Are you talking about the detailed IPCC reports, or the IPCC summaries written by non-scientist politicians that skip over the uncertainties and trumpet disaster as if it were a certain thing?
I love watching nature. The female deer come out every spring and engage in these amazing head-butting fights to see who will win the docile males. Or something like that.
Of course, there are exceptions to behavior patterns among individuals. But facts are facts, and male (not-equals) female.
WHY HELLO, MY FELLOW LOYAL, SLASHDOT-READING COMRADE. LET US TALK OF DNS CACHES AND GAME SUBSCRIPTIONS AND VALVE AND STUFF.
[whisper] Would you shut up? You're gonna get us killed. All the first wave of revolutionaries have already been lined up against the wall and shot. Keep it under the radar. Now see if you can sneak over to the Facebook love analysis article, and another resistance operative will brief you there.[/whisper]
It helps to remember that all scientists are not alike, and they break down into various highly diverse groups. Over on one end you have the hard sciences like physics, where if you put out a bunch of baloney, people will point it out (very loudly), and you will be held accountable in your field. On the other end you have the soft sciences like sociology, where putting out baloney with highly political motivations is more the norm than the exception. If you have any doubt at all of what I just wrote, you are in for a treat if you visit this link.
Not to say that _all_ researchers in the soft sciences are cargo cult doofuses. But they do seem to be in charge in many government agencies and major schools.
That is, quite frankly, offensive, and shows ignorance about the work of real scientists.
When cosmetologists work on a model, they refine and test their techniques until they can successfully predict how everything will turn out, and in fact time proves their predictions right. To put it another way, if they consistently gave a bad haircut, they would go out of business. Because it turns out that models can't stand a bad haircut.
So instead of 40% of Americans having a poor concept of science, it looks like 40% of Americans have a poor concept of English. Is that any better?
In terms of measuring the level of acceptance of pseudoscience, yes, it would be a favorable adjustment to make. But it's perfectly OK with me if you want to change the subject and rant about (lack of) English skills in the general population.
I searched/skimmed the NSF paper, and it wasn't obvious that they took any pains to define astrology for their interviewees. So you very well may be right; good job.
Most high school bullies are not from rich families, the exception doesn't define the rule. And there's nothing wrong with nerds working at Staples during/after high school. Hopefully that is not a real nerd's long term career, though. I started my first full time programming job as a teenager.
When books are out of print, or videogames not available for purchase for a certain length of time, then third parties should be able to "do something with them" without being labeled pirates. Original creators should still collect royalties, and I think there should be clearly established legal guidelines for each industry for royalties to be paid to the original copyright holder so people know what to expect. No negotiation is required, standard rates will apply if you let your stuff "expire" like that.
If the concern is that works are just being lost from our culture, a compromise move like this would address it, and provide people with incentive to keep their stuff available for sale.
It's a way of being polite and classy, and saying "I know there are a lot of really qualified people around me, and your selection of me has forced me to honestly reflect on my weaknesses." It's more a communication to his peers who were just passed over for the job than to the underlings who were never in the running.
Now, did you really need that explained to you, or were you just running your mouth?
Anyone who mentions "late term" gets ignored by me.
That's not true. I mentioned "late term" and you jumped into this conversation in order to not ignore me.:p
I've never seen anyone advocate for arbitrary late term abortions without reason.
Then you haven't been paying attention. It's the consistent position of Planned Parenthood, which is the largest abortion provider in the USA. In fact, a Planned Parenthood spokesperson in Florida is on record defending killing babies after a live birth. So chew on that (if you still have an appetite).
The only requests for it have been from those who want it as a medical choice if the pregnancy is experiencing life-threatening complications. Late term is a red herring.
That's really not true. The mantra used to be "safe, legal and rare". Now it's just "safe and legal". Obama's crowd is against any legal prohibitions on abortion whatsoever. That's "invading a woman's privacy".
Now, invading the baby's privacy is not a concern. After all, what privacy can a person reasonably expect who is legally murdered and thrown into a garbage disposal?
You're very long on generic statements and short on specifics. While realizing that I may be "taking it too far again", let's look at two examples:
1. Sunday "blue laws" -- I am totally in agreement that Christians and churches would be mistaken to push to enforce these on other people. These kinds of laws are about religious observance, and there's no particular reason to expect a secular society to follow them.
2. Abortion -- It would be insane for Christians and churches who believe that late term abortion is murder to not oppose it in the public square. The right to life (in their belief) is a basic civil rights issue, at least assuming their view is right. That their anti-abortion stance correlates strongly with religion makes atheists mad, but ultimately doesn't affect their full right to influence public policy on this as much as they're able.
The actions of these people go far beyond merely teaching that something is immoral. If that's all they were doing and it wasn't fringe churches interfering in matters of state (conveniently forgetting "render unto Caesar"), we wouldn't be having this discussion.
I don't understand what you are saying about "render unto Caesar". Are you saying that Christians shouldn't voice their views about morality as part of our democratic society? If so, then you are very wrong. Society legislates morality, and Christians have to obey the law of the land. But they have just as much right as anybody else to voice their opinions as those laws are being coalesced from basically majority opinions into codified laws. If they are outvoted on stuff like gay marriage, that's the time to cheerfully submit and "render unto Caesar". But they never, ever have to shut up about their views. This is a society that is supposed to value freedom of speech, speaking against the status quo, etc. This cacophony of dissenting opinions is actually a good thing, and not just Christians and churches, but NOBODY should be told to shut up about moral opinions.
I was tying your idea of "hate speech" to Jesus himself. He preached against immorality in his time, and certainly Christians who preach against immorality today are in Jesus' tradition as far as that goes. Hopefully that's not all they do, because love and compassion are essential ingredients as well. Anyway, not sure what we'll accomplish in this debate.
It is not "preaching hate" to teach that homosexuality is immoral. Jesus taught that lots of things are immoral. He certainly covered sins on the heterosexual side of the fence, and if he discussed homosexuality at all, it would be a stretch to suggest that Jesus would say anything other than that it was immoral. (Example: Jesus preached pretty harshly against the idea of "free love" and strongly endorsed the Mosaic law, but... people say he would approve of homosexuality? It wouldn't make any sense.)
The critical distinction is that someone following Jesus' example will "hate the sin, love the sinner". Or to put it another way, be a "friend of sinners". Sin is still sin in that worldview, and you encourage people to leave it behind; but you love all people as individuals, sort of considering them apart from their sin. I think that is a beautiful thing about Christianity when people are Doing it Right.
Slashdot Mirror
Dude. If you are being paid to post this sort of rubbish please contact me. I want in.
I love the irony of your forming a conspiracy theory about my AGW skepticism.
Since you can't seem to look at science, that's look at the real world political practicalities. well, 1 of them.
This sentence is a bit hard to parse.
China has the most to lose with global warming.
What does China have to lose? What's the scenario? Rising sea levels? Do you believe in some kind of global human extinction scenario?
Yet they agree its also man made. Do you think China is part of some environmentalist conspiracy?
I really don't pay too much attention to official pronouncements from communist propaganda outlets.
So the Guy McPherson article you link to says that in 40 years, humans will probably be extinct.
Sorry, but that is absolutely idiotic. This is not scientific certainty, this is speculative alarmism, at its worst.
Have you even read the IPCC reports
Are you talking about the detailed IPCC reports, or the IPCC summaries written by non-scientist politicians that skip over the uncertainties and trumpet disaster as if it were a certain thing?
I love watching nature. The female deer come out every spring and engage in these amazing head-butting fights to see who will win the docile males. Or something like that.
Of course, there are exceptions to behavior patterns among individuals. But facts are facts, and male (not-equals) female.
WHY HELLO, MY FELLOW LOYAL, SLASHDOT-READING COMRADE. LET US TALK OF DNS CACHES AND GAME SUBSCRIPTIONS AND VALVE AND STUFF.
[whisper] Would you shut up? You're gonna get us killed. All the first wave of revolutionaries have already been lined up against the wall and shot. Keep it under the radar. Now see if you can sneak over to the Facebook love analysis article, and another resistance operative will brief you there.[/whisper]
According to your link, Lindzen has changed his mind on some things since the 1980's. And that is different from other climate scientists how?
It helps to remember that all scientists are not alike, and they break down into various highly diverse groups. Over on one end you have the hard sciences like physics, where if you put out a bunch of baloney, people will point it out (very loudly), and you will be held accountable in your field. On the other end you have the soft sciences like sociology, where putting out baloney with highly political motivations is more the norm than the exception. If you have any doubt at all of what I just wrote, you are in for a treat if you visit this link.
Not to say that _all_ researchers in the soft sciences are cargo cult doofuses. But they do seem to be in charge in many government agencies and major schools.
That is, quite frankly, offensive, and shows ignorance about the work of real scientists.
When cosmetologists work on a model, they refine and test their techniques until they can successfully predict how everything will turn out, and in fact time proves their predictions right. To put it another way, if they consistently gave a bad haircut, they would go out of business. Because it turns out that models can't stand a bad haircut.
Climatologists, on the other hand... well, don't take it from me. Read Feynman on cargo cult science in general, and Richard Lindzen on climate alarmism in particular.
Bottom line -- shame on you for lowering cosmetologists to the level of (OK... _some_) climatologists.
So instead of 40% of Americans having a poor concept of science, it looks like 40% of Americans have a poor concept of English. Is that any better?
In terms of measuring the level of acceptance of pseudoscience, yes, it would be a favorable adjustment to make. But it's perfectly OK with me if you want to change the subject and rant about (lack of) English skills in the general population.
I searched/skimmed the NSF paper, and it wasn't obvious that they took any pains to define astrology for their interviewees. So you very well may be right; good job.
Sigh... at least quote it right. From Wikipedia:
"One of these days... POW!!! Right in the kisser!" or "BANG, ZOOM! Straight to the moon!", to which she usually replies, "Ahhh, shut up!"
The world is full of coincidental correlations waiting to be rationalized into causality relationships.
Most high school bullies are not from rich families, the exception doesn't define the rule. And there's nothing wrong with nerds working at Staples during/after high school. Hopefully that is not a real nerd's long term career, though. I started my first full time programming job as a teenager.
When books are out of print, or videogames not available for purchase for a certain length of time, then third parties should be able to "do something with them" without being labeled pirates. Original creators should still collect royalties, and I think there should be clearly established legal guidelines for each industry for royalties to be paid to the original copyright holder so people know what to expect. No negotiation is required, standard rates will apply if you let your stuff "expire" like that.
If the concern is that works are just being lost from our culture, a compromise move like this would address it, and provide people with incentive to keep their stuff available for sale.
Good idea. Here are some books for a start (hint: being humbled by receiving an honor is a common expression in literature).
Google Books Search
This is a nerd website, my dear AC. The goonish bullies of high school are all working at Walmart now. Pretty sure I have nothing to worry about.
It's a way of being polite and classy, and saying "I know there are a lot of really qualified people around me, and your selection of me has forced me to honestly reflect on my weaknesses." It's more a communication to his peers who were just passed over for the job than to the underlings who were never in the running.
Now, did you really need that explained to you, or were you just running your mouth?
Anyone who mentions "late term" gets ignored by me.
That's not true. I mentioned "late term" and you jumped into this conversation in order to not ignore me. :p
I've never seen anyone advocate for arbitrary late term abortions without reason.
Then you haven't been paying attention. It's the consistent position of Planned Parenthood, which is the largest abortion provider in the USA. In fact, a Planned Parenthood spokesperson in Florida is on record defending killing babies after a live birth. So chew on that (if you still have an appetite).
The only requests for it have been from those who want it as a medical choice if the pregnancy is experiencing life-threatening complications. Late term is a red herring.
That's really not true. The mantra used to be "safe, legal and rare". Now it's just "safe and legal". Obama's crowd is against any legal prohibitions on abortion whatsoever. That's "invading a woman's privacy".
Now, invading the baby's privacy is not a concern. After all, what privacy can a person reasonably expect who is legally murdered and thrown into a garbage disposal?
You're very long on generic statements and short on specifics. While realizing that I may be "taking it too far again", let's look at two examples:
1. Sunday "blue laws" -- I am totally in agreement that Christians and churches would be mistaken to push to enforce these on other people. These kinds of laws are about religious observance, and there's no particular reason to expect a secular society to follow them.
2. Abortion -- It would be insane for Christians and churches who believe that late term abortion is murder to not oppose it in the public square. The right to life (in their belief) is a basic civil rights issue, at least assuming their view is right. That their anti-abortion stance correlates strongly with religion makes atheists mad, but ultimately doesn't affect their full right to influence public policy on this as much as they're able.
Is any of the above what you were talking about?
The actions of these people go far beyond merely teaching that something is immoral. If that's all they were doing and it wasn't fringe churches interfering in matters of state (conveniently forgetting "render unto Caesar"), we wouldn't be having this discussion.
I don't understand what you are saying about "render unto Caesar". Are you saying that Christians shouldn't voice their views about morality as part of our democratic society? If so, then you are very wrong. Society legislates morality, and Christians have to obey the law of the land. But they have just as much right as anybody else to voice their opinions as those laws are being coalesced from basically majority opinions into codified laws. If they are outvoted on stuff like gay marriage, that's the time to cheerfully submit and "render unto Caesar". But they never, ever have to shut up about their views. This is a society that is supposed to value freedom of speech, speaking against the status quo, etc. This cacophony of dissenting opinions is actually a good thing, and not just Christians and churches, but NOBODY should be told to shut up about moral opinions.
I was tying your idea of "hate speech" to Jesus himself. He preached against immorality in his time, and certainly Christians who preach against immorality today are in Jesus' tradition as far as that goes. Hopefully that's not all they do, because love and compassion are essential ingredients as well. Anyway, not sure what we'll accomplish in this debate.
It is not "preaching hate" to teach that homosexuality is immoral. Jesus taught that lots of things are immoral. He certainly covered sins on the heterosexual side of the fence, and if he discussed homosexuality at all, it would be a stretch to suggest that Jesus would say anything other than that it was immoral. (Example: Jesus preached pretty harshly against the idea of "free love" and strongly endorsed the Mosaic law, but... people say he would approve of homosexuality? It wouldn't make any sense.)
The critical distinction is that someone following Jesus' example will "hate the sin, love the sinner". Or to put it another way, be a "friend of sinners". Sin is still sin in that worldview, and you encourage people to leave it behind; but you love all people as individuals, sort of considering them apart from their sin. I think that is a beautiful thing about Christianity when people are Doing it Right.
I concede that's a fair point.
Calling out exaggeration is not bigotry. And laughing at people running their mouths on Slashdot may or may not be smug, but I frankly don't care.