How to Keep Up with the Denialists
Pharyngula linked over to this YouTube channel dedicated to debunking each piece of Climate Denialism as it comes up. Here's a sample:
Pharyngula linked over to this YouTube channel dedicated to debunking each piece of Climate Denialism as it comes up. Here's a sample:
James Cannon Boyce of Salon points out that all of us who fail to fight for clean energy are responsible for the recent Gulf oil spill.
We each use too much oil in our lives and we are each willing to spend more and more on oil, meaning that we drive the profits and the plans of the large oil companies. It is our consumption, our willingness to pay that drives oil companies to explore the depths of the Gulf of Mexico, spend hundreds of millions of dollars on rigs, because they know we will buy their product.
How many times a day does it happen that someone tells you something that is purportedly factual, yet it is totally or partially untrue? It happens dozens of times every day. For instance, someone says that the meeting is at 2, but it's really at 2:30. You ask someone directions and they get it terribly wrong. Someone claims that Obama wasn't born in the United States. Lots of falsehoods and unsubstantiated claims fly whenever people try to sell you something. Untruths occur even when experts make claims, even within their expertise. Lack of accuracy happens when people who don't know lack the courage to say that they don't know. It happens when politicians tell us that we can drill our way out of the energy crisis. It happens when people allow hope to triumph over the truth. You see it where people aren't careful or when they aren't self-critical (maybe that's redundant). You see it where someone's memory is faulty and whenever they are overwhelmed with emotion. It often happens on homework assignments and tests, even after the students carefully study the topics before providing their answers. It happens where people conjure up imaginary worlds and beings for their eternal protection. It happens when people substitute words for knowledge. It happens when people don't understand what they are talking about, or when they assume. You see it and hear it whenever someone's intellectual reach is greater than his or her grasp. I hear it all the time at work, even during sworn deposition testimony. I hear lots of white lies by kind-hearted people. I hear the untrue words of people trying to save face. I hear the untrue sentences of parents trying to spare their children from complex or intense truths. You hear untrue statements even when people are trying their hardest to be accurate. Just listen, for instance, to the number of times well-meaning people correct other well-meaning people during ordinary conversations. Bottom line: A lot of things that are said during the day are not accurate, from coast to coast. Of course, many of these inaccuracies are not intentionally incorrect. I'm not claiming that most of these inaccuracies are the result of lying, although a huge chunk of it is due to paltering. After this thought occurred to me today, I walked out into the hallway and sprung the following question on two unsuspecting attorneys:
What is the percentage of purportedly factual statements spoken by every person living in the US over the past year that are completely true by any reasonable measure of truth?
When I asked the question, I was assuming that my acquaintances would answer with something like the number that I had in my head: 40% One answered 15% and the other said 10%. Gad. I hope that neither of them is correct.Federal TARP watchdog Elizabeth Warren is warning that the Republican proposal for a "consumer protection agency" is anti-family.
"I'm tired of hearing politicians claim to support families and, at the same time, vote with the big banks on the most important financial reform package in generations. I'm deep-down tired of it."The current Senate bill, sponsored by Democrat Christopher Dodd, which would house the new consumer agency within the Federal Reserve,
adheres to Warren's four tests: a chief appointed by the president, an independent source of funding, the authority to write consumer rules and the ability to enforce them against unscrupulous lenders. The unit, thus, focuses squarely on consumers. Ensuring banks' profitability is left to banking regulators. The Republicans' counter-proposal, released this week, fails all four of Warren's tests.Warren describes the Republican proposal as follows: ""The whole idea of the substitute is to take a bunch of regulators that already failed and throw them in a committee together."
Yes, friends, the Tea Party is split down the middle. On one side, Ron Paul and his anti-government clique. On the other, Sarah Palin and her theocracy coven. What of the Christian Nation side? Here's an analysis: