often run it through a service that checks for plagiarism against millions of other term papers over the years, books, websites, etc.

      Back in the day? You could order a term paper from a listing in the back of Rolling Stone on any subject you wanted.

      1. Turnitin is built into my university’s “learning management system”. I can have my students electronically submit my paper into the program which will then be automatically forwarded to me.

        1. Turnitin is a fairly low bar to jump over. Used the program a few times never receiving a score over 10%.

          I also don’t let them retain my papers. It’s my work, go build your database off someone else. Now if they want to compensate me that’s a different story.

    2. What we’re talking about is noble lies

      True. But I also think some of these researchers completely convince themselves of the truth of their conclusions BEFORE they do the research. And they then, subconsciously, find and/or use the data that fits those conclusions. (One of the worst cases in recent years was Michael Bellisles (sp?) Arming America

      The media help this along by supporting any claim that furthers the desired narrative. Good example of this are hate crimes reported on campuses.

      1. some of these researchers completely convince themselves of the truth of their conclusions BEFORE they do the research. And they then, subconsciously, find and/or use the data that fits those conclusions.

        *gasps* Never! Unthinkable! I have been assured that all scholars must successfully undergo the kolinahr ritual to remove all vestiges of emotion and irrational thought before their research studies are approved.

        1. Whatr a buncha wussies. Real researchers undergo the Rite of Pure Thought.

          1. Blessed be the name of the Omnissiah. Sing his praise as you bear forth the sacred machine oils to annoint the cogwheels.

            Ave Machina.

      2. Michael Bellesiles didn’t “subconciously” make his data fit his conclusions. He almost certainly did it knowingly and willfully. One of the sources he cited were documents that were known to have been destroyed in a fire in the aftermath of the San Franciscio earthquake of 1906. You have to be pretty actively mendacious to cite records that haven’t existed in over 100 years.

    3. I don’t think this is an older generation problem. If anything science has become a more ideological and political animal than what it was decades ago. Not that it has ever been perfectly pure, but I think it’s much worse today.

      And let’s not forget that hidden gem from Ike 50 years ago,

      Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

      The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present

      and is gravely to be regarded.

      Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientifictechnological elite.

      1. The older generation is struggling for a couple of reasons.

        Before 1994, or so, having a lot of knowledge physically located in your head was an impressive thing. When someone was in a bar room argument, you couldn’t google back then to settle these things. Nowadays, any kid with a smartphone has access to more knowledge than any academic did back then. They may not know what it means or how to interpret it, but just having that knowledge as an academic and having passed tests on it in your field was impressive to average people back then.

        The other way academic “authority” is being watered down is that their actual data and findings are being scrutinized by average people. I’ve seen trolls pontificate against global warming on the interwebs–picking the research and the researchers apart, etc. 20 years ago, that just didn’t happen!

        Academics may get smarter about this stuff. See HM’s comment about turnitin. The kids that are coming up through academia today are more used to having their work scrutinized by the world. Back in the day, peer reviewed research might find something–but nowadays, the world is finding stuff that’s wrong with the things that have been peer reviewed.

        The noble lie is probably too effective to outright die, but it might never be what it was again, too. And that should be good news for anti-authoritarians.

        1. I think we’ve had forty or fifty years of institutions being co-opted by the left. Schools, teachers unions, nurses unions, the bureaucracy, and lastly science. I remember when it became a political objective of the left, because I was raised a leftie and I heartily approved. At one point the left knew it could never win an election and take over, but it could take over various institutions, and it set about to. The Nobel Lie is ubiquitous. It is anti-capitalism, anti-male, anti-American, anti-Western Liberal. It has not come close to dying. If anything it is stronger than ever.

        2. They may not know what it means or how to interpret it, but just having that knowledge as an academic and having passed tests on it in your field was impressive to average people back then.

          The other way academic “authority” is being watered down is that their actual data and findings are being scrutinized by average people. I’ve seen trolls pontificate against global warming on the interwebs–picking the research and the researchers apart, etc. 20 years ago, that just didn’t happen!

          So you’re saying that there is no appeal to authority today? Really? 97% mean anything to you?

          Yes, there are better tools to pick apart research today. That doesn’t mean that today’s researcher is any purer. I think the older generation was less political. Today everything needs to have policy implications baked into the science. In fact just yesterday the editor of Science was blabbing on NPR about the policy implications of Keystone XL.

          1. “So you’re saying that there is no appeal to authority today? Really? 97% mean anything to you?”

            I’m saying it’s breaking down.

            I’m saying that the appeal to authority had more of a protective environment to breed in back before all of this stuff was searchable by anyone sitting on a barroom stool.

            20 years ago, if you really wanted to challenge something some academic said, you either had to make a reference to something with which whomever you were arguing with was already familiar, or you had to go to a library and look it up in the right book.

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…..-dent19Uss

            It just isn’t like that anymore, but the older generation comes from that world, where being an “authority” on something meant people believed what you said.

            The more the baby boomers retire and die, the less “authority” I would expect academics to have less “authority” in the future–they certainly don’t have “authority” on the facts anymore!

          2. Were you in on that argument between Sullum and Kleiman? At one point Kleiman, who’s a big shot professor at UCLA, suggested that Sullum was wrong, in part, because Barack Obama used to be a constitutional law professor so he couldn’t have misread the law (which is what Sullum was accusing him of).

            In other words, a baby boomer professor was attacking Sullum (who isn’t a professional academic) for not accepting the authority of a baby boomer former professor–because the opinions of non-academics don’t matter in the face of academic “authority”…

            Nevermind that Sullum was right, and everybody reading any of that exchange could click on all the relevant links and SEE FOR THEMSELVES that Sullum was right and Kleiman and Obama were wrong–on the facts.

            Most people had never been on the internet until they found out about AOL. AOL went public about 20 years ago! We don’t have to take the academics’ word for anything anymore–we can look it up ourselves. Why wouldn’t that be a…structural challenge to the authority of academics?

            It’s sort of like when Protestants started publishing the Bible in modern languages so people could read it for themselves. That had a profound impact on the “authority” of priests! Why wouldn’t it? The academic stuff is like that, too. Just because he’s a priest doesn’t mean he’s right–I’ll go look at the research and double check him myself!

            1. In other words, a baby boomer professor was attacking Sullum (who isn’t a professional academic) for not accepting the authority of a baby boomer former professor–because the opinions of non-academics don’t matter in the face of academic “authority”…

              The funniest thing about that is that Obama was never a professor. He wasn’t even an adjunct. He was a fricken “guest lecturer”

              1. THANK YOU – he lectured. And it wasn’t an earned job, it was a political favor so he could SAY he taught ConLaw.

              2. The point is that it was an appeal to authority fallacy–even if he was a professor.

            2. It’s sort of like when Protestants started publishing the Bible in modern languages so people could read it for themselves.

              ^This

    4. she replied, “If it has saved lives, then it is worth it.”

      So if beating a woman without causing permanent injury improves just one life, its worth it, right? No excuse for moral relativism.

  6. In finance, communications, and academia (three areas tightly controlled by government), scum seems to float to the top. Why might that be, I wonder? Because not only can the “right people” lie with impunity, but are actually rewarded for lying.

    1. I think it’s a legitimate strategy. If you can control what facts people know about and believe, you can control a lot of what they support and care about.

      This is one of the reasons why climate deniers continue to dispute the statistics–because they know that if people believe the environmentalists, the consequences are going to be bad for the economy if people support the solutions that are already on the table.

      This is one of the reasons why environmentalists are always trying to control the facts and berate anyone who doesn’t accept them blindly. They know that if they can get people to accept certain facts, then they’re 90% of the way to imposing their will on those people.

      Controlling the facts, fudging them, inventing them, even, has been an effective strategy to make people do what you want them to do for eons.

      The good news is that the interwebs may be making that a less effective strategy than ever before.

      I keep seeing noble lies blow in people’s faces–like trying to frame a guilty man helped set OJ free. Regardless of how you feel about these issues, did anything hurt the global warming cause more than the discovery that scientists were colluding and might be fudging data? What could hurt the cause of protecting women from abuse more than making people question the statistics themselves?

      1. I keep seeing noble lies blow in people’s faces

        I certainly don’t.

        We live in the age of “I made the least untruthful statement.” (See James Clapper). You can catch people in lies, have proof that they did lie, and their answer will simply be “fuck you.”

        1. I gave two examples of what I was talking about.

          I think those climate scientists were trying to frame a guilty man. They believed that climate change was real, that people should know about it and understand it, and they were willing to do some really unacademic things to make their case.

          It hurt them. Finding out about that scandal set the global warming movement back ten years! It blew up in their faces.

          This scandal about the homicide statistics is the same, or so it seems to me! Whoever the enemies of feminists are, they’re going to use this scandal to discredit feminism in the eyes of average people. If they fudged the data, ultimately, it didn’t help their cause–it could hurt it greatly.

          1. Whoever the enemies of feminists are

            “All right-thinking people”

            1. No some are just as bad as feminists. MRAs are the same thing.

              1. MRAs are the same thing.

                How so? Do you have links to MRAs claiming that 95% of all domestic violence is committed by women? Because I certainly can find statements made (usually in “facts vs. myths” propaganda publications) by feminists that 95% of all domestic violence is committed by men.

              2. MRA’s? They don’t get gov’t grants to promote false scholarship to implement blatantly bigoted policy to use violence by proxy of the state to systematically deny people (ya know, men) the same legal protections, educational opportunities, or financial open doors.

                MRAs are a REACTION to feminist policies – and please do show me a link where an MRA leader (not some random thread post which anyone can do) that pushes anti-female policies.

                Wow – drink some more Kool Aid and post again.

                1. Just because feminists got there first doesn’t mean MRAs aren’t just as crazy. There are people in both groups who think that the other sex is inherently evil and out to get them.

                  and whose Kook-Aid am I drinking if i’m opposed to both groups? Androgyns don’t have political organizations. We’re too busy painting and looking for obscure concert footage of David Bowie and Blixa Bargeld.

                  1. Just because feminists got there first doesn’t mean MRAs aren’t just as crazy.

                    Put up or shut up.

                    1. They’re both obsessed with gender. What more can I say? “WAHHH MY GENDER!!!!” says both groups.

                  2. …”and whose Kook-Aid am I drinking if i’m opposed to both groups?”

                    Why are you asking us to sort out your ignorance?

                    1. Ignorance? Obsessing over gender like feminists and MRAs do is ignorance.

          2. Um, ok – “Climate deniers” : you mean people who want unfudged data ?

            People produce (approx.) 3.7-4.9 % of ALL the CO2.

            That’s it. Let’s pretend CO2 is bad – even if we were to eliminate all humans 95-97% of all CO2 emissions would continue.

            But, CO2 is not bad.

            and as to the feminists – puhleez, people who constantly denigrate people based on genetic predisposition are bigots. Just replace men with black, muslim or [anyone] and it’s plain as day.

          3. It hurt them. Finding out about that scandal set the global warming movement back ten years! It blew up in their faces.

            The damage is worse than that. Science as a brand took a big credibility hit. The academy is slowly coming to accept this (after years of denial), and they aren’t liking it.

            1. …and that loss of credibility combined with the ability of anyone anywhere to fact-check anything is going to be their downfall.

        2. In the meantime, the “authority” that academics enjoy keeps being eroded by the internet…and by getting called out for mistakes in public, i.e., noble lies blowing up in their faces.

          …and I’m talking about the appeal to authority effect they get from average people for being an academic. It’s eroding in a number of ways.

      2. Climate deniers? People actually deny that there’s climate? Of course you meant skeptics, and what they argue is that the predictions do not agree with reality, i.e. the CMIP5 GCM results have already been falsified by actual measurement.

        As to “solutions” being on the table, the only real solution would be a massive re-investment in nuclear which the econuts can’t stand. Full scale “green” energy would require lots of things that the greens aren’t willing to accept like a tripling in world wide production of rare earths, itself a very dirty process, not to mention the utter lack of adequate (as in any) grid scale storage technology.

        1. There are other solutions that have been on the table.

          We have to stop the pipeline from Canada.

          There’s Agenda 21.

          Kyoto!

          There are a few environmentalists that aren’t so hostile to capitalism, but for most of them, the solution is all about making sacrifices.

          They set the issues up in a certain way. The Iraq War was like that, where the question of whether we went to war was supposed to rest on whether Saddam Hussein had WMD.

          I assumed he did have WMD, but I didn’t see why war was the inevitable and correct reaction to that–but the authorities who wanted war with Iraq set it up that way. So, once we were presented with evidence that Iraq had WMD, going to Iraq became a foregone conclusion.

          I see the same thing with global warming, and I think a lot of climate change skeptics do, too. The powers that be have made it clear what kinds of things they intend to do to combat AGW, if it’s real, so the people who don’t want to see us do those things are insistent in their denial that AGW is real.

          The legitimate debate about the data and what it means is out the window already and has been for years. For more than 90% of the people out there, it’s all about competing noble lies now. If they’re arguing the truth, for most of them–on either side–it’s only by accident.

          That’s what these feminist statistics are about, too. If certain things are true, it supports their agenda. So, how do we convince people that those things are true?

          1. “There are a few environmentalists that aren’t so hostile to capitalism, but for most of them, the solution is all about making sacrifices.”

            Aren’t all solutions about making sacrifices? The difference between the solutions of capitalists and the solutions of environmentalists are what is to be sacrificed.

            1. I would argue that not all the solutions are about making sacrifices.

              Or, I should say, some of the best solutions are about slashing government spending and control–so, yeah, the people who prosper from government spending and control would have to make sacrifices.

              There are things we should do to stop discouraging innovation and investment. How much does our military spending add to the illusion of a cheap barrel of oil? Personally, I’d rather pay a sales tax on carbon intensive products INSTEAD OF an income tax…

              I can think of a lot of things we can do to address the problem of AGW, but most people on the economic right aren’t talking about them.

              It’s understandable. Because the left is using AGW as a proxy to shoehorn regulation, government spending, and taxes into public policy, the right is doing what they can to strike at the foundations of and belief in AGW.

              But we need some people to start talking about the free market capitalist solutions, though, and without being denounced by others on the right as a bunch of idiots who are carrying water for The Hoax.

              The way science works, when new data comes in that conflicts with what we “know”, the scientists change what they know to match the new data. If the definitive proof of AGW shows up tomorrow, and the only solution voters know about is Agenda 22, or whatever, then we’re in big trouble, Buddy Roe!

              1. “But we need some people to start talking about the free market capitalist solutions”

                I sympathize with your position, but before free market solutions make any sense, don’t we need to have some idea of the cash value of a carbon free atmosphere? Or have some idea of the costs associated with say 500 ppm compared with 400 ppm? Isn’t that essential for any cost benefit analysis that would go into free market solutions?

                1. Global warming correlation to carbon output is suspect at best, especially with the newest data. Causation isn’t even remotely close to being proven.

                  I’m all for breathing cleaner air and polluting the environment less, however I would never try to increase support for my beliefs through outright lies, propaganda and/or force.

                  As far as I’m concerned the chicken little global warming crowd can get fucked until they actually come up with undeniable proof of causation. Else they can be pro environment in a scientifically responsible way like the rest of us.

                2. Global warming correlation to carbon output is suspect at best, especially with the newest data. Causation isn’t even remotely close to being proven.

                  I’m all for breathing cleaner air and polluting the environment less, however I would never try to increase support for my beliefs through outright lies, propaganda and/or force.

                  As far as I’m concerned the chicken little global warming crowd can get fucked until they actually come up with undeniable proof of causation. Else they can be pro environment in a scientifically responsible way like the rest of us.

                  1. “Global warming correlation to carbon output is suspect at best”

                    The heat trapping quality of CO2 and other ‘green house gases’ have been fairly well understood for over a century now.

                    This ‘undeniable proof’ you are seeking will never arrive. It’s a political matter at heart and if you think you’re going to get undeniable proof of anything, you’re barking up the wrong tree hugger.

                    “I would never try to increase support for my beliefs through outright lies, propaganda and/or force”

                    Fine, just as long as you realize that with such an attitude, insisting on bringing a knife to a gun fight, you are bound to lose.

                    1. Yes understood in controlled conditioms that are not analogous to the planet earth. Our planet is much more self regulating than a glass box, if it were not we wouldnt be here today.

                      But yeah psuedoscience should be acceptable without an alternative. That is basically your argument here. I disagree.

                      As far as truth and lies? If you are more interested in winning than winning with the truth, good for you I guess.

                    2. “Yes understood in controlled conditioms that are not analogous to the planet earth.”

                      Otherwise known as experiments.

                3. There are things we should be doing that will mean more innovation–regardless of whether AGW is a problem or not.

                  Income taxes artificially inflate the cost of hiring unemployed people. The only reason we tolerate that stupidity is because the left is hellbent on redistributing wealthy people’s incomes to the poor by way of government spending.

                  If the left is going to displace who knows how many coal miners, oil rig operators, etc., then they’re going to need an economy that can absorb all of those unemployed people. Otherwise, people will never support their green initiatives. In other words, doing things like getting rid of the income tax and replacing it with a sales tax and getting rid of the capital gains tax–to stop artificially discouraging people from making investments? Those things are environmental issues.

                  1. Meanwhile, from a capitalist perspective, we need to get rid of the capital gains tax and the income tax anyway.

                    Right?

                    The left must come to realize that a democracy will not support the kinds of green initiatives they say will solve the problem if it crushes the economy.

                    So, why can’t we get their help on making the economy grow?

                    I guess we need to split the left on the environment–and I’m fine with that!

                    Any environmentalist that isn’t willing to save the environment if it means they can’t redistribute other people’s money anymore by way of income taxes is a phony environmentalist.

                    And it’s high time we told them that. I don’t see any reason to wait for an accurate cost/benefit analysis for C02 in the atmosphere before we engage the left in that fight.

                    1. “Any environmentalist that isn’t willing to save the environment if it means they can’t redistribute other people’s money anymore by way of income taxes is a phony environmentalist.”

                      Pretty sure you’ve identified the views of some portions of the greens; the watermellons. But there’s certainly appeal beyond that.
                      I certainly see no conspiracy, the there is no lack of religious views concerning the sinfulness of commerce and the purity of “nature”, facts be damned.
                      Even if you could convince the bleevers that “nature” would benefit, I’m sure most would still opt to cut off their noses to make the sinful pay.

                    2. There are career people in the movement, but the people who support them will have to choose between saving the earth or not.

                      Their clock is ticking. If their models are right, there’s a point beyond which it’s too late. For instance, it takes at least 5 to 10 million years to recover from an extinction event.

                      I tell my environmentalist friends: if we end up in an environmentally catastrophic world–the reason won’t be because of climate change denialists… It will be becasue environmentalists refused to abandon their economic denialism.

                      When Barack Obama was at his least popular, it was when the price of oil shot up because of that leak in the Gulf. I don’t think there’s any factor more closely tied to presidential unpopularity than the price of oil. You can be an unpopular president without the price of oil spiking, but it’s harder to be a popular president with the price of oil spiking than it is at any other time–going back to the Carter Administration, at least.

                      When environmentalists start embracing economic reality, things change. Otherwise, they get exactly as much support for their initiatives as they have now–which is not enough to solve the problem. It’s up to them. The American people won’t commit economic suicide just because environmentalists call them stupid.

                      If they want to save the environment, they’re going to have to do a lot better than calling for the American people to commit economic suicide.

                    3. “Pretty sure you’ve identified the views of some portions of the greens; the watermellons. But there’s certainly appeal beyond that.”

                      Aren’t the watermelons the biggest part of the problem, though?

                      I don’t oppose environmentalism on principle. The people I grew up with on the Chesapeake Bay, if you ignored the fact that they were duck hunting, sounded just like environmentalists on all sorts of issues. They cared just as much about the environment as anybody, they’d just rather not be associated with watermelons (although they couldn’t put it in words like that), so they called themselves “conservationists” instead of environmentalists.

                      They just hate the environmentalists’ solutions, and those solutions all had to do with regulation, state control, huge taxes, etc.

                      Watermelons are to the environmentalist movement what social conservatives are to the Republicans, and getting the environmentalists to abandon socialism is like getting the Republicans to abandon silliness like opposition to gay marriage.

                      It’s just that I can see a way for the environmentalists to do that. Many of these people are already making voluntary sacrifices for the good of the environment; if we can convince them that sacrificing the support of watermelons is the key to saving the environment, then there’s reason to hope.

                  2. …”In other words, doing things like getting rid of the income tax and replacing it with a sales tax and getting rid of the capital gains tax–to stop artificially discouraging people from making investments? Those things are environmental issues.”

                    In order to do so, voters would have to accept that money and taxes are fungible; you can’t tax “businesses”, you simply make businesses the intermediary tax collector.
                    Being in SF may warp my view, but I do not see that happening.

                  3. “Income taxes artificially inflate the cost of hiring unemployed people.”

                    I thought only statists and leftists wrung their hands over the pursuit of full employment. Now Libertarians are joining in? A bit of a disappointment.

                    1. I thought only statists and leftists wrung their hands over the pursuit of full employment.

                      Who said anything about full employment?

                      The polices the left wants to pursue will have a devastating impact on the economy–unless mitigated by other tax cuts and heavy deregulation–and the policies they want to pursue will have an even more devastating impact on certain industries.

                      The left’s denial of this fact is far, far dumber than climate change denialism. Denying economic reality is dumber than creationism!

                      In the meantime, there is no good reason to tax income, specifically. It really does artificially inflate the cost of hiring unemployed people, and if the left wants to initiate policies that will be devastating to our economy in various ways, then they need to get rid of all these absurd and pointless economic policies.

                    2. Charging employers more than $50,000 a year to pay their employees $40,000 a year in take home pay is stupid when the unemployment rate is around 7% and the labor participation rate is as low as it’s been for a long time. How much dumber would it be if large numbers of workers were displaced by, say, huge taxes on carbon intensive activity?

                      Fact is, to solve the problem of AGW, the environmentalists would have to put more taxes on carbon intensive activity than the U.S. government currently collects in income taxes. The environmentalists need to come to terms with the impact of that fact–and the ultimate impact of raising taxes that high isn’t anywhere near as mysterious as the effects of adding more CO2 to the atmosphere.

                      In the meantime, we should be getting rid of the income tax anyway–and replacing it with sales taxes anyway–no matter whether AGW is real or not.

                    3. “In the meantime, we should be getting rid of the income tax anyway–and replacing it with sales taxes anyway–no matter whether AGW is real or not.”

                      I really don’t see how we’re going to pull our AGW chestnuts out of the fire by giving people more money (even if it’s there’s) or by making it easier for employers to hire more people.

                      I would have thought that the fewer people working, the better, as far as curtailing greenhouse gas emissions is concerned. That calls for a fundamental re-thinking of the economy, never something to be taken lightly, let’s be frank, it’s consequences can be terrifying. But I don’t see an alternative. Your notion of spending our way out of this mess are just not persuasive.

                    4. Also, thanks for reveling your true colors in your 4:48 post.

                      What’s it like not having a conscience?

                    5. Always happy to revel my true colours.

                      Anything interesting to add to the discussion?

                    6. “I would have thought that the fewer people working, the better, as far as curtailing greenhouse gas emissions is concerned. That calls for a fundamental re-thinking of the economy, never something to be taken lightly, let’s be frank, it’s consequences can be terrifying. But I don’t see an alternative.”

                      Yeah, well, that’s not surprising. You’re an imbecile.

                    7. “I would have thought that the fewer people working, the better, as far as curtailing greenhouse gas emissions is concerned.”

                      If you willfully force that many people out of their jobs–and then expect them not to use democracy to throw you out of power–then it’s safe to conclude you have willfully authoritarian tendencies.

                      I will give you some credit. At least you’re honest about your strategy of destroying the economy–and keeping people powerless to do anything about it.

                      When I was talking about watermelons (people who are green on the outside but red on the inside) being the ultimate cause of whatever environmental catastrophe AGW brings? I was talking about people like you.

                      What social conservatives are to Republicans, that’s what you are to the environmental movement–a huge embarrassment and ultimately the biggest obstacle to getting enough done to save the environment.

                      The American people will not support economic suicide, and if that’s were the only strategy possible to save the environment, then the environment would be doomed. It’s a good thing your disgusting authoritarianism isn’t the only possible solution. …just like it isn’t the solution to anything else.

                    8. “I really don’t see how we’re going to pull our AGW chestnuts out of the fire by giving people more money”

                      Do you imagine it’s the poor who are buying hybrids, shopping at Whole Foods, buying solar panels for their homes, and installing geothermal heat pumps?

                      The wealthier people are, the more qualitative concerns like the environment are important to them–the less of a sacrifice it is to their standard of living to make green choices (of their own free will).

                      It works that way in the developing world, too. The wealthier people are, the more they care about the environment. It’s hard to worry about things like that when you’re having trouble putting a bowl of rice on the table. Oh, and the wealthier people in the developing world are, 1) the lower the infant mortality rate drops, 2) the more women are contributing to the economy outside the home, too…

                      …and–cross culturally–those are the two most important factors in making the birth rate drop. We cannot save the environment without massive amounts of economic growth.

                    9. Saying we should get rid of income taxes because they negatively affect employment is not calling for 100% employment you disingenuous twat.

                    10. “negatively affect employment”

                      Negative in what sense? It seems to me that the less human activity, the less emissions of CO2. That’s a positive for anyone who takes this AGW stuff seriously.

                    11. You are literally to stupid to continue to talk with.

                4. “don’t we need to have some idea of the cash value of a carbon free atmosphere?”

                  No, WE don’t, unless you’re on the Gosplan committee.
                  The market will decide the value and it will change constantly.
                  I see you have no understanding of a market.

                  1. “No, WE don’t, unless you’re on the Gosplan committee.
                    The market will decide the value and it will change constantly.”

                    I don’t understand your point. If we don’t have any idea of the value of the atmosphere we are aiming at, how are we to judge whether or not the X amount of investment that we are considering is wise or not? How is the market going to make this decision for us?

                    1. Maybe it’s because you can’t put a value to that. Maybe you should stop thinking you can control the thoughts and actions of 7billion people.

                    2. mtrueman|2.23.14 @ 4:37PM|#
                      “I don’t understand your point.”

                      Yes, that’s because you’re an idiot.

            2. Aren’t all solutions about making sacrifices? The difference between the solutions of capitalists and the solutions of environmentalists are what is to be sacrificed.

              Or who is to make them…

              1. “Or who is to make them…”

                More importantly, how the choice is made.
                The market says this choice costs X dinars; chose among yourselves.
                The commies say “this is who loses”.

            3. …”The difference between the solutions of capitalists and the solutions of environmentalists are what is to be sacrificed.”

              No, and I’m sure you do not understand.
              The difference isn’t what is to be sacrificed, the difference is how the sacrifices are chosen.
              The greens pick up the gun and tell you what you lose. The market says: ‘Here’s the choices, decide among yourselves’.
              And I’m quite sure that ignorance on your part is why you simply do not understand how things work.

              1. “The market says: ‘Here’s the choices, decide among yourselves’.”

                What does the market say about the value of an atmosphere?

                1. “What does the market say about the value of an atmosphere?”

                  Same thing it says about everything else, idjit.

                2. “What does the market say about the value of an atmosphere?”

                  The market says a lot of things about that.

                  For instance, the market says people will pay a premium to buy the hybrid version of a car–they’ll pay more than they save in gas to buy a hybrid.

                  The market says people will spend billions of dollars to put solar panels on their homes that–even with subsidies–won’t pay for themselves for more than a decade.

                  Those are just two examples.

                  Oh, and did you know that greenhouse gas emissions are dropping in the U.S.?

                  http://www.motherjones.com/blu…..e-dropping

                  Mother Jones attributes half of that drop to household energy use. They also attribute it to increased efficiency of autos–people are buying Fiats instead of SUVs.

                  That’s also something the market is saying about the value of the atmosphere.

                  1. “Oh, and did you know that greenhouse gas emissions are dropping in the U.S.?”

                    I did know that. It is probably also related to a chronic economic slump in the USA and government policies to move manufacturing to China, a country which has been increasing in emissions.

                    About the premium for hybrids etc, I doubt the decision to pay extra comes out of a cost benefit analysis that takes into account the value of the atmosphere and how much CO2 emissions degrade the value. I think the premium is a feel good thing, letting people feel good about purchases they might otherwise feel guilty about. There is also the possibility that they expect dramatic increases of fossil fuels over the life of the vehicle.

                    1. Actually, manufacturing jobs have increased over the last 5-6 years.

                      http://www.creditwritedowns.co…..-2012.html

                      Never mind that the decrease started back in the 90’s during the economic boom times.

                    2. Are you expecting the emissions figures to go up again? We’ll have to wait and see.

                    3. I don’t expect them to go up, since they haven’t started yet. Scrubbing tech is further advanced than it was even 2 years ago.

                      And of course the best solution to any kind of co2 increase is also the easiest: plant more trees.

                    4. “And of course the best solution to any kind of co2 increase is also the easiest: plant more trees.”

                      That was always a fall back of Hitler’s – plant more trees. Not quite the free market solution I was expecting.

                    5. Wow, nice Godwin there fucktard.

                      And the free market DOES have tree solutions. Or have you never heard of private conservation groups, private parks, or the Boy Scouts? Not to mention architects working with developers and owners to save existing trees and plant new ones.

                      Oh and trees actually live on CO2 idiot.

                    6. “Wow, nice Godwin there”

                      Thanks, but you set yourself up for it. Normally, I would have gone with a more recent tree loving dictator like Park Chunhee, but I wasn’t too confident about your grasp on history. Don’t take it personally. I figured you’d have some familiarity with fellow tree lover Adolf.

                      Boy Scouts are the key to a free market solution to this AGW mess? Don’t waste time posting here, call your scout master immediately!

                    7. “About the premium for hybrids etc, I doubt the decision to pay extra comes out of a cost benefit analysis that takes into account the value of the atmosphere and how much CO2 emissions degrade the value”

                      See above; you’re an imbecile. You should shut up and read.

                    8. “About the premium for hybrids etc, I doubt the decision to pay extra comes out of a cost benefit analysis that takes into account the value of the atmosphere and how much CO2 emissions degrade the value. I think the premium is a feel good thing, letting people feel good about purchases they might otherwise feel guilty about.”

                      You think consumers being willing to pay extra for a car that makes them feel better about CO2 emissions–doesn’t mean the market has something to say about the value of the atmosphere to consumers?

                      Are you aware that markets represent people making choices?

                      Market forces are people making choices. When people choose to pay a market premium because it makes them feel better about the atmosphere, it means the market values the atmosphere.

                      …and that’s just one market segment of the entire economy. Whole Foods has built a monolithic industry supplying consumers who are willing to pay a premium for food if it’s better for the environment.

                      The market (consumers and producers) spend hundreds of billions of dollars every year–differently than they would otherwise–because they value the environment (and the atmosphere). Denying this is denying reality.

                    9. “because they value the environment”

                      I take your point, but the question is how much of a value do the put on the environment (or the atmosphere)? If it’s not enough, they will continue to make choices that add to emissions. The hybrid cars we’ve been talking about are an example. If everyone got one tomorrow, these cars would still be ‘carbon positive’ in their operations and manufacturing. None of the environmentalists I’ve read call for more emissions. If these hybrid buying consumers think they are contributing to a solution, it’s because they are misinformed. A good market requires good information. Good information here means a better notion of the value of the desired atmosphere and the cost of the damaging emissions.

                3. m: It says that since most life on this planet is carbon based and/or needs carbon to live, a carbon free atmosphere is…less than ideal.

                  1. What does it say about the point at which too much carbon becomes “less than ideal”?

                    1. mtrueman|2.23.14 @ 5:42PM|#
                      “What does it say about the point at which too much carbon becomes “less than ideal”?”

                      It says you don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about!
                      You’re an idiot! Shut up and learn!

                    2. “Shut up and learn!”

                      What I’ve learned here is that you are incapable of mounting any sort of argument worthy of the name. Not a lesson I cared to learn, but still should be shared. To coin a phrase, A lot of sound and fury Sevo, but it signifies nothing.

          2. Waving your hand doesn’t count as another solution. Storage simply hasn’t been solved.

            1. No doubt, if the problems are real, then the magnitude of the problem is immense.

              We’re talking about a tremendous amount of private investment that needs to be raised, private projects that need to be financed, people moving to more temperate climates in response to market forces…

              What’s even worse about the solutions coming from the left than that they all involve making gigantic sacrifices is that their solutions–for all the same old reasons–won’t do enough to solve the problem and won’t work.

              Making huge sacrifices and not enough to solve the problem–isn’t that the worst possible outcome?

              1. At current technology it would cost the US 24 trillion alone to go completely green.

                So not only do they lie, the alarmists live in a land of unicorns and rainbows. No wonder they’re mostly progresives.

            2. Bookmarked for an interesting looking read. Thanks Skippy.

          3. The real reason for going to war with Saddam Hussein was that he had never met the terms of surrender from that LAST war. He was unfinished business. If we wanted the threat of American military intervention to carry any weight, he had to go.

            Naturally, this couldn’t be put before the public. It made too much sense.

            1. That’s one theory.

              Another is that Bush wanted to change the paradigm in the Middle East. They currently hated us and considered us weak. He wanted to change it to them hating us and fearing us. I suppose a reason that they didn’t fear us was because of the way Gulf War I ended, as you say. Also, a by product was having a military presence in the Middle East that could quickly and easily reach out and touch the Islamist.

            2. “The real reason for going to war with Saddam Hussein was that…”

              I hope it gets across that the reason we really did go to war in Iraq was because the American people belied a number of “facts” that weren’t true…

              They believed that Saddam Hussein was personally complicit in 9/11.

              http://usatoday30.usatoday.com…..iraq_x.htm

              They believed that Saddam Hussein was looking for yellowcake in Niger.

              They believed that the bogus photographs that Colin Powell held up of mobile WMD labs were real–and that they may have been used in weaponizing anthrax.

              Of all the stupid shit I’ve seen conspiracy theorists cook up about 9/11, why don’t they focus on the weirdest most unexplained part of it–the anthrax angle?

              Anyway, whether Powell and Bush knew that what they were telling America and the world was a lie is debatable–I think they may have been purposely misled by their underlings. Certainly, Bush wanted to go to war with Iraq.

              Regardless, like the sinking of the Maine, the Gulf of Tonkin incident, (maybe the Lusitania) etc., etc. Noble lies may not be the exception; maybe they’re the rule.

        2. ” the only real solution would be a massive re-investment in nuclear which the econuts can’t stand”

          Doesn’t sound like a ‘real’ solution to me, but I’m curious you say “the econuts can’t stand.” You seem to be implying that libertarians would be fine with this. Nuclear energy calls for a centralized, command economy. I would have thought the promotion of nuclear would be anathema to libertarians. Yet you seem in favour of it, the only real solution you say.

          1. Your inferences do not equate to my implications. I make no statement one way or the other with regards to Libertarians and nuclear power.

            Nuclear does not call for a centralized, command economy. Where do you get this nonsense? Even a large scale nuke like the kind we build today is simply a big thermal plant similar to a large scale coal plant. Waste disposal has become a centralized, government-controlled issue because the government made it so. And of course there is always the option to make smaller, modular reactors which would be anything but centralized. We already do that today. We call them aircraft carriers and submarines, not that I’m advocating for commercialization of naval power reactors; there are better options.

            Again, even though I personally like nukes I’m not advocating for building any more of them unless the market decides it wants to. My point about it being the only real solution applies if you believe CAGW is a problem that we must solve. I don’t. I’m simply pointing out the logical disconnect of the econuts.

            1. Sorry, when you wrote of a ‘real’ solution, I didn’t know you were referring to nuclear technology in some ideal free market alternative universe.

              I haven’t seen the logical disconnect of the econuts you want to point out. I understand that to continue growth without fossil fuels requires alternatives like nuclear, but I think econuts question the assumption that continual growth is necessary or even desirable. If you listen to them, they talk of sustainablity instead.

              1. …”I understand that to continue growth without fossil fuels requires alternatives like nuclear,”…

                Yes, but why not continue growth *with* fossil fuels?

                1. “Yes, but why not continue growth *with* fossil fuels?”

                  Why not indeed? It all depends on what you are willing to sacrifice.

                  1. I’m not willing to sacrifice people’s lives to satisfy a goddamn cults feelings. Which is what trying to move completely away from fossil fuels would do.

                    1. To repeat myself, it depends on what you ARE willing to sacrifice.

                    2. mtrueman|2.23.14 @ 6:26PM|#
                      “To repeat myself, it depends on what you ARE willing to sacrifice.”

                      Ya know, asshole, you might be taken a bit more seriously if you didn’t spend your entire time here hinting.
                      Put it another way; tell us what we will “sacrifice” or STFU.

                    3. tell us what we will “sacrifice”

                      To repeat myself repeating myself, what are you willing to sacrifice? Are you afraid to answer, or are you like the rest of the self-styled libertarians here and believe there is such a thing as a free lunch?

                      Behind all this bluster and insult, you’re a bit of a coward, aren’t you, Sevo? An intellectual coward to be precise, not willing to face the implications of the ideas you embrace or fess up to your not fully understanding them.

          2. By the way – the “new” (known about for a few decades now) nuc plants don’t require us to use Plutonium or Uranium – they can use far less radioactive material that has a much safer waste product.

        3. The Greens’ solution is to have the 5 billion people least like themselves to have the goddamn courtesy to die without breeding. Preferrably now. The fact that they read CS Lewis’ That Hideous Strength and took the N.I.C.E bad guys as their model gives me reasonable concern that giving them any power at all will lead to them “helping” those 5 billion people along. And, I should note, that I believe that the climate does change, now is warmer than when the Thames froze over routinely, and that humans may have some effect, although not greater than the output changes of the Sun, on that.

          1. “The Greens’ solution is to have the 5 billion people least like themselves to have the goddamn courtesy to die”

            I think it’s far worse than that, Brett L. Set aside your fantasy novels and look at the writings of the Greens themselves. It’s the abandonment of capitalism that the greens are about.

            1. Wait, now you like capitalism?

              1. Yeah, last week it wasn’t so.

                1. You should go back and read that thread Sevo, it’s fucking hilarious.

                  I don’t think I’ve seen anybody so thoroughly destroyed in an online argument since the Usenet days. But he kept coming back, because he has to have the last word.

                  Not only is mtrueman blatantly dishonest he has a really strange compulsion to keep arguing, changing the topic of the argument at a whim when he realizes he’s finished, acting like the previous several interaction never happened, then acting as if you’re trying to avoid his arguments. It’s a dishonest tactic, but it’s also truly bizarre. It made me come to the conclusion that he is mentally ill.

                  1. “It’s a dishonest tactic, but it’s also truly bizarre. It made me come to the conclusion that he is mentally ill.”

                    I got tired of it after s/he claimed that comment to his or her blog were “over-rated”.
                    Uh, OK.

  7. Facts don’t matter; it’s all about The Message.

    1. If you linked to anything but that I would have been let down big time.

      1. I’m glad to have justified your faith in me.

        1. You make me wonder sometimes…

    2. My ex-wife was a big Clinton enabler – until Obama came along; he’s all white liberal women’s wet dream. I told her he was probably a rapist, cheated on his wife, abused is power to screw employees and interns and asked her how she could support this guy.
      She said “Well, he says the right things.”

    1. I hope at least the UN is still corrupt and inefficient, to balance out their power to do harm.

      1. Fortunately, there is no such thing as a non corrupt, efficient, liar or lying body. The lie destroys its host before it destroys the target. But, it can do damage.

        Science has lost its way. Not pure science, and not all scientists, but the academic body of scientists has seemingly adopted a political agenda.

    2. Well if you’re going to be a farce, might as well go all the way.

    3. So which HRC country is the “best on human rights”? Vietnam or Russia?

      1. HRC =/= UN

        1. It’s the United Nations Human Rights Council. A part of the UN.

          1. Thought he was talking about the gay rights group.

    4. “Well, in 2016, we will get a Human Rights Council composed composed of China, Russia, the Maldives, Cuba, Vietnam, and Saudi Arabia.”

      And this will harm American interests? How?

      1. mtrueman|2.22.14 @ 3:07PM|#
        “And this will harm American interests? How?”

        Uh, cause you’re stupid enough to pay for it and then defend it?

        1. ” you’re stupid enough to pay for it and then defend it?”

          In fact I am doing neither. Just asking questions nobody here has the gumption to answer.

          1. OK, maybe your not defending it, but you are paying for it.
            As far as your presumption that you’re asking questions no one has the gumption to answer, you’re an idiot.
            You ask a boring question and I answered only to point out your false assumption.
            Again, you’re an idiot.

            1. “You ask a boring question and I answered only to point out your false assumption.”

              My false assumption? Stick with what you know best, like calling me an idiot.

              1. “My false assumption? Stick with what you know best, like calling me an idiot.”

                Yes, you’re false assumption.
                And yes, you’re an idiot.

                1. “And yes, you’re an idiot.”

                  I know that. You still haven’t answered the questions. Do you actually have any disagreements with that lineup of nations for the UN Human Rights Council, or are you just here to bluster and insult?

      2. Because we should only be concerned about Americans? That’s awfully myopic and nationalist of you.

  8. Like most conspiracies this is simply the result of incompetence. The researchers input the data into some non-unix program and get a bunch of skewed numbers and don’t bother to double check and double check again, thus giving the luddites and technophobes of the world more superficial credibility because some people put too much faith into software because the errors aren’t as noticeable as mechanical ones. When tangible mechanisms screw up you either hear it, feel it or both.

    Sadly some people who have had bad experiences with the other sex will assume this is a conspiracy aimed directly at them. THE OTER GENDER’S AFTER ME AHHHHH!!!!! (that’s both sides)

    1. Sh*t goes in; sh*t comes out…

      Yes, I have seen this many times happen in business.

      That said, if it was simple negligence/incompetence, then the people SHOULD have the decency to recant themselves, not continue to push the sh*t like it wasn’t flawed. Refusing the recant is what turns simple incompetence (which can be excusable) into malfeasance, IMO.

      1. …”Refusing the recant is what turns simple incompetence (which can be excusable) into malfeasance, IMO.”

        At this stage, whether it was intentional or not initially is irrelevant.
        She now knows it’s a lie and she refuses to do anything. She should be fired.

  9. If this fabrication is true, it is quite simply horrible. Domestic violence is no joking matter; every study that turns out to be based on lies makes it harder for victims to actually get the help they need.

    This reminds me of the “vaccines cause autism” idiocy. No other researcher reached the same results using the same methodology, the “doctor” who published that article was stripped of his license, and the science journal that published the article completely recanted. Yet, we STILL have idiots with platforms spouting that crap on national televisions, endangering not only the kids of the parents who listen to them but also the kids who for legitimate medical reasons cannot be vaccinated (and would otherwise rely on the herd to protect them).

    1. And because of this some product of an “Immunizations? Not for my child” traveled in the past few weeks and caught measles, a disease eradicated in the USA. Said product then rode around on the local BART (subway) train and attended classes at UC Berkeley, exposing countless other mommy’s little non-immunized treasures to the disease.

      For some reason the loudest people against immunizations and GMO food are also the ones who insist conservatives are “anti-science” for questioning AGW and evolution. (full disclosure — I have a biology degree and generally believe in the fundamentals of evolution, but I encourage skepticism as an integral component of the scientific method. I don’t think anyone who is truly has a scientific mind would ever say “the science is settled.”)

  10. my roomate’s mother-in-law makes $76 /hr on the laptop . She has been unemployed for 6 months but last month her paycheck was $18424 just working on the laptop for a few hours. visit this website….
    http://www.Jobs84.com

    1. Your roommate’s mother-in-law is the victim of human trafficking; failure to report this to the authorities makes you criminally & civilly liable.

  11. “If it saves just one life”

    People who say this sort of thing never have the proof that it will save one life. They’re just playing the “I’m more compassionate than you” card. I’ve heard the same thing said about voter IDs. You bring up fraud and they say “well, if it keeps one person from being turned away”, never being able to provide an actual example of someone not having an ID. They don’t need facts. They have feelings.

  12. Now let’s take a look at the child “sexual abuse” statistics. It would appear that, regardless of data to the contrary, these statistics have a life of their own. The scary part is that they are used to craft legislation and public policy.

  13. Sounds like some serious business to me dude.

    http://www.RealAnon.tk

  14. The data put out by Martin Fiebert is absolutely untrustworthy. There are thousands upon thousands upon thousands of domestic violence studies and sorting through them to pull out a few hundred that support his men’s rights ideology does not make it true.

    1. CuriousCarroll|2.23.14 @ 10:56AM|#
      “The data put out by Martin Fiebert is absolutely untrustworthy. There are thousands upon thousands upon thousands of domestic violence studies and sorting through them to pull out a few hundred that support his men’s rights ideology does not make it true.”

      Could be, but at least he cites something other than making a blind assertion as you’ve done here.
      Got data? Let’s see it.

  15. Wendy, the data is false, and Campbell did it on purpose!!

    Was that so hard to say?

  16. Where exactly where the stats quoted from the 2010 CDC report? “…reported the rates at which men and women had been victims of physical violence during the preceding year. The rate of male victimization was 6.5 percent; the rate of female victimization was 6.3 percent.”

    I looked through the report and I don’t see those numbers.

    I see this from the executive summary:

    An estimated 1 in 17 women and 1 in 20 men (5.9% and 5.0%,respectively) experienced rape, physical violence, and/or stalking by an intimate partner in the 12 months prior to taking the survey.

  17. I am wondering how I can be notified whenever a new post has been made.

  18. It seems to get dredged up every presidential campaign and of course it was complete nonsense.

  19. Of course Feminist Academics lie – they are rewarded for it.

    I recall this article I kept from UC Davis in 2009 – about how Ms Jennifer Beeman – Director of the UC Davis Campus Violence Prevention Program (for 16 years) was found to have misstated the number of Sexual Assaults as reported under Federal Clery Act provisions for the 3 years immediately prior to her “retirement”. The true numbers where about half what Beeman had claimed for 2005, 2006 and 2007 because no-one else checked her figures.

    This oversight also triggered an investigation for possible fraud as Beeman was responsible for applications for “almost $1 million in Justice Department grants aimed at enhancing services for victims of crime and coordinating a UC systemwide response to violence on all UC Campuses”.

    The surprising thing is that only 3 of her 16 years tenure were investigated.

    UC Davis Article in PDF = http://goo.gl/iyWb8C

  20. “When journalists confronted a woman who spread the myth, she replied, “If it has saved lives, then it is worth it.” ”
    What happens when someone who learns of the lie hears a feminist say something true and disbelieves it? Destroying your credibility and the credibility of your movement means you can’t save lives by communicating TRUE information. Which is more likely to save lives, the truth of lies?

    1. What’s the UK World Cup, anyway?

      I know of the FIFA World Cup, and England has the FA Cup, and a Premiere League Championship, but I’ve never heard of that one.

      `Course, i don’t follow metric feetsbol, much.

      Kevin R

  21. ” In the American Journal of Public Health Vol. 93, No. 7, 2003, page 1089, the deaths were described as “femicide, the homicide of women.””
    I have never heard the term androcide, the murder of men. Yet every year more men are killed than women in every country I know the stats of (even approximately). This would be like saying there is a crisis in whites getting raped if every year more blacks got raped.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.