You apparently didn’t read the post very carefully. I was making the example that in the absence of evidence, and speculation we make is going to be less about fact and more about our own biases. So you think it’s because “reality has a well-known liberal bias”, and therefore scientists are likely to be liberals. On the other hand, a conservative might say that liberals are attracted to scientific academia because they can stay in their ivory tower and work on idealized plans without having to deal with reality.
Which one’s right? Probably neither one. The example I posted of the big discrepancy between electrical and mechanical engineers suggests that what’s going on is a lot more subtle.
Who was right about the threat posed by Saddam’s wmds Sam?
Was it your right-wing fantasizers, or liberals who regularly deal with reality?
A little humility on your part on this issue, might be called for.
Not that anyone expects such from you anymore.
You also seem to go out of the way to read even a single phrase without care.
Your points are good rhetorically, but indeed we are dealing with evidence, so far in the previous examples pointed in your previous posts you are dead wrong regarding the evidence. In the echo chambers of right wing sources (and I’m on record of also busting the heads of woo-woos that come from the left) and media, I continue to see a gross disregard of evidence and attempts to twist past and current research to fit the right wing “reality”.
The Register, where the post appeared, is full of engineers and computer scientists. So yes, even they can have trouble with reality.
Like the science reporter mentions in the video, it is no wonder that people (specially right wingers) complain on the millions of dollars spent on scientific research when all you need is 5 minutes and a pocket calculator to misinterpret the evidence and data, it was beautifully worked out by the contributor to the Register, but he was wonderfully wrong.
And then we see misleaders like Marc Morano and Anthony Watts making more hay about this and then right wing blogs repeat it with no corrections whatsoever and eventually their now bullshit (as it is clear anyone serious enough would had caught the mistake) is eaten by guys like you Sam.
The big difference remains, one can find indeed examples of some Democrats in power with woo-woo ideas, but it is limited on their scope. In the Republican side virtually all are going for woo-woo ideas and the worse thing it is: they have the power to impose them or to at least stop research that inconveniently continues to demonstrate that it is woo-woo in what they believe.
First of all, I’m not sure why you’re attacking me on global warming, since I agree with the basic science of it.
Second, opposition to global warming by conservatives probably has less to do with the science and more to do with opposing liberalism, since the liberals from the very start tied global warming together with big government, liberal solutions.
Third, this issue perhaps illustrates the divide between scientists and engineers, practicality vs theory. For as much as the conservatives have denied the reality of global warming, the liberals have denied the reality that there are no good solutions to the problem. For as much as conservatives deny the basic science, liberals hand-wave away the real engineering and political problems inherent in their plans.
I’ve tried to bring these issues up on this board many times, only to be greeted by silence from liberals. I never get an answer when I point out that cap and trade in one country or one state is useless if its only effect is to drive energy-consuming industry to other locations. The problems with cap and trade as it is conceived today are many, and they are completely ignored by the left. ‘Green Jobs’ was glommed onto as a ‘have your cake and eat it too’ solution, despite the fact that it was a complete con job and never made economic sense.
The liberals have always been in denial about the inherent difficulties of engineering alternative energy solutions. They bought into the corn ethanol charade despite there being plenty of evidence that it was at best useless and would likely make the problem worse. They ignore engineers’ pleas about the difficulty of scaling wind and solar energy up to the level where it can make up more than a fraction of the world’s energy. And liberals have scare-mongered nuclear power way past any point of scientific or engineering evidence, thus helping to shut down the only technology we know of that has a chance of breaking the fossil fuel economic equation. They continue to make claims about various dangers of nuclear power despite reams of engineers presenting evidence that the fears are overblown or that real solutions now exist to solve or ameliorate existing concerns.
Liberals also tend to ignore hard-headed analysis like cost-benefit equations when looking to regulate industry and public life. They’ll advocate regulations that make no sense whatsoever in terms of cost and benefit.
In economics, liberals tend to ignore well-established theories and evidence, such as the value of free trade, the cost to jobs of high minimum wages, the deadweight loss of taxation. They’ll glom onto any contrarian paper written by a left-wing institute just as fast as conservatives will glom onto an anti-global warming paper put out by a right-wing institute.
It wasn’t conservatives or libertarians who tried to stop the launch of the Cassini mission on the idiotic grounds that its tiny nuclear RTG posed a threat to humanity.
So let’s not be too quick to climb up on your reality-based high horse.
After so many posts on the matter I have to say ‘piffle’.
It does not matter how much you claim how much you agree with the basic science, just like before you still come up with “consider this” items from denier sources.
This is very ignorant since the issue was identified since the 50’s:
So no ,it was not invented by Al Gore.
No plans can be seriously implemented as long as there is no change in policy.
I’m on record of also saying that some cap and trade plans are unfair, so I do not know who are you talking about here.
Same here, I’m not that liberal. So far you are batting 0 against what I’m saying.
And what that has to do with the science and evidence that you continue to ignore in this thread?
I have found in my experience and on recent discussions that NIMBY is the biggest reason, not liberals.
As you and Cantor are demonstratively wrong once gain on your points regarding climate change I have to say that I do not want to follow you guys on your ignorant horse.
Wrong doesn’t count, as long as you’re a conservative.
As long as your mindset is OK, the problems always lie elsewhere.
That’s part of why W. Is still polling over 80% with goppers and the associated tea partayers.
The problems is aptly yclept, it is global warming. Hence, it follows that any solution is almost certain to be global in nature, involving a form and degree of international cooperation previously unimagined. Indeed, it would be a form of global government. And even if it were nothing more than a international agreement of like-minded souls, it would still be a form of “government”, in that people are behaving according to a predetermined set of options.
Certainly, no unilateral solution can be offered! Even if Canadian genius were to spring forth with a giant refrigerator that could function as a global air conditioner, how could she get permission to turn it on? Without a global agreement, a form of collective government, it isn’t possible.
You don’t like “big government”? OK, then, what’s your plan?
I got one, along the lines of “that’s so crazy, it just might work!”. Change ourselves. Change the people, create a social environment where people are openly committed to, and mutually supportive of, a simpler and less extravagant society. A turning away from loud, shiny expensive crap. A popular movement towards sustainable forms of production, packaging, shipping and consumption.
But conservatives aren’t going to like that any better, they want the impossible solution, they want to continue making money the same as always. As a general rule, when they say “government interference”, they don’t mean interstate highways for their product, they mean regulation that interferes with making a profit any way they can.
Everybody knew the SUV was a bad idea when it happened, it was flat obvious. We already had a pretty good idea about the crisis we were headed for in dependence of foreign oil, we knew we should be making more efficient engines and looking for alternatives. We even had to pass special legislation to make the SUV more attractive and legal. Great pains were taken, heaven and earth moved to do something stupid!
If we can’t challenge and change that sort of thinking in ourselves and others, we haven’t much chance.
It is neither. It has to do with protecting corporate financial interests and you know it damned fucking well, you lying sack of shit. Sometimes you’re right and sometimes you’re just wrong, but this time you’re lying.
Wow! You really believe that? You believe that all the opposition to global warming comes from ‘corporate financial interests’?
I know a lot of global warming skeptics. I don’t know of any who are in the back pocket of Big Oil or Big Industry.
I don’t deny that oil companies are spending money to oppose global warming. That’s what special interests do. They do it for liberal causes, and for conservative causes. That doesn’t mean everyone on that side is a shill for vested interests. It may be that special interests are trying to hijack an existing movement.
Everyone I know who opposes global warming also believes that if the liberals had their way, they’d use global warming as an excuse for everything from welfare (‘green jobs’), wealth redistribution, increased power for extra-national organizations, and funding for every pet liberal project under the sun. So they may honestly be skeptical about global warming, but their skepticism is a lot easier to maintain when denying global warming happens to coincide with their political beliefs. And liberals do the same thing. That’s what partisanship is.
Yes, “all,” in the sense that, regardless of the content of the actual arguments put forward, the opposition simply would not exist if those interests did not fear being adversely affected by any public-policy implication of ACC. And you believe that too. You’re a liar if you deny it.
Oh, yes, they are, even if they’re separated from said “back pocket” by several layers. Either you’re lying about the skeptics you know, or they’re lying to you, or they’re lying to themselves. The last is astonishingly easy to do in this area. Why, I bet neither intention nor brazil84 nor nilum nor Poptech even remembered to ask ExxonMobil for a raise this year.
Hell, Sam, it doesn’t need to be direct bribery, theres a whole bunch of ways to corrupt science, just like any other human endeavor.
Suppose you are in climate science at Major University. Say you have some plausible research inquiry in mind, one that might very well provide ammunition for global warming “skeptics”. Do you really think such a possibility will go begging for a grant, and be spurned?
You may recall, back when they were still trying to keep the public from believing that cigarettes caused lung cancer, there was a lot of research devoted to cancer-causing virus. Some in the life sciences found it rather surprising that so much research was devoted to the possibility of cancer being caused by viruses. Grant and research money fairly lept from the hands of public minded foundations, to further our knowledge.
Who knows but that a whole range of cancers might be caused by viruses! Why, maybe even lung cancer is caused by a virus! Really, we can’t be sure, now, can we? Not without lots more research! Years and years of research, just to be sure!
And some cancers are caused by viruses. But not very many. And not lung cancer.
Money is power, and knowledge is power. Money is more power. And maybe money can’t make knowledge shut up, but it can damn sure yell louder.
Global warming is the handwriting on the wall, and it does not say “Go right ahead on, business as usual, full speed ahead!”.
As mentioned before, this liberal is different, and demonstratively so, so stop using that stupid wide brush of yours.
Also, it is very likely that the global warming “skeptics” you know are only just as ignorant as you are. The truth is that calling them skeptics after swallowing tripe like the one from the Register, “What’s up With That” or “Climate Audit” or many of the right wing sources they are getting their “consider this” anti climate change points, they are not being skeptics, they are just being gullible.
And from that kind of gullible crowd we expect to get good ideas on how to deal with the issue? Unlikely when their basis for their inaction or weak solutions is to assume that the scientists are wrong on key research; or worse, that they are committing fraud.
As Barry Bickmore, geochemistry professor at Brigham Young University, an active Mormon, active Republican in his climate change blog can tell you, not all conservatives are gullible for anti-science BS.
I know a lot of people who like Lady GaGa, too, but that doesn’t mean that she is good. It means they genuinely like her, but she is bought and paid for by the recording industry. If you pay enough money to spread an erroneous position far and wide there will be quite a few people believing it.
Of course, if you pay enough money to propagandize a correct position, there will be quite a few people believing it for the wrong reasons, but it will still have the advantage of being correct.
So opposing global warming runs through exactly the same conservative ‘need to believe’ bullshit factory as Saddam’s WMD threat.
“It must be true/false because we want it to be true/false, and besides, if it’s not how we want it, that’ d mean the liberals are right.”
With a “philosophy” like that, I’d not be surprised to hear conservatives claim that king Canute’s feet never got wet.
How does one even ‘oppose’ global warming? The choice of language there is terrible. It’s like being opposed to feedback loops, or the orbit of Mars. Our feelings about the chosen issue have nothing to do with whether Mars will continue to orbit the sun, feedback loops cause speakers to squeel, or global warming trashes the forests of the Rockies. Reality is not ME based, and until conservatives manage to incorporate that fact into their world view, it will be rightly pointed out that reality has a liberal bias.
When was the last time you saw liberals blow a half a yrillion bucks, and kill half a million innocents over what was, at best, mistaken intelligence?
I suppose we could forgive and forget, eventually, but I’ll want to hear the right say a Lot of nice things about the Clinton administration FIRST.
Maybe Sarah Palin could take the initiative?
I think Lady Gaga is actually pretty good. I mean, yeah, her music is written-to-be-catchy glurge, but at least she writes it herself and doesn’t need Timbaland to compose her backing tracks.
Well, her backing music is good. Her singing – well, yes, technically she can sing well, she just chooses not to. Her lyrics – well, I try not to pay attention to Autotuned lyrics
Lyrics? You call those lyrics? Kids these days, wear their hair and their clothes all weird. And that so called “music”! Just a bunch of noise, you ask me! Kitty Wynette! Tammy Wells! Shelbyville!
