venomlash
Wichita Falls, TX
report this user

Bio

I'm a straight guy who supports LGBTQ rights, especially considering as I have family and… more »

in the past hour venomlash commented on Hillary Clinton Announces Running Mate.
@47: "I'm not rationalizing idiocy. I'd rather see the Ds lose to Trump than to any of the other jackasses in the party."
It's hella eerie seeing those two sentences right next to each other.

(Personally, I'd rather have Rubio or Kasich in the White House than Trump, given that they have some idea how government works, can be relied on to work with Democrats where there is common ground (such as immigration reform), and have a track record of generally acting like sane and responsible adults.)
8:02 PM yesterday venomlash commented on Hillary Clinton Announces Running Mate.
Looks like a pretty solid choice to me. Just worried that his support for the TPP will piss off Sanderinos.
I like how she announced right after the RNC to minimize the coverage Trump's speech got. Keep the focus on what we have to offer.
4:22 PM yesterday venomlash commented on The Green Party Responds to Dan Savage, Says He's "Dead Wrong".
@69: "20 years is the time scale of interest when climate change will cross thresholds of no return for key climate impacts like the melting of unstable icesheets"
20 years is not the only timescale of interest. If we're hitting a tipping point where we're talking about deglaciating Greenland and Antarctica, methane emissions are going to be the LEAST of our worries. I'm concerned about reducing the effects of sustained warming and ocean acidification in the long term; focusing ONLY on the short term will screw us down the road. (I notice you're also not interested in addressing the massive amounts of heavy metals and nitrogen and sulfur oxides that coal power plants spew out. Are you some kind of big fan of acid rain?)

"Fugitive emissions are NOT reported by the EPA (doh!) but several studies have shown that fugitive methane emissions were real and significant, and concentration of methane in the atmosphere have abruptly started to rise again since the onset of fracking"
ONE, your link doesn't make any claims about the trend in methane emissions. TWO, the EPA ACTUALLY DOES TRACK FUGITIVE METHANE, YOU LYING SCRUB. (source, see Fig. 3-2 for the summary.) What, you couldn't click through to the source material you were so eager to dismiss? Including fugitive methane, both petroleum-related and total methane emissions are falling slightly DESPITE the rise of hydrofracturing.
You want to talk about BASIC FACTUAL ACCURACY? You just built your whole argument on an entirely false claim, one which you'd have known was false if you just took a quick look at the sources I linked.

As for Dr. Howarth, he makes a decent point that methane emissions from natural gas exploitation cause problems. (I'll forgive his repeated reference to a previous paper of his and his use of emissions estimates from that paper that are significantly higher than other estimates, under the assumption that he might very well be right.) However, said paper raises the promising possibility of advanced retention techniques being used to reduce methane losses at well sites, with a reduction estimated at 40% with the adoption of best practices. A 40% reduction of methane losses would make natural gas far more efficient than coal at minimizing warming, but this is tantalizing possibility is entirely ignored in the 2014 paper. When planning future energy policy, shouldn't we base our decisions on what can be done, not what is currently being done?

But to reiterate: you made entirely unsupported claims, completely dismissed the evidence I cited against them, and attempted to explain away the evidence by telling a baldfaced and imbecilic lie. And then YOU had the nerve to lecture ME on basic factual accuracy? Chutzpah!

And I'm talking big game on this issue not because I'm a graduate student, but because I am a geoscientist who actually studies this sort of shit instead of reading somebody's tinfoil blog all day. You don't even know what you're talking about, but you're determined to advance your own political opinions.
More...
3:54 PM yesterday venomlash commented on The Green Party Responds to Dan Savage, Says He's "Dead Wrong".
@69: In other words, you're dismissing the evidence I've brought to support my points by claiming that it's all a big corporate conspiracy. Okay, I knew you were nuts, but I didn't know you were THAT nuts.

Despite the fact that I didn't reference the FDA anywhere in my post, you've decided to list some controversies related to the FDA as evidence that, I dunno, all my evidence is faked or something?
The spying began after FDA employees repeatedly sent confidential documents to Congress AFTER a Congressional committee had concluded that there was no wrongdoing in the part of the FDA. And given the history of some of those employees, their motives are certainly suspect; one expressed an intention "to sue the hell out of the agency ... get a couple cool mill and get out". Not exactly an unbiased whistleblower; more like a litigious opportunist.
None of the other claims are "evidence"; they're the sort of thing more properly called "allegations". We can talk about this when you have actual "evidence" of "wrongdoing".

If you actually read Stein's AMA post, it's clear she used the phrase "snake oil" to refer to unreliable approval processes tainted by regulatory capture, not to homeopathy. Need I remind you that the official Green Party platform explicitly endorses homeopathy?

Now, I'm going to give the methane issue its own post because WOW, there's a lot of lies in there to tackle.
More...
3:23 PM yesterday venomlash commented on Science News: Exactly What's Wrong With Cliff Mass' Approach to Global Warming, Rare Fin Whale Sighting in Puget Sound.
@8: We cannot react to misleading portrayals of research by ceasing to perform research that could be co-opted to mislead. Skepticism (genuine skepticism, not contrarianism) is vital to the scientific process; research must be stress-tested, must prove that it stands up to serious criticism, for it to be reliable.
This is why I appreciate Dr. Judith Curry's work. As much as deniers love to cherry-pick her conclusions when they cast doubt on the reliability of models, she's performing an important service.
3:19 PM yesterday venomlash commented on How Green Is Her Bullshit: An Uncharacteristically Brief Response to the Green Party Spokesperson's Dishonest Response to My Podcast Rant.
@23: But, but, Hillary is totally a conservative who is only pretending to like the things she's proposing! No way would she actually enact the agenda she's been pushing for decades!

@27: So, you joined up just to bitch about how you don't want to hear Dan Savage's political opinions?
Well, buh-bye, I guess.

@47: Oh, well if people are worried about "corporate science", well then THAT makes casting baseless suspicion on routine lifesaving vaccinations totally okay!
It's not skepticism. It's contrarianism. Learn the difference.

@56: Yes, and Ben Carson went to Yale and Ron Paul went to Duke Med. Having an education doesn't make one not an anti-science nutcase. Did you miss the part where she defended homeopathy by claiming that pharmaceutical research is less trustworthy if it's conducted by people connected to the pharmaceutical industry, and therefore terms lik "medically proven" are meaningless?
3:03 PM yesterday venomlash commented on That Seattle University Humanities Dean Who Students Wanted Out? She's Resigning..
More of the exact kind of bullshit that Dick Gregory warned about.
12:44 PM yesterday venomlash commented on Police Reports Illustrated: Two Men Were Standing in the U-District Playing Pokémon GO at 3 AM.
This PRI is different from regular PRI. It's like this PRI is in the top percentage of PRI.
12:42 PM yesterday venomlash commented on Science News: Exactly What's Wrong With Cliff Mass' Approach to Global Warming, Rare Fin Whale Sighting in Puget Sound.
Also, yay morphometrics!
I'm doing a 2D landmark/semilandmark-based analysis, but I'm interested in getting into 3D at some point.
12:40 PM yesterday venomlash commented on Dan Savage on Jill Stein: Just No..
@191: You claimed that before the revolution, poor people were dying, and after the revolution it was the rich people who were dying. EXACTLY HOW ELSE is one supposed to interpret that boneheaded assertion? Riddle me THAT.

"But, because there was violence, you seem ready to write them all off."
I guess the alphabet soup approach will be necessary, you DENSE motherfucker. I am not characterizing the French Revolution as a failure because it involved violence, but rather because the violence was:
-arbitrary, without purpose or rationale
-disproportionate, with the purported benefits of the revolution being far eclipsed in scope by the massive loss of life, and
-ultimately fruitless, with no clear improvements to show for the tremendous cost in lives
IT IS NOT VIOLENCE IN AND OF ITSELF THAT I OPPOSE, BUT THE SENSELESS AND WASTEFUL APPLICATION THEREOF. If you wish to argue with me, I shall have to insist that you READ what is WRITTEN.

"millions of lives have been extinguished"
Not actually true, buddy! The highest estimates of TOTAL CASUALTIES of the Iraq War top out at several hundred thousand to maybe one million. It's this careless, dare I say Trumpian, disregard for factual accuracy that gets you into trouble.
Also, you think I'm sugar-coating it by describing the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia as a "repressive theocratic monarchy"? Bitch please. Are you even familiar with the meanings of those words, to make such a laughable claim?

And once more, I must remind you not to put your words in my mouth. My claim was never that the French Revolution was "unjustifiable", but rather that it was unsuccessful. (Compare to the War in Afghanistan: we had a perfectly good reason to go in there, but ended up screwing the pooch due in large part to rushing off to fight a whole different war.) Nor is it simply "she [Hillary Clinton] says she was lied to"; the deception practiced by the Bush Administration at the time is well-documented fact.
Yeah, never mind that she nearly a decade ago disavowed her vote authorizing military force, that she pilloried George W. Bush for having "rushed to war" even before that, or that she described her 2002 vote AT THE TIME as a reluctant one, hoping that the authorization would serve as diplomatic leverage and that the situation would not come to armed conflict. Never mind any of that; it goes against your narrative of "Clinton secretly wants to bomb everyone" (paraphrased) to know or to admit such.
More...