Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 3
The Dumb GOP
Topic Started: Oct 4 2008, 06:29 PM (954 Views)
Jeffrey
Senior Carp
Larry
Oct 4 2008, 08:47 PM


Ah, you're letting your NY snobbery come out again, Jeffrey.

Replace "snobbery" with "insight".
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Phlebas
Member Avatar
Bull-Carp
Quote:
 
Why aren't more conservatives disgusted that their party nominated a person devoid of qualifications for the vice presidency (again)?


Because William F. Buckley isn't around anymore.
Random FML: Today, I was fired by my boss in front of my coworkers. It would have been nice if I could have left the building before they started celebrating. FML

The founding of the bulk of the world's nation states post 1914 is based on self-defined nationalisms. The bulk of those national movements involve territory that was ethnically mixed. The foundation of many of those nation states involved population movements in the aftermath. When the only one that is repeatedly held up as unjust and unjustifiable is the Zionist project, the term anti-semitism may very well be appropriate. - P*D


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Quote:
 
Replace "snobbery" with "insight".


Now why would I do that when it's not insight but snobbery?

Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JoeB
Member Avatar
Senior Carp
Quote:
 
Maybe we could rephrase that a little, and see if you still feel the same way.

Looks like Joe has found his new (high) horse. Interesting that he thinks anyone who is not sure that the earth is round, that is, anybody who ain't got that old time religion (as preached by the Most High Priest of the Evangelical Church of Astronomy, Galileo) is an idiot. Yes, it really must be a lonely business always, always, always being so, so right.

Is it religion to believe that the earth is round?

How about the notion that humans breathe oxygen?

Those are too easy for you? How about evolution?

Still too easy? How about the Big Bang theory?

So exactly where does something move from pure science to religion? Where do you draw your line, Senor High Horse?


It's interesting that you put the belief in human caused global warming in the same class as the belief in a 'round' Earth (I presume you DO know it's spherical). The fact that that earth is spherical is easily demonstrated by any number of methods. The 'fact' that global warming is occurring is based on various statistical analyses which are open to both misinterpretation and abuse. If, in fact, we have embarked on an actual global warming runaway caused by carbon dioxide, then we had better get ready to ride out the result. If it is happening it is already too late to stop it. The oil, coal, and natural gas will be burned and sequestration is a silly hoax. All the cap and trade or carbon neutrality stuff is feel-good bs.

We hope this is not the case, and we may believe it is or isn't but the evidence we base our belief on is not self-evident.

So we move to religion when we base our beliefs on what somebody else tells us without being able to independently verify the facts. The man made global warming hypothesis meets this criteria when we accept the word of High Priest Gore and ignore inconvenient facts that contradict the hypothesis. This does not mean it's not true, but it is unproven, and more likely than not, untrue.
"There are many ingredients in the stew of annoyance." - Bucky Katt
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
Joe, why do you say sequestration is a silly hoax? I asked AC about that and he said (paraphrasing) that is a proven technology used for tertiary recovery in oil fields.

Are you saying the CO2 will eventually seep into the atmosphere anyway?
In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JoeB
Member Avatar
Senior Carp
Quote:
 
Joe, why do you say sequestration is a silly hoax? I asked AC about that and he said (paraphrasing) that is a proven technology used for tertiary recovery in oil fields.

Are you saying the CO2 will eventually seep into the atmosphere anyway?


There are 2 reasons I say it is a hoax. First, the combination of the capital cost and increased fuel usage (25% higher) will increase the costs of electricity by 30-60%. Source

Second, there is danger involved in large scale storage of liquified CO2 in geologic formations. This needs to be a permanant solution (like in forever permament), worse than the storage of radioactive waste. With billions of tons of CO2 stored a massive release (earthquake, bad design, or ??) could kill a whole bunch of people. I say it's a hoax because the coal people may sell it as a solution, but I would bet the equipment won't be used. Clean coal? There's a real oxymoron for you.
"There are many ingredients in the stew of annoyance." - Bucky Katt
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
JoeB
Oct 5 2008, 12:18 PM
Quote:
 
Maybe we could rephrase that a little, and see if you still feel the same way.

Looks like Joe has found his new (high) horse. Interesting that he thinks anyone who is not sure that the earth is round, that is, anybody who ain't got that old time religion (as preached by the Most High Priest of the Evangelical Church of Astronomy, Galileo) is an idiot. Yes, it really must be a lonely business always, always, always being so, so right.

Is it religion to believe that the earth is round?

How about the notion that humans breathe oxygen?

Those are too easy for you? How about evolution?

Still too easy? How about the Big Bang theory?

So exactly where does something move from pure science to religion? Where do you draw your line, Senor High Horse?


It's interesting that you put the belief in human caused global warming in the same class as the belief in a 'round' Earth (I presume you DO know it's spherical). The fact that that earth is spherical is easily demonstrated by any number of methods. The 'fact' that global warming is occurring is based on various statistical analyses which are open to both misinterpretation and abuse. If, in fact, we have embarked on an actual global warming runaway caused by carbon dioxide, then we had better get ready to ride out the result. If it is happening it is already too late to stop it. The oil, coal, and natural gas will be burned and sequestration is a silly hoax. All the cap and trade or carbon neutrality stuff is feel-good bs.

We hope this is not the case, and we may believe it is or isn't but the evidence we base our belief on is not self-evident.

So we move to religion when we base our beliefs on what somebody else tells us without being able to independently verify the facts. The man made global warming hypothesis meets this criteria when we accept the word of High Priest Gore and ignore inconvenient facts that contradict the hypothesis. This does not mean it's not true, but it is unproven, and more likely than not, untrue.

I see you ducking the question of where the line is between science and religion.

Every great scientific advancement in history was by someone who put together a theory, believed it, and set out to prove it.

Putting that aside, though ... because I recognize that you don't really want to respond to the question of where the line is between religion and science, since it shreds your preconceived notions ... we need to introduce the concept of "opportunity cost" here. If you wait until something is proven to be 100% certain, beyond any shadow of a doubt, you lose opportunities for action.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JoeB
Member Avatar
Senior Carp
Quote:
 
Every great scientific advancement in history was by someone who put together a theory, believed it, and set out to prove it.


You have left out the hypothesis step altogether. You put together a hypothesis and design tests to prove or disprove it. A good scientist comes with a strong sense of skepticism, and tries to formulate alternative hypotheses, testing them as well. From Wiki:
Quote:
 
In the strict sense, the term theory should only be used when describing a model that is derived from experimental evidence and is provable (or disprovable). It is considered sufficient for the model to be in principle testable at some undetermined point in the future.
Source.

So we may be able to promote human caused global warming to a 'theory' if we accept that the theory is, in principle, testable at some undetermined point in the future. Belief plays a part in this process only insofar as the scientist believes that the theory may, in fact, be correct. Not that it IS correct. If the 'scientist' believes the theory IS correct, he will accept any evidence that bolsters his belief, and ignore evidence that refutes his belief. History is littered with scientists who have fallen into this hole (eugenics, Lysenkoism, etc., etc., etc.).

Quote:
 
Putting that aside, though ... because I recognize that you don't really want to respond to the question of where the line is between religion and science, since it shreds your preconceived notions ... we need to introduce the concept of "opportunity cost" here. If you wait until something is proven to be 100% certain, beyond any shadow of a doubt, you lose opportunities for action.


My basic preconceived notion is that people make mistakes and scientists are people. The idea of religion (based on unprovable, but accepted beliefs) directly applies to the concept of man made global warming. The beliefs, while they may eventually be provable, are not proven. Stating that man made global warming is 'true' based on unproven beliefs moves the people who accept the theory as fact into the religious camp.

Insofar as "opportunity cost" goes, the proper actions to take to slow down man made global warming are logical and should be taken whether or not the theory is, in fact, correct. Reducing the use of fossil fuels by solar, wind, nuclear, and renewable fuels is logical. Releasing finely divided sulphur into the upper atmosphere to increase solar reflectance is just plain crazy without proof positive it wouldn't make a lot of things worse. Carbon credit trading, sequestration, etc. are just ways for scammers to get rich off well meaning people and would have no effect whatsoever on the eventual results except insofar as they give people a false sense of having done something useful.
"There are many ingredients in the stew of annoyance." - Bucky Katt
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kenny
HOLY CARP!!!
JoeB
Oct 5 2008, 11:08 AM
Quote:
 
Every great scientific advancement in history was by someone who put together a theory, believed it, and set out to prove it.


You have left out the hypothesis step altogether. You put together a hypothesis and design tests to prove or disprove it. A good scientist comes with a strong sense of skepticism, and tries to formulate alternative hypotheses, testing them as well. From Wiki:
Quote:
 
In the strict sense, the term theory should only be used when describing a model that is derived from experimental evidence and is provable (or disprovable). It is considered sufficient for the model to be in principle testable at some undetermined point in the future.
Source.

So we may be able to promote human caused global warming to a 'theory' if we accept that the theory is, in principle, testable at some undetermined point in the future. Belief plays a part in this process only insofar as the scientist believes that the theory may, in fact, be correct. Not that it IS correct. If the 'scientist' believes the theory IS correct, he will accept any evidence that bolsters his belief, and ignore evidence that refutes his belief. History is littered with scientists who have fallen into this hole (eugenics, Lysenkoism, etc., etc., etc.).

Quote:
 
Putting that aside, though ... because I recognize that you don't really want to respond to the question of where the line is between religion and science, since it shreds your preconceived notions ... we need to introduce the concept of "opportunity cost" here. If you wait until something is proven to be 100% certain, beyond any shadow of a doubt, you lose opportunities for action.


My basic preconceived notion is that people make mistakes and scientists are people. The idea of religion (based on unprovable, but accepted beliefs) directly applies to the concept of man made global warming. The beliefs, while they may eventually be provable, are not proven. Stating that man made global warming is 'true' based on unproven beliefs moves the people who accept the theory as fact into the religious camp.

Insofar as "opportunity cost" goes, the proper actions to take to slow down man made global warming are logical and should be taken whether or not the theory is, in fact, correct. Reducing the use of fossil fuels by solar, wind, nuclear, and renewable fuels is logical. Releasing finely divided sulphur into the upper atmosphere to increase solar reflectance is just plain crazy without proof positive it wouldn't make a lot of things worse. Carbon credit trading, sequestration, etc. are just ways for scammers to get rich off well meaning people and would have no effect whatsoever on the eventual results except insofar as they give people a false sense of having done something useful.

Whom are you quoting?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JoeB
Member Avatar
Senior Carp
Quote:
 
Whom are you quoting?


Quirt. I wish this board could automatically attribute quotes since evidence indicates I am too lazy to do it. :P
"There are many ingredients in the stew of annoyance." - Bucky Katt
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Quote:
 
Belief plays a part in this process only insofar as the scientist believes that the theory may, in fact, be correct. Not that it IS correct. If the 'scientist' believes the theory IS correct, he will accept any evidence that bolsters his belief, and ignore evidence that refutes his belief. History is littered with scientists who have fallen into this hole (eugenics, Lysenkoism, etc., etc., etc.).


As in everything, Joe, it's a spectrum, it's not either/or. Many scientists fervently believe their theories, and go to great lengths to prove them, but are willing to accept contrary evidence and adapt. Others are not. But to say that "f the 'scientist' believes the theory IS correct, he will accept any evidence that bolsters his belief, and ignore evidence that refutes his belief," is just plain silly, and is likewise contradicted by plenty of historical evidence.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
QuirtEvans
Oct 5 2008, 05:27 AM
Well, Larry, to give you your due, there's a WaPost commentator from the left side who agrees with you.

Quote:
 
The over-the-moon reaction by conservative commentators and activists to Sarah Palin's debate performance puzzled me -- until I came up with a hypothesis to explain the phenomenon. Tell me if you think I'm right or wrong: For "movement" conservatives, the vice-presidential debate was less about 2008 than about 2012 and beyond.

Honestly, it was bizarre to hear intelligent, informed conservatives sing rhapsodies over a performance that was long on spunk but woefully short on substance. When Palin tried to answer Gwen Ifill's questions, as she did on the financial bailout, she got lost in the weeds. So she basically ignored the questions and retreated to her talking points -- embellished with enough mugging, eye-rolling, winking, smirking and all-around folksiness to choke a mule, or a moose. One candidate on that stage clearly had command of the great issues of our time. One didn't.

Palin did well, though, when the subject turned to energy. I didn't agree with her "Drill, baby, drill!" prescription for energy independence, because I think it can't possible work, but she did come across as if she knew what she was talking about.

It's not that conservatives heard a different debate. It's that they were focused on a different election cycle. The conservative movement is looking for its next Ronald Reagan -- its next charismatic leader with game-changing communication skills, bedrock conservative principles and, well, barracuda-like political instincts. Some on the right believe they may have found that leader in Palin. Smart conservative political analysts aren't under the illusion that Palin can turn this election around; only John McCain can do that, if he can figure out how. But remember that the "movement" conservatives' embrace of McCain is based on pragmatism, not passion. He's just not their guy.

Palin, they suspect, may be their gal. She wowed them in Minneapolis -- but then faltered so badly in her interviews with Katie Couric that conservatives wondered if she really had the right stuff. Thursday night, they liked what they saw. Especially heartening for them, I think, was the fact that while she didn't know beans about most of the issues, her facility and comfort talking about energy suggests that when she has time to get familiar with other issues she'll learn them too.

Under my scenario, for ideological conservatives it will be a pity if McCain loses to Barack Obama but not a disaster. If that happens, I can pretty much guarantee that Sarah Palin will be back four years from now. Somewhere, the "Palin 2012" bumper stickers are probably already being printed.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/commu...92-907babe23f5c

WaPo ain't far off.

The base is not wild about McCain, never has been.
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rainman
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
Quote:
 
From the article:
One candidate on that stage clearly had command of the great issues of our time. One didn't.


Funny, I recall an almost instantaneous reaction after the debate on the inaccuracy of many of Biden's "facts."
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 3