The thing is, shameless lying and ignorance works surprisingly well as a debate tactic. It's hard to argue with someone who not only has signaled that he doesn't care what the truth is but is downright proud of how little he actually knows. Such a person is not amenable to being educated. Once the pretense of really caring one way or another about what is right and what is wrong has been abandoned, all avenue of discourse is shut down.
At the end of the day, the problem is one of identity. The conservative identity is one of being opposed to everything liberal, to the point of despising anything even associated with liberalism. As liberalism has increasingly been aligned with the values of empiricism and reason, the incentives for conservatives to reject empiricism and reason multiply. To be a "conservative" increasingly means taking a contemptuous view of reality. And so the proudly ignorant grow more belligerent, day after day.
http://www.salon.com/2014/06/13/beyond_the_war_on_science_why_the_right_embraces_ignorance_as_a_virtue_partner/
Its a stereotype that cuts both ways. Conservatism being viewed as strictly anti-liberal and Liberalism being viewed strictly as anti-conservative.
Thats the problem when a dogma is placed ahead of the greater good.
The focus becomes maintaining the dogma, instead of figuring out the right thing to do.
Quote from: stephendare on January 19, 2015, 11:33:45 AM
Quote from: spuwho on January 19, 2015, 11:14:48 AM
Its a stereotype that cuts both ways. Conservatism being viewed as strictly anti-liberal and Liberalism being viewed strictly as anti-conservative.
Thats the problem when a dogma is placed ahead of the greater good.
The focus becomes maintaining the dogma, instead of figuring out the right thing to do.
I think that the 'Conservative' mantle has been completely hijacked by right wing mental midgets, and that the whole impetus of the Fox identified conservative has simply become about being 'anti liberal'.
Used to be, Conservatives believed in math, science, and tradition.
Not so much anymore.
About the same perspective that liberal thinking has been taken over by the far left and we are on the brink of anarchy. No doubt irrational positions on both sides. As I noted, focus needs to be on solutions, not dogma.
Quote from: spuwho on January 19, 2015, 11:43:18 AM
About the same perspective that liberal thinking has been taken over by the far left and we are on the brink of anarchy.
Except there is no "far left" in the politics of the USA. We have a center-right party (the Democrats) and a far-right party (the Republicans). Most anything characterized by our far-right party as "far left" would be considered "moderate" or "center-left" in any other modern country.
Sounds like a rather coddled view Finehoe, I happen to know of several places in the America's where being vocal about what passes for standard Democrat fare in the USA/EEUU would get you SHOT!
@Stephen, If one defined a conservative as one who has the exact opposite beliefs of a liberal, then perhaps, your science example might hold up. You are stroking the paintbrush too wide and assume because a few conservatives say these things, then by rote all conservatives believe in these things. Using that approach, all African Americans would think Al Sharpton represents them. That Imam Anjem Choudary represents all Islamic thought. Extending it further, haven't you heard all Republicans hate women, want to throw handicapped grandmothers to the street and are looking for the next war to wage? On the flip side don't we hear that Democrats only want to spend money, pilfer the rich and rob citizens of their civil rights when saying just the opposite? This is all pandering to the crowd and ignoring the real issues at hand.
Quote from: spuwho on January 19, 2015, 09:10:54 PM
because a few conservatives say these things, then by rote all conservatives believe in these things.
It doesn't really matter if "all" conservatives believe it when the conservatives who do believe it are the ones in control.
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/120134/climate-change-denier-james-inhofe-lead-environment-committee
http://crooksandliars.com/2014/11/anti-science-republicans-run-science
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2014/11/04/science-in-a-republican-senate-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/
In speaking of politics, science, and it's antithesis religion. Someone posted this on youtube, it's so true.
QuoteCriticizing Christians: Good job!
Criticizing Jews: Good job!
Criticizing Muslims: HOW DARE YOU?!? YOU RACIST ISLAMOPHOBIC BIGOT!!!
Mainstream liberals...
Aren't people who deny the safety of biotech crops and nuclear power ignoring science as much as those who deny evolution and climate change?
Quote from: urbanlibertarian on January 20, 2015, 09:59:19 AM
Aren't people who deny the safety of biotech crops and nuclear power ignoring science as much as those who deny evolution and climate change?
Which congressional committees are those people in charge of?
It's now official: 2014 was the warmest year on record. You might expect this to be a politically important milestone. After all, climate change deniers have long used the blip of 1998 — an unusually hot year, mainly due to an upwelling of warm water in the Pacific — to claim that the planet has stopped warming. This claim involves a complete misunderstanding of how one goes about identifying underlying trends. (Hint: Don't cherry-pick your observations.) But now even that bogus argument has collapsed. So will the deniers now concede that climate change is real?
Of course not. Evidence doesn't matter for the "debate" over climate policy, where I put scare quotes around "debate" because, given the obvious irrelevance of logic and evidence, it's not really a debate in any normal sense. And this situation is by no means unique. Indeed, at this point it's hard to think of a major policy dispute where facts actually do matter; it's unshakable dogma, across the board. And the real question is why.
Before I get into that, let me remind you of some other news that won't matter.
First, consider the Kansas experiment. Back in 2012 Sam Brownback, the state's right-wing governor, went all in on supply-side economics: He drastically cut taxes, assuring everyone that the resulting boom would make up for the initial loss in revenues. Unfortunately for his constituents, his experiment has been a resounding failure. The economy of Kansas, far from booming, has lagged the economies of neighboring states, and Kansas is now in fiscal crisis.
So will we see conservatives scaling back their claims about the magical efficacy of tax cuts as a form of economic stimulus? Of course not. If evidence mattered, supply-side economics would have faded into obscurity decades ago. Instead, it has only strengthened its grip on the Republican Party.
Meanwhile, the news on health reform keeps coming in, and it keeps being more favorable than even the supporters expected. We already knew that the number of Americans without insurance is dropping fast, even as the growth in health care costs moderates. Now we have evidence that the number of Americans experiencing financial distress due to medical expenses is also dropping fast.
All this is utterly at odds with dire predictions that reform would lead to declining coverage and soaring costs. So will we see any of the people claiming that Obamacare is doomed to utter failure revising their position? You know the answer.
And the list goes on. On issues that range from monetary policy to the control of infectious disease, a big chunk of America's body politic holds views that are completely at odds with, and completely unmovable by, actual experience. And no matter the issue, it's the same chunk. If you've gotten involved in any of these debates, you know that these people aren't happy warriors; they're red-faced angry, with special rage directed at know-it-alls who snootily point out that the facts don't support their position.
The question, as I said at the beginning, is why. Why the dogmatism? Why the rage? And why do these issues go together, with the set of people insisting that climate change is a hoax pretty much the same as the set of people insisting that any attempt at providing universal health insurance must lead to disaster and tyranny?
Well, it strikes me that the immovable position in each of these cases is bound up with rejecting any role for government that serves the public interest. If you don't want the government to impose controls or fees on polluters, you want to deny that there is any reason to limit emissions. If you don't want the combination of regulation, mandates and subsidies that is needed to extend coverage to the uninsured, you want to deny that expanding coverage is even possible. And claims about the magical powers of tax cuts are often little more than a mask for the real agenda of crippling government by starving it of revenue.
And why this hatred of government in the public interest? Well, the political scientist Corey Robin argues that most self-proclaimed conservatives are actually reactionaries. That is, they're defenders of traditional hierarchy — the kind of hierarchy that is threatened by any expansion of government, even (or perhaps especially) when that expansion makes the lives of ordinary citizens better and more secure. I'm partial to that story, partly because it helps explain why climate science and health economics inspire so much rage.
Whether this is the right explanation or not, the fact is that we're living in a political era in which facts don't matter. This doesn't mean that those of us who care about evidence should stop seeking it out. But we should be realistic in our expectations, and not expect even the most decisive evidence to make much difference.
www.nytimes.com
So out of God knows how many years this planet has been in existence, we've only got what - roughly 120 years or so of documented temperatures? And to be skeptical of this notion that humans are responsible for the shifting of an entire planet's climate based on that small sample size is somehow anti-science? Look at the complexity of the human brain - one of thousands of parts out of one of millions of living organisms on one out of billions of planets in billions of galaxies -and how it's able to simultaneously process all of your senses at the speed of thought with incredible precision and detail. Yet being skeptical about the idea that all of that happened because unknown matter happened to hit some other unknown matter causing an explosion which created said brain is anti science?
Well it's just common practice from liberals when they look at people who don't see eye-to-eye. There's no room for debate, simply name calling. Don't believe the scientists who are on our side of the argument? Your anti-science. Believe marriage is between a man and woman? Your anti-gay. Don't believe in affirmative action? Your racist. Don't believe in wealth redistribution? You want poor people to starve. Don't think multiculturalism can work? Your a flag tot'n bigot. Don't believe in Obamacare? You want grandma to die. Don't believe in big government? Then you don't think there should be government at all. Yeah, I'd say that's definitely more in line with "reason".
At the end of the day, you can google search until you are blue in the face to find links to support your opinion on a certain topic. For every NY Times opinion article claiming how great liberalism is and how evil/stupid conservatives are, there's a Fox News opinion article claiming the opposite. For every Salon or New Republic article claiming supply side economics has failed, and "shared" prosperity is the path to gold, there's a Forbes or WSJ article claiming the opposite. - And that's something most of us are guilty of when it comes to online debates.
Nobody is going to have their opinion changed on these forums. But I will say the amount of obnoxious "anti-science, racist, bigot, homophobe" name calling by people with a liberal leaning towards non liberals has reached epic proportions the last few years.
Quote from: WarDamJagFan on January 20, 2015, 11:43:53 AM
There's no room for debate
You're right there.
(http://environment.yale.edu/climate-communication/files/Fig1-pie2-with_logo1_copy.jpg)
Quote from: finehoe on January 20, 2015, 12:56:40 PM
Quote from: WarDamJagFan on January 20, 2015, 11:43:53 AM
There's no room for debate
You're right there.
(http://environment.yale.edu/climate-communication/files/Fig1-pie2-with_logo1_copy.jpg)
My turn?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/07/17/that-scientific-global-warming-consensus-not/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period)
The pie chart cited from the Climate Change Communications is only a few months older than the article I highlighted from Forbes. And the article said "since 1998", not "in 1998". And regarding Lindzen, he's still regarded as a "denier" because of his beliefs, so obviously he hasn't rescinded much.
Quote from: stephendare on January 20, 2015, 02:14:02 PM
If you are going to call on the medieval warm period as an example, then don't you have to accept that we are able to gauge the temperatures of the world five hundred years ago?
Isn't that at odds with the claim that we only have knowledge of 130 years of climate?
"Last year was the hottest on earth since record-keeping began in 1880, scientists reported on Friday." Just going off of the NYT article cited at the beginning.
Quote from: spuwho on January 20, 2015, 02:06:46 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period)
+100
Quote from: stephendare on January 20, 2015, 02:14:02 PM
If you are going to call on the medieval warm period as an example, then don't you have to accept that we are able to gauge the temperatures of the world five hundred years ago?
Isn't that at odds with the claim that we only have knowledge of 130 years of climate?
There is active measurement and there is anecdotal evidence. The "130 years" is considered active. The medieval period was mostly anecdotal until they did more research on it using known markers from the era.
When I was out at Mendenhall Glacier last summer outside Juneau, AK, they commented that most of its retreat occurred at the end of this warm period based on measurements made by European explorers and local tribal histories.
I read last week (and I am trying to relocate the article) about historic volcanic activities disrupting earth warm/cool cycles due to pre-mature cooling. The recent Icelandic volcanos had a net 1.3 degree reduction in the global warmth.
I don't disagree that global warmth is happening, the stats don't lie. I disagree with the disposition that the causes are solely human originated.
If you walk up to me and say " do you think there is global climate change?" I would answer, "yes of course, the global climate has been changing for millions of years".
If in the same conversation you ask me if it originates with man, I would say its not 100% clear. Climate behaviors has several factors that impact it, man is just one piece of it."
We are still trying to develop computer models to help us understand how and what is changing overall in our climate. With some success we have been able to reach weeks in advance using these models, but they aren't perfect.
It would be interesting to see a computer model of known weather cycles and then enter a Kyoto Protocol variable and see how the models would change. How do the models rank man's contribution?
Quote from: stephendare on January 20, 2015, 03:58:57 PM
Well i think if you delve a little deeper, you will find out that there is pretty considerable data to place weather patterns for many thousands of years, similar to comparing tree rings, the same thing happens in old growth glaciers.
But I find it interesting that people who believe that they can bake bread with yeast and die from microscopic organisms are unable to believe that changing the gas composition of the atmosphere is unable to have dramatic effects.
Point made.
At one time all scientists believed incontrovertibly the world was flat. Anyone who doubted was a heretic.
At one time we used to think the practice of blood letting would rid oneself of illness. Anyone who disputed these doctors were considered quacks.
Research over time was able to clear up the issues and we got the real causes. The research on climate should continue and we should still be better stewards of our resources in the interim.
Quote from: spuwho on January 20, 2015, 04:13:15 PM
At one time all scientists believed incontrovertibly the world was flat.
"All"? Hardly.
QuoteThe concept of a spherical Earth dates back to ancient Greek philosophy from around the 6th century BC,[1] but remained a matter of philosophical speculation until the 3rd century BC, when Hellenistic astronomy established the spherical shape of the earth as a physical given
Not to mention calling pre-scientific method thinkers 'scientists'. The comparison is facile.
Quote from: finehoe on January 20, 2015, 05:42:05 PM
Quote from: spuwho on January 20, 2015, 04:13:15 PM
At one time all scientists believed incontrovertibly the world was flat.
"All"? Hardly.
QuoteThe concept of a spherical Earth dates back to ancient Greek philosophy from around the 6th century BC,[1] but remained a matter of philosophical speculation until the 3rd century BC, when Hellenistic astronomy established the spherical shape of the earth as a physical given
Not to mention calling pre-scientific method thinkers 'scientists'. The comparison is facile.
Feeling a little argumentative today are we?
Quote from: WarDamJagFan on January 20, 2015, 01:33:40 PM
My turn?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/07/17/that-scientific-global-warming-consensus-not/
If you think an article by an architecture professor in a mass-market publication like Forbes is equivalent to 97% of peer-reviewed research papers, then you've pretty much demonstrated the veracity of the premise of the original posting in this thread.
I see human caused climate change and the denial of scientic proof by many to be the same people who deny that evolution is a real thing..in school we all have students who just dont get it and deny it because of their inability to comprehend or because their church leaders deny it so it must be wrong...its just proof that ignorance is historic...one would think that as time goes on we as a people would have better understanding but remember...children actually believe what their parents tell them and if your parent is a right wing science denier you will most likely believe mommy and daddy over what the proven evidence says...
On what your parents teach you...my father worked in engineering and taught me the scientific method, above and beyond what the school system provided. He always asked me - where's the proof, where's the evidence, how do you really know? While I did not go into a field of work where science is prized, that foundation has served me well over the years.
Unfortunately, he's now in the category of those brainwashed by some of the factors in the popular opinion of the right. When I ask him the same questions he once asked me, he becomes angry and throws the "liberal" name at me. Guess I am, if trying to look at the available evidence labels me as such. It does make me quite sad, though, that we can no longer have conversations about almost anything without a political slant coloring each statement. If there is anything I miss about the old days, our ability to talk, agree and disagree without becoming angry or dismissive is it. Same with many internet based discussion, there's little civil discourse left it seems.
Quote from: Scarlettjax on January 21, 2015, 09:18:15 PM
On what your parents teach you...my father worked in engineering and taught me the scientific method, above and beyond what the school system provided. He always asked me - where's the proof, where's the evidence, how do you really know? While I did not go into a field of work where science is prized, that foundation has served me well over the years.
Unfortunately, he's now in the category of those brainwashed by some of the factors in the popular opinion of the right. When I ask him the same questions he once asked me, he becomes angry and throws the "liberal" name at me. Guess I am, if trying to look at the available evidence labels me as such. It does make me quite sad, though, that we can no longer have conversations about almost anything without a political slant coloring each statement. If there is anything I miss about the old days, our ability to talk, agree and disagree without becoming angry or dismissive is it. Same with many internet based discussion, there's little civil discourse left it seems.
Agree with you Scarlett.
Sometimes I tell people to go watch the first few seasons of an old TV show called " All in the Family".
It triggered so many conversations in our house and at school, and no one would fight over it or call people names. We would simply discuss what it meant. Not so much anymore. It was the most politically incorrect show of its time and today I feel if it was shown, people would spend most of their time trying to define who was liberal and who wasnt. Back then it just wasnt the big deal.
So why is not the headline, 2014 unlikely the warmest year EVAH? Because it does not get on the front page, receive research money or fit the agenda. This is why people are skeptical of the "science and scientists". Why change, rush and guess at data when you only want facts? Oh yeah the meeting in Lima/Paris. BTW-these were the unbiased "scientific facts" 40 years ago.
https://html1-f.scribdassets.com/yal7w1ekg3t0s2a/images/1-9c290725b9.jpg
It seems to be human nature to take what you believe to be true and seek evidence to support it and reject evidence that contradicts it. Science is taking what you believe to be true and trying your damnedest to prove it wrong. Humility is hard work.