Support NeoGAF

[Teggy]

OMG, Kentucky, so much derp, from both sides of the aisle.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/08/brandon-smith-mars-climate-change_n_5568058.html

During a Natural Resources and Environment Committee meeting Thursday, Smith, the Senate majority whip, said:

As you [Energy & Environment Cabinet official] sit there in your chair with your data, we sit up here in ours with our data and our constituents and stuff behind us. I won’t get into the debate about climate change but I’ll simply point out that I think in academia we all agree that the temperature on Mars is exactly as it is here. Nobody will dispute that. Yet there are no coal mines on Mars. There’s no factories on Mars that I’m aware of.

State Rep. Kevin Sinnette (D) dismissed the threat of man-made global warming by pointing out that dinosaurs survived climate change.

“The dinosaurs died, and we don’t know why, but the world adjusted,” Sinnette said. “And to say that this is what’s going to cause detriment to people, I just don’t think it’s out there.”

State Rep. Stan Lee (R) claimed that climate-warming trends caused by human activities -- a phenomenon backed by 97 percent of climate scientists -- are nothing more than calculated scare tactics.

“All this stems, this carbon capture, all this other stuff, it stems back to a scare, generated years ago about global warming,” the Fayette County lawmaker said on Thursday. “Finally it turned out there hasn’t been global warming in 15 or 20 years, then they changed the name to climate change.”

 

[speculawyer]

OMG, Kentucky, so much derp, from both sides of the aisle.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/08/brandon-smith-mars-climate-change_n_5568058.html

Temp on Mars is the same as here? Wtf?

 

[Avon Barksdale]

OMG, Kentucky, so much derp, from both sides of the aisle.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/08/brandon-smith-mars-climate-change_n_5568058.html

Kentucky Democrats and Kentucky Republicans are pretty much two sides of the same coin.

 

[RustyNails]

OMG, Kentucky, so much derp, from both sides of the aisle.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/08/brandon-smith-mars-climate-change_n_5568058.html

Kentucky politicians are beholden to big coal. You can't undermine big coal or be slightest bit critical. It's akin to going against the word of God himself.

 

[AndyD]

Temp on Mars is the same as here? Wtf?

I thought I misread that. Had to read it a few times to make sure that's what it said.

 

[Plinko]

OMG, Kentucky, so much derp, from both sides of the aisle.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/08/brandon-smith-mars-climate-change_n_5568058.html

Brb...adding Kentucky to my "states where I'll never live" list.

 

[Teggy]

I thought I misread that. Had to read it a few times to make sure that's what it said.

He later tweeted to say he meant Mars has the same global warming trend, but that's nonsense also, especially saying that "academia" "agrees". Not to mention the "we" part implying he is part of academia.

I also love that he opens with "I won’t get into the debate about climate change" and then follows directly with some completely nonsense argument against climate change.

 

[Metaphoreus]

He later tweeted to say he meant Mars has the same global warming trend, but that's nonsense also, especially saying that "academia" "agrees".

That's how I read his comment when I read your post. He said the temperature on Mars "is exactly as it is here," not that the temperature on Mars "is exactly what it is here." Additionally, he was (despite his disclaimer) making a statement about climate change, not the weather at the time of his comment. In that context, it makes no sense to interpret his comment as saying the temperature on Mars is identical in value to the temperature on Earth. Obviously he could have been clearer, but partisan spite is the only reason not to give him the benefit of the doubt, which is why HuffPo doesn't.

 

[adamsappel]

That's how I read his comment when I read your post. He said the temperature on Mars "is exactly as it is here," not that the temperature on Mars "is exactly what it is here." Additionally, he was (despite his disclaimer) making a statement about climate change, not the weather at the time of his comment. In that context, it makes no sense to interpret his comment as saying the temperature on Mars is identical in value to the temperature on Earth. Obviously he could have been clearer, but partisan spite is the only reason not to give him the benefit of the doubt, which is why HuffPo doesn't.

Your partisanship is the only reason why you're not calling him an idiot.

 

[AntoneM]

That's how I read his comment when I read your post. He said the temperature on Mars "is exactly as it is here," not that the temperature on Mars "is exactly what it is here." Additionally, he was (despite his disclaimer) making a statement about climate change, not the weather at the time of his comment. In that context, it makes no sense to interpret his comment as saying the temperature on Mars is identical in value to the temperature on Earth. Obviously he could have been clearer, but partisan spite is the only reason not to give him the benefit of the doubt, which is why HuffPo doesn't.

So, I can say that pizza in New York is exaclty as it is in Shanghai and not be wrong?

 

[Teggy]

That's how I read his comment when I read your post. He said the temperature on Mars "is exactly as it is here," not that the temperature on Mars "is exactly what it is here." Additionally, he was (despite his disclaimer) making a statement about climate change, not the weather at the time of his comment. In that context, it makes no sense to interpret his comment as saying the temperature on Mars is identical in value to the temperature on Earth. Obviously he could have been clearer, but partisan spite is the only reason not to give him the benefit of the doubt, which is why HuffPo doesn't.

"temperature" != "temperature trend" or "climate trend" or any kind of trend. You have to do a lot of parsing to get that kind of benefit of the doubt. And regardless of how you read it, it's still wrong and uninformed.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Your partisanship is the only reason why you're not calling him an idiot.

I'm not a Republican.

So, I can say that pizza in New York is exaclty as it is in Shanghai and not be wrong?

If it's true, yes. If it's false, no. What does this have to do with anything?

"temperature" != "temperature trend" or "climate trend" or any kind of trend. You have to do a lot of parsing to get that kind of benefit of the doubt. And regardless of how you read it, it's still wrong and uninformed.

Again, from his word choice and context, I think his meaning is easily deduced. I'm not commenting on whether what he says is true; I'm commenting on what it is that he said.

 

[eBay Huckster]

Obviously he could have been clearer, but partisan spite is the only reason not to give him the benefit of the doubt

Partisan spite is the entire reason his comment exists.

 

[Teggy]

Again, from his word choice and context, I think his meaning is easily deduced. I'm not commenting on whether what he says is true; I'm commenting on what it is that he said.

I'd say that's debatable. But if what he actually "meant" to say is also completely wrong what is the benefit of the doubt he deserves? That he's a different kind of idiot?

 

[NYCmetsfan]

lol obama

 

[AndyD]

Again, from his word choice and context, I think his meaning is easily deduced. I'm not commenting on whether what he says is true; I'm commenting on what it is that he said.

I don't buy it for a second. To reduce it to the definition is ridiculous. Because then the statement has no meaning or value in context.

 

[teiresias]

lol obama

Is that Cantor? What the hell am I looking at? I mean, context would help ya know.

 

[Teggy]

lol obama

Go in for the hug!

edit: fyi it's Rick Perry.

 

[RustyNails]

Didnt Rick Perry say he did not shake Obama's hand?

 

[Tamanon]

Is that Cantor? What the hell am I looking at? I mean, context would help ya know.

Perry made comments about not going to shake President Obama's hand when he visited(didn't want to appear weak to terrorists I guess).

 

[Teggy]

Perry made comments about not going to shake President Obama's hand when he visited(didn't want to appear weak to terrorists I guess).

He said he didn't think a photo op would be worthwhile so he invited Obama to have a private meeting. Obama accepted the invite and also invited him to some religious roundtable and he changed his mind about the landing for some reason.

 

[Gotchaye]

I suspect that he didn't really mean anything, in that he didn't have some coherent thought like "Mars has warmed just like the Earth has, suggesting some common external cause for both" which he was trying to express. He had some words that he understood to represent an argument against humans being responsible for climate change, or maybe for climate change at all, or maybe just for climate change being a problem (again, I doubt that he had a coherent idea of what it is he was arguing against - it was just an argument against whatever other people believe about climate change). But he didn't think this argument.

You see this a lot when people believe things because they're convinced that there are good reasons to believe them even though they're not familiar with those reasons. There's a reluctance to say "I believe this because people who I trust to figure this stuff out assure me it's true" or "I believe this because I feel in my gut that it's true", or perhaps there's a failure to even understand that that's what's going on, so when called upon to defend what they believe they end up spouting nonsense, because they feel like they need to be able to provide first-order reasons to believe whatever-it-is.

Now, I think that probably the argument he was attempting to parrot was something like "Mars has warmed just like the Earth has, suggesting some common external cause for both". But I wouldn't give better than 50/50 odds that he could have produced that argument had someone stopped him and asked him to explain what he meant right after he said what he said.

 

[The Librarian]

lol obama

Why isn't Rick Perry wagging a finger at him?

 

[Joe Molotov]

Why isn't Rick Perry wagging a finger at him?

zomg major Rick Perry gaffe, Perry 2016 campaign going down in flames!

 

[Trouble]

zomg major Rick Perry gaffe, Perry 2016 campaign going down in flames!

He can do better. He hasn't even offended a foreign government yet this time around.

 

[adamsappel]

I'm not a Republican.

Again, from his word choice and context, I think his meaning is easily deduced. I'm not commenting on whether what he says is true; I'm commenting on what it is that he said.

I didn't say you were Republican, I said you were partisan. I honestly only know you from your comments on Hobby Lobby, but you don't exactly seem liberal. Are you someone who pretends he's really an independent who can't be politically classified?

And you didn't comment on what he said, you interpreted what you thought he meant. Because he did say the temperature on Mars was exactly what it was here. Even if we accept your interpretation of his actual words, he's still an idiot. Unless you disagree?

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Its perry. I just like the arm grab after Perry's comment

 

[Metaphoreus]

I'd say that's debatable. But if what he actually "meant" to say is also completely wrong what is the benefit of the doubt he deserves? That he's a different kind of idiot?

The benefit of the doubt is to resolve any ambiguities in his statement in his favor. While Smith may be wrong in either event, the degree of Smith's ignorance differs dramatically depending on which reading you adopt. Under my reading, he's wrong about temperature trends, and that's it. But HuffPo implausibly reads his statement as reflecting a single global temperature (an incongruity they attempt to render more plausible by saying he must have been talking about average global temperature), despite the fact that anyone who has ever seen a weather map knows how temperature may vary over the space of a few miles even on a single planet, let alone the millions of miles separating Earth from Mars. In addition, under HuffPo's interpretation, Smith's comment is a non sequitur. What does his comment signify if he was really talking about the average global temperature of the two planets? Certainly nothing about climate change, which (again, despite his disclaimer) it seems clear was the subject of his comment.

(1) Are you someone who pretends he's really an independent who can't be politically classified? . . .

(2) Because he did say the the temperature on Mars was exactly what it was here.

(1) No.

(2) "Exactly as," not "exactly what." That distinction is part of what makes my interpretation more plausible than the one you've apparently adopted.

I don't buy it for a second. To reduce it to the definition is ridiculous. Because then the statement has no meaning or value in context.

I don't understand this comment. What don't you buy? My interpretation? Or that I was talking about what he said, rather than the truth of what he said? And what do you mean when you say, "the definition"? Who has reduced anything to "the definition"? I think my interpretation is the one that gives Smith's comment meaning in context, unlike the HuffPo interpretation.

 

[Teggy]

The benefit of the doubt is to resolve any ambiguities in his statement in his favor. While Smith may be wrong in either event, the degree of Smith's ignorance differs dramatically depending on which reading you adopt. Under my reading, he's wrong about temperature trends, and that's it. But HuffPo implausibly reads his statement as reflecting a single global temperature (an incongruity they attempt to render more plausible by saying he must have been talking about average global temperature), despite the fact that anyone who has ever seen a weather map knows how temperature may vary over the space of a few miles even on a single planet, let alone the millions of miles separating Earth from Mars. In addition, under HuffPo's interpretation, Smith's comment is a non sequitur. What does his comment signify if he was really talking about the average global temperature of the two planets? Certainly nothing about climate change, which (again, despite his disclaimer) it seems clear was the subject of his comment.

I'm not talking about HP interpretation as I didn't even really read their comments. I read (and listened, since there is video out there) what the actual person said and no matter how you slice it it's nonsense. Regardless of how you parse the word "as" vs. "is", which is what your argument is hinging on as there is no "context" that makes his statement mean anything different one way or other, he says, I think in academia we all agree. This statement alone makes his statement pure nonsense because nothing approaching "all" in academia agree that Mars is either a similar temperature to Earth or that there is global warming on Mars. What it sounds like is he has been reading some hardcore tin foil hat climate change denier sites, which makes me think he's even more off his rocker.

 

[AntoneM]

If it's true, yes. If it's false, no. What does this have to do with anything?

It's not true; just like it's not true that the temperature on Mars is exaclty as it is here.

You really seem incapable of understanding analogies.

---edit---
To go further, I don't think Obama got the benefit of the doubt from most people who believed that when he said, if you like your plan you can keep it, it meant that they can keep their plan that they like. I mean, if some one says that and later clarifies, oh, only if the plan meets such and such requirements, I'm going to call them out and tell them that they didn't say that in the first place. And I think It was right of people to call Obama out on that.

Saying the tempurature on Mars is exactly as it is here is going to be interpreted as meaning the actual tempurature on Mars is exactly as the actual temprature on Earth. He needed to clarify it for a reason, because on it's face it's ridiculous. Just like saying pizza in New York is exactly as it is in Shanghai.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Interesting comments from Obama. Whenever this stuff happens it becomes clear who the grown ups are in the room, and it's almost always Obama. It'll be interesting to see what Perry does now. Obama mentioned him many times, noted their agreements, etc. If Perry charges out the gate now and slams the president while siding with congress, he will have clearly chosen to play politics.

Hasn't the illegal immigration of children increased since DACA went into effect though?

 

[speculawyer]

"temperature" != "temperature trend" or "climate trend" or any kind of trend. You have to do a lot of parsing to get that kind of benefit of the doubt. And regardless of how you read it, it's still wrong and uninformed.

We basically learned that he has no clue what he is talking about AND he can't even express his incorrect views coherently. Double loser.

At first glance, it seems as though Smith was saying that the temperature on Mars is exactly the same as it is on Earth, an argument that is both incorrect and makes no sense, as many other news outlets have already pointed out. Smith clarified his comments on Twitter on Thursday, however, saying he meant not to imply that temperatures were the same, but that climate shifts on Earth and Mars have been the same. His implication, really, is that climate change is a solar system-wide phenomena, and can’t be caused by humans on Earth.

Smith’s argument that Mars is warming is likely based on observations of ice melt on Mars’ South Polar Cap. But there is absolutely no scientific evidence that one sole instance of melting is the result of a planet-wide trend. In fact, as Skeptical Science points out, there is virtually no historical data about the climate of Mars prior to the 1970s, except for drawings — meaning it is scientifically not possible to tell if current observations reveal long-term trends.

The irony here is that Smith claims that one instance of ice melt on Mars is a sure sign that climate shifts are occurring there, but at the same is not persuaded by the incredible mass of long-term data climate scientists have proving human-caused climate change here on earth. To quote Skeptical Science, “Here on earth we have direct measurements from all over the globe, widespread glacial retreat, reduction of sea ice, and satellite measurements of the lower troposphere up to the stratosphere. To compare this mountain of data to a few photographs of a single region on another planet strains credulity.”

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/07/09/3458131/smith-mars-climate-change/

 

[soul creator]

weed smoker: "You wanna hit this?"

*Obama laugh*

 

[kingkitty]

Why is Obama palling around with drug dealers?

 

[Chumly]

So can someone tell me WTF the GOP plans to do with the border crisis? They don't want to give Obama any money to help secure the border........... but they want the border secured. So what exactly are we going to do with the overloaded system at the border? Just magically wish it away? Continue to blame Obama?

 

[Trouble]

So can someone tell me WTF the GOP plans to do with the border crisis? They don't want to give Obama any money to help secure the border........... but they want the border secured. So what exactly are we going to do with the overloaded system at the border? Just magically wish it away? Continue to blame Obama?

They have no interest in fixing anything. They want to make political hay and they don't care that real human beings are suffering because of it.

 

[Teggy]

So can someone tell me WTF the GOP plans to do with the border crisis? They don't want to give Obama any money to help secure the border........... but they want the border secured. So what exactly are we going to do with the overloaded system at the border? Just magically wish it away? Continue to blame Obama?

Probably. They'll just keep pushing the meme that Obama "invited" all these kids to come as long as they can.

 

[Metaphoreus]

I'm not talking about HP interpretation as I didn't even really read their comments. I read (and listened, since there is video out there) what the actual person said and no matter how you slice it it's nonsense. Regardless of how you parse the word "as" vs. "is", which is what your argument is hinging on as there is no "context" that makes his statement mean anything different one way or other, he says, I think in academia we all agree. This statement alone makes his statement pure nonsense because nothing approaching "all" in academia agree that Mars is either a similar temperature to Earth or that there is global warming on Mars. What it sounds like is he has been reading some hardcore tin foil hat climate change denier sites, which makes me think he's even more off his rocker.

The distinction I'm drawing is between his use of the word "as" and using a word like "what." The context I'm referring to is the context of the hearing, which apparently concerned (at least in part) climate change. I have no problem agreeing with you that he's wrong about Martian temperature trends (though I haven't looked into them) and that he's wrong about "all of academia" believing this or that. My only point in commenting was to say that I read his statement in a manner consistent with his later explanation, but before I read his later explanation.

It's not true; just like it's not true that the temperature on Mars is exaclty as it is here.

You really seem incapable of understanding analogies.

Do you have two particular pizzas in mind? Otherwise I'm not sure how you can so confidently assert that one is not "exactly as" the other. A pizza in New York can definitely be "exactly as" a pizza in Shanghai--same ingredients, prep time, size, shape, and so on. The bottom line here is that this is a bad analogy, not that I can't understand analogies.

As for Obama, there was no doubt for Obama to benefit from. His promise was unambiguous, and a later correction would have had to contradict the earlier statement. Smith's comment here is ambiguous, with two possible interpretations. His latter correction clarified which of two possible interpretations was correct, but didn't contradict his original comment.

 

[thepotatoman]

There is one fairly prominent scientist, Abdussamatov, that has an alternate theory to global warming saying the Sun is actually what's becoming hotter, which is thus equally affects earth and mars.

All the articles linked in that wiki page seems to have scientists agreeing that they are both getting hotter, but use other arguments to debunk his claims, such as showing that it doesn't match up when looking at planets other than mars and earth.

The absolute biggest misunderstanding people tend to have about climate change is that various temperature correlations actually aren't the strongest piece of evidence making scientists believe in man made climate change. It's actually the fact that the chemistry behind greenhouse gases is so incredibly tight that you can't dispute that science. We only really talk about the temperature correlations because that's the easiest evidence for an non-scientist to understand.

Even Abdussamatov agrees that man made greenhouse gases are real, and that they have to be contributing to some percent of our overall climate change. The only difference is he doesn't think it's the only cause and that scientists are putting too much emphasis on it.

 

[speculawyer]

The distinction I'm drawing is between his use of the word "as" and using a word like "what." The context I'm referring to is the context of the hearing, which apparently concerned (at least in part) climate change. I have no problem agreeing with you that he's wrong about Martian temperature trends (though I haven't looked into them) and that he's wrong about "all of academia" believing this or that. My only point in commenting was to say that I read his statement in a manner consistent with his later explanation, but before I read his later explanation.

So basically he is a dumbshit and you are just being pedantic. Bully for you!

 

[AntoneM]

The distinction I'm drawing is between his use of the word "as" and using a word like "what." The context I'm referring to is the context of the hearing, which apparently concerned (at least in part) climate change. I have no problem agreeing with you that he's wrong about Martian temperature trends (though I haven't looked into them) and that he's wrong about "all of academia" believing this or that. My only point in commenting was to say that I read his statement in a manner consistent with his later explanation, but before I read his later explanation.



Do you have two particular pizzas in mind? Otherwise I'm not sure how you can so confidently assert that one is not "exactly as" the other. A pizza in New York can definitely be "exactly as" a pizza in Shanghai--same ingredients, prep time, size, shape, and so on. The bottom line here is that this is a bad analogy, not that I can't understand analogies.

As for Obama, there was no doubt for Obama to benefit from. His promise was unambiguous, and a later correction would have had to contradict the earlier statement. Smith's comment here is ambiguous, with two possible interpretations. His latter correction clarified which of two possible interpretations was correct, but didn't contradict his original comment.

ok, let's go down that hole. (thanks for ignoring everything else, btw).

See, now your ascribing "exactly as" to mean "exactly what". Your argument was that there is a difference between the two, however, when you start to get into the what the pizza is made of you've strayed from your own argument that "exactly as" doesn't mean "exactly what". I know you already admitted that no matter what the guy is wrong. However, to come out and say that the interpretation of Huffpost (and other members here) is not the obvious interpretation because "exactly as" doesn't mean "exactly what" only to then state that a pizza in New York would be "exactly as" a pizza in Shanghai if the were made of the same "whats" makes me think you are as partisan as Huffpost.

You are holding an "exactly as" pizza to a much higher level of scrutiny that an "exactly as" temperature simply because you can't admit that your interpretation of what the guy said is not the obvious one.

Seems like that bad analogy has tripped you up terribly.

 

[Gotchaye]

I feel like everyone has switched sides from when we were arguing about whether Congress really meant to write the health care law in such a way as to deny subsidies to people on the federal exchange.

 

[thepotatoman]

 

[Oblivion]

I won’t get into the debate about climate change but I’ll simply point out that I think in academia we all agree that the temperature on Mars is exactly as it is here.

His statement seems pretty clear cut to me. If he meant something far more nuanced than what he said, then he did a pretty shitty job leaving out any important qualifiers and details.

Also, he's not part of academia. He's got a B.A. in Poli Sci. lol.

 

[Oblivion]

"Mr. President, doesn't the oath to uphold the constitution mean anything to you?!"

 

[cooljeanius]

What's the context here?

 

[RustyNails]

Interesting comments from Obama. Whenever this stuff happens it becomes clear who the grown ups are in the room, and it's almost always Obama. It'll be interesting to see what Perry does now. Obama mentioned him many times, noted their agreements, etc. If Perry charges out the gate now and slams the president while siding with congress, he will have clearly chosen to play politics.

Hasn't the illegal immigration of children increased since DACA went into effect though?

If anything, I'm going to miss PD's love hate relationship with Obama after 2016.

"i dont understand why we cant send them back to mexico"

 

[Oblivion]

Appearing on MSNBC's "The Daily Rundown," Brownback was asked how he planned to bridge the projected budget shortfall and fund critical state services, including education, at the same time.

"Uh, growth. I think we're going to be able to get there. Key part of that growth is keeping those taxes down," he said Wednesday.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/09/kansas-sam-brownback_n_5570793.html

"How do we get out of this hole?"

"We'll DIG our way out!"

 

[speculawyer]

Full version.

Grumpies v. happies.

 

[sc0la]

Guy in the back looks like he is doing the Not Bad meme face