@The Liberal Badger oh good grief.
Nobody denies co2 as the cause of global warming except various and sundry peeps in the USA making money off of Bil Oil.
3rd world knows it, 2nd world knows it...1st world except USA(!) knows it.
Change schools, get new professors asap.
Co2 emissions as the cause of rapid global warming is the starting point EVERYWHERE but here.
Get on a plane, go somewhere. Look at it.

Are you suggesting that Exxon Mobil be sued and harassed because they did not acknowledge that Anthropogenic Climate Change is a 100% proven fact? Because, if you are, I could not imagine a more pointless waste of time and energy, and worse, the case would be thrown out of court as frivolous, and the plaintiffs would probably be counter-sued for malicious prosecution, and they would win. If this is not what you are suggesting, and what you are advocating for is a lawsuit against Exxon Mobil for an environmental crime, I am 100% in support of this. Is there a specific environmental crime that you know of that should be prosecuted?

With regards to Anthropogenic Climate Change, I posted the following in several comments on DailyKos several days ago, please disregard if that was not what you were advocating to prosecute:

I am 100% in favor of spending whatever is necessary to protect and clean up our environment, (and I applaud Trump's $100 Million to clean up Flint water) but I am tired of debating the science of Anthropogenic Climate Change, I honestly believe that is a pointless argument that can never be won and attempting to, only makes us look foolish. I am not saying I don't believe in it, I do. But making false claims like Bill Nye is doing, hurts our cause. I watched Tucker Carlson interview Bill Nye and as my science professor noted, Nye was wrong. A consensus of scientist is not proof. In the Scientific Method, one must have a control group to actually prove or disprove an hypothesis. I was very surprised to discover that Tucker's questions and observations were correct. We cannot know what the climate would have been without human influence, not with 100% scientific certainty. We can hypothesize, but we can't prove that hypothesis. Bill Nye was advocating for a similar agenda as you are. Now, I have studied the science of different theories of the causal chain, and while I do believe they have merit, and I don't think anyone credible is denying that there is warming trend, that is undeniably provable, but establishing true scientific "baseline" without a control group is impossible. So, if we want the scientific theories to be taken seriously and not be dismissed out of hand, we need to stop the false propaganda and we need to stop wasting time, money and energy promoting it. Let's spend money on protecting and cleaning our lakes and oceans, not to mention, the air we breath, which Trump seems to be doing, at least in certain isolated cases, but we shall see if his claims are empty or not. I think we can all agree on that, no matter what the truth is about what is causing global warming. Everyone who is arguing that Anthropogenic Climate Change is fact is ignorant of how the Scientific Method works and how Statistical Science works. Any and all models, no matter how accurate, can only ever prove correlation, they cannot ever prove causation. That's just not how models work. The only way, in science, to prove causation is via a control group. Anyone who does not understand this fact needs to take both a basic course in Statistics and a basic course in the Scientific Method. Can you establish a high probability? Sure, and they do, but no Scientist one can ever claim it is "decided" or "proven" and anyone who is making this claim (like Bill Nye) is a liar, not a true Scientist, and is doing the cause of Environmentalism a profound disservice, because they are creating conflict and debate where none need be. Do you know how many millions have been spent promoting propaganda to convince people that it is decided? And you want to spend more? And how many careers and reputations have been destroyed because they rightly made note of this? Too many and too much money, time, and resources, because all of that money, time and resource could, can, and should be spent on actually protecting and cleaning our environment. All that that effort does is create a divisive polarized political debate, and all the while, the environment suffers. Have they made a compelling case? Yes. Hence, I do tend to believe it, the operative word being "believe" but as a scientist and mathematician, I cannot ignore the facts. In science, in order to prove causation, there really must be a "control group" ... that is just how "science" works.

@The Liberal Badger is that much of science has taken place without control groups. (Please explain the role of control groups in geology.)

So in addition to being a scientist and a statistician you're also a military historian. I'm sure the US government kept SEAL Team 6 away from the highly trained militia who seized government land last winter in order to preserve the safety of SEAL Team 6.

And no doubt a highly trained group of militia fighters could takeover an air force base with their AR-15s, load and service the F-16s and then fly them against the despot. And think of what they could do when they pirated a ballistic missile submarine. Game, set and match.

JtC, I appreciate the job you do and the freedom you allow. But I've never read anything remotely like this here.

A despot has to control who has access to weapons, and a mass population that is armed to the teeth, just cannot subjected to a totalitarian despotic regime. It's just impossible, and if you have ever studied military warfare and special forces strategic warfare, you would never underestimated what even a small group of highly trained armed individuals can do. They could easily seize any of those planes or helicopters and even the odds, rather quickly, and we are talking about a mass population, armed to the teeth. Your argument just doesn't hold water. Sorry.

@Mark from Queens... Hedges' socialist/communist beliefs are rather evident in almost all of his writing and comments. If you feel that the term "communnist" is pejorative, that's on you. I never said that "communist/socialist" is bad or wrong, but it is a bias, that much is clear, and all that I ask is that Hedges be up-front and honest about his bias, which he is not, which is why I find him to be intellectually dishonest. I am aware of the fact that most communists/socialists today revere Hedges, my ex revered him, as I said, however, I find him biased, ignorant, and dishonest, for the aforementioned reasons. I am sorry if you believe it is some sort of blasphemy to express a critical analysis of his arguments, I find him to be a pseudo intellectual with a weak understanding of United States History, United State Government and the U.S. Constitution - Bill of Rights. I am always surprised when I encounter people who hold him in high regard. I have found that Communists/Socialists don't seem to welcome critical thought when it exposes the flaws and bias in their arguments. I thought this site was more open minded than DailyKos and welcoming of opposing viewpoints, if you are telling me that it is not, then maybe my first impressions were mistaken, but attacking me personally for such, is, well, not very welcoming or open-minded. If I am reading too much into your words, I am sorry, I don't mean to be overly sensitive, because I do welcome criticisms of my arguments, but criticisms of me, however, that seems abusive. I did not come here for abuse. Are you telling me that Chris Hedges is above reproach and any all criticisms of his writing is streng verboten?

@The Liberal Badger

I can understand where you're coming from when you state that "... I do go to school with and I do work with conservatives, so I have tried to find a common ground with them..."

I find myself in the midst of conservatives constantly. Some would have to be considered rabid right-wingers. Nevertheless, a number of these folks are beyond co-workers; I would have to consider them friends. They understand that I am coming from the left politically, yet some of them would step in front of a bus to save me from getting hit. I am not kidding one iota.

So, there is respect there. I listen to what they say, consider it, and they do likewise - at least for the most part. We don't argue, rather we discuss. They have moved my position on several topics and caused me to moderate my views on others more than once. I hope I have done the same with some of them. Probably the most important result of being with these folks is learning that they are not the basket of deplorables described by Clinton.

Some are deeply religious, many have not read or heard any other than extreme conservative viewpoints in their entire lives, some are afraid. All of the ones I am close to are very considerate, polite, and concerned with the nation. Interestingly enough, when I question them issue-by-issue, they actually respond as a liberally minded person might. Most want to keep the banks out of Social Security, feel as though the nation is easily wealthy enough to take care of the health needs of the entire population, etc. Of course, they have been told they're conservatives, so they respond that way. In general, they'll repeat the conservative company line, but in the details, often not.

So, I understand where you're coming from. Perhaps you should actually write more here. If you choose to do so, please add more paragraph breaks to make it easier for us to follow you.

Thank you.

As I have stated in another comment, I did not say that "communist" is a pejorative, only that a bias that one is not up-front about is intellectually dishonest. Now, do I have criticisms of communism, yes, and I actually wrote a paper on this about 2 years ago, it's probably not that great (only got a "B"), but given the "anti-capitalist meet-up" article I saw here several days, and the responses that I got yesterday, I have to wonder if I posted excerpts would I be attacked? Is a well reasoned "anti-communist" article not welcome, but "anti-capitalist" is welcome? Someone suggested in one of the comments that I had cut&pasted some of my comments, which I did, and I stated that I did, up-front, because I written them in 2 comments I had posted DailyKos several days ago (this was in response to the climate change discussion). Look, the Antifa thugs self-identify as "Anarcho-Communists" and they wear the badge proudly. How come no one here even mentioned that part of comment? The Antifa kids also brag about bashing people's heads in too, so there's that. If I were to replace the "communist" word with "anti-capitalist" would people have reacted the same way? For the record, personally, I find zero difference between "socialist" and "communist" and "anti-capitalist" ... and further, I find a very nominal difference between "fascist" and "communist"... given the Nazi Party is -- "National Socialist German Workers'Party" ... i.e., "socialist." Yes, I understand the distinction, but I consider that to be a distinction that doesn't make a difference. In both cases, they use militant centralized control of industry. Okay, so that was basically my thesis statement from my paper from 2 years ago, and if I hunt up my paper, I could post my arguments and analysis. But will I be attacked for that?

I find it abusive that when I posted a respectful argument, I attacked no one here, yet I have been called a "RW TROLL" and told that I should go back to DailyKos... and then my being a mathematician / scientist background was questioned. Hell, my terrible run-on sentences and run-on paragraphs should be proof enough that I am a mathemetician, lol, or so I've been told by my ex. One thing I do know, is that Ad hominem attacks are logical fallacies, and anyone who resorts to them has only done so because they lost the argument and had nothing intelligent to say. I cited the Scientific Method, and the need for a control group, and the response I got was that "a test must be repeatable" but that is the point, we cannot repeat this earth's past 300 years, and we don't have two earths, so, no, we cannot prove 100% Anthropogenic Climate Change. This is an inconvenient fact, as my Science stressed to me. Trust me, I wish we could prove it 100%. Now, I also stated that I PERSONALLY do “believe” the Scientific Theory, and for the record, I could even ARGUE and DEFEND the theory, and I have, trust me, and the argument is compelling, I assure you, but as a Scientist and Mathematician, I would be lying if I did not acknowledge that 95% confidence (or whatever degree a given model is), is not 100%, the only way in Science to make the claim of “proven” requires a control group and repeatability. So .... WHY ARGUE? I am serious, why argue? I honestly believe it is stupid, foolish, pointless, and counter-productive to do so. Hell, as I pointed out, Tucker Carlson made Bill Nye look like an idiot when Bill Nye foolishly made the claim. Seriously, Why create division, when none is needed? I am an environmentalist, so let’s stop wasting our time, money, and energy on a divisive argument that serves zero purpose. We can ALL agree that we need to protect and clean up our environment. Agreed? Let’s be on the same side so that we can all work together. I honestly don’t understand why this logic is not applauded, but rather, in response, my own personal reputation is attacked, and I am called a RW Troll? Is “RW” a pejorative on this site? Are conservatives not welcome on this site? I never considered myself a conservative, but I do go to school with and I do work with conservatives, so I have tried to find a common ground with them, and I girl was sort of seeing is a conservative, and in that process, I do express some of their view points, because I found them valid. At least, I could not refute them. But trust me, if someone gives me valid responses, I will be using them. I stopped talking politics with my parents over a year ago, which is sort of why I started to read and comment on DailyKos (and here.) My mom was not happy that Hillary lost, as I am sure you can imagine, and she will not listen to any criticisms of her, so yeah, discussions with her are not happening any time soon.

In any case, my comments about “Patriot” and being “loyal to the U.S. Constitution (and 2nd and 10th Amendments)” was made to me by several conservative friends, so no, I was not even the author of that argument, but I found it valid and worth sharing. Now, I realize that some people don’t support the 2nd Amendment, which is also entirely valid, if that is their belief (and my mom also doesn't support the 2nd Amendment.) However, if someone is posing the question, “What is Trump loyal to?” or “What does ‘Patriotic’ mean to Trump supporters?” Then they should ask some conservative Trump supporters, which I have, and that was their answer. Theirs, not mine, but I could not disagree. So I guess it is now my argument, but I have never had much experience with guns. And no, I am not a military expert, as someone also attacked me about, but I do have relatives (on my dad's side) who are Special Forces, and I have had lengthy conversations with them on this subject, (and they do support Trump) so the arguments I expressed on that came from them, and I have no doubt that they know what they are talking about. But again, attacking me, personally, in response to a rational argument sharing ideas, is abuse. So I am not sure how I feel about this site, today, but I don’t actually have that much time to blog, given school and work and life, so I don’t know how much I will participate, it’s usually sporadic for me, and I had several days off from work, (getting over a flu), but I try to read political blogs every day, because I want to be informed, and my parents have been big fans of DailyKos for several years, but I don’t share all of their opinions on politics (my mom loves Hillary) and I honestly have mixed feelings about DailyKos, and then several weeks ago someone on Facebook mention c99, which is why I started to read here. Okay, as I said, I have a bad habit of run on sentences, sorry, but thanks for reading, if you did.