Come for the politics, stay for the snark.
by John Cole| 32 Comments
This post is in: General Stupidity
1.) The term ‘Deaniac.’ It was tedious and stupid when it was McCainiacs in 2000, and that had the benfit of being somewhat original. Stop using the term, please.
2.) The fact that Al Gore gave a speech on Global Warming on a very cold day. The speech was demagogic and stupid- but what does that have to do with seasonal cold weather?
3.) People cheering the arrival at court of an accused child molester.
Comments are closed.
Pissing John Cole Off
John Cole has three things that piss him off…
Pissing John Cole Off
John Cole has three things that piss him off. I agree, especially on that Michael Jackson fiasco today in California. I mean, there were people actually cheering a man who is accused of committing one of the worst crimes imaginable…
mark
Deanie-babies is worse…
RBA
How bout calling the Dean supporters FedaDean, or the Dean Fedayeen? It has a nice ring, and Dean supporters agree with the Fedayeen that Saddam is no danger to anyone and should still be in power.
Dave
Deanatics?
Whether the “atics” part of the portmanteau is from “fanatic” or “lunatic” is left for the reader to decide.
Norbizness
And those fucking stupid Dodge Durango commercials. Death to yuppies!
Emperor Misha I
Mujahi-Dean works for me.
Or trust-funded, spoiled, inane, ignorant wastes of sperm.
russ
Deaniacs is a good a name to for those morons as they should get…
Climb off your high horse blogger bitch and loosen up a bit…
punctilious
What about deanie babies?
(I first saw it on One Fine Jay, but it appears to have come from a CBS story.)
Ed Nutter
Hugh Hewitt calls ’em Dean Dongs.
Armigerous
Personally I prefer ‘Deanyboppers’ indicating the political naivete and immaturity of all concerned
mal-3
“Mujahi-Dean”
F*cking brilliant.
Xrlq
My vote is for “Dean Weenies.”
Ksec
So global warming is a myth and all those world class scientists are just outright lying because they like to make up lies and feed them to the world? Talk about yer tinfoil helmets. This is exactly why the country is starting to realize what a conservative is. Shallow and narrow minded.
Tatterdemalian
No, they’re outright lying because they want to get a lot of money and because they want to impose their religious beliefs on the world. Can I prove that they’re outright lying? Sure, just by pointing out that they consider trend prediction a legitimate science, let alone a cause for alarm. Real scientists know perfectly well that all attempts to model the future are nothing but junk science, trying to imitate legitimate statistical sciences.
CGHill
Here on the Lone Prairie, where weather is something of vital importance, the forecasters are leery about committing themselves to something two or three days in advance – things change that quickly, and the models tend to fail rather often.
So if someone tells me that there’s a working computer model that can project these things over two or three decades – he’s trying to blow smoke up someone’s keister.
The Lonewacko Blog
I’ve got 17 fun facts about Howard Dean here. Can you guess which one(s) are real, and which I made up?
Ksec
No, they’re outright lying because they want to get a lot of money and because they want to impose their religious beliefs on the world.
**
Oh. OK. I thought it was because they actually believed what they studied. Silly me. I should have known it was about money and religion….
JorgXMcKie
If they really believed what they studied, they’d be a bit less outraged by criticism, which, last time I checked, was regarded as necessary, nay, essential, to actually doing, like, science. Anyone who actually reads the reports and the science finds both strong disagreement among scientists and incredibly lousy models that don’t predict either the known past or the current present, yet are expected to guide policy for the next hundred years.
Tatterdemalian
When scientists think that their beliefs justify the use of junk science, all kinds of horrible things happen.
Trump
Global warming is JUNK SCIENCE. Scientists aren’t lying per se, but they’re letting their idealogy get in the way of the science. They have a lot invested in being “right” as opposed to doing the work to get the right answer. Models that are made innacurately and function poorly are taken as gospel fact. Dissent among the prevailing consensus view is discredited and made fun of- without actually trying to disprove it scientifically. The biggest proponents of global warming are funded by lobbyist groups that have a lot invested in making sure global warming stays a hot button issue.
There IS no science here. I demand you find the evidence and show where the scientific method has proven global warming. Until you can do so, you are a cretin
Trump
So global warming is a myth and all those world class scientists are just outright lying because they like to make up lies and feed them to the world? ]
Hey Ksec you cretin, substitute “nuclear winter” for global warming….remember when this theory was all the rage? And what happened? Poof! No longer a big danger. Or howabout when the earth-firsters were worried not about global warming- but the coming ice age?
You’re an idiot
Andrew J. Lazarus
Like what, SABREmetrics on baseball? Macroeconomics? Predictive power in “statistical sciences”? I’m looking for a smiley.
Are studies of antibiotic resistance invalid because they model the future?
Without even knowing much about global warming (except to wonder if you have equal interest in the possible mercenarism of the deniers), I can see the general point is bogus.
Kong
As I understand it, we only have slightly over a century of information regarding temperatures. How can scientists extrapolate long-term temperature patterns from such a small amount of data? I mean, how the hell can they know what is really causing temperature increases? As I understand it, the sun probably has more to do with the temperature increasing than anything we are doing. (In fact, as I understand it, so-called greenhouse gasses are actually decreasing, yet the temperatures are still rising.
Global warming may be occuring, but I do not believe it has been shown that it is being brought about by our activities. I think it is incredibly arrogant of people to think we have that much of an effect upon the environment just going about our daily lives.
JKC
And since testing that theory would have required a nuclear war, we can conclude decisively that the only moron posting in this thread is “Trump.”
Tatterdemalian
And here comes Andy, happily proving my point better than he could ever understand.
Here, I’ll pass you an answer sheet:
Sabermetrics: Junk
Macroeconomics: Legit, though the field attracts more than its fair share of junk scientists
Future models for statistical sciences: Depends on what is being modeled, and how.
Antibody modelling: Legit
Honestly, if you can’t tell the difference between “if we do X enough times, then Y is a probable average result” and “if we don’t do X, then Y is certain to happen,” you need to take a remedial course in not only statistics, but scientific methodology as well.
Andrew J. Lazarus
Now explain slowly why studies of antibiotic resistance are OBVIOUSLY so much better than studies of global warming? The time frame to test the results? The smaller number of conflated and uncontrolled variables? MAYBE the fact the results have little impact on your lifestyle and political beliefs??
[footnote 1: Actually, antibiotic resistance does have political implications. I think it does a nasty number on vulgar libertarianism, since YOUR overuse of antibiotics imperils MY life.]
[footnote 2: Insurance companies are getting rather interested in global warming as their flood losses exceed previous actuarial expectations. Maybe capitalism can help solve as well as create the problem!]
[footnote 3: I lack the scientific expertise to make a really thorough study of global warming.]
Slartibartfast
Andrew, I think it has something to do with that the hypothesis has been tested many, many times in the case of immunity prediction, whereas it has been tested exactly zero times in the case of global warming. Just a hunch.
Eric Sivula
Mr. Lazarus, the reason I personally find ‘global warming’ to be junk science is that looked for information that agreed with their hypotheses, and then stopped looking. Or worse, they made assumptions, without any evidence to back them up.
http://oregonmag.com/GlobWarArtJump.htm
That link is to an article about how temperatures were higher in the 9th and 14th Centuries than they are now. The study was done using two of the most studied ‘temperature proxies’, tree rings and ice depth, from ice core samples.
If there was the same level of industrialization back then as today, they sure did waste the proceeds. Not to mention did a good job of hiding any archeological evidence of its existance. So, odds are, that the ‘global warming’ of that period was due to natural emissions of ‘greenhouse gases’.
The ‘global warming’ cultists decided that since humans were emitting CO2, and other gases, into the air, and those gases raise the temperature, that the temperature must be higher than it ever was before. It ‘MAY’ be artificially high, but not so high as to exceed the naturally occuring temperature range of the Earth’s surface. Not to mention that the most important ‘greenhouse gas’ – H20 – mostly comes from the oceans, over which Human control is almost non-existant.
And that theory assumes that the temperature is rising from the atmosphere retaining extra heat.
Mr. Lazarus, I am no more an expert on the Earth’s atmosphere than you, however I would suggest Mr. den Beste’s site. (http://denbeste.nu/cgi-bin/perlfect/search/search.pl?p=1&lang=en&mode=all&q=Global+Warming). That link is to a search page of denbeste.nu for articles concerning Global warming. If you are of an open mind, you should find it interesting.
HTH
Steve
What makes it amusing is when the Wamers use short term weather patterns to “highlight” the problem with global warming. Gore has done it in the past, now he has been hoisted on his own petard.
Pam
3.) People cheering the arrival at court of an accused child molester.
I didn’t think people could still surprise me…boy was I wrong
ali
In response to Mr. Lazarus, re: antibiotic resistance.
What’s vital to understand about studies dealing with pathogens developing resistance is that bacteria grow exponentially. They’re the best model for evolution because we can actually SEE natural selection- we can watch many generations passing in a single day. This is why it’s possible to model for the future… because we can culture SO MANY of them, because we can have fifty redundant plates if we want to with the same species responding to the same antibiotic, so we can find the average rate of resistance development.
Not so with global warming. We only have one planet and thus one experimental system that we cannot even experiment on, we can neither control nor identify the myriad variables that go into shaping our climate, we cannot quantify each variable’s contribution to the temperature shift since we cannot be at every single person’s home at any given time to determine if they are using aerosol cans… We cannot perform a real study, only observe and make guesses. Estimates, if we like that word better, which as scientists I’m sure we do. But when every variable’s value in your model is an estimate, you’re dealing with a huge margin of error, and I’d bet that the error in the global warming forecasting model makes it pretty useless.
This isn’t science, it’s guesses. Doomsday predictions with only a hundred years of observation (how long have humans walked the earth now? ten-, thirty-thousand years?) and a whole lot of conjecture to back them up, and credibility based on the political fashion of the time. Research shouldn’t be done this way.