The Political Discussion Thread

[Col.Foley]

Foley, the whole climate gate thing was blown out of proportion those emails where 10 years old and the graph they were talking about was not meant to be taken as gospel. Yes they could have been more open about their data but they were not guilty of dishonesty.

Watch this video from 1:50 on and it will show what the scientists were actually doing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ab9EiJpCaR4

Well I think that scientists intentionally lying and manipulating information is actually pretty serious but maybe that is just me.

Why are there more liberals in these institutions though? And how do you know they were liberals when they joined? Also, I'm very sceptical about your theory on how testing somehow shows bias toward liberalism. I'm really not sure how an IQ test could have liberal bias given that all of the questions are objectively right or wrong, and tests in collage don't test intelligence at all, they test if you know the subject matter.



In the UK a college education is state funded until you're 19, and after that you pay, unless you're unemployed and then you can go for free on job seekers allowance. University you can either pay for yourself, or you can get a state loan that you don't pay back until you've finished your degree and are earning over a certain wage. It's a very social liberal system, and probably the reason why we have more young people earning degrees than any other country per captia.




That's simply not true. In fact scientific method depends on you holding no bias, and actively trying to prove theory wrong. It's only when that proves impossible that you have proof that you were right, and it's only when your work is peer reviewed for errors in your method that your work is accepted by the scientific community. The goal is truth, not your truth, so proving yourself wrong is just as exciting for a scientist as proving yourself right. Also, a scientists knows the work that his work is built upon is solid because they can see the method their self, they also know that it has been rigorously scrutinised the same way their work will be.

Again this is all beside the point though, as you're still talking about the scientist, not the science.

Well at least you do recognize it is a theory. I do not honestly know why there are more liberals in these institutions or not. I have a few theories but I think I shall keep them to myself. So then why make the claim that liberals are more intelligent then Conservatives? If none of these instititutions test for intelligence then how can one make that claim?

I should point out here that as a complete aside I should have realized something. My whole theory, while valid in part, did take the wrong track. The right track is that intelligence almost has nothing to do with political ideology on a personal level. Now I am sure that there could be some evidence that can lead one to pat one on the back that liberals are more intelligent and smarter then Conservatives. Fine, but this does not matter because there are many Conservatives who are smarter then many liberals in many things, and when one person has intelligence in one area, they lack so in another. For instance I am quite smart in history and the looking at it, a boob in math. Simple as that.

What does the state of English education have to do with the debate at hand?

Yep, you are right, I was talking about the Science.

*facepalm*

Yes I do too tend to facepalm at people who manipulate the facts and their science for a political agenda.

Foley, I am amazed. Like, giggling amazed. Giggling profusely. I can't even respond to the whole "intelligence" matter, I can't. I wouldn't know where to begin, and I certainly wouldn't be able to find where with all that giggling. The only thing I can respond to is a small aside you made in that paragraph.


Finland has had the best track record thus far.


It requires no faith, because the fundamental backbone of science is that of peer review and replication. The point of science is that if the conditions can be replicated, so too can the results.


Climate Gate was horribly overblown and, contrary to popular belief, did not really show or disprove much of anything.

I should be surprised, but I am not. Did you see that this was a theory? Crazy and ridiculous I believe I said? But I am glad I could amuse you.

Good for them.

Hmmmm OK. If you say so.

Just that scientists were manipulating, lying, ignoring the data, and generally distorting the data to prove a political point.

[Naonak]

Well I think that scientists intentionally lying and manipulating information is actually pretty serious but maybe that is just me.

Yes I do too tend to facepalm at people who manipulate the facts and their science for a political agenda.

Just that scientists were manipulating, lying, ignoring the data, and generally distorting the data to prove a political point.

Not. What. Happened.

[Col.Foley]

Not. What. Happened.

Yes that is exactly what happened.

[Naonak]

Yes that is exactly what happened.

How so?

Spoiler:

[Col.Foley]

How so?

Spoiler:

[IG]http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2008/1/20/intriguedcati128453621772187500.jpg[/IMG]

Well when you have a bunch of scientists who get together with one another and says, well the data does not really work here, doesn't matter lets manipulate it! When you have many different, important, well placed scientists that would seemingly have credibility with people, doing these things, pardon me for being concerned. I cannot be exactly sure what their motivation is, maybe it was just about power and money and in order to conform? But they did do this. Which casts doubt on the whole process, and should be rexamined.

But I am really starting to feel like this whole thing is just a distraction because obviously there is no convincing me, and I doubt I can convince you...or anyone else here. The facts seem to bare me out. This whole debate boils down to two sides basically saying, bah its unimportant, it does not prove or disprove anything, there is nothing to see here just move along, and facepalm. And another side saying, hold on, these people lied and manpulated date, and experiments, and conspired with others to do so. Now I suppose that Climate Gate does nothing to disprove or prove Global Warming at the end of the day, I am willing to admit this, but it is very, very, very, very concerning to me and should be something that is universally condemned, instead of everyone racing to try and find excuses for it or minimize the effect that these individuals can cause. Especially since they are again, well placed, high placed, and supposedly credible scientists that people have been pointing to their date for years saying that we are raising the temperature of the planet to a dangerous and artificial level.

Because if you actually look at the science behind it there is little evidence that we are causing harm, there is little evidence that if we were it will be too catastrophic, and it has evolved from the weird 'Global warming' to the more sensical 'Climate Change'. But yet we are still to blame? The climate has changed long before humanity and if we are unfornate to be wiped out, or wipe ourselves out, it will change long after we are gone. And there is little evidence that we will ever do THAT much damage to make it stop.

But all this is really beside the point because even if i had a perfect memory, even if I was an expert and could quote the science that supports my position verbaidum you would not believe me. Or you would find your own data in direct conflict with anything I can provide.

So what will happen is a shouting match and a general five year old spat...nah something more like Sark...my side your side.

What is lacking in most of the Global Warming/ Climate change debate is a lack of fundamentals. There are no fundamentals and the debate focuses on the wrong thing. Instead of trying to say, you're stupid, no you are, or you're stupid, yeah ok...but just leave me alone, we should be focusing on this in the context of human freedom. And since this is a POLITICAL THREAD, provides us the perfect opprotunity to do this.

I think a lot of the disconnect comes about simply over human freedom. You have one side in this debate who has had individuals advocate for the loss of human freedom. That either humanity and regular joes are too stupid to understand anything thus we must 'save them', or too corrupt or too greedy or what have you, or that this is such an unprecedented crisis in the history of the Republic that we need to act now and downright ignore the base documents at its founding. Not to mention the effects on human liberty and freedom. Worse still you have a lot of the proponents of catastrophic human climate change...lets call them that just to be clear on what we are talking about... calling for, no hoping, that they will come back in the next life as a virus to eliminate a majority of the human population. You have environemental organizations crafting a video and playing it around showing school children, and 'deniers' of catastrophic human climate change, being blown up. What message does this send? And meanwhile you have politicians who are sseemingly taking this so far out of context and sticking their fingers in it, and using this as an excuse for greater political power, and their answers often seem to be the wrong ones and only serve to exhasberate and disenfranchise an already tense public. Causing the public to start to dislike and get turned off on what could be very real solutions, not neccessarily for Global Warming but for other things like energy concerns. Because any one of the potential future technologies might be a good one, but forcing them on a public before they are ready/ economically viable is a path to ruin. And a loss of freedom.

Now, again a majority of the people in this thread and me can never ever agree on the effects of Global warming and the extend of human damage. But we have not always been the best stewards of this planet, we have made mistakes, and we should learn to move past them and grow as a people. Again the solution to our Problems seem sto be a Libertarian one, that is to say Freedom Oriented and Small Government. You and I, again, will probably never see eye to eye on the science but we will, I think, see eye to eye on the principles. just for different reasons. that if humanity and this civilization can find a different energy solution, one that is cheaper, more efficient, more economically viable, safe, and yes does not do harm to the planet, then it is worth exploring. And I support any alternative to Oil and our 'fossil fuels' that can achieve those objectives, when we are ready. In the meantime we have to find an intermediary and slowly start weening ourselves off of oil.

I do not think we will ever do so fully, too much of our technology and products is wrapped up in it, its become like Naquada, but we can start and we can at least ween our energy reserves off of it. Well except for the people who will be driving classic cars and will be driving gas powered vehicles for whatever their reasons may be.

[jmoz]

How do you get from climate gate to exploring alternate energy sources? So you condemn the whole scientific field because of one incident? The same can be said of any group, Muslims, Christians, Jews, Democrats, Republicans, etc. And climate change is bad for humanity, countries can be inundated by the slightest shift in oceanic currents. Ozone depletion is bad because certain kinds of radiation are harmful to living cells, but not just limited to the animal kingdoms but also the other life kingdoms, which in turn effects us.

[Col.Foley]

How do you get from climate gate to exploring alternate energy sources? So you condemn the whole scientific field because of one incident? The same can be said of any group, Muslims, Christians, Jews, Democrats, Republicans, etc. And climate change is bad for humanity, countries can be inundated by the slightest shift in oceanic currents. Ozone depletion is bad because certain kinds of radiation are harmful to living cells, but not just limited to the animal kingdoms but also the other life kingdoms, which in turn effects us.

No I most certainly do not blame the entire scientific community. Like I said there are scientists out there who seem to want to look at the position honestly and I do generally like science.

Yes but there is very little that we can do about it.

[jmoz]

No, there's plenty we can do about it. Stricter environmental efforts, government research, political pressure for change, alternative lifestyles for the good of humanity as a whole.

[Col.Foley]

No, there's plenty we can do about it. Stricter environmental efforts, government research, political pressure for change, alternative lifestyles for the good of humanity as a whole.

So in other words strip people of their freedom and their liberty to conform to your underrstanding of science?

And those methods, especially in our current climate and technology seem to be largely innefectual.

[jmoz]

Your way would strip them of worse than their freedoms and subsequently their freedoms. So as long as they have their freedom, endangering the existence of mankind is okay?

[Col.Foley]

Your way would strip them of worse than their freedoms and subsequently their freedoms. So as long as they have their freedom, endangering the existence of mankind is okay?

No. I am confident, above confident quite certain actually, that as long as we give people the greatest amount of Liberty and the greatest amount of freedom, to fail, suceed, and figure this thing out, then we can find a solution that will work for everyone's benefit. That the most people will have the greatest possible system in place in order to chose what they want to do. And some might chose what you...or even I...might think to be a poor choice but that is their choice. As long as we can safeguard people's liberty, freedom, and their economic opprotunities, we will find a solution. One that will satisfy the envirionementalist here, and the economist.

[jmoz]

lol! sorry that's hilarious. Arguing for a miracle essentially. lol

[Col.Foley]

lol! sorry that's hilarious. Arguing for a miracle essentially. lol

If I am you are.

[Naonak]

Well when you have a bunch of scientists who get together with one another and says, well the data does not really work here, doesn't matter lets manipulate it! When you have many different, important, well placed scientists that would seemingly have credibility with people, doing these things, pardon me for being concerned. I cannot be exactly sure what their motivation is, maybe it was just about power and money and in order to conform? But they did do this. Which casts doubt on the whole process, and should be rexamined.

The only data which didn't work was that for some reason, since the 60s, temperature reconstructions tree-rings haven't matched the actual recorded temperatures, when they always had before. The actual recorded temperatures show a significant increase since then, but the tree-rings don't. CRU simply left that out because it wasn't necessary to get into that much detail for the purposes of that graph. Sure, maybe they could have been more clear, but there was no lying, etc.

Hell, if anything was politically motivated, it was stealing these decade old emails and releasing them three weeks before the Copenhagen Summit.

and it has evolved from the weird 'Global warming' to the more sensical 'Climate Change'.

That's at least partly because the phrase "Global Warming" has the obvious implication of everywhere just getting a bit hotter, lead to people who don't understand the theory banging on about how "There's snow in mah yard! There can't be global warming if there's SNOW IN MAH YARD!", even though that's not how it works.

if humanity and this civilization can find a different energy solution, one that is cheaper, more efficient, more economically viable, safe, and yes does not do harm to the planet, then it is worth exploring... etc...

Agreed.

However, I think this needs to be enforced to some extent. Even putting climate change aside, if we run out of oil and gas in the next century (or are we going to argure that too? ) and don't have an alternative infrastructure in place, we're boned. As nice as it might be to hope the public can just sort it out ourselves, the possible consequences of either situation are too dire. This is a case where governments need to put the foot down, because if the general population don't sort it out, things will truly go down the crapper.

EDIT: I'm not suggesting immediate bans on this and that, more a gradual process, but it does need to be enforced.

Well except for the people who will be driving classic cars ... for whatever their reasons may be.

Because they look cool.

[Col.Foley]

The only data which didn't work was that for some reason, since the 60s, temperature reconstructions tree-rings haven't matched the actual recorded temperatures, when they always had before. The actual recorded temperatures show a significant increase since then, but the tree-rings don't. CRU simply left that out because it wasn't necessary to get into that much detail for the purposes of that graph. Sure, maybe they could have been more clear, but there was no lying, etc.

Hell, if anything was politically motivated, it was stealing these decade old emails and releasing them three weeks before the Copenhagen Summit.


That's at least partly because the phrase "Global Warming" has the obvious implication of everywhere just getting a bit hotter, lead to people who don't understand the theory banging on about how "There's snow in mah yard! There can't be global warming if there's SNOW IN MAH YARD!", even though that's not how it works.


Agreed.

However, I think this needs to be enforced to some extent. Even putting climate change aside, if we run out of oil and gas in the next century (or are we going to argure that too? ) and don't have an alternative infrastructure in place, we're boned. As nice as it might be to hope the public can just sort it out ourselves, the possible consequences of either situation are too dire. This is a case where governments need to put the foot down, because if the general population don't sort it out, things will truly go down the crapper.

EDIT: I'm not suggesting immediate bans on this and that, more a gradual process, but it does need to be enforced.


Because they look cool.

Take that up with Wiki Leaks.

*raises hand* Thats me. But if they did say Climate Change all along maybe we would be a bit more happier, but the language does seem a bit confused since everyone continues to call it one, or the other. Though TBH this is not finding a better way to communicate a scientific principle, this is just calling what is the 'same theory' (Global Warming) by a different more PC name. Its not like anyone said something idiotic and then moved on to express it better it is that they have still found something idiotic and is just trying to use a different word. That makes sense.

Yes we will argue on that too but I am not going to.

And while its good you do not suggesting something that something that you do suggest will still hamper the process and could lead to a real solution not being found for years. Instead of trying to demonize people and worry about politicians grabbing more power we should instead be focused on creating a free environment where people can find out the solution and work towards that solution. Demonizing people and poking them and enslaving them on what could very well be shoddy science is not going to make people happy.

Thats one reason.