Never heard of this guy*, but according to the article he's been doing it for 30 years.

The way Deane does his analysis is to look at how many votes are freed up by a previous year’s election – Roberto Alomar and Bert Blyleven were elected in 2010 – and then estimating how that might impact the candidates in-waiting.

Yeah, that's definately the way to do it.

Assuming the Smith prediction is a typo and should say 51%, then his guys add up to 5.02 names per ballot. Add in the dross, and it'll still be under 5.1 names per ballot. That's probably lower than it'll actually be. In particular, I think he's low on Trammell.

That said, these are perfectly reasonable predictions. And he's right that Larkin will go in and no one else will.

*Actually, I've heard of him. Never heard he does predictions.

Also, my hunch is that Bernie Williams does better than that. About one-fourth of the BBWAA resides in the NYC area. That's the reason Repoz's annual sampling is consistently low on Mattingly.

Oh, goodies the time of year where my blood starts to simmer and I start hating the otherwise harmless Jack Morris and his supporters.

I think that Jack Morris is something of an outlier just in the sense that I don't think the people who are not voting for him are too likely to change their minds; for him specifically, versus normal trends for players.

But man, I could be wrong.

But what about the current Barry Larkin?

Maybe he meant that Larkin is a former Barry. He goes by Barnoldo now.

I wouldn't be surprised to see Bagwell leap to second on the ballot to be perfectly honest. I'm with Shock on Morris, I don't think he gets as big of a bump, do think that many of the other candidates from last years ballot get a nudge, I would love to see Tim Raines jump over Lee Smith also.

Billy Beane shouldn't have made this prediction.

I would love to see Tim Raines jump over Lee Smith also.

Unless one or both of them gained a zillion pounds, that should be easy.

Bill's been in and around Cooperstown for decades. A good guy who can hang in there all night and into the next morning in "BIG" (Baseball Initial Game, where you've got to keep naming players from a set of initials).

Of course, if Bill's right about Morris, then it's going to get VERY interesting in 2013.

I figure Bernie's closer to 14 than 8.

Chris, I haven't made any attempt to look at this, but if a retired player who's still an eligible HoF candidate becomes a manager, does that have effect on his vote percentage? Bill's predictions for Mattingly here would indicate that there's a bump from this.

Of course, if Bill's right about Morris, then it's going to get VERY interesting in 2013.

If Morris makes it into the Hall in the same year that the Joy Boys get shut out, I'm going to make one snarky comment on BTF and then hide under a rock, at least if everyone else agrees to do the same. The entertainment value of the threads here would be unsurpassed, but I don't think I could be that much of a sadist.

Or at least I'd hope I couldn't.

Or at least I'd really try to restrict myself to lurking, for a full ten or fifteen minutes.

Chris, I haven't made any attempt to look at this, but if a retired player who's still an eligible HoF candidate becomes a manager, does that have effect on his vote percentage? Bill's predictions for Mattingly here would indicate that there's a bump from this.

I have no idea. Not sure how much precedent there is for it. Couldn't hurt. Most things that raise a candidate's public profile that isn't scandalous helps.

The only candidate I can think of who became a manager is Maury Wills, but that was an all-time disaster.

From TFA:

Expert predicts Barry Larkin will be in HOF

Deane thinks former Reds SS will get 79 percent of the vote

I can only guess that Repoz was in the middle of finishing his mash-up by replacing "Reds" with "Maize and Blue" when the screws arrived in the prison library and dragged him back to solitary.

I think that Jack Morris is something of an outlier just in the sense that I don't think the people who are not voting for him are too likely to change their minds; for him specifically, versus normal trends for players.

Yeah, I think he's high on Morris. That would represent, by far, the largest jump he's ever had on the ballot (previous high 8 percentage points). Not having Blyleven above him should help, but a 13 percentage point jump in Year 13 is quite the climb.

Maybe he meant that Larkin is a former Barry. He goes by Barnoldo now.

No, the real explanation is that since his retirement, Larkin has spent most of his time forming things.

The only candidate I can think of who became a manager is Maury Wills, but that was an all-time disaster.

Trammell had been on two ballots. I can't imagine his tenure as Tiger skipper helped things.

Maybe he confused him with former burier Richie Hebner.

I love his work on Family Circus.

Unless one or both of them gained a zillion pounds, that should be easy.

Yeah, I laughed.

I wonder how many "Barry Larkin: Last Single-Team Hall of Famer Ever?" articles we'll see with Bagwell and Edgar not too far down the ballot and Biggio due up next year.

Probably not many, considering Jeter and Mariano are still around

Probably not many, considering Jeter and Mariano are still around

And Pujols....(I can dream)

You could split Rickey in nine and have nine single-team Hall of Famers.

Unless one or both of them gained a zillion pounds, that should be easy.

Lee Smith is 6'5" so methinks we need the lying down qualifier here.

On Morris ... hard to say. I'm guessing we'll see a big jump. There are lots of votes to go around this year and no strong new candidates, so most reasonable back-loggers should see a pretty good jump (5% say). He is now the best pitcher on the ballot which, I'm guessing, is also always worth a decent bump. And while I agree the vast majority of the folks who voted Blyleven but not Morris won't now vote for Morris, I do think a big chunk of the folks who voted for neither may now vote Morris under the "well, they let Blyleven in and Morris was as good or better so..." logic.

Lee Smith is a guy I think will probably pretty much stagnate. He's had 3 ballots now with no other premier closer there and he hasn't budged. I'm also not seeing why we'd expect a bump for Palmeiro and Gonzalez, especially Palmeiro -- who's gonna change their mind? Maybe if there are a reasonable number of new voters.

Sorry to say it, BBTF brethren, but I think Morris' big vote increase is going to be the story of the election. He is not only the highest-voted starting pitcher on the ballot. He's the only starting pitcher returning to the ballot this year. He's nearing the end of his eligibility (He'll only have two years left after this coming vote). I know the numbers, I'm with you, blah, blah, but for this group of voters, the fact is that he has survived as the only starting pitcher from the late 70s through early 90s generation to have a chance at the HOF (Ron Guidry, Dave Stieb, Mario Soto, JR Richard, Fernando, Bob Welch, Steve Rogers, and others - our nation turned its lonely eyes to you...). I think that will drive him closer to 75% this year than many on this site might think. I think he could easily get 66% next month.

Another possibility for a potential larger-than-normal Morris boost is that people who are on the edge of voting for him might believe there's a chance that this might be the last time they can do so.

He is now the best pitcher on the ballot which, I'm guessing, is also always worth a decent bump.

I know what you're saying, and it's correct. But I really would take Radke over Morris.

Sorry to say it, BBTF brethren, but I think Morris' big vote increase is going to be the story of the election.

Nah, the story of the election will be Barry Larkin passing 75 percent. Jack Morris coming up short for the 13th year will be a sidenote.

I've been saying this for three years in the face of numerous Sky is Falling, Jack is Rising posts that are so popular at this time of year, so I might as well keep going: Jack Morris will not get elected to the Hall by the BBWAA.

I've been saying this for three years in the face of numerous Sky is Falling, Jack is Rising posts that are so popular at this time of year, so I might as well keep going: Jack Morris will not get elected to the Hall by the BBWAA.

True. He will go in via the VC, however.

Larkin is my favorite player, so I am somewhat invested in his getting in the HOF. I underestimated his apparent support; I thought he would get Trammelled.

True. He will go in via the VC, however.

Yeah, I've believed that as well.

No, the real explanation is that since his retirement, Larkin has spent most of his time forming things.

Holy *, that is funny.
I was wondering what Barry changed his name to when he got married, but Tom explained it perfectly.

Right on, this is cool to see. Bill voted this year in my project on the 50 best players not in the Hall of Fame (results post hopefully coming Monday evening!)

I'm curious why the article makes no mention of Bill's former role as senior research associate at Cooperstown. Did I miss something?

Probably not many, considering Jeter and Mariano are still around

I think Chipper is still trying to come back too.

The only candidate I can think of who became a manager is Maury Wills, but that was an all-time disaster.

Gil Hodges. He first appeared on the ballot in 1969 and got 24%, good for 14th place. The next year, after winning the WS with the Miracle Mets, he jumped to 48% and 4th.

I don't think Morris is going to bet elected either. But I think he'll get a big jump this year (10+%) then probably fall back next year then get a last-ballot bump but nothing big enough to get elected.

For this year, 200 percentage points left the ballot. Even is we see a drop of 1 name per ballot (which seems very big to me) that leaves 100 points to spread around. Larkin gets 15, the new guys probably combine for about 25 (more if Bernie reaches Walker level which is possible). I think McGwire, Palmeiro and probably Smith are going pretty much nowhere, maybe 5 points among them. You've got 50-55 points to spread around 10 guys.

That strikes me as the minimum. I don't think we're going to see a drop as big as 1 name per ballot, let's say it's .6 names per ballot. That gives you another 40 points to spread around. Anyway ...

Larkin 15
Williams 15
Morris 12
Bagwell 10
Raines 8
Edgar 5
Trammell 5
Walker 5
Murphy 5
McGriff, Mattingly and maybe Gonzo 10 total

That's still just 90 percentage points. Add another 10 for the other newbies and maybe small movements for McGwire et al.

Now if there's another 40 points to spread around ...

Somebody in addition to Larkin has to make a big move. Morris looks like the most likely candidate to me. Hopefully it will be Bagwell and Raines.

EDIT: Oops, not Murphy's last year but, if anything, that frees up more points for Morris.

Never heard of this guy*, but according to the article he's been doing it for 30 years.

The Cinci Enquirer ran a piece last year discussing Deane's predictions. He didn't do so well:

Deane does not foresee Larkin, who received 51.6 percent last year, making a dramatic leap into the high 50s or low 60s, which could portend enshrinement sooner rather than later.

Deane predicts that Alomar will be elected this year and that Blyleven will narrowly miss - "There's more growth potential in the second year" for Alomar than for Blyleven in his 14th year, Deane said ....

I disagreed about Larkin, who ended up gaining about 11%, but his position didn't seem absurd. But I thought he was way off about Blyleven. It seemed highly dubious given that he needed just a handful of votes and had been making steady progress for years. Just to show I'm not picking on the guy after the fact, here's my post at the Reds' SB Nation blog comparing Dag's picks with Deane's.

Dupe deleted.

Probably not many, considering Jeter and Mariano are still around

And Pujols....(I can dream)

Would Ichiro! count? Hard to picture him on a non-Mariner MLB team.

Another possibility for a potential larger-than-normal Morris boost is that people who are on the edge of voting for him might believe there's a chance that this might be the last time they can do so.

that is giving the electorate way too much credit, this is arguably the second stupidest mass of people on the planet behind the average republican(note:average means denying global warming because some #### head has lied to you for years, and you believe the ######## over 98% of the people that actually know what the heck they are talking about)

Joe Torre would be the ultimate player turned into manager candidate. It sure didn't help him get elected by the BBWAA as a player, even though, just as a player only, he is certainly qualified. By now, of course, the real question is whether he will get elected as a player, a manager, or as a combo. - Brock Hanke

It sure didn't help him get elected by the BBWAA as a player

Torre is another example where his managing had a noticeable affect on his HOF voting support. Unfortunately, it came too late to do much good.

Torre had been on the ballot 14 years and was dribbling along in the 11% range when he managed his first Yankees champion in 1996. His support jumped to 22%, but his BBWAA eligibility ran out. (At this point in HOF voting history the "last year bump" was usually only 1 or 2%.) I tend to believe that Torre's support would have increased to more than 40% if he had remained eligible another five years.

He actually was a great player, a deserving member of the Hall of Merit.

If you go back in time, Casey Stengel had a serious bump once he became Yankee manager. For that matter, Joe McCarthy got votes despite never playing in MLB. That's the problem of going too far back in time: the rules weren't quite the same on teh other side of 1960.

Looking it up. .

Ken Boyer: fell off the ballot while managing STL. That's because they created the 5% rule and at that time he had several consecutive years below 5%. They put him and several others back on in 1985 and he did much better.

Alvin Dark received no appreciable bump when he won a world title with the 1974 A's.

Gil Hodges, as noted, got a big bump after the '69 Mets.

Bob Lemon - weird one. He was generally stuck in neutral while managing the Royals in the early 1970s. He managed them for three years and was around 25% each year. Then he got fired and his vote total skyrocketed. He entered Cooperstown before his next managerial gig. Weird.

Al Lopez went up by quite a bit in the mid-1960s. That said, in the elections right after his '54 and '59 pennants, he received zero votes. Still got to 39% in his last year on the ballot in 1967. That's a weird time because Cooperstown was cleaning up the balloting process. Still odd to see such a huge gain, though.

Tony Perez managed for part of 1993. Didn't have much impact on his voting.

Red Schoendienst - hard to say what impact managing had on his candidacy because his biggest managerial success ('67 world title, '68 pennant) came before he hit the ballot. I think it helped if for no other reason to help him maintain his prominence. He had a general upward trajectory to his time on the ballot.

Stengel peaked at 2% before becoming Yankee manager. Then he got 23% in 1953.

Joe Torre never topped 14.9% until 1997 - when he skyrocketed to 22%.

Trammell? Eh, not much. His only real boosting has come in the last few years, not when he lost 119 games with the 2003 Tigers.

Maury Wills: around 38% before managing, peaked at 41% as manager in 1981 -- and then cratered to 22% in 1982. I believe that's also when he got a drug bust, too.

That's all the ones I can find. Looks like becoming a manager doesn't inherently cause a big bump in support. Win a World Series? Now that'll give you a nice bump. But over the last half-century Hodges and Torre are the only guys to really improve their standing with the BBWAA due to managing. Thus I don't expect much help for Mattingly. Oh, he'll go up this year, but that's because everyone in the backlog will go up this year.

40. cardsfanboy Posted: December 03, 2011 at 01:45 AM (#4005639)


that is giving the electorate way too much credit, this is arguably the second stupidest mass of people on the planet behind the average republican(note:average means denying global warming because some #### head has lied to you for years, and you believe the ######## over 98% of the people that actually know what the heck they are talking about)

So to cardsfanboy, not falling for the hoax of Man Made Global warming is evidence of stupidity. That is classic. I'd recommend he consider leaving his mother's basement going outside and looking at the huge ball of fire. We refer to that object as the sun and believe it or not it has been impacting our weather or climate long before the internal combustion engine was ever imagined let alone built. There have been ice ages and hot spells throughout the billions of years the earth has existed. Our magnetic poles have shifted. All sorts of stuff happens that us mere humans have no ability to impact. It is the height of human arrogance to believe we are at fault or even have the capacity to change the climate. You might want to stick to baseball because you make a fool of yourself when you discuss other subjects.

Larkin is my favorite player, so I am somewhat invested in his getting in the HOF. I underestimated his apparent support; I thought he would get Trammelled.

Likewise. If I'd paid more attention to his 12 All-Star game appearances, though, I might have better realized the high esteem he was held in.

Joe Torre never topped 14.9% until 1997 - when he skyrocketed to 22%.

The lack of support for Torre for his playing career seems odd, though the Hall does underrate catchers and 3bmen, so maybe it's not so odd. He doesn't seem to get much love around here either, though, for a guy in the 60 WAR neighborhood.


While I'm waiting for the bus:

So to cardsfanboy, not falling for the hoax of Man Made Global warming is evidence of stupidity.

Assumes your conclusion. By the way, I know it's common usage now, but please consider not using impact when you mean affect. Teeth become impacted. Colons become impacted. Weather is affected.

That is classic.

Non sequitur.

I'd recommend he consider leaving his mother's basement going outside and looking at the huge ball of fire.

Ad hominem attack.

We refer to that object as the sun and believe it or not it has been impacting our weather or climate long before the internal combustion engine was ever imagined let alone built.

Irrelevant to the discussion at hand, though a better writer might propose an alternative theory. That the sun affects climate doesn't mean human beings don't also. It would be interesting to me to hear your direct answer to the following. It doesn't commit you to anything that substantively undermines your position, but do you recognize that while the sun's behavior can cause climate change, that fact does not mean it's literally impossible for humans to also cause climate change. Perhaps I'd do better to ask, "Do you believe that it is simply impossible, regardless of their behavior, for human beings to cause significant climate change?"

There have been ice ages and hot spells throughout the billions of years the earth has existed.

Which, of course, isn't any kind of refutation of the theory of man-made global warming.

Our magnetic poles have shifted.

Okay...

All sorts of stuff happens that us mere humans have no ability to impact.

That would be "we" mere humans, but the idea that humans don't affect all sorts of stuff isn't relevant to the question of whether we're substantially affecting the earth's climate.

It is the height of human arrogance to believe we are at fault or even have the capacity to change the climate.

Since it's incontrovertible that humans can and do affect local climates, it's unlikely it would be beyond human capabilites to affect climate globally. Arrogance has nothing to do with it. In fact, that's one of the oddest imputations I've ever heard.

You might want to stick to baseball because you make a fool of yourself when you discuss other subjects.

I leave that to others, but it would be difficult to sustain the idea that you've bettered cfb in that regard.

Bill, I realize I haven't been any kinder to you than you were to cfb--though he wasn't addressing you by name, to be sure--but in case it got lost in the shuffle, above, I'd like to ask again,

"Do you believe that it is simply impossible, regardless of their behavior, for human beings to cause significant, global climate change?"

Global warming? Well I might as well bring up the Civil War, libertarianism and Petco Park now. Stick a fork in this one...

"Do you believe that it is simply impossible, regardless of their behavior, for human beings to cause significant, global climate change?"

I think it's generally agreed that detonating a few thousand thermonuclear devices would cause significant global climate change. But maybe that's considered "junk science" now, too. It's so hard to keep up with the talking points.

Well, people sick of rehashing Jack Morris' HoF candidacy should think this thread's shift in focus is a nice fresh breath of air then.

Bill, I realize I haven't been any kinder to you than you were to cfb--though he wasn't addressing you by name, to be sure--but in case it got lost in the shuffle, above, I'd like to ask again,

Don't worry about being kind. I think I can handle having my grammar corrected without getting upset. I posted my diatribe as I was heading out and did not properly proof it. You're right he did not refer to me by name. However, in a thread that was originally about Deane's predictive efforts, he thought it necessary to call Republicans stupid out of the blue and he based it on the fact that some of us reject junk science.

"Do you believe that it is simply impossible, regardless of their behavior, for human beings to cause significant, global climate change?"

Impossible? Wouldn't say impossible, but extremely unlikely. Now, obviously the extreme example of "detonating a few thousand thermonuclear devices" is a different matter than normal activity (cars and A/C) that is usually pointed at as the cause of global warming (and was previously in the 70's blamed for global cooling). We can dramatically affect the environment in an enclosed area. We are not greatly or permanently affecting the entire earth's atmosphere.

The biggest reason I'm convinced that AGW is junk science is how the advocates call it "settled science." Anyone with any understanding of basic scientific method realizes that referring to any field as "settled science" is tantamount to admitting their studies won't hold up to scrutiny. The other issue that has lead me to be skeptical is how much of the "evidence" has been manipulated or faked.

Since the only "cure" proposed for this (not-quite proven) global warming crisis is massive energy taxes, I'm going to remain highly skeptical of these altruistic scientists (like the renowned Rev. Gore) who are enriching themselves by perpetuating this notion.

@49--I'm not sure that I have a useful reply to what you wrote, but thanks for posting a thorough response. We'd probably agree that unbiased evidence is essential to addressing an issue such as this, and attempts to manipulate or cloud (sorry) the evidence do us all an enormous disservice.

I don't know who the troll is, but for ####'s sake don't feed him. This is a baseball site, let's talk about Tim Tebow already.

The biggest reason I'm convinced that AGW is junk science is how the advocates call it "settled science." Anyone with any understanding of basic scientific method realizes that referring to any field as "settled science" is tantamount to admitting their studies won't hold up to scrutiny. The other issue that has lead me to be skeptical is how much of the "evidence" has been manipulated or faked.

Since the only "cure" proposed for this (not-quite proven) global warming crisis is massive energy taxes, I'm going to remain highly skeptical of these altruistic scientists (like the renowned Rev. Gore) who are enriching themselves by perpetuating this notion.

Hi, troll.

It's interesting that you were able to use a computer, given that you don't believe in 'settled science.' Presumably your troll-computers came straight out of Zeus' thigh.

Since the only "cure" proposed for this (not-quite proven) global warming crisis is massive energy taxes, I'm going to remain highly skeptical of these altruistic scientists (like the renowned Rev. Gore) who are enriching themselves by perpetuating this notion.

It's stuff like this that I find hilarious. The people opposing any type of global warming regulations is basically the energy companies, you know the people who basically own the Republican party. And they get their sycophantic followers to believe anything(I mean, I still know Republicans who honestly think people making less than 100k a year are better off tax wise under any Republican plan...not kidding, this is why I think they are so ####### stupid, the elephant party is able to get their followers to believe factually incorrect things)

It's interesting that you were able to use a computer, given that you don't believe in 'settled science.' Presumably your troll-computers came straight out of Zeus' thigh.

Yep, somehow the fact that there is universal consensus world wide on the facts of global warming, makes it hilarious when people(oops, sorry, only U.S. people are actually this stupid, the rest of the world seems to actually have brains and can think a little bit) point to some local corrupt politicians as a driving force behind the scam of global warming. I mean logic dictates if the rest of the world's scientist believe in a fact, and the only portion of the world that is fighting this fact, is a portion that is being driven to oppose the fact by a political party, then isn't it more likely the political party has the agenda?

Yep, somehow the fact that there is universal consensus world wide on the facts of global warming, makes it hilarious when people(oops, sorry, only U.S. people are actually this stupid, the rest of the world seems to actually have brains and can think a little bit) point to some local corrupt politicians as a driving force behind the scam of global warming. I mean logic dictates if the rest of the world's scientist believe in a fact, and the only portion of the world that is fighting this fact, is a portion that is being driven to oppose the fact by a political party, then isn't it more likely the political party has the agenda?

Universal consensus on what?

That it is somewhat warmer today than it was at the end of the little ice age in the late 19th century? Sure.

But, there's no proof as to what caused this. The "hockey stick" has been thoroughly debunked. Temperatures rose more in the first half of the 20th century than since, despite massively increased industrial activity. Also, there has been no warming the last 10 years.

Look at the trend lines.

http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/detect/global-temps.shtml

The total change has been <1 deg C since 1880, some of which at least is a reversion from the little ice age. Mean temperature actually doesn't start increasing until ~1920, rises about 0.5 degree by 1945, then declines about 0.2 deg from the peak, and stays the same until 1980. You then see an increase of about 0.5 deg by the late 1990's, and then we plateau again.

However, during this period, human emissions have been increasing monotonically. There was massive industrial growth in the 1880-1920 and 1950-80 periods, with much more polluting technologies than today. Why didn't that have an impact?

There's likely a lot more going on here than human impact.

Even if human activity is causing the warming, as opposed to normal cyclical change, there is no consensus as what to do about it.

Reducing emissions will be very costly, and ultimately futile, since China, India and the rest of the developing world have no intention of cutting their emissions.

Rather than spending trillions of dollars trying to reduce emissions, with devastating impacts on growth, we may be far better served using those resources to adjust to a somewhat warmer climate.

Certainly the increase over the last century hasn't hurt us. Hell, new technologies (AC) have allowed us to live comfortably in previously inhospitable areas. Take a look at Phoenix or Las Vegas or Dubai.

And please, everyone, don't blame the rookie for this nonsense. This is carsfanboy's fault and the troll is 100% his.

And please, everyone, don't blame the rookie for this nonsense. This is carsfanboy's fault and the troll is 100% his

agreed.

This is, of course, brilliant rhetorical framing.

If one uses the proper scientific terms like "theory" to describe evolution or global climate change, it's easy to take the popular meaning and say:"See, it's not fact, it's only theory." thereby misrepresenting how firmly established the science is. If on the other hand, one points out how firmly and extensively supported the science is, they turn around and say such definitive terms aren't good science,

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/324321.php

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=47334

http://www.globalclimatescam.com/

For your reading pleasure.

Bookbook, Thanks for making my point about how & why folks selling this idea have elevated theory to be "settled science." Once it attains settled science status then there is no need to prove the theory. And if the numbers don't work all you have to do then is force the data to match the theory.

Oh, wow, I didn't realize that Human Events was on your side. Now I'm persuaded! Do you also have any support from Lyndon Larouche because that would really seal the deal?

"that is giving the electorate way too much credit, this is arguably the second stupidest mass of people on the planet behind the average republican"

I'll skip all of the global warming chatter and redirect to the inane stereotyping of the Hall voters. The amount of gratutious bashing - this time, again, with a political lure - is not really worth responding to anymore.

Don't feed, on either side of the debate. Don't let the baiters win.

I'm finally interested in the plain facts of the matter, as unadorned as I can get them, but it's clear a lot of the things humans need to do to combat human-made global warming are things we ought to be doing anyway.

I'm not referring to global warming here, simply noting that a society is in real trouble when it can't agree on basic facts. Much of that in this country comes from the right, which is simply, fundamentally, antiscience. I remember how proudly ignorant so much of the U.S. was when I was growing up. What we have now is the consequence of willful ignorance, contempt for intelligence and intellectuals, the unwillingness and finally the loss of the capacity to teach children how to reason, and a healthy dash of xenophobia, which is also the resistance to the broadest range of useful ideas.

I'm finally interested in the plain facts of the matter, as unadorned as I can get them, but it's clear a lot of the things humans need to do to combat human-made global warming are things we ought to be doing anyway.

I'm not referring to global warming here, simply noting that a society is in real trouble when it can't agree on basic facts. Much of that in this country comes from the right, which is simply, fundamentally, antiscience. I remember how proudly ignorant so much of the U.S. was when I was growing up. What we have now is the consequence of willful ignorance, contempt for intelligence and intellectuals, the unwillingness and finally the loss of the capacity to teach children how to reason, and a healthy dash of xenophobia, which is also the resistance to the broadest range of useful ideas.

I'm finally interested in the plain facts of the matter, as unadorned as I can get them, but it's clear a lot of the things humans need to do to combat human-made global warming are things we ought to be doing anyway.

I'm not referring to global warming here, simply noting that a society is in real trouble when it can't agree on basic facts. Much of that in this country comes from the right, which is simply, fundamentally, antiscience. I remember how proudly ignorant so much of the U.S. was when I was growing up. What we have now is the consequence of willful ignorance, contempt for intelligence and intellectuals, the unwillingness and finally the loss of the capacity to teach children how to reason, and a healthy dash of xenophobia, which is also the resistance to the broadest range of useful ideas.

I just want to add my two cents that largebill is a troll spewing fauxnews talking points.

carsfanboy's

Ric Ocasek was pretty cool back in the day.

Ric Ocasek was pretty cool back in the day.

But that still doesn't explain Paulina Porizkova. I think she personally was responsible for a certain degree of global warming.