| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The motto of Forbes magazine is "The Capitalist Tool".
I could not have put it better myself.
Anti-Capitalist is Anti-Freedom. Without Capitalism all we have is a totalitarian state where all power is concentrated in the government and a few people make decisions instead of 1000s of companies and free workers making decisions.
Seriously no, Global Warming is not hype.
Seriously, yes it is hype.
Did they show you slides in school of New York and coastal cities being under water? They showed them to us.Did you see the slides of NY subways getting flooded during Sandy? Did you see the tunnels getting filled with water? Did you see the tens of thousands of homes and business getting washed away or damaged? The power station blowing up? Half the city in the dark, and many without power for weeks? The blocks of houses on fire?
If you are using the New York as an example of things being high and dry, you are going to be about as popular around here as someone saying skyscrapers can't be damaged by planes.
Knock it off.
Yes, the city streets in my rural towns flood too. Some places very high. Has for 100 years. The water goes away. Those slides they showed us were of the cities being gone forever. Not a bad storm in a city with poor plumbing. By the way poor plumbing is becoming a serious problem in many cities across the nations.
But the interesting thing is, what makes a source a good source? What makes a scientific study a valid study? Do we only listen to scientists and agree with studies that validate the beliefs we already have or do we look at their arguments and data. Most people can't understand the data. Very few for that matter. I've studied advanced mathematics, chemistry, geophysics, mechanical systems, ecological development and formations for years and these are very difficult questions to tangle with. And that is one reason I am very awestruck that anyone can think there is any consensus on any of these issues.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am saying. I been to New York in the past year. It is not underwater like the pictures they showed me in school.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I understand people disagreeing with me on Global Warming. We all read various authors and make our own opinion based on the information presented to us. But to say there is a consensus is a joke.
You might want to consider reading that article before claiming that it supports your position. The author admits that the survey he is talking about polled a bunch of engineers and geoscientists and they did not have any consensus about climate change.
The author was very careful not to quote the opinions of, for example, climate scientists, aka people who actually know what they are talking about.
EDIT-
Ah, I wrote the above before seeing that even the authors of that study say it doesn't mean what you claim it means.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've studied advanced mathematics, chemistry, geophysics, mechanical systems, ecological development and formations for years and these are very difficult questions to tangle with. And that is one reason I am very awestruck that anyone can think there is any consensus on any of these issues.
yes, yes, while you were working 80 hour weeks on your oil drill, rescuing foxes from fox hunts, sleeping in igloos with supermodels, getting a perfect score on a Rorschach tests, winning surfing contests ion giant waves and having people hang on your prepositions.
There is no scientific consensus on Global Warming.
Yes, there is.
You don't want there to be.
But there is.
No one here believes anything you say.
Everyone here knows better.
I've studied advanced mathematics, chemistry, geophysics, mechanical systems, ecological development and formations for years
Oh god I hope you didn't pay actual money.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've studied advanced mathematics, chemistry, geophysics, mechanical systems, ecological development and formations for years and these are very difficult questions to tangle with. And that is one reason I am very awestruck that anyone can think there is any consensus on any of these issues.yes, yes, while you were working 80 hour weeks on your oil drill, rescuing foxes from fox hunts, sleeping in igloos with supermodels, getting a perfect score on a Rorschach tests, winning surfing contests ion giant waves and having people hang on your prepositions.
Funny how you only insult the opinions of the rare conservative here even as your liberal friends (some of who favorited this) talk out of there asses on a regular basis without you questioning their credentials. Why do liberals feel the need to do this? What compels you to belittle people who disagree with you instead of debating the facts and opinions?
That depends, are we talking reality or right-wing mythology?I was under the impression that the ration cards, victory gardens and price- and wage-controls during WWII (not to mention the no-strike pledges) were more for convincing the American populace that "we" were on war footing and to get the labor movement back under control than indicative of the state of the American economy at that time.
But it's been a while since I trawled through all of that stuff.
(Edited)
I don't know. Do right-wing mythologists often talk about the no-strike pledge? I thought only commies and other assorted rad-libs did that.
Funny how you only insult the opinions of the rare conservative here even as your liberal friends (some of who favorited this) talk out of there asses on a regular basis without you questioning their credentials.
Like my repeatedly calling philosophy (a rather liberal pursuit) completely worthless, deriding psychology, put forth a plan to cut all liberal arts majors, face palming on how women's studies has become nothing more than politically correct and rabid insistence on terminology they made up themselves ...
Why do liberals feel the need to do this?
I dislike the logical fallacy of "appeal to authority the great and glorious me!. "Show don't tell" is a pretty frequent admonition from me to both sides.
What compels you to belittle people who disagree with you instead of debating the facts and opinions?
The false impression he gives people like you that he IS arguing with facts.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
... more... Why do liberals feel the need to do this?
That is a pretty sweet strawman you got there! We "liberals" do that for the same reason you beat your wife...
What compels you to belittle people who disagree with you instead of debating the facts and opinions?
By all means, bring some facts into the discussion... I'm getting bored of hearing about slide shows from elementary school and the expert opinions of people who work for oil companies.
EDIT: On a slightly more serious note, I would suggest conservatives do a better job of policing their own ranks when it comes to saying crazy stuff. Yes, it controls the discussion when Rush, Palin, O'Reily or whoever spouts off some insane BS, and that gets debated in the media. But you have allowed these clowns to represent you for a long time now, and have a well established reputation as anti-science, anti-intellectual, anti-critical thinking. Perhaps if you came to the table with facts and opinions worth debating, instead of bat-guano crazy "get gubbamint oudda medicare" stuff you might get taken a little more seriously.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Like my repeatedly calling philosophy (a rather liberal pursuit) completely worthless, deriding psychology, put forth a plan to cut all liberal arts majors, face palming on how women's studies has become nothing more than politically correct and rabid insistence on terminology they made up themselves ...
I don't think that term means what you think it means.
lib·er·al arts
noun
plural noun: liberal artsNorth American
academic subjects such as literature, philosophy, mathematics, and social and physical sciences as distinct from professional and technical subjects.
I'm not sure you want to cut the study of mathematics and physical sciences. That's a pretty broad net you're casting that is going to catch us both, as well as the next Einstein.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
What compels you to belittle people who disagree with you instead of debating the facts and opinions?
Andrew R, if you could compete on facts, you would have been doing it for ages now. Instead, bitter conservative ranting is your bread and butter. You (you, specifically) can't go three posts on this forum without being fact-checked into the ground.
Did they show you slides in school of New York and coastal cities being under water? They showed them to us.Did you see the slides of NY subways getting flooded during Sandy? Did you see the tunnels getting filled with water? Did you see the tens of thousands of homes and business getting washed away or damaged? The power station blowing up? Half the city in the dark, and many without power for weeks? The blocks of houses on fire?
If you are using the New York as an example of things being high and dry, you are going to be about as popular around here as someone saying skyscrapers can't be damaged by planes.
Knock it off.
What is your point? The water is gone now, the map of the coastline has not changed. Lots of places flood from time to time and even unexpectedly.
There is no scientific consensus on Global Warming.Yes, there is.
You don't want there to be.
But there is.
No one here believes anything you say.
Everyone here knows better.
I've studied advanced mathematics, chemistry, geophysics, mechanical systems, ecological development and formations for yearsOh god I hope you didn't pay actual money.
It has been making me very successful. But not by working 40 hours a week in an office.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It has been making me very successful.
Then maybe stick to that instead of pretending to know the first thing about climate change.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It has been making me very successful.Then maybe stick to that instead of pretending to know the first thing about climate change.
Is the American Meteorological Society also a bunch of right wing fanatics?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
During the Roman Period Britain was so warm that it had the great wine vineyards that are now in France. As the Ice melts in Greenland we find the farms and villages of the Vikings. Climates naturally change and shift over time.
Is the American Meteorological Society also a bunch of right wing fanatics?It has been making me very successful.Then maybe stick to that instead of pretending to know the first thing about climate change.Will you accept them as a source?
From the AMS website
There is unequivocal evidence that Earth’s lower atmosphere, ocean, and land surface are warming; sea level is rising; and snow cover, mountain glaciers, and Arctic sea ice are shrinking. The dominant cause of the warming since the 1950s is human activities. This scientific finding is based on a large and persuasive body of research. The observed warming will be irreversible for many years into the future, and even larger temperature increases will occur as greenhouse gases continue to accumulate in the atmosphere. Avoiding this future warming will require a large and rapid reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions. The ongoing warming will increase risks and stresses to human societies, economies, ecosystems, and wildlife through the 21st century and beyond, making it imperative that society respond to a changing climate. To inform decisions on adaptation and mitigation, it is critical that we improve our understanding of the global climate system and our ability to project future climate through continued and improved monitoring and research. This is especially true for smaller (seasonal and regional) scales and weather and climate extremes, and for important hydroclimatic variables such as precipitation and water availability.There's more detail. Go read it. It essentially matches the scientific consensus we've been talking about.
How about this one?
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00091.1
This is one of my favorite on how people come to believe global warming
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/WCAS-D-13-00042.1?af=R
I don't think that term means what you think it means.
So if you ask someone "Whats your major" and its physics you think they're going to answer "liberal arts?"
Well ok the physics majors might be that snarky, but no one else in the sciences.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, a self-report study with 26% response rate? Yeah, that's certainly more indicative of their stance than their actual stance.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How about this one?
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00091.1
Have you read it? Because it seems to confirm what we've been saying:
Climate science experts who publish mostly on climate change, and climate scientists
who publish mostly on other topics,were the two groups most likely to be convinced that humans have contributed to global warming, with 93% of each group indicating their concurrence.
The two groups least likely to be convinced of this were the non-publishing climate scientists and non-publishing meteorologists/atmospheric scientists, at 65% and 59%,respectively. In the middle were the two groups of publishing meteorologists/atmospheric
scientists at 79% and 78%, respectively.
Basically, when weighted by number of published climate science studies, there's a pretty clear and overwhelming majority of climate scientists that think climate change is PRIMARILY of human creation.
No one doesn't think it's happening.
I don't think that term means what you think it means.So if you ask someone "Whats your major" and its physics you think they're going to answer "liberal arts?"
Well ok the physics majors might be that snarky, but no one else in the sciences.
No one would respond "liberal arts" period. Because that's not a major.
Their major would be Economics, or sociology, or bacteriology, or pre-med, or pre-law, or criminology, or history, or literature, or...| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is one of my favorite on how people come to believe global warming
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/WCAS-D-13-00042.1?af=R
Hey look, a study about public opinion on climate change.
Has nothing to do with the hard science of it.Stop dissembling.
No one would respond "liberal arts" period. Because that's not a major.
Their major would be Economics, or sociology, or bacteriology, or pre-med, or pre-law, or criminology, or history, or literature, or...
or liberal arts, which was functionally a bunch of humanities and about the same as being undeclared.
This is one of my favorite on how people come to believe global warming
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/WCAS-D-13-00042.1?af=R
Hey look, a study about public opinion on climate change.
Has nothing to do with the hard science of it.
Stop dissembling.
Correct assessment. But why people believe what they believe is just interesting to me.
or liberal arts, which was functionally a bunch of humanities and about the same as being undeclared.
No one would respond "liberal arts" period. Because that's not a major.
Their major would be Economics, or sociology, or bacteriology, or pre-med, or pre-law, or criminology, or history, or literature, or...
Yes, if someone says they're a liberal arts student it means they're undeclared.
Until they declare their major as geology, as my mother did.
Fun Fact: All the science professionals I know were Liberal Arts students.
Dude, you have the worst habit of using an incorrect and rhetorical definition of a word, and then refusing to admit you're wrong when shown.
How are you better than the people you constantly decry?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Correct assessment. But why people believe what they believe is just interesting to me.This is one of my favorite on how people come to believe global warming
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/WCAS-D-13-00042.1?af=R
Hey look, a study about public opinion on climate change.
Has nothing to do with the hard science of it.
Stop dissembling.
For me it's because my parents are both science professionals and I was raised to be scientifically literate. I've seen the data and, actually, participated (as an adolescent) in tangential research. Specifically, a geological/limnological study by my mother which used fossilized microbes as a litmus for lake health.
To your previous comment, yes climates always change, but never in human history has there been this rapid of a trend. Heck, not even in geological history, though I'll grant that the data on that is less conclusive.
Until they declare their major as geology, as my mother did.
Fun Fact: All the science professionals I know were Liberal Arts students.
Weird. Every science major I know was majoring in a science from day 1. (probably because my school didn't have many 1st and second year students)
Dude, you have the worst habit of using an incorrect and rhetorical definition of a word, and then refusing to admit you're wrong when shown.
How are you better than the people you constantly decry?
I'm not corresponding to your subjective and ultimately nit picky terminology. They're not corresponding to reality. HUGE difference between calling a palm tree a tree and thinking it would be great for a raft.
Until they declare their major as geology, as my mother did.
Fun Fact: All the science professionals I know were Liberal Arts students.Weird. Every science major I know was majoring in a science from day 1. (probably because my school didn't have many 1st and second year students)
I'm not corresponding to your subjective and ultimately nit picky terminology. They're not corresponding to reality. HUGE difference between calling a palm tree a tree and thinking it would be great for a raft.Dude, you have the worst habit of using an incorrect and rhetorical definition of a word, and then refusing to admit you're wrong when shown.
How are you better than the people you constantly decry?
There's nothing "subjective" about my terminology. I'm going by the terminology used by post-secondary education institutions. You know, the colleges and universities in which people are ostensibly taking these classes. Also known as "liberal arts colleges", like Yale, Harvard...
"Science" isn't a major anywhere I know of, and a lot of students who are determined to go into a specific branch of science (say, biology) take time to decide whether they want to specialize in. Do they want to get a general biology degree, or go into zoology? Botany, or environmental sciences?
Didn't you say you have a degree in forestry? A BS or a BA (the two types of liberal arts degrees)?
There's nothing "subjective" about my terminology. I'm going by the terminology used by post-secondary education institutions. You know, the colleges and universities in which people are ostensibly taking these classes. Also known as "liberal arts colleges", like Yale, Harvard...
And I'm using it the way I've seen it commonly used without any intentional hidden nuance. Nothing wrong with either definition. English is like horseshoes, hand grenades, or nuclear bombs. Close is good enough.
"Science" isn't a major anywhere I know of, and a lot of students who are determined to go into a specific branch of science (say, biology) take time to decide whether they want to specialize in. Do they want to get a general biology degree, or go into zoology? Botany, or environmental sciences?
Ahem
Every science major I know was majoring in a science from day 1
Its BS degree. (I can mean that either way :) ). Dual major environmental forest biology and Forest Resource management.
So your argument is that cutting what are essentially "undeclared" majors will be a major improvement in some fashion?
Once we get past the terminology question, that is?
My argument was that
1) someone looking to ax* the humanities departments a bit** hardly came out of the liberal cloning factory. (not that I'd ever be in a position of world domination to do that, but its nice to dream)
2)I don't just get growly with republicans I'm an equal opportunity misanthrope.
Are there really enough people actually graduating with generic liberal degrees to make any difference in anything?
Well, you can make them specific I don't see the value in a lot of them, and think our schools could do with a little less well rounding and a bit more point, as well as doing more to encourage education thats more practical.
* hey! there's my major in action
**does that work better to convey the intent?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, you can make them specific I don't see the value in a lot of them, and think our schools could do with a little less well rounding and a bit more point, as well as doing more to encourage education thats more practical.
While I can see where you're coming from, you have to at least entertain the opposite: there are PLENTY of right-wingers who wouldn't see your degree as in any way practical. You environmentalist hippie! Get a real job, like running a fortune 500 company or border patrol!
Well, you can make them specific I don't see the value in a lot of them, and think our schools could do with a little less well rounding and a bit more point, as well as doing more to encourage education thats more practical.While I can see where you're coming from, you have to at least entertain the opposite: there are PLENTY of right-wingers who wouldn't see your degree as in any way practical. You environmentalist hippie! Get a real job, like running a fortune 500 company or border patrol!
Only the EFB half of my degree. The FOR side can show them how to get a 12% real rate of return on a forest, crank out hardwood floors for their houses, and defer taxes on their land.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is the American Meteorological Society also a bunch of right wing fanatics?It has been making me very successful.Then maybe stick to that instead of pretending to know the first thing about climate change.
Man, that name-drop sure worked out well for you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You see, your opinions on the facts of climate change aren't really useful at all.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You see, your opinions on the facts of climate change aren't really useful at all.
Nor did the facts change his opinion.
[
There's nothing "subjective" about my terminology. I'm going by the terminology used by post-secondary education institutions. You know, the colleges and universities in which people are ostensibly taking these classes. Also known as "liberal arts colleges", like Yale, Harvard...
There's nothing "subjective" about your terminology. It's merely outdated. Yes, originally the "liberal arts" were distinguished from the "servile arts" that prepared you for a profession, and originally there was no such thing as "science," which is why Newton and his generation were referred to as "natural philosophers." Academia being what it is and highly tradition-bound, much of the ritual terminology has remained unchanged for centuries, which is why most scientists receive a "doctor of philosophy" degree, and in fact, why law degrees are actually named in Latin.
In practical terms, most colleges today separate Arts and Sciences administratively, and the degree of BA and BS are generally not interchangeable, especially in schools that award both. (And a BS is, by definition, not a degree in the liberal "arts.")
That's one reason that people today generally discuss "STEM" disciplines (an acronym for Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) to avoid arguments about whether or not mathematics is still a liberal art.
In practical terms, most colleges today separate Arts and Sciences administratively, and the degree of BA and BS are generally not interchangeable, especially in schools that award both. (And a BS is, by definition, not a degree in the liberal "arts."
As always, I can only speak from my own experiences.
My university (UW-Madison) offers BOTH BS and BA degrees in most L&S majors (probably all, but I'm too lazy to check). For example, I could get either a BS or a BA in Economics, the difference being (essentially) 3 vs. 4 levels of language and 12 vs. 16 credits in science and math.I believe I have the credit load to choose either.
Either way, even BS degrees (hehe) require plenty of gen ed credits in Humanities and Social Sciences, including literature credits.
When I went to ASU (mid-nineties), the difference between a B.S. and a B.A. pretty much came down to whether you had to take calculus. Seriously.
So while I got my B.S., I am by no stretch of the imagination a scientist. All I know is enough to know when to go find a book. :)