Culture War

Aversion to Truth Isn't Specific to Any Ideology

When it comes to the truth, the real bias is thinking any one side has a monopoly on it.

|

If "the truth has a well-known liberal bias," as liberals are fond of saying, then you have to wonder why some of them feel compelled to embellish it.

Granted, conservatives and other non-liberals are not exactly allergic to what Stephen Colbert, the much-lionized author of the aphorism above, calls "truthiness": the quality a belief has of feeling it must be true, even if it isn't, because one so badly wants it to be true. Many conservatives seem all too eager to believe that President Obama is a closet Muslim who was born in Kenya; that America was founded as a Christian nation; that Saddam Hussein was stockpiling WMDs; that climate change is nothing but a liberal lie; and so forth. Fox News embarrassed itself just the other day with a claim that Birmingham, England, was off-limits to non-Muslims.

Some conservatives believe such things in good faith, in the sense that they have rationalized away evidence to the contrary and sincerely think they are right. But others lack even the weak defense of confirmation bias. Some years ago the now-defunct Global Climate Coalition, an industry-funded group, publicly insisted that "the role of greenhouse gases in climate change is not well understood"—even though a report for its own internal consumption conceded that "the scientific basis for the Greenhouse Effect and the potential impact of human emissions … on climate is well established and cannot be denied." The group's leaders were lying to the public, but not to themselves.

***

The latest manifestation of such mendacity goes by a different name: Jonathan Gruber, the MIT economist who was caught on video conceding that the Affordable Care Act was written "in a tortured way" to prevent the Congressional Budget Office from spelling out its true costs. "Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage," he said, because of "the stupidity of the American voter." In other words, the architects of Obamacare, including Gruber, knew telling people the real price would keep it from passing.

In that instance, the truth had a clear conservative, or libertarian, or at least non-liberal bias. Ditto for President Obama's frequently repeated claim that if you like your health care plan, you can keep it. This turned out to be false for a large number of people, and wound up as PolitiFact's Lie of the Year for 2013. All of which makes you wonder: If the ACA was such a wonderful piece of legislation, then why such great need to lie about it?

If non-liberals fall prey to truthiness, then liberals fall prey to FBA: "fake but accurate." That was how The New York Times described a set of memos, publicized by CBS, ostensibly impugning George W. Bush's service in the Texas National Guard. By a remarkable coincidence, the memos surfaced in the heat of the 2004 presidential election. They turned out to be fake, but they said things liberals were eager to believe.

For a long time Neil deGrasse Tyson, the popular astrophysicist, told another fake-but-accurate story about Bush, which illustrated both Bush's ostensible stupidity and his ostensible religious bigotry. As Tyson told the tale, in the wake of 9/11 Bush—wishing to distinguish Christians from Muslims—said, "Our God is the God who named the stars." When challenged late last year, Tyson defended the quote, claiming he had an "explicit memory of those words being spoken by the president." Eventually, Tyson conceded his memory was faulty and backed down.

Tyson's story had a grain of truth: Bush had said something about a God who had named the stars, but he had made those remarks in a vastly different context: the explosion of the space shuttle Columbia. In the wake of 9/11, Bush stressed that Islam was not America's enemy. But those truths were less politically satisfying than the truthier version Tyson told in speeches.

***

There also was a grain of truth to the church-burning scare in the late 1990s. After several predominantly black churches in the Southeast burned, civil-rights leaders and the media suspected a racist plot.

"There's no question in my mind that there's a conspiracy," said Spiver Gordon, a leader of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. When a Justice Department investigation found no conspiracy, activists said that made it even worse: The spike in arsons was being fueled by a general atmosphere of racial hostility in the country at large. The panic inspired a radio address by President Clinton and state legislation imposing stiffer penalties for arson.

A national task force was convened. Just one minor detail was overlooked: Over the previous two decades the frequency of church arson actually had fallen by almost two-thirds. Heaven knows America was not free of racism by the late 1990s. Yet the media credulously reported a church-burning epidemic because the reality was not good—or, in this case, bad—enough.

Other media embarrassments have occurred after various outlets attacked other stock villains in the liberal narrative. The San Jose Mercury News blamed the CIA for the crack cocaine epidemic, then had to back off the claim. CNN and Time magazine had to retract coverage claiming the American military had used sarin gas to kill defectors during the Vietnam War. NBC's "Dateline" had to apologize to GM for staging an explosion in a truck's fuel tank. The Cincinnati Enquirer had to apologize to Chiquita for accusing it of nefarious business practices. ABC had to pay more than $5 million to Food Lion for a story about "'what can happen when the pressure for profits is great and you break the rules," as Diane Sawyer put it. Examples multiply.

When it comes to the truth, the real bias is thinking any one side has a monopoly on it.

NEXT: That Time the FBI Tried to Get MLK to Commit Suicide Before Receiving the Nobel Peace Prize

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. Well, well, well.

    “Many conservatives seem all too eager to believe….that climate change is nothing but a liberal lie; and so forth.”

    “Some conservatives believe such things in good faith, in the sense that they have rationalized away evidence to the contrary and sincerely think they are right. But others lack even the weak defense of confirmation bias…”the scientific basis for the Greenhouse Effect and the potential impact of human emissions ? on climate is well established and cannot be denied.” The group’s leaders were lying to the public, but not to themselves.”

    And you think all that applies to Conservatives, ABH? Check again, and expand your accusation to Libertarians, particularly on the issue of climate change.

    Just this week I suggested that the many Libertarians who frequent these pages are all too willing to believe in the biggest conspiracy theory making the rounds today, that being that the majority of climate scientists have been bought off, and are lying about the science just so they can get funding. Oh boy! I had to argue that point with about 10 or so “Libertarians” who took real umbrage at that. And here you say exactly the same thing about believing in a big lie, but you think it applies to a different group. Not one “Libertarian” here could offer proof of their worldwide conspiracy that science is engaging in…just their assertion that it had to be so.

    Check the mirror, ABH. Pot and kettle.

    1. By the way, ABH, I might add that Libertarians here don’t suggest that AGW is a “liberal lie.” They’re worse…they actually think its a scientific lie.

      Good luck with all that.

      1. There’s no science about it.

        1. My Aunty Abigail just got an awesome twelve month old Lexus LS 460 Sedan by work part time using a lap-top. go to this web-site I started with my online business I earn $58 every 15 minutes. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it out.
          ? ? ? ? LIFETIME OPPORTUNITY ? ? ? ? ?

          ??????? http://www.jobsfish.com

        2. The science of advocacy. When Group A gains money, notoriety, and influence by taking Position B, game theory tells us they will almost always take Position B.

      2. When this bit of flim-flam, falls apart, what’s next?
        Ice age? Nah, how GMOs are going to kill us all?
        Vaccines?

        1. I chase down my GMOs with a bottle of atrazine. The feds and crony capitalism gave us the food system we have so it has got to be a good thing.

      3. Sir, the science of climate change is established. The impact of man on climate change is completely up in the air.

        Presenting the result of any of the in excess of 20 models as fact displays little understanding of science and less of complete computer models.

      4. It’s neither a scientific lie nor a scientific truth, it’s just incomplete and preliminary science. It took half a century for quantum mechanics and general relativity to become widely accepted, and they are self contained and can be verified in pretty simple experiments. Climate models are hugely complex, rely on numerous untested assumptions, and are updated and corrected every year.

        Furthermore, the science says nothing about the policy. Sure, it’s getting warmer, so what? The policies and actions are political choices, and people like you misrepresent the political choices as if they were scientific choices. You are being dishonest.

      5. Warmism relies upon four premises, all of which must be true or Global Warming is false.

        1. It is getting warmer.
        2. It will be bad for us.
        3. We caused it.
        4. We can stop it.

        The odds are low that all four are true and fairly high that all four are false.

        Combine that with the money and tenure, systematic suppression of dissenting opinions, reliance on the ludicrously un-scientific term “consensus” and the fact that not a single prediction has been fulfilled and it is impossible to take Warmism seriously.

        It’s not a scientific conspiracy, it’s just wrong.

    2. We must repent our carbon sinning ways!

      Repent, else the planet will be engulfed in fire!

      Carbon is the devil! Yes! It is the devil! And since we’re all made of carbon, we are ourselves the devil! And we’re destroying the planet!

      We must end our carbon sinning ways, punish the evil corporations that make it possible, and submit to our god Government!

      Only Government can save us from our carbon sinning ways!

      Repent!

      Submit!

      Or the world will come to a fiery end!

      For more information, and where to send a contribution, contact your local Church of Anthropogenic Global Warming.

      1. Fun fact: Al Gore failed out of preacher school. That didn’t seem to slow him down much, though.

        1. He also flunked out of law school.

          1. Preacher school is a lot more embarrassing, though. The correct answer is always “Jesus”.

            1. Yes. Flunking out of divinity school means you failed where Al Sharpton succeeded.

              1. That depends on the school and the course of study.

                Some people found divinity school so difficult that the felt obliged to cheat in order to pass.

                Oops, not supposed to mention that, I’m such a racist.

              2. Yes, but which of the two made more money from his collection plate?

                1. Pimpin’ ain’t easy…

                2. Hmmm, I am pretty sure that we won’t see accurate accounting from either of them!

        2. Why bother to preach an existing religion when you can invent one?

          1. +1 thermonuclear bomb in a volcano

            1. Xenu ?

              1. Scienfoology is The Answer!!!

      2. I especially love the way in which JackandAce’s smug condescension on the subject mirrors religious fundamentalists. “Yes, you’re all sinners and deny it, while *smirk* I will go to heaven!”

        1. I believe “heaven” in this case is a position at the UN.

    3. Climate change is the religion of the left for today.

      The Earth’s actual mean temperature is the same as it was 18 years ago, and is now at the lowest end of what the climate models predict. Links:

      http://wattsupwiththat.com/201…..rs-1-month

      1. there you have it. some random dudes blog on the web disproves thousands of peer reviewed scientific papers. You read it here first!

        1. So if this were the 19th century you’d take phrenology seriously because it had large-scale acceptance?

        2. Peer review? Peer review is a publishing requirement, not a component of the scientific method.

          Peer review! Put peer review into a sentence and it magically becomes . . . Truth!

          1. Consensus!

            1. Don’t get me going!

              1. The scientific method is like hard and stuff, you know?

                It’s like so much easier to like get a bunch of really smart people to like take a vote and stuff, you know?

                So all these people who like deny global warming by claiming science are all like wrong and stuff because they’re not as smart as the guys who like voted, you know?

        3. Says the man who just loves him some government subsidy for his shiny panels.

          Refute this or this.

          1. Link #2 is broken.

            1. Same Nature paper I linked elsewhere.

        4. Weather you believe the world is roughly 10,000 years old or over a billion, roughly 150-200 years of climate data is not enough information to say that the Earth is historically anything.

          It may or may not be warming, but it could be completely normal. I need you to figure out exactly what the Earth’s temperature should be. Maybe you should dig a hole in the ground and stick your dick in it to measure it.

          1. “Weather” I see what you did there.

        5. “Thousands”? What are you talking about? The satellite record is clear that 2014 is tied for third with 2013 and 2005 in that 36-year record. NOAA has a different data set that does have 2014 as the warmest but warming is still far below what was predicted. HADCRUT4 isn’t even out yet.

          1. Is there 39% chance that is true?

            1. 100%. The satellite record of lower atmosphere temps is clear that there is no trend since 2000, and 2014 is not the warmest year.

              1. The 39% chance comment is in reference to an admission by NOAA that there’s only a 38% chance that 2014 is the hottest year.

                “We said 2014 was the warmest year on record… but we’re only 38% sure we were right”

                http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..right.html

                1. Thank you.

        6. There are NO, repeat NO, peer reviewed scientific papers. The various “research teams” have refused to share raw data or details of computer data conditions that would make that possible.

          1. The CRU Leaks shared some of that from Anglia and what we saw was pretty frightening.

        7. You clearly have no fucking clue about what science is. Is the “random dude” wrong? Okay. Prove it. Provide evidence that contradicts his hypothesis. Show where his methodology is lacking. That is science. Dismissing him because he disagrees with “thousands of peer reviewed scientific papers” is appealing to authority. It is the antithesis of science.

        8. Apparently, you don’t know how peer review works, do you.

      2. It’s not even at the lowest levels. It has breached the 97% confidence interval and it’s still falling.

        Refute this, Jackie.

        1. Even better is Fig 6 from Dr John Christy.

          Not to mention that there are over 1350+ peer-reviewed papers that call into question the models and their conclusions.

      3. http://judithcurry.com/2015/01…..more-17601

        An important update from Judith Curry. She notes the inaccurate reporting by media. She also notes that while there was no *exact* el nino during 2014, there was a similar ENSO phenomena that would have pushed temperatures up.

        1. Depends on who you ask. NOAA conveniently only looks at a specific region to define an El Nino. All of the surrounding regions fit the criteria. In fact, the Japanese declared an (mild) El Nino.

          At best NOAA is being pedantic, at worst they are being disingenuous. But there’s the truthiness thing again…

          1. Either way, it would have a similar warming effect as an NOAA pedant-nino, no?

            You seem knowledgable. I have heard, I think from Bailey, that while the original hockey stick was a farce and a product of laughably bad statistics, good follow up work has more or less replicated the hockey stick. Is it true?

            1. why was the original a farce? random chance?

              1. Terrible statistics. They did not have a statistician-a dedicated one-on board when they were constructing their hockey stick using principal component analysis. It was stats butchery.

            2. Yes, that was my point. 2014 was an El Nino year and even with that it barely edged (within the margin of error) out 2010 as the hottest. It’s disingenuous of NOAA to claim that it did do even with ‘ENSO-neutral’ conditions, because we didn’t have ENSO-neutral conditions.

              To my knowledge the hockey stick has never been salvaged unless you’re a true believer. ’98 MBH et al was pretty severely debunked by M&M, and their trashing was confirmed by Wegman. The cult tried to discredit Wegman for some plagiary in some appendix on bias or something like that, but no one was able to actually rescue the analysis itself.

              Every now and then they try to trot out other studies that ‘confirm’ the stick like Marcott. It never takes much effort to find the flaw. In the case of Marcott, the authors were forced to admit that their proxies were incapable of determining events of lengths less than 3-4 centuries, so to splice on the modern temp record of ~100 years and claim that it’s unprecedented was in my opinion fraudulent, but that’s hardly new with this crowd.

    4. You keep denying it, so I’ll keep posting it:

      http://www.nature.com/nclimate…..ATE-201309

      Recent observed global warming is significantly less than that simulated by climate models. This difference might be explained by some combination of errors in external forcing, model response and internal climate variability.

      (emphasis mine)

      And let’s not forget the truthiness of one of the pioneers of CAGW, Steven Schneider,

      That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.

      There shouldn’t be any hope about it. You’re either truthful or not. But the high priests of CAGW decided that the ends justified the means years ago.

    5. Oh, it doesn’t require a grand conspiracy, as we’ve seen with the EU being fooled about bees dying off, or with the Lipid Hypothesis. A few hardcore scoundrels are all that’s necessary to get the ball rolling. After that, basic psychology and economics take over.

      1. How about the EU’s irrational aversion to GMOs?

      2. It’s not a “few scoundrels,” it’s the entire scientific community. The only people you have on your side are the exact bubble-dwelling loons this article talks about. Even oil companies are professing to be interested in reducing global warming. Are they scoundrels and charlatans too? It must take a monumental effort to be this poorly informed.

        1. Oil companies want to be in on the government payoff too. They’re pretty well versed in how crony capitalism works.

          And since you used “entire scientific community” in your statement. The onus is now on you since that is a demonstrably false statement.

          1. I think it’s down to you to show a single shred of credible evidence for what you are positively claiming–that the near-unanimous consensus of experts in this field are part of history’s most successful and large-scale conspiracy to defraud the entire planet… for some reason.

            1. that the near-unanimous consensus of experts in this field are part of history’s most successful and large-scale conspiracy to defraud the entire planet

              Nice straw man there. Don’t forget to set fire to it.

            2. the near-unanimous consensus of experts in this field are part of history’s most successful and large-scale conspiracy to defraud the entire planet

              Thank goodness that’s not the case.

            3. consensus of experts

              C’mon you guys. Don’t you see?! All you need is some people to agree with each other and voila! Scientific fact!

              Tony, if the world was flat could an unscientific experiment conducted by a disingenuous “expert” make it round?

              1. Has anyone polled the millennials on this issue?

            4. You lying scumbag. There are links and explanations in this very thread that you are ignoring. To name one, the climate models themselves have not come close to predicting the, uh, climate.
              I guess in your pea brain that means the models were made by rat fucking christ fags.

            5. There is not now, and there has not been, any “near-unanimous consensus of experts”.

              There have been extensive petitions signed by large numbers (hundreds of thousands)of science and engineering professionals objecting to this portrayal.

              Of course, if the definition of “expert” as someone who agrees with AGW, then the statement would be plausible.

              1. +1
                This is how the “believers” get you off topic. It’s dishonest and lazy.

                Screw the consensus and look at the facts. Not much there to base policy on. There’s a model that discounts gamma rays, solar radiation, troposphere – stratosphere interaction, clouds, etc. No wonder it isn’t accurate.

                We’ll need a better model before the argument is worth having.

            6. …a single shred of credible evidence…

              Credible meaning in support of your opinion, right? A little bit of the ol’ No True Scotsman, eh? Typical.

              AGW cultists whom I’ve encountered share much in common with creationists, with the main difference being that creationists tend to be better company. They’re both very concerned with signaling–being seen to advocate the right things. They paint themselves as the true advocates of rational science, presenting research and publications that support their views, but are ultimately only interested in the “right” science. Evidence or arguments in opposition are scorned and attacked due to a deeply personal, emotional investment in their positions that leads to a profound insecurity. When cornered, a creationist will eventually point to a divine creator as their ultimate “argument”, while the AGW points to “consensus”, which serves largely the same role–it’s a deus ex machina that steps outside of the rules of science and rational thought, and so can’t be argued against.

        2. ” it’s the entire scientific community.”

          That is why we still believe in the Ether.

          1. “There is nothing more helpless and irresponsible than a man progtard in the depths of an ether binge”

        3. The only people you have on your side are the exact bubble-dwelling loons this article talks about.

          But we have DATA on our side so we win.

        4. Why do you deny science, Tony?

          http://www.nature.com/nclimate…..ATE-201309

        5. Even oil companies are professing to be interested in reducing global warming.

          Oil companies have PR departments and know that since they are blamed for all of this crap they need to look and sound like they are on the side of being cautious. Yes, I worked for a major and saw it firsthand.

        6. Even oil companies are professing to be interested in reducing global warming.

          Of course: there are big government handouts to be had.

          It’s not a “few scoundrels,” it’s the entire scientific community.

          You’re full of shit. The scientific community agrees that it has been getting slightly warmer and that humans likely contributed to it. That’s all that the scientific community agrees on. The rest is speculation and policy.

    6. Jackand Ace: I once erected a straw man
      t
      h
      i
      i
      i
      i
      i
      i
      i
      i
      i
      i
      i
      i
      i
      s
      big.

    7. Ok, fine, I’m ready to believe CAGW. Now, what do you have as a solution besides less freedom and more taxes?

      1. Nope. Totalitarianism Dictating every aspect of your life is the only solution.

      2. If they’re serious? Lots of nukes. If they’re not, well, the plan you see before you involving lots of 1000 year old technology and some shiny panels that have a fatal flaw I like to call ‘night’ and ‘clouds.’

        1. Nuke plants get a fuckton of subsidies, so I would file them under the “more taxes” category.

          1. I think he means causing a nuclear winter.

          2. To counter the fuckton of stupidity of regulation they undergo. I’m not advocating for more nukes even though I personally like them. I’m simply saying that if you must rock yourself to sleep at night knowing you’ve done something to absolve your carbon sins, then nuke plants are the only true option available.

          3. “Nuke plants get a fuckton of subsidies, so I would file them under the “more taxes” category.”

            When I’ve looked into it that’s not really true. There are few direct substantial subsidies for Nuclear power plants in the US. At least nothing at the scale of what wind/solar power/ethanol gets on a per MWh basis.

            Generally, most of the “studies” that indicate as much, get there by counting decades of nuclear research by the DOE as a subsidy and then by drumming up some tremendous implicit and unsubstantiated value for the Price-Anderson act. That’s typical Liberal “truthiness” in my book.

      3. Freedom is asking permission and obeying orders.

        What you speak of is liberty. As in being able to go about your life without asking permission and obeying orders, as long as you don’t interfere with other people. That’s also called anarchy, or chaos. There must be order for there to be freedom. That’s why no one should be allowed to do anything without asking permission and obeying orders from Top. Men. Duh. Don’t you know anything?

      4. Are you implying that any phenomenon that might require more taxes to respond to isn’t real, because you don’t like taxes? Is this how your brains really work?

        1. Please explain how higher taxes will save the world from the horrors of Manbearpig.

          1. I’m not even sure how higher taxes saves anyone from anything.

            1. Higher taxes make people feel good. You see, the government is us: We The People. And the rich are them. So when government sticks it to the rich, it’s us sticking it to the rich. And that feels good because the rich are icky and stuff. That’s the point of hiking taxes on the rich. To feel good.

              1. “Higher taxes make people feel good”

                In one of Obama’s off teleprompter moments, he actually said this in the interest of fairness, when asked if he would still be in favor of higher tax rates even if they didn’t produce more revenue.

                1. The fact that rich people exist is proof that they don’t pay their fair share.

            2. They save me from the burden of financial solvency.

              1. Paying taxes to the state and buying indulgences from the Church – same benefit (feeling good) same impact (hierarchy gets wealthy).

          2. I suggest that the cost, including real dollars, is much greater if we do nothing. I believe taxes should be raised to pay for worthy collective efforts. For what hypothetical purpose would you ever entertain the idea of raising taxes? Or are you content being a caricature of a stupid old coot with a singular dogmatic fixation? Rah taxes! Rah!!

            1. I believe taxes should be raised to pay for worthy collective efforts

              Collective efforts so worthy that you’re forced to finance them.

            2. Rah the rich! Rah!!!

            3. I suggest that the cost, including real dollars, is much greater if we do nothing.

              Holy False Dilemmas, Batman! Why can’t private actors find solutions to problems as they come along?

              I think the 20th century has irrefutably shown that markets are better and more efficient at problem solving than governments.

            4. My advice is that you should read more books and fewer bumper stickers.

              Since the govt is wasting vast sums of money already on bullshit like corn ethanol, I see no reason to raise taxes.

            5. The cost will be greater – when?

              100 years ago, the Titanic just sank, there were a few cars and airplanes around, and pollution control meant shoveling horse shit out of the street.

              The concept of global warming was unknown, nuclear power was unheard of, and radio was an experimental novelty. Don’t even think about space travel or the internet.

              In short, nobody 100 years ago had any clue as to how we would live, what our problems might be, or could have possibly had any useful suggestion as to how to resolve them.

              Unless you know something about the next 100 years the rest of us don’t, I suggest leaving the future alone to solve it’s own problems, instead of turning present society upside down to resolve the problems of a future you know absolutely nothing about.

            6. I suggest that the cost, including real dollars, is much greater if we do nothing.

              The data is clear that this is probably not the case.

              1. It’s more than clear.

              2. And, in the very near future, the *entire* entire! ENTIRE!! scientific community demands that we LOWER taxes. ALL Scientists will soon agree. [proof of unanimous agreement forthcoming…just accept my premise & act today]

            7. I suggest that the cost, including real dollars, is much greater if we do nothing.

              And I suggest that it isn’t.

              The problem with that is that it presumes that 1) we correctly understand the costs of CO2 emissions 2) we correctly understand the costs of proposed policies to combat warming and 3) the proposed policies will actually have the intended effect.

              I am very doubtful that any of those are the case at the moment.

              For what hypothetical purpose would you ever entertain the idea of raising taxes?

              Since most people here think that the federal government is at least 10x bigger than it should be, there is no reason why any libertarian would raise taxes from current levels.

              What’s the carbon footprint of all of the useless or harmful stuff that the government does today?

              1. The benefits of a warming world and of a world with more CO2 (better plant growth) are not being included.

            8. I suggest that the cost, including real dollars, is much greater if we do nothing.

              As David Friedman has pointed out time after time, the “cost” may not even be a “cost.” Not only do we not know the magnitude of the economic/environmental impact of warming, we don’t know the direction. The social cost of carbon could well be negative. We don’t know, just as we didn’t know about the population crisis or the global cooling fad a few years later.

              It’s unpopular to point this out to fans of technocracy who envision science! as a big red button that you push to receive The Truth, but there are many phenomena that do not lend themselves easily to positivist examination. These are exactly the ones that lead to moral panics like the population bomb or CAGW–where uncertainty exists, the human imagination runs wild, usually straight into cultic behavior. Ehrlich isn’t a cynical huckster, and neither are climate prophets–they legitimately believe their gospel, but they’ll never accept that they’ve been objectively wrong for the same reason religious adherents won’t. The psychic blow is too great.

              If you can understand why using science!, peer review, and consensus to try to predict literary and social trends is a ridiculous task, you might understand why some view climate science as a political football rather than a valuable science that offers prediction and control of the world. To date, it has done neither.

            9. “I suggest that the cost, including real dollars, is much greater if we do nothing. ”

              Then you have the burden of proof on your side. And complaining because others aren’t convinced by your proof and refuse to act on it is just whining.

              1. Fine. Except none of you guys accept the evidence.

                1. We don’t accept projections that come from models that are badly flawed, no.

            10. I suggest that the cost, including real dollars, is much greater if we do nothing.

              One of those costs is that tens of thousands, perhaps even millions of people would not die due to lack of energy for heat, sanitation, medicines, and food. It will be very expensive to feed all those people if we do nothing, so let’s do something to reduce our energy supply to be sure they all perish.

            11. I suggest that the cost, including real dollars, is much greater if we do nothing.

              And presumably, you have a detailed global climactic projection and econometric analysis of those cost projections? If so, you’d probably have the first one in actual existence. Or by “suggest”, do you mean TEH FEEELLZZ!

            12. Tony have you ever paid any taxes worth counting.

              Sales taxes don’t count.

          3. Same way hiking cigarette taxes to fund anti-smoking education worked.
            Even though less than 1% of the money ever went to anti-smoking education, it gave thieving politicians enough money so they forgot about it for a while.

        2. Anyone whose proposals requires investors to be brought to the table at gun point probably has a shit proposal. They certainly don’t have the best interest of their victims in mind.

          1. What proposal? Are you talking about something specific, or are you just substituting in meaningless hysteria and tired libertarian buzzwords for thought?

            The main proposal is to get people to stop harming other people via negative externalities. Even a libertarian can get on board with that. You just apparently don’t want to.

            1. I breathe, therefore I consume some of the oxygen that would otherwise be available to you. Pardon my negative externality.

            2. What proposal?

              To forcibly separate people from their property to pay for your political schemes.

              Tony:

              I believe taxes should be raised to pay for worthy collective efforts.

              The main proposal is to get people to stop harming other people via negative externalities.

              The norms of property rights, where not interfered with by statutes, can handle that. It’s not written in stone that the solution every perceived global problem requires diminished freedom and crippling taxation for all. As you seem to imply, some sort of mechanism should exist to mitigate the harm caused to others, like say…. a court? As opposed to the legislature and bureaucracy you support to address it.

              1. Please be more specific, because “diminished freedom and crippling taxation” is not one anyone, including me, has ever proposed. You seem to be openly admitting that your problem here is dogmatic, not factual.

            3. The main proposal is to get people to stop harming other people via negative externalities. Even a libertarian can get on board with that. You just apparently don’t want to.

              Those are called property rights, and you’re wholly against them. Libertarians have always taken a hard stance on pollution & damage to others’ lives and property, so to see you lecturing us about caring about the harm done to others is odd, to say the least. Two generations ago, Rothbard called for the absolute end to pollution, and that’s a stance many of us still take. In a libertarian world, smog wouldn’t exist.

              The chief issue is that no one has demonstrated any negative “externality” yet in that they haven’t shown carbon to be a pollutant by any reasonable standard. Once you demonstrate definitively how burning fossil fuels harms others, then you’ll have reasonable cause to end the behavior completely. Or, if you’re a politician who’s wishy-washy on the whole compassion and respect for others thing, to impose a Pigouvian tax on the polluter that’s earmarked for the pollutee.

              And to do that, all you have to do is demonstrate the assumption that’s fundamental to your whole argument: that emitting carbon harms others and their property. You don’t even have to demonstrate that the damage is catastrophic: just show 1) that it causes warming, cooling, or whatever, and 2) that warming/cooling/whatever would be considered harmful by a reasonable person.

              1. You don’t even have to demonstrate that the damage is catastrophic: just show 1) that it causes warming, cooling, or whatever, and 2) that warming/cooling/whatever would be considered harmful by a reasonable person.

                Ah, but then how could you justify taxing the behavior at such a level that it would generate revenue without driving the polluters out of business? After all, if you could actually prove that emitting carbon directly caused the death of sixteen children annually–and sixteen is a comically low figure statistically speaking–how could a moral person possibly allow it to continue? Put another way, if the performance of actions which produced carbon cost a certain number of human lives per year, no moral person could allow it to continue.

                But they can’t do that, and that’s not the goal. It’s all about anti-corporatism, anti-capitalism, and social signalling. The same fuckers who argue for CAGW argue against GMOs, even though genetically-modified foods are responsible for giving people whose means would otherwise prevent it a surplus of affordable and varied produce. Without GMOs you’d have widespread starvation, and actual people would really die as a result. But the Tony’s of the world would see that as an acceptable cost.

                These are the same fucking shitheels who 1.) protested the opening of Wal-Marts in DC and then 2.) complained about a “food desert” in the inner city.

                1. The federal government and crony capitalists support GMOs.

            4. I believe taxes should be raised to pay for worthy collective efforts.

              Who judges what is worthy?

              Actually we have agreement on that. We have a Constitution written to give collective powers to Congress and the President. If we stick to that dusty, moldy old parchment we will be OK. But it never happens – every generation simply stretches the powers of the govt to do more than is included in the Constitution. I don’t see a Global Warming Clause.

              1. What makes you think the Constitution (as interpreted by you, of course, not any official body like the courts) is a perfect document capable of handling all eventualities in American society?

                1. The courts haven’t done themselves too proud – cough cough Dred Scott cough cough Kelo cough cough plessy v ferguson cough cough.

                  The Constitution is not perfect, but it is the best yet devised and it allows for amendment so that it is capable of being modified to fit truly new circumstances. But its abuse by those in power on both sides of the aisle is a shame.

        3. He’s implying the exact inverse, Tony. Statists latch on to theories where they can argue that more taxes are an appropriate response because they love taxes and the power that comes with them. Not only do they get to decide who pays them, they get to decide who, beside themselves, gets to share in the spoils.

          1. This conspiratorial horseshit trumps the entirety of the scientific literature?

            1. It’s not a conspiracy to point out that people respond to incentives.

              1. It’s not just these phantom power-hungry tax-lovers who are pushing the idea of global warming, it’s the entire scientific community. Why are climatologists so much more easily corrupted by government largesse than researchers in any other field?

                Is it really this difficult to see that maybe its your incentives that are causing you to believe in nonsense? You admit that you hate taxes and regulation–this is a problem that seems to require more of both. So you deny the problem. (Like a toddler might.) It’s really baffling that this much delusion can exist among otherwise seemingly sentient people.

                1. power-hungry tax-lovers who are pushing the idea of global warming,

                  He is of many names. I knew him as ‘Tony’.

                  Why are climatologists so much more easily corrupted by government largesse than researchers in any other field?

                  Because the state had a hard time making good use of of dermatologists and geologists as proponents of theories that would expand their power.

                  Climatology is the perfect vessel. Unlike asteroid impacts whose potential for catastrophic loss is based on trajectories that can be accurately predicted, changing climate is much more uncertain and complex and much more in the daily life of nearly every human.

                2. Tony, as a consequentialist, do you have any problem with activists who fudged climate science facts to create popular hysteria?

                  1. I would if that ever actually happened.

                    The stupidity on this thread is painful.

                    1. Wait, you don’t think that *EVER* happened? LOL. Everyone agrees it happened. All the dems agree, they just excuse it as good-hearted if over-zealous advocacy. Everyone agrees but you.

                    2. The stupidity on this thread is painful.

                      Perhaps you could make us less stupid by providing the falsifiable hypothesis that convinced you that CAGW is a reality. Or even just moderately harmful global warming. Just explain to us the foundation of your certainty, outside of the usual tribalism that divides the faithful from those dirty, inhuman infidels who disagree with you.

                      Do an infidel a favor and spell out, in terms that stupid scientists and philosophers can understand, why warming 1) will certainly continue and 2) will be harmful.

              2. It’s not a conspiracy to point out that people respond to incentives.

                Except that Tony refuses to see power as an incentive. He believes the myth that once people attain government power, that they discard all selfish motivation and instead work only for the people. They deserve unquestioning trust.
                Whereas teh corporations with their icky profit motive cannot be trusted at all.
                So when studies defy the AGW claims, then cannot be trusted since they must be funded by evil corporations seeking profits.
                Whereas studies funded by people in government are The Word Of God.

                1. “Whereas studies funded by people in government are The Word Of God.”

                  Especially those in government who are immune to insider trading laws.

            2. Axiomatic truth defeats squishy literature.

            3. No. Contrary to your lies, the entirety of the scientific literature does not agree with your position.

            4. The entirety of scientific literature?

              I think you might be stretching it a bit.

          2. Tony doesn’t understand that power is a motive, and has zero reasoning skills.

            He understand the profit motive, and would outlaw it if he could, but he cannot comprehend power as a motivator.

            So he’ll jump up and down and scream about how scientific studies that disagree with AGW cannot be trusted because the people who fund them are motivated by profits, and absolutely cannot apply that same reasoning to studies that are funded by people who are motivated by power.

            1. Of course, plenty in the AGW cult are motivated by profit. And I’m not talking only about Al Gore and grant-guzzling scientists.

              Plenty of developing countries see it as an opportunity for extortion. It’s also a great way to pursue a cushy “advisor” job, advising all kinds of governments and corporations on how to “green” their operations.

        4. Are you implying that any phenomenon that might require more taxes to respond to isn’t real, because you don’t like taxes?

          Hmmm…

          SMcBride|1.19.15 @ 12:26PM|#

          Ok, fine, I’m ready to believe CAGW. Now, what do you have as a solution besides less freedom and more taxes?

          Ah, I see. Tony does not know what words mean, and he inferred something that was not implied.

        5. No Tony, we are implying that you are a fascist asshole.

          See how simple that was? Just being direct and to the point!

        6. Are you implying that any phenomenon that might require more taxes to respond to isn’t real, because you don’t like taxes?

          I can’t think of any phenomenon that “requires” more taxes to respond to.

          In particular, if you’re serious about cutting climate change short, reducing taxes, fostering economic growth, and stopping fossil fuel subsidies would be the best thing to do.

      5. “Ok, fine, I’m ready to believe CAGW. Now, what do you have as a solution besides less freedom and more taxes?”

        Right. Think of it, world government that can dictate which industries /companies will be permitted to operate. All will prostrate themselves to survive.

    8. all too willing to believe in the biggest conspiracy theory

      Just ignore those emails where the leading lights of AGW were, what’s the word? consipiring, that’s it, to keep their rivals out of peer reviewed publications.

    9. And about 10 people explained to you why it isn’t a conspiracy theory.

      1. When one of you can supply the proof that an organization such as National Academy of Sciences (and you can take your pick from all of the science organizations in the country) is falsifying their conclusions on AGW for the money, then you may be on your way out of a conspiracy theory.

        But until then, its all you’ve got. Not one person here, including you ZEB, is able to.

        1. See my early comment regarding advocacy.

          1. Well, we will leave it to you, Chumby. Do tell…what is the proof you have that they took any money to change reach a conclusion in science. Hmmmm? Why were they saying the same exact thing in early 2000’s when the GOP (the drill here drill now crowd) controlled both Houses and the Oval Office? If they were so enthralled with money, why did they not reach the conclusion the GOP wanted?

            Go ahead, tell us all.

            1. I like your strawman. I plan to burn it to create additional AGW. (Sarcasm)

              And the top folks atthe GOP embrace AGW. It allows their cash cow, the federal government, to expand.

              And voting on a poltical position is not science.

              Just curious – are ypu carbon neutral? If not, why not? And if so, does it include unsustainable offsets and/or theorized renewable production capabilities that are often much less once built?

    10. Hey, Barton…all the Libertarians here corrected both of us. Yeah, they disagree with you that science is clear about man’s impact on global warming and that only conservatives deny it. Hopefully you see the errors of your ways.

      I had said I had to argue with about 10 Libertarians here on the science. Oops! After reading the comments, its about 30!! And counting!

      1. You know what Aristotle said about argument (or persuasion) – there are three types: argument by authority, argument by emotion and argument by logic.
        You indeed “argue” with 30+ people here, the difference is we argue using logic and you argue referring to authority and emotion.
        Make a logical argument and see how that goes. (you can get help)

        1. Just agreeing with A. Barton, my friend. The science is in, and its silly and juvenile (and I say conspiratorial) to just say its all based on lies.

          Here is the difference, which I proved in abundance today. Barton is wrong that such a thing regarding climate science is not the purview of conservatives alone…the Libertarians are out in front. And you are right there. Congrats! Barton would be ashamed of you.

          1. Still waiting on that logical argument…

      2. Yeah, they disagree with you that science is clear about man’s impact on global warming

        No, your problem is that you simply cant distinguish (1) “observed global warming”, (2) “predicted global warming”, and (3) “government action on global warming”. Science is fairly clear only on (1); (2) is fraught with problems, and (3) isn’t even a scientific question.

    11. Jackass,

      Stop with your stupid bullshit about CAGW.

      The scientific basis for how CO2 effects climate is most definitely up for grabs. Nobody really knows what the doubling sensitivity is for instance. Or even whether or not the water vapor feedback is positive or negative.

      Add in the inability of the models to predict most anything about the temp to CO2 relationship with a big dose of the realization that the CAGW fanatics have yet to predict anything…polar amplification, tropospheric hot spot, ocean heat content, ocean acidification, hurricane frequency/power, etc..

      It ain’t science if you can’t accurately predict something or if your theory dodges falsification.

      1. Hey, eggs, tell it to your weekly contributor A. Barton. He is the one castigating conservatives for such juvenile beliefs. You all are proving he should have expanded his accusation.

        And that is all I pointed out in the first comment…you just proved it.

        1. Uh what are you talking about everything thing I said is verifiable. Nobody really knows what doubling sensitivity is, all of those things that were supposed to be cagw signals have been shown to be incorrect. There is no increase in hurricane power and or freq. There is no tropospheric hot spot, no polar amplification, models are diverging from the experimental data, etc.

          You have serious issues with reality.

      2. By the way, at least conservatives according to A. Barton only think its liberals that are lying…Libertarians think science is lying.

        You’re worse than conservatives.

        1. what do you think you are saying when you accuse me of thinking that science is lying? From my pov I’m just looking at the data as it is.

          You are just a layman kook.

    12. Most star names are Arabic in origin. I don’t know if that means Musims named them.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L…..star_names

      The question that burns in my mind isn’t addressed. Is marijuana really legal in North Korea?

      1. Simply because the stars are named in Arabic has nothing to do with Islam.

        Arabs existed long befoe Islam.

    13. I am unqualified to engage in a scientific discussion of whether or not GW is man made or not ( not that that stops you from doing so but that is another topic).

      However this historical item I know to be a fact.

      In 1850 George Ross was the first to do a marine survey of what was later named the Ross Ice Shelf. In 1912 Robert Falcon Scott was the second. Both expidition leaders reached their destination in sail boats. In the 62 years between the firat two marine surveys of the ice shelf it had shrunk over 50 miles.

      So when the Ross Ice Shelf was first discovered during “The Age of Sail” it was already melting almost 1 mile per year. This was almost a century before “The Age of SUVs”.

      Class dismissed.

      1. In this case You = Jackland.

    14. Just this week I suggested that the many Libertarians who frequent these pages are all too willing to believe in the biggest conspiracy theory making the rounds today, that being that the majority of climate scientists have been bought off, and are lying about the science just so they can get funding. Oh boy!

      Climate scientists haven’t been “bought off” and they aren’t “lying”, they suffer from confirmation bias and publication bias, and their proposals and funding are driven by peer review and political pressures. These mechanisms exist in all scientific disciplines and mean that, fundamentally, we cannot take recent scientific results and translate them directly into policy. Science works slowly, and it takes many decades to verify and recheck results. People who actually understand science know this. Progressives support scientism and pseudo-science, not scientific rationalism.

      Check again, and expand your accusation to Libertarians, particularly on the issue of climate change.

      I think the libertarian position on climate change can be summarized simply as: it doesn’t matter how the climate is changing, because the proposed policies are invariably much worse than even the worst case climate change scenarios. Again, it’s your own ignorance that results in you misrepresenting this position as “climate change denial”.

  2. When it comes to the truth, the real bias is thinking any one side has a monopoly on it.

    “NO!! It is YOU who are wrong!!”

    1. LOL

      Love it!

  3. When the other side does it, it’s truthiness. When our side does it, [insert vague bullshitting about higher truth].

    1. The UVA Rolling Stone rape hoax wasn’t about the gullibility of feminists and their media allies, it’s about the epidemic of rape on campus that makes false stories like ‘Jackie’s’ plausible.

      So we must act as if it really did happen and create byzantine anti-rape policies that seriously threaten the civil rights of accused persons.

  4. You must all contemplate the errors of your ways….on the Tree of Woe!

    1. Reason plagiarized Drunk History.

        1. Can we have Drunk Reason?

          Is there a sober one of which I am unaware? Remember, this is the place that invents the drinking games where if you follow the rules, you will die from alcohol poisoning.

          1. I want all writers and contributors and editors liquored up for one issue of Reason.

            1. You mean they aren’t liquored up? I am disappoint

  5. Rule Britannia!

    Britain wants to spy on toddlers to prevent future terrorism:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new…..anded.html

    1. “Senior management and governors should make sure that staff have training that gives them the knowledge and confidence to identify children at risk of being drawn into terrorism”

      Probably the promise of imprisonment would instill the “confidence”; but I’d like to see the implementation plan for the “knowledge” part.

      1. Let me guess – future terrorists are raised to hate their society and its government – so they must be monitored, harassed and imprisoned by their society and government to avoid them becoming terrorists?

    2. Britannia rule the waves.
      Britons never, never, never will be slaves.

      Isn’t is sad what collectivism has done to a once great people?

  6. What a drag it is getting trolled.

    1. +5 decades

  7. Have you ever dealt with people that are such pathological liars that when you accuse them of lying, they don’t seem to understand why that’s a problem?

    Lying is so thoroughly ensconced in the left’s political strategy that many self-identifying liberals are no longer offended when you accuse them of lying–and don’t understand why lying is a problem.

    1. Ends justify means. Pointing that out upsets them.

      1. It goes all the way back to Plato’s “noble lie”; however, they’ve taken that to such depths that they’ve come to believe their own lies.

        It gets to the point where, for instance, they don’t care what impact of a capital gains hike will be. And they don’t believe anything anybody says about the issue–not even themselves.

        It’s come to the point where they don’t care what the truth is or whether it’s on their side. They just want a hike in the capital gains tax.

        You saw the same thing in the ObamaCare full time = 40 hours legislation the House took up the other week. They don’t care if the working poor have to go get an extra job. They don’t care if the working poor are having to learn to live on less money. They wouldn’t care if lifting ObamaCare’s 30 hour a week limit would cure cancer and save the world from global warming.

        They don’t care what the truth is. They just want to fine employers for not giving health insurance to anyone who works more than 30 hours a week.

    2. That’s what happens when you are raised to emote, not think.

      When you emote then it’s OK to lie. I mean, it feels like the truth, right? And that’s all really matters.

      1. There’s also something deeply authoritarian about the left’s blind obedience to experts.

        You should just do what the experts say because they know what’s best for us. And the people who oppose experts are ignorant.

        In fact, being educated, to them, seems to mean knowing that you should obey the experts*.

        *who couldn’t possibly know more about my qualitative preferences than I do, much less take them into consideration when they make choices rulings for all of us.

        1. What alternative are you suggesting? That you know everything, even in subjects you have no training or expertise in whatsoever? Do you really begrudge people for preferring to drive on bridges designed by engineers to bridges designed by non-engineers?

          1. It doesn’t take an engineer to observe that a bridge made of toothpicks won’t handle the weight of a car.

            1. And obviously those are the only types of choices the world offers us: a bridge that works or one that obviously doesn’t. Why do we even bother training engineers at all?

              1. If you want to compare climate science and engineering, climate science is at the stage where engineering was a couple thousand years ago. It is starting to do some interesting things, but people are really just barely starting to see how things really work.

                This isn’t a criticism of any scientist or even the field of climate science. The study of enormously complex dynamic systems like the climate is extremely difficult and couldn’t even really be approached before computers were a thing. It is certainly an important field. But until it can start regularly making accurate predictions, it really is in its infancy.

                1. The study of enormously complex dynamic systems like the climate is extremely difficult and couldn’t even really be approached before computers were a thing.

                  Oh yeah? Well it is a scientific fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas! That’s all you need to know! None of the other variables matter! CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and we’re filling the atmosphere with it! Government must save us or we’re all going to die!

                2. ” But until it can start regularly making accurate predictions, it really is in its infancy.”

                  This is the Gold standard. And the “scientific” community should insist upon it, instead of getting deep in the tribal warfare.

                  I still believe that AGW is a good theory, just exaggerated in an ideological manner. However, if it turns out that AGW is obviously flawed, science will suffer a tremendous blow that will take decades to recover from. And all because various “scientists” couldn’t keep their desires from tainting the scientific methodology.

                3. Maybe, maybe not, but the basic facts that everyone here are disputing are not actually controversial among experts.

                4. If you want to compare climate science and engineering, climate science is at the stage where engineering was a couple thousand years ago.

                  No, the Romans had some great engineering expertise, as did the Egyptians.

                  Climate science is about where the atomic theory was a couple of thousand years ago. People had proposed atoms but had almost no evidence to back it up. But at least they didn’t make apocalyptic predictions and try to sponge off of the public to support their theories.

          2. I agree with Tony. All Republicans and right-wingers should just be killed.

            1. Come on, you never state it that way!

              Instead you say, “They need to be sent to “reeducation” camps. And, ff a large percentage don’t make it out, well, we just call that bad luck.”

              1. They should be given “retirement”.

          3. Sounds like he’s suggesting a critical perspective, even against “experts.”

            1. An intelligent person knows what he doesn’t know, and a humble person is willing to admit it. Hard to go through life always distrusting experts.

              Of course Ken doesn’t do that–he only distrusts a tiny selection of experts because his political ideology requires it (though I don’t know why it should).

              1. Critical examination of experts is what Ken’s advocating, instead of blind deference to them.

                Moreover, climate science is closer to theoretical physics than a hard science. It is incapable of any repeatable, controlled experiments.

                But of course your side always likes to scream “SCIENCE SCIENCE SCIENCE” since it benefits your ideology: ever more centralized control over life. Even where the “science” isn’t really a science, or at least not one that is capable of double-blind experiments.

                1. Critical examination of experts is what Ken’s advocating, instead of blind deference to them.

                  That would require intelligence and honesty, neither of which are in Tony’s toolbox.

                2. Ken is advocating blind deference to bullshit. If pretty much all the literature says something, you probably should assume the experts know what they’re talking about. I’ve been here a long time. I know with certainty that Ken is not advocating an open-minded approach. Libertarians are so specific in their views about how the world should be that they have an especially difficult time being open-minded. So much so that they make idiots of themselves by acting like common creationists whenever this subject comes up.

                  We can’t do repeatable experiments with global warming because we don’t have a collection of identical Earths to run different scenarios on. Science isn’t all about what you did in 11th grade lab. A lot of science is about observation and recording of data. What repeatable experiment has convinced you that the sun engages in nuclear fusion? That Saturn has rings?

                  1. We can’t do repeatable experiments with global warming because we don’t have a collection of identical Earths to run different scenarios on.

                    True. But we can create models, make predictions based in these models, and test the veracity of those predictions by comparing them with the actual system that we are trying to model. Climate scientists seem to fail at that last part.

                    1. No they don’t. The models have been quite accurate.

                    2. “The models have been quite accurate.”

                      When you say shit like this I am reminded why I should never bother reading any comment you write. You are a troll. And a commie. Go fuck your lying self.

                    3. That’s a lie Tony.

                    4. No it isn’t. But you’re not remotely interested in finding out whether it is or not, are you?

                    5. Yes it is you lying POS.

                      http://climateaudit.org/2014/1…..screpancy/

                      Did you think I had left, and you could just post your insipid ‘comeback’ without my noticing? #REKT

                    6. In 1995, based on their “accurate” global warming model, the IPCC predicted that: “most of the beaches on the East Coast of the United States will be gone in 25 years [2020]”

                      Less than 5 years now until **total beach apocalypse** tick tick tick

                  2. You do need to have those conditions when you’re trying to determine the ultimate cause among several potential causes. I can certainly observe that Saturn has rings. No shit. But I can’t truly know the ultimate cause of those rings.

                    Moreover, the data regarding warming trends is incomplete, cherry-picked, and doesn’t discount other possible factors.

                    Plenty of sources dissenting from the so-called “consensus” have raised a lot of reasonable doubt as to AGW. But they’re just arguing in bad faith, while the “consensus” scientists are noble and good, right?

                    There are bad-faith motives on both sides of the debate, sure. But your ideology requires you to only examine one side.

                  3. Libertarians are so specific in their views about how the world should be that they have an especially difficult time being open-minded.

                    I hope you’ll offer us an example.

                    1. Libertarians are so specific in their views about how the world should be

                      We are specific in our views about how the government should be. Not the whole world. Just the government.

                      Of course, to progs, there’s no difference.

                  4. What repeatable experiment has convinced you that the sun engages in nuclear fusion? That Saturn has rings?

                    Sound theory in the case of the sun and observation in the case of Saturn. Neither of which your ever changing theory of climate change has.

                  5. “If pretty much all the literature says something, you probably should assume the experts know what they’re talking about.”

                    Experts cannot account for other people’s qualitative preferences.

                    It’s impossible.

                    I agree that science is a consensus, but that consensus is always changing as new data becomes available. Even if it were only for that last bit about the consensus always changing because of new data, science will always remain to a certain extent uncertain–in that the consensus can, will, and should change given new information that conflicts with the current consensus.

                    The problem scientists run into when they impose themselves on public policy is that public policy is not science. The question of whether the use of fossil fuels will kill off the polar bears is a scientific question. The question of whether I should care more about the polar bears than I do my own financial well being is not a scientific question. It’s a qualitative preference.

                    Whenever science tries to impose itself on the qualitative preferences of individuals by way of public policy, it is no longer science. It is political advocacy masquerading as science.

                    The only way an expert could measure my qualitative preferences for things like polar bears over my own money is to observe how I, as an individual, behave in the marketplace. Indeed, there is no one of higher expertise about an individual’s qualitative preferences than the individual himself.

                  6. because we don’t have a collection of identical Earths to run different scenarios on.

                    Modeling is a thing. But it is only effective when all the variables are completely understood. That is not the case with climate “science”.

                    A lot of science is about observation and recording of data.

                    This statement, alone, I agree with. But recording data and determining what is means has its own problems, such as consistency of methods of gathering said data.

                    1. we don’t have a collection of identical Earths to run different scenarios on.

                      This statement is pathetic and demonstrates that Tony has no understanding of science. Yes Tony sciences where experiments can’t be used have a very hard time testing hypotheses. This does not lower the bar for critical analysis at all. It’s a case of ‘too bad’.

                    2. Tony has no understanding of science.

                      He has admitted that on numerous occasions. That’s why he defers to experts. By experts he means people who actively study AGW with government funding. People like engineers and computer scientists who apply science on a daily basis do not count, because many of them have applied critical thinking to AGW and determined that it is a load of crap.

                    3. Modeling is a thing. But it is only effective when all the variables are completely understood. That is not the case with climate “science”.

                      Well, according to Tony, only one variable is needed: Man made CO2.

                      That’s it. Because it’s the only variable that matters.

                  7. Tony,

                    What scientific evidence would convince you that global warming is exaggerated? Would would possibly convince you? Everyone admits the doomsday prediction made in the mid to late 1990’s HAVE BEEN PROVEN FALSE. We still have glaciers. We still have vast fields of sea ice. We still have polar bears, and the populating is growing. No arcadian island nations have vanished beneath the waves.

                    If no evidence could convince you that the emperor is running nude, then it’s a religious belief.

                3. Moreover, climate science is closer to theoretical physics than a hard science. It is incapable of any repeatable, controlled experiments.

                  Uh, what? There are shit loads of experiments in physics and lots of back and forth between theorists and experimenters.

                  I suppose maybe that’s the case with some really bleeding edge theory where the energies involved are far beyond anything we can reproduce.

                  The problem with climate science is that it is really new and really complicated. Most science so far has been reductive. You break things down into small, simple parts and figure out how they work. When studying a very complex dynamic system, you just can’t do things that way. Climate science is like physics before Einstein or quantum theory. Some major theoretical breakthrough is needed to really be able to make any predictions about climate.

                  1. Zeb,

                    Maybe “theoretical physics” is too broad a label for what I was getting at. I was thinking of theories like dark matter and dark energy. The only proof at this point of their existence is the observation that galactic bodies don’t behave like we expect them to based on our understanding of the way gravity works at the planetary level.

                  2. The science everyone here is brazenly disputing with absolutely no justification is really basic stuff that nobody (except these idiots) has a problem with. The greenhouse effect is understood. We may not know with total certainty the effects in 100 years, but we can say they will likely be bad.

              2. An intelligent person knows what he doesn’t know, and a humble person is willing to admit it. Hard to go through life always distrusting experts.

                So you’re renouncing your support for top-down big government solutions, then?

                1. How about we agree about the basic facts of the world before we get to policy discussions? I’d love to get there someday, though.

                  To me, you’re admitting that the only policy solutions you can think of involve big government. Otherwise you’d accept reality and throw out your own ideas. An intelligent person would realize this represents significant flaws in his assumptions about the world.

                  1. Ken is advocating blind deference to bullshit.

                    Stop projecting.

                    A lot of science is about observation and recording of data.

                    The strongest science is always verifiable by experiment. “Strong Inference”. Sometimes observational science is the best you can do. Saturn’s rings appear pretty obviously real. Extrapolating temperature from tree rings has less solid grounding.

                  2. To me, you’re admitting that the only policy solutions you can think of involve big government.

                    No, these aren’t the only policy solutions I can think of. But they are the ones you consistently propose.

                    And about the basic “facts,” well, those aren’t as cut and dried as you believe. The world is “warming” but at a much slower rate than predicted. And emissions are falling, at least in the U.S. I think the logical approach on global warming is to “wait and see.” I say this as a former progressive who campaigned for Kerry in 2004.

                    1. Policy solution: Plant trees. Excess carbon is easily sunk by simply planting trees. There is more than enough room to plant a sufficient number.

                      Prediction: If we recapture all of the ‘excess’ carbon in the atmosphere the climate trends we see now will continue unchanged.

                    2. Trees suck. They devour water and that would eliminate grassland habitat.

                      Better idea: more forestry logging. Your wood table is a carbon sink. Young healthy trees planted after the logging eat up CO2. If you don’t love logging, you hate Gaia.

                    3. Trees suck. They devour water and that would eliminate grassland habitat.

                      That depends a whole lot on where you are putting the trees. In a lot of places too much water is more of a problem than too little.

                    4. I haven’t proposed anything other than facts are facts.

                    5. Thanks for your banal self-regarding tripe Tony.

                    6. Fact.

                      Your models have failed, Tony. That is a fact.

            2. Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.

              – Richard Feynman

              Nullius in verba; (Take nobody’s word for it)

              – motto of the Royal Society

              Experts may be given a platform upon which to speak, but have to bring evidence and predictions need to stand up to scrutiny.

          4. Government isn’t an engineer and people aren’t parts of a bridge to be constructed in a way bureaucrats deem fit.

            The fact that you think in such terms shows exactly why scientists are the worst people to dictate policy. Utter ignorance of how society actually functions and what the proper role of government should be.

            1. We can’t talk about policy until we agree on the basic facts of reality. Which you guys refuse to do. Do you think being science-denying cretins will get you a prominent seat at the policy table? Why are you shooting yourself in the foot by acting like idiots?

              1. a prominent seat at the policy table?

                The policy table is the problem. Not that being told such repeatedly will ever sink in.

              2. People like you have been screaming doomsday scenarios for the past 50 years, from the population bomb to the Statue of Liberty being underwater and you expect to be taken seriously despite being proven wrong time and time again?

                The Earth might be warming but you know fuck all about what life will be like in 50 years.

                1. The earth is warming–it is fact. Do you suppose that refusing to accept fact positions you better to predict what life will be like in 50 years? Or are you saying that we can’t ever possibly know anything (except of course that all of your policy preferences are God’s One True System)?

                  1. Do you suppose that refusing to accept fact positions you better to predict what life will be like in 50 years?

                    Again, you know fuck all about what the next 50 years will bring. It’s an utter conceit to pretend otherwise.

                    As for facts, I do know it’s an incontrovertible fact that the last century has seen the greatest increase in human well-being in the history of our species thanks to capitalism and innovation, two things the climate luddites want to dismantle and hand over to government, the most incompetent and utterly ill-equipped entity around.

                    So yeah, I’ll gladly adopt a skeptical position on global warming solutions if it means protecting the welfare of billions of people from petty tyrants such as yourself.

                    1. As for facts, I do know it’s an incontrovertible fact that the last century has seen the greatest increase in human well-being in the history of our species thanks to capitalism and innovation

                      ah ha! child labor and poor working conditions existed in the 20th century and of course never existed prior to capitalism… /Tony

                  2. The earth is warming–it is fact.

                    Not according to the satellite data record.

                    1. Stop lying.

                      http://www.woodfortrees.org/pl…..set:0.3124

                      You see that graph Tony? Do you fucking see it? Do you see a statistically significant trend in there since 2000? You shouldn’t because THERE FUCKING ISN’T ONE.

                    2. Why 2000? Why pick that year? Do you even know what the fuck you’re trying to say? How about go back to 1990 (the more years we have the better picture we have of the overall trend, right?). Pretty clear warming trend, huh?

                    3. Because 2000 is when the warming either stopped or dramatically decelerated depending on which dataset you look at you stupid fuck. Not looking at it doesn’t make it go away Toney.

                      the more years we have the better picture we have of the overall trend, right?

                      You’re an imbecile but that’s no surprise. If you want to look at recent trends, you look at RECENT YEARS.

                  3. “The earth is warming–it is fact. Do you suppose that refusing to accept fact positions you better to predict what life will be like in 50 years?”

                    This is a good example of what I was talking about when I was talking about conflating science with personal qualitative preferences.

                    Assume, for the sake of argument, that it is a scientific fact that the earth is warming.

                    Why does Tony think that “fact” makes it okay for him to extrapolate about other people’s qualitative preferences?

                    That isn’t science!

                    Once science starts making generalizations about what other people’s personal preferences should be, it stops being science, and it starts being political advocacy. One of Tony’s many problems is that he can’t tell the difference between science and political advocacy.

                    There is no scientific expert that can tell me what my qualitative preferences should be. How bad the environment may get is a scientific question, but whether my personal preferences should change isn’t a scientific question at all. Tony can’t see that!

                    1. Tony can’t see the difference between a scientist telling me what the consensus or the scientific facts are, on the one hand, and a scientist telling me how I should change my personal preferences on the other–but one of them is science, and the other one isn’t.

                      Here’s a hint, Tony. When a scientist faces Mecca and gets down on his knees to pray, he is not doing science. Science isn’t something done by experts–by virtue of their being experts. And when scientists are engaging in political advocacy–what they are doing is not science. The question of whether you should care more about polar bears than coal miners is not a scientific question. But those are exactly the kinds of questions in which you want us to defer to scientists!

                  4. “The earth is warming–it is fact. ”

                    Except that there’s plenty of evidence that it’s not warming very fast and hasn’t warmed withing the margin of error for over a decade. So no, it’s not a fucking fact.

                    At best that statement is a hypothesis. If you are going to pretend to understand science, then at least attempt to use the basic terminology correctly.

                  5. If everyone who matters already agrees Planet Earth is getting much hotter by the minute, why did we need to back up and re-brand “Global Warming” as “Climate Change”???

                2. Don’t forget the “straight AIDS epidemic”. UNAIDS is fraud and a disgrace.

              3. Tony, more than a small number of the people here are scientists. Does that ever cross your mind when you are squawking about them being science-deniers?

                You really should go fuck your stupid self.

                1. Tony, more than a small number of the people here are scientists. Does that ever cross your mind when you are squawking about them being science-deniers?

                  He has already said that engineers and software people, as in people who apply science on a daily basis, do not know anything about science. Only experts who are paid by some alphabet-soup government agency count as scientists. They are the only ones who can be trusted.

                  1. Are you suggesting that engineers and computer people are hard scientists?

                    1. Tony, I’m going for a pint. Would you like one?

              4. We can’t talk about policy until we agree on the basic facts of reality.

                Which facts? Vague predictions about future climate that keep failing to come true?

                1. Do things only count as facts if they come from crank denier websites?

                  1. Can you find anything actually wrong on that crank denier website and substantiate that claim of wrongness?

          5. Perhaps we should just ignore Lindzen then.

            1. Don’t ignore him, but place him in the proper context. Otherwise it’s a black-and-white case of confirmation bias.

              1. The context is that he consistently and effectively skewers the popular arguments espoused by the IPCC. “Truth” requires no context, no consensus. It is either demonstrably true or false. Every climate model has been inaccurate up to this point, the heat has not been hiding in the ocean, etc….

                Generate the biggest most well funded, most popular scientific proposal that you can dream of, all it takes is one person to prove an inaccuracy to make it demonstrably false. THAT is science.

                1. Generate the biggest most well funded, most popular scientific proposal that you can dream of, all it takes is one person to prove an inaccuracy to make it demonstrably false. THAT is science.

                  “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.”
                  -Albert Einstein

                  What an idiot. Hasn’t heard of consensus?

                  1. It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.

                    Richard P. Feynman

                    1. “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with our models, it’s wrong.”

                      The IPCC

                    2. Guy’s Tony doesn’t really understand the scientific method, Popper, testability, falsification, etc. When you quote Feynman or Einstein he just sees:

                      Blah, the national retail vdub Zuma given airport his Lehman and driver of Ghanaians yoyo pleather.

                      He doesn’t understand shit. He doesn’t even know that a sealed glass greenhouse and the earth’s atmosphere do not hold heat via the same mechanisms.

          6. What alternative are you suggesting?

            Critical thinking.

            1. Critical thinking.

              That isn’t in Tony’s toolbox.

              1. A tool’s toolbox? TOOLCEPTION

                1. toolularity

          7. “What alternative are you suggesting?”

            I think individuals should be free to make choices for themselves–each with their own set of unique qualitative preferences in mind.

            So, for instance, in the example I used above, instead of effectively prohibiting the working poor from working for more than 30 hours per week, I think each of us should be free to make those kinds of choices for ourselves–instead of having the qualitative preferences of experts imposed on them.

            It’s basically like gay marriage. How could experts make qualitative choices for other people about who they should and shouldn’t be allowed to marry? Imposing the qualitative preferences of experts on people who don’t share them isn’t just morally wrong–it’s also incorrect. It is impossible for experts to consider and account for the qualitative preferences of other individuals. Those are choices that individuals can only make accurately for themselves.

          8. Tony,

            THINKING

            You ought to try it some time.

            And don’t preach to me (a licensed engineer) about bridges either. The nice thing about building stuff, is that we can actually create experiments, repeatedly test them and derive mathematical relationships to design and engineer by.

            Most, nearly all, of the stuff you are talking about is a swirling cesspool of opinions. AGW is a great example of a cesspool of opinions. There is no ability to carry out the kind of testing and validation used in engineering, or even most science.

            Is is poor data, conditioned in methods based on opinion, wrapped up in models with missing data relationship filled in with made-up constants and/or formula sourced in more opinions.

            In short, it is OPINIONS of experts made somehow more holy by running it through a computer.

            1. “In short, it is OPINIONS of experts made somehow more holy by running it through a computer.”

              Tony’s running a bait and switch.

              He says that the earth warming is a fact–and calls that science.

              Then he says that we should sacrifice things dear to us because keeping the temperature lower is worth the sacrifice–and he thinks that’s science, too!

              Science is not a personal preference. Science is not political advocacy. Science is not a willingness to make questionable sacrifices for the sake of a questionable common good.

              But Tony thinks all of those things are science–so long as they’re being advocated by someone with a PhD.

              When a scientist gets down on his knees and prays, he is not doing science, and when a scientist advocates for his own personal preferences, he’s not doing science either. He may be using science to persuade, but science is not advocacy.

          9. Do you really begrudge people for preferring to drive on bridges designed by engineers to bridges designed by non-engineers?

            Engineers are generally competent, and when their bridges collapse or their ships don’t work, they face stiff penalties and generally don’t get to do it again.

            The experts we are talking about here, government economists, the fed, climate scientists, social scientists, affirmative action policy makers, etc. screw up again and again and are never held liable.

      2. Do you consider repeating the same dried bullshit and cliches over and over constitute “thinking”? You seem to.

        1. It’s not my fault you’re too stupid to understand them.

        2. Nope, but you still keep trying it.

    3. If you believe it, it’s not a lie.

      George Costanza

      1. Now I know why there are 343 posts on this thread.

  8. we shall fight spy on the beaches, we shall fight spy on the landing grounds, we shall fight spy in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight spy in the hills

    Fixed it for you, Winston.

  9. Successful troll was successful.

  10. We need a special anti-truth-monopoly law to prevent any one side from having a monopoly on truth. Federal fact checkers could check for the truth of a statement by researching it on the information super highway. If one group starts to have too many truths, they must either admit some are false, pay a hearty fine, or give their truths to the competition.

    1. Outsource it to Politifact to fact check every statement made by either side, then have Candy Crowley announce the results each week during a special countdown on the Daily Show.

      1. Can we call it: “The Moment of Truthiness”?

  11. “When it comes to the truth, the real bias is thinking any one side has a monopoly on it.”

    If you choose truth as your side and leave the teams alone, this is much less of a problem. That is exactly what science is supposed to be. Lying shits like the fake scientist Tyson are spoiling that.

  12. You know who else pitched a fit when told the truth?

    1. Nein. Wer?

      1. Hirohito?

  13. WaPo columnist said women should never go to prison:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..-anything/

    1. What purpose is served by subjecting the most disempowered, abused and nonviolent women to the perpetually negative environment of prisons?

      Good question. On the other hand, why doesn’t she care about disempowered, abused, nonviolent men? She must be some kind of racist.

    2. The argument is actually quite straightforward: There are far fewer women in prison than men to start with ? women make up just 7 percent of the prison population. This means that these women are disproportionately affected by a system designed for men.

      Prisons are only “designed for men” if one assumes that only men could be criminals.

      1. Whoever designed prisons for men did a crap job of it, even by government standards.

      2. “There are far fewer women in prison than men to start with ? women make up just 7 percent of the prison population.”

        Which raises the question – how bad does a woman have to behave to get a punishment “designed for men?”

      3. a system designed for men.

        What, are there urinals in the women’s bathrooms?

        1. Even men’s jails/prisons don’t have urinals.
          Damn Matriarchy.

      4. If prisons are designed for men, then why doesn’t each cell have a 50′ plasma? Why don’t you get a free membership to RedTube? Where’s the kegerator? How come the toilets don’t have padded seats?

    3. There’s a surprising amount of non-derp in the comments.

    4. Tommorrow’s headline:

      WaPo columnist takes convicted con artist and murderer into her home in lieu of going to prison because the convict is a woman.

      *I agree that non-violent offenders do not belong in prison, men or women, but the argument she presents is absurd.

      1. I’d bet my last dollar the author also thinks it’s sexist to ban women from combat. Because women are just as tough as men, damn it!

        1. Don’t we need affirmative action for combat? Only women should be in combat to make up for the 230 years when only men went into combat.

          1. Well, those Kurdish women are pretty badass. But, then again, knowing that the stakes of losing are gang rape and sexual slavery will do that to a gal.

            1. You think American girls could do what those Kurds do?

              Actually, I know a gal in her late 20’s that served two tours in Afghanistan as a Marine. She was involved in communicating with the local women because they were not permitted to talk with American men. Great gal, really grew up in the Marines and married a wonderful Marine.

  14. Earning money online was never been easy as it has become for me now. I freelance over the internet and earn about 75 bucks an hour. Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home.A little effort and

    handsome earning dream is just a click away???…. http://www.Work4Hour.Com

  15. Six months ago I lost my job and after that I was fortunate enough to stumble upon a great website which literally saved me. I started working for them online and in a short time after I’ve started averaging 15k a month… The best thing was that cause I am not that computer savvy all I needed was some basic typing skills and internet access to start… This is where to start???.
    ?????? http://WWW.JOBS-SITES.COM

  16. Six months ago I lost my job and after that I was fortunate enough to stumble upon a great website which literally saved me. I started working for them online and in a short time after I’ve started averaging 15k a month… The best thing was that cause I am not that computer savvy all I needed was some basic typing skills and internet access to start… This is where to start???.
    ?????? http://WWW.JOBS-SITES.COM

  17. Six months ago I lost my job and after that I was fortunate enough to stumble upon a great website which literally saved me. I started working for them online and in a short time after I’ve started averaging 15k a month… The best thing was that cause I am not that computer savvy all I needed was some basic typing skills and internet access to start… This is where to start???.
    ?????? http://WWW.JOBS-SITES.COM

  18. The easiest person to fool is yourself. People would do well to remember that axiom.

    1. My wife, Morgan Fairchild, agrees.

    2. You are fooling yourself. The easiest person to fool is the one who allows the tribe to do all of the thinking for him.

      1. No. You have no clue how people actually think. No one wakes up every day and says “I want the tribe to do my thinking”. If you think they do, you are just telling yourself a lie to make yourself feel good. People always believe that what they are doing it totally rational and the right thing to do, no matter how wrong or irrational their actions actually are. “Fooling yourself” is just another way of describing rationalizing what you want to do. And that is what people do. They don’t just think “follow the tribe”. People don’t work like that.

        1. They don’t just think “follow the tribe”. People don’t work like that.

          Well Tony does. In fact he believes in it.

          1. Actually, I believe Tony is pretty typical of progressives. Here is a quotation that fits pretty well.

            “Half of the harm that is done in this world is due to people who want to feel important. They don’t mean to do harm, but the harm does not interest them. Or they do not see it, or they justify it because they are absorbed in the endless struggle to think well of themselves.”
            -T. S. Eliot

        2. People always believe that what they are doing it totally rational and the right thing to do, no matter how wrong or irrational their actions actually are.

          Except Mooslems. Right, John?

  19. It would be completely ridiculous to assert that mankind’s activities have zero effect on the climate. One can easily see microclimates that have formed around large cities on satellite data. Too much deforestation causes rainwater to run off too quickly which depletes groundwater causing ground temperature fluctuations, which in turn affects airflow.

    What we don’t know is how much our activity affects climate. There are easy solutions to every problem our activities might cause. Fortunately most of those solutions are fairly simple and cost is minimal. No tax hikes are necessary.

    Having said that, the global warming movement as it exists today is nothing more than a straight up scam.

    1. I often wonder if differences in perception in the affects of mankind on the environment aren’t largely a case of the observers personal environment.

      If you live deep in a large city or even a suburb you perceive that man has a great effect on the environment. If you live a mile away from the nearest human, you probably get the idea that man still isn’t the dominant force on the ecology.

    2. Sounds like you’re afraid of tax hikes and are letting that dogmatism cloud your judgment. I want a single shred of fucking evidence for this “scam.” Anything.

      1. Any person that wants to be free should be afraid of any taxes. Using thm to “solve” a problem or provide a good or service exchanges the +/- 9% private sector profit and +/- 9% overhead for many times that in overhead with less effeciency and accountability. And many times the goods and services are neitjer wanted nor needed.

        1. In many cases, I’d pay higher taxes to get government to stop providing certain goods or services.

  20. When it comes to the truth, the real bias is thinking any one side has a monopoly on it.

    Haven’t you heard? CONSENSUS=TRUTH

  21. Where are the AM Links!?!?

    1. It’s a holiday from links.

  22. You’re five for seven today Reason:

    Firs,t you create some flimsy pretext to discuss MLK’s private shortcomings. Next, you question our black President’s integrity *(author: Scott Shackford). Then, you go after our black Attorney General; including a photo so we remember that he is black. After that, you go back to your not so subtle character assassination of MLK *(author: Jesse Walker). Now, you needlessly disparage America’s most prominent black scientist. I guess this is how libertarians celebrate the MLK holiday. I shudder to think what types of articles you will be posting next month (black history month).

    * Reason only allows two links per post.

    1. I didn’t think there was any question at all about Obumbles integrity. Not in my mind anyway.

    2. Alternate universe blimp:

      You’re 0 for 7 today, Reason. Not one single article on a black person, not our black President, not our black attorney general, not our most prominent black scientist.

      You might not have noticed, blimp, but aside from the occasional article on a recently deceased libertarian, Reason rarely has nothing but good things to say about anyone. Especially people involved in helping build the Total State. Like our President, AG, and even prominent scientists.

      1. You’re 0 for 7 today, Reason. Not one single [positve] article on a black person, not our black President, not our black attorney general, not our most prominent black scientist.

        That is my point. Nobody else sees all the black faces associated with negative character traits prominently displayed throughout most of today’s posts. Today, of all days, we should be celebrating the contributions of our African-American citizens. Instead, Reason wants to talk about how many white prostitutes MLK plowed or how he was a secret communist. If this wasn’t bad enough, they opt to chastise Mr. Obama and Mr Holder rather than illustrating how far we have come by highlighting the postives of our President and Attonery General. Finally, what is the point of attacking Neil deGrasse Tyson on MLK day? At least, why not use a picture of Colbert or Gruber? Reason’s hostility is so palpable I thought at first I might have stumbled onto Stormfront by mistake.

        1. you have totally missed the point re: King and his dream. As they reach positions of prominence, blacks like Obama, deGrasse, and Holder are subject to the same scrutiny and the same criticism as their white counterparts. It’s not the job of Reason or any other media outlet to pump race-based sunshine up your ass.

          deGrasse fell victim to being too clever by half by, well, by lying. King’s life includes some unsavory chapters, much like the lives of many prominent whites. And most of the Reason staff voted for Obama, I would wager, only to see the emperor revealed.

          If you can’t handle blacks of prominence being criticized JUST LIKE WHITES OF PROMINENCE HAVE BEEN AND ARE, then I suggest you revisit the Dream speech and its foundational point.

          1. Well said, the good news is that Obama, Holder, et al are the fulfillment of King’s Dream.

            They are being judged on the content of their character, not on the color of their skin.

        2. blimp, I especially like the way you take the two articles on white people’s paranoia about King as being critical of King.

          If you can hear the dog whistle . . . .

        3. Reason’s hostility is so palpable I thought at first I might have stumbled onto Stormfront by mistake.

          At least we have moral paragons like you to remind us of how good, non-judgmental people behave: by seizing the moral high ground via comparisons of advocates of personal liberty to white supremacists.

          In all seriousness, do you have any shame or decency at all?

          1. In all seriousness, do you have any shame or decency at all?

            You are right. That was too far. I was just perplexed and a little disappointed in what I was seeing. Thanks to some of the other commentors I think I understand what Reason is doing. They are being hipster contrarians. On the one day a year when America celebrates African-American contributions to society Reason has chosen to denigrate prominent African-Americans and remind its readers of the character flaws of the eponymous hero of the holiday. This is just Reason’s attempt to be cool and gain “rebel” credibility. It is quite pathetic and laughable but it probably is not racially motivated.

            1. Or maybe Reason, like most self-described libertarians, view people as individuals and not some collective with one shared trait?

              Maybe there is something ironic about “celebrating black people” for being black when the very person you want Reason to celebrate said not to judge someone by the color of his skin but by the content of his character?

        4. Because nothing says ‘respecting African Americans’ like refusing to hold them to the same standards as white people.

          I don’t give a shit about the President’s skin colour, I care that he’s a massive narcissistic fool. I don’t care about Holder’s skin colour, I care that he’s corrupt and supported bad policies. If these are the people you are seriously holding up as examples of the ‘contributions of our African American citizens’ then African Americans aren’t apparently contributing anything positive (which I disagree with).

    3. Wait. Obama is black? Who knew?

      1. Nope, I believe Obama is 50% white and 50% black/arab. Not that it matters a great deal. He is 100% Progressive.

        1. The som of a black man from Kenya and a white man from Kansas.

      2. Born into wealth, raised by whites, attended elite predominantly white schools- yeah, there’s no question he is a product of the Black Experience.

    4. I actually thought this was a joke.

      1. It is.

        I doubt it was intended as one, though.

      2. I think it’s a joke.

    5. I too am against showing photographs of black men.

    6. Hi, blimp, if by any chance you are serious, then go and fuck yourself up the arse with an oversized dildo with Super Glue spread on the tip.

    7. I have a dream today that black politicians and black scientists and black public figures in other arenas can be judged by the value of their actions much like their white brothers and sisters. I have a dream today that a man’s blackness will not be used to shield him from criticism any more than it will be used to bar him the exercise of his rights.

        1. yes, nicely done!

    8. I don’t think you need a “flimsy pretext” on the federal holiday named after him to remind people that MLK Jr. was not a good man, what with all the plagiarizing and cheating and telling crass jokes about the recently widowed. The idea that King was some compassionate paragon of integrity–these Jesus meek and mild bs that’s become the standard narrative–is ridiculous. Ke was an important political and social leader, and like most political and social leaders, he was an unbearable narcissist who inspired many with his speeches.

      King’s historical identity has become a major problem for those who want to sell him as a saint rather than a political activist, and thus they have to berate anyone who reminds people that they might want to be careful in idolizing anyone, much less a philandering plagiarizer of a politician.

      The elevation of deeply flawed modern political figures to mythical status–Gandhi, MLK, and Lincoln come to mind first–has a lot to tell us about the myth-making that gave us the images of Jesus, Mohammed, and Buddha. We know a lot about the lives of Gandhi, Lincoln, and King, but that hasn’t stopped people from rewriting their lives to fit a particular and appealing narrative.

      1. Ke was an important political and social leader, and like most political and social leaders, he was an unbearable narcissist who inspired many with his speeches.

        Have you seen Selma yet? 99% on Rotten Tomatoes. The movie offers a small glimpse of what African-Americans and MLK had to endure. After seeing the movie you might change your mind.

        1. How would someone’s fictional portrayal of a historical figure change the actual facts of that figure?

        2. Oh, for fuck’s sake!!! ARe you fucking SERIOUS?!!?

          1. That is some pretty effective trolling, you must admit!

            1. That is some pretty effective trolling, you must admit!

              Reason’s two articles about MLK:

              The FBI might have sent a letter to MLK threatening to expose his MANY ADULTEROUS LIAISONS WITH WHITE PROSTITUTES.

              People sent letters to the FBI because they were concerned that MLK WAS A COMMUNIST.

              Those are the only posts about MLK on MLK day. Yeah, I am the troll.

              1. If Reason were trolling, they would have at least have had the balls to post something about Malcolm X.

              2. Yeah, I am the troll.

                Yes, yes you are. Because only an idiot would conclude that “MLK WAS A COMMUNIST” was what Reason was getting at in that article.

              3. People sent letters to the FBI because they were concerned that MLK WAS A COMMUNIST REPUBLICAN.

          2. ARe you fucking SERIOUS?!!?

            Yes, I am serious. In addition to already mentioned 99% Rotten Tomatoes score the movie is also an Oscar nominee for best picture.

            As we observe Martin Luther King Day, I hope you went out and saw Selma. And if you already did, I hope you saw it again. And again. Take different friends.

            That said King was not a perfect man. Nor was Selma a perfect movie.

            But it’s our perfect cinematic reminder that we had the feeling in 1965 ? a big year for society’s biggest ideas. Fifty years later, our ambitions for equality only seem to shrink.

            Lost the feeling? See the movie. Dream again.

            This is what Reason should be writing about on MLK day.

            1. “Fifty years later, our ambitions for equality only seem to shrink.”

              Rick Trolled.

              OK, so Tony, Blimp and Bo are the same person?

              1. OK, so Tony, Blimp and Bo are the same person?

                I don’t know. Is Blimp a virulent anti-Semite like Tony and Bo are? Post something about how you were overcharged for a bagel and lox plate and let’s find out!

            2. Because holding historical or present day figures to any kind of standard undermines their struggles because…

              Oh right, it’s not about the truth, it’s about making a hagiography.

              1. Oh right, it’s not about the truth, it’s about making a hagiography.

                I don’t understand why no one can see how ridiculous Reason is being with their poorly masked hostility to MLK day. This is a once a year event why would not post something positive? Why are they posting this passive-aggressive nonsense about prominent African-Americans?

                How about this?

                or

                This seems appropriate for today.

                1. Don’t present trivial letters as a pretext to launch accusations. If you wanted to challenge the sanitized, corporatized version of MLK, come out and do it.

                  Like this

                  or

                  This works too.

                  1. You really are profoundly stupid if you think the Martin Luther King information today was ‘hostile’ to anyone but the FBI for trying to get him to off himself or the people who saw him as ‘dangerous’.

                    Again, you’re not looking for a man. You’re looking for a saint constructed to fit your bias. If he was such a great man, then it speaks for itself, and mentioning his flaws shouldn’t matter. But you are obsessed with ignoring them for your own sake.

                    1. You really are profoundly stupid if you think the Martin Luther King information today was ‘hostile’ to anyone but the FBI for trying to get him to off himself or the people who saw him as ‘dangerous’.

                      No, Reason’s hostility is evident. They are hostile to the ideals that MLK championed:

                      Dangerous ideas that Reason actively opposes

                      When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.

                      “The Labor Movement was the principal force that transformed misery and despair into hope and progress.”

                      Every man must decide whether he will walk in the light of creative altruism or in the darkness of destructive selfishness.

                    2. Oh no, Reason disagrees with the great St. MLK on economic issues, the horror! What heretics!

                      Again blimp, this may shock you, but MLK was not a god. He was fully capable of being wrong. Like leaning towards a system that murdered millions of people.

                  2. I should also mention that by all means, if you want a sanitized, cocksure version of MLK to make you feel good inside there’s plenty of empty platitudes being posted by other sides. But it’s also not real.

                    1. Those examples you posted are not ‘challenging the sanitized, corporatized’ version of MLK, that’s lifting him up into a saint or Messiah for their ideology.

                    2. Happy MLK day Reason

                      King knew that white supremacy, in various forms, was a global phenomenon. It remains shot through our hearts and minds, institutions and structures, smart phones and unwise politicians. The modes of racist domination?from barbaric slavery to bestial Jim Crow, Sr., to cruel Jim Crow, Jr.?are never reducible to individual prejudice or personal bias. Empire, white supremacy, capitalism, patriarchy, and homophobia are linked in complex ways, and our struggles against them require moral consistency and systemic analyses.

                    3. And he also cheated, was a womanizer and was fairly pro-Communist. There, is that so hard to say?

                    4. And he also cheated, was a womanizer and was fairly pro-Communist. There, is that so hard to say?

                      If, as Reason has done today, this is the only thing you have to say about MLK on MLK day then it is clear that you have a problem with MLK and this holiday. The question now is what specifically makes Reason hostile to MLK? His race? Most likely not. His ideas? Yes, I just posted many of the ideas he espoused and from this one can see how libertarians would oppose the celebration of MLK. That was the point I was trying to make.

                    5. Actually, the point you were trying to make from the very start was that we should somehow refrain from criticizing certain black public figures today for some vague reason. Even though King was all about holding African Americans to the same standards as everyone else.

                      Funny how you don’t seem to hold certain ideas he espoused seriously.

          3. No. He’s not serious.

        3. And that is not relevant at all to the concept of holding people accountable for their actions regardless of their skin colour.

          I live in a country that was founded by drunks. There’s constant attempts to whitewash that away for propaganda purposes. It’s not about skin colour, it’s about political icons being recognized as flawed people, not gods.

          1. I live in a country that was founded by drunks.

            that could be anywhere!

            1. Sir John A MacDonald used to give speeches while drinking massive amounts of hard liquor. Eventually the Opposition got a rule established that banned alcohol in Parliament in the hopes of screwing up his speeches. MacDonald switched to gin and pretended it was water.

              He may have been a drunk, but he was a clever drunk.

        4. Had me going there for a while, nicely done. Sometimes I forget how insane this forum and its playful trolls get when I stay away too long.

    9. judged by content of character rather than by color of skin bitches

    10. Firs,t you create some flimsy pretext to discuss MLK’s private shortcomings. Next, you question our black President’s integrity *(author: Scott Shackford). Then, you go after our black Attorney General; including a photo so we remember that he is black. After that, you go back to your not so subtle character assassination of MLK *(author: Jesse Walker). Now, you needlessly disparage America’s most prominent black scientist. I guess this is how libertarians celebrate the MLK holiday. I shudder to think what types of articles you will be posting next month (black history month).

      What’s next? Cartoons of Muhammed? Wow, you’ve really gone off the tracks Reason.

      /s

    11. Oh, wait, you’re being serious. I thought you were being deeply sarcastic.

      Yeah, you’re right, how dare Eric Holder be black in photographs! Racist motherfucker! I think it’s fucked up that all these black people wound up in prominent positions where they’d have the gall to be discussed in news articles and op-eds, thus forcing publications and their readers to write/read about them, ALL WHILE THEY’RE BEING ALL BLACK AND STUFF!! Scumbags!!

  23. Tony:

    I agree the world has warmed slightly over the past 100 years and that human activity is one of the reasons.

    Here are the things you still need to prove:

    1. that the warming will lead to catastrophe
    2. that the govt has a solution to the problem
    3. that the cost of the solution is practical

    Malaria will kill about a million people this year. Many of those deaths will be very young children. Almost all these deaths could be prevented through the prudent use of DDT. Are you willing to lift the ban on DDT in light of these facts? If not, congratulations, you’re science-denying ideological moron.

    1. I am shocked Tony has declined to respond.

      1. Don’t worry- he’ll be back in few hours to corpse fuck this thread.

        1. Ah, I see your expertise in derpetology is backed up with prior observation as well. Nicely done.

    2. Christ the talking points are stale. DDT? Really? There are already exceptions for malaria, and dealing with climate change doesn’t preclude dealing with malaria. I don’t even know why you brought it up.

      Define catastrophe. There are all sorts of frightening predictions that are quite credible, and I think at this point you need to explain what the benefit of doing absolutely nothing about them is.

      I don’t see capitalism dealing with this problem (environmental harm being a classic example of something capitalism handles poorly), so if you accept the facts, you tell me what alternative you propose to government action. Governments are the means by which we do big things. Capitalism is the means by which some people make money for themselves. You guys are a bit confused and think the latter is sufficient for all problems, but that is of course an absurd claim.

      There are costs associated with doing nothing, and those costs, even if we don’t know them precisely, will certainly be more than policy approaches.

      Again, science isn’t optional, no matter how much you don’t like the implications. You need to get the fuck over yourself and realize that the world ticks along just fine without moron libertarians deciding they know everything. You are stupid people with a lazy, simplistic dogma and you insist that not only other people live by all of its religious-like bullshit, but that natural reality conform as well. Tedious beyond belief.

      1. Governments are the means by which we do big things.

        Like the Holocaust!

        Go 12 million deaths or GTFO, I say.

      2. Yes, Tony, the govt is such a responsible steward of the environment. Why, just look at the bang-up job they did at the Hanford nuclear site.

        http://www.scientificamerican……-problems/

      3. The only tedious person on this thread today is you, Tony. Dozens of commenters have given you evidence to back their arguments, all the while you pretend like they haven’t or accuse them of relying on “crank theories” (without explaining how that is so other than your bald assertions).

        Just fuck off already.

  24. Re AGW: stop arguing. None of this matters: the war is over and natural gas has won. US emissions are down and it’s because of fracking. That’s a wrap.

    1. Number one: natural gas has helped the U.S. meet the Kyoto goals.

      Number two: even IF agw is reality, the most cost-effective way to deal with it is to DEAL WITH IT, not prevent it, or ameliorate it.

      1. Excellent points.

    2. It does matter because the thieves and charlatans will never stop in their efforts to use this scam as a means to loot people’s bank accounts. They must be slapped down hard, repeatedly.

      1. True, but my point was that we already have a solution to the carbon ‘problem’ and we can just whip it out whenever they bring it up. If they seriously use the term ‘bridge fuel’ just laugh in their faces.

  25. Tyson’s “my bad” is not quite as contrite as Hinkle implies.

    http://thefederalist.com/2014/…..ns-my-bad/

  26. I don’t think you are ever going to stop people from lying/embellishing anything.
    What is so unnerving is that people have quit questioning. When I went
    back to school, I sat in classrooms of nonparticipants-tell me what I need to know and how I need to pass this class. It was only the older
    going-back-group that fired away questions and offered reasons why
    something was inaccurate. I honestly felt sick staring at all those mute kids. When we were their age we still asked the same damn questions.

    1. Too many people go to University.

      1. This is probably true. We give many university degrees of dubious value to help people get jobs that didn’t need university degrees.

        In our drive to get nearly everyone into university, we have lowered the requirements until the university degree takes on the value formerly associated with a high school diploma.

        Years ago a high school graduate could manage and own a appliance store successfully doing accounting, purchasing, and managment on ledgers.

        Now we claim you need a university degree to manage a Radio Shack store with all of the management done by computer.

  27. Hey you guys I have found the perfect job as a full time student, it has changed my life around! If you are self motivated and social media savvy then this is ideal for you. The sky is the limit, you get exactly how much work you put into to it. Click on this link to get started and see for yourself,
    ……
    ?????? http://www.Workvalt.Com

  28. How about the fake scene from the anti fracking movie where fracking made water flammable?

  29. Six months ago I lost my job and after that I was fortunate enough to stumble upon a great website which literally saved me. I started working for them online and in a short time after I’ve started averaging 15k a month… The best thing was that cause I am not that computer savvy all I needed was some basic typing skills and internet access to start… This is where to start???.
    ?????? http://WWW.JOBS-MILL.COM

    1. BUGGER OFF, IIFY! I AM A JOBSFISH.COM MAN!

      1. Can I make enough to buy a Ford Fiesta?

  30. Re: Jackand Ace,

    Just this week I suggested that the many Libertarians who frequent these pages are all too willing to believe in the biggest conspiracy theory making the rounds today, that being that the majority of climate scientists have been bought off, and are lying about the science just so they can get funding.

    There may be some libertarians who believe this – there has to be at least one – but most of us think that AHW is just another case of confirmation bias shown by some climate scientists who want to believe that humans are indeed hurting Gaia, and there is quite a lot of Appeal to Authority and Question-Begging from the part of the other scientists who have not the time to thoroughly go through every paper and publication that the climate scientists issue and so trust the claims are true because “why would they lie?”

    1. That’s still a conspiracy theory, and many of the libertarians are endorsing the “they’re paid off” version. It’s all ridiculously idiotic of course. Why is this one field of research somehow immune from the checks and balances of the scientific process? Why shouldn’t we call into question every single other field?

      1. That’s still a conspiracy theory

        Dipshit Toney doesn’t understand what a conspiracy is. Here’s an example of a conspiracy: http://www.forbes.com/sites/pa…..icide-ban/

        Why is this one field of research somehow immune from the checks and balances of the scientific process?

        This one is politicized and, like other soft sciences, tends to attract soft scientists who are at least as much activist as scientist.

        1. It’s politicized because powerful interests have made it so. Instead of talking about solutions to the problem we’re arguing about the existence of the problem. A perfect scenario for those who profit from the status quo–and an indictment of capitalism as psychopathic.

      2. Why is this one field of research somehow immune from the checks and balances of the scientific process? Why shouldn’t we call into question every single other field?

        We do. That’s the thing which separates science from bullshit- scientists generate hypotheses which allow falsifiable predictions. That’s the “calling into question” part which is the heart of good science. The predictions are tested experimentally. If the predictions are no good (i.e., do not predict the results of experiments/observations), they’re discarded. Doubling down and post hoc excuse-making are why much (most) of modern climate “science” isn’t.

        1. Why shouldn’t we call into question every single other field?

          Trust me, when they start acting as paid shills for the Total State, we have, can, will, and do call them into question.

        2. But generally the predictions of climate science have been borne out, and if you take the IPCC projections, if anything the predictions have been too optimistic.

  31. my roomate’s step-mother makes $67 /hour on the internet . She has been fired for 10 months but last month her pay was $17540 just working on the internet for a few hours. visit here….

    http://www.Jobsyelp.com

  32. Thank you Mr Hinkle for stating this obvious truth

    It never ceases to amuse me how people of all ideologies (even elitist libertarians who think Americans are dumb and they are privy to special truth and are eerily similar to progressives) engage the same prejudices, confirmation bias, rhetorical garbage tactics, confident belief that they know how the world REALLY works, etc etc

    It’s a source of constant amusement

    Much like the recent article writer who finally used the correct term ‘paid leave’ vs the hoary lie of ‘paid suspension’, it’s a welcome bit of hard truth

    1. You got schooled on this issue repeatedly slaver

      smooches

  33. “the truth has a well-known liberal bias,”

    What delusional schmucks. The world spent a century and millions of lives proving that their fundamental economic premises were *false*. Who buried who, schmuckos?

  34. Liberal politicians against liberty http://waltherpragerandphiloso…..berty.html

  35. “the role of greenhouse gases in climate change is not well understood”?even though a report for its own internal consumption conceded that “the scientific basis for the Greenhouse Effect and the potential impact of human emissions ? on climate is well established and cannot be denied.”

    Both of their claims can be true at the same time. There is a large gap between “well understood” and “potential impact”.

    This is one thing I hate. People playing the “gotcha” game, and being lazy ass putzes about it. If you’re going to play gotcha, make sure that you’re *right*.

  36. “If the ACA was such a wonderful piece of legislation, then why such great need to lie about it?”

    Because the peasants are too stupid to know what is good for them.

  37. tyson should stick to physics in every other subject he is an intellecutal dilettante

    1. He’s not a great physicist. It’s been a long time since he did anything pertinent. His strength is education, publicity, and administration, not research.

  38. Since I’ve seen a lot about the AGW consensus, I’ll bring up an interesting book called ‘The Deniers’ by Lawrence Solomon which goes through and examines world renowned scientists who deny the widely believed catastrophic effects of AGW as they pertain to their area of expertise. People forget that ‘climate science’ is not a monolith, it brings under one big tent scientists from a variety of fields, and in ‘The Deniers’ Solomon demonstrates that often scientists who are part of the consensus dispute the claims that pertain to their field of study, while accepting the claims about fields they have no expertise in. For instance, a scientist who studies hurricanes will dispute that they are becoming stronger and more frequent due to AGW, but will believe glaciers are receding at an unnatural rate, while a scientist that studies glaciers won’t believe glaciers are receding at an unnatural rate, but will believe hurricanes are increasing in intensity and frequency. You can’t have a consensus about ‘climate science’ when you include claims about disparate fields of study together – and if you do have a ‘consensus’ it is meaningless.

  39. “the role of greenhouse gases in climate change is not well understood”

    Yes, it is well understood by some. And the answer is none. CO2 continues rising temperatures – despite the press releases – do not.

    The sun controls climate. Maunder Minimum.

  40. just before I looked at the draft four $9879 , I didn’t believe that…my… father in law had been truly erning money part time from there computar. . there dads buddy has done this for only 21 months and just repaid the dept on their apartment and bourt a great Land Rover Range Rover .
    Read More Here ~~~~~~~~ http://www.jobs700.com

  41. I can see what your saying… Sharon `s article is exceptional… last week I bought a great Ariel Atom sincee geting a check for $6508 this munth and in excess of ten k lass month . without a doubt it is my favourite work I have ever had . I started this five months/ago and almost immediately made myself minimum $83… per-hr ….
    ?????? http://www.Workvalt.Com

  42. Not as an interesting article as I hoped. I mean, when I point out that Blacks (13% of the population) commit about 50% of the crime Liberals call me a racist… When all I am doing it pointing out a problem. The Left hates simple FACTS because it goes against it’s narrative. Everything with them has to be nuanced and watered down to the point where no problem can be identified so no solution can be used. They are so scared of loosing a voting block or solving a problem because they might loose votes…

    1. My friend’s mother makes $61 an hour on the internet . She has been without a job for ten months but last month her pay was $15622 just working on the internet for a few hours.
      over here. ???????? http://www.jobsfish.com

  43. $89 an hour! Seriously I don’t know why more people haven’t tried this, I work two shifts, 2 hours in the day and 2 in the evening?And i get surly a chek of $1260……0 whats awesome is Im working from home so I get more time with my kids.
    Here is what i did
    ?????? http://www.paygazette.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.