Morning Ethics Warm-Up, 9/13/17: Mansplaining, More Climate Change Hype, And Shut Up And Sing, Stevie…

Good Morning!

1 Keep it up, you ignorant exaggerators, liars and hypers. Keep it up. Eventually people of good will and functioning brains will figure out that you and whatever movements you crave lack integrity and decency, and rely on manipulation and fake news from a news media that decries fake news.

2. Yesterday, Stevie Wonder began yesterday’s Hand In Hand Telethon to raise money for hurricane recovery by  by saying, “Anyone who believes that there’s no such thing as global warming must be blind or unintelligent.”

Good-bye, Hand In Hand Telethon! In fact, good-bye all such telethons, forever. The last one featured professional asshole Kanye West announcing that President Bush was deliberately leaving blacks unrescued, while weenie Mike Myers stood there next to the rapper like gutless tool he is. I switched off Stevie and his ignorant pals and watched the Red Sox slaughter the Oakland As and reruns of “Criminal Minds.”

I know you aren’t especially educated or astute beyond your musical genius, Stevie, but that means that you should keep your half-baked opinions off national live TV and out of the ears of people who admire you and are as ignorant as you are (See here). Since global warming cannot credibly or definitively be blamed for any single weather event, Stevie’s inappropriate outburst was a complete non sequitur. The existence of two big hurricanes isn’t evidence of climate change. We could have experienced two hurricanes of the same or greater power if there were no climate change, or if the world were cooling. We know this because we have experienced stronger hurricanes long, long before anyone was arguing about global warming. Thus it would have been equally appropriate for Stevie to declare, “Anyone who doesn’t think Barry Bonds belongs in the Hall of Fame is an idiot,” or “Anyone who doesn’t think Brussels sprouts are yummy is an idiot.” Thanks for sharing, but what exactly does it have to do with helping hurricane victims?

Sensing an opportunity, many celebrities, elected officials and pundits have been  acting like blind, under-educated pop singers. The proper analogy would be the periodic attempts to use mass shootings by unstable people who obtained guns in ways that wouldn’t be blocked in any way by proposed gun policy changes to create a wave of emotion, polls and blind (sorry, Stevie, but you started it) anger that would force new restrictions on individual rights.

When this happens, my personal reaction, as it was to gun control mania after the Sandy Hook shooting, is to say, “OK, that’s it. I was generally in favor of some reasonable policy measures to respond to this problem, but since you advocates for them keep lying, spinning, and using misleading statistics and false arguments, I’m out. I don’t trust you to draft or implement such policies, and as long as liars, cheaters and fools like you are on that side, I’m on the other. Get back to me when you stop lying.”

3. Once you get started slapping down the people who are trying to mislead on the climate change issue, you may have time for nothing else. Last week,  Bill Nye “The Science Guy” who isn’t really a scientist but probably more knowledgeable than Stevie, told Dan Rather the Journalism Guy who is no longer a respectable journalist in a radio interview,

“It’s the strength [of these hurricanes] that’s almost certainly associated with global warming. Global warming and climate change are the same thing. As the world gets warmer and there’s more heat energy in the atmosphere you expect storms to get stronger. The more heat energy in the atmosphere strengthens the storms, Dan.We are all gonna pay for Harvey, we’re all gonna pay for Irma, one way or another.”

Oops. Ph.D. and meteorologist Ryan Maue tweeted, “Bill Nye confuses the oceans with the atmosphere. #FakeScience.” Later, Maue took on reporter Bloomberg reporter Sahil Kapur when he  reported that President Donald Trump was asked whether climate change caused the hurricanes. Kapur implicitly mocked the President for not answering, and presumably not answering in the affirmative. Maue tweeted,

“The answer is no. Hurricanes are not a result of climate change. Next question, Sahil.”

Later he added, anticipating Wonder’s gaffe,

“If you believe climate change causes hurricanes, then you’re an idiot.”

The meteorologist also helpfully linked to NOAA, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association, which presumably knows a bit more about hurricanes and what causes them than President Trump, Bill Nye, Dan Rather, Stevie Wonder, and the Pope.

The website says, 

“It is premature to conclude that human activities — and particularly greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming — have already had a detectable impact on Atlantic hurricane or global tropical cyclone activity.”

4. Oh, never mind that! Let’s hype, and bash the President in the process!

MSNBC’s Dave Briggs: “That’s the second record breaking hurricane in weeks. Climate change back in focus but the White House won’t draw a connection between global warming and this outbreak of wild weather. ”

That’s because there is no proven connection, you  idiot.

5. At one of my recent legal ethics programs, a young woman, presumably a lawyer, came up to me and registered an objection to my explanation about why law firms can and should allow clients to choose who their lawyers are even if the reasons for their preferences are based on prejudice or bias. “A client refusing to allow a female associate handle his case might harm the progress of that lawyer’s career, ” she protested. I’ve only addressed this issue about a thousand times—in law, supposedly a profession, it is the client’s need that must prevail, not the lawyer’s—and began to explain when she did an about face and walked away from me, ignoring me when I called after her.

This is the new “anti-mansplaining” tactic, and to hell with it. Women adopting this attitude maintain that it is inherently sexist for any male to presume to tell any woman that she is mistaken, misguided or wrong about anything.

Kudos to feminist blogger and writer Amy Alkon, who calls this mindset “feminist NeoVictorianism: demanding that women be treated like emotionally fragile toddlers.”  Beginning with the position that if you are going to state your opinions, you have an obligation to be able to defend them, and if you can’t, learn how, she rejected the recommendation  of a woman who tweeted,

…Alkon wrote, “Count me the fuck out.”

Me too.

 

________________________

Sources: PJ Media, Newsbusters

 

70 Comments

Filed under Arts & Entertainment, Environment, Ethics Alarms Award Nominee, Ethics Dunces, Ethics Train Wrecks, Etiquette and manners, Gender and Sex, Government & Politics, Journalism & Media, Philanthropy, Non-Profits and Charity, Science & Technology, Social Media

70 responses to “Morning Ethics Warm-Up, 9/13/17: Mansplaining, More Climate Change Hype, And Shut Up And Sing, Stevie…

  1. As Christopher C. Morton wrote about Climate Change®™:

    http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index.ssf/2017/06/foreigners_see_president_trump.html#lf-content=198087069:697687399

    “Climate change” is just another left wing political pseudo religion like Lysenkoism. If you have to lie about the data, it’s for a reason. Trofim Lysenko, for his personal aggrandizement, destroyed Soviet agriculture to the point where it could never recover. Like him, the Al Gores of this world want to destroy the U.S. economy for their own benefit.

  2. Other Bill

    From an article in Pravda (one of my free ten per month):

    “For scientists, drawing links between warming global temperatures and the ferocity of hurricanes is about as controversial as talking about geology after an earthquake. But in Washington, where science is increasingly political, the fact that oceans and atmosphere are warming and that the heat is propelling storms into superstorms has become as sensitive as talking about gun control in the wake of a mass shooting.”

    Well that just about sums it up, don’t it? It’s written by a woman so it’s not mansplaining, I guess. Womansplaining?

    • Other Bill

      But it’s approved lefty dogma, so it wouldn’t be mansplaining, would it.

    • Isaac

      So after 10 years of no major storms…the law of averages kicks in and we get two in a row, and suddenly “climate change is back in focus?” Is climate change going to be “in focus” every time there’s a storm now, even if there is nothing out of the ordinary about the ferocity or the frequency of the storms?

      I wonder who was the first statist to notice that you can turn anything into an epidemic as long as it happens occasionally somewhere kinda sorta. We have a gun violence epidemic, a college rape epidemic, a white supremacist epidemic, a cops-shooting-people epidemic, an Islamophobia epidemic, and now a deadly storm epidemic…and not a single one of these things is happening at any unusual rate.

      Interestingly, the things that actually ARE getting alarmingly out of control are going unreported. How many people even know that there is an actual epidemic of venereal disease happening right now? As in record levels, as in gonorrhea becoming resistant to antibiotics, as in 42% of all adults in the USA have HPV right now? Maybe how bout report that?

      • …gonorrhea becoming resistant to antibiotics…

        Strange that you don’t get this sort of disease unless you sleep with someone who has it, huh? Like HIV.

        …as in 42% of all adults in the USA have HPV right now?

        I suspect the numbers here. Yes, I read the CDC report. There is an agenda behind this one, has been since it was first attempted to made mandatory in Texas a decade ago.

        The fact is that you have a behavior related problem. This vaccine is a money machine, since they want ALL children to get it, yet the media is strangely silent as to the serious worldwide issues it has caused. Japan, Ireland, Denmark, Sweden, Spain, France, Canada, India, and Columbia all have all but stopped using Guardasil due to injuries related to its use.

        https://healthcareinamerica.us/japanese-watchdog-group-indicts-hpv-gardasil-vaccine-media-silent-96f0d1a40343

  3. 1. Yup. What was that about some opinions are less valuable than others? Most actors should shut up and act; most singers should shut up and sing.

    2. “…since you advocates for them keep lying, spinning, and using misleading statistics and false arguments, I’m out. I don’t trust you to draft or implement such policies, and as long as liars, cheaters and fools like you are on that side, I’m on the other. Get back to me when you stop lying.”

    I feel the same Climate Change.

    3. NOAA has an agenda, and even THEY won’t go this far.

    5. …And this sort of attitude turns everyone else off. Of course, when they lose business deals, suffer lack of upward mobility, and lose friends, it will be proof of men’s bias at work. ‘Emotionally fragile toddlers’ indeed!

  4. Neil Dorr

    Jack,

    “… and began to explain when she did an about face and walked away from me, ignoring me when I called after her.”

    You may be right about her reaction. But, perhaps, the cut of your jib isn’t always immediately appealing to some. I’m not a woman, have no issue with being explained or “talked down” to,” and agree with you most of the time, and I STILL consider you rough around the edges. Sometimes people just don’t like other people.

    -Neil

    • Except that I was the instructor in a formal seminar, and she raised the issue to me, the sanctioned and approved expert in the field, and presumed qualified to teach her. Believe me, I was polite and nn–confrontational as I addressed her point, which I have heard often, and which is one I sympathize with even if it is one that ignores the priorities of the profession. And I don’t care how “rough around the edges” someone is: you don’t register a rebuttal and then refuse to listen to a replay. Per se rude, and signature significance for a coward and an asshole. That’s also why “You’re wrong!” hit and run comments here never make it to publication.

      • Other Bill

        Absolutely. She sought Jack out. And he’s a paid expert in the field. She may not give a rat’s ass about Jack but she sure as hell didn’t like what he had to say. She can disagree but why be rude? And if she can’t handle assertive guys, she’s in the absolutely perfectly wrong profession.

      • Neil Dorr

        Jack,

        Please don’t misunderstand. The woman DID act like cowardly asshole and there is NO excuse for her behavior. That said, you characterized her actions as a now-common response by some women to “mainsplaining,” when you have no way of knowing that thought ever crossed her mind. Perhaps she’s rude to everyone, regardless of sex. Perhaps she was on the verge of having a panic attack and didn’t have time to end the conversation. Perhaps she suffered a fugue state. Perhaps she’d finally attained nirvana and your answer had become irrelevant. Perhaps …

        Calling out rude behavior is one thing (and something you do quite well), but ascribing it to a larger ideology or narrative without additional evidence potentially stretches the truth or misstates it altogether. I can’t count the number of times someone has ascribed motives to my actions (ageism, for instance) that never once entered my mind grapes.

        That said, great post!

  5. Mrs. Q

    Ugh. I nearly threw my TV out the window after hearing Stevie “UN Messenger of Peace” Wonder give possibly one of the all time best mixed messages I’ve seen in a while. He speaks often about ending bigotry yet proved himself a bigot by acting like a school yard bully with name calling. For me the worst part wasn’t the blind or unintelligent comment, it was him invoking God & having a choir sanctimoniously sing about leaning on each other. Nothing Mr. Wonder said after “if you believe…” was remotely Christian or having to do with good will. Those choir members, if they identify as religious, should have walked right off the stage.

    You know them by their fruits, and when Wonder once referred to Hilary Clinton as his mother, I knew I’d never willingly listen to his music ever again.

    • Other Bill

      Picturing you throwing your TV out the window made my day, Q. Remember when neighborhood bars (remember neighborhood bars?) would auction off the right to throw a brick through a TV screen when Howard Cosell would first appear on a Monday Night Football broadcast? Hah! Good fun. But I am worried about the welfare of your TV.

      • Mrs. Q

        My TV once spent two years in the closet so I promise it can live without my being brainwashed by it upon occasion. 😉
        We still have neighborhood bars here though. I wish they had a brick night! If they do, you’re invited OB.

        • The newer flat screens are HARD to break short of a sledgehammer… careful the brick doesn’t bounce back at you.

          That said, my TV insurance policy is to never, ever watch TV News. When the MSM BS gets rolling, we change the channel or turn it off.

          I only have time to watch maybe 8 or 10 hours of TV (and that includes Red Box rentals, Netflix, whatever: screen time of any sort) a week these days anyway, and the DVR means I only watch the commercials I wish to.

          • Mrs. Q

            Thanks for the heads up on the flat screen. Maybe setting it on fire would work?!

            Personally I love the Sony Trinitron from the early 2000’s. We watch movies on one b/c it’s a better picture than the digital TV we have.

            Yes the news is awful. Didn’t watch for two years. Darn election sucked us back in. The one good thing…I found this blog from trying to look up something I saw on TV, so it’s not a total loss.

    • Glenn Logan

      “Climate change” is no less a belief, at this point, than Christian creation. Every attempt to model and prove it have failed, just as every attempt to model and prove God’s creation of the world have failed, at least in the scientific sense. So basically, it’s leftist faith restated – what you believe is fine as long as you agree with me. Otherwise, you’re “blind and unintelligent.”

      Wonder is a musical genius, for sure, but if Einstein had opined on the proper way to write R&B music, he wouldn’t have been considered a genius in that regard. When you don’t stick to what you know, you often wind up looking “blind and unintelligent” talking about stuff you are unqualified to offer an opinion on, especially a dogmatic, unambiguous opinion like Stevie offered.

      Is it too late to suggest that if Stevie wants to believe in “climate change,” most who don’t would be fine with it? I suspect that most of us skeptics would have the good grace and manners not to refer to him as either blind or unintelligent, even though he is manifestly the former and arguably the latter when it comes to understanding science. Maybe being acclaimed as a musical genius has gone to his head, and he thinks that authority will transfer over to climatology. Not very smart, if so.

  6. If there’s a mansplanation for me going heavy on the “over” (10) of HRC mentioning “it’s in the book” on her soft-lob “The Today Show” interview, I don’t care, I won big and I’m going to Disney World…in a couple of months.

    What I was really waiting for was for her to leap across the table and throttle Matt Lauer for daring top ask a legitimate question about her email fiasco during that interview last September.

    Yet she showed remarkable calm when she omitted him from the Usual Suspects “Blame List” she waited all of one minute to bring up.

    • Other Bill

      Funny how all her complaints appear to boil down to: “someone pointed out one of my weaknesses.” I mean really. How dare they? Did anyone point out any of her weaknesses when QE2 was crowned queen? I think not.

  7. Wayne

    How did this woman ever endure law school where presumably many of the law professors were male and probably corrected her ignorance about legal cases and precedences countless times? Maybe we should have feminist law schools where all the law professors are women or identify as such.

  8. Sarah B.

    “Mansplaining” is one of my huge pet peeves. As a woman who spent some time in an almost exclusively male field, I still take the man’s side on things most of the time. Men can correct a woman, men do get to talk about female issues, such as pregnancy and abortion, after all, they were involved in at least one pregnancy and many of them were involved in more than one. Men can and do have great opinions about nearly every thing under the sun…as do women.

    Forgive me for starring the obvious, but men and women ARE different. That means that they each bring different ideas to the discussion table. That’s a good thing.

    When ever I hear a woman complaining about “mansplaining,” unless it is because a male OB-GYN told her something obviously stupid, I tend to write her off as a person to ignore.

  9. Andrew Wakeling

    Interesting. You say :” law firms can and should allow clients to choose who their lawyers are even if the reasons for their preferences are based on prejudice or bias. “ One of the key skills in running a professional services firm of any size is getting a good fit between the client and the allocated servicer. Anti discrimination legislation, professional codes and modern ideas of ‘good manners’ mean this process is rarely made fully explicit and sometimes flatly and falsely denied. But there is always a limit, and firms need to support their staff. Your ‘young woman lawyer’ may well have good reason to be angry at being excluded and patronised by the seniors in her firm. It doesn’t sound as if you had any interest in helping her, or her firm, other than restating the dry technical principle, which in this case may well have been largely irrelevant.

    • I didn’t say that lawyers who are rejected by clients for any reason don’t have reason to be angry. Lawyers who learn horrible things about their clients that they wish they could report can also be angry: they just can’t violate the ethics rules so they feel better. Clients get to choose their lawyers, ad the ethics of the profession says that all lawyers should seek to provide the best legal assistance to all, because that’s what lawyers are for. Ethics often do not result in the best personal for the lawyer. Tough. Find another profession, or just an occupation, then. Simple as that.

      • Andrew Wakeling

        In my experience the more common cause of frustration in the young female professional is not the client openly saying he doesn’t want a woman representing him, thus displaying his bias ( a regrettable but allowable preference) but rather her suspicion (justifiable or not) that her seniors may be sex biased against her in the allocation of career enhancing work. Seniors need to act vigorously to promote fairness within the firm whilst at the same time being realistic about client preferences. You might usefully have explained how difficult this can be?

        • Different course. A law firm under DC Rules cannot engage in gender bias or sexual harassment. That’s not the issue in the hypothetical at hand. The issue is whether acceding to a client’s preference as to a lawyer is a breach of the Rules. It isn’t.

  10. Chris

    Jack,

    I agree that reflexively blaming global warming for every weather event under the sun (pardon the pun) is idiotic.

    Would you agree that the “global warming is a hoax” stance is equally idiotic? I don’t mean concerns that it’s overhyped, or arguments that question the validity of models or the extent of the problem–I mean flat-out denials that global warming is happening at all, that humans are contributing to it, and claims that all scientists (including the NOAA, whom you seem to respect) who believe in some form of anthropogenic warming are money-grubbing liars.

    • Glenn Logan

      You didn’t ask me, but I’d say that global warming may be happening, and in fact, I think it is. What I am unsure about is whether or not it’s antrhopogenic. Since the available models do not fit the theory, and since the climate is an incredibly complex chaotic system, I am unwilling to accept the theory because a number of other “experts” do in defiance of proper scientific support.

      What’s most frustrating is that, for some reason (yes, I think I know why but let’s pretend I don’t) we’ve turned the scientific method on its head when it comes to global warming (or climate change) as to what is causing it. Normally, the scientific method requires that you formulate a hypothesis, then test it. If the tests fail, examine your methodology, retest again. Eventually, when you cannot model the hypothesis successfully, you consider it disproved and move on to a new hypothesis.

      The hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming has defied every modeling effort to prove it is valid, yet many have accepted this so far discredited hypothesis as a fact. That’s what it means when somebody (Stevie Wonder, I’m looking at you) tells you that you are either “blind or unintelligent” if you don’t accept the unproven hypothesis (not even yet a theory) of anthropogenic global warming.

      Having said all that, it is certainly possible (but not a fact) that mankind is affecting the climate. It is also possible (but not a fact) that the net result of that effect will be detrimental to planetary habitability. So far, those accepting global warming buy into both possibilities without further inquiry.
      This has become such an article of faith that some of the global warming true believers want to silence skeptics by passing laws, or sue those whom they believe profited from the problem without actually proving its existence or whether or not it’s detrimental if anthropogenic global warming does exist. I thought silencing heretics ended with the Spanish Inquisition, but alas.

      Speaking for myself (whom, again, you did not ask), I reject the theory on the basis of that it has proven impossible to model, I suggest we continue to look for the cause of any climate deviations that are demonstrably abnormal (which so far, I don’t believe we’ve seen), and keep our powder dry as to whether a changing climate can actually be positively or negatively affected by human intervention in the first place, even if we act desperately. In other words, we need to research the problem with the scientific method, not use consensus (a no-no in scientific research) to make decisions. If the science isn’t there, consensus on athropogenic global warming is exactly as valuable as the “scientific” consensus in the Middle Ages that the Earth was flat – and likely just as accurate.

      • This has become such an article of faith that some of the global warming true believers want to silence skeptics by passing laws, or sue those whom they believe profited from the problem without actually proving its existence or whether or not it’s detrimental if anthropogenic global warming does exist.

        The fact that they want to shut down dissent is circumstantial evidence that Climate Change®™ is a hoax.

    • Other Bill

      Chris, when you have a chance, got through the Manhattan Contrarian’s archive of article on climate science. I think Thomas Menton best represents a reasonable scepticism, or at least one I heartily endorse. Plus he’s a retired Wilke Farr partner and litigator. His argumentation is flawless and always well documented. Good example for you to follow when you’re in law school.

    • I’ve answered that many times here. It’s not a hoax. There is plenty of evidence that the earth is warming. “Climate change,’ however, as an international alarmist movement, is an engine of hype being used for political agendas, and is routinely exaggerated, used for scaremongering, and as a phony excuse for other political and environmental agendas. For those who are not used to using language precisely, “climate change is a hoax” is a lazy way of saying “those wielding climate change for political ends are not being honest to the public, and the media is lazily giving them a pass.”

      It is exactly as inaccurate to say climate change is a hoax as to say “there is scientific consensus” on climate change. There is consensus that it has been occurring. There is nothing close to consensus on how fast, how much, for how long, and to what effect. So that statement is misleading and deceitful too, especially when made, as it usually is, by people taking other advocates and authorities on blind faith, since they couldn’t explain a climate model or projection if their heads depended on it.

      • Other Bill

        Chris: Is the climate warming? Maybe. But back in the ‘fifties and early ‘sixties, the concern was global cooling. If it is warming, is the trend outside normal heating and contracting cycles that have been going on for centuries? I live in Arizona. Various native peoples flourished and perished in the desert southwest over various wet and dry periods. The Anasazi dug canals here and irrigated their crops for a few centuries and then things dried up sometime before Columbus showed up in the Caribbean and the Anasazi just disappeared. Anthropogenic climate change? I doubt it.

        Ever flown across the Pacific. Nine hours from LA or SF to Tokyo. That’s a lot of air. How many square miles of air are in the world’s atmosphere? How many gazillions of tons of air? How many cubic miles of water in the Earth’s oceans? Is it possible to get a handle on such a massive system?

        I’ve read if we stopped burning all fossil fuels right now, it would take two hundred and fifty years for the CO2 to dissipate. You really think we can enact a policy that’s going to stop the next hurricane this hurricane season?

        • “Columbus showed up in the Caribbean”

          Which was, still is actually, nowhere near the Colonies, am I right?

          We’re left to ponder: Why is he held in such utter disregard, and subjected to such virulent derision, for discovering America when it’s painfully clear he didn’t?

          Anyone heard of pickle merchant Amerigo Vespucci?

          The fact that I’m very fond of pickles deserves mention…

          • Chris

            Paul:

            We’re left to ponder: Why is he held in such utter disregard, and subjected to such virulent derision, for discovering America when it’s painfully clear he didn’t?

            Christopher Columbus is not hated for discovering America.

            Wow, that was easy.

            • ”Christopher Columbus is not hated for discovering America.”

              But, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, “Indigenous Peoples Day,” genocidal murderer, and the statues must be defiled until they’re torn down because…well…just because.

              Risking a self-issued straight line, don’t play stupid Chris. Misguided Lefty morons (forgive the redundancy), especially those in the care of Institutions of Higher Indoctrination, revile Columbus for reasons of which they’re both monumentally ignorant and horrendously misinformed.

              https://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/history/item/21742-why-the-left-hates-columbus

              I’d LUV to see one of those roving Righty reporter interviews on some campus ask students why we should hate Columbus and witness the
              manifest idiocy on full display.

              Though Columbus was Italian, he was bankrolled by Spain.

              Just a thought, but who might be the modern day descendants of the Spanish we could shake down for reparations?

              • Chris

                I have no idea why you think any of that supports your initial false claim that Columbus is hated “for discovering America,” Paul. In fact, the New American article you linked to actively contradicts that point by citing a professor who says Columbus didn’t discover America. I haven’t done a poll, but I’d wager those that want Columbus Day replaced with Indigenous People’s Day are more likely to know that he did not discover America than the general population.

                But let’s break down the main points of that article, which is so hilariously bad I would have assumed it was satire were I less familiar with what a garbage publication the New American is:

                1) Italians love Columbus. Why do you hate Italians?
                2) Columbus is good because he hated Muslims as much as we at the New American do.
                3) Slavery already existed, so the fact that Columbus was a particularly brutal slave master and pioneered new forms of slavery should be ignored.
                4) Most indigenous people died of disease, so all the others Columbus straight-up murdered should be ignored.
                5) The main source of condemnation against Columbus said something nice about him one time.
                6) If it weren’t for Columbus forcing Christianity on indigenous people, they would have all burned in hell because they would have never heard of Jesus.

                You actually found these arguments convincing?

                What does that say about you?

                • Arguing that Columbus didn’t discover America is sophistry, and along the same lines as many of the accusations that Trump “lies.” Columbus made Europe aware that the Americas existed. You can’t ‘discover” a continent that already has people living on it. We know. And maybe some Vikings and Chinese and even Egyptians got there first: so what? It was Columbus, who took an incredible risk, who proved to the civilized world that there was a big mass of land between Europe and China. That was a big deal. What he did was important. in the annals of exploration and achievements with momentous consequences, Columbus is near the top of the list, and deserves to be. For that alone, he deserves to be remembered and honored.

                  He was a brutal man and merciless conqueror.Native American have every reason to reviled him. But they aren’t the United States, which owes its existence, in some measure, to Columbus’s vision and daring.

        • Chris

          But back in the ‘fifties and early ‘sixties, the concern was global cooling.

          No. I just debunked this bullshit on this site yesterday. Global cooling was never a predominate theory. It was the hypothesis of a few scientists, and got outsized media coverage. This is not in dispute.

          Seriously, this is one of the most worn out and easily disprovable anti-AGW talking points out there. If you’re regurgitating it, you have no idea what you’re talking about and nothing to contribute on this topic.

          • Other Bill

            Never read an article about it. Just heard it from a potato farmer and from a rancher who both said the same thing. Big blizzard in the mid-‘fifties.

            So, as usual, you pick a single, tangential point and purport to knock it down and go “There!” Nice junior high debate tactic (or car wreck lawyer trial tactic) but not really very helpful to a useful discussion.

      • The hoax is not climate change, but Climate Change®™.

      • Chris

        Jack,

        That only answers half my question. You say the earth is warming–I agree. You didn’t answer whether you believe humans are contributing to this warming, but if I recall you believe that to also be the case.

        But many of the posters here clearly do not believe either of these things are true. I think you give them too much credit when you assume “Climate change is a hoax” means “We don’t know the full extent, and those who claim to are lying.” I really don’t think most of the conservatives here believe that there’s any evidence that the earth is warming at all, or that humans are contributing. But of course, they can clarify that if I’m wrong.

        While you are correct that overhyping climate change is wrong, I would think denying the problem altogether–which is how I interpret the “climate change is a hoax” comments from most of the conservatives here–would be at least as damaging, no? And yet I never see you criticize that stance. Perhaps there are good reasons for that; there are plenty of places on the Internet I can find criticism of that stance, and perhaps you believe the media and political landscape is so dominated by the doomsayer stance that calling that out is more important than criticizing those who say AGW isn’t happening at all.

        • When there is as much dishonesty, over-hyping, false analogies, scare-mongering, over-simplified science and demonizing skepticism as has occurred on the climate change activist side, trust has been forfeited completely. So much in common with a scam and a fals narrative, but no, not a hoax.

          • Yep, the Left has hijacked science so thoroughly to push socialist policy, that most skeptics who used to be cool with scientific conclusions doubt them thoroughly because they’ve seen *enough* dishonesty to not trust anything else that even remotely seems to be latched on to by policy makers.

            The Left needs to consider thoroughly separation of ITS church and the State.

        • 1) Yes the Climate is Changing
          2) We have *no* definitive proof as to the level of impact Human conduct has, whether it is negligible, minimal, or impactful.

          Let’s boil this down to some simple categories:

          1) Humans ARE a primary source of the change in climate change.
          a) Is this ACTUALLY a problem, given the entire Earth’s history of climate extremes? Possibly: but only insomuch as our ability to adapt to it. More southerly arable land will become less arable and more northerly tundra land will become arable. What we’ll see is a general population shift towards the Poles. This can impact foreign and domestic policy. But *gradually*.
          b) Do we have any reasonable assurances that the *costs* of changing our lifestyles actually outweigh the *benefits*. Freakonomics did a great analysis of this. The summary: “Even the moral argument is not without critique. With just a 1% real annual rate of growth, global per capita income rises from about $12,000 today to $77,000 by 2200. Even if climate change damages shrink the economy by 13% by 2200, as some have suggested, our distant descendants will be five times richer on average than we are. Are we to sacrifice our relatively modest wealth so they might be six-times richer that us?”
          2) Humans ARE NOT a *primary* source of the change in climate change.
          a) Then why the hell are we fussing over “fixing” the environment. We ought to be expending our energies anticipating the demographic and population impacts of people *moving* to accommodate changing environments.
          b) Why, if we think that Humans change the climate Negatively, would we think that trying to change the climate “back” to some romanticized “normal”, when we aren’t the actual drivers of climate change, hope at all to be positive change. It would seem to me that if the climate is going to change via massive and natural forces, that mankind can only hope to make things “worse” if we already believe it is our change that IS making things worse.

    • ““global warming is a hoax””

      Anyone who thinks that “global warming is a hoax” isn’t short-hand for “Man Made global warming is a hoax” should reevaluate the conversation. Since the Left’s stance IS that global warming IS man-made, we’ve all adopted the short-hand.

      • Chris

        Anyone who thinks that “global warming is a hoax” isn’t short-hand for “Man Made global warming is a hoax” should reevaluate the conversation.

        Read better. This is what I said:

        I think you give them too much credit when you assume “Climate change is a hoax” means “We don’t know the full extent, and those who claim to are lying.” I really don’t think most of the conservatives here believe that there’s any evidence that the earth is warming at all, or that humans are contributing.

    • Other Bill

      Thanks Tex. Nice article. Here’s some of it for Chris:

      The problem is, the earth’s climate is an incredibly complex system with too many variables to enumerate. GorT finds those that are convinced that (a) humans cause global climate change and (b) we should do something about it (largely in the context to reduce CO2 and ostensibly lower the global temperature) are filled with hubris. How do they know this? How do they know that the earth isn’t continuing to come out of the last ice age and we should be trending warmer?

      The inconsistencies in the IPCC report (and others) are troubling to anyone trying to make an educated decision about climate change. I will continue to advocate being a good steward of the earth and yes, we should be curbing various polluting emissions. But we should do so smartly and with more open and transparent research into the climate and not the political knee-jerk reactions and pandering to fear that so often accompanies these discussions.

  11. I hope the rapper “lynching” a white kid in a music video makes the next Warm-Up, with thorough condemnation of the parents allowing their kid to be part of that.

    Also: Chris Cillizza’s tweet:

    “The @TODAYshow did Ted Cruz porn video and Seattle mayor resignation in its first 10 minutes. Banner day for politicians!”

    Where “Ted Cruz porn video” is actually “Cruz staffer liked a porno via his official twitter” AND “Seattle mayor resignation” is actually “accused child molesting mayor resigns”

    • Chris

      I had fun with the Ted Cruz thing on Twitter, but I fully believe it was a dumb staffer, and it shouldn’t have received a second of coverage on any actual news network.

  12. Pennagain

    #1 – But ….but….bu….Jack, all I said was “good morning!” Jeez.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s