Perhaps not so higher much anti-intellectual as it is revealing of a very highly defensive mental attitude regarding the merits of one's own ideas. Its more or less equivalent to admitting that the other guy can't possibly win an argument with me, because I promptly and efficiently let my amygdala shunt my thoughts away from my frontal cortex. The best thing about such an approach is that you can even delude yourself. As they say, ignorance is bliss.
If you don't like being painted by the brush, you better stop standing next to the painter. Until the GOP base begins to criticize the rhetoric of its leadership with regard to science issues, all GOP members are going to be tarred. It only stands to reason, since they are enablers of bad public policy.
"Unemployment is 8.6%, because he says Obama is doing a bad job doesn't make it true."
The official unemployment rate now stands at 8.1% and falling. Thanks in large measure to Obama rather than anything the GOP has done. They talk about jobs but legislate against gays, Latinos and unions instead.
"Cutting funding to the EPA is simply the most expedient way to reign in the incredibly excessive property rights violations the agency routinely uses to further its pro-NWO agenda and the trashing of the environment by the Big Ag corporations that they work for."
Yes, politically expedient, especially for those corporations eager to cut costs and dump the the toxic byproducts of their manufacture and use on to a scientifically illiterate yet incredibly vulnerable populace. The current GOP drive to weaken air pollution control efforts are likely to cause the release of millions of tons of mercury and other heavy metals into the air, soils, waterways and oceans that have very well known consequences to human and ecosystem health.
Your comments on "excessive property rights violations" sound remarkably contrived. Perhaps that is what others are calling hyperbole.
Why is it with modern republicans that thoughts of money trump any sensible thinking?
Even though Bush is history, the same GOP mindset remains. Obama proposes a 1% increase in science/research funding, which the GOP promptly and loudly aim to block. With so much money going into tax cuts for the already wealthy, funding in sciences since Reagan have gone done about 40% as a percentage of the total budget. So even this meager proposal by Obama is likely to be caught up in GOP election year politics.
Can anyone realistically argue that any of the GOP nominees now will actually increase science funding? Personally, I don't count a Moon Base as a science project, but rather a throwaway line for those eager for technological pork spending. While it might push the boundaries of technology, there would be relatively little science likely to come from it compared to investing that kind of money in pure research. For example, if that kind of money were directed at ocean studies and ocean exploration the benefits to mankind would be far, far greater, particularly since we know probably less about the oceans than we do about Mars relative to what there probably is to know given that Mars has no biosphere. Who knows, maybe ocean studies might provide a way to prevent anyone who spends to much time in space from permanently loosing visual acuity as recent studies apparently demonstrate is a serious impediment to any proposals for long-term human extraterrestrial habitation.
To make matters worse, GOP attitudes toward environmental science aren't merely anti-science. They border on on suicidal and homicidal.
What has made so many republicans who depend upon science, so unwilling to stand up to the anti-science rhetoric that seems to be the standard fair for GOP politicians these days? Is it simply because most scientists have become democrats out of necessity? This sure is a far cry from the GOP of the Eisenhower administration. What has happened to the modern GOP that now prevents it from leading science policy? Does the average GOP voter think our scientific infrastructure can be outsourced to China and other countries such as India simply for economic reasons without consequence?
"Why should we be sending all that money to another country to begin with???"
It should be relatively obvious to everyone that the AIDS virus does not respect political borders. If any country is a reservoir for the AIDS virus, then it has the potential to spread to all other countries. Its just a matter of time.
Why do you find this so hard to understand that you use three question marks? This is elementary epidemiology.
There is a rather large body of literature already on the dangers of GMO crops. It is well known that certain of these crops can cause dramatic resistance to evolve in both insects and in other non-crop plant species, not to mention the economic problems associated with contamination of natural seed stocks with GMO seed.
One would think after Fukushima and Chernobyl any sane person might find reason to consider being cautious about nuclear power. There is a very good chance that radioactive isotopes from Fukushima are already incorporated into your body even though the size of the leakage was relatively small.
Likewise, there is abundant evidence that eating organic food can be far healthier than eating "factory" and processed foods.
As for cell phones, lets hope you are right. Although the energy levels seem to be far too low to disrupt DNA, its still far too early for epidemiological studies of cell phone use to be likely to statistically show any subtle, but potentially harmful effects. Give it another 30 years, as was necessary for similar studies dealing with the effects of tobacco products.
There is no real equivalence here. The GOP has been far behind the democrats in promoting science. In fact republicans still like to joke about Al Gore inventing the internet, when what Gore really did was become one of the very first early champions for increasing federal funding to develop the internet beyond its DARPA roots. The fact they now use the internet to do so evidently doesn't even enter into their consciousness.
"Democrats, on the other hand, seek to prevent evolution from happening."
Clearly, you have no idea of what you are talking about. No one can keep evolution from happening. To claim the contrary is just silly and simply erroneous. Evolution is the driving force for all biological change and the creation of new biodiversity. Its simply not possible to rationally explain how organisms are organized or function without invoking the theory of evolution. Yes, there is mutation and yes there is a limited potential for adaptation, but unless both incorporate genetic change in any trait be passed on by genetics from one generation to the next they will be lost to subsequent generations.
Just out of curiosity. I would love to hear what "claims of evolution" you are talking about, as opposed to the ones you accept.
" But the reality is as a society we agree to do certain things for each other no matter what we personally think because we agree to live in this society."
As far as I can tell, republicans have no interest in living in a society with democrats and doing certain "for" each other. They would rather live in an alternative reality. The entire GOP agenda now seems to be one giant experiment in sociopathy. Everyone for themselves, privatize everything, and end all government and regulations no matter what the consequence might as well be the motto of the modern GOP.
Actually, the actuaries have outsmarted republicans. Insurance companies realize its far cheaper to pay for birth control pills than to have to cover all the other potential complications that come with pregnancy and early childhood diseases and disorders.
You would think this would be a no brainer, but actually that the problem. Those who oppose birth control simply don't have a brain, just an emotionally based self-righteousness that precludes thinking.
"But why the fuck should someone pay for them to do so? "
Perhaps so they don't have unwanted children, who grow up to cost society a fortune? Ever heard the saying an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure? Or penny wise, pound foolish?
Think about it. Of course, if you don't that's alright, since they are likely to grow up becoming Democrats anyway.
But if the government can't afford to operate it now that the GOP no longer wants to pay taxes, and if Caltech is the only one willing to step in, probably because via JPL they are heavily involved in the contracts for running the project, does it make sense to wait and let the satellite go unused given the potentially short remaining lifespan of the satellite?
"Credentialed members of the public should be able to either buy survey time or sign up for free observation time."
Is there really an actual market for optical slices of the universe? Is the size of this market actually big enough to support running the infrastructure necessary to obtain and process the results? Will the taxpayer have to pay again to get these results? Those are the questions that need some answers. Privatizing space technology is more about hype associated with landing government contracts than about investors risking personal capital for reward.
Yes, but if you control the Fox News universe, this is the essence of your business model. Its all part of the "opportunity" society, where the public has the "opportunity" to buy every conceivable bad idea and if it sells, it is automatically converted into a good idea.
So are universities/private contractors on the hook after the satellite goes dark, loses orbit, and crashes into a metropolis somewhere?
Do do universities/private contractors get to fund the launch the next replacement satellite, when the old one finally fails?
Will the public have to pay for the final results?
Perhaps this may be a good thing, if it begins to spread the costs of space technology onto those who most benefit from the results. However, my sense is that "space economics" will wither unless there is a "socialist government sugar-daddy" to ultimately provide a pot of money to actually make it work. This is a bit like the forerunner of the no-bid contract. Perhaps it may be useful in demonstrating to those who hate socialism that socialism is essential for a capitalistic system to operate successfully.
Maybe you have stumbled on how to the privacy problem. Create an open source, open project that puts the private lives of guys like Schmidt and Zuckerberg on line 24/7, so that they can't even go to the John without everyone knowing if its #1 or #2. Let cameras, cell phones, video recorders, monitor the activities of their family and friends 24/7. Better yet turn the entire exercise into a reality TV show and give prizes for the best submissions.
I don't know why, but I have this feeling that all of a sudden they would begin to have a different perspective with regard to online privacy.
With this technology, its not just the FBI that you need to worry about. It may be a corporation, a criminal data mining ring, other countries, real Al Qieda, etc.
But with Google every search and its timing, every site you visit and its timing, every location from which you access the net, every email you send and its timing and contents are all known to Google 24/7.
What is there to stop them from selling it to those who would do you harm?
Can the management of Google and Facebook be arrested as an accessory to a robbery or burglary if the thief or burglar uses both to monitor the activities of their victim using Google and Facebook technologies?
This is no longer a theoretical question. The number of robberies, burglaries, and assaults associated with crimes involving the use of these technologies is on the rise. These companies are making it easier and easier for criminals to prey on unsuspecting citizens.
The fact that plant take up more carbon dioxide doesn't make that much difference, since eventually all that they take up is later released when they die. Most may have noticed that many plants either die back in the winter or shed their leaves, so in actually the decomposition process can begin even before they die. When this happens these plant parts eventually oxidize via bacterial and fungal decomposition and return that fixed carbon back into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide. You can also add to this all the respiration and decomposition products of all organisms higher on the food chain which consume plants also as part of this decomposition process in that the carbon once fixed by plants is ultimately released back to the atmosphere when respiration and decomposition occur in animals of all kinds.
Although fixation increases the amount of carbon locked in vegetative material during the carbon cycle, unless it can occur at a NET rate that is greater than combined rates that decomposition (including that caused by clearing of vegetation for other uses), the rate of carbon dioxide releases by geological processes (volcanoes, mud pots, melting of permafrost, weathering of carbonate rocks, etc) and the rate at which fossil fuels are burned, the atmosphere will over time continue to contain ever higher concentrations of carbon dioxide.
There is no question that plants over millions of years can profoundly affect the composition of the atmosphere, just as there is no question that geological processes such as carbonate deposition and sedimentation and compaction can also influence the composition of the atmosphere. However, it takes them millions if not tens or hundreds of millions of years to do so. The cited article does absolutely nothing to refute this well known fact and obvious fact, that it is the relative rates of these processes and not simply their magnitude that is of importance with respect to atmospheric composition. The issue of relevance to planetary heating is the RELATIVE RATES at which plants do fix carbon dioxide as compared to phenomena that add carbon dioxide back to the atmosphere (decomposition, geologic outgassing, weathering of carbon-bearing strata, and human fossil fuel consumption).
Unfortunately, humans are simply pumping out far more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere far faster than any natural processes can counteract it in NET effect (about 33,000,000,000 tons of carbon dioxide per year). In 200 years humans have now reversed what the natural mechanisms of climate forcing have done in the past 840,000 years. Consequently, global temperatures are rising and will continue to rise and rise at rates unprecedented in the geological record until we stop burning fossil fuels. This is what so bothers the fossil fuels industry with Al Gore and why they pay so much to vilify him. It is an inconvenient truth.
The scary thing about people on this site who are looking for other excuses to believe that carbon dioxide production is not the culprit are people who presumably spend their time writing software that other people use. It seems odd that folks with a programmer's background would spend their time looking for alternate explanations that don't come even close to explaining temperature variability anywhere near in magnitude to that known to be the effect of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
This is analogous to a programmer seeking to optimize the speed of coding ignoring those segments of his code that are the slowest and instead looking ways to speed up those segments of code that are known to be the fastest. Its worrisome to think that these guys are actually writing code for production. It is as if they want their CPU's to take longer, just so they can support their ideology by having the CPU's work longer, use more energy and thus contribute relatively more to global warming. It leads to the obvious question, can global climate deniers actually make good programmers?
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps not so higher much anti-intellectual as it is revealing of a very highly defensive mental attitude regarding the merits of one's own ideas. Its more or less equivalent to admitting that the other guy can't possibly win an argument with me, because I promptly and efficiently let my amygdala shunt my thoughts away from my frontal cortex. The best thing about such an approach is that you can even delude yourself. As they say, ignorance is bliss.
You obviously didn't attend any OWS gatherings. Did you get your sense of what OWS is about through a Fox News filter.
If you don't like being painted by the brush, you better stop standing next to the painter. Until the GOP base begins to criticize the rhetoric of its leadership with regard to science issues, all GOP members are going to be tarred. It only stands to reason, since they are enablers of bad public policy.
If John Kerry had run against any of these clowns, he would be called President Kerry.
"Unemployment is 8.6%, because he says Obama is doing a bad job doesn't make it true."
The official unemployment rate now stands at 8.1% and falling. Thanks in large measure to Obama rather than anything the GOP has done. They talk about jobs but legislate against gays, Latinos and unions instead.
"Cutting funding to the EPA is simply the most expedient way to reign in the incredibly excessive property rights violations the agency routinely uses to further its pro-NWO agenda and the trashing of the environment by the Big Ag corporations that they work for."
Yes, politically expedient, especially for those corporations eager to cut costs and dump the the toxic byproducts of their manufacture and use on to a scientifically illiterate yet incredibly vulnerable populace. The current GOP drive to weaken air pollution control efforts are likely to cause the release of millions of tons of mercury and other heavy metals into the air, soils, waterways and oceans that have very well known consequences to human and ecosystem health.
Your comments on "excessive property rights violations" sound remarkably contrived. Perhaps that is what others are calling hyperbole.
Why is it with modern republicans that thoughts of money trump any sensible thinking?
Even though Bush is history, the same GOP mindset remains. Obama proposes a 1% increase in science/research funding, which the GOP promptly and loudly aim to block. With so much money going into tax cuts for the already wealthy, funding in sciences since Reagan have gone done about 40% as a percentage of the total budget. So even this meager proposal by Obama is likely to be caught up in GOP election year politics.
Can anyone realistically argue that any of the GOP nominees now will actually increase science funding? Personally, I don't count a Moon Base as a science project, but rather a throwaway line for those eager for technological pork spending. While it might push the boundaries of technology, there would be relatively little science likely to come from it compared to investing that kind of money in pure research. For example, if that kind of money were directed at ocean studies and ocean exploration the benefits to mankind would be far, far greater, particularly since we know probably less about the oceans than we do about Mars relative to what there probably is to know given that Mars has no biosphere. Who knows, maybe ocean studies might provide a way to prevent anyone who spends to much time in space from permanently loosing visual acuity as recent studies apparently demonstrate is a serious impediment to any proposals for long-term human extraterrestrial habitation.
To make matters worse, GOP attitudes toward environmental science aren't merely anti-science. They border on on suicidal and homicidal.
What has made so many republicans who depend upon science, so unwilling to stand up to the anti-science rhetoric that seems to be the standard fair for GOP politicians these days? Is it simply because most scientists have become democrats out of necessity? This sure is a far cry from the GOP of the Eisenhower administration. What has happened to the modern GOP that now prevents it from leading science policy? Does the average GOP voter think our scientific infrastructure can be outsourced to China and other countries such as India simply for economic reasons without consequence?
"Why should we be sending all that money to another country to begin with???"
It should be relatively obvious to everyone that the AIDS virus does not respect political borders. If any country is a reservoir for the AIDS virus, then it has the potential to spread to all other countries. Its just a matter of time.
Why do you find this so hard to understand that you use three question marks? This is elementary epidemiology.
There is a rather large body of literature already on the dangers of GMO crops. It is well known that certain of these crops can cause dramatic resistance to evolve in both insects and in other non-crop plant species, not to mention the economic problems associated with contamination of natural seed stocks with GMO seed.
One would think after Fukushima and Chernobyl any sane person might find reason to consider being cautious about nuclear power. There is a very good chance that radioactive isotopes from Fukushima are already incorporated into your body even though the size of the leakage was relatively small.
Likewise, there is abundant evidence that eating organic food can be far healthier than eating "factory" and processed foods.
As for cell phones, lets hope you are right. Although the energy levels seem to be far too low to disrupt DNA, its still far too early for epidemiological studies of cell phone use to be likely to statistically show any subtle, but potentially harmful effects. Give it another 30 years, as was necessary for similar studies dealing with the effects of tobacco products.
There is no real equivalence here. The GOP has been far behind the democrats in promoting science. In fact republicans still like to joke about Al Gore inventing the internet, when what Gore really did was become one of the very first early champions for increasing federal funding to develop the internet beyond its DARPA roots. The fact they now use the internet to do so evidently doesn't even enter into their consciousness.
"Democrats, on the other hand, seek to prevent evolution from happening."
Clearly, you have no idea of what you are talking about. No one can keep evolution from happening. To claim the contrary is just silly and simply erroneous. Evolution is the driving force for all biological change and the creation of new biodiversity. Its simply not possible to rationally explain how organisms are organized or function without invoking the theory of evolution. Yes, there is mutation and yes there is a limited potential for adaptation, but unless both incorporate genetic change in any trait be passed on by genetics from one generation to the next they will be lost to subsequent generations.
Just out of curiosity. I would love to hear what "claims of evolution" you are talking about, as opposed to the ones you accept.
" But the reality is as a society we agree to do certain things for each other no matter what we personally think because we agree to live in this society."
As far as I can tell, republicans have no interest in living in a society with democrats and doing certain "for" each other. They would rather live in an alternative reality. The entire GOP agenda now seems to be one giant experiment in sociopathy. Everyone for themselves, privatize everything, and end all government and regulations no matter what the consequence might as well be the motto of the modern GOP.
Actually, the actuaries have outsmarted republicans. Insurance companies realize its far cheaper to pay for birth control pills than to have to cover all the other potential complications that come with pregnancy and early childhood diseases and disorders.
You would think this would be a no brainer, but actually that the problem. Those who oppose birth control simply don't have a brain, just an emotionally based self-righteousness that precludes thinking.
"But why the fuck should someone pay for them to do so? "
Perhaps so they don't have unwanted children, who grow up to cost society a fortune? Ever heard the saying an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure? Or penny wise, pound foolish?
Think about it. Of course, if you don't that's alright, since they are likely to grow up becoming Democrats anyway.
But if the government can't afford to operate it now that the GOP no longer wants to pay taxes, and if Caltech is the only one willing to step in, probably because via JPL they are heavily involved in the contracts for running the project, does it make sense to wait and let the satellite go unused given the potentially short remaining lifespan of the satellite?
"Credentialed members of the public should be able to either buy survey time or sign up for free observation time."
Is there really an actual market for optical slices of the universe? Is the size of this market actually big enough to support running the infrastructure necessary to obtain and process the results? Will the taxpayer have to pay again to get these results? Those are the questions that need some answers. Privatizing space technology is more about hype associated with landing government contracts than about investors risking personal capital for reward.
You sound as if you are writing a biography on Senator Shelby from Alabama.
Yes, but if you control the Fox News universe, this is the essence of your business model. Its all part of the "opportunity" society, where the public has the "opportunity" to buy every conceivable bad idea and if it sells, it is automatically converted into a good idea.
So are universities/private contractors on the hook after the satellite goes dark, loses orbit, and crashes into a metropolis somewhere?
Do do universities/private contractors get to fund the launch the next replacement satellite, when the old one finally fails?
Will the public have to pay for the final results?
Perhaps this may be a good thing, if it begins to spread the costs of space technology onto those who most benefit from the results. However, my sense is that "space economics" will wither unless there is a "socialist government sugar-daddy" to ultimately provide a pot of money to actually make it work. This is a bit like the forerunner of the no-bid contract. Perhaps it may be useful in demonstrating to those who hate socialism that socialism is essential for a capitalistic system to operate successfully.
"Have you seen any anaerobic terrorists? Well, have you?"
Osama Bin Laden is an anaerobic terrorist now, because he surely isn't an aerobic terrorist.
Maybe you have stumbled on how to the privacy problem. Create an open source, open project that puts the private lives of guys like Schmidt and Zuckerberg on line 24/7, so that they can't even go to the John without everyone knowing if its #1 or #2. Let cameras, cell phones, video recorders, monitor the activities of their family and friends 24/7. Better yet turn the entire exercise into a reality TV show and give prizes for the best submissions.
I don't know why, but I have this feeling that all of a sudden they would begin to have a different perspective with regard to online privacy.
With this technology, its not just the FBI that you need to worry about. It may be a corporation, a criminal data mining ring, other countries, real Al Qieda, etc.
But with Google every search and its timing, every site you visit and its timing, every location from which you access the net, every email you send and its timing and contents are all known to Google 24/7.
What is there to stop them from selling it to those who would do you harm?
Can the management of Google and Facebook be arrested as an accessory to a robbery or burglary if the thief or burglar uses both to monitor the activities of their victim using Google and Facebook technologies?
This is no longer a theoretical question. The number of robberies, burglaries, and assaults associated with crimes involving the use of these technologies is on the rise. These companies are making it easier and easier for criminals to prey on unsuspecting citizens.
The fact that plant take up more carbon dioxide doesn't make that much difference, since eventually all that they take up is later released when they die. Most may have noticed that many plants either die back in the winter or shed their leaves, so in actually the decomposition process can begin even before they die. When this happens these plant parts eventually oxidize via bacterial and fungal decomposition and return that fixed carbon back into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide. You can also add to this all the respiration and decomposition products of all organisms higher on the food chain which consume plants also as part of this decomposition process in that the carbon once fixed by plants is ultimately released back to the atmosphere when respiration and decomposition occur in animals of all kinds.
Although fixation increases the amount of carbon locked in vegetative material during the carbon cycle, unless it can occur at a NET rate that is greater than combined rates that decomposition (including that caused by clearing of vegetation for other uses), the rate of carbon dioxide releases by geological processes (volcanoes, mud pots, melting of permafrost, weathering of carbonate rocks, etc) and the rate at which fossil fuels are burned, the atmosphere will over time continue to contain ever higher concentrations of carbon dioxide.
There is no question that plants over millions of years can profoundly affect the composition of the atmosphere, just as there is no question that geological processes such as carbonate deposition and sedimentation and compaction can also influence the composition of the atmosphere. However, it takes them millions if not tens or hundreds of millions of years to do so. The cited article does absolutely nothing to refute this well known fact and obvious fact, that it is the relative rates of these processes and not simply their magnitude that is of importance with respect to atmospheric composition. The issue of relevance to planetary heating is the RELATIVE RATES at which plants do fix carbon dioxide as compared to phenomena that add carbon dioxide back to the atmosphere (decomposition, geologic outgassing, weathering of carbon-bearing strata, and human fossil fuel consumption).
Unfortunately, humans are simply pumping out far more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere far faster than any natural processes can counteract it in NET effect (about 33,000,000,000 tons of carbon dioxide per year). In 200 years humans have now reversed what the natural mechanisms of climate forcing have done in the past 840,000 years. Consequently, global temperatures are rising and will continue to rise and rise at rates unprecedented in the geological record until we stop burning fossil fuels. This is what so bothers the fossil fuels industry with Al Gore and why they pay so much to vilify him. It is an inconvenient truth.
The scary thing about people on this site who are looking for other excuses to believe that carbon dioxide production is not the culprit are people who presumably spend their time writing software that other people use. It seems odd that folks with a programmer's background would spend their time looking for alternate explanations that don't come even close to explaining temperature variability anywhere near in magnitude to that known to be the effect of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
This is analogous to a programmer seeking to optimize the speed of coding ignoring those segments of his code that are the slowest and instead looking ways to speed up those segments of code that are known to be the fastest. Its worrisome to think that these guys are actually writing code for production. It is as if they want their CPU's to take longer, just so they can support their ideology by having the CPU's work longer, use more energy and thus contribute relatively more to global warming. It leads to the obvious question, can global climate deniers actually make good programmers?