Torture

The New York Times Discovers Word 'Torture' in Its Dictionary, Dusts It Off

|

Definitely not a nightcap before bedtime.
Credit: RobinAKirk / Foter / CC BY

The Gray Lady's new Executive Editor Dean Baquet has made a major semantic decision that puts the newspaper in compliance with what all Americans know: What the CIA did to "some folks" following Sept. 11 is "torture." And after more than a decade of avoiding the term, they will begin using "torture" to describe certain techniques America has used during the interrogation of prisoners.

Baquet writes:

When the first revelations emerged a decade ago, the situation was murky. The details about what the Central Intelligence Agency did in its interrogation rooms were vague. The word "torture" had a specialized legal meaning as well as a plain-English one. While the methods set off a national debate, the Justice Department insisted that the techniques did not rise to the legal definition of "torture." The Times described what we knew of the program but avoided a label that was still in dispute, instead using terms like harsh or brutal interrogation methods.

But as we have covered the recent fight over the Senate report on the C.I.A.'s interrogation program – which is expected to be the most definitive accounting of the program to date – reporters and editors have revisited the issue. Over time, the landscape has shifted. Far more is now understood, such as that the C.I.A. inflicted the suffocation technique called waterboarding 183 times on a single detainee and that other techniques, such as locking a prisoner in a claustrophobic box, prolonged sleep deprivation and shackling people's bodies into painful positions, were routinely employed in an effort to break their wills to resist interrogation.

The paper has concluded that nobody is going to be punished for the way prisoners were treated, which is horrible, but it is what it is. In that sense, the legal definition of "torture" no longer matters because nobody at the CIA is facing a trial or jail time for what they've done. Instead, the debate is over whether torture actually worked. Also, the president just said we tortured people (though that admission is absent from Baquet's commentary).

In conclusion, at the urging of reporters, The New York Times will now use the word "torture" to describe any incident where they "know for sure that interrogators inflicted pain on a prisoner in an effort to get information."

NEXT: Detroit Man Convicted of Murder: Is the Verdict Just?

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. But as we have covered the recent fight over the Senate report on the C.I.A.’s interrogation program ? which is expected to be the most definitive accounting of the program to date ? reporters and editors have revisited the issue.

    “And as we have stuck our wet finger into the air and found which way the wind is currently blowing…”

    1. They can only snivelingly defer to the government for so long before it looks really bad.

      1. Nah. It is just that licking this boot no longer serves the greater purpose of worshipping power.

      2. Nah. It is just that licking this boot no longer serves the greater purpose of worshipping power.

        1. The post so nice it posted twice!

    2. “And as we have stuck our wet finger into the air and found which way the wind is currently blowing…”

      You know who else stuck a wet finger in the air?….

      1. Me, after I fingerbanged your mom.

        I keed, I keed.

        But seriously…

        1. Go on…

        2. Well played fellow deviant… Tell warty I said hi

  2. Sounds like some serious business.

    http://www.AnonGalaxy.tk

  3. Cue Tony and shreek to tell us how the third Iraq War is t really Obama’s

    http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014…..referrer;=

    For the record I fully support Obama bombing these crazy fucks back to hell where they came from. I just am going to enjoy the irony of watching his brain dead supporters explain how it is still Bush’s war.

    1. You’re idiocy is steadfast.

      I support us killing terrorists and thugs. I support what Obama did in Libya.

      I OBJECT to $2 trillion occupations and nation-building boondoggles.

      1. Palin’s Buttplug|8.7.14 @ 7:00PM|#

        You’re idiocy….”

        LOL

        1. HAHAHA!!! Buttplug is illiterate!! HAHAHA!!

      2. I support us killing terrorists.

        or

        I support what Obama did in Libya.

        Because as far as I can tell, what Obama did in Libya was overthrow a guy who, while unsavory, was willing to play ball on non-proliferation and hadn’t caused much stir with us and now the whole fucking country is being dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood and being used as a goddamn staging area for their raids into Egypt. It’s so goddamned bad that Egypt and the Saudis are rooting for the goddamned Jews to kick the everloving shit of out Hamas because of Hamas’ ties to both the Muslim Brotherhood and the Shiites in Iran.

        So keep telling yourself that the emperor looks so precious in his fucking birthday suit. The man is an incompetent whose fucking things up worse than that fuckstained figment of your ritlin-addled brain BOOOOOSHH!! ever could have.

        1. Spending $2 trillion on a Middle Eastern shithole is the height of stupidity.

          You fucking “libertarians” don’t care about $2 trillion wasted if it means you have to defend the GOP.

          1. Get lost, turd.

      3. You support violating the War Powers Act?

        1. You guys just love arguing with something that isn’t sentient, don’t you?

          Shriek literally cannot comprehend what words like finance and felching mean. To ii, they are just random strings, equally devoid of meaning.

          Debating it is about as futile as debating an earthworm.

    2. I’m going to enjoy the day arthritis makes it impossible for you to type your bottom-shelf right wing hackery and sociopathic fixation on partisan points-scoring despite having chosen the globally embarrassing Stupid Party and pretending to be a libertarian.

      1. Yes yes, let the hate flow through you.

  4. This is the guy that took over for Abramson, right? I don’t know if he had anything to do with the marijuana op-ed, but these are two pleasant developments to see.

    1. They’re just adjusting to the prevailing opinion. They can’t afford to get too far out of step with their readers, or else they won’t be their readers for much longer. it’s not like they’re taking a brave, principled stand or anything.

  5. …will now use the word “torture” to describe any incident where they “know for sure that interrogators inflicted pain on a prisoner in an effort to get information.”

    Physical pain? Because an IRS audit is pretty painful. Given a choice I’d opt for a quick waterboarding.

  6. The paper has concluded that nobody is going to be punished for the way prisoners were treated, which is horrible, but it is what it is.

    Fuck this country.

    1. They were Arabs. No country, no matter how Nobel it pretends to be really gives a shit when it brutalizes outsiders, especially outsiders who are seen as enemies.

      1. No country, no matter how Nobel it pretends to be really gives a shit when it brutalizes outsiders, especially outsiders who are seen as enemies.

        Or how many Nobel peace prizes it’s president wins…

        1. “Peace Prizes” could be a cereal or candy.

    2. Fuck this country.

      “Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.” – Mark Twain

      I still support my country. My government? Not so much.

      1. Nobody, Mr. Clemens included, would ever confuse me with a patriot.

  7. Does Reason have one of those editor sheets that tell writers what words they should use?

    If so did Tim Cavanaugh write the sheet and then promptly used all the wrong words?

    Cuz that would be awesome.

  8. You know what’s torture? Paying attention to anything the NYT has to say.

  9. You know what’s funny? Every fact they claimed has come to light was already known and reported by the NYT years ago.

    There is absolutely nothing new in the Senate report.

    1. Yeah, but…but… now we can get back to re-litigating George Bush’s bad behavior instead of trying to ignore the current idiot we supported and his lack of achievement.

    2. Now you know why the president only finds out about things once they’re in the papers.

      The CIA and NSA have nothing on the NYT.

  10. You know what bugs the shit out of me?

    We’ve here in the Hit & Run commentariat have been calling it torture since Cavanaugh started covering this, what, before the Schlesinger Report came out in 2004?

    http://www.defense.gov/news/au…..report.pdf

    For ten years the New York Times didn’t want to use that word, why? Maybe because it might look like Dianne Feinstein or some other Democrats dropped the civil rights ball?

    So why now?!

    Sorry if I’m stating the obvious here, but some has to…the reason it’s okay to say that now is because Barack Obama recently used the word “torture”.

    I’m guessing they were worried Obama would eventually be caught having done the same thing, and they didn’t want to go on the record for having criticized it–because God knows, criticizing Obama’s behavior (even in retrospect) is something only disgusting racists do.

    …at least they gotta keep up appearances, you know?

    If there are any honest liberals out there who still reverence the New York Times, they should all be ashamed of themselves.

    1. Your last sentence is very confusing to me.

    2. Au contraire,

      The back-patting over their ‘speaking Truth to Themselves’ will begin in earnest now.

      although along with that seems to be a strong thread of denial that Obama himself ever actually approved of the use of “enhanced coercive interrogation techniques”…

      ….even though Panetta has admitted as such many times that waterboarding, etc. was used in the hunt for bin laden

      Who might we find advancing this patent lie? Why, none other than Dave Weigel!

      “Obama admitted that America had used torture in its aggressive response to the 9/11 attacks?and then he came along and stopped it.

      Why is Obama reiterating this now? …because Obama’s approach to the topic…is an assurance that the worst practices ended when he took over.”

      Progs have taken to twisting Panettas claim that “torture (by itself) did not lead to Bin Laden’s location” ACTUALLY means that “it never happened”.

      I have seen this everywhere in the last 2 weeks.

      1. Lying to themselves is a favorite pastime of progs. As well as lying to the rest of us too.

    3. Interesting bit from the archives…

      This is a torture link from about ten years ago, and in addition to us excoriating the Bush Administration for their disgusting torture practices, it has some other interesting features.

      Among them…

      It has what I think was one of Pavel’s later posts.

      It also features what I believe to be one of John’s first posts at Hit & Run!

      At this point (January 2005), John still seems to think libertarians are some kind of liberal–I guess ’cause we were badmouthing the Bush Administration. And so John’s going after us for badmouthing Gonzo, Rummy, and Bush for torture–but not badmouthing Reno and Clinton for Waco…

      Look for yourselves:

      https://reason.com/blog/2005/01…..ts#comment

      John, you’ve come a long way, baby!

      I’ll say this for the Bush Administration’s supporters–they gave up trying to pretend it wasn’t torture before the NY Times did. Whatever else you want to say about Bush era Republicans–they weren’t as obstinate about torture as the New York Times.

    1. Torture? C’mon, bagpipes aren’t that bad.

      1. I enjoy the bagpipes.

    2. Almanian is going to kick your ass if you’re not careful

      1. The bagpipes aren’t the torture. It’s the Border Patrol seizing them at the border, because even though the young lads had their CITES paperwork in order, they weren’t crossing at one of 38 approved for CITES paperwork handling and processing border crossings.

        1. ^^ this

          Just had two mates get their X years old Robertsons absconded at the border (US, coming back in from Canada).

          Of course, they’d made the mistake of calling ahead b/c they “had a question” and wanted to ensure there were no problems.

          “No problem – we’re confiscating your pipes.”

          FACK! This is why I’m picking up a set of “imitation” ivory Gibsons….the trusty old Grainger and Campbells stay home now.

          What were we talking about?

          1. This is why I don’t take anything I value that can’t be easily replaced out of the country, from a computer to certain clothes to whatever. Those fucks will take anything. So I have a $400 travel laptop, Kindles are cheap, my tennis racket stays home (though that isn’t too hard to replace, I just like mine), etc.

      2. I would pay hard money to see a man in a skirt kick someone’s ass.

        1. Search your guide for Braveheart. Which is a kick ass movie.

          1. Rob Roy for BEST SWORDFIGHT EVAR.

            Liam Neesons is my JAM!

            /Key and Peele

            1. Oh bullshit.

              Have you even seen Sword of Doom, Bro?

              Actually, from an ‘dramatic choreography’ POV, i always thought Princess Bride’s “Montoya v. Dread Pirate Roberts” won the swordfight-as-cinema award.

              1. I actually agree – I just wanted to get the “Liam Neesons” Key and Peele in there 🙂

                1. THEY HATIN’ ON THE HAFFAWAYS?!

  11. Cato (more NEOCONS!??!) points out Obama has basically provided loopholes-a-plenty for ‘Extraordinary Coercive Interrogation Measures’ (excluding Waterboarding!) to continue =

    “If I were to return to one of the war zones today?I would still be allowed to abuse prisoners.” How come? In August, Holder’s task force on interrogation, commissioned by the president, “recommended no changes” to the Army Field Manual, thereby retaining the torture loopholes focused on now by the tracker of al-Zarqawi.

    To begin, an appendix to the Manual allows a detainee (a.k.a. prisoner) to be kept in solitary confinement indefinitely. As Alexander point out, “extended solitary confinement is torture, as confirmed by many scientific studies.” And the prestigious Manual allows suspects just four hours sleep in 24 hours. “As if this wasn’t enough,” Alexander continues, a loophole permits interrogators, Mr. President, ‘to give a detainee four hours of sleep ? and then conduct a 20-hour interrogation, after which they can ‘reset’ the clock and begin another 20-hour interrogation followed by four hours of sleep.”

    But worry not! Bo assures us Obama is a vast improvement on the Bush evildoers who did this stuff! Also, Murder by Drone is morally superior to pouring water on people.

  12. Holy fucking shit.

    Peggy Noonan doesn’t think Obama should be dropping his g’s. But in our swaggery age, even a president has to be able to get down.

    However, standard-speaking whites have a “warm” English they can slide into as well. Think of George W. Bush as well as his father, both of whom are quite given to “g-dropping.” Or think of Sarah Palin?who, by the way, was rebuked by Noonan in a 2008 column for the same crime of g-dropping, which she commits far more incessantly than Obama does. Bill Clinton can summon a “warm” air as well, with his Southern background ? so intertwined with the black heritage ? playing a significant part in that.

    Yeah, and that’s all fake bullshit. Politicians use these folksy mannerisms to manipulate morons.

    To the Peggy Noonans among us who cringe when Obama talks “down”: This is a deeply informal country. Unless you’re ready to start wearing hoop skirts, stick to waltzes, frame your emails with “Dear” and “Yours Truly,” and roundly condemn all sex outside of the benefit of clergy, you must get used to presidents dropping g’s. It’s what a president of this nation in these times should do now and then.

    Wanting a president who speaks well is just like being a puritan. It’s like the same thing.

    1. Politicians use these folksy mannerisms to manipulate morons.

      Morons like the author of that article. It’s hilarious watching them defend their own gullibility.

      1. What’s funny is that John McWhorter isn’t even an Obama lover. He’s actually kind of a neocon. I don’t know why anyone would defend the increasing inability for our politicians to talk like adults.

        1. Political junkies and talking head morons have to pretend the politicians aren’t vapid idiots, because if they are (and they are), that makes people like McWhorter no better than an entertainment reporter. GASP.

          1. HIRE THIS MAN!

    2. condemn all sex outside of the benefit of clergy

      I have no idea what this is even supposed to be referring to, especially when many Christian sects forbid their clergy from having sex that their laity is encouraged to have.

      1. “Benefit of clergy” is an old common-law device for escaping the death penalty. It’s not about escaping marriage. A linguist ought to know this.

        1. Specifically it originally meant that clergymen can’t be tried by secular courts.

        2. I’m not a linguist, and I still don’t understand how this connects to the point the author is trying to make.

          1. Sounds like he’s using “benefit of clergy” to mean church-approved marriages?

    3. Obama is doing something most black Americans do: using a special repertoire that has a function, to connote warmth and connection. Linguists call it Black English. If Obama is phony in switching into it to strike a certain note, then millions of black people are spending their entire lives being linguistically inauthentic. Doubtful.

      This is insane.

  13. The Kochs are in second place!

    “S.F. billionaire Tom Steyer ranks at top of political donors”
    […]
    “This year, Steyer and his super PAC NextGen Climate Action are reportedly preparing to spend as much as $100 million on causes and candidates supporting climate-change issues,”
    http://www.sfgate.com/politics…..675351.php

    He’s a neighbor of the hag Pelosi; maybe it’s in the plumbing in that end of town.

    1. God, all I ever hear about from conservatives and libertarians is Steyer, Steyer, Steyer. And who can forget that time Rand Paul called him out on the Senate floor?

      Let it go. Steyer’s just a concerned citizen putting his money where his mouth is.

      1. I’ve noticed that. No matter where I look, someone is griping about the Steyer Bros.
        Oh, wait…

        1. UNDERMINING DEMOCRACY!!!

          1. We can only hope…

    2. The best part is that when Steyer is done, he will have passed his money away for nothing. People aren’t willing to convert to his superstitious no matter how much he begs them.

      1. I’m not trying to start a conversation, but can you just step back for a minute and think about how totally absurd it is to claim that all the experts, all the world’s science bodies and governments and, and even hero producer billionaires who believe in the greenhouse effect are all engaged in a massive conspiracy or fit of delusion? Maybe there’s some slim chance the greenhouse effect is real given that the only people who don’t believe in it are rightwing oilmen and sister fucking morons? Perhaps?

        1. “”hero producer billionaires””

          When did you become a Koch fan?

          Its their support of the ballet, isnt it.

          1. I appreciate their underwriting of cultural products. Unfortunately they also underwrite a massive propaganda campaign intended to stymie action on the greatest threat to human existence it’s ever faced. I love ballet, which is why I’d like future generations to be around to enjoy it. Maybe such vast wealth in the hands of individuals is a bad thing considering that individuals can be dogmatic cranks intent on imposing their cultish beliefs on all of humanity.

            1. UNDERMINING DEMOCRACY!@!??! OMG!!!

              But Steyer, he the good one!

              1. I appreciate when people spend money on good causes instead of bad, but I prefer not to entrust the future of civilization to the kindness of billionaires.

                1. GOOD CAUSES MAKE GOOD PEOPLE RICHER!

            2. Tony|8.7.14 @ 10:12PM|#
              …”the greatest threat to human existence it’s ever faced”…

              Uh, what can anyone say about that?
              I know when I want to find the major issues facing humanity, Tony is right at the top of the list of people I’d contact…
              NOT!

        2. I’m sure his billion$ investments into Green-tech businesses which are completely dependent on federal mandated funding are totally coincidental to his desperate rent seeking attempts to get any TEAM BLUE people elected he can, completely independent of any actual effect any of the said technologies/policies would actually have on the environment as a whole.

          i mean, it wouldn’t be to get the federal spending *just to benefit personally from it*?? That would be nuts.

          Because you are aware, i’m sure, being such a broad-minded and rational person, that any environmental policy undertaken by the united states, no matter how drastic, is completely and utterly meaningless in the face of rapidly growing developing nations which already represent the bulk of ‘warming’ influence, and who would have to agree to economically-restraining international agreements in order to have any actual effect on ‘greenhouse emissions’, right?

          i mean, you wouldn’t constantly be lording this scientific consensus bullshit over people if you already knew *that*. because that would be the most lowbrow, petty, ignorant, mendacious anti-scientific kind of partisanship anyone has ever seen. And that would be so atypical of you?

          1. Truly drastic action by the US would hardly be meaningless. But you’re going to be standing in the way no matter how piddling, arguing that even that’s going to far. Spare me the lameness.

            We, for many decades the largest contributor to the problem, can’t act because others are also contributing to the problem. Truly you guys are the sainted keepers of morality and reason.

            1. Steyer’s companies make technologies so incredibly valuable and objectively beneficial to the environment, as well as useful to average people, that only Democrats could possibly understand their value

              … which is why he needs to spend $100m in order to get people to invest in his ideas.

              he’s not a slimy crony, tony! its so OBVIOUS he’s got really great ideas, and noble intentions… its just, well, sometimes it takes money to make money, right? You’re an economics expert! you understand i’m sure.

            2. Since you seem so environmentally hip, Tony…

              …what “action” is so DRASTIC and NECESSARY to the en-greening of the planet that we must deperately undertake in order to Lead the Way for the planet…. what action is so Clear and Obvious which is only been stopped by the awful intransigence of the GOP and the Redneck Armies of the Ignorant that endlessly stymie you?

              NAME THE POLICY

              1. because you know what Tom Steyer’s #1 demand is…. Tony?

                Do you know what Tom’s #1 “Let’s Save The Evironment” policy is that he’s spending so many hundreds of millions trying to achieve? I bet you just might know!?

                Tony? Can you guess?

                1. Too late!

                  If you guessed,

                  BAN FRACKING

                  …you just might be a Friend of the Environment!

                  Because what the environment REALLY needs? is a government ban on inexpensive, low-Carbon-emitting fuel for electricity!

                  See, because that cheap nat gas? Is making Green Tech look bad.

                  yes, nat gas is probably in the scheme of things actually FAR MORE EFFECTIVE IN REDUCING EMISSIONS than any other known technology… and has produced the most significant reduction in greenhouse gases of anything- all without 1 cent in government investment or regulation!!

                  but no…. we can’t have that!! Tom can’t get RICH off of that?? Fuck the planet = Steyer wants to ban fracking one state at a time, until the only options left are inefficient and expensive Green Tech which he is invested up to his neck in…

                  So ENVIRONMENTALLY CONSCIOUS!! that guy.

                  How can we not love big-hearted men like this who really *care* about the planet?*

                  (*by wanting to ban the 1 thing that has been proven to reduce emissions in an economically beneficial way)

                  1. So we have an Elon Musk with more money and better guanxi?
                    How
                    .
                    .
                    .
                    .
                    .
                    predictable.
                    Have I told you about the amount of money Di Fi’s husband has made in SF real estate, which absolutely has nothing to do with Di Fi’s political guanxi? Not at all! No way! Impossible!
                    No?
                    Well, I’ll save it for another time…

                  2. Natural gas, a euphemism for methane, is not demonstrably better for the environment. It’s good for PR for companies that only know how to drill shit out of the ground and for some reason refuse to learn how to produce energy by any other means. Could be because they get government-backed rights to sell natural resources for profit, but there are no such government-backed monopolies on solar power?

                    1. Tony|8.7.14 @ 11:37PM|#
                      “Natural gas, a euphemism for methane”

                      Uh, you’re showing a bit of real stupidity there. Prolly not a good idea.

                    2. Tony|8.7.14 @ 11:37PM|#

                      Natural gas, a euphemism for methane, is not demonstrably better for the environment”

                      Except for the fact that its use as a replacement for coal has been the greatest source of carbon emissions reduction on planet earth, far exceeding all the ‘Green’ policies enacted in Europe such as carbon-credits programs, carbon taxes, and attempts at rationing energy…

                      Why cant you explain how Tom’s Magic Ban Plan is supposed to Do Better??

                    3. It’s good for PR for companies that only know how to drill shit out of the ground and for some reason refuse to learn how to produce energy by any other means.

                      If they would just think really, really hard, they could make other energy sources exponentially more efficient in no time at all!

                    4. All you need to do is tap your heels together three times and say, “There’s nothing like green energy.”

                2. Tony ‘rejects’ the idea that he should have to guess. And Tony rejects you, DENIER!

            3. Tony|8.7.14 @ 10:31PM|#
              “Truly drastic action by the US would hardly be meaningless.”

              You’re right about that. Such action could easily make the gov’t-induced disaster of 2008 look like chump change!

              1. Cite, you fucking hysterical moron?

                Why do you idiots get to call anyone else an alarmist?

                1. But tony, you were going to tell us how Tom Steyer’s Campaign to Ban Fracking was the most crucial and needed step to help save the environment? WHY WONT YOU SHARE WITH US HOW IT ALL WORKS??

                2. The stock market tanked because investment banks tanked. Investment banks tanked because they invested in mortgage-backed securities which tanked. Mortgage-backed securities tanked because lots of people stopped paying their mortgages. That happened because a lot of people got home loans who should not have gotten them. That happened because the government passed the Community Reinvestment act which loosened lending requirements and let Fannie and Freddie guarantee tons of risky home loans. That happened because Greenspan needed a new bubble after the dot com bust. That happened because the Fed kept interest rates too low for too long, which created mal-investment.

                  And all that happened because authoritarian simpletons like you think the government should run everything.

                3. Tony|8.7.14 @ 11:34PM|#
                  “Cite, you fucking hysterical moron?”
                  Well, Tony, wiping out most of the US economy (which would be required for “drastic action”) would pretty much make 2008 a minor blip by comparison.

                  “Why do you idiots get to call anyone else an alarmist?”
                  Because idiots like you claim we must DO SOMETHING!
                  I’d think even a low-watt bulb like you could understand that.

        3. Evidently the evidence for AGW was all destroyed in an earthquake — otherwise you would undoubtedly be referring us to that evidence rather than to unnamed “experts”.

          You are arguing how a religionist argues about a cherished tenet of his faith. Unlike the religionist, you are using this argument on a subject where there is some manner of obtaining an answer through empiricism, thus removing the necessity to refer to some sainted or wise group of individuals in ascertaining the truth value of a statement.

          1. Go to Google and type “climate change evidence.” There you go. You may have missed the 100 other times I’ve said this. Where do you get off dismissing evidence you refuse to even read about?

            1. Was that the one with the computer models that dont work?

              Or the movie with the Tidal Wave that Al Gore made?

            2. Oh, Tony. Let’s look at some math:

              Current human CO2 emissions: 30 billion tons, which corresponds 2 ppm

              So, 15 billion tons corresponds to about 1ppm CO2.

              Increase in atmospheric CO2 predicted by UN over the next century if no action is taken: 468 ppm

              468 ppm X 15 billion tons CO2/1 ppm = about 7 trillion tons CO2 will be emitted over the next hundred years.

              This added CO2 will supposedly increase the global temperature by 7?F. But suppose we only wanted to stop 1?F rise. How hard would that be? Well, assuming there’s a linear correlation, it would require that people emit 1 trillion fewer tons of CO2 over the next hundred years. That means:

              -No CO2 emissions for 33 years, which require the world to return to a pre-industrial standard of living

              -Half as many emissions for 66 years, which means returning to the energy use levels of 1940, when there 4.5 billion fewer people in the world.

              1. Okay so since your premise is that the only way to maintain modern standards of living is to keep burning fossil fuels, let’s leave aside for a moment the fact that in your cost-benefit analysis we have no choice but to massively disrupt the global environment and live with unpredictable and unprecedented harm to the human species. What happens when there aren’t enough fossil fuels anymore? Remember, you don’t get to say that people will innovate a way out. You’re explicitly precluding that possibility for today.

                1. tony…. why aren’t you explaining to us how “banning fracking” is the missing link in the planet-saving process that we failed to appreciate?

                  What happened to your enthusiastic support for Tom Steyer = Benificent Do-Gooder for all that is Right and True.?

                  Because isn’t BANNING FRACKING step 1 in the Magic Plan to Save the Planet??

                  Care to elucidate for us, tony?

                2. Tony, how does banning fracking help the environment??

                  Tony??

                  Why is it all the plans in Europe that the democrats like so much RAISED carbon emissions, and destroyed their economies??

                  German Green Energy Policies ‘On the Verge of Failure’ Says Vice-Chancellor

                  “Successive German governments have heavily encouraged the adoption of renewable energy, handing large subsides to green energy producers. The policy… has been proudly touted by previous governments and used as a model across Europe.

                  Recently, however, the policy has started coming under attack as Germans see their energy bills soar to the highest levels in Europe.

                  In February, a group of scientists and economists told the German parliament that the green energy laws were a dismal failure. Not only were they were making energy more expensive, they also had no measurable impact on “climate protection.”

                3. “Okay so since your premise is that the only way to maintain modern standards of living is to keep burning fossil fuels,”

                  And a straw man right out of the gate. I’m a big believer in nuclear energy.

                  “we have no choice but to massively disrupt the global environment”

                  Lawyers call this “assuming facts not in evidence”.

                  “What happens when there aren’t enough fossil fuels anymore?”

                  That time is several centuries away.

                4. Tony|8.7.14 @ 11:33PM|#
                  …”the fact that in your cost-benefit analysis we have no choice but to massively disrupt the global environment and live with unpredictable and unprecedented harm to the human species.”

                  That’s not only not a fact, that’s wild speculation from someone who claims to value science!
                  Can we assume this person is not quite of the honesty claimed? Why, I think we can!

        4. Tony|8.7.14 @ 10:05PM|#
          “I’m not trying to start a conversation, but can you just step back for a minute and think about how totally absurd it is to claim that all the experts, all the world’s science bodies and governments and, and even hero producer billionaires who believe in the greenhouse effect are all engaged in a massive conspiracy or fit of delusion?”

          Tony, I’m going to presume you’re being honest in that statement, and that your are either entirely too stupid to understand it is a strawman, or that it is a drastic ‘mis-statement’ of the actual facts.
          Or both.
          Regardless, you once again prove to be worthless as a commenter.

            1. I watched them. John Stossel is not a relevant person to listen to on this subject, or the subject of how to tie one’s shoes for that matter.

              As for David Evans, from what I gather a PhD in electrical engineering and antisemitic conspiracy theorist, I trust you’ll read the stuff behind these links, interested as you clearly are in a factual understanding of this issue:

              One

              Two

              In his defense, apparently his notions that the Jewish banking conspiracy assassinated two presidents isn’t the only conspiracy he believes in.

              1. Tony, why do you keep ducking the question?

                Why do you think that Banning Fracking is the bestest Green Energy, Planet Saving policy for the Earth? Please explain??

                1. I don’t think that. When did I say so?

                  1. You support Tom Steyer=

                    He’s your HERO PRODUCER BILLIONAIRE

                    He’s the one fighting against the tide of ignorance!

                    Why do you think Banning Fracking is a good energy policy, tony?

              2. Tony|8.7.14 @ 11:50PM|#
                “I watched them. John Stossel is not a relevant person to listen to on this subject, or the subject of how to tie one’s shoes for that matter.”

                Yes, a good ol’ assertion absent evidence is about as good as you’ll get from Tony!

              3. Dear Tony, please explain why the “DO SOMETHING” policies endorsed by your ‘wise and enlightened greenies’ appear to be doing so unbelieably poorly everywhere they are implemented, while in the US, where we do not have any similar enormous subsidies, are lowering our emissions much faster due to natural gas?

                EXPLAIN, TONY

                The Failure of Renewable Energy Subsidies


                Comparing the EU and US energy markets, Roques points out that America uses more gas than coal, while Europe, which has a carbon market, is going in the opposite direction.

                Roques is quick to blame the EU’s “aberrant” renewable energy policy for this, saying the share of electricity subject to market forces decreases if subsidies are kept for part of the electricity production.

                “Renewable energies eventually cannibalise their own competitiveness,” Roques notes, saying the decline in wholesale electricity prices driven by renewable energies prevents them from being competitive without subsidies in the long term.

                Economists are unanimous on the low economic efficiency of excessive subsidies for renewables….”

                Why do you hate science, Tony?

              4. Tony, there are many ways to argue dishonestly, but the only way to argue honestly is to point out errors in the facts and logic of the opposing view.

                If I pointed out that the head of the IPCC was not a climate scientist, but a railroad engineer, would that disprove anything? If I pointed out that Al Gore owns beach front property and flunked out of 2 colleges, would that disprove anything he’s said about global warming?

                You would have done better to skip your liberal arts “education” and spent a few minutes learning about logical fallacies.

                1. I linked you to sites that debunk what you presented. The fact that your expert is a non-expert conspiracy kook may not mean anything, but it’s certainly not helping your case.

                  1. It is amazing how you gradually go mute out of an inability to actually address facts, tony.

                  2. Do you really not understand what an ad hominem is?

                    Newton believed in astrology and alchemy. Does that invalidate physics?

                    Darwin married his cousin. Does that invalidate evolution theory?

              5. Its so strange, Tony, how you purport to be such an expert on this topic, yet seem to fall silent whenever anyone asks for your input??

                Its almost as though you are blatantly disingenuous, and completely ignorant about the topic you’re pretending to lord over others about…? Remarkable.

                1. I don’t need to think. I have Top. Men. do my thinking for me…because…consensus.

                  /vile immoral pig

                2. GILMORE|8.8.14 @ 12:00AM|#
                  …”Its almost as though you are blatantly disingenuous, and completely ignorant about the topic you’re pretending to lord over others about…?”

                  Let’s look at the history:
                  It is clear that Tony has not the ability to make independent moral judgements; he relies on ‘authority’ to inform his actions, opinions and quite possibly daily activities. He simply is not a moral actor and seems incapable of determining the truth of information and acting upon that. So we have a pliable supplicant, informed and activated by ‘authoritative’ sources, who tell him “X”.
                  Imagine the discomfort and outright fear if those sources, in which the supplicant has invested a good bit of his life, are shown to be false!

        5. Seems to me that science isn’t about consensus. It’s about dissent.

          Otherwise the world would still be thought to be flat. And washing your hair would cause your brain to fall out.

          Or that flies spontaneously generate from rotting meat.

          1. All scientific progress came from breaking the consensus.

            All moral progress comes from breaking the consensus.

            Ponder this.

            Shanti, Shanti, Shanti…

            1. I’m still on the fence about the brain falling out, though… 🙂

          2. Gluesponge|8.7.14 @ 11:26PM|#
            “Seems to me that science isn’t about consensus. It’s about dissent.”

            I’ll accept that some issues are well settled, and I’ll include global warming with some amount due to human agency in that set.
            I won’t accept that the researchers who have identified (and, yes, exaggerated) the issue have any special expertise to determine what humanity does (if anything specific) in response.

            1. I agree..

              My take on it is, we think there is changing climate, based on a very limited set of data, and we are totally in the dark about what the cause actually is (it could be more than just “man made” as it were). I don’t think it’s rock-solid that we are experiencing an unabated warming trend that will cook us all, though.

              The vast amount of climate data is a stab in the dark, and if a model proves “man made warming” by extrapolating historical data, well, color me skeptical. There are wildly differing results, huge amounts of money at stake, and an entire industry that is paid based on how alarmist they can be. Sheesh, we can’t even agree how to model climate… the results are often based on what the modelers consider “norm” and statistically insignificant changes can skew the results wildly, often with apocalyptic looking predictions.

              I have no doubt climate changes over time. The history of the earth shows that. I know it was hotter once and it was much colder too. The fact that human activity post Industrial Revolution is the equivalent of a grain of sand in the history of the planet escapes most alarmists.

              The planet’s not fragile. It will survive us. 🙂

              1. “The planet’s not fragile. It will survive us. :)”

                Ya know, I think we might just survive the planet!

        6. totally absurd it is to claim that all the experts, all the world’s science bodies and governments and, and even hero producer billionaires who believe in the greenhouse effect are all engaged in a massive conspiracy or fit of delusion?

          It is less absurd then thinking all experts science bodies and governments believe in global warming.

          Not hard to find climatologists who are skeptics. Hell the guys who produce that graph every month that Ron Bailey posts are skeptics and i know you have seen them because you have posted in the comments of those articles. Also it is not hard to read the news about Japan, Germany, and Australia pulling out of their CO2 emissions targets.

          You are delusional and you say the same easily falsified shit other alarmists say. Seems pretty easy to think they are delusional as well.

  14. Yawn. Semantics arguments bore me. So waterboarding or whatever technique is considered moral ok or morally not ok depending on a label? Depending on the definition of a word? A word that is quite frankly broad and vague? Not on the act in and of itself? That’s what we call a lazy argument.

    1. Semantic’s is what makes the War on Terror so much more dangerous. To a cop, everything is terrorism so that means there is no limits on what powers they can claim for any thing at anytime. I mean, do you want the terrorists to win?

      1. Based on HBO programming these days, and the fact that Jennifer Granholm draws a paycheck after what she did to the Great Lakes State?, the terrorists have already won.

        I haz a sad 🙁

  15. How often did we torture someone who was not withholding intel?

    1. How would you ever know?

    2. In at least 2 known cases,

      Maher Arar and Khaled El-Masri

      we kidnapped the ‘wrong guy’, held them in secret dungeons, tortured them, then let them go and never admitted wrongdoing/refused to recognize that they had any case under US or any international legal status. FYTW, etc

      i believe there were a few other cases.

      I think this Frontline doco covers both

      1. Exactly. Others who were slated to be waterboarded and held at Guantanamo were also later released for similar reasons.

      2. And the rest of the time, they think they got the right guy, since he finally told ’em something.

    3. Obviously never. Because the one’s that don’t submit and give up the intel were just too strong-willed.

      1. Its the normal government ‘heads we win, tails you lose’ thing.

        If they give up intel that supports our use of torture, if they don’t then that means that the torture we use is ineffective and we must double-down.

        1. I believe that was the entire justification of the Spanish Inquisition. 🙂

          Or witchfinding…

          The Maleus Maleficarum cannot be WRONG! It must be that we aren’t believing hard enough!

  16. Is this what passes for late nite links around here these days? No Independnents, no global warming, no pot stories, not even a puppycide? Meh.

  17. Just roll with it dude, Seriously.

    http://www.AnonGalaxy.tk

  18. I got another letter to the editor published.

    Click my name to see my latest offering. I’m still tweaking the one before that.

    1. “Now, some of you might be worried that this would put the US in charge of cesspools like Tijuana”

      Perish the thought

  19. So the search for old cars continues. Present target is a ’66 Mercury Monterey two door for $10K. 40K orig miles, black on black, good black vinyl top.

    I’d really like a ’63/’64 Galaxy, but hard to find them in good condition for a price I wanna pay.

    The Merc is cool. We’ll see if we can get it into the garage…

    1. Oh drat! I had the perfect classic car for you:

      http://platedlizard.blogspot.c…..brity.html

      I showed my libertarian pride by driving a car that would fit right in on the streets of Somalia.

    2. Damn…

      you goin to low-ride that bitch up, or what, esse?

  20. “…will now use the word “torture” to describe any incident where they “know for sure that interrogators inflicted pain on a prisoner in an effort to get information.”

    Whereas inflicting pain on an arrested citizen for no reason except kicks and giggles shall be known as “following police procedures and going home safe after your shift.”

    I’ll start bawling over waterboarding when we clean up the act of our domestic law enforcers.

    1. After three marriages I know a thing or two about what torture is and what torture is not.

      1. I may not be a smart man but I know what love is NOT.

  21. That which we call “enhanced interrogation” … by any other name …
    … would still be an act of inhumanity that is contrary to the very tenets of Americana that we hold so dear.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.