"Few countries on earth do lying quite like the United States."

[247crypto]

 the biggest lies of 2014
http://www.dailydot.com/politics/political-lies-2014/

[1714805045]

1714805045

[jaysabi]

Is it narcissistic to assume we're the best liars?

[Shattered]

Unlike elementary reading proficiency, employment rate, wealth distribution, solar power innovation....this is one category the US will ALWAYS lead the world in.

We are the best of years past, the best today, and rest assured we will be the best at lying in the future.

Its kinda like when you hear people say "God bless America", it makes me laugh every time.
IF there were a god, im pretty sure Merica would be one of the last countries blessed.

[247crypto]

Unlike elementary reading proficiency, employment rate, wealth distribution

Are You talking about Ferguson or some other place?

[BADecker]

Unlike elementary reading proficiency, employment rate, wealth distribution

Are You talking about Ferguson or some other place?

Detroit?   

[AllTheBitz]

Unlike elementary reading proficiency, employment rate, wealth distribution, solar power innovation....this is one category the US will ALWAYS lead the world in.

We are the best of years past, the best today, and rest assured we will be the best at lying in the future.

Its kinda like when you hear people say "God bless America", it makes me laugh every time.
IF there were a god, im pretty sure Merica would be one of the last countries blessed.

Sorry buddy but I gotta tell you there will always be wealth distribution problems because there is no way everyone can have the same amount of money. its just to idealistically  great to work out in real life.

[Agestorzrxx]

the biggest lies of 2014
http://www.dailydot.com/politics/political-lies-2014

Regard the lies, I don't think any country can compare with China

[solid12345]

the biggest lies of 2014
http://www.dailydot.com/politics/political-lies-2014

Regard the lies, I don't think any country can compare with China

China lies so much they even tell their people the smog in Beijing is "clouds" and "mist" 

[Shattered]

the biggest lies of 2014
http://www.dailydot.com/politics/political-lies-2014

Regard the lies, I don't think any country can compare with China

China lies so much they even tell their people the smog in Beijing is "clouds" and "mist" 

That really isnt a lie. Those grey, thick clouds are just full or airborne toxins.
It must really put a damper on your morning to live in a place where you might get cancer if you go outside to get your mail

[KenJackson]

TheDailyDot story said:

Today, 97.1 percent of all scientific papers agree that human beings have negatively impacted the atmosphere.

That's obviously wrong.  Is it a simple error, or an intentional fabrication?

Why, you ask, is it obviously wrong?  Because "science" is a very broad umbrella that covers many, many, many, many more topics than climate.  Therefore MOST scientific papers don't mention any aspect of climate (or probably of man's impact on anything either).

Think about who it is that claims man has a negative impact on the earth.  They're politically oriented toward liberal fundamentalism.  They don't care about actual science, but they're VERY INTERESTED in claiming that they have science on their side.  In their minds, the only important scientific papers are the ones that support their political view.  (In fact, this article has "political" in its title.)

When Mount Pinatubo erupted back in 1991, it was reported that it put more sulfur-laden gasses into the air in one belch than all the factories of man since the industrial revolution.  I can't verify that, but it's well known that volcanoes do throw huge volumes of sulfur and carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.  And volcanoes erupt somewhere on earth every year.

If liberal fundamentalists are concerned about the factories that produced the cars, computers, medicines and smart phones they enjoy, then why aren't they concerned about shutting down the real problem--volcanoes? 

[JLynn171]

Land of the Free Home of the highest Prison Population Percentage.... Its Illegal in some states to feed the homeless?? USA in general is going to feed the rich and eat the poor.

[Lerner]

The U.S. does not lie. * cough *

And " don't believe everything you read on the Internet simply because there is a quote with a link next to it".
- Abraham Lincoln - * ahem *

[jaysabi]

TheDailyDot story said:

Today, 97.1 percent of all scientific papers agree that human beings have negatively impacted the atmosphere.

That's obviously wrong.  Is it a simple error, or an intentional fabrication?

I'm thinking it's most likely an unintentional error due to laziness or ineffective writing. Rather than "all scientific papers," the author probably means all scientific papers on the topic of climate change.

[KenJackson]

TheDailyDot story said:

Today, 97.1 percent of all scientific papers agree that human beings have negatively impacted the atmosphere.

That's obviously wrong.  Is it a simple error, or an intentional fabrication?

I'm thinking it's most likely an unintentional error due to laziness or ineffective writing. Rather than "all scientific papers," the author probably means all scientific papers on the topic of climate change.

Isn't that error revealing?

Liberal fundamentalists don't care about science, except to manipulate it to support their predetermined point.  They manipulate it by having the government fund lots of studies with the goal of proving that the climate is changing in sync with man's development.  They never consider that fact that the sun is getting measurably larger and brighter with time, or that the earth is still coming out of the mini ice age it was in around the time of the Revolutionary War.

[Snail2]

Bigger stakes and money means bigger lies. It's quite a natural thing. The hypocrisy and arrogance is much more annoying.

[BADecker]

Besides, it's not the average people. Sure, they support through taxes. But many of them simply don't know how to go about getting out of the tax system, because they do not want to support, but don't know how to get out.

It's mostly the leaders of the nations that make the trouble. If the nation is young, the leaders are often doing what they are doing to literally help the nation survive. They may be doing it for moral and just reasons. But once the nation is secure in its position as a nation, then the political liars step in to see how much they can skim off the gross national product/profit of the nation.

The difference is Africa. Many of the nations of Africa were started by rich b*****ds who wanted to rape and plunder the whole continent, if only they could figure out a way to do it.

[Nemo1024]

Its kinda like when you hear people say "God bless America", it makes me laugh every time.
IF there were a god, im pretty sure Merica would be one of the last countries blessed.

I laugh for a different reason: I can't help but read/hear "Gold bless America". 

[jaysabi]

TheDailyDot story said:

Today, 97.1 percent of all scientific papers agree that human beings have negatively impacted the atmosphere.

That's obviously wrong.  Is it a simple error, or an intentional fabrication?

I'm thinking it's most likely an unintentional error due to laziness or ineffective writing. Rather than "all scientific papers," the author probably means all scientific papers on the topic of climate change.

Isn't that error revealing?

Liberal fundamentalists don't care about science, except to manipulate it to support their predetermined point.  They manipulate it by having the government fund lots of studies with the goal of proving that the climate is changing in sync with man's development.  They never consider that fact that the sun is getting measurably larger and brighter with time, or that the earth is still coming out of the mini ice age it was in around the time of the Revolutionary War.

No, I don't find the error to be revealing, because the scientific papers on the topic are actually science, not conjecture like you're offering. Trying to explain a scientific paper to someone who doesn't understand the scientific process or peer review is as fruitful as trying to convince an atheist that the bible is an historically accurate account of what happened 2000 years ago. You can't use the logic of the bible to prove the bible is true. Similarly, if you've already made up your mind that science is wrong because that's what fits your political viewpoint, using science to show you otherwise is wasted effort.

[KenJackson]

Isn't that error revealing?

Liberal fundamentalists don't care about science, except to manipulate it to support their predetermined point.  They manipulate it by having the government fund lots of studies with the goal of proving that the climate is changing in sync with man's development.  They never consider that fact that the sun is getting measurably larger and brighter with time, or that the earth is still coming out of the mini ice age it was in around the time of the Revolutionary War.

No, I don't find the error to be revealing, because the scientific papers on the topic are actually science, not conjecture like you're offering. Trying to explain a scientific paper to someone who doesn't understand the scientific process or peer review is as fruitful as trying to convince an atheist that the bible is an historically accurate account of what happened 2000 years ago. You can't use the logic of the bible to prove the bible is true. Similarly, if you've already made up your mind that science is wrong because that's what fits your political viewpoint, using science to show you otherwise is wasted effort.

You can lie by funding studies that show what you paid for, and that's what's happening.

In many science disciplines it's extremely difficult to make sure your analysis is unbiased, that you're not inadvertently making your own expectations influence the results.  Every scientist is painfully aware of this.  So imagine the pressure if you're a scientist on a grant from an agency that damn-well expects you to get an answer that supports what they want.  It would be trivially easy, even subconsciously, to allow bias to get the result that keeps grant funding coming.

Also, any scientist that shows anything different than all the other paid-for results has to be very sure of himself to stand up to peers that are also getting government grant money.  And the media is on board to keep the masses deceived, so they poo-poo honest results as the work of deniers.

When I was in high school, we were inundated with reports that man's pollution was blotting out the sun and causing global cooling that would freeze us all.  But the earth didn't cooperate with the hype, so they switched to global warming.  (It still boggles my mind that they've duped the masses into believing that carbon dioxide is pollution!!  Next it'll be water vapor.)  But the earth didn't cooperate with that either, so they switched to something vague enough that they could hype it either way--climate change.

Just ask yourself why the government would pay for this result.  Then ask yourself what any government wants.

[jaysabi]

Isn't that error revealing?

Liberal fundamentalists don't care about science, except to manipulate it to support their predetermined point.  They manipulate it by having the government fund lots of studies with the goal of proving that the climate is changing in sync with man's development.  They never consider that fact that the sun is getting measurably larger and brighter with time, or that the earth is still coming out of the mini ice age it was in around the time of the Revolutionary War.

No, I don't find the error to be revealing, because the scientific papers on the topic are actually science, not conjecture like you're offering. Trying to explain a scientific paper to someone who doesn't understand the scientific process or peer review is as fruitful as trying to convince an atheist that the bible is an historically accurate account of what happened 2000 years ago. You can't use the logic of the bible to prove the bible is true. Similarly, if you've already made up your mind that science is wrong because that's what fits your political viewpoint, using science to show you otherwise is wasted effort.

You can lie by funding studies that show what you paid for, and that's what's happening.

In many science disciplines it's extremely difficult to make sure your analysis is unbiased, that you're not inadvertently making your own expectations influence the results.  Every scientist is painfully aware of this.  So imagine the pressure if you're a scientist on a grant from an agency that damn-well expects you to get an answer that supports what they want.  It would be trivially easy, even subconsciously, to allow bias to get the result that keeps grant funding coming.

Also, any scientist that shows anything different than all the other paid-for results has to be very sure of himself to stand up to peers that are also getting government grant money.  And the media is on board to keep the masses deceived, so they poo-poo honest results as the work of deniers.

When I was in high school, we were inundated with reports that man's pollution was blotting out the sun and causing global cooling that would freeze us all.  But the earth didn't cooperate with the hype, so they switched to global warming.  (It still boggles my mind that they've duped the masses into believing that carbon dioxide is pollution!!  Next it'll be water vapor.)  But the earth didn't cooperate with that either, so they switched to something vague enough that they could hype it either way--climate change.

Just ask yourself why the government would pay for this result.  Then ask yourself what any government wants.

Governments would pay to have an understanding what is going on, the same reason they would pay to conduct a census every ten years that asks invasive questions about your ethnicity and income, or embark on a study of wind patterns, or any other sociological or scientific pursuit that governments sponsor studies on. The government doesn't have a pre-determined outcome they are forcing people to subscribe to. Claiming that all scientists agree on global warming because they're paid by the government to think that is just not grounded in anything but your desire for it to be true. Government doesn't do anything particularly well. Coordinating a global conspiracy rooted in faulty-science that could be so easily disproven with real science isn't something it could do competently.