It's completely fair to point out when someone tries to claim A is not equal to A', where A' is just a different wording of the same thing. I didn't say anything about whether the warming has actually stopped or slowed, only pointed out that he was trying to claim a distinction without a difference.

I'm sorry, nothing you said was actually responsive to my point. The models didn't make any claims about ocean temperatures increasing. They specifically predicted surface temperatures continuing to increase. They were wrong in a single unified direction. Ocean warming is an attempt to explain why they were wrong in a single direction, but that doesn't make the models actually right. It's not just that they were wrong, but the consistency in the nature of their error. Since those predictions are the basis of the fears of catastrophic warming, their fears were based on an error. I stand by "overstated" but I would be willing to walk back "vastly" if ocean warming holds up as an explanation.

"Even the much-hyped hiatus is a hiatus in growth of the anomaly, not a cessation of warming." Read that again and think about what the words actually mean.
warming: increase in temperature
anomaly: difference in average temperature from a defined period (that's how the word is generally used in climate science)

A hiatus in growth of the anomaly really does mean a cessation of warming. It make pick up again later.

What does seem to be news to everyone that isn't a skeptic is that the models are almost all wrong in one direction: more warming. The alarmists in general still refuse to accept that the fears of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming are vastly overstated.

Well, the 97% consensus paper cited above only got to that number after throwing out non-climatologists, taking them for over 3000 respondents to under 80. The linked press release mentioned the values for a particular subset of the scientiests whose responses were removed, but didn't give us info on phsysicists or mathematicians. I think it's highly likely that some of those in the removed set were skeptical, and basing their skepticisim within their specialty as applied within climate science. Not to mention the very broad wording of the questions, such that skeptics about the scope of the affect of humans on the warming would be included in the consensus.

For a specific case, my first thought was McKintyre vs Mann, but they are both mathematicians by training.

I wasn't trying to solve disputes in advance in any way, merely noting a flaw in the appeal to authority used by the comment I was responding to.

If a climatologist and a mathematician disagree on the math used in a climate paper, who is the expert?

It didn't qualify as abduction because it not against her will, she went along with it. She wasn't forced to do drugs, because among other things she didn't actually do them. She was pressured to do so, but that's a rather large difference from actually being forced to do drugs like you originally claimed. Huffington post called it "tried to force" which I can't fault them for as it's apparently what the source said, but it still doesn't match your initial claims.

The truth is rather less scary than the huffingtonpost or your initial comment make it seem. Among other things, she went along voluntarily, no force involved, and considered something similar to hazing. She was not forced to do drugs, and wasn't abducted against her will.

Within a city, I would guess that the correlation between poverty and race is a factor. No stats on this, but I would expect areas with poorer residents to have fewer funds to pay for voting booth. There are a lot of possible confounding variables though.

I despise early voting, but targeted elimination of the practice is at least suspicious. Frankly, I'm surprised they ever offered it on any weekend, since government usually doesn't operate on those days.

As far as reasons for density affecting voting times, I don't know. I would hazard a guess about having less space to work with in the first place. I don't know that there really is such an association, I really just wanted to note that your response wasn't relevant to what gtall had suggested. It's probably worth looking into.

"Correlated with" does NOT mean "caused by". Going by purely academic achievement, while race blind, would have a disparate affect because different races perform differently at lower levels of education as well. That's not the responsibility of higher education to fix.

That link does not disagree with gtall's basic point. Assuming for the sake of arguments that longer voting times are caused by a higher population density and that blacks are disproportionately concentrated in high density areas, the racial disparity in voting times is likely a side affect of population density rather evidence of racism. The numbers at the end of your link even show the disparity base on number of voters.

You can't use a nationwide average to dispute an argument based on clustering. Simpson's paradox is a bitch. Anyone who doesn't understand it in principle if not by name is incompetent to make arguments using statistics. That seems to be a strong majority of the people actually making such arguments, but I stand by the assertion.

Not putting your stamp of approval on a couple is a non-action. Non-actions remain non-actions no matter how much some people want certain actions to occur to their benefit, and non-actions have no impact on anyone (their status before and after is identical). Government marriage rules are an explicit stamp of societal approval on whatever arrangements are included. As such, they are a matter of equal privileges not equal rights. The 14th amendment is still relevant in any case, it's only the rhetoric that many gay marriage supporters use that I object to, such as your comment here.

I'd rather the government get out of the marriage business altogether. Since I can't have that, I'll support gay marriage.

It allows other private entities to provide whatever information they see fit, because they are also protected by it.

Maybe sugar has healing properties? It actually seems a little plausible to me that adding some simple sugars to your digestive system might help your gut out.

The Harvard study they relied on? It's crap. Note that even your link only claimed 57%. I would dispute whether that qualifies as a VAST majority.

The self reported figure from the study came in at 29%, which is probably a better number. The 62%, and even the 57% in your link rely on a very broad definition of medical bankruptcy. Some with $500,000 in other debt and $5,001 in medical debt shouldn't really count as a medical bankruptcy.