What’s the going rate on paying a poster to go away? $500 or so?
Rand Rover:
-
Your first assertion is wild, unproven and makes no sense. Working a job, shit or otherwise, means your contributing to the economy. Your weird prejudice there about most people having meaningless jobs probably tells me all I need to know about you. But my objection has nothing to do with contributions to the economy anyway. At least, I didn’t mean to imply so. I’m a librarian and make a modest living earning in the mid-40s. There are bound to be non-U.S. citizens, lots of them, who contribute more to the U.S. economy than I do in that regard.
-
Yes, they are linked. I’ll grant that. I’ve yet to see a post of his where he talks about how any U.S. policy vitally effects Canada. He seems pretty much interested in what happens within our borders. That’s his right. We should be flattered by his interest.
-
Well, I’d say Sam is very interested in the topic of how he’d like us to run our country–which isn’t quite the same thing as how you phrase it. That’s more or less my point, and what I think is a reasonable source of annoyance.
Anyway, I’m not on anyone’s case. I don’t care what anyone posts about. Obsessions are obsessions, generally not explainable. Sam Stone’s obsession happens to be the politics of the United States. In the scheme of things, it makes as much sense as being interested in model trains–except our political train wrecks are a lot more nasty and happen every day.
Maybe we could try to talk Rand into paying all of us to go away, then just start a new message board. What’d that be, like two day’s salary for him?
No, it says just what it says: "The debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes”.
Climate science is not simple. It consists of interconnected highly complex systems, each one of which may take many years to fully understand. Computer modelling is not for the faint of heart. Otherwise intelligent people may not fully understand the nuances and complexity of the processes. Of those who do understand the topic area the debate is largely nonexistent.
This is not to insult those who do not understand and consequently deny that global climate change is happening - they are not (necessarily) stupid. But they may not have sufficient training or understanding of the complex science involved to fully grasp the depth and breadth of the evidence.
Thanks for fleshing out what I said. If someone does some modeling that disagrees with the Official Models, then of course they don’t properly understand climate science, or else their models wouldn’t have disagreed with the Official Models.
Meanwhile in Honduras (the other item that got me to lose respect with Sam Stone) the new president of Honduras is showing to be mostly a puppet of the makers of the coup, and now the opposition has collected one million signatures to demand a national assembly to change the Honduran constitution that is not responsive to most of the people in Honduras
The coup BTW was incited when the opposition wanted to **prevent **the previous president from finding from the people at the ballot box if that national assembly should be made.
Spanish:
http://ellibertador.hn/Nacional/4215.html
With Google translator:
http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fellibertador.hn%2FNacional%2F4215.html&sl=es&tl=en&hl=&ie=UTF-8
I don’t think he is agreeing with you. It seems though that you are attempting to sarcasm your way out of your silliness. An epic fail.
Most researchers working with models point out that it should not be too hard then to come with alternative theories and models that disagree. Where are those models then?
No, you’re still not quite getting it. Those who understand modeling agree with the science that says global human induced climate change is a real phenomenon.
Those who don’t really understand modelling think that there is still a debate on. They don’t understand modelling, and they don’t actually do any modelling - they just don’t get it, and think that ANY modelling is crap or debatable.
There is nobody who understands modelling who doubts the authentity of global climate change.
I know it’s a subtle distinction, but do make an effort here.
By the way, see if Sam Stone agrees with you that the Canadian Economy sucks - I think you’ll find a disagreement there.
Your bolded statement is true only by definition–you place anyone who doubts the authenticity of mainstream climate science in the “doesn’t understand modeling” category. But I’m repeating myself, and you still won’t get it no matter how many times I say it.
I want to know what blogs he’s frequenting that give him his thread ideas, because he’s not coming up with all this crap himself. If he’s going to regurgitate some half-baked, libertarian nonsense from a blog, then at the very least he could share the sites with us so we can bitch in their comments section.
Oh, Goody. For the second time I’ve been pitted for the crime of posting about American politics while not being American.
Just out of curiosity, has any other member of this board been subject to that criticism? Even once? We just went though a period of 8 years of Bush bashing on the SDMB, including Bush bashing by a number of non-American posters. Did any of them get called out for it? If not, it seems to me that this is less of a real criticism and more of a way to try to shut up someone who disagrees with you.
In fact, I seem to remember that when the left-leaning, conservative-hostile nature of this board was brought up in the past, the usual defense was that it was only natural, because so many posters weren’t American, and this is an international board that reflects the leanings of the world as a whole. It’s all very cosmopolitan, don’tcha know? Apparently, being against an American administration is just fine here, so long as it’s a Republican administration.
I’ve also noticed that you American posters have no problem whatsoever sticking your noses into the politics of other countries. I’m sure you remember the recent posts about Honduras, and there have been plenty of threads about Venezuela, and France, and Britain, and China, and oh, let’s not forget Israel. And I’ve noticed that left-leaning Americans on this board have no qualms about criticizing other countries when they stray towards conservatism.
As the old saying goes, when America sneezes, Canada catches a cold. In fact, our recovery was roaring right along, but now our papers are starting to talk about an American double-dip recession, and since Canada is so dependent on American trade, it could cause our recovery to stall as well.
I also work for an American company, and we have suffered layoffs in Canada due to the ‘buy American’ clause in the stimulus. I believe that’s been eased now, but it cost some friends of mine their jobs. Protectionism sucks.
But an important factor for me is that the U.S. is the center of gravity for the fight between free markets and central command of the economy. If you want to engage in that debate, that’s where you have to go. And I’ve been engaged in this debate for almost 30 years. You could say I’m passionate about individual freedom.
By the way, did you know that one of Bush’s speechwriters was Canadian? And that one of America’s news anchors was Canadian? And that there are Canadian editorialists on the right and left who write about American politics in American journals and newspapers? There are also several British citizens who write on American politics for left-wing magazines.
But wait a minute… Why am I even giving you a thoughtful answer? Your criticism is rude, uncalled for, and thoughtless. I should have just told you to go to hell for that.
God forbid ANYONE would post anything partisan on this board. Why, it’s unheard of! Oh, and for the record, I didn’t read any of that on a blog. I’m perfectly capable of forming my own opinions.
As for that post, my main assertions were,
- Former Obama supporters have written scathing editorials
- Here are the links. Go read them.
- They had a point, because this administration has been anti-business.
As a jumping off point for a debate, it’s certainly anti-Obama administration. Reasonable responses could have questioned the strength of their support in the past, or someone could have politely asked me to quantify the ways in which the adminitration was anti-business. We could have had a decent debate, and perhaps I might even have back-tracked a bit on some of my points. For example, Mort Zuckerman apparently lied when he said he wrote an Obama speech, but I did not know that. Fair point.
Instead, I was called a joke. I was told to shut up because I’m Canadian. I was told that I didn’t even bother to check ‘basic facts’ (hilariously by a poster who’s ‘facts’ contradicted him and supported my position). And out of that, you got “Sam Stone is a bully”. Amazing.
What the hell is with the Koch brothers? Have you guys been handed a new script or something? I’d never heard of these guys until a couple of weeks ago, and now every time a liberal opens his mouth he’s got a Koch in it.
No, actually I wasn’t. And I’m not now. Every time she opens her mouth she causes me to grind my teeth. What I was (and still am), was a defender against the insane, over-the-top attacks against her that came from the usual suspects here. I even warned you all that going so far over the top was just going to cause more people to close ranks around her. And that’s exactly what happened. Ask any conservative about Palin, and you’re likely to hear, “Hey, I don’t want her to be president, but I like her because I hate her enemies.”
Had you limited your arguments to the substance of Palin’s speeches and writings, I would have been right with you. But no, you’ve got to attack her family, dismiss any accomplishment she’s ever had, accuse her of being a book-burning Nazi, and all the rest. You’re her best weapon.
Allow me to correct you, then. You’re mistaken. You’ve got a bad case of confirmation bias. I’d see a doctor about that if I were you. I had NOTHING good to say about Bush’s spending. I criticized his economic policies all the time. I savaged him because of the steel tariffs. I criticized the Harriet Miers nomination. I lambasted all Republicans for the Terry Schiavo mess. I criticized Bush heavily for the prescription drug entitlement. I was opposed to the Republicans on gay marriage, and opposed to Bush’s stance on stem cell research. I could go on with the very long list of things I disliked about Republicans.
But all that skips right past you. But when you see me defending Bush over something, your little “A-HA!” light goes on, and you remember it.
I’d go and dig up a few dozen messages where I attacked Republicans in general or Bush in particular, but A) this board’s search engine sucks, and B) you don’t deserve it. Look it up yourself.
Do you want me to kiss his ring, too? The guy’s an economist (and a good one when he restricts himself to trade policy, for which he won the Nobel Prize), but he’s a partisan liberal hack when he writes op-eds. He’s also mean and snarky to people who attempt to honestly debate him, and he dismisses evidence and papers by equally qualified economists with a hand wave. I think he’s an ass.
But if you want me to defer to his Nobel Prize and never speak disparagingly about him again, I demand the same. From now on, you will refrain from criticizing the following people on MY side who have Nobel Prizes, and you will refer to them as “Dr.”:
Dr. Hayek
Dr. Friedman
Dr. Smith
Dr. Becker
Dr. Lucas
Dr. Coase
Dr. Stigler
Dr. Buchanan
Furthermore, if I write anything based on their works, you will refrain from accusing me of ‘uttering partisan drivel’ if I’m no longer allowed to refer to Dr. Krugman as a liberal.
You mean, you like what I have to say when you agree with it?
I’m not really as partisan as you think I am. Or maybe you’re misusing the term ‘partisan’. I’m an ideologue, in the real sense of the term. I’m driven by ideas. I couldn’t give a rat’s ass who’s actually running the government, or even whether it’s an American, Canadian, or Zimbabwean government, so long as their actions are aligned with what I think is the proper role for government. I had plenty of good things to say about Bill Clinton. I had plenty of bad things to say about both Bushes. I had plenty of good things to say about Obama, when he was doing things I agreed with.
A partisan is someone who takes the party line, regardless of what it is. If you see me attacking Obama for cutting regulations just because he’s a Democrat, feel free at that point to call me a partisan.
And that is why I can say with evidence that you are not too perceptive. The expertise of the vast majority of researchers can not be dismissed just because you want to.
And the problem is that **most **of the sources you are depending on do not have the qualifications nor the experience. They are, to be blunt, a bunch of misleading twits.
Check the references by clicking on “(more info)” for the ugly truth.
You forgot to login as jrodefeld
Jesus Christ you’re fucking stupid. You’re wrong. This is only natural, because you’re a blindly jingoistic idiot. But allow me to explain:
Climate science is hard. It’s not something that a layperson can grasp without tremendous effort. Got it?
The people who do grasp it, that is to say the PhDs who actually work in the field all agree that humans are responsible. Or 97 percent anyway. Got it?
You are suggesting that they are blindly saying that anyone who disagrees with them is ignorant. That isn’t true. The vast majority of actually trained people who work in, and fully grasp the field are in agreement.
You are forcing your view because you’re too much of a kool-aid drinking coward to actually accept reality and facts. You’d rather be wrong, as long as it meant that you can have the self-delusion of being right.
You might be the most pathetic poster on this board. Excepting Clothahump of course. 
No, once again it is quite the reverse.
I tell you what. Find me an example of someone who is an expert on modelling complex climate scenarios. This person must also doubt that global climate change exists.
The scientific community does not operate by excluding those who disagree with it. It just doesn’t. There are plenty of young up and comers who would just LOVE to prove the old fart modellers are wrong. It would make their career. Science says “step up to the plate and show us what you’ve got.”
Or do you really think that science is some exclusive club where only people in complete agreement with a theory are allowed to enter? Trust me, this is really not how things work. Maybe this is the case in your world, but NOT in the world of science.
Actually I think you were pitted because you’re a conspiracy theorist bitch who ran away when called on it.
That you are not an American only partially excuses this.
Hey smart guy, why don’t you actually post the links to some of those threads instead of that glurge which might make people thing you actually had numerous pieces of evidence for your assertion?
That’s exactly it. And thank you for noticing. <sniff> Now you’ve made me all verklempt.
It’s just as well, I could only round up money and guns. I don’t know any lawyers.
Well, there’s Rand Rover, but really, with friends like him…
Hang on… I do NOT want to be an American. The place is far too statist for me.
I’ll bet most Canadians think we’re still the left-wing little brother of the U.S., but it’s no longer true. As of next year, measured as a percentage of GDP the U.S will have a bigger government, higher taxes, more progressive taxes, and more debt than Canada. In addition, it’s going to be less business friendly and have more regulations.
In addition, our entitlement programs are paid for, and within two or three years we are projected to be running budget surpluses again.
And that’s Canada as a whole. Alberta is WAY to the right of that. In fact, we are now the North American leaders in economic freedom. I’m very happy right where I am.