As promised, I will be challenging Kevin Baker on his AGW denial. His most recent post puts forth four assertions. Here are each of them completely destroyed, one by one.
"Actual proof isn't necessary because by the time we have it it will be too late to fix"
This is several variations of nonsensical arguments, the taxonomy of which can be found here. The links are filled with mountains of evidence detailing all the proof that is necessary. For example, take a look at this link, "there is no empirical evidence." Click on the intermediate tab (you too, Kevin. You are a scientist, after all, right? You should be able to understand the language) and see the actual proof.
"The only solution is central planning by a world government run by our intellectual superiors."
This has been said by no one in the scientific community. It's a made-up crazy Internet lie put forth by people that have deep psychological issues with authority. Every time I ask for evidence of this, I get mouth foaming, anger, links that lead to looney web sites, and accusations of naivete.
People that accept the science of climate change want the public and private sector to work together to shift our energy usage to renewables. Carbon taxes would be a start. After that, it's up to the private sector. What Kevin hilariously ignores is that it's already happening. Sorry, buddy, but you don't get to play totalitarian fantasy games today:(
"People who oppose this are "deniers" who should be shut up at any cost"
False. And there really aren't many credentialed deniers out there, despite this other myth.
"There are too many people anyway, and a mass die-off would be good for the planet."
And the evidence of this is...where? In your ass? People say all sorts of crazy things on the internet, Kevin. You of all people should not believe everything you read on there:)
"the glaciers in Glacier National Park that were supposed to be gone this year are still running strong."
Wow, this is just a big fucking lie.
In 2017, the USGS published a time series analysis of the glacier margins of the named glaciers of Glacier National Park . The areas measured are from 1966, 1998, 2005 and 2015/2016, marking approximately 50 years of change in glacier area. Scientists used aerial photography and satellite imagery to measure the perimeters of the glaciers in late summer when seasonal snow had melted to reveal the extent of the glacial ice. The data table shows that all glaciers have been reduced in area since 1966 with some glaciers having been reduced by as much as 85% by 2015. The average area reduction over the approximately 50-year period is 39%. Currently, only 26 glaciers are larger than 0.1 square kilometers (25 acres) which is used as a guideline for deciding if bodies of ice are large enough to be considered glaciers.
Seriously, what the fuck is the matter with you? When you read facts like this, does your head get all splodey and stuff?
"Michael Mann lost his defamation lawsuit because he still wouldn't release the raw data he used to produce his infamous "hockey stick" global temperature graph."
I've searched all over for this "loss" and the only thing I found was this. And this. From the second link...
Stay tuned to see whether the trial court ultimately agrees. This case began in 2012, and is unlikely to conclude any time soon.
Again, WTF are you talking about, Kevin?
Regarding the hockey stick nonsense, click here.
While many continue to fixate on Mann's early work on proxy records, the science of paleoclimatology has moved on. Since 1999, there have been many independent reconstructions of past temperatures, using a variety of proxy data and a number of different methodologies. All find the same result - that the last few decades are the hottest in the last 500 to 2000 years (depending on how far back the reconstruction goes).
Raw data is here. So, that's another lie torpedoed.
Kevin, you are going to have to do much better than these weak assertions. That was too easy!
Monday, January 27, 2020
Sunday, January 26, 2020
Climate Change Challenge Rejected For Safe Space
I recently challenged science denier Kevin Baker to a debate on climate change. He commented on the challenge with his usual personal remarks (not allowed on this blog so it was not published) and declined the invitation. He also linked to a straw man argument that he and his commenters created about me that is 11 years old.
His comment made me reflect on the time I got voted off the blog (by one vote). In the voting post, a commenter remarked how they wanted Kevin's blog to be a place where they could retreat from the outside world (of facts) and just be free (of reality) or something like that. I've thought about that comment for a while and it always cracks me up. Even right-wingers need their safe spaces!
Kevin clearly needs such a safe space from the science of climate change but there is really no hiding from it. Climate deniers can make up whatever nonsense they want but it's all been refuted by the science. So, every time Kevin lies about climate change, I will be responding here and here on Reddit. I will use facts and peer-reviewed evidence to show that his assertions are completely wrong. He has an open invitation to respond but I don't think he will. As with many subjects, he engages with reasonable people outside his blog, doesn't like what he hears, and then retreats to his own blog to get back pats. Where is his mettle?
Sadly, he has allowed his personal emotions about liberals cloud his judgement and transform his views into an incoherent and paranoid mess. Worse, he is basically giving the middle finger to his own children and grandchildren who are going to have to live in a world with the number one threat (as identified by the Department of Defense) ignored due to adolescent feelings about authority.
The bottom line is that I'm going to call him on his bullshit about climate change whether he shows up to defend himself or not. He is welcome at any time to discover who understands the logic and reason of science and can defend it.
His comment made me reflect on the time I got voted off the blog (by one vote). In the voting post, a commenter remarked how they wanted Kevin's blog to be a place where they could retreat from the outside world (of facts) and just be free (of reality) or something like that. I've thought about that comment for a while and it always cracks me up. Even right-wingers need their safe spaces!
Kevin clearly needs such a safe space from the science of climate change but there is really no hiding from it. Climate deniers can make up whatever nonsense they want but it's all been refuted by the science. So, every time Kevin lies about climate change, I will be responding here and here on Reddit. I will use facts and peer-reviewed evidence to show that his assertions are completely wrong. He has an open invitation to respond but I don't think he will. As with many subjects, he engages with reasonable people outside his blog, doesn't like what he hears, and then retreats to his own blog to get back pats. Where is his mettle?
Sadly, he has allowed his personal emotions about liberals cloud his judgement and transform his views into an incoherent and paranoid mess. Worse, he is basically giving the middle finger to his own children and grandchildren who are going to have to live in a world with the number one threat (as identified by the Department of Defense) ignored due to adolescent feelings about authority.
The bottom line is that I'm going to call him on his bullshit about climate change whether he shows up to defend himself or not. He is welcome at any time to discover who understands the logic and reason of science and can defend it.
Saturday, January 25, 2020
Monday, January 20, 2020
Monday, January 13, 2020
Climate Change: There IS No Debate
For anyone who's over 40, there's simply no debate about climate change. It's happening, and it's completely obvious that it's happening from your own personal experience.
And I'm not talking about how things were in the good old days, when I was a kid and I had to walk uphill to school both ways. This is just since 1990.
I've been playing volleyball for more than 30 years. I play both indoors and out, and I've also been attending University of Minnesota volleyball matches.
When I started, the outdoor volleyball season started in May and ended in September or October. Now we regularly play from April to November, and several years we've been able to play from early March until early December. I usually stop playing outdoors in November not because it's too cold, but because the sun is so low I can't see the ball when it's served from south side of the court.
The women's NCAA volleyball season runs from August through December. When we started attending matches we had to drive through snow storms to get to half the matches. In the past 10 or 15 years there's barely any snow on the ground during the last two matches.
Since milder winters are perceived as a "good thing," a lot of people rationalize that climate change is not so bad and pretend it isn't happening. But just last week a flock of tornadoes killed people across the south. Tornadoes in Louisiana and Alabama in January! And this is becoming a regular thing. Come on, people, this is not normal!
My personal experience jibes with what scientists have been telling us: spring is arriving almost a month earlier, screwing up all sorts of natural cycles. The melting permafrost in Alaska and Russia is destroying entire towns because the very ground they're built on is melting because of global warming.
There's no debate about climate change. It's happening, right here, right now, and it's having drastic effects on our infrastructure, plants, animals, and human beings.
Anyone who says different is just lying.
But that's par for the Republican course.
And I'm not talking about how things were in the good old days, when I was a kid and I had to walk uphill to school both ways. This is just since 1990.
I've been playing volleyball for more than 30 years. I play both indoors and out, and I've also been attending University of Minnesota volleyball matches.
When I started, the outdoor volleyball season started in May and ended in September or October. Now we regularly play from April to November, and several years we've been able to play from early March until early December. I usually stop playing outdoors in November not because it's too cold, but because the sun is so low I can't see the ball when it's served from south side of the court.
The women's NCAA volleyball season runs from August through December. When we started attending matches we had to drive through snow storms to get to half the matches. In the past 10 or 15 years there's barely any snow on the ground during the last two matches.
Since milder winters are perceived as a "good thing," a lot of people rationalize that climate change is not so bad and pretend it isn't happening. But just last week a flock of tornadoes killed people across the south. Tornadoes in Louisiana and Alabama in January! And this is becoming a regular thing. Come on, people, this is not normal!
My personal experience jibes with what scientists have been telling us: spring is arriving almost a month earlier, screwing up all sorts of natural cycles. The melting permafrost in Alaska and Russia is destroying entire towns because the very ground they're built on is melting because of global warming.
There's no debate about climate change. It's happening, right here, right now, and it's having drastic effects on our infrastructure, plants, animals, and human beings.
Anyone who says different is just lying.
But that's par for the Republican course.
Sunday, January 12, 2020
Climate Science Debate Challenge
The Church of the Climate Denier has a high priest and his name is Kevin Baker. It's hard for me to understand how someone who is an engineer and clearly understands how science works is so completely irrational about the science of climate change. Clearly, his emotions about liberals and "elites" have turned him into a person who embraces nonsense and ignores the peer-reviewed evidence.
As a result of his delusions, I am formally issuing a challenge to him and any of the commenters on his site to bring their assertions about climate change to this thread on Reddit. There I will debate the science of climate change and refute any points brought by anyone. I will use actual science to back up my assertions and expect Kevin and anyone else to do the same.
Now, I realize that Kevin and his merry band like to live in a bubble of self-referential confirmation. The outside world (aka reality, facts) can be a scary place. So, if no one shows up, fair enough. I get why people need to be coddled and I certainly don't want to trigger anyone so they have to go to their safe space (his blog).
Yet I felt I had to say something as a person of science. The out and out lying has to end. And the world needs to understand what they are up to...
As a result of his delusions, I am formally issuing a challenge to him and any of the commenters on his site to bring their assertions about climate change to this thread on Reddit. There I will debate the science of climate change and refute any points brought by anyone. I will use actual science to back up my assertions and expect Kevin and anyone else to do the same.
Now, I realize that Kevin and his merry band like to live in a bubble of self-referential confirmation. The outside world (aka reality, facts) can be a scary place. So, if no one shows up, fair enough. I get why people need to be coddled and I certainly don't want to trigger anyone so they have to go to their safe space (his blog).
Yet I felt I had to say something as a person of science. The out and out lying has to end. And the world needs to understand what they are up to...
Saturday, January 11, 2020
The Second Amendment is About Groups of People, Not Individuals
The second amendment to the US Constitution reads:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Let's note that the word "Militia" is plural and it's capitalized. Why? At the time the second amendment was written, the British had a standing army the likes the world had never seen, at least not since the era of the Roman Empire. Standing armies weren't a thing. In fact, they were quite frightening to people because that meant an OCCUPYING AND CONQUERING FORCE.
So, it makes sense that the colonists would want a defense ("being necessary to the security of a free State) against that, hence a Militia, or their own standing army. The fact that it's capitalized means it's an organized force of many people defending the US government.
The latter half of the amendment also has a plural word. "People." Not "person." Not "individual." People, as in a group. This is about a group of people organized in defense of the State in a Militia. And they need to be well regulated which meant, in 17th-century language, well trained.
Before we move forward to modern times, let's take a look at some historical context. Colonists were required to purchase their own guns in case they had to report for duty in the militia. States could not afford to buy any sort of arms. Each state had its own version on the right to bear arms. James Madison, who wrote the second amendment, used these as a guide as he was composing the national version. Here are some examples of the state versions.
Virginia
The people have a right to keep and bear arms;… a well regulated Militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State. That standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the Community will admit; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to and governed by the Civil power.
New York
That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, including the body of the People capable of bearing Arms, is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State.
Pennsylvania
The people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State; and, as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.”
It's quite clear that Madison, in writing the second amendment, was thinking about militias standing in defense against standing armies. Considering that both he and Jefferson banned guns on the campus of the University of Virginia, they were clearly not talking about an individual right to own a gun. A person could own a gun while serving in a militia.
One need only look at the third amendment to the US Constitution for further context.
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Again, we see the fear of standing armies. People look at this amendment today and don't really think much of it, assuming it's out of date and no longer applicable. But this was a big deal for the colonists who wanted to keep the standing, British army at bay.
It's crystal clear that as we look at the second amendment in our modern era, the original intent was based on being armed WHILE SERVING IN A MILITIA. Ironic, considering that the people that foam at the mouth the most about "original intent" are completely ignoring it here.
We now have our own standing army. It defends us quite well. And if for some reason, it became a tool of a tyrannical government, there is very little that a few handguns or even an AR-15 could do. They have drones. Discussion over. I will add that I see the more likely scenario of our armed forces splintering in which case, again, the need for ordinary citizens to have firearms is still not necessary and causes more harm than good.
Imagine if tens of thousands of people died from Islamic terrorism every year. Or ecoli from lettuce. A national emergency would have been declared long ago and action would have been taken. The religious belief that has metastasized around the second amendment must be eradicated. The United States loses 80 citizens a day to gun violence because of a small minority of our citizens'irrational fervor about guns. They consistently lie about the historical context of the right to bear arms and use fear to propagate unnecessary insecurity.
Fight their lies with this truth.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Let's note that the word "Militia" is plural and it's capitalized. Why? At the time the second amendment was written, the British had a standing army the likes the world had never seen, at least not since the era of the Roman Empire. Standing armies weren't a thing. In fact, they were quite frightening to people because that meant an OCCUPYING AND CONQUERING FORCE.
So, it makes sense that the colonists would want a defense ("being necessary to the security of a free State) against that, hence a Militia, or their own standing army. The fact that it's capitalized means it's an organized force of many people defending the US government.
The latter half of the amendment also has a plural word. "People." Not "person." Not "individual." People, as in a group. This is about a group of people organized in defense of the State in a Militia. And they need to be well regulated which meant, in 17th-century language, well trained.
Before we move forward to modern times, let's take a look at some historical context. Colonists were required to purchase their own guns in case they had to report for duty in the militia. States could not afford to buy any sort of arms. Each state had its own version on the right to bear arms. James Madison, who wrote the second amendment, used these as a guide as he was composing the national version. Here are some examples of the state versions.
Virginia
The people have a right to keep and bear arms;… a well regulated Militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State. That standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the Community will admit; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to and governed by the Civil power.
New York
That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, including the body of the People capable of bearing Arms, is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State.
Pennsylvania
The people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State; and, as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.”
It's quite clear that Madison, in writing the second amendment, was thinking about militias standing in defense against standing armies. Considering that both he and Jefferson banned guns on the campus of the University of Virginia, they were clearly not talking about an individual right to own a gun. A person could own a gun while serving in a militia.
One need only look at the third amendment to the US Constitution for further context.
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Again, we see the fear of standing armies. People look at this amendment today and don't really think much of it, assuming it's out of date and no longer applicable. But this was a big deal for the colonists who wanted to keep the standing, British army at bay.
It's crystal clear that as we look at the second amendment in our modern era, the original intent was based on being armed WHILE SERVING IN A MILITIA. Ironic, considering that the people that foam at the mouth the most about "original intent" are completely ignoring it here.
We now have our own standing army. It defends us quite well. And if for some reason, it became a tool of a tyrannical government, there is very little that a few handguns or even an AR-15 could do. They have drones. Discussion over. I will add that I see the more likely scenario of our armed forces splintering in which case, again, the need for ordinary citizens to have firearms is still not necessary and causes more harm than good.
Imagine if tens of thousands of people died from Islamic terrorism every year. Or ecoli from lettuce. A national emergency would have been declared long ago and action would have been taken. The religious belief that has metastasized around the second amendment must be eradicated. The United States loses 80 citizens a day to gun violence because of a small minority of our citizens'irrational fervor about guns. They consistently lie about the historical context of the right to bear arms and use fear to propagate unnecessary insecurity.
Fight their lies with this truth.
Wednesday, January 08, 2020
Saturday, January 04, 2020
The Best Writer On Quora
The best writer on Quora is Lee Thé. With 22 million views on his content, his reach is unparalleled and his influence is enormous. The best part about all of this is he is completely dedicated to destroying the Trump cult. His answers in the politics section are concise and perfect in their accuracy. Responding to the question, have Trump’s tax cuts failed the average American, Mr. Thé wrote,
Like all Republican tax cut laws since Reagan, regardless of who they help or harm in the short run, they’re massive and unfunded. The Republican politicians tell the people taxes are bad, tax cuts are good. They never tell mention what the taxes pay for. They never mention the economic chaos that ensues when the deficit has to be paid for. The strategic goal of massive, unfunded tax cuts is the elimination of the social safety net. The excuse is the deficit created by the tax cuts. The justification is equating the social safety net with socialism (oh the horror), and equating that with Soviet communism.
The devil is in the details. According to Politifact.com’s analysis, “every income group pays less in taxes in 2019, but the benefits flow disproportionately to wealthier taxpayers. And by 2027, every income group below $75,000 will see a tax increase, while only those income ranges above $75,000 will still see a cut.”
Bait…and switch.
Trump’s supporters have been tricked into selling their birthright for a mess of pottage
Mic drop.
Mic drop.
Wednesday, January 01, 2020
Tuesday, December 31, 2019
A Special Thanks
Nikto and I would like to thank everyone for reading our little small-town blog in 2019. We started off a few years ago with just a handful of readers and now, thanks to exposure on Twitter, Quora, Medium and Reddit, we average between 500 and 1000 readers every day.
2020 is going to be a crazy year in terms of politics. A sitting president will be running for reelection after being impeached and having a Senate trial. Will he make it through the year? Or will they find him emotionally exhausted and jibbering to himself with his thumbs on his Twitter feed? We can't wait to find out!!
2020 is going to be a crazy year in terms of politics. A sitting president will be running for reelection after being impeached and having a Senate trial. Will he make it through the year? Or will they find him emotionally exhausted and jibbering to himself with his thumbs on his Twitter feed? We can't wait to find out!!
Monday, December 30, 2019
"Conservative" SCOTUS Judges Vote With Liberals Nearly Half of the Time
Take a look at this graphic.
See, now what I can't figure out is why conservatives are so hell-bent on Kavanaugh. He is more liberal than Roberts! In fact, when you really look at the cases, 7 of the 9 judges barely move into the red area at all. Where is all that originalism I keep hearing about all the time?
I submit that they don't really care how the people they support vote. They just want them to be "conservative" whatever the fuck that means. It's pure tribalism.
See, now what I can't figure out is why conservatives are so hell-bent on Kavanaugh. He is more liberal than Roberts! In fact, when you really look at the cases, 7 of the 9 judges barely move into the red area at all. Where is all that originalism I keep hearing about all the time?
I submit that they don't really care how the people they support vote. They just want them to be "conservative" whatever the fuck that means. It's pure tribalism.
Sunday, December 29, 2019
Saturday, December 28, 2019
Friday, December 27, 2019
Monday, December 23, 2019
Deprogramming The Cult
There is a new poll out that shows the highest number of Americans that want Trump impeached and removed from office that we have seen thus far. 51% of those who responded want him out while 43% do not want him out. The more interesting numbers show that 54% show that the Senate should call additional witnesses who were blocked from coming to testify by Trump himself.
Further and far more significant, 46% of American strongly disapproves of the job Trump is doing while only 27% strongly approve. That tells me that Trump is fucked in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan.
Something else of note is Trump's numbers among independents. 48% approve of the articles of impeachment while only 41% disapprove.
Taken all together, we are beginning to see how much trouble Trump is in if 51 senators vote to hear from Bolton, Mulvaney and Pompeo. I think several other senators want to flip as well given the reality of their political lives if they don't. Susan Collins and Corey Gardner are already likely to not make it. Joni Ernst and Martha McSally are also in trouble. Even Mitt Romney might be the man of integrity he is and vote for more witnesses and, ultimately, removal.
And then we have this...
Further and far more significant, 46% of American strongly disapproves of the job Trump is doing while only 27% strongly approve. That tells me that Trump is fucked in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan.
Something else of note is Trump's numbers among independents. 48% approve of the articles of impeachment while only 41% disapprove.
Taken all together, we are beginning to see how much trouble Trump is in if 51 senators vote to hear from Bolton, Mulvaney and Pompeo. I think several other senators want to flip as well given the reality of their political lives if they don't. Susan Collins and Corey Gardner are already likely to not make it. Joni Ernst and Martha McSally are also in trouble. Even Mitt Romney might be the man of integrity he is and vote for more witnesses and, ultimately, removal.
And then we have this...
Sunday, December 15, 2019
Living in Two Worlds
Check out the list of issues that are on voters' minds and how they rank their importance? Could we be any different?
Conservatives, seriously, your top priorities are
1. Don't impeach Trump
2. Don't ban guns
3. No slavery reparations
4. Build a Wall
Compare this to liberals.
1. Don't separate immigrant children
2. Impeach Trump
3. No ban on abortion
4. Don't build a wall
The party of "fuck you, keep away" compared to the party of compassion and law. Good grief...
Conservatives, seriously, your top priorities are
1. Don't impeach Trump
2. Don't ban guns
3. No slavery reparations
4. Build a Wall
Compare this to liberals.
1. Don't separate immigrant children
2. Impeach Trump
3. No ban on abortion
4. Don't build a wall
The party of "fuck you, keep away" compared to the party of compassion and law. Good grief...
Saturday, December 14, 2019
Trump Costing US Billions of Dollars
The future of energy is renewable. Period. Donald Trump and the rest of the AGW deniers are costing the US billions of dollars in the race of this emerging market.
The withdrawal could lock U.S. businesses out of a huge portion of the rapidly growing global market, already worth an estimated $164 billion, that seeks to put an economic price on the greenhouse gases warming the planet — a potential economic loss causing concern among American-based companies such as the food and candy maker Mars.
...the push to reduce the world’s carbon pollution is also creating major economic opportunities. Those include trading systems, already present in parts of Europe and the U.S., in which companies essentially buy and sell the right to pollute — a setup that gives polluters an economic incentive to cut back while generating new income for businesses that help clean the atmosphere.
Yep, it's that fucking bad. And guess which countries are filling up that market and making money?
The withdrawal could lock U.S. businesses out of a huge portion of the rapidly growing global market, already worth an estimated $164 billion, that seeks to put an economic price on the greenhouse gases warming the planet — a potential economic loss causing concern among American-based companies such as the food and candy maker Mars.
...the push to reduce the world’s carbon pollution is also creating major economic opportunities. Those include trading systems, already present in parts of Europe and the U.S., in which companies essentially buy and sell the right to pollute — a setup that gives polluters an economic incentive to cut back while generating new income for businesses that help clean the atmosphere.
Yep, it's that fucking bad. And guess which countries are filling up that market and making money?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)