Quoting MikeDrew: Please ask Jim to get his facts first if he is going to raise a topic in the future.

And here's another place where Jim is just wrong. Click pic below (larger version at source, along with link to original data tables from NASA).

This was kind of a sad diavlog. I've long thought that David does the best job of all diavloggers of keeping Jim on an even keel, but he seemed not to be able to do it for most of this one. Except for a few minutes at the end, Jim sounded like a hysterical crank. Obama a "cosmological failure" after 45 days in office? Really? Global warming denialism? Seriously? That babbling response when called on his prediction that Obama would lose 40 states in the election? Stephen Wolfram's new website as savior of education? Please. And his blog post provided in the sidebar, on Obama's alleged plan to "raise everyone's taxes?" Jim's concluding sentence:

And now we know that he and his people want to raise taxes on 100 percent of us.

His entire basis for this "knowledge?" David Brooks (wait, don't laugh yet), quoted as saying:

The White House folks didn’t say this, but I got the impression ...

The mark of derangement is leaping on rumors and treating them as gospel, as long as they stoke the fear you wallow in. Once upon a time, when I first started watching Pinkercorn episodes, I thought Jim was reasonable, even when I disagreed with him. Now, I can't

Jim Pinkerton has lost some weight, lost the jowls, lookin' good. Good on him. Itzik Basman

It could have been worse. At least we were spared his reveries about flying cars and space stations.

Quoting claymisher: It could have been worse. At least we were spared his reveries about flying cars and space stations.

Naw. That part is the old-style lovable crazy.

The truth is Jim Pinkerton is a total wingnut. This FOX column during the election was about as idiotic as it gets: http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/20...inkerton_1023/ Honestly, I don't understand folks with no intellectual or moral standards. Why the hell the New America Foundation keeps a crank on the payroll is mystifying as well.

um... wow

http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2009/03/11/mercury/ "Heads should be rolling at the White House for the embarrassing series of flubs that have overshadowed President Obama's first seven weeks in office and given the scattered, demoralized Republicans a huge boost toward regrouping and resurrection."

My movie review is "The Reader." Kate Winslet is more than just a pretty face although that never hurts. Her acting is superb. After love story in the first half the second was compelling dealing with the outcome of her Nazi activites. I thought that was a pretty good flick and give it 4+ stars out of 5. John

Quoting Stapler Malone: um... wow

Amazing dingalink. It is an example of how utterly out of step Pinkerton is with contemporary "conservatism," as it's defined by the GOP: with his relentless (and disturbing) economic and cultural nationalism, his foreign policy isolationism, and social reactionarionism, he truly is a ship adrift. Is Charles Lindbergh still around?

David Corn, crypto-conservative: http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/182...2:28&out=02:34

Quoting Lyle: http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2009/03/11/mercury/

"Heads should be rolling at the White House for the embarrassing series of flubs that have overshadowed President Obama's first seven weeks in office and given the scattered, demoralized Republicans a huge boost toward regrouping and resurrection."

If you're reaching for Camille Paglia to argue your case, you're really reaching.

I don't often agree with Pinkerton but every once in awhile he says something interesting or, as in this case, leads me to something interesting. Did you read Douthat's post that Pinkerton linked to? While Pinkerton (and most people at Fox News) can be ... shrill and... hmm... clumsy at best... Ross often does a good job of offering a reasonable conservative perspective. Pinkerton's post is basically a rehashed, dumbed-down, fox news-i-fied version of Ross' post. I assume you disagree with Ross, but was it at least interesting? Pinkerton sensationalizes it (the sad fact of most journalism today) but the broad point seems plausible to me from a conservative perspective. The notion that it is a directed phenomenon is harder to swallow than the idea that one possible result of such huge spending packages might be a shift towards a society that looks a lot like social democracy.

When Pinkerton talks about "what if the sunspots disappear?". He is referring to something known as the Maunder Minimum, which is defined loosely as a time period of reduced sunspot activity. The last Maunder Minimum coincided with the middle of the last "little Ice Age" (roughly 1550AD-1800AD). While there is a positive correlation between sunspot activity and solar thermal activity, it is still debated how much the maunder minimum contributed to the last "little Ice Age". Some say that increased Volcanic activity and a possible slowdown of the Great Ocean Conveyor were major contributors to the aforementioned cooling.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_ice_age

More importantly, there is little reason to believe we are entering a new Maunder Minimum What has actually been observed is the Solar conveyor belt has slowed down substantially (From 1m/s to .75m/s in the north, from 1m/s to .35m/s in the south). This means the peaks in sunspot activity will be less severe, however, the minimums should be largely unaffected.
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2..._longrange.htm And yes, lets not forget Pinkerton is making overly simplistic arguments ("oo's colder then the 90's) that are based on factually FALSE assertions.
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/...nce-loses.html

I also find it funny how the time-line of the Global Warming argument played out. A)Pinkerton dismisses Global Warming with a overly simplistic argument that is based on a factually incorrect premise. B)Pinkerton and Corn argue for awhile C)Corn advises people to look up for themselves information about Global Warming on mainstream sources. D)Pinkerton advises people to look up sources on a "somewhat obscure" (his words not mine) site that focuses on the political/economic dilemmas of passing various policies..WHICH HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE VALIDITY OF THE CURRENT CLIMATE MODELS

If you're reaching for Camille Paglia to argue your case, you're really reaching.

You beat me to it. Next up: Mickey Kaus criticizes Democrats! Although Mickey is probably too busy dancing in streets in reaction to Obama's taking on the teachers union, to comment.

Quoting Starwatcher162536: I also find it funny how the time-line of the Global Warming argument played out.

[...]

D)Pinkerton advises people to look up sources on a "somewhat obscure" (his words not mine) site that focuses on the political/economic dilemmas of passing various policies..WHICH HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE VALIDITY OF THE CURRENT CLIMATE MODELS

Yes, this bothered me, too. This seems to be a habit for Jim and he did it a couple of other times during the diavlog -- throw something out there; if it gets shot down, find something else to throw; repeat as necessary. If it's done smoothly enough, it creates the impression that a coherent argument is being made, and it takes close listening to realize the pieces are disjoint. In the case of AGW, it's really annoying when someone starts with the position that the phenomenon doesn't exist or remains in doubt. The debate as to the best way to deal with the problem is a legitimate one, and it is also certainly true that specific long-range projections (based on computer modeling) are less certain than what can be established from collected data. But when someone starts off by saying, "Global warming is a hoax! It's cold outside!", I cannot help but think

Quoting atropos: I don't often agree with Pinkerton but every once in awhile he says something interesting or, as in this case, leads me to something interesting.

Did you read Douthat's post that Pinkerton linked to? While Pinkerton (and most people at Fox News) can be ... shrill and... hmm... clumsy at best... Ross often does a good job of offering a reasonable conservative perspective. Pinkerton's post is basically a rehashed, dumbed-down, fox news-i-fied version of Ross' post.

I assume you disagree with Ross, but was it at least interesting? Pinkerton sensationalizes it (the sad fact of most journalism today) but the broad point seems plausible to me from a conservative perspective. The notion that it is a directed phenomenon is harder to swallow than the idea that one possible result of such huge spending packages might be a shift towards a society that looks a lot like social democracy.

I hadn't followed Jim's link to Ross's post, but at your suggestion, I just now did. I agree with you about Ross vis a vis Fox News-style commentary -- when he's not whipping his abortion hobby horse, I often find him worth reading or listening to, no matter how much I might disagree with

Quoting nikkibong: David Corn, crypto-conservative:

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/182...2:28&out=02:34

Heh. You mean, Manchurian columnist.

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/182...0:17&out=00:31 That hurt, David. I, for one, don't even OWN pajamas.

Speaking of Ross.

Quoting AemJeff: Speaking of Ross.

Hey, great! Good for him, and good for the NYT. Thanks for passing this along. I was worried it was going to be Frum, who for all his reasonableness lately, tends quickly to get repetitive with his here's what we need to do to rebuild the Party shtick.

Historical definitions within the education system aside, isn't "critical thinking" precisely the kind of learned task that is most needed for our students to master given the drop in manufacturing, farming etc., and higher need for innovation and invention? All the people that I have witnessed excel in the business world in my experience of 15 years, have usually been the ones that exercise critical thinking. Why is it that the free market encourages innovation, but that our education should somehow only emphasize the rote memorization of rote facts? Perhaps I misunderstood that section of the diavlog but it seemed strange to me.

Quoting bjkeefe: When someone starts off by saying, "Global warming is a hoax! It's cold outside!", I cannot help but think this is purely a tactic

You're right:

Quoting Ann Althouse: I think we're at the stage where we keep up with the joke out of pure sadism to irk the folks who can't take it anymore. They are the earnest folk who want everyone to accede to scientific consensus and meekly swallow whatever remedies are prescribed. Taunt them!

Quoting AemJeff: Speaking of Ross.

Also: brief confirmation.

Quoting TwinSwords: You're right:

Hey, a rare moment of honesty from the Althouse!

Heh. My thoughts exactly. She does that once in a while, lets her mask slip. I guess even Althouse has a hard time being 100% dishonest. It's because of posts like that one, and there are more than a few, that the wingnuts love her.

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: Historical definitions within the education system aside, isn't "critical thinking" precisely the kind of learned task that is most needed for our students to master given the drop in manufacturing, farming etc., and higher need for innovation and invention? All the people that I have witnessed excel in the business world in my experience of 15 years, have usually been the ones that exercise critical thinking. Why is it that the free market encourages innovation, but that our education should somehow only emphasize the rote memorization of rote facts? Perhaps I misunderstood that section of the diavlog but it seemed strange to me.

If I'm remembering that section correctly, I think the objection is that the exhortation "teach critical thinking" has become a mantra, largely devoid of meaning due to everyone and his brother using it as codeword for all manner of things. If you're a liberal, you hear it and think the wingnuts are once again trying to push creationism into science classes, and this is just the latest repackaging of what used to go by "teach the controversy" and "let the students make up their own minds." If you're a

Quoting TwinSwords: Heh. My thoughts exactly. She does that once in a while, lets her mask slip.

I guess even Althouse has a hard time being 100% dishonest.

It's because of posts like that one, and there are more than a few, that the wingnuts love her.

I read somewhere not too long ago, maybe from Atrios, that wingnuts measure the funniness of a joke exclusively by how much it irritates liberals.

Quoting bjkeefe: I read somewhere not too long ago, maybe from Atrios, that wingnuts measure the funniness of a joke exclusively by how much it irritates liberals.

You're right again:

Quoting Atrios:
Pissing Off Liberals

It's long been the case that what really gets the Republican base excited is anything that pisses off liberals. There are genuine policy differences, of course, but to get an audience of Republicans on their feet and cheering you need to mention something, no matter how pointless, which pisses of liberals. It's the glue that keeps them together.

-Atrios 12:04

Quoting bjkeefe: If you're reaching for Camille Paglia to argue your case, you're really reaching.

Which reminds me. Boy, how I miss Molly Ivins.

Quoting bjkeefe: I often think lots of commentators, left and right, have been scarred by the Bush Administration, who really did appear to have a plan to confirm the belief that government is the problem by hiring incompetents who could make it so. There is a enhanced tendency, in other words, to suspect sinister motives, and what starts out as worthy watch-dogging too often turns into hysterical extrapolation.

Allow me to exemplify your last sentance - I disagree with your idea that the folks driving parts of the Bush administration were simply out to discredit government in the hopes that we would collectively chose a smaller, weaker government in time. It strikes me that there was and is a very strong push to make the government absolute. That is, I think people like Cheney would like an all powerful, all knowing, dictatorial rule subject to no constraints whatsoever. Sort of a harkening back to the days when an emperor's will and whim were the law and life or death, but vastly more powerful given modern technology, much closer to the fantasies of the rulers who liked to style themselves as gods. I would go off

Quoting bjkeefe: Which reminds me. Boy, how I miss Molly Ivins.

And, also ...

Quoting bjkeefe: Also: brief confirmation.

I have invested heavily in witty R. Wright comments about suitability of bloggingheads as springboard to future fame and fortune, so I'm ecstatic.

Quoting TwinSwords: You're right again:

The crazy thing is that they still haven't noticed that we liberals are kicking their asses, and we're laughing at them too hard to get pissed off anymore.

Quoting AemJeff: Speaking of Ross.

A nice quick post, and a bad-ass picture of Ross, at Wonkette. [Added] And in case you miss their link, here's the NYT announcement.

Quoting cragger: Allow me to exemplify your last sentance -

I disagree with your idea that the folks driving parts of the Bush administration were simply out to discredit government in the hopes that we would collectively chose a smaller, weaker government in time. It strikes me that there was and is a very strong push to make the government absolute. That is, I think people like Cheney would like an all powerful, all knowing, dictatorial rule subject to no constraints whatsoever. Sort of a harkening back to the days when an emperor's will and whim were the law and life or death, but vastly more powerful given modern technology, much closer to the fantasies of the rulers who liked to style themselves as gods.

I would go off (and on, and on) about the proposed "Total Information Awareness" program that was the pre-911 precursor to the rebranded "Patriot Act", the many and various Constitutional follies, toss in some "Prompt Global Strike Initiative", point out the move away from cash to all-electronic transactions so that all monetary activity will be as trackable as are modern communications, point out the push to require all vehicles

Quoting bjkeefe: If you're reaching for Camille Paglia to argue your case, you're really reaching.

Roy Edroso weighs in on Lyle's new gf. [Added] I wondered what Lyle was doing reading Salon. Now I think I know. Newsbusters, isn't it, Lyle? Or was it Surber? Or one of the other usual suspects?

I've read Salon since it first started. Cary Tennis is a fav. Progressives should always listen to Ms. Paglia, there's always something good to take away. Didn't you just enjoy her defense of Rush Limbaugh this week as well? I know I did. Hi five Camille, give me a hi five.

I'm making a prediction: Douthat's column will be even duller than his blog. Let the equivocation commence!

Quoting Lyle: I've read Salon since it first started. Cary Tennis is a fav. Progressives should always listen to Ms. Paglia ...

So, besides reading a dingbat who makes you feel good because she claims to be a liberal and spends all of her time plumping conservatives, the other thing that you like about Salon is ... a lonely-hearts advice column. O-kay.

I can't believe democrat climatists still push the global warming fantasy - it was so damn cold today! Ha, ha! I like it how aggravated liberals get when they learn not everybody shares their religion. Just keep reminding them, Jim. lol Hey, Jim, why don't you make an interview with President Vaclav Klaus of the Czech Republic? Having a foreign statesman on bhtv would add another feather to Bob's hat. I think Klaus would agree to a diavlog - he is not pompous, he is a libertarian. He will tell liberals how stupid they are. Ha, ha! lol

Quoting JoeK: I can't believe democrat climatists still push the global warming fantasy - it was so damn cold today!

Ha, ha! I like it how aggravated liberals get when they learn not everybody shares their religion. Just keep reminding them, Jim. lol

Hey, Jim, why don't you make an interview with President Vaclav Klaus of the Czech Republic? Having a foreign statesman on bhtv would add another feather to Bob's hat. I think Klaus would agree to a diavlog - he is not pompous, he is a libertarian. He will tell liberals how stupid they are. Ha, ha! lol

Vaclav Klaus speaks on dangers of environmentalism: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TEQmJBINYj4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odgk1zywkJA

JoeK. From the first video, it seemed his problems were more of a procedural nature then him having reservations about current climate models. To me, his comments boiled down to "If you feel some goal is worthwhile, it is better to make a succession of smaller sub-goals that are easily attainable then some pie in the sky longterm goal whose time-line your successor will not feel beholden to, which will result in the time-line being pushed back repeatably." The second video was indeed harsher. I agree that there is a certain amount of ideology in the environmental movement that should be stood up to (JonIrenicus provides a link that shows some of this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Sp8PzgY7XA) However, there is compelling evidence that Global Warming and Ocean Acidification are indeed real phenomenon. You simply standing up and waving your arms while screaming that Climatology is just a fake fraudulent science is just not enough. You must instead provide data that contradicts current data and show why yours is superior, or at the very least, show why current data is invalid or being misinterpreted. Until you do so, I will just ignore you on this. Hopefully, everyone else will also. Good day.

Another view of Vaclav Klaus.