Maggie's Farm

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.

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Much Sorry with Delays
Birth, Death and All That Stuff in Between
How to Honor Labor Day, Every Day
My Yom Kippur Miracle (Repost from 2010)
Good intro to fly casting
Peach update, with pie
NYC update
Easy for you to say: To the elites on mass immigration
For NYC on 9/11, Sailors' Snug Harbor
Pickled Peaches
Water Shoes
Labor Costs in U.S.
Your "identity"
Good news about The Great Courses
Uses of Hot Pepper Jelly/Sauce, Chutneys, and Jams
A Saturday Drive to Litchfield County, CT
How to Pick a Kayak
Civilized: Fruit forks and knives
Loads of kayaking on Cape Cod
Psychology Experiments' Questionable Results

Categories


All categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

Open login screen

RSS Readers

Add to Google

Subscribe with Bloglines

Wednesday, March 28. 2018

Wednesday morning links

The Left’s Doomed Crusade to Erase Gender Differences


 NOAA Data Tampering Approaching 2.5 Degrees


 When Will We Have the Guts to Link Fatherlessness to School Shootings?


 Data on mass shootings at school don't live up to the hysteria


 NFL owners finalize $90M social-justice deal without resolving anthem protests


Extortion 


Journalism as political activism:  Choosing what you want people to know is a form of activism, even if it’s not the march-and-protest kind.


 CNN host admits he let David Hogg tell lies during interview. Just wait until you hear his reason.


 Don’t Regulate Facebook


 Did Facebook’s ‘favors’ for the Obama campaign constitute a violation of federal law?


 Twitter Tanks After Citron Warns "Wait Til Congress Finds Out About This"


The week Trump was the only sane man in Washington


THE DEATH OF BRITANNIA


"In Venezuela, hungry child gangs use machetes to fight for ‘quality’ garbage" - Chavez’s legacy

Posted by Bird Dog in Hot News & Misc. Short Subjects at 07:00 | Comments (27) | Trackbacks (0)

Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

I hope the silent majority were as abruptly awakened as I was by Justice Stevens incredible remark this week. The very idea that a Supreme Court Justice would be in favor of reversing one of our civil rights is stunning. There is a far left cabal funded and directed from overseas that wants our 2nd amendment rights to be taken from us and even criminalized. They are serious and our complacency works against us. While you are going to work and taking care of family trying to enjoy life there are tens of thousands of activists and foreign interlopers working hard to take your rights away. Every state legislature will chip away at your 2nd amendment rights in the next 6 months and beyond. Congress will as well. All of these institutions are stacked with far left anti-2nd amendments activists who have been waiting for another crazy man to go on a shooting spree to take away your rights. Don't take this laying down.

You need to write your lawmakers and tell them how you feel. You need to stop any business with companies like Dicks and Citibank who are anti-2nd amendment. But more than that we need to put these people out of business, we need to picket them, take them to court, speak up about them every day. Whether a company or activist is merely a useful idiot or a far left anti-constitutional interloper it does not matter they deserve to be confronted. Do not sit this one out. I can guarantee you that if the 2nd amendment is removed, overthrown, legislated out of existence or ruled against by a liberal Supreme Court that once this happens it will not come back.

Don't sit this fight out. Use their tactics. Demonstrate, speak up, picket the businesses and groups that stand against the constitution, put them out of business. Write your congressmen and your state legislators and mayors. Let them know you are mad as hell and you aren't going to take it anymore.
#1 GoneWithTheWind on 2018-03-28 08:57 (Reply)
QUOTE:
NOAA Data Tampering Approaching 2.5 Degrees

The claim that the surface isn't warming is contradicted by the satellite data, which is independent of the surface data.
#2 Zachriel on 2018-03-28 09:11 (Reply)
Pfft. How much satellite data do you have for the 1898-1978? That's the majority of the years that of which the temperature data are being adjusted.

Once again you prove that you're an ignorant shill. You don't understand the articles here, yet you parrot the talking points you're paid to provide, even when it makes no sense.

Thanks for being the archetypal leftist fool.
#2.1 DrTorch on 2018-03-28 10:18 (Reply)
Has the limited amount of satellite data been tampered with as well?
#2.2 Prententious?Moi? on 2018-03-28 10:48 (Reply)
DrTorch: How much satellite data do you have for the 1898-1978?

It isn't necessary to have satellite data from previous periods to show that the Earth has warmed since 1979, or that the warming indicated by the satellite record is consistent with warming shown by the surface record.

NOAA: +0.165°C/decade
UAH: 0.155°C/decade
#2.3 Zachriel on 2018-03-28 11:00 (Reply)
DrTorch: You don't understand the articles here

QUOTE:
Pre-2000 temperatures are progressively cooled, and post-2000 temperatures are warmed.

1979-2000
NOAA: +0.137°C/decade
UAH: ++0.103°C/decade

2001-present
NOAA: +0.183°C/decade
UAH: +0.166°C/decade

Both data-sets show warming over both periods.
#2.4 Zachriel on 2018-03-28 11:09 (Reply)
And both your responses proved my point.

What's it like to be wrong?
#2.4.1 DrTorch on 2018-03-28 11:43 (Reply)
And both your responses proved my point.
- - -
And the kiddiez don't even realize it.
#2.4.1.1 drowningpuppies on 2018-03-28 13:17 (Reply)
DrTorch: And both your responses proved my point.


We directly addressed the claim that "post-2000 temperatures are warmed". In fact, the data for surface warming is consistent with independent data developed from satellite observations.
#2.4.1.2 Zachriel on 2018-03-28 14:56 (Reply)
No, you proved his point that you don't understand the article linked and simply parrot talking points.
#2.4.1.2.1 Hank_M on 2018-03-28 15:36 (Reply)
We directly addressed the claim that "post-2000 temperatures are warmed"

And you still managed to misunderstand even that, not to mention, that wasn't anything my post brought up.

You've been doing this very thing for years, because you're a fool. It's evident in all of your posts, but profoundly so in ones involving science b/c, by your own admission, you know nothing of the subject.
#2.4.1.2.2 DrTorch on 2018-03-28 15:38 (Reply)
DrTorch: And you still managed to misunderstand even that, not to mention, that wasn't anything my post brought up.

In other words, you can't argue the point, but thump your chest and declare victory.

The claim in the article under discussion is that the surface data has been manipulated, including data since 2000, creating a false trend. Please explain why both surface and satellite observations support the same warming trend from 1979-2000 and from 2001-present. The options seem to be 1) the warming trend from 1979 are correct, but the data before 1979 may or may not have been manipulated; or that both the surface and satellite observations are subject to nearly the exact same manipulation.
#2.4.1.2.2.1 Zachriel on 2018-03-28 17:27 (Reply)
Zzzzz: The claim that the surface isn't warming...

Err, that wasn't the claim at all, kiddiez.
Mislead much?
Try reading the article.

Why must y'all lie?
#2.5 drowningpuppies on 2018-03-28 11:30 (Reply)
QUOTE:
Did Facebook’s ‘favors’ for the Obama campaign constitute a violation of federal law?

There's no evidence of that. The Obama campaign collected data through an API using methods available to others, including Cambridge Analytica.

QUOTE:
The amounts paid by the Trump campaign to Cambridge Analytica for its services – and the use of the Facebook data – are listed in its spending reports filed with the Federal Election Commission.

The question is whether those fees were fair market, or were being subsidized by Robert Mercer.

But this supports the claim that Republican politics is just one big tu quoque, a.k.a. YOU TOO!
#3 Zachriel on 2018-03-28 09:16 (Reply)
Once again, as per the article, the question is whether or not the Obama campaign and Facebook violated Federal Election Law.
It appears that they did.
It should be investigated by the Federal Election Commission and potentially the U.S. Department of Justice.

It's that simple, kiddiez.

Back to your sandbox.
#3.1 drowningpuppies on 2018-03-28 11:45 (Reply)
The Obama campaign collected data through an API using methods available to others, including Cambridge Analytica.

I see the talking points have changed.

No fancy Latin, but Democrat politics seem to be one big NO FAIR! ONLY WE GET TO DO THAT!.
#3.2 Christopher B on 2018-03-28 11:54 (Reply)
The democrats and their lefty allies, have always been about accusing their enemies of doing the exact things that they themselves have done, or are currently doing.
#3.2.1 B. Hammer on 2018-03-28 13:27 (Reply)
Christopher B: No fancy Latin, but Democrat politics seem to be one big NO FAIR! ONLY WE GET TO DO THAT!

B. Hammer: The democrats and their lefty allies, have always been about accusing their enemies of doing the exact things that they themselves have done, or are currently doing.

The collection of data for Cambridge Analytica was fraudulent, while the Obama campaign disclosed that the data was being collected for political purposes.
#3.3 Zachriel on 2018-03-28 15:01 (Reply)
ZACHRIEL: "the Obama campaign disclosed that the data was being collected for political purposes."


Not true at all for the vast majority of the people whose data was gathered by the Obama campaign--the Facebook "friends" of the people who signed up for the app had their data mined as well. All without their consent or even the knowledge that it was happening--this group represented a FAR larger number than those who actually signed up for the app.

It's also important to note that all this was done by the Obama campaign itself. CA was a separate contractor which was not even used by Trump in the general campaign, only in the primaries.

The lengths to which people will go to defend their own--to delude themselves--is frightening.
#3.3.1 SK on 2018-03-28 15:22 (Reply)
SK: Not true at all for the vast majority of the people whose data was gathered by the Obama campaign--the Facebook "friends" of the people who signed up for the app had their data mined as well.

That's true, though the user agreement allowed Facebook to disclose such data.

In any case, there's a significant difference between the Obama campaign, which did disclose, and Cambridge Analytic's data collection which was based on a lie.

SK: The lengths to which people will go to defend their own--to delude themselves--is frightening.

The lengths to which people will go to defend a lie--to delude themselves--is frightening.
#3.3.1.1 Zachriel on 2018-03-28 15:35 (Reply)
Zzzz: In any case, there's a significant difference between the Obama campaign, which did disclose, and Cambridge Analytic's data collection which was based on a lie.

Yes, there is a big difference.
It appears that the Obama campaign and Facebook violated Federal Election Laws.
It should be investigated by the FEC and by the U.S. Department of Justice.
#3.3.1.1.1 drowningpuppies on 2018-03-28 15:52 (Reply)
ZACHRIEL: "That's true, though the user agreement allowed Facebook to disclose such data.

In any case, there's a significant difference between the Obama campaign, which did disclose, and Cambridge Analytic's data collection which was based on a lie."

Again, the vast majority of the data was gathered surrepticiously, without the knowledge of the people from whom it was gathered. Their agreement was with Facebook, not the Obama campaign.

ZACHRIEL: "The lengths to which people will go to defend a lie--to delude themselves--is frightening."

A better way to state what I wanted to say. At least we agree on this. Your willingness to defend what the O campaign did and condemn what the T campaign did stuns me.
#4 SK on 2018-03-28 16:10 (Reply)
"Your willingness to defend what the O campaign did and condemn what the T campaign did stuns me."

It shouldn't.

Obama = good
Trump = bad

It's really that simple to those on the left.
#4.1 jimg on 2018-03-28 16:36 (Reply)
jimg: ""Your willingness to defend what the O campaign did and condemn what the T campaign did stuns me."

It shouldn't.

Obama = good
Trump = bad

It's really that simple to those on the left."

Well, yes. I really don't care what they did with Facebook as long as it was legal.

The cult of personality that makes it OK for Obama and not OK for Trump (neither of whom got my vote) is the sort of thing that puts people on trains to very cold places, and very hot ones, like ovens.
#4.1.1 SK on 2018-03-28 16:47 (Reply)
SK: Their agreement was with Facebook, not the Obama campaign.

That's right. Users gave Facebook permission to share the data. They shared the data with the Obama campaign per that agreement. Whether this is a good policy or not, in fact, it was disclosed per Facebook's user agreement and published policies.

SK: Your willingness to defend what the O campaign did and condemn what the T campaign did stuns me.

We didn't bring up the Trump campaign, but now that you mention it, Steve Bannon was involved in Cambridge Analytica until he left in order to join the Trump campaign.

jimg: Obama = good
Trump = bad

That's certainly not our position. However, the facts are what they are. The Obama campaign disclosed the purpose of their data collection, while Cambridge Analytica's data was collected fraudulently.

SK: I really don't care what they did with Facebook as long as it was legal.

Well, you probably should be somewhat concerned. There are many unintended consequences to such vast data collection practices.

SK: The cult of personality that makes it OK for Obama and not OK for Trump

The difference is that Cambridge Analytica's data was collected fraudulently.
#4.2 Zachriel on 2018-03-28 17:34 (Reply)
Like I said, scary, dangerous, stunning--trains and ovens.
#5 SK on 2018-03-28 18:50 (Reply)
Godwin!
#5.1 Zachriel on 2018-03-29 10:21 (Reply)

Add Comment
(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)

By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email
addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications.

Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u],
[url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here.

Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (*word*), underscore are made via _word_.
E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications.

To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly.
CAPTCHA

BBCode format allowed
 
 
A Chris Southern Consulting website.