Greetings From Idiot America

Everyone loves a healthy debate. Post an idea or comment about a current event or issue. Let others post their ideas also. This area is for those who love to explore other points of view.

Moderator: Nicole Marie

Greetings From Idiot America

Postby OperaTenor » Sat Aug 12, 2006 1:46 am

"We've been attacked," he says, "by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture."

http://www.thefutureismedium.com/archives/00000112.html
"To help mend the world is true religion."
- William Penn

http://www.one.org
OperaTenor
Patron
 
Posts: 10457
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Paradise with Piq & Altoid, southern California

Postby Shapley » Sat Aug 12, 2006 10:15 am

He lost me when he tried to perpetrate the myth that Kerry is an intellectual...
Quod scripsi, scripsi.
Shapley
Patron
 
Posts: 15196
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Cape Girardeau, MO

Postby bignaf » Sat Aug 12, 2006 9:35 pm

whose the idiot?
It always is funny watching one idiot talking pompously about other idiots, from up here on my level of the inteligence ladder, I see it all the time.
bignaf
1st Chair
 
Posts: 5291
Joined: Sun Oct 20, 2002 12:01 am
Location: Judean Hills

Postby Serenity » Sat Aug 12, 2006 9:38 pm

bignaf wrote:whose the idiot?
It always is funny watching one idiot talking pompously about other idiots, from up here on my level of the inteligence ladder, I see it all the time.


Intelligence is spelled with double L. :flex:
Serenity
1st Chair
 
Posts: 4666
Joined: Sun May 18, 2003 12:01 am

Postby bignaf » Sat Aug 12, 2006 9:41 pm

that's a comon mistayk. everywon doz it. there'z no reezon to ad the superfluos L.
bignaf
1st Chair
 
Posts: 5291
Joined: Sun Oct 20, 2002 12:01 am
Location: Judean Hills

Postby Serenity » Sat Aug 12, 2006 9:45 pm

That's OK Big, I still hold you in high regard! 8)
Serenity
1st Chair
 
Posts: 4666
Joined: Sun May 18, 2003 12:01 am

Postby bignaf » Sat Aug 12, 2006 9:50 pm

but yu spel hi with ekstra G and H.

now I'm serious:

I think Q should be abolished. it's a completely useless letter, and could discarded without great trouble.

X is another currently useless and multi-tasking letter in English, but I think should be converted to its IPA usage that is for the throat clearing kh sound.

let's start a movement.
bignaf
1st Chair
 
Posts: 5291
Joined: Sun Oct 20, 2002 12:01 am
Location: Judean Hills

Postby OperaTenor » Sat Aug 12, 2006 11:53 pm

BTW, it's "who's", not "whose" in that context.

While we're nitpicking.....
"To help mend the world is true religion."
- William Penn

http://www.one.org
OperaTenor
Patron
 
Posts: 10457
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Paradise with Piq & Altoid, southern California

Postby OperaTenor » Sat Aug 12, 2006 11:56 pm

Shapley wrote:He lost me when he tried to perpetrate the myth that Kerry is an intellectual...


Any excuse to maintain the insulation...
"To help mend the world is true religion."
- William Penn

http://www.one.org
OperaTenor
Patron
 
Posts: 10457
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Paradise with Piq & Altoid, southern California

Postby piqaboo » Sun Aug 13, 2006 1:02 am

His point about faith/fact is a valid one.

I hate "science by consensus" because its invalid and lazy. Apparently I am not entirely alone, but more so than I realized.
Altoid - curiously strong.
piqaboo
1st Chair
 
Posts: 7135
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 12:01 am
Location: Paradise (So. Cal.)

Postby Selma in Sandy Eggo » Sun Aug 13, 2006 2:17 am

piqaboo wrote:His point about faith/fact is a valid one..
Sadly, true. Knotheads and nitwits. Is there a spray for that?
piqaboo wrote:I hate "science by consensus" because its invalid and lazy. Apparently I am not entirely alone, but more so than I realized.
Math by consensus is worse. Wasn't there a state legislature that had a member introduce a bill to make pi equal to three? The decimals were too troublesome.

I don't know how the bonehead biblethumpers managed to get so much air time. Probably because folks who know better can't manage to take them seriously. All they deserve is a horselaugh.
>^..^<
Selma in Sandy Eggo
1st Chair
 
Posts: 6273
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2002 1:01 am
Location: San Diego

Postby GreatCarouser » Sun Aug 13, 2006 2:51 am

I think most folks still want/need experts to help them make decisions; isn't that how we learn most things as a species? The problem is discovering who they are. As a teacher I think its fundamental that kids be taught the 'scientific method' as a template to use in making many decisions
.

I spent part of the day after first reading this at the website of the famous MIT professor/ expert Noam Chomsky. I wasn't there for his biolinguistic work but to explore his pro-Palestine, anti-Isreal positions. Expertise in Scientific Method thinking doesn't always result in positive results or data. The ability to think logically isn't a guarantee of successful results. Good scientists can design lousy experiments, they can reach faulty conclusions. Remember that some scientists supported the 'work' that the Nazis used to support their genetic theories.


Do we trust folks simply because they are 'smarter' than we are and if we do trust them do we trust them in all things or just in the area(s) of their expertise? Are we at fault to distrust them even in their areas of expertise? Can I aspire to being an 'enlightened preceptor' if I fail to question authority? I can agree with the arguments as far as they relate to purely scientific matters (and here only because I don't have the time or resources to attain a level of expertise and understanding that would allow me to make a relevant challenge) but as soon as we leave that arena it is as elitist to not include the 'idiots' in the process as it is to not include the 'experts'. Unfortunately (at least it is unfortunate in my opinion) there are still scientists who can be found willing to 'dispute' global warming theory. Which expert do you prefer? Remember that Yasser Arafat was also a Nobel laureate (admittedly not for any scientific work).

Conversely and more supportive of the original article's argument I ran across this interesting website.[url]
Sacred cows make the best hamburger.
Mark Twain
GreatCarouser
2nd Chair
 
Posts: 1393
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 12:01 am
Location: Semi-permanent Vacation CA

Postby GreatCarouser » Sun Aug 13, 2006 4:22 am

I also found this interesting little corollary to Ockham's Razor . It should be applied to all potential 'conspiracies', Hanlon's Razor: ``Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity''.
Sacred cows make the best hamburger.
Mark Twain
GreatCarouser
2nd Chair
 
Posts: 1393
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 12:01 am
Location: Semi-permanent Vacation CA

Postby bignaf » Sun Aug 13, 2006 11:14 am

OperaTenor wrote:BTW, it's "who's", not "whose" in that context.

While we're nitpicking.....


I guess I'll need to add some extra torture when I finally kill you. :evil:

and for the record, I was slightly inebriated and was trying to boost my post count. so I have extenuating circumstances.

...ok, remember to click that spell check button... :x
bignaf
1st Chair
 
Posts: 5291
Joined: Sun Oct 20, 2002 12:01 am
Location: Judean Hills

Postby piqaboo » Sun Aug 13, 2006 2:28 pm

There's room for debate and discussion with the experts when one can marshall facts to support a contrasting point of view, without ignoring other known facts. (I take it as given, we dont know all the facts. Thats's what discovery is all about).

When all I can base my argument on is "I believe", then Im talking faith, and have no place in the argument. & I sure as hell dont have a place in a school curriculum, except as an bad example in a logic class.

'naf, can ya wait a couple decades? Altoid needs her daddy. Thanks dude.
Altoid - curiously strong.
piqaboo
1st Chair
 
Posts: 7135
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 12:01 am
Location: Paradise (So. Cal.)

Postby Shapley » Sun Aug 13, 2006 2:49 pm

OT,

RE: Insulation

No. My point is that, during the election we were told that Kerry would be a better president because he was an intellectual. Turns out his college scores were lower than Bush's, but some are still perpetrating the myth that Kerry's the brighter of the two.

The author also argues that, while being an M.I.T. graduate 'means something' in Africa but not in Iowa, that Africans are somehow better than Iowans at recognizing accomplishment. The truth is that being an M.I.T. graduate means something in Iowa to a prosepective employer, where it counts, but it doesn't mean as much to the man on the street. Nor should it. I was in the Navy with graduates from M.I.T. and U.C.L.A. and the Naval Academy. Some were credits to those institutions, some were not. Being an M.I.T. graduate doesn't mean you'll know about the state of world, how to grow corn, or which health-care plan is best for a family of four. It means you are better educated in your particular field of study. It doesn't even mean you'll be able to apply that knowledge in the field, but it will, and should, give you a leg-up on the competition when applying for a job that'll give you a chance to prove yourself.

Iowa is full of M.I.T. graduates, Africa isn't. Which also might go far in explain why it means something more in Africa than in Iowa.

V/R
Shapley

[Sorry, Piq. I don't know how I wound up putting this on the wrong thread.]
Last edited by Shapley on Tue Aug 15, 2006 8:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Quod scripsi, scripsi.
Shapley
Patron
 
Posts: 15196
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Cape Girardeau, MO

Postby bignaf » Sun Aug 13, 2006 2:53 pm

piqaboo wrote:There's room for debate and discussion with the experts when one can marshall facts to support a contrasting point of view, without ignoring other known facts. (I take it as given, we dont know all the facts. Thats's what discovery is all about).

When all I can base my argument on is "I believe", then Im talking faith, and have no place in the argument. & I sure as hell dont have a place in a school curriculum, except as an bad example in a logic class.

'naf, can ya wait a couple decades? Altoid needs her daddy. Thanks dude.


I guess I can wait a decade or two, I've been delaying for about 3 years by now.
bignaf
1st Chair
 
Posts: 5291
Joined: Sun Oct 20, 2002 12:01 am
Location: Judean Hills

Postby GreatCarouser » Sun Aug 13, 2006 10:08 pm

Quite coincidentally, I received this article in today's e-mail. It is from the Wall Street Journal online and is dated 4/12/06. The author is another MIT professor/expert:

Climate of Fear

Global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence.


BY RICHARD LINDZEN
Wednesday, April 12, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT

There have been repeated claims that this past year's hurricane activity was another sign of human-induced climate change. Everything from the heat wave in Paris to heavy snows in Buffalo has been blamed on people burning gasoline to fuel their cars, and coal and natural gas to heat, cool and electrify their homes. Yet how can a barely discernible, one-degree increase in the recorded global mean temperature since the late 19th century possibly gain public acceptance as the source of recent weather catastrophes? And how can it translate into unlikely claims about future catastrophes?

The answer has much to do with misunderstanding the science of climate, plus a willingness to debase climate science into a triangle of alarmism. Ambiguous scientific statements about climate are hyped by those with a vested interest in alarm, thus raising the political stakes for policy makers who provide funds for more science research to feed more alarm to increase the political stakes. After all, who puts money into science--whether for AIDS, or space, or climate--where there is nothing really alarming? Indeed, the success of climate alarmism can be counted in the increased federal spending on climate research from a few hundred million dollars pre-1990 to $1.7 billion today. It can also be seen in heightened spending on solar, wind, hydrogen, ethanol and clean coal technologies, as well as on other energy-investment decisions.

But there is a more sinister side to this feeding frenzy. Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis.

To understand the misconceptions perpetuated about climate science and the climate of intimidation, one needs to grasp some of the complex underlying scientific issues. First, let's start where there is agreement. The public, press and policy makers have been repeatedly told that three claims have widespread scientific support: Global temperature has risen about a degree since the late 19th century; levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have increased by about 30% over the same period; and CO2 should contribute to future warming. These claims are true. However, what the public fails to grasp is that the claims neither constitute support for alarm nor establish man's responsibility for the small amount of warming that has occurred. In fact, those who make the most outlandish claims of alarm are actually demonstrating skepticism of the very science they say supports them. It isn't just that the alarmists are trumpeting model results that we know must be wrong. It is that they are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn't happen even if the models were right as justifying costly policies to try to prevent global warming.
If the models are correct, global warming reduces the temperature differences between the poles and the equator. When you have less difference in temperature, you have less excitation of extratropical storms, not more. And, in fact, model runs support this conclusion. Alarmists have drawn some support for increased claims of tropical storminess from a casual claim by Sir John Houghton of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that a warmer world would have more evaporation, with latent heat providing more energy for disturbances. The problem with this is that the ability of evaporation to drive tropical storms relies not only on temperature but humidity as well, and calls for drier, less humid air. Claims for starkly higher temperatures are based upon there being more humidity, not less--hardly a case for more storminess with global warming.

So how is it that we don't have more scientists speaking up about this junk science? It's my belief that many scientists have been cowed not merely by money but by fear. An example: Earlier this year, Texas Rep. Joe Barton issued letters to paleoclimatologist Michael Mann and some of his co-authors seeking the details behind a taxpayer-funded analysis that claimed the 1990s were likely the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year in the last millennium. Mr. Barton's concern was based on the fact that the IPCC had singled out Mr. Mann's work as a means to encourage policy makers to take action. And they did so before his work could be replicated and tested--a task made difficult because Mr. Mann, a key IPCC author, had refused to release the details for analysis. The scientific community's defense of Mr. Mann was, nonetheless, immediate and harsh. The president of the National Academy of Sciences--as well as the American Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Union--formally protested, saying that Rep. Barton's singling out of a scientist's work smacked of intimidation.

All of which starkly contrasts to the silence of the scientific community when anti-alarmists were in the crosshairs of then-Sen. Al Gore. In 1992, he ran two congressional hearings during which he tried to bully dissenting scientists, including myself, into changing our views and supporting his climate alarmism. Nor did the scientific community complain when Mr. Gore, as vice president, tried to enlist Ted Koppel in a witch hunt to discredit anti-alarmist scientists--a request that Mr. Koppel deemed publicly inappropriate. And they were mum when subsequent articles and books by Ross Gelbspan libelously labeled scientists who differed with Mr. Gore as stooges of the fossil-fuel industry.

Sadly, this is only the tip of a non-melting iceberg. In Europe, Henk Tennekes was dismissed as research director of the Royal Dutch Meteorological Society after questioning the scientific underpinnings of global warming. Aksel Winn-Nielsen, former director of the U.N.'s World Meteorological Organization, was tarred by Bert Bolin, first head of the IPCC, as a tool of the coal industry for questioning climate alarmism. Respected Italian professors Alfonso Sutera and Antonio Speranza disappeared from the debate in 1991, apparently losing climate-research funding for raising questions.

And then there are the peculiar standards in place in scientific journals for articles submitted by those who raise questions about accepted climate wisdom. At Science and Nature, such papers are commonly refused without review as being without interest. However, even when such papers are published, standards shift. When I, with some colleagues at NASA, attempted to determine how clouds behave under varying temperatures, we discovered what we called an "Iris Effect," wherein upper-level cirrus clouds contracted with increased temperature, providing a very strong negative climate feedback sufficient to greatly reduce the response to increasing CO2. Normally, criticism of papers appears in the form of letters to the journal to which the original authors can respond immediately. However, in this case (and others) a flurry of hastily prepared papers appeared, claiming errors in our study, with our responses delayed months and longer. The delay permitted our paper to be commonly referred to as "discredited." Indeed, there is a strange reluctance to actually find out how climate really behaves. In 2003, when the draft of the U.S. National Climate Plan urged a high priority for improving our knowledge of climate sensitivity, the National Research Council instead urged support to look at the impacts of the warming--not whether it would actually happen.

Alarm rather than genuine scientific curiosity, it appears, is essential to maintaining funding. And only the most senior scientists today can stand up against this alarmist gale, and defy the iron triangle of climate scientists, advocates and policymakers.

M. Lindzen is Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT.
Sacred cows make the best hamburger.
Mark Twain
GreatCarouser
2nd Chair
 
Posts: 1393
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 12:01 am
Location: Semi-permanent Vacation CA

Postby analog » Mon Aug 14, 2006 12:03 am

deleted :dunce:
Cogito ergo doleo.
analog
2nd Chair
 
Posts: 1573
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2003 12:01 am
Location: arkansas ozarks

Postby OperaTenor » Mon Aug 14, 2006 2:01 am

Shap, are you really going to run GWB and Kerry side-by-side and try to claim GWB is the superior intellectual?! Just because of college grades?! No wonder you think All Children Left Behind is a good thing!

:rotfl:

I guess, since I don't HAVE any college grades, I can never be an intellectual...
"To help mend the world is true religion."
- William Penn

http://www.one.org
OperaTenor
Patron
 
Posts: 10457
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Paradise with Piq & Altoid, southern California

Next

Return to The Debate Team

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

cron