Wichita Falls, TX
report this user


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

in the past hour venomlash commented on Right On, Colin Kaepernick: America's National Anthem Celebrates Racism and Slavery.
It's his right to make his statement of protest. It's the right of others to criticize him for it. A lively and open debate ensues from his action; what's more American than this example of free expression?
I personally disagree with his stance. Because America is imperfect, those given the short end of the stick are to reject the American ideal? Unless they intend to go all Marcus Garvey, black people in America have a vested interest in the success of our bold egalitarian experiment. Let's build up America. Let's ensure that our nation lives up to its valiant principles.

@2: I'm with you on that.
in the past hour venomlash commented on Science News: Coral Reefs Desperate for More Fish Piss, Jill Stein Exaggerates Sea Level Rise.
And reminder: anon1256, in response to being accused of lying, lied about the content and conclusions of a paper he referenced in support of his arguments (Turner et al., seen above). Nowhere in it does it claim a 15-year increasing trend, and it explicitly refuses to attribute the inferred increase in emissions to petroleum exploitation. And yet when accused of lying, he then proceeded to claim that it had...
in the past hour venomlash commented on The Clinton Campaign Is Courting the Christian Left, Which Hasn't Really Existed Since Reagan.
Christian Left? THEY'RE CALLED CATHOLICS. And also Unitarians.

Also, "chesed" is hard to's sort of an expression of divine grace and benevolence. The usual liturgical translation is "loving-kindness".
in the past hour venomlash commented on Science News: Coral Reefs Desperate for More Fish Piss, Jill Stein Exaggerates Sea Level Rise.
@81: In other words, its my own fault for caring about factual accuracy, and I should just simmer down and let exaggeration, deception, and outright falsehood slide. I'm sorry, but I do actually care about sticking to the facts.

"You were provided with enough evidence about fugitive methane emissions and EPA misconduct, that any scientist worth his salt would have asked for some kind of investigation to clear it up."
You cited some evidence about fugitive methane emissions, but all you had regarding EPA misconduct was a bunch of allegations without supporting evidence. And pertinently, you demanded that I accept your preferred estimates for methane emissions over all others, despite there being significant variation across different estimates; to wit, you want to cherry-pick a few studies and ignore the rest. I'm all for further research, but simply declaring one study among many to be the One True Fact neither scientific nor honest.
"Instead you chose to deny everything like a climate change denier would do."
Again, Hitchens's Razor. If you can't be bothered to show the least iota of evidence to support your claims, I'm under no obligation to consider them. And no, citing a study and lying about its conclusions doesn't count as supplying supporting evidence. (Case in point, your false claims about Turner et al.)

"This a rather conclusive observation in my book because it shows that you are not really interested in preventing more dangerous GHG emissions."
I'm the one looking at the big picture. You're so hidebound in your opposition to fracking in any and all circumstances that you neglect the larger system. More shale gas means less exploitation of coal, and coal is not only far dirtier than natural gas, but much harder to minimize the harms of. (Loss-reduction tech cuts upstream methane leakage to a small fraction of its previous rate, but even the finest electrostatic precipitators can only do so much about heavy metals and radiation emitted by coal plants.) It's an optimization problem on a massive scale, and your proposed solution (the moonshot of 100% renewables) carries an extremely high risk of failure, whereas using natural gas production to cut coal use practically guarantees significant reduction of harm. I'm being a pragmatist, as always; you're stuck in La-La Land, where everything always works as intended.

"Mass tries to pin everything on natural variability and tries to disappear that although any particular event cannot be attributed to climate change, these extreme events are consistent with how we expect the climate to change."
And as usual, [citation needed]. Mass is perfectly justified in his refusal to blame individual events on climate change. If you don't understand this, I strongly suggest that you reread the second to last graf in post #79.
in the past few hours venomlash commented on Savage Love Letters of the Day: Dammed If You Don't.
One thing I'd add is that if you're concerned about STIs but don't want to use barriers, get to know your partners and have them get tested regularly too. It'll take away the option of an entirely spontaneous fling, but you'll be able to avoid the taste of latex while still keeping a relatively low risk of *ahem* applause.
11:25 PM yesterday venomlash commented on Science News: Coral Reefs Desperate for More Fish Piss, Jill Stein Exaggerates Sea Level Rise.
*average temperature of the USA
should be, in the analogy to weather
11:22 PM yesterday venomlash commented on Science News: Coral Reefs Desperate for More Fish Piss, Jill Stein Exaggerates Sea Level Rise.
@78: "I acknowledged that i was mistaken after you pointed out my error. Insisting that I lied does suggest that you have some issues."
Yes yes, you lied and then admitted you were wrong after I called you on it. I remember, I was there. But simply 'fessing up doesn't change the fact that you made shit up, as is your usual habit.

"You were given a reference that showed methane emissions have been rising for 15 years (Turner et al)"
No, I was given a reference that showed increased methane concentration in the atmosphere over a 4-year time span in a geographic pattern strongly divergent from that of petroleum exploration or fracking, which declined to point any fingers as to the likely cause of said increase, and which additionally inferred increasing methane emissions based on the results of three studies with wildly different methodologies covering in total a 7-year interval, making no attempt to adjust for the effects of the differences in those methodologies. No idea where you got the claim about a 15-year trend (or for that matter your characterization of the study as conclusive proof of increasing emissions), but it's perfectly par for the course given your track record of making shit up.

"a slew of other studies showing that plays with high drilling frequency have emissions several fold to an order of magnitude higher than industry data used by the EPA"
You posted one or two studies showing higher emissions from a few particular high-producing plays but low emissions from other (better-managed) high-producing plays, said a great deal about the former, and completely glossed over the latter. Oh, and just a reminder, you flat-out lied about how much the leaky plays contribute to total production in an attempt to justify comparing them to nationwide estimates.
Do you have any idea just how dishonest it is to compare local measurements to nationwide averages? It's like complaining about inaccuracies in climatology because it was 105 F one day in Arizona, when those climatologists say the average temperature is supposed to be 53 F. You're comparing two completely different quantities.

"Evidence that the EPA has knowingly sampled emissions with faulty technology that severely underestimated said emissions."
Um...if I recall correctly, you posted a press release from an environmental advocacy organization that alleged such but didn't have any actual evidence of such in or attached to the document. If you have evidence to support that assertion, I'd love to see it!

"You dismissed it all out of hand."
Hitchens's Razor.

"Your agreeing with Cliff Mass in his misrepresentation of how extreme climatic events are related to climate change says all that we need to know about how much you want us to mitigate climate change effectively."
I'm sorry, you're just 100% wrong here. Even if climate change were responsible for a 50% increase in number of named tropical storms, say, it would still be inaccurate and misleading to point to any one storm and declare it the fault of climate change. Things behave differently individually than in aggregate.

"Until you start acting in a way that doesn't minimize the effects of climate change, I am afraid that your rhetoric about 'alarmists' is rather self serving"
In other words, you see no alternative other than exaggerating the dangers of climate change or minimizing them, and one who rejects one is necessarily endorsing the other.
HEAR ME WELL, NITWIT. I AM FOR THE EVIDENCE. I am for putting the facts in the situation first, and let politics fall by the wayside if need be. A meter of sea level rise within a century is scary enough, and that's a low-to-moderate estimate. We don't need to profane ourselves by cooking up tall tales; the truth is sufficient. For me, at least. I don't know about you.
10:09 AM yesterday venomlash commented on Science News: Coral Reefs Desperate for More Fish Piss, Jill Stein Exaggerates Sea Level Rise.
@74: No, but I've talked to you about your lies. Bakken and Eagle Ford produce 4/5ths of America's shale gas and oil? Locally increasing methane emissions prove that nationwide methane emissions are rising? Your dogged insistence in this very thread that Stein's claim is actually supported by Hansen et al.?
I especially like how your response to being called out on this shit is to imply that I'm paranoid or delusional and perceiving lies everywhere, dismissing my accusations as the product of mental illness. Say, isn't that what they call "gaslighting"? You're not a very good liberal, are you...

@75: Okay, lying-for-Jesus it is. Yes, because climate change is an important issue, we should just accept that people are going to recklessly exaggerate and not criticize them. After all, since the exaggeration might scare people into doing something about it, the lie is for The Greater Good, right?
WRONG, BOZO. When you have the facts on your side, the worst thing you can do is to lie about them. The prevailing accusation from deniers is that climatologists are a bunch of "alarmists" that greatly exaggerate the hazards facing us. (They seem to conflate climatologists with politicians, but that's a separate issue.) I'm not interested in proving deniers right. I'd rather stick to the facts and follow where the evidence points, not sink to the level of the conspiracy theorists.
Aug 26 venomlash commented on Science News: Coral Reefs Desperate for More Fish Piss, Jill Stein Exaggerates Sea Level Rise.
@63: I don't care if NC WARN is supported by the Jackson Five and the Grand Poobah of Outer Slobovia; if they've got a claim to make, they can show us the evidence. THAT IS HOW SCIENCE WORKS.
There's no evidence in the press release you linked or in either of the letters it links to to support the quoted claims. But hey, if it's true, I'm sure you'll be able to easily find documentation of it. And as long as we're on the topic of supporting evidence, how about your accusation of slander, anyhow? (Though it's technically libel if in print; thank you, J. Jonah Jameson.) Care to point out any false claims I made about NC WARN? I described them as an anti-fracking advocacy group, implied that they're not objective, and accused them of making claims without providing supporting evidence and of using vague and misleading language. So, where's the libel? (Or slander for that matter?)
Of course, if by "slander" you mean that I spoke irreverently of an organization you quoted and doubted their claims, count me guilty as sin. That's how it works in your preferred world, where words have whatever meaning you personally want them to have.

"Scientists often casually use the expression 'error bars' when they discuss uncertainty, I certainly do especially when I am calling you on your nonsense about a minor round off in the context of citing the findings of this study."
That's bullshit; error bars have a very specific meaning. We scientists typically just say "uncertainty" or "error" when we mean uncertainty. So having been caught in a lie, you're now claiming that you meant something other that what you actually wrote.
And exaggerating by five years isn't "rounding". Saying "the 2050s" to mean 2055 would be rounding. Saying "2050" to mean 2055 is just blatant misrepresentation. How long are you going to keep insisting that Stein's tweet was accurate to the trends plotted in Hansen et al. in the face of the clear evidence that she exaggerated?

"a discussion of uncertainty in the findings and shows that you do not know what you speak about"
Did you honestly think you'd get that one past me? One, that's talking about temperature response, not sea level rise. Don't try to walk back your fabrications, or pin them to a different trend. Two, that claim is made about a 10-year doubling time, which would see in 2050 an increase of slightly more than 0.6 meters of sea level rise, assuming the increased flux. So if you make that assumption, Stein's claim is...even more wrong!

There you have it, folks. You take a study that suggests the oceans may be rising far faster than the mainstream scientific community suspects, and you take all of ITS worst-case projections, and then you STILL feel the need to exaggerate them, apparently. I mean, the prospect of the oceans rising by a meter or two in the next century is already pretty damn alarming; why must Jill Stein (and her zealous defenders in this thread) lie, when the truth itself would be sufficient? The only explanation is that they just don't care about being accurate.

@64: So when you run into an argument you can't refute, your response is to accuse me of taking similar positions as people you don't like? Well, solid reasoning! I certainly must bow to your mastery of debate! (I do like how you think it's a grave insult to tie me to Justice John Roberts.)
Aug 26 venomlash commented on Science News: Coral Reefs Desperate for More Fish Piss, Jill Stein Exaggerates Sea Level Rise.
@56: "Your blather is tiresome, kiddo. You've got no substance, only puerile insults."
Or, to paraphrase: "maybe if I just pretend he doesn't have any arguments, nobody will notice"
+1 for the chutzpah to say "[y]our blather is tiresome, kiddo" and then immediately follow it up with a complaint about me calling you mean names. I gotta respect those big brass balls!

"You're literally making excuses for Salazar's rubber stamping"
And there you go again, characterizing it as something that Salazar did. Read the material over again; the Secretary of the Interior handles high-level policy decisions and isn't involved in the day-to-day issuance of permits and waivers. That's what the Department has lower-level staff for. And as I've pointed out before, the problem of insufficient scrutiny was inherited from Salazar's predecessor, and despite your attribution of godlike powers to the guy who is de jure in charge of everything, he couldn't just fire everyone and pick a new staff that would do a better job. (If you genuinely think that he could have and just chose not to, I refer you to the curious case of Alberto Gonzales.)

"Do you imagine that the creme de la creme of corporate executives attained their positions by being bad at business? Do you think they're in the habit of making investments that don't yield returns?" actually believe that large corporations don't make charitable donations? You actually believe that load of bullshit? Go ahead, tell me how the Ronald McDonald House is really just a slick PR operation for Mickey D's. Let's hear about how Google expects some return on the 9% of their profits that they give away yearly.
Really? That's the best you've got? You're telling me that big companies NEVER give money to worthy causes, that EVERYTHING they do has some ulterior motive. And you know this for a fact because it just sounds right to you! Wow. I'm a cynical sonuvagun, always wondering who benefits, but even I know better than to make that batshit (and, you'll note, completely unsupported) claim.

"But bully for you, there's no smoking gun to prove outright corruption (yet). There's just a mountain of circumstantial evidence that stinks to high heaven."
In other words, you don't have any actual examples of donations swaying Hillary Clinton's judgment to the effect that she put the donor's interests before that of her constituents. You just have some stuff that you think is fishy because you've long since decided that Clinton was guilty of SOMETHING (and you just needed to find out what).

"Any criticism of HRC is nothing but a Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy! And obviously that notorious right-winger David Sirota is the leader of this VRWC about pay-to-play at the Clinton Foundation!"
You misunderstand me; the particular line of criticism (that Clinton is a bought-and-paid-for minion of the sneering global elite) you're bringing up has its origins in the VRWC, even if it's delivered by left-wingers who have bought into it.

And no, the NYT isn't part of the VRWC. That's why they didn't accuse Clinton of corruption in connection with the uranium deal. You'll notice that nowhere in that entire chain of events was Clinton actually shown (or even implied) to have done anything unusual or improper to further the deal. The focus of the article is literally that people involved in the deal donated to the Clinton Foundation (which, remember, doesn't pay the Clintons a salary and doesn't contribute to their campaign funds). Sure, the State Department ultimately signed off on the deal, but it was one of many agencies that could have nixed it. So which is more likely: that Clinton knew something that the other agencies didn't but ignored it because the donations had bought her allegiance, or that the State Department simply made the same decision as the others?
This is what I'm talking about. The moment anything looks remotely sketchy regarding the Clintons, you (and all the other Clinton-haters, right and left) declare that it's PROOF POSITIVE that she's been doing everything you've accused her of. Like I said, you already had your mind made up before you looked over any of the evidence. And when you're only expecting to see one thing...well, let's just say you miss the dancing gorilla.