Yes. And clearly some people are more equal than others.
Strangely enough some of the peasants even support this as if the last 500 years of Anglo-American history didn't exist.
For most people, history begins about when they started first grade. Everything before that is myth and legend.
What I don't get is that the US was founded upon the principles of everyone being equal and entitled to some kind of due process... Except when it comes to private business, when suddenly that whole idea goes out the window according to certain political philosophies. Ironically the same political philosophies often espouse ideals about freedom from oppression and decry dictators petty, tinpot, or otherwise. I've never been able to figure out how they reconcile such a disconnect where oppression from governments is the single greatest evil, but the same kind of oppression from private business is not only perfectly acceptable, it's a desirable outcome.
Because private businesses can't impose the same sort of oppression that a government can. They have to follow laws and they can't shield their employees from criminal actions. And you can always leave an abusive employer. It's much harder to leave an abusive government, especially, if it has imprisoned you. This stuff is not in the same league. It mystifies me how people can equate the huge power of governments with the far weaker power of businesses.
Dude, you are so 19th century.
" and a massive increase in tropical hurricanes."
They have been saying this for YEARS now, and there hasn't been a major hurricane in how many years?
It is predictions and statements like this that have people like me scratching our heads. None of the predictions of doom have happened. Polar Bears are not drowning either. When people are caught lying, repeatedly, people stop believing them. This is what happens when people stop reading fairy tales and start creating them using "Science" as a backdrop.
How do you know polar bears aren't drowning? Who says " and a massive increase in tropical hurricanes."? "Storm frequency decreases in the Southern Hemisphere and north Indian Ocean, increases in the western North Pacific, and is indeterminate elsewhere." http://journals.ametsoc.org/do... for instance.
Ahh yes, we've just established that the oceans have been warmer than we expected. And just around the same time we've had a recent minimum of severe hurricanes. Climate change or not, you cannot predict severe weather patterns. Anti-deniers like to attribute every negative event to climate change and none of the positive events. Maybe a warmer planet will have less severe weather if the air temperature is closer to the water temperature as it is the differential that causes severe weather.
You can't put energy into the system and expect it to quiet down. Haven't you actually watched a pot of water on a stove? When you turn up the heat, the water starts to really swirl around. The atmosphere is similar. Individual locations and/or times might benefit, but storms are a function of atmospheric energy, and more energy is going to mean more or more violent storms, or both.
(just one example) I wonder if Southern Baptist - of the Fire Brimstone leaning - are seen as "trustworthy" more/less than scientists. I'd wager they are, and I'd double down that it has little to do with how "warm/fuzzy" they come off as.
I'd wager this has much less to do with scientists coming off as "warm/fuzzy" and more to do with most people’s innate distrust of those that deliver either information they don't agree with (or more specifically that doesn't agree with their preconceived notions) or information that makes them feel stupid - when the majority hears about something they are too ignorant to understand, they don't like/trust the person with that idea - but that's just human nature.
While "scientists" do have their problems (journals / peer review circle-jerks / et al) I fear the only way they'll come across as "warm/fuzzy" would be if they "dumb it down" even more and that's not a direction we should be going, as we're already down to -11.
Nope. Either you decide what you believe and who you believe and nothing changes that, or you spend time and energy looking over all the data and evidence and don't care who says it. Of course, most people are something of a mix, but either way, it's not going to hinge on whether scientists are warm/fuzzy.
Maybe scientists would be friendlier......the "climategate" scandal has demonstrated very clearly that if a scientist dares try to engage the public to any meaningful extent, then they'd be inundated with either trolls, or assholes
'Climategate' involved people being happy at the death of scientists they disagreed with. I don't think you understand the meaning of 'friendlier.' Climategate was basically a bunch of assholes being revealed as assholes.
Right; one guy says in a private email "In an odd way this is cheering news." re the death of a skeptic, and that is proof that scientists who believe in AGW are all assholes, which proves that AGW is a hoax. This is what we're talking about re lack of cognitive skills in the rightwing.
Science is about reproducible results. Publish the details of your experiment, so I can perform your experiment (and variations on it) myself. Your claim is strengthened if I get the same results you do.
Isn't that what they do? That's why I trust them, even when I can't do the experiment myself. At least I can read about what they did and what their logic was and see if I agree. Which is why I do believe in AGW and don't believe in all the denialist "science". "It's cosmic rays, look, I have a pretty bad correlation based on 3 points" etc.
You must have missed the whole Climategate thing.
Ah, an example of what I was just saying one post up; when the rightwing makes an error or gets caught in a lie, never admit it, just keep pushing it harder and harder. Thanks!
Living on Earth may be expensive, but it includes an annual free trip around the Sun.
