birdog1960

jack the ripper was and still is famous. he was a relatively rare example of the time. this bastard unfortunately was not.

it's an horrific set of actions. trying to make political points from it is wrong. but questioning the quality a culture that continues to produce so many monsters is not.

"glenn beck"...and the study begins.

he espoused income inequality as necessary and even desirable. while i agree to a degree, i feel that his sense of proportion in this regard was extreme just sa is the current level of inequality.

he shares a good measure of responsibilty for the current depressing financial state where wealth is so dangerously distributed.

how bout we start a code for every extremist post from here on out? a prospective study rather than a retrospective one. i'd propose the code words "ayn rand". "milton friedman"? got it: "glenn beck" while that would be the extreme left take, it's clearly not mine. see the distinction?

baskin just did. do you need more?

it's true. it's like a cartoon show of right wing extremist views. i often wonder if it is just an affectation but i really don't think so.

sounds like your work brings you in contact with many scientists. so how many do you know that remind you of the guy from the cadillac ad with the beautiful contemporary house, designer kitchen and hugo boss suit? those are the guys that are rabidly attacking mann, "n'est pas"? the membership rolls of the most exclusive clubs aren't heavily populated with academics. http://www.marketmenot.com/cadillac-why-do-we-work-so-hard-commercial/

all those words and not a single one of meaningful rebuttal. you link shows that one of the world leaders in the field stands to make "hundreds of thousands of dollars". probably enough to cover legal expenses defending himself from his attackers. and what of his colleagues? how much do they get for speaking? most get nothing. how do his speaker fees compare to those at the pinnacle of other professions? you know, like bankers and athletes and lobbyists and retired politician and hedge fund guru's... this is where science is different. people rarely go into it for the money cuz it isn't there for most. when you think of einstein or watson or crick, do you think of wealthy men?

anyone questioning barton's motives should read this: http://content.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1997963,00.html. embarrassing even to me but funny in a perverse way.

different argument but worth having somewhere else. the point is that barton's hearing weren't primarily about finding the truth and using them to bash climate science is at best unconvincing.

the more i read about barton's congressional hearings (he's from texas isn't he - wonder if he has any dogs in this hunt?), the more i'm reminded of the mccarthy hearings. thugishness just seems an accepted characteristic to way too many on the right. mean spritedmness seems a prerequisite for office in far too many far right districts. fortunately, virginians had the good sense to not reward cuccinelli's ugly behavior.

i think it's also worth noting that wegman has had a quite controversial career in his own right: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Wegman

I hope you'll agree that your link (the source of which i can't see) is a one sided account. here's another account with a quite different flavor: http://en.wikipedia....ick_controversy. i'm certain to be chided for it being wiki but it's significantly more extensively referenced than the one you championed. numerous other accounts in print and media have relayed the history similarly. the fact that such extensive scrutiny has been cast on mann's original thesis argues against your point. this was one of the most peer reviewed papers in the history of science. and "nature" is kind of a big deal in the scientific community. it's not made up of a small clique of inbred climate scientists. you don't honestly believe that the personal calculus for scientists like mann favors the few "perks" enjoyed by the tiny minority in the field over the public harrassment by a well organized and funded lynch mob inclusive of a congressman and a state attorney general and gubernatorial candidate, do you? do you think mann ever imagined or relished fighting in court against the attacks of "national review" or cuccinelli? winning both cases was likely small consolation.

it's certainly about the quest for knowledge. that doesn't exclude the simultaneous quest to improve the world. i think humans, in general, endeavor to achieve that (with some obvious exclusionsthat are easily identified).

really? i'd like to see the data to support that assertion, as would any scientist worth his salt. you'll likely need to search socia;l science sources for that. that should be fun for you.

no, you asshat. yes, i know plenty. i have a masters in analytical,chemistry, research experience in academic and industrial labs and publications. and i would never consider fudging results to fit my agenda. is it done? undoubtedly. is it common? i don't think so at all. it's too closely scrutinized by peers. and you misunderstood my point. why would a 20 year old undergrad decide tomorrow to major into climate study? why then would he/she go on to graduate school in the field. there's plenty of jump off points in between without losing the effort already invested in the career.

what is the motivation for the climate scientists then? i've asked this before and no convincing answer was given. are people still going into climate science because they've invested too much to choose another profession? most do it because they want to make a difference, better the world or even save it. in that case, the motivation in their reasoning seems pure and unbiased. not so when "the redistributive leftist agenda" is injected into the mix. i'd like to see some citations quoting climate scientists discussing their ultimate goals of redistribution before entertaining the idea that this is their motivation. it takes logical gymnastics to get from here to there. not so much for the motivation of the deniers, especially when they blatantly state it...

"this is part of a phenomenion known as motivated reasoning, where instead of evidence being evaluated critically, it is deliberately interpreted in such a way as to reaffirm an existing belief, demanding impossibly stringent examination unwelcome evidence while accepting uncritically even the flimsiest information that meets ones needs" - from ther "guardian" article i cited a few pages back. We have some excellent example of this in the last few pages, none more illustrative than taskers.

you can bet that this will cost most everyone more for the same service while making the providers more money. the directtv /att merger the same, continuing the exponential increase in the rate of redistribution of wealth to the top. what's best for the corporations often isn't what's best for the populace but most legislators seem unconcerned with that distinction.

godzilla belongs in this thread every bit as much as it does in the climate change thread...

then there's this from a conservative republican state legislator "lets get out of your lives except when we want to stay in it, I'm concerned" (sic) http://www.huffingto..._n_3015395.html theater. bad theater, but what would one expect. godzilla sold 90 mil opening. it sells. to all the sheeple it's supposed to.

there's this http://data.rhrealit...f-violence-act/ pay special attention to what the bill "would not have required". then there's this: http://www.flsenate..../Bill/2013/0759 "died in health policy". i'm thinking that means it wasn't approved. seems like a bit of theater to generate discussion just like this but i'll check it out more when i have more time. looks like that was 2013 but here's the analysis that apparently meant it's failure in 2013: http://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2013/0759/Analyses/h0759c.JDC.PDF

an anti climate change theme is certainly out of character for the usual hollywood suspects. i'm betting they didn't suddenly realize they've been wrong all along on the issue. but are they above selling their principles for investors in a potential blockbuster? then again, i can't understand the mass appeal of a silly concept franchise movie remake.