StrangeSox

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 10, 2011 -> 09:32 AM) The science of climate change is in such an infancy stage, it's going to take many more years of data and analysis to convince me of this beyond a reasonable doubt. Once this movement became an entire political platform and huge money making scheme, it became corrupt IMO, and my cynical side (which is quite a large side of me), kicked in...and that's where we are now. Infancy? It's been going on for four decades now. As for reasonable doubt, that's what p-scores and null hypotheses are for.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 10, 2011 -> 08:50 AM) I'm not going with my "gut" on this, this has nothing to do with a 'gut' feeling, but more like an educated understanding. Earth warms and cools, both with and without us here, as data has shown over and over and over again. We may be helping it along this time -- a little -- but I expect the Earth would be warming right now even if we weren't here to interfere. The thing is, actual models of the climate disagree with this*. They account for the natural cycles and human forcing functions, and they're finding that yeah, we do contribute a lot to the recent rapid warming. You need competing models that account for natural variations and human inputs that shows we're having less of an impact than most models show. *not necessarily that there wouldn't be some small amount of warming now, I don't know. But we've certainly accelerated above any natural cycle fluctuations.

The system is allowing Walker to get a law passed that redefines "public interest" as "whatever Walker wants" so that he can sell state energy assets without bidding for however much he wants. Oh and he just happens to be largely backed by energy conglomerates. It's also allowing him to redefine the Milwaukee voucher system to take money away from poor students and give it to wealthy students. I'd say the system is pretty f***ed if it allows such egregious abuses.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Mar 10, 2011 -> 08:37 AM) Ezra Klein: No they don't. They're doing the same thing liberals would be doing if true HCR was passed via "shady" or "underhanded" tactics. Ultimately it's not how a bill was passed but the end results. The Wisconsin dem's were abusing procedural rules here, so there's no room to complain about rep's doing the same. I still think this fight over a particular piece of legislation is qualitatively different than the US Senate obstructionism, though.

I never thought I'd say this, but thank god for Quinn. We'd be right in the thick of this mess if Brady had won.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Mar 9, 2011 -> 06:06 PM) haha. have any of you been following this NPR story? http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110309/ap_on_...party_criticism I saw some clips of this setup and... it is hilarious. The best part is the NPR guy talking about how stupid everyone else is, all while he's basically been completely duped. Seriously how do people keep getting duped by this clown?

That's a pretty epic screw job by the refs there.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 9, 2011 -> 02:35 PM) How do you know what I've read and what I haven't read? You don't. You're assuming. And it's not been fully decided because I have yet to find a report entitled "HUMANS CAUSE EVERY BIT OF GLOBAL WARMING." Maybe it's out there, but I haven't seen it. I've seen people report that humans have played a significant part, but other people disagree with that. Since there's not a consensus, I don't believe the issue has been decided (of course your reply will be, well only the crap scientists disagree. I'm sure that's up for debate as well). No, I'll direct you to the study out of UIC a year or two ago by Doran that showed just how strong the consensus is. This is back to the "teach the controversy" crap rhetoric of the creationist movement. There really isn't that much of a controversy in the field. There are disagreements and arguments and fights, but not really about whether we need to do something about AGW and fast. I produced 4 changes within the past year that I got off of the first page of Panda's Thumb. And they're terrible, and they're anti-science. The lawmakers are supported by their conservative constituency. Creationist bills come up just about every year in several states across the country. Complete rejection of global warming as a "hoax" is strong among conservatives at both a state and national level. Levels of support for evolution are lowest among conservatives: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_supp...n#United_States Levels of support for AGW are lowest among conservatives: http://pewresearch.org/pubs/282/global-war...s-and-solutions Well, American politics are center-right. That means there's some conservative democrats. That puts those on the left in a decided minority. It's certainly not a liberal position to reject a large and growing body of climate science.

This thread is now winning.

trolls trolling trolls trolling trolls trolling trolls...

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 9, 2011 -> 01:48 PM) I don't disagree with anthropological global warming, please point to where I have said that. This isn't about your personal beliefs. You keep conflating that. But you don't base that opinion on knowledge of the situation. You don't believe the issue has been fully decided based on what, exactly? Why do you deny that there's strong evidence for humans being a rather large component of recent GW, which is something an overwhelming majority of anyone in relevant fields supports? Al Gore is an irrelevant punching bag for the right. Nothing he says means a damn thing. I've never even seen his slide show movie. There's a sizable majority of conservatives hell bent on denying any science that goes against their ideology. That includes the foundations for modern biology as well as pretty much all of climate science. You may be speaking for yourself, but you are definitely not speaking for the majority of conservatives. A strong majority of conservatives deny that humans have any contribution to global warming. A large percentage denies that there even is warming. Only something like half of all Americans accept AGW. You don't. But if you want to be counted as a "healthy skeptic" or "someone with a valid, informed opinion," you should be informed of at least the basics. Nope, I was sitting on the internet reading many reports showing exactly why they were FOS, fabricating and distorting data, lying to the American public and why there was no reason to invade. I get the benefit of being completely correct about that one.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Mar 8, 2011 -> 07:55 PM) Huckabee is becoming Sarah Palin's douchebag. I don't know what this means but I Also, Illinois abolished the death penalty.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Mar 9, 2011 -> 12:42 PM) Who called Al Gore a scientist? troll'd

I'd just like to add that science has a built-in mechanism for skepticism: peer review and intellectual curiosity. People don't spend years of their lives getting a PhD just to defend some piece of dogma. They do it to learn how some particular part of the world works. Others who are also highly knowledgeable in the same field investigate the validity of their work. The most respected journals go to great lengths to verify data and claims, to ask questions of offers. Skepticism that comes from outside, from people with little or no knowledge of the field and relevant science but with a strong ideological bent, well, that isn't really skepticism. It's denialism. It's not from a desire to understand, but from a desire to simply reject out of hand.

I see a problem with people who are immune to learning new facts and critically examining something. Why don't you agree with anthropological global warming? Most everything I've seen you post on it amounts to "AL GORE MONEY HOAX!", not any amount of healthy skepticism or questioning. What are your intellectual reasons for questioning it? Why are you throwing out a good amount of scientific studies and conclusions to reject it? Why do most people reject it? Because they see it as part of environmentalism, which is seen a liberal p**** plot to ruin everything and cost jobs. They're not rejecting it on an intellectual basis. They've no interest in actually understanding the models, the projections, the criticisms and the responses. It's entirely political and emotional. It is anti-science and anti-intellectual. I don't think Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Hannity and the millions of people who follow them have any real interest in climate science. They look at the issue purely from an ideological viewpoint.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 9, 2011 -> 12:25 PM) Both of those that I posted specifically say they have to be in line with the State Board of Education guidelines. You think those boards are full of academic types or priests attempting to convert the nation? Hmm, did you see the link about Texas? Did you miss their deliberate efforts last year to blatantly re-write history and science standards with a heavily pro-conservative bias? Seriously, I'll understand just not being that familiar with the history behind that exact language in various bills over the past several decades since creation science was deemed unconstitutional. But it's incredibly loaded, incredibly anti-science and incredibly pro-religion.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 9, 2011 -> 12:21 PM) Right, and tell me the liberal agenda of proposing global warming as an immediate danger requiring hundreds of billions is just Al Gore's great bleeding heart for the people of the world and not at all connected to the money that he and his buddies can make from it. GMAFB. Yep, decades of scientific research around the world by thousands of people are just a conspiracy! It's all about a liberal agenda and Al Gore and his buddies making money! It's just a HOAX! Thanks for demonstrating your anti-science bias so clearly and repeatedly in this thread.

Nope, please go back and read through the history of the whole "strengths and weaknesses" and "teach the controversy" bulls***. It's not about skepticism. At all. It's deliberate, targeted attacks strictly on evolution in favor of Christian creationism. It gives teachers cover to hand out religious pamphlets and worksheets attacking evolution.

Healthy skepticism bill, not anti-science bill, from Florida! New Mexico healthy skepticism bill! Efforts to repeal creationism in Louisiana! Let's not forget the whole debacle with the Texas BOE last year! Those are just some easy links to recent conservative anti-science policy and legislation. Which was largely supported by the conservative bases in teh area. But please keep pretending that it only happens to be all of the conservatives on TV and radio with massive conservative support with those beliefs, and not millions of everyday conservatives. Even though plenty of polls show otherwise. Even though elections and proposed bills and trials like Dover and the reaction from much of the right show otherwise. Now tie those in with the wide-spread rejection of climate science, go so far as to call it a deliberate liberal hoax for tax and control. A common conservative meme. Add in the frequent derision of "intellectuals" and "academia" and ivory towers. Frequent attacks on funny-sounding science like "volcano monitoring" or fruit fly research in stump speeches. Opposition to stem cell research. Proposed massive budget cuts for NIH and NSF. And then try to tell me it's just about healthy skepticism. All of this outside attack on the entire establishment of science is just a needed dose of skepticism, as if there isn't plenty of disagreement and skepticism within the scientific community.

"Agree to disagree" is code for "I can't support my argument, but I still think I'm right"

No, I'll agree that your statements are absurd and easily contradicted by examining stated policy and legislative action.

Here's an excellent article from Nature recently.

No, sorry, you're wrong. There's no other way to put it if you think it's the "healthy-skepticism" crowd instead of the "willfully and proudly ignorant" crowd. We are talking about the anti-evolution, "I'm not a monkey!" crowd here. We're talking about the "GLOBAL WARMING IS THE GREATEST HOAX EVER!" crowd here. We're talking about the significant portion of Americans who believe the Earth is less than 10,000 years old. There's a strong correlation between these groups and right-wing politics. It's apparent in their policies and their legislation. It comes up again and again with anti-evolution, anti-science bills in state legislatures. It's not about skepticism. It's about rejection of scientific theories because they conflict with pre-conceived notions of how the world works.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 9, 2011 -> 11:33 AM) I'm not equivocating the word faith since i'm not equating the means in which the Pope arrives at his belief/faith and a scientist arrives at his. I'm merely equating the stubbornness of both sides to consider the fact that they could be wrong. But you can't deny that scientific theory still relies on SOME faith (or belief, whatever the word you want to use) because theories require guess work. Yes, it's educated and tested guesswork, but it's still a calculated guess as to the reason why something happens without knowing for certain. You have to have faith/belief that the unknown fact you rely upon to reach your conclusion is as you think it to be. It's not to the same degree as religious faith, but it still exists. Sure, that's why I posted the Relativity of Wrong and frequently mention provisional truth whenever this topic comes up. "A healthy dose of skepticism is a good thing," which appears to be what you're advocating in this last post, isn't a defense for the anti-intellectual, anti-science crap from a good portion of the right. edit:here's a good link explaining provisional truth. See #3 and #4. http://www.ukskeptics.com/article.php?dir=..._and_reason.php

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 9, 2011 -> 10:39 AM) In that the Pope and certain scientists are so hell-bent on their view of the world that they're completely closed off from any other possible explanation. Go read Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." There's some merit in saying that scientists become closed-minded to newer theories that supplant their own work. There's no merit in comparing that to the infallible Catholic Pope who claims to be speaking for his God. There's no merit in equivocating on the word "faith" and saying religion and science take equal amounts of it.