By In Stuff

Theo Jobs

On this week’s PosCast, Michael Schur and I talk about some basic rules of small talk, the unmitigated joy of Javy Baez’s tag in the World Baseball Classic and, mostly, we draft new jobs for Theo Epstein. He will really appreciate us doing that, I’m sure.

As always, available on Stitcher, iTunes, audioBoom and a podcasting center near you.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

12 Responses to Theo Jobs

  1. Rick B says:

    By the way Joe, there is no disagreement about the cause of climate change by actual accredited climate scientists. They will all tell you that it is caused by human activity, especially the burning of fossil fuels. Any dissenting “scientist spokesmen” are probably employed by the same pr firm that for many years attempted to cast doubt on the idea that smoking causes lung cancer. Those same guys are now employed by Exxon etc. to make us think that maybe, just maybe, our activities are not contributing to climate change, so that we can continue to guzzle gas without guilt.

    If you are doubtful, check reputable websites( from a university or scientific organization you’ve heard of) or just watch the easily available movie Merchants of Doubt.

    • invitro says:

      “They will all tell you that it is caused by human activity, especially the burning of fossil fuels.” — You’re lying. Also, I think you made up “accredited climate scientists”, as I can find no reference to that term.

      • Rick B says:

        I wish I was lying, but unfortunately I’m not. Maybe you’d believe NASA? Go to their site NASA.gov and type in scientific consensus climate change and read the facts.

        Actually only 97 percent of scientists agree with what I said so I guess you’re a tiny bit right.

        Also the correct term is climatologist though the term climate scientist is also commonly used

        • invitro says:

          “Actually only 97 percent of scientists agree with what I said so I guess you’re a tiny bit right.” — You’re lying again. The 97% number has to do with the change in temperature over the past 150 years, or something like that, but doesn’t have anything to do with what caused it. And I don’t think the sample was of all scientists. And the term you are almost certainly misusing is not “climate scientist”, but “accredited”. I think you made that part up, but if not, I’m curious just what a scientist does to get “accredited”.

          • DB says:

            Looks like both of you are right and wrong. It appears that 97% believe that humans are responsible but do not specify fossil fuels. https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

            Could be animal based diet (cows are pretty bad from what I have read), fossil fuels, etc. I think the community is still arguing over what percentage is fossil fuels versus other things.
            ***
            Kind of reminds me of the evolution fight. Just because scientists do not agree on everything does not mean that evolution did not happen or exist.
            ***
            I think it is Pascal’s wager. Might as well lower fossil fuels, methanes and do what we can to not screw up the environment as the only real costs appear to be money and some displacement of industries (which appear to really not be that material) while the costs of ignoring could be horrendous. Seems like a no-brainer to me but then again I am definitely not an accredited climatologist ;).

          • Rick B says:

            You’re lying ha ha. If you read the NASA site, you will see that the 97percent figure is for human activity causes.

      • DB says:

        For a guy who hates lawyers, you like to parse language like us. Just admit it and join the Dark Side. You will feel better.

        • invitro says:

          I fear that if I used my critical side more than I do on this site, my heart would turn even blacker and colder than it already is. But if I knew that I could land a Ph.D. biophysical chemist wife out of it, I’d probably jump at the chance. Especially if she studied protein folding or ribozymes. My username actually comes partly from a partly biophysical chemistry project I once had…

          • DB says:

            She did NMR work on RNA for her PhD and now does cancer immunotherapy. She was rare then but lots of PhDs going into law now to do patent work as it is too complicated. Even today, plenty of crappy male advisors who make science not a very welcoming place for women. Same as law with the crappy men but much better pay and actually quite a few women in the patent field.

    • Crazy Diamond says:

      Have any of you guys seen a movie called Thank You for Smoking? It’s an awesome satire that’ll rock your world.

      • invitro says:

        Well, I think the real world is much more interesting than any modern movie, and in recent times, it’s been a pretty darned good unintentional satire of itself. (But I will grant that This Is Spinal Tap is a great satire, along with all of Chris Guest’s movies, which are very mild and warmhearted satires.)

  2. Micah says:

    I enjoy these drafts. Some of the drafts were suggested by followers (via twitter maybe). Since I don’t have an account, I’ll try sending a suggestion here. For April Fool’s Day, I think the draft should be about something important. Or, you could draft “important things,” if the original suggestion doesn’t do it for you.

Leave a Reply to Micah Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *