Good post.

I think the point Jack was angling toward is that Tennessee has no statute under which to charge someone with a hate crime--it only acts as aggravating circumstances in sentencing once they've been convicted. It appears to be his response to the folks asking, "Why haven't these people been charged with hate crimes?"

That's a valid point. It's still a little misleading, though, by suggesting we're so backwards our state law doesn't recognize the fact that there are such things as hate crimes.

I'm guessing that was a miscommunication somewhere along the line. If I remember his blog post correctly, he got the hate crime law info from Jamie Satterfield--there may have been a mixup somewhere along the line, or he may have just been clunky in his writing it up. That's just my guess, though. Speaking of hate crimes, I believe TBI is releasing the '06 info and LEOKA today.

With McElroy, I'd suspect it was unintentional and not meant to mislead or misrepresent the facts. But it's a pretty easy thing to check. Or maybe I'm just reading him wrong and missing his point. Wouldn't be the first time.

is a great topic. u can believe anything u want. or not.

belief is the key word. and it is a "belief," w/ all the connotations, inasmuch as few believers, few nonblievers, have the knowledge and intellect to form a credible opinion. so we say we "believe."

i guess we r all like jerry falwell, operating of faith.

amen.

...few believers, few nonblievers, have the knowledge and intellect to form a credible opinion.

That makes about as much sense as if you were talking about gravity. Maybe you are?

belief is the key word. and it is a "belief," w/ all the connotations, inasmuch as few believers, few nonblievers, have the knowledge and intellect to form a credible opinion. so we say we "believe."

The global temperature shift isn't a "belief." The loss of Arctic ice isn't a "belief." The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere isn't a "belief."

Now, someone that wants to "deny" those quantities, well -- those are, in fact, people choosing to "believe" something. They're choosing to "believe" a line of baloney; i.e. that there's no problem. Just wish it away, and poof. Gone.

And those people, in their arrogance and complacency, will see that we wipe ourselves out.

That's a lot more probable outcome than some bearded sky-pixie swooping out of the heavens to jerk you out of your shoes come some supposed arbitrary day of judgment.

____________________________

I'm a guy in a Reagan mask -- and I'm running for President!

is there any possibility whatsoever that that the proponents of the belief in global warming are mistaken, that the doubters might be actually correct?

just asking.

put differently, has there ever been a time in history, a topic, where the consensus of scientic opinion has nonetheless wrong?

p.s.: i am a round earth man myself, but i can teach it either way. i never compromise my integrity too much.

i never compromise my integrity too much.

That certainly looks like a great GOP presidential talking point. It's a bit like having a daughter who is only slightly preggars isn't it?

The Hill Online

"is there any possibility whatsoever that that the proponents of the belief in global warming are mistaken, that the doubters might be actually correct?"

Climate change is not a belief system. Neither is Darwiniam theory. The answer is NO, anyway. The only questions with validity are How big wil the effects be, what can we do about it, and how should we deal with the people who stand in the way of saving lives and the planet.

is there any possibility whatsoever that that the proponents of the belief in global warming are mistaken, that the doubters might be actually correct?

Stop and consider the possibility that the scientific community is actually right.

You are aware, by the way, that peak oil production is probably not too far in the future either, right? Or is the fact that we're going to run out of oil just "a belief?"

____________________________

I'm a guy in a Reagan mask -- and I'm running for President!

is there any possibility whatsoever that that the proponents of the belief in global warming are mistaken, that the doubters might be actually correct?

Not really. Unless the global-warming-theory detractors can come up with some sort of evidence proving their side of the story, which up to this point? They haven't. Unless you count crackpots like German high-school teacher E.G. Beck, whose revisionist history of temperature ranges - clearly ripped off form a modified Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report - has been circulating for years. (Do a Google; he's got a whole section in the Medieval era where temperatures average 1 degree warmer than they are now.)

What part of "The American Association of Petroleum Geologists is the only scientific society that rejects these conclusions: most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations" don't you understand, exactly...?

Put diffrently: Some deniers try to portray climate change as some hoax perpetrated by some group of "global warming believers" as if it were a cult, and that if we were to do something there would be diasterous consequences for our economy.

Absolutely freaking weird.

Deniers are either totally scared chickens or batshit crazy, or both.

Every day the economy has winners and losers. Working to correct climate change would simply direct that the losers be the ones who caused the problem and that isn't even guaranteed.

There are no crystal balls in the reality based world. But the uncertainty is not whether GW exists and is due largely to man's out-of-balance burning of fossil fuels. The uncertainty is over the rate at which GW will progress. Even the most conservative estimates are very scary. Regarding a U.S. military study that concluded that global warming is a serious national security threat, retired Gen. Anthony Zinni stated, "Even a small change of 2 to 3 degrees in one direction could be the difference between a management problem [and] a catastrophe."

Dick Cheney's one percent doctrine follows that even if there's just a 1 percent chance of the unimaginable coming due, act as if it is a certainty. It's not about 'our analysis,' it's about 'our response.'

Why not take the same view about something much more certain according to peer-reviewed science and about which the stakes are even much higher? (There is no peer-reviewed science that debunks global warming; that dissent exists only in the media.) And should we believe the science or some in the media?

One can look up all of her/his questions from here. The link to here is particularly good.

Or you can just stick your head in the sand, maybe because it feels better to.

I think of global warming in this way: We are throwing Lawn Darts over the fence into the future. Just because we can't see where they land doesn't mean they aren't killing anyone.

The dangers may not be obvious but somebody...maybe all of us...is going to get hurt in a big way.

Global warming is a ridiculous joke that is being forced on otherwise well meaning people in the same way that eugenics was propagandized in nazi germany. Even if it was real and affected by human activity so what? There is absolutely nothing you and I can do to stop it! No amount of flourescent (mercury filled) light bulbs or hybrid cars is going to make any difference! This is nothing but a disguised attempt at redistribution of wealth on a global scale and I think I'd like to keep my wealth, thank you.
AND as far as hate crimes go, why should anyone get a harsher sentence for a hate crime? Murder is murder. Assault is assault. It shouldn't matter why you murdered someone or did whatever you did to them if it's a crime anyway. The same peverted reasoning that allows someone who commits a "hate crime" to recieve harsher punishment also allows someone like Mary Winkler, who shot her husband IN THE BACK with a shotgun and was NOT in immediate fear for her life or being attacked, to get off with a slap on the wrist.

Global warming is a ridiculous joke that is being forced on otherwise well meaning people in the same way that eugenics was propagandized in nazi germany

No, actually, the deniers are propagandizing. And you're swallowing the hype; hook, line, and sinker. You took the bait. You're gut-hooked by liars.

This is nothing but a disguised attempt at redistribution of wealth on a global scale and I think I'd like to keep my wealth, thank you.

Ah, we get to the nub of it. Black helicopters.

____________________________

I'm a guy in a Reagan mask -- and I'm running for President!

in deed!

"Unless YOU have been the victim of abuse you have no place judging someone who has. So take that holier-than-thou attitude of yours and shove it where the sun don't shine."

Actually yes I have been the victim of abuse. I was with a woman for three years who at various times attacked me with a knife, a baseball bat and a rolling pin. I had dishes, water glasses, telephones and onyx ashtrays thrown at my head. I was hit, slapped, kicked and scratched on multiple occasions. She would get so drunk that she would run into things and fall over things and then she would call the police and say I hit her, using her bruises as evidence. I walked on eggshells constantly, afraid to do anything that might set her off. So don't tell me about it sister. I stayed with her because despite it all I loved her and as bad as it was I couldn't stand the thought of being without her. When I finally did get out I was extremely depressed and for a long time I didn't know what to do with myself without her constantly telling me what to do. NOT ONCE did I think about picking up a shotgun and blowing her to bits. There is a concept that I believe has been largely lost in our society and it is this. When you are an adult human being you are RESPONSIBLE FOR YOURSELF! If you stay in an abusive relationship it is because YOU chose to stay (unless you're chained up in the basement or something which is a different story). You are responsible for your own actions.
Mary Winkler is responsible for picking up a shotgun and shooting her husband while he lay in the bed. PERIOD. If I had done that do you suppose I would get off with a week in jail and two months in a psych ward? Hell no! I don't care what he did to her before she shot him, she is an adult human being and I'm quite sure she had the option of taking the kids and leaving on multiple occasions. There are layers upon layers of services for abused women in our society. She CHOSE not to avail herself of them and CHOSE to shoot her husband. She should be in prison for decades.

Besides the fact that there are usually obvious differences between men in abusive situations and women in abusive situations (economic, power, physical strength, etc.) and not that I don't sympathize with your past situation...

This is WAY WAY off the (main) topic of global warming and climate change and the side issue of editorial policy at the local paper.

Please take it offline, or tone it down and start a different discussion.

Thank you.

These threads do tend to morph a little after the first several posts, but ok, fine...

I understood that as a conservative I wasn't allowed to "start a different discussion".

I understood that as a conservative I wasn't allowed to "start a different discussion".

I think it's just a matter of "posting responsibly" on a blog that doesn't exist to promote right-wing talking points. Which is aside from 97% of the other blogs and media in this region. Why would anyone need to come to a progressive site to post yet more GOP propaganda?

Aw, we're just easy targets. Being "soft on crime" and "whining lib'ruls" and all that. It's obvious that if you just shove us a little bit we'll start crying, right? Since nobody could actually believe a left-leaning POV makes sense or anything.

I did some listening to the G8 Conference on Radio Prague until steam started coming out of the top of my head. We can't agree to reduce emissions by 50% even though we have a staggering 43 years to do it?

It's just ridiculous to insist that countries with a fraction of the carbon emissions of the U.S. be made to hew to some benchmark first. We broke it, we bought it, say I.