ParanoiA

I don't like the idea of 16 year olds voting. In theory, they've only received half of their high school education - half of history - half of economics - just half of the story. I'm not even sure I like 18 year olds voting. Voting is one of those things that bugs me about americans. They can't wait to exercise their right to vote - but they almost never exercise their right to know what they're voting about. They just get all passionate about it because Rage Against the Machine says the Bush administration is bad... I think that's why I like Sortition to draft candidates. But then I also like direct democracy, for a psuedo-veto kind of relationship. I guess I'm doomed either way...

You still don't get it. All you said was Person A gets paid by Company B. That doesn't prove guilt in any shape or form, yet you keep pointing at this stuff as if it does. No, you have inferred a motivation based on paychecks. You don't know what their motivation is. They might have a big issue with junk science and are highly suspicious of what they believe to be "fad science" - I know I do, and I don't make any money to say either way. That doesn't make them wrong in the least. It makes them biased - just like you.

No, no. Your conclusion is NOT fact. Your conclusion is based off of the money trail - not the science. Person A makes money from Company B, sooooo they must be guilty - that's the baseless conclusion you're drawing. I don't do that to GW advocates, because that's political crap. I'm more interested in the science - that's where the truth is. By your argument, anyone being provided money from someone else is guilty. That works both ways. Only poor, starving, non-profit scientists are for real? Ok..so let me get this straight...they are in a conspiracy, a multi-organizational conspiracy, to spread disinformation? So...how is that only applicable to them? The same can't be said of "peer reviews" and your current process of validity? Oh of course not. Accusation without proof only works when you're pointing your finger at some kind of "business", like the oil business. Well, since you require no facts, only traces of money, then I guess it's safe to assume Carbon Offset companies are part of the GW conspiracy. Just follow the money. Most scientists are employed by somebody, so that proves their guilt too. Gee, is there anyone left? But that's the paradox. There is no good science if it disagrees with you. You just find out who pays them their salary, and then assume their guilt - whether or not they're actually guilty of anything. Since you probably earn a paycheck from somebody, you're obviously guilty as well. Whoever pays you, has an opinion on GW and therefore "pursuades" you to be their advocate. Presuming guilt is fun, no doubt, but takes the credibility out of the discussion. SkepticLance is the only one being genuine about the GW debate. Since you can't beat the science, then you beat the scientist - by association anyway.

Again, you've made associations but no point! You know what? I noticed that the QT clerk by my house smokes cigarettes when on break. Now if that doesn't prove GW is bull, I don't know what does. Make sense? I didn't think so. That's about as much sense as pointing out that person A is a GW denier and was also a second hand smoke denier. Who cares? That doesn't make him wrong. You need to prove that what he says or advocates is wrong. Makes perfect sense to me that someone who suspects "fad science" is probably going to be interested in stuff like second hand smoke, global warming, and etc. If he believes that sort of thing, he's going to be available for railing against it, now isn't he?

I thought the clarification of nationalism versus patriotism was the best. You're a patriot until you finally cross the line to nationalist. I suspect some, maybe more, might not realize when they cross the line. Maybe it's like porn. You can't really define it, but you know it when you see it...

I'm not a smoker and I can't stand the ban. It's an annoyance law. That's all it is. I can understand cracking down on non-smoking areas, or perhaps requiring certain construction features, ventilation requirements or something for the smoking areas - including making it an area that isn't required for someone to work in. Or, perhaps that can be discussed and negotiated upon hiring - like a pay differential for working in that area. But none of that was considered - it was banned entirely. That's crap. That's the majority trampling on the freedoms of the minority. "We don't smoke, and we don't think you should smoke". That's what the law is, nothing more. Personally, fat, grease, sugar - all unnecessary ingredients that kill you. To look at fat people eat makes me sick and some of them have odor. Teaches my kids bad eating habits too. There should be a fat-free section of the restaraunt, or a ban on all unhealthy foods in restaraunts. These foods are horrible for people, and more people die from them than smoking. I think most people will welcome the ban. They know they should quit eating junk food and this would be a great incentive to do so. If they get that desparate for a bag of chips or some kind of junkie food they can always go outside. I'm sure many people only eat when they're out and anxious, so this will be a major reduction in their overall exposure to junk foods.

But what does it matter even if that's true? If 2+2=4 but I pay someone to say it equals 13, that doesn't make it so and is easily refuted on scientific grounds - or mathmatical ground in that case. I think SkepticLance has pointed that out quite nicely. Following the money trail is cute and all, but you're going to punish folks for their association and discredit good science that otherwise, apparently, can't be refuted. Besides, I've heard more conspiracy crap in terms of the GW advocates - not the deniers. Or, could it be that this is the underdog forcing the fad driven masses to balanced reporting? Is this ExxonMobil's way of fighting back against a hypocritical, fashionable, oil hating public (well, oil hating until they find out how many of their electronic gizmos are made from it....)? Just pointing this out because your point in the above statement depends on the automatic "guilt association" with oil companies. So much for innocent until proven guilty huh? How about first explaining how it is that a company can invest money into research for self preservation automatically equalls corruption? Or are we just operating on assumptions? This doesn't sound very scientific, in my opinion - circumvents the method entirely. I guess that's ok for some scientists to do. I'm more with SkepticLance on this kind of thing. How about a two way street with the whole truth thing? Just a suggestion.... If we're going to presume guilt with association and money, then how about applying that to GW advocates as well? There's a ton of money in it, and I'll bet if we trace the money trail with "Carbon Offset" businesses, we might just find our culprit...like Al Gore holding stock in that business. Gee, I could very easily just presume his guilt using your "money = evil" deduction. Or, a campaign of balance trying to counter the disinformation on climate change - perhaps being pimped by scientists who stand to profit from the carbon offset business?? Every one of your arguments can be turned around because they are not fact - they are speculative political fodder. This is why SkepticLance keeps trying to keep you "on the science". That's where the truth is. It isn't accurate to presume guilt and presume disinformation when contrary POV's surface around open debates. Beat the science. The motivations won't matter, and will be realized when the science behind it is debunked. Anyway, I look forward to reading more posts on the science. This is good stuff.

That's right...which is why I didn't refer to them.

Because, to me, it's akin to the president believing marshmellows grow on trees. It's not that it's inherently bad, but rather indicative of a non-logical, or irrational person. I don't trust matters of national security with folks like that. Evolution isn't something to believe in, anymore than choosing to believe the sun doesn't exist, so those who ignore that have lost deductive reasoning credibility with me.

On the top CO2 chart there's a greater increase starting about the point 500 years up to 40 years ago, than there is the last 50 years. What's up with that? I noticed the sea level chart is in metres, but wouldn't a smaller metric be more accurate and useful? Like centimeters or something? I'm not even sure meters is all that honest of a scale. On the bottom chart...what's with those two colder spikes in the last 10 years?

Well yeah...if the politician doesn't agree with science, obviously that's when people get concerned. Science, as a study, doesn't have a party or a "point of view", it either is or isn't. I think you're confusing lack of prudence for lack of knowledge.

Because she's a politician first, intellectual second. And almost all of them are. This, is actually a rational thinking process that I wish would be preferred by all rather than the political mudslinging and distortion we see primarily. Incidentally, I'm not as scared of her like I used to be. If she gets elected, I'm not that disappointed.

Yes it matters. I'd prefer my president not shrink and shuck the complications and logic of science down to the childish simplicity of "god did it"... I would however accept a president that suggests the idea of god in some form. There would be nothing concerning about that.

Not to mention, there is no market for "economy schooling" in the lower grade levels. Economy education is public schools at the moment. Existing private schools are going to be geared for higher level education, discipline or whatever. In other words, I don't see anyone directly competing with what public school offers. They're competing in quality and prestige.

Good point...noted. But that's underestimating humans isn't it? What about half of the world's arsenol of nuclear weapons detonated at once? Wouldn't that alter the climate? I'm not sure it's arrogant at all to think we can effect climatic changes. But your .0023 figure sure makes me wonder how much we do.

And this is where I'm at. I believe in GW but I'm not convinced. And it doesn't matter too much since we need to ditch oil and there's a long list of practical reasons not to pollute and waste. There's at the very least enough consensus to warrant pursuing a solution. But there's not. This isn't a handfull of Flat Earth jokers, there's a significant chunk of GW deniers. Sure, we can just nod our heads and be the sheeple you want us to be and default to the majority. But that's not critical thinking. Oftentimes the majority is wrong. In fact, I always get suspicious when the majority of people believe a certain way. Makes me want to check out the other way. Not true. I didn't read this thread because my head is in the sand. I read this thread because I get more out of reading a debate. Numbers, logic, disputes, all there. Very informative.

Yeah the same-sex marriage and death penalty would be hard for me to ignore, although I guess you're never going to agree with someone a hundred percent. Well I'll keep an eye out for some interviews and see. If I get the same impression, I'll probably stick with the libertarian candidate.

Well, keep this in the context of my original point on the matter...which was that an educated public can force businesses to be ethical using their purchase power. In theory, if the public really did do this kind of thing, then I doubt drastic price cuts would rule the day, although I'm sure you would see it and it would have some success. I completely agree. My only reservation at this point is how realistic that is. I don't want to deceive myself into believing 20 small businesses can match the job of one huge business if it's unworkable. Economics is not my strong point so I'm not sure.

A few things I noticed scanning through this thread... 9 folks appear to in the GW believer category 3 appear not to be (wasn't sure about waitforufo) If I've done my math right, that's 75% consensus on GW in terms of scientists in this thread. This is just a forum, but, that's not an impressive consensus to me. (I wonder what the consensus was on the 2000K bug) Anyway, Bascule and others has made the point that most GW deniers are being paid to do so or don't know what they're talking about and etc.. But Jackson and Icemelt seem to have their stuff together on the subject and have done their homework. After reading everyone's opinion I'm still confused as to what to believe. If I just read KLB's posts, I'd be convinced. If I just read Icemelt's posts, I'd be convinced there's nothing to worry about. But after reading all posts, the jury is still out... This is why people like me get frustrated at people like Bascule who insist we're "deniers" and that the evidence is overwhelming and there is no legitimate skepticism. That we should "listen to the experts". Well, the experts still don't agree and we laymen have no way to distinguish which of you is the "right" expert. And please don't reply with pleas to read this and read that. These are the same kinds of articles and editorials that are disputed by experts. I could read every nature magazine on the rack, then Icemelt could blow them away with how they left out 'this' and left out 'that' and distorted facts and so forth - the kinds of things a layman cannot discern for himself.

1/ Agreed and never said otherwise. 2/ Because we don't care. Just keep making cool little gizmos, video games and reality TV... This can be corrected however.

Well, how exactly is he aligned with them? Is he aligned with protecting their rights or pushing their agenda? I'm asking because I really don't know. The obsession with the elimination of "god" from all things public seems to be a popular thing and I wouldn't accuse anyone trying to prevent that elimination as aligned with the right, although it would certainly appear that way.

Good post Haezed. Compete intra or internationally? Are we assuming that only big business can handle international trade? Can smaller businesses not cooperate together to emulate the shoes of big business, without the negative consequences of soulless ownership? I don't know how realistic that is... Yes, multiple human beings who's only shared interest is profit. All other interests are disputable and therefore lack any kind of enaction. The more owners, the less conscience, the more focus on profit only. I don't like the idea of legislation. I prefer market solution. First, I'd like to settle on whether they're truly bad or not. I see both sides, but with a bias to one. If they're truly a wart on Americas proverbial ass, then my solution has to do more with "awakening" the public and pursuading hearts and minds to reject it. Or, more accurately, reject the corporations that are actually bad - since they're not ALL going to be bad or evil. For instance, I've heard recently that more and more folks are insisting on "blood-less" diamonds, or whatever the hell they're called. They're being made fun of too, but that's the kind of action I like. We should do that. It may seem silly on the outset, but I like the implications of an educated public demanding ethical behavior from our businesses through the power of consumerism. Perhaps that's the only conscience that could be enacted on a corporation.

Yeah, Hillary vs Newt would be interesting. I like Newt. If nothing else, I like his sense of logic in his views. He seems like a Poindexter type - which I prefer.

You are correct. We'll require more than correllation and armchair psychological assessments that ignore all the facts except the ones that seem to validate their agenda. Two facts you still haven't addressed: 1) The violent american culture (which is responsible for the desire to murder and assault) 2) The balance of the system of government requires it You also have ignored that many of the gun laws you and Dak have presented are in place. Licenses are required for conceal and carry in 39 states, which also requires training. 2 states don't require it. The rest don't allow it. By the way, the same could be said of yourself, living in your head, fantasizing about americans emulating dirty harold...

Well, keep in mind, I'm not talking so much about how they "handle" the profits. I'm more concerned with how the profits are achieved. A corporation will walk all over some poor little country and exploit their people for profit, without concern. IMO, only corporations have the nerve to do it. But this is a great story, only if we ignore how they achieved it. I mean, I could invade a small country and enslave their people to make stuff super duper cheap. The mere fact they have revolutionized retail is not an indicator of good or bad - that is if people somewhere else, out of sight, out of mind, suffered or were exploited for it. I honestly don't know. Profit isn't worth it if we're kicking folks around and denying resources for most of the globe because we're all over here enjoying our plastics, automobiles, computers, electronic gizmos and etc and don't want to give them up. And it's easy to do when we don't have to look at them. Again, I don't know if that's really going on or not. I know it goes on to a certain extent, but I'm not sure how bad or insignificant it really is...