Santorum: The hoax of Global Warming

uncarollo wrote:
On Feb 8, 5:01 am, wrote:

""JONATHAN HAIDT: Our minds evolved not just to help us find the truth
about how things work. If you're navigating through a landscape, sure,
you need to know, you know, where the dangers are, where the
opportunities are. But in the social world, our minds are not designed
to figure out who really did what to whom. They are finely tuned
navigational machines to work through a complicated social network, in
which you've got to maintain your alliances, and your reputation.

That is what monkeys and apes do. Humans have evolved beyond that, or
at least the conservatives have.

So you honestly believe that only conservatives (your definition of
conservative) have perfect reason, are responsible, hard working,
always make the right informed decisions? Perfect angels are they? Can
never make mistakes? I guess then that your kind have a monopoly on
God, goodness and perfection? ("Gott Mit Uns", a famous saying of the
3rd Reich).

If people would stop demonizing each other and just listen, perhaps
they would discover some value in what each have to say. Used to be
there were more than just far out right wing and far out left wing in
our political system, but the moderates have been weeded out, and the
nation is now poorer because of it. Compromise is no longer possible??

If you think the diluted conservatives you call liberals are far out left
wingers you're just as out of touch as WSnell.

On Feb 7, 7:51*pm, " wrote:
oriel36 wrote :

You should try to read the daily dynamic from that graph as
temperatures see-saw through the day and the fact that I have to do
this in the 21st century demonstrates where the real crisis is.No
offence to the politicians in any country,they already caught the
sentiment of the wider population but that now leaves climate science
in ruins which is not such a bad thing considering it can be built
from scratch and free of modelers and meddlers.

good idea...link your goofy assed ideas with santorun...

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Santorum&l=1

I don't have poor ideas and even if some readers are slow to catch
on,there are a number of things which have caught on even without
proper attribution.For instance,in 2005 there was no indication of
rotational influences on crustal evolution and motion and the science
was settled on 'convection cells',our own Chris Peterson adequately
expressed the prevailing opinion and the following post is not meant
to show him up,quite the opposite,as he remains one of the few who
does not act like a snake and defends his views -

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.a...f72bc79a6a8500

Today as rotation makes it into wider circulation as a mechanism for
crustal dynamics they throw the kitchen sink at it rather than go
through the principles who led to its inclusion as the mechanism with
the highest probability for explaining crustal evolution/motion and
the 26 mile spherical deviation of the planet.The same may happen to
climate studies as a modification for the explanation of the seasons
and the distinction from global climate is long overdue so while the
details for differential rotation were worked out mostly in the
geology forum,to a large extent the large modification for climate
happened in this forum and is still happening.

It appears I have thought more of the readers here than they have
thought of themselves and that has been disappointing even as things
get accepted in the wider world.

On Feb 8, 2:29*pm, Mike Collins wrote:

If people would stop demonizing each other and just listen, perhaps
they would discover some value in what each have to say. Used to be
there were more than just far out right wing and far out left wing in
our political system, but the moderates have been weeded out, and the
nation is now poorer because of it. Compromise is no longer possible??

If you think the diluted conservatives you call liberals are far out left
wingers you're just as out of touch as WSnell.- Hide quoted text -

Sorry, I don't understand what you are trying to say.

My point originally was that in today's contentious atmosphere, nobody
listens to anybody, and both camps have been driven to opposite sides.
How then does a rational scientist perform his proper function in
society? Scientists cannot get their point across because people do
not want to understand difficult subjects, they want easy
bumpersticker answers (like "Coal keeps the lights on"). People do not
understand why they should care that the glaciers in the Andes are all
melting and will be gone in 50 years. We scientists must do a better
job of educating the public and making a case for our side.

In politics anyone can lie about anything and not be held accountable.
In science, regardless of how a particular scientist feels about his
particular theory, there are others out there that will hold him
accountable. It's called peer review, and you really cannot ignore it.
In politics one can lie and cheat and hide behind his group and call
the others evil. And the group will defend him to the hilt, regardless
of the actual truth. That is human nature.

On Feb 8, 8:53*pm, uncarollo wrote:


We scientists must do a better
job of educating the public and making a case for our side.

In politics anyone can lie about anything and not be held accountable.
In science, regardless of how a particular scientist feels about his
particular theory, there are others out there that will hold him
accountable. It's called peer review, and you really cannot ignore it.

Peer review indeed !,I need peer review to handle my poor proofreading
skills but in technical and historical matters there is no such
thing,there are a bunch of modelers running amok with computers the
same way they ran amok with watches back in the late 17th century.

You have unbelievable graphics and imaging power and for the first
time in human history there exists a group who have firmly convinced
themselves that they can control the planet's temperature which
represents intellectual suicide for any discipline relying on natural
temperature fluctuations from daily to really long term cycles.

If I could find a person capable of interpreting a daily temperature
graph reflecting the daily motion of the Earth I would consider it a
minor miracle and considering this is actually the 21st century makes
it all the more dismaying.Anyone here want to be among the world's
first climate scientists by concluding that daily temperature
fluctuations keep in step with the number of rotations in 4 years ? -

http://prairieecosystems.pbworks.com...0variation.jpg

'We' scientists indeed !,none of our astronomical ancestors would
believe their efforts would end with a race who imagines that the moon
rotates because of the conclusion of a single individual like
Newton.Obviously you can do it and can maintain these things without
the slightest sense of responsibility so forget the cult ideology of
'saving the planet' from ourselves,humanity has found the biggest
problem to be among its own.

On Wed, 8 Feb 2012 12:53:04 -0800 (PST), uncarollo
wrote:

My point originally was that in today's contentious atmosphere, nobody
listens to anybody, and both camps have been driven to opposite sides.
How then does a rational scientist perform his proper function in
society? Scientists cannot get their point across because people do
not want to understand difficult subjects, they want easy
bumpersticker answers (like "Coal keeps the lights on"). People do not
understand why they should care that the glaciers in the Andes are all
melting and will be gone in 50 years. We scientists must do a better
job of educating the public and making a case for our side.

You are right about the important role of scientists in educating the
public, and about how much better that could be done. But I don't
think it is correct to say "nobody listens to anybody". The social
environment is not symmetric. Outside of political bodies, there's
little doubt that those who self-identify as progressive are more open
to hearing scientific ideas, and generally have better education and
better critical thinking skills. But they aren't the problem, are
they? The question is, how can scientists teach those with poor
critical thinking skills? Those whose dogma overrides even examining
new ideas? Is it even possible to do so?

On Feb 8, 9:40*pm, Chris L Peterson wrote:

Those whose dogma overrides even examining
new ideas? Is it even possible to do so?

So,how is the settled science on 'convection cells' going these
days ?.

Despite the constant drumbeat about 'predictions',people generally
like interpretation much better and those of an intense faith have
always understood the difference between predicting from
interpretation and predicting for its own sake -

"Prophets in the modern sense of the word have never existed …Every
honest man is a prophet and he utters his opinion both of private and
public matters -thus if you go on so the result is so. He never says
such a thing shall happen let you do what you will. A prophet is a
seer not an arbitrary dictator" William Blake

If you understood that the Earth rotates once in 24 hours you can
predict that the temperature will go up and down within those 24
hours,excepting local variations,if you conclude that the Earth
rotates 1465 times in 1461 days,and this is where your predictive Ra/
Dec system gets you,you predictions for daily temperature fluctuations
will fail.Had you interpreted the Ra/Dec system correctly you would
have understood its limitations and especially when it comes to
predictions/modeling and this goes all the way back to Isaac's agenda
which got the whole thing going.

uncarollo wrote:
On Feb 8, 2:29 pm, Mike Collins wrote:

If people would stop demonizing each other and just listen, perhaps
they would discover some value in what each have to say. Used to be
there were more than just far out right wing and far out left wing in
our political system, but the moderates have been weeded out, and the
nation is now poorer because of it. Compromise is no longer possible??

If you think the diluted conservatives you call liberals are far out left
wingers you're just as out of touch as WSnell.- Hide quoted text -

Sorry, I don't understand what you are trying to say.

My point originally was that in today's contentious atmosphere, nobody
listens to anybody, and both camps have been driven to opposite sides.
How then does a rational scientist perform his proper function in
society? Scientists cannot get their point across because people do
not want to understand difficult subjects, they want easy
bumpersticker answers (like "Coal keeps the lights on"). People do not
understand why they should care that the glaciers in the Andes are all
melting and will be gone in 50 years. We scientists must do a better
job of educating the public and making a case for our side.

In politics anyone can lie about anything and not be held accountable.
In science, regardless of how a particular scientist feels about his
particular theory, there are others out there that will hold him
accountable. It's called peer review, and you really cannot ignore it.
In politics one can lie and cheat and hide behind his group and call
the others evil. And the group will defend him to the hilt, regardless
of the actual truth. That is human nature.

What I am saying is that all the people who you call extreme left wingers
would be perfectly at home in the British conservative party.

Until you educate your population better and control the excesses of the
media you have no chance of getting the two sides of the global warming
argument speaking rationally to each other. You need to change your society
to do this and society is moving towards confrontation and prejudice and
away from compromise.
You can't ignore peer review but the deniers see peer review as a
conspiracy. Religion teaches people to think six impossible things before
breakfast and religion has such a hold in your society that the rational
majority will be pushed around by those, like the tea party who are
irrational but enthusiastic.
But there is a hope.
When energy too expensive people will change their habits. But by then it
may be too late.

On Feb 8, 5:04*pm, Mike Collins wrote:
uncarollo wrote:


My point originally was that in today's contentious atmosphere, nobody
listens to anybody, and both camps have been driven to opposite sides.
How then does a rational scientist perform his proper function in
society? Scientists cannot get their point across because people do
not want to understand difficult subjects, they want easy
bumpersticker answers (like "Coal keeps the lights on"). People do not
understand why they should care that the glaciers in the Andes are all
melting and will be gone in 50 years. We scientists must do a better
job of educating the public and making a case for our side.

In politics anyone can lie about anything and not be held accountable.
In science, regardless of how a particular scientist feels about his
particular theory, there are others out there that will hold him
accountable. It's called peer review, and you really cannot ignore it.
In politics one can lie and cheat and hide behind his group and call
the others evil. And the group will defend him to the hilt, regardless
of the actual truth. That is human nature.

What I am saying is that all the people who you call extreme left wingers
would be perfectly at home in the British conservative party.

Until you educate your population better and control the excesses of the
media you have no chance of getting the two sides of the global warming
argument speaking rationally to each other. You need to change your society
to do this and society is moving towards confrontation and prejudice and
away from compromise.
You can't ignore peer review but the deniers see peer review as a
conspiracy. Religion teaches people to think six impossible things before
breakfast and religion has such a hold in your society that the rational
majority will be pushed around by those, like the tea party who are
irrational but enthusiastic.
But there is a hope.
When energy too expensive people will change their habits. But by then it
may be too late.-

Well, I'm not calling anybody an extreme leftist.

However, you sent us Rupert Murdoch, so thanks for nothing.

uncarollo wrote:
On Feb 8, 2:29 pm, Mike Collins wrote:

If people would stop demonizing each other and just listen, perhaps
they would discover some value in what each have to say. Used to be
there were more than just far out right wing and far out left wing in
our political system, but the moderates have been weeded out, and the
nation is now poorer because of it. Compromise is no longer possible??
If you think the diluted conservatives you call liberals are far out left
wingers you're just as out of touch as WSnell.- Hide quoted text -

Sorry, I don't understand what you are trying to say.

I think the point he is trying to make is that US politics is strongly
skewed to the right compared to the available world political spectrum
which in most established democracies covers a far wider range. The US
mainstream "left" is left of centre in most of the rest of the world.

Viewed from outside it seems the two US political blocks of the bipolar
disorder represent primarily "corporate America and the filthy rich" in
the case of Repugnicans and "ambulance chasing lawyers and a different
subset of the filthy rich" in the case of Demonrats. Both parties are
mainly concerned with obtaining wealth and power for their politicians
and doing the bidding of lobbyists and their wealthy financial backers.
How else will they raise the money for their next election campaign?

The two parties have become so paranoid about the other that there is no
middle ground and each side merely runs incredibly expensive, corrosive
and destructive attack adverts on TV against their opponents. The GOP
candidates are even doing this against each other now - whatever
happened to *positive* visions of the future, targets and goals?

My point originally was that in today's contentious atmosphere, nobody
listens to anybody, and both camps have been driven to opposite sides.

With a large gap in the middle in any sensible democracy a new party
would form from disaffected centrist members of both of the old
established parties to claim the sensible middle ground, but for some
reason this hasn't happened. Instead Americans have gone for the extreme
ultraviolet fringe (excuse me using the UK political colour scheme) of
Kookie conservatism in the Tea Party and Religious Right.

How then does a rational scientist perform his proper function in
society? Scientists cannot get their point across because people do
not want to understand difficult subjects, they want easy
bumpersticker answers (like "Coal keeps the lights on"). People do not
understand why they should care that the glaciers in the Andes are all
melting and will be gone in 50 years. We scientists must do a better
job of educating the public and making a case for our side.

Problem is that complicated arguments do not make 10s soundbites or
bumper stickers and you have a scientifically illiterate population and
they elect equally unsuitable lawmakers. They have the attention span of
goldfish and arguments have to be dumbed down to that lowest common
denominator to have any effect. Politicians can do this trick very well
indeed and unfortunately scientists cannot.

In politics anyone can lie about anything and not be held accountable.

That is a strangely American phenomena. In the UK the government of the
day is held accountable by Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition and the
politicians are nothing like as polarised and hate filled as your lot.
Some oppositions don't make a good fist of it but they do their best.

Having three political parties, two main ones and one sat in the middle
of the see-saw seems to make for much more sensible government. That way
if one of the main parties makes a big enough mistake the smallest party
holding the balance of power gets a chance at government in a coallition
(as happened at the last election in the UK).

In science, regardless of how a particular scientist feels about his
particular theory, there are others out there that will hold him
accountable. It's called peer review, and you really cannot ignore it.

Even in politics most countries use presentation of the facts, rational
argument and debate to a larger extent. Unfortunately US politics has
got itself stuck in a rut where lies and deceit are common currency and
paralysing the whole system of government is the aim of "opposition".

In politics one can lie and cheat and hide behind his group and call
the others evil. And the group will defend him to the hilt, regardless
of the actual truth. That is human nature.

It doesn't help that politics in the US is all about money.

The guy with the deepest pockets will most likely win the GOP candidacy.
Remind me what is his burn rate for "attack" adverts in the Florida
campaign - $15M/month was mentioned over here recently.

Santorum sounds like he should be in a sanitorium (along with Ron Paul).

Regards,
Martin Brown

Two things I want to add he

1) Man did fine without science for many thousands of years. With science,
indirectly you have created several sceneros that will eventually cause
society to be doomed to failu a) increasing the lifespan of the
population; b) polluted Earth far beyond what would have been done without
science; c) destroyed the fabric of society- the family- by aiding the
movements that do not believe in a Supreme Being; d) refusing to entertain
any ideas or even evidence that may fall outside of the scientific method
but have definite validity. There are other examples, but these points are
the biggest.

With (a), you have managed to produce a society counterproductive to your
goal with the creation of many health problems, overpopulation and lack of
space available for the ailing/ elderly, and pushing monetary budgets beyond
limits. What was the average lifespan of human beings 1,000 years ago?
Don't forget that you have also helped produce superbugs, such as MRSA, a
once easily controlled organism in normal "staff" form, that now barely
reponds to the strongest antibiotics, something else you have helped create,
and such creation has now made even the more common bacteria very resistant
to. And don't forget the insecticide resistance that has develped due to
scientific study and experimentation.

With (b), you told us that nuclear energy was safe and people well trained
to prevent disasters. You developed purified forms of uranium and
plutonium, only to be scattered across the countryside and airborne
contamination throughout the world. Also, let us not forget weapons
deveopment beyond the simple atomic bomb to make the world "safer". How
much cancer has been created as a result of atomic testing/ worldwide atomic
disasters? Yet you justify it in the name of "science".

With (c), you have insisted that religion be separated from the schools and
made sure that every kid owns or uses an I-pod and PC or laptop, whether or
not it benefits his "education". You have wasted billions of dollars to
make this point. Simple prayer, re-education of proper morality at home,
and a firm belief in the Almighty would have saved billions.

With (d), you propagate "evidence" that a "big bang" created this whole
thing, and you expect the population to believe this without physical
evidence. Then you wonder why such a population dismisses you when they ask
you to entertain the concept of God.

I sit wondering what would happen if we did away with TVs, I-pods, PC's,
cars, and science. Is society truly better off with all of these things?
Or are we just kidding ourselves? These are the questions.