Patterico's Pontifications

4/16/2015

Quick Links

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:37 am



Hillary did not leave a tip at Chipotle. I don’t typically tip at a Chipotle. If I were running for President and eating a burrito as a media stunt, I probably would.

Small-town Michigan auto repair shop guy says he would not serve the openly gay. It’s different from the pizza place story in two ways: 1) he posted the sentiments online rather than answering a question from a reporter, and 2) he does not confine his views to participating in a gay marriage. Maybe he wants a GoFundMe lottery ticket. I support his freedom to associate with who he wants, and I also think he’s too judgmental. Let the market take care of people like him.

Westboro Baptist Not to Picket ISIS After All. After being challenged to do so, the cretins claimed to be willing to do it, but now they’re seemingly backing out. I guess they discovered ISIS hates gays almost as much as they do?

Jonathan Adler: What does it take to convince libertarians and conservatives that climate change is a problem? He says evidence of human contributions to warming is “substantial” — even “without relying upon the conclusions drawn by computer models or contested studies, such as Michael Mann’s infamous ‘Hockey Stick.’”

Marco Rubio would attend a gay wedding. Ah, but would he eat a burrito? Would he tool around in a luxurious van? Would Big Media drool over him if he did?

Hillary wants to amend the First Amendment. Remember: the Citizens United decision grew out of an attempt to suppress criticism of Hillary.

Our poll on your pick for President is still live. Go make your choice. Almost 1000 votes in, it’s neck and neck between Cruz and Walker, with Cruz holding a slight edge.

92 Responses to “Quick Links”

  1. Ding.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  2. The comments to that WaPo article are seriously confused. Mixing creationists and anti-vaxxers. Those two groups are poles apart.

    Mike K (d85405)

  3. I don’t typically tip at a Chipotle. If I were running for President and eating a burrito as a media stunt, I probably would.

    I’m kind of a sucker: if a tip jar is on the counter I generally hit it up, even if it is at a fast food place like Subway. But I only put in about 8-10% of the bill — a buck or two depending upon what I ordered. But yeah, if I was a millionaire Presidential candidate embarking upon a billion dollar campaign, I would be the most generous guy they had ever seen.

    JVW (a1146f)

  4. In the words of the Blogfather, re: Jonathan Adler:
    “I’ll believe it’s a crisis when the people who keep telling me it’s a crisis start acting like it’s a crisis.”

    Chaser:
    “I don’t want to hear another goddamn thing about my carbon footprint.”

    Another Anon (f43943)

  5. when we get all our other problems resolved, then we’ll concern ourselves with climate change,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  6. A baker declining to bake a wedding cake for a homosexual couple is declining to take part in a ceremony he finds offensive, but what does changing the oil on a homosexual’s car have to do with participating in his lifestyle?

    Most of what homosexuals do is the same thing as what normal people do: eat, work, sleep, lawn the mow, clean the house, do the laundry, and all of the other things that are a part of everyday life. They need (hopefully gas-guzzling, carbon dioxide spewing) automobiles to get to the grocery store and work and the dozens of other places which have nothing to do with their choice of bed partners.

    This is where things get dicey: we all know what would eventually happen to a mechanic who said he would not work on cars owned by blacks.

    The mechanic Dana (f6a568)

  7. i always hit the tip jar except not at starbucks cause i don’t go there anymore cause they’re so creepy with all their weirdo racial profiling and it makes me uncomfortable

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  8. i’m a sell my car in a couple weeks cause i’m so over the whole street parking thing

    but even if i kept it i wouldn’t drive to some sad armpit in michigan for to get the oils changed

    so this counts as my social justice for the month

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  9. Your number 5. seems to self evidentially prove they are not cretins. So they have that going for them.

    Now if Adler could only point to evidence. But most conservatives and libertarians acknowledge that climate change exists, else Chicago would be under a thousand feet of ice. Or northern Montana would still have semi-tropical climate. Climate change happens, just as the Earth orbits the sun. Humankind will adapt, or die. It’s evolution, which is scientific.

    Loren (1e34f2)

  10. JVW wrote:

    But yeah, if I was a millionaire Presidential candidate embarking upon a billion dollar campaign, I would be the most generous guy they had ever seen.

    And it was discovered that her three random lunch companions were all staged Democrats. Maybe before Al Gore invented this internet thingy, we’d never have heard about that, but, alas! there are no secrets any more, something that the Clintons ought to know better than anybody. After all these years, after all of this planning, it seems as though Mrs Clinton’s campaign is being run by amateurs.

    This would never have happened to her husband; he was savvy, and an actual politician. His darling bride isn’t a real politician, but a wholly self-absorbed woman trying to play politician. She’ll get a lot of votes because of her name and her genitals, but I’m thinking that Her Inevitableness might not be so inevitable after all.

    The politician Dana (f6a568)

  11. technically the christian post link says the comedian sponsor backed out, more likely Westboro would end up joining IS, they agree on so much,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  12. what does the store owner mean by “openly gay”? if they are not performing acts in front of him, and homosexuality is not illegal then i’d say he needs to take the sign down and not deny service.

    Rubio, however, has lost me. I wonder how many who voted in the poll for him would like to change that vote. (i didn’t)

    Adler doesn’t address what is normal , how normal was determined and what it would take to prove the claim false. he also does not explain the previous warmings.

    seeRpea (d1cf05)

  13. AGW simply requires carpet bombing Gaza with hydrogen bombs, according to a mathematical theorem. See Nuclear Winter: Global Consequences of Multiple Nuclear Explosions, R. P. Turco, O. B. Toon, T. P. Ackerman, J. B. Pollack 2, and Carl Sagan, Science, vol. 23, December 1983, Vol. 222. no. 4630, pp. 1283 – 1292 According to consensus®, this will create a climate paradise, with shorter allergy seasons, no storms, and no other horrible stuff.

    Michael Ejercito (d9a893)

  14. Jonathan Adler: What does it take to convince libertarians and conservatives that climate change is a problem? He says evidence of human contributions to warming is “substantial” — even “without relying upon the conclusions drawn by computer models or contested studies, such as Michael Mann’s infamous ‘Hockey Stick.’”

    People like Adler irk me the most because in too many instances — disregarding their arguments about the pros or cons of the science or the solution to what they’re wringing their hands about — they aren’t willing to do even modest things to curb their own CO2-polluing lifestyle. I was debating this topic with a woman not too long ago — who prays at the holy altar of enviromentalism — and she recently purchased a big SUV to tool around town in.

    Fans of AGW like her (or Al Gore, etc, etc) should be required to move to some non-comfy-oriented shantytown in South America or lead a bare-bones existence in the savannah of Africa so they can finally show to the world they’re not just talking the talk, but are now walking the walk, and trying to be a part of the solution.

    Marco Rubio would attend a gay wedding.

    Squish, squish. Hugs, hugs. Who knows? Rubio may eventually say that it’s perfectly reasonable for the US military to treat people like Nidal Hassan with care, compassion and understanding.

    Rubio could have at least qualified his statement by saying “only if the gay couple were staunch conservatives and had been forced into tying the knot by their leftwing parents.”

    Mark (6c31df)

  15. Re: the auto repair shop guy who won’t serve gays, I understand why gays and people who sympathize with gays find this troublesome. I’m sure they feel like they are being targeted and judged. But I feel that way when I shop at the local Hispanic market, where my blonde hair and blue eyes mark me as someone different. The store doesn’t make me feel welcome, not only because of the stares but also because they don’t speak English so it’s harder for me to get help when I need it. Should I sue or complain if stores cater to (or exclude) specific groups, or should I let the market handle it?

    I think we will have a more free society if we let the market handle this issues, and we will have a more regulated, controlled society if we don’t. Both will have inequalities, but we will have government-based inequality instead of market-based inequality. There will be as much corruption and inequality in the government system — especially with Obama’s attack on the rule of law — but politicians will decide who gets the spoils instead of the market.

    DRJ (e80d46)

  16. ‘blonde hair and blue eyes mark me as someone different.”

    pics, or it didn’t happen!

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  17. i do not believe that climate change is a problem

    i got your parts per million right here Jonathan

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  18. I don’t typically tip at a Chipotle. If I were running for President and eating a burrito as a media stunt, I probably would.

    At places that have a tip jar I almost always dump the coins from the change in the tip jar. I use so little cash anymore that it’s almost like getting rid of an annoyance.

    auto repair shop guy says he would not serve the openly gay.

    It would be easier if aholes wore identifying badges or something, but failing that this kind of self-identification will do. He’d better be a damn good mechanic.

    Westboro Baptist Not to Picket ISIS After All.

    Envy.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  19. Jonathan Adler: What does it take to convince libertarians and conservatives that climate change is a problem? He says evidence of human contributions to warming is “substantial” — even “without relying upon the conclusions drawn by computer models or contested studies, such as Michael Mann’s infamous ‘Hockey Stick.’”

    Jonathan Adler relies on a highly flawed article at Reason. And once of the reasons it’s highly flawed is that Ronald Bailey asks the wrong questions. The right questions are variations of “how much?” How much warming will occur, and will it be harmful? How much is human activity contributing to it? And then you go on to ask are there any reasonable steps we can take to mitigate it? Would it make more sense not to destroy our economies so we have the wealth to adapt to it? Rather than impoverish ourselves while having no measurable impact on the rate of warming (the Australian experience, which is why they abandoned the nonsense). Because if we do that, then all we’re doing is damning future generations of the wherewithal to adapt to a changing climate.

    But to get back to the article, if the world is warming, and there is some evidence that it is, it’s not outside the realm of natural variability. Even climate alarmists have to admit that. According to the latest RSS data, we have now gone 18 years and 3 months with no measurable warming. And here’s what NOAA had to say about that on page 23 of this climate assessment:

    http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/climate-assessment-2008-lo-rez.pdf

    Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.

    So we are well outside of even the five year cushion they provided themselves when it comes to the climate alarmists’ claims of disastrous anthropogenic global warming. We still remain within natural norms. And these people can’t account for it. Which is why we have a plethora of new theories about why the predicted catastrophic warming isn’t happening, that there’s no indication it will happen, but dammit they just know it is and it’s going to be horrific, trust them.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7580294.stm

    Alpine melt reveals ancient life

    First of all it has to be noted that the vast majority of the Earth’s mountain glaciers are in Antarctica, and they’re in no danger of melting. In areas where they are melting, like the alps and the andes, they reveal that people used to live there. Those glaciers haven’t been there forever; according to the park’s own literature the glaciers in Glacier National Park are about 3,000 years old. Which is about the age of the human artifacts they’re finding as glaciers in the alps melt.

    So if we follow the evidence, we’ll get the climate of 3,000 years ago. When people flourished in places they can’t live now.

    Steve57 (cd6f9a)

  20. Rubio, however, has lost me. I wonder how many who voted in the poll for him would like to change that vote. (i didn’t)

    No, you wanted Santorum, so this attitude doesn’t really surprise me. If a gay person I knew invited me to his/her wedding, I’d probably go, unless the venue or participants had been coerced. Not a big deal to me. But I’d defend to the death your right to NOT go.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  21. All I really know about AGW is that it is probably not a real good idea to make large perturbations in a working system. Basic engineering caution. CO2 levels cannot continue to increase without consequence, and we may not know what those consequences are until too late.

    Sure the models are wrong and overstate the incremental problem, but that does not mean nothing bad will happen.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  22. i say we chance it

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  23. Also, there’s no evidence that Polar bears are being harmed by climate change.

    http://polarbearscience.com/2015/04/12/challenging-polar-bear-fearmongering-about-arctic-sea-ice-extent-for-march-2015/

    It’s almost funny how easy it is to poke holes in the activist claims that the polar bears are going to go extinct. One of the recent claims is that they can’t live on land sources of food. And they cite as an example bird eggs. As Dr. Susan Crockford (she’s the zoologist with 35 years experience who owns and writes for the site) points out, polar bears do 2/3 of their eating well before the late spring break-up of the ice. Then go on a fast until late fall, i.e. November/December, when nobody denies there will be ice and do the remaining 1/3 of their eating of the year.

    So it’s ridiculous to cite bird eggs as a source of food that can’t maintain polar bear populations as the arctic breeding season doesn’t produce eggs or hatchlings until late June or early July at the earliest. The USFWS service studies Eider ducks (and other waterfowl) near Barrow, AK and have for as long as I can remember (I hunt ducks, so this information is important to me). They don’t even start their census of arriving birds until the middle of June, then continue for about 2 weeks. Only after that do they start looking for nests, as there won’t be any earlier. So, no, the people who are crying about the demise of the polar bears may be scientists but they aren’t doing science when they write their alarmist crap. They’re putting on their activist hat.

    http://polarbearscience.com/2015/04/03/superb-sea-ice-conditions-for-polar-bears-worldwide-during-their-critical-feeding-period/

    Steve57 (cd6f9a)

  24. seeRpea wrote:

    what does the store owner mean by “openly gay”?

    As recruiters used to say, you don’t always have to ask to be able to tell.

    The Army-daddy Dana (f6a568)

  25. Hillary wants to amend the First Amendment

    Great. Lets ban flag-burning and sedition, and establish Judeo-Christian values as the core principles of the Republic. Just as likely to be enacted, Hill.

    If there was one thing that has become clear in this administration, though, it is the need to allow Congress a veto of regulations, short of passing a law over a veto. There used to be legislative vetoes, but these were struck down in a woeful 1983 decision (INS v. Chadha).

    Justice Powell … argued that to invalidate all legislative veto provisions is a serious matter, as Congress views the legislative veto as essential to controlling the executive branch…

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  26. All I really know about AGW is that it is probably not a real good idea to make large perturbations in a working system.

    My characterizing such caution as both amusing and contemptible isn’t directed at you (unless you’re a leftist like Obama), but at those particular environmentalists (or politicians or their supporters in the electorate) who are up in arms about global warming vis-a-vie the dynamics of a captialistic system, yet show no alarm about the environmental (and social, and economic) degradation of the US becoming more and more like a half-baked society of Central or South America. (I won’t say anything about the political degradation, since I’m sure environmentalists of the left love the idea of this country’s changing demographics making it increasingly liberal.)

    Unless do-gooder environmentalists are residing in the center of a dystopia like, say, Detroit, Michigan or a favala in Brazil, they really need to start practicing what they preach.

    Mark (6c31df)

  27. seeRpea wrote:

    what does the store owner mean by “openly gay”?

    As recruiters used to say, you don’t always have to ask to be able to tell.

    The Army-daddy Dana (f6a568) — 4/16/2015 @ 11:18 am

    For the mechanic??? any owners of VW Golf Cabriolets, Toyota Prii or anything French and for the store owners, bright colored clothing or light leather loafers would be possible tell-tale signs.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  28. also VW New Beetle Cabiolets…

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  29. 24. …CO2 levels cannot continue to increase without consequence, and we may not know what those consequences are until too late.

    Sure the models are wrong and overstate the incremental problem, but that does not mean nothing bad will happen.

    Kevin M (25bbee) — 4/16/2015 @ 11:09 am

    For all the scientists know, CO2 levels can fall and that doesn’t mean nothing bad can happen.

    They can’t even prove that human activity are causing any large perturbations in that working system. That’s why they have to limit themselves to a) the globe is warming and b) human activity is contributing to it. Because they can’t answer the important questions based upon the words “how much?”

    As a matter of fact the paper John Cook, a researcher at the University of Queensland, is an example of just how corrupt and agenda driven this climate hysteria is. It’s not anything resembling science that’s driving this train.

    You may be familiar with the work of Dr. Richard Tol. He used to be one of the IPCC academicians cited in their various reports. A couple of years back he demanded his name be removed from their masthead as after studying the data he concluded that it didn’t support any of their claims. He dismantles the Cook report here.

    http://richardtol.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/now-almost-two-years-old-john-cooks-97.html

    Global warming consensus claim does not stand up (author’s cut)

    …The alleged consensus is about any human role in climate change, rather than a dominant role, and it is about climate change rather than the dangers it might pose.

    …Cook enlisted a small group of environmental activists to rate the claims made by the selected papers. Cook claims that the ratings were done independently, but the raters freely discussed their work. There are systematic differences between the raters. Reading the same abstracts, the raters reached remarkably different conclusions – and some raters all too often erred in the same direction. Cook’s hand-picked raters disagreed what a paper was about 33% of the time. In 63% of cases, they disagreed about the message of a paper with the authors of that paper.

    This is important as many of the scientists they cited as part of their consensus objected to being used that way. Because their consensus is on essentially meaningless issues.

    …Requests for the data were met with evasion and foot-dragging, a clear breach of the publisher’s policy on validation and reproduction, yet defended by an editorial board member of the journal as “exemplary scientific conduct”.

    Cook hoped to hold back some data…

    …Cook first argued that releasing time stamps would serve no scientific purpose…

    …Cook later argued that time stamps were never collected. They were. They show that one of Cook’s raters inspected 675 abstracts within 72 hours, a superhuman effort.

    I love that part. The mutually exclusive pleading. “My dog doesn’t bite, your honor. My dog was tied up. I don’t even have a dog!”

    …Cook’s 97% nonsensus paper shows that the climate community still has a long way to go in weeding out bad research and bad behaviour. If you want to believe that climate researchers are incompetent, biased and secretive, Cook’s paper is an excellent case in point.

    I don’t even believe Dr. Tol covered all the problems other academicians have cited in Cook’s paper. It’s the Bellesiles report of “climate science.” Which is in scare quotes because you might as well believe human activity is going to destroy the earth based upon astrology.

    Steve57 (cd6f9a)

  30. Question: Would you vote for a candidate who said he would not attend his daughter’s [hypothetical] gay wedding?

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  31. who’s gonna go to a wedding if it’s not even for sure there’s gonna be cake?

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  32. For all the scientists know, CO2 levels can fall and that doesn’t mean nothing bad can happen.

    If you mean back to the historic baseline, this is possible, but likely wrong. If you mean to a significantly lower amount, quite possibly.

    The point is, from a purely systems approach, that we are stressing a working system. So far the consequences have been minimal. But somewhere, there is a point of catastrophe (e.g. a rubber band only stretches so far). We should probably not go look for it.

    And again, do not tell me that the models are wrong, or that they are driven by ideologues. Of course they are. I’m not talking about polar bears or this year’s rainfall, I’m talking about effing with the unknown.

    The fact that the models are all wrong isn’t a comfort.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  33. Re Rubio on gay weddings…again points to him. He specifically noted that a gay wedding has for him the same status as a hetero divorced person marrying, since he is a Catholic, and he would treat them from the same basis, depending on who they were, how important they are in his life, and how hurtful non attendance might be.

    kishnevi (adea75)

  34. who’s gonna go to a wedding if it’s not even for sure there’s gonna be cake?

    You go for the cake? As in “Boy, I shouldn’t have eaten so much cake at the reception last night”?

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  35. @33. Yes, Kevin. Because I’m tired of hypocritical Republicans who say they believe in traditional marriage. Until it’s their own kid. Then all of a sudden they reveal their principled positions aren’t principled at all.

    I have the same problem with theologians and clerics whose past work demonstrates that the Bible actually means what it says. Until they find out they have a gay son or daughter. And then start producing works that say no, the Bible doesn’t mean what we’ve thought it said for the past several thousand years.

    The names escape me at the moment, but the “gay Christian” movement is based upon a small body of works. And at least a couple of those works were produced by supposed Biblical scholars who were exactly in that position. You’ve got to question the integrity of their research at that point.

    Question: Would you vote for a candidate who reveals that their position on any issue that they say are based upon his or her principles have always been hypocritical and self-serving?

    Steve57 (cd6f9a)

  36. that’s not something I’ve never said

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  37. kishnevi–

    Well put. I wonder what would be said if a Catholic candidate said that he wouldn’t go to Protestant weddings. Or Hindu ones? One could make a religious objection to either and be justified, but the public would not stand for it.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  38. Cheney’s position was principled, then.

    But in any event, a candidate who would spurn his child like that would be unable to be elected anything at all in any country save ISIS.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  39. 35. The point is, from a purely systems approach, that we are stressing a working system.

    Kevin M (25bbee) — 4/16/2015 @ 12:00 pm

    There is zero evidence that we are stressing a working system. You really need to read Dr. Tol’s entire takedown of Cook’s work.

    Again, that claim that we are playing the major or even a substantial role in climate change isn’t based upon any scientific evidence. It’s based upon those very same models that we know are wildly out of whack. You might as well sacrifice a goat to the climate gods and divine the notion from examining its entrails.

    Mythical Climate Change Consensus Hits An Iceberg

    Junk Science: Climate change “deniers,” as global warm-mongers call those who think empirical evidence is more reliable than computer models, may soon count among their number a 50,000-strong body of physicists.

    At the risk of being accused of embracing what alarmists call the flat-earth view of climate change, the American Physical Society has appointed a balanced, six-person committee to review its stance on so-called climate change that includes three distinguished skeptics: Judith Curry, John Christy and Richard Lindzen. Their credentials are impressive…

    Read More At Investor’s Business Daily: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/032114-694249-american-physical-society-reviews-climate-change.htm#ixzz3XV7jOKyy
    Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook

    Steve57 (cd6f9a)

  40. Question: Would you vote for a candidate who reveals that their position on any issue that they say are based upon his or her principles have always been hypocritical and self-serving?

    Hunh? Do you mean: “Question: Would you vote for a candidate who reveals that their principled positions have always been hypocritical and self-serving?”

    Aren’t they always?

    Scalia voted against private pot in a state that did not outlaw pot, after going on for years about Federalism. He must be a bad man.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  41. Steve, you know nothing.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  42. Wow, Kevin. So a candidate that tells his or her child that they love them no matter what, but they can’t approve of something their child is doing is “spurning” them? If their child is doing it, then it must be right and the parent has to change.

    That’s reversing the parent-child role. Which means if such a condidate is unelectable, that would explain why we’re going off a cliff. The perpetual adolescents are in charge.

    Steve57 (cd6f9a)

  43. So, Kevin, I take it you can’t cite any evidence that we are what’s stressing the climate?

    There’s a reason for that. There is none.

    …Consensus has no place in science. Academics agree on lots of things, but that does not make them true. Even so, agreement that climate change is real and human-caused does not tell us anything about how the risks of climate change weigh against the risks of climate policy. But in our age of pseudo-Enlightenment, having 97% of researchers on your side is a powerful rhetoric for marginalizing political opponents. All politics ends in failure, however. Chances are the opposition will gain power well before the climate problem is solved. Polarization works in the short run, but is counterproductive in the long run.

    In their paper, Cook and colleagues argue that 97% of the relevant academic literature endorses that humans have contributed to observed climate change. This is unremarkable. It follows immediately from the 19th century research by Fourier, Tyndall and Arrhenius. In popular discourse, however, Cook’s finding is often misrepresented. The 97% refers to the number of papers, rather than the number of scientists. The alleged consensus is about any human role in climate change, rather than a dominant role, and it is about climate change rather than the dangers it might pose.

    Although there are large areas of substantive agreement, climate science is far from settled. Witness the dozens of alternative explanations of the current, 18 year long pause in warming of the surface atmosphere. The debate on the seriousness of climate change or what to do about it ranges even more widely…

    There is no scientific evidence that human activity is causing climate change. We could follow every single recommendation the climate alarmists demand of us and have no measurable effect on the climate.

    Steve57 (cd6f9a)

  44. I feel to unsafe to eat at chipotle.
    I am a generous tipper as I have been involved in the service business for years.
    If you find a place with food to your liking, I have found it very rewarding to take care of the wait staff.

    mg (31009b)

  45. “I understand why gays and people who sympathize with gays find this troublesome. I’m sure they feel like they are being targeted and judged. But I feel that way when I shop at the local Hispanic market, where my blonde hair and blue eyes mark me as someone different. The store doesn’t make me feel welcome, not only because of the stares but also because they don’t speak English so it’s harder for me to get help when I need it.”

    – DRJ

    Has the store ever refused to serve you/sell goods to you, though?

    Leviticus (f9a067)

  46. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OS-cLp1PEGQ

    MIT Climatologist Richard Lindzen on the Politics of Global Warming

    If you accept the demonstrably faulty assumptions of the climate alarmists as true, then, Kevin, your point about the systems approach would be valid.

    Steve57 (cd6f9a)

  47. But in any event, a candidate who would spurn his child like that would be unable to be elected anything at all in any country save ISIS.

    Your struggling not to be (1) an alarmist about AGW and, in line with such sentiment, your (2) desire to burn the bright flame of political correctness when a politician isn’t into the ethos of hugs-hugs-hugs and opposes a gay wedding for his (or her) son or daughter are symptoms of left-leaning squish.

    The foolishness and phoniness of such emotion is best illustrated by one of America’s shining reprobates, Bill Clinton. In spite of all the garbage surrounding him, including cases of sexual harassment and probable rape (which truly reaches the level of hurtful, to say the least), he nonetheless is greeted with merely a shrug, if not cheers (particularly by the biggest fans of political correctness) because, well, he is into the ethos of (real or imagined) hugs-hugs-hugs.

    Mark (6c31df)

  48. The perpetual adolescents are in charge.

    “If you’re not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you’re not a conservative at forty, you have no brain.”

    ^ Truer today than ever before.

    Mark (6c31df)

  49. Would I vote for a person who did not attend a wedding of their homosexual or polygamous child? Maybe, depends on the person’s position on other interests of importance to me.

    As for Rubio and the clarification that he would treat it as a divorced person getting remarried – is he saying that he objects to any divorced person getting married as a Catholic or only to divorced Catholics getting married? If any divorced person, than i do not think he is correct.

    I don’t understand how one gets from disapproving of homosexual , polygamous and divorced Catholics marriages to ipso facto disapproving of Muslim, Hindu, Jewish , Protestant, etc marriages.

    The polar bears situation was always a scam. they used photos from the summer melt, repeated several times data from one year when there was a bit less ice coverage and didn’t point out that the situations in polar bear area are regional and not throughout the Arctic Circle.

    seeRpea (181740)

  50. So, Kevin, I take it you can’t cite any evidence that we are what’s stressing the climate?

    Steve, this is one of those things. I have a degree in physics from the best undergraduate STEM school in the world, and 40 years experience as an engineer. I know the way systems work (and fail) like you know the way to your mailbox. I am not really very interested in books trying to spin these concepts for advocacy.

    Effing with a working Criticality Zero system without knowing what the results might be is the height of hubris. I have no idea if the system WILL break, but I just think that we shouldn’t muck with it like we are. That does not mean that I buy the BS solutions offered — I favor municipal thorium reactors and home solar — but just adeding CO2 to the atmosphere, year after year, is a recipe for disaster.

    Analogy: I have a cat that is just absolutely fascinated by a yard across the street. Every day she shoots across the street, without a real good understanding of the “car” thing. Sure it’s a quiet street, but still it’s a risk. Maybe she’ll never get hit. Can’t say. This is like that. We, as a people, ought to have more sense than a cat.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  51. If you accept the demonstrably faulty assumptions of the climate alarmists as true, then, Kevin, your point about the systems approach would be valid.

    No. My systems approach is valid without such acceptance. Engineering is not subject to wishes.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  52. re #50: I don’t think we should be using Bill Clinton as any sort of example. He really is a unique political animal. Much like FDR and Reagan were. You can not get another Reagan Republican, he was one of a kind.

    I know/knew people who hated his policies and his moral’s that would come away from an encounter or speech with him just enthralled with Bill Clinton.

    seeRpea (181740)

  53. Steve,

    The “Politics of Global Warming” doesn’t interest me either. One one had we have a bunch of fatuous self-propelled scare-mongering Communist blowhards trying to get control of the means of production. So what? On the other hand we have a bunch of fatuous self-interested greedy bastards wanting to squeeze the last dime out of their investments in carbon.

    And then there is, over to the side, the science and the truth, which neither side feels the least interested in. That’s where I am. A pox on both their houses.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  54. *On one hand…

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  55. but just adeding CO2 to the atmosphere, year after year, is a recipe for disaster.

    But you don’t seem quite as cautious (or cautious at all) about the effects of the gradual, continuous dumbing down of the social parameters of society. And that’s in spite of your knowledge of engineering or your degree in physics. Simply put, ideological biases can make even learned people surprisingly naive, nonsensical or blind.

    Mark (6c31df)

  56. No, Leviticus, it hasn’t refused to serve me, although the store will special order items for its Hispanic customers but not for me. Hispanic customers go there because the manager will stock and special order Hispanic items, things I also buy, but I also wanted a general grocery item that the store wouldn’t order I understand the store is trying to specialize in Hispanic items and customers, so it makes sense to me why the manager wants to focus on that.

    DRJ (e80d46)

  57. When you cite your undergrad degree and your experience in engineering you’re arguing from authority, not evidence, Kevin.

    Other than that produced by the models, which we already know are useless to predict climate change, do you have evidence that human activity is increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration? Do you have evidence that human activity is raising CO2 concentration substantially? Do you have evidence that greenhouse-gas emissions will cause much warming? Will temperature feedbacks amplify that warming? Will warmer worldwide weather be dangerous? Will any realistic measures avert the danger? And, as Dr. Tol asks, do you have evidence to support the contention that the risks of climate change outweigh the risks of climate change policy?

    Because I’ll need answers to those questions. Not “Is climate change real?” Or “Does human activity play a role?”

    Also, what role does consensus play in science?

    http://www.academia.edu/5123536/Copernicus_and_Fracastoro_the_dedicatory_letters_to_Pope_Paul_III_the_history_of_astronomy_and_the_quest_for_patronage

    Copernicus De revolutionibus (1543) and Girolamo Fracastoro Homocentrica (1538) were both addressed to Pope Paul III (1534–1549). Their dedicatory letters represent a rhetorical exercise in advocating an astronomical reform and an attempt to obtain the papal favour.

    Why did Copernicus need papal favor? Because, scientific consensus! And it was just as vicious as it is today, so he needed protection.

    Steve57 (cd6f9a)

  58. I appreciate your comments @53, 54, and 56, Kevin. But the standard of evidence the global warming enthusiasts use to claim that it’s CO2 is the main factor in climate change, and that human activity is the main cause of increased CO2 in the atmosphere, can at best be claimed to be “preponderance.”

    I say at best because they won’t share this preponderance of evidence; it’s all proprietary, they claim, or subject to confidentiality agreements. So no one can check their work. Which convinces me the evidence isn’t there.

    Yes, there’s a risk human activity is causing harm to the climate. But there’s no way to quantify that risk, and therefore the risk of doing something about it could easily outweigh the risk of doing nothing.

    Even if you show more sense than your cat, you’re still running a risk when you cross a street. But if you have to cross that street to get to work then the benefit outweighs the risk.

    Steve57 (cd6f9a)

  59. Sorry about the long link. I thought it would wrap around.

    Steve57 (cd6f9a)

  60. 56. …One one had we have a bunch of fatuous self-propelled scare-mongering Communist blowhards trying to get control of the means of production. So what? On the other hand we have a bunch of fatuous self-interested greedy bastards wanting to squeeze the last dime out of their investments in carbon.

    And then there is, over to the side, the science and the truth, which neither side feels the least interested in. That’s where I am. A pox on both their houses.

    Kevin M (25bbee) — 4/16/2015 @ 1:03 pm

    There may not be two houses.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/06/us-india-climatechange-idUSKBN0MX0FF20150406

    “The world guides us on climate change and we follow them? The world sets the parameters and we follow them? It is not like that,” Modi said at an event in Delhi. “We can lead the world.”

    The Indian government has said it needs to emit more to industrialize and lift millions out of poverty.

    While Modi has in the past highlighted the dangers posed by climate change, he has also argued that the world must focus more on clean energy and less on outright emission cuts.

    India has set an ambitious target to raise renewable energy generation but is also expanding the mining of coal, a major contributor to its growing emissions.

    Doubling coal production, as Modi intends, would greatly benefit India’s energy companies. And you know who else would benefit, unless he’s cut his decades long ties to those companies?

    Rajendra K. Pachauri, chairman of UN’s Nobel Peace Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), had advocated emission reductions at the recently concluded Copenhagen Climate Summit.

    But back home in India, he seems to be failing to uphold standards of propriety in his professional dealings.

    During his tenure, first as director from 1982, and then as director-general of The Energy Research Institute (TERI) since 2001, Pachauri was a member of the boards of the Oil and Natural Gas Commission (ONGC), Indian Oil Corporation (IOC) and National Thermal Power Corporation (NTPC), three of India’s biggest public sector energy companies, all of whom by the very nature of their business contribute heavily to greenhouse gas emissions. These emissions, according to the IPCC, are adding to the country’s growing carbon footprint and hastening climate change.

    TERI, in fact, entered into business dealings with these companies and allegedly benefitted from Pachauri’s association with them. Pachauri’s dealings have also been noticed by the international media. Recently, the Sunday Telegraph of London had accused him of amassing a fortune using his links with carbon trading companies. Pachauri dismisses the report as “a pack of lies”…

    Read more at: http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/Pachauri+in+a+spot+as+climategate+hits+TERI/1/78466.html

    He may have had to, given that he’s under police investigation for sexual harassment.

    Tom Steyer made a fortune investing in fossil fuels overseas. I can’t prove he’s still investing in oil, gas and coal production overseas while spending 100s of millions of dollars advocating green energy in the US. But I’m positive many people are doing exactly that, Pachauri like. Because there’s a fortune to be made as a rent-seeker in the US, growing rich by investing in government subsidized “green energy” here, while investing in fossil fuels overseas. Since they’d be eliminating the competition by getting the US out of the business.

    There oil would be worth more per barrel if they could lobby the government to “wean” the US off of fossil fuels. And considering there is no alternative to fossil fuels in the foreseeable future, we’d then have to buy their pricier products.

    The communist blowhards and the greedy bastards are often one and the same people, depending on what audience they’re in front of.

    Steve57 (cd6f9a)

  61. I do not see a necessary conflict between saying one would likely go to the SS wedding of a gay friend and that a baker should be free to turn down participation in a SS wedding.

    That Rubio said he would go to the SS wedding of a gay friend does not at all endorse the idea that SSM and heterosexual marriage is equivalent and you must believe so, and if you don’t shut up.
    Going to witness an event and to participate in making it happen are also two different things.

    People may claim it is nit-picking, but the application of principles depends on specifics, lawyers should know that and I assume most people do.
    It is a matter of individual conscience, does a person think their attendance at a SS wedding is an automatic endorsement of it, or do they figure whether they are there or not makes no difference, it will happen anyway (or both and then what to do). Does one feel free to attend the event of a friend, but not make money by providing services for it, or “materially participating” in it?

    Would one want to run a small business and by their decor and slogan, etc., make clear they live by a “conservative” view of Scripture and do business with anyone, just not compromise their slogan? Perhaps some business that was focused on weddings could have as their slogan, “For this reason a man shall leave his mother and a woman leave her home and they shall become one flesh”,. and if a SSW reception really wants that to be on all of the napkins with the cake then so be it.

    MD in Philly (not in Philly at the moment) (deca84)

  62. Hillary didn’t leave a tip at Chipotle because she used her own server…

    Beasts of England (370024)

  63. The entire theory of AGW was that an increase in CO2 causes an increase in the Earth’s temperature. That’s been disproven over the last ~two decades. There’s not much more to say.

    Beasts of England (370024)

  64. But you don’t seem quite as cautious (or cautious at all) about the effects of the gradual, continuous dumbing down of the social parameters of society.

    I would stop it if I could. I particularly dislike the rampant innumeracy pushed by the press. But I have long since accepted that I live in a world of lazy, stupid people.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  65. When you cite your undergrad degree and your experience in engineering you’re arguing from authority, not evidence, Kevin.

    No. If I quoted something by Albert Einstein, I’d be arguing from authority. Here I am arguing from experience and hard-won understanding of How Things Work. It would take quite an argument to change my mind about something I have seen happen the same predictable way for decades. As a general rule, if you keep kicking something, it will break.

    You will note that I make no prediction about when it will break, or if we are kicking it hard enough to even rattle it. But I do know we are kicking the system pretty hard and I urge caution.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  66. I have gone to a SSM, had a great meal – no pizza, bought a gift, and would go again. That really is a silly question.

    This election is going to be about small-ticket items. Watch.

    JD (3b5483)

  67. How do you “know” we are kicking the system hard?

    JD (3b5483)

  68. 68. …You will note that I make no prediction about when it will break, or if we are kicking it hard enough to even rattle it. But I do know we are kicking the system pretty hard and I urge caution.

    Kevin M (25bbee) — 4/16/2015 @ 4:13 pm

    What evidence do you have for the assertion assertion that we are “kicking the system pretty hard?” No one else has that evidence. We could be kicking the system so softly the system doesn’t even notice it. And when it comes to climate no one even knows how the system works.

    Steve57 (cd6f9a)

  69. http://www.al.com/news/huntsville/index.ssf/2015/04/7_questions_with_john_christy.html

    …For John Christy, he had no idea that a discovery announced in 1990 would not only still resonate 25 years later but would be at the center of a raging debate.

    The date was March 29, 1990. That was the day – though unbeknownst to either Christy or Spencer – they publicly became climate change skeptics.

    The scientists at the University of Alabama in Huntsville are known throughout the environmental community as being skeptical that climate change (or global warming) will have a catastrophic effect on the earth. The crux of the matter is that their research, using satellite data to measure temperatures in the atmosphere, disagrees with climate models they say that overstates the earth’s warming.

    …Still, they carry on – comfortable in their research and data that has remained true to their findings 25 years ago.

    …”Looking back, I’m kind of surprised this is still the leading way of doing this. Really our only competitors in the field have the same answer we do, very close to the same answer.”

    …AL.com: President Obama recently said that Republicans are going to have to change their opinions on the dangers of climate change. Is this a partisan issue?

    Christy: Numbers are numbers. That’s what we produced. Those aren’t Republican numbers or Democratic numbers. Those are numbers. Those are observations from real satellites. Roy and I were the pioneers. We discovered how to do this with satellites before anyone else did. You can see this very strongly in the administration. Secretary of State John Kerry comes out and says it’s like denying gravity. The attack on skeptics was ramped up in the past month. It was a very orchestrated plan having the congressional investigation (by U.S. Rep. Raul Grijalva, D-Arizona).

    AL.com: How do you respond to the perception that 97 percent of scientists agree on climate change? (The Wall Street Journal in 2013 reported on the “myth” of the 97 percent).

    Christy: The impression people make with that statement is that 97 percent of scientists agree with my view of climate change, which typically is one of catastrophic change. So if a Senate hearing or the president or vice president says 97 percent of the scientists agree with me, that’s not true. The American Meteorological Society did their survey and they specifically asked the question, Is man the dominate controller of climate over the last 50 years? Only 52 percent said yes. That is not a consensus at all in science.

    Then when you look at the core of that question, the core is do you believe that man has some influence on the climate. I don’t know anyone who would say no to that. Who are the 3 percent who didn’t agree with that? Roy and I have both made the statement that we are in the 97 percent because we believe in some (man-made) effect. It wasn’t quantified and it wasn’t this dangerous thing. That wasn’t part of the question.

    Spencer: Whoever came up with that, it was very powerful. It was a good idea. It was very misleading, but it was a good idea. There are different ways people handle that. I use the angle that based on the way they come up with the 97 percent, John and I could be considered part of the 97 percent. This is where things get all muddy. They call us global warming deniers. It’s a great soundbite except what do we exactly deny? Or the science is settled. OK, what science is settled? You never hear the specifics.

    “That’s the great thing about politics. People throw out these platitudes and you could read into them whatever you want. It’s so generic or non-specific in the thing that they’re saying that you can interpret it anyway you want. You turn it into your own thing because you fill in the details. So being a global warming denier, the truth is we don’t know global warming. The science is settled? Well, some of it is. Adding CO2 to the atmosphere probably adds some warming. The science on that is pretty solid. But then the devil’s in the details. How much warming does it actually cause? It makes a huge difference.

    I’ll repeat JD’s question, Kevin. How do you know we’re kicking the system pretty hard?

    Steve57 (cd6f9a)

  70. @68, I know you said we may not be kicking the system hard enough to even rattle it, but that appears to conflict with your conclusion that we are kicking it pretty hard.

    I don’t understand how you can draw that conclusion if, as you apparently admit, there’s too much uncertainty to know how hard we’re kicking the system.

    Steve57 (cd6f9a)

  71. As well it should, elissa. It’s cruel and inhumane. That’s one reason I don’t need to respect a decision from some dude or dudette who has a black robe. As if that gives him or her moral authority. Or wisdom. Most of them merely managed to win an election. Then there’s this from your link:

    The court order is part of last week’s injunction that deemed the dogs ill-suited as “livestock guardians.”

    The only reason Tibetan Mastiffs exist is because they are excellent livestock guardians. What’s next? A judge is going to deem Alaskan Malamutes as ill-suited to be sled dogs?

    Steve57 (cd6f9a)

  72. I wonder if the rancher will send the dogs somewhere to another state where they will be safe from mutilation, or if they are so necessary for managing his herd that he’ll have no choice. Ugh.

    elissa (38339b)

  73. But I have long since accepted that I live in a world of lazy, stupid people.

    Kevin M, if you think that’s the reason a presidential candidate known to not have approved of his son’s or daughter’s same-sex wedding will be immediately cast off and cast aside by the electorate, then I totally agree with you—or the opposite reaction to the way that same segment of the US public has dealt with scrounges like a Bill and Hillary Clinton, etc. Simply put, a world of people who are lazy — if not also stupid — for falling for the cheap, easy philosophy of compassion for compassion’s sake. Or tolerance for tolerance’s sake.

    This is why facets of America are becoming increasingly corrupt, in various shapes, ways and manners. IOW, people of over 50 years ago would have been totally astounded or shocked by what’s accepted, even popularized, today (eg, student behavior in public schools, high rates of teenage motherhood, unmarried Hollywood actresses having children without a whim, the rowdy trashiness of rap music, the US military accommodating an anti-US-spouting, Islamic-sympathizing enlistee until the bitter, bloody end, politicians with the sleazy background of Clinton and Obama, etc).

    Mark (6c31df)

  74. That is so wrong, elissa. But then so is this… http://t.co/Jtu6Lm2KP6

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  75. 44. Mr. M has returned to his ‘tard equilibrium.

    300 million years ago all the Earths landmasses save Antarctica and Australia were combined together in a continent called Pangea. The global average temperature was 72 degrees F, cloud cover was universal, Venusian, and dinosaurs roamed Antarctica in its current antipodal position.

    The atmospheric concentration of CO2 was over 2000 ppm.

    100 million years ago, Pangea had begun breaking up and the remaining supercontinent, Gondwanaland, was torn into South America and Africa. Tens of millions of years on we entered, once again, an extended regime of ice ages primarily due to the thorough distribution of an oceanic reservoir of heat over radiative landmasses.

    What is less than nothing, Mr. M?

    DNF (208255)

  76. elissa, according to another story on the case (link in your article) they can send them away and replace them.

    At a hearing Thursday, the court found that the mastiffs weren’t ideally suited to be livestock guardians and ordered them debarked within 60 days or replaced with a more suitable breed.

    This judge now thinks he’s the expert on what breeds are or not suitable to guard livestock. I have no clue as what breeds this judge thinks are suitable, but I don’t know of any that won’t bark. A lot, if they think the flock or herd they’re defending is being threatened.

    Take the Maremma (sometimes called the Maremma Abruzzese) from Italy.

    http://www.maremmaclub.com/faq.html

    WHAT IS THE DOG LIKE?
    A Maremma is a livestock guarding dog, bred in Italy for centuries to guard large flocks of sheep on the plains and in the mountains. Other Old World breeds with similar temperament are the Great Pyrenees in France, the Komondor and the Kuvasz in Hungary, the Tatra in Poland, the Shar Planinetz in Yugoslovia, the Anatolian and Akbash in Turkey, and the Tibetan Mastiff in Nepal and Tibet. The Maremma originally lived day and night with its flock, and its white coat mimics the coat of the sheep in its flock. It was bred to take responsibility for keeping the flock safe from 4-legged predators, primarily the wolf, and from 2-legged thieves; and kept proficient at its job by frequent life-and-death battles with the wolves.

    IS A MAREMMA SUITABLE AS A FAMILY PET?
    The Maremma Sheepdog Club of America does NOT recommend the Maremma as a pet. The Maremma actually never considers itself a ‘pet’. It is a working dog, with 2000 years of genetic background of livestock guardianship behind it, and it needs a job to keep it occupied. If it is to be in the house with a family, it must be temperament-tested and heavily socialized from the time it is a small puppy. A puppy should be outgoing and friendly with everyone, but its rowdy behavior needs controlling; after all, a 10 month old puppy may weigh 100 pounds! It must also get used to meeting strangers. By the time it is two years old, it will be less outgoing with strangers, and may even decide it doesn’t want ANY stranger to touch it, its master, or its property. To limit this future possessiveness, you must get your dog used to being handled by many friendly strangers when it is very young, and KEEP AT IT. But even then, you must personally introduce your dog to all new strangers who enter its territory (your home and property), and you may have to be present each time that they return.

    Any dog large and intimidating to keep cougars at bay is going to do things exactly the same way as these Tibetan Mastiffs this idiot judge declared “unsuitable.” Huh? They were bred to keep Snow Leopards and wolves away from whatever livestock they were guarding. They’re perfectly suited for the job.

    Steve57 (cd6f9a)

  77. re #65: excellent!

    re the dogs in Oregon: did the judge say the breed or just these particular dogs?
    What would you have done in order to quiet the dogs down? The lawsuit decision about the barking is not a minor point.

    seeRpea (d1cf05)

  78. The Mail Tribune article (linked in Elissa’s link) gives the address. Google Earth reveals it to be a neighborhood of very small farms, close enough that zealous barking might be a problem. Not a California cul de sac, but not the wild open prairie either. It also mentions citations for noise in 2002 and 2004. It is also relevant that four dogs are mentioned, which to me seems a lot for the size of that farm, and that the dog owners “moonlight” as breeders of Tibetan mastiffs. I would not be surprised if breeding is their primary intention and sheep guarding only an excuse.

    What can not be doubted is the presence of an old fashioned neighborhood feud, in which the judge decided the complaints were justified.

    kishnevi (adea75)

  79. how about that:

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/04/16/inside-richard-engel-s-abrupt-nbc-mea-culpa.html

    it turns out ‘Spies like Me’ was a very prescient film.

    narciso (ee1f88)

  80. @81, considering per the reporting the judge “ordered them debarked within 60 days or replaced with a more suitable breed” then it’s not just tese particular dogs. It’s all Tibetan Mastiffs.

    I would have done nothing to quiet the dogs down. That’s the main part of their job; to intimidate predators. If they can’t bark, they can’t work together as a team to scare an animal off. If they can’t bark loudly, then the odds go way up they’ll have to fight the predator off. Which if you have enough dogs could result in either a dead or badly injured predators. And even then could easily result in either dead or badly injured dogs.

    http://rurallivingtoday.com/livestock/livestock-guardian-animal-need/

    If the people who own the farm in question are telling the truth, then these neighbors have been filing lawsuits for years. This is the first one that stuck.

    https://fundrazr.com/campaigns/9a4Y5

    I am uploading the emails (court exhibit)between our neighbors detailing their plan..know that every thing they said they were going to do, they did. All complaints were unfounded, we won their small claims suit.Ms. Krein testified that she didn’t read these emails…its funny…because she sure replied to them……

    So as you all know. We lost our case that the neighbors filed against us because our hands got tied with the right to farm law..which is the basis for the appeal. This is not a public nuisance..it is a private agenda. We need everyone’s help fighting the good fight. Our attorney has already filed an objection to the judgment and the injunction… In a moment I will post emails that circulates the neighborhood as they hatched their plan to destroy us. Just know that they did everything in this plan. They turned us in to every county department there is..for whatever they could think of. All complaints were found to be unfounded and we won the small claims court case. It was not dismissed..we won it. We have been bullied and harassesd for 18 years for our farm….we need help. We need everyone’s help…keep our farm protection intact

    But there’s no question it’s a working farm and has been for decades, with livestock that need to be guarded. And a debarked livestock guard dog is practically useless for the purpose.

    Steve57 (cd6f9a)

  81. So it is an old fashioned neighborhood feud…
    Google Earth is instructive. There is a small street with several houses set in lots too small to call a farm, and too big to call a back yard. The back of Liongate Farm apparently directly abuts these houses, one of whom must be the plaintiff. The Szewcs moved there in 1997, so 18 years of harassment means it started almost on day one, before the Tibetan Mastiffs even appeared.

    kishnevi (9c4b9c)

  82. I can’t get a handle on how many acres these people own (you have to pay for membership), but the that property is primarily zoned for agriculture. Property sub-type: agriculture.

    http://www.loopnet.com/Property-Record/14314-E-Evans-Creek-Road-Rogue-River-OR-97537/MtM02-D0A/Property/

    But I’d say you’re right, kishnevi. They have more dogs than they need. From a USDA publication, Livestock Guarding Dogs; Protecting Sheep From Predators:

    http://www.nal.usda.gov/awic/companimals/guarddogs/guarddogs.htm

    How Many Dogs?

    The characteristics of each sheep operation will dictate the number of dogs required for effective protection from predators. The performance of individual dogs will differ. Some experienced dogs may effectively patrol several hundred acres containin g hundreds of sheep, while younger dogs may not cover as much territory.

    The type and number of predators and the intensity of predation help dictate how many dogs are needed. If predators are scarce, one dog will be sufficient for most pasture operations. Range operations often use two dogs, but if the predator is a grizzly bear, even several dogs may not be able to deter it. (See section on “Effectiveness Against Various Predators.”)

    The topography and habitat of the pasture must also be considered. Relatively flat, open areas can be adequately covered by one dog. When brush, timber, ravines, and hills are in the pasture, several dogs may be required, particularly if the sheep are sc attered. However, at noted later, problems may be encountered when establishing more than one dog in the flock.

    The behavior of the sheep is important also in determining the number of dogs needed. Sheep that flock and form a cohesive unit, especially at night (a typical time of predation), can be protected by one dog more effectively than sheep that are continual ly scattered and bedded in a number of locations. For example, at the USSES a young Komondor effectively protected 600 ewe lambs in a 125-acre pasture. In another situation, a young Komondor was unable to eliminate predation in a flock of 600 ram lambs in a 160-acre pasture. The ram lambs grazed in a scattered fashion, and the pasture contained rock outcrops and brush that provided cover for coyotes. An older, experienced dog might have protected the lambs more effectively than the young dog, but in this situation, two dogs would have been more desirable.

    In another instance, a 7-month-old Great Pyrenees eliminated predation effectively in 4 adjacent 160-acre pastures, each containing approximately 30 sheep. The dog was observed with each of the four groups of sheep on different occasions. He later guarde d seven different 160-acre pastures, each containing several hundred sheep.

    With a range band (usually 1,000 ewes plus their lambs), some operators have reduced predation with a single dog; others have used four or more dogs per band. However, we generally recommend starting with a single dog and adding a second dog after the fi rst is well established. Once the experienced dog has developed an effective working pattern, it can become a role model for an untrained (but previously socialized to sheep) dog. The younger dog will mimic the older, more experienced dog and learn the ro utine of protecting the flock.

    A pair of guarding dogs at USSES exhibited behaviors that were complementary. One dog was aggressive and routinely patrolled a wide area around the sheep. The second dog usually remained close to the band and responded aggressively only when the flock wa s directly confronted by a predator. It is rather common for two dogs to exhibit complementary behaviors in this manner.

    Adding additional dogs to the flock may also cause problems. If one of the dogs displays inappropriate behaviors, the second dog may adopt them also. These behaviors may include being aggressive to the sheep, being inattentive to the sheep, and roaming, the most common potential problem with multiple dogs. Roaming may be more common with multiple dogs than single dogs and clearly can be a significant problem in many situations. Early appropriate training and neutering can help reduce roaming. We recommen d that first-time users of a guarding dog begin with a single pup. No amount of reading and studying the manuals can take the place of hands-on experience. If additional dogs are needed, they can be added later.

    It isn’t always the size of the property that determines how many dogs you need, as the article notes, but also the animals you need to guard. One dog could be able to do it, depending on the type of predators you have to deal with. I’d use two, as dogs are pack animals and consequently two are better than one. Plus when you stagger them by age when one dog gets too old to work then its replacement has already been trained. Which is time to get a younger dog, so you’ll be ready when the new top dog is too old as well.

    Numbers are important. It doesn’t matter if you’re talking dogs or people. When you run into a mountain lion or a bear alone the predator thinks it has the advantage. If you’re with other people and get into a group then the animal isn’t as confident.

    Steve57 (cd6f9a)

  83. If you don’t want to live next to farm animals, don’t move next door to a farm.

    JD (3b5483)

  84. 87. If you don’t want to live next to farm animals, don’t move next door to a farm.

    JD (3b5483) — 4/16/2015 @ 8:55 pm

    Yeah, that’s what I was thinking after I looked up the property description. It’s an agricultural property. The proprietors are using it for an agricultural use. Using dogs to guard their flocks is a legitimate agricultural practice.

    The people who filed the suit claim their home is unusable for entertaining guests.

    http://mmdev.ot.atl.publicus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20150403/NEWS/150409812/3325/MEDIA01

    …The Kreins moved into their house at 14316 E. Evans Creek Road in 1988, the complaint says, while Szewc and Updegraff moved into their residence in 1997. The two homes are just over 300 feet apart. “On a regular occasion, the dogs will begin barking as early as 5 a.m. and continuously bark throughout the day, only stopping for short times,” the complaint said.

    When Szewc and Updegraff filed for bankruptcy in 2014, the plaintiffs filed a complaint in federal bankruptcy court to prevent them from discharging debts incurred by the lawsuit. “The debtors intentional and malicious conduct has caused harm to Plaintiffs, in that their property has been rendered unsalable, they have suffered emotional pain and suffering, the inability to use their property to entertain family and friends and the loss of the use of their property,” the complaint said…

    If that’s what you want, live in an area zoned for residential use. Not agricultural use.

    That said, any livestock guard dog has to remain true to its breeding and training. They don’t act as aggressively toward people as they do toward predators, but they will bark at people until they move far enough away from their flock or herd.

    If you have too many dogs on too small a property then people can never be far enough away for at least one dog to bark at them. And if you have dogs then you know that when one dog starts barking the rest join in.

    There’s just no way that sheep farm is more than a couple of dozen acres. The people living there should be able to make a living off of it. Or a portion of their living. But if they wanted to stay on the good side of their neighbors they shouldn’t have started breeding livestock guard dogs.

    I mentioned the Maremma because Italy is an overcrowded country. And they have their environmentalists too, so they’re reintroducing wolves and bears. And while they don’t have mountain lions the European Lynx is a 90 pound cat and quite capable of killing a sheep, possibly a cow, just like it can kill deer. A Maremma is going to be just as noisy as a Tibetan Mastiff when it’s guarding a flock and sees strangers. And sheep grazing doesn’t take place that far from civilization. Because you just can’t get that far from civilization. Yet somehow they make it work.

    In fact, the Maremma is extremely popular in other overcrowded European countries as a livestock guard dog where they’re also having problems with wolves, bears, and lynx. Because it has a reputation as the most effective dog for the job.

    I bet this Oregon judge, though, would deem it “unsuitable” because it barks a lot.

    But back to the point, a little compromise would have gone a long way. The people on Liongate farm need guard dogs for their flock. No doubt. A couple would have done the job. And if they were introduced to the neighbors they would eventually stop barking at them. If the neighbors were willing to go along with the plan and introduce themselves to the dogs.

    Steve57 (cd6f9a)

  85. Wow. I appreciate all the good comments and the research that people here have done and shared with respect to fleshing out the mastiff link. It’s an interesting case. I continue to be utterly disgusted by both the judge and the outcome, I pray (and assume) that these gorgeous dogs will be re-located instead of being debarked, and hope that the farmer’s flock can be safely and successfully guarded by a different breed of sheep dog that wont p*ss off the “neighbors”. But I predict that as long as these two families live next door to each other there will be ongoing and serious problems.

    It appears that an early compromise would have been so much better for everybody as Steve57 suggests. But these long lived feuds often take on such a life of their own that reason goes out the window.

    And I most definitely agree with JD.!

    elissa (cb946d)

  86. Just one more thing to toss into the mix about those Tibetan Mastiffs. I’d be awfully wary of getting a dog like that from people who started to “moonlight” as breeders in 2002. They’re not a common breed. They weren’t even recognized by the AKC until 2007. The original dog, as found in Tibet, China, Mongolia, Nepal, etc., usually has a pretty nasty temperament. Westerners imported them because it’s such a large, powerful, and impressive dog. But they tried to do something about the temperament. And through selective breeding they’ve been able to produce dogs that generally are more mellow than the dogs in Asia.

    But if people don’t know what they’re doing it would easy to breed throwbacks.

    I had a similar experience with a Chesapeake Bay Retriever. Most retrievers were bred by British nobility (despite it’s name the Labrador is not from Canada). All they did was retrieve birds, and be companions. That’s why Labs and Goldens and Flathairs have such friendly personalities.

    But the Chessie was a working dog for the watermen. It had to retrieve ducks under any conditions, help with the nets, and then guard their owner’s boat when he went to market to sell the ducks or fish. So Chessies have the same basic personality as these dogs. In fact they got a reputation as a generally nasty dog.

    Breeders have been able to improve their temperaments, but even though I went with a well respected breeder and my dog had several show and field champions in his pedigree (and I drove out to her place and met the dogs first, friendly as h3ll) I got a throwback. He did not like strangers in my house. I could go camping with friends and he’d be playful with everybody. But those same people he was playing with down by the campfire were NOT getting near my tent or my truck.

    He eventually mauled my wife when I was recalled after 9/11 as he was truly a one-person dog. I wanted to put him down but at my wife’s insistence we returned him to the breeder. Who was willing to take him back as she realized she had made a mistake after his dam snapped at a judge in a show ring (that’s an immediate disqualification). She had bred her too young, before her personality had fully developed. Which is another similarity; these livestock guard dogs take a long time to mature. Their personality when they’re young is not the same as when they reach full adulthood.

    That was a 70 pound dog from an experienced breeder. I shudder to think what you might get in a 150lb dog from a part-time, inexperienced breeder working with a very small population.

    Steve57 (cd6f9a)

  87. Back to Jonathan Adler. This article came out today, and it essentially restates the reasons for my skepticism.

    http://thefederalist.com/2015/04/17/what-it-would-take-to-prove-global-warming/

    Recently, Reason‘s Ronald Bailey asked what it would take to convince conservatives and libertarians that global warming is real.

    This has since been picked up by Jonathan Adler at the Washington Post‘s token right-leaning blog, the Volokh Conspiracy. There’s no pressure: Bailey and Adler merely insinuate that you are “obscurantist”—that is, you hate new knowledge—if you don’t agree.

    That, by the way—the smug insistence of global warming alarmists on presenting themselves as the embodiment of scientific knowledge as such—is one of the reasons I stopped taking them seriously. In fact, I have thought about what it would take to convince me of global warming is real. And it’s pretty clear that Bailey has not thought about it.

    …There is no sense that the proof of global warming has to proceed according to some systematic method, requiring it to clear specific hurdles at specific stages. Which betrays an unscientific way of thinking.

    …There are three main requirements…

    Steve57 (cd6f9a)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.4649 secs.