Search results

No problemo. :) Note that I specifically haven't vouched for the quality of the paper. I honestly don't know either way, but I can boil down the responses you've quoted to several things: - It's full of scientific errors. - It's confirmation bias, meaning he's fudging numbers to get the...

Thank you for your opinion, jillio.

Thank you for your opinion, jillio. My question still stands for netrox or anyone else who cares to answer.

I disagree with your whole premise. I don't think talking about this makes us narcissists. I'm just interesting in having a philosophical conversation about who cares more, Jake or Tom. If you're interested in that, then let's discuss it already. If not, that's fine.

No, I'm really not following you there, but you've already responded which means, per your logic, that you've already a narcissist. You got nothing to lose, so we might as well just continue.

And sans porn?

Hey netrox, my question still stands, if you care to answer it. Or anyone else for that matter.

This question isn't just for Alex. Anyone else want to give their opinion?

Comments in an article on Yahoo? That doesn't really cut it. If that's really the standard for debunking, we could have considered global warming itself debunked 10 million times over. Also, the term "alarmist model" appears in the article describing the published paper, not the paper itself...

Whoops. I missed your first sentence somehow. My apologies. Where do you get that from? I'm not saying it's incorrect as I don't follow which journals in that realm of science are legit and which aren't. I just don't find that claim in the link you posted.

Everything he wrote may or may not be true. This study may or may not be legitimate. What's interesting is you're now making the point so many skeptics have made: "confirmation bias". A very typical response from the global warming crowd is "peer-reviewed". Do you kind of see the weakness of...

This is about a peer-reviewed study, not just some blog posting. Does this mean "peer-reviewed" is no longer the magic word it once was?

I have a hypothetical question for you. Suppose you have a guy- we'll call him Tom- who volunteers several hours a week to help the poor and needy and donates, say, 10% of his income to charity. He also votes conservative because he believes leftist policies fall far short of their promises...

That's the point. It is subjective, meaning reasonable people can disagree. This article is arguing that if you disagree with the author's economic views, there's something psychologically wrong with you. I take issue with that.

He did mess up, but at least he put something out there. That's a lot more than the President can say.

Good questions. The graphs are suspect because they don't contain a source. Starting with taxes, even CBO scores are suspect because they have to do static analysis. Don't get me wrong- I like the CBO, I think they do honest work, and I believe they're professional and nonpartisan. However...

Sounds rather vague. That's my point. He can sit there and claim he plans to cut spending by x trillions of dollars, but he has shown no specifics. There's nothing for the CBO to score. We don't know when and where those cuts are coming from. The Republicans already passed the Cut, Cap, and...

My rejection of using the tax code to socially engineer the distribution of wealth does not come from narcissism, but rather a disagreement with the real-world results of such redistribution (as opposed to the flowery intentions). I think his point- that seeing the tax code only as a means for...

So where's Obama's plan? What exactly is he proposing?

Wow. Since when did AllDeaf become a bastion of hateful violent rhetoric?