Newspaper has a couple of takes on lawmakers practicing medicine without a license … or a clue

This is one of those days when I really wish the morning newspaper still allowed online comments about its stories and columns. The interplay of comments could be quite interesting and probably quite heated — picture heads exploding.

On the cover of the Nevada section today there is a story about a state senator introducing a bill that would ban psychotherapists from providing sexual orientation or gender identity conversion therapy for people under the age of 18. (Is that practicing medicine without a license, Mr. Legislator?)

“Senate Bill 201, sponsored by state Sen. David Parks, D-Las Vegas, and a host of other lawmakers, would ban the practice, which has been denounced by major medical groups and condemned by critics as leading to anxiety, depression, substance abuse and suicide among LGBT young people exposed to it,” the news story relates, without noting that Parks has been described as the state’s first openly gay lawmaker. Nowhere in the article were Parks’ “scientific” contentions challenged, though opposition for various reasons — such as parental and religious rights — was reported. The word “cure” in the headline is in quotes.

(For the record, SB201 specifically states: “A psychotherapist shall not provide any sexual orientation or gender identity conversion therapy to a person who is under 18 years of age regardless of the willingness of the person or his or her parent or legal guardian to authorize such therapy.”)

Then a couple pages later there is a column by Victor Joecks basically calling the fundamental premise of the bill pure quackery.

Joecks somehow managed to uncover some evidence contrary to the presumptions underlying the bill:

The science, however, isn’t what proponents assert, and looking at the evidence undercuts the bill’s rationale. In a review of almost 200 scientific papers published in The New Atlantis Journal in Fall 2016, Dr. Paul McHugh, a professor from Johns Hopkins University, and Dr. Lawrence Mayer, a scholar in residence at Johns Hopkins University, found that scientific evidence doesn’t show sexual orientation and gender identity are immovable.

“The understanding of sexual orientation as an innate, biologically fixed property of human beings — the idea that people are ‘born that way’ — is not supported by scientific evidence,” they write. “The hypothesis that gender identity is an innate, fixed property of human beings that is independent of biological sex — that a person might be ‘a man trapped in a woman’s body’ or ‘a woman trapped in a man’s body’ — is not supported by scientific evidence.”

McHugh and Mayer find that 80 to 95 percent of youths who have transgendered feelings “abandon them as they mature.”

SB201 would prevent counselors and therapists from helping these youths in any way process and navigate their changing feelings about sexual orientation or gender identity — even if the child is desperate for professional help.

Perhaps someone should recommend to the sponsors of the bill psychotherapy for delusions of grandeur and infallibility?

It is one thing to argue that such therapy is ineffective or even damaging and possibly futile but to deny people the right to try something “regardless of the willingness of the person or his or her parent or legal guardian” is the height of arrogance and presumptiveness. This gives new meaning to the term nanny state.

 

 

Advertisements

87 comments on “Newspaper has a couple of takes on lawmakers practicing medicine without a license … or a clue

  1. Athos says:

    I don’t recognize this world that’s being forced upon me. You can only mock God for so long and then you have to pay the price.
    What’s sad is that our children will be there when the bill comes due.

  2. Steve says:

    Democrats and Republicans both wish to prevent anyone’s pursuit of happiness, no matter what form it takes.

    To both sides I say Get out of our bedrooms and out of our homes!

  3. Bill says:

    I am sure that the Senator has good intentions but by virtue of this bill, he seeks to prohibit treatment choices by individuals, parents and mental health professionals. The bill would end the debate of nature versus nurture insofar as those individuals are concerned. At a minimum, there should be careful analysis to determine if there is justification to show that enactment of this bill will result (i) preservation of life,
    (ii) prevention of suicide,(iii) protection of innocent third parties,or
    (iv) maintenance of the ethical integrity of the medical profession. Finally, as to all laws, the question should be asked as to whether or not we really need such a law or is this just another case of a solution looking for a problem?

  4. Rincon says:

    This just in: “The world has lost roughly half its coral reefs in the last 30 years. Scientists are now scrambling to ensure that at least a fraction of these unique ecosystems survives beyond the next three decades. The health of the planet depends on it: Coral reefs support a quarter of all marine species, as well as half a billion people around the world.” http://www.startjuno.com/news/read/category/News/article/the_associated_press-scientists_race_to_prevent_wipeout_of_worlds_coral-ap

    Shall we wait for 95% to be gone before we decide to lift a finger, or shall we just let ’em go? As we “adapt” to a hotter planet, should we compensate those who made their livings from coral reefs? What do you say, Steve? Is compensating the people who lose their livelihoods part of your “adaptation” or shall we just do it in Darwinian fashion? And at what point would we ever decide that maybe mankind really IS responsible? I think Conservatives have enough gall to deny this forever, so Steve’s idea is actually to just let people just go down the tubes if they happen to be in the way of the steamroller.

    As long as we’re at it, perhaps we should help these victims too: “Shishmaref is one of at least 31 Alaska Native villages where erosion due to climate change poses an imminent threat, according to a 2009 report from the Government Accountability Office. Twelve of those villages were exploring relocation options.” http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/08/18/490519540/threatened-by-rising-seas-an-alaskan-village-decides-to-relocate

    Of course not!! The Conservative way is to deny, deny, deny. Why help out anyone when you can just refuse to accept responsibility? It is ironic though, that so many Conservatives wave the Bible around. I suppose I shouldn’t be overly concerned though. My area is likely to be a global warming winner. Nevada? Not so much.

  5. Barbara says:

    Bill, normally I agree with much you say, but in this instance you are being way too kind. Senator Parks does not have good intentions. He intends to force all people to believe as he does and accept behavior that Christians believe are contrary to nature and nature’s God. There is nothing good about this bill.

    Should the idea of having an annual meeting of the legislature ever be raised again, we should all pause and remember this session and loudly proclaim, “Not in my lifetime!”.

  6. Steve says:

    Dunno, Rincon.
    Since NONE of the scientists are studying how much human activity is to blame, we really have no way of knowing what action might help.

    Funny, only 37% of climate scientists even express an opinion on that, wonder why no studies are ask all of them to form an opinion based on their own specialization…..could it be that they simply don’t know, and there is no way to tell?

    The only way to answer that is to force the IPCC to do studies specifically targeted to determine what portion of humana activity is forcing or adding to these changes and if curbing any of those activities really has a chance of helping, or if natural events are more powerful than any human effects, if that is so, then we would really need to adapt…..because anything we might do would have no effect, either way.

    But the IPCC is not doing any of these types of studies, so there is no available answer, only scare tactics.

  7. deleted says:

    Rincon:

    “Do not cast your pearls before swine.”

    They will only trample them then turn to attack you.

  8. Steve says:

    See?

    Even true believer, Patrick, has no answer….only opinion.

  9. Mr. Mitchell…do you know who is responsible for doing away with the online comments in the RJ? I too used to enjoy reading what a cross section of readers had to say about particular subjects and stories. (I know some of the reporters took some flak too…for poor, incomplete or sophomoric reporting). When I asked the folks manning the RJ booth at the Shriner’s Hospital for Children Open(PGA Tour) about it a few months ago, they weren’t even aware that the comment section had been done away with!

  10. They don’t read their own newspaper. I don’t know who is responsible, but I suspect it has something to do with Adelson … either directly or someone not wishing to risk having something offend him. I hear tell he can be a bit mercurial.

  11. Rincon says:

    You’re right, deleted. I already showed very clearly that Steve’s 37% figure was completely mislabeled. You can bring a horse to water, but you can’t make him think.

  12. Steve says:

    Completely mislabeled, bullshit.

    Its totally true, no matter how you spin it, far and away the majority of climate scientists express no opinion on the effects of human activity on the climate.

    You peeps just can’t stand facts.

  13. deleted says:

    Rincon:

    A more appropriate analogy would use a relative of a horse; the donkey, or “ass”.

    But, that’s just semantics.

  14. Steve says:

    Ah, there it is.

    The inevitable liberal insult response.

    Anyone who refuses to believe it because a liberal says it is an “ass”.

    Put up or shut up, there are no studies on how much human activity effects the ever changing climate, therefore there can be no “cheap insurance” or any insurance at all.

    Nature made the rule, adapt or die. Go ahead you liberal believers, be dinosaurs.

  15. Rincon says:

    It’s the die part that makes your viewpoint particularly disgusting, unless you can show some way of dealing with the millions who lose out in the climate change sweepstakes.

  16. Steve says:

    It’s not me saying no matter what humans do, the effects will continue unabated for a minimum of 100 years, that is those 37% of climate scientists who expressed an opinion on the subject of AGW.
    You want disgust, look at the facts.

    No sweeps, nature.

    And nature is not forgiving in any way whatsoever.
    All species adapt or die.

  17. Rincon says:

    When you find yourself in a hole, the first thing to do is stop digging. You appear to disagree.

  18. […] Newspaper has a couple of takes on lawmakers practicing medicine without a license …or a clue This is one of those days when I really wish the morning newspaper still allowed online comments about its stories and columns. The interplay of comments could be quite interesting and probably quite heated – picture heads exploding. […]

  19. Rincon says:

    Your response is opaque to me, Steve. An icthyosaur is a dinosaur. Are you telling me I’m old or behind the times or are you trying to say something about survival of the fittest?

    Your 37% figure is effectively a lie since its intent is to deceive. Go ahead, Steve. Explain precisely what that figure indicates or are you afraid to reveal its true nature?

  20. Steve says:

    THIS, is your argument.

    No science at all, just acceptance of opinion with no method.

    IT IS LIKE COUNTING NON VOTES AS ACTUAL VOTES FOR YOUR OPINION.
    They ground them down till they accepted the “consensus” of the minority 37%. The ONLY reason they stopped arguing is they want to keep their paychecks!

    https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php?a=17&p=14

    Opaque?
    Google is your friend.

  21. Bill says:

    What’s in a name? A few yers ago it was Global Warming. Today it is Climate Change. A few years back we had Nuclear Winter.

    AGW? I always had trouble with acronyms especially in the military. So, I had to look up AGW. Evidently it stands for Anthropogenic Global Warming. Again I had to consult my Funk & Wagnalls and found out that antrhropogenic means “caused by by man”.

    What I don’t quite yet understand or totally accept is that climate change aka global warming is caused by man.

    I can still remember the dire warnings of Carl Sagan of “nuclear winter” that never came to pass.

    Does climate change? Yes. I remember from 6th grade class reading about the Ice Age and how when the ice receded it caused the Great Lakes to be formed,

    I recall visiting the Icthyosaur State Park in Ione, Nevada and viewing the remains of a large prehistoric creature that swam in the sea that once covered most of Nevada of which Pyramid Lake is a remnant. I am aware of the Diatoms that swam in that sea and are now mined as diatomaceous earth. Left here after the sea dried up.

    In addition to the great Ice Age, I am aware of the little Ice Age and the devastation that it wreaked on Europe.

    Of these events, which were caused by man?

    Climate changes. It always has and it always will. I cannot yet accept, as an article of faith, that it is caused by man nor can I as yet accept the notion that man kind is accelerating it and I have yet to see any definite information on the rate that mankind’s activities contribute to global warming. .

    Spare me the insults of calling me anames such as heretic for as yet, at least for now, I am a questioner. Spare me the shibboleth that the “all of the scientists believe this”. There was a time when the scientific commuity believed in bleeding patients, denounced the idea of germs and geographers believed the world was round.l

  22. Steve says:

    The people that 37% of climate scientists are having the most difficult convincing are those who are broadly educated and widely skilled.
    These are people who don’t immerse themselves in one specialty while accepting the word of all others as fact. these people are forever curious and insatiable in their quest for real information.

    These people question all political claims, equally.

    Most of these people refuse to join any of the political parties, preferring to make their own decisions based on their own efforts to find facts as opposed to opinions.

    37% is not 97%, there is no way to spin that.

    Not that the politically blind have not tried. Moreover, they will continue to try.
    Thankfully, about half of the population isn’t buying the bullshit.

  23. Steve says:

    YouTube account terminated due to multiple third-party notifications of copyright infringement.

    A perfect example of Patrick’s own reality.

  24. Rincon says:

    Your post from Skeptical science supports the 97% figure, Steve. Thanks for shooting yourself in the foot. I repeat, the 37% figure is essentially a lie in that its intent is to deceive.

    Bill – You don’t accept that global warming is caused by man. On what basis? You give no reason of any kind, except that climate has changed in the past. How do you construe that to mean that the scientists must be wrong? It is unrelated.

    Are you claiming that the concept of a nuclear winter is not accepted? “A study presented at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union in December 2006 found that even a small-scale, regional nuclear war could disrupt the global climate for a decade or more. In a regional nuclear conflict scenario where two opposing nations in the subtropics would each use 50 Hiroshima-sized nuclear weapons (about 15 kiloton each) on major populated centres, the researchers estimated as much as five million tons of soot would be released, which would produce a cooling of several degrees over large areas of North America and Eurasia, including most of the grain-growing regions. The cooling would last for years, and, according to the research, could be “catastrophic”” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter Sounds like nuclear winter to me.

    Yes, climate has changed in the past many times, from a variety of triggers, yet you feel certain that it can’t possibly change now? How can you say it changed then but can’t change now? Or that subtle things in nature can change climate, but our decidedly unsubtle alteration of a very dynamic part of the atmosphere cannot? BTW, the warming we’re seeing today is quite exceptional in its speed and magnitude. Coincidence? Again, on what basis?

    Scientists have predicted more rapid warming since the 1980’s, thirty five or more years ago, staking their professional reputations on it and they were right. Just on the face of it, the chances of being right were only one out of three (it might have been cooler or show no change). Do you think they were just lucky? In contrast, the deniers who said the measurements were not correct have been proven wrong, then they said the warming had stopped in the early 2000’s and they were wrong again. Conservatives keep picking the wrong horse, but are not the least bit embarrassed by their poor performance.

    If you believe that the scientists really aren’t in agreement, try checking it yourself. It’s very easy to do. Google, climatologist consensus on global warming” and see what comes up. The only places you will find a denial of scientific agreement will be a few sites that are far more political than scientific.

    Finally, Conservatives have absolutely no reasonable theory as to the cause of the observed warming, but they’re sure it can’t possibly be us because….oh yeah, they don’t know.

  25. Steve says:

    Of course they spin it. That is their intent.

    By doing what they do, they show with no doubt, they are doing precisely what they intend to do in getting people like you to believe their bullshit.

    37% is not 100% of climate scientists. It is the percent who express an OPINION on AGW.

    The 97% is a well crafted lie and you fell for it.

    All your conclusions based on that lie are, well,

    lies.

  26. Steve says:

    I told you, that is your argument.

    I then told you they claim that the scientists who won’t express an opinion automatically support the 97% of that 37% minority.

    To repeat,
    That is like telling people who didn’t vote that they actually voted for Donald Trump!
    Hey! ,,,, maybe you are on to something there. Maybe he DID win in a popular vote landslide…..

    SMH while ROTFLMAO

  27. Bill says:

    Rincon. I have a bit of difficulty with some of your statements. You and I seem to agree that the climate is changing. I have stated this as clearly as I can. It has always changed. Witness the ice ages I referred to. What causes climate change is the area of disagreement. I request that you point me to some empirical evidence that will demonstrate (a) the amount of climate change (previously known as global warming) per year (b) the rate of change and (c) the amount of change attributable to mankind’s activities. Please don’t cite guesstimates from learned sources. Just some empirical evidence. Until then, I cannot become an acolyte. I fear that it may be an Inconvenient Truth that no such evidence might be hard to find. But, if it is, I will be the first in line at church.

  28. deleted says:

    Rincon:

    “Neither cast your pearls before swine, lest they will trample them under their feet, and turn on you to rend you again.”

    Do you so engage in discussions with children that disagree with you about whether the earth is flat?

    I expect the answer is no, and because this discussion is so similar in most ways, I have to ask why you continue?

  29. Steve says:

    Patrick tries to liken flat earthers with todays people who question the “consensus” of scientists….just like old Chris Columbus or those Vikings who decided to see if they could find the edge!

    It’s you peeps who are blindly accepting the 97% lie, Patrick.
    We are the ones questioning today’s royal society, you are swallowing their pablum like it’s candy corn.
    A lie based on a lie remains a lie.

    The Earth is oval and 37% is not 97%

  30. deleted says:

    Rincon:

    For the same reason many people ignore (or even cheer) companies that poison this country, and the worlds air and water, even if the people who continue to argue with you here, constantly, about climate change, admitted what the rational world knows, their perverted economic and moral philosophy would just result in them saying “so what”?

    When you’re dealing with people, whose morals are summed up by “I’ve got mine, you try and get yours, over my dead body” getting them to admit man is responsible for 100% of the rise in temperature isn’t going to change anything.

    You can’t reason with crazy, and there just isn’t any point in trying.

  31. Athos says:

    What companies are poisoning this country, and the world’s air and water? Soros run enterprises, perhaps?

    And keep quoting scripture, patrick. The transformation of the human spirit is wonderful!

  32. Steve says:

    It is likely that the warming of the earth is 50% due to human activity.

    This is what the IPCC says.

    If you are going to make claims, make them factual.

    37% is not 97% and the Earth is oval, not spherical. But you just keep buying what your royal society tells you, Patrick.

  33. deleted says:

    Koch Industries was, in 2012, the WORST polluter in the country. Since then they’ve dropped way down….to 3rd. At least according to a starved EPA which of course is not able to detail the entirety of the nefarious efforts by the Brothers Evil to poison this country while throwing billions more on their piles.

    But as I said, far right lunatic right wingers more interested in the “freedom” of billionaires to poison, than any average Joes freedom to breath, won’t care enough to even find out. And if they did, the response would be “so what”.

    Eh Athole?

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-01-20/just-how-much-does-koch-industries-pollute-

    http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/inside-the-koch-brothers-toxic-empire-20140924

  34. deleted says:

    “The volume of Koch Industries’ toxic output is staggering. According to the University of Massachusetts Amherst’s Political Economy Research Institute, only three companies rank among the top 30 polluters of America’s air, water and climate: ExxonMobil, American Electric Power and Koch Industries. Thanks in part to its 2005 purchase of paper-mill giant Georgia-Pacific, Koch Industries dumps more pollutants into the nation’s waterways than General Electric and International Paper combined. The company ranks 13th in the nation for toxic air pollution. Koch’s climate pollution, meanwhile, outpaces oil giants including Valero, Chevron and Shell…”

    http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/inside-the-koch-brothers-toxic-empire-20140924

  35. deleted says:

    “So what”? Eh Athol?

    “In 2000 the U.S. Justice Department and the EPA announced that Koch Industries would pay what was then a record civil environmental fine of $30 million to settle the 1995 charges relating to more than 300 oil spills plus additional charges filed in 1997. Along with the penalty, Koch agreed to spend $5 million on environmental projects in Texas, Kansas and Oklahoma, the states where most of its spills had occurred. In announcing the settlement, EPA head Carol Browner said that Koch had quit inspecting its pipelines and instead found flaws by waiting for ruptures to happen.

    Later in 2000, DOJ and the EPA announced that Koch Industries would pay a penalty of $4.5 million in connection with Clean Air Act violations at its refineries in Minnesota and Texas. The company also agreed to spend up to $80 million to install improved pollution-control equipment at the facilities.

    In a third major environmental case against Koch that year, a federal grand jury in Texas returned a 97-count indictment against the company and four of its employees for violating federal air pollution and hazardous waste laws in connection with benzene emissions at the Koch refinery near Corpus Christi. The Bloomberg Markets article cited above reported that a former Koch employee said she was told to falsify data in a report to the state on the emissions.”

    http://www.corp-research.org/koch_industries

  36. deleted says:

    Freedom to poison is a natural right eh Athole?

    “In 1994 an ammonia leak at a pipeline-to-barge fertilizer facility near St. Louis owned by a Koch subsidiary killed one worker and sent another to the hospital (Journal of Commerce, February 23, 1994). The Coast Guard ordered the operation to be shut down for several weeks while conditions were examined.

    In 1995 the U.S Justice Department, the Environmental Protection Agency and the United Stated Coast Guard filed a civil suit against Koch Industries and several of its affiliates for unlawfully discharging millions of gallons of oil into the waters of six states. In one of the largest Clean Water Act cased ever brought up to that time, the agencies accused Koch of being responsible for more than 300 separate spills in Alabama, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Oklahoma and Texas. The largest incident occurred in Nueces Bay and Corpus Christi Bay in 1994 along the eastern coast of Texas.

    In 1997 Tosco Corporation (now part of ConocoPhillips) sued Koch in a dispute over costs related to the clean-up of toxic waste at an oil refinery in Duncan, Oklahoma that used to be owned and operated by Koch. In 1998 a federal judge ordered Koch to contribute to those costs, and that ruling was upheld by an appeals court in 2000. The companies later settled the matter out of court.

    In 1998 Koch agreed to pay $6.9 million to settle charges brought by state environmental regulators relating to large oil spills at the company’s Rosemount refinery in Minnesota. The following year it agreed to plead guilty to related federal criminal charges and pay $8 million in fines.”

    http://www.corp-research.org/koch_industries

  37. deleted says:

    “So what.” Right Atholes?

    “The mill is run by the paper giant Georgia-Pacific, which has been owned by Koch Industries since 2005. According to E.P.A. records, it emits more than 1.5 million pounds of toxic chemicals each year, including numerous known carcinogens. Georgia-Pacific says that it has permits to operate the mill as it does, and disputes that it is harming local health and safety. But as far back as the nineteen-nineties, people living near the plant have described noxious odors and corrosive effluents that have forced them to stay indoors, as well as what seems to them unusually high rates of illness and death. Speaking by phone from his home, in Sterlington, Louisiana, Guice pointed the finger directly at the mill’s owners, and described a corporate coverup of air and water pollution that he says is “poisoning” the predominantly African-American community.”

    http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/a-whistle-blower-accuses-the-kochs-of-poisoning-an-arkansas-town

  38. Rincon says:

    EPA budget in 2016 (BEFORE the Trump cuts): $8.1 billion Net worth of the Koch brothers: $79.2 billion. That says it all

  39. deleted says:

    Obscene and getting obscener

  40. Rincon says:

    Your statement, Steve: “It is likely that the warming of the earth is 50% due to human activity.”

    The actual iPCC statement: “It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in GHG concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together.”

    Extremely likely, Steve. Not likely. More than half, Steve, not 50%. In case you’re not sure, more than 50% means that 50% is the minimum figure, not THE figure.

    This lack of accuracy is very much like your lack of accuracy (and failure to support) your 37% figure. If I didn’t know better, I would think that perhaps you glean what you hope to see from your sources rather than what they really say. Say it ain’t so, Joe.

    I have to agree with your pearls before swine assertion, deleted. They continue to obfuscate despite the fact that they have essentially no evidence that the observed warming is natural.

  41. Steve says:

    I provided numerous links to sites run by well known AGW supporters and even including some of the scientists in that 37% who clearly state they have 97% of those who express an opinion which turned out in their own calculations to be 37% of all climate scientists.

    Just because you refuse to see that doesn’t make it wrong.

    In your post, you provided no citation, so I used the google machine to locate your source.

    The report I read was different, you cite one from 2014. I cited an IPCC report from 2013.
    Wow, for such a long term effect, big change in official statement. not.
    50% is still 50%. Leaving the door open simply reinforces my statement that we simply don’t know how much really is being forced versus how much is natural. Moreover, the IPCC statements clearly indicate natural changes are part of the currently observed change in the ever changing climate.

    Patrick and his claims of 100 to 160% remain royal society-esque “flat earth” far, far, lefty, loon, tin foil hat, political hype pushed by self serving hacks.

  42. deleted says:

    Rincon:

    It is important to note that the use of the term “extremely likely” in the IPCC report is defined to mean: “95-100% certainty”

    http://ar5-syr.ipcc.ch/ipcc/ipcc/resources/pdf/IPCC_SynthesisReport.pdf#page18

  43. Steve says:

    Yup, Patrick, 95-100% certainty at least half of the warming is due to human activity.

    Conversely, it is 95-100% certain climate is changing due to a combination of natural causes, among those human activity.

    After all, are not humans a naturally occurring species on this planet?

    Nevertheless it is 95-100% certain warming includes natural causes. IPCC reports are 95-100% certain in this regard.

  44. Steve says:

    And that still leaves you with only 37% of climate scientists expressing an opinion on it.

  45. Steve says:

    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-to-determine-the-scientific-consensus-on-global-warming/

    As I keep saying, it’s politics and Patrick is espousing the “fuck you” clearly and as insultingly as he has been told to by his royal society brethren.
    It’s in the article. Paragraph nine.

    Perfect description of the social situation you guys have created. Even as it accepts the 97% of papers surveyed vs the untrue 97% of SCIENTISTS. See Paragraph 2 and 3.

    I suppose Patrick will now call Scientific American a right wing nut rag.

  46. Bill says:

    At last, something we agree upon. ” You can’t reason with crazy, and there just isn’t any point in trying”, .

  47. Bill says:

    Steve, have been following the back and forth you and others are having on global warming aka climate change. While I am sure that Exxon and the Koch Brothers are villains I have not yet heard one word about the flatulent dairy cows that produce our milk and cheese and the rancher’s cattle destroying our range lands, passing gas. Cows are a major problem because they produce methane gas. California has just regulated them and perhaps next the UN will also. It is time something was done about those gaseous sacred cows in India.

    Forgive the levity. Every once in a while I need it.

  48. Steve says:

    Actually, it’s not cow farts.

    It’s their effusive eructations the greens are all upset about.

    Easy to fix, eat more steak!

    Never fear, Patrick absolutely hates all ranchers.

  49. Rincon says:

    Steve, I’m amazed at how you keep shooting yourself in the foot. It implicitly accepts the 97% figure (or something in the same neighborhood), it makes absolutely no mention of your 37% figure. Your claim that you have posted a link and therefore cannot be questioned is extremely disingenuous and your SA article spells out why:

    “The idea is not new; several studies over the past 10 years have found a scientific consensus on climate change. Naomi Oreskes, a historian of science at Harvard University, in 2004 found that 75 percent of published studies supported anthropogenic global warming. Since then, six other studies have been published with widespread media attention.

    And yet, the chain of events Cook mentioned, where people hear of the scientific consensus and call their lawmakers, has not happened. In fact, consensus messaging over the past decade has not convinced any more or any fewer Americans to believe in global warming.”

    “Kahan of Yale University disagreed with Cook that people, even in the middle, will change their minds when exposed to consensus messaging. In fact, most people are already broadly aware of the scientific consensus on climate change, he said.

    To prove this point, Kahan tested Republicans and Democrats on their scientific knowledge of global warming. He found that an overwhelming majority of both Republicans and Democrats know scientists believe CO2 causes global temperatures to rise. They also know that scientists believe that human-caused global warming leads to coastal flooding, rising temperatures and other ill effects.

    And yet, when questioned outright, even highly educated Republicans underestimated the scientific consensus on climate change.”

    The people who are saying, “fuck you” are the American people saying it to the scientists. They’ve done decades of painstaking research, gathering enough evidence to the point that they have successfully predicted the future, but many of the American people do not respond to this logical methodology nor to the impressive results. Instead, they flock to people like Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, Barak Obama, and a bunch of other politicians, pundits and lobbyists; empty shells who have far less scientific knowledge, but have something far more powerful. They know how to manipulate public perception and they use that knowledge to their advantage.

  50. Rincon says:

    Although your cow fart message was for laughs, I want everyone to know that it is serious business:

    “In a 2006 United Nations’ Food and Agricultural Organization report, it claims that the livestock sector, most of which are cows, “generates more greenhouse gas emissions as measured in CO2 equivalent – 18 percent – than transport.” http://gizmodo.com/do-cow-farts-actually-contribute-to-global-warming-1562144730

    Indeed, cow farts (actually, methane emissions from farm animals and their manure) along with deforestation is the only viable theory as to why the coming ice age is 2,000 years late. Conservatives have no explanation for that, either.

    Global warming in moderation is our friend. Unfortunately, as with many things, a beneficial process taken to extremes can become dangerous. The scientists are trying to warn us, but we will continue to ignore them.

  51. deleted says:

    Rincon:

    If you read that article, you probably noticed that the author suggested climate deniers would, when they ultimately agree that man is causing 100% (and more) of the earths warming say “so what”.

    Like they are implicitly saying here about the poisoning of this country’s air and water by the Koch Brothers; they just don’t care. And that’s about a subject they wont even pretend about, like they do with climate change.

    There is no point discussing some things with some people I guess, cause at the end of the day, they just don’t care.

  52. Bill says:

    Thanks for the new word, “eructation” to add to my vocabulary. I had the right idea, just the wrong end.

  53. Steve says:

    Rincon, you need to read the Scientific American article again.

    You missed it’s point fully and completely.
    You also missed it’s clearly stated fact that SCIENTISTS were politically inserted where it was PAPERS that were ninety seven percent. You see it DOES support my statement.

  54. Rincon says:

    Sorry, Steve. I must insist that you missed the point of the article – and many of the facts within it. It simply gives no support for the skeptics.

    Now try to follow me, Steve. It gets a little complicated. If 97% of papers written by scientists concur, then it’s a reasonable bet that 97% of the authors also concur with a minor exception that any good nitpicker would spot and squawk about. If a small number of authors who concur write a large number of articles and a larger number of skeptics each wrote a small number of articles, then it’s possible that the actual percentage is lower. This is unlikely because any Conservative worth his salt could have torn that apart in minutes and that has not happened. There are also 6 other studies, but Conservatives ignore that too. And where are the studies done by skeptics proving the converse?

    Once again, can you support your 37% figure or not? You’ve been awful quiet about that.

  55. Steve says:

    If 97% of papers include particular “search terms” while others do not use those words (since these people don’t express opinion on that subject) the count of those papers will be very different from the total number people in the field.
    Cook and the rest at Skeptical Science admitted in their own research they found 37% of scientists who expressed an opinion in their published, peer reviewed papers.

    So yes, 97% of THE AUTHORS agree on that opinion but that leaves a lot of people outside the search since not everyone included the terms used to locate the papers they counted.

    Let’s try to get you to see this AGAIN since I pointed to it twice now and this will be three.

    “We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming.”

    Now SUBTRACT 66.4 from 100 Rincon. What do you get? the percentage of scientists who expressed an opinion on AGW in their peer reviewed papers. (See table 3 in this link)
    http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

    AGAIN, this is not about rejection it is about the source for the 97% claim made by media and politicians. THIS is where the disinformation lies…and it is a politically driven lie.

    Both the links detail they searched for PAPERS, not people. Scientific American clearly shows Obama also mislead you by calling out “Scientists” where it was “papers” that have cleverly conflated that figure.

    The 97% is of those who expressed an opinion in their peer reviewed papers, 66.4% did not express an opinion. Do that math again, you get the 37% (rounded figure)

    Moreover, the scientists in the Scientific American article clearly show claiming the “consensus” at all is actually having no effect on swaying public opinion and only indicates what some scientists believe. Not what the science says, what they believe.
    From the article:
    “One of the problems with Cook’s appeal to authority is this: So far, no one has quantified the consensus among natural scientists on global warming. In fact, it cannot be done easily, said Jon Krosnick, a social psychologist at Stanford University who has been studying communication strategies for decades.”
    This is another thing I have been saying all along “NO ONE has quantified the consensus among natural scientists on global warming”

    “Even if one takes the Cook et al. study at face value then how does a scientific consensus of 97.1 percent make policy-making about climate change any easier?” Mike Hulme
    Note that assumption, “takes the Cook Et al. study at face value” clearly he does not trust the numbers either. Though he does understand the science.

    The 97% figure is based on published work that includes specific opinion on AGW. 66.4% of published work expresses no opinion on AGW.

    The 97% of SCIENTISTS is a political lie, it should come as no surprise people who read this stuff are offended, and it appears that is what people like Patrick really want.

  56. Rincon says:

    I feel like I’m pounding my head against a wall, but I’m going to try anyway. People outside of the scientific research community naturally don’t have a thorough understanding of the dynamic, so I’m going to try and explain it.

    Here’s an example abstract from the first journal article I found by searching the term global warming on Google scholar:

    “Over the past 100 years, the global average temperature has increased by approximately 0.6 °C and is projected to continue to rise at a rapid rate1. Although species have responded to climatic changes throughout their evolutionary history2, a primary concern for wild species and their ecosystems is this rapid rate of change3. We gathered information on species and global warming from 143 studies for our meta-analyses. These analyses reveal a consistent temperature-related shift, or ‘fingerprint’, in species ranging from molluscs to mammals and from grasses to trees. Indeed, more than 80% of the species that show changes are shifting in the direction expected on the basis of known physiological constraints of species. Consequently, the balance of evidence from these studies strongly suggests that a significant impact of global warming is already discernible in animal and plant populations. The synergism of rapid temperature rise and other stresses, in particular habitat destruction, could easily disrupt the connectedness among species and lead to a reformulation of species communities, reflecting differential changes in species, and to numerous extirpations and possibly extinctions.”

    If you read carefully, you will find no statement of opinion as to the cause of the warming, only mention of the warming itself. Of course there was no mention. There was no need for it. The article is not at all about assigning blame. It is about observed changes in animal populations. The author could be a fanatical skeptic or a die hard believe or someting in between, but you cannot tell anthying at all from his paper.

    This article would be rated neutral in the study, but there was no reason for the author to give his opinion as to whether the warming is anthropogenic or otherwise, so he didn’t. Counting him as someone who is neutral in his opinion is ludicrous. Not counting him is far more reasonable because he never expressed any opinion at all.

    What you’re completely unwilling to see is that only 0,7% of the authors expressed skepticism about AGW. A pitiful showing.

  57. Steve says:

    You are starting to see what I have been saying.
    Cook’s study was about papers, not people.
    The media, politicians and other people who hype things all the time grabbed it and changed PAPERS to PEOPLE. Even Obama said it on TV when he said the SCIENTISTS all agree, this is “settled science”.
    As Scientific American reminded you
    “That statement quickly got boiled down in the popular media to a much simpler message: that 97 percent of SCIENTISTS (not papers [my subtext]) believe climate change is caused by humans. President Obama tweeted the 97 percent consensus. Comedian John Oliver did a segment on it that went viral on the Internet.”
    But you guys keep trying to do an end run hoping to get people who read to stop seeing what the words say.

    It is nice to see you beginning to discover why the 97% claims are lies.

  58. deleted says:

    Rincon:

    Your head is banging against only a single wall of stone. Your head is hard, but I bet on the stone to wear you down and gain nothing though cause well, it is a stone after all. But why try and convince a stone when, after all is said and done, the stone just doesn’t care?

    For you though, keep this in mind (and remember this is from 2009 before far more evidence existed than does today)

    “Subsequent research has confirmed this result. A survey of 3146 earth scientists asked the question “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” (Doran 2009). More than 90% of participants had Ph.D.s, and 7% had master’s degrees. Overall, 82% of the scientists answered yes. However, what are most interesting are responses compared to the level of expertise in climate science. Of scientists who were non-climatologists and didn’t publish research, 77% answered yes. In contrast, 97.5% of climatologists who actively publish research on climate change responded yes. As the level of active research and specialization in climate science increases, so does agreement that humans are significantly changing global temperatures.”

    The study above wasn’t one of the papers written, or anything to do with the percentage of papers written expressed a position about climate change or not. The above was a survey of scientists and it found that, the people who did most of the work, and had most of the experience studying the subject, 97% of them agreed that man was causing the significant part of the change. Other studies bore this out, and more recent studies have only confirmed it.

    Also, keep in mind what this article points out about plate tectonics; that while many papers discuss the impacts, few if any papers written about the subject “argue” whether it happens because it is accepted science. In the same way climate change is.

    So, there you go.

    https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

  59. Steve says:

    Using Skeptical Science to defend Skeptical science is like defining a word by using the same word.

    However, I have said much the same thing, human activity is a part of climate change.
    My challenge remains the same and the IPCC has begun to try an answer it by telling us it is “likely human activity is responsible for 50% of warming” in 2013 they changed that to “extremely likely” in 2014.
    Both are clear human activity is extremely likely NOT the primary driver of warming. At best it is half of the driving force and that still remains to be seen.

    Patrick, Rincon likes to claim I shoot myself in the foot, but I have to thank you for supporting my statements with this latest post.

    The SCIENCE is clear, there is no “cheap insurance” there is only adaptation.
    Of course, you are fully able to choose to remain ichthyosaurs if you insist.
    I think our great grand children will be adapting to climate change because the other thing the science tells us is any “mitigation” efforts will have ZERO EFFECT for a minimum of 100 years even if ALL human activity were halted instantly, warming will continue for that same minimum 100 years.
    AND, since about 50% of warming is “extremely likely” to be natural those 100 years are a total falsehood, meaning adaptation is the only choice….as nature, ever, dictates.

    Adapt or your descendants die, this is the choice nature gives all species, humans are no different.

  60. Bill says:

    Thanks. Rincon for your comment on the abstract that you read. It was interesting, Sounds like a description of evolution to date.

    You and Steve seen to be arguing about how many angels fit on the head of a pin. From all that you have and he have written and all of the discussion that I have seen, I conclude that there appears to be a slight warming of the earth and probably man’s activities contribute to it in some way but beyond that we really don’t know too much, do we?

    We can only observe, extrapolate, guess and make projections. In Columbus’ day no one knew for sure whether you would fall off he edge of the world because no one had yet sailed there.

    Will we once again become a hot orb, incapable of sustaining life, as we know it?

    What is causing all of this? How rapidly is it happening? Is it inevitable? Is mankind the cause or the solution?

    Probably these questions won’t be solved in your lifetime or mine. Chances are generations after us will be pondering these same questions.

    Then again, maybe the questions will have become moot when the Armageddon that mankind wants so desperately to believe in will have occurred.

  61. Steve says:

    There are several underlying arguments in the discussion but the overriding one is that 97% claim made by politicians, media and other sources of hype.

    Both Patrick and Rincon have unintentionally acknowledged my statements on this issue are correct.

    They have both done so by ending their claims of 97% of SCIENTISTS and are both now referring to papers published by authors.

    As the article in Scientific American made clear, getting what actual scientists believe is a much more difficult undertaking than John Cook imagined when he decided to do searches for peer reviewed papers in his effort to lock down some sort of consensus which has proven itself clearly ineffective, mischaracterized and insulting in is disposition.

    The 97% is not people and it is not 97 out of 100. It is 97 out of about 37 percent.

  62. Steve says:

    And, Bill, think about it for a moment.

    Humans are a part of the environment, it is as silly to claim human activity has no effect on climate as it is silly to claim human activity is the 100% driver of all climate change.

  63. Bill says:

    You’ve been arguing with Rincon and Patrick so long that you have failed to note that I agree with you.

    That humans are part of the environment and that their presence has an effect on the biosphere is self evident and simple logic. Just as the presence of a colony of ants has an impact on the surrounding environment, so too does the presence of man.

    In recent years, we have carried legitimate concerns a bit too far. The more fanatical environmentalists, driving their SUV’s to the Sierras to commune with nature in their Patagonia outfits believe that only they and others like them have a right to be there and that loggers, miners, ranchers, 4 Wheelers and and others have no rightful place if it “interferes with nature”.

    Some of the more extreme have exalted their beliefs to a religion. Their view, is that man must be prevented from doing anything that would interfere or impact the other flora or fauna within the biosphere earth. In their view their is no responsible mining, timber cutting, grazing, drilling or development that is righteous. In their view, mankind is not a righteous part of the universe.

    I’m going to ask a cleric friend of mine if there is any religious correlation between the idea of man and as an interloper comes from the the Garden of Eden? I already believe that there is such a correlation in the doomsday predictions.. .

  64. Steve says:

    Yup. Scientists know what they are talking about even as they do not always agree with each other about their personal beliefs.

    Trouble with the politicized version of AGW is those people want us to believe them rather than what we read.

    And I hadn’t forgot you are rational, Bill, I used your comment to make a point.

  65. Steve says:

    I probably should make clear I read things like Scientific American and not crazy lefty loony or right tin foil hat suff, huh?

  66. Rincon says:

    1) Steve’s 37% figure remains specious. He also neglects to acknowledge that, even with his own numbers, articles in agreement with AGW outnumber those opposed by more than 50 times. You’re missing the forest for the trees, Steve.
    2) Although there is substantial evidence that AGW is a definite risk, Conservatives can find essentially none that there is little or no risk nor can they find evidence of any kind that the presently observed warming is natural. The less evidence they have though, the louder they talk.
    3) Conservatives say that we just don’t know enough yet to do anything, but implicit in this is that we are monkeying with something we don’t understand. By definition, we are experimenting on the planet. There will be no second chances if we’re wrong.
    4) Greenhouse gases unquestionably warm the planet. The more gases, the more warming and we have raised CO2 from 285ppm to over 400ppm, which is unprecedented in history, but Conservatives are sanguine. No problem, they say, despite a complete and total lack of evidence to support their view.
    5) The Earth’s warming is accelerating. Thirty five years ago, climatologists predicted fairly precisely what came to pass, but Conservatives ascribe that to luck. Did they predict anything? Of course not, but constantly stood on the scientific sidelines throwing tomatoes at those who slowly and resolutely built a mountain of evidence.
    6) Had we gotten off foreign oil in the ’80’s, we probably would not have had the tragedies and expenses of the Gulf War, 9/11, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Iran probably also probably would not have had the potential to make their own nukes, but Conservatives said getting off foreign oil would be too expensive. Boy, were they wrong as they were with slavery, civil rights, the Viet Nam War, pollution and so many more things.

  67. Steve says:

    OH, now MATH is specious.

    100 minus 66, Rincon.

    The rest of your stuff remains repetitive pablum.

  68. Bill says:

    You just lost me Rincon, when you said that Conservatives were “…wrong as they were with slavery, civil rights, the Viet Nam War, pollution and so many more things.” That is absolute crap.

    I take particular umbrage at blaming conservatives for Viet Nam, unless you consider Kennedy and Johnson as conservatives. And, if memory serves me, it was the Republican Congress that passed the Civil Rights Act for Johnson,

    Maybe you are just blaming conservatives for most of the evils in the world to be satirical or provocative but if you truly believe it, then defend your statement,

  69. Steve says:

    Haven’t you been paying attention?

    In the liberal mind Reagan would be too liberal to win an election as a Republican today while Kennedy would be too conservative as a Democrat.

    Don’t blame them for being blinded by all the indoctrination, it is a little overwhelming to deal with once seen for what it is.

    Meanwhile, watch as Trump starts going to his Big Apple leftist roots…..

  70. Steve says:

    And it begins

  71. Barbara says:

    Like Bill I truly don’t understand point 6 Rincon. I was living in TX in the 80s when oil collapsed. Oilmen pleaded for relief to VP Bush, but were told the price of oil had to be kept low in order to collapse the economy of the Soviet Union. (This was told to me personally by an oilman who met with Bush.) Also what did conservatives have to do with instituting or perpetuating slavery? I can’t imagine what you meant by this statement. It was a solidly Democratic south that expanded slavery to non-slave states, succeeded from the Union rather than abolish slavery, passed Jim Crow laws, instituted “separate but equal” laws, etc.

  72. deleted says:

    David Duke called himself a republican. He also believed he was a conservative.

    Anyone suggesting that “the democrats” in the south were the ones responsible for slavery. Or that “the republicans” were the ones responsible for passing civil rights legislation, needs to remember this.

    Course, anyone truly dumb enough to make such a statement to begin with, does it out of complete ignorance (willful or otherwise) and ought to be paid little attention anyway.

    The “reasoning” that goes into making such statements is akin to that which would lead them to believe that the “German Democratic Republic” was truly democratic, or a republic, just because it says so right in the name.

  73. Steve says:

    Yeah Patrick? So what about Trump being a Trojan Horse today…..Like Duke was then.

  74. Rincon says:

    conservatism (redirected from Conservative (politics))
    Also found in: Thesaurus, Legal, Financial, Encyclopedia, Wikipedia.
    con·ser·va·tism (kən-sûr′və-tĭz′əm)
    n.
    1. The inclination, especially in politics, to maintain the existing or traditional order.
    2. A political philosophy or attitude that emphasizes respect for traditional institutions and opposes the attempt to achieve social change though legislation or publicly funded programs.
    3. Caution or moderation, as in behavior or outlook. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Conservative+(politics)

    Note: It does not say Democrat or Republican. By definition, it was conservatives that wanted to maintain slavery. The Viet Nam war was a little trickier and I certainly understand your questioning my characterization of it. Nevertheless, I believe it to be valid. The fallacy here is the implicit assumption that a Republican can’t do something liberal and that Democrats never do anything conservative. The easiest way to address the Viet Nam War question is to look at the opposition. Does anyone really think the War protesters were Conservatives? They were liberals, challenging the Domino Theory and the military industrial complex. They were also big on environmentalism. Their opponents wished to maintain the status quo; thus, they were conservative.

    Getting off foreign oil would have taken a great deal of radical change. That is the antithesis of conservatism. The exception were those conservatives who advocated drilling everywhere and anywhere without restriction here in the U.S. For the most part though, there were very few restrictions on domestic oil drilling in the early 1980’s (anyone remember James Watt?), so for the most part, the U.S. was prevented from getting off foreign oil by conservatives who didn’t want any regulations or subsidies and weren’t the least bit enthusiastic about greater energy efficiency or alternative energy.

    That conservatives opposed racial integration and women’s rights is a no brainer.

  75. deleted says:

    I remember “James Watt”. And Ann Gorsuch (Burford) and Edwin Meese, and Don Regan, and Elliot Abrahams and Samuel Pierce, and Deborah Gore Dean, and Lynn Nofsigner and Rita Lavell and their ringleader; the one and only Ronald “I wish I could remember my name” Reagan.

    All “conservatives” known, or ought to be known, by their prison numbers.

    I got to believe, after all is said and done, the only thing standing in the way of the current republican administration falling short of the number of officials indicted, convicted, and imprisoned, will be the brevity of their terms.

  76. Steve says:

    That explains it, you guys really do think Kennedy was a conservative….in fact you peeps prolly think all the Kennedy’s were, and are, conservatives

  77. Athos says:

    Pat and rinny – tell us all again who is the current President of the United States?

    Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

    And patrick, keep on with the Scriptures. “Faith comes by hearing, and hearing from the Word of God” (you’re a smart guy, you can figure out what part of the Book that comes from!)

    Enjoy!

  78. Bill says:

    I understand the definition but I would argue about the Viet Nam War being caused by conservatives. Isolation is a hallmark of conservatives historically.

    Today, conservatism can mean different things in different places, at different times and as it is applied to different events. For instance, I consider myself to be a “conservative” but with strong Libertarian views which tend to make those views liberal. Or do they?

    The problem with labels like conservative, liberal, progressive, libertarian, fat, thin, black, white, etc. is that it tends to result in stereotyping and the term does not always fit nor does it usually really define well. Witness, we have at least one commentator so blinded by ideology that the term conservative is synonymous with every evil including the plague.

  79. Rincon says:

    You’re absolutely correct, Bill. The labels change over time, primarily because when liberals get what they want, they don’t want it changed and thus, become conservative. Whether “conservatives” were responsible for the Viet Nam War can be argued either way, but since before I was born, it appeared that the politicians who supported a “strong” (or bloated) military were mostly conservatives. Liberals have always been associated with a mistrust of the military and wanting to reduce its role in our affairs. That being said, is it being argued here that a liberal cannot possibly perform an act supported by conservatives? Kennedy was a liberal, but as with almost all of us, did not support everything labeled liberal and did not eschew everything considered conservative. If you call Kennedy and Johnson’s support for the War liberal. then it would be hard to escape labeling their opponents as conservatives. Would you really call the hippies conservatives?

    For what it’s worth, Wikipedia says, “As opposition to the war grew, a large portion of that opposition came from within liberal ranks. ” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism_in_the_United_States#Liberals_and_Vietnam

  80. deleted says:

    At the “heart” of conservative philosophy at least as expressed by those that call themselves conservatives today is the idea of selfishness.

    This philosophical compass has resulted in conservatives objecting to near every environmental rule, near every regulation intended to protect individuals from harm, and so much else that while it may result on some marginal reduction in an individuals ability to make another buck even if it did mean a better life for many others.

    This idea runs through all conservative philosophy today and yes it is true, that the idea is so antithical to all that I believe, that I typically object on an ideological basis to conservatives and conservative ideas.

    I hate selfish people and that means that m philosophy is diametrically opposed to those expressed by conservatives who act out of their love for selfishness.

    Rincon has said as much often; that conservatives just don’t appear to care much about others if it means that they are going to be personally affected by taking the others into consideration when they make their decisions. Especially political decisions, and on that, he and I agree.

  81. Steve says:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_helps_those_who_help_themselves

    Offers others a finger and they will take the whole hand.

  82. deleted says:

    Am I my brothers keeper?
    -Cain the first conservative

  83. Steve says:

    My brother helps himself. I help myself.

    Hence, we help each other.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s