His debate could be a bloodbath.

I just hope that all the polls are biased and wrong.

The polls may be biased or wrong, or they may be exactly right. I don't think it will make any difference. I said it here a few days ago, and I'll say it again: I'm pretty sure the President will be re-elected by a comfortable margin.

I doubt the Biden-Ryan debate will be a bloodbath. Biden has been at this for a while, and though prone to putting his foot in his mouth, is pretty well-liked outside of conservative circles, partially because of his goofy folksiness. He's certainly skilled enough to emphasize that Ryan's budget contains a ton of proposals that most people really don't like and the utter lack of foreign policy experience on either the top or bottom of the Republican ticket. Regardless, the VP debate is certain to have the same effect it usually does on elections.

I'm pretty sure the President will be re-elected by a comfortable margin.

Don't count your votes until they're cast. Pollsters are using 2008 turnout models (sizable Dem turnout), and it is basically a push. And I don't think we'll see a 2008 turnout. Who actually is enthusiastic about going to vote?

Ryan's budget contains a ton of proposals that most people really don't like

You know, that's a problem when your spending out paces your income, but you don't want to give things up.

Choices have to be made. Most individual people understand that when your credit cards are maxed out, and you still can't pay all your bills that something has to give. In our lives, that means either getting a better job, another job, or maybe giving up cable/satellite/the fancy cell phone/home internet.

One reason I cook at home/take lunch to work is that it saves me money. And the Government frowns upon it when I go out back and fire up the printing presses at all, let alone to the tune of $40 billion/month, as the Fed is with QE III.

utter lack of foreign policy experience on either the top or bottom of the Republican ticket

That didn't seem to matter 4 years ago...not to worry, I'm sure the moderator will rescue Slow Joe.

"That didn't seem to matter 4 years ago."

It mattered at lot. Obama was the nominee largely because of his opposition the Iraq war – which sensible people recognized by 2008 to be complete disaster and misguided from the outset. Biden was chosen because of his foreign policy experience (and his connection with working class white Democrats).

"It mattered at lot. Obama was the nominee largely because of his opposition the Iraq war – which sensible people recognized by 2008 to be complete disaster and misguided from the outset. "

And yet he expanded the Afghan war, where we're now running away with our tail between our legs.

"Biden was chosen because of his foreign policy experience (and his connection with working class white Democrats)."

Yeah, that's worked out really well too.

In any rational universe, Romney (as weak a candidate as he is) would be on his way to a 49-state landslide. Obama is by far the worst President of my lifetime -- more corrupt than Nixon or LBJ, more vain than JFK, and more ineptly leftist than Carter. Not a single one of Obama's initiatives has turned out the way he promised, and his administration has been aggressively incompetent even at basic housekeeping, like protecting our embassies.

"Obama is by far the worst President of my lifetime"

Obama has not been especially impressive. But your characterization of him is the product of reading far too much right wing media, not reality.

Under Obama we have ended the war in Iraq, killed Osama bin Laden, passed health care reform along conservative lines (it's based on a Heritage Foundation plan, and only became socialism when Obama supported it) and gone from economic freefall to steady private sector growth.

"Yeah, that's worked out really well too."

It has. Our perception in the world is greatly improved compared to the previous 8 years. Unless you think our foreign policy should be "do whatever Netanyahu wants us to", I suppose.

"And yet he expanded the Afghan war, where we're now running away with our tail between our legs."

You are correct that Afghanistan is a disaster, and we should leave because there is no feasible circumstance where it is winnable. This will happen early in the next presidency, regardless of whom is elected.

A Romney presidency will mean exploding deficits from tax cuts and increased spending (Republicans only care about spending when a Democrat is in the White House), and a war with Iran. It's basically the policies of "he who Republicans shall not name" all over again. If you care about the deficit, you should support Obama's reelection, because House Republicans will continue to push for austerity unless doing so might make Romney look like meanie.

You forgot to add a bigger civil rights violator than than every president in the history of the United States

> Regardless, the VP debate is certain to have
> the same effect it usually does on elections.

Well, for my own part, these forty seconds were as persuasive as any.

> It has. Our perception in the world is greatly
> improved compared to the previous 8 years.

Ludicrous. What the Hell could you be thinking?

> Unless you think our foreign policy should be
> "do whatever Netanyahu wants us to", I suppose.

Oh...

Say no more.

"Ludicrous. What the Hell could you be thinking?"

Most of our allies have a more favorable view of us than they did under the Bush administration.

"Say no more."

Romney has said he's delegating middle-east policy making to Likud. I think this is a bad plan. You?

" Why should I pay for the care of a person who decided to gamble and go without health insurance when they get Crohn's at 50?"

You shouldn't. And a certain hotly-debated provision of Obamacare will greatly reduce that problem in the future. cough...MANDATE...cough

"You forgot to add a bigger civil rights violator..."

Whether Romney is elected or Obama, the drone strikes and assassinations will continue. Romney would be likely to bring back torture, too!

> Most of our allies have a more favorable
> view of us than they did under the Bush
> administration.

Cite? Furthermore, is "favorable" what we're looking for? There are a lot of nations who I want to view us not-favorably but whom, I fear, are described by your flapping assertion.

> I think this is a bad plan. You?

Were I concerned that he'd follow through, perhaps. But this is like a Republican saying he's "against abortion". (Or like Obama saying he's going to close Guantanamo.) So what?

There are certain rules of thumb which we can't be elided in an election season. Especially when paired with frogwash like this:

> Romney would be likely to bring back torture, too!

It must be exciting to live on a planet where reason and causality never cohere.

"Furthermore, is "favorable" what we're looking for? "

From our allies, yes.

"Were I concerned that he'd follow through, perhaps."

I think the rashness and ignorance that have characterized Romney's comments regarding our foreign policy lead me to believe he would be incautious about going to war with Iran, which is exactly what Likud would like us to do.

"There are certain rules of thumb which we can't be elided in an election season."

One needn't hate Israel to think that what their leadership wants is bad both for Israel and the U.S. Quite the opposite.

"> Romney would be likely to bring back torture, too!

It must be exciting to live on a planet where reason and causality never cohere."

My shit is tight, yo. Romney's advisors have argued that he rescind Obama's executive order banning torture. The Republican base supports torture. Romney's entire campaign has been a pander to such people. Why wouldn't he?

> The Republican base supports torture.

About this planet of yours... Four legs to a chair? The sun sets in the West? Salmon swim upstream to spawn?

Our worlds must have something in common... No?

> The Republican base supports torture.

There it is again.

"There it is again."

That is because it is true. The Republican base, and even more so tea-partiers support the use of waterboarding. Remember the avatars of the Republican base's id - Perry, Cain, Bachmann - proudly claiming their support of the technique in debates?

Check the crosstabs, biyotch: http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/images/11/22/rel19c.pdf

"Who says I like Romney?"

I don't think that has been insinuated here.

What I did argue was that the Obamacare mandate addresses one of the problems you stated with healthcare - that of the free riders.

The other person I've been debating seems to favor Romney, and was to whom my other comments were directed.

Under Obama we have ended the war in Iraq, killed Osama bin Laden, passed health care reform along conservative lines (it's based on a Heritage Foundation plan, and only became socialism when Obama supported it) and gone from economic freefall to steady private sector growth. -- doggone at October 3, 2012 10:21 AM

You need to check your facts:

The pullout of Iraq was negotiated during the Bush presidency. "On October 16, 2008, after several more months of negotiations, ..... , issues related to the timeline for U.S. withdrawal ....."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.%E2%80%93Iraq_Status_of_Forces_Agreement#Negotiations

As for OBL -- he was a walking dead man regardless of who was the President.

Did you notice that 60% of the U.S. polled against Obamacare? Did you notice that protesters were outside of Congress when it was passed? Did you notice several states passed state constitutional amendments against the individual mandate?

As for growth go to the link below: look at the huge GDP spike while he's been president.

www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_2000_2010USb_13s1li011mcn__US_Gross_Domestic_Product_GDP_History

Then look at the deficit chart.

www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_1997_2017USb_G0f

And when you hear the unemployment number has gone down -- the reason is that after people hit a certain point, they are shifted to the "Not in labor force" stat. Notice the growth?

Obama is a disaster and if he is reelected we are so fucked.

> The Republican base, and even more so
> tea-partiers support the use of
> waterboarding.

Goofy... 800 hundred sex-&-meal interrupting phone calls of presumption from CNN. Making social distance from others is what policy is about for lefties... The "biyotch" is gratuitous. You want to be seen as nicer than other people. We get that.

If only you were spending your own money to make the point. As it is, grade-schoolers snide for "tea-partiers" disregards their biggest concern: That you're trying to express your virtue on someone else's dime. So people who want to pay for things are just big meanies.

How's that working for you?

"The pullout of Iraq was negotiated during the Bush presidency."

And the GOP presidential field was united in opposing carrying out our agreement to do so.

"As for OBL -- he was a walking dead man regardless of who was the President."

You may remember McCain saying in the 2008 election that it showed Obama's inadequacy for the office when Obama said that he would authorize, without approval from the Pakistani government, attacks within Pakistan to kill high value targets.

You may remember that Bush gave up the hunt for OBL for the Iraq mission. You may remember Bush saying that he didn't think much of OBL.

No?

"Did you notice that 60% of the U.S. polled against Obamacare? Did you notice that protesters were outside of Congress when it was passed? Did you notice several states passed state constitutional amendments against the individual mandate?"

Sometimes policy improvements are not popular. Lots of this 60% were morons who believe the "Death Panel" rhetoric. States can pass amendments opposing the mandate and it is irrelevant due to the Supremacy Clause (nice blog post arguing about a right to secede, BTW. There's a war in the mid-19th century you might want to learn about.)

"And when you hear the unemployment number has gone down"

You need to read more carefully. I didn't write about unemployment but in private sector job growth. These numbers are still not awesome, but the biggest problem is deleveraging of private debt, not Obama's policies.

"Obama is a disaster and if he is reelected we are so fucked."

Obama is mediocre. But he's significantly better than Romney.

"Goofy... 800 hundred sex-&-meal interrupting phone calls of presumption from CNN."

Climate change isn't real. I don't like the results, so the data must be bogus!

"The "biyotch" is gratuitous."

I thought it was elegant and concise, accompanying a proper smackdown of someone's impetuous wrongness.

"You want to be seen as nicer than other people."

More well-informed, in-touch with reality. Kind has value in my world, nice is usually full of shit.

""tea-partiers" disregards their biggest concern"

The tea party cares about money, but they do not care about human dignity, especially if it's us doing shit to foreign brown people. They lack moral standing for consideration of their other issues.

> they do not care about human dignity,
> especially if it's us doing shit to
> foreign brown people.

Fantasy. Specifically, there's no reason to think you're decent to distant people or near ones, whatever their heritage ("biyotch"). Or did I miss a message about your charity and sacrifice?

All we really know about you is that you (apparently) think your virtue is so powerful that others should go into debt for it (no matter how deeply, no matter the result) and be mocked nonetheless. You're are that certain that your character is exemplary.

I'd bet not.

"Fantasy. "

I got data, you got fuckall.

"All we really know about you is that you (apparently) think your virtue is so powerful that others should go into debt for it (no matter how deeply, no matter the result) and be mocked nonetheless."

And blah blah blah, you got nothin' on topic to say here. The Tea Party is innumerate and morally bankrupt - the rump of the Republican party, nothing else.

"your character is exemplary."

unfuckingassailable. Biyotch.

I believe you, OK? I believe this is what your political life is about! It's composed to authorize you to say nasty things to people!

"I believe you, OK? I believe this is what your political life is about! It's composed to authorize you to say nasty things to people!"

That's interesting. Do you have anything on topic to offer?

And the GOP presidential field was united in opposing carrying out our agreement to do so.

Do you have a citation for that?

You may remember that Bush gave up the hunt for OBL for the Iraq mission. You may remember Bush saying that he didn't think much of OBL.

Out of context -- in context he changed the priority and was already a lame duck president.

thinkprogress.org/security/2011/05/02/162774/bush-bin-laden/?mobile=nc

Sometimes policy improvements are not popular. Lots of this 60% were morons who believe the "Death Panel" rhetoric. States can pass amendments opposing the mandate and it is irrelevant due to the Supremacy Clause

The Supremacy Clause is only supposed to apply to things that are in the U.S. Constitution. I want you to find health care, marriage (Loving was a 14th issue), FEMA, education, EPA, social security, the national highway system, the FDA, EPA, food stamps, 20 ounce sodas and many things in the Constitution. When you can let me know.

If it isn't the Constitution then the Tenth Amendment applies:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Oh and if you say "General Welfare" that means you don't understand the concept of the founders.

(nice blog post arguing about a right to secede, BTW. There's a war in the mid-19th century you might want to learn about.)

I can't say it as eloquently Lysander did.

The U.S. Constitution is not a suicide pact. The national government was supposed to look outward and be about equal among the individual states. We were not to be ruled by Mordor on the Potomac.

Jim P - back for more!

"Do you have a citation for that?"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/gop-presidential-field-unified-in-opposition-to-iraq-withdrawal/2011/10/21/gIQAp03o4L_story.html

"Out of context -- in context he changed the priority and was already a lame duck president."

Fine, cheap shot. But you can't argue with me that McCain specifically said he would have done otherwise. Because of course he did!

"The Supremacy Clause is only supposed to apply to things that are in the U.S. Constitution."

Um, no. Constitution, Statutes (i.e., the ACA) and treaties: (Google it)

Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, known as the Supremacy Clause, establishes the U.S. Constitution, Federal Statutes, and U.S. Treaties as "the supreme law of the land." The text decrees these to be the highest form of law in the U.S. legal system, and mandates that all state judges must follow federal law when a conflict arises between federal law and either the state constitution or state law of any state. (Note that the word "shall" is used, which makes it a necessity, a compulsion.) However, the Supremacy Clause only applies if the federal government is acting in pursuit of its constitutionally authorized powers, as noted by the phrase "in pursuance thereof" in the actual text of the Supremacy Clause itself.

"I can't say it as eloquently Lysander did."

Looks like a bunch of apology for the slave states, whose constitutional interpretation is emphatically not the law of the land.

"The national government was supposed to look outward and be about equal among the individual states."

This view of our government lost, decisively, and there is no credible thread of law in our country contrary.

Both of these are parts of the Federal Constitution that define the Federal Government's supremacy over the States regarding laws that have been delegated to the federal government in accordance with the Tenth Amendment. A difference between the two, however, is that whereas the Supremacy Clause deals with the relationship between the Federal Government and the states, the Fourteenth Amendment deals with the relationships among the Federal Government, the States, and the citizens of the United States.

You still have not shown me where in the U.S. Constitution where health care, marriage (Loving was a 14th issue), FEMA, education, EPA, social security, the national highway system, the FDA, EPA, food stamps, 20 ounce sodas are.

Once you get that the national government doesn't have that control -- then you can actually have a clue. The ACA was ruled a tax -- that is a Sixteenth Amendment issue. That was a bad decision. But the individual mandate is not Equal Protection. So if John Doe doesn't buy insurance and gets fined (taxed) for $1200 and I buy insurance and have to pay $5400 for the same level of care how is that equal?

The Tenth Amendment is basically toothless and has little place in modern jurisprudence.

"You still have not shown me where in the U.S. Constitution where health care, marriage (Loving was a 14th issue), FEMA, education, EPA, social security, the national highway system, the FDA, EPA, food stamps, 20 ounce sodas are."

Most of these things fall under the power to tax, which is plenary, and the Interstate Commerce Clause. 20 oz sodas are Bloomberg being a busybody, and a local issue. But the federal government could certainly tax them.

"The ACA was ruled a tax -- that is a Sixteenth Amendment issue. That was a bad decision."

Roberts knew he risked the reputation of the court and a massive backlash if he overturned so much of modern Commerce Clause law for such a politically fraught case. So he limited the Commerce Clause, and decided it under the (plenary) power to tax. The ACA decision saved the court some legitimacy, while undermining the expansive liberal Commerce Clause interpretation the law assumed. An intelligent, strategic decision for the conservative cause. Overturning the law would give the liberals their Roe and their Bork all in one. Roberts is a lot of things; he is neither stupid nor short-sighted.

"The ACA was ruled a tax -- that is a Sixteenth Amendment issue. That was a bad decision. But the individual mandate is not Equal Protection. So if John Doe doesn't buy insurance and gets fined (taxed) for $1200 and I buy insurance and have to pay $5400 for the same level of care how is that equal?"

You have the same right to do nothing and pay $1200.

> That's interesting.

I know.

> Do you have anything on topic to offer?

We can talk about whatever we want, which is how you came to babble about torture and tea parties.

Well, and imagining that Biden "is pretty well-liked outside of conservative circles, partially because of his goofy folksiness" is awfully far afield as well. His selection was as cringe-inducing and mystifying as Quayle.

"I know."

I'm sorry, you must have problems recognizing sarcasm in printed form.

"His selection was as cringe-inducing and mystifying as Quayle."

Do you know any Democrats over 50? I do, and most didn't/don't like Obama much, at least back home (they are more positive out West it seems). They do like Joe.

Most of these voters probably preferred Hillary, and voted for her in the primaries. But after the primaries that year, who would count on good behavior from the Clintons? Biden was low risk, low reward, and wouldn't fuck up too bad if he got the keys to the car. A very Obama kind of choice, really.

Fine, cheap shot.

Since when is the truth a cheap shot?

But you can't argue with me that McCain specifically said he would have done otherwise. Because of course he did! -- doggone at October 3, 2012 11:05 PM

You're right, he did say it. But the question is would he have taken the same shot at OBL in Pakistan once he was in office? I don't doubt it.

There are some things that are dictated by the popular opinion.

McCain is a RINO as well.

You have the same right to do nothing and pay $1200. -- doggone at October 3, 2012 11:40 PM

Do I? How? If I work for a company with more than 15 (50?) the company is required to verify that I have proof of health care before I can opt out of the company plan. But that is provided that I don't work for a company that got a waiver such as McDonalds.

That waivers list used to fit on one web page.

So I see we've been infected by a paid Democratic Party operative. Nobody who has a real job could possibly have as much time to spread lies as "doggone" does.

"Climate change isn't real. I don't like the results, so the data must be bogus!"

It's not only bogus, but a criminal consipracy. If you're that anxious to defend it, you must be making money off of it.

"So I see we've been infected by a paid Democratic Party operative. Nobody who has a real job could possibly have as much time to spread lies as "doggone" does. "

Outed. How do you do it? Or perhaps you could show where I've lied...

"It's not only bogus, but a criminal consipracy. If you're that anxious to defend it, you must be making money off of it."

A criminal conspiracy involving nearly every scientist who studies the climate and its effects on ecology and the leaders of every country in the developed world, except for some conservatives in the U.S. is quite a conspiracy. However, you did make my point very nicely - when the data disagree with what a conservative believes, it must the data that are wrong!

> you must be making money off of it.

Well, it's more about the accrual of centralized power... Because something must be done.

Y'know?

We need to fix this!...

...They say.

doggone, it isn't up to me to disprove your wild-ass assertions. It's up to you to prove them. And shouldn't you be working or something?

"doggone, it isn't up to me to disprove your wild-ass assertions. It's up to you to prove them."

You called me a liar. Where did I lie? I'm pretty sure I can back my statements up.

"And shouldn't you be working or something?"

At 7:15 in the morning, I'm having coffee, checking email and the web, and waiting for my kid to wake up.

A criminal conspiracy involving nearly every scientist who studies the climate and its effects on ecology and the leaders of every country in the developed world, except for some conservatives in the U.S. is quite a conspiracy. However, you did make my point very nicely - when the data disagree with what a conservative believes, it must the data that are wrong! -- doggone at October 4, 2012 7:13 AM

Have you ever visited this site? Please actually read some of the information.

You refuse to understand the founder's intent of the Constitution, so I don't think you'll actually believe intelligent arguments.

Consensus is not evidence.

(But Teller's isn't the most alluring autograph they could have found for the front page of that website.)

"Have you ever visited this site? Please actually read some of the information."

I refuse to click on buttons so ugly. Was this someone's kid's project? (if so, good job?)

Do you have anything uses post 1998 web technology? A link to good articles in reputable academic journals?

Keep it up, doggone. Keep insulting my beloved GOP's useful idiots. The GOP wants their votes in select swing states next month.

"Consensus is not evidence."

When many independent studies yield results consistent with one theory, but not others, that is both consensus and evidence. Which is the case with global warming.

"it's more about the accrual of centallized power"

An intelligent policy response requires that people agree on the facts. U.S. conservatives' unwillingess to accept the basic facts in the case of global warming means that either we are going to do nothing or their preferences will be disregarded in policy; neither strikes me as ideal.

> When many independent studies yield results
> consistent with one theory, but not others, that
> is both consensus and evidence.

And when other independent studies yield other results, thoughtful people consider the motivations of the fearmongers... Whether budgets for the feckless climatologist, attention for the chattering academic, or authority for the socially disenchanting.

> An intelligent policy response requires that
> people agree on the facts.

The birdsong of fascism... You can't imagine a future without taking control of other people's lives.

'You will agree, damn you! It's required!'

…And to be perfectly clear, this individual is fully mistaken:

[1.] Consensus is never evidence.

[2.] Intelligence never "requires" agreement.

'Boys and girls, it's fall. And what does that mean?'

'NOOOO!'

'Yes, that's right. School is in session.'

'BOOOO!'

'In this lesson, we will demonstrate conclusively that Crid doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about".'

'YAY!'

'Let's begin..."

Taking things in chronological order of his(I assume) recent comments, Crid posts this quote that links to the Wikipedia page of Bjorn Lomborg:

And when other independent studies yield other results, thoughtful people consider the motivations of the fearmongers.

This is an example of a non-sequitur. In this thread, doggone previously made the point that climate science supports the theory of anthropogenic global warming (AGW, that humans cause climate change) nearly uniformly, and that American conservatives are the only large group of people in the developed world who doubt that this theory is a reasonably accurate characterization of the data.

In an effort to refute that, Crid posts a link to the Wikipedia page of someone who believes that global warming is happening and is man-made. Since I and Lomborg agree that the climate is warming due to human activity, Crid citation of him does not support his thesis.

Crid further makes the following point:

"[1.] Consensus is never evidence."

This statement reveals Crid's ignorance of statistics. Consensus that is the product of mathematics and not head nodding is evidence, because it indicates that multiple similar, independent tests support the same theoretical framework.

In this case, Crid appears to take the notion that all that was meant by "consensus" was "a bunch of people in a room all nodding their heads about an idea". In the case of scientific consensus, such as that which is the case with AGW, what the consensus means is that the data from a wide variety of experiments, in many circumstances, all are consistent with a single theoretically-derived interpretation.

Statistically, agreement in trends between many experiments is very important in distinguishing signal from noise. Consider the following two sets of numbers, and assume that each number is the result of a single experiment:

A: 0, 1, 3, 0,6
B. 2, 2, 3, 1, 2

If you average the results of A and B, the means are identical. But A is far less consistent than B. The group of experiments that comprise group B are producing a more reliable measure than those in group A. To apply this to the current global warming discussion, the results of experiments supporting AGW are more like example B than A – the vast majority of these experiments yield results consistent with the theory that human activity causes climate change, with very few experiments that suggest otherwise.

[2.] Intelligence never "requires" agreement.

This statement disregards what was actually said, and the context of the discussion. It is non-responsive, in that it was never stated that "Intelligence requires agreement. Further, it elides the critical contention, that it is unlikely that people with different perspectives can make good group decisions when premises are in dispute.

For the record, Crid's assertion that intelligence does not require agreement is correct. Otherwise, as has been incontrovertibly demonstrated, his arguments addressed here are without merit and he is generally full of shit.

Biyotch.

Try this one on:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/03/01/fakegate-the-obnoxious-fabrication-of-global-warming/

But since we know you are a spammer, I'm sure you're going to try to denounce it as well. Please give us an objective rejection of the assumptions,

"But since we know you are a spammer"

I might be trolling a bit, but I'm not a spammer. Troll = someone trying to stir up trouble. Spammer = someone trying to promote a website or product.

"I'm sure you're going to try to denounce it as well."

I remember reading about that Glieck douchebag and his ham-handed smear campaign on McArdle's blog a while ago. That guy sounds like a real asshole and liar. Doesn't make a secondary source (Forbes) of materials that are not peer-reviewed (Heartland studies) credible. Particularly given the discussion of consensus and statistical reliability above.

Oh yeah, and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uOwhrCkMiKA

> Biyotch.

You're a cocksucking motherfucker... A loathsome, inattentive and childish persona lost in a world of adult complexity and discipline. On the street, strangers read you like a book: Your face is a cuntlike grimace of fear, and your lumpen posture is the wilt of defeat. Your sexless wife is bitter and oblivious, your ill-mannered children are addled and uncaring, and phone calls to your parents end with suspicious urgency. Co-workers and associates accept the watery, tepid products of your labor with resignation and detachment, ignoring your whirling pinwheel of excuses both for your dignity and for their own. Social contacts feign distraction as you speak; when they're cornered, your inanities bounce without echo against clenched teeth and insincerity. Indeed, your reliance on sarcasm and insults ("Biyotch") are pathetic, retrograde graspings for connectedness to a stylish youth culture which wanted nothing to do with you even when you might have been a footsoldier in its ranks. When you bring your life to the anonymous internet, it's Clutch City, that last chance to convince someone – ANYONE – that you're more than a feckless doofus without backbone or insight... and you'll happily throw principle (such as the nature of science) overboard to do so.

M'kay? So, if you wanna do flat insults, we can do that.

> In an effort to refute that, Crid posts....

I don't deny AGW, I deny the terror, power-grabbing and pose of morality which alarmists encourage while talking about it. Your enthusiasm for the topic is typically lefty; it's all about teenage accretions of social status and vague daydreams of authority over people who think you're kinda goofy. (And there are a lot of them.)

(Us.)

> agreement in trends between many experiments
> is very important

Y'know, it's funny... Grade school, high school, college and a lifetime of reading... But this is the first I've heard of "agreement in trends" as a component of the scientific method, or of conclusion... I know a few scientists, got some in the family now, and they don't much mumble about "a single theoretically-derived interpretation" or "theoretical framework." Within the next hours, your statistics lesson will nonetheless be integrated into the Google cache (Watch this space!) and perhaps the Wayback machine, where the grace of your demonstration will thrill (and amuse!) the mathematicians of the tomorrow, inexpensively, and around the globe, forever.

[Psst- Hey, Amy! Why aren't you being crawled by archive dot com for 2012? Did they piss you off or something?]

No, I quoted you precisely, in context, on the very page on which you offered the thought. That's why I do it this way, so shenanigans are impossible. Here it is again:

> An intelligent policy response requires that
> people agree on the facts.

That's ALL about centralized control. It's bureaucratic chatter, officious in its simplicity and blind to its presumptions. The necessity of broad "response" is a foregone conclusion, and it assumes policy can offer the best or perhaps the only one. It posits "intelligence" as some newfangled element. It's deaf and blind to the hazard of the word "requires," especially as regards agreement. And I think your grasp of "facts" is pretty dicey: Whatever your life is about, statistics don't seem to be a part of it.

Anyway, you've found a good home here. Amy and her commenters often adorn their understanding of science with personal twinkles and bogus curlicues, and they'll be glad to seat you at their table. It's not that they'll agree with you... But they'll accept your example as evidence that the scientific method is an endlessly flexible plaything which can be stretched to cover their most personal neediness and weakness, because a caring God wouldn't have put them on this planet to be anything less than naturally brilliant.

It's sometimes blindingly apparent that He did.

Sorry for the busted link.

Amy's Wayback page, an archive of many a handsome bitchings and whinings.

Where's 2012?

"You're a cocksucking motherfucker.. and you'll happily throw principle (such as the nature of science) overboard to do so."

This might sting if even a lick of it hit home. I love my life, my kid, my wife, my family and friends and my work. Things aren't perfect, but I wake up most days looking forward to what I get to do. I hope you had fun writing that, though.

Though from your vitriol I must have struck a nerve.

"I don't deny AGW"

Oh good, then we can talk about it. Sure sounded like you were part of the denialists.

"That's ALL about centralized control."

Not necessarily! You assume a lot.

An intelligent policy response could be "Sorry, right now coal and natural gas and petroleum are absolutely vital to our economy, particularly transportation and manufacturing. Given the fragility of our recovery and the importance of these these fuels to the developing world, we shouldn't make any big changes now. We'll take a hit from global warming, but it's probably less serious than we would if we imposed a heavy carbon tax or cap and trade scheme."

Cost-benefit analysis! Big picture decision-making! It's why we have legislative bodies. Right now, these issues can't be discussed intelligently because AGW denialist morons hold too much sway on the American right. (see "It's not only bogus, but a criminal consipracy." above. This is not a unique perspective.)

"It posits "intelligence" as some newfangled element."

No. It means that in a discussion of what do, it's impossible to utilize the brains of everyone involved when some of those people refuse to accept the premises of the discussion.

"But this is the first I've heard of "agreement in trends" as a component of the scientific method, or of conclusion... I know a few scientists, got some in the family now, and they don't much mumble about "a single theoretically-derived interpretation" or "theoretical framework."

Hmm. you might want to chat with about the process of replication and extension of experimental results, which are quite central to the scientific method. Or what meta-analysis is and how it's performed. You don't need to trust me, check with them. But the gist is that it's possible to statistically compare the results across a wide range of similar studies, and look at the broad trends to determine whether the data fit with the theory (aka "theoretical framework"). This is important, because the criterion commonly used in the sciences, that the null hypothesis be rejected with p <.05, implies that a statistically significant result will arise by chance alone one in twenty experiments (this is also why good journals require multiple experiments, and the more statistically sophisticated readers prefer that authors also include estimates of effect size with significance tests).

"But they'll accept your example as evidence that the scientific method is an endlessly flexible plaything which can be stretched to cover their most personal neediness and weakness"

I can't help with this. I'm a believer in the scientific method and the value of rigorous theory-driven empiricism. My work relies on my ability to apply it effectively. If it were endlessly flexible, I'd be unable to provide actionable guidance to clients – or, I guess in your thinking, I'd be able to manipulate things so as to always flatter my clients, even if it didn't improve their businesses. Me, I'd rather figure things out and fix shit.

> I love my life, my kid, my wife

Aw, Turtledove, too late to get all defensive.

> You assume a lot.

Not after reading infantile weepings about 'Republican torture' and the Tea Party and "brown people." These are the fevered demons of a seventh-grader demented from some hateful blend of Mr. Pibb and 3.2 beer... I can't imagine where you'll go next. All we can guess is that it will be inane, and you'll have a lot of sugar enthusiasm about it.

> An intelligent policy response could be

We just covered that. Go reread the last one.

> Cost-benefit analysis!

Faux-playful exclaimation!

You apparently hadn't heard of Lomborg. Yet anyone seriously concerned by GM – or even so cluckingly concerned as to weave elaborate schoolmarm scenarios – can't have missed his presence in the discussion, and ought to have read his books. Don't worry, this video'll learn ya up real fast-like. It takes him to the concentric center of your business management fantasies at about 14 minutes, but you'll have to (and ought to) hear everything theretofore anyway.

And seriously, read the books.

> it's impossible to utilize the brains of
> everyone involved when some of those people
> refuse to accept the premises of the
> discussion.

Again, again... Authoritarianism is baked so deeply into your CNS that you can't see it whether it's typed for you, or typed by your own fingertips. You'll command us to Accept the premises! that you might utilize the brains.

> You don't need to trust me

It seems unlikely that anyone would. Stripping away the clumsily co-opted wordings, you seriously contend that consensus is evidence... That having more people believe something makes it more likely to be true. And you want this magical thinking to guide human affairs.

Sane people will resist this.

> I'm a believer in the scientific method

I've no idea what you life is like, but I doubt it has anything to do with science whatsoever.

> Me, I'd rather figure things out and fix shit.

Heal thyself. Thereafter, keep your hands to yourself.

> I love my life, my kid, my wife

Aw, Turtledove, too late to get all defensive.

> You assume a lot.

Not after reading infantile weepings about 'Republican torture' and the Tea Party and "brown people." These are the fevered demons of a seventh-grader buzzing on some hateful blend of Mr. Pibb and 3.2 beer... I can't imagine where you'll go next. All we can guess is that it will be inane, and you'll have a lot of sugary enthusiasm about it.

> An intelligent policy response could be

We just covered that. Go reread the last one.

> Cost-benefit analysis!

Faux-playful exclamation!

You apparently hadn't heard of Lomborg. Yet anyone seriously concerned by GM – or even so cluckingly concerned as to weave elaborate schoolmarm scenarios – can't have missed his presence in the discussion, and ought to have read his books. Don't worry, this video'll learn ya up real fast-like. It takes him to the concentric center of your business management fantasies at about 14 minutes, but you'll have to (and ought to) hear everything theretofore anyway.

And seriously, read the books.

> it's impossible to utilize the brains of
> everyone involved when some of those people
> refuse to accept the premises of the
> discussion.

Again, again... Authoritarianism is baked so deeply into your CNS that you can't see it whether it's typed for you, or typed by your own fingertips. You'll command us to Accept the premises! that you might utilize the brains.

> You don't need to trust me

It seems unlikely that anyone would. Stripping away the clumsily co-opted wordings, you seriously contend that consensus is evidence... That having more people believe something makes it more likely to be true. And you want this magical thinking to guide human affairs.

Sane people will resist this.

> I'm a believer in the scientific method

I've no idea what your life is like (and am not asking), but I doubt it has anything to do with science whatsoever.

> Me, I'd rather figure things out and fix shit.

Heal thyself. Thereafter, keep your hands on your own desk.

GW. Sorry.

I feel terrible, but will get over it.

I'm honestly sorry that this guy wimped out.

I want to know what it is about GW —more than racial oppression, more than sexual oppression, more than religious oppression, more than poverty or more even than the environment viewed whole— what is is about global warming that makes people so eager to demand that everyone agree with them about it?

Whatever it is, it doesn't flatter human nature, I'm sure.

It's not a new kind of obsession or anything... GW is a typical public affairs stupidity. But it carries itself with a jaunty idiocy that we don't see in other discussions.

Nigga please. I thought *you* were done after that epic asswhooping. But no, he's back for more.

"Not after reading infantile weepings about 'Republican torture' and the Tea Party and "brown people."

Awww, just own up to it. The Republican base is enthusiastic about torturing Muslims. I'm not weeping. As with mentioning Global Warming, it's a calculated trolling aimed at the worst tendencies of American conservatives.

"That having more people believe something makes it more likely to be true. "

Go back, and read again. I wrote about consensus quite specifically as a bunch of studies supporting the same theory.

"You'll command us to Accept the premises! that you might utilize the brains."

Here's some more authoritarianism for you: Accept that evolution is happening, so that we might take steps to avoid drug-resistant bacteria.

"I doubt it has anything to do with science whatsoever."

If you were actually conversant with scientific process you'd conclude otherwise.

"what is is about global warming that makes people so eager to demand that everyone agree with them about it?"

Because it's a firmly established scientific theory, and tons of morons lacking the brains to realize that run around acting like it's a fantasy or a conspiracy; given that we're in a democracy (well, a republic), it matters what people believe. People believing wrong stuff leads to bad decisions.

Wrong wrong wrong! Not done here!

...and stick a fork in this one.

Naw, more tomorrow.

> Nigga please.

Idioms, right? You dig 'em! Stylish ones! Slang from minorities, in that magical timbre, that comfortable-with-mindless-aggression way that has nothing to do with your own life. Right?

> The Republican base is enthusiastic
> about torturing Muslims.

No, I think they're mostly just impatient with idiot pollsters, and more likely to unload when Suzy Fuckface, a bubbly, eager senior at State University who carries a clipboard and wants to make the most of her summer job, interrupts their passage through the shopping mall with a crying child when they're trying to get home in time to make sure Gramma takes her meds.

> it's a calculated trolling

A contradiction in terms... You're not about calculation, you're just here for the aggression.

> I wrote about consensus quite specifically

No, you wrote about it generally and sloppily. Specifically, you said:

> When many independent studies yield results
> consistent with one theory, but not others,
> that is both consensus and evidence.

...Which is comically incorrect. Under no circumstances do studies constitute their own evidence. That everyone in the world might be convinced that something is true has no bearing on whether it is. The world wasn't any flatter when people thought it was. (Especially the smart ones.)

No one conversant with science in any professional (or even studious) context would make your error.

> Accept that evolution is happening,
> so that

Enough with the distractions, OK? We can talk about the lunch menus of our inner-city schools and the designated hitter rule another day.

> you'd conclude otherwise.

In other words, you're a short-order cook.

> People believing wrong stuff leads to
> bad decisions.

Evasion. You don't care enough about prison rape, the care of the retarded, AIDS in Africa or Muscular Dystrophy enough to insist that we all share the same beliefs on those problems. Why not?

Well, I think I know why not. Your fascination with the topic is typically naive and mundane; the allure is much more about a global power grab than climate... It's not even about politics.

You don't talk to people much about things like this, do you?

Dude u are such a fuckin moran!

"Under no circumstances do studies constitute their own evidence. "

WHAT DOES CONSTITUTE EVIDENCE? Correct answer: The opinion of a conservative blog commenter.

"That everyone in the world might be convinced that something is true has no bearing on whether it is."

That lots of other research on the same topic produces the same results does.

"In other words, you're a short-order cook."

Not close, even at home on the weekends. I'd be happy to mock your failure to recognize a few basic statements about research methods, but who would give a fuck?

"Evasion. You don't care enough about prison rape, the care of the retarded, AIDS in Africa or Muscular Dystrophy enough to insist that we all share the same beliefs on those problems. "

I don't think we've been discussing them. If they come up, I'll opine!

"You don't talk to people much about things like this, do you?"

Sure do, just not with fools.

How's my ass taste?

> WHAT DOES CONSTITUTE EVIDENCE? Correct answer:
> The opinion of a conservative blog commenter.

Aw Bunny, you're busted. No need to be bitter. You affirmed that the decision to do research itself has evidendiary impact. Well, that's gotta be embarrassing for you... But let's face it, you're young and goofy. If you curdle and wilt in humiliation now, you may never amuse anyone ever again. Chin up, Buttercup!

> That lots of other research on the same topic
> produces the same results does.

Christ, YOU SERIOUSLY DON'T GET THIS. Did you go to college?

Have you heard about it?

> I don't think we've been discussing them.

We weren't discussion "evolution" either.

You've give good, theatrical flop, kiddo... A really ass-over-teakettle gracelessness that's good fun for everyone.

(You'd really never even heard of Lomborg, but were mouthing off anyway? Remarkable.)

(Bacon crispy...  Thanx)

"You affirmed that the decision to do research itself has evidendiary impact."

In what world have I admitted such a thing? You appear to like making shit up about other people when you're losing an argument.

I have stated - repeatedly - that what has evidentiary impact is the results of different experiments testing the same theory. See this -- I'm sorry that simple.wikipedia.org lacks this topic, but I think if you really try, you should be able to get the gist.

"Christ, YOU SERIOUSLY DON'T GET THIS. Did you go to college?"

Did you? It's you who doesn't get it. You're either breathtaking in your ignorance of science, or deeply mendacious, or both. I'm going with both.

"No, I think they're mostly just impatient with idiot pollsters..."

BTW, lol and thanks for helping me make my key point about current American conservative thought. When the data disagrees with what you want to believe, BLAME THE DATA!

> In what world have I admitted such a thing?

Why, on our own handsome planet Earth, on October 5, 2012 9:07 AM:

> When many independent studies yield results
> consistent with one theory, but not others,
> that is both consensus and evidence.

Hunnybun, evidence is evidence. Your error, while ancient, is not minor.

> what has evidentiary impact is the results
> of different experiments

Retraction, then? Very good... We can move forward now. It's always great when a new kid comes here and humbly accepts the full instructive worth of our didactic encounters.

> BLAME THE DATA

Data oughtn't be held accountable for its corruption & misapplication... For that we blame the self-interested scientist, the loathsome politician, and the (ahem) needy JuCo dropout.

'Bout done here? Great! Have a good weekend, ever'buddy! Remember, the start flag drops on the Korean Grand Prix on Saturday at 23:00 pst.

(Seriously... Read Lomborg.)

"Hunnybun, evidence is evidence. Your error, while ancient, is not minor."

Except that I was not making the error that you suggest I was.

You really don't seem to understand the point I've been making. Your lack of understanding of the scientific method and statistics is truly remarkable in someone who apparently considers himself to be smart and informed. Read that article on meta-analysis to understand why there's informational value when lots of studies of the same theory yield results consistent with that theory's predictions.

Have a nice weekend.

"Korean Grand Prix"

Next thing I know you'll suggest people watch soccer, ahem, football!

> I was not making the error that you
> suggest I was.

You made it twice and since, even after the bust. You're a recidivist in intellectual pretension, the Lindsay Lohan of your community college. Must we review yet again? Here:

> When many independent studies yield results
> consistent with one theory, but not others,
> that is both consensus and evidence.
– October 5, 2012 9:07 AM

> That lots of other research on the same topic
> produces the same results does.
— October 11, 2012 11:24 PM

If you had been to school, you wouldn't be eager so power through your stumble in a 6th-grader's didso/didnot style. Those of us taught science in the lab thirty years ago and who've been reading it ever since aren't impressed by bubblegum bluster.


Also, the yolks were a little runny this morning, weren't they?

Well.

I'm certain it won't be a problem in the future... Right, Doggy?

Wow, it's a total rout and yet you continue to pretend you have a point. Some argue delusion is a self-defense mechanism.

"You made it twice and since, even after the bust. You're a recidivist in intellectual pretension, the Lindsay Lohan of your community college. "

Do you think that data from experiments is the the same thing as people's opinions? Apparently, yes. Because that is what I'm talking about.

"Must we review yet again? Here:

> When many independent studies yield results
> consistent with one theory, but not others,
> that is both consensus and evidence.
– October 5, 2012 9:07 AM

> That lots of other research on the same topic
> produces the same results does.
— October 11, 2012 11:24 PM"

Those are correct statements. That you seem to struggle with the concept is stunning.

"f you had been to school, you wouldn't be eager so power through your stumble in a 6th-grader's didso/didnot style. Those of us taught science in the lab thirty years ago and who've been reading it ever since aren't impressed by bubblegum bluster."

Apparently your learning about methodology ended 30 years ago. Complete this sentence:

Meta-analysis is a way of comparing _____________________ and it is useful for ____________________.

"yolks were runny"

My eggs were delicious, but the service was a bit slow.

Also, the yolks were a little runny this morning, weren't they?

Well.

I'm certain it won't be a problem in the future... Right, Doggy?

> Do you think that data from experiments is
> the the same thing as people's opinions?

So tu quoque follows argumentum ad populum... This is drifting into pathos. There's no college, there's no science in your life, you adore Urban Contemporary, and you love to offend.

"So tu quoque follows argumentum ad populum... This is drifting into pathos. There's no college, there's no science in your life, you adore Urban Contemporary, and you love to offend."

Says the man who thinks that we should dispute that germs make people sick. Who cares that nearly every study since that theory was proposed supports it?

Just lose and accept it. You're done.

Yeah yeah, and there was that time I killed a retarded child.

"Yeah yeah, and there was that time I killed a retarded child."

K, so now it is important when lots of studies support a theory?

Neither of your statements were correct... The ferocious reflex of your dishonest stonewall conveys the practiced technique of an unloved child: You're turning blue, but it doesn't entertain. Have fun out there, Snookums.