birdog1960

why do you think the washington times is using space in their paper for this story? are they known for comedy? it would be interesting to explore the investors behind the movie as well.

clever. if i were to try to intentionally mislead a large group of people on climate, the audience for this movie would be a very good target over, lets say, a remake of "othello". therein lies the problem however. this drew 90+ million. othello wouldn't. and then there are folks that quote dialogue lines from a truly ridiculous movie premise as evidence for their political point.

i do, indeed. but give credit where it's due. if they're here, they are not simultaneously getting reinforcement from the most maileable of sources for water cooler dudes: fox news. i've never worked at a big company so i've really only seen the phenomenon on a small scale. at any rate, we're both here lately with some regularity so i'm not sure it's wise to throw stones.

why not? there you go making up the rules again.

not an apt analogy. there are many teachers that agree with school choice. a decent percentage actually teach in private schools. vouchers involves many different issues but again, i doubt a near unanimous viewpoint is as prevalent as it is in climate science. as stated before, i think it's difficult to rationalize self interest in a profession with few material perks to begin with. it's a job that if ultimately successful, makes itself unneeded.

no, it actually matters if CO2 is to blame. if it isn't, then there really isn't anything to do but accept fate. fortunately, it is due to CO2 and there are remedial measures available to the species.

oh, so it's the grant money! most of these folks spent at least 4 years post grad making peanuts for long hours and it never occurred to them during all those hours that what they were working on was complete bunk. they were bolstered throughout by the promise of huge grant dollars that would go to study the same bunk while they could ultimately expect middling personal salaries. no wonder they didn't choose investment banking or finance. there's no grant money there! mmgc? is this what you mean? http://www.meltonmowbraygolfclub.com - looks ok but nothing all that special.

http://grist.org/series/skeptics/. asked and answered. and b man, when are you going to provide that list of motivations for climate scientists to lie in unison? let me guess: it's a conspiracy to remove freedom from individuals and hand it over to national and even world governments., right? yeah, i'll bet that's it.

"wedded to certainty, and to fixed beliefs." inside the conservative mind: http://www.desmogblog.com/science-truthiness-why-conservatives-deny-global-warming

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/feb/05/denying-climate-change-scepticism-motivated-reasoning

http://www.motherjon...-change-deniers just for fun, google global change deniers motivation and then global change supporters motivation. and keep in mind, the internet search engines aren't the "msm". http://www.telegraph...-theorists.html http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-conservative-white-maes-are-more-likely-climate-skeptics/

you're a lightweight let's see your inventory

what motivates the opposing sides here? why would someone hypothesize and scientifically support global climate change when they truly believe it isn't real? why would someone dismiss it when the evidence suggests that it is real? i can imagine many answers to the latter (most of them concerning conservation of wealth or positive corporate or individual impacts). i can imagine few for the former, especially among relatively lowly paid climate scientists.

ok, i'll buy the FA angle, assuming the entire cash to cap, build through the draft only ( cuz that's how pittsburgh does it), and the free agent -buffalo price premium issues are all laid to rest. unfortunately, i don't believe they are. what has changed since byrd wasn't offered market value to stay?

based on the last 2 decades of personnel and coaching moves, i think the assumption that they have good intel in this single, isolated instance needs to be seriously questioned.

plays golf at exclusive country clubs with surgeons that drop an entire days schedule on a moments notice. lounges at his new england home while employed servants cater to his every whim and recently fired ones beg for their jobs back at less than minimum wage. i'm guessing all that is pretty all encompassing and exhausting. but seriously, do you know of any better political forums? point the way. this may be backwater but i've looked and haven't found a better site for innocuously releasing aggression on so deserving a group. (well, at least i think there are at least a couple of actual posters here outside the multiple identity posters).

“Some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world,” Francis wrote in the papal statement. “This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naive trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system.” “Meanwhile,” he added, “the excluded are still waiting.” sounds like the commonly understood"trickle down" to me. not a hint of cartels.

rubbish. he spoke to massive economic inequality. you're the first that i've seen try to apologize for his trickle down statement by invoking cartels. ridiculous. i'm confident he meant the term in its commonly understood meaning which certainly is derisive. he speaks plainly. it's not code. stop being ridiculous. wjhile it suits you, it's annoying. back to ignore...

i didn't use the word socialism. nor did he. you likely see any country with single payor gov't healthcare as a socialism. i don't. i don't believe the church does either. was the US a socialist country when we taxed the wealthy at very high levels after WW2? i don't think so. you probably do. he may well have a different definition of socialism than you or limbaugh who goes as far as calling him a marxist repeatedly. so what mechanisms do you think he has in mind for nations to redistribute wealth and to help the poor? he's already condemned "trickle down economics". perhaps he limits his opposition to that particular tenet. fine with me. it's a good start. how bout we agree to this: he desires to see alterations to systems that lead to massive wealth inequality and poverty.

however you want to label it, it leads to concentration of wealth by design. it's done a magnificent job and will continue to until some external force is applied or there are internal changes.

it's amazing how often francis' simple words need to be interpreted by the conservative press. i don't see the liberal press reinterpreting his words on issues like abortion. at any rate, the goals in this interpretation seem reasonable and in keeping with the actual words used by the pope. the question then becomes "by what mechanism is this particular form of redistribution therefore achieved?" at a minimum, it must include a living wage for workers. after that, you're looking at the necessity to alter capitalism as we know it as it's natural consequence is the concentration of wealth. the experiment has been done rpeatedly and the results are always the same. in fact, amazingly there's this best selling book about it that came out recently and it's most important (indeed, the only) proposed remedy is taxing the rich more.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/05/09/rush-limbaugh-pope-francis-trying-to-convince-un-to-impose-marxism-socialism-on-world/. most recently. he said much the same after the encyclical came out. i think it's linked upthread.

no one answered the question. were limbaugh's interpretations of the pope's statements incorrect? if so, why? and what qualifies him to give opinions on advanced, intellectual economic concepts when many here feel the pope and even a nobel prize winner in the field are unqualified?

because he has a huge, loyal, near fanatical audience including some that post here. schultz and matthews not so much.

yes, he has. never more clearly than this time. it seems your memory needs refreshing: http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/pope-francis-denounces-trickle-down-economic-theories-in-critique-of-inequality/2013/11/26/e17ffe4e-56b6-11e3-8304-caf30787c0a9_story.html. his thoughts are obviously widely more encompassing of actual redistribution than some narrow policy changes. if not, then why were your right wing extremist propagandist mouthpieces like limpaugh so outraged? did they misinterpret his meaning as well?