Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[Mike]

And that's the rub. The GOP race, in particular, illustrates the polarization taking place. Given that Hillary is the presumptive candidate for the Dems (and few people are bigger insiders) I'm not sure the same can be said for that side.

[Da Geezer]

Trump v Hillary is my nightmare scenario. This is 1933 all over again. People are so upset that they might elect Trump, and we do not know what he thinks this week. That is what Germany did with Hitler.

Hillary is the Dem nominee. And to say that because Sanders is getting 20% in the polls as an "outsider" doesn't make true. He has no intent of running against Hillary, and he proved it in the debates conducted by the media/government complex.

Mike: If what you say is about Trump/Carson, then I agree. But the newest Manchester Leader poll has Carson in 5th with 9%. Wonderful person, great story, but can't get foreign affairs and suddenly that has become important. Trump deserves real praise for making immigration a major issue. Americans are logical. SEAL THE BORDER, deport any undocumented felon and see where the country is. If that actually gets done, ordinary folks won't want to deport neighbors and friends. My county, Oceana, is about 35-40% Mexican/Salvadoran. I basically know who is legal and illegal. I don't want them deported. The Reps want cheap labor, the Dems want the votes, and to hell with current, mostly poor citizens.

But along with this we have to acknowledge that we have to change our immigration laws to go to a merit based system, letting in the highly educated and most productive people we can.

hack: I heard today, on Fox, that Muslim and Islamic are different, and I have been using them as synonyms. The speaker was a Dem who was trying to make sense of Hillary's speech at the Council of Foreign Relations, which was 180 degrees from what she said in the "debate"

[Hannibal]

Cowardice is a bigger factor in the Republicans' acceptance of illegal immigration than cheap labor. They think that opposing it will make them look like "racists", "extremists", or "Nazis", the battle is pretty much lost, and they might as well position themselves on the pro-illegal immigrant side of the aisle to not disqualify themselves from future elections.

[Da Geezer]

But, in the end, scholarship is a peer-review process.

Yup, by folks who are paid by the government, and who are threatened with losing their income if they do not go along with the politically correct view. The same folks that were hired into universities, given tenure, and now allow no "peer" discussion of even the most innocuous issues. Peer review has no merit if the peer is also on the take. And anyone that cannot duplicate the "hockey stick" for instance, is clearly a source of misinformation paid by some nefarious corporation. This debate is far past science, it is religion, and it is the socialist quest for income equality among all God's children, by telling people how to live their lives.

Of course, everyone believes in "climate change". I am a skeptic about global warming, and I wonder why the left changed the name of what they are fighting. See above. The climate will change in the next 10 years, or 20, or 84 years. So I agree with climate change. That is a red herring that the left has introduced relatively recently. Hack, do you think we are justified in spending $ 1 Trillion yearly to address global warming? Do you believe China and India will keep their commitments? You liked my argument for not allowing deductions for 501(c)(3)s because it gives the government power over the charities. Can't you see that the government has, and is exercising, power over these scientists. Do you really believe I am a criminal conspirator because I want to wait and watch more? Do you believe the earth has warmed over the last 12 years?


These are the first two entries when I googled maunder minimum. This is how global warming should be treated. FYI, # 3 was pro, and #4 was con.

http://astronomynow.com/2015/07/17/diminishing-solar-activity-may-bring-new-ice-age-by-2030/

http://phys.org/news/2015-07-mini-ice-age-hoopla-giant.html

[entropy]

Cowardice is a bigger factor in the Republicans' acceptance of illegal immigration than cheap labor. They think that opposing it will make them look like "racists", "extremists", or "Nazis", the battle is pretty much lost, and they might as well position themselves on the pro-illegal immigrant side of the aisle to not disqualify themselves from future elections.

But isn't that a problem with a democracy.... Elections have more to do with emotional appearance than actually solving problems.

Bush was elected because of the Latino voters. They won't win again without them. Illegal immigration won't change. And it should... Those getting in legally should be just as upset, but that has yet to happen too


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Hannibal]

But isn't that a problem with a democracy.... Elections have more to do with emotional appearance than actually solving problems.

Bush was elected because of the Latino voters. They won't win again without them. Illegal immigration won't change. And it should... Those getting in legally should be just as upset, but that has yet to happen too


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Latino voters still overwhelmingly voted Democrat. Republicans aren't getting a higher percentage of the Latino vote than they were 30 years ago. It may be lower, actually. They have bent over backwards not to offend Latinos and it hasn't worked at all.

[hack]

And anyone that cannot duplicate the "hockey stick" for instance, is clearly a source of misinformation paid by some nefarious corporation.

Well we know for a fact that some corporations have indeed purposefully spread misinformation. You say that with a fair degree of sarcasm, it looks like, but some of those who failed have been proved to be in the pockets of those who want to obscure reality.

In contrast we do not know for a fact that tenured profs (people who, by dint of that tenure are less likely to feel the need to toe a line) are as unprincipled as you suggest. So the interference you fear has already arrived, but not from the source you in particular expected it from. It's also relevant to note that climate research doesn't happen in just one country and so there isn't just one government line to toe. The effort has been international.

Again, very selective with when and how you choose to be skeptical of things.

[hack]

And that's the rub. The GOP race, in particular, illustrates the polarization taking place. Given that Hillary is the presumptive candidate for the Dems (and few people are bigger insiders) I'm not sure the same can be said for that side.

We'll see how Sanders does as things carry on. He's cooled off a little, as has the talk of Biden, who, as a confirmed human being, offers a different look than Hillary. I think on the left there is a genuine desire to field a candidate who believes in something, as opposed to Hillary, who doesn't appear to.

[Hannibal]

Whatever has happened in the past, the major corporations of the world today have gone full-on Stockholm Syndrome with regards to CO2 and global warming. They are a bunch of battered wives cowering in a corner saying "please, don't hurt me".

[entropy]

Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

Latino voters still overwhelmingly voted Democrat. Republicans aren't getting a higher percentage of the Latino vote than they were 30 years ago. It may be lower, actually. They have bent over backwards not to offend Latinos and it hasn't worked at all.

Bush got a larger share than past or present republicans.... That was the difference in the elections. At least that is what msnbc said months ago when talking about the pubs relationship with Latinos. The data backed it up


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[hack]

Whatever has happened in the past, the major corporations of the world today have gone full-on Stockholm Syndrome with regards to CO2 and global warming. They are a bunch of battered wives cowering in a corner saying "please, don't hurt me".

Agreed. That's a good indicator, IMO.

[Hannibal]

Not really. It is just a cowardly, naive, and short-sighted appeasement strategy that is designed to avoid conflict at the expense of long term prosperity.

[iam416]

I think it's always a good idea to consider the source of the information. Certain elements have obvious self-interest, but I think it's rather foolish to pretend that academics aren't similarly situated. Their interest is always in finding a "problem" because that means more funding. I could list of 100 studies that are facially fucking stupid and/or confirms total commonsense.

The existence of climatology as a discipline depends entirely on the existence of global warming and, to a lesser extent, catastrophic global warming. I'm not sure how there isn't significant self-interest there. And that comes into play when you start digging into the models or how often temperature "data" is changed or how often models are "adjusted". The issue, at least for me, isn't whether we're dealing with climate change to some degree -- the question is the degree. And, to date, the academics have been waaaaay wrong. International effort and all.

I do want to say that whatever your political leaning, I'd hope most sane Americans would agree that RICO charges based on your global warming viewpoint and the subpoenas from the NY AG are fucking ridiculous.

[hack]

Self-interest, too, could be a matter of degree. Tenured faculty aren't going to be out of a job regardless of what the numbers say, and their take-home pay isn't going to be impacted either. Others have a lot more riding on the outcome. I think it's a pretty big stretch to equate personal biases and how they might spill over into research outcomes with full-on fakery. You'd have to assume a low level of ethics across the board. That kind of end-justified-the-means behavior isn't even that consistent on Wall Street, where every incentive exists to be that way.

[iam416]

Of course. I'd argue that the there has been an explosion in the particular area of climatology such that a lot of folks would, in fact, be out of jobs if they they concluded that global warming was unlikely to produce in significant adverse results.