Easily Refuting the Argument That Global Warming is BS Because Scientists Previously Said There Would be Global Cooling

...many of those scientists are still alive, and they were absolutely convinced. I mean, if Al Gore had been able to in the 1970s, we would have been building huge furnaces to warm the planet against this inevitable coming Ice Age ~ Newt Gingrich (dob 6/17/1943) Republican representative from Georgia's 6th district (1979 to 1999) and the 58th Speaker of the House (1995 until resignation); A quote from 5/27/11, while Gingrich was "running for president" and claiming he was absolutely going to be the nominee.

Those stupid climatologists don't have a clue when it comes to predicting what may be in store for the future, climate-wise. First they said the planet was cooling and now they say it's heating up. What are they going to be saying next? Clearly this is undeniable proof that the majority of the world's scientists are nothing but a bunch of bumbling idiots, right?

Blogger Willis Hart believes so, and ridiculed the lamebrain researchers in an articulate and brilliant polemic that makes the case that they are wrong now because they were wrong then. Willis Hart, being a strong global warming skeptic, looks at the science critically, instead of believing what those lying scientists say as if it were gospel. This is because Willis is smarter than the average blogger. Fact is, he's a modern day Galileo, as evidenced by the following excerpt from his blog...

Willis Hart: ...magazine articles from the 1970s warning us about the dangers of global cooling and the coming of yet another ice age. And, yes, folks, some of the authors even seemed to think that the science was settled on it. ... None of this bullshit about a positive feedback loop or amplification. Nope, the planet is going to cool DRAMATICALLY and there ain't a blessed thing that increases in CO2 can do about it, period/end of discussion. I mean, is this unbelievable or what? (4/22/2013 AT 10:59pm).

So, I guess the Hartster has finally refuted this global climate change bunk once and for all, right? Actually, no, not quite. Upon entering "Global Cooling" into the Wikipedia search engine, I was presented with the following...

Global cooling was a conjecture during the 1970s of imminent cooling of the Earth's surface and atmosphere along with a posited commencement of glaciation. This hypothesis had little support in the scientific community, but gained temporary popular attention due to a combination of a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s and press reports that did not accurately reflect the scientific understanding of ice age cycles. In contrast to the global cooling conjecture, the current scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth has not durably cooled, but undergone global warming throughout the 20th century.

The global cooling theory had LITTLE SUPPORT. That is in contrast to the current scientific consensus that says the planet is getting hotter (overall). The global cooling theory entered national consciousness via a 6/24/1974 Time magazine article titled "Another Ice Age?", but the theory didn't last that long, as this (additional) excerpt from the Wikipedia page on "global cooling" notes...

...scientific knowledge regarding climate change was more uncertain than it is today. At the time that Rasool and Schneider wrote their 1971 paper, climatologists had not yet recognized the significance of greenhouse gases other than water vapor and carbon dioxide, such as methane, nitrous oxide, and hlorofluorocarbons. Early in that decade, carbon dioxide was the only widely studied human-influenced greenhouse gas. The attention drawn to atmospheric gases in the 1970s stimulated many discoveries in future decades. As the temperature pattern changed, global cooling was of waning interest by 1979.

30 years of additional research have resulted in a scientific consensus forming around the present theory of global climate change (a theory that says overall temperatures are increasing). So, what Willis is saying is that because the scientific community some researchers got it wrong in the 70s, none of them can ever be trusted again? Yes, he is drawing that brain-dead of a conclusion.

According to Willis the scientific consensus among today's climatologists - a consensus reached after decades of additional research - it's all bullshit. And, that it's all bullshit is a conclusion Willis and the prior Republican nominee for president failed presidential candidate (and punchline) Newt Gingrich can agree on. Seriously, is Willis' denialism on this subject unbelievable or what?

Video: Remember when doctors recommended smoking? Using Willis' logic we can not trust doctors who now say smoking causes cancer!

SWTD #137, wDel #18.

Severe Conservative Delusions: Democratic Socialism Dissembling Edition

Some... intentionally blur the differences between socialism and communism, between democracy and totalitarianism. ... If we could get beyond such nonsense, I think this country could use a good debate about what goes on here compared to places with a long social-democratic tradition like Sweden, Norway and Finland, where, by and large, the middle class has a far higher standard of living than we do ~ Bernie Sanders (dob 9/8/1941) Democratic Socialist and junior United States Senator from Vermont, as quoted from his 4/22/2009 HuffPo article, Socialist Successes.

Welcome to the third post in a planned series chronicling the insane in the membrane rantings emanating from the pie hole of the most severely deluded conservative I have ever encountered; a wacko with the blogger ID of dmarks (real name: Dennis Marks). Previously I refuted these statements where they were made - on the blog of a self-described "Moderate", but no longer can due to the proprietor banning me for being too Liberal for him to tolerate.

In this numero tres commentary I'm going to refute a lying diatribe from dmarks (real name Dennis Marks) in which he misrepresented the political ideology of the Independent senator from Vermont, Bernie Sanders. I would also like to push back against Dennis' misrepresentation of Democratic Socialism. The inane dissembling by Mr. Marks was in response to a disturbing post by Willis Hart in which he relates a violent fantasy in which he beats North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un to death with a baseball bat...

Dennis Marks: [Kim Jong Un] is the face of socialism in its purist form. Now that Pol Pot is dead, anyway. But isn't North Korea more advanced according to the standards of the American hard left anyway? After all, it has single-payer healthcare, no corporate (private-sector) mass media, and no profiteering capitalists. Bernie Sanders paradise. (4/22/2013 AT 8:27pm).

North Korea leader Kim Jong Un is a totalitarian dictator, and not "the face of Socialism in its purist form". In regards to North Korea Wikipedia says, "the government follows the Juche ideology of self-reliance, initiated by the country's first President, Kim Il-sung. After his death, Kim Il-sung was declared the country's Eternal President. Juche became the official state ideology, replacing Marxism–Leninism, when the country adopted a new constitution in 1972. In 2009, references to Communism were removed from the country's constitution".

Dennis has a long history of twisting definitions to slander the Left. Socialism is an ideology whose objective is the empowerment of the average citizen, and, it's purest form, is not supposed to primarily benefit a ruling class. Yes, many revolutionaries have promised Socialism, and then not followed thorough on their promises; instead setting themselves and their cronies up as the primary beneficiaries of their new economic system.

The reason this happens, IMO, is because people like the idea of Socialism and they will fight for it. They do not like the idea of being ruled by a small group of wealthy elites, but unfortunately history has shown us that GREED usually always causes the revolutionary leaders to set themselves up as dictators or the heads of a ruling class.

The reason this almost never happens on the right is because the common man wouldn't fight if their leaders, instead of offering them a fair share of the pie (Socialism), said they should fight for a greater share of the pie going to a wealthy elite (plutocracy). Who would fight on behalf of that? Dictators who came to power by LYING to their citizens aren't socialists; they are kleptocrats (thieves)! Lying about giving the people Socialism and then delivering a totalitarian dictatorship is not "Socialism in it's purest form"!

Not that it matters, since North Korea originally identified as Communist, not socialist, and (surprise) the revolutionary leaders reneged and set up the country as a dictatorship. Wikipedia also notes "education in North Korea is universal and state funded, with a CLAIMED national literacy rate of 99%. The country has a national medical service and CLAIMS to offer free healthcare"... notice the two words I capitalized. They CLAIM these things, but do we really believe the literacy rate is 99%? Do we really believe they offer universal healthcare? No! They are LYING. Socialism involves actually delivering on these promises, not false promises and theft of a nation's resources by a ruling class.

Kleptocracy, as defined by Wikipedia, "is a form of political and government corruption where the government exists to increase the personal wealth and political power of its officials and the ruling class at the expense of the wider population", and THIS is what North Korea actually is - a totalitarian dictatorship and a kleptocracy masquerading as a socialistic state.

Not that any of that has anything to do with Bernie Sanders, as he is a Democratic Socialist, which I would define as follows (note that I have rejected sections of the Wikipedia definition)...

Democratic Socialism is a variant of Socialism that rejects centralized, elitist, or authoritarian methods of transitioning from capitalism to socialism [a mixed economy that includes increased socialist elements] in favor of grassroots-level movements aiming for the immediate creation [a gradual transition to a more] decentralized economic democracy. The term is often used by socialists who favor either electoral transition to Socialism or a spontaneous mass revolution from below to distinguish themselves from authoritarian socialists that call for a single-party state, most notably to contrast with Marxist-Leninists and Maoists. Democratic socialists endorse a post-capitalist, socialist [mixed] economic system as an alternative to capitalism. Some Democratic socialists advocate market Socialism based on workplace self-management [cooperatives and worker-owned businesses]...

So, am I guilty of the same sort of terminology redefinition I just accused Dennis of? I say no. My rejection and slight modification of the definition reflects how (I believe) Bernie Sanders views himself as a Democratic Socialist. He would not have run for the House (where he originally served for 16 years) and then the Senate if he did not believe in bringing more Socialism to the United States DEMOCRATICALLY. Also, as Wikipedia points out...

Democratic Socialism is difficult to define, and groups of scholars have radically different definitions for the term. Some definitions simply refer to all forms of Socialism that follow an electoral, reformist or evolutionary path to Socialism, rather than a revolutionary one...

The revolutionary route is rejected because history has shown that it leads to the establishment of a dictatorship or a ruling class of elites (leaders who promised Socialism but delivered kleptocracy). This is the route North Korea followed, and therefore could, in no way be described as a "Bernie Sanders paradise".

And the "hard left" does NOT view North Korea as "more advanced" either. A dictatorship that murders it's own people, imprisons it's citizens in forced labor camps, and allows it's ruling class to live lavishly while the majority of the populace endures extreme poverty and starvation is the exact opposite of what those who advocate for Democratic Socialism desire, Dennis - you stupid lying sack of shit. Greater EQUALITY is their goal.

In fact, countries like North Korea could be described as being "Socialist", but "socialist" in its most perverted form. Democratic Socialists and progressives (the so-called "hard left") stand in opposition to this "form" of "Socialism" (which is actually totalitarianism), as well as the plutocracy deluded stooges like Dennis Marks yearn for.

Supporting Document
Bernie Sanders: Hero Of The Ruling Class, A Greedy Thief Who Is Good At Plundering, DSD #13. (A catalog of Dennis comments re Bernie Sanders. Many of them comparing the VT Senator to dictators like Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin and Kim Jong-un).

SWTD #136, dDel #6.

People In States Where Gun Violence is Lower Don't Give Two Craps About Doing Anything to Curb Gun Violence In States Where it is High

The most distressing aspect of the world into which you are going is its indifference to the basic issues, which now, as always, are moral issues ~ Robert Maynard Hutchins (1/17/1899 to 5/17/1977) an educational philosopher, dean of Yale Law School (1927–1929), and president (1929–1945) and chancellor (1945–1951) of the University of Chicago.

Why did the "sickos" who wanted to take advantage of the Newtown tragedy to pass a stronger background check law fail? Apparently it's because a-holes in states where gun violence is lower don't give two craps about the higher level of violence in states they don't live in. Apparently they do give one crap, just not two, as a blogger who is a defender of "basic human rights" explains...

Dennis Marks: ...there is a lot less disconnect between how Congress recently voted on gun control and the general public view. It especially shows the reticence and ambivalence of the public at large (4/21/2013 AT 6:42am).

Dennis Marks (blogger ID: "dmarks"), the individual who believes being able to purchase a gun sans background check is a "basic human right", was quoting a National Journal article titled, "How Democrats Got Gun Control Polling Wrong". While support for action addressing the problem is high (the article cites an 80 percent favorable polling figure), people in North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont felt the proposed legislation was, "addressing a problem [not] in their community [but] somewhere far away".

Additionally the persons polled in those states "support [the legislation] and they think it's a good idea, but they don't feel super deeply about it".

OK, I get it. They're selfish bastards who couldn't care less about people who aren't them. They only said they thought the legislation was a "good idea", but they didn't mean FOR THEM. For themselves they are totally opposed. Oh, and don't forget the most important aspect of their support which isn't really support - they aren't sickos looking to exploit the massacre and confiscate all guns (as the right-wing extremist blogger Dennis Marks recently claimed).

It's a good thing the residents of states where citizens are being slaughtered at a higher rate have the National Journal to tell them why common sense gun regulation can't pass! That is, the small number of people affected by the gun violence that read it. Seems the National Journal is "mostly read by members of Congress, Capitol Hill staffers, the White House, Executive Branch agencies, the media, think tanks, corporations, associations and lobbyists".

In other words the purpose of this article was to tell the Republicans and Conservative Democrats who voted against the legislation why they were correct in doing so. In other words the article was a big slobbering wet kiss on the butt cheeks of the mag's financial supporters (people who pay to read it)... Congresspersons bought and paid for by the NRA, those who serve them, the corporate media, the corporate think tanks, the gun manufacturers, and the lobbyists of the gun manufacturers.

Are you TOTALLY SHOCKED that a publication serving groups opposed to common sense gun legislation concludes that "Democrats Got Gun Control Polling Wrong" (even though they got it right)?? I am being ironic, of course. Nobody is shocked, including the gun nut Dennis. That the Democrats sickos who sought to use the Newtown tragedy as an excuse to infringe on the citizens' "basic human rights" of buying a gun at a gun show and not having to endure the indignity of a background check were defeated makes perfect sense, as those who supported kind-of supported the legislation know.

Which explains why their support was high but "shallow". Deep down they knew nothing can be done to curb gun violence, and that the legislation played into the hands of the sickos whose agenda is to eventually confiscate all firearms.

Actually, only gun nuts like Dennis believe that last part. Everyone else whose support was "shallow" just said they supported it so the pollsters wouldn't throw the Newtown tragedy in their faces and make them feel like uncaring monsters... even if they actually didn't really care because the tragedy took place "far away".

And so the gun nuts and gun nut supporters cheer. Common sense legislation that may have prevented the next massacre was defeated due to the indifference of voters who live in states where gun violence is lower. Yeah! Certainly this can be viewed as a victory for our "basic human rights" as Dennis claims?

By the way, Dennis is correct that the Newtown shooter didn't buy the guns he used; his mother purchased them and she would have passed the expanded background check the Democrats proposed. That does not mean the legislation couldn't stop the next shooter. The guy who shot up the theater where the Batman movie was playing bought his own guns, and the expanded background check could have conceivably stopped him, so this "failed legislation" is not "more evidence that the tragedy is being used in order to push an agenda", you brain-dead moron!

Although one must realize that by "agenda" Dennis means gun confiscation, as opposed to an agenda of SAVING LIVES which is the actual moral issue being debated... a moral issue the gun nuts feel complete indifference toward. They will pay it lip service and nothing more, or, worse yet, call you a "sicko" for "pushing" your "agenda" of saving lives!

Make no mistake about it; these people - people like Dennis Marks - are the TRUE sickos! Sickos, and dupes for the NRA, whose only concern is making money selling guns. That is the REAL "basic human right" Dennis refers to - profit at any cost.

SWTD #135, dDel #5.

Severe Conservative Delusions: Gun Nut Edition

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed ~ The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, as ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State.

Welcome to the 4th installment in a series chronicling the wacky statements of the most severely deluded Conservative I have ever encountered; a blogger whose name is Dennis Marks, but is known by his Blogger ID, which is dmarks.

In this numero cuatro post I ask the question - can a person who does not own a gun (or, says he does not own one) be a "gun nut"? I say yes. How could that be, you might ask? I say the term "gun nut" applies if said individual opposes reasonable legislation such as universal background checks like Mr. Marks. Check out this gun nuttery, for example...

Dennis Marks: Remember, someone else recently winged it and carelessly made up their own definition of "gun nut" by saying it meant "having nutty views about guns". Using this, Andrew Cuomo is a gun nut, while someone with such moderate views as [Willis Hart] is not. Because Cuomo has mentioned favoring the truly nutty idea of confiscation. And only a real "gun nut" (again using this bogus definition) would call something an "assault weapon" just for having a decorative handle (2/19/2013 AT 1:17am).

Huh? The Governor of New York Andrew Cuomo is a gun nut? Presumably because he signed a gun control bill passed by NY's state congress that CNN says, "...fortifies New York's existing assault weapons ban, limits the number of bullets allowed in magazines and strengthens rules that govern the mentally ill, which includes a requirement to report potentially harmful behavior". The article also notes that Cuomo is a GUN OWNER.

Hmm, I wonder what part of "well regulated" Dennis does not understand? I'm going to guess absolutely no part. Even though the amendment is quite short, it appears as though Dennis missed the "well regulated" wording completely, as evidenced by an unbelievably insane (even for Dennis) comment Mr. Marks made in response to a blog posting lamenting the failure of Congress to pass legislation mandating universal not quite universal background checks (the bill exempted "private" sales between individuals).

Dennis Marks: Lacking in your [commentary] is any idea of human rights and protecting them. Those who voted against destroying basic human rights as protected in the Second Amendment weren't the best according to small-D "democracy". They ignored the will of an angry, ignorant, and hateful mob. But they did act to protect our basic rights. ...I am glad the sickos who were happy about the Newtown disaster, and cynically used it as an excuse to get rid of basic rights they always hated ended up losing in Congress (4/19/2013 AT 6:42am).

Expanding background checks to cover gun shows is described by this wacko as "destroying basic human rights"? And people concerned about small children being blown away (and seeking some minor thing like expanding background checks to stop dangerous people from obtaining guns) are "sickos"?? What the hell is wrong with this person? Does he believe that instead of being "well regulated", the purchase of firearms should not be regulated at all? Given the gun show loophole (and the fact that it allows criminals to buy guns, thus completely nullifying the the purpose behind doing background checks) what else can one conclude?

Dennis, YOU are the sicko, as absolutely no one who is advocating for Congress to pass some common sense gun legislation is "happy" about small children being shot in the face. Also, one has to wonder if, seeing as some of those who are lobbying their Congresspersons for this legislation are the parents, is Dennis saying the Newtown mothers and fathers whose kids were blow away are included in the "sicko" category? Is he saying the parents are happy their children were murdered?

I'm guessing he would say no, but yet he failed to exempt them (the Newtown parents) in his loony comment condemning the people who think we can do more to protect the citizens of this nation from being massacred by the dangerously mentally ill with firearms. Dennis actually thinks we "smiled" after what happened at Newtown.

Dennis Marks: These folks smiled when the massacre happened. Now they are frowning, and that is a good thing (4/20/2013 AT 12:42pm).

Finally, in regards to "confiscation", no one Dennis disparagingly refers to as a "sicko" has ever suggested it. In declaring confiscation is an actual goal of the "sickos", Dennis identifies himself as one of those paranoid Rightwing fringe types who serve as dupes for the NRA (a terrorist organization that cares only about maximizing the profits of the gun manufactures, no matter the cost, and does not represent its actual members).

So, YES, Dennis is definitely a gun nut, whether or not he actually owns a gun, because his views on guns and gun legislation are undeniably nutty.

SWTD #134, dDel #4.

One of the Worst Cases of Global Warming Derangement Syndrome Ever Seen

[Skeptics are] taking these words totally out of context to make something trivial appear nefarious ~ Michael E. Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State, responding to the "climategate" email controversy of November 2009. According to climate change critics stolen emails (from a hacking incident at the Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, Britain) show that global warming is a scientific conspiracy. These skeptics allege the emails show scientists manipulated climate data and attempted to suppress critics.

You know the subject is suffering greatly from this malady when he posts on the topic multiple times a day! And that is what we have here, folks, with blogger Willis Hart... a fanatical global climate change denier, er "skeptic" (as he calls himself).

In a post titled, "On Mike's Nature Trick", the GWDS-afflicted individual quotes one of the "climategate" emails that "prove" those dastardly scientists have been trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the innocent oil-consuming public, in a conspiracy aimed at [1] having a hearty laugh at our expense, and [2] enriching "Big Green".

The specific email in question was from Phil Jones (the director of the Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, Britain) and reads as follows...

I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e., from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith to hide the decline.

(The "trick" in question was described in an article by Michael Mann in the journal Nature. "Mike" is Michael Mann and "Keith" is Keith Briffa, climatologist and deputy director of the Climatic Research Unit).

Following is Mr. Hart's response to this email.

Willis Hart: TO HIDE THE DECLINE! Please, somebody explain to me how this is somehow benign. These folks were using some sort of a gimmick to hide the fact that the bristlecone pine tree-rings were not, NOT, reflecting the actual temperatures and that they therefore could not have been even remotely accurate going back multiple centuries. This is abject dishonesty, folks, pure and simple, and the fact that there are seemingly people out there who want to mitigate it is disappointing and a sad, sorrowful state of the science. (Post: On "Mike's Nature Trick"... 4/14/2013 AT 8:29am).

I would explain to Mr. Hart how this is completely benign, but he banned me from his blog, due to his intolerance for dissenting opinions. I will instead explain here (on my blog) what Hart's denialism is causing him to ignore... even though he will not read this post, and does not really want anyone to explain to him "how this is somehow benign" because he THINKS he's asking a rhetorical question. He THINKS it is self-evident that the majority of the world's climate scientists are trying to fool us.

Willis is convinced (or he is trying to convince his readers) that by "trick" what Phil Jones meant was, "a crafty or underhanded device" instead of "a clever or ingenious device or expedient" (which is how he actually was using the word).

As for "hiding the decline" Skeptical Science (a climate science blog that examines the scientific support of the most common skeptic arguments) explains what was really meant with that phrase...

Tree-ring growth has been found to match well with temperature. Hence, tree-rings are used to plot temperature going back hundreds of years. However, tree-rings in some high-latitude locations diverge from modern instrumental temperature records after 1960. This is known as the "divergence problem". Consequently, tree-ring data in these high-latitude locations are not considered reliable after 1960 and should not be used to represent temperature in recent decades.

So, what Phil Jones is talking about (in the so-called climategate email) is using Michael Mann's "trick" to solve the "divergence problem". The "trick", according to a 2/15/2010 Nature article was to do the "analyses using other methods - proxy temperature markers from ice core samples, for example", and that using this "trick" shows "much the same temperature change over the past 1,000 years, backing up Mann's hockey stick".

The "hiding" was the discarding of the inaccurate tree ring data that seemed to suggest temperatures were declining - even though we have ACTUAL READINGS that prove otherwise Willis, you dope!

Question is, is this is abject dishonesty from the Hartster, or just ignorance? Whichever the case, bloggers with severe GWDS like Willis Hart spreading misinformation on such an important topic is disappointing - and a sad, sorrowful state of affairs - people believing Big Oil propaganda over scientists!

IMO suggesting that human-caused global warming is a vast conspiracy in which an overwhelming majority of the planet's scientists are participating is patently absurd... and I question the intelligence and/or sanity (or motivation) of anyone peddling this fiction.

SWTD #133, wDel #17.

Violently Nuts Liberal Wanted by Fuzz for Assault

Keep violence in the mind where it belongs -- Brian Aldiss (dob 8/18/1925) an English writer and anthologies editor, best known for science fiction novels and short stories.

"I never took you for a jingoistic racist", William Hartenbaum said, addressing his friend Joe Truth. Both were sitting on stools in the bar area of The Quarry, a posh restaurant on the outskirts of town. William took a sip of his white wine, and then one more, emptying the glass. "I'll have another", William instructed the bartender.

"I don't follow", a clearly confused Joe responded. "You just told me you were strongly leaning toward manufacturing your Big Boob Headphones in the United States using union labor", William reminded his friend.

"Yes", Joe acknowledged. "These would be high-end headphones manufactured with pride in the US. It would be a selling point. The extra labor costs would be offset by lower shipping expenses, as they wouldn't have to be imported from a foreign country. And, most importantly, don't forget the Big Boobs angle. This is how I'm going to get the male consumer to pay a premium. The profit margin will be high enough to easily absorb the extra cost of union labor".

"That is the reasoning I was referring to as jingoistic", William explained. "Opposition to sending our chimpanzee jobs overseas is based in a racist bigotry against foreign people. Demonizing them because they are capable of working more efficiently than Americans. Why overpay lazy American workers when profits can be maximized by using less expensive foreign labor?".

"But isn't it racist to suggest foreign workers should get our -- as you called them -- chimpanzee jobs?", Truth countered. "Not at all", William deflected, dodging his obviously bigoted description of assembly work with a derogatory term and a non-answer. "In any case, I won't invest in your headphones if you insist on using union or US labor. I can't abide stealing profit from investors by overpaying labor me buck", William warned.

"You may be right", Joe agreed. "If I want to be a proper greedy capitalist pig outsourcing production is the route I may have to go", Joe reasoned. "Let's, for the sake of argument, suppose I go with foreign labor. How much would you be willing to invest?", he asked. William smiled, satisfied that Joe was coming around to his way of thinking. "How about 5 million to start, for which I'd only ask you to split the profits 50-50 with me", William suggested.

After thinking it over for a while, Joe said, "there are a few other potential investors I want to speak with first, but your offer leads the pack so far. Now, on another topic, I'm sorry that my attempt to broker a peace between you and Dervish failed. He was here at The Quarry last night, but left as soon as he learned that I wanted you and him to sit down and work out your differences".

"Actually I ran into him in the parking lot", William revealed. "Now get this, my friend Tony Hawkins was with me, and when I asked Dervish to come back inside and talk, he assaulted Tony with a stun gun! And Tony did nothing to provoke such a brutal attack. I called an ambulance and rode with Tony to the hospital where he got checked out. Luckily he's OK, but your Liberal buddy Dervish is in a LOT of trouble. Tony works for the police, and assaulting an officer of the law is a serious crime. Tony's partner Smurf Jones told me that Dervish is going to be arrested and charged".

"Wow. I guess Dervish is even more nuts than I knew. I thought he was harmless; I had no idea he was VIOLENTLY nuts", an astonished Joe replied. "For Christ!" William exclaimed. "Dervish is a violent paranoid. But, although he may very well be insane, he's going to jail, not to a mental hospital".

Just then the door to the back room behind the bar opened and Slade Leeds, The Quarry's owner, walked in. "Are you two discussing someone named Dervish?" he asked resting the palms of his hands on the bar. "I got a call from an attorney this morning informing me that I was being sued. Something about one of my chefs doing inappropriate things to Dervish's dinner and Dervish being assaulted in the parking lot by that same chef along with some of his friends, including YOU, William".

"This is what I meant when I called Dervish paranoid", responded William. "I was only trying to talk to the guy, and he violently attacked my friend Tony. No need to worry about being sued, Slade. Dervish is going to be arrested later today, as he is the one who did the attacking. And, not only that, but the person he assaulted is a police officer!". "That is reassuring", Slade responded. "By the way, the lawyer said the chef was Dennis Marks. Isn't he a friend of yours William?".

"Yeah, I know the guy", William said. "And, yes, he was outside taking a smoke break. We were speaking when I noticed Dervish and approached him, but Dennis went back inside before the altercation", William dishonestly recounted. "So, I take it that this Dervish fellow fabricated the entire incident", Slade reasoned. "Just about", William affirmed. "There was an encounter, but Dervish is lying about everything else".

"Awesome", Slade sighed, obviously relieved. "Not that I was worried. I knew my good friend William would never be involved in such a thing. Think you can stick about for awhile? My lawyer should be here soon and I want him to hear what really happened direct from the source". William nodded his head, answering, "sure thing".

"You have to be careful when serving the public. You never know what kind of crazy will walk through your doors", Slade declared. "I'm going to have some cameras installed in both the front and rear parking lots ASAP. That way nothing like this will ever happen again. Anyway, I thought it was your word against his, but seeing as it's your word AND the word of a law enforcement officer against his, I can't see this lawsuit going anywhere". "Absolutely", William replied. "That clown Dervish is going to be sorry he messed with us".

"What did Dervish say the chef did to his meal?" a previously silent Joe Truth asked. "He says it was drugged, but that the waiter mixed up the plates and you got the one that contained a sedative", Slade replied. "I did fall asleep after my meal", a befuddled Joe remarked.

"A-ha", William pronounced, feigning shock. "Clearly that means this was a set-up from the get go. Dervish must have slipped the sedative into your drink while you weren't looking", William pretended to deduce. "Sadly, I think you may be right", a gullible Joe Truth lamented.

 swtd-132. polfi-16.  Previous. Next.

Severe Conservative Delusions: Black On Black Racism Edition

Low-intelligence adults tend to gravitate toward socially conservative ideologies... Those ideologies, in turn, stress hierarchy and resistance to change, attitudes that can contribute to prejudice ~ Gordon Hodson, a psychologist at Brock University in Ontario; from a study which found "Low IQ & Conservative Beliefs Linked to Prejudice".

Welcome to the 3rd post in a series chronicling the wacky statements of the most severely deluded conservative I have ever encountered - an individual known as dmarks (real name Dennis Marks). Previously I refuted these statements where they were made (the blog of a self-described "Moderate" I used to frequent), but no longer can since the doofus banned me when I refused to agree with his "superior logic" (and because Willis is higher ordered, while I am of a much lesser stock).

With this numero tres post I ask the question - can an African American individual be racist against another African American individual? My opinion is... possibly. If the individual were someone who wished he were white (if such a African American even exists, and suggesting he or she does might be found offensive by the African American community), or, perhaps a lighter skinned African American who finds a darker-skinned African American inferior? (But then that individual would also be classified as self-hating, because they hate the black in themselves and prefer the white).

So... possibly, but the individual would definitely have to be self-hating. And that, in my opinion, is definitely not the case regarding comments made by an individual who goes by the name Touré. In an 10/20/2012 article Touré asked the question, "Is Herman Cain the Most Unctuous Black Man Alive?". Concerning this article, Dennis claimed (in a comment on the blog I was banned from) that Touré bashed Herman Cain for being black, and that said bashing meant that Touré is a racist.

Now, Touré is black himself (and not at all self-hating as far as I can see), so, to me, this comment makes absolutely no sense. Also, if you read the article, you'll find that Touré was bashing Cain for his "foot-in-mouth moments [that] mostly involve insulting the black community". These are the insults you hear coming from black conservatives regarding how Democrats trick African Americans into dependency by offering them free stuff they didn't earn (think the Santorum comment about him not wanting to "make black people's lives better by giving them other people's money"... many black conservative actually AGREE).

In my opinion Touré put forth a reasoned Left-wing criticism of Herman Cain that was in no way racist. In fact, I find the suggestion ludicrous. According to Dictionary.com racism is, "a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others".

Now, if Touré (who isn't self-hating) were a racist he would view his race as superior (as per the definition I just quoted) and would therefore NOT bash another black man for being black. That would be contrary to the definition. You can't "bash" someone for being that which is superior.

In response Dennis said, "I know, it is silly and stupid for someone to be racist against their own race, but it happens. Not that there's any racism that isn't silly and stupid".

No, it does not happen, not unless the person in question is a self-hating African American, which, as I already pointed out, Touré is not. I made this point to the disagreeing idiot, and he said, "You bring this up again and again. Yet, it does not matter at all. I don't know if he is, have never given any thought to it, and don't care. Regardless of what his self esteem issues are, this nut-job has no problem heaping hate upon another African-American for reason that include that person's skin color".

So, the idiot Dennis ignores a valid point because it interferes with the nonsensical argument he is making, which is that a "racist" Black man bashed another Black man for being Black. Even though, if he were racist he'd see being Black as superior. Also, is it not racist to accuse a Black man of racism when what you're really objecting to is a Liberal (Touré) criticizing a Conservative (Herman Cain)?

Touré clearly never says anything racist about Herman Cain. What's going on here (with Dennis' absurd accusation of racism) is that the dope is masking his own prejudices by accusing a African American of racism (something he does very frequently). It is a common conservative ploy... they say things like, "I consistently oppose all racism and all racial injustice", and then use that as an excuse to oppose Affirmative Action programs on the grounds that they discriminate against Whites (when, in reality, AA programs are meant to combat racism); and to bash minorities for discriminating against Whites.

SWTD #131, dDel #3. See also PPP #14.

The Deceiving Truth, A Sham Ambassador

Truth lives on in the midst of deception -- Friedrich von Schiller (11/10/1759 to 5/9/1805) German poet, philosopher, historian, and playwright.

"Hehehehe", Joe Truth chuckled quietly as his Liberal buddy Dervish ran away. "Damn", Joe swore. "I should have lied when Dervish asked if this was an arranged meeting with William Hartenbaum". Joe sighed as he watched Dervish exit the restaurant, rudely departing before William arrived. Joe checked his watch, noting that it was actually a few minutes past the time he had instructed William to make his surprise entrance.

"William will be disappointed that our little joke has been spoiled", Joe lamented, suddenly feeling quite sleepy. "Must be due to all the alcohol I've consumed", Joe reasoned, pushing his plate aside, placing his folded arms there, then resting his head on his arms. "I think I'll rest my eyes for a while", he decided.

Sound asleep, Joe dreamed his practical joke went off without a hitch. Instead of running away, Dervish stayed and met with William Hartenbaum. "I admit that I was wrong regarding the issue over which I banned you from my blog", William said, possibly lying. "In any case, we shouldn't allow our online disagreements to preclude us from being friends, if not at least friendly in real life", William passionately argued.

"You said I was the most intellectually dishonest person you've ever had to deal with", an angry Dervish protested. "If that statement is what you're saying you were wrong about, and you agree to publish a public retraction and apology on your blog -- then I might be willing to let bygones be bygones".

"OK, now we're getting somewhere", an ecstatic Joe Truth remarked. "I knew that, as Ambassador of Blogistan, I could negotiate a détente between you two. Now I only need to convince Dervish that William is actually a closet liberal". "That isn't going to happen", Dervish stated firmly, "as it would involve me denying reality, and that isn't in the cards tonight, gentlemen". Joe Truth looked confused. "This I simply do not understand. How can you possibly say William isn't a Lefty regarding most issues?"

"That is what *I* simply do not understand", Dervish countered. "You read his blog. I've seen your comments. In his two most recent posts he argued against global climate change and in favor of nuclear energy. I admit there are some on the Left that think nuclear power is an answer when it comes to reducing carbon emissions, but, for the most part, these are NOT Liberal positions. Most Liberals acknowledge there is a scientific consensus on global warming. And most Liberals, especially given the ongoing Fukushima disaster, acknowledge that nuclear power is insanely dangerous and not worth the risk -- even if its carbon emissions were zero, which they are NOT, contrary to what William claims".

"He really said that?", an astonished Joe Truth exclaimed. William Hartenbaum nodded his head. "I did indeed. And I quoted the scientists and facts to back up my positions. I am a strong skeptic when it comes to global climate change. I also believe that nuclear power is quite safe". Joe stared at his friend in disbelief.

"This, I did not expect. If that is the case I have no choice but to say that, William, you're a nasty, deluded denier of facts and data that don't jibe with your flawed conservative views. Quite frankly I think you hate real America while deluding yourself with propaganda from the right wing outlets you are addicted to".

"Seriously? That is an extreme about face" William replied, his feelings obviously hurt. "Yes", Joe Truth confirmed. "Even given your views on marriage equality and allowing the bush tax cuts to expire, I think climate change denial definitely disqualifies you from being a Liberal".

"That is something I never claimed to be", William declared, standing. "I think this negotiation has concluded", William said, a ting of anger in his voice. "I am neither nasty nor deluded. I am a reasonable minded moderate. And quite proud to not belong to either of the extremist camps on the Left or the Right. GOOD DAY"... with that William stormed off.

"I guess I was wrong about him", Truth said after a moment of silence. "Do you think you can forgive me", Truth asked his former friend. "Absolutely buddy", Dervish answered. "Just don't allow yourself to be fooled by Hartenbaum again". "That is something I will absolutely not do", Joe affirmed. "I don't know how I could have been so stupid. But my eyes are open now. I will never doubt your judgment again Dervish".

With that pronouncement all was forgiven, and Joe Truth and Dervish were friends once more. But what Dervish did not know was that Joe only called William names to trick Dervish into liking him again. Joe smiled -- his deception had worked exactly as he had envisioned it! He imagined Dervish's shock when he went back to insisting William was a closet Liberal in the future. He wasn't sure why, but it sure was fun screwing with Dervish.

When the expensive bottle of wine was nearly gone Joe ordered some fancy flaming desserts. After consuming the chocolate treats Joe bid his friend adieu, giving him a big hug. "I'm so happy we could bury the hatchet", Joe said, almost weeping... although he was really crying tears of joy, imagining how much fun he would have knifing his supposed friend in the back.

Joe Truth woke abruptly. Looking around the nearly deserted restaurant, it gradually came back to him... Dervish had left before his scheme had reached its conclusion. If only his dream was how things had really gone down! Just then he saw the hostess walking toward him. "I see you're awake Mr. Truth. We are about to close. Should I call you a cab?"

"No", Joe replied. "I'll be on my way. Oh, and please put a 15 percent tip for my waiter on my tab", Joe added, his stomach unexpectedly feeling a little queasy. "I think I'll visit the restroom first", Joe informed the hostess, suddenly desperate. Upon reaching the men's room Truth burst into a stall and upchucked his entire meal into the toilet bowl. "Geez", a disgusted Truth grumbled. "I wonder what the heck caused that?".

 swtd-130. polfi-15.  Previous. Next.

Yep, That's Right Folks; Global Warming Denier Quotes Scientist Using Flawed Data; Well, I'll Be Damned, Me-Buck

Climate change denial is a set of organized attempts to downplay, deny or dismiss the scientific consensus on the extent of global warming, its significance, and its connection to human behavior, especially for commercial or ideological reasons. ...Climate change denial has been associated with the energy lobby, industry advocates and free market think tanks, often in the United States. Some commentators describe climate change denial as a particular form of denialism ~ Excerpt from the Wikipedia page, "Climate change denial". (Denialism is choosing to deny reality as a way to avoid an uncomfortable truth.)

Global climate change is regarded by most people as accepted science. According to a 12/11/2012 Huffington post article, "a recent analysis of papers appearing in peer-reviewed science journals shows 99.83 percent of the authors agreed that human-produced carbon dioxide emissions are a significant cause of global warming".

Could all of these scientists be wrong? YES! They are either wrong or, worse yet, flat out fabricating their "evidence". If you're with blogger Willis Hart on this, you may be asking, "they thought that they could get away with this?" NO! Mr. Hart is calling out the loathsome liars.

Or is he? In a post titled, "More Observations on Global Warming", Willis suggests any temperature change could be due to "solar activity" or something called the "Pacific Decadal Oscillation".

In his commentary Willis quotes Roy Spencer, an individual who is a principal research scientist for the University of Alabama at Huntsville. According to SourceWatch (an online wiki operated by the Center for Media and Democracy, an American progressive organization)...

There are several flaws in [Spencer's] methods - inconsistent initial conditions [and] failure to use the appropriate data... All of these flaws pushed his model to produce a lower climate sensitivity estimate. When the flaws are corrected, the model estimates climate sensitivities of at least 3°C, which is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) central estimate.

Hmm, so I guess that, when the errors in this guy's findings are corrected, his research actually CONFIRMS the IPCC's findings of YES, GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE IS HAPPENING.

Another scientist Willis cites is Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, a Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Regarding this individual SourceWatch points out that...

[1] Lindzen charged "oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services. [2] His 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels. [3] A speech he wrote, titled "Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus" was underwritten by OPEC.

Sounds like a lot of conflict of interest to me. Further casting doubt on Lizden's impartiality is his claims regarding "how weakly lung cancer is linked to cigarette smoking", and the fact that "he had been a witness for tobacco companies decades earlier". Really? Yeah, I don't know about you, but that totally blows this guy's credibility with me.

Nice try, Mr. Hart - with all the charts and graphs on your blog you might actually convince some that the consensus isn't overwhelming. But IT IS! I think I'll stick with the findings of the majority of scientists, scientific societies, and science academies and not the outliers you've hand picked.

A statement on Global Climate Change from the Union of Concerned Scientists...

Why has it been so difficult to achieve meaningful solutions? Media pundits, partisan think tanks, and special interest groups funded by fossil fuel and related industries raise doubts about the truth of global warming. These deniers downplay and distort the evidence of climate change, demand policies that allow industries to continue polluting, and attempt to undercut existing pollution standards. UCS fights misrepresentations of global warming, providing sound, science-based evidence to set the record straight.

And yet the Hartster believes these misrepresenting deniers who downplay and distort, referring to them as "luminaries". Luminaries? Yeah, you heard that right, me-buck. BTW, WTF does "me-buck" mean? I have no idea. All I know is that Willis uses this phrase quite often.

SWTD #129, wDel #16.

Virulently Anti-Green Conservative Blogger Advocates For Dangerous & Expensive Nuke Energy

You really need to do some non Daily Kos research, lady ~ Willis Hart responding to a comment on his blog; A BS assertion based on nothing but his hatred for someone he deems too far politically left.

Just when you think you've seen the most ridiculous Rightwing nonsense ever from a Conservative blogger who claims to be a moderate, he goes off on a tear that has one shaking one's head in disbelief. As evidenced by the Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and now Fukushima disasters, nuclear energy is the most dangerous energy in existence. And, although I'd wager most people do not know it, nuke energy is also the most expensive.

But, even given the literally dozens of anti-green energy posts authored by the Conservative blogger Willis Hart (or "Will Take No Prisoners Hart"), I was still a little shocked by the extreme ignorance (and eagerness to buy the Rightwing spin on the topic) of Mr. Hart's latest post. A post where he wholeheartedly endorses nuclear energy.

In his pro-nuke post Willis claims that "nobody has died from Fukushima period". Sure, that's totally believable (not). He also claims that, "the radiation that was leaked out... was basically that of an X-ray per person", and that nuclear energy is, "the only stuff that emits ZERO carbon emissions". All three of these claims are categorically false. Now the question is whether the Hartster is lying, or did he simply cull this misinformation from the usual Libertarian websites (this "moderate" quotes Cato quite frequently).

When liberal commenter Ema Nymton challenged Willis' laughably nonsensical "information", the one who does not take prisoners attacked her with a heavily insult-laden retort (this is the MO of Willis... I should know because this is exactly what he did to me when I used to comment on his blog), alleging he, "noticed that your lazy partisan ass didn't challenge a single one of my assertions". And, to round out the ad-hominem suplex, Willis finishes with, "attaway to stay on the topic there, girlie". Misogynistic, or an attack on Emma's maturity?

I say both, although the comment primarily concerns Hart's mistaken belief that, because he incorrectly views himself as "moderate", his is the more "mature" position. But the comment is also clearly misogynistic (Wikipedia notes that "misogyny can be manifested in numerous ways, including... sexual objectification of women", and Willis' blog contains a multitude of posts that fall into this category).

Then, of course all the regular Willis Hart Echo Chamber commenters pile on... Rusty Shackelford says, "Nymton's hot air could rotate 6 or 7 windmills". Willis agrees, snarkily stating "yeah, with Ema assisting, we could could probably get that power density up to 2 watts per square meter".

And finally insane in the membrane blogger dmarks adds a doozie of a non sequitur, asserting, "Ema's comment only proved her contempt for working people" (beats me how Ema's comment accomplished this).

So, regarding Willis' three enormous fibs about nuke energy... people have died due to Fukushima, and MANY more will die as a result of the massive amounts of radioactive elements released in this ongoing disaster. While it is true that nobody has died from any kind of cancer, yet (as cancers can take many years to materialize) World Nuclear News (a PRO-industry organization) notes that, "34 early deaths", can be attributed to "the stresses of personal involvement in the evacuation, management and cleanup related to the Fukushima nuclear accident". Willis said "nobody has died from Fukushima period"... he said "period", instead of "as a result of radioactivity", which makes his statement FALSE.

In regards to the cancers that will manifest as a result of Fukushima, An Examiner article states, "nuclear engineer Arnie Gundersen [predicts] the disaster will lead to at least forty million cancer deaths". (Wikipedia's bio on Gundersen says "Gundersen is chief engineer of Fairewinds Associates, an energy consulting company. He previously worked for Nuclear Energy Services in Danbury, a consulting firm where he was a senior vice president. Gundersen holds a master's degree in nuclear engineering").

Also, the 12/2011 edition of the International Journal of Health Services claims that 14,000 deaths in the United States can be linked to Fukushima. The peer-reviewed study notes, "six days after the disastrous meltdowns struck four reactors at Fukushima on 3/11/2011, scientists detected the plume of toxic fallout had arrived over American shores". The studies' authors "estimate... 14,000 excess U.S. deaths in the 14 weeks after the Fukushima meltdown", and that the figure "is comparable to the 16,500 excess deaths in the 17 weeks after the Chernobyl meltdown in 1986".

Perhaps Willis is basing his assertions on claims like those issued by The World Health Organization, which said "the residents of the area were exposed to so little radiation that it probably won't be detectable [and that] a Japanese baby's cancer lifetime risk would increase by about 1%". But this information is based industry estimates regarding how much radiation was released. Regarding those estimates, Arnie Gundersen says, "I'm dead sure that's too low". He believes the actual amount of radioactivity released "could be 15 times higher". Now, would any reasonable-thinking person (a category that doesn't include Mr. Hart) be surprised to discover that the nuclear industry is UNDER estimating the fallout of Fukushima? I think not.

Scientific America (the oldest continuously published monthly magazine in the United States) reveals that Willis' claim that, "the radiation that was leaked out was basically that of an X-ray per person" is complete bullpucky. In reality the "Fukushima nuclear plant released far more radiation than [the Japanese] government said". And the radiation exposure is ongoing, as the main culprit, caesium-137, has a half-life of 30 years. And, while the Japanese government says it will be "able to strip out 80 to 95% of the caesium from contaminated soil and other materials", the incident spewed a lot of the radioactive isotope into the air and ocean... and that stuff is out there (nothing can be done to contain or recover and dispose of it).

Finally, regarding Willis' lie that nuclear is, "the only stuff that emits ZERO carbon emissions", Nature Reports says, "While... operating nuclear power plant has near-zero carbon emissions (the only outputs are heat and radioactive waste), ...Nuclear plants have to be constructed, uranium has to be mined, processed and transported, waste has to be stored, and eventually the plant has to be decommissioned. All these actions produce carbon emissions".

And there is the fact that the free market (a fictitious entity near-and-dear to the Conservative heart) has rejected nuclear power. This is why a nuke plant cannot be built without enormous government subsidies, including insurance subsidies. While the Price–Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act (a law that "governs liability-related issues for all non-military nuclear facilities constructed in the United States before 2026) is supposedly "industry funded", it actually only covers the "first approximately $12.6 billion".

Should a major disaster occur, the US taxpayer is on the hook for anything above that. This is why private insurance companies refuse to have anything to do with nuke energy, and why it can't exist in a so-called free market system. Reason enough Conservatives like Willis Hart should be opposed (if they aren't hypocrites).

None of my research came from the "Daily Kos", by the way. I did, however, take a look at an article titled Ten Urgent Reasons to Reject Nuclear Power Now from Truthout (Truthout is a progressive organization I'd guess Willis loathes almost as much as the Daily Kos). I did not link to the Truthout article in the body of my post, however... but I do recommend any reader of this post take a look at it.

The Truthout article details why nuke energy is a REALLY bad idea, it's high power density (a point Mr. Hart hammers on in most of his anti-green posts) not withstanding. Although Willis isn't counting the energy consumed constructing, mining, etc... all the things that contribute to nuke's carbon footprint also reduce it's power density. And then there are the downsides, which, aside from how insanely dangerous nuke power is, include the issue of it's waste lasting thousands of years. In short, nuclear energy simply is not worth the risk.

SWTD #128, wDel #15. See also OST #12.