report this user
2:46 PM ɥsɐןɯouǝʌ commented on French Court Suspends Burkini Ban, No Word on Suspending Men Who Tell Women What to Wear.
@15: The ones on my mother's side are definitely swarthy. She and one of my sisters have that Mediterranean complexion, you know? (On my dad's side we're Litvak, so all of those relatives mostly look like Celts.)
3:17 PM yesterday ɥsɐןɯouǝʌ commented on Eat Shit, Hope Solo.
@22: omfg
3:05 PM yesterday ɥsɐןɯouǝʌ commented on Speaking Out About the Matt Hickeys of the World Won't Be Enough To Change Rape Culture.
@14: COMPLETELY out of left field.
I think what MikeyC was trying to say is that it's wrong to collectively punish (or demonize) a demographic for the crimes of a few.

Yes, it is the responsibility of men to model and encourage good moral standards in which people (regardless of gender) are treated as people rather than as objects. No, men are not responsible for the crimes of other men (unless they are personally complicit in the act). Yes, rape and the lurking danger of rape are more damaging to women than misandrist sentiment is to men in our society. No, that doesn't mean misandrist sentiment is okay or excusable.
Social justice movements seem to be very prone to falling into this pit of what is more properly termed social vengeance. Because bigotry by X against Y is more prevalent and damaging in society, so the reasoning goes, bigotry by Y against X is somehow okay. And that's a notion I reject entirely. If you want a society free from hatred and prejudice, that means ALL hatred and prejudice. You don't get to pick and choose which kinds are bad and which kinds are good; it's all the same kind of insidious stiff-necked evil.
2:57 PM yesterday ɥsɐןɯouǝʌ commented on Science News: Coral Reefs Desperate for More Fish Piss, Jill Stein Exaggerates Sea Level Rise.
If I cited a Tea Party website's (unsourced) writeup in a discussion about Clinton's bona fides, would you take me seriously? Of course not, because they're not an objective and reputable source. (And before you start telling me that what you're doing is okay because you're the good guys who tell the truth, bear in mind that that's also what the Teabaggers are saying. Learn to distinguish between actual reporting and biased advocacy.)
2:53 PM yesterday ɥsɐןɯouǝʌ commented on Science News: Coral Reefs Desperate for More Fish Piss, Jill Stein Exaggerates Sea Level Rise.
@46: ...except that your claim regarding the uncertainties in the graph was false from start to finish! (Please reread post #38 if you struggle to understand.) Faced with the necessity of finding some rationale by which to defend a false claim, you chose to invent uncertainties out of thin air. If you're going to point to peer-reviewed articles in support of your claims, I really must insist that you limit said claims to what is actually supported by those articles.

"your continuing insistence that a difference of 5 years in the timing of events is meaningful in this context"
I'm sorry, five years is not an insignificant amount of time when it comes to modern events. Are you saying that it's okay that Stein lied, because she only lied about a few years one way or the other? Heck, why not scale that lie up a bit then? Please tell me, by how many years must one exaggerate a timescale before you'd consider it an actual lie and not a benign embellishment? Let's hear it, you jive turkey.

"Either the error is quantifiable and Stein slightly misstating the timing of events may be significant or this is a gross estimate and Stein slight error in the timing of events has no importance whatsoever, you can't have it both ways, imbecile.
Nice false dichotomy. If you actually READ THE PAPER, you'll see that the 5-year doubling time, 5m sea level rise curve was a worst-case scenario far beyond that which the evidence supported, one which they entertained merely as a what-if and for convenience of simulation. Again, IT'S NOT A PROJECTION BASED ON A MODEL, BUT RATHER AN ASSUMPTION MADE FOR THE SAKE OF EXPERIMENT. THERE IS NO ERROR ASSOCIATED WITH THE CURVE, AND IT IS NOT AN ESTIMATE.
Your frantic backpedaling reveals a certain disdain for evidence, I'd say. Rather than admit that someone you like lied, exaggerated, or distorted the literature, you come up with all sorts of roundabout explanations attempting to justify the statement in question, even if it means misrepresenting a study yourself.

"I am quite fed up having to correct your continual distortions, and misdirection"
That's big talk coming from a guy who literally made up confidence intervals for a graph that doesn't have any error in order to try and spin the figure into supporting a false claim made by a politician he likes. (And that's not even getting into all the bullshit you invented back on the topic of shale gas.) I guess whenever I point out a lie you told, it's misdirection, because I'm distracting the reader from how Jill Stein Is Totally The Best Scientist In Politics, huh...?

@43: XOXOX
2:32 PM yesterday ɥsɐןɯouǝʌ commented on Science News: Coral Reefs Desperate for More Fish Piss, Jill Stein Exaggerates Sea Level Rise.
@44: "Wow dude, I did not expect you to be so blunt in your approval of such egregious regulatory capture."
Read what I wrote again, dickhole. I'm not arguing that such waivers should be handed out like candy the way they are; I'm simply pointing out that they were common and unremarkable long before Ken Salazar took office, and that you've been incredibly misleading and dishonest by claiming that it's all Salazar's fault that BP got one. The is-ought distinction escapes you, I guess?

"By the way, a few token pro-environment votes as Senator -- a position in which he was at least partially bound by the will of his constituents in Colorado -- does not confer Salazar trustworthiness in the executive branch."
Yeah! Never mind his voting history! Never mind his actual track record! What matters is that you think he's secretly going to hand the government over to the fossil fuel industry! </sarcasm>
If it's all the same to you, I'm going to judge my politicians based on what they do, not what some guy with an agenda thinks about them. It's called empiricism...

"A top-to-bottom restructuring of MMS didn't require anything more than Ken Salazar's will: The agency only exists by order of the Interior secretary."
It's like you're thoroughly unfamiliar with the nature of bureaucracies. Just because the Secretary of the Interior has final authority over an agency doesn't mean they can make everything happen with a snap of their fingers. I mean, the President has final authority over the entire Cabinet and their respective staff; they all serve at the President's pleasure, right? And yet when the Bush Administration fired a bunch of U.S. Attorneys, they got in trouble over it, because the firings were seen as (and almost certainly were) politically motivated and because no clear rationale was given for giving them their walking papers. Even if one technically has the authority to hire and fire people at will, indiscriminate use of that power quickly gets one in trouble. (And this doesn't even get to the trouble of replacing people with qualified and competent candidates, especially those who will be in position to make major decisions.)
The Rolling Stone article even (reluctantly) admits that he hung crooked employees out to dry when he had the evidence, referring them to prosecution. But apparently if he wasn't able to find conclusive evidence of wrongdoing on the part of everyone who was on the take, and was unwilling to abuse the powers of his office on a witch hunt, it means that he (surprise surprise) must be a puppet of oil companies, according to you.

@45: Again, you're pretending that everything was hunky-dory at MMS until Salazar took over and brought out the rubber stamps. And that's simply not true; it's a problem that long predated his tenure.
And hey, you know who else the Podesta Group lobbied for? National Public Radio, Michelin, and the Republic of Georgia, among others. This bullshit guilt-by-association, in which anyone who hires a lobbyist who takes on clients of questionable ethics must himself be evil, is conspiracy-mongering of the lowest kind.
Aug 23 ɥsɐןɯouǝʌ commented on Science News: Coral Reefs Desperate for More Fish Piss, Jill Stein Exaggerates Sea Level Rise.
For those following from home, Figure 5(a) of Hansen et al. 2015 simply plots the volume of meltwater released each year ASSUMING that melting follows an exponential increase curve, in which total (cumulative) melt doubles every 50, 10, or 20 years until reaching a maximum threshold corresponding to 1 or 5 meters of sea level increase. Figure 5(b) simply plots the sea level increase under those scenarios.
These are not predictions, per se. They are hypotheticals, assumptions made for the sake of simulation. I've been going with the 5-year doubling time as the "worst case scenario" because it's the worst case they've entertained the possibility of; the authors in fact admit that it is worse than is really plausible, but simulated it for convenience's sake (and also to model how the Earth's climate might respond to drastic acceleration of icemelt):
Doubling times of 10, 20 and 40 years, reaching meter-scale sea level rise in 50, 100, and 200 years may be a more realistic range of timescales, but 40 years yields little effect this century, the time of most interest, so we learn more with less computing time using the 5-, 10- and 20-year doubling times.
The curves are not measurements. They are not the result of some simulation. They are the GIVENS in a computer experiment, and so there are no error bars associated with them, which anon1256 would have realized had he read the study instead of just looking at the pretty pictures and making shit up. (And how eerily crisp, smooth, and geometric the curves are really should have tipped him off.)

Now just to be clear, I should probably have been clearer and more explicit as to the nature of the figure I was talking about. But hey, if you can't skim a few pages on your own without someone holding your hand, you probably shouldn't be telling the people who DID do the reading that they're wrong.
Aug 20 ɥsɐןɯouǝʌ commented on Science News: Coral Reefs Desperate for More Fish Piss, Jill Stein Exaggerates Sea Level Rise.
@19: Next time, try attacking the arguments I actually make instead of the ones you imagine. Seriously, what you wrote there had nothing to do with the post to which you replied.

@20: Nope, that's not what you said. You repeatedly claimed that methane emissions are rising (they're not), insisted that highball estimates are unassailable fact while dismissing out-of-hand the lower estimates, demanded that particularly leaky plays be used as proxies for emissions nationwide and lied about how much they contribute to total production while willfully ignoring well-managed plays (which you're doing again, I might add), and refused to consider the effect of loss-reduction technology which has enjoyed amazing and affordable success where it has been implemented.
And of course, there you go again with "[a]nybody can confirm". Yeah, it's universally accepted common knowledge because you say so, right? I honestly think you've forfeited what credibility you had in that regard on account of your lies and misrepresentations on the methane issue.
Aug 20 ɥsɐןɯouǝʌ commented on What Do You Know: Millennial Voters Flocking to Clinton.
@68: "People oppose GMOs for a myriad of reasons that they understand more or less well"
o I am laffin