Climate change is more complex than global warming--Willful ignorance aside.

There's a good reason why all the climate change deniers refuse to see human-made climatic change as real..instead they prefer to focus on "global warming" as their whipping boy.

By focusing on one extreme (global warming), it's easier to discount the impact human activity has on the climate as a whole.  Rather than seeing the entire weather system as a whole and see the impact on climatic variability as the real issue, their cherry-picking of anthropogenic global warming becomes the easier straw man to tear down.

I've recently been in an argument with a bunch of deniers who, instead of examining the premise of increasing climatic variability (which is the real issue...) they prefer to couch their arguments in terms of global warming ONLY.  Why would they do that instead of examining all the evidence?

As anyone who studies vast complex systems will attest:  You cannot ignore the resiliency of the system, nor can you over-simplify the system and still have the capacity to understand it to the degree necessary to talk about it intelligently.

Climate is one of the most complicated systems we know of.  Reducing it to one aspect (global warming) while specifically ignoring the other aspects (variability and climatic swing intensification) is to deliberately and willfully violate Occam's Razor--which means these idiots are distorting the facts for some agenda. 

Why else would they choose to ignore ALL the evidence and ALL the facts and focus on only one area of climate research--to the exclusion of the entire body of work--UNLESS they cannot face the facts or cannot offer anything substantive against ALL the evidence?

I'm reminded of Benjamin Franklin's quote: "We are all born ignorant, but we must work really hard to remain stupid."

These characters remind me of Ron White's quote: "You can't argue with stupid."

New drug shows how stupid pharma can be with their cash

Stories like this make me wonder why all the money spent to develop such a drug wasn't spent on things like, oh let me think...CANCER!

I have few problems with drug companies making a profit, but this takes the cake.

I have restless legs, but I don't take drugs for it. Likewise, why do we need a drug for improving eyelashes?

Screwed up priorities if you ask me. I'm sure they'll claim it's to help those who lost eyelashes and so on to give it some veneer of medical necessity.

So many people can't afford such a drug in today's economy that I doubt the market will support such a stupid call from the drug company who makes it.

Managers take heed.

Managers do many things to undermine the enterprise they endeavor to lead.

As a life-long student of good leadership and proper management, I'm unduly sensitive to matters affecting employee morale and affecting capacity to accomplish the mission.

Some of the biggest mistakes management makes are as follows:

1) Assigning responsibility without delegating the authority to effect change.

You cannot ethically make someone responsible for a task or a job unless you empower them with the tools to do the job. Management is notorious for this violation because of their own insecurity issues. Managers further compound this mistake when they ask subordinates to "buy into" the program. It's insulting.

2) Causing shit to roll down hill.

I learned this after eight years in military school. I'm reminded of Harry Truman's famous quote when I see management trying to lay blame on subordinates. "The Buck Stops Here." Good management doesn't shirk responsibility nor cravenly lay it at the feet of subordinates. It takes spine to be responsible, but spine is often not a requirement for management, just good blame-shifting skills.

3) Using only sticks to insure compliance.

The best managers use a combination of carrots and sticks. In that order. Resorting to sticks alone marks a manager as dictatorial. It undermines morale and breeds disloyalty.

4) Using divide and conquer as a strategy on those managed.

Not only does it breed contempt, it sucks as a management strategy. Why would any manager want subordinates devoting time and energy to infighting when a job needs doing? Only emotionally stunted managers use this strategy. It will kill a business if not stopped quickly.

There are many more, but this is a good sampling of what "not" to do in management.

South shows its stupidity, yet again.

Well this is a dubious distinction.

Apparently my home state of Tennessee is one of a triumvirate of Southern states leading the nation in obesity.

Kind of fits the attitude common in the South, viz., full of followers and sheep. How else do you explain the greater efficacy of junk food advertising there.

The South is also notorious for jumping on the stupid bandwagon when it comes to politicians too. This explains why the South overwhelmingly supported Bush.