tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post8490240348127610513..comments2024-03-28T16:06:00.107-04:00Comments on the daily howler: Former Rhodes Scholar gets crushed by James Inhofe!<b>bob somerby</b>http://www.blogger.com/profile/02963464534685954436noreply@blogger.comBlogger51125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-26274921614056799722013-07-15T13:39:55.845-04:002013-07-15T13:39:55.845-04:00What a joke!Rightwingers are the nastiest beings o...What a joke!Rightwingers are the nastiest beings on the planet,they revel in hate,bigotry and outright baseless lies,just watch Faux"news", it's their manta!Your protest against liberals is nothing but jealousy and guilt,when have the Repubs done a damn thing for working Americans or for that matter been right about anything in the past fifty years? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-71419329692273922762012-03-22T10:23:14.825-04:002012-03-22T10:23:14.825-04:00Perhaps you didn't see the interview-in additi...Perhaps you didn't see the interview-in addition to a few laughs he managed to ask serious & reasonable questions about why the rhetoric had to be so over the top-that may be good for ratings but bad for real discussion--no gotcha questions-does Rachel operate that way? JS tried to explain to her that their jobs were different I don't think he got through to herAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-90460322060164319582012-03-20T13:23:58.519-04:002012-03-20T13:23:58.519-04:00This is Anon Mar 17, 9:13AM.
"Like Anon, I w...This is Anon Mar 17, 9:13AM.<br /><br />"Like Anon, I worry that scientists are affected by money. That's one reason I'm a skeptic. The amount of financial support for warmists is about a thousand times as much as for skeptics."<br /><br />Financial support for scientists should only be worrisome if there's a conflict of interest, i.e., if the source of the money has a vested interest in the scientists reaching a predetermined conclusion. Maybe I'm wrong, but I only see conflicts of interests arising with climate scientists taking money from fossil fuel industries.<br /><br />"E.g., how much the globe will warm if CO2 doubles? Skeptics aren't sure. The warmists have models showing anywhere from 2 degrees C to 6 degrees C of warming. That's not a concensus."<br /><br />Yes, it is.<br /><br />It isn't necessary for everyone to agree on the exact degree of warming for there to be a consensus that the planet is warming and that the warming is caused, in the main, by human activity.<br /><br />Similarly, it isn't necessary for all anthropologists to agree on the exact timing and mechanism of speciation for there to be a consensus that evolution accounts for the variety of life on the planet.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-62404378484152688292012-03-19T11:35:26.472-04:002012-03-19T11:35:26.472-04:00"You don't get an entire day to think up ..."You don't get an entire day to think up questions you "shoulda, coulda" asked."<br /><br />What was she doing when she was reading his book?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-76375299957773600632012-03-19T11:20:06.621-04:002012-03-19T11:20:06.621-04:00Hieronymous, because a debate doesn't work lik...Hieronymous, because a debate doesn't work like that. Sure, you prepare in advance the questions you want answered. But you also have to think on your feet. You don't get an entire day to think up questions you "shoulda, coulda" asked.<br /><br />A debate is also unlike a sporting event in which the "victor" is obvious by the final score. But is also like a sporting event in that people sitting on the sidelines get to second-guess, ex post facto, all the things their team "shoulda, coulda" done while they were actually playing the game.<br /><br />And of course, like the second-guessers on the sideline, they are assured with 100 percent certainty of mind that they're "couldas, shouldas" would have succeeded.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-35657432703943351722012-03-19T09:40:45.108-04:002012-03-19T09:40:45.108-04:00@anon 2:28 a.m.
I don't understand you're...@anon 2:28 a.m.<br /><br />I don't understand you're second sentence, but in any event, if this is how we're supposed to "other side", what exactly do you expect to gain from the discussion, other than a few laughs?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-57070408493753833342012-03-19T09:38:25.692-04:002012-03-19T09:38:25.692-04:00@David in Cal
We've gone over this before; th...@David in Cal<br /><br />We've gone over this before; there's no other conclusion that that you're a paid right-wing shill. These arguments clearly aren't taking place in good faith.<br /><br />And paradoxically, you're the best refutation to Bob Somerby understanding of political discourse in this country. It's really quite hopeless; one might as well just seek rhetorical advantage, because we won't get an honest discussion with folks like you.<br /><br />It's also hilarious to hear a market fundamentalist like you worry that maybe money corrupts judgment, but that's neither here nor there.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-42670609677015780782012-03-19T05:28:15.539-04:002012-03-19T05:28:15.539-04:00This is a fake news show on a comedy channel &...This is a fake news show on a comedy channel & he showed how to talk to the "other side" in an adult manner The notion of a "takedown" is chidish FYI when he says something critical of the "haves" the limousine liberals scream false equivalenceAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-16882698157345778002012-03-19T01:46:58.015-04:002012-03-19T01:46:58.015-04:00Although it's often claimed that there's a...Although it's often claimed that there's a scientific concensus on GW, that's not the case. There isn't even a concensus among the warmists. <br /><br />E.g., how much the globe will warm if CO2 doubles? Skeptics aren't sure. The warmists have models showing anywhere from 2 degrees C to 6 degrees C of warming. That's not a concensus. Suppose physicists disagreed about the relationship between mass and energy, with models ranging from e = mc^2 to e = mc^6. That would hardly be a "concensus" or "settled science." <br /><br />Like Anon, I worry that scientists are affected by money. That's one reason I'm a skeptic. The amount of financial support for warmists is about a thousand times as much as for skeptics.David in Calnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-22378675897317781842012-03-18T06:20:53.514-04:002012-03-18T06:20:53.514-04:00Anon 09:47 PM LOL, you're so right about this ...Anon 09:47 PM LOL, you're so right about this blog's increasing crappiness. It reads like a Media Matters for the right, except since it can't focus on facts it focuses on shortcomings in delivery, aka aesthetics.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-31243006099763346872012-03-18T06:15:51.942-04:002012-03-18T06:15:51.942-04:00Bob must have been screwed over by a short-haired ...Bob must have been screwed over by a short-haired woman at some point, since the very sight of Maddow seems to enrage him.<br />Of course, he hasn't appeared on TV lately, so envy may be a factor. Thom Hartmann's show on RT is great, and I would love to see Bob invite himself on.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-69685099756907195522012-03-18T06:14:48.744-04:002012-03-18T06:14:48.744-04:00Dear Anonymous at 9:20 PM
Please explain why it&#...Dear Anonymous at 9:20 PM<br /><br />Please explain why it's unreasonable to expect Maddow to to think of tough-to-weasel-out-of questions BEFORE an interview with an obvious crackpot?Hieronymus Braintreehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05303938809800287873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-85281703309775769292012-03-18T05:59:31.243-04:002012-03-18T05:59:31.243-04:00Exactly what is the proof here that climate denier...Exactly what is the proof here that climate denier is based on Holocaust denier?Hieronymus Braintreehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05303938809800287873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-78113576255131335002012-03-18T03:58:45.496-04:002012-03-18T03:58:45.496-04:00Actually, it's a label implying an obstinate r...Actually, it's a label implying an obstinate refusal to face facts, and instead, cling to opinions shaped by ideology, and only believe things that conform to that ideology. I can see why you resent it so.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-24038082482789102962012-03-18T00:47:13.718-04:002012-03-18T00:47:13.718-04:00Really? Bob doesn't make this point "over...Really? Bob doesn't make this point "over & over again"? <br /><br />Good gravy, it's just about the only thing he seems to be able to write about these days. That, and Gail Collins' dog obsession.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-38081809553881991382012-03-18T00:20:53.562-04:002012-03-18T00:20:53.562-04:00And it's so easy after the fact for both you a...And it's so easy after the fact for both you and Bob to sit at your computer after thinking it over and come up with questions Maddow "shoulda, coulda" asked.<br /><br />And since both you and Bob could think of these brilliant questions a day later, well obviously you would have done a much, much better job than the hapless Maddow.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-45305889437206605822012-03-18T00:15:16.426-04:002012-03-18T00:15:16.426-04:00Good gried! About the fourth or fifth time Maddow ...Good gried! About the fourth or fifth time Maddow brought up the broad consensus of climate scientists, Inhofe accused her of repeating a lie so often that "her audience" believes it:<br /><br />"You say something over and over again and your audience, particularly your liberal audience, they want to believe it."<br /><br />Then we got this rather delightful and crushing take down when Maddow challenged Inhofe to support his statement that those who warn about global warming are outspending those who deny it by 2 to 1 in the media:<br /><br />Inhofe: "You got your Move On's, Michael Moores, George Soros and Hollywood..."<br /><br />Maddow: "I'll put Exxon against Michael Moore's spending any day."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-30621028194497140462012-03-17T12:13:50.751-04:002012-03-17T12:13:50.751-04:00That's a great point David in Cal.
That is wh...That's a great point David in Cal.<br /><br />That is why Sen. Inhofe's list of "scientists" who deny climate change is rubbish. Many of those on the list are non-specialists; i.e., people who have not put in the years and decades of hard work needed to truly understand the field.<br /><br />Rachel Maddow did NOT call out Sen. Inhofe on this point. She let the claim go unchallenged and missed a perfect opportunity to embarrass Inhofe. <br /><br />Can you imagine her asking these questions? "Are TV weathermen qualified to talk about climate science research? I want to know because your list contains several of them." If Inhofe says yes she can reply, "You do? So you don't believe that credentials are necessary to be an expert in the field? In that case, would you let a nurse perform open heart surgery?"<br /><br />"You also mentioned Richard Lindzen. Did you know that Richard Lindzen takes money from the oil and coal industries? That's a conflict of interest, don't you think?"<br /><br />As a result, people watching were left with the image that there may be thousands of scientists who deny global warming when this is NOT, in fact, the case.<br /><br />This is what Bob Somerby means when he says that Maddow got her butt kicked.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-91309733192182518052012-03-17T12:09:22.703-04:002012-03-17T12:09:22.703-04:00Think again. Stewart successfully kidded Norquist...Think again. Stewart successfully kidded Norquist on his hypocrisy and inconsistency, but this was no take down. There was plenty that could have been said (Grover's got quite a dossier), but wasn't, because it wouldn't have been nice, and other right-wing celebs would think twice about going on the John Stewart show.<br /><br />This is a show for the "haves", who are content with entertainment value, rather than substance. The American tragedy, as it were, merchandised for limousine liberals.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-65580292514178523732012-03-17T10:58:30.459-04:002012-03-17T10:58:30.459-04:00Rachel did 2 segments on inhofe in the famous dec ...Rachel did 2 segments on inhofe in the famous dec show one about kill the gays and one where she introduced us to James Mountain Inhofe and the segment was all about his position on global warming with a mention of earlier inclusion in conservative group from kill the gays in Uganda segment. He said he had no idea about kill the gay bill segment she said that was the context of her mention of him on the date. She weakens herself with such tactics.Kathybhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06109647881183983218noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-22785004385285774572012-03-17T10:10:30.305-04:002012-03-17T10:10:30.305-04:00This.
I don't watch Maddow anymore, or Olberm...This.<br /><br />I don't watch Maddow anymore, or Olbermann or Schulz or O'Donnell. They're all too much about the shtick: the cute illustrations, the cute puns and, most of all, the trivial news items of the day that they cover, proving only that their interns have read the same blogs as I did that day. I like snark but I don't like it presented as serious content. <br /><br />Not one of these hosts was hired to break new ground and so they don't. Their job is ratings, and profit for the corporation who pays them. Somerby has indeed made this point before, but it's not one he makes over & over again in the repetitive writing style he employs. I wonder why?demithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02783935868174871470noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-49869295456591775952012-03-17T09:15:02.196-04:002012-03-17T09:15:02.196-04:00In that case, David in Cal, can we assume you now ...In that case, David in Cal, can we assume you now accept the scientific consensus on global warming, and will no longer refer to the inexpert outliers in the pay of the fossil fuel industry?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-70132541106469708042012-03-17T09:12:28.679-04:002012-03-17T09:12:28.679-04:00If you ever wondered what happened to liberalism i...If you ever wondered what happened to liberalism in the U.S., and at how very successful corporate America has been at denaturing the movement, look no further than this post. Here we have an analysis of the failings of a cable TV broadcast, but no mention, not a word, of its basis in profit.<br /><br />Imagine the "Left" not only without Marx, but as if the guy never existed. What we're left with is liberalism as attitude: what we like, what we don't like. No economic analysis, no populism, no consciousness of class. Sort of like Al Gore, when you get down it. Admirable as far as it goes, but it goes nowhere. <br /><br />Let's consider what we're talking about:<br /><br />1) the Maddow show exists to make money for MSNBC<br /><br />2) the show earns money for MSNBC by attracting sponsors<br /><br />3) it attracts sponsors by attracting mass audiences<br /><br />4) it attracts mass audiences by attracting celebrities <br /><br />5) it attracts celebrities by giving softball interviews and allowing them to sell their products (books, movies, tours, political careers, etc.) on TV<br /><br />Now, you'd think this would be obvious, to anyone living in America today. But you'd be wrong. We Americans -- and here at The Howler -- have never heard of the profit motive, despite the fact that profit drives the behavior we claim to abhor.<br /><br />But no matter. Just keep complaining about Rachel. It's bound to produce results, sooner or later! I mean, it's done great so far, no?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-32279724812551074472012-03-17T03:41:59.713-04:002012-03-17T03:41:59.713-04:00Not only is the science beyond the average person,...Not only is the science beyond the average person, I'm afraid most of the science is beyond almost all of us. I regularly read the scientific debate on some of the blogs, particularly http://climateaudit.org/ , http://judithcurry.com/ http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/ These bloggers are very smart scientists. Many of the commenters are also scientists. They conduct high level scientific discussions.<br /><br />I have worked with and designed lots of models, including models for hurricanes and earthquakes. I know a fair amount of statistics. Nevertheless, I don't know nearly enough physics and chemistry to judge those aspects. And, much of the statistics is so specialized that I can't judge who's right and who's wrong. When two scientists disagree on some climate-related paper, I think there are very, very few people who have the background to confidently judge which one is correct.David in Calnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-21129092396899272052012-03-16T23:44:07.919-04:002012-03-16T23:44:07.919-04:00I watched the video, Inhofe clearly came out on to...I watched the video, Inhofe clearly came out on top. Maddow was very hapless and unprepared. The "Kill the Gays Bill" thing comes off as desperation. The sad thing is, it didn't have to be that way, with a little knowledge and debating smarts Maddow could have done better, but I think I know why it turned out the way it did. One of the things that I think Bob misses, is that conflict like this sells. I can remember listening to a radio host on ESPN radio say once that conflict was the most important thing you could do on a talk show on the radio, or on cable news. Conflict is what drives listeners to tune in, not well argued or meaningful discussions. People want to hear people disagree violently, they want to identify with those who support their side of the issue, regardless if what they are saying makes any sense. I would presume Maddow's higher-ups at MSNBC know this, and so that's what she's told to give us, or she knows this herself and that's what she provides. Each side gets to have it's red meat and walk away feeling superior for having rooted for "their" side. It's all very sad and predictable.hardindrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05275899305949454964noreply@blogger.com