Same-sex marriage is an attack on the family unit.
Last night same-sex marriage became law in the state of New York when Gov. Cuomo signed the bill. New York became the second state to legalize same-sex marriage through the legislative process (New Hampshire was the first). Four other states have legalized same-sex marriage through the court system. They are Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, and Vermont.…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments76 - María
What a waste of time arguing with the religious wingnuts!!! They won't get any rational argument, anyway. Enough said!!!
77 - zingzing
"it was not his original plan for creation because he created everything perfect."
well that went sour quick. oh, omnipotent one, how is it that you make bad plans?
78 - Tom Shelton
Wow, my article has been moved to the primary position at the top of the Politics page.
79 - zingzing
schadenfreude
80 - Cannonshop
#74 that's because the one thing NOT present in the AGW community, is necessary scientific rigour, as opposed to the ample conformance to Political Rigor-Like Creationism, AGW benefits from playing fast-and-loose with cherry-picked data, and tends to fall apart when the experiments are examined skeptically. it is kept alive, because it's an easy excuse to tell people not to pollute-something that, while laudable, isn't about doing science, but about influencing society-in the case of AGW, in a more "Environmentally Conscious" way. The only real difference being the number of degreed persons willing to buy off on AGW as opposed to ID or strict Biblical Creationism.
A similar lack of rigor has occurred before-in the Soviet "Psychic" research of the fifties, sixties, and seventies. AGW presupposes too many things that it can't prove-indeed, too many things we don't have the ability TO test, to be hard science.
But, it is a GREAT apocalyptic scare tactic if your audience is gullible.
81 - zingzing
"But, it is a GREAT apocalyptic scare tactic if your audience is gullible."
you do realize that denying agw is just as politically motivated, right? when a science-related issue breaks down on political lines, even if the scientific consensus is that it exists, and the argument against is a conspiracy theory, well, the political lines have been drawn, and that's what makes you believe what you believe, not the science. you don't understand the science.
sigh... but i beg you and all of us not to turn this into some global warming argument. i realize what this looks like and i'm sorry, but i couldn't resist.
82 - Glenn Contrarian
Cannonshop -
You're trying to claim that scientists - the very same ones who strive to determine fact from fantasy using scientific rigor in their professional careers - are NOT using scientific rigor and scientific methods to prove or disprove AGW.
Riiiiiight. AGW alone - out of nearly ALL scientific issues - is the ONLY ONE where scientific rigor hasn't been applied...despite the fact that 98% of ALL climatologists the VAST majority of all scientists agree that AGW is obviously true!.
Do you not see the error in your logic? You seem to claim to support scientific thought and believe in scientific methods...yet on this one issue out of all major scientific issues you think that scientific rigor hasn't been applied!
Has it not occurred to you that maybe, just MAYBE the vast majority of the world's scientists are right? Has it not occurred to you that maybe, just maybe there's a REASON why there are so few scientists who disagree with AGW...and those who do are more often than not funded at least in part by Big Oil? Has it not occurred to you that maybe, just maybe you should be applying your cynicism to the motives of Big Oil and the "scientists" they use to deny AGW?
Or is it simply more important to you that if liberals say something is true or right, then you must oppose whatever it is that the liberals say...regardless of the fact that the VAST majority of the world's scientists and 98% of all climatologists agree with the liberal position that AGW is very, very real?
Cannonshop, do you not get that we WANT you to be right? When it comes to global warming, we WANT the AGW deniers to be right! Do you not understand that? We do not want the coming global catastrophe that is global warming! We do NOT want it to be true! WE WOULD MUCH PREFER FOR THE CONSERVATIVES TO BE RIGHT ON THIS MATTER!
But that's not what the evidence shows, Cannonshop. AGW deniers are betting the well-being of our world and our civilization that they're right. That's NOT a wise bet to make.
83 - zingzing
noooooooooo...
ah well. if cannonshop wants to believe that all the scientists have been secretly bought and paid for by liberal interests, just like the schools have, just like the media has, etc, etc, well, he can waste his time doing that. i'm sure he's counting his money from big oil right this second. (hey--if they have a conspiracy, isn't it right and fair that we have one of our own?)
all the deniers are shills for big oil! do not believe a word they say.
meh. it's just another moronic conspiracy, glenn. aren't you used to it by now? that's what conservatives do.
84 - Clavos
Has it not occurred to you that maybe, just MAYBE the vast majority of the world's scientists are right?
Actually, the "vast majority of the world's scientists" haven't weighed in on climate change, which makes sense; for most of 'em it's not their field.
85 - Glenn Contrarian
Clavos -
Actually, the "vast majority of the world's scientists" haven't weighed in on climate change, which makes sense; for most of 'em it's not their field.
Actually, it looks like they HAVE done so. The list of countries DOES represent the vast majority of humanity on earth...and so also represents the vast majority of scientists on earth.
But of course I'm sure that you think the National Academy of Sciences doesn't know what it's talking about.
What it boils down to, Clavos (and Cannonshop) is that you have decided to not agree that AGW is real no matter how many scientists tell you that it's real. The liberals believe the scientists, and that's all you need to tell yourself that AGW is not real.
86 - Dan
"Not to support his statement he didn't, Dan. Tom's claim wasn't that there were some, which no one disputed, but "just as many, if not more."---el bicho
Yes, and then when badgered to produce "some evidence" he presented a lengthy list. It doesn't prove his claim, which would seem difficult if not impossible, but then his list is longer than yours.
87 - Dan
I see Zimbabwe's rigourous scientific program made Glenns list. I'm convinced now.
88 - Leroy
Conservatives seem to have a Theory of Contrariness that says to never agree with anything a liberal supports and then someday you´?l chance to be right and can cackle in joy at the poor mistaken liberal.
But I think they picked a loser with GW: the supporting evidence is too strong and the denial theories too weak, and all that gets distorted as it passes through the hands of people who don´t struggle with the workaday realities of working science and are burdened with illusions of what science consists of.
89 - Glenn Contrarian
Dan -
It also includes America, Russia, China, most of western Europe, Australia, Canada...
...but since it includes Zimbabwe, I guess that's all you need to ignore all the rest.
90 - Clavos
That's it Leroy, you nailed it.
/sarcasm
91 - Clavos
...and so also represents the vast majority of scientists on earth.
Unwarranted assumption (you do that a lot).
92 - El Bicho
"It doesn't prove his claim, which would seem difficult if not impossible"
Then he shouldn't have made the claim, which was the whole point.
"his list is longer than yours."
Considering I made no claim, why would I need a list?
93 - Glenn Contrarian
Clavos -
Looks like you're still trying to convince yourself that it doesn't matter how many scientists rub your nose in AGW, you're not going to believe it's real - and why? Because liberals believe it is real.
94 - zingzing
clavos seems like he should be too smart for this shit. i know he could say he's looked and the science and he doesn't believe it, but i think he knows the rest of us are too smart to fall for that, and i know he's smart enough to know he's no climatologist, and that he's smart enough to know that chances are that 90+% of scientists aren't taken by the money. even if he doesn't believe humans are better than that, he knows humans are better than that.
many humans have said "we're all going to die." and agw is one of those things. usually, when people say "we're all going to die," most people say, "you're full of shit." maybe that's what conservatives believe at this point. but why do they believe that along political lines?
because it's not science. they believe we're cool on something else. the science tells us we shouldn't be doing what we're doing. but conservatives want to burn and burn and burn and choke and smoke and fucking pollute the shit out of whatever they can as if it doesn't matter.
why? profit!
if you have another reason, please reveal it.
95 - Catherine
You should move to the Middle East - they throw homosexuals in jail and torture them. Is that your alternative? Or maybe they should just pray the gay away?
New York took our country a huge step forward in giving all American actual equal rights. Saying you believe in equal rights and practicing equal rights is not always the same thing.
96 - Cannonshop
#85 So, Glenn, in essence, you're saying that the vast majority of people outside the field of Climate Science (a relatively new subset of Geoscience) have bought off on AGW... That's a little bit like asking Doctors to comment on Legal Procedure, or Lawyers to endorse medicine, isn't it?
You argue from bandwagon and authority, but I doubt you've actually READ the IPCC reports, or examined their publicly-available methodology.
I have.
The Scientists actually WORKING in the field, including AGW backers, are less certain of their correctness than YOU are.
This is something that OUGHT to give you pause for consideration, but probably won't-because it's about POLITICS, and a good spooky-story you can scare the kids into being good environmental citizens with.
So far, AGW has been zero-for-zero in prediction accuracy, with a margin of error greater than the predicted margin of change over a ten year period-when you stack it, it gets WORSE.
When the predictions start being accurate, I'll start believing the predictions. Until then, cheap marketing ploys and polls are not science, they are political.
Please also keep in mind something you folks seem to forget...
The Climate is going to change whether you do something, anything, or nothing. It's not a steady-state system, and the number of variables involved are considerable. You might also try examining the actual content of Breathable Atmosphere when you're swallowing some of the more ridiculous assertions about carbon-outputs. 5% concentration is enough to do visible physical harm to human beings...immediately.
97 - zingzing
yes, cannonshop, the climate will "change whether you do something, anything, or nothing."
but will it also not change if you pump climate-changing gasses into the air?
if i fart on your face, will you not smell it? or will you just say, "that was bound to happen, that zingzing would fart in my face?"
you be the judge, while my ass hovers over you.
98 - Clavos
but will it also not change if you pump climate-changing gasses into the air?
Nobody, including "climatologists," knows for sure. They are going by what the computer models (which they designed and implemented themselves) tell them. In other words, these are predictions based on a type of predictor which is notoriously flawed, particularly where the climate and its workings are concerned. And, as Cannonshop says, if you actually read the IPCC reports (much of which was NOT written by scientists, but by government bureaucrats) you realize that even the scientists admit to uncertainty -- people like Max Mayfield, former director of the National Hurricane Center, for example.
99 - Irene Athena
-----------
***fifty layers of densely packed crushed charcoal****
-------------
Tom Shelton, I admire your desire to name yourself as a follower of Jesus Christ.
In the course of U.S. history, evangelicals have been identified with movemements to stop abortion, same-sex marriage, slavery (the abolitionist movement in both England and the US was strongly evangelical), the denial of female suffrage (Susan B. Anthony was a Christian), violence as a means to attain civil rights (Dr. Martin Luther King promoted peaceful demonstrations and civil disobedience, distinct from the Black Panthers' methods), alcohol sales (Prohibition).
Which is to say, sometimes we get it right, and sometimes we get it wrong.
100 - zingzing
clavos: "Nobody, including "climatologists," knows for sure."
very few things in this life are "sure." we also have an idea called "reasonable doubt." on this issue, there's little left to call "reasonable doubt," other than political posturing.
101 - Tom Shelton
Irene,
Thank you. I believe that Christians should be engaged in all aspects of society for the purpose of proclaiming the name of Jesus to a lost and dying world and in order to reform society in a manner pleasing to our Creator.
102 - Clavos
On Al Gore and his role in AGW...
103 - zingzing
read it again, tom.
104 - Christopher Rose
I wonder how far Tom Shelton would go in striving towards establishing his beliefs?
105 - Dan
"Then he shouldn't have made the claim, which was the whole point."---El bicho
Why? Because you disagree? If everyone only made claims that could be "proven" with anything near absolute certainty there would be nothing to argue about. He made a claim and when asked to provide "some evidence", he did so.
"Considering I made no claim, why would I need a list?"
You don't. I simply made the observation that Tom did provide a list. You only jeered. Boorishly.
106 - Christopher Rose
Dan, when people ask for some evidence, it's kind of implicit that the meaning is some credible evidence to support the idea put forth.
Tom's response in posting a list of a relatively short list names doesn't meet the standard for evidence.
107 - El Bicho
Not because I disagree, but because I never heard that claim before so I asked for proof to see if it I could get some verification. Do you just accept everything people tell you or only if you agree with it politically? Tom has already proven with absolute certainty that he can't back up the statement.
If he had written Steve Garvey was the home run king, I would ask for proof, but according to you some proof the statement was accurate would be a list of few games where Garvey hit a home run as well as mentions of games where he only hit a triple, but it would only prove he hit home runs, not that he was the home run king.
Again, he was not asked to provide some evidence that there any scientists but that there were "just as many, if not more". You keep ignoring that aspect or else don't understand it. Not sure which and not sure I care any longer.
108 - Dan
If Tom had listed a few games where Steve Garvey hit home runs, we would know that he was at least in the running for the title of "home run king". That would seem to qualify as "some evidence".
Tom did provide a pretty extensive list. If accurate, it qualifies as "some evidence". I too am skeptical of Toms statement, but I'm impressed by the list.
"Home run king" would seem easier to prove with certainty than what "just as many, if not more" scientists believe, but it isn't unusual for blog critics and commentors to make claims with much less or even no substantiation.
You can be hypercritical of a claim that you vehemently disagree with, and I'll feel free to observe and conclude as I do.
109 - Dr Dreadful
They are going by what the computer models (which they designed and implemented themselves) tell them.
Since when is modeling not a valid tool of scientific methodology?
And since when is it the only evidence for AGW?
110 - Dr Dreadful
If sexuality is a conscious choice, I wonder if Tom can tell us when he decided to become heterosexual.
111 - Jordan Richardson
If Tom had listed a few games where Steve Garvey hit home runs, we would know that he was at least in the running for the title of "home run king".
I hit a home run when I was 10 years old. Am I in the running for the title of "home run king?"
112 - Clavos
Since when is modeling not a valid tool of scientific methodology?
Often used, yes. Its validity varies widely with the skill of the architect. It's a tool, not proof.
There have been legitimate questions about some of the other evidence presented; the infamous hockey stick readily comes to mind.
The really interesting aspect of the whole issue is the fervor with which believers are attempting to squelch all debate -- usually by means of ad hominem attacks, rather than actual discussion.
Kinda like what heliocentrism endured in the 16th and 17th centuries.
113 - Clavos
Al Gore's hysterical hyperbole, coupled with his hypocrisy, certainly haven't helped the cause.
The Nobel committee really cheapened and devalued their prize with that one.
Old Alfred must be really unhappy.
114 - zingzing
"The really interesting aspect of the whole issue is the fervor with which believers are attempting to squelch all debate -- usually by means of ad hominem attacks, rather than actual discussion."
"Al Gore's hysterical hyperbole, coupled with his hypocrisy, certainly haven't helped the cause. The Nobel committee really cheapened and devalued their prize with that one. Old Alfred must be really unhappy."
yay, clavos...
115 - Cannonshop
#114 To be fair, Zing, in spite of the Nobel award, Gore's a Believer, not a Scientist, and a politician, which makes Hyperbole a basic tool in his toolbox, along with hysteria, so really it could be said that Clavos in #113 and #112 isn't employing hypocrisy, but rather simply acknowledging a fact relating to one of AGW's most important public figures.
That said acknowledgement irritates you, is probably demonstrative of the level of faith involved in the AGW stance-the Saints must not be Questioned?
116 - handyguy
Clavos, Doc D has been quite successfully arguing this issue with you for many months, without 'hysteria' or ad hominem attacks. Obviously he hasn't convinced you, but you can't write his arguments off as unthoughtful or bogus.
And accusing staid, bland, boring Al Gore of hysterical hyperbole says more about your limited powers of accurate observation and description than about Gore.
I mean, you can just say everyone who disagrees with you is full of it [you do it all the time]. But that has no effect whatsoever on whether you or they are right or wrong.
117 - handyguy
Cannon, you too are a believer, not a scientist [and, as your other posts amply prove, not an economist or a constitutional scholar]. All your posts are 99-plus % ideology rather than factual argument. And you could give lessons in hysterical hyperbole.
118 - Dr Dreadful
Its validity varies widely with the skill of the architect. It's a tool, not proof.
Indeed. But when the predictions of models start to be reflected in actual observed data (which they are), it behoves you to start paying attention rather than to continue to dismiss them out of hand.
There have been legitimate questions about some of the other evidence presented
Which is as it should be. The problem is that AGW "skeptics" tend to fixate on these questions to the exclusion of everything else. It's equivalent to arguing that the average height of an NBA player is under 6' because Nate Robinson is 5' 9".
Overall, AGW theory remains robust. I wish it didn't, but there you go.
the infamous hockey stick readily comes to mind.
That would be so if it were the only hockey stick. Its "infamy" ignores the multiple reproductions of the hockey stick data from a large number of other observations in the field.
Cherry picking again.
Kinda like what heliocentrism endured in the 16th and 17th centuries.
In the 16th and 17th centuries, heliocentrism, a theory developed from meticulous observations, was pitted against geocentrism, a theory developed from religious dogma and with no evidence which would be considered sound by modern scientific standards.
No surprise which one eventually prevailed.
AGW, a theory developed from meticulous observations, is today pitted against the arguments of the skeptics, which are developed almost entirely from political dogma and with no evidence which can be considered sound by scientific standards.
...
119 - zingzing
"That said acknowledgement irritates you, is probably demonstrative of the level of faith involved in the AGW stance-the Saints must not be Questioned?"
nah, it's just that it was an ad hominem attack. and i never said anything like your last phrase. don't be putting words in my mouth. when you do, it just lets me know that you don't know what you're arguing against.
120 - El Bicho
"Am I in the running for the title of 'home run king?'"
If you say you it to be true, that's all Dan and Tom need because they require no proof
121 - Clavos
And accusing staid, bland, boring Al Gore of hysterical hyperbole says more about your limited powers of accurate observation and description than about Gore.
You didn't address his hypocrisy, Handy.
OK, so his hyperbole is more somnolent than hysterical, but hyperbole is the very essence of his entire premise, both in the film and in his subsequent "staid, bland, boring" (your words) pronouncements on the subject.
And, of course, his lifestyle and "do as I say, not as I do" rhetoric haven't helped.
Actually, I'm rather glad he decided to join that bandwagon; it would appear he's done more than anyone to kill its momentum.
And kill it he has -- to a much greater degree than any of the skeptics.
122 - Dan
"I hit a home run when I was 10 years old..."---Jordan Richardson
In the words of Christopher Rose: "please do provide some evidence to support your latest laughable notion..."
123 - Dan
Thanks for that link Clavos. I don't think I've ever seen a more comprehensive analysis that so thoroughly exposes the folly of a "global green treaty movement to outlaw climate change".
I guess we should definitely hope the science of climate change is fraudulant.
124 - Dr Dreadful
Yes, Dan, it's quite the argument.
Climate change science is fraudulent because it rekwires a lotta komplerkatid numbers to understand.
Phenomenal...
125 - Cannonshop
#117 Handy, nobody is ever going to give me a Nobel Prize, nor have me speak at their University Graduation, nor even put me up in a Congressional (much less Senate) Seat.
Therefore, I'm free to have fun with this stuff-my opinions really don't matter to the people with the money and the power.
The problem comes from people who HAVE the money and the power relying on hyperbole and hysteria, bandwagoneering, etc. to try and drive a panic response to a largely out of human control phenomena, can you dig that?
I may be a member of the great unwashed, not an Economist, or a Degreed, Tenure-serving Scientific Professor, or influential power-broker, but that doesn't mean I can't handle both the complex math, and the basic tools of the science we're discussing, along with statistical analysis, and it doesn't mean that I'm not conversant with the basic chemistry and physics involved enough to be unable to examine the reported experiments and observations, the projections, and the models.
If you can do calculus and statistics, it's not that frikking tough to do, (which is why RL professors and scientists often hand it to grad students-it's the scut-work).
Anybody who can read, do calculus, and handle basic first-year statistics can do it.
And when the numbers don't add up, or when the experimental method's incomplete, it's pretty obvious. but there's an easier way to do it...
Look at the prediction, if you've passed the year, and it doesn't look LIKE what the model said it should when the model was put in operation, then it's the model that has the problem.
The math ain't that complicated, it's just long hours of drudgery.
The more amusing part, is that ratio of error-that +/- variable, when you look at the data, the +/- variables tend to be higher than the predicted rate of change.
It's like looking at politicians claiming victory or failure for their economic policies-the rate of error is high enough relative to the predicted change that backers can claim to be vindicated REGARDLESS of what happens in the real world.
Which is why, fundamentally, I'm skeptical of the claims of Human Influence, and more skeptical of the proposed "Fixes" for the (very real) Climate Change.
We're in an interglacial period, that means we're coming OUT of an Ice-Age. Historically, the world has been both a hell of a lot warmer, and colder, than it has been for the last...oh...three hundered years.
We've only really got reliable, observed measurements for about three centuries if you assume late-age-of-reason technology is effective, and global measurement is only really about sixty years old, with reliable sattelite measurement being around forty years old.
The Earth, (unless you're a Creationist) is FOUR BILLION YEARS OLD (rough estimate, error of around half a percent near as we can tell).
But even going by recorded history (over ten thousand years' worth-or four thousand more than Creationists think it is based on biblical 'begat' counts) that's still a microscopic percentage of time that we've even had "Farenheit" measurement, much less accurate measurement of temperature on local scales.
There is a limit to what forty years of data can do for you, even with the strides in archaeology in examining ice-cores and the like.
Can you dig it? Do you understand my position-and it's MINE, not some schill from Schell Oil, or bloviating talking-head's talking-points, I actually put the time into doing the math and reading the articles from the published, orthodox, pro-Global-Warming camp...
And I did it before, not after, I made my own decision on where I stood.