|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On February 01 2015 05:24 hannahbelle wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2015 04:31 Stratos_speAr wrote:On February 01 2015 03:37 hannahbelle wrote:On February 01 2015 03:07 Simberto wrote:On February 01 2015 02:52 hannahbelle wrote:On January 31 2015 10:52 Stratos_speAr wrote:On January 31 2015 04:54 GreenHorizons wrote:
I fail to see how stripping employees of the ability to functionally collectively negotiate helps those employees? It doesn't. Conservatives will just pretend it does because their entire economic ideology revolves around giving a select few people the most resources and power possible and relying on them to be incredibly altruistic. It's really hard to take your post seriously when it contains such nonsense as your quote of "Additionally, the vaccine eliminates any potential further complications and long-term consequences, and prevents an otherwise unpleasant disease". Shingles for starters.
Then your rant in the last paragraph which makes little sense. HPV vaccine is relatively new for starters, so to attribute any sort of positive outcome from it defies reason. Besides, you don't contract HPV like the flu. It's a virus that is spread by one way. Go get educated, and come back and talk. This is incredibly ironic considering the fact that pretty much everything you've said is 100% baseless and completely defies all education and science. Ignoring all of that - if I want to teach my kid that aliens are real and pork chops come from Satan (and will make you grow hair on your palms if you eat them), that's my own business, not the government's. No, it isn't only your business. Teaching them certain false claims isn't in-and-of-itself harmful, but it's incredibly harmful to teach someone racist, sexist, or discriminatory views, or that some random holy book written thousands of years ago trumps all science (or similar claims). Despite your selfish views, your child is not your property. He/she has the right to a basic level of education, and therefore deserves to be protected from a parent that wants to sabotage his/her education at a young age, which is incredibly harmful for the rest of their life. As a side note, I think we got fairly side-tracked when I brought up home schooling as an example. Home schooling isn't actually that much of a problem, since the people who are dedicated enough to home-school their children are usually good enough to give them a high-quality education. The problem is when these home-schooled children are taught things like "scientific facts are debatable opinions" or "our holy book trumps science" or things like this. As I mentioned before, it isn't just a problem in home schooling, but is actually even more of a problem in states in the Deep-South, where parents and random lawmakers are dictating what is taught in schools (e.g. not allowing evolution or climate change education, or forcing teachers to teach Creationism alongside evolution as an "alternative opinion"). I feel its incredibly harmful to teach children liberal, socialist values. You point doesn't address the root of the problem. Who has the authority to decide what is or isn't harmful to teach children? What value sets are better than others, and thus non-harmful to society, and by extension required for children? At the end of the day, all most homschoolers seek is the right and ability to decide this very question by ourselves, and not have it decided by liberal, big-government bureaucrats. Or heaven forbid, the educational establishment that has doe such a bang-up job with the authority it already has. Well, you make a slightly compelling argument there. On the other hand, you are also a shining example as to why that is a very bad idea with the amount of bad science you promoted in response to vaccines a few pages ago. Also, what you display is a major symptom of the american partisan politics problem. You don't want the evil democrats to teach your children, because that is obviously infectious, instead you need to teach them the good republican values so they can become good republicans too. A reasonable point of view would be to teach them: a) The necessary tools to critically evaluate varying positions (maths, reading, critical thinking, researching topics, how science actually works, etc...) b) A background framework to multiple political points of view on political and religious topics. Strictly seperate this from the science parts. No absolute truths here. c) A framework of things that are broad scientific consensus and really are not political topics anywhere except in the US. Things like Newtons laws, electrodynamics, evolution, basic chemistry. Especially don't only teach HOW things are, but also and especially the proof and reasonings leading to those results. With that kind of framework, you give the child the necessary tools to actually judge different positions on their own merits, since they know how the scientific method works and what kind of proof is necessary for a theory to be generally accepted. There is no need to colour any of this in specific politics, because now your child is capable of actually accessing the viability of new positions like "The earth is flat" or "Vaccines totally don't do anything at all" To me, that sounds like a good way to teach children. But of course, what you really want is for your children to believe exactly the same things as you, and for their children then once again also believe exactly the same thing, no matter if it is utter nonsense. Your children are not your property, they are people. Your job as a parent is not to form them into copies of yourself, but to give them the necessary tools to actually be individuals with their own opinions on topics, instead of just accepting the word of figures of authority on every topic. We could go on about point C ad infinitum, but to drive some consensus, I believe that A and B are already by and large already happening. The main difference, is at the end of the day, I don't believe in moral relativism. I expose my children to different topics and opinions, but I also teach them which one is correct. Which by the way, makes me no different than any other teacher or professor. I have encountered a value very close to zero amount of teachers and professors that do not espouse a correct view point, or at least a certain view point that one should natural adopt should you be a "learned and educated" person. I don't view children as property, but they are my responsibility. I, and many others, firmly believe that the overwhelming responsibility for their upbringing is mine as a parent, not some third-party that tries to claim to know what is best. It doesn't take a village, it takes two responsible adults. As for the very last sentence of your post, I think there is more there than you realize. You see, we are not s different. We are just on opposite sides. You accuse me of teaching my children to blindly accept what I say (a concept, which those of you that have children of your own will understand, doesn't usually work past the age of 10 btw), but in the meantime, you swallow hook, line, and sinker, whatever comes out of the "scientific" community. Science is an ever changing, evolving if you will, field, so to blindly put your trust in teachings that routinely become outdated seems rather silly to me. Even more so, if you want to start basing political or economic policy on such things. All ideas should be questioned and challenged, even more so when they are presented as "consensus" truths. Nothing usually precedes an idea being discovered as incorrect as the phrase "no reasonable person/scientist/educated individual doubts this to be true". Climate change and vaccines are "consensus truths" because people have already gone to EXTRAORDINARY lengths to try to refute them and all empirical evidence supports the fact that they are wrong. That. Is. How. Science. Works. Dissenters are not silenced. Their papers are scrutinized and then disregarded because they are poorly written and extremely low quality. . I'll let the evidence support my claim. For starters, OneTwoThreeIf this is HOW. SCIENCE. WORKS. it's no wonder you guys resort to group think. I really doubt, as in the third example, that the MIT professor submits poorly written and extremely low quality work. You guys can't accept that modern science is routinely manipulated for ideological purposes, especially when it comes to political/economic topics such as global warming. I guess the definition of settled science is man-made climate change purported by the same people that can't forecast the next 24 hours path of a blizzard. 1984 has arrived again. Back to the future! Even if you don't agree with the skepics, anyone with critical thinking can review the evidence here and realize the current censoring behavior is disturbing at the very least.
None of these sources are credible. They are blogs/opinions with little to no evidence to back them up.
Not only that, but even if they were 100% factual (which is highly doubtful), they show no evidence of the suppression/censorship of legitimate science that goes against the grain. They just talk about people getting removed from scientific positions for promoting views that are completely contrary to all empirical evidence and data.
It's really hard to take you seriously at this point. All you're doing is relying on questionable sources and twisting everything into a "conspiracy here" or "censorship there" to fit your conclusion as opposed to actually taking evidence and creating a conclusion based off of it.
|
Scott Walker and Rand Paul are ahead of the GOP pack in Iowa, while Jeb Bush, Chris Christie and Ted Cruz are lagging behind at single digits, according to a new poll released Saturday.
The survey conducted for Bloomberg Politics and the Des Moines Register showed Walker at 15 percent among Republican caucus-goers, Paul at 14 percent, and Mike Huckabee, the 2008 victor in Iowa, at 10 percent. Retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson was the first choice of 9 percent of respondents.
Other big-name contenders fared poorly: Bush was the first choice of just 8 percent of Republican voters, while Cruz registered at 5 percent and Christie at 4 percent. Rick Santorum, who narrowly won the caucuses in 2012, notched 4 percent, and Marco Rubio and Rick Perry each garnered 3 percent.
Mitt Romney, who announced the day after the poll ended that he wouldn’t run again in 2016, was the top choice of 13 percent of respondents.
The poll, conducted a year out from the caucuses, shows that two establishment-favored favorites, Bush and Christie, have their work cut out to win over Republicans in the first-in-the-nation voting state. Bush’s ratings were just above water, with 46 percent of respondents saying they view him favorably and 43 percent unfavorably. But the former Florida governor’s unfavorable numbers have risen by 15 percentage points since the last Bloomberg-Register poll in October.
Christie’s unfavorability rating is even worse at 54 percent, up 9 percentage points from October. The New Jersey governor gets positive marks from just over one-in-three caucus voters.
Walker, meanwhile, has catapulted to the head of the field, with a commanding 60 percent of respondents giving him positive marks (up from 49 percent in October) and 12 percent offering a negative take (essentially unchanged from three months ago). The Wisconsin governor, one of the few contenders whose appeal spans the establishment and social conservative wings of the party, gave a well-received speech to Iowa conservatives last weekend.
Source
|
On February 01 2015 10:58 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2015 05:24 hannahbelle wrote:On February 01 2015 04:31 Stratos_speAr wrote:On February 01 2015 03:37 hannahbelle wrote:On February 01 2015 03:07 Simberto wrote:On February 01 2015 02:52 hannahbelle wrote:On January 31 2015 10:52 Stratos_speAr wrote:On January 31 2015 04:54 GreenHorizons wrote:
I fail to see how stripping employees of the ability to functionally collectively negotiate helps those employees? It doesn't. Conservatives will just pretend it does because their entire economic ideology revolves around giving a select few people the most resources and power possible and relying on them to be incredibly altruistic. It's really hard to take your post seriously when it contains such nonsense as your quote of "Additionally, the vaccine eliminates any potential further complications and long-term consequences, and prevents an otherwise unpleasant disease". Shingles for starters.
Then your rant in the last paragraph which makes little sense. HPV vaccine is relatively new for starters, so to attribute any sort of positive outcome from it defies reason. Besides, you don't contract HPV like the flu. It's a virus that is spread by one way. Go get educated, and come back and talk. This is incredibly ironic considering the fact that pretty much everything you've said is 100% baseless and completely defies all education and science. Ignoring all of that - if I want to teach my kid that aliens are real and pork chops come from Satan (and will make you grow hair on your palms if you eat them), that's my own business, not the government's. No, it isn't only your business. Teaching them certain false claims isn't in-and-of-itself harmful, but it's incredibly harmful to teach someone racist, sexist, or discriminatory views, or that some random holy book written thousands of years ago trumps all science (or similar claims). Despite your selfish views, your child is not your property. He/she has the right to a basic level of education, and therefore deserves to be protected from a parent that wants to sabotage his/her education at a young age, which is incredibly harmful for the rest of their life. As a side note, I think we got fairly side-tracked when I brought up home schooling as an example. Home schooling isn't actually that much of a problem, since the people who are dedicated enough to home-school their children are usually good enough to give them a high-quality education. The problem is when these home-schooled children are taught things like "scientific facts are debatable opinions" or "our holy book trumps science" or things like this. As I mentioned before, it isn't just a problem in home schooling, but is actually even more of a problem in states in the Deep-South, where parents and random lawmakers are dictating what is taught in schools (e.g. not allowing evolution or climate change education, or forcing teachers to teach Creationism alongside evolution as an "alternative opinion"). I feel its incredibly harmful to teach children liberal, socialist values. You point doesn't address the root of the problem. Who has the authority to decide what is or isn't harmful to teach children? What value sets are better than others, and thus non-harmful to society, and by extension required for children? At the end of the day, all most homschoolers seek is the right and ability to decide this very question by ourselves, and not have it decided by liberal, big-government bureaucrats. Or heaven forbid, the educational establishment that has doe such a bang-up job with the authority it already has. Well, you make a slightly compelling argument there. On the other hand, you are also a shining example as to why that is a very bad idea with the amount of bad science you promoted in response to vaccines a few pages ago. Also, what you display is a major symptom of the american partisan politics problem. You don't want the evil democrats to teach your children, because that is obviously infectious, instead you need to teach them the good republican values so they can become good republicans too. A reasonable point of view would be to teach them: a) The necessary tools to critically evaluate varying positions (maths, reading, critical thinking, researching topics, how science actually works, etc...) b) A background framework to multiple political points of view on political and religious topics. Strictly seperate this from the science parts. No absolute truths here. c) A framework of things that are broad scientific consensus and really are not political topics anywhere except in the US. Things like Newtons laws, electrodynamics, evolution, basic chemistry. Especially don't only teach HOW things are, but also and especially the proof and reasonings leading to those results. With that kind of framework, you give the child the necessary tools to actually judge different positions on their own merits, since they know how the scientific method works and what kind of proof is necessary for a theory to be generally accepted. There is no need to colour any of this in specific politics, because now your child is capable of actually accessing the viability of new positions like "The earth is flat" or "Vaccines totally don't do anything at all" To me, that sounds like a good way to teach children. But of course, what you really want is for your children to believe exactly the same things as you, and for their children then once again also believe exactly the same thing, no matter if it is utter nonsense. Your children are not your property, they are people. Your job as a parent is not to form them into copies of yourself, but to give them the necessary tools to actually be individuals with their own opinions on topics, instead of just accepting the word of figures of authority on every topic. We could go on about point C ad infinitum, but to drive some consensus, I believe that A and B are already by and large already happening. The main difference, is at the end of the day, I don't believe in moral relativism. I expose my children to different topics and opinions, but I also teach them which one is correct. Which by the way, makes me no different than any other teacher or professor. I have encountered a value very close to zero amount of teachers and professors that do not espouse a correct view point, or at least a certain view point that one should natural adopt should you be a "learned and educated" person. I don't view children as property, but they are my responsibility. I, and many others, firmly believe that the overwhelming responsibility for their upbringing is mine as a parent, not some third-party that tries to claim to know what is best. It doesn't take a village, it takes two responsible adults. As for the very last sentence of your post, I think there is more there than you realize. You see, we are not s different. We are just on opposite sides. You accuse me of teaching my children to blindly accept what I say (a concept, which those of you that have children of your own will understand, doesn't usually work past the age of 10 btw), but in the meantime, you swallow hook, line, and sinker, whatever comes out of the "scientific" community. Science is an ever changing, evolving if you will, field, so to blindly put your trust in teachings that routinely become outdated seems rather silly to me. Even more so, if you want to start basing political or economic policy on such things. All ideas should be questioned and challenged, even more so when they are presented as "consensus" truths. Nothing usually precedes an idea being discovered as incorrect as the phrase "no reasonable person/scientist/educated individual doubts this to be true". Climate change and vaccines are "consensus truths" because people have already gone to EXTRAORDINARY lengths to try to refute them and all empirical evidence supports the fact that they are wrong. That. Is. How. Science. Works. Dissenters are not silenced. Their papers are scrutinized and then disregarded because they are poorly written and extremely low quality. . I'll let the evidence support my claim. For starters, OneTwoThreeIf this is HOW. SCIENCE. WORKS. it's no wonder you guys resort to group think. I really doubt, as in the third example, that the MIT professor submits poorly written and extremely low quality work. You guys can't accept that modern science is routinely manipulated for ideological purposes, especially when it comes to political/economic topics such as global warming. I guess the definition of settled science is man-made climate change purported by the same people that can't forecast the next 24 hours path of a blizzard. 1984 has arrived again. Back to the future! Even if you don't agree with the skepics, anyone with critical thinking can review the evidence here and realize the current censoring behavior is disturbing at the very least. None of these sources are credible. They are blogs/opinions with little to no evidence to back them up. Not only that, but even if they were 100% factual (which is highly doubtful), they show no evidence of the suppression/censorship of legitimate science that goes against the grain. They just talk about people getting removed from scientific positions for promoting views that are completely contrary to all empirical evidence and data. It's really hard to take you seriously at this point. All you're doing is relying on questionable sources and twisting everything into a "conspiracy here" or "censorship there" to fit your conclusion as opposed to actually taking evidence and creating a conclusion based off of it.
I'm not gonna lie, I'm not bothering to respond to this person any more. They got a pretty hard internet-owning several pages back for being anti-vaccine. He/she didn't even respond to any of the relevant points raised by multiple individuals, and resorted to ad-hominems about people needing to "come back and get educated" (ironically enough after getting their own facts objectively wrong in their own post i.e. measles vaccine causing shingles).
I suspect a similar pattern is about to unfold with respect to hannahbelle's position on climate change.
I do have to say, that person is definitely giving the anti-homeschooling crowd some pretty good gas here, though. Hannahbelle is not doing any favors for that side of the argument, that's for sure.
|
On February 01 2015 12:20 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +Scott Walker and Rand Paul are ahead of the GOP pack in Iowa, while Jeb Bush, Chris Christie and Ted Cruz are lagging behind at single digits, according to a new poll released Saturday.
The survey conducted for Bloomberg Politics and the Des Moines Register showed Walker at 15 percent among Republican caucus-goers, Paul at 14 percent, and Mike Huckabee, the 2008 victor in Iowa, at 10 percent. Retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson was the first choice of 9 percent of respondents.
Other big-name contenders fared poorly: Bush was the first choice of just 8 percent of Republican voters, while Cruz registered at 5 percent and Christie at 4 percent. Rick Santorum, who narrowly won the caucuses in 2012, notched 4 percent, and Marco Rubio and Rick Perry each garnered 3 percent.
Mitt Romney, who announced the day after the poll ended that he wouldn’t run again in 2016, was the top choice of 13 percent of respondents.
The poll, conducted a year out from the caucuses, shows that two establishment-favored favorites, Bush and Christie, have their work cut out to win over Republicans in the first-in-the-nation voting state. Bush’s ratings were just above water, with 46 percent of respondents saying they view him favorably and 43 percent unfavorably. But the former Florida governor’s unfavorable numbers have risen by 15 percentage points since the last Bloomberg-Register poll in October.
Christie’s unfavorability rating is even worse at 54 percent, up 9 percentage points from October. The New Jersey governor gets positive marks from just over one-in-three caucus voters.
Walker, meanwhile, has catapulted to the head of the field, with a commanding 60 percent of respondents giving him positive marks (up from 49 percent in October) and 12 percent offering a negative take (essentially unchanged from three months ago). The Wisconsin governor, one of the few contenders whose appeal spans the establishment and social conservative wings of the party, gave a well-received speech to Iowa conservatives last weekend. Source
Politico's characterization is interesting since it seems to be very different from the Des Moines Register's, the outlet that ran the poll.
Presidential stage newcomer Scott Walker, the conservative reform pit bull who inspired death threats from the left, has become the one to watch in the race for the Republican nomination a year out from the Iowa caucuses.
At 15 percentage points, he leads a big, tightly packed field of potential contenders in a new Des Moines Register/Bloomberg Politics Iowa Poll of likely Republican caucusgoers. The caucuses are scheduled for Feb. 1, 2016...
Just one point behind is Rand Paul, a U.S. senator from Kentucky and the son of three-time presidential candidate Ron Paul, a hero to dissidents who want to shake up government. Paul draws support from the same anti-establishment well.
Rounding out the top tier are Mitt Romney, the GOP's 2012 presidential nominee; Mike Huckabee, the 2008 winner of the Iowa caucuses; Ben Carson, a best-selling author and famed brain surgeon; and Jeb Bush, a relative to two past presidents.
But I suppose it's a matter of perspective. The poll has a field of about 25 candidates, so just probability wise, anything more than 5% (4% + significance) makes you better than a random selection.
I'm curious about the lack of coverage on the Democratic side. Is anyone going to mount a serious challenge to Hillary Clinton? Every time it's brought up, people talk about Elizabeth Warren, but she hasn't done much to put herself out there. I wonder if Joe Biden, Jim Webb, or Bernie Sanders are planning to make a run or if their campaigns are dead before they start because they'd rather not run than run and lose. It's very interesting as a contrast to the likes of Rick Santorum and Carly Fiorina for the Republicans, where they have no chance in hell of winning the nomination much less the election, but they're making noise like they're going to try to the bitter end.
|
WASHINGTON — Obama administration officials and other supporters of the Affordable Care Act say they worry that the tax-filing season will generate new anger as uninsured consumers learn that they must pay tax penalties and as many people struggle with complex forms needed to justify tax credits they received in 2014 to pay for health insurance.
The White House has already granted some exemptions and is considering more to avoid a political firestorm.
Mark J. Mazur, the assistant Treasury secretary for tax policy, said up to six million taxpayers would have to “pay a fee this year because they made a choice not to obtain health care coverage that they could have afforded.”
But Christine Speidel, a tax lawyer at Vermont Legal Aid, said: “A lot of people do not feel that health insurance plans in the marketplace were affordable to them, even with subsidies. Some went without coverage and will therefore be subject to penalties.”
NYT
|
What an idiotic system. Single-payer would have avoided these issues.
|
On February 01 2015 09:02 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2015 08:25 hannahbelle wrote:On February 01 2015 06:18 Simberto wrote:On February 01 2015 05:24 hannahbelle wrote:On February 01 2015 04:31 Stratos_speAr wrote:On February 01 2015 03:37 hannahbelle wrote:On February 01 2015 03:07 Simberto wrote:On February 01 2015 02:52 hannahbelle wrote:On January 31 2015 10:52 Stratos_speAr wrote:On January 31 2015 04:54 GreenHorizons wrote:
I fail to see how stripping employees of the ability to functionally collectively negotiate helps those employees? It doesn't. Conservatives will just pretend it does because their entire economic ideology revolves around giving a select few people the most resources and power possible and relying on them to be incredibly altruistic. It's really hard to take your post seriously when it contains such nonsense as your quote of "Additionally, the vaccine eliminates any potential further complications and long-term consequences, and prevents an otherwise unpleasant disease". Shingles for starters.
Then your rant in the last paragraph which makes little sense. HPV vaccine is relatively new for starters, so to attribute any sort of positive outcome from it defies reason. Besides, you don't contract HPV like the flu. It's a virus that is spread by one way. Go get educated, and come back and talk. This is incredibly ironic considering the fact that pretty much everything you've said is 100% baseless and completely defies all education and science. Ignoring all of that - if I want to teach my kid that aliens are real and pork chops come from Satan (and will make you grow hair on your palms if you eat them), that's my own business, not the government's. No, it isn't only your business. Teaching them certain false claims isn't in-and-of-itself harmful, but it's incredibly harmful to teach someone racist, sexist, or discriminatory views, or that some random holy book written thousands of years ago trumps all science (or similar claims). Despite your selfish views, your child is not your property. He/she has the right to a basic level of education, and therefore deserves to be protected from a parent that wants to sabotage his/her education at a young age, which is incredibly harmful for the rest of their life. As a side note, I think we got fairly side-tracked when I brought up home schooling as an example. Home schooling isn't actually that much of a problem, since the people who are dedicated enough to home-school their children are usually good enough to give them a high-quality education. The problem is when these home-schooled children are taught things like "scientific facts are debatable opinions" or "our holy book trumps science" or things like this. As I mentioned before, it isn't just a problem in home schooling, but is actually even more of a problem in states in the Deep-South, where parents and random lawmakers are dictating what is taught in schools (e.g. not allowing evolution or climate change education, or forcing teachers to teach Creationism alongside evolution as an "alternative opinion"). I feel its incredibly harmful to teach children liberal, socialist values. You point doesn't address the root of the problem. Who has the authority to decide what is or isn't harmful to teach children? What value sets are better than others, and thus non-harmful to society, and by extension required for children? At the end of the day, all most homschoolers seek is the right and ability to decide this very question by ourselves, and not have it decided by liberal, big-government bureaucrats. Or heaven forbid, the educational establishment that has doe such a bang-up job with the authority it already has. Well, you make a slightly compelling argument there. On the other hand, you are also a shining example as to why that is a very bad idea with the amount of bad science you promoted in response to vaccines a few pages ago. Also, what you display is a major symptom of the american partisan politics problem. You don't want the evil democrats to teach your children, because that is obviously infectious, instead you need to teach them the good republican values so they can become good republicans too. A reasonable point of view would be to teach them: a) The necessary tools to critically evaluate varying positions (maths, reading, critical thinking, researching topics, how science actually works, etc...) b) A background framework to multiple political points of view on political and religious topics. Strictly seperate this from the science parts. No absolute truths here. c) A framework of things that are broad scientific consensus and really are not political topics anywhere except in the US. Things like Newtons laws, electrodynamics, evolution, basic chemistry. Especially don't only teach HOW things are, but also and especially the proof and reasonings leading to those results. With that kind of framework, you give the child the necessary tools to actually judge different positions on their own merits, since they know how the scientific method works and what kind of proof is necessary for a theory to be generally accepted. There is no need to colour any of this in specific politics, because now your child is capable of actually accessing the viability of new positions like "The earth is flat" or "Vaccines totally don't do anything at all" To me, that sounds like a good way to teach children. But of course, what you really want is for your children to believe exactly the same things as you, and for their children then once again also believe exactly the same thing, no matter if it is utter nonsense. Your children are not your property, they are people. Your job as a parent is not to form them into copies of yourself, but to give them the necessary tools to actually be individuals with their own opinions on topics, instead of just accepting the word of figures of authority on every topic. We could go on about point C ad infinitum, but to drive some consensus, I believe that A and B are already by and large already happening. The main difference, is at the end of the day, I don't believe in moral relativism. I expose my children to different topics and opinions, but I also teach them which one is correct. Which by the way, makes me no different than any other teacher or professor. I have encountered a value very close to zero amount of teachers and professors that do not espouse a correct view point, or at least a certain view point that one should natural adopt should you be a "learned and educated" person. I don't view children as property, but they are my responsibility. I, and many others, firmly believe that the overwhelming responsibility for their upbringing is mine as a parent, not some third-party that tries to claim to know what is best. It doesn't take a village, it takes two responsible adults. As for the very last sentence of your post, I think there is more there than you realize. You see, we are not s different. We are just on opposite sides. You accuse me of teaching my children to blindly accept what I say (a concept, which those of you that have children of your own will understand, doesn't usually work past the age of 10 btw), but in the meantime, you swallow hook, line, and sinker, whatever comes out of the "scientific" community. Science is an ever changing, evolving if you will, field, so to blindly put your trust in teachings that routinely become outdated seems rather silly to me. Even more so, if you want to start basing political or economic policy on such things. All ideas should be questioned and challenged, even more so when they are presented as "consensus" truths. Nothing usually precedes an idea being discovered as incorrect as the phrase "no reasonable person/scientist/educated individual doubts this to be true". Climate change and vaccines are "consensus truths" because people have already gone to EXTRAORDINARY lengths to try to refute them and all empirical evidence supports the fact that they are wrong. That. Is. How. Science. Works. Dissenters are not silenced. Their papers are scrutinized and then disregarded because they are poorly written and extremely low quality. . I'll let the evidence support my claim. For starters, OneTwoThreeIf this is HOW. SCIENCE. WORKS. it's no wonder you guys resort to group think. I really doubt, as in the third example, that the MIT professor submits poorly written and extremely low quality work. You guys can't accept that modern science is routinely manipulated for ideological purposes, especially when it comes to political/economic topics such as global warming. I guess the definition of settled science is man-made climate change purported by the same people that can't forecast the next 24 hours path of a blizzard. 1984 has arrived again. Back to the future! Even if you don't agree with the skepics, anyone with critical thinking can review the evidence here and realize the current censoring behavior is disturbing at the very least. We have had this discussion here before, though you might not have been here. Weather =/= climate. It is very hard to predict the exact position of each atom in a balloon full of gas even two seconds in the future. It is very easy to predict what is going to happen to gas as a whole. Your balloon example doesn't apply, as cute as it was. In fact, it actually does more to support my argument than yours. Using the balloon, what climate change Kool-Aid drinkers try to make you believe is that they CAN tell you what the gas is going to do based on current and past observations of the position of each atom in the balloon. Sure weather =/= climate. Climate is a macro view of weather. But when you can't accurately predict the micro elements, you cannot turn around purport to accurately the macro picture, that is based on the same underlying data that is unable to be understood and accurately predicted, even a short time in the future. What you end up with is what we have today, where every environmental variance, along with wars, economic problems, etc etc, being blamed on global warming, global cooling, climate change, climate disruption, or whatever you people are calling it today to keep from looking like fools. You obviously misunderstood my example, or don't understand thermodynamics. I find it exceedingly funny how you continue to tell people that their arguments prove your point when they really don't. You can easily predict how a balloon full of gas is going to behave on the macro level if you know the positions and velocities of each atom at a micro level (fun fact, you can very easily do a few simple sums and get macro information like pressure out of that). You can easily predict how a balloon is going to behave on the macro level if you know the temperature, composition and pressure or volume. What is hard is to make predictions on the micro level because of chaotic interactions between single gas molecules that even out and are irrelevant due to the law of large numbers on the macro level. A similar situation applies to weather vs climate, though it is a bit less clear-cut here. With each of your posts, you demonstrate an utter lack of understanding about the very basics of the topics you are talking about, combined with an extreme amount of confidence in your position. That is a bad combination, to the point where you are such a clichée of your position that i am not quite sure whether you are actually serious yourself. By the way are you also currently making a major point against homeschooling that you were so much in favor of, because i simply can not believe that you would be capable of teaching even the basic understandings of the workings of science to children since you so very obviously do not have them yourself.
I would like to support Simberto comments on thermodynamics. We understood the macroscopic systems long before the microscopic and now that we understand it's an average of all the microscopic states. I haven't read the rest of your argument but it is possible experimentally to understand a macroscopic system better then a microscopic one, thermodynamics is an exemple.
Please note weather and climate fall under chaos theory so it's hard to predict since you need to know as much information as possible to figure out how it evolves. That's the only reason why I accept the weatherman being wrong so often. But even a double pendulum with friction we know it's chaotic but we can expect a certain downward trend due to energy lost in are model. So being chaotic doesn't make it impossible to model and notice trends. I would have to study the models make a more informed comment on climate change.
|
On February 01 2015 16:31 coverpunch wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2015 12:20 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Scott Walker and Rand Paul are ahead of the GOP pack in Iowa, while Jeb Bush, Chris Christie and Ted Cruz are lagging behind at single digits, according to a new poll released Saturday.
The survey conducted for Bloomberg Politics and the Des Moines Register showed Walker at 15 percent among Republican caucus-goers, Paul at 14 percent, and Mike Huckabee, the 2008 victor in Iowa, at 10 percent. Retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson was the first choice of 9 percent of respondents.
Other big-name contenders fared poorly: Bush was the first choice of just 8 percent of Republican voters, while Cruz registered at 5 percent and Christie at 4 percent. Rick Santorum, who narrowly won the caucuses in 2012, notched 4 percent, and Marco Rubio and Rick Perry each garnered 3 percent.
Mitt Romney, who announced the day after the poll ended that he wouldn’t run again in 2016, was the top choice of 13 percent of respondents.
The poll, conducted a year out from the caucuses, shows that two establishment-favored favorites, Bush and Christie, have their work cut out to win over Republicans in the first-in-the-nation voting state. Bush’s ratings were just above water, with 46 percent of respondents saying they view him favorably and 43 percent unfavorably. But the former Florida governor’s unfavorable numbers have risen by 15 percentage points since the last Bloomberg-Register poll in October.
Christie’s unfavorability rating is even worse at 54 percent, up 9 percentage points from October. The New Jersey governor gets positive marks from just over one-in-three caucus voters.
Walker, meanwhile, has catapulted to the head of the field, with a commanding 60 percent of respondents giving him positive marks (up from 49 percent in October) and 12 percent offering a negative take (essentially unchanged from three months ago). The Wisconsin governor, one of the few contenders whose appeal spans the establishment and social conservative wings of the party, gave a well-received speech to Iowa conservatives last weekend. Source Politico's characterization is interesting since it seems to be very different from the Des Moines Register's, the outlet that ran the poll. Show nested quote +Presidential stage newcomer Scott Walker, the conservative reform pit bull who inspired death threats from the left, has become the one to watch in the race for the Republican nomination a year out from the Iowa caucuses.
At 15 percentage points, he leads a big, tightly packed field of potential contenders in a new Des Moines Register/Bloomberg Politics Iowa Poll of likely Republican caucusgoers. The caucuses are scheduled for Feb. 1, 2016...
Just one point behind is Rand Paul, a U.S. senator from Kentucky and the son of three-time presidential candidate Ron Paul, a hero to dissidents who want to shake up government. Paul draws support from the same anti-establishment well.
Rounding out the top tier are Mitt Romney, the GOP's 2012 presidential nominee; Mike Huckabee, the 2008 winner of the Iowa caucuses; Ben Carson, a best-selling author and famed brain surgeon; and Jeb Bush, a relative to two past presidents. But I suppose it's a matter of perspective. The poll has a field of about 25 candidates, so just probability wise, anything more than 5% (4% + significance) makes you better than a random selection. I'm curious about the lack of coverage on the Democratic side. Is anyone going to mount a serious challenge to Hillary Clinton? Every time it's brought up, people talk about Elizabeth Warren, but she hasn't done much to put herself out there. I wonder if Joe Biden, Jim Webb, or Bernie Sanders are planning to make a run or if their campaigns are dead before they start because they'd rather not run than run and lose. It's very interesting as a contrast to the likes of Rick Santorum and Carly Fiorina for the Republicans, where they have no chance in hell of winning the nomination much less the election, but they're making noise like they're going to try to the bitter end.
Jeb Bush is currently seen as the national frontrunner because the big money is lining up behind him. We will see how long that stays the case as other candidates become better known. Walker is an interesting figure politically because 1) he has a tremendous record of success governing a blue state, 2) he is someone that the base will gladly support (unlike Bush), and 3) he is still relatively unknown.
|
On February 02 2015 00:25 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2015 16:31 coverpunch wrote:On February 01 2015 12:20 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Scott Walker and Rand Paul are ahead of the GOP pack in Iowa, while Jeb Bush, Chris Christie and Ted Cruz are lagging behind at single digits, according to a new poll released Saturday.
The survey conducted for Bloomberg Politics and the Des Moines Register showed Walker at 15 percent among Republican caucus-goers, Paul at 14 percent, and Mike Huckabee, the 2008 victor in Iowa, at 10 percent. Retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson was the first choice of 9 percent of respondents.
Other big-name contenders fared poorly: Bush was the first choice of just 8 percent of Republican voters, while Cruz registered at 5 percent and Christie at 4 percent. Rick Santorum, who narrowly won the caucuses in 2012, notched 4 percent, and Marco Rubio and Rick Perry each garnered 3 percent.
Mitt Romney, who announced the day after the poll ended that he wouldn’t run again in 2016, was the top choice of 13 percent of respondents.
The poll, conducted a year out from the caucuses, shows that two establishment-favored favorites, Bush and Christie, have their work cut out to win over Republicans in the first-in-the-nation voting state. Bush’s ratings were just above water, with 46 percent of respondents saying they view him favorably and 43 percent unfavorably. But the former Florida governor’s unfavorable numbers have risen by 15 percentage points since the last Bloomberg-Register poll in October.
Christie’s unfavorability rating is even worse at 54 percent, up 9 percentage points from October. The New Jersey governor gets positive marks from just over one-in-three caucus voters.
Walker, meanwhile, has catapulted to the head of the field, with a commanding 60 percent of respondents giving him positive marks (up from 49 percent in October) and 12 percent offering a negative take (essentially unchanged from three months ago). The Wisconsin governor, one of the few contenders whose appeal spans the establishment and social conservative wings of the party, gave a well-received speech to Iowa conservatives last weekend. Source Politico's characterization is interesting since it seems to be very different from the Des Moines Register's, the outlet that ran the poll. Presidential stage newcomer Scott Walker, the conservative reform pit bull who inspired death threats from the left, has become the one to watch in the race for the Republican nomination a year out from the Iowa caucuses.
At 15 percentage points, he leads a big, tightly packed field of potential contenders in a new Des Moines Register/Bloomberg Politics Iowa Poll of likely Republican caucusgoers. The caucuses are scheduled for Feb. 1, 2016...
Just one point behind is Rand Paul, a U.S. senator from Kentucky and the son of three-time presidential candidate Ron Paul, a hero to dissidents who want to shake up government. Paul draws support from the same anti-establishment well.
Rounding out the top tier are Mitt Romney, the GOP's 2012 presidential nominee; Mike Huckabee, the 2008 winner of the Iowa caucuses; Ben Carson, a best-selling author and famed brain surgeon; and Jeb Bush, a relative to two past presidents. But I suppose it's a matter of perspective. The poll has a field of about 25 candidates, so just probability wise, anything more than 5% (4% + significance) makes you better than a random selection. I'm curious about the lack of coverage on the Democratic side. Is anyone going to mount a serious challenge to Hillary Clinton? Every time it's brought up, people talk about Elizabeth Warren, but she hasn't done much to put herself out there. I wonder if Joe Biden, Jim Webb, or Bernie Sanders are planning to make a run or if their campaigns are dead before they start because they'd rather not run than run and lose. It's very interesting as a contrast to the likes of Rick Santorum and Carly Fiorina for the Republicans, where they have no chance in hell of winning the nomination much less the election, but they're making noise like they're going to try to the bitter end. Jeb Bush is currently seen as the national frontrunner because the big money is lining up behind him. We will see how long that stays the case as other candidates become better known. Walker is an interesting figure politically because 1) he has a tremendous record of success governing a blue state, 2) he is someone that the base will gladly support (unlike Bush), and 3) he is still relatively unknown.
Wisconsin is only Blue in presidential elections (the last seven). They regularly elect Republican lawmakers and governors.
|
Why is Lindsey Graham saying he is thinking about running for president?
|
Because men named Lindsey go their own way.
|
On February 01 2015 23:19 NPF wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2015 09:02 Simberto wrote:On February 01 2015 08:25 hannahbelle wrote:On February 01 2015 06:18 Simberto wrote:On February 01 2015 05:24 hannahbelle wrote:On February 01 2015 04:31 Stratos_speAr wrote:On February 01 2015 03:37 hannahbelle wrote:On February 01 2015 03:07 Simberto wrote:On February 01 2015 02:52 hannahbelle wrote:On January 31 2015 10:52 Stratos_speAr wrote:
[quote]
It doesn't. Conservatives will just pretend it does because their entire economic ideology revolves around giving a select few people the most resources and power possible and relying on them to be incredibly altruistic.
[quote]
This is incredibly ironic considering the fact that pretty much everything you've said is 100% baseless and completely defies all education and science.
[quote]
No, it isn't only your business. Teaching them certain false claims isn't in-and-of-itself harmful, but it's incredibly harmful to teach someone racist, sexist, or discriminatory views, or that some random holy book written thousands of years ago trumps all science (or similar claims). Despite your selfish views, your child is not your property. He/she has the right to a basic level of education, and therefore deserves to be protected from a parent that wants to sabotage his/her education at a young age, which is incredibly harmful for the rest of their life.
As a side note, I think we got fairly side-tracked when I brought up home schooling as an example. Home schooling isn't actually that much of a problem, since the people who are dedicated enough to home-school their children are usually good enough to give them a high-quality education. The problem is when these home-schooled children are taught things like "scientific facts are debatable opinions" or "our holy book trumps science" or things like this. As I mentioned before, it isn't just a problem in home schooling, but is actually even more of a problem in states in the Deep-South, where parents and random lawmakers are dictating what is taught in schools (e.g. not allowing evolution or climate change education, or forcing teachers to teach Creationism alongside evolution as an "alternative opinion"). I feel its incredibly harmful to teach children liberal, socialist values. You point doesn't address the root of the problem. Who has the authority to decide what is or isn't harmful to teach children? What value sets are better than others, and thus non-harmful to society, and by extension required for children? At the end of the day, all most homschoolers seek is the right and ability to decide this very question by ourselves, and not have it decided by liberal, big-government bureaucrats. Or heaven forbid, the educational establishment that has doe such a bang-up job with the authority it already has. Well, you make a slightly compelling argument there. On the other hand, you are also a shining example as to why that is a very bad idea with the amount of bad science you promoted in response to vaccines a few pages ago. Also, what you display is a major symptom of the american partisan politics problem. You don't want the evil democrats to teach your children, because that is obviously infectious, instead you need to teach them the good republican values so they can become good republicans too. A reasonable point of view would be to teach them: a) The necessary tools to critically evaluate varying positions (maths, reading, critical thinking, researching topics, how science actually works, etc...) b) A background framework to multiple political points of view on political and religious topics. Strictly seperate this from the science parts. No absolute truths here. c) A framework of things that are broad scientific consensus and really are not political topics anywhere except in the US. Things like Newtons laws, electrodynamics, evolution, basic chemistry. Especially don't only teach HOW things are, but also and especially the proof and reasonings leading to those results. With that kind of framework, you give the child the necessary tools to actually judge different positions on their own merits, since they know how the scientific method works and what kind of proof is necessary for a theory to be generally accepted. There is no need to colour any of this in specific politics, because now your child is capable of actually accessing the viability of new positions like "The earth is flat" or "Vaccines totally don't do anything at all" To me, that sounds like a good way to teach children. But of course, what you really want is for your children to believe exactly the same things as you, and for their children then once again also believe exactly the same thing, no matter if it is utter nonsense. Your children are not your property, they are people. Your job as a parent is not to form them into copies of yourself, but to give them the necessary tools to actually be individuals with their own opinions on topics, instead of just accepting the word of figures of authority on every topic. We could go on about point C ad infinitum, but to drive some consensus, I believe that A and B are already by and large already happening. The main difference, is at the end of the day, I don't believe in moral relativism. I expose my children to different topics and opinions, but I also teach them which one is correct. Which by the way, makes me no different than any other teacher or professor. I have encountered a value very close to zero amount of teachers and professors that do not espouse a correct view point, or at least a certain view point that one should natural adopt should you be a "learned and educated" person. I don't view children as property, but they are my responsibility. I, and many others, firmly believe that the overwhelming responsibility for their upbringing is mine as a parent, not some third-party that tries to claim to know what is best. It doesn't take a village, it takes two responsible adults. As for the very last sentence of your post, I think there is more there than you realize. You see, we are not s different. We are just on opposite sides. You accuse me of teaching my children to blindly accept what I say (a concept, which those of you that have children of your own will understand, doesn't usually work past the age of 10 btw), but in the meantime, you swallow hook, line, and sinker, whatever comes out of the "scientific" community. Science is an ever changing, evolving if you will, field, so to blindly put your trust in teachings that routinely become outdated seems rather silly to me. Even more so, if you want to start basing political or economic policy on such things. All ideas should be questioned and challenged, even more so when they are presented as "consensus" truths. Nothing usually precedes an idea being discovered as incorrect as the phrase "no reasonable person/scientist/educated individual doubts this to be true". Climate change and vaccines are "consensus truths" because people have already gone to EXTRAORDINARY lengths to try to refute them and all empirical evidence supports the fact that they are wrong. That. Is. How. Science. Works. Dissenters are not silenced. Their papers are scrutinized and then disregarded because they are poorly written and extremely low quality. . I'll let the evidence support my claim. For starters, OneTwoThreeIf this is HOW. SCIENCE. WORKS. it's no wonder you guys resort to group think. I really doubt, as in the third example, that the MIT professor submits poorly written and extremely low quality work. You guys can't accept that modern science is routinely manipulated for ideological purposes, especially when it comes to political/economic topics such as global warming. I guess the definition of settled science is man-made climate change purported by the same people that can't forecast the next 24 hours path of a blizzard. 1984 has arrived again. Back to the future! Even if you don't agree with the skepics, anyone with critical thinking can review the evidence here and realize the current censoring behavior is disturbing at the very least. We have had this discussion here before, though you might not have been here. Weather =/= climate. It is very hard to predict the exact position of each atom in a balloon full of gas even two seconds in the future. It is very easy to predict what is going to happen to gas as a whole. Your balloon example doesn't apply, as cute as it was. In fact, it actually does more to support my argument than yours. Using the balloon, what climate change Kool-Aid drinkers try to make you believe is that they CAN tell you what the gas is going to do based on current and past observations of the position of each atom in the balloon. Sure weather =/= climate. Climate is a macro view of weather. But when you can't accurately predict the micro elements, you cannot turn around purport to accurately the macro picture, that is based on the same underlying data that is unable to be understood and accurately predicted, even a short time in the future. What you end up with is what we have today, where every environmental variance, along with wars, economic problems, etc etc, being blamed on global warming, global cooling, climate change, climate disruption, or whatever you people are calling it today to keep from looking like fools. You obviously misunderstood my example, or don't understand thermodynamics. I find it exceedingly funny how you continue to tell people that their arguments prove your point when they really don't. You can easily predict how a balloon full of gas is going to behave on the macro level if you know the positions and velocities of each atom at a micro level (fun fact, you can very easily do a few simple sums and get macro information like pressure out of that). You can easily predict how a balloon is going to behave on the macro level if you know the temperature, composition and pressure or volume. What is hard is to make predictions on the micro level because of chaotic interactions between single gas molecules that even out and are irrelevant due to the law of large numbers on the macro level. A similar situation applies to weather vs climate, though it is a bit less clear-cut here. With each of your posts, you demonstrate an utter lack of understanding about the very basics of the topics you are talking about, combined with an extreme amount of confidence in your position. That is a bad combination, to the point where you are such a clichée of your position that i am not quite sure whether you are actually serious yourself. By the way are you also currently making a major point against homeschooling that you were so much in favor of, because i simply can not believe that you would be capable of teaching even the basic understandings of the workings of science to children since you so very obviously do not have them yourself. I would like to support Simberto comments on thermodynamics. We understood the macroscopic systems long before the microscopic and now that we understand it's an average of all the microscopic states. I haven't read the rest of your argument but it is possible experimentally to understand a macroscopic system better then a microscopic one, thermodynamics is an exemple. Please note weather and climate fall under chaos theory so it's hard to predict since you need to know as much information as possible to figure out how it evolves. That's the only reason why I accept the weatherman being wrong so often. But even a double pendulum with friction we know it's chaotic but we can expect a certain downward trend due to energy lost in are model. So being chaotic doesn't make it impossible to model and notice trends. I would have to study the models make a more informed comment on climate change.
physics b.a. holder here having studied thermodynamics and statistical mechanics thirding simberto's logic. not that i think it'll convince hannahbelle, whose views i doubt will change.
i can throw a wrench into the idea that the science is invariably used for political/ideological purposes with my personal viewpoint: though i believe human-influenced climate change is very much real, i don't give a shit about politicizing this reality, and i don't really care what politicians attempt to do in the name of preventing or ameliorating it, as i think most policy regarding this matter is futile anyway. it's real though, for sure. i just hope that if a major disastrous shift happens in my lifetime, e.g. a large percentage of the arable land becomes unfarmable or the land my family and i own becomes unlivable, i'll have enough money and/or power at that point to protect myself and my loved ones. i doubt the politicians are going to help me there anyway.
|
On February 02 2015 02:17 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2015 23:19 NPF wrote:On February 01 2015 09:02 Simberto wrote:On February 01 2015 08:25 hannahbelle wrote:On February 01 2015 06:18 Simberto wrote:On February 01 2015 05:24 hannahbelle wrote:On February 01 2015 04:31 Stratos_speAr wrote:On February 01 2015 03:37 hannahbelle wrote:On February 01 2015 03:07 Simberto wrote:On February 01 2015 02:52 hannahbelle wrote:
[quote]
I feel its incredibly harmful to teach children liberal, socialist values. You point doesn't address the root of the problem. Who has the authority to decide what is or isn't harmful to teach children? What value sets are better than others, and thus non-harmful to society, and by extension required for children?
At the end of the day, all most homschoolers seek is the right and ability to decide this very question by ourselves, and not have it decided by liberal, big-government bureaucrats. Or heaven forbid, the educational establishment that has doe such a bang-up job with the authority it already has.
Well, you make a slightly compelling argument there. On the other hand, you are also a shining example as to why that is a very bad idea with the amount of bad science you promoted in response to vaccines a few pages ago. Also, what you display is a major symptom of the american partisan politics problem. You don't want the evil democrats to teach your children, because that is obviously infectious, instead you need to teach them the good republican values so they can become good republicans too. A reasonable point of view would be to teach them: a) The necessary tools to critically evaluate varying positions (maths, reading, critical thinking, researching topics, how science actually works, etc...) b) A background framework to multiple political points of view on political and religious topics. Strictly seperate this from the science parts. No absolute truths here. c) A framework of things that are broad scientific consensus and really are not political topics anywhere except in the US. Things like Newtons laws, electrodynamics, evolution, basic chemistry. Especially don't only teach HOW things are, but also and especially the proof and reasonings leading to those results. With that kind of framework, you give the child the necessary tools to actually judge different positions on their own merits, since they know how the scientific method works and what kind of proof is necessary for a theory to be generally accepted. There is no need to colour any of this in specific politics, because now your child is capable of actually accessing the viability of new positions like "The earth is flat" or "Vaccines totally don't do anything at all" To me, that sounds like a good way to teach children. But of course, what you really want is for your children to believe exactly the same things as you, and for their children then once again also believe exactly the same thing, no matter if it is utter nonsense. Your children are not your property, they are people. Your job as a parent is not to form them into copies of yourself, but to give them the necessary tools to actually be individuals with their own opinions on topics, instead of just accepting the word of figures of authority on every topic. We could go on about point C ad infinitum, but to drive some consensus, I believe that A and B are already by and large already happening. The main difference, is at the end of the day, I don't believe in moral relativism. I expose my children to different topics and opinions, but I also teach them which one is correct. Which by the way, makes me no different than any other teacher or professor. I have encountered a value very close to zero amount of teachers and professors that do not espouse a correct view point, or at least a certain view point that one should natural adopt should you be a "learned and educated" person. I don't view children as property, but they are my responsibility. I, and many others, firmly believe that the overwhelming responsibility for their upbringing is mine as a parent, not some third-party that tries to claim to know what is best. It doesn't take a village, it takes two responsible adults. As for the very last sentence of your post, I think there is more there than you realize. You see, we are not s different. We are just on opposite sides. You accuse me of teaching my children to blindly accept what I say (a concept, which those of you that have children of your own will understand, doesn't usually work past the age of 10 btw), but in the meantime, you swallow hook, line, and sinker, whatever comes out of the "scientific" community. Science is an ever changing, evolving if you will, field, so to blindly put your trust in teachings that routinely become outdated seems rather silly to me. Even more so, if you want to start basing political or economic policy on such things. All ideas should be questioned and challenged, even more so when they are presented as "consensus" truths. Nothing usually precedes an idea being discovered as incorrect as the phrase "no reasonable person/scientist/educated individual doubts this to be true". Climate change and vaccines are "consensus truths" because people have already gone to EXTRAORDINARY lengths to try to refute them and all empirical evidence supports the fact that they are wrong. That. Is. How. Science. Works. Dissenters are not silenced. Their papers are scrutinized and then disregarded because they are poorly written and extremely low quality. . I'll let the evidence support my claim. For starters, OneTwoThreeIf this is HOW. SCIENCE. WORKS. it's no wonder you guys resort to group think. I really doubt, as in the third example, that the MIT professor submits poorly written and extremely low quality work. You guys can't accept that modern science is routinely manipulated for ideological purposes, especially when it comes to political/economic topics such as global warming. I guess the definition of settled science is man-made climate change purported by the same people that can't forecast the next 24 hours path of a blizzard. 1984 has arrived again. Back to the future! Even if you don't agree with the skepics, anyone with critical thinking can review the evidence here and realize the current censoring behavior is disturbing at the very least. We have had this discussion here before, though you might not have been here. Weather =/= climate. It is very hard to predict the exact position of each atom in a balloon full of gas even two seconds in the future. It is very easy to predict what is going to happen to gas as a whole. Your balloon example doesn't apply, as cute as it was. In fact, it actually does more to support my argument than yours. Using the balloon, what climate change Kool-Aid drinkers try to make you believe is that they CAN tell you what the gas is going to do based on current and past observations of the position of each atom in the balloon. Sure weather =/= climate. Climate is a macro view of weather. But when you can't accurately predict the micro elements, you cannot turn around purport to accurately the macro picture, that is based on the same underlying data that is unable to be understood and accurately predicted, even a short time in the future. What you end up with is what we have today, where every environmental variance, along with wars, economic problems, etc etc, being blamed on global warming, global cooling, climate change, climate disruption, or whatever you people are calling it today to keep from looking like fools. You obviously misunderstood my example, or don't understand thermodynamics. I find it exceedingly funny how you continue to tell people that their arguments prove your point when they really don't. You can easily predict how a balloon full of gas is going to behave on the macro level if you know the positions and velocities of each atom at a micro level (fun fact, you can very easily do a few simple sums and get macro information like pressure out of that). You can easily predict how a balloon is going to behave on the macro level if you know the temperature, composition and pressure or volume. What is hard is to make predictions on the micro level because of chaotic interactions between single gas molecules that even out and are irrelevant due to the law of large numbers on the macro level. A similar situation applies to weather vs climate, though it is a bit less clear-cut here. With each of your posts, you demonstrate an utter lack of understanding about the very basics of the topics you are talking about, combined with an extreme amount of confidence in your position. That is a bad combination, to the point where you are such a clichée of your position that i am not quite sure whether you are actually serious yourself. By the way are you also currently making a major point against homeschooling that you were so much in favor of, because i simply can not believe that you would be capable of teaching even the basic understandings of the workings of science to children since you so very obviously do not have them yourself. I would like to support Simberto comments on thermodynamics. We understood the macroscopic systems long before the microscopic and now that we understand it's an average of all the microscopic states. I haven't read the rest of your argument but it is possible experimentally to understand a macroscopic system better then a microscopic one, thermodynamics is an exemple. Please note weather and climate fall under chaos theory so it's hard to predict since you need to know as much information as possible to figure out how it evolves. That's the only reason why I accept the weatherman being wrong so often. But even a double pendulum with friction we know it's chaotic but we can expect a certain downward trend due to energy lost in are model. So being chaotic doesn't make it impossible to model and notice trends. I would have to study the models make a more informed comment on climate change. physics b.a. holder here having studied thermodynamics and statistical mechanics thirding simberto's logic. not that i think it'll convince hannahbelle, whose views i doubt will change. i can throw a wrench into the idea that the science is invariably used for political/ideological purposes with my personal viewpoint: though i believe human-influenced climate change is very much real, i don't give a shit about politicizing this reality, and i don't really care what politicians attempt to do in the name of preventing or ameliorating it, as i think most policy regarding this matter is futile anyway. it's real though, for sure. i just hope that if a major disastrous shift happens in my lifetime, e.g. a large percentage of the arable land becomes unfarmable or the land my family and i own becomes unlivable, i'll have enough money and/or power at that point to protect myself and my loved ones. i doubt the politicians are going to help me there anyway.
I'm really hopeful that scientists will instead try to work as hard as possible on a geoengineering solution, or on some type of process that can extract large amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere. I think we should give up on the world adopting stricter standards by this point, though it doesn't hurt to keep trying.
But the argument for global warming is overwhelmingly simple when you think about it, we don't necessarily need to appeal to double pendulums as examples of chaotic systems with predictive elements (though it is a great example). From Wikipedia:
The greenhouse effect is a process by which thermal radiation from a planetary surface is absorbed by atmospheric greenhouse gases, and is re-radiated in all directions. Since part of this re-radiation is back towards the surface and the lower atmosphere, it results in an elevation of the average surface temperature above what it would be in the absence of the gases.
If you pump a sufficient amount of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, it will lead to the greenhouse effect. This is extremely simple to understand, and people could probably test this effect at home if they have the right equipment. None of this requires knowledge of how the air currents are flowing on the micro-level...just like if you turn on an old incandescent lightbulb, you will feel warmer, though determining exactly what the heat distribution over your body will be is extremely complex and uncertain. These are fundamentally common sense arguments.
There are also heat sinks (like the ocean), but eventually they will be filled up and we will see a rise in temperature. Since the degree to which heat is amplified by the greenhouse effect is not known for certain, we have many diverging models about how much warmer the Earth will become in the future. What we do know is that continuing on this current course is gambling with the future of the planet (you're also running a big experiment in which highly unpredictable, extreme weather patterns may occur with increased frequency). I think in layman's terms that is why people should *at least* be concerned, but especially because the overwhelming majority of scientists are warning of potentially dire consequences like the massive loss of farmable land (was it 70-80% or so? It was pretty extreme when I looked at the map).
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
climate adaptation is not as sexy but it is already a serious present day problem for areas like bangladesh
|
Geo-engineering has the potential to be even more destructive than doing nothing, as the unintended side effects could be brutal. Snowpiercer anyone?
|
On February 01 2015 18:28 IgnE wrote:
What an idiotic system. Single-payer would have avoided these issues. I know, if only the Democrats had proposed what really would've been good when they had House, Senate, and the Presidency, instead of passing something shitty instead! Maybe there were fears it would suffer the brutal 'socialized medicine' attacks that handily defeated Truman's plans in the mid 1940s.
On February 02 2015 02:17 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2015 23:19 NPF wrote:On February 01 2015 09:02 Simberto wrote:On February 01 2015 08:25 hannahbelle wrote:On February 01 2015 06:18 Simberto wrote:On February 01 2015 05:24 hannahbelle wrote:On February 01 2015 04:31 Stratos_speAr wrote:On February 01 2015 03:37 hannahbelle wrote:On February 01 2015 03:07 Simberto wrote:On February 01 2015 02:52 hannahbelle wrote:
[quote]
I feel its incredibly harmful to teach children liberal, socialist values. You point doesn't address the root of the problem. Who has the authority to decide what is or isn't harmful to teach children? What value sets are better than others, and thus non-harmful to society, and by extension required for children?
At the end of the day, all most homschoolers seek is the right and ability to decide this very question by ourselves, and not have it decided by liberal, big-government bureaucrats. Or heaven forbid, the educational establishment that has doe such a bang-up job with the authority it already has.
Well, you make a slightly compelling argument there. On the other hand, you are also a shining example as to why that is a very bad idea with the amount of bad science you promoted in response to vaccines a few pages ago. Also, what you display is a major symptom of the american partisan politics problem. You don't want the evil democrats to teach your children, because that is obviously infectious, instead you need to teach them the good republican values so they can become good republicans too. A reasonable point of view would be to teach them: a) The necessary tools to critically evaluate varying positions (maths, reading, critical thinking, researching topics, how science actually works, etc...) b) A background framework to multiple political points of view on political and religious topics. Strictly seperate this from the science parts. No absolute truths here. c) A framework of things that are broad scientific consensus and really are not political topics anywhere except in the US. Things like Newtons laws, electrodynamics, evolution, basic chemistry. Especially don't only teach HOW things are, but also and especially the proof and reasonings leading to those results. With that kind of framework, you give the child the necessary tools to actually judge different positions on their own merits, since they know how the scientific method works and what kind of proof is necessary for a theory to be generally accepted. There is no need to colour any of this in specific politics, because now your child is capable of actually accessing the viability of new positions like "The earth is flat" or "Vaccines totally don't do anything at all" To me, that sounds like a good way to teach children. But of course, what you really want is for your children to believe exactly the same things as you, and for their children then once again also believe exactly the same thing, no matter if it is utter nonsense. Your children are not your property, they are people. Your job as a parent is not to form them into copies of yourself, but to give them the necessary tools to actually be individuals with their own opinions on topics, instead of just accepting the word of figures of authority on every topic. We could go on about point C ad infinitum, but to drive some consensus, I believe that A and B are already by and large already happening. The main difference, is at the end of the day, I don't believe in moral relativism. I expose my children to different topics and opinions, but I also teach them which one is correct. Which by the way, makes me no different than any other teacher or professor. I have encountered a value very close to zero amount of teachers and professors that do not espouse a correct view point, or at least a certain view point that one should natural adopt should you be a "learned and educated" person. I don't view children as property, but they are my responsibility. I, and many others, firmly believe that the overwhelming responsibility for their upbringing is mine as a parent, not some third-party that tries to claim to know what is best. It doesn't take a village, it takes two responsible adults. As for the very last sentence of your post, I think there is more there than you realize. You see, we are not s different. We are just on opposite sides. You accuse me of teaching my children to blindly accept what I say (a concept, which those of you that have children of your own will understand, doesn't usually work past the age of 10 btw), but in the meantime, you swallow hook, line, and sinker, whatever comes out of the "scientific" community. Science is an ever changing, evolving if you will, field, so to blindly put your trust in teachings that routinely become outdated seems rather silly to me. Even more so, if you want to start basing political or economic policy on such things. All ideas should be questioned and challenged, even more so when they are presented as "consensus" truths. Nothing usually precedes an idea being discovered as incorrect as the phrase "no reasonable person/scientist/educated individual doubts this to be true". Climate change and vaccines are "consensus truths" because people have already gone to EXTRAORDINARY lengths to try to refute them and all empirical evidence supports the fact that they are wrong. That. Is. How. Science. Works. Dissenters are not silenced. Their papers are scrutinized and then disregarded because they are poorly written and extremely low quality. . I'll let the evidence support my claim. For starters, OneTwoThreeIf this is HOW. SCIENCE. WORKS. it's no wonder you guys resort to group think. I really doubt, as in the third example, that the MIT professor submits poorly written and extremely low quality work. You guys can't accept that modern science is routinely manipulated for ideological purposes, especially when it comes to political/economic topics such as global warming. I guess the definition of settled science is man-made climate change purported by the same people that can't forecast the next 24 hours path of a blizzard. 1984 has arrived again. Back to the future! Even if you don't agree with the skepics, anyone with critical thinking can review the evidence here and realize the current censoring behavior is disturbing at the very least. We have had this discussion here before, though you might not have been here. Weather =/= climate. It is very hard to predict the exact position of each atom in a balloon full of gas even two seconds in the future. It is very easy to predict what is going to happen to gas as a whole. Your balloon example doesn't apply, as cute as it was. In fact, it actually does more to support my argument than yours. Using the balloon, what climate change Kool-Aid drinkers try to make you believe is that they CAN tell you what the gas is going to do based on current and past observations of the position of each atom in the balloon. Sure weather =/= climate. Climate is a macro view of weather. But when you can't accurately predict the micro elements, you cannot turn around purport to accurately the macro picture, that is based on the same underlying data that is unable to be understood and accurately predicted, even a short time in the future. What you end up with is what we have today, where every environmental variance, along with wars, economic problems, etc etc, being blamed on global warming, global cooling, climate change, climate disruption, or whatever you people are calling it today to keep from looking like fools. You obviously misunderstood my example, or don't understand thermodynamics. I find it exceedingly funny how you continue to tell people that their arguments prove your point when they really don't. You can easily predict how a balloon full of gas is going to behave on the macro level if you know the positions and velocities of each atom at a micro level (fun fact, you can very easily do a few simple sums and get macro information like pressure out of that). You can easily predict how a balloon is going to behave on the macro level if you know the temperature, composition and pressure or volume. What is hard is to make predictions on the micro level because of chaotic interactions between single gas molecules that even out and are irrelevant due to the law of large numbers on the macro level. A similar situation applies to weather vs climate, though it is a bit less clear-cut here. With each of your posts, you demonstrate an utter lack of understanding about the very basics of the topics you are talking about, combined with an extreme amount of confidence in your position. That is a bad combination, to the point where you are such a clichée of your position that i am not quite sure whether you are actually serious yourself. By the way are you also currently making a major point against homeschooling that you were so much in favor of, because i simply can not believe that you would be capable of teaching even the basic understandings of the workings of science to children since you so very obviously do not have them yourself. I would like to support Simberto comments on thermodynamics. We understood the macroscopic systems long before the microscopic and now that we understand it's an average of all the microscopic states. I haven't read the rest of your argument but it is possible experimentally to understand a macroscopic system better then a microscopic one, thermodynamics is an exemple. Please note weather and climate fall under chaos theory so it's hard to predict since you need to know as much information as possible to figure out how it evolves. That's the only reason why I accept the weatherman being wrong so often. But even a double pendulum with friction we know it's chaotic but we can expect a certain downward trend due to energy lost in are model. So being chaotic doesn't make it impossible to model and notice trends. I would have to study the models make a more informed comment on climate change. physics b.a. holder here having studied thermodynamics and statistical mechanics thirding simberto's logic. not that i think it'll convince hannahbelle, whose views i doubt will change. i can throw a wrench into the idea that the science is invariably used for political/ideological purposes with my personal viewpoint: though i believe human-influenced climate change is very much real, i don't give a shit about politicizing this reality, and i don't really care what politicians attempt to do in the name of preventing or ameliorating it, as i think most policy regarding this matter is futile anyway. it's real though, for sure. i just hope that if a major disastrous shift happens in my lifetime, e.g. a large percentage of the arable land becomes unfarmable or the land my family and i own becomes unlivable, i'll have enough money and/or power at that point to protect myself and my loved ones. i doubt the politicians are going to help me there anyway.
You have no idea how much politicians, media, and certain interests did to hurt the cause. Once you start talking immediately this and that business-killing bill because of purported impact on global temperatures, it leaves science and casts doubt on the motives of historically anti-business groups. We know the greenhouse effect and measurements of atmospheric carbon dioxide (and other low-concentration greenhouse gases), we can plot those easily. Its contribution to the warming of the planet and extreme weather events compared to other, larger contributors has been sketchy.
If you're in the older group of gamers here, you'll remember not hearing how ocean temperatures (or in combination of other factors) would give us a global warming pause for 15 years. Then watch the secondary reporting media talk about the future increase in extreme weather events during one hurricane reporting, in what became a mild hurricane season year. Al Gore was celebrated and given the Nobel prize and put out such a ridiculous movie more aligned with politics than science. In the alternate universe featuring the non-politicization of climatology, I'd follow the research into CO2 emissions and possible impact on climate with great concern. I spent too much time in college studying statistical mechanics, heat and mass transfer, and photochemistry not too.
|
On February 02 2015 04:38 radscorpion9 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2015 02:17 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:On February 01 2015 23:19 NPF wrote:On February 01 2015 09:02 Simberto wrote:On February 01 2015 08:25 hannahbelle wrote:On February 01 2015 06:18 Simberto wrote:On February 01 2015 05:24 hannahbelle wrote:On February 01 2015 04:31 Stratos_speAr wrote:On February 01 2015 03:37 hannahbelle wrote:On February 01 2015 03:07 Simberto wrote:
[quote]
Well, you make a slightly compelling argument there.
On the other hand, you are also a shining example as to why that is a very bad idea with the amount of bad science you promoted in response to vaccines a few pages ago.
Also, what you display is a major symptom of the american partisan politics problem. You don't want the evil democrats to teach your children, because that is obviously infectious, instead you need to teach them the good republican values so they can become good republicans too.
A reasonable point of view would be to teach them:
a) The necessary tools to critically evaluate varying positions (maths, reading, critical thinking, researching topics, how science actually works, etc...)
b) A background framework to multiple political points of view on political and religious topics. Strictly seperate this from the science parts. No absolute truths here.
c) A framework of things that are broad scientific consensus and really are not political topics anywhere except in the US. Things like Newtons laws, electrodynamics, evolution, basic chemistry. Especially don't only teach HOW things are, but also and especially the proof and reasonings leading to those results.
With that kind of framework, you give the child the necessary tools to actually judge different positions on their own merits, since they know how the scientific method works and what kind of proof is necessary for a theory to be generally accepted. There is no need to colour any of this in specific politics, because now your child is capable of actually accessing the viability of new positions like "The earth is flat" or "Vaccines totally don't do anything at all"
To me, that sounds like a good way to teach children. But of course, what you really want is for your children to believe exactly the same things as you, and for their children then once again also believe exactly the same thing, no matter if it is utter nonsense.
Your children are not your property, they are people. Your job as a parent is not to form them into copies of yourself, but to give them the necessary tools to actually be individuals with their own opinions on topics, instead of just accepting the word of figures of authority on every topic. We could go on about point C ad infinitum, but to drive some consensus, I believe that A and B are already by and large already happening. The main difference, is at the end of the day, I don't believe in moral relativism. I expose my children to different topics and opinions, but I also teach them which one is correct. Which by the way, makes me no different than any other teacher or professor. I have encountered a value very close to zero amount of teachers and professors that do not espouse a correct view point, or at least a certain view point that one should natural adopt should you be a "learned and educated" person. I don't view children as property, but they are my responsibility. I, and many others, firmly believe that the overwhelming responsibility for their upbringing is mine as a parent, not some third-party that tries to claim to know what is best. It doesn't take a village, it takes two responsible adults. As for the very last sentence of your post, I think there is more there than you realize. You see, we are not s different. We are just on opposite sides. You accuse me of teaching my children to blindly accept what I say (a concept, which those of you that have children of your own will understand, doesn't usually work past the age of 10 btw), but in the meantime, you swallow hook, line, and sinker, whatever comes out of the "scientific" community. Science is an ever changing, evolving if you will, field, so to blindly put your trust in teachings that routinely become outdated seems rather silly to me. Even more so, if you want to start basing political or economic policy on such things. All ideas should be questioned and challenged, even more so when they are presented as "consensus" truths. Nothing usually precedes an idea being discovered as incorrect as the phrase "no reasonable person/scientist/educated individual doubts this to be true". Climate change and vaccines are "consensus truths" because people have already gone to EXTRAORDINARY lengths to try to refute them and all empirical evidence supports the fact that they are wrong. That. Is. How. Science. Works. Dissenters are not silenced. Their papers are scrutinized and then disregarded because they are poorly written and extremely low quality. . I'll let the evidence support my claim. For starters, OneTwoThreeIf this is HOW. SCIENCE. WORKS. it's no wonder you guys resort to group think. I really doubt, as in the third example, that the MIT professor submits poorly written and extremely low quality work. You guys can't accept that modern science is routinely manipulated for ideological purposes, especially when it comes to political/economic topics such as global warming. I guess the definition of settled science is man-made climate change purported by the same people that can't forecast the next 24 hours path of a blizzard. 1984 has arrived again. Back to the future! Even if you don't agree with the skepics, anyone with critical thinking can review the evidence here and realize the current censoring behavior is disturbing at the very least. We have had this discussion here before, though you might not have been here. Weather =/= climate. It is very hard to predict the exact position of each atom in a balloon full of gas even two seconds in the future. It is very easy to predict what is going to happen to gas as a whole. Your balloon example doesn't apply, as cute as it was. In fact, it actually does more to support my argument than yours. Using the balloon, what climate change Kool-Aid drinkers try to make you believe is that they CAN tell you what the gas is going to do based on current and past observations of the position of each atom in the balloon. Sure weather =/= climate. Climate is a macro view of weather. But when you can't accurately predict the micro elements, you cannot turn around purport to accurately the macro picture, that is based on the same underlying data that is unable to be understood and accurately predicted, even a short time in the future. What you end up with is what we have today, where every environmental variance, along with wars, economic problems, etc etc, being blamed on global warming, global cooling, climate change, climate disruption, or whatever you people are calling it today to keep from looking like fools. You obviously misunderstood my example, or don't understand thermodynamics. I find it exceedingly funny how you continue to tell people that their arguments prove your point when they really don't. You can easily predict how a balloon full of gas is going to behave on the macro level if you know the positions and velocities of each atom at a micro level (fun fact, you can very easily do a few simple sums and get macro information like pressure out of that). You can easily predict how a balloon is going to behave on the macro level if you know the temperature, composition and pressure or volume. What is hard is to make predictions on the micro level because of chaotic interactions between single gas molecules that even out and are irrelevant due to the law of large numbers on the macro level. A similar situation applies to weather vs climate, though it is a bit less clear-cut here. With each of your posts, you demonstrate an utter lack of understanding about the very basics of the topics you are talking about, combined with an extreme amount of confidence in your position. That is a bad combination, to the point where you are such a clichée of your position that i am not quite sure whether you are actually serious yourself. By the way are you also currently making a major point against homeschooling that you were so much in favor of, because i simply can not believe that you would be capable of teaching even the basic understandings of the workings of science to children since you so very obviously do not have them yourself. I would like to support Simberto comments on thermodynamics. We understood the macroscopic systems long before the microscopic and now that we understand it's an average of all the microscopic states. I haven't read the rest of your argument but it is possible experimentally to understand a macroscopic system better then a microscopic one, thermodynamics is an exemple. Please note weather and climate fall under chaos theory so it's hard to predict since you need to know as much information as possible to figure out how it evolves. That's the only reason why I accept the weatherman being wrong so often. But even a double pendulum with friction we know it's chaotic but we can expect a certain downward trend due to energy lost in are model. So being chaotic doesn't make it impossible to model and notice trends. I would have to study the models make a more informed comment on climate change. physics b.a. holder here having studied thermodynamics and statistical mechanics thirding simberto's logic. not that i think it'll convince hannahbelle, whose views i doubt will change. i can throw a wrench into the idea that the science is invariably used for political/ideological purposes with my personal viewpoint: though i believe human-influenced climate change is very much real, i don't give a shit about politicizing this reality, and i don't really care what politicians attempt to do in the name of preventing or ameliorating it, as i think most policy regarding this matter is futile anyway. it's real though, for sure. i just hope that if a major disastrous shift happens in my lifetime, e.g. a large percentage of the arable land becomes unfarmable or the land my family and i own becomes unlivable, i'll have enough money and/or power at that point to protect myself and my loved ones. i doubt the politicians are going to help me there anyway. I'm really hopeful that scientists will instead try to work as hard as possible on a geoengineering solution, or on some type of process that can extract large amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere. I think we should give up on the world adopting stricter standards by this point, though it doesn't hurt to keep trying. But the argument for global warming is overwhelmingly simple when you think about it, we don't necessarily need to appeal to double pendulums as examples of chaotic systems with predictive elements (though it is a great example). From Wikipedia: Show nested quote +The greenhouse effect is a process by which thermal radiation from a planetary surface is absorbed by atmospheric greenhouse gases, and is re-radiated in all directions. Since part of this re-radiation is back towards the surface and the lower atmosphere, it results in an elevation of the average surface temperature above what it would be in the absence of the gases. If you pump a sufficient amount of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, it will lead to the greenhouse effect. This is extremely simple to understand, and people could probably test this effect at home if they have the right equipment. None of this requires knowledge of how the air currents are flowing on the micro-level...just like if you turn on an old incandescent lightbulb, you will feel warmer, though determining exactly what the heat distribution over your body will be is extremely complex and uncertain. These are fundamentally common sense arguments. There are also heat sinks (like the ocean), but eventually they will be filled up and we will see a rise in temperature. Since the degree to which heat is amplified by the greenhouse effect is not known for certain, we have many diverging models about how much warmer the Earth will become in the future. What we do know is that continuing on this current course is gambling with the future of the planet (you're also running a big experiment in which highly unpredictable, extreme weather patterns may occur with increased frequency). I think in layman's terms that is why people should *at least* be concerned, but especially because the overwhelming majority of scientists are warning of potentially dire consequences like the massive loss of farmable land (was it 70-80% or so? It was pretty extreme when I looked at the map).
Doomsday! Doomsday! On the other hand, CO2 levels were much higher during the Carboniferous period, and yet, the Earth was as abundant as it had ever been. Higher CO2 levels will coincide with more sustained plant growth (have you never had one of those greenhouses you're talking about?), similarly, higher temperatures yield better crops - for instance, take today in comparison to the cold periods of the 1600s and their famines. Now, as to sea levels - yes, that would indeed be a problem, but there's no immediate solution to the problem that isn't worse than the problem itself (if we prima facie take anthropological warming as true). Earth is cyclical - humans are extremely adaptable. We'll be fine, and this doomsday talk is about as far-fetched as the tin-hatters.
|
I'm sorry, you think global warming is real and still say "Fuck Bangladesh, I'm sure they'll figure something out..."??
I mean, yeah, humanity will survive, but the cost to islands everywhere, nevermind low-lying countries, will be catastrophic.
|
On February 02 2015 08:02 Yoav wrote:
I'm sorry, you think global warming is real and still say "Fuck Bangladesh, I'm sure they'll figure something out..."??
I mean, yeah, humanity will survive, but the cost to islands everywhere, nevermind low-lying countries, will be catastrophic.
I didn't say one way or the other, I merely posed an argument. Now, how you got that 'quote' from what I wrote...or did your lack of reading comprehension compound the fact that you must have missed - any immediate solution to the problem is worst than the problem itself? No, really, if it makes you feel any better make my arguments and motives for me, so you can argue against yourself.
|
Norway28608 Posts
the point is it's impossible to be a: accepting of man made global warming and aware of its possible global consequences, b: caring about people outside your personal sphere and c: maintaining the notion that "we'll be fine". As a well educated, reasonably wealthy Norwegian with a stable, caring family and a healthy network surrounding me, there's little chance I'm gonna be personally affected by anything short of the apocalypse. But that doesn't mean I can just dismiss global warming, IS, rise of anti-semitism and racism throughout Europe, or all the various other global threats to people's well being.
Or, I can, but then I have to accept that I'm a selfish, hedonistic jerk. Frankly, that idea is growing on me- but at least I can support policy changes that can make things slightly better for people elsewhere at virtually no cost to myself. Not to say that I don't understand the apathy people feel regarding global warming (or anything, really) - but at least feel apathetic because you feel powerless to change anything, not because you don't care about the people who can be affected. Stating "we'll be fine" indicates the latter, because yes, you personally will be fine, but literally hundreds of millions of people are looking to be affected in very negative ways by even moderate global warming predictions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
