What graph are you reading?

CPS Land with uncertainties: Peaked at 0.05 in 600, but yes a new peak in the lat 1990's at 0.15(not 0.8), recent temp is the internal record by only 0.1.

Mann and Jones 2003: current peak at 0.15(not 0.8), but current is the record by 0.25.

Esper et. Al 2002: peaks once in 990 and again in 1990 at negative 0.05, not positive 0.8 nor is current warming a record.

CPS land+ocn with uncertainties: peaks at 0.2 (not 0.8) and only starts at 1500 not sure how much the record would've been set by if it included the year 600 where land alone hit 0.05.

Briffa et al. : Series begins in 1400, but again peaks at 0.15 (not 0.8). Can't tell from the graph how much of a record but by Briffa et al's original 2001 paper it's by 0.2

Crowly and Lowery (2000): peaks at 0.15(not 0.8), granted it current warming sets the record within the series, by 0.25 higher than 1100.

Jones et al. (1999): peaks at 0.05(not 0.8), current is record by 0.1

Oerlemans (2005) and both borehole sample go back less than 500 years. The boreholes who a smooth curve throughout, with warming starting 500, not 100 years ago. They all peak at 0.2 or lower, again not 0.8.


If I repeat my main point, I think it is reinforced by each of the series above. Instrumental measured warming is completely anomalous compared to the proxy reconstructions. The instrumental record peaks fully 0.6 degrees higher than any of the proxy series. How can anyone look at that and NOT object to the declaration that the last 2k years as shown by proxies proves temperatures have been far cooler and more stable than the last 100 years as shown on the instrumental record. If you instead compare like to like, and compare the last 100 years as projected by each proxy and not the instrumental record, you clearly see that the last 100 years is anything but a radical anomaly.

If you accept Mann's statement that the EIV construction is the most accurate, it can be easily said that the last 100 years, as appears in proxy reconstructions, isn't much of an anomaly at all.


>> ^alcom:

Ah, now I see your point, bcglorf. Of the various methodologies, the 2 instrumental record sets of the last 100 years are the only ones that show the extreme spike of temperature. The composite reconstructions have not yet shown data that is above previously held records in the last 2 millennia, with the exception of the following:
CPS Land with uncertainties
Mann and Jones (2003)
Esperg et al. (2002)
CPS land+ocn with uncertainties
Briffa et al. (2005)
Crowely and Lowery (2000)
Jones et al. (1999)
Oerlemans (2005)
Mann et al. Optimal Borehole (2003)
Huang et al. Borehole (2000)
If you closely follow these lines, you will see that each plot above has indeed set 2000 year-old records in the last 25 years within their own recorded plots, even if not as pronounced as the instrumental record highlighted by the red line. I'm not sure why the EIV lines stop at 1850, but I'm also not a climatologist. The instrumental record has more or less agreed with the EIV record since its existence, including an extending cooling trend midway through this century. The sharp divergence is not fully understood perhaps, but I still think it foolish to ignore the provable, measurable and pronounced upward trend in all calculated measurements.
>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^alcom:
After a cursory reading of Mann's Proxy-based reconstructions of hemispheric and global surface temperature variations over the past two millennia, I can't see how climate change deniers can both read about his methodology AND at the same time gripe about a bias towards measurements that support his argument while ignoring conflicting measurements through other means.
These measurements AGREE. The regression measurement data seems to have a wider variance as you go backwards, but they all trend in the same directions both up and down over the last 2000 years. (I'm looking at the graph here: http://www.pnas.org/content/105/36/13252/F3.expansion.html ) converge and climb at the same incredible rate at the end (the last 25 years or so.) Show me ANY scientific data that reports a measurement of +.8°C over such a short period of time.
As for the polynomial curve objection, the variation in measurements over such a limited data set my not yet reveal the true nature of the curve. And Earth's feedback mechanisms may already be at work to counteract the difference in atmospheric composition. For example, trees will grow faster and more quickly in slightly warmer temperatures with elevated CO2 levels, and naturally counteract the effects of fossil fuel burning by simply converting more of it into O2. There are undoubtedly many, many more factors at play. I'm suggesting perhaps that apparent "straight line" graphing is currently the fastest rate of increase possible based on the feedback systems that are at work.
The point is that it is a losing battle, according to the current trend. At some point, these feedback systems will fail (eg., there will come a point when it is so hot in a region that no type of tree will continue to grow and absorb CO2) and worst still, there are things like the methane in permafrost that will exacerbate the problem further. This isn't like a religious doomsday scenario, the alarm bells are not coming from a loony prophet but from real, measurable evidence that so many people continue to ignore. I'd rather be wrong and relieved that there is no climate crisis and clean energy initiatives end up being a waste of time and money than wrong that there IS in fact cause to make serious changes. The doubt that has driven so much misinformation will at some point be exposed for the stupidity that it truly is.

Look closer at the graph in http://www.pnas.org/content/105/36/13252/F3.expansion.html for me. It is the graph I was talking about. NONE of the reconstructions from proxy sources spike up to 0.8 at the end. The all taper off short of 0.2, the bold red(instrumental) line makes them very hard to see precisely. The closest curve to the red that can be seen is the grey one, which is in fact the other instrumental record they include, and even it stops below 0.6. What is more, the green EIV reconstruction peaks past 0.2 twice over the last 2k years. It also spikes much more quickly around 900 and 1300. Most noteworthy of all is if you read further up in Mann's report, because the big reason for re-releasing this version of his paper is to evaluate the EIV method because statisticians recommended as far more appropriate. Mann notes in his results as well stating that of all the methods, 'we place the greatest confidence in the EIV reconstructions'.
My key point is glaringly obvious when looking at Mann's data, even on the graph. The instrumental record of the last 100 years spikes in an unprecedented fashion. The proxy reconstruction of that same time frame does not. Two different methodologies yielding 2 different results. The speaker in this video points at that and declares it's because of human emissions 100 years ago, but we must look at the fact the methodology changed at that exact point too. The EIV reconstruction was the latest attempt to bridge the gap between the proxy and instrumental records, and although it more closely matches the instrumental, it still doesn't spike 0.8 degrees over the last 100 years, and more interestingly it also shows much greater variation over the last 2k years. Enough variation in fact that if you look at just the green EIV line, the last 100 years isn't particularly note worthy or anomalous.

Ah, now I see your point, bcglorf. Of the various methodologies, the 2 instrumental record sets of the last 100 years are the only ones that show the extreme spike of temperature. The composite reconstructions have not yet shown data that is above previously held records in the last 2 millennia, with the exception of the following:

CPS Land with uncertainties
Mann and Jones (2003)
Esperg et al. (2002)
CPS land+ocn with uncertainties
Briffa et al. (2005)
Crowely and Lowery (2000)
Jones et al. (1999)
Oerlemans (2005)
Mann et al. Optimal Borehole (2003)
Huang et al. Borehole (2000)

If you closely follow these lines, you will see that each plot above has indeed set 2000 year-old records in the last 25 years within their own recorded plots, even if not as pronounced as the instrumental record highlighted by the red line. I'm not sure why the EIV lines stop at 1850, but I'm also not a climatologist. The instrumental record has more or less agreed with the EIV record since its existence, including an extending cooling trend midway through this century. The sharp divergence is not fully understood perhaps, but I still think it foolish to ignore the provable, measurable and pronounced upward trend in all calculated measurements.

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^alcom:
After a cursory reading of Mann's Proxy-based reconstructions of hemispheric and global surface temperature variations over the past two millennia, I can't see how climate change deniers can both read about his methodology AND at the same time gripe about a bias towards measurements that support his argument while ignoring conflicting measurements through other means.
These measurements AGREE. The regression measurement data seems to have a wider variance as you go backwards, but they all trend in the same directions both up and down over the last 2000 years. (I'm looking at the graph here: http://www.pnas.org/content/105/36/13252/F3.expansion.html ) converge and climb at the same incredible rate at the end (the last 25 years or so.) Show me ANY scientific data that reports a measurement of +.8°C over such a short period of time.
As for the polynomial curve objection, the variation in measurements over such a limited data set my not yet reveal the true nature of the curve. And Earth's feedback mechanisms may already be at work to counteract the difference in atmospheric composition. For example, trees will grow faster and more quickly in slightly warmer temperatures with elevated CO2 levels, and naturally counteract the effects of fossil fuel burning by simply converting more of it into O2. There are undoubtedly many, many more factors at play. I'm suggesting perhaps that apparent "straight line" graphing is currently the fastest rate of increase possible based on the feedback systems that are at work.
The point is that it is a losing battle, according to the current trend. At some point, these feedback systems will fail (eg., there will come a point when it is so hot in a region that no type of tree will continue to grow and absorb CO2) and worst still, there are things like the methane in permafrost that will exacerbate the problem further. This isn't like a religious doomsday scenario, the alarm bells are not coming from a loony prophet but from real, measurable evidence that so many people continue to ignore. I'd rather be wrong and relieved that there is no climate crisis and clean energy initiatives end up being a waste of time and money than wrong that there IS in fact cause to make serious changes. The doubt that has driven so much misinformation will at some point be exposed for the stupidity that it truly is.

Look closer at the graph in http://www.pnas.org/content/105/36/13252/F3.expansion.html for me. It is the graph I was talking about. NONE of the reconstructions from proxy sources spike up to 0.8 at the end. The all taper off short of 0.2, the bold red(instrumental) line makes them very hard to see precisely. The closest curve to the red that can be seen is the grey one, which is in fact the other instrumental record they include, and even it stops below 0.6. What is more, the green EIV reconstruction peaks past 0.2 twice over the last 2k years. It also spikes much more quickly around 900 and 1300. Most noteworthy of all is if you read further up in Mann's report, because the big reason for re-releasing this version of his paper is to evaluate the EIV method because statisticians recommended as far more appropriate. Mann notes in his results as well stating that of all the methods, 'we place the greatest confidence in the EIV reconstructions'.
My key point is glaringly obvious when looking at Mann's data, even on the graph. The instrumental record of the last 100 years spikes in an unprecedented fashion. The proxy reconstruction of that same time frame does not. Two different methodologies yielding 2 different results. The speaker in this video points at that and declares it's because of human emissions 100 years ago, but we must look at the fact the methodology changed at that exact point too. The EIV reconstruction was the latest attempt to bridge the gap between the proxy and instrumental records, and although it more closely matches the instrumental, it still doesn't spike 0.8 degrees over the last 100 years, and more interestingly it also shows much greater variation over the last 2k years. Enough variation in fact that if you look at just the green EIV line, the last 100 years isn't particularly note worthy or anomalous.

>> ^alcom:

After a cursory reading of Mann's Proxy-based reconstructions of hemispheric and global surface temperature variations over the past two millennia, I can't see how climate change deniers can both read about his methodology AND at the same time gripe about a bias towards measurements that support his argument while ignoring conflicting measurements through other means.
These measurements AGREE. The regression measurement data seems to have a wider variance as you go backwards, but they all trend in the same directions both up and down over the last 2000 years. (I'm looking at the graph here: http://www.pnas.org/content/105/36/13252/F3.expansion.html ) converge and climb at the same incredible rate at the end (the last 25 years or so.) Show me ANY scientific data that reports a measurement of +.8°C over such a short period of time.
As for the polynomial curve objection, the variation in measurements over such a limited data set my not yet reveal the true nature of the curve. And Earth's feedback mechanisms may already be at work to counteract the difference in atmospheric composition. For example, trees will grow faster and more quickly in slightly warmer temperatures with elevated CO2 levels, and naturally counteract the effects of fossil fuel burning by simply converting more of it into O2. There are undoubtedly many, many more factors at play. I'm suggesting perhaps that apparent "straight line" graphing is currently the fastest rate of increase possible based on the feedback systems that are at work.
The point is that it is a losing battle, according to the current trend. At some point, these feedback systems will fail (eg., there will come a point when it is so hot in a region that no type of tree will continue to grow and absorb CO2) and worst still, there are things like the methane in permafrost that will exacerbate the problem further. This isn't like a religious doomsday scenario, the alarm bells are not coming from a loony prophet but from real, measurable evidence that so many people continue to ignore. I'd rather be wrong and relieved that there is no climate crisis and clean energy initiatives end up being a waste of time and money than wrong that there IS in fact cause to make serious changes. The doubt that has driven so much misinformation will at some point be exposed for the stupidity that it truly is.


Look closer at the graph in http://www.pnas.org/content/105/36/13252/F3.expansion.html for me. It is the graph I was talking about. NONE of the reconstructions from proxy sources spike up to 0.8 at the end. The all taper off short of 0.2, the bold red(instrumental) line makes them very hard to see precisely. The closest curve to the red that can be seen is the grey one, which is in fact the other instrumental record they include, and even it stops below 0.6. What is more, the green EIV reconstruction peaks past 0.2 twice over the last 2k years. It also spikes much more quickly around 900 and 1300. Most noteworthy of all is if you read further up in Mann's report, because the big reason for re-releasing this version of his paper is to evaluate the EIV method because statisticians recommended as far more appropriate. Mann notes in his results as well stating that of all the methods, 'we place the greatest confidence in the EIV reconstructions'.

My key point is glaringly obvious when looking at Mann's data, even on the graph. The instrumental record of the last 100 years spikes in an unprecedented fashion. The proxy reconstruction of that same time frame does not. Two different methodologies yielding 2 different results. The speaker in this video points at that and declares it's because of human emissions 100 years ago, but we must look at the fact the methodology changed at that exact point too. The EIV reconstruction was the latest attempt to bridge the gap between the proxy and instrumental records, and although it more closely matches the instrumental, it still doesn't spike 0.8 degrees over the last 100 years, and more interestingly it also shows much greater variation over the last 2k years. Enough variation in fact that if you look at just the green EIV line, the last 100 years isn't particularly note worthy or anomalous.

I think all you people thinking that all you need to do is prove SB guilty of hypocrisy really have no understanding of the theist mindset.

Anyone who can read the bible cover to cover and not notice the glaring errors, hypocritical passages and complete falsehoods won't care if they are hypocritical, they are willfully ignorant.

>> ^xxovercastxx:

>> ^albrite30:
A group of Adult Cats is called a CLOWDER. A group of Kittens is called a KINDLE.

I'm not sure, but I think a kindle is specifically a litter of kittens. A random group of kittens wouldn't qualify, though this video does seem to contain a kindle.


clowder of cats
clutter of cats
glaring of cats
pounce of cats
dout of cats (house cats)
nuisance of cats (house cats)
kendle of cats (kittens)
kindle of cats (kittens)
litter of cats (kittens)

I believe that a kindle is a different term altogether for a grouping of kittens. Litter is what a related group of kittens is called. However the fact that, usually different litters aren't mixed perhaps a term needs to be invented.
Perhaps we could call it a CLUSTERKINDLE.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWhAeI7sGzI

It's a Clowder.. or a Glaring

"Give Muslims democracy and they'll chill out because democracy is better than any religion."

Hmm. Not necessarily when one objectively considers the glaring inconsistencies in practice over principle with regard to our so-called, democratic government in the United States. If a good-ol-boy, corporate oligarchy to you is democracy, well??
A10anis' point is valid with regard to the comparisons made between the two "religions": Perhaps the Yahweh-followers of the Old Testament times might stone a woman, homosexual, etc. but society has come a long way since the dark-age examples you describe to draw comparisons to the two. The Muslim faith and her peoples in the middle east are a bit less advanced socially, spiritually. "Love thy neighbor as thyself" and "do unto others.." don't seem to factor into the Diaspora's majority, however: there are always, within any faith those who are bit further ahead of the curve.

Individual devotee's of all faiths serve as points of light or darkness which shape the attitudes of outsiders as a whole. Muslims seem to be a bit less up-to-speed with the rest of the world. For the sake of all, do we really want to allow oil-rich assholes decide the direction of the future for the planet? Besides, modern Persians' don't exactly have the best taste nor do they seem to spend their money wisely. I mean, c'mon?? A frikkin' amusement park in the middle of the desert??!

Knowledge through education. Tolerance through understanding.

@shinyblurry But I found the real struggle was to objectively define truth. Any foundational truth, really. What is beauty? What is altruism? What is truth itself? 7 billion subjective perspectives does not equal one objective one.

Well, as you say, our understanding is limited, and we may neveer truly figure it out, but from my pespective, if anything could ever be seen as objectively true, that would have to be science. Compare science to religion, there are thousands of religions, all claiming to see some deeper truth in the universe, but there is just one science. There is no such thing as "Japanese science" or "American Science" or "Middle eastern science" The first law of thermodynamics isnt different in Germany og Guatamala, and if we ever make contact with an alien race on the other side of the universe capable of science, they will have discovered the same law. Theyll also discover that energy is equal to mass times the speed of light squared and so forth. Compare that to religion: As soon as two tribes are separated by a mountain or a lake, their religious "truths" will start to diverge.

Or, maybe we're wrong, maybe, despite being independently confirmed over and over in different parts of the world and even in the farthest stretches of the universe, the laws of physics and logically sound facts derived from science is all wrong, maybe there is some other, unknown objective truth waiting to be discovered. Still one thing seems glaringly obvious: Christianity seems to be as far from an objective truth as one can get. Even Christians can't agree on it. There are something like 30 thousand recognized branches of Christianity, and when taken at the level of an individual, the picture is even worse. Almost every christian seems to have a different idea about whats really true about Christianity.

So, if I had to hedge my bets on how we can find objective truths: Science.

>> ^JiggaJonson:

>> ^shuac:
>> ^JiggaJonson:
Danarys is not supposed to get the unsullied until the third book... -_-
Part of why I've liked the series so far is the fact that they followed the books so closely. I'm gonna be disappointed if they stray from that formula.

Christ, there's only been one season so far. How could you get used to that aspect so quickly? Especially since it isn't true: toward the end of season 1, they dip into book 2 a little bit (Arya and Gendry joining Yoren for their trip to the wall)...so I'm just gonna call a little bullshit on you. Just a tinsy bit, mind you.
Besides...all the books after book 1 do not have enough going on to warrant their own 10 episode arc. Not like book 1 had. So in short: they are absolutely picking & choosing the best story elements of book 2 and 3 for season 2. Live with it. Or don't.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ SPOILER ALERT @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
I trust the show runners to understand that to have, for example, the red wedding in season 2 would be too early. That's probably a season 3 storyline. But as far as Daenerys goes: what does she actually do for all of book 2? Not that much: she travels the desert, goes to Qarth, and walks through that magic room maze thing. Yaaaawn.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ SPOILER ALERT @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
My big concern is getting HBO to see the series through to the end without canceling it. That's the real cliffhanger.

I'm sorry, bullshit on what, exactly? That they didn't stick to the story line of the book in the first season?

The only glaring example of that, I can think of in the first season, is when Caitlyn visits Jamie Lanister at the camp and gets him to admit pushing Brann out of the window. That and I guess the part you mentioned. But, to be fair, Arya's last chapter in Game of Thrones ends with him cutting off her hair and telling her to go with him; the show shows her being called to the cart right after that happened. That insignificant difference is far cry from introducing an entirely new set of characters/plot element from a different book a whole season too soon.
Find me more glaring examples of not closely following the plot and we'll have something to discuss, until then...
throws bullshit back @shuac


They are doing their best to keep each season within the book it's supposed to parallel but the big issue is the the books get bigger. A Clash of Kings is longer than A Game of Thrones by a bit and A Storm of Swords is substantially longer than both of those. *Spoiler Alert* To be able to fit the red wedding into the end of season 3 they are going to need to get started with a bit of book 3 at the end of the 2nd season. These guys have done a fantastic job of adapting season one so I've still got very high hopes for future seasons.

@shuac , here's an article that details all of the differences: http://tv.ign.com/articles/117/1177070p1.html

Several I had forgotten about because it's been a while since. Regardless, these being the only glaring differences, they have thus far stayed pretty faithful to the material.

>> ^shuac:

>> ^JiggaJonson:
Danarys is not supposed to get the unsullied until the third book... -_-
Part of why I've liked the series so far is the fact that they followed the books so closely. I'm gonna be disappointed if they stray from that formula.

Christ, there's only been one season so far. How could you get used to that aspect so quickly? Especially since it isn't true: toward the end of season 1, they dip into book 2 a little bit (Arya and Gendry joining Yoren for their trip to the wall)...so I'm just gonna call a little bullshit on you. Just a tinsy bit, mind you.
Besides...all the books after book 1 do not have enough going on to warrant their own 10 episode arc. Not like book 1 had. So in short: they are absolutely picking & choosing the best story elements of book 2 and 3 for season 2. Live with it. Or don't.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ SPOILER ALERT @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
I trust the show runners to understand that to have, for example, the red wedding in season 2 would be too early. That's probably a season 3 storyline. But as far as Daenerys goes: what does she actually do for all of book 2? Not that much: she travels the desert, goes to Qarth, and walks through that magic room maze thing. Yaaaawn.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ SPOILER ALERT @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
My big concern is getting HBO to see the series through to the end without canceling it. That's the real cliffhanger.

I'm sorry, bullshit on what, exactly? That they didn't stick to the story line of the book in the first season?


The only glaring example of that, I can think of in the first season, is when Caitlyn visits Jamie Lanister at the camp and gets him to admit pushing Brann out of the window. That and I guess the part you mentioned. But, to be fair, Arya's last chapter in Game of Thrones ends with him cutting off her hair and telling her to go with him; the show shows her being called to the cart right after that happened. That insignificant difference is far cry from introducing an entirely new set of characters/plot element from a different book a whole season too soon.

Find me more glaring examples of not closely following the plot and we'll have something to discuss, until then...

*throws bullshit back @shuac*

@NetRunner, you just pulled apart my sentences into pieces that make no sense. That's not how productive conversation works. Go back and (re)read my comment; I think you'll find that it's internally consistent.


Edit:

The part that you pulled out of context, namely this:

"I noticed a number of glaring inaccuracies and biases after the first few sentences, which I made aware to you in my next post. I suggested that the post was amateurish and, at a minimum, certainly not fact-checked. I've been waiting to find more reputable news sources reporting on this issue and as yet have found none."

... was referring to the article you linked to. I'm calling the article inaccurate and biased, not you. Please don't remove my comments from their contexts and misinterpret them—and invite others to do the same.


Second edit:

And, of course, you've removed my original claim of bias in the article from its original context, in which I make clear precisely which points I think are biased and not fact-checked:>> ^aurens:

From your equally informative link: "Ron Paul’s racist politics and affiliations are already well known, being viciously anti-immigrant, anti-abortion and against gay marriage — not to mention having authored the racist 'Ron Paul Papers.'"
Anti-immigrant? Against gay marriage? The author of the "Ron Paul Papers"? I'll leave you to fact-check that stuff. In the meantime, though, you might want to consider reading some more rigorously vetted news sites.
Oh, and those photos appearing as "evidence" of their claims? That's just priceless! Even you must admit it's amateurish.

>> ^aurens:

I was making no judgment of Sam Seder's accusation, nor did I ever call it baseless; >> ^aurens:
When you accuse someone of something as serious as racism, it's best to present, along with your claim, the facts that back up your claim. Sam Seder did not do this.

I didn't make a judgment about Sam Seder's accusation, I only made a judgment about Sam Seder's accusation.

>> ^aurens:
When you accuse someone of something as serious as racism, it's best to present, along with your claim, the facts that back up your claim. Sam Seder did not do this. In reposting his video without any additional information, you did not do this. That, to me, is worthy of criticism; it suggests a certain kind of opportunism which I find unhelpful on lots of levels.
...
I noticed a number of glaring inaccuracies and biases after the first few sentences, which I made aware to you in my next post. I suggested that the post was amateurish and, at a minimum, certainly not fact-checked. I've been waiting to find more reputable news sources reporting on this issue and as yet have found none.

>> ^aurens:

NetRunner, you're doing it again. "Disparage the poster"? "Attacking the messenger"? Suggesting that I called you "dishonest" and "slanderous"? I never accused you of dishonesty, nor did I accuse you of slander, nor have I "attacked" you. And I certainly don't think my comments were disparaging.

Definition of slander: "a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report"

I'm not accusing you of slander, I just think you're presenting a malicious, false, defamatory report.


Definition of disparage: "to bring reproach or discredit upon; lower the estimation of"

I'm not disparaging you, I'm just accusing you of slander, opportunism, and generally being unhelpful.

I'm not personally attacking you, I just was calling you out by name and saying your moral character leaves a lot to be desired.

>> ^NetRunner:

Sure [...]


"So to unpack that, you think Sam Seder is spreading a baseless accusation, and that I deserve to be scolded for repeating it by posting the video. My response was to ask why you were directing your ire at me personally, while giving you the additional details you ostensibly wanted."

Glad you cleared that up (and there's your first—and very telling—misinterpretation).

I was making no judgment of Sam Seder's accusation, nor did I ever call it baseless; I think it remains to be seen whether or not it has merit. I was, however, making a judgment of the *presentation* of his accusation. When you accuse someone of something as serious as racism, it's best to present, along with your claim, the facts that back up your claim. Sam Seder did not do this. In reposting his video without any additional information, you did not do this. That, to me, is worthy of criticism; it suggests a certain kind of opportunism which I find unhelpful on lots of levels.


I responded to the "lack of detail" comment by providing a link which includes the actual e-mail that Anonymous found.

Yes, and I noticed a number of glaring inaccuracies and biases after the first few sentences, which I made aware to you in my next post. I suggested that the post was amateurish and, at a minimum, certainly not fact-checked. I've been waiting to find more reputable news sources reporting on this issue and as yet have found none. One of the reasons, I assume, is that they're looking to confirm some of these accusations, the confirmation of sources being a foundation of trusted journalism.


IMPORTANT: NetRunner, you're doing it again. "Disparage the poster"? "Attacking the messenger"? Suggesting that I called you "dishonest" and "slanderous"? I never accused you of dishonesty, nor did I accuse you of slander, nor have I "attacked" you. And I certainly don't think my comments were disparaging.


It's hard to deal with people saying nasty things about your hero, but this whole strategy of attacking the messenger doesn't change anything.

Who said Ron Paul is my "hero"? I certainly haven't. This from one of my replies to dystopianfuturetoday:

"Ron Paul doesn't have me in some trance-like state of manipulation. I didn't vote for him in the last election, and I don't plan to vote for him this time around. There are *lots* of things about his platform that I outright disagree with, and there are a handful of things that I disagree with so fundamentally (his positions on abortion, climate change, evolution, his religiosity, among others) that I often question why I even bother keeping up with his politics. (The reason: because there are lots of his positions that I *do* agree with, in particular positions that no one else seems even to address.) But this whole racism thing really just peeves me. I mean, for magical Christ's sake, if he's a racist, and if he's in cahoots with white supremacists and Neo-Nazis, then I, more than anyone else, want to read some credible, vetted news stories on the matter, so I can put the issue to bed once and for all. But instead, I keep seeing videos like this one which purport, rather dramatically, so "expose" him in all his shameful glory ... only to be disappointed by the content of the video."

Hardly sounds like hero-worship to me.


Have you read the e-mail yet? Do you have an opinion on the evidence Anonymous uncovered?

I read some of them. In short, I'm skeptical when I see attribution tags like "Here Are Some Emails From Kelso Regarding Racists Working For Ron Paul’s Campaign" and "Here Is An Email From Someone In Ron Paul’s Campaign To Kelso." Who are these supposed campaign workers? How are they connected to Ron Paul? Are they low-level campaigners who work independently of him? Are they his trusted advisors? All of these things matter in the interpretation of this situation. As of now, I've seen no articles that provide enough context to the e-mails, or enough detail about the senders and recipients of the e-mails, to make a judgment one way or the other.

Mine are mostly in Oklahoma -- Kansas is just.... right.... there.

It is weird, isn't it, the disconnect between being "pro-life" and then being so all-fired quick to kill grown people? Maybe that is the crux of their problem -- clearly unreflective on even the most glaring inconsistencies in their thinking. Understand how they can be so blind to their obvious hypocrisy and you will understand their ability to be "evil."

Sorry. I don't believe in evil. Even Hitler had his demons from his childhood that he externalized rather than deal with.

In reply to this comment by Stormsinger:
In reply to this comment by bareboards2:
Do you know any conservatives personally? I am related to lot of folks like this. For the most part, they are fearful, boxed in people who look at the world with blinkers on. In my experience.

Not evil. Scared. And angry. And possessive about "their" stuff -- out of fear.

Conservatives talk about "me and mine." Liberals talk about "us and ours." In my experience.



In reply to this comment by Stormsinger:
Delusional, or sociopathic liar? I really have a hard time deciding.

It's hard to believe he could be this delusional and still be articulate... But it's almost as hard to believe anyone could be this evil intentionally.


I do know a few, if for no other reason than my sister lives in the Kansas boondocks, and they're incredibly common out there. And I'm constantly amazed by many of them. What they claim to believe and what they do is so completely out of sync that it's mind-boggling. Especially among the "social conservatives", i.e. the Christians. "Love thy neighbor", unless it's going to cost me a penny more. And "abortion is murder", but "we should just wipe out all the towelheads." I've seen both of those attitudes more times than I can count.

I still say Cantor is evil...holding millions ransom for the benefit of a few is flat-out evil (a word I've only recently come to accept as something that actually exists in the real world). The only possible defense that I can see is "not guilty by reason of insanity", such that he doesn't even see reality.