Comments on: What Kind of Fool is Matt Yglesias?

By: LJ "Beaglescout" Miller

LJ "Beaglescout" Miller — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 17:38:14 +0000

I seem to remember he made $6billion plus last year.

By: LJ "Beaglescout" Miller

LJ "Beaglescout" Miller — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 17:32:19 +0000

The consensus at the time was that Galileo was wrong.

Unless anthoprogenic global warming cultists can explain why
1) mars and jupiter are warming at the same time as earth
2) the fossil and tree record indicates that co2 levels rise and fall following temperature changes by about 500 years instead of vice versa.
3) animal flatulence is caused by humans
4) co2 which is what all plants breathe is a pollutant

I will continue to believe the AGW consensus cult is actually after something else entirely. Most likely they are a bunch of self-loathing hippies who want everyone other than them to be forced back to a caveman lifestyle with caveman economics (socialism), technology (green tech), religion (paganism), and medicine (hokum and psychedelic drugs).

By: Moe Lane

Moe Lane — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 13:10:41 +0000

It’s allowed, and goodness knows there’s always a new story out that will give somebody an excuse for writing a post.

By: ss396

ss396 — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 12:40:34 +0000

(n/t)

By: kyle8

kyle8 — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 11:48:12 +0000

There is NO consensus in the scientific community for AGCC. There is, instead a large and growing and ever louder chorus of science voices saying that the UN papers on Global warming were politicaly motivated, not motivated by science.

Read my diary, I have a good example of this a few articles down.

By: Brian Hibbert

Brian Hibbert — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 11:45:39 +0000

He once accused me of being an incestuous child molester because I made the argument that the same rules should apply to schools taking a 12 year old girl for an abortion as for them giving the girl an aspirin (IE: a parent should be involved).

Needless to say, I have no love for this gentleman.

By: stang

stang — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 09:22:54 +0000

You’re absolutely correct. You’re no expert. You don’t even qualify as rank amatuer, Peer reviewed is a little more rigorous than you and and your pals all read it on the same website,

You have offered us the ruminations of a great unknown, uncredentialed(so far as I can see) debunker of myths for the Enquirer of the pop science world as your explanation for the ludicrous, off topic arguments you’re trying to foist on people here. In light your indignant demands for peer reviewed evidence in support of a statement made by a previous poster, the pauce evidence you have offered in support of your obviously superior (but non-expert) opinion exposes you as both a hypocrite and agitator.

But hey!! There’s one positive here. Admitting you have a problem is the first step on the road to recovery. Now just back slowly away from the keyboard and nobody’s gonna get hurt.

“It is as useless to argue with those who have renounced the use of reason as to administer medication to the dead.”

Thomas Jefferson

By: BlueLandRed

BlueLandRed — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 08:00:14 +0000

but this should explain the issue better than I can

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14527-climate-myths-global-warming-stopped-in-1998.html

By: Adjoran

Adjoran — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 07:35:50 +0000

showing ANY “global warming” after 1998?

By: BlueLandRed

BlueLandRed — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 06:50:29 +0000

there aren’t any *peer reviewed* papers that say global warming isn’t happening.

And I stress peer reviewed… that’s the gold standard I’m used to seeing. I get the point about skepticism and all. But I just can’t see how a scientist can completely dismiss the possibility of global warming actually happening. .

By: katesmith

katesmith — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 06:22:40 +0000

It is true the propaganda makes claims about the so-called vast majority of scientists. However, the statement is not true and falls apart under even mild scrutiny starting with those associated with the UN. Thousands of other scientists in the field agree about that.

By: DONTREADONME

DONTREADONME — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 06:02:42 +0000

By: BlueLandRed

BlueLandRed — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 05:44:30 +0000

he believes in global warming. Therefore, nothing he says should be taken seriously.

I find this cause an effect expressed here difficult to accept

I’m mean, like it not, the vast majority of scientists that focus on the global environment are seriously concerned about the issue of global warming.

It’s seems to me to be one thing to argue those scientists could all be wrong, but it’s also seems to me to be quite another to insist that because someone concurs with the scientific community on one topic that that particular person loses all credibility on any other issue.

By: katesmith

katesmith — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 03:45:53 +0000

I just looked up some posts of Yglesias and found he believes in global warming. Therefore, nothing he says should be taken seriously. He’s winning anyway as the long Soros campaign proves–the Yankees won’t be the Yankees for long. I’ve heard several times a number of expensive tickets have gone unsold because persons were afraid of being seen sitting in those seats. ie they were afraid of being criticized and ridiculed. The Soros side never mentions the problem of personality. For example, a school teacher (in general) is not a risk taker, couldn’t be one if you threatened to shoot him and likes the luxury of a secure future that goes with a teaching career (benefits). Also likes having the summer off in many cases and is able to adapt to bureaucracies. An entrepreneur, or even a salesman on commission, is a risk taker, willing to work without guarantees and many more hours than the average worker. Focusing on money or wealth ignores the bigger issue of the individual. A risk taker sacrifices security, comfort, benefits, time with family, etc., If he happens to win after making all the sacrifices, he deserves greater rewards obviously.

By: Kate_Shanahan

Kate_Shanahan — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 02:46:59 +0000

from a typical Soros robot.

By: smagar

smagar — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 02:38:00 +0000

IIRC, he went straight from college to The American Prospect.

He used to be on the Hugh Hewitt show all the time…and what a faux pundit he was. IMO he didn’t hold up well anytime Hugh challenged him on anything.

Yglesias is most effective when he’s preaching to the converted liberal choir, or an audience that wants to nod in agreement as he speaks. I’d love to see him up against Jonah Goldberg.