The Problem With Congress's Scientific Illiterates

Lasrick (2629253) writes "Brian Merchant at Motherboard examines the March 26th House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology's 2015 budget request hearing. White House adviser Dr. John Holdren addressed the committee to defend funding for science programs. Video clips show comments that are difficult to believe, when you hear them. From the article: '"So, when you guys do your research, you start with a scientific—what do they call it—postulate or theory, and you work from that direction forward, is that right?" Representative Randy Weber (R-TX) said. "So, I'm just wondering how that related, for example, to global warming and eventual global cooling." He paused to make a joke about getting the scientists' cell phone number so he could call to ask when to buy a coat, before concluding that science just isn't up to the task.'"

Comments

Don't bother.

[Petersko]

All you can do with somebody like that is just look them over, wince, be perplexed for a moment, and then move on. They aren't interested, nor would they listen to any attempt to aid their understanding.

It's not a winnable battle, so don't start the fight.

Re:Don't bother.

[Berkyjay]

And this is why we fail. We get so defeated by ignorant politicians and just throw up our hands and say "what can you do?" But we get the government we deserve and most of this country is horribly undereducated and ignorant of how the world actually works.

Re:Don't bother.

[JohnVanVliet]

"All you can do with somebody like that is"
is to do EVERYTHING possible to have them removed from office ASAP!!!!

Re:Don't bother.

[MickyTheIdiot]

I think you're maybe half right.

We have a little less than half of the people that throw up their hands and give up because it is just so dumb.

We have another group at a little less than half that are so worn out with work, the 3 kids society said they should have, the junk they spend their money on, etc.. etc.. that they don't have the time to pay attention.

So you have 2% that are pissed off that our leadership is dumb as hell and are willing to fight the idiocy. And that's not enough.

Re:Don't bother.

[Anonymous Coward]

Trying to convince the fools is what's not a winnable battle. I vote against them all the time.

Re:Don't bother.

[lonOtter]

It's not even that they're tired, or that they give up. It's that most people are apathetic and unintelligent, all in one convenient package.

Re:Don't bother.

[Anonymous Coward]

The point isn't to fix them.
The goal is to ridicule them, shut them up, use them as an example that scares students into paying attention in school and then actually voting, and then to replace them in future elections.

It's not going to turn into a better world without large-scale attempts at education, so don't give up just because this particular turd is un-flushable.

Re:Don't bother.

[Jason Levine]

The problem is that these people aren't just ignorant. People who are ignorant can be educated and then they're fine. These people are willfully ignorant. They are purposefully ignorant. They take pride in their ignorance and will do everything in their power to stay ignorant. Trying to educate these people is a losing proposition because they won't listen no matter what you say or how much proof you show them.

It would be tolerable if these people were just conspiracy nuts ala the "moon landing were faked" folks. We could laugh at them and move on with our lives. These people, however, are in seats of power in the government and are making big decisions about scientific funding. Again, perhaps we could laugh at them if we knew that the educated populace would toss the ignorant politicians when the next election rolled around. Unfortunately, the purposefully ignorant politicians are representing purposefully ignorant people who keep voting them in and who actively oppose educated politicians. To make matters worse, the willfully ignorant politicians gerrymander their districts so that it is nearly impossible to get them voted out of office. They might be purposefully ignorant about science but they are very intelligent about how politics works - a very dangerous combination.

You can't reason with these people. You can oppose them, but it can be very frustrating when you are derided for wanting someone who is educated to make these decisions instead of someone who thinks God *poofed* everything into existence 10,000 years ago as proved incontrovertibly by a book that they take literally. In the end, I can understand why some people throw their arms up in frustration.

Re:Don't bother.

[Jason Levine]

There's also the group that see idiocy all around and, knowing they can't fight it all, fight some battles and toss their arms up on others.

For example, my wife and I are fighting against EngageNY, Common Core, and the high-stakes testing that New York State has implemented. Without going too much into it (since it is off-topic), let's just summarize to say that New York's Board of Education is highly corrupt and this was rushed into to benefit politicians and funnel money to corporations, not students or teachers. In fact, it is actively hurting students. So we're fighting this fight.

Unfortunately, we can't fight every fight. I doubt anyone could. Even if you were single, with no kids, and were able to fight these fights every day, I doubt you would be able to battle all of them. At some point, you need to pick and choose and people are more likely to pick the battles that affect them immediately (schools) and less likely to pick battles that might affect them later on (science funding). This isn't to say that science isn't important - I definitely think it is, but you can't fight all the fights all the time.

Before you judge someone for throwing up their arms in frustration at this instead of fighting, take a closer look and see what other battles they're fighting.

Re:Don't bother.

[ComputersKai]

Just look at this. The representative here is spouting around claiming that his assumptions, essentially, flout the experiments of numerous scientists. During the Bush administration the government came up for some bright plan for fuel-cell cars, and essentially decided to kill off electric cars in favor of fuel cells. Guess how many hydrogen stations you see across to country now? And the Kevin Mitnick case. The ignorant justice officials in the court case apparently were so paranoid about giving a computer to the defendant, they wouldn't even let him review the evidence on a computer disconnected from a network. The prosecution also pressed for this, citing that the evidence was so much they couldn't print it all out. Is that constitutional to not allow the accused to review the evidence with an attorney? And the "oh-global-warming-climate-change is a joke" attitudes? Well, go ask the Chinese. I'm pretty sure they would have some choice things to say about that. And why the f**k do 'mericans elect these guys to office in the first place? Do we really need to shove everything in our politicians' faces to get them to understand?

Re:Don't bother.

[flaming error]

This is about science in general, not AGW in particular.

But if you want to make it about AGW, the science is not based on surveys, nor is it based on computer models.

It is based on old school physics that's been developing over centuries.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Not the most potent, but the primary driver.

Since the industrial revolution began,
a) Atmospheric CO2 has gone from 280 ppm to 400 ppm (40% increase)
b) ocean pH has gone down 0.1 (30% increase in acidity).

What each upcoming season's weather will be we aren't sure.

But we are sure our changes to the atmosphere are warming the planet, acidifying and enlarging the oceans, and displacing and killing living things.

All your denialist microquibbles, character assassinations, and FUD are red herrings.

The core science is not in dispute. It is accepted by every established scientific association on the planet, for every branch of science.

It's basically accepted by everyone except one political faction in one scientifically illiterate country.

Re:Don't bother.

[meerling]

Considering the positions of power and influence those fools hold, your statement is pretty much the equivalent of being somewhere lost at sea with a navigator that won't let anyone else navigate despite the fact that he has no idea how to do it, and thinks the compass is some kind of fancy combination lock on a secret stash of fairy dust. The idiots are going to sink the F-N ship and there are NO LIFEBOATS !

It's generally considered unwise to ignore the creep with the gun to your head, no matter how stupid and irrational he is.

Re:Don't bother.

[al0ha]

>> most of this country is horribly undereducated and ignorant of how the world actually works.

Yep and that is part of the cloaked Right Wing agenda that is turning the US into an oligarchy. Every politician since time imemorial has stated education is their top priority, but the facts of the state of the educational system in America proves they are liars, every one of them. Now the worst of the Bush II Presidency has just been revealed with the latest Supreme Court ruling on money in politics.

In the government and in politics it's far worse than simple ignorance of scientific fact, there is active anti-truth campaigns funded by big money Super PACs. Now with the recent Supreme Court folly the Tea Party and other scientific denier whackos will have even more Super PAC money to continue their dirty work in the name of the 1%.

Our only hope to continue as a true Democracy is to figure out how to use the Internet to get money out of politics completely. That is what every brilliant mind should be working towards if we want any hope for the future generations.

Re:Don't bother.

[Jane Q. Public]

And by the way: here are a few of the peer-reviewed papers by those people you claim don't exist.

Re:Don't bother.

[flaming error]

" I can keep shooting you down all day"
Perhaps you could. Shoot down Stephen Hawking and Neil deGrasse Tyson, and I'll join your team.

Re:Don't bother.

[superwiz]

That's true. But the same is true of reporters. They are all interested in power and power structures. They are not in the business of improvement. They are in the business of seduction. Reason is a liability in that setting.

Re:Don't bother.

[Anonymous Coward]

Guess what the counter study is also a misleading piece of shit. Fuck you.

Re:Don't bother.

[thunderclap]

e planet, for every branch of science.

It's basically accepted by everyone except one political faction in one scientifically illiterate country.

You do realize that this

\a) Atmospheric CO2 has gone from 280 ppm to 400 ppm (40% increase) b) ocean pH has gone down 0.1 (30% increase in acidity).

Has happened at least 12 times in the last 100000 yrs? Thats from the core samples pulled from Antarctica. So how many of them involved humans? Hmm.. this one. People who believe that global climate change will lead to floods and lost land and changing weather are right. It will. Its called a living planet. While we might have accelerated the process, the problem is the fact people want to stop it. That's scary. No, you get the right to alter planetary weather because you put a city on a coast. You move the city. (or protect it). The planet won't have runaway greenhouse because its doesnt have the trigger that Venus has. Also we have to accept that 98% of all species of animals have died and we have nothing to do it. Its part of a living planet. Seriously, though we need to stop electing people who are clueless about certain fields. (like science)

Re:Don't bother.

[msobkow]

Possibly because, given the nature of the committee, and the presumption that people appointed to it would have at least some vague idea about the subject matter, the politician's questions was akin to your mechanic asking you where to put the key in your car. :P

Re:Don't bother.

[thunderclap]

Hey, according to string theorist Brian Greene's quilted multiverse theory every possible event will occur an infinite number of times within an infinite amount of space. However, the speed of light prevents us from being aware of these other identical areas. So God *poofed* everything into existence 10,000 years ago as proved incontrovertibly by a book that they take literally. As did Thor and rangnorok and Chronus etc.

Re:Don't bother.

[Anonymous Coward]

Excuse me, that was 6,000 years ago. Read The Book. And you are going to Hell.

Re:Don't bother.

[pitchpipe]

The real question here is why a politician is actually asking perfectly legitimate questions, but is being labeled stupid on Slashdot for doing so.

It's so fitting that your username is Jane Q. Public. You are an excellent representative of the general public and their ignorance on all things scientific.

Re:Don't bother.

[bill_mcgonigle]

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Not the most potent, but the primary driver.

Except for water vapor. That's why it's so important to get the cloud response models right. CO2 molecules last longer than water vapor molecules, but if the amount of water vapor increases permanently then that distinction becomes less important.

Since the industrial revolution began,
a) Atmospheric CO2 has gone from 280 ppm to 400 ppm (40% increase)
b) ocean pH has gone down 0.1 (30% increase in acidity).

Indeed. One unanswered question is why the current spike started in 1830 (see Scripp's sea bed sediment research). That's the year the first train service started in the UK, but Faraday wouldn't discover electromagnetic current until the next year. The next few decades would see the invention of gasoline, concrete, steel, and electrical generation on a large scale, but there just wasn't that much new emission happening in 1830 as compared with the preceeding decades. This kind of increase should be very linear and the ocean response should be similar. Yet we have this spike that's yet to be properly explained.

The core science is not in dispute. It is accepted by every established scientific association on the planet, for every branch of science.

Some people claim to know exactly what's going to happen and why. Others claim to know when. But nobody really knows how the atmospheric system works fully yet - none of the models are great predictors yet. We still need better models - even the people who think they have the best models are still writing grants to build better ones!

It's basically accepted by everyone except one political faction in one scientifically illiterate country.

What's accepted? Surely not that we're done with the science! Be careful of people who have religion at either extreme of such debates.

Re:Don't bother.

[paiute]

I may not be the only one who thinks having three kids and a house in the suburbs either indicates a serious IQ issue or some sort of mental illness is at work. If one can get sold on the yuppie way of life one has already been lost.

Yuppie = Young Urban Professional, usually childless

Re:Don't bother.

[thunderclap]

No, I'm not. Trying reading it in Hebrew (Aramaic) and greek.

Re:Don't bother.

[rnturn]

Take a look at the authors of those papers. The same names keep showing up in paper after paper after paper. Looks pretty fishy. Makes you wonder just who the "peers" are who are reviewing those papers.

Re:Don't bother.

[umafuckit]

It would be tolerable if these people were just conspiracy nuts ala the "moon landing were faked" folks. We could laugh at them and move on with our lives. These people, however, are in seats of power in the government and are making big decisions about scientific funding.

And they're there because they were voted in by people who sympathise with these views. We get the government we deserve because, as a nation, the bulk of the US is scientifically illiterate. There will continue to be illiterates in power as long as the people are illiterate. Somehow we need to find a way to promote science as a way of thinking and do so without hurting the feelings of the religious right.

Re:Don't bother.

[Anonymous Coward]

Before you judge someone for throwing up their arms in frustration at this instead of fighting, take a closer look and see what other battles they're fighting.

People who actually fight battles are few and far between. If anything needs to be fought, it's the continued erosion of our fundamental liberties. We have things like the TSA and NSA which are known to be violating the constitution and people's rights. Those are the most important issues; period. Nothing is more important than defending our liberties, for without them, this country would be and is utterly worthless.

Re:Don't bother.

[Anonymous Coward]

Moving the goalposts? When you have a myriad of reputable scientists who disagree with you, it might be you that needs to change what you believe.

Re:Don't bother.

[styrotech]

Climate change is to actual environmental science while Jenny McCarthy is to Vaccines. The real truth is being subverted by the Al Gore et al bs that serves no one but a few corps.

So... are you saying that climate change claims that actual environmental science causes autism?

Nah, that can't be it - I'm not sure climate change actually claims anything itself. Although Anthropomorphised Global Warming does have a nice ring to it.

Hmmm... thinking about it some more, I suspect you are cleverly using autism as more of a metaphor here (or is that a simile?).

So you must really be saying that the only research that ever backed climate change was a fraudulent discredited study by Al Gore and his corporate conflicts of interest? And a significant percentage of the public is swayed by misguided celebrity followers of Al Gore all the while ignoring the existing research from actual environment science that can't find any evidence of climate change?''

Is that more like it?

Re:Don't bother.

[cyn1c77]

We have another group at a little less than half that are so worn out with work, the 3 kids society said they should have, the junk they spend their money on, etc.. etc.. that they don't have the time to pay attention.

Oh, we pay attention. But there is no one to vote for who will fix the problem since all of the parties collude to keep themselves in power.

What do you expect us to do? What are you doing other than complaining on /.?

Are all the childless people really making more of a difference? I didn't know that clubbing, going to the movies, and trying to get laid really was that effective at motivating political reform!

Re:Don't bother.

[thunderclap]

Yeah, that sums it up.

Re:Don't bother.

[Anonymous Coward]

But we keep boasting about how many people we send to university. The real problem is that human nature hasn't changed and we don't have more smart people than before just because they went through an "education".

Re:Don't bother.

[Anonymous Coward]

How was this list generated? I took a quick look at a couple of the more recent papers toward the end. This paper, "The Pacic sea surface temperature,
Physics Letters A, Volume 376, Issue 2, pp. 128-135, December 2011, doesn't mention AGW at all. And this one, "Hydroclimate of the northeastern United States is highly sensitive to solar forcing, Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 39, February 2012, has an implicit acceptance of "anthropogenic greenhouse gas forcing" in the final sentence.

Re:Don't bother.

[The Grim Reefer]

It's that most people are apathetic and unintelligent, all in one convenient package.

It's more efficient that way.

Re:Don't bother.

[The Grim Reefer]

I may not be the only one who thinks having three kids and a house in the suburbs either indicates a serious IQ issue or some sort of mental illness is at work. If one can get sold on the yuppie way of life one has already been lost.

Yuppie = Young Urban Professional, usually childless

The GP is so smart and mentally balanced that not only didn't he get sold on the yuppie way of life. He doesn't even know what it means. ;-)

Re:Don't bother.

[canadiannomad]

Wolf PAC

Re:Don't bother.

[MouseTheLuckyDog]

And when your arguments wind down to a superposition of two logical fallacies. (argumentum ab auctoritate, Argumentum ad populum) it is perhaps time to take a course in Logic 101.

Re:Don't bother.

[pla]

Are all the childless people really making more of a difference? I didn't know that clubbing, going to the movies, and trying to get laid really was that effective at motivating political reform!

We also vote, and have the disposable income (that in your case goes to crap like paying for all those antibiotics you keep ruining as placebos to treat viral ear infections) to contribute to our preferred candidates. And hey, the USSC actually just raised we mere humans to the level of corporations as far as "money as free speech" goes!

That said, let's not get sidetracked by the breeder-vs-DINK arguments. We have one very simple, fundamental problem with getting scientifically-literate people in office:

None run.

We have, as a nearly unanimous pool of candidates, complete fucking morons (with nice hair, oh and "ironically" enough, a median net worth in the eight digits). So whether we vote for Tweedle-dee (D) or Tweedle-dum (R), we still all lose.

Re:Don't bother.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is what happens when you keep voting for morons, the same morons are using science behind closed doors to keep their monopolized seats.

And the Supreme court has voted to continuing to allow private individuals/corporations, ect to allow 'donations' to fund campaigns.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/04/02/298326893/supreme-court-strikes-down-overall-limits-on-political-contributions

Re:Don't bother.

[lonOtter]

What are you doing other than complaining on /.?

For instance, not voting for either of the two main parties, joining protests, getting more involved in local politics, etc. A few people can't do it alone. Once most people realize that the two main parties are full of shit and stop supporting them, then things can start to change.

Are all the childless people really making more of a difference? I didn't know that clubbing, going to the movies, and trying to get laid really was that effective at motivating political reform!

Not all childless people do such things. Even if they do, it's not like it uses up 100% of their time. To me, it's all petty nonsense, so I don't bother.

Re:Don't bother.

[SuperTechnoNerd]

People think that politicians on committees are by default, advocates of what that committee represents, in this case science. However in government, it is a powerful tactic to form a committee with the sole purpose to subvert, control, or even destroy that which it supposed to support and represent. What better way to change something that you don't like than to be in a position of making important decisions about that thing. There is a calculated reason why there are no scientists on such committees. That explains why they make no attempt to even have a high school level of understanding about science and it's methods. Because it's not about the science to them - it's about control. They already have their opinions formed and the rest is just window dressing. As you said they are very intelligent about how politics works. Why else would people so out of touch with science, who even hate it, want to be on a science committee if not to throw a wrench into the works and control it, and to use it to support their political (and religious) agenda.

Re:Don't bother.

[Anonymous Coward]

Holy shit. Oh yes, let's not argue with Science Guy here who shows REAL EVIDENCE that because heating in a box appropriate for a fucking real greenhouse, you know, with plants and shit, seems to be dominated by convective heat transfer, that this THOROUGHLY DISCREDITS the whole fucking fields of observational and theoretical chemistry, and THOROUGHLY DISCREDITS real fucking measurements of in-welling and out-welling radiation measurements. Oh my fucking God, are you that fucking stupid, or that fucking arrogant that you actually believe that you understand this shit? You know (well, YOU probably don't know) that we've sent stuff up into space, measured the amount of radiation coming down onto the earth, measured the radiation that makes it to the earth's surface, and measured the radiation that leaves the earth, and you know what?? It all can't be explained by some fucking air-filled cardboard boxes with plastic film stretched on them. Imagine that!

There is nothing wrong with not understanding something, but do yourself a favor and don't try to sound like you understand something when it is clear you have no fucking clue what you're talking about. Parroting technical shit to browbeat someone who doesn't understand something is bad enough, but don't try it on someone who actually understands basic physics and chemistry and expect to not be held in ridicule. The link you provide looks like a nice experiment that seems to have been well thought out and executed. I could even offer some opinions on the way it was done, how it could be improved, and the conclusions drawn (exercise for the student: look up the transmission spectra of CO2 and silica windows and polyethylene, and look up the emission spectrum of CO2 and see if you can find one issue to be addressed). But then to take that and run with it because it THOROUGLY DISCREDITS the whole concept of what is referred to colloquially as "greenhouse gases" makes you sound like a complete fucking tool who can parrot all that great "science" and "facts" and shit from other dumbasses with blogs.

And another thing, your list of refereed papers is pathetic. What is the point, besides AGAIN trying to overwhelm the unaware with a long list of references. Big fucking deal. I read papers like that, so I looked a bit through your papers. First off, a list of random references is completely meaningless if you don't provide context. What is the fucking context here? Why were any of these papers put on this list, because most of them you can't tell from their titles. So let's look at a few of these papers: The Knorr paper, where he says "I expect atmospheric concentrations to have increased, but my modeling suggests it has been relatively flat. We need to understand this better." HOLY SHIT! Tear down the walls! What is the point of this paper on your list? This sounds like a real science paper, not some shocking expose that the emperor has no clothes. Oh, here is one from Iron and Steel Technology. As fine a journal I'm sure that is, I'll think I'll look to another source for climate science related issues rather than one that uses the term "alarmist" so frequently. How about the 2009 Essenhigh paper? Oh, look, as I was googling for it, one of my first links came up with a paper that points out that Essenhigh is repeating a common misconception (and the author thanks Essenhigh for useful comments on his paper to boot). Or how about that 2001 Essenhigh editorial, yes, editorial (even in peer-reviewed papers, editorials don't follow the peer review process).

Look, learn some basic science, look at the research going on, get involved (intelligently) in the discussions, and leave your pathetic armchair science distortions with the bozos on the radio where you get your other opinions.

Re:Don't bother.

[artor3]

Somehow we need to find a way to promote science as a way of thinking and do so without hurting the feelings of the religious right.

No, see, that's the problem. You're aiming at the wrong group. These congressmen aren't ignorant because they're religious. They're ignorant because certain entrenched interests pay them ENORMOUS SUMS OF MONEY to remain ignorant. You can never, ever compete with that. No education, no promotion of science, will ever make a dent.

If you want it to get better, you need to get serious campaign finance reform. And that can't happen until you get rid of the current SCOTUS. Which means that our one and only chance to fix this is in the next presidential election, since the winner might, maybe get to replace a conservative justice. If we get a Republican president, Scalia and Kennedy will retire, and we will be damned to another 20 years of oligarchy.

If we manage to get a Democratic president, Scalia and Kennedy will try to hold on as long as they can.

Absolute best case scenario (barring a miracle heart attack), we might be able to start fixing this around 2025.

It will probably be too late by then.

Re:Don't bother.

[spitzak]

You do realize the change is happening literally HUNDREDS of times FASTER than any of those "12 previous times". Or perhaps you just want to ignore that because it makes your whole argument bogus.

Re:Don't bother.

[spitzak]

Skeptics certainly are shouted down when the "facts" are made up with no basis on reality. Please show where you got those claims about sea level and the models not matching.

Re:Don't bother.

[Anonymous Coward]

We, as a nation shouldn't have to suffer under the duress of catering to the least common denominator. The only way I see that ever changing in our lifetime is if we revoked voting rights for the ignorant, which never goes over well when I bring it up. I'll be the first to admit that I'm uninformed about the majority of the issues on any given ballot, and, frankly, I'm appalled that I'm even presented the option to cast a vote on those issues. I just don't understand why people don't/won't/can't own up to their original ignorance.

Re:Don't bother.

[Uecker]

The core science is not in dispute. It is accepted by every established scientific association on the planet, for every branch of science.

Some people claim to know exactly what's going to happen and why. Others claim to know when. But nobody really knows how the atmospheric system works fully yet - none of the models are great predictors yet. We still need better models - even the people who think they have the best models are still writing grants to build better ones!

It's basically accepted by everyone except one political faction in one scientifically illiterate country.

What's accepted? Surely not that we're done with the science! Be careful of people who have religion at either extreme of such debates.

You are right about open questions, but this is just distracting from the only important thing: GP is absolutely right: The _core_ science is not in dispute. All important national academies of science and many scientific societies have issued statements in support of the IPCC. It does not get clearer than this.

Also I am wondering what a statement such as "Be careful of people who have religion at either extreme of such debates" is supposed to mean. Setling for a moderate point of view will certainly make your life easier, but if you search for the truth, you have to accept that the truth might turn out to be something extreme. A much better advise is: Always question your own beliefs. In times of the filter bubble, this seems more important than ever.

Re:Don't bother.

[Electricity Likes Me]

Pro-tip: to someone else, so are you.

The reality is people are really stupid when they go outside their field of expertise. Some people have a lot fewer of these then others.

Re:Don't bother.

[lonOtter]

Pro-tip: to someone else, so are you.

And? To some ignorant person, Einstein might seem stupid. Someone's going to be wrong. The mere fact that someone else might deem me unintelligent is not something that makes my observations incorrect.

The reality is people are really stupid when they go outside their field of expertise.

It's not just that they're ignorant; they're unintelligent and have almost zero critical thinking skills. Examples of this are people who buy into the "Nothing to hide, nothing to fear" nonsense, accept the TSA or NSA surveillance, keep voting for 'the lesser of two evils', or do any other such thing, and (this is the important part) continue to support these things even after it's explained why it's a bad idea.

That and most people don't even seem to have the ability to truly understand (not just memorize) even trivial math makes it seem extremely likely that most people are unintelligent.

Re:Don't bother.

[BoberFett]

Ah yes, it's a right wing conspiracy. Nothing the left wing could be doing might be even remotely possible for damaging education in science.

"Little Bobby and Suzy are special snowflakes, they don't need to answer the questions correctly, as long as they tried we'll give them gold stars and boost their self confidence."

Pretty sure that's not a right wing attitude.

Re:Don't bother.

[Electricity Likes Me]

For instance, not voting for either of the two main parties, joining protests, getting more involved in local politics, etc. A few people can't do it alone. Once most people realize that the two main parties are full of shit and stop supporting them, then things can start to change.

Ahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

So, to be clear: literally never.

See, when people complain that nothing ever changes, it would help if they then suggested ideas which didn't show that they have a complete inability to understand how or why things are the way they are in the first place.

For one thing, voting third party on the presidential/congressional level is completely worthless if you can't win local or state elections. But of course, if you could do that, then you'd have a largish party which would have internal politics and negotiations of its own, at which point it would be functionally a lot easier to simply run under an existing banner and negotiate for your ideas from within. But all of this would involve actually demonstrating some social and political acumen.

Re:Don't bother.

[Anonymous Coward]

These guys are just telling their constituents what they want to hear. Why do they want to hear it? Because shit gets scary:

1. Global warming is something that can cause some serious problems. That's scary. Not real? Whew, no longer scary.
2. Wow we have a huge amount of debt and it's growing. It will cost our children and our country. That's scary. Deficits don't matter? Whew, no longer scary.
3. Evolution contradicts part of my worldview I've been taught since a youngster. That's scary. Evolution not real? Whew, no longer scary.
4. WMD's are scary. War with Iraq? No longer scary.
5. Terrorists are scary. Patriot Act? No longer scary.
6. Losing my job in a tough economy is scary. Make sure "job creators" have plenty of money to hire people? No longer scary.
7. Dying is scary. Get rid of the law that has death panels? No longer scary.
8. Wow we have a huge amount of debt and it's growing. It will cost our children and our country. That's scary. Cut unemployment benefits? No longer scary.

It doesn't matter if these policies do anything, as long as they make things less scary.

Re:Don't bother.

[Electricity Likes Me]

More importantly, whether the climate changes doesn't really matter when you have a scattered population in the millions, which is reasonably nomadic with no long term infrastructure.

We have today a population that will be 9 billion or so (the expected stabilization level in 2020), with vast static infrastructure requirements to support it, in highly unmobile cities.

It takes 100+ years of social policy to relocate people away from the coast due to highly predictable natural forces (erosion retreat policies for beachfront areas for example). We absolutely can't afford to move whole cities on that timespan, nor put up adequate retaining walls. And that's just considering the coastal flooding/weather change issue. It's not diving into fisheries damage, marine ecology changes, drought and inland rain changes etc.

Re:Don't bother.

[NeutronCowboy]

Since you clearly never took logic 101: an appeal to authority is only wrong when your appeal to authority does not involve an actual authority. Which the two people referred to, are. In which case an appeal to authority is actually the right course of action.

Asimov said it best: our greatest failing is that we believe that my ignorance is as good as your knowledge.

Re:Don't bother.

[lonOtter]

How very clever. I've never heard any of these arguments before.

For one thing, voting third party on the presidential/congressional level is completely worthless

Actually, it shows that you have principles. Voting for 'the lesser of two evils' just further helps scumbags that we get fucked up the ass forever; screw anyone who supports them, even if it was worthless. But it isn't, because, however small, it sends a message if enough people do it. I don't expect anything to change for a very long time, and mainly because our system is utterly broken and most people in it are unintelligent, but that doesn't mean you should give up.

Re:Don't bother.

[Anonymous Coward]

Where's Lee Harvey Oswald when you need him?

Re:Don't bother.

[Anonymous Coward]

Does complaining on /. qualify as fighting?

Re:Don't bother.

[Anonymous Coward]

It is based on old-school physics that have been discredited. Fourier's conclusions about his friend's experiments turned out to be wrong... the experimental apparatus in fact formed a real greenhouse. But... greenhouse gas theory is not based based on a the kind of heating that occurs in real greenhouses, which is known to be the prevention of convective cooling. Greenhouse gas theory is completely different, having to do with trapping of radiation. Which has been thoroughly discredited. (Just one example of said discrediting.)

Don't try to debate me on the science, guy. I've got you beat. I can keep shooting you down all day.

Sorry. Just linking 'papers' is not shooting down. And the paper linked isn't even worth reading. I have given research papers back to students to rework with less flaws. You just need more data points, repeat your experiment, show that the changes are bigger than the combined errors. He might show something, but that paper isn't thoroughly, it's anecdotal. Also I can't find anything on the researcher itself and the biology cabinet site looks like 'science' is just a hobby and he got his Prof. because he is a teacher. That may be the reason the paper looks a lot like homework and not like a scientific paper.

Re:Don't bother.

[Namarrgon]

greenhouse gas theory is not based based on a the kind of heating that occurs in real greenhouses

Well yeah. So why do you seem to think an experiment about how real greenhouses work has anything to do with the physics of CO2 blocking radiative transfer in the infrared spectrum? (Leaving aside the question of how one unpublished, non-peer-reviewed experiment can be considered to have "thoroughly discredited" anything).

You really do have a weird idea of science, don't you?

Re:Don't bother.

[sjames]

It's called learned helplessness. Put a rat in a cage and shock his feet. Provide different colored areas on the floor, lights, buzzers and levers. No matter what he does, shock his feet.

American voters are that rat.

Re:Don't bother.

[tragedy]

Greenhouse gas theory is completely different, having to do with trapping of radiation. Which has been thoroughly discredited. [principia-scientific.org] (Just one example of said discrediting.)

I think you're going to have to do a lot better than a paper about actual greenhouses that doesn't address the atmospheric greenhouse effect at all. Not to mention that cardboard box experiments, while great when you don't have anything else, don't really hold up against satellites with sensitive instruments that measure the radiation leaving and entering the atmosphere and similarly sensitive ground stations. Here is a much better experiment for the atmospheric greenhouse effect.

Re:Don't bother.

[phantomfive]

Shoot down Stephen Hawking and Neil deGrasse Tyson, and I'll join your team.

How does that relate to global warming at all? Has Stephen Hawking discovered the disruptive link between black holes and climate change?

Re:Don't bother.

[flaming error]

You seem to have the impression I conceded defeat, and that I was challenging you to next beat someone else.

My point was only that I am an anonymous layman, and if you managed to defeat me in a debate it would prove nothing. This isn't a frivolous political argument at a donut shop.

If the science is wrong prove it on scientific turf. Show NASA where they got their physics wrong, teach NOAA how the climate really works, show the field biologists where all the specimens they couldn't find are hiding.

You haven't disproven a thing. All you've discredited with your lie ("Greenhouse gas theory... has been thoroughly discredited"), esoteric microquibble (" the experimental apparatus..."), and innuendo of bias ("Fourier's conclusions about his friend's experiments") is yourself.

Re:Don't bother.

[fyngyrz]

No. The way to tell if someone is fighting is to check and see if the system has invested the effort to squash them. If not, they're having no effect, even if they *think* they're fighting.

You will not beat the establishment. Ever. It may beat itself out of sheer lumbering stupidity, with which it is copiously oversupplied, but you won't have had any hand in it. Not in the USA, in any case.

Re:Don't bother.

[Maritz]

Speak for yourself. I don't know any such thing, and I've seen A LOT of data that say it isn't so.

lol. Have you seen any that say it is so, or do you avoid those? Painstakingly searching out those few lonely cherry picked studies that fit your already-made-up mind must have been fun. You're deeply unpersuasive because it is overwhelmingly clear what an ideologue you are.

You'd have better results as a 'just asking questions' style troll. What you're doing here is too obvious to sway neutrals.

Re:Don't bother.

[tsa]

Remember that 50% of all people have an IQ lower than 100. When you have a Ph.D. you belong to the 2% or so of smartest people in the world so almost everybody you meet is more stupid than you. So most people aren't smart enough to understand how science works even if they get good education.

Re:Don't bother.

[fyngyrz]

None run.

Agreed. That's because "scientifically-literate people" are smart, and want no part of a monumentally corrupt, deeply flawed, oath-breaking conspiracy possessed of massive inertia in precisely the wrong direction in every way that is possible. Instead, we get members of the political parties, or IOW equally corrupt types, or crazed fanatics who manage to get in there and actually make a terrible situation even worse.

Re:Don't bother.

[Anonymous Coward]

bullshit... we could move a large city in less than 50. Remember true skyscrapers have only been around for about that time and look how manh we have built in one large city.

Re:Don't bother.

[DamnOregonian]

I think you are very confused about Fourier's theories on the greenhouse effect...
Fourier always knew that his friend's experiment formed a real greenhouse. His postulation was that the atmosphere, and "greenhouse gasses" within it could function to similar end, with various gasses of various levels of opaqueness to light wavelengths forming the stable barriers that the glass did.

That theory is in fact not discredited one bit. Space is the glass. It very efficiently prevents the convection of the atmosphere with the non-heat conducting void beyond. What you cited as being discredited is the theory that physical greenhouses retain their temperature because glass blocks long-wave radiation. I'm not really familiar with this theory, but it's pretty ridiculous on its face. Anyone with elementary understanding of thermodynamics can tell you that the lack of air exchange will greatly outweigh the radiative energy. But the best part is- that has *nothing* to do with the greenhouse effect. It's some kind of weird red herring straw man to distract someone from looking up what the greenhouse effect really is, and to see that you have absolutely no clue what the hell you are talking about.

The basic physics behind the greenhouse effect are so damn settled, that you have to undo our entire knowledge of the universe, relativistically, and quantum mechanically to alter them. The spectral absorption lines of various molecular gasses are *known*. Some simple thought experiments will lead you to the correct conclusion. Short-wave solar radiation hits something, say the ground. The ground absorbs it, heats up, and emits appropriate black-body radiation (long-wave). In a happy, greenhouse effect-less world, that emitted black-body radiation goes back out to space, and the Earth is a very fucking cold place. In our (thankfully obeying the laws of physics) world, a percentage of those long-wave photons hit something that is opaque to long-wave radiation on its way back out to space. Let's call this substance a greenhouse gas, since its existence will make the Earth retain heat- like a greenhouse retains heat. It is then refracted, with some of the incident photons going back to space, and some going back to the ground for re-absorption. The Earth just netted some thermal energy. It's a good deal for us, and it's entirely necessary in order for this planet not to be a spherical skating rink.

To call the "greenhouse effect" discredited is to claim that thermodynamics, relativity, and quantum mechanics are all wrong, and everything we know about heat transfer, photon absorption and emission and energy are all wrong. You must be some kind of fucking genius. I can see why you don't appeal to authority- you *are* the fucking authority.

Re:Don't bother.

[tsa]

Do you really think you will be taken seriously if you put the f-word in every one of your sentences?

Re:Don't bother.

[Maritz]

My post:

"The real question here is why a politician is actually asking perfectly legitimate questions, but is being labeled stupid on Slashdot for doing so."

was then modded down. What a hilarious proof of my point. These folks can pretend it's about the science all they want, but what it's really about for them is stifling dissent.

Stop pretending it's about science for you. You're a painfully obvious ideologue.

Re:Don't bother.

[volmtech]

Science is only good at making people do what they want. Politics is needed to make people do what they naturally wont do. None of the learned papers I read about the need to fight climate change give any specifics on the affect of these policies on the average person. A renewable utopia can't feed 10 billion people. How do we get six billion people to leave in the next 10 years?

Re:Don't bother.

[fahrbot-bot]

All you can do with somebody like that is just look them over, wince, be perplexed for a moment, and then move on. They aren't interested, nor would they listen to any attempt to aid their understanding.

It's not a winnable battle, so don't start the fight.

In other words: You can't argue with stupid.

Re:Don't bother.

[Anonymous Coward]

> Has happened at least 12 times in the last 100000 yrs?

Nope, global CO2 has never been as high as 400 ppm in the past 800,000 years at least, and it's only been this high a few times in the past 20,000,000 years.

Re:Don't bother.

[Anonymous Coward]

as proved incontrovertibly by a book that they take literally.

Literal or no, anyone who reads the book should come to the conclusion that it's full of silly fairy tales. Some people (not talking about you) seem to think that not reading it literally makes everything better, but the book is just as silly, and the gods these religious texts describe seem just as tyrannical and petty.

Re:Don't bother.

[lonOtter]

which never goes over well when I bring it up.

That's because that sort of thing has historically gone hand in hand with tyranny and leads to groups of people (deemed "ignorant," which means whatever those in power want it to mean) who have no say in anything.

Re:Don't bother.

[VortexCortex]

Then there are those who grew up as scientists then wondered why the scientific method wasn't used for all policy and law, then looked into the systems of governance and found them defective by design largely due to gerrymandering. That's a process whereby your votes do not matter anymore because whomever draws district outlines selects the winners (Protip: don't register as a party [they ask at the DMV] nor answer political surveys unless your population is nomadic). Some places are trying to fix this particular blatant exploit of our democratic-republic, but found the powers that be one step ahead so our vote tallies themselves have been hacked. And now that we don't have paper ballots to verify the insecure digital tally with, we might as well just ask the NSA or CIA or FBI to appoint people they like.

Speaking of which, if you apply a bit of observational power you'll discover those secret agencies answer to no one and have a long history of silencing any form of activism -- you know, because protest was the only avenue left to affect the government. It's hard for a scientist to survive mentally in a country that's hell bent on leveraging disaster capitalism regardless of public benefit: Humans will do whatever it takes to survive the disasters our government plans for us -- including compete for lower wages offered by immortal corporations.

Some of us have taken a step back, done some calculations and realized that some fights are entirely unwinnable: We've got to the point where the House Subcommittee on Energy and Environment allows a senator to read a passage from the bible and declare it as proof man can't change the climate -- only god can. Listen up, newbie, that's corporate oil interest speaking, leveraging religious fundamentalism against science from the very panels addressing climate change -- What can you do? Replace them and get a new panel bought off? It's not just congress, your executive and legislative branches are sock-puppet parades too. The government fights wars at the behest of corporations and Habeas Corpus has been revoked, FFS. It's not that everyone is stupid and we're "getting what we voted for"; The 'republic' part of our democratic-republic is designed to fix that: The dumb elect folks who are smarter, but our forefathers didn't count on the majority of congress being corrupt so the whole system became utterly broken. They did leave us the option to call an emergency session of congress and wield a vote of no-confidence, so next time you see the "fire congress" carousel go round, hop on board (not that it'll fix anything, but it'll scare some straight).

So, what? Organize some activism and try to fix the illegitimate rulership system that has benefited the powerful all too well for well over a hundred years? Then you're an "anti-government extremist" / terrorist, and the plan to silence that disastrous shit is already so firmly in place they can keep the worst of it even if PRISM is leaked to the public. To me the innefectual occupy movement was a test to see how quickly the elites and FBI will work their magic on the police to silence dissent, and to see how effectively the news is controlled by corporate statist interests. There were protesters shoulder to shoulder filling a large swath of Wall Street one day of the protest and the local news in my southern town mentioned nothing. Days later I had to pull up video and images of the event to convince my clueless friends and neighbors it even happened. They scratched their heads, "Why wasn't this on the news then?" -- indeed. Can you

Re:Don't bother.

[lonOtter]

I don't know why so many people refer to IQ when someone in the discussion mentions something about intelligence. The two things are completely different.

Re:Don't bother.

[N1AK]

The reality is people are really stupid when they go outside their field of expertise.

No. People are uninformed about things outside their expertise. They are only stupid when they try and comment on other fields. I'm not stupid when it comes to combustion engines. If someone asked me if a V8 or V10 were better I'd say I had no clue, stupid would be going V10 on the basis that 10 sounds better and I heard of a good V10 car once. In a way it's our own fault that our representatives express uninformed opinions: the politician who regularily says "I don't know" would be judged as ignorant or stupid.

Re:Don't bother.

[Big Hairy Ian]

The problem is that it's a bunch of politicians making decisions they either have no idea about or are only there to sabotage take the UN Human Rights comittee for instance http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodi... 1/2 of these countries haven't exactly got a clean record on Human Rights to start off with.

Re:Don't bother.

[tsa]

Very good point. But then again: the IQ i the only way to quantify 'intelligence.' The problem is of course that there isn't even a good definition of intelligence so what exactly does an IQ test measure? The ability to do IQ tests, that's for sure.

Re:Don't bother.

[LynnwoodRooster]

What happens when the authority's theories and models do not match reality, and yet they stand by their theories and models? Does that discredit the authorities, the models, and theories, or do we simply ignore reality and those who ask about the disparity?

When models and theories clash with data, it is the data that wins - every time.

Re:Don't bother.

[LynnwoodRooster]

My "denialist microquibble" was about why a politician who was asking perfectly legitimate questions about things that are in fact questionable, is being labeled stupid for doing so. Calling people stupid for asking questions is not the way science works.

That's because AGW isn't science, it's a religion. Now that we have data conflicting with the theories and models (data that exceeds the limits set by the promoters of the theories and models), the attacks will heighten - and choosing to believe empirical data over the models and theories will be dismissed as ignorant and unenlightened.

Science thrives on questioning and testing - both of which are currently eschewed by the pro-AGW acolytes. It's a religion, not science.

Re:Don't bother.

[LynnwoodRooster]

Here's at least one link about the models not matching reality. When data and models collide, which one should win?

Re:Don't bother.

[TapeCutter]

More depressing clips: A guy called ClimateBrad has a large collection of clips from US politicians doing their very best to make up their own facts and rules of logic.

Up until I reached my 40's I thought people like Senator Inhofe in the US and Tony Abbot here in Oz were uneducated, stupid, or more likely both. They are none of those things, they're just plain immoral by normal western standards when it comes to honesty (even the good ones). To paraphrase Shaun Micallef - "The media is called the fourth estate but behaves like a fifth wheel", like the political system it revels in conflict and is trained in the (in)humanities. If it can't find controversy in a story then it invents some (say) by equating a "one jump away" lobbyist's press release from one of their major sponsors to a meticulous scientific report. The Iraq war and "Climategate" are both prime examples of commercial media being worse than useless in clarifying a complex issue, particularly in the US.

The honest self-skepticisim required to be successful in the scientific and engineering world is a career killer in the political world. They have a different worldview that says everything boils down to an opinion, and all opinions are equal. Therefore social skills are more important than evidence and manipulation is more useful than reason. OTOH we have way too many Phd's in the hard sciences who have never stepped foot in a "Ph" class in their life and would not know Popper from Popoff.

Thing is, the political worldview is our natural behaviour, it's instinctual and we all do it to some degree because...well..it almost works. Critical thinking is a learned behaviour that basically refines "common-sense" using agreed rules of evidence and logic, it is the foundation of The Enlightenment, a radical shift in human behaviour barely 500yrs old. It's unsurprising that it hasn't permeated to everyone in the modern world that the "age of reason" created with extraordinary speed over the last 50-100yrs.

"I have a foreboding of an America in my children's or grandchildren's time -- when the United States is a service and information economy; when nearly all the manufacturing industries have slipped away to other countries; when awesome technological powers are in the hands of a very few, and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues; when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority; when, clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what's true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstition and darkness..." - Sagan, Demon Haunted World (Science as a candle in the dark)

Re:Don't bother.

[LynnwoodRooster]

Actually it was more akin to you taking your car to the mechanic for a squeal coming from the rear passenger side tire, and being told that your driver side front blinker isn't working right.

Re:Don't bother.

[Anonymous Coward]

> These people are willfully ignorant. They are purposefully ignorant. They take pride in their ignorance and will do everything in their power to stay ignorant.

Right on the nail.

Because Brawndo's got electrolytes.

Re:Don't bother.

[lolococo]

So you don't consider yourself as a part of "most", "people" or "most people"? Not sure what point you're trying to make here

Re:Don't bother.

[PvtVoid]

There's also the group that see idiocy all around and, knowing they can't fight it all, fight some battles and toss their arms up on others.

For example, my wife and I are fighting against EngageNY, Common Core, and the high-stakes testing that New York State has implemented.

Sure, that makes sense. Fight scientific illiteracy by opposing any attempt whatsoever to improve education. Way to go.

Re:Don't bother.

[lonOtter]

Whether I am a part of the group of people who are unintelligent is irrelevant to whether or not my observation reflects reality. But I don't think I am, no. Big surprise.

Re:Don't bother.

[flyneye]

Then there is the other end of the problem to address; we elect the morons. It would be easy to point out that candidates at the federal level are specialists in money and nothing else, thus eliminating both wings of the Repubmocrat party. Problematically, other parties tend to be focused elsewhere as well, or are promoting some dipshit extreme action that no one can get with.
We are going to end up with an idiot, no matter what we do.

Re:Don't bother.

[mrchaotica]

That said, let's not get sidetracked by the breeder-vs-DINK arguments. We have one very simple, fundamental problem with getting scientifically-literate people in office:

None run.

That's because, for the most part, they're well aware of the fact that they're unelectable. I myself would be interested in running for local office, but

1. a) my platform would be too logically-consistent (and therefore "non-mainstream" compared to the standard Democrat or Republican platform),
2. b) I'm not charismatic enough to get sufficient funding in using grass-roots campaigning,
3. c) as a consequence of both previous points, I wouldn't be able to get endorsements or funding in the "traditional" (party-backed) way either, and
4. d) solving any of the previous issues -- not to mention, doing the "wheeling and dealing" required to be effective after getting into office -- would require altering my character in a way that I am not able, let alone willing, to do.

I strongly suspect most scientifically-inclined people run into the same problems. Even if one were to overcome them, the best one could hope for is to match Jimmy Carter. He managed to make it to the Presidency, sure, but the widely-held view (deservedly or not; it doesn't really matter) is that he kind of sucked at it...

Re:Don't bother.

[Alioth]

Just because the past ones weren't caused by humans doesn't also mean the current one isn't.

Re:Don't bother.

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh shut up you pretentious twat. No one cares what you think.

Re:Don't bother.

[DoctorFuji]

Unfortunately, politicians don't run for office based on their scientific or educational merit/knowledge.

Re:Don't bother.

[SuricouRaven]

It can also raise issues to prominence. For example, in the UK, there is a strong public concern over our high immigration rate - a position that for many years no major party wished to take into account, for fear of losing the immigrant-family voting block or being condemned as racist. As a result of this lack of concern by the major parties, a couple of obscure parties - the BNP and UKIP - started to gain a great many votes purely by promising to take a strong stance against immigration. Once the leaders of the main parties saw this happen, they realized this was a real political movement and started to take a more anti-immigration stance themselves.

Re:Don't bother.

[doggo]

One of the huge problems in the geek community is the propensity to assume other people are stupid. Despite it's being true in many cases.

This is, typically, a coping method for self-esteem. That is, if you assume everyone around you is an idiot, then you feel better about yourself. Which is fine, as far as it goes.

It becomes a problem when it causes you to become blind to your own ignorance.

Technological and scientific expertise does not make one a whole person. How many of us bemoan our lack of dates? How many of us have issues with social interaction?

Elite coders often are completely ignorant of law (and vice-versa). A psychologists may not know his browser from his OS, but he, or she, may know how to help you cope with the loss of a loved-one. Etc.

The point is, think carefully before pointing your finger at someone and crying, "Stupid!"

Re:Don't bother.

[roccomaglio]

You are calling other people ignorant of the way things work and then you say "Now with the recent Supreme Court folly the Tea Party and other scientific denier whackos will have even more Super PAC money to continue their dirty work in the name of the 1%". The amount of money that could be given to a super pac is already unlimited. The supreme court struck down the limit on total cumulative contributions to candidates and parties. The amount you can individually give to a candidate is still limit. The decision means that if you want to give a little money to every politician you can. The real issue to me is bundlers. The whole contribution limit is to prevent quid pro quo corruption. That is why the limit to an individual politician is just a few thousand. If someone can go to a bunch of people and get them to donate money they are a bundler. To the politician it is almost as if they are getting hundreds of thousands from the bundler. President Obama has named several of these bundlers as ambassadors and they had never visited the county and could not even answer simple questions about the country where they were going to represent the US. President Obama is not the only one to do this, President Bush named bundlers as ambassadors too. You try to make this a right wing issue, but the Democrats routinely out raise the Republicans. Obama out raised his opponent in both presidential elections. If you took all money out of politics then the only exposure on the candidates would be through the news, volunteers, and endorsements. How much influence would the New York Times endorsement be worth? How much would a labor union whose members go door to door be worth? How much would the endorsement of another popular politician be worth?

Re:Don't bother.

[Boris Borcic]

Trying to educate these people is a losing proposition because they won't listen no matter what you say or how much proof you show them.

While it's obvious they won't respond to the same standards of demonstration as us, and that is a losing proposition to try to uphold the latter even better in reaction to their closed ears, it isn't that clear to me there's no way to uproot them by defying their logic and conclusions while borrowing some of their own most basic assumptions -- by working over and on the gears of what you recognize from the outside as "willful ignorance".

Re:Don't bother.

[santiagoanders]

And then? Others?

English is not one of your fields of expertise.

Re:Don't bother.

[Anonymous Coward]

It would be tolerable if these people were just conspiracy nuts ala the "moon landing were faked" folks. We could laugh at them and move on with our lives. These people, however, are in seats of power in the government and are making big decisions about scientific funding.

Oblig. XKCD

Re:Don't bother.

[lonOtter]

One of the huge problems in the geek community is the propensity to assume other people are stupid. Despite it's being true in many cases.

I am not assuming anything. I have observed the world we live in and came to a conclusion that is almost certainly true.

That is, if you assume everyone around you is an idiot, then you feel better about yourself.

Not necessarily. Even if you think everyone around you is unintelligent, that doesn't mean you think you're particularly intelligent. If you think your level of intelligence is underwhelming, it may not make you feel better to think that most other people are idiots, although it might.

It becomes a problem when it causes you to become blind to your own ignorance.

I am by no means blind to my own ignorance.

How many of us bemoan our lack of dates? How many of us have issues with social interaction?

I bemoan neither of those things, and am not interested in them.

The point is, think carefully before pointing your finger at someone and crying, "Stupid!"

Ignorance is not the same as lacking intelligence. You can cure ignorance.

And I do think carefully. When I see people supporting the TSA, the NSA surveillance, DUI checkpoints, and other such things that violate our freedoms, they are almost certainly unprincipled and unintelligent. There are many people like that, but those are by no means the only sign that someone is unintelligent.

Re:Don't bother.

[mjwalshe]

You need a system more akin to PMQ's in the UK Stupid or incompetent polticins who are not on top of their brief get ripped to pieces by the opposition - rather than handing out lucrative jollies on committees by age It would weed out blatantly stupid people Dan Quale and Sarah Palin very early on

As George Galloway did to one rather dumb congress man a while back - and he is not even considered a brilliant speaker

Re:Don't bother.

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember that 50% of all people have an IQ lower than 100

It's not a pointed peak; it's a bell curve. Quite a few people have an IQ of 100 or close enough to 100 to be indistinguishable.

Re:Don't bother.

[Jason Levine]

That way leads to the end of democracy. Also, be careful of supporting restrictions on voting rights for "certain groups" lest you find yourself put into those groups. Who is to say that "revoke voting rights for the ignorant" won't get perverted into "revoke voting rights ignorant of how glorious our version of God is"? Then, we all won't be able to vote and the religious right would finally get free reign to appoint who they want without dealing with that pesky opposition.

Re:Don't bother.

[Quila]

And that can't happen until you get rid of the current SCOTUS

Or, you know, go the proper way and just change the Constitution. They didn't decide that way because they want an oligarchy, they did it because, OMG!, they decided based on what the Constitution actually says. That doesn't change based on the circumstances. I don't like the results of the decision either, but it's a solid one based in fact, not the dreams of the court's left wing. If somebody found a huge loophole, then we modify the Constitution to fix it. We don't just interpret the problem away, because that means the Constitution's protections are meaningless.

Re:Don't bother.

[serviscope_minor]

Do you really think you will be taken seriously if you put the f-word in every one of your sentences?

Fuck yes.

Re:Don't bother.

[kwbauer]

Seriously, have you ever actually read the CommonCore standards? Have you ever even visited http://http//www.corestandards...?

What standards in there are too difficult for your kids to meet?

Re:Don't bother.

[cusco]

The author of TFA assumes that the congresscritters don't act because they are uninformed, that perhaps with the adequate education they would change their minds. He's wrong. It's not that they don't understand the science, it's that they don't CARE what the long-term affects would ever be. Climatologists say things like "within a century" and "in 50 years", which clues the pols that they don't HAVE to give a shit since they'll be out of office and maybe dead by then. They are, as a herd, immensely self-centered and short-term thinkers. The only way to get them to act is to somehow demonstrate to them the IMMEDIATE value of action, how either they're going to get a lot more money or a lot more power by acting. Want Inhofe to act? Promise him the presidency if he does, or offer him the chairmanship of a bank. No other incentive would ever work, and he wouldn't give a flying fuck whether he understood the science or believed in the climatologists' conclusions.

Re:Don't bother.

[Jason Levine]

I don't oppose improvements to education, but New York state's implementation of Common Core is worse than the old way, not better.

I didn't want to get into this here, but...

First off, it gives teachers scripts that they must follow. For this ten minutes, you need to say these words to the students in this manner and ask them this exact question using this exact example. They must answer you in this exact way. Next, you must move on to this topic in this manner. There's no room for teachers to adjust their teaching techniques to either assist kids who'd learn the material in a different way or to help advance kids who are ahead of grade level. All kids *MUST* learn in the exact same way.

Secondly, EngageNY is idiotic with math. There's no more working with numbers. If you have 1.62 divided by 0.27, you don't actually do the math. Instead, you draw 162 little boxes. Then you circle them in groups of 27. Then you count how many circled groups there are to get your answer. This doesn't teach kids how to do math and, even worse, it doesn't scale. What if the problem was 1.625 divided by 0.25? Would they need to draw over 1,600 boxes?

Thirdly, the high stakes tests are tied to teachers' jobs. If their kids do poorly, the teacher could be booted. So any chance the teacher would stray from the provided curriculum is reduced. The teacher MUST teach to the test because any time spent on non-test preparation increases the chance that their kids will fail. Add in the fact that the content of the tests is super-secret. Nobody is allowed to see them except the students taking them. Not parents, teachers, administrators. Nobody. The tests are taken, mailed to Pearson where they are graded and destroyed. Then the scores are released. How does knowing that Johnny had a grade of X help the teacher teach Johnny if you don't know what he got right and what he got wrong?

Finally, this constitutes an attempt by corporations to take over and profit from education. The big supporters of this curriculum are big corporations who will profit quite nicely over it. (Bill Gates Foundation, Pearson, Wal-Mart, etc.) I don't trust big corporations to write a "one size fits all" curriculum that will help my boys succeed. In fact, since they make more money off a kid who fails than one who passes (additional books, courses to help students/teachers/administrators, etc), they have a monetary interest in kids failing.

Don't mistake change for improvement. There are plenty of ways you can change education to improve it. Common Core/EngageNY/High Stakes testing is *NOT* one of those ways.

Re:Don't bother.

[Artifakt]

Right now, as the very end of the tax season looms, I have exactly 20 clients scheduled who I know are engineers. 10 of them are my usual clients, and 10 of them did their own taxes last year and assumed that they were smart enough to figure it out, and got an IRS letter for their trouble. I've already heard three rants about the stupid, stupid government designing forms that the smart engineer can't use, and have two clients who are swearing they will go to prison for life rather than yield an inch on their interpretation of the regulations. One of those last has the soon to be ex wife's lawyers to deal with over what he tried to do last year and they already have a court order restricting his filing times and methods so they can get copies in time to file their own cleint on time. He's actually argued with an IRS agent on the phone, telling him that being required to divulge to his wife whether he has taken itemized deductions or not is unconstitutional and he has half a mind to punch the agent in the snoot, and because of that, I have already gotten a formal letter requesting I disclose any information I have indicating if he poses an actual threat before he goes in for an in person hearing. This guy is the first to brag about how much smarter he is than these dummies who make up most of my customers, and of course, the IRS.
          I get these persons referred to me because they usually ask something along the lines of whether anybody at the firm has a science or engineering degree or experience. I usually work corporate, and only take a few individual clients a year outside my old regulars. This has been an unfortunate year where I've wasted many of the spare slots on people I don't partcularly want as regular customers.We will be refusing service in the future to some of these people before this is over (and the firm's only actual lawyer partner is strongly recommending we should refuse service to a certain one this year despite what will obviously be a lawsuit if he stays out of prison long enough to file it - we are not real big about one of our phone numbers being used to make a threating call).
          When you say "one of the huge problemss...", I don't think it's hyperbole. . .

Re:Don't bother.

[GameboyRMH]

"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." - Max Planck

That's the long form of his more famous quote, "Science advances one funeral at a time."

Re:Don't bother.

[Anonymous Coward]

As George Carlin said: "Just think of how stupid the average person is, and then realize half of them are even stupider!"

Re:Don't bother.

[Anonymous Coward]

There were once a few scientifically literate politicians running:
http://www.natural-law.org/

Re:Don't bother.

[Agares]

I'm no scientist and even I get frustrated with how little people understand basic concepts. It drives me nuts, and truthfully I think most people don’t want to understand since they don’t want to be labeled as a “Nerd” or “Geek”. It is pretty sad really, people should be praised for being smart not ridiculed.

Re:Don't bother.

[Anonymous Coward]

Turn this in to what it really: Anti-Americanism. These ignoramuses are as anti American as the staunchest Taliban fanatic, as dedicated as the most ardent suicide bomb maker. They are willing and able to destroy the nation's economy, military, and political power because they are firmly convinced that knowledge - the only thing that humans really have going for them, is liberal. Note that liberal is not socialist, communist, or really much more than "freedom loving." That should say a lot for the level of brains they have.

We smart people think that there should be an adult conversation about this. These doofuses can't do that as they are so willfully stupid that this becomes a childish game of name calling. It's not hard for an adult to win these things: be louder and more persistent. So, don't try to explain it to them. Bury every snicker with that's what Stalin said, that's what Mao would do. The Chinese communist are thanking you. Why are you helping the Taliban? Why do you hate America? Every time a climate change gets denied label it loudly with Communist Sympathizer. Compare them to the Muslim who recent came out with a statement that the world is flat because it says so in the Koran.

In order to win, and it is important for the very survival of our species that we win, we have to enjoy rolling in the mud with the pigs.

Re:Don't bother.

[sumdumass]

Right concept but perhaps the wrong conclusions.

You see, in 50 years or a century from now there will be so much change that you likely wouldn't even recognize the home you live in now. This will happen with or without global warming. Oil eill become replaced by some breakthrough energy source that is codt effective. People living in areas will move to others and maybe even back again. Anything you can do noe may be all for nothing if the world changes between now and then.

It's not that we don't care, it's that we think over time, it will be easier dealing with it and likely cost a lot lessor. So there is no need to make people's lives hard now, there is no need to impose totalitarian government controls, it will either run its course and we will deal with it when it happens of it will not happen and the world will still be a very different place.

If the government were to spend money on AGW, it should spend it looking for efficient and cost effective energy sources thst are cleaner than we now have and ways toget what we hae to be cleaner.

Re:Don't bother.

[fredrated]

even if they *think* they're fighting.

They are fighting, even if you can preceive no effect. A fight is not defined by the outcome but by the effort.

Re:Don't bother.

[microbox]

I don't believe that stupidity comes from "not knowing", as you suggest. It is more a case that moral values drive a world view that "facts" are shoe-horned into. And if you're wrong about the facts, then that is like being a bad person -- and almost everyone thinks of themselves as a good person.

Examples: patriarchy is socially constructed, because otherwise women will be oppressed for ever. (Obviously fallacious.)

Whether or not vaccines cause autism, they are unnatural, and harm the body's natural ability to fight disease. (Obviously fallacious.)

Global warming must be wrong because it is immoral for the government to interfere with the economy. (Obviously fallacious.)

Every hot button issue I've ever encountered has this quality to it. And the very same psychological defense mechanisms are always present. For example, we all see ourselves as "nuanced" and "reasonable", so it must be the other guy who is an ideologue. Projection, denial, externalization and intellectualism all derive from the need to resolve this type of cognitive dissonance, and at the heart of it all is the notion of what is "right" and "sacred" and must be protected -- which itself seems to be quite arbitrary.

Just my 2 cents.

Re:Don't bother.

[Winchy]

I disagree with your conclusion because I think the set of "every possible event" is much smaller than you appear to. Just because there is an arrangement of atoms that is unique does not mean that there is a way for a primordial universe to unfold into it. Although there are a huge number of ways a universe may evolve from a uniform gas of hydrogen, this does not mean that everything that one can think of must happen somewhere. Sure, dragon-like animals might evolve somewhere and I may seize my letter-opener to stab everyone in the room after I write this. These are possibilities, but is it really possible that there's a universe somewhere with a teapot in it, a million light years in diameter made out of cream cheese? or that god-like beings such as Thor can exist?

Re:Don't bother.

[microbox]

They are none of those things, they're just plain immoral by normal western standards when it comes to honesty

They really don't know that they are making this stuff up. It's not that they are immoral, but that their mind is interpreting things in a very self-serving way, and also censoring information that they don't want to know. Morality itself is at the heart of the cognitive dissonance that drives this madness.

Re:Don't bother.

[Anonymous Coward]

The term Yuppie has long since morphed to mean more than its original intent. Its very much the American version of the term Petite Bourgeoisie; both terms tend to identify the same personality types in different contexts. In the US this means the inhabitants of gentrified areas - pretentiousness, self importance, superficiality - the See and Be Seen crowd.

Re:Don't bother.

[microbox]

Ah yes, it's a right wing conspiracy. Nothing the left wing could be doing might be even remotely possible for damaging education in science.

The left-wing may have naive ideas about children's self-esteem, but that right-wing has naive ideas about what knowledge is all-together. Different ballpark.

Re:Don't bother.

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the reason water vapour is not considered the important driver of climate change is that the water vapour concentration is for all intents and purposes 100% saturation. Water vapour gives us 30C of warming but it can't be more than that because there's no way the atmosphere can hold more.

Think about it, 70% of the earth's surface is water.

It's true that the atmosphere will hold more water if the average temperature rises, but it's not going to be the primary driver.

Re:Don't bother.

[microbox]

Its called a living planet.

Oh gee, the "It's natural" argument. You would have thunk that scientists would have thought of that, and written about it in the IPCC. That's why its call "Anthropogenic" global warming after all.

But since you're an expert, let's see, when was the last time that C02 was 400ppm? 12 times in the last 100k years? Or was it millions of years ago, when the earth was 8C warmer. And we might actually (small probability) reach that in a few hundred years too. Nothing could go wrong!!!

So don't worry, a few made up facts and some rose coloured glasses, and you can tell your kids that you wanted nothing more than to grow the economy through burning more oil/coal, because that was the moral thing to do!!!!

Re:Don't bother.

[pnutjam]

You are also working against some personal interest in most cases. They can act dumb instead of corrupt.

Re:Don't bother.

[Anon-Admin]

I disagree with you on this, you can get a PhD from any number of web sites for $25 + S/H.

A piece of paper does not make you smart!

Re:Don't bother.

[pnutjam]

surprisingly insightful...
and depressing...

Re:Don't bother.

[pnutjam]

sign my petition to prosecute NSA leaders: https://petitions.whitehouse.g...

Re:Don't bother.

[pnutjam]

sounds like a decent first step to teach a child about math and get him interested without scaring him/her off. Not everyone learns the same.

Re:Don't bother.

[PvtVoid]

As far as I can tell, the extremely shrill, extremely ideological opposition to Common Core is the educational equivalent of NIMBY-ism: reactionary opposition to change of any kind, supported by robot-like repetition of a set of rote talking points like "high-stakes testing", and accompanied by mob-like behavior at public meetings. Reason and debate end when this kind of total ideological certainty prevails.

EngageNY is idiotic with math. There's no more working with numbers. If you have 1.62 divided by 0.27, you don't actually do the math. Instead, you draw 162 little boxes. Then you circle them in groups of 27. Then you count how many circled groups there are to get your answer.

The more I see parents bringing up stuff like this as to how "stupid" the Common Core math curriculum is, the more I realize that the fundamental problem is that the parents aren't educated well enough to understand why this is a good way to teach math. Which is a great argument for a new way of doing things: the old way of doing things apparently utterly failed with these parents, who don't even understand that they don't understand.

Re:Don't bother.

[Anonymous Coward]

I have additional problems:

e. I'd prefer to run on my actual platform, rather than the universal political platform of 'my opponent is a poopy-head'.
f. I would say 'I don't know' when I don't know. Then I'd find out.

Re:Don't bother.

[Anonymous Coward]

A piece of paper does not make you smart!

And, often times, going hundreds of thousands of dollars into debt to acquire it makes you quite the opposite.

Re:Don't bother.

[DamnOregonian]

You seem to be a rational person.
You really believe Citizens United was based on indisputable fact that had anything to do with what was written in the Constitution other than the rather limited text of the First Amendment? An Amendment whose application is pretty questionably applied to non-persons? A Amendment that I don't think ever had anything to do with money? Or are you equating PACs as "the press"? Are we no longer allowed to regulate our public airwaves? No regulation of commerce? Perhaps we start knocking these bastards down for broadcasting manipulative and slanderous content in the hope of disassociating voters with reality?

How, realistically speaking, are we going to get a Constitutional amendment passed and ratified that is going to render a whole metric shit-ton of political incumbent oligarchical sock puppets utterly redundant? Come on, man. Many Constitutional scholars disagree with the Court's assertion, and that's pretty natural given it has a predilection of stretching the shit out of the Constitution to fit the status quo. If we want to fix this, we do it at the Court first, then once we've cleaned house of a Corporately ruled country, we then amend the Constitution to set it in stone.

Re:Don't bother.

[Tablizer]

...[leftist education allegedly says] as long as they tried we'll give them gold stars and boost their self confidence...Pretty sure that's not a right wing attitude.

The rightish Drill Sergent or Nun-With-Big-Ruler approach apparently didn't work either because many right-wingers appear to have flunked science.

Re:Don't bother.

[Jason Levine]

First step is one thing, but this is my son's method in the fifth grade. And if he does the standard way of dividing 1.62 into 0.27 (by working with the numbers instead of drawing boxes), he is marked as wrong even if he gets the right answer. All because he didn't use the EngageNY-Approved method.

Re:Don't bother.

[Tamerlin]

So you're saying that because our politicians are uneducated idiots beyond redemption that we should just throw up our hands and accept our demise at the hands of their stupidity?

Re:Don't bother.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why stop at congress. What about the scientific ignoramus at the top a.k.a. ****The Dark Doofus****

Re:Don't bother.

[hoboroadie]

This is also the tactic of pusillanimous sociopaths, plausible deniability based on the "who the fuck says stuff like that?" and selective memory- "I did not say that."
I am researching whether this is actionable, or if I can get a restraining order for judicial relief from having to abide false statements. It is very difficult to sit still when some cowardly liar denies past years of ongoing bullshit.
These people are evil and a blight on civilisation, but they practice harder than anyone else, and are very skillful.

Re:Don't bother.

[Jason Levine]

My wife holds an educational degree with a specialization in reading. She is licensed to teach elementary and middle school and has in the past. (She's not in the classroom now because, when our second son was born, it actually would have cost us MORE for her to work and put our son into daycare than for her to be a stay at home mom.) She has looked all of this stuff over and agrees how horrible it is. I'm a web developer and a math geek. I can understand where they are going with some of the problems but scratch my head at WHY they choose methods that are hard for kids to understand and seem purposefully confusing. Some of the people opposing this include very educated folks like engineers. So don't think that the only people who oppose Common Core are people who are uneducated.

Re:Don't bother.

[arobatino]

The problem is that these people aren't just ignorant. People who are ignorant can be educated and then they're fine. These people are willfully ignorant. They are purposefully ignorant. They take pride in their ignorance and will do everything in their power to stay ignorant. Trying to educate these people is a losing proposition because they won't listen no matter what you say or how much proof you show them.

Which is exactly what you would expect from someone who needs to have enough general intelligence to get elected, but at the same time cater to the ignorance of their constituents, for the same reason. Ultimately, it's the voter's fault.

Re:Don't bother.

[Reziac]

Thanks for the info -- I had not realised it had gone so stupid, or that CommonCore was at this level. What you describe is not so much teaching to the test as to the lowest common denominator, to the student who =cannot= extrapolate "take 10 boxes and divide them into two equal piles" into long division applicable to any numbers.

Then make the test work at that level, and only the lowest common denominator will pass. How to dumb down education in one easy step!!

What you describe with dividing boxes and calling it math reminds me of "whole word recognition" (which teaches everyone to read the same way dyslexics often do, by guessing ahead) and how that gave us a generation of students who could not read above the base level.... and from which education has never recovered, because those students are today's teachers.

Re:Don't bother.

[Reziac]

It can be a good way to =start= teaching math. It's not so good if the student is not subsequently taught how to extrapolate it to ordinary long division without needing to draw a pile of boxes first.

By the time I finished 2nd grade (this was in 1962) we had the abstract concept of numbers down pat; we didn't need visual examples any more, and we didn't need them when we went from the times tables we learned in 2nd grade, to the new (to us in 3rd grade) concept of long division. Funny thing, we had nowhere near the level of basic-math illiteracy that I see in today's kids, either.

Re:Don't bother.

[necro81]

That may be, but for the sake of humility, I try to recognize my own ignorance. I do not bloviate about how fantastically wonderful my ignorance is, nor belittle the opinion of people who actually are experts. Not about things that actually matter - ya know, important stuff like life and death and the survival of nations. Then again, I'm not a self-serving politician in a place of power. That's why this kind of behavior from politicians drives me bonkers. Their celebrated ignorance and obstinance in the face of established theory isn't just some game - even if they are playing at one - this will have real, serious, and mostly bad consequences that they couldn't care less about.

Re:Don't bother.

[DahGhostfacedFiddlah]

Pretty sure it's not a left wing one either.

Re:Don't bother.

[PvtVoid]

Some of the people opposing this include very educated folks like engineers. So don't think that the only people who oppose Common Core are people who are uneducated.

Pretty much the very last people on the planet who should be deciding how young children are taught math are people with engineering degrees. Engineers are taught an especially mindless point of view on what math is and how it is important, and walk away with an entirely undeserved sense of superiority about their insight. This is precisely what I mean about people "who don't even understand that they don't understand." It often actually gets worse with higher levels of education, ironically enough.

Re:Don't bother.

[necro81]

I've already heard three rants about the stupid, stupid government designing forms that the smart engineer can't use

What, that's not rant-worthy? I know the tax code is stupendously complex and all, but one should not have to be a professionally trained tax-preparer to be able to do an honest job of it.

Regarding the rest of the behavior you describe - yeah, that's just plain asking for trouble.

Re:Don't bother.

[spitzak]

While I agree it is not at all impossible to save our cities, I'm pretty certain it would be much more cost effective to build sea walls.

Re:Don't bother.

[spitzak]

Did you notice the "troposphere" in their data? They are cherry-picking the portion of the earth that has warmed the least.

Average temperature increase for the earth has *exceeded* the models, consistently when averaged over a period of ten years.

Re:Don't bother.

[hondo77]

To some ignorant person, Einstein might seem stupid.

Ah, I see you've been to Conservapedia.

Re:Don't bother.

[spitzak]

Here is the correct commentary, I mixed up which bogus data this is:

http://blog.hotwhopper.com/201...

Basically he shifted the predictions line up by .3 degrees

Re:Don't bother.

[spectrumlogic]

building on this...poking fun (or sneering) at science is actually an identity function among a suspicious segment of the population that does not trust science and actually looks down on those that do...as lacking in common sense and/or moral fibre. This section is absolutely in love with the pre-fundamentalist, magical thought that their faith obviates science. It's an underlying code of communication among people who want to believe simplicity is an answer to its own question. The world has become too complex for some humans to find peace within it. Faith simplifies this dilemma. Naturally, if you are seeking answers where you should not be meddling, then you lack sufficient faith to be trusted to behave...and will have to be suppressed by the faithful. Fundamentalist thought is a defense manifestation to the steady drone of underlying messages teaching hopelessness/helplessness.

Re:Don't bother.

[Rakarra]

All you can do with somebody like that is just look them over, wince, be perplexed for a moment, and then move on.

They pay your bills. Sadly, you (the scientists) don't have the option of ignoring them and moving on.

Re:Don't bother.

[liamoohay]

Shouldn't it be "think of how stupid the median person is, and then realize half of them are even stupider"

Re:Don't bother.

[Rakarra]

sounds like a decent first step to teach a child about math and get him interested without scaring him/her off. Not everyone learns the same.

But isn't that the problem? The program seems structured under the belief that everyone does learn the same. There's no wriggle room, especially for teacher creativity.

Re:Don't bother.

[Anonymous Coward]

And then there's this guy

Re:Don't bother.

[Rakarra]

The term Yuppie has long since morphed to mean more than its original intent. Its very much the American version of the term Petite Bourgeoisie; both terms tend to identify the same personality types in different contexts. In the US this means the inhabitants of gentrified areas - pretentiousness, self importance, superficiality - the See and Be Seen crowd.

In other words, it morphs to mean whatever type of person the speaker doesn't like? Sounds like it could be a meaningless term then.

Re:Don't bother.

[Rakarra]

a) my platform would be too logically-consistent (and therefore "non-mainstream" compared to the standard Democrat or Republican platform),

Oh? Democrats and Republicans can be quite logically-consistent. They're called "ideologically pure."

Re:Don't bother.

[Hentai]

A fight is not defined by the outcome but by the effort.

No it isn't. Not to people outside the fight, anyway.

Re:Don't bother.

[rochrist]

Another part of the problem is that no one gets elected based on what he/she will do on the science committee.

Re:Don't bother.

[mrchaotica]

[The platforms of] Democrats and Republicans can be quite logically-consistent.

[Citation Needed]

You show me a Democrat or a Republican, and I'll show you a hypocrite.

Re:Don't bother.

[MiniMike]

Yes, it should be. But then he would be quoting you instead of George Carlin.

Re:Don't bother.

[McFly777]

Seriously, have you ever actually read the CommonCore standards? Have you ever even visited http://http//www.corestandards...?

What standards in there are too difficult for your kids to meet?

The "standards" themselves may be fine, but the way that they are implemented, seemingly universally are not. Unfortunatly, the implementation is what the kids get to experience.

Re:Don't bother.

[BoberFett]

You're wrong. But don't worry, you get a gold star anyway just for trying.

Re:Don't bother.

[jc42]

But we get the government we deserve ...

Yeah, this is a standard cop-out, but if you think about it briefly, it's rather illogical. We only get one government; we couldn't possibly all deserve exactly that government.

In fact, most of us don't "deserve" the government we've got. The political system (mostly bought and paid for by the one or two percent that we hear about but rarely have even met) is to a great degree "fixed", and isn't anything that most of us deserve.

Not to mention all of its victims in other parts of the world who have had no say whatsoever in the makeup of our government.

So what are you doing to change this? ;-)

Re:Don't bother.

[Rakarra]

Oh shut up you pretentious twat. No one cares what you think.

If you can't be bothered to converse civilly, then no one will care what you think either.

Re:Don't bother.

[gzuckier]

Apathelligent

Re:Don't bother.

[Anonymous Coward]

Just to set the record straight, engageNY is NY's attempt to support/implement Common core standards. The standards are independent of their implementation. For my taste, engageNY seems a bit overbearing, but it may be what NY educators are used to. One should not however condemn common core just because you don't like how it's being implemented. And again, for the record, engageNY's website states:

"Some lessons provide detailed instructions or recommendations but it is important to note that the lessons are not scripts and rather they should be viewed as vignettes so that the reader can imagine how the class could look. Lessons are adaptable and allow for teacher preference and flexibility so that what is happening in the classroom can both meet students' needs and be in service to the shifts and the standards. "

I teach math and science in a California high school (with no ax to grind in NY). In my school (an admittedly progressive project based learning school) every teacher is charged with developing their own curriculum. We don’t have textbooks and while we submit our students to standardized testing (in which we come out consistently in the top 20%) we pretty much ignore the test and its results because we find them irrelevant to a student's long term intellectual goals. 99% of our students graduate and go to college. 70% of those finish college. Just to be clear, this is not a hand picked student population. We do bias our admissions to accurately reflect the ethnic and socioeconomic demographics of our community at large. However, this is a very average distribution of students attending a very public if atypical school.

Personally I feel common core is a step in the right direction. It separates goals from tactics which is important. But the devil is in the details. How educators implement it will largely determine how successful it will be. I want to believe that engageNY is genuine in their efforts to design a curriculum that achieve common core goals. I can find nothing wrong with the goals. If they give teachers adequate training and freedom (always a big if), quality teachers will do right by the kids. I guess what I'm saying is look to the teachers. If you don't trust your principal and teachers at your school, by all means find another school in another city or state if needed. But learning happens in the classroom. Look there first and last.
Dr. Don, STEM teacher at HTHI

Re:Don't bother.

[gzuckier]

Yes. But that's why true wisdom/knowledge/whatever is the ability to estimate the amount and quality of your knowledge in any given field. Dunning Kruger and all that. From my experience, engineering types overestimate their overall knowledge the most, followed by medical types, followed by science types, followed by artsy types. Don't know where business types fit in.

Re:Don't bother.

[almechist]

And that can't happen until you get rid of the current SCOTUS

Or, you know, go the proper way and just change the Constitution. They didn't decide that way because they want an oligarchy, they did it because, OMG!, they decided based on what the Constitution actually says. That doesn't change based on the circumstances. I don't like the results of the decision either, but it's a solid one based in fact, not the dreams of the court's left wing. If somebody found a huge loophole, then we modify the Constitution to fix it. We don't just interpret the problem away, because that means the Constitution's protections are meaningless.

They decided based on what the constitution says? Oh yeah? Well OK then, show me where the constitution says that corporations must be given the same free speech rights as individual citizens. Go on, show me the words. Except you can't, because there's nothing like that actually in the constitution, certainly not in the first amendment. As far as I'm concerned, if you can read that idea into the constitution as written, you can read almost anything you want into it, thereby making the constitution conform to your personal ideology... Which seems to me precisely what they've been doing.

Re:Don't bother.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Little Bobby and Suzy are special snowflakes, they don't need to answer the questions correctly, as long as they tried we'll give them gold stars and boost their self confidence." Pretty sure that's not a right wing attitude.

No, that's a right-wing myth. One of the big lies they tell so often that people believe it. Sadly, many fools believe it.

Re:Don't bother.

[Cederic]

Let us know when you've written your book on your time as a tax lawyer. I want more of these stories :)

Re:Don't bother.

[randallman]

Or get people in office who do care about the next century and beyond.

Re:Don't bother.

[Anonymous Coward]

"And this is why we fail."

Yep. That's why you fail. We KNOW that the survey that reported a 97% consensus was, in fact, bogus. 75 or so cherry-picked responses out of a 10,000-person survey is not anything a responsible statistician would call valid. And the "expert" doesn't even try to defend it. He does a fine job of moving the goalposts, but he doesn't support the actual claim at all. Because, of course, he knows it's bogus. We also know, from the science, that there is no significant evidence that "climate change" has been increasing either the number or severity of extreme weather events. And so on. The real question here is why a politician is actually asking perfectly legitimate questions, but is being labeled stupid on Slashdot for doing so. This is the domain of ideologues, not science.

You forgot to mention Al Gore. Seriously, this post explains why we'll never be able to defeat politicians on the ground of scientific illiteracy.

Re:Don't bother.

[McFly777]

As far as I can tell, the extremely shrill, extremely ideological opposition to Common Core is the educational equivalent of NIMBY-ism: reactionary opposition to change of any kind,

...

The more I see parents bringing up stuff like this as to how "stupid" the Common Core math curriculum is, the more I realize that the fundamental problem is that the parents aren't educated well enough to understand why this is a good way to teach math. Which is a great argument for a new way of doing things: the old way of doing things apparently utterly failed with these parents, who don't even understand that they don't understand.

I understand the use of math visualization as one of a number of tools to teach math, and I have seen it used very sucessfully, but the small bit of the "common core" implementation of teaching math is not done well at all. I have also seen the "traditional" method done poorly, so at some level I have to blame the education of our teachers. (i.e. we don't know how to teach teachers to teach).

My example of poorly done traditional method actually leads to my example of well done math visualization. My son had been able to perform basic addition since kindergarten (I had done many math-game type activites, so I knew he was capable.) However, in second grade, his teacher required each student to finish a page of 30 addition problems within a minute, before they could then progress to the next page of 30 addition problems. Easy enough right? this gives you one second to parse the problem, and one second to write. About half way through the year we were informed by the teacher that my son was still on the first page of problems, and was now refusing to even attempt to do them, choosing to put zeros in, or nothing, for every answer. What we didn't realize at the time was that my son was slightly disgraphic (hand-eye writing coordination issue). After another quarter of the year, and many conferences later, my wife thought to ask my son to write the numbers 1 to 30 on a page. Guess what, it took him just slightly longer than 60 seconds to do it. The end of this half of the story is that my son was completely put off of learning math by this teacher.

That summer I saw an ad for Mathnasium, a math tutoring franchise which claimed to "make math fun". We thought it worth a try, and indeed they were able to help with the math self-image/attitude that my son had acquired from the second grade teacher. A big part of Mathnasium's approach involves developing math visualization techniques. The thing is that they don't stop there, they continue on to the more traditional computational methods, which scale much better as the math becomes more complex. ( I highly recommend this franchise if it is available near you.)

Fast forward a couple of years.... math is one of my son's best subjects. The school switches to a new text-book/curriculum across the district. We attend presentations by the publisher. The teaching method presented is to be to introduce multiple ways to do the calculations, such that the student can use whichever method works best for them. Sounds good right? The problem is that when the teachers present it, they insist that all the students learn all of the different methods presented, and they specify that each set of problems is to be performed with a particular method. This doesn't work well, of course, because few students become good at all of the methods. I admit that several of the multiplication and long division methods are interesting shortcuts, but they don't seem lead to a good understanding of how the processes work at a more general level. (ie. they don't scale well). My son manages well enough, anyway.

Another few years, and my younger daughter is now going through the schools, except now it is common core. Instead of multiple methods, there is one method which MUST be followed, and that is the visualization "boxes" that others here have described well. It do

Re:Don't bother.

[umafuckit]

No, but if they talk shit when they're there you'd hope people would vote them out again. I'm being too idealistic, aren't I?

Re:Don't bother.

[BoberFett]

Then please explain how colleges have had to teach remedial course in increasing numbers. That should not happen if failed students were being held back and denied diplomas if they don't understand the material.

Re:Don't bother.

[Anonymous Coward]

What, that's not rant-worthy? I know the tax code is stupendously complex and all, but one should not have to be a professionally trained tax-preparer to be able to do an honest job of it.

Indeed. If one assume a right to ethical practice of law arising under the 9th Amendment (as a right retained by the people), then it is appropriate to consider the current federal tax system (and many of the state tax systems) as being unconstitutional.

Think about it: the legal professionals in Congress, and the staff members working for them that actually write the laws, most of whom are lawyers, have a vested interest in being hired to consult on those laws once they leave their current job.

Putting unnecessary complexity in the tax system creates artificial demand for the services of the legal profession (and the accounting profession, which would certainly lobby against the kind of reform needed to actually fix this problem).

A tax system can be progressive and still be simple. Indeed, that's the best kind of tax system, since it's hard to have loopholes when the system is simple. None of the complexity we currently have in the US tax system is actually necessary. It's purely a consequence of unethical practice of law, and of vote buying by politicians.

Just making a part of the legal system that everybody has to deal with unnecessarily complex poses huge legal ethics problems, even if none of the people involved go on to consult on the laws they write. This creates an standard or precedent that unnecessary complexity in the legal system is ok, and makes it that much harder to fight.

After all, many people will assume that if the government is doing something, it has the right to do so! Just look at how long it took to get rid of slavery, or the separate-but-not-actually-equal system!

If treason doth flourish, none dare call it treason!

If unethical practice of law is the norm and flourishes, how do we fight it?

Can anybody that's been paying attention doubt that unethical practice of law, on some level, is the norm? Do we really need the federal government passing laws that are hundreds or thousands of pages in length? Is that the "government that governs least" the Founding Fathers had in mind?

Hence, simply on the basis of ethical practice of law, the current 'stupendously complex' tax system should be considered unconstitutional.

The only problem: legal professionals get to decide whether or not other legal professionals are being unethical in situations like this. It's the classic problem of getting somebody honest to "watch the watchman"!

The result: the US legal system is riddled with legal ethics problems, unconstitutional laws are routinely enforced by federal judges and massive federal agencies, and nobody can do a damn thing about it!

Re:Don't bother.

[Anonymous Coward]

We smart people think that there should be an adult conversation about this. These doofuses can't do that as they are so willfully stupid that this becomes a childish game of name calling.

Wow. Just wow. Just wowsa wow. The irony is just...mind numbing.

I tell you what. Why don't you shut up, go grab a cookie from the kitchen, and let the adults take the conversation from here. Off you go then, little fella!

Re:Don't bother.

[fyngyrz]

They are fighting, even if you can preceive(sic) no effect.

If I am imprisoned in a sturdy concrete cell, and I spend my time beating on the walls, an undertaking which no one ever responds to and which has no chance of actually disrupting the integrity of said walls, I am not fighting, no matter what level of enthusiasm I bring to characterizing it that way. What I am doing is completely wasting my time, having no effect on the opposition, such as it is.

On the other hand, if the jailer comes along and beats my ass for making enough noise to bother others, I've had an effect that those others (obviously including the jailer) took notice of. It's not the effect I was after, mind you, but it is, at least, an effect -- I have provoked those who control my situation into a reaction.

That's exactly what will happen if you actually succeed in provoking the establishment. It'll address the issue by beating you down. I guarantee it.

One of the primary reasons that free speech continues to be largely protected by the establishment in a time when many other rights are being restricted is that it serves perfectly to let them know who to beat down, and when. The rise of pervasive surveillance technologies in the hands of the establishment is no coincidence; the one complements the other.

Re:Don't bother.

[flyneye]

I seem to remember a science based political party from the post Perot era, but I think they scared the Christian demographic.

(snort) that was not meant to be humor, but I see the irony of my statement, post typing...

Re:Don't bother.

[thunderclap]

You are welcome to disagree. However, every does mean exactly that. Every. As in all conceivable events. I love how you just assume that all realities will start with a primordial soup or a big bang. That wouldn't be every because it would extremely narrow the scope. So yes it really possible that there's a universe somewhere with a teapot in it, a million light years in diameter made out of cream cheese? And there is also a universe with an alien race that happens to have a being named Thor who looks like Chris Hemsworth and a Nick Fury who looks and sounds like Samuel L. Jackson. What amuses me is why is that harder to believe than the absolute emptiness of nothingness created something? Your eyes see everything you have ever touched, everything you have ever heard, tasted was created. (fruits are created by Fruit trees which come from fruit seeds of fruits or splicing of other fruit trees)

Re:Don't bother.

[Anonymous Coward]

It takes 100+ years of social policy to relocate people away from the coast due to highly predictable natural forces (erosion retreat policies for beachfront areas for example). We absolutely can't afford to move whole cities on that timespan, nor put up adequate retaining walls. And that's just considering the coastal flooding/weather change issue. It's not diving into fisheries damage, marine ecology changes, drought and inland rain changes etc.

Which is why a crapload of people will die as those cities go under the waves. Oh and it's not can't afford, its an unwillingness to spend the money on it. Rather than spending it on alcohol, sex and other fun diversions while Rome sinks

Re:Don't bother.

[thunderclap]

And you can prove that with an actual link to a scientific study? (link please. paywall or not. doesn't matter)

Re:Don't bother.

[thunderclap]

The point is, It has happened before. It will happen again. If people try to interfer in anyway, they will either destroy society or damage the planet. Since I don't want either during my lifetime, please go take your wonderful website that abuses climate studies to manipulate and prove their point and place beside this one that does the same thing. http://www.activistpost.com/20... For the record, I believe that the environment is changing. But I wall you all to STFU about it because any solution will end up destroying the world economy. Harsh yes. I honestly don't care if the Maldives and the Netherlands sinks beneath the waves. I don't give a damn about NYC being inundated with water. This is what happens when you have your head up you anus while city planning. Our govt is so corrupt at this point, nothing will change unless a lobbyist wants it too. Remember that.

Re:Don't bother.

[microbox]

But I wall you all to STFU about it because any solution will end up destroying the world economy.

Sounds like alarmism to me. What does the economics profession say? I suppose they are just another bunch of people who you think are stupid.

Re:Don't bother.

[LynnwoodRooster]

James Hansen, noted pro-AGW, ex-NASA researcher disagrees with you. The pause is real. The data we have verifies it. The models do not. Which do we believe - the models or the data?

Re:Don't bother.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a blog post from a scientist.
He knows you can see some back radiation from CO2 in the atmosphere with current satellite technology.
Is he a dumbass too?
http://imgur.com/BKaEalG Here is a temp reconstruction of the Holocene.
If you can explain all the OTHER temp excursions without your post 1950 CO2 I am listening.
If you can also explain why any effects of CO2 are or are not saturated I would like to define that as well.
You should not move to prevent new power generation by coal in countries outside the USA, as we are already doing by restricting funding from the world bank as communicated by Obama, on the current state of the science. I mean, fuck them, right?

rgbatduke says:
February 7, 2014 at 10:34 am
A) The increase in temperature we have experienced during the 20th century is nothing unusual and is quite normal, and,
B) the rain and storms suffered by the people of the UK are also nothing unusual.
A) Which half? The increase in the first half of the 20th century is almost identical to the increase in the second half. The two halves are so nearly identical in form that unless you have studied them enough to be able to pick out specific features, you won’t be able to tell which one occurred with the hypothetical help of CO_2 and which one occurred without the hypothetical help of CO_2 when they are plotted on the same vertical relative scale and the same horizontal relative scale but with the actual dates obscured.
In the first half of the 20th century, not even the most ardent warmists claim that there was enough anthropogenic CO_2 in the atmosphere to have any measurable effect. The global industrial revolution that started the CO_2 crank was 1950s on, and there was supposedly a lag of 30 years before that had any effect (to explain the fact that through the 50s, 60s, and early 70s the temperature was pretty close to flat, which didn’t fit in well with the instantly well-mixed, instantly more strongly forcing picture of CO_2 emissions.
So as a matter of pure fact, the increase in temperature experienced during the 20th century was not unusual or abnormal in any way that can be definitively linked to anthropogenic activity as far as we can tell from the data! We had little to no impact on the first half, the warming in the second half matched that of the first half (with our hypothetical help), both halves were part of a perfectly reasonable continuing century-scale rebound from the lowest temperatures experienced on Earth since the Holocene Optimum during the Little Ice Age.
It’s amazing how ignorant people who participate in this debate with total certainty that our climate is unusual are of the “patient’s” history. I like to keep the patient’s chart for the last 12,000 years handy to help them learn:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png
Note well, this is smoothed. Note also that the error bars (never, ever shown in climate science) are probably as wide as the total variability envelope of all contributing reconstructions — an easy 1 to 2 C. As Lief pointed out above, reconstructing things like solar activity or temperature in the pre-instrumental era is neither easy nor precise, and the tiniest hint of bias or prior belief in the part of the researcher can effortlessly further cloud the proxy-based extrapolations by causing them to make countless small, almost harmless decisions that ultimately are cherrypicking of the data, comparing low temporal resolution data to high temporal resolution data to make erroneous statements about extremes, or ignoring the possibility of confounding causes or degradation of the data sources in those sources that match their “preferred” narrative at the expense of those that do not. If you count the assumptions — most of which cannot possibly be verified in the present — that go into reconstructions, there are many and each one contributes to increased uncertainty in the final claim.
Still, taking it fo

Re:Don't bother.

[Anonymous Coward]

p.s. Before anyone accuses me of disliking teachers, both of my parents were teachers. I just have more respect for some, than I do for others.

And THAT is the problem with the US education system. Even though throughout your whole story, it is very obvious that the problem is with the teachers, and I am sure you are also well aware of that, you refuse to say that right out in the open because you are also a teacher.

When a profession refuses to criticize the work (and only the work, nothing personal) of others in the same profession, you get a stagnating profession that never improves.

Programmers have no problem criticizing bad code from other programmers. Scientists do their best to show that other scientists theories are wrong. Lawyers aimed to win court cases against other lawyers..

But teachers never criticize other teachers for doing bad teaching.

You know another profession that are like teachers in that aspect? Cops.

Re:Don't bother.

[NeutronCowboy]

Feel free to demonstrate how the theories and models do not match reality, and provide a better theory and model. In the meantime, your opinion is worth squat.

Re:Don't bother.

[DahGhostfacedFiddlah]

Excellent counterargument with examples. Gold star for you, too, sir.

Re:Don't bother.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's always funny to hear parents complain that childless people do not contribute to society.
Since one is not born a parent, these people have been childless themselves at some point in their lives.

I guess the fact that they think childless people are worthless says more about them than it does about the people they're supposed to be talking about.

Re:Don't bother.

[fredrated]

Two boxers enter a ring, duke it out for 12 rounds and boxer A is declared the winner.
So, you are saying boxer B never fought?

Re:Don't bother.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm thinking you are the idiot, given that you objection are all ideological (TSA, NSA, DUI, etc...).

Re:Don't bother.

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, couldn't have said it better! Bravo!

Re:Don't bother.

[lonOtter]

How does that make me an idiot? It may mean that I have some principles, and that I love freedom, but is that considered idiotic nowadays? Is not being completely ignorant of history and pretending that people who work for the government are perfect, benevolent angels frowned upon?

Your post makes it seem like you think so.

Re:Don't bother.

[Anonymous Coward]

Pretty sure that's not a left wing attitude, either.

Re:Don't bother.

[Electricity Likes Me]

It makes you an idiot because you think anyone who disagrees with you on contentious issues is.

You're not willing to think they might have a valid opinion if it even slightly differs from yours in tone or content. Which is why you're going to be constantly confused as to why all the "idiots" are always in charge. Which would be my other pro-tip: if everyone seems like an idiot, then actually just you are.

At the very least, presuming even that your opinions are correct - the fact you assume everyone who is against you is weak of mind will lead to you being constantly politically outmanoeuvred because you will consistently underestimate your opponents.

Re:Don't bother.

[lonOtter]

It makes you an idiot because you think anyone who disagrees with you on contentious issues is.

And your post makes you an idiot because you think my opinion about this matter makes me an idiot.

You're not willing to think they might have a valid opinion if it even slightly differs from yours in tone or content.

So you think it is perfectly intelligent to ignore all the government abuses throughout history (even when they're pointed out to you) and support egregious violations of our fundamental liberties and the highest law of the land in the US? An interesting viewpoint, but one I will have to reject. It's not even just about ideology, but also about blatantly ignoring history and pretending that the government is full of perfect beings.

They can have different opinions than me without being idiots, but if they blatantly ignore history, pretend that people in the government can never be corrupt or make mistakes, or treat freedom like it's trash (despite all the historical evidence that this is a very bad idea), then yes, they are idiots. I'm surprised anyone here would object to that.

Which is why you're going to be constantly confused as to why all the "idiots" are always in charge.

What? Why would I be confused? Idiots appeal to idiots. Idiots don't know better and elect more idiots. This is not difficult, so there's nothing to be confused about. Just because someone is an idiot (or someone intelligent taking advantage of idiots) doesn't mean they can't make illogical arguments and convince idiots to put them in a position of power.

Which would be my other pro-tip: if everyone seems like an idiot, then actually just you are.

So, if everyone but me thought that 1 + 1 = 3 and didn't have any sort of critical thinking skills whatsoever, that would mean that I'm the idiot? Your logic is just terrible. The current situation is much better than that, but not to such a degree that most people aren't unintelligent.

because you will consistently underestimate your opponents.

They are idiots, but that doesn't mean you'll underestimate them. I'm perfectly aware that many people are convinced by illogical arguments, which makes idiots dangerous.

Re:Don't bother.

[lonOtter]

A pro-tip for you: If someone seems like an idiot for believing that most people are idiots, then actually you're the idiot.

Making statements is easy.

Re:Don't bother.

[Hentai]

So, you are saying boxer B never fought?

I'm saying people will generally treat Boxer B as if he never fought, compared to how they treat Boxer A.

Maybe you treat your friends, your allies, and your heroes like their effort matters, but for everyone else, the Fundamental Attribution Error is the fallback of choice.

The symptom, not the true problem.

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is AMERICA's scientific illiterates. How do you think the idiots get to congress? I'll never vote for anyone that speaks out against evolution.

Re:The symptom, not the true problem.

[arth1]

Indeed. I shouldn't be, but am quite amazed with how people abuse their votes, and WILLFULLY put ignorant imbeciles in congress. And then don't even have enough shame to rectify the mistake.
Congress should have our very best people, not dregs.

Re:The symptom, not the true problem.

[Anonymous Coward]

But you'll gladly vote for someone equally anti science just because they have a D in front of their name.

Re:The symptom, not the true problem.

[Anonymous Coward]

They do this because the buy the lie that to vote for anyone other than Imbecile #1 or Imbecile #2 is to throw away their vote.

Captcha: disobey

Re:The symptom, not the true problem.

[Anonymous Coward]

if WILLFULLY put ignorant imbeciles are voted in, then they can be persuaded to believe other inane things. Win for the lobbyists.

Re:The symptom, not the true problem.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're going to eat a dog shit sandwich and the only difference is the breed of dog, does it really make a difference?

Re:The symptom, not the true problem.

[Goetterdaemmerung]

Indeed. I shouldn't be, but am quite amazed with how people abuse their votes, and WILLFULLY put ignorant imbeciles in congress. And then don't even have enough shame to rectify the mistake.
Congress should have our very best people, not dregs.

They represent the people. Nowhere does it say they have to be the best people. Some representatives are above average. Most are average. Some are below average. Pick whatever criterion you choose for your comparison.

To add some flavor, the people who run for office are not an even distribution of the population. Lawyers are highly represented.

Re:The symptom, not the true problem.

[Anonymous Coward]

look, he may be an idiot, but he's not that idiotic. he's trolling. same
as what bush jr did. classic bullying, pretending to be so unbelievably
stupid just to get a rise out of your target

the problem isn't the the electorate is putting idiots into office,
its that they've decided that the entertainment value of
putting a bully into office is more important than governance

Re:The symptom, not the true problem.

[Anonymous Coward]

Congress should have our very best people, not dregs.

It does. It has our people who are the very best at lying through their teeth to accumulate more power and wealth for themselves.

Yeah, we should probably be aiming for those who are the very best at other things, but unfortunately the voters don't seem to agree with me.

Re:The symptom, not the true problem.

[arth1]

If you're going to eat a dog shit sandwich and the only difference is the breed of dog, does it really make a difference?

If given a choice between a Teacup Yorkie sandwich and an Irish Wolfhound sandwich, I think you would be able to state a preference.

I think voters who live in an area where all they have is a choice between Tweedledum and Tweedledee might want to consider moving when the first good opportunity comes along. I sure wouldn't want my children to grow up in a place where science is considered a swear word and obvious fairy tales are considered truth.

Re:The symptom, not the true problem.

[blahplusplus]

"Indeed. I shouldn't be, but am quite amazed with how people abuse their votes, and WILLFULLY put ignorant imbeciles in congress. And then don't even have enough shame to rectify the mistake."

See what science has discovered about the brain.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re:The symptom, not the true problem.

[Anonymous Coward]

Some representatives are above average. Most are average. Some are below average.

Above average? Most are average? A grand majority are just sociopathic/ignorant trash; averages are irrelevant. You can see this by how many of them voted for the Patriot Act (and many continue to do so, even if that number is less); they took advantage of people at the right time and used that opportunity to further destroy our constitution and freedoms. Furthermore, the tolerance of the NSA surveillance and TSA shows that most representatives are indeed pieces of garbage.

Re:The symptom, not the true problem.

[Xyrus]

Every time I think congress can't lower the bar anymore, yet another complete fucking moron in Congress finds a new way to do so. Well played Mr. Weber.

Yet another day of watching Rome burn.

Re:The symptom, not the true problem.

[meerling]

Of course, the way the system is rigged, not-an-imbecile #1 doesn't get on the ballot in the first place.
It's almost as bad as the old USSR elections, you can elect any member of the communist party that the communist party tells you that you can elect.

Re:The symptom, not the true problem.

[Anonymous Coward]

Horsecrap. In most elections these days (especially in red states) you have a clear choice between a mouthbreather who wouldn't know a scientific principal if it bit them on the ass because they're too busy masturbating with a Bible in one hand and an eighteen-year old male prostitute in the other and another, slightly more enlightened candidate that at least won't get in the way of science. In most cases, we know which political parties they align with.

However, for some reason, people who froth at the mouth the most about unwinnable-by-third-party elections and idiots in Congress all while bitching about scientific illiteracy in the people that get elected never seem to vote for the non-mouth-breather - they vote for the bigger idiot because they want to lower taxes or are on the team that lowers taxes (or loves guns or some such crap) because in reality, they just don't care as much about science as that other stuff. If science matters to you, then vote for it. Otherwise STFU because everyone's getting tired of your whining, especially when it's a result of you voting the way you do because no one will ever agree with you on every issue and you don't care enough to vote for someone who would support science because it doesn't matter as much as guns or government too big or money or whatevs.

Yes, Libertarians who vote Republican, I'm looking at you.

Re:The symptom, not the true problem.

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. And when that absolute fucking moron Shelia Jackson Lees thinks we landed on Mars, not a single Slashdot story that I can recall.

Slashdot Kool Aid drinkers.

Re:The symptom, not the true problem.

[Collective 0-0009]

Have you seen the congress critters making such a big deal about GM not changing the part number after minor revisions? If they picked up a phone and called the plant manager at any manufacturing company in their district, they would know this is not evidence of a cover up. But did they, or their massive staff do any research? Nah, just lambaste the bastards (oops... bitches) over a failure rate of .000001% (I admit that number was pulled outta you know where).

Now, I am not saying there wasn't a cover up, but jumping to that conclusion based on a same part number that was surely serialized and/or lot traced and/or revision controlled.

Re:The symptom, not the true problem.

[Anonymous Coward]

America is certainly the problem.
It's amazing. The most Nobel prize winners, and most scientific illiterates in the world.
America certainly has the whiskers on the ends of the bell curve nailed down.

Re:The symptom, not the true problem.

[turkeyfish]

The scoundrels are particularly eager to lead people to believe that there is no difference. Compare politicians objectively and there are BIG differences. Even, given a diet of dog shit, that 1-2% difference becomes the difference between survival and death. Choose wisely or suffer the consequences.

Re:The symptom, not the true problem.

[turkeyfish]

I guess you haven't heard about the Martian rovers. We have landed on Mars.

Re:The symptom, not the true problem.

[Anonymous Coward]

Guess you didn't read the fucking link, Kool Aid drinking moron. She's talking about a Manned landing...Astronauts for you OWS losers.

Re:The symptom, not the true problem.

[Anonymous Coward]

That's the shitty thing about global warming. You can live 10,000 miles away and these ignorant pricks will still be able to ruin your day by blocking meaningful action on carbon emissions. Hopefully the world will get fed up with the United States' inaction and force a reduction in carbon emissions through economic embargo.

Re:The symptom, not the true problem.

[fyngyrz]

This. Only you're actually being too kind.

Re:The symptom, not the true problem.

[fyngyrz]

pretending

...I don't think that word means what you think it means. Particularly in this context.

Re:The symptom, not the true problem.

[fyngyrz]

I'll share my bread if you'd be so kind as to direct me to the circus?

Re:The symptom, not the true problem.

[TheRaven64]

I'd like to feel smug and superior and laugh at the stupid Americans, but in the UK we have precisely one MP who has a degree in a science subject (Jullian Huppert, Cambridge, PhD in biological chemistry). Many of the rest didn't even do a science subject at A-level, so their last science education finished at age 16. These people are simply not qualified to be making decisions about scientific matters.

Re:The symptom, not the true problem.

[Anonymous Coward]

> Congress should have our very best people, not dregs.

Probably the best summary of how I felt after reading this. That article was the most depressing thing I have read in months.

Re:The symptom, not the true problem.

[bzipitidoo]

Among the 5 democratic candidates for a US Senate seat where I live was one who campaigned on the idea that Obama was trying to impart Islamic values to our school children, and should be impeached. She got 2nd place, and will be facing the 1st place candidate in a runoff.

How do we get through to supporters of that sort of thing just how uncool that is?

Re:The symptom, not the true problem.

[Anonymous Coward]

A major part of Austin, the part containing The University of Texas, is represented by Lamar Smith, one of the anti-science idiots mentioned in this article. The people who live in Austin near UT are not the kind of people you are talking about. It's a perfectly fine place to raise your kids. The problem is gerrymandering. That district grabs the most liberal part of Austin and mixes it with a huge section of rural Texas so that the rural Texans have the majority of the vote.

Re:The symptom, not the true problem.

[arth1]

How do we get through to supporters of that sort of thing just how uncool that is?

We don't. We go back to old Plato and the requirement that the voters be educated for a democracy to work.

Someone who cannot tell what the capital of Canada is should be allowed to vote for anyone in charge of foreign affairs.
Someone who cannot tell science from faith should not be allowed to vote for anyone making laws regarding science, nor faith.
Yet someone who is in prison should be allowed to vote, like in pretty much every democracy in the world, except here.

Re:The symptom, not the true problem.

[Anonymous Coward]

Move where? To another country? At least to another continent, the politics in Canada are just as bakwards and anti-science only with less of the circus you get in the US.

Re:The symptom, not the true problem.

[Ferretman]

I used to be a strong supporter of the Libertarian Party and helped try to get them elected in several campaigns, but they eventually proved to be no different than the Democrats or the Republicans. Oh they talk good game, but when push came to shove and they had some actual power they did squat-all with it.

Many years ago the Libertarian Party won the majority of the city council of a mountain town here named Leadville. They had three of the five seats, a clear majority of the voters behind them, and two fairly unpopular remaining Council members who were stunned at how their buddies had been tossed out. Things looked pretty good for the LP there for a bit.

Bu they didn't do anything. They didn't roll back any taxes. They didn't introduce a newer, simpler property tax system or even try to get rid of the existing system. They didn't take the state to court over any of their mandates, nor did they take the Feds to court over their silliness. They didn't even open up the town meetings to open-carry of firearms (Colorado is a local-rule city, so laws like this could certainly be implemented). I think one of them eventually got caught in some kind of influence-peddling scandal, though that might have been up in Denver instead.

In short, they did nothing at all to show that they were any different than the Democrats or Republicans who had come before them.

They failed catastrophically when they had the chance to prove that they were different, and that was the end of my energetic support. I'll vote for them over most Democrats and occasionally against a Republican, but that's the only time.

Ferret

The saddest thing isn't that he believes this.

[rmdingler]

It's that the Congressman is so sure his remarks will be lauded widely within his District that he doesn't care whether they're accurate or not.

Typical politician... say what you think they want to hear.

Re:The saddest thing isn't that he believes this.

[Anonymous Coward]

Reminds me of something I heard about how the quips and rants Congressmen aren't directed at each other as part of the "greatest deliberative body in the world", but to be quoted in sound bites from the C-SPAN feed.

Re:AGW Jihadists are the culprit

[oldhack]

You crazies not only messed up climate research, you fucked up the public image of science/scientists in general.

Fuckers.

Lest we forget....

[DKroos]

Takes the crown. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re:Lest we forget....

[TheGavster]

When I first saw that video, I assumed due to the crummy resolution that some joker had voiced it over. I checked the congressional record, though, and that man actually asked those questions in front of the committee where the stenographer could hear him. Page 27: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/C... Props to Admiral Willard for maintaining a straight face?

Re:Lest we forget....

[MickyTheIdiot]

Don't listen to anyone that assumes this is a party-based phenomenon.

We have the worst of worst in ALL positions of leadership.

Re:Lest we forget....

[Assmasher]

I think that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard considering that he was under zero pressure (as opposed to asking a beauty pageant contestant about quantum gravitation and recording the gurgles...)

It's so dumb it is actually depressing.

Re:AGW Jihadists are the culprit

[msmonroe]

Can't understand you my man, get the cock out of your mouth!

Re:AGW Jihadists are the culprit

[Anonymous Coward]

Says the guy who really thinks calling random audiences online AGW Jihadists as a personalized slang that will convince people that they are right....

Blame the rise of dominionism in fundamentalist...

[Assmasher]

...Christianity.

Please note that I didn't say blame Christianity, or fundamentalists, I said blame dominionism.

Their goal is to subvert and abuse the very words people use to describe things like 'science' (i.e. 'historical science'), 'liberty', and 'freedom.' They want nothing to do with science and they're spending amazing amounts of money electing people who are willing to espouse their causes - anything to get elected.

Re:AGW Jihadists are the culprit

[msmonroe]

WTF are you talking about! If you have something to say be specific instead of wah, wah, wah, gurgle, gurgle...

Re:AGW Jihadists are the culprit

[bunratty]

If you look at the latest IPCC report, I don't think you'll see a single instance of "we're all gonna die!" So nice strawman. You can see some of the highlights of the report here: http://billmoyers.com/2014/03/...

Re:Blame the rise of dominionism in fundamentalist

[Anonymous Coward]

F.A. Hayek, The Fatal Conceit, chapter 7.

Sure the comment was stupid but ...

[TrollstonButterbeans]

I'm sure with 438 men and women in Congress, stupid things get said everyday.

And most of them are 60 or 70 years old and don't understand things like the internet, cell phones and haven't been in college or highschool in 50 some years to know what science is.

This isn't so surprising that someone would say something very ignorant, but no doubt it happens every day and those people are out in the real world too.

Re:Sure the comment was stupid but ...

[Anonymous Coward]

And most of them are 60 or 70 years old and don't understand things like the internet, cell phones and haven't been in college or highschool in 50 some years to know what science is.

Just to remind you: most of the people who created and built those things are also 60 or 70 yeras old, with many of them still busily teaching you young'uns how they work.

Re:Sure the comment was stupid but ...

[MickyTheIdiot]

I'm sure with 438 men and women in Congress, stupid things get said everyday.

Understatement... it's what's for dinner!

Re:Sure the comment was stupid but ...

[arth1]

Just to remind you: most of the people who created and built those things are also 60 or 70 yeras old, with many of them still busily teaching you young'uns how they work.

In my experience, the young ones in general don't want to know. They want magic boxes running magic programming languages,so that pesky "understanding" thing doesn't interfere.

And a lot of older people don't want them precisely because they're marketed as magic boxes for dummies.
That leaves too few that actually understand or want to understand the technology. And yes, most of them are older.

Re:Sure the comment was stupid but ...

[lonOtter]

But not the politicians. Were they actual innovators, they wouldn't need to take some rote memorization classes in order to recall facts.

Re:Sure the comment was stupid but ...

[Bing Tsher E]

They want magic boxes running magic programming languages,so that pesky "understanding" thing doesn't interfere.

Didn't you know? The world of software is more maintainable if it's kept extremely abstract and the actual functionality is locked away in magic boxes that only a few wizards are allowed to touch. That's the whole idea behind high level languages like Java, C++, Visual Basic, etc.

I am an Assembly Language programmer and code embedded controllers up from the reset vector. I remember the first time I encountered a coworker who was a habitual high level code slinger and couldn't get it when the timer wouldn't do anything, cuz they never initiated it. That's an aside, though. Stick to your highly maintainable object orientation (coded in whatever language is in fashion ATM.) Fantasies are fun!

Re:Sure the comment was stupid but ...

[TubeSteak]

I'm sure with 438 men and women in Congress, stupid things get said everyday.

And most of them are 60 or 70 years old and don't understand things like the internet, cell phones and haven't been in college or highschool in 50 some years to know what science is.

These particular idiots are members of Senate/House Committees responsible for Science.
Of all the people in the Congress, they should have some basic understanding of how science works.

Re:Sure the comment was stupid but ...

[ComputersKai]

They probably have some experience studying, in order for them to get appointed on a specific committee in the first place. Problem is, they seem to ignore the more educated opinions of people who are actually more dedicated to whatever field the committee manages. (i.e. scientists, professors, doctors)

Let's say, when the Earth is about to get destroyed (hyperbolic example).

Scientist: Oh no! How are we going to save everyone. Or how are we going to save the few that are going to carry our species forward. What about ethics?

Politicians: Oh no! the world is ending. The scientists are working on asolution to get us out of here though, but only a few of us? If you vote me for reelection, I will guarantee that all you underrepresented [insert extreme party loyalist group here] will be guaranteed free and equal passage on this escape vehicle!

Re:Sure the comment was stupid but ...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure with 438 men and women in Congress, stupid things get said everyday.

That's part of the problem. Stupid things are part of the game, and it's all just kabuki theater.

In a science lab, saying "might" or "probably will" or "the evidence I have strongly suggests" aren't weasel words. They're acknowledgements of the scientific method: I believe X will happen, but I'm always open to new evidence. Even something as rock-solid as Newtonian physics turned out to be incomplete. To be absolutely certain is to be a failure at science.

In debate club, or a court of law, or in Congress, your opponent says "X might happen", regardless of what the truth is, the correct response is always of the form "AHA! You're using weasel words! You don't KNOW!" and you get points. In an adversarial justice system, to leave any opening to new evidence means you lose the case. These people are fundraisers first, lawyers second, representatives third, and actual thinking has little impact on their career. To be anything less than absolutely certain is to fail at politics.

And so, the world burns. Anyone who says "Gee, you might be right" loses the little Young Demopublicans chairmanship, loses the primary, loses the election, or whatever rhetorical contest they're playing in when they admit the possibility that they might possibly be wrong.

Re:Sure the comment was stupid but ...

[confused one]

I've had that conversation... other guy: "Why doesn't it work" me: "Because you're code is running at over 100 MIPS and you didn't pause for even 50 milliseconds to wait for the device to set the valve..." "never mind waiting for flow to start. And you really shouldn't assume anything, go back to double check the system state before launching the next step in the process." Application programmer meets the physical world of control systems programming.

Re:Sure the comment was stupid but ...

[confused one]

It won't go down like that.... It'll be more like

.

scientist: Oh no! there's a 5 km asteroid going to hit us in 150 days."

Politician: How do I know you're right? You've been wrong in the past. Earth has never been hit by an asteroid, not in my lifetime or the lifetime of my father's father's father. I don't believe you."

one week later

Scientist: We've projected the orbit and can confirm with 99.99% certainty the asteroid will strike the Earth on the west coast of Africa in 139 days at exactly 10:43pm EST. It's 4.2 km and when it strikes it will be a civilization ending event, killing a projected 83% of the human population unless you fund the rocket we need to stop it.

Politician: So, you're not 100% certain? And you're saying it might strike Africa. And I thought you said it was only 5 km. Now you're saying it's 4.2km. You all don't even know how big this thing is... How much is the rocket going to cost? Do you have any idea what percentage of the U.S. GDP that is!? That's U.S. taxpayer money you're talking about. I think you might be wrong about the collision. You all were wrong about that asteroid... Apo something, right? Why should we agree to spend American taxpayer's money to stop a rock that may strike Africa. That's on the other side of the Atlantic ocean, half a world away. You scientists just don't know what you're talking about with your heads in the clouds looking at your stars all the time. You need to get down to Earth with the rest of us regular folks and do something useful.

Re:Sure the comment was stupid but ...

[DaveV1.0]

They probably have some experience studying, in order for them to get appointed on a specific committee in the first place.

Committee appointments are strictly political. The only qualification is to be well connected. Knowledge of the subject on which the committee meets is not required.

what stuns me

[confused one]

What stuns me is that someone that ignorant of the process and so critical of science in the first place, can get themselves put on the Science Space and Technology committee in the first place. You couldn't have picked a worse group of persons to make budgetary decisions about our countries science future. They might as well just go ahead and deny all science spending, kill NASA, DOE, NSF and NIH, and call it a day.

Re:what stuns me

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know why that surprises you. Committee selection is supposed to be all about "balanced opinion" so that the outcomes are reasonable and don't stray too far from the sensible middle ground, otherwise a committee full of fanbois would approve all sorts of nonsense. What we have here, unfortunately, is a committee full of dullards who are pushing back despite what common sense tells everyone else what should be done.

Re:what stuns me

[Nimey]

It's because these people speak Party orthodoxy and can be relied upon to keep politically-inconvenient science tied up.

Re:what stuns me

[Arker]

"They might as well just go ahead and deny all science spending, kill NASA, DOE, NSF and NIH, and call it a day."

Exactly.

Re:what stuns me

[confused one]

I'm all for the balanced opinion. Not everyone is going to agree... However, you can't have a "balanced opinion" if members of the committee are completely ignorant of what they're making decisions about and rather than put effort into learning and understanding, they spend all their time denigrating and belittling.

Re:what stuns me

[dbIII]

they spend all their time denigrating and belittling.

That's what they got themselves put onto the committee to do. They are deliberate saboteurs put in place so that this administration has less positive examples to point to when elections come up. However, for some reason such people call Snowden and similar traitors without a hint of irony.

Re:what stuns me

[confused one]

It's this kind of thick headed stupidity, where the Republican party has allowed ultra-right wing nuts to take control of the party, that has caused me to stop voting in the center choosing candidates based on their resume and experience. Now I'm voting an all Democratic ticket simply because I'm tired of all the bull crap. While I don't agree with everything the Democrats do and I think sometimes their spending habits need to be reigned in, they're not trying to kill this country by cutting the bottom out from under it.

Cosmos

[mendax]

A good dose of the Cosmos mini-series, both old and new, may be in order. Countless people of my generation were enlightened and educated by the first series. I would love to lock both houses of Congress in the House chambers, lock the door, and make them watch both series. Many scientific ignoramuses there may be enlightened, especially when they learn just how much good science has been government funded. But then there will be the religious fundamentalists who are thump their bibles and declare it all to be blasphemy. Those who are enlightened should be congratulated; those who cling to their religion despite the facts before them need to be put into a nuclear fusion torus and vaporized. That'll give them a bit of religion!

Re:Cosmos

[thunderclap]

And that comment above is why were are were we are. I would much rather He have an actual serious discussion as to how a universe could be created by a human, rather than so random freaking magical event. There is more faith in science's belief than there ever will be in religion. Which is easier to believe: Nothing created something. Truly absolutely vast quantities of nothingness. No atoms, no quarks, no foam. Just emptiness. And that created something. OR A immortal being who existing in a different reality created this one and because he created it, he is omniscient and omnipotent in it. A lot of people chose too because we learn that things just don't magically appear. Science can ignore everyone when it can prove what created the universe, and exactly how and when humanity was created in the same detail that a computer circuit board is created. Until that day, they must be able to have open, frank and honest discourse without arrogance.

Re:Cosmos

[lonOtter]

There is more faith in science's belief than there ever will be in religion.

The very same science that's responsible for the technology you're using right now to communicate with others? The very same science that's responsible for just about everything in the modern world that improves people's qualify of life? Betting on something with that kind of track record is nowhere near the same as the kind of "faith" you're talking about.

And that's putting aside your ignorance of the actual science and what the actual scientific theories are about. You go on to talk about how science says that "Nothing created something." as if cretins like you haven't said that same sort of nonsense millions of times already, to no effect.

Which is easier to believe: Nothing created something. Truly absolutely vast quantities of nothingness. No atoms, no quarks, no foam. Just emptiness. And that created something. OR A immortal being who existing in a different reality created this one and because he created it, he is omniscient and omnipotent in it.

Which is easier to believe? Any explanation that doesn't involve all-powerful, infinitely complex magical beings creating entire universes.

There are gaps in our knowledge, yes, but that doesn't mean you can make up bullshit about all-powerful sky daddies, claim it's the real answer simply because we lack knowledge at this point in time, and expect to not get laughed at by anyone who is even remotely intelligent. You will get laughed at, and rightfully so. You are the problem.

Until that day, they must be able to have open, frank and honest discourse without arrogance.

So, you're saying that you expect intelligent people to take whatever nonsensical garbage you can make up seriously? Good luck with that.

Re:Cosmos

[Anonymous Coward]

but ... then what created the other reality ???

Did god have a god?
Did Gods other reality as you put it; also have a God of his own?

Where precisely do the turtles stop in your version how things happen?

I can tell you; Science doesn't have an "answer" we have a theory. You are the only one claiming science "knows" what happened. You are the only one claiming scientists "Believe" a specific thing. We don't. BUT, what we DO do, is we try to find out what was before. We try to calculate what it was like as close to the "nothing" period; so that the figures we feed in to times after that are as accurate as possible.

We don't *believe* anything. We build upon what we know to refine our answer every time. All the while accepting that someone can figure something out that might fundamentally change that.

YOU on the other hand, believe there was a god in another reality. You have absolute faith in this. Science doesn't know anything, but science can postulate, can verify, can disprove its own "facts". (when I say facts, I actually mean the closest guess we have right now).

If anyone is arrogant; it is your knowledge that there was a creator. Science hasn't ruled that out! Science has just indicated that it is really unlikely, because other than precisely how "stuff" was created, there has been no obvious manipulation in what we can see. The very first *thing* that happened is about all science can't totally explain. But you; you know what happened then and after.

Re:Cosmos

[tekrat]

The other reply you are castigating has a point, and I'm open to his suggestion that we keep our minds open. As soon as they provide CONCRETE EVIDENCE of such a "magic man in the sky", then I can be turned to their postulation.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and so far they haven't provided much. When there's proof of god published in a scientific journal, along with repeatable experiments garnering repeatable results, then I'm ready to accept that as theory.

Chimps are more intelligent

[fox171171]

Scientist goes to Congress to celebrate Jane Goodall's 80th birthday.

economics

[jafac]

These guys have no problem accepting the validity of an economic theory based on an "Invisible Hand" - yet when it comes to actual solid science based on actual method and process (as opposed to expensive silk suits), they start looking for conspiracy theories to explain the results.

Re:economics

[Tablizer]

have no problem accepting the validity of an economic theory based on an "Invisible Hand" - yet...

It's not invisible:

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/imag...

He let them know what He thinks of Trickle Down theory.

Re:economics

[blahplusplus]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re:economics

[Anonymous Coward]

The difference is that when I look outside my window I can see the invisible hand at work. Cars driving by, people going to work, kids going to school, etc. Life as normal. What I ALSO see is that we are having the coldest winter in years and yet LEFT WING MORONS are still harping on about global warming. At least we libertarians believe in something that has actual real world consequences backed up by actual scientific facts and economics. You AGW idiots wouldn't know actual science if it came right up to you and introduced itself. In summary: why don't you read a fucking book instead of watching and reading the mainstream press all day.

Re:economics

[Anonymous Coward]

Here we go again... a slashtard snapping out against a free market that simply doesn't exist in the US (all in the guise of making a point about science, none the less!)
 
There's hardly a single member of the legislature who honestly believes in a free market economy. Certainly less of them then those who believe in AGW.

Re:economics

[Anonymous Coward]

Liberterians. LoL

Re:economics

[CronoCloud]

What I ALSO see is that we are having the coldest winter in years and yet LEFT WING MORONS are still harping on about global warming.

A Cold winter is "localized weather", regional

Global warming is "global climate", meaning global averages.

You can have global warming and still have a cold winter in the US. We will just have fewer of them and they'll tend to be less and less cold. Which is what has been happening. Used to have winters like this more often. I'm old enough to remember when snow before Halloween wasn't uncommon.

Eventually over time, the localized climate shifts to the climate type that was to the south of you. Say Chicago becoming more like Louisville Kentucky, or worse.. Vicksburg Mississippi or even Worse...Mexico City. It'll still have lake effect, but it's averages will be more similar to Louisville, or Vicksburg, or Mexico City

This supposed bad winter was NOTHING compared to the ones of the late 70's.

Re:economics

[Assmasher]

Since when did right wing nut jobs label themselves "libertarians"? Do they actual know what Libertarianism actually is? They seem to have it confused with being conservative.

Re:economics

[Anonymous Coward]

These guys have no problem accepting the validity of an economic theory based on an "Invisible Hand"

Are you implying that anyone should have a problem accepting Adam Smith's invisible hand analogy, or that it's dubious in some way? Social science denialism is just as bad as physical science denialism.

Twain

[McGruber]

"Suppose you were an idiot, and suppose you were a member of Congress; but I repeat myself." - Mark Twain

Idiocracy

[EngineeringStudent]

In business, if a manager doesn't know their product, their market, the employees and the job - they are junk.
In politics, they are elected.

I think there is a problem of scope. When the constitution and balance of power were created the "leader to citizen ratio" was likely hugely less adverse. Who in the 13 colonies would have imagined the number of people in the USA would equal 1/3rd of the planet's population. In 1776 there were 800 million living humans. Right now there are 350 million Americans. I don't think the government "balances" were built to work as well with that many people.

This has likely been going on for some time. The refreshing thought is that as soon as a different system becomes even a little more efficient, it will start outpacing the US in terms of real innovation, real economics, and great decisions by leaders. It is not a question of "if" something better is going to come along and show the un-bright folks what they are - it is only a question of when and how.

Re:Idiocracy

[Gavrielkay]

The problem is more fundamental than that. It is us as Americans. The politicians know their market very well, and in fact pay lots of money to mold the market into ever more gullible sheep. Most Americans have a cursory education in science at best. We've got it drilled into us to treat everything we don't want to hear with skepticism and to think elections are pointless because they're all losers so we may as well vote for the one with the most TV ads.

Until Americans stop considering educated people to be elitist and stop voting for the guy they'd want to sit next to at an outdoor bar-b-que, you aren't going to get anything fixed.

Re:Idiocracy

[Anonymous Coward]

In business, if a manager doesn't know their product, their market, the employees and the job - they are junk.

A few weeks back I was talking with a reasonably famous scientist about the problem of administrative overhead: that it's increasingly common for scientists to be a situation where it would be technically feasible to perform some interesting experiment on a time scale of weeks but that getting the necessary administrative approvals can easily take months or even years. And he said, yes, that it often happens that the administrators forget that they work for us (the scientists).

I actually watched some of the hearing and what was striking to me is that the politicians were doing a lot more talking than listening. Real science is about exploring the unknown - like a maze of paths through an unexplored forest. Sometimes you really want to go forward but the way forward is blocked. Other times you discover easy paths to exciting new discoveries that you didn't expect. If the leaders aren't listening to the scientists on the ground then the process will be incredibly inefficient - efforts focused on paths that are obviously (to the scientists) blocked while ignoring exciting new directions.

For example, this year the price of whole genome sequencing has fallen to about $1,500 and all you need is about a milliliter of saliva that can be mailed to the sequencing facility at room temperature. Now the best sequencing facility is in Korea and the best tubes are made in Canada . So the USA isn't exactly out in front on this. But it's now technologically possible to sequence every newborn at birth. This is an incredible opportunity to detect all kinds of rare genetic disorders at birth - what's needed is the software analysis pipelines. And I wouldn't necessarily expect the general public in the USA to be aware of this.

But in an ideal world, the political leaders would be sufficiently tuned into (listening) to the scientists to know what's going on. Instead you have Obama's FDA shutting down 23andMe with all kinds of inane bureaucracy. If some kid was suspected of having a brain tumor and the parent wanted to do some exporatory surgery on the dining room table with a set of power tools and instructions provided by 23andMe then I'd say, sure, shut 'em down. But what if some kid is suspected of having a genetic condition and the parent wants to look through the kid's genome on his personal computer with some tools provided by 23andMe? I mean, yeah, the parent probably isn't going to be successful and, in the ideal world, it would be easy for the parent to get some help from someone with a PhD in molecular genetics. But where's the harm?

If the fundamental problem is lack of access to the PhD in molecular genetics then listen to the scientists and solve that problem! Don't just crush the (USA's) future with inane FDA bureaucracy.

Re:Idiocracy

[turkeyfish]

As of March 26, 2014, it is estimated to number 7.154 billion by the United States Census Bureau (USCB). As of April 4, 2014, the United States has a total population of 317.8 million (USCB). Thus, the population of the US is about 4.4% of the planet's human population, not 33.3%. This is yet another example of Americans thinking of themselves as more important than they really are. By population alone the rest of the world has been outpacing the US for some time. At current growth rates the Chinese economy (5 year average GDP at 10.62%) will surpass that of the US (5 year average growth rate 0.207%) in size in about 10 years, assuming they don't choke themselves to death producing products largely for US consumption.

Re:Idiocracy

[turkeyfish]

You have hit the nail on the head! We play wack-a-mole with ourselves.

Re:Idiocracy

[turkeyfish]

Much of "Obama's" FDA is filled with people staffed during the Bush I, Clinton and Bush II years. Scientific illiteracy knows no political boundaries. Its a symptom of the breadth of scientific illiteracy in our entire population. We should also keep in mind that scientific illiteracy is also to be found even among the scientifically literate when dealing with other disciplines of science.

Re:Idiocracy

[Anonymous Coward]

There have been a small number of truly major revolutions in the history of medicine (e.g. aseptic/anitseptic surgery, vaccines, and antibiotics) and we are now right in the middle of the next truly major revolution: clinical genome sequencing. What the FDA did to 23andMe isn't a minor anomaly that can be attributed to a few errant bureaucrats left over from previous administrations. It will almost certainly come to be seen as a defining event in the Obama presidency - when Obama sided with bureaucracy and elitism over individual freedom and healthcare innovation.

But the larger point is that it's not about scientific literacy, per se. I don't expect Obama to gaze thoughtfully at the ceiling for a few moments and then accurately predict all the major scientific discoveries that will occur in the next few years. What I'd like, though, would be for Obama and congress to actually listen to the scientists. The TFA was even about a "hearing" - a great opportunity to "hear" some scientists talk about the latest developments in their fields. Instead all the politicians seemed focused on talking - telling the scientists what to do without any kind of meaningful dialogue (with the actual scientists who would be doing the work) on whether what they (the politicians) want done is the best use of scarce resources or even makes sense at all.

Re:Idiocracy

[EngineeringStudent]

You are upside down. If in 1776 there were to be ~300 million people living in the United States of America, but the population of the planet had not changed, it would require ~1/3 of the world population at the time to relocate.

Americans may have a poor reputation, but you are demonstrating that the non-Americans of the world prefer to jump to conclusions before they understand what another person meant.

China is demonstrating its desire to be the ruler of the world. It may succeed. There are enough idiots in charge in places where it counts - folks with money myoptia who can be bought or bullied - that a single dominant power over the world may arise. Every "king of the hill" is a tree planted by the last "king" - this is a pattern in humanity that is thousands of years old. This is a good lesson for new "kings" and old - nobody lives on the top of that hill forever.

THE FUCK?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

WHAT THE FUCK. This...fuck what the god damn....unfucking believable. These "people" are such an incredible embarrassment I can't even express this correctly. What the ever living fuck. FFS....just...FUCK. FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU the captcha is 'conserve'.....I'm starting to have a fucking panic attack now. FUCK

Re:THE FUCK?!?

[thunderclap]

seriously? You picked AC to just curse. This isn't 4chan. So you think the discourse is an embrassment? Why?

Re:AGW Jihadists are the culprit

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd be willing to bet ten grand that you don't weigh an ounce under 350 pounds.

Your vote doesn't even count

[Anonymous Coward]

Without proportional representation, all you're doing is making a checkmark on a piece of paper and calling it democracy.

Re:Your vote doesn't even count

[thunderclap]

Without proportional representation, all you're doing is making a checkmark on a piece of paper and calling it democracy.

We left democracy behind. We WERE a republic and then we BECAME a oligarchy. We need to get back.

Obligatory xkcd

[mjvvjm]

http://xkcd.com/154/

America is the new Roman Empire

[Ogre332]

It's only a matter of time before we collapse.

Re:America is the new Roman Empire

[hey!]

I was making just this point about the Supreme Court striking down limits on campaign contributions. The Romans never quite admitted to themselves that their republic was defunct. They remained deeply attached to republican forms and institutions, even when those things had withered to ceremonial appendages of a corrupt imperial state. It was necessary for people to go through the motions of democracy; the ambitious plutocrats needed to maintain the fiction they were serving Rome, when in fact Rome was serving them.

Re:AGW Jihadists are the culprit

[by (1706743)]

As a theory, AGW is in many respects similar to evolution: they're both lousy theories, but they happen to be right. By "lousy theory," I mean that they fail to make quantitative predictions. Evolutionary theory cannot say exactly how many centimeters longer the teeth of some species living on island X relates to its kin on mainland Y. However, it can say, "the teeth will be better suited to the environment."

I'm certainly no expert on either evolution or AGW, but a similar claim for AGW might be something along the lines of, "if you do something to a chaotic system, stuff will happen." Clearly there are published papers that try to make more quantitative models -- some successfully, some not so much. But I would be interested in reading a paper -- published in a legitimate journal -- with the phrase, "we are all gonna die!!!!!" I'm just not so sure the editors of Nature or Science would let that many consecutive exclamation marks get by...

In pre-Newton/Galileo/etc. times, as far as I know the theory of gravity was basically, "things tend to fall." It's a terrible theory, sure, but it happens to be right.

Science used to be cool...

[jasonrice22]

...until it got all preachy.

Re:AGW Jihadists are the culprit

[MickyTheIdiot]

I'd listen if you didn't have to take a hard right line and make a strawman out of every "liberal" position.

Liberal in quotes since you obviously mean it as a pejorative here. Search/replace liberal for "asshole" and your meaning stays the same.

To Be Fair...

[Tablizer]

To be fair, nobody can verify evolution or global warming in their own garage (without lots of money or time).

One pretty much must rely on experts, and certain people believe most scientists are biased in order to get more funding by "kissing up to the government" or to morally justify "deviant behavior" by "proving" there is no deity.

That suspicion not entirely irrational. People in general are often selfish and biased, and there's no reason to think professional scientists are immune to such human failures.

Perhaps they are projecting, knowing they'd sell out their research "answers" to the highest bidder if they were in the position of scientists.

It's a sticky situation, but I cannot in good faith call their reasoning process "irrational" even though I'd like to thunk them on the head.

Re:To Be Fair...

[turkeyfish]

"To be fair, nobody can verify evolution or global warming in their own garage (without lots of money or time)."

Actually, they can if they tried. In the first case all one needs is a few petri dishes and various media and a few strains of bacteria, all readily available in a garage. Likewise, with global warming. Bill Nye the science guy showed a very nice experiment of the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere upon heating a few closed flasks and measuring the temperature with a couple of heat lamps, also easily done in a garage.

The problem is not a monetary one. Rather its the difference between clear, logical analytic thinking and the lack thereof. Fundamentally, both are rather simple and testable in the context of scientific experiment.

Re:To Be Fair...

[Tablizer]

the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere upon heating a few closed flasks and measuring

But some detractors say it's absorbed back into rocks just like oxygen was for about 200 million years before the Great Oxygenation Event. Or that the Earth naturally compensates by forming more clouds or changing sea currents etc. in kind of a negative feedback system. It's always possible to slap on another layer of BS to counter a given lab experiment.

Re:AGW Jihadists are the culprit

[Anonymous Coward]

Evolutionary theory can and does absolutely make hard, precise quantitative predictions. It's just that most of them are at the genetic level. But they're falsifiable predictions, nonetheless, which exclude other possible models.

Re:AGW Jihadists are the culprit

[flaming error]

Translations from Byese to Sciencese:

"theory that produces quantitative predictions" = Law
"theory that happens to be right" = Theory
[theory that happens to be wrong] = Falsehood

Re:AGW Jihadists are the culprit

[oldhack]

Wrong. Evolution describes the process, but does not make prediction, and the process has been observed repeatedly.

AGW tries to both describe and predict, but is too primitive to even verify given the precision and time interval required.

I'm against age discrimination, but re-thinking it

[Anonymous Coward]

Instead of requiring people who run for office to be at least 35, 30 or 25 depending on what they are running for I propose a radical re-think. Lets limit people in office to those between the ages of 25 and 35. This way you reduce the chance of voting in people with inexperience in the real world (ie you would at least get people who have some working experience, post-high school and post-college) and prevent people too far removed from education from making important decisions. Lets be honest with ourselves. Ones height is around the age of 28 and after that its all downhill. I'm 29 almost 30 and I have no doubts I'm past my prime. If you haven't made it by 28 chances are you never will.

Forest, not Trees

[mutantSushi]

This article is just missing the point. There is nothing shocking that such people exist, or that some of them may even be elected to the national legislature. What is shocking is that they are crucial to the balance of power in that legislature. And that comes down not to them or their co-believers, but much broader aspects of American political structure. Normally one would expect the US House of Representatives to be MORE representative than the US Senate, as the Senate is all elected by the plurality winner takes all vote of entire states, while the House is elected by smaller numbers of citizens. That is in fact exactly the opposite of the case, with the US House of Representatives returning strong Republican majorities despite Democrats winning the popular vote in House races over-all. That is due to gerry-mandering of districts, which creates electoral 'ghettos' with super-concentration of support for one political party, which ends up being "wasted votes" (since having more than a majority or plurality in a district doesn't gain any more representation in Congress): In many states, one party needs from 1.2 to 1.6 times as many votes to get the same number of representatives in Congress, again reflecting the "wasted vote" phenomenon, even while the official paradigm is "one person one vote". Each state is allowed to re-district as it pleases, de facto according to the balance of power in that state), in other words tending to serve the majoritarian group in that state... i.e. exactly counter to the apparent purpose for having a larger number of more granular smaller-population districts vs. state-wide votes for Senators. Now one can expect Republican-majority states to gerrymander to their own favor, and Democrat-majority states to do likewise (and they both do so), but that doesn't account for all of the discrepancy. In fact there are 6 states that return Democratic majorities on Presidential votes, and over-all popular vote for House seats, yet return majority Republican House Representatives. One of these, Pennsylvania, in fact depended on Democratic votes in their State Congress to achieve the majority needed to confirm the gerrymandering. If you Google that topic, you will see the rationale given by those Democratic State Congressmen to be about as coherent as these Anti-Science Representatives quoted in the article. If ONLY those 6 states returned Representatives in line with their over-all popular vote, there would basically be a permanent US House Democratic majority. Not even all 6 of those states would be needed to switch in order to achieve that majority. Several of those states allow for citizen referendum, so there is no impediment to a popular referendum changing the representation/districting formula, yet that is not done. There is even the possibility to impose a nationwide change having consistent standards to avoid wasted votes, via Article V nationwide constitutional convention, whose requirements to convene have already been met, so such a Convention should go ahead to create Amendments which 3/4 of states then need to approve, by popular vote or their legislature. Yet that is not done. There are nutsos and science deniers all over the world. They are not the problem with the US' political system, the US' political system is the problem. So to blame this narrow sect of ignorants is absolving the larger body politic of it's responsibility for allowing such a system to persist. This system makes many votes simply not count in terms of final outcome, not to mention side-lining any parties outside the "2 parties of power". A system of Open-List Mixed Member Proportional Representation retains the link to local district which all members chosen because of their popularity in that district (either by plurality/majority, or as the highest level of support that party received), and can accomodate independent (non-party) local candidates and splitting support for parties at local and over-all levels (to avoid supporting a hated local candidate whose party over-all is attractive). The path is open to change that system, such a process is exactly allowed for in the US Constitution, and by using a national convention expressly called for the purpose, can side-line the 2-party representatives who are married to the existing system.

Re:Forest, not Trees

[turkeyfish]

What we need is a census for redistricting purposes every 5 years, not every 10. The modern world is simply moving too fast for a 10 year rule to keep us competitive with other nations. This would make gerrymandering less advantageous and hence less of a problem. This also makes sense from an economic perspective as well, since the population is so much larger now and its impacts on ecosystems that sustain it larger and of more consequence now.

Re:Common core manufactures them

[Gavrielkay]

While I agree the left isn't doing a good job, the right is no more interested in a scientifically literate populace. Our two party system has nicely carved up the population and will continue to trade power back and forth while nothing really changes. And people like you spouting partisan nonsense are part of the reason they get away with it.

Re:AGW Jihadists are the culprit

[arth1]

If you look at the latest IPCC report, I don't think you'll see a single instance of "we're all gonna die!"

It's bleeding obvious that we're all gonna die.
Except, perhaps, to those faithers who believe in rapture.

If you mean deaths caused by climate change, there are many who see evidence that this is already happening. Certainly not "all", but to some, one or a hundred or a couple of thousand deaths are too much.

Get Govt Out of Science

[Anonymous Coward]

and you don't need to worry about this anymore.

In the mean time I would suggest that there is absolutely nobody in this country qualified to be on such a panel. Why? Because even if your specialty is X you can easily be snowed over by someone specializing in Y. You may think that 'oh that sounds about right' or 'hmm that sounds fishy' when in reality you do not have the knowledge in the field to tell butkus. Your learned opinion is quite likely to end up being no better or worse than .

Loyalty to their belief systems

[Anonymous Coward]

A member of my family "M" didn't believe in global warming, because it didn't fit in with his other beliefs. He said a few times, "I'm a conservative kind of guy." Since he was conservative, he couldn't believe in global warming. Not my idea of a rational argument. (I'm putting him in the past tense, because he's passed away.)

Of course, not only conservatives are irrational. Some liberals have made ridiculous arguments, also.

I'm just mentioning M's "reasoning" to explain why some voters don't want to believe in global warming. The voters want to be loyal to their belief system.

Re:Common core manufactures them

[Osgeld]

these guys were out of school several decades before common core was even a thought, if anything it should show you what kind of bumble fucks our states were producing on their own

Re:AGW Jihadists are the culprit

[Anonymous Coward]

If only there was some accountability for all the imbeciles that know better than the climate scientists... If you, and the mental pygmies that mod such tripe as insightful, had to risk so much as $100 on the proposition that you might be wrong and just seething with hatred for Al Gore, we'd be spared listening to your politically-motivated bullshit. If you don't understand science, please shut the fuck up or go rail about the moon landing conspiracy somewhere else.

Re:Common core manufactures them

[mutantSushi]

None of current US Representatives or Senators were educated under "Common Core" standards, and I would hazard that a large number were educated in private schools to begin with. BTW, I believe the poster "amightywind" meant to refer to "collectivist", not "collectionist" state democrats. :-O ...Might want to back that claim up with comparative statistics for scientific literacy in Democratic vs. Republican controlled states....

anti-science pols always Republican

[globaljustin]

I object to the false dichotomy presented by TFA and general media...

Sure, **absolutely** Congress does things that are anti-science...but that's not the end...**who votes for these anti-science policies**???

ITS ALWAYS REPUBLICANS

climate change denial? Republicans
creationism in schools? Republicans
defunding research? Republicans

there is a solution to this...don't vote for Republicans & call out their BS every time

Re:anti-science pols always Republican

[Anonymous Coward]

Believing that only republican are anti science is anti science is anti science itself.

Re:anti-science pols always Republican

[the eric conspiracy]

I wish it was always Republicans. It isn't. We have plenty of liberals running around contesting mature science in things like vaccine effectiveness and GMOs.

Ignorance and stupidity is bi-partisan.

Re:anti-science pols always Republican

[Tailhook]

Shutting down IFR research to indulge nuclear hysteria? Democrats
Shutting down Yucca Mountain with no scientific justification? Democrats
Cancelling the Superconducting Super Collider? Democrats

We could have had the Higgs Boson over 15 years ago. We got Clinton instead.

Keep knock'n back that kool-aid son.

Re:anti-science pols always Republican

[slashing1]

It's possible that Republican anti-science positions are worse in some ways, but Scientific American and MIT acknowledge that the problem is not limited to Republicans.

Re:anti-science pols always Republican

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow. How many times are you going to cut and paste this post to get modded up? How about taking the time to put some meat to your ideas instead of just spamming? You're like a fucking sidewalk evangelist.

Re:anti-science pols always Republican

[Ambassador Kosh]

There is plenty of blame to go around. We have republicans killing some projects they object to and democrats kill either and both claim the other is anti-science.

I wish we could run this country on facts and science. There are many policies that are good for the country regardless of it they are liberal or conservative ideas. The problem is that when you point out ideas that could be used someone immediately paints it with liberal or conservative and then they fight it based on that label.

Re:anti-science pols always Republican

[turkeyfish]

There are lots of very good scientific reasons to be concerned about GMO's creating artificial environments that can rapidly alter the rest of the natural world. There is abundant evidence for concern with many GMO crops already.

Re:anti-science pols always Republican

[Anonymous Coward]

And how many of those anti-vaxxer Democrats are in Congress, as opposed to anti-AGW Republicans ON THE SCIENCE COMMITTEE?

This is one issue where Both Sides aren't the same, let alone as bad.

Re:anti-science pols always Republican

[Assmasher]

There's a much simpler solution. Ban political parties.

Abolish the entire concept of them/us.

Then you can finally have people who can be fiscally conservative and socially liberal, or vice versa, or a "Democrat" who can be anti-abortion, or a "Republican" who can be pro-choice, et cetera, ad nauseum.

Let centrists re-emerge from the wilderness, and the crazies fall of the scene.

Re:anti-science pols always Republican

[Anonymous Coward]

You're looking at this all wrong.
Democrats always need a crisis going in order to keep the sheeple afraid. On every issue there will be two sides. The Democrats will always take the side that offers the easy choice to people, the one that does not require sacrifice or work or personal responsibility.

Spending: Democrat position is to spend more than we have. No matter what.
Education: who cares about the results, us democrats have good intentions here, give us even more money, so we can collect those union dues, and send them right back to the democrat politicians that are looking out for us.
Climate: the world is going to end if you don't put us democrats in charge right now and give us your money, we know what is best, you can trust us.
God: that's crazy talk, those 10 commandments are just too rigid, people should be able to do whatever the heck they want.
Abortion: you want me to be responsible for my actions? you want there to be consequences for my actions? that's funny right there. Heck, I don't even think I should pay for my own birth control or abortions, I should pass that cost off to others.

Re:anti-science pols always Republican

[DarthVain]

Errr... I would agree with the whole vaccine thing, but GMOs?

There are loads of problems and issues with GMOs. They are pretty much the equivalent to what scientists use to do by intentionally introducing non-native species to take care of an annoying local species. Which we now know to be "a very bad idea". All ready insects are developing immunity responses to the new strains, while the new strains kill off all the variation.

Anyway all the sciency technical stuff aside, one of the more disturbing things about GMOs is the fact the companies (most of which can be called Montensento apparently) patent these strains. Which is pretty much evil. It is a near perfect business strategy of course:

1) Create product
2) Patent product
3) Have product literally kill off all competing products
4) When no one has a choice anymore, charge whatever you like, and sue everyone else into oblivion

Re:anti-science pols always Republican

[the eric conspiracy]

I'm sorry but this is just wrong. GMO has been in mass use for decades now and none of these bogeyman scenarios have come to pass.

Even more telling is that another posting I made on this thread linking to an opinion by the European Scientific Advisory Council stating that the EU restrictions on GMOs are harmful has been moderated to -1 by the anti GMO crowd on Slashdot.

How could anything be more anti-science than trying to silence an opposing opinion that is in fact the scientific consensus?

Re:anti-science pols always Republican

[the eric conspiracy]

The premise put forth is that it's ALWAYS Republicans. Given that all I have to do is come up with ONE counter example to disprove the point.

Fact: there are plenty of anti science loons who are Democrats. They pop up in areas like:

Vaccines
GMOs
Animal use in medical research

Worse Yet

[the eric conspiracy]

One of the few people in Congress who actually knows something about science is retiring.

Rush Holt, we will miss you.

https://holt.house.gov/biograp...

Holdren isn't as literate as one might think

[Anonymous Coward]

In the 1970's he co-authored a book with Paul R. Erhlich about how global cooling was going to cause this massive Malthusian catastrophe. http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/29/dr-holdrens-ice-age-tidal-wave/?_php=true&_type=blogs&apage=2&_r=0

Re:Holdren isn't as literate as one might think

[calidoscope]

Back in the 1970's, Holdren was also going around saying that clean coal was safer and better for the environment than nuclear. His "analysis" showed that the largest number of deaths would come from grade crossing accidents with coal trains. After hearing that, I never took him seriously as he is more of activist pretending to be a scientist.

Re:Holdren isn't as literate as one might think

[stenvar]

From the article:

I confess that I don’t quite understand Dr. Holdren’s particular 1971 vision of global warming — why would nuclear fuels be contributing to it?

In fact, the quote shows Holdren to be a complete idiot: he actually believes that the heat released from nuclear and fossil fuels itself would lead to global warming. But that heat is utterly negligible compared to solar irradiation. Anybody who holds such a belief is evidently completely scientifically illiterate and incompetent.

false dichotomy_we can solve this problem

[globaljustin]

this isn't a "two party system issue"...that's a Red Herring...all systems in gov't across nations have two factions, even Europe (majority/minority groups of parties)

we can know who votes for things like Creationism in schools...you can look it up...its ****always Republicans****

saying one group is always wrong doesn't at all excuse any other group...but unless you look at ****policy votes**** this discussion is worthless

Re:false dichotomy_we can solve this problem

[toQDuj]

Piss off. It's the entire system that's failing here. You can't blame one party for all the faults in a two-party system.

Re:false dichotomy_we can solve this problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, you have no idea what you're talking about with regard to parties. The two-party system is entirely an artifact of our first past the post voting system. It is extremely suboptimal. Other countries have far more party diversity.

TFP, HAND

"Science" as bandied around on Slashdot.

[Bing Tsher E]

I will have more respect for all the people who fling around the term 'Science' when more than a few of them even know WTF they are talking about. Start by reading Kuhn and some of the other scholars of science. The process is complicated.

'Science: it's what scientists do, and we need to listen more to what the scientists say' is sheer ignorance. Shake that rattle and dance.

Re:"Science" as bandied around on Slashdot.

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck off with you and your Kuhn, shithead.

always Republicans

[globaljustin]

look at the actual votes on policy...it's always Republicans doing anti-science policy

creationism in schools? Republicans
climate change denial? Republicans
defunding research? Republicans

Congress isn't "all idiots"...for every bullshit anti-science law Congress passes there are Democrats/Progressives who vote against it

Any discussion that does not take these facts into account is pointless and will continue infinitely

Re:always Republicans

[Anonymous Coward]

Your comment is anti science considering that the facts say otherwise.

Re:always Republicans

[thunderclap]

Seriously what the hell is so scary about spending a day taking a world creation beliefs. No one is indoctrinating the children into Christianity, Real Christianity has always been about choice. Its the other religions (including greed and self worship) that are the ones indoctrinating. The fact is the intractability of the those scientists are what is getting the push back. So rather than dialogue that can allow discourse and enlightenment (in either direction) we get people insisting their way is the only right one. Guess which side is winning. its not the scientists. If this society gets destroyed (like revolution) it won't matter about evolution or climate change. Those people will be dead and their ideas with them. However, a lot of people believe the Bible is right and considering its 5000 yrs old. It will continue. We need flexibility and a willingness to explain why. Not intractacble we are right. Because when 'we are right' gets a knife twisted in his gut, it wont matter much then.

Re:always Republicans

[lonOtter]

Congress isn't "all idiots"

Anti-science nonsense isn't the only problem. Look at how many people voted against the Patriot Act the first time around; almost no one. Even later, there are still many people who vote for it on both sides, but there's really only any opposition because something like the 9/11 attacks haven't happened lately. If such a thing happened, you can bet almost all of them would vote to take away our fundamental liberties. Then we have DUI checkpoints, the TSA, draconian copyright laws, constitution-free zones, free speech zones, stop-and-frisk, warmongering (seemingly less so from some Democrats, but still very much present), and a host of other nonsense from both sides.

Both the Republican and Democrat party are pieces of shit. So yeah, maybe not *all* of them are idiots, but 99.99999% of them are, and as political parties, no one should vote for anyone they put forth.

Re:always Republicans

[Anonymous Coward]

That's fine, but not in science class.

Re:always Republicans

[turkeyfish]

"Congress isn't "all idiots"...for every bullshit anti-science law Congress passes there are Democrats/Progressives who vote against it"

True, but not enough of them. Therein lies the crux of the problem. Science and consequently humanity desperately needs more democrats and less republicans in office. Just like difference between chimps and humans in DNA, that 1% difference results in a very big difference in consequences.

Re:always Republicans

[MouseTheLuckyDog]

look at the actual votes on policy
defunding research? Republicans

I had several friends who worked at Argonne National Labs when Clinton was elected. They would talk about the interesting research being done into ways to design safer nuclear reactors. Things like liquid moderators, so that if there were a melt down the moderator would go with the fuel. That's the one that I remember most from decades ago, but there were many more.

What was one of the first things that Clinton cut? The funding into research on making nuclear power safer. It seems that for Democrats some funding is more equal than others.

Re:always Republicans

[Maritz]

Real Christianity has always been about choice. Its the other religions (including greed and self worship) that are the ones indoctrinating.

I can't tell if this is a genius wry, sarcastic comment. I hope so.

On the off chance it isn't I suggest a quick glance at years 100-2000 or so and see just how much 'real choice' was offered by the Church..! I suspect 'recant or burn' was a common one.

Re:always Republicans

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously what the hell is so scary about spending a day taking a world creation beliefs.

Are you seriously asking why it's a bad idea to force-feed kids religious bullshit in schools, which are supposed to educate people? Why don't we teach everyone about the flying spaghetti monster and the magical pink unicorn, too? It would be precisely as useful. I don't even want some mandatory religious studies class; that's just a waste of time. Better to use that time to teach (and by teach, I don't just mean force them to memorize facts, like we do now) students useful things such as math and science.

Its the other religions (including greed and self worship) that are the ones indoctrinating.

Yeah, it's all the fault of the other religions. Christians are perfect. Except when you consider all the children many religious (not just Christian parents either) parents indoctrinate with their nonsense. They try, anyway.

The fact is the intractability of the those scientists are what is getting the push back. So rather than dialogue that can allow discourse and enlightenment (in either direction) we get people insisting their way is the only right one.

Perhaps that is because no one offers any evidence-based alternative. Saying "I don't know the real answer, so I'll make up some bullshit about a magical sky fairy and claim it's the right answer because I don't know the real answer!" isn't going to get you anywhere in the eyes of anyone who's even remotely intelligent.

Re:always Republicans

[Overzeetop]

"People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. Fifteen hundred years ago everybody knew the Earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, everybody knew the Earth was flat, and fifteen minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow."

Yes, it's a MIB quote, but there is insight in it - as we progress we learn more and more about our environment and our view of the universe evolves. 5000 years ago we had religion because we couldn't describe trichinosis with science; we couldn't describe most of the world - so we made up religion to keep people safe and social. We still do. If your car stops running on the highway and the fuel gauge reads empty it's not an act of God that your stranded, and if you walk into the middle of a field in a thunderstorm and get hit by lightning we don't think that you have angered God and are witnessing his wrath for your wrongdoing. But you get anything that doesn't have a rational explanation - say, a plane disappearing - and *boom* there are people thinking it may just be an act of God.

Re:always Republicans

[argStyopa]

And why it'll never get solved?

"always Republicans (Score:5, Insightful) "

Who's been responsible for our worthless education system breeding generations of ignorance that elect these congressmen? Democrats.

Who's inculcated a culture of 'victim mentality' and balkanized the US population into enclaves of entitlement and grievance? Democrats.

Who politicized science away from a simple, relatively objective process into advocacy, spinning facts to suit political goals? Democrats.

Just sayin'. There's PLENTY of blame to go around. As much as the Republicans seem to be a party of know-nothings, Democrats (with their recent political successes) are more of an arrogant, patronizing party of know-it-alls. Let's remember that the Democrats position on nuclear power since the 1970s has, for example, made global warming immeasurably worse.

Re:always Republicans

[Anonymous Coward]

You realize that the whole 'recant or burn' thing was mostly monotheistic non-Christians who are all lumped into the same group. Catholicism and actions by The Church (ie: Vatican) is not the same as and has nothing to do with real Christianity. Every religion has its misguided and well intentioned, but like the one you quoted says, REAL Christianity IS about choice and follows a completely logical set of reasoning to back it up. This isn't about the creation story or any of that, but the governing morality that underlays Christianity at its core. This could go real deep into religious debate that won't end since so many are so set in their anti-religious ways that they function no more well off than the fools we're discussing in Washington.

Just because you do something in the name of a cause, ANY cause, does not mean you represent that cause. Case in point... Westboro Baptist Church and the US Government at large... No one wants Westboro and no one wants the US Govt in its current form.

Re:always Republicans

[thunderclap]

yes I was. Its interesting you answered with the typical fear-mongering atheist bs. It people want to include t the flying spaghetti monster and the magical pink unicorn, Cthulhu, Doctor who and even My little pony: Friendship is magic then fine. I want discourse. Nothing was ever said about force feeding anything. You want to force-feed non belief as much as westboro wants to slaughter homosexuals the way Hitler did Jews. (yes the comparison was intentional) True atheists don't give a damn about anyone's religion because they think its as stupid as believing that if you move to Forks, Washington you will meet vampires. Finally, I never said Christians are perfect. I said

Real Christianity has always been about choice.

That choice is to choice to believe in a deity that loves you and died for you two thousand years ago. Its also the choice to believe that its the oldest surviving fictional book. Nevertheless its still a choice. Unlike what you are espousing. Finally, its amusing that you suggest that the scientists are offering evidence based ideas. Who was that keyboard you typed on make by. Where did they get that plastic and silicon from. Finally how did that silicon and oil get there? Nothing can magically appear. Its is far easier to say a magical sky fairy from another reality created this one than its to say 'I believe that even those everything I uise on a daily basic was created, the fundamental items they were created from just randomly popped into existance a couple billions years ago. Oh they slowly colaslesed into something. You do understand odds right. So the likelihood of a a couple of atoms randomly happen to being this event is a 1 with 100,000 zeros behind it. It is more likely for both us to alternate winning the lottery everyday for the rest of our lives then that to happen.

GMO crops

[globaljustin]

that link is about GMO crops...it doesn't have any Democrats being "anti-science" in any way whatsoever...

Re:GMO crops

[Anonymous Coward]

An entire section of it is titled.
Distrust on the Left

Re:AGW Jihadists are the culprit

[flaming error]

AGW has been described just fine. And it has been thoroughly verified. So disprove it, and you'll be a scientific rock star, nobel laureate, and savior.

The prediction part is indeed too primitive to produce the precision "skeptics" demand. So model it better for us.

link is about GMO crops

[globaljustin]

Again, AC has posted that link saying it somehow is evidence of Democrats being "anti-science"....ITS NOT...

the link is a Nytimes article about GMO crops...opposing or regulating GMO crops is not anti-science in any way...maybe anti-factory farming...but not "science"

link above is not counter-evidence

Re:link is about GMO crops

[Anonymous Coward]

Anti GMO is anti science.

I have proven a single example of anti science on the left. Your theory that only the right is anti science has been proven wrong.

QED

Re:link is about GMO crops

[msobkow]

GMOs are NOT good science. There are too many proven side effects and issues despite the claims of the pro-GMO crowd that they're "safe."

GMOs do nothing but sell more Roundup.

Re:link is about GMO crops

[Anonymous Coward]

There are too many proven side effects and issues despite the claims of the anti GMO crowd that non gmo food is "safe."

Fixed that for you.

Re:link is about GMO crops

[turkeyfish]

Safe for who? Those who benefit from company profits or those whose survival depends on an environment that has up until now sustained humanity because we haven't generated enough artificial selection to as yet noticeable muck it up?

Re:link is about GMO crops

[Anonymous Coward]

There is scientific proof that non-gmo crops are unsafe to humans. Why aren't you calling for there ban?

debating GMOs isn't 'anti-science'

[globaljustin]

yeah...there are alot of good reasons to want to regulate or maybe ban GMO food

"Distrust on the Left" of GMO food, or wanting to label it, is absolutely **Not ant-science**

that link is in no way a counterpoint to my facts about how Republicans virtually always vote in lockstep for true "anti-science" policies

Re:debating GMOs isn't 'anti-science'

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm opposed to some GMO. Like the ones which are modified to produce insecticide and which hybridize with milkweed and kill butterflies. And the ones which are Roundup resistant and lead to more roundup use.

But most of all, I'm opposed to the intellectual property implications for farmers which save seeds, and for those who have genes from crops on neighboring lands hybridize with their crops.

Re:debating GMOs isn't 'anti-science'

[Ambassador Kosh]

I actually think that ALL food should be labeled. Many organic foods where also modified using radiation or mutagenic compounds. The old style hybridization techniques are at least as dangerous and often more dangerous than genetic engineering. Just because something was done with an antique method of mixing traits between plants does NOT make it safe and free of side effects.

One of the simplest ones I like is BT toxin. BT toxin is classified as organic and safe (which it is). Organic farmers spray it on their crops and that is considered fine. However it also washes off pretty quickly. It is not very good for amphibians and some other aquatic life forms. However when that SAME thing is inserted in corn suddenly it is seen as evil. The one inserted in corn is actually better because it does not just wash off. It is part of the plant and provides much better resistance and BT does nothing to us at all at any remotely reasonable level. Sure if you ate half your body weight of it you would probably die but the same would happen with any other substance including water.

The ONLY problem I have with GMO crops is that most of them are engineered incompetently using gene gun approaches instead of restriction enzyme approaches. The current way most GMOs are done is reckless and leads to errors that are about the same kind of problems you get with hybridization techniques but still better than radiation. If monsanto and others started doing insertion with restriction enzymes or something like CRISPR-cas9 I would have no issues with what they are doing at all.

In the end the companies making GMOs are extremely lazy and that is a GREAT thing. They are not trying to make new proteins for insertion, instead they look for proteins that already exist and do what they want and they tend to only use proteins that we already normally consume from a different organism. Putting a gene that prevent ice crystallization in fish and putting it in tomatoes is a great idea. It doesn't harm you in any way but it allows tomatoes to be grown in colder climates and also for them to survive freak freezes.

If you want to label then label everything. Make a website for every food product that is run by the government that all food producers must fill out before they can sell their product. I want the full DNA sequence of all items along with all other chemicals in the food. If you genetically engineered something I want to know what method you used, what you inserted etc. If you mutated something with radiation I want to know what level of radiation was used, what type etc. Just labeling something as GMO or Organic is idiotic and definitely anti-science. It is just a convenient label for people to use that distilled down a very complex issue to some kind of bullet point. Organic is not safe or unsafe, it depends on what it is and how it was made and the exact same thing is true of GMOs. In the end we are going to use genetic engineering to make this world better and all of these stupid objections are only going to slow things down and increase accidents. There are some real objections to GMOs and also to organic farming but as long as the issues are only looked at in a very shallow way there is no real chance that we will look at the real problems with these techniques and address them.

Re:AGW Jihadists are the culprit

[guises]

Being conservative doesn't mean that you never move, always demanding more and more data without ever actually doing anything.

You understand that Al Gore didn't make up Global Warming in the early 2000s, right? This research has been going on since the seventies at least, I remember learning about it in elementary school. The question has been answered at this point.

Do any of the computer models explain this

[Anonymous Coward]

Here is a nice graph of the concentration of carbon dixoide in the atmosphere over the last 400,00 years or so. Most of the discussion of the computer models involve the increases in carbon dioxide concentration but we have seen in the past increases in concentration followed by abrupt deceases. What causes the decreases? Does anyone know of a mechanism that can cause this?

https://www.google.com/search?q=concentration+of+carbon+dioxide+in+atmosphere+over+time+south+pole+station&biw=1920&bih=1028&tbm=isch&imgil=D6Us2mEfNF13PM%253A%253Bhttps%253A%252F%252Fencrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com%252Fimages%253Fq%253Dtbn%253AANd9GcSs4KPTXHl_w8RmeUPEMKD6C3n_7b_4bdAUOS4pwAMouQhx7-qM%253B1024%253B768%253BpWdwId2Reh5zyM%253Bhttps%25253A%25252F%25252Fwww.skepticalscience.com%25252Fco2-levels-airborne-fraction-increasing.htm&source=iu&usg=__tgQERz8bWUojLa-0UVHeWUM7-NQ%3D&sa=X&ei=XRM-U73AHaWxsASk14DoAw&ved=0CDsQ9QEwAg#facrc=_&imgrc=D6Us2mEfNF13PM%253A%3BpWdwId2Reh5zyM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.skepticalscience.com%252Fgraphics%252FCO2_history_1024.jpg%3Bhttps%253A%252F%252Fwww.skepticalscience.com%252Fco2-levels-airborne-fraction-increasing.htm%3B1024%3B768

Re:Do any of the computer models explain this

[spitzak]

It's pretty obvious from your graph that the decreases are much slower than the increases. This is because they show the carbon dioxide being absorbed by rocks after the source of it has turned off or slowed down.

Re:Do any of the computer models explain this

[clovis]

I know of a mechanism that exaggerates small variations into having the appearance of large ones. It consists of truncating a graph by cutting off the bottom of the scale.

Re:Do any of the computer models explain this

[Overzeetop]

Plants. Plants take in CO2 and release O2 as part of respiration. It's known that increasing CO2 spurs plant growth (there are placed you can get CO2 systems for hydroponic growth). The graph you linked shows a sawtooth graph with spikes of CO2 and then random-walk decreases over tens of thousands of years until another spike occurs. What your graph misses is the last 100 years:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi...

Re:Do any of the computer models explain this

[Anonymous Coward]

True. How to lie with charts 101. However the changes in climate associated with those small variations are profound. From tropical plants growing inside the arctic circle to Manhattan Island being under a glacier.

Re:Do any of the computer models explain this

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for the graph. If you want to find out the concentration of CO2 right now, you just measure it. Going back a few hundred years, you need a proxy for the measurement; I believe they look at tree rings. Going back hundreds of thousands requires looking at ice cores. They are all on the same graph, but are they truly comparable?

EU bans most GMOs & labels all

[globaljustin]

There is not in any way "consensus" that "GMOs are safe"

The EU bans most GMO foods and requires labels on the others....they have plenty of peer reviewed published research to base that decision upon

Re:EU bans most GMOs & labels all

[Anonymous Coward]

There is not in any way "consensus" that "GMOs are safe"

Again the facts say otherwise.

The consensus is that they are safe.
American Medical Association
National Academy of Sciences
World Health Organization
Chief Scientific Advisor to the European Commission
Department of Agriculture
Food and Drug Administration
Environmental Protection Agency

Scientific consensus is that GMOs are safe.

Re:EU bans most GMOs & labels all

[BlueStrat]

There is not in any way "consensus" that "GMOs are safe"

The EU bans most GMO foods and requires labels on the others....they have plenty of peer reviewed published research to base that decision upon

Again the facts say otherwise.

The consensus is that they are safe.
American Medical Association [ama-assn.org]
National Academy of Sciences [nap.edu]
World Health Organization [who.int]
Chief Scientific Advisor to the European Commission [euractiv.com]
Department of Agriculture [usda.gov]
Food and Drug Administration [fda.gov]
Environmental Protection Agency [epa.gov]

Scientific consensus is that GMOs are safe.

Yes, the reactionary, anti-science Progressives in *both* major Parties who sees a chance to grab more power and control by corrupting the entire field of science in order to use it for political purposes (the ends justify the means), wants to see most people (except themselves, of course. THEY are far too important!) freezing and starving in the dark, willing to do anything they say to receive basic necessities rationed out by them as they see fit.

It's all about control.

We're living in a giant KFC farm for people, with ever-smaller cages built of the ever-growing amount of laws, regulations, taxation, licensing, bureaucracy, and destruction of civil rights along with increasingly-militarized local police forces financed and therefor controlled by the central government.

With national fiscal crisis occurring across the globe, the impending collapse of the US Dollar, and the world economy teetering on the brink of collapse, we are at the precipice of a global sea-change which will herald-in the beginning of a new age of war, tyranny, genocide, and poverty worldwide.

Hang on to your ass kids, it's gonna get bumpy!

Strat

Re:EU bans most GMOs & labels all

[confused one]

Many of the EU bans were put in place before the crops were available and there was data to work from. It was what we call a knee-jerk reaction. Most of the studies have found no issues with GMO foods.

Re:EU bans most GMOs & labels all

[chachacha]

Many of the EU bans were put in place before the crops were available and there was data to work from. It was what we call a knee-jerk reaction. Most of the studies have found no issues with GMO foods.

Requiring labeling and/or outright banning genetically modified (think about what that means...) food products for which we had no good human safety data or studies seems prudent, not "knee-jerk".

Re:EU bans most GMOs & labels all

[Anonymous Coward]

It's unscientific when you don't require warning labels on non gmo foods. There is scientific evidence that non gmo foods are not safe. GMO crops are tested proving their safety. Non gmo crops aren't proven to be safe.

Re:EU bans most GMOs & labels all

[Megol]

Note well that the physical compatibility of GMO foods for humanoids isn't the only question relevant here. There's also the compatibility with other animals, potential problems with GMO pushing out other plant species, the problem with patents and unintended spreading, potential genetic changes when forming hybrids with other (unmodified and/or modified) plants and a lot more.

Some of those problems can be verified safe and probably already are (I'm far out of my knowledge field here) but some aren't with a subset that can't be (patents...).

Re:EU bans most GMOs & labels all

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, the reactionary, anti-science Progressives in *both* major Parties who sees a chance to grab more power and control by corrupting the entire field of science in order to use it for political purposes (the ends justify the means), wants to see most people (except themselves, of course. THEY are far too important!) freezing and starving in the dark, willing to do anything they say to receive basic necessities rationed out by them as they see fit.

It's all about control.

What about giving me basic information on the labels about where my food is coming from so that I can decide for myself what I want to eat? Or is that not the right type of control in your eyes? Maybe I should just shut up and eat whatever is set before me, like a good little prole?

Re:EU bans most GMOs & labels all

[BlueStrat]

What about giving me basic information on the labels about where my food is coming from so that I can decide for myself what I want to eat?

Then we agree that the act of banning, and therefor removing the ability to make that *choice* as opposed to allowing people to choose for themselves, is a bad thing.

Thanks for your support.

Strat

Re:AGW Jihadists are the culprit

[thunderclap]

No science fucked up their own image by refusing to be flexible and having dialogue.

Re:AGW Jihadists are the culprit

[thunderclap]

Evolution HAS NEVER BEEN OBSERVED. Adaptation is common. Adaptation is not evolution. Evolution is fish into dog. Adaptation is dog moving from Denver to Jamaica.

Intolerance

[Virtucon]

While people should learn about the issues and credible science to understand climate change, I'm increasingly worried about the outright rage and discourteous ways people are acting over this and other problems on our planet. To me it's a bigger issue because it's like there's no middle ground and no matter what the issue, it's polarized so you're either on one side or the other. Climate change is real, what's causing it could be natural or mostly man made. It doesn't matter who or what is causing it to just agree that the climate is changing. It's like the first step in correcting a problem, first you have to admit there's a problem. Why people continue to push back on it is not really ignorance because you can actually give somebody the facts and help them not be ignorant. It's rooted in static thinking about what is best for me, not everybody. Remember the controversy on retiring incandescent bulbs the US? The issue was spun around so that It wasn't about energy efficiency, it suddenly became an issue of uncompetitiveness by putting US companies out of business and that we should wait a few years to let our manufacturers catch up.

By allowing these issues to be spun one way or another it creates barriers and if somebody doesn't agree with you we just call these people dumbfucks, ignorant or immature and shut out any commentary or opinion they may have because they don't agree with us. The author of this article comes to mind on that one, people don't agree with me so they're ignorant. That's not a good starting point for building a constructive dialog is it?

I think if you want to get true impetus on addressing the risks and some mitigation strategy for climate change you first have to create a dialog and hear both sides. Sure there's economic risk for every nation on the planet but there's also other risks as well and the IPCC isn't helping matters, it's becoming a wedge as well with every report and it allows people who deny it to become even more rooted, while those who agree do likewise. Either we're going to solve this and all agree how we'll solve it or we're just going to go nowhere with it. Right now we're close to nowhere.

Re:There are few problems in america

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck you mod.

Re:AGW Jihadists are the culprit

[dryeo]

In pre-Newton/Galileo/etc. times, as far as I know the theory of gravity was basically, "things tend to fall." It's a terrible theory, sure, but it happens to be right.

Actually it was that heavy things fell faster then light things, which while right according to common sense, proved wrong.
This is the problem with many sciences, common sense says one thing while the reality is different. When it comes to AGW this shows up regularly, the Earth is too big for mankind to affect it is a common argument.

Re:AGW Jihadists are the culprit

[dryeo]

What are you talking about? I've caught lots of dogfish.

This reminds me of a famous Upton Sinclair quote.

[Anonymous Coward]

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” , That quote by Upton Sinclair sums up what is wrong with our congress.

Re:AGW Jihadists are the culprit

[thunderclap]

No I want to observe a trout turning into a pitbull.

Re:objecting to downmod

[Anonymous Coward]

Your theory has been proven false. The fact that you continue to believe it to be true when it has been proven false is anti-science.

What did you expect?

[standbypowerguy]

Politicians are usually lawyers who know how to shake hands, kiss babies, and tell people what they want to hear.

Imbeciles Elect Imbeciles.

[jbragg]

When you allow (some would say encourage) imbeciles to vote, they are going to elect the kind of people that will represent their interests. Now you know why they always want to cut funding for education.

Re:Imbeciles Elect Imbeciles.

[hambone142]

I once read an entertaining bumper sticker: "If voting made a difference, they'd outlaw it". "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."

Re:Blame the rise of dominionism in fundamentalist

[Assmasher]

What does this have to do with a religious perversion of democracy?

Water as a greenhouse gas

[turkeyfish]

Water vapor is a red herring as far as long term green house warming is concerned for the obvious reason that it so quickly precipitates out of the atmosphere that it has little chance of influencing long term trends except locally. Yes there will be more water vapor in the atmosphere as the atmosphere warms but it is locally in constant equilibrium.

It is also important to remember that the temperature at which this equilibrium point at which water vapor removes itself from the atmosphere is directly influenced by the surface temperatures. Over oceans there will be proportionally more water vapor as the oceans heat and hence more storms and more intense rains over coastal areas. Over continents, in contrast, higher surface temperatures will dry the atmosphere and drought will be more common. Because the effect of carbon dioxide forced warming will be greatest over the poles, this will slow the jet stream since the temperature and pressure differential between air above and below this zone of mixing that drives the speed of the stream will decrease. Given that topography and elevation affect patterns of geostrophic flow, this will also mean that various highs and lows on either side of larger amplitude Rosby wave will create more relatively temporally standing waves that will move East-West more slowly as the stream speed slows creating alternating patters of more rainfall/snowfall on the low pressure side and more drought on the high pressure side. Consequently, the effect of water vapor will be more highly localized.

Purposeful ignorance

[turkeyfish]

Purposeful ignorance is now the central pillar holding the GOP together. Vote out the GOP and this problem will go away. Fail to throw them out and the world as humans have know it ends very unhappily for all but perhaps microbes and cockroaches. Those who remain purposely ignorant will be swept away by the flood of oceanic and atmospheric change. Those who are not purposefully ignorant but fail to make the necessary change will join the purposefully ignorant. The physics, chemistry, and biology of this reality is immutable, an inconvenient truth.

Re:Purposeful ignorance

[Jason Levine]

I'd hate to throw the GOP out entirely because then we'd be left with only one major party. What I'd like to see happen would be the GOP breaking up into a True Conservative (no neo-cons allowed) party and the Religious Right/Old White Guys party. Then we could regulate the RR/OWG party to be a third party that we all laugh at for their antics and we could have some decent candidates from the TC party to oppose the Democrats.

Note: This is coming from someone who tends to vote Democrat but would hate to see that as the only option on the ballot. I actually *WANT* other choices. Come on politicians, make my choice a difficult one.

Reconciling the Irreconcilable

[turkeyfish]

"Somehow we need to find a way to promote science as a way of thinking and do so without hurting the feelings of the religious right."

The religious right are NEVER going to accept science, since science inconveniently exposes the inconsistency and irrelevancy of religion to understanding the natural world and hence this makes the scientific method a threat to the religious right.

The outcome is pretty clear, either science wins or humanity looses. The reality is that there is only one of these two outcomes to choose from. Take your pick and take your stand. One can either be for science and survival or against science and for human-sustaining ecosystem collapse. One cannot stand on a fence made of razor wire as there is no middle ground.

Re:Reconciling the Irreconcilable

[locofungus]

The religious right are NEVER going to accept science

I'm in the UK and we don't really have a "religious right" here. I don't think we have as bad a problem as the US but the impression I get is that scientific illiteracy is something that people in the UK are less ashamed of than say people in Germany.

But the fundamental problem isn't the "religious right" it's that people are very emotionally tied to opinions they hold and it's very hard to accept that you are wrong.

(Good) scientists fight this natural human tendency all the time. I'm sure everyone who has ever done any sort of statistical analysis has got a result they didn't like (expect) and then pored over the calculations for hours looking for the mistake. Ditto, they've got the result they expected and then had to eat humble pie when someone else points out that they've slipped a decimal point somewhere.

Scientists, with all their training to look at things objectively and derive conclusions from the data, find this hard to do. How much harder must it be for people who can't repeat the calculations and just have to accept it when a scientist says "you're wrong".

Because science (nature) is brutal. It doesn't care what your opinions, hopes, beliefs are. It will trample over them as effortlessly as it will support them and with as little feeling.

Re:Reconciling the Irreconcilable

[Anonymous Coward]

The religious right are NEVER going to accept science, since science inconveniently exposes the inconsistency and irrelevancy of religion to understanding the natural world and hence this makes the scientific method a threat to the religious right.

But are the two incompatible.

The scientists say the universe started with a Big Bang.
Accrording to the religious, God said 'Let there be light'.

Could these not be different descriptions of the same event? The science explaining (in physical terms) what happened, and the religious explaining why it happened.

Re:Reconciling the Irreconcilable

[argStyopa]

"...The outcome is pretty clear, either science wins or humanity looses."

When one is railing against ignorance, one needs to make sure they use words correctly.

I'm just sayin'.

Re:Reconciling the Irreconcilable

[Jason Levine]

There are plenty of people who are religious but don't take the bible literally. I actually happen to be one of them. My personal belief* is that the bible is an allegorical text meant to teach moral lessons, not to teach history. If God wanted to teach us history, Genesis 1:1 would have started "In the beginning, there was a Big Bang...." (It would also be a LOT longer to read ala "How It Happened" by Isaac Asimov.) If anything, I think religion is enhanced by science. Sure, you need to give up the "God magically poofed the world into existence 10,000 years ago" belief (then again, that should have gone away over a hundred years ago), but the "God of old" ruled over Earth and a sphere that essentially had stars painted on it. The "God of people who embrace science" rules over an unimaginably vast Universe.

* I think that all religion should stay as personal beliefs and I wouldn't think of trying to force someone else to follow my religious beliefs. So long as your religious beliefs don't hurt anyone else, I say go for it. I happen to be Jewish, but if you think Christ is the savior that's fine by me. If you follow Budda or Islam or Wicca or any other religion, I'm ok with it. I only take issue when some people - e.g. the Religious Right - think it is their religious duty to force me to follow their religious rules (to "save me").

Re:Reconciling the Irreconcilable

[Anonymous Coward]

\My personal belief* is that the bible is an allegorical text meant to teach moral lessons, not to teach history.

So you only subscribe to the parts about genocide, slave ownership, child and spousal abuse, etc?

Re:Reconciling the Irreconcilable

[Anonymous Coward]

My experience has been that those that follow judaism tend to be a little more willing to see the world as it really is. You aren't the problem, it's the fundamentalists that insist that religious texts comprise a comprehensive history of humanity that are the problem.

Re:Don't worry

[turkeyfish]

With the consequences of ever increasing global warming and the consequent collapse of ecosystem, intense selection for much smarter people is just right around the corner. The only real question now is whether given the intensity of selection that shall soon occur shortly, there will be any humans smart enough to survive. Most people have little idea of what is about to happen as the pH of the oceans falls another 0.1 to 0.4 in log hydromium ion concentrations. A 0.1-0.2 pH drop is already in the cards as the oceans come into equilibrium with current atmospheric CO2 concentrations over the next 50 to 100 years so the intense selection regime is already baked into our planetary system.

Fair question

[rs79]

"So, I'm just wondering how that related, for example, to global warming and eventual global cooling."

To possabilities here:

1) He may he a total hick and utterly clueless.

2) He may be asking "will the rate of warming have any effect before a cooling event"

and in the latter case may know more than 99% of the pro-AGW crowd.

This David Suzuki documentary on the CBC gave some very strong and compelling evidence that the 1000 year cycle of the reversal of the earths magnetic poles is the cause of glaciation an that were 200 years into this. Maximum "cold" will occur at the halfway point, so that's 300 years from now. But it won't come all at once, it'll gradually get there and the sun flipping it's poles this xmas and the 100-yr cold records broken this year is just a taste of that.

So it might not be wise to be too smug about this, you may just have been played by somebody that actually knew more than you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Suzuki makes a pretty compelling case here and note that one piece CERN got gagged for was the critical element in this.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2...

No

[turkeyfish]

Reporters are mere window dressing for the advertisements. Don't kid yourself, there is plenty of reason in deception.

They report what they are paid to report. As consumers of news we must be wise enough to turn to those with some modicum of credibility. We need more objective ways to keep score that are independent of the media. In the absence of intelligence, AI is at least a viable option.

Re:No

[superwiz]

You seem to be arguing with me, but you are actually agreeing. I said they were in the business of seduction. Seduction requires suspension of reason.

no problem

[stenvar]

The idea that government should be based in a significant way on science is a hallmark of progressivism. In politics, science is just used as an excuse by special interest groups to push their agenda; what passes for science is often simply speculation or guesswork couched in scientific terms. Or, as in the case of climate change, a kernel of scientific truth, a lot of speculation, and a complete neglect of economic and moral issues.

Re:no problem

[DNS-and-BIND]

...except when science disagrees with Progressive fixed ideas. Then, suddenly, science is subjective and depends on the biased ideals the scientists don't realize they have. Just look at research on intelligence and culture. A lot of studies simply aren't taking place because the results will be politically unacceptable. But still, progressives tell themselves they're on the side of science. Sad, really.

Re:no problem

[stenvar]

True. Of course, once people have redefined science as a social construct, "scientific truth" becomes a matter of consensus and agreement, rather than objective truth, evidence, and experimental reproducibility. Most people probably don't adopt the most extreme position of denying all objective reality, but the debate about science in politics clearly has been influenced by these ideas. That's why we hear so much about the supposed "scientific consensus" or why people trot out battling experts.

Meanwhile here in Australia...

[Anonymous Coward]

...we don't just have one senator with this mindset, we have our Prime Minister - our nation's leader - who thinks along the same lines. For $DEITY's sake we don't even have a federal Science Minister, this position was deemed unimportant by our current government.

Not just science sadly

[dbIII]

It's like having idiot sons put in charge of Feudal Fiefs due to the network of friends their fathers have.

Pearls before swine

[Anonymous Coward]

Pearls before swine. Its a biblical reference, and it deals with the soul of the person --the pearl-- and the reference is that a pig cannot see the beauty in a pearl, and if you tried to give them one, they would try to eat the pearls, but otherwise be unaware of their beauty: and the analogy is that don't sell your soul to those who can't recognise the beauty in it: keep your self respect.

My analogy is that the scientists have pearls of wisdom. They understand the very fine details of the environment. They see the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. These are things you can measure. They see the increased acid levels in the ocean, and the softer shells of shellfish (if they survive at all). They can see the temperature shifts, the wilder weather. They can model and forecast the weather. Not perfectly, but good enough to see that increased human pollution causes more problems. All of this is lost on village idiots who have not done any science since they had to take it in school when they were 14 years old. You can tell they haven't taken anything remotely related to science and can't think in a logical way. They are professional politicians. Opinion depends on voters and cash and power. When they get heart attacks, the are forced to rely on medical science, and then chalk it up to a miracle. The really short answer is: these congress critters are idiots. You can't change them. You get some props for trying, but its like giving Cro-Magnons microchips or reading poetry to toddlers: they can't eat it, don't understand: a swing and a miss.

We shouldn't bother, we are not the experts

[dbIII]

Except for water vapor. That's why it's so important to get the cloud response models right

Which is why the students of the guy that said 30 years ago one thing about clouds that the deniers keep rolling out are saying that the refined model says no such thing.

What I find immensely funny is from one end there are idiots saying it's not science because the models "don't change" and from the other there are people saying it's not established science because the models are changing. It all comes down to the equivalent of professional ditch diggers arguing about how best way to do an oil painting.
You don't know shit about the subject and I only know enough to recognise that, so we are both better off letting the experts discuss it instead of pretending that experts are in some way worthless. There's no point moving goalposts to esoteric fields that are minor contributors to a larger system.

Re:AGW Jihadists are the culprit

[turkeyfish]

Your comment demonstrates a lack of understanding of the scientific method. Science deals with experimental outcomes that establish truth about the natural world. Either the ideas tested confirm a hypothesis or they reject it. "Dialogue" is irrelevant. A well designed scientific experiment leaves no room for ambiguity. Science is not sophism. Don't confuse the two.

It depends on the objective

[dbIII]

To some of these people project funding is about gaining influence and whether the project works or not does not matter. In that situation experts just get in the way.
That's where such idiocy as "define our own reality" comes from.

Such stuff actually works for a while in business until some shark like Rupert Murdoch that actually listens to his experts comes in and swallows the "define our own reality" idiots whole. In US politics there are less sharks, globally there are people like Putin who came in while the people running Ukraine was messing about and losing touch with reality.

The stupid name was the reason

[dbIII]

Do you seriously expect many people that depend on a big pyramid of supporters and funding to risk that by voting against something with "Patriot" in the name when they have not had time to read it? US politics is a popularity contest after all.

Re:The stupid name was the reason

[lonOtter]

It is the moral duty of these people to respect our rights and the constitution, regardless of votes. Of course, this isn't how it works in practice, obviously.

Re:AGW Jihadists are the culprit

[dbIII]

Doubleplusgood word goalpost shift Comrade. The Party would be proud of you.

Re:AGW Jihadists are the culprit

[turkeyfish]

Exactly. The forefront of modern morphology currently rests in establishing the quantitative functional links between particular combinations of genes, quantifiable environmental factors characterizing the direction and magnitude of selection, and the morphology defined in the context of analytic geometry and geometric algebra. As we learn more about how genes generate morphology and how both are influenced by selection, expect many more quantitative predictions.

Re:AGW Jihadists are the culprit

[turkeyfish]

If you want want to directly observe evolution such as trout and pitbulls, all you need to do is live longer.

Actually, its easy to observe evolution in action by looking at bacteria and other organisms with rapid generation times, such a fruit flies. That evolution can be observed in fruit flies has been repeatedly demonstrated for the past 130 years. It is now so completely understood that this is possible that whether it can be demonstrated or not is no longer scientifically relevant, having been answered in the affirmative. Outstanding questions pertain to the consequences of specific examples of the evolution observed.

An other idiot

[turkeyfish]

Who erroneously seems to think that temperatures only occur in the U.S. or North America. Globally the mean temperature continues to rise.

Re:I'm against age discrimination, but re-thinking

[turkeyfish]

Better yet, lets start insisting that all politicians pass scientific literacy tests, if for no other reason than amusement.

If teachers are going to be held accountable, why not politicians?

Re:Blame the rise of dominionism in fundamentalist

[artor3]

You're so close to the truth, you even tripped over it and didn't notice.

They want nothing to do with science and they're spending amazing amounts of money electing people who are willing to espouse their causes - anything to get elected.

Where are they getting that money? It ain't coming from the church collection dish.

This isn't about religion. This is about the robber barons trying to squeeze the last few drops of life blood out of this country before they retire to their private paradise. The country, even when it was at its most religious, was not anti-science in the past. People loved science in the 50s. They only became anti-science when certain very rich individuals realized they could become richer by spreading anti-intellectual propaganda.

not counter-evidence the GOP is anti-science

[globaljustin]

LOOK AT POLICY VOTES...that's all that matters to this discussion...Republicans oppose science and prop up Oligarchy

the only time the GOP cares about science is when it can enrich their corporate donors

the GOP votes to:

> put creationism in textbooks
> defund research
> deny global warming

You have no answer for these and the countless other ways Republicans are anti-science

Re:not counter-evidence the GOP is anti-science

[Anonymous Coward]

You stated that the people are always republicans. You have been presented with evidence that non-republicans vote anti-science as well.

Your theory has been disproven. The correct course of action in the scientific method is to amend your theory.

The fact that you refuse to follow the scientific method further reenforces the evidence that non republicans are anti-science as well.

Re:not counter-evidence the GOP is anti-science

[Anonymous Coward]

Getting rid of mercury form coal burning and GMO poisons is good. Global warming is not science it is a tax scam. Research is good but with FDA lies and letting out VIOXX so 60,000 people die and no one goes to jail Government is NOT THE ANSWER.

Republicans enrich Oligarchy

[globaljustin]

Republicans are out to serve their donors.

If that just so happens to overlap with doing something *some* scientists suggest then so be it

Republicans serve their Oligarch masters & seek to financially enslave anyone else.

recipie for slavery

[globaljustin]

and as political parties, no one should vote for anyone they put forth

so who **should** we vote for?

realistically

you're saying that **even if** a true good legislator (however the fuck you define it) was a democrat you **still wouldn't vote*?

you know that your scenario equals a compete Republican takeover, right?

your cynicism is no solution...anyone can simply complain...you have to ***construct*** something positive in this world...it wont just happen

Re:recipie for slavery

[lonOtter]

so who **should** we vote for?

Third parties.

you're saying that **even if** a true good legislator (however the fuck you define it) was a democrat you **still wouldn't vote*?

99.999999% of the time, they do not put forth good candidates. Not Republicans or Democrats.

you know that your scenario equals a compete Republican takeover, right?

This is the unintelligent mentality that allows our fundamental liberties to be taken away. People vote for the 'lesser of two evils' because the other 'evil' has policies that they really, really don't like, but both parties have policies that result in our fundamental liberties being taken away. They get away with it because idiots keep voting for evil. This is why we have the TSA, the NSA surveillance, free speech zones, stop-and-frisk, DUI checkpoints, constitution-free zones, countless useless wars (Iraq, Afghanistan), Gitmo, draconian copyright laws, censorship, etc. People put up with all this shit, either because they don't care about freedom, or because they keep voting for evil simply because the other evil seems more evil to them.

your cynicism is no solution

It's merely an observation of the reality we live in. Call it what you want, but it's a fact.

anyone can simply complain

Indeed, they can. I've put forth the solution, but the unintelligent majority don't want freedom.

vote them out

[globaljustin]

True, but not enough of them.

exactly

that's why we need to **vote out the bad ones** and **vote in the better ones**

and demand candidates be taken from a wider, more qualified pool...

if everyone on /. actually voted it would make a notable difference...especially in how they address tech issues

Re:vote them out

[Anonymous Coward]

if everyone on /. actually voted it would make a notable difference...especially in how they address tech issues

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!

Now, that was funny!

Ignorance

[turkeyfish]

You confuse scientific evidence with opinion. There is NO scientific evidence that suggests that it is anything other than human activity resulting from the burning of fossil fuels that is the cause of the observed warming. If that were not so, then those who deny its getting warmer wouldn't be so reluctant to explain how it is that, if the world isn't getting any warmer, all of the world's glaciers and icesheets are melting faster than at any time in recorded geological history.

Re:Ignorance

[Virtucon]

Well you're now interjecting some opinion in there as well based on an observation. I do agree that GHGs are contributing to it but to what extent is one of those argument points but again it doesn't matter what the root cause is. Why? To be honest I think we're fucking the planet over in such a way that it'll make little difference if it's 2 or 4 degrees C higher on average in 100 years because there won't be really be an easy way to live on the planet. We have too many people trying to live on this blue ball and most of them want what the other industrialized nations have and they're not willing to sit down and enter into a dialog about slowing their own economic growth. Industrialized nations are consuming resources at a rate that will in some respects help curtail GHG emissions by their overconsumption of energy. At some point oil will run out but then you'll see coal being spun back up. We're already consuming more and more natural gas because of new tech. and just getting at that with fracking is screwing the water supplies and releasing more GHGs just in aquisition. Climate Change is only one leg on the barstool in other words but you can say with 100% certainty that human activity is fucking the planet over making it less inhabitable. Rich nations need to do with less, growing nations need to curtail their ambitions and also introduce reasonable contraception policies because more and more people all wanting better standards of living are the root cause.
As George Carlin reminded us the Earth will eventually take care of this minor surface nuisance.

Re:AGW Jihadists are the culprit

[phantomfive]

Are you kidding? It's the darkest report yet! We're going to have food shortages! Water shortages! Oh, you're a Republican worried about national security? AGW will affect national security too!

And it will cause earthquakes.

Nope

[fyngyrz]

Video clips show comments that are difficult to believe, when you hear them.

No. This is just what I expect; all the evidence points this way on every other subject, why not on science as well?

you missed "realistically"

[globaljustin]

I love how you found reason to quote and respond to everything except the thing that makes your comment irrelevant...

I said "realistically"

Let's take your "3rd parties" solution.

Are you saying that a new party would be immune to the corruption you claim inhabits...what was the figure...99.999999%?

You're saying a new party wouldn't be subject to the same corruption?

Why?

Re:you missed "realistically"

[lonOtter]

I love how you found reason to quote and respond to everything except the thing that makes your comment irrelevant...

Realistically, voting for third parties can send a message to the main parties. Realistically, voting for scumbags makes you complicit in the erosion of our fundamental liberties. Realistically, principles are also important, and it would make me want to vomit if I voted for either main party.

You're saying a new party wouldn't be subject to the same corruption?

I'm saying that we know The One Party to be full of worthless scumbags, so we should at least give other people a chance, rather than voting in known scumbags.

embargo? lol

[fyngyrz]

Hopefully the world will get fed up with the United States' inaction and force a reduction in carbon emissions through economic embargo.

economic embargo... which would simply apply isolationism from outside, which would sharply stimulate the US economy. We have everything we need: almost incomprehensibly massive natural resources, a huge workforce, the ability to produce more food than we need, awesome transport infrastructure, a strong military, excellent communications, and an educational infrastructure that could easily be made to work in our favor with a few simple adjustments. What's holding our economy down right now is open trade; it was a huge mistake and it caused an immense amount of damage to our economy.

So go ahead. Apply an economic embargo. Your word of the day will be "backfire."

X party claimed Y thing Z years ago

[globaljustin]

none of what you just said matters to the discussion at hand...**OF COURSE** both parties have examples of bad policy now and historically...that is absolutely parenthetical to my point.

I listed **current policies**...if you look at history, the Oligarchs like the Bush family switch parties as needed...they just follow the path of least resistance...whoever is more gullable or bribable...either way works

again...I listed current issues that are continually being voted on in different contexts now

just because Republicans/Conservatives are the most gullable/bribable now doesn't mean that in 10 years the poles wont realign

also: The GOP is also anti-nuclear power...they love fossil fuels too much

I am a major proponent of Nuclear power...there aren't many of us in EITHER PARTY...non-progressive Democrats, which means essentially old ones, oppose anything "nuke" out of instinct...i don't like it...i'm in favor of using nuclear power

again none of this is a counterpoint...the GOP are ruining our country NOW...don't worry, once we fix this problem there will be new problems to solve

two different discussions

[globaljustin]

you think I'm a karma whore?

that's like a compliment in a way...like a 35 year old getting carded to buy cigarettes...

have you read my posts? you think im just double posting to get karma? people hate my comments...alot of times i think people just upmod me b/c i try to stay on topic even though they disagree...seriously i do not think i'm a popular /. poster

yes the comments were similar, but so were the GP's they were in response to...all over any politics thread...and lots of AC's double post...as you can see w/ the AC posted that ridiculous nytimes link w/ no context or explanation

i just cannot stand circular arguments that go on infinitely...it angers me greatly...I used to really see issues get worked out here on /. for example net neutrality...i could read comments and actually learn more than reading any TFA...of course im a leftist/libertarian and my comments reflect that...

Certified politicians

[Anonymous Coward]

Require all who seek public office to pass a certain standardized test. We pretty much do it for everything else. Make them prove that they are fit for the job.

I don't care if they are religious as long as they understand that belief is not the same as science.

still not realistic at all

[globaljustin]

you think you're the first person to try a 3rd party?

people like you, on all sides of the issues, sit in dank rooms bitching like this...well...since before there was an "United States of America"

how is a 3rd party going to be funded?

who will vote for them? you cannot in any way suggest that past elections show anything but failure for 3rd parties...other people have to do this besides you...alot more

if they are not any of the filth ridden puke and puss carcasses that are in government now, then you're saying hire **all amatures**???

how will they not avoid overlapping, and thereby creating allies with, democrats and republicans on issues now?

all of these are important...and any one ends the fantasy...all decisions in government are binary...even a system like the EU, with many countries with their own list of several parties...it always boils down to a liberal/conservative minority/majority...and there's always a rump party that gloms onto one or the other for expedience...that's true even in the US now

again, my points above, each one is a point of failure

Re:still not realistic at all

[lonOtter]

you think you're the first person to try a 3rd party?

No, and I won't be the last.

how is a 3rd party going to be funded?

In similar ways the others are, but it will be much more difficult for them. You shouldn't ask "how," but whether or not it's viable.

who will vote for them? you cannot in any way suggest that past elections show anything but failure for 3rd parties

I cannot in any way show that past elections show that it is easy or even not next to impossible to get a third party elected. What happened exactly once in the past was that a major party was replaced by another party, so it's at least possible, but this doesn't fix the problems inherent in a two party system.

But that doesn't at all indicate that you should give up and vote for scumbags. You seem to be intent on voting for those who openly despise freedom. Why? To vote for scumbags indicates a complete lack of principles, morals, and desire for change.

if they are not any of the filth ridden puke and puss carcasses that are in government now, then you're saying hire **all amatures**???

You act as if our current scumbags are in any way intelligent, unselfish, or good for society; they're not. You could have drunken monkeys take over and the situation would hardly be worse. It wouldn't exactly be difficult for "amateurs" to do better than our lovely representatives are doing now.

how will they not avoid overlapping, and thereby creating allies with, democrats and republicans on issues now?

If you have numerous policies, of course there's going to be some overlap. There is nothing wrong with this at all.

all decisions in government are binary

Only if you ignore the neutral position, but even then, collectively, they're not. Collectively, parties and individuals are going to differ.

None of the things you said justifies voting for evil. Thank you for supporting the erosion of our liberties.

But he's right

[Anonymous Coward]

So, when you guys do your research, you start with a scientific—what do they call it—postulate or theory, and you work from that direction forward, is that right?

That is actually the single biggest issue with all of science and the scientific method does little to account for it. You aren't going to research in a direction you don't aim to research, while in most cases that isn't an issue it very much is for healthcare, climate science, political science or anything else where vast sums of money are involved to hit a specific target. Just like a competent marketing guy can present any chart of real data in a manner that reaches a specific goal with the perceptions of the target audience a competent scientist with equally unscrupulous levels of morality and integrity can do the same - and they often do.

Both sides are wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Both sides in the climate debate are ill-informed. Too many people spout opinions without researching the facts. The facts are:

1. The climate IS getting warmer.

2. The change most likely has an anthropgenic component.

3. The change is miniscule compared to prior climate changes over the Earth's history.

4. The changes that are occurring will likely affect us.

5. We will survive. The human race is not in danger from climate change.

All one has to do is look at this graph:
http://astronomy.nmsu.edu/tharriso/ast110/carbondioxide.gif

One can see that the range of natural oscillations of CO2 is between 0 and 7000 ppm. That's right - 7000. We are all excited because it went from 300 to 400. During the 150 million years through which the dinosaurs roamed, the CO2 was over 1000ppm and the dinosaurs did just fine.

So as a moderate liberal, I can see that other liberals are speaking too soon when they brand "climate change skeptics" as such. Before you brand someone, get the facts!

Global Cooling is a real issue (but is not key)

[vanzilar8378]

The comment about Global Cooling is another effect that will occur shortly after we experience the global warming effect. It is REAL, not made up. Global Warming as it is called is due to greenhouse gas release. Global Cooling is actually an effect that will mainly affect the Northern Hemisphere due to variation in the axial tilt of the Earth. Now to put this in perspective, at present Greenhouse gases of global warming is in fact an intentional effect we humans put in place to dampen the effect of global cooling. The issue is recent data shows there are many unintended consequences to greenhouse gas release that could literally change the Earth into a Venus like planet before Global Cooling occurs, so we need to stop the excess release of greenhouse gases while we determine the best course of action. Already human induced global warming is playing havoc on the normal water and air circulation patterns around the earth and altering climates warming and colder in unexpected ways (longterm). Even after global cooling comes into effect the human induced "global warming" may have disastrous consequences to the ph of the oceans and such. My issue is most people who even claim they know science do not understand this very very basic effect I am describing as the news just reports sound bytes instead of the real issues.

Religion is not the only/main reason

[plaukas pyragely]

You do not have to be religious to say "This will never be profitable. Lets subsidize this good old proven industry which creates jobs and wealth for all of us".

Re:Religion is not the only/main reason

[Assmasher]

I'm not saying he himself is religious, but I am saying that the reason he is clearly not afraid to espouse stupidity in the face of science without fear of repercussion is because his base support is anti-science due to religion.

The Scientific Method eliminates poor hypotheses

[Overzeetop]

On the contrary - you come up with a hypothesis and then you test to see if that hypothesis is true.

You make guesses from observations, such as "God strikes down the unworthy" and then you attempt to find worthy people and unworthy people and follow them to see whether the unworthy are striken down in supernatural events at a statistically greater rate than those who are worthy. By using a second set of scientists or clergy who are unfamiliar with your research, you can sort into various forms of unworthiness to see if there is a type bias - sexually deviant, unfaithful, unrepentant, vanity, boastfulness, and others. Your belief that certain unworthiness will result in smiting by a deity is then tested and you review your data.

You may find that God's wrath is not statistically biased towards the unrepentant sinner. Being wrong isn't a problem in science - it's just a path to being right. So, for instance, if you find that your original hypothesis that God strikes down the unworthy is not just incorrect, but backwards. If it seems the virtuous are more likely to get stricken down, and that those of greatest natural virtue are our youth, you can then present this. It may, in fact, then be used to change behavioral patterns and encourage participation in activities. The great researcher into this particular effect, Billy Joel, was instrumental in bringing this research to light, indicating in one of his more widely distributed papers "only the good die young."

Not religion, but American politics

[Zontar_Thing_From_Ve]

The problem is not religion. Yes, there are some religion people who hate science, but they are on the fringe. There are some fundamentalist Christians who are very anti-evolution, but they do not reject science. I have a friend who works as a chemical engineer and he rejects evolution, but he certainly doesn't disbelieve the general principles of chemistry. In fact, his company is desperate to keep him that they basically let him take however much vacation he wants every year just to keep him happy and his company is one of the largest in its industry. Arguments against evolution denying are a whole other subject and not really the issue here.

There is a saying that "all politics in local" and in America that's really true. For my whole life Congress has had members, usually in the House of Representatives which is voted on in a district level in the individual states, who are just wildly out of step with the rest of the country. People who hold crazy beliefs sometimes get elected because they just happen to live in a part of the country that accepts those beliefs. Sometimes people get elected simply because of party affiliation. It may be that they are a stupid and horrible candidate, but at least they aren't a member of the other political party. I'd guess that maybe 70-80% of voters vote simply on party affiliation and for no other reason. Climate change denial plays big in the Republican Party right now as does religious belief, but the two things are not sets with 100% the same members in each. For example, Newt Gingrich is religious and has bona fide conservative credentials yet he certainly believes in climate change. Various members of Congress, particularly in the House, are just huge embarrassments but they keep going back because very few voters will ever consider voting for a member of what they consider to be "the other party", so if an idiot wins the nomination of his/her party in the primary, the regular election victory is almost assured. For most of my life I have lived in wildly uncompetitive districts for both parties where the winner of the primary never had to worry about his/her general election opponent because the voters would simply never vote in large numbers for the "other party" candidate.

Re:Blame the rise of dominionism in fundamentalist

[Assmasher]

It is coming from the church dish, and their broadcasting stations and their "universities", and the "Faith Based Initiatives" funding, and from corporate giants like Tyson - it's scary how badly these people (adherents of dominionism) want to remake America into "Christian America." They absolutely despise the separation of church and state. They re-invent phrases like "secular humanism", "liberty", and "freedom" to mean things that those words do not actually mean.

There is a river of money at these people's fingertips and they, unlike most Christians, believe that not only should they tie politics to their religion but that they must ingrain the two. They believe in a Christian sharia. The irony is that many of them disagree theologically, but are united by a hatred of the separation of church and state.

They're just as crazy as those who want to impose Islamic sharia.

Sheila Jackson Lee

[Anonymous Coward]

How about quoting Sheila jackson lee?
Lee served on the House Science Committee and on the Subcommittee that oversees space policy. During a 2005 visit to the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in California, Lee asked a guide whether the Mars Pathfinder had taken a photograph of the flag planted on Mars by Neil Armstrong in 1969

Btw she represents the part of texas that includes Johnson Space Center of course the Libs on Slashdot do not want to hear about Dems level of intelligence

patently untrue

[Anonymous Coward]

"all systems in gov't across nations have two factions, even Europe",
I don't know where you get such information, but this is complete BS.
Maybe you meant ruling coalition vs. opposition, but this hardly defines two factions.

not voting = Oligarch rule

[globaljustin]

just because you

quoted me

doesnt mean you actually countered my points

you typed words but they arent an answer...you say it yourself...

You shouldn't ask "how," but whether or not it's viable.

so asking "how" is pointless...but asking if it's viable...that's what I "should do" ...

your ideas are not viable...**because** there is no "how"...

you're promoting a fantasy that ensures we will always be slaves to Oligarchs

Re:not voting = Oligarch rule

[lonOtter]

doesnt mean you actually countered my points

you typed words but they arent an answer...you say it yourself...

Just because you say I didn't counter your points doesn't mean that I didn't. I provided answers of my own. My answer is that, while it may be difficult (not impossible) to get a third party to actually win, voting for them sends a message to the two main parties, and furthermore, even if it's not viable, it is immoral to vote for evil. You may not like that answer, but it is my answer.

your ideas are not viable...**because** there is no "how"...

There is a how. You just can't read.

you're promoting a fantasy that ensures we will always be slaves to Oligarchs

What, you mean like when you support evil scumbags, ensuring that we'll always be screwed?

Guam May Capsize Due To Overpopulation

[tsqr]

This is the most astounding example of Congressional ignorance I have ever seen. The forbearance of the testifying Admiral is amazing.

if all politicians are all evil always

[globaljustin]

you say repeatedly that *all politicians* regardless of party, are always evil corrupt scumbag puss-bucket child rapists...

then how will **your** 3rd party be any different?

you have no answer b/c you whole line of thinking is based on a false premise

Re:if all politicians are all evil always

[lonOtter]

I already answered your nonsensical question a few posts ago, and you seem to be misunderstanding my actual position.

"I'm saying that we know The One Party to be full of worthless scumbags, so we should at least give other people a chance, rather than voting in known scumbags."

Malice

[DarthVain]

As the saying goes, don't attribute to malice, what could be incompetence (or something like that, I am paraphrasing, can't be bothered to look up actual quote).

However I think the inverse holds true for Politicians. You might think they are making decisions like stupid morons, but very likely it is a calculated response, usually one that is A) going to win votes among the stupid that believe that drivel, B) ideological which will win them points within their party by towing the party line, or C) simply to be partisan to make your opponent fail and you don't care much as to how.

Never mind E) about budget and money. Killing science budget and applying it to something else that can further your interests, or making or taking positions that are friendly to those interests that funded your last political campaign or potentially your next one.

All very cynical I know, but the truth usually is.

Re:Malice

[TapeCutter]

You might think they are making decisions like stupid morons, but very likely it is a calculated response Indeed, my point was that their calculations are based on a different worldview, one that equates informed and uninformed opinion. One of the key words in Sagan's quote is "knowledgeably".

Re:Malice

[Electricity Likes Me]

The malice quote though is essentially a re-statement of Occam's razor.

It's most pertinent when people are proposing a conspiracy theory involving dozens to hundreds of informed actors moving in unison, then just the happenstance alignment of failure at any given moment.

The thing is, in politics, you're not actually multiplying logical entities without necessity: often, malice and incompetence is simply determining whether a single actor knowingly acted, or accidentally acted. And worse, because it's frequently all opinion and rhetoric, malice oftentimes just involves the will to later take advantage of the results of incompetence - which again, might just be one person saying one thing, and not another.

all amateurs...still a fantasy

[globaljustin]

such naive language..."give other people a chance"

what you mean is, your imaginary "3rd party" wouldn't have ***any*** candidates who have ever held elected office

which means no one, besides you, would vote for them

the country will not elect an entire Congress + Presidency AND all state/local governments of first-timers

proven unworkable...because YOUR PREMISE IS WRONG

Not who I'm worried about

[slapout]

I'm more worried about the ones who are concerned about Guam tipping over and who think the U.S. Constitution is 400 years old.

unknown scumbag

[globaljustin]

rather than voting in known scumbags

so you still didn't explain why these "scumbags" would be any better

a predictable scumbag is better than a completely unpredicatble and unknown scumbag...remember these are your words I don't think this way...but using your words and your logic YOU STILL FAIL

youre wrong all the way...a sizable minority are not "scumbags" at all

Re:unknown scumbag

[lonOtter]

which means no one, besides you, would vote for them

Demonstrably false. There are thousands who vote for third parties. That's not many in the grand scheme of things, but it's certainly more than just myself.

the country will not elect an entire Congress + Presidency AND all state/local governments of first-timers

Literally anything would be better than what we have now. You seem to revel in the fact that we have corrupt career politician scumbags who have been politicians for decades ruling everything.

But it wouldn't happen that quickly to begin with, because of how our system works.

a predictable scumbag is better than a completely unpredicatble and unknown scumbag

Really? So voting in people who have shown themselves to be evil scumbags is better than voting in people who haven't shown themselves to be evil scumbags? Nothing should ever change?

remember these are your words I don't think this way

I don't recall saying "a predictable scumbag is better than a completely unpredicatble and unknown scumbag."

but using your words and your logic YOU STILL FAIL

Obviously, then, you don't understand my words or logic.

youre wrong all the way...a sizable minority are not "scumbags" at all

If by "sizable minority" you mean about one or two. But then again, your definition of "scumbag" probably differs significantly from mine. I have extremely high standards, and care about freedom above all else.

You seem to show hostility to change. Why? Why do you like a system that basically only allows corrupt thugs to have any sort of real power?

Do you believe in Creationism?

[Murdoch5]

It's a simple question to decide if you should hold a position of office or power, "Do you believe in Creationism over Evolution", if you say yes then you're scientifically illiterate and shouldn't be allowed to hold a position of power that make decisions regarding science and in general science education. This extends far beyond those in power, it extends down to most teachers and parents. We live in society of amazing scientifically progress and advancement yes far to many still revert back to iron age ideas that can't even stand anymore. I personally feel anyone who isn't scientifically literate should be forced to either bulk up on there knowledge or they can get out of North America.

Re:Do you believe in Creationism?

[Anonymous Coward]

False on 2 counts! Many scientists believe in "creationism"... Just not the kind that some "creationists" are pushing down our throats! The question should be: Do you believe that the Earth is less than 500 million years old. If they say yes, then they should be deemed foolish. But the USA is a democratic society so if someone is elected, even a fool, we cannot deny them being elected.

Which scientists do YOU believe ?

[FreedomFirstThenPeac]

So, on the one hand we have climate scientists who warn us that global warming is going to make life difficult if not impossible in short order. On the other hand we have political and behavioral scientists who warn us that people cannot be rational and that political solutions won't solve the problem (like renewables or giving up paleofuels) or that they cannot be implemented (who wants to tell the Chinese and the Indians that they don't get to move up to Western levels of consumption?). So which scientists do YOU believe?

Movie plot

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like a great plot for a movie. Bonus points if taking preventative action requiring co-operation between world superpowers, and if it ends with the ending of civilization due to infighting and lack of action.

Only depressing thing is, if such an asteroid were to be detected today, then that is probably exactly what would happen in real life.

America has become a nation of idiots

[AlphaBravoCharlie]

The political body reflects that fact.

War on science?

[Anonymous Coward]

So some peoples disbelief in climate change is a "war on science"? Of course its idiotic to claim that human activity is not effecting the climate but our climate/atmosphere has not been static at its current level for millions of years. There are natural changes to climate that may be part of the current trends towards warming, the real question is how much human activity is contributing to the current trends and if it is significant what changes can be made to limit those effects without crashing the worlds economies.

So DO SOMETHING

[ladyeyes]

If a large number of the readers here would contribute $5 to a fund, you could hire an amazing lobbyist that could actually get in congressional doors and get heard with a message.

If you all just complain, point fingers, and don't do anything, you're damn right it's only going to get worse until it crashes and burns.

Lobbyist will gladly take forward absolutely any message you want so long as they are paid. And they can get into places other than just Congress, too. They could get your message heard in agencies, state offices, etc.

You're a bunch of intelligent, opinionated people. Why on earth would you not organize a little and try to make a difference in the place where U.S. government funding for science is determined?

You honestly can make a difference if you use the rights tools to get heard. (Trust me, having worked briefly on the Hill, nothing gets attention like a flood of emails and calls on a topic or a really good lobbyist coming in the door with a lot of people behind them.)

No chance of fixing global Warming

[Anonymous Coward]

All Global Warming computer models - exclude water vapor which is 98% of all global warming gases. FACT
There is no debate about this.
of the 2% that is left over 98% of that is carbon dioxide.
The computer models HAVE NOT CHANGED.
When asked why water vapor is not included the computer programmers responded that if they included water vapor then no human caused global warming would show up.

That's right. When the actual variables are used, ALL OF THEM, human caused global warming is less than 3%. And the model has an error rate of 3%. So human caused global warming is zero. according to the real computer model.

What a waste of tech dollars.

The real debate is simply an argument of stealing money from tax payers and giving it to people on the left and right.
The debate IS NOT ABOUT Global Warming because there is nothing we can do about the earth getting hotter or colder.

I am a scientist and I can see the facts.
There is a petition from 32,000 (9000 are PhDs, etc) and scientists from around the world that say the 2000 scientists that signed the Kyoto treaty summary are nuts. Of the 2000 scientists who signed the Kyoto treat summary, 1000 wanted to take their name off after reading the entire document.

Even if we signed the Kyoto treaty the reset date was rigged anyway. England set the reset date to before they converted to natural gas. this gave them 100 years of growth and future pollution before they might have to cut back on anything. We as the US, pollute way less than we did in the 1970s under Jimmy Carter.

It is a fact the same nut jobs who are calling for global warming today, were calling for global cooling in the 70s. Why not bring up that FACT!
The entire thing is a debate from morons on both sides.

I also see the hypocrisy of Al gore who did not invent the internet or his dad. they approved some money for DARPA a military think tank. Al gore is anti-military and tried to cheat military personnel by ignoring their votes overseas during his run against Bush. DARPA invented the world wide web. The internet with pictures was not invented until the webbrowser was invented at a university. Mosaic.

Al Gore the guy who will not let anyone into his classes in college without signing an agreement? or the Al Gore who uses more electricity to run his house than 10 other Americans. That's great. I am glad to see his capitalism but it is not very environmental, but it is the height of hopocrisy.

Global warming is happening on mars. The mars ice caps are melting. Last time I checked there were no humans on Mars.
The sun is getting bigger. The moon is brighter as a result.

It is insane to argue over any of this.
If you want a better explanation then go to Junk Science judo or look it up on the internet.

I cannot stand the morons on the internet that have made this scientific fight into a fight of the left wing nut jobs against the right.

The entire solution to the problem, as currently presented, is to create a global tax and give the money to the Communist new world order at the United Nations (of irrelevant countries) that just want our money.

There Are No Stupid Que...

[RevSpaminator]

Oh wait, nevermind.

Ob

[Hognoxious]

He paused to make a joke about getting the scientists' cell phone number so he could call to ask when to buy a coat

I'd do it before late September.

If you already have one and just need a spare, try March - you might pick up a clearance bargain.

Another way to read this

[McFly777]

I didn't watch TFVideo (work restrictions), so I will admit to be lacking a bit of context, but one could interpret the quoted congress-critter as having said, "The standard textbook definition of the scientific method includes starting with a hypothesis, and then either proving or disproving that hypothesis. Are you sure that you can eliminate any a-priori bias from the resulting work?" Stated that way, the comment is actually a reasonable thing to ask. (or at least isn't unreasonable.)

And I know he stumbled on the word "hypothesis", but beng 44 now myself, that is a sign of getting older. You start to grasp for words that you know you know, and sometimes have to settle for something "close, but not quite right."

economic

[Anonymous Coward]

I am more worried about the economic illiterates devaluing the currency

Smartest guy in the room

[arglebargle_xiv]

From that transcript it seems that, excluding Dr. Holdren, the smartest guy in the room was the room.

Re:AGW Jihadists are the culprit

[Anonymous Coward]

There is your problem. The scientific method is broken because without dialogue there is no truth. A well designed scientific experiment simply provides facts that need to be interpeted. The problem is two people with different agendas can twist it in both directions.

Common sense

[NewYork]

I think the problem is lack of common sense, not science.

Wow! You get modded down...

[Anonymous Coward]

and it's a conspiracy. Jut like global warming. And Obamacare. And, no doubt, Common Core, vaccines, and Benghazi.

Not all of these things are shining moments of the current administration, but exactly none of them are a conspiracy. But I can see how you can take comfort in that, and how it lets you play the victim card. When, really, the victims are those who have to listen to you.

If you've somehow managed to rope a partner, I pity them.

OpenCRS

[NewYork]

Isn't http://www.opencrs.com/ designed to resolve this issue?

NOT always Republicans

[Ferretman]

By your own answer you've shown why it's needed.

Back in high school we spent a week covering creation myths--Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Indian, etc. This was in science class no less, by a teacher who to this day I have no clue what his personal beliefs were on the issue. It sparked a lot of interesting conversation. Nobody felt "attacked" or "threatened" or "pressured" in any way. Most of the kids there were Christian but not all, and we spent a lot of time discussing Hindu and Native American creation stories especially.

Discussing these in a rational, open setting like classroom is exactly the right place to do this, since that's how one is exposed to different ideas, different belief systems, different evidence. Having it at the start of Natural History class (basically focusing on the formation and evolution of the Earth) was the perfect place for it. The teacher referred back from time to time to the earlier discussion and I never once recall any judgmental pigeon-holing (of the type that would call any belief "religious bullshit") ever happening.

Referring to religious beliefs in this way is exactly why intolerance for others has increased and why society is becoming more riven. Most schools today are scared to death to approach the subject, and most parents and activists have chips on their shoulders just waiting for excuses to fly off the handle about it all.

My school was more better, and it's helped a lot in my understanding of where religious folks are coming from.

Ferret

Re:Don't worry

[Man Eating Duck]

Most people have little idea of what is about to happen as the pH of the oceans falls another 0.1 to 0.4 in log hydromium ion concentrations. A 0.1-0.2 pH drop is already in the cards as the oceans come into equilibrium with current atmospheric CO2 concentrations over the next 50 to 100 years so the intense selection regime is already baked into our planetary system.

I think the main problem is right here; most people won't be alive in one hundred years. Even if they were sure about the consequences many of those people would still not use an electric car for their 10 km daily commute and rent an F-250 only when they need it (twice a year), since the consequences will not affect them personally. The vehicles are just an example here, the important thing is the mindset.

Incidentally, a bunch of posters will now complain about how a Leaf can not tow their loaded boat trailer, blithely ignoring the fact that they actually only tow their boats twice a year. Point proven.

the science is settled

[Anonymous Coward]

So we can cease funding for more research for it, right?

No accident

[minyard]

The vast majority of people in congress are there by no accident. They were pre-selected by our ownership class.

Oh you want academic research to back this up? http://whorulesamerica.net (sorry for the snarky website setup :) :) )

Re:There are few problems in america

[Rakarra]

Fuck you too. If you want to be modded up, say something worth modding up.

"We make the laws"

[iMactheKnife]

About a decade ago I was involved in an aerospace project and had to make a presentation to a group of legislators and their assistants regarding remote telemetry of an AUV. The response time was squishy because of transmission time for the radio signal from the distant AUV. The legislators had a report to that effect and wanted to know why we could't fix the problem. One if us mentioned that the speed of light was a law of physics. To which a congressperson responded. "Well, we make the laws. We can change them."

Ayup.