Go Back   Bloggingheads Community > Diavlog comments
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Notices

Diavlog comments Post comments about particular diavlogs here.
(Users cannot create new threads.)

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #81  
Old 08-19-2011, 11:35 PM
sugarkang sugarkang is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Cali, Small-Govt Liberal
Posts: 2,186
Default Re: The Week in Blog: Shiny Edition (Bill Scher & Kristen Soltis)

Quote:
Originally Posted by badhatharry View Post
What makes Perry dangerous and Obama benign?
Obviously, it's his crazy gun in the air...

__________________
The mixing of populations lowers the cost of being unusual.
Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 08-19-2011, 11:57 PM
Bill Scher Bill Scher is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 83
Default Re: The Goofiness of Bill's Suggestion to Huntsman

Quote:
Originally Posted by rcocean View Post
Here. Yes, Bill he should be the pro-science candidate, because that's why we elect presidents. Forget about the economy, national defense, judicial appointments, foreign policy, trade, and immigration. Huntsman will storm the Republican primaries by discussing evolution, string theory, and global warming.

Or be more literal, very few outside of 'Think progress' or BHTV care what a Presidential Candidate thinks about "science" or "evolution".

Goofy.
That's not quite what I meant.

What I mean is that I bet there is a faction of Republican voters who are plenty conservative in that they are skeptical about active government, but are embarrassed and ashamed that their party has become overrun by professional liars who do everything possible to prevent facts from anchoring our discourse, instead of adjusting and modifying ideological stances to adhere to established facts.

Global warming is just a particularly stark example of that phenomenon.

How big is that faction? I don't know. But I bet it's bigger than 1%, which is where Huntsman is right now.

And if he can build it up into double-digits by pledging fealty to facts and frontally challenging rivals who trample on facts, he might have a shot of winning the nomination with a plurality of the vote, or lose now but start a movement that might just transform his party into one that can compete in national elections again.
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 08-20-2011, 12:10 AM
Bill Scher Bill Scher is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 83
Default Re: Bill does not seem to understand the claim about inflow of unemployed people.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unit View Post
The claim is made here that Texas has seen a lot of inflow of unemployed people from other US states and this should put the unemployment rate in Texas in perspective. Bill answers with a comparison to Obama's record. But the problem is that at the National level population growth has not spiked. In fact immigrant flows have slowed down. So in fact Obama's job numbers are worse than what they would appear.
That doesn't make any sense. The country has experienced net positive job growth, particularly in the private sector, for the past year: http://www.democraticleader.gov/blog/?p=4345

If population growth was slower than the job growth (I do not know if that is true, I'm just saying "if") that would mean more jobs to go around for the unemployed that were already here, and a faster recovery for the 8 million who lost their jobs in the Great Recession begun by the 2008 financial crisis.

I don't think that's an argument for arbitrarily restricting immigration, because immigration can have a multiplier effect.

But so far as narrowly interpreting month-to-month job numbers, I don't see how slower immigration and relatively reduced population makes Obama's jobs numbers worse.
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 08-20-2011, 12:19 AM
Unit Unit is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,713
Default Re: Bill does not seem to understand the claim about inflow of unemployed people.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Scher View Post
That doesn't make any sense. The country has experienced net positive job growth, particularly in the private sector, for the past year: http://www.democraticleader.gov/blog/?p=4345

If population growth was slower than the job growth (I do not know if that is true, I'm just saying "if") that would mean more jobs to go around for the unemployed that were already here, and a faster recovery for the 8 million who lost their jobs in the Great Recession begun by the 2008 financial crisis.

I don't think that's an argument for arbitrarily restricting immigration, because immigration can have a multiplier effect.

But so far as narrowly interpreting month-to-month job numbers, I don't see how slower immigration and relatively reduced population makes Obama's jobs numbers worse.

The argument is that unemployed people move to Texas and then are able to find a job there. If immigration flows to the US generally have slowed down, it's because people do not expect to be able to move here and find a job. How's that a good thing?
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old 08-20-2011, 12:36 AM
Unit Unit is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,713
Default Re: Bill does not seem to understand the claim about inflow of unemployed people.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Scher View Post
That doesn't make any sense. The country has experienced net positive job growth, particularly in the private sector, for the past year: http://www.democraticleader.gov/blog/?p=4345

If population growth was slower than the job growth (I do not know if that is true, I'm just saying "if") that would mean more jobs to go around for the unemployed that were already here, and a faster recovery for the 8 million who lost their jobs in the Great Recession begun by the 2008 financial crisis.

I don't think that's an argument for arbitrarily restricting immigration, because immigration can have a multiplier effect.

But so far as narrowly interpreting month-to-month job numbers, I don't see how slower immigration and relatively reduced population makes Obama's jobs numbers worse.
Let me put it this way: suppose 100 unemployed workers move from Oklahoma to Texas. All of a sudden Oklahoma's numbers look better because the number of people looking for a job has gone down. On the other hand Texas unemployment goes up. But if at the end of the day Oklahoma and Texas keep similar rates over time and yet people keep on flowing from north to south, that means Texas is doing something right that can't be seen strictly from the unemployment numbers.

Likewise, if the US sees people leaving (e.g. Mexicans going home or deciding not to come here), its unemployment numbers will get better without doing anything in particular.
Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old 08-20-2011, 12:44 AM
AemJeff AemJeff is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,750
Default Re: The Week in Blog: Shiny Edition (Bill Scher & Kristen Soltis)

Quote:
Originally Posted by harkin View Post
Progress! We went from without any hint to a huge hint in a matter of minutes.

Speaking of hints, I'm sorry that the website, the section, the topic, the name of the writer and the date are still not enough for you find the article. I know you can do it, you have the technology.

And I'm making no argument whatever; this is the best article regarding man-made global warming errrrrrrrrrr man-made climate change errrrrrrrrrr man-made threats to humanity errrrrrrrrr man-made threats to the galaxy I've seen so far.
Sweet! You can't be bothered to link, you have no argument of your own, you didn't bother to understand what I actually said to you. You want examples of left-wing idiocy? I can think of quite a few! The dippy headline you haven't bothered to support with, you know, actual text from the article it purports to represent, doesn't make that point. Your posts have been inadequate to your intent. You're not even trying to a worthy adversary, so why do you bother to post at all? You could have exactly the same effect simply talking to yourself, based on the evidence of this conversation.
__________________
-A. E. M. Jeff (Eponym)
Magnets - We know how they work!
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 08-20-2011, 01:07 AM
Starwatcher162536 Starwatcher162536 is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 1,658
Default My hobby horse.

Quote:
Originally Posted by whburgess View Post
I'm not sure I can contribute much to a discussion on the science.

I'm interested in information that would give some sense of how big of a problem most scientists think it is,
the various levels of alarm and the percentages of scientists at each level.
any cost benefit analysis of the various proposed remedies, etc.
{Disclaimer} When talking about impacts and adaption strategies I'm moving away from my main interest in this, a general understanding of how the atmosphere works and how ecosystems respond to changes in the atmosphere. As this is all off the top of my head I can't guarantee the accuracy of supplied numbers {/Disclaimer}

Despite what you may have heard; The last IPCC report, AR4, is still in high standing among scientists. There was a recent survey I linked to here a few months ago that I can't find atm, I believe it was of a poll over the percentage of the top researchers (highest h-numbers*) that in broad-stroke asked if they agreed with the IPCC. It cleared 90%.

*Think of this as a researchers batting average

The IPCC says that stabilizing CO2 at 450 ppm will cost world GDP 3%. Estimates put the cost incurred by the corresponding climate of 450 ppm at 5% world GDP. Reports** talking about what a atmosphere off 550, 650, or even 800*** seem to range from really bad to the apocalypse. They all have lots of caveats, but it all basically boils down to this hypothetical future Earth is nothing like any Earth humans have ever seen before and their a little bemused anyone would even ask for them to make a prediction. Kind of a angels dancing on pins deal. A couple of thoughts on this;

**Not a component in the aforementioned survey
***I don't think we could get that high if we tried. Eventually we are just going to run out of things to burn. I think sooner then most.

-That 5% world GDP doesn't really capture the brunt of the human suffering that will be caused by AGW as most of the damage will be felt by third world countries that contribute little to world GDP. You could nuke the poorest 100 countries off the map, a group of countries that 750 million people, and world GDP would only go down 4%.

-In some ways curtailing AGW is easier then people think. Most people think in order to keep CO2 concentrations from increasing past 450 ppm we will need to completely stop all 100% of our emissions. This is not true! . We can actually get away with 2Gt C per year in perpetuity and still stabilize CO2 at 450 ppm. To put this in perspective we emit about 10Gt per year. There are technologies/policies we should be pursuing right now that will take a big chunk out of that 8Gt C we need to cut back on. One example and a tad of backstory; We should be using CCS (Coal capture and storage) right now!. About 68% of CO2 emissions come from coal power plants. There are about 50,000 coal power plants worldwide. Refitting all 50,000 of them would be hopelessly expensive, but a few (about 150) of the biggest power plants emit a disproportionate amount of the emissions. About 10% of our total CO2 emissions come from those 150 biggest coal power plants. Refitting just those won't break the world economy and will reduce emissions by 1Gt C per year. 8Gt C per year to go. There are other low hanging fruit. Not enough to get us to that 2 Gt C per year mark, but we should do what we can that's fairly cheap now. The slower we reduce emissions now means the faster we are going to reduce emissions later. Way to much of "Since we can't solve 100% now we shouldn't do that 20% we can now" going around.

-Those researchers are going to be statisticians, physicists, chemists, ecologists, etc. People majoring in "Climate Science" is a recent phenomenon and those that did by and by aren't accomplished enough to make that survey. Shouldn't we instead care about what economists think? Possibly. I tend to think ecologists are more important here. Regardless there does appear to be ALOT more controversy on this among economists. Unfortunately whenever I hear economists downplaying the effects of AGW they are not actually talking about anything where I care overmuch what they think. Always questioning the science instead of, to use one example, how humans will grow different crops to replace wheat.

-There is lots of uncertainty in Climate Science. Doubly true when talking about the economic aspects. Just in my opinion; More uncertainty means AGW is more of a problem. More uncertainty points towards this is more of a problem then uncertainty leading to AGW being less of a problem. For a little on this see my recent posts here or here.

Kind of scatter-brained I know. I suppose someone more knowledgeable could synthesize these trivia into a coherent narrative. I can't. /shrug?

Quote:
I think the people who are truly alarmed will stop making this a political issue. They will see that it would be much more helpful to the cause to leave it off the table during campaigns and as a political issue, and instead work with those people in the Republican party who agree with them to empower an infrastructure within the party to effect change when Republicans are in power. The fact that Al Gore and others keeps screaming and calling people names makes me suspicious. Does he really care? Is he really so stupid to not realize he's hurting more then he's helping? Does he really believe what he says? If so, it seems he'd find ways to not make it political.
I don't see how this can be when anytime anyone proposes anything conservatives raise bloody hell. Not to mention from my perspective it's Republicans that keep raising these issues (Google Perry and EPA) to score points with the base. It's also worth noting that it isn't advocates of reducing emissions that turned this into a culture war issue. It's the do nothingers that did. Nothing Democrats can do about this.
__________________
Six Phases of a Project: (1)Enthusiasm (2)Disillusionment (3)Panic (4)Search for the Guilty (5)Punishment of the Innocent (6)Praise and Honors for the Non-Participants

Last edited by Starwatcher162536; 08-20-2011 at 01:23 AM.. Reason: added some
Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old 08-20-2011, 01:35 AM
whburgess whburgess is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,202
Default Re: The Goofiness of Bill's Suggestion to Huntsman

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Scher View Post

And if he can build it up into double-digits by pledging fealty to facts and frontally challenging rivals who trample on facts, he might have a shot of winning the nomination with a plurality of the vote, or lose now but start a movement that might just transform his party into one that can compete in national elections again.
You know full well the Republican party will be competitive in the national election whether its Romney or Perry. The economy is the issue.

Romney has affirmed his belief that AGW is a problem as you know, and this does hurt him a little more then it helps with the party. And at this stage even a few percentage points matter.

However, the so called believers that AGW can destroy the planet, and human civilization as we know it, do not do what they can to help Romney get nominated so that in case a Republican does win it will be one who is favorable to the issue. Instead they do their part to make it an issue in the Republican primary because they know it helps Perry win the nomination which they see as being in favor of the Dems.

This is a big part of why I'm a little skeptical about the dangers of AGW. If it was more then a political issue, the left wouldn't use it as a political issue.

Last edited by whburgess; 08-20-2011 at 01:40 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old 08-20-2011, 01:46 AM
Starwatcher162536 Starwatcher162536 is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 1,658
Default Re: The Goofiness of Bill's Suggestion to Huntsman

Quote:
Originally Posted by whburgess View Post
This is a big part of why I'm a little skeptical about the dangers of AGW. If it was more then a political issue, the left wouldn't use it as a political issue.
This is totally not true. People have played politics with nuclear war. There is nothing in this or any other world people will not play politics with.

BTW - I think Perry has a better % to beat Obama then Romney.
__________________
Six Phases of a Project: (1)Enthusiasm (2)Disillusionment (3)Panic (4)Search for the Guilty (5)Punishment of the Innocent (6)Praise and Honors for the Non-Participants
Reply With Quote
  #90  
Old 08-20-2011, 02:00 AM
whburgess whburgess is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,202
Default Re: My hobby horse.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Starwatcher162536 View Post
{Disclaimer} When talking about impacts and adaption strategies I'm moving away from my main interest in this, a general understanding of how the atmosphere works and how ecosystems respond to changes in the atmosphere. As this is all off the top of my head I can't guarantee the accuracy of supplied numbers {/Disclaimer}

Despite what you may have heard; The last IPCC report, AR4, is still in high standing among scientists. There was a recent survey I linked to here a few months ago that I can't find atm, I believe it was of a poll over the percentage of the top researchers (highest h-numbers*) that in broad-stroke asked if they agreed with the IPCC. It cleared 90%.

*Think of this as a researchers batting average

The IPCC says that stabilizing CO2 at 450 ppm will cost world GDP 3%. Estimates put the cost incurred by the corresponding climate of 450 ppm at 5% world GDP. Reports** talking about what a atmosphere off 550, 650, or even 800*** seem to range from really bad to the apocalypse. They all have lots of caveats, but it all basically boils down to this hypothetical future Earth is nothing like any Earth humans have ever seen before and their a little bemused anyone would even ask for them to make a prediction. Kind of a angels dancing on pins deal. A couple of thoughts on this;

**Not a component in the aforementioned survey
***I don't think we could get that high if we tried. Eventually we are just going to run out of things to burn. I think sooner then most.

-That 5% world GDP doesn't really capture the brunt of the human suffering that will be caused by AGW as most of the damage will be felt by third world countries that contribute little to world GDP. You could nuke the poorest 100 countries off the map, a group of countries that 750 million people, and world GDP would only go down 4%.

-In some ways curtailing AGW is easier then people think. Most people think in order to keep CO2 concentrations from increasing past 450 ppm we will need to completely stop all 100% of our emissions. This is not true! . We can actually get away with 2Gt C per year in perpetuity and still stabilize CO2 at 450 ppm. To put this in perspective we emit about 10Gt per year. There are technologies/policies we should be pursuing right now that will take a big chunk out of that 8Gt C we need to cut back on. One example and a tad of backstory; We should be using CCS (Coal capture and storage) right now!. About 68% of CO2 emissions come from coal power plants. There are about 50,000 coal power plants worldwide. Refitting all 50,000 of them would be hopelessly expensive, but a few (about 150) of the biggest power plants emit a disproportionate amount of the emissions. About 10% of our total CO2 emissions come from those 150 biggest coal power plants. Refitting just those won't break the world economy and will reduce emissions by 1Gt C per year. 8Gt C per year to go. There are other low hanging fruit. Not enough to get us to that 2 Gt C per year mark, but we should do what we can that's fairly cheap now. The slower we reduce emissions now means the faster we are going to reduce emissions later. Way to much of "Since we can't solve 100% now we shouldn't do that 20% we can now" going around.

-Those researchers are going to be statisticians, physicists, chemists, ecologists, etc. People majoring in "Climate Science" is a recent phenomenon and those that did by and by aren't accomplished enough to make that survey. Shouldn't we instead care about what economists think? Possibly. I tend to think ecologists are more important here. Regardless there does appear to be ALOT more controversy on this among economists. Unfortunately whenever I hear economists downplaying the effects of AGW they are not actually talking about anything where I care overmuch what they think. Always questioning the science instead of, to use one example, how humans will grow different crops to replace wheat.

-There is lots of uncertainty in Climate Science. Doubly true when talking about the economic aspects. Just in my opinion; More uncertainty means AGW is more of a problem. More uncertainty points towards this is more of a problem then uncertainty leading to AGW being less of a problem. For a little on this see my recent posts here or here.

Kind of scatter-brained I know. I suppose someone more knowledgeable could synthesize these trivia into a coherent narrative. I can't. /shrug?
.

Good post. Thanks. I read it all, it was clear to me. I'm pretty much on board with doing those things that we can do that don't cost a lot of money,but can help reduce a lot of the Co2 emissions. I really hope this isn't due to the fact that I've made some money over the years helping install scrubbers in coal fire plants !

I think this isn't done by tax dollars but by making the plants install them--although this does end up getting passed on in costs of product, its probably insignificant. I also think that it isn't going to be a big problem getting this done throughout the USA, whether a Republican or a Dem is president, it's something that is already under way. I have a feeling that it's those coal fire plants in China and India that you're going to have a problem with.

Edit: I actually did a little research and learned that installing co2 scrubbers in addition to the existing scrubbers we are installing in coal fire plants could increase fuel requirements by as high as 40% and utility rate costs by as high as 90%.

Ouch!

Last edited by whburgess; 08-20-2011 at 02:08 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #91  
Old 08-20-2011, 02:19 AM
whburgess whburgess is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,202
Default Re: The Goofiness of Bill's Suggestion to Huntsman

Quote:
Originally Posted by Starwatcher162536 View Post
This is totally not true. People have played politics with nuclear war. There is nothing in this or any other world people will not play politics with.
.
I don't see the Dems and Reps as enemies. At least not in the way the USA and the USSR was. As I said, there are significant minority of people in the Rep party who accept AGW is a problem. It should be off the table as a political issue and only come onto the table when the Reps are in power in as behind the scenes way as possible. This is how I would manage it if all the AGW alarmists elected me a their strategist. To me this seems very clearly the best route.
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 08-20-2011, 02:38 AM
Starwatcher162536 Starwatcher162536 is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 1,658
Default Re: My hobby horse.

I don't think the costs with your 40% and 90% are significant if those costs are shared across all coal power plants. This is of course going to need to have some regulatory framework forcing the owners of one coal power plant to pay for upgrades to another coal power plant.

I also think there is some apples vs. oranges thing going on. Your numbers are probably an average over many different types of plants. I expect the numbers to be lower for my set of 150 plants then the average of the total set of all power plants. Any chemist will tell you it's easier to set up a higher reaction rate at higher concentrations then lower concentrations. Now bigger plants means bigger boilers & pulverizers which translates into higher temperatures. Higher temperatures means higher concentrations of CO2 in the flue gas. Higher concentrations translates into more efficient scrubbers. I also expect there to be many permitting costs that are largely independent of plant size. This further widens the gap between your numbers and what mine should be. I've also read some interesting stuff about supplying boilers with elevated levels of oxygen which further elevates concentrations of CO2 in the flue gas. Getting the oxygen cheaply will become easier when there are more renewables.
__________________
Six Phases of a Project: (1)Enthusiasm (2)Disillusionment (3)Panic (4)Search for the Guilty (5)Punishment of the Innocent (6)Praise and Honors for the Non-Participants
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 08-20-2011, 03:17 AM
look look is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,886
Default Re: The Goofiness of Bill's Suggestion to Huntsman

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator View Post
Of all the different industry groups scrambling to shape climate policy in Washington--from electric utilities to Detroit automakers--one stands out as a bit unexpected: Wall Street. Financial giants like Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan have enlisted, all told, more than 100 lobbyists to roam the Capitol and influence the debate over how to curb greenhouse gases. There’s a reason for that: Any cap-and-trade bill that puts a limit on emissions and allows polluters to buy and sell permits will create a vast carbon market. That will mean new opportunities for financial firms to broker deals, package carbon offsets, or offer hedging instruments. And that, in turn, will mean profit. Little wonder that investment banks have been bulking up their carbon-trading desks in recent years.

--The New Republic
http://www.tnr.com/article/environme...y/planet-worth

Goldman Sachs....JP Morgan.......meh, might as well be the Illuminati.
DV: Frum and Bartlett on cap and trade
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old 08-20-2011, 03:17 AM
look look is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,886
Default Re: The Week in Blog: Shiny Edition (Bill Scher & Kristen Soltis)

Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarkang View Post
Obviously, it's his crazy gun in the air...

Yee-haw!
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 08-20-2011, 03:18 AM
stephanie stephanie is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,921
Default Re: Bill does not seem to understand the claim about inflow of unemployed people.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unit View Post
I have a hard time believing this, but if true, it would be very unfortunate.
Welcome back, Unit. Your perspective has been missing.

I know you are kind of non-political, so feel free to tell me to buzz off, but what are you thinking about the Republican race? Perry seems okay on immigration issues, although from my perspective not otherwise. Ron Paul seems to be being ignored more than in '08, even though he's performing as well or better.
Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old 08-20-2011, 03:40 AM
stephanie stephanie is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,921
Default Re: The Week in Blog: Shiny Edition (Bill Scher & Kristen Soltis)

Quote:
Originally Posted by whburgess View Post
The real cynicism is to ask the question in the first place. Why doesn't that cynicism bother you?
Because I don't agree. I think there's a culture war being waged against those who believe in evolution -- the argument is that they must be atheists, which is false, as people like me prove -- and Perry et al. know they benefit by encouraging that war, even though they likely share my views on evolution.

Quote:
Perry and other republicans who have as part of their constituency, members of the public who have very good reason (whether it's ultimately justifiable or not) to be suspicious that a culture war is being waged against them, are not going around giving speeches about how evolution is a leftist scheme to destroy God.
Interesting, in that I hear the BS about evolution being a leftist scheme, and I'm pretty religious (I'm quite involved in my church), but I feel like the culture war is being waged against me, by fundamentalists. I absolutely do not agree that a culture war is being waged against fundamentalists. But this comes down to the question of whether teaching evolution and allowing civil unions (which my state just did, over the objection of traditionalists) is a culture war against fundamentalists. I don't think so.

(In response to another of your posts I'm going to ask questions about your experience, as I'm super fascinated by Calvinism, and not anti. I hope the anti guy who was ranting her before is still around.)

Quote:
They are asked these questions by cynical partisan journalists in an attempt to alienate Republican politicians from either their own base or from a larger base.
Hmm. I'm sure they properly evaluate the costs and benefits, but I'm someone who likely would consider voting Republican if it didn't mean dumb stuff like voting against evolution. When they asked the Republican candidates in '00 who their favorite political philosopher was, I told my sister I'd vote for anyone who said Madison or Hamilton or Burke (no one said any of these). I don't really care that numerous people claimed Jesus is a politicial philosopher, which is not my opinion, but that they can't give a rational reason what that means.

Quote:
Now global warming is a different issue, since many people believe governmental action soon is necessary..I think questions about this can be asked without cynicism.
Yup. I've commiented that my dad is a petroleum engineer (and Republican who works for oil companies, so I basically don't credit views more radical than his) who is skeptical about some of the global warming arguments but not human caused climate changle. That's probably affected my view.
Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old 08-20-2011, 03:47 AM
stephanie stephanie is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,921
Default Re: Bill does not seem to understand the claim about inflow of unemployed people.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unit View Post
The argument is that unemployed people move to Texas and then are able to find a job there. If immigration flows to the US generally have slowed down, it's because people do not expect to be able to move here and find a job. How's that a good thing?
This makes sense to me as a liberal, and fits with the one positive I've seen in Perry.

So let's assume the candidate is Perry/Rubio, and the platform is pro Dream Act and otherwise pro status quo on immigration, includining illegal. Thoughts? From doing pricing re my contracting project, the cheapist are probably illegal and here they aren't Mexican, they are Polish or Irish. Does badhat insist I pay more or what?
Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old 08-20-2011, 03:51 AM
stephanie stephanie is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,921
Default Re: The Goofiness of Bill's Suggestion to Huntsman

Quote:
Originally Posted by Starwatcher162536 View Post
BTW - I think Perry has a better % to beat Obama then Romney.
I think this too. But I know a lot of people who will or might vote Romney, and very few who will vote Perry. So it might be based on our paranoia.
Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old 08-20-2011, 05:06 AM
Sulla the Dictator Sulla the Dictator is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 1,364
Default Re: The Week in Blog: Shiny Edition (Bill Scher & Kristen Soltis)

Quote:
Originally Posted by AemJeff View Post
What exactly is your complaint?
Is this what you are looking for?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/20...-civilisations

It is hard to deny that this global warming business has taken on a religious quality.
Reply With Quote
  #100  
Old 08-20-2011, 05:55 AM
Starwatcher162536 Starwatcher162536 is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 1,658
Default Re: The Week in Blog: Shiny Edition (Bill Scher & Kristen Soltis)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator View Post
Is this what you are looking for?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/20...-civilisations

It is hard to deny that this global warming business has taken on a religious quality.
So a whole two guys, probably in their spare time due to it's whimsical nature, noted that it's possible for ET's to infer our existence by the changing chemical composition of our atmosphere. Just for the record; This is about absorption spectra. It really has nothing to due with global warming. If the "Greenhouse Effect" were disproved tomorrow it would change none of the above.
__________________
Six Phases of a Project: (1)Enthusiasm (2)Disillusionment (3)Panic (4)Search for the Guilty (5)Punishment of the Innocent (6)Praise and Honors for the Non-Participants
Reply With Quote
  #101  
Old 08-20-2011, 06:22 AM
Starwatcher162536 Starwatcher162536 is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 1,658
Default Re: The Goofiness of Bill's Suggestion to Huntsman

I wasn't referring to the vying that went on between the USSR and USA. I was thinking of how the missile gap issue played itself out during the 1960 election. After the last few years I think it's foolhardy to depend on cooperation on anything that isn't an outright capitulation of liberal values from the Republican party. I happen to think the chances of, not on just issues related to AGW, but issues on the enviroment in general being more likely to be resolved in a way I find desirable with 55 Democrats in the Senate and Republicans seething then 50 Democrats in the Senate and Republicans relatively gregarious. Even if the contigent you mention is non-trivial, I doubt they are distributed in such a way that they prove to be a majority in any state, and as I mentioned in my post upthread, I see the majority of political posturing relating to the enviroment as coming from the right. The idea that if democrats were to drop this the issue would just go away and things could be passed on the back channels is, from my perspective, ludicrous.
__________________
Six Phases of a Project: (1)Enthusiasm (2)Disillusionment (3)Panic (4)Search for the Guilty (5)Punishment of the Innocent (6)Praise and Honors for the Non-Participants

Last edited by Starwatcher162536; 08-20-2011 at 06:32 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #102  
Old 08-20-2011, 07:16 AM
miceelf miceelf is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,569
Default Re: The Week in Blog: Shiny Edition (Bill Scher & Kristen Soltis)

Quote:
Originally Posted by badhatharry View Post
II know that sophisticated Christians like to say they believe in evolution. But doesn't that mean that they also believe that somewhere God kinda stepped in and did a little something special? I mean, any way you try to square evolution with God is an acrobatic feat when you get down to it. What makes one any better than the other?
Look, I am also a Christian, so I understand the tension. I just don't think Perry understands it.

We agree that there are views that deserve to be looked down upon. We just don't agree in this case.
Reply With Quote
  #103  
Old 08-20-2011, 09:10 AM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Re: The Week in Blog: Shiny Edition (Bill Scher & Kristen Soltis)

Quote:
Originally Posted by miceelf View Post
Look, I am also a Christian, so I understand the tension. I just don't think Perry understands it.

We agree that there are views that deserve to be looked down upon. We just don't agree in this case.
Your response sounds like a dodge. I didn't mention that there were views that deserve to be looked down upon.

I would guess you don't like Perry because he's not the brand of Christian you prefer. Have you considered you might just be one of the uppity Episcopalians who doesn't want to be associated with those riff raff, embarassing Baptists (or whatever Perry happens to be) because they don't understand the tension?
__________________
"By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." Adam Smith

Last edited by badhatharry; 08-20-2011 at 09:33 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #104  
Old 08-20-2011, 09:29 AM
sugarkang sugarkang is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Cali, Small-Govt Liberal
Posts: 2,186
Default Re: The Week in Blog: Shiny Edition (Bill Scher & Kristen Soltis)

Quote:
Originally Posted by badhatharry View Post
I would say you don't like him because he's not the brand of Christian you prefer. Have you considered you might just be one of the uppity Episcopalians who don't like those riff raff Baptists (or whatever Perry happens to be)?
Oh hot damn. I'm ready for this food fight.
__________________
The mixing of populations lowers the cost of being unusual.
Reply With Quote
  #105  
Old 08-20-2011, 09:33 AM
Unit Unit is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,713
Default Re: Bill does not seem to understand the claim about inflow of unemployed people.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stephanie View Post
Welcome back, Unit. Your perspective has been missing.

I know you are kind of non-political, so feel free to tell me to buzz off, but what are you thinking about the Republican race? Perry seems okay on immigration issues, although from my perspective not otherwise. Ron Paul seems to be being ignored more than in '08, even though he's performing as well or better.
Hello Stephanie,

Yes I'm not that interested in the various candidates. Even though Texas is growing I wouldn't credit Perry for that. My working hypothesis would be that Texas is growing despite Perry's interventionism and inaction. I say interventionism because apparently he's not afraid to lard his corporate supporters with favors and special rights, and I say inaction because there are legal reforms that would really help the economy, and people in need of medical care, that he doesn't seem to address.

Last edited by Unit; 08-21-2011 at 02:03 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #106  
Old 08-20-2011, 09:58 AM
miceelf miceelf is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,569
Default Re: The Week in Blog: Shiny Edition (Bill Scher & Kristen Soltis)

Quote:
Originally Posted by badhatharry View Post
Your response sounds like a dodge. I didn't mention that there were views that deserve to be looked down upon.
Well, then we disagree more than I thought. Or you aren't thinking of some possible views that you would actually object to. I suspect we would both be bothered by extremely fundamentalist interpretations of Islam, for example. But I could be wrong, in which case, you and apple will have a lot to discuss. I suspect you might also feel that way about an actual communist who ran for president, but who knows? You might be more openminded than most.


Quote:
Originally Posted by badhatharry View Post
I would guess you don't like Perry because he's not the brand of Christian you prefer. Have you considered you might just be one of the uppity Episcopalians who doesn't want to be associated with those riff raff, embarassing Baptists (or whatever Perry happens to be) because they don't understand the tension?
I am actually closer to stephanie in that I suspect Perry is just saying what he thinks the base (and his misestimation of America more broadly) want to hear. But assuming that he's being honest, yes, Christians who absolutely refuse to accept or acknowledge evidence that contradicts their views on anything are not my cup of tea. It's less about Christianity or religion than about the thought process. I find a lot of the rhetoric about free markets as de facto perfect as equally indicative of lazy/closed thinking. And Ron Paul's gold standard obsession is similarly disqualifying in my view.

We had one as president recently, and I don't think it turned out so well. I have no idea what Bush believed about evolution per se, but he had the view that he knew everything he needed to know about the world, that evidence was for sissies, and that his faith (not religious faith, just strongly held beliefs) in a whole variety of things trumped anything that was going on in the real world (WMD, deficits not mattering, etc).

You may think its unfair that a particular religious belief gets that reaction from me. Fine. But it's not just religious beliefs that do, nor is it all or even most conservative views generally. I think this particular view says something about how one thinks more broadly, and says something very bad. If this isn't actually Perry's view and he's just pandering, that's worse IMHO. (I understand that pandering is universal, but not every one panders about everything, and I am of the view that some pandering simply should not, under any but the most extreme circumstances, be rewarded.
Reply With Quote
  #107  
Old 08-20-2011, 10:19 AM
sugarkang sugarkang is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Cali, Small-Govt Liberal
Posts: 2,186
Default Re: The Week in Blog: Shiny Edition (Bill Scher & Kristen Soltis)

Quote:
Originally Posted by miceelf View Post
And Ron Paul's gold standard obsession is similarly disqualifying in my view.
He would never make this happen; he's called for a basket of commodities, IIRC. Gold @ $1,800 btw. What inflation?
__________________
The mixing of populations lowers the cost of being unusual.
Reply With Quote
  #108  
Old 08-20-2011, 10:42 AM
miceelf miceelf is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,569
Default Re: The Week in Blog: Shiny Edition (Bill Scher & Kristen Soltis)

Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarkang View Post
He would never make this happen; he's called for a basket of commodities, IIRC. Gold @ $1,800 btw. What inflation?
I think we agree that he'll never make it happen. But it's odd and kind of anachronistic.
Reply With Quote
  #109  
Old 08-20-2011, 10:43 AM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Re: The Week in Blog: Shiny Edition (Bill Scher & Kristen Soltis)

[QUOTE=miceelf;222639]
Quote:
Well, then we disagree more than I thought. Or you aren't thinking of some possible views that you would actually object to. I suspect we would both be bothered by extremely fundamentalist interpretations of Islam, for example. But I could be wrong, in which case, you and apple will have a lot to discuss. I suspect you might also feel that way about an actual communist who ran for president, but who knows? You might be more openminded than most.
Clever, switch the subject from Perry to Islam. You said 'look down upon'. I leave religious beliefs alone. As I think I put out there pretty clearly I don't subscribe to any of them. But I'm not going to spend time sorting through them and ascribing relative value to them. I guess here I should stipulate that I am critical of things like stoning and sexual mutilation.

Lots of communists have run for president. There's probably going to be one in 2012. I would be secure in the knowledge that they don't have a chance in hell. Besides we were talking about Perry here and your assertion that the problem with him is that he doesn't understand the tension.

Quote:
I am actually closer to stephanie in that I suspect Perry is just saying what he thinks the base (and his misestimation of America more broadly) want to hear. But assuming that he's being honest, yes, Christians who absolutely refuse to accept or acknowledge evidence that contradicts their views on anything are not my cup of tea. It's less about Christianity or religion than about the thought process.
I think Perry is probably saying what he believes but short of truth serum, I guess we'll never know. I think I've already gone into what I think about the thought process which allows people to 'believe in' evolution while simutaneously 'believing in' God. The faithiness required is virtually the same in all religions although you probably won't see it that way.

Quote:
We had one as president recently, and I don't think it turned out so well. I have no idea what Bush believed about evolution per se, but he had the view that he knew everything he needed to know about the world, that evidence was for sissies,...
Talk about no evidence! That's the ticket, just say stuff.


Quote:
You may think its unfair that a particular religious belief gets that reaction from me. Fine. But it's not just religious beliefs that do, nor is it all or even most conservative views generally.
.

I don't think its unfair. It's clearly a matter of taste and preference and has nothing to do with the type of reasoning you seem to be so fond of.
__________________
"By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." Adam Smith

Last edited by badhatharry; 08-20-2011 at 12:31 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #110  
Old 08-20-2011, 11:58 AM
rcocean rcocean is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,077
Default Thanks for the response Bill

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Scher View Post
That's not quite what I meant.

What I mean is that I bet there is a faction of Republican voters who are plenty conservative in that they are skeptical about active government, but are embarrassed and ashamed that their party has become overrun by professional liars who do everything possible to prevent facts from anchoring our discourse, instead of adjusting and modifying ideological stances to adhere to established facts.


How big is that faction? I don't know. But I bet it's bigger than 1%, which is where Huntsman is right now.

And if he can build it up into double-digits by pledging fealty to facts and frontally challenging rivals who trample on facts, he might have a shot of winning the nomination with a plurality of the vote, or lose now but start a movement that might just transform his party into one that can compete in national elections again.
I doubt Huntsman will gain much traction by attacking other Republicans on Global Warming, evolution, and unwillingness to face "facts" as defined by the MSM.

The number of people who vote on these issues is very small and they seem to be clustered in precisely those areas that rarely vote Republican. These "social liberal but conservative on economics" Republicans always get more ink than they deserve, primarily because Liberal Democrats find them the most "reasonable".
Reply With Quote
  #111  
Old 08-20-2011, 12:09 PM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Re: The Goofiness of Bill's Suggestion to Huntsman

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Scher View Post
And if he can build it up into double-digits by pledging fealty to facts and frontally challenging rivals who trample on facts, he might have a shot of winning the nomination with a plurality of the vote, or lose now but start a movement that might just transform his party into one that can compete in national elections again.
I just read this because rcocean refered to it.

I just gotta say that according to what I remember, the republicans competed pretty successfully in the 2004 and 2000 elections which would be the most proximate before Obama. Not only that, but they seemed to do pretty well in 2010.

Isn't it pretty normal for the presidency to switch parties at least every eight years? Or are you implying that something has happened to the republican party that translates into not being able to compete in national elections? I would say that's quite debatable. But we'll see.
__________________
"By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." Adam Smith

Last edited by badhatharry; 08-20-2011 at 12:29 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #112  
Old 08-20-2011, 01:04 PM
sugarkang sugarkang is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Cali, Small-Govt Liberal
Posts: 2,186
Default Re: The Week in Blog: Shiny Edition (Bill Scher & Kristen Soltis)

Quote:
Originally Posted by miceelf View Post
I think we agree that he'll never make it happen. But it's odd and kind of anachronistic.
I see why you'd think that. He says a lot about the Constitution only allowing gold and silver to be money, but when you actually press him on it, I'm pretty sure he's said that he'd want a basket of commodities like Paul Ryan has advocated.

Measuring oil by gold, the price per gallon is something like 25 cents. But that doesn't matter. He isn't going to be president anyway. I give him money just to be a pain in everyone's ass. And it's working.
__________________
The mixing of populations lowers the cost of being unusual.
Reply With Quote
  #113  
Old 08-20-2011, 02:01 PM
miceelf miceelf is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,569
Default Re: The Week in Blog: Shiny Edition (Bill Scher & Kristen Soltis)

Quote:
Originally Posted by badhatharry View Post

Clever, switch the subject from Perry to Islam. You said 'look down upon'. I leave religious beliefs alone. As I think I put out there pretty clearly I don't subscribe to any of them. But I'm not going to spend time sorting through them and ascribing relative value to them. I guess here I should stipulate that I am critical of things like stoning and sexual mutilation.
I am just explaining why I assumed there were actually views that exist in the world that would give you pause in a presidential candidate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by badhatharry View Post
Lots of communists have run for president. There's probably going to be one in 2012. I would be secure in the knowledge that they don't have a chance in hell.
Would you consider voting for any of them? Does your willingness to vote for them relate at all to their beliefs?

I guess I am just having trouble understanding why it's so completely out of bounds to consider a candidate's views in forming one's opinion of them.
Reply With Quote
  #114  
Old 08-20-2011, 02:11 PM
apple
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: The Week in Blog: Shiny Edition (Bill Scher & Kristen Soltis)

Quote:
Originally Posted by badhatharry View Post
I agree, but in some places that's just not going to happen any time soon. And as I've tried to point out, I don't think its crucial.
It's a violation of the Constitution, so it actually is going to happen, even in those "some places".

Quote:
Originally Posted by badhatharry View Post
To be honest, I haven't investigated the various arguments for creationism.
Here you go: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

Quote:
Originally Posted by badhatharry View Post
I just don't see the practicality of worrying about any of this, however. I am thinking the very best way to 'fight back' is to learn as much as one can about the science and when it comes up, which it usually doesn't, present what you know. Blustering about telling people they are idiots won't be nearly as effective as being able to teach and persuade.
Teaching and persuading the average creationist is hard enough for biologists, and impossible for someone like myself. I'm not aware that I called them all idiots (if I did, I was mistaken), but I do think that people who try to force this into science classrooms idiots.
Reply With Quote
  #115  
Old 08-20-2011, 02:36 PM
whburgess whburgess is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,202
Default Re: The Goofiness of Bill's Suggestion to Huntsman

Quote:
Originally Posted by Starwatcher162536 View Post
I wasn't referring to the vying that went on between the USSR and USA. I was thinking of how the missile gap issue played itself out during the 1960 election. After the last few years I think it's foolhardy to depend on cooperation on anything that isn't an outright capitulation of liberal values from the Republican party. I happen to think the chances of, not on just issues related to AGW, but issues on the enviroment in general being more likely to be resolved in a way I find desirable with 55 Democrats in the Senate and Republicans seething then 50 Democrats in the Senate and Republicans relatively gregarious. Even if the contigent you mention is non-trivial, I doubt they are distributed in such a way that they prove to be a majority in any state, and as I mentioned in my post upthread, I see the majority of political posturing relating to the enviroment as coming from the right. The idea that if democrats were to drop this the issue would just go away and things could be passed on the back channels is, from my perspective, ludicrous.
Ok, so keep on with what is clearly not working then.

Even 55 Dem Senators are not going to get you where you want to go. Your cause is doomed as long as you let enemies in one major party in the country make you the political enemy of your friends in that party as well. It makes you seem not very serious.

This is like the strategy of the far lefty who refuses to vote Dem and instead votes for fringes like Ralph Nader.

Take a page from the pro business people who have supported the Dem party to promote the influence of the 'third way' or 'new democrates' as Clinton and others in the DLC called themselves. Look how much more power they have in the country now then they did when they just stuck with the Republicans.

Last edited by whburgess; 08-20-2011 at 03:02 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #116  
Old 08-20-2011, 02:39 PM
ohreally ohreally is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 666
Default Re: The Goofiness of Bill's Suggestion to Huntsman

Quote:
Originally Posted by badhatharry View Post
So I've been digging deep to try to resurrect where my idea of prediction came from and I guess it was from Popper. This may actually be far afield from what I originally said but here it is:
I agree that Darwin's theory could be falsified. Re. prediction, it's too strong a word. Darwin for one would have strenuously denied that this theory would predict the genome. For one simple reason: he admitted having not the faintest idea how heredity worked and what he speculated turned out to be flatly wrong. In fact he ruled out anything that could be now construed as a gene. His commonsense argument was that there was no way a tiny gene could get passed on without being mixed and drowned out by all the other stuff. It was Mendel who showed that this could happen. (But they had no internet so Darwin didn't know of Mendel's work.) That the genome is a perfect platform for mutations, selections, and replication confirms Darwin's theory. But it's hard to say that it predicts it when Darwin himself would have rejected such an hypothesis had it been presented to him.

Update: Unfair for me to blame the internet.... actually Darwin had Mendel's work with him. Just never bothered to read it or understand it (Darwin's math skills were very limited).

Last edited by ohreally; 08-20-2011 at 02:52 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #117  
Old 08-20-2011, 03:23 PM
whburgess whburgess is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,202
Default Re: The Week in Blog: Shiny Edition (Bill Scher & Kristen Soltis)

Quote:
Originally Posted by stephanie View Post
Because I don't agree. I think there's a culture war being waged against those who believe in evolution -- the argument is that they must be atheists, which is false, as people like me prove -- and Perry et al. know they benefit by encouraging that war, even though they likely share my views on evolution.

Interesting, in that I hear the BS about evolution being a leftist scheme, and I'm pretty religious (I'm quite involved in my church), but I feel like the culture war is being waged against me, by fundamentalists. I absolutely do not agree that a culture war is being waged against fundamentalists. But this comes down to the question of whether teaching evolution and allowing civil unions (which my state just did, over the objection of traditionalists) is a culture war against fundamentalists. I don't think so.
Whether there is a culture war or not, and as to who the aggressor in the culture war, is a different subject. On this, I'd say that civil unions are aggression from the progressive side and would agree with you that battles over evolution are started from the traditional side.

However this is a different subject then whether or not Perry is engaged in this culture war. He clearly isn't as this is an election about the economy. Asking him about evolution and making that an issue is not what he is doing---it is what people from your side and their allies in the MSM are doing. It's a cynical move designed make the culture wars the issue instead of the economy. It's cynical because everyone knows that Perry's beliefs on evolution isn't going to effect anyone.

Quote:

Hmm. I'm sure they properly evaluate the costs and benefits, but I'm someone who likely would consider voting Republican if it didn't mean dumb stuff like voting against evolution.
I think we'll have to agree to disagree that voting for a Republican is a vote against science because I see this statement of yours as either an expression of cynicism or the expression of a target of cynicism.
Reply With Quote
  #118  
Old 08-20-2011, 06:53 PM
Don Zeko Don Zeko is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Exiled to South Jersey
Posts: 2,436
Default Re: The Goofiness of Bill's Suggestion to Huntsman

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator View Post
Of all the different industry groups scrambling to shape climate policy in Washington--from electric utilities to Detroit automakers--one stands out as a bit unexpected: Wall Street. Financial giants like Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan have enlisted, all told, more than 100 lobbyists to roam the Capitol and influence the debate over how to curb greenhouse gases. There’s a reason for that: Any cap-and-trade bill that puts a limit on emissions and allows polluters to buy and sell permits will create a vast carbon market. That will mean new opportunities for financial firms to broker deals, package carbon offsets, or offer hedging instruments. And that, in turn, will mean profit. Little wonder that investment banks have been bulking up their carbon-trading desks in recent years.

--The New Republic
http://www.tnr.com/article/environme...y/planet-worth

Goldman Sachs....JP Morgan.......meh, might as well be the Illuminati.
Hold on just a second. What you have is an example of banks trying to push policy responses to AGW towards forms that they can take advantage of, not banks creating pressure to deal with AGW in the first place. That's not at all the same thing, so we're back to square one. Nobody has anywhere near the incentives to create a fake global warming crisis that various stakeholders have to pretend that said crisis doesn't exist.
Reply With Quote
  #119  
Old 08-20-2011, 07:04 PM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Re: The Goofiness of Bill's Suggestion to Huntsman

Quote:
Originally Posted by ohreally View Post
I agree that Darwin's theory could be falsified. Re. prediction, it's too strong a word.
Right off the bat, I'd like to mention that Popper originally said that Darwin's theory was not falsifiable and therefore not scientific. I believe that later in his life he relented. Mostly his was a critique of the social sciences.

I think I have been confused about the term 'predict'. I have thought for a long time that if a phenomenon confirms a theory it could be said that the theory predicted the phenomenon but I think I had that wrong.

As for Darwin rejecting the idea of a gene. I wasn't even aware that it had been discovered or described in his time. I guess I need to look into this history. And just to clarify...I wasn't saying that Darwin predicted DNA but that his theory of evolution did. However, I'm going to stop saying that because it's obviously an incorrect way to say what I mean.
__________________
"By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." Adam Smith

Last edited by badhatharry; 08-20-2011 at 07:10 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #120  
Old 08-20-2011, 07:09 PM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Re: The Week in Blog: Shiny Edition (Bill Scher & Kristen Soltis)

Quote:
Originally Posted by apple View Post
It's a violation of the Constitution, so it actually is going to happen, even in those "some places".
Well, if some lawyer can convince the Supreme Court that teaching creationism in a public school is a violation of the separation of Church and State, then that would be an argument I'd be interested in hearing. Are there any cases likely to be heard any time soon?
__________________
"By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." Adam Smith
Reply With Quote
 


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:38 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.