Pangloss

Guys, I'm not gonna ask nicely again on the ad hom, I'm just gonna start mashing the delete button. Move on, please. Actually it was a critique of the Israeli military, not Jewish socio-cultural behavior. At least that's how I read it. I see your point (and iNow's) but I'm really not inclined to dwell on it. He made a bad choice and he got "pwned". Let's move on.

But I've always seen politics in everything, so that's hardly anything new.

No, what I'm saying is that the list of those responsible for the bombing of the twin towers does NOT include the US, no matter how many people would like for it to be so. Put another way, no matter how eggregious our foreign policy, there simply are no circumstances under which two wrongs can make a right, so the US is not "partly to blame" for acts like 9/11, no matter how many Sean Penns or Noam Chomskys say it's so. Were we wrong to invade Iraq? I believe we were. Does that make us responsible for Al Qaeda in Iraq? I believe it does NOT. Al Qaeda in Iraq is responsible for Al Qaeda in Iraq. Those boys made up their own minds to blow people up. I'm not responsible for that poor decision. Could I do a better job producing a situation where that's less likely to happen? Absolutely -- I WANT that criticism because I want to do a better job of it next time. But am I to blame for their actions? No friggin' way. I'm all about changing our tune to produce a better world. If I'm going to hold others responsible for their mistakes, then I certainly have to hold us responsible for ours. And I support the notion of leading by example -- we should be out in front on global warming, not lagging pathetically behind, and the very same may be said of our foreign policy. But it's not our fault Iran has a nuclear weapons program, it's Iran's. It's not our fault North Korea has a nuclear weapons program, it's North Korea's. It's not our fault there's piracy off the coast of Somalia, it's Somalia's. It's not our fault there's terrorism in Iraq, it's the fault of those participating in it. 'Nuff said.

That's true, but they would never have had any problem with, say, an elected official wearing a cross, or a child asking her teacher what Shakespeare meant by "My words go up, my thoughts remain below; Words without thoughts ne'er to Heaven go." They even supported government funds going to religious institutions, so long as the purpose of that funding was beneficial to the public (e.g. soup kitchens) and not an attempt to convert new followers. Also the purpose of the Establishment Clause was to PROTECT the religious, so they could worship in peace. Not remove them from existence so society would not be plagued by the evils of organized religion.

We've discussed Mossadeq before (I've brought him up myself), and I think he's an interesting case, and perhaps we would have been better off today had we let him stay in power. Probably not; he or one of his successors would likely have just turned into a Saddam Hussein in the end. But more to the point, I grow weary of the notion that two wrongs make a right. In the end, Iran is responsible for its current situation. Nobody else. And history lessons mean nothing at the bargaining table -- every country has things that suck in its backstory. We'll either find common ground and peaceful means, or we won't. Iran has to set aside that hatred if it wants to be part of the international community. That simple.

I have no problem with any of that. I just think there's table-pounding going on by GW proponents/defenders as well, and unfortuantely that plays out as a lack of tolerance for any level of skepticism on any subject related to global warming. You say it's not about politics, but I completely disagree, I think this entire board, and everything we discuss here, 100% of the time, is politics. The vast majority of people who come in here, swansont, are here to TELL people something, not to listen to what other people have to say. That's political -- convincing other people that you're right and they're wrong. That's what we've been reduced to here at SFN when it comes to GW. We don't debate it. We evangelize it. And anybody who doesn't pay their obeisance at the altar is cast out. It's not QUITE useless, I admit. Users can still log in here and ask questions about global warming and receive scientifically valid (and polite, and helpful, and informative) answers. They can even raise questions and receive more answers. So long as they remain supplicants everything's fine, and that does have some value.

Yeah okay, when you pass the Kolinahr lemme know and I'll get out of your way.

I don't understand what the point of this history lesson is.

Well I dunno, for me the Solstice is kind of a year-round event.

According to a report tonight on The News Hour with Jim Lehrer, the first issue of Consumer Reports -- from 1936! -- warns of the dangers of lead in paint. And so does the December issue, 71 years later. Wow. I put this in politics because, doggone it, if that doesn't say something about the importance of government safety oversight and the ultimate irrelevence of consumer awareness, I don't know what does. (BTW, I started watching Lehrer again a few days ago when they began broadcasting in stunning 1080i HD. Not that HD really matters a whole lot with news shows, but the notice caught my eye, and I have to say I'd forgotten how thorough and absorbing their stories can be. They really do some great journalism on that show.)

The one area here where I'll have to disagree with these articles is in the area of NASA. Much of NASA's budget is very worthwhile, in terms of unmanned exploration of various places, and I'm even on-board with long-term manned exploration plans (none of which are currently budgeted). But most of that stuff is relative pennies. And we're only looking at, what, 3 or 4 billion-dollar shuttle launches in 2008? So where the heck is the other, I dunno, call it 10 BILLION DOLLARS going? Very frustrating as a taxpayer. Almost as annoying as the nine THOUSAND last-minute earmarks totalling something like 14 billion dollars that got added in at the last minute, some of which indicating nothing more than a place and an amount! Argh! But I digress. Obviously the point of this thread is that we're not spending enough money on research, and I completely agree. It's just incredibly frustrating to know that we could easily spend many TIMES as much as we currently spend on scientific research and still CUT taxes if it wasn't for all the pork and waste. (How many LHCs would the trillion-dollar war in Iraq pay for, I wonder?)

Yes. I think that, on a science site, under those circumstances, one should acknowledge that science may in actual fact be onto something and that you may be wrong. Yes, I do. I also think it's important that, on a science site, one should acknowledge that science may in actual fact be incomplete and require further study, that reasonable objections should be examined and, when not wholly disproven, taken into consideration when plans are made for the future. That has happened here, on both sides, and it's sometimes failed to happen here as well, on both sides.

The demonization word was mainly aimed at Dak for calling Lance a denier above. But I also think you do "soft" demonization in your efforts to step outside of the logical discussion (instead of just agreeing to disagree) by pointing out extremely debatable logical fallacies, and saying things like "You really just don't get it" or "Pangloss -- wow :doh:".

You mean "reek"? Ok, I appreciate the direct answer, and I respect your opinion on it, and I won't even take major disagreement with its accuracy, at least insofar as it pertains to myself. That's beacuse I think ALL of us are influenced by our political opinions, and their influence on this ostensibly (but not really) scientific discussion was manifest before I opened my mouth. But I agree that your data supports your general opinion. If you haven't received enough recognition of that fact, I'll happily address that by saying so. I guess the difference between you and I is that I think that having data support an opinion is not the same as having proof. And neither, apparently, does the IPCC. My only point here has been that skepticism is part of science, not its enemy, and when you guys demonize people like myself and SkepticLance, the religious right just laughs and sits back and relaxes, watching us do their work for them. I just think we can do better than that, that's all. You guys should EMBRACE SkepticLance, not bemoan the fact that his opinion "reeks". Shout his existence on our board from the highest mountaintop. Look at the skeptic we have in our midst, and how we listen to what he has to say! Look at how we answer him point by point, and acknowledge him when he's right, but make it clear when he's wrong! We know he's not Rush Limbaugh, he's something far more useful and important: An INTELLIGENT skeptic on global warming. That's an INCREDIBLY important thing. And look -- Global Warming STILL HOLDS UP! Holy cow! But hey, maybe it's just me.

Again, that can be interpreted two ways, so it's still semantics, iNow. And what Severian said to Mooeypoo was not anti-semitic, it was anti-Mooeypoo. I see no need for you to step in the mud and spread it around.

I wasn't going to say anything but I could hardly ignore being called out by name. Do you think SkepticLance or myself are global warming deniers, iNow?

Thanks for the infos. Not voting was probably his best option, politically speaking.

Let's knock off the ad hom, folks. I thought that was a cheap shot, Severian, even if Mooey and iNow were a bit rough on what was really just a semantical disagreement. Relax, guys. I think Severian's point is that saying that something is a "Christian value" doesn't mean that it belongs to Christians, but rather is an observation of what they believe. If it happens to coincide with another group's belief, and you want to also give it a higher-level definition, we can certainly do that as well. Some Christians do try to claim ownership of values, I agree, and that's wrong, I agree. But it's just as ridiculous to distort the phrase "Christian value" to always indicate ownership. The phrase has two potential meanings. English sucks that way sometimes. Get over it.

Nonsense, he didn't say that it was a "mass shared delusion", you put those words in his mouth. There's a huge difference between that and political correctness. And he's not a "denier" -- you're just labelling him one for your convenience. His many statements on GW directly contradict this, so you're just calling him a liar in a pretty way. Because what he said above is what I've been saying all along, that just because one member doesn't prove a point doesn't mean that point cannot be made. You people dance about like you've actually accomplished science, and even make that claim directly, when in fact what you've done is win a political debate, which is a completely different thing. That is a valid point, even if he is 100% wrong about its application, and you should acknowledge that and find the common ground we all agree on, instead of consistently browbeating and chastising and otherwise ostracizing this member for having such a politically incorrect opinion about something you're no more capable of PROVING than he is.

FINALLY Congress gets something done. The new bill calls for a raise in MPG to 35 by 2013, and includes a whole bunch of other measures (such as regulation on incandescent light bulbs) aimed at decreasing foreign dependency for oil. It also included 9,000 earmarks totaling a whopping $14 billion. I wonder how Ron ("Dr. No") Paul voted.

It should be a good career. Computer science programs are suffering low enrollments right now due to the popularity of "easier" programming-based curricula that focus on data-driven client-server apps and other "managed code" programming techniques. But managed code didn't appear out of thin air, and we need people to progress BEYOND what we're doing now and figure out what we're going to be doing ten years FROM now. Learn programming, yes, but then be ready to step back and look at what programmers do, how they do it, and (most importantly) how they could do it better. That's what we need, and lots of it. Good luck!

I can't help but wonder if this guy would've had to face the music (if he does have to face it!) if not for the student recording his behavior. As a teacher this makes me nervous -- I don't like students recording my lectures but I do permit it when asked, and I've never really formed a complete opinion on the subject. What do you all think?

If by "strange" you mean why I didn't immediately leap to the assumption that I would find information about an astrology question in a section titled "religion", I don't know the answer to that. Perhaps this is another example of how politically incorrect I am around here, or perhaps it's just an observation that I didn't think to open the FAQ, hit Control-F, type "astrology" and hit enter. Either way consider me appropriately chastised, which of course is absolutely necessary when responding to an insufficiently comforming atheist such as myself, so I quite understand the use of pejorative. And thank you (and Dak) for answering my question. And, by the way, proving my point about that question.

Right, you can save the image with a right-click, and then you have to host it yourself somewhere. Maybe so, but that's hardly evidence of their objectivity. I've seen people here post that John Edwards is too far to the right for them to vote on. And more to the point, the questions could easily be weighted, and done so in such a way as to reflect a specific ideology. And that's quite useful to special interest groups trying to make a specific point with lawmakers. After all, society is supposed to protect minorities from the will of the mob, right? All the better, then, if you can show the mob banging away at the door. At any rate, I still want to know what the deal is with that question about astrology. What direction does a belief in astrology suggest? And why?

Ironically I think in many cases he probably drove students away from his point of view through his zealous behavior. Amongst parents of former students there are claims of indoctrination, including one mother who claims she "lost her daughter" to this man's obsession. That strikes me as a bit absurd, and I think children are generally smarter than that. I wonder if maybe parents are concerned for the wrong reasons here. I would have the same objection if he spent the first 20 minutes of class ranting (to the same degree) about liberals and Michael Moore. I wonder if the parents would. But of course had that been the case then the man's fellow teachers and principle would've had him out of there in a heartbeat.