Natey 1's Comments


You're absolutely right. There are and always will be kooks on both sides, but that in no way implies that the sides are equal, or that they deserve criticism equally.

Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, etc. used to be far, far right. "Shock jocks," if you will. Now they are actually a fair representation of the right's ideological platform (not the electorate - the platform). Why would this article criticize left-wingers when equal rights movements typically arise from the left? The political right has become such a caricature that it's about as laughable as the picture in this article (which you don't seem to find offensive?).

Who is the left-wing Sarah Palin? Who is the left-wing Limbaugh? Michele Bachmann? Rand Paul? Rick Perry? These are not off-the-wall "rogue" characters. These are people who can earnestly claim that man walked with dinosaurs at the time of earth's creation 6,000 years ago, that God won't let us run out of oil, etc.... and still have the full, unapologetic backing of their party.

THAT'S the difference. If one side of the aisle has more visible kooks, it will draw more criticism. Plain and simple.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
What he said is "I love the women's movement — especially when walking behind it."

Please tell me you were being ironic and just forgot to post the punch line.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
This is actually a video recording of a Star Talk podcast from months and months ago. I wonder if they're going to be releasing any new video podcasts or just the "live" Star Talk podcasts Neil has done every now and then over the past few years.

Either way, I'll probably watch. I'm a fan of both Nerdist and Neil Tyson.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
On the contrary, the purpose of the "first world problems" internet gag is to convey exactly this message; first world problems are not problems. Regardless, this video makes a striking contrast.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Translation: "The super wealthy have rigged US tax/monetary policy for their own benefit, and for the detriment of everyone else. Guess there's nothing we can do about it! Better just lie down and accept it."
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
The current fiscal crisis is a crisis of demand. Large corporations have more cash on-hand than ever why haven't they been hiring? That's right: NO DEMAND. That is the most basic fact one needs to understand about our current economic situation. Trickle-down economics is a joke, and only the uninformed still tout its merits.

How, exactly, has Socialism has been proven ineffective? Are you perhaps ignoring the fact that the most prosperous (per capita), most well-educated, and healthiest countries on earth (moreso than the US in all respects) sway heavily towards socialist policies?

And, please, your examples are terrible. Not every company will invent a product that completely changes the way the world operates. In fact, the overwhelming majority won't. Also, apple didn't create a demand for music delivery devices; the demand was already there. Nor did they create the first mp3 player. All they did was grab a majority of a pre-existing demand.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)

I agree that wealth can be created, but that doesn't begin to describe or address the reality of America's wealth gap.

And let's not bring up trickle-down "job creator" economics, which has been proven thoroughly ineffective time and again.

Yes, it is very important for small businesses to have easy access to capital. But businesses in and of themselves don't create jobs. Demand creates jobs. Specifically, consumer demand. The very same consumers who possess a dwindling amount of the nation's total wealth.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
I'm amazed how so many of you can dismiss social/economic inequality with such a simple phrase as "life isn't fair."

Well guess what, "life" didn't create the class disparities we see today. The nation's wealthiest lobbying to rig the system in their own favor is what did it. A system designed to divert more and more of the nation's aggregate wealth to the top few percent of citizens is hardly something that should be tolerated. Why would you even defend that kind of system?

It's not about hard work vs. laziness. It is about people setting themselves up to be fundamentally more advantaged from the start, and setting up others to be fundamentally more disadvantaged.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
@Dan Pangburn

Do you actually know what the first law of thermodynamics is? I'm curious to see how you think it applies to your argument.

And how, exactly, have I been fooled by politics? I don't pay attention to Al Gore. I pay attention to the consensus of experimentation and observation, which unswervingly points to Anthropogenic Global Warming. I have the entire body of scientific evidence to back up my opinion. How about you?
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
@Dan Pangburn

You'll pardon me if I don't take your word for it over the National Academies of Science of every major industrialized country and 97%-98% of actively publishing climate scientists (A.K.A. experts).

It is your prerogative if you wish to maintain a fundamental distrust of the scientific method, but you should know that it doesn't exactly help your credibility. Denialism usually boils down to irrational conspiracy theories anyway.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)

Again, I credit your willingness to dig deeper. Unfortunately I'm writing this before work and don't have the time to create as thorough a response as I'd like, but I'll try to at least respond to each of your points.

Global Temp: The IPCC creates models to account for best-case, worst-case, and likely scenarios. It's difficult/impossible to predict carbon emissions at significant periods into the future, so the practical way to account for this is to create multiple models based on multiple avenues of possibility.

What you've done is select the "worst case scenario" as your standard of proof. That's not even remotely a reasonable way to prove or disprove anything.

It turns out that the IPCC's "likely scenario" sticks pretty close to subsequent historical data.

Snowfall: One decade does not constitute a long-term global average, and a decade-long graph that ends on a year with record high snowfall is misleading at best. Rutgers does the plotting for us over a longer period of time.

Water vapor feedback: It has been measured (see AIRS). It is, however, your choice if you choose to believe a thoroughly debunked Physicist's paper over empiricism.

Tropospheric hot spot: Again, we have short-term observation of this, although the long-term is still pretty spotty until more data is collected. Is it a smoking-gun that casts doubt on AGW? Not at all.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)

The planet is a closed system? Could have fooled me!

And here all this time I thought the sun was located outside of the Earth, acting as an external source of heat. Since it apparently isn't doing that, I guess "man-made global warming" isn't real after all!

On a more serious note, I suggest you educate yourself. As it stands, you know just enough about things like the greenhouse effect and the carbon cycle to completely misunderstand how they work.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)

To your credit, you have a more thought-out opinion compared to most others. Unfortunately, an opinion based on misinformation is still tainted.

Global temp is continuing to rise, snowfall is in a declining trend (important word), positive water vapor feedback has been observed (not just predicted) multiple times by the IPCC and independent research, and satellite data show a tropospheric hot spot.

Where are you getting your information from? Is it from random blogs and the WSJ opinion pages?
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
@Piers "Morgan"

I agree that this blog post does a disservice to actual science and that one warm season can't be directly linked to global warming as the cause.

However, you are wrong when you say there are no "real hard facts." In reality, the entire body of scientific evidence points to man-made global warming as a reality. Meaning: the argument against man-made global warming has no fact/experimentation/observation to upon which to stand.

Don't just assume that the only "hard facts" are the ones that support your pre-conceived beliefs.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)

"Do I believe that our current warming trend is caused by mankind? I have seen no proof whatsoever that the warming trend is linked to human activity."

All you have to do is look. The consensus of scientific experimentation/observation conclusively points to human activity as the cause. Unfortunately the average person is still fairly out-of-touch with the scientific community and thinks that there is still a lively scientific debate over that point (there isn't).
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)

"1860…it’s hard to blame industry emissions when there was very little at that time."

So the fact that the global temperature has been getting steadily hotter at a rate never before seen in nature since the industrial revolution(!!!!) when human industry(!!!!) started.... that doesn't suggest some sort of cause-and-effect relationship to you? Let me say this again: Human industry starts --> global temperatures start to rise during that exact period. Hmmmm.

And why do you assume there's no logical data? On what evidence do you base that conclusion? In reality, evidence and experimentation from multiple branches of science point to humanity as the culprit for the current warming trend.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)

Are you perhaps referring to the so-called "Climategate" incident which was debunked by at least 8 independent investigations? (Meaning no evidence of wrongdoing was found, nor were there any problems with the data and conclusions drawn by the targeted scientists).

Is that what you're referring to? Because global warming deniers love to cling to to that nugget since there is literally nothing for them to support their beliefs on.

And I do mean literally nothing: there is not one peer-reviewed paper with evidence/experimentation/data to refute or even cast compelling doubt on the finding that the current global warming trend is largely due to human activity. Not a single one.

There is, in fact, no debate about this within the realm of science.

Don't believe me? Do your own research. NOTE: blog articles, Fox News, and "research" funded by oil companies and/or fundamentalist Christian "institutes" do not constitute evidence upon which you should form your opinions.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)

Now I know you're just trolling. What exactly do you think a feminist is? (Hint: they want the exact opposite of what you implied.)

You seem to think feminists have all this power to control the media.... and that for some reason they're using that power to appeal almost exclusively to male sexuality and to simultaneously give themselves body issues. How does that make sense?
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
@Ryan S

Self-victimization is a pretty common tactic used to marginalize feminism, minorities, etc. If you genuinely think feminism is about women trying to slack off while making men do all the work...well, you're probably too deluded for any rational argument to get through.

So I ask you this:

Did you grow up with body issues? Ever been slut-shamed? Develop an eating disorder? Do you get paid consistently less than women for the same job? Is your gender vastly underrepresented in many industries? Have you ever been afraid of being raped? Ever?


Then I'm pretty sure you're not in a position to talk about men being oppressed by women. I'm also pretty sure you don't know the first thing about feminism.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
I see we still haven't been able to solve that drunken, jerky sway that happens after every movement.

Don't get me wrong though; this is still fascinating.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Interesting point, but I'd still say it's lucky to have abundant natural resources AND the latent human talent pool to capitalize on them. There are so many places in the world with relatively abundant resources where the human equation hasn't quite caught up.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)

Page 1 of 2       next

Profile for Natey 1

  • Member Since 2012/08/04



  • Threads Started 37
  • Replies Posted 5
  • Likes Received 4
  • Abuse Flags 0

This website uses cookies.

This website uses cookies to improve user experience. By using this website you consent to all cookies in accordance with our Privacy Policy.

I agree
Learn More