To quote great French Cartesian philosopher Wayne LaPierre, "The only way to stop a bad guy with a BFG 9000 is a good guy with two BFG 9000s."

Only 0% of TheJoe self-identified as Marcins.

Quoting this because it's true. You can be conservative and not be a die-hard Christian. You can be liberal and go to church every day.

These shades of black and white and trying to ostracize a specific group or belief system got old back in 2008. I would think GOG is better than that, as a community.

Well it's easy enough to spot those topics and read past them. Much as I do ignore Steam / DRM or similar rants. There aren't even that many politics topics on here, even in comparison. Responding to them even-though you are disinterested only pushes them back up top.

It's always happening, but it's not always happening at this rate. Nor is it always happening because of people.

Just because you choose to disbelieve the scientific consensus, does not make the scientific consensus wrong. It means that you need to educate yourself. The climate models are getting better all the time, and the disagreement is no longer about whether or not it's real, but how bad it's going to get and exactly how much stuff we can permit into the atmosphere before we can't undo it.

Scientists love to disagree with each other and to disprove other people's work, so the fact that scientific consensus is on the side of climate change being real is something to take seriously.

BTW, the reason why it's called climate change now rather than global warming is because the models improved and we now know that it's not just warming, it's shifting rain patterns and in some areas that might mean cooler temperatures. And because of shifting rain patterns, what was dry may become wet and what was wet my have unending drought. But, on the whole, the temperature of the planet is warming.

Greasemonkey

Try this. You'll have to use keywords and obviously a browser that supports user scripts like Firefox or Chrome. I use it for all kinds of words that I know will be a sign for a thread I've no interest in. :P

Just because I'm sceptical (which not the same as disagreeing) of the current majority consensus on the climate and its changes, does not make me wrong for being sceptical either.

It's not really skepticism at this point. The evidence is in and the only thing left is to wait for it to happen if we don't make the necessary changes. The strength of the evidence is increasing with time, and it's difficult to find any mainstream scientists that are skeptical at this point.

Calling it current majority consensus is just plain silly. The portion of the scientific community that supports it is greater than ever in the past, and it's been growing to include the entire community. At the rate it's going, being a "skeptic" is going to be a bit like being a young world creationist. Sure there are others out there, but none that have any credibility.

All I know is the current president, who campaigned on the concept that we should keep our noses out of other countries' business and get out of Iraq and Afghanistan ASAP, is now lobbying to do the same old crap all over again.

All politicians and politics suck.

The day science takes a back seat to democracy is the day it dies. the majority can be wrong, and has often been wrong from the moment democracy was started in Athens by Cleisthenes. So, pardon me, but I will remain a skeptical of the scientific community on this matter partly because of its rather one sided political leanings and partly because they are just human like the rest of us, bust mostly because it is being sold like snake oil by politicians and quasi religious hacks. (again forgive weak English)

Science is not democracy. It is a consensus on the interpretation on the recorded data. And the refinement of accurate predicting models based on that data.
It is not political, it is not quasi/religious. It is math.


Hell it is not even quasi religious math, shit's not Pythagorean.

I don't care what their political leanings are as long as they're doing their jobs properly.

Which is, uh, certainly debatable.

General Augusto Pinochet brought an end to the artificial food shortage crafted by Allende's unsustainable price control policies. Allende either didn't know or didn't care about the differences between cost and price and prevented agribusinesses from covering costs and from re-investing into production improvements resulting in the food shortage. Allende's policies chased away commerce and promoted an unsustainable welfare state filled with massive protests and a trucker's strike protesting against the Marxist regime. As a result, Pinochet and the patriotic Chilean military kicked Allende's ass and removed his gang of Marxists from office and helped save the Chilean economy.

Also in the United States, there is no free market anymore. If you don't believe me, look at the thousands upon thousands of pages of rules and regulations that exist on the federal level alone and how the federal government used the backing of subprime loans to buy votes only to result in the financial crisis of 2008 and the current on-going recession. There were already enough basic criminal justice laws against fraud and false advertising along with over 10,000 pages of banking regulations along with enough enforcers in the federal government to enforce them and yet the incident still happened.

If you really believe Keynesian policies save economies, let me remind you that the only thing that ended the Great Depression in the United States was World War 2 and the aftermath that followed. Historians even acknowledge that Franklin D. Roosevelt's economic policies failed in terms of ending the Depression and that the only reason there was a decrease in business failures was because there were less businesses around later in his time in office to fail. Look at the US presidential election of 2012. Obama's policies were left-wing-leaning despite what liberals you were talking to in the US, Mexico, or the internet. Obama's policies included worse versions of Bush's policies and let me remind you George W. Bush was not this big conservative statesman that people thought he was going to be. Both Obama and Bush blew too much money on federal bureaucracy and they both did next to nothing to reign in on federal overreach. The big difference was that Bush was more fiscally conservative and actually helped end the original recession by enabling small business owners to reinvest more into domestically-made capital goods and domestic labor and let me remind you that most small businesses do NOT get the same tax protections as most corporations. That means that the profits before taxes generated by those businesses get treated by the IRS as the owners' personal taxable income even though the majority of those net incomes have to get reinvested back into the businesses.

As for policies that reek of left wing scandal, Obama was the one who gave out, through his attorney general Eric Holder and the BATFE, thousands of rifles, shotguns, and handguns to the drug cartels of your country who already had strong connections with corrupt law enforcement and military personnel that led to them getting heavily armed in the first place. Obama and Holder then tried to cover up the incident, Operation Fast and Furious, by blaming private civilian gun owners in the United States and the "Ma and Pa" gun shops until BATFE whistleblowers revealed the cover up. Bush never allowed the BATFE to send thousands of government-owned rifles, shotguns, and handguns over the Mexican-American border. That was Obama.

Also, there was the Solyndra scandal and the other scandals involving the so-called "green energy" companies in which the administration gave out over a billion dollars total in faulty loans in the name of "green energy" resulting in the companies' leaderships giving themselves huge bonuses and then declaring bankruptcy. That was fraud but they got away with it because those executives happen to be big pro-Obama donors. Then there was the Benghazi cover-up scandal.

Despite all of these scandals, crimes, and economic fallacies; the left wing in the United States re-elected Obama just because they wanted the government to force someone else at gunpoint to pay for their unnecessary abortions, their contraceptives even though condoms are quite cheap, and their cellphones. They acted as if you were against taxpayer subsidies for Planned Parenthood, then you were automatically against all abortions including rape-related and medically necessary ones. Also, they believed in the myth of "free universal" healthcare despite governmental delays and denial in essential medical procedures in other countries like the UK and Canada or the fact that Obamacare adds over 100 new federal bureaucracies to an already overly expensive centralized government or the fact that Obamacare includes an employer-health mandate that was inconsiderate to any smaller business that already provided decent coverage for employees and that was basically designed to involuntarily switch employees to lesser health plans because the fines are cheaper than the upgrade when combined with a downgrade.

If you want big names like celebrities that still worship Obama, look at the idiots at Hollywood like George Clooney. Regressive authoritarians? Last time I checked, it was the Keynesians, the Marxists, and the fascists that wanted centralized control over economies and people's lives. That has a strong resemblance to the Dark Ages and it was the Roman Empire that embraced the welfare state and fiscal liberalism. Ever heard of the phrase "bread and circuses?" Oh and in case you're wondering, the fascists supported state-controlled command-based economics including heavy regulations, mandatory associations of workers and "professionals," and even some forms of nationalization like that of weapons production, healthcare, and sometime automobile manufacturing. If you want to include National Socialism, read the 25 Points.

http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/riseofhitler/25points.htm

Last time I checked, it was the conservatives, the libertarians, and other free market-leaning economists that supported limited government and allowing the individual to have more legal control over his/her own life and family.

If your post truly represents your understanding of politics and economics or the understanding of politics and economics of most Mexican nationals (assuming you are one and not just simply staying there), it is no wonder why your country is in way worse condition than any other nation of North America.

Opinions like these is why being a politician must suck especially for those that are low-profile and don't get proportional rewards for their work.

But some subjects become political because of their nature or influence of those who fund scientific research. I can understand a scientist playing with his own politics because he needs funds to stay in the game and at the same time even with a consensus of data scientists might lean towards different approaches of how to deal with issues like if we should focus on the climate issues or the economy, both of which might be equally important but one favours the other because in their professional opinion one of them is slightly more important.

Are you serious.
Are you SERIOUSLY defending Pinochet and his nightmarish regime, instated by the US against the goddamn Chilean sovereignty
Are you seriously doing this.
I will respond to the rest of your post but are you SERIOUSLY condoning Pinochet and his atrocities in the name of the Chilean economy.
That is a staggering lack of perspective there. Jesus christ.
Please give me some time to process this because really.