We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
No president in memory has done more to divide America than Barack Obama. Exploiting every division for political gain, he has pitted poor against rich, blacks and Hispanics against whites, gays against straights, women against men, young against old, and union members against business and government leaders. Mainstream Americans are tired of these divisions, and they want a president who speaks of "believing in America," not believing in black America, Hispanic America, young America, female America, gay America, or unionized America.
The American people are tired of change. What they want is jobs, better wages, stability, and security.
...you directly imply that I am a “denier”, as I am highly skeptical of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (not just “anthropogenic global warming”, which is plausible if not measurable, although there are honest grounds to doubt even this associated with the details of the Carbon Cycle that remain unresolved by model or experiment). Since I am a theoretical physicist, I find this enormously offensive. I might as well label you an idiot for using it, when you’ve never met me, have no idea of my competence or the strength of my arguments for or against any aspect of climate dynamics (because on this list I argue both points of view as the science demands and am just as vigorous in smacking down bullshit physics used to challenge some aspect of CAGW as I am to question the physics or statistical analysis or modelling used to “prove” it). But honestly, you probably aren’t an idiot (are you?) and no useful purpose is served by ad hominem or emotionally loaded human descriptors
While I am happy the Barnes Foundation is in a modern building and available to everyone to see, it saddens me that the otherwise mediocre Philly Art Museum prevailed in it's nearly forty year effort to break the explicit terms of Barnes' will, and grab his magnificent collection. If a curmudgeon can't determine the fate of his property in his will, what's the point?
Robert G. Brown: I might as well label you an idiot for using it
Heh. The original paper points out that denialdismissiveness rejection of the science of climate of change is strongly associated with ideological positions. Notice that "Deniers" are contrasted with "Believers". Despite Brown's indignation, "Denier" is the proper term.
It gets better!
Robert G. Brown: For this honest doubt and skepticism that the highly complex global climate models are correct you have the temerity to socially stigmatize them in a scientific journal with a catch-all term that implies that they are as morally reprehensible as those that “deny” that the Nazi Holocaust of genocide against the Jews? For shame.
There's no way to read the letter in Nature and reach that conclusion. Bain et al., Promoting pro-environmental action in climate change deniers, Nature 2012.
The comments are great too.
Mike Dubrasich: The use of the term is not about science, it is about fascism. The users are the fascists, the fascists of science perhaps, but fascists nonetheless. They are jackbooted thugs who seek dominion over their fellow man, through violent means including propaganda tricks like vilifying anyone who opposes them. It’s an old trick , one we all know, one that has left a trail of horror and suffering beyond measure. It’s not mere smarminess; it’s a cold-blooded attempt to brand free people in preparation for ruthless actions against them.
By the way, Brown notes that the evidence for global warming is substantial, though he disagrees with the catastrophic warnings.
The Obama administration combines the Hollywood glitz of the Clinton administration with the competence of the Carter years. How much better off America would be if it were the competence of the Clinton years and the glamour of the Carter administration.
To tie two threads together---not that I fully endorse either of them---it looks to me as though the most stable states (drawn in forest green on the map) also possess the most homogeneous populations in the world. Is the EU about to promote global chaos and anarchy?
AlGorebal Wormists and their supporters (Hi, Zach!!), like the Planned parenthood crowd in that article, seem to believe that anyone not following the party line in full is a denier, a nogoodnik, a traitor to the cause and so on and so forth.
Selling the Idea of Obama was all they could do, since Obama wasn't really present except for voting present.
Do watch "The Art of the Steal" documentary. It is a crime what Philadelphia did to the Barnes Foundation. If you hadn't guessed already: it took a lot of lawyers and a lot of politicians for them to get away with it.