The Ills Of Libertarians
Display Avatars Sort By:
Ken Helwig
(kennyhel77) - MLife

Locale: Scotts Valley CA via San Jose, CA
Re: Re: Re: hmm on 05/18/2014 10:57:41 MDT Print View

meanwhile.....let's get back on topic!

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/05/15/this-gop-primary-debate-for-idaho-governor-is-so-bonkers-we-dont-know-where-to-start/

Ken Helwig
(kennyhel77) - MLife

Locale: Scotts Valley CA via San Jose, CA
Re: The Ills Of Libertarians on 05/18/2014 11:00:49 MDT Print View

and remember......this is about the mental illness known as Libertarianism

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: property taxes on 05/18/2014 11:00:55 MDT Print View

They should just have income tax

All these other taxes - property, sales,... nickel and dime us so we don't realize how much tax we're paying

Income up to poverty level should have no tax (or even a negative tax as proposed by the conservative Nobel economist Friedman). Income above that up to median income should be taxed at 40%. Income above that should be taxed at 50%. Or something like that.

Then, your senior person won't get taxed into the poor house because if they're low income, they won't pay much tax. They'll only pay a lot of tax if they're high income.

I go camping with young relatives. Us old people are financially well off and get 50% senior discount. Young people are struggling financially with families and houses but don't get discount. They pay social security tax so we can live comfortably. Something wrong with that.

Matthew Perry
(bigfoot2) - F

Locale: Oregon
The Ills Of Libertarians on 05/18/2014 12:35:15 MDT Print View

"meanwhile.....let's get back on topic! "ken

Ken Helwig
(kennyhel77) - MLife

Locale: Scotts Valley CA via San Jose, CA
Re: The Ills Of Libertarians on 05/18/2014 16:41:12 MDT Print View

wingnut talking points.....meme's

Ken Helwig
(kennyhel77) - MLife

Locale: Scotts Valley CA via San Jose, CA
Re: Re: Re: hmm on 05/18/2014 16:42:11 MDT Print View

however....all joking or making fun aside....when we hit the trails, we are all one regardless of how we stand.

Ken Miller
(Powderpiggy)

Locale: Colorado
The flight of science on 05/18/2014 17:27:49 MDT Print View

From Jennifer's earlier post:

"I think one of our biggest problems as a culture is that we continue to isolate ourselves. We read material that only encourages our own beliefs and denounce those that challenge them (OH! look at the source!! that's a liberal/conservative paper/blog/source!). We refuse to reflect on our own faults and the fallacies of our own opinions. We live in communities that are just like ourselves...human nature, we gravitate towards like minded groups and individuals. The problem comes in when you keep closing your mind to what's outside that circle.

One of the hardest clinical lessons to teach entry level doctoral students is that you are always trying to prove yourself WRONG. It's very, very easy to find evidence to support what you think is right - even if you are not. So take a page out of the research playbook and try to prove your idea/belief wrong.

Then you have to accept that you very well might be wrong.

It's a very difficult mindset, but one that is very important to a scientist. It's why in scientific research you try to prove what's called the Null Hypothesis - the opposite of what you think is true."

Now, ask yourself why this tried and true scientific methodology abandoned in the anthropogenic global warming studies.

Answer: Politics

Jennifer Mitol
(Jenmitol) - M

Locale: In my dreams....
Re: The flight of science on 05/18/2014 18:58:32 MDT Print View

So why would 95% of the world's climate scientists conspire in this way, Ken? What is the motivation??

Obviously there is a lot of money to be made in the status quo, and those whose livelihoods depend on oil and gas and coal and other carbon burners have a lot at stake to make sure you question climate change.

But for the love of Pete, what is the motivation for all those scientists to band together to say it's man-made?? Why would they do such a thing?? Where is that payoff??


Here is the list of just some of the agencies who agree that it's man made. That's a serious cabal if it's all a vast left-wing conspiracy....
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

Edited by Jenmitol on 05/18/2014 19:00:48 MDT.

spelt with a t
(spelt) - F

Locale: SW/C PA
Re: Re: The flight of science on 05/18/2014 19:58:40 MDT Print View

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6MOnehCOUw

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: The flight of science on 05/18/2014 21:26:52 MDT Print View

Rog on carbon flame war says it's that climate scientists want grant money

It's funny how the global warming deniers are slowly fading away, sort of like the tobacco causes cancer deniers

Ken Miller
(Powderpiggy)

Locale: Colorado
Scientific consensus on 05/19/2014 18:18:36 MDT Print View

Interesting concept this consensus thing.

There are a couple of things that we can all reach consensus on:

The Global Warming, Climate Change, Climate Extremes, models are extremely wrong. Predictions about rising temperatures, increased hurricanes and rising sea levels are just not true.

The proponents of Global Warming, Climate Change, Climate Extremes are consistent in their refusal to share data, their willingness to compromise statistical methodologies to hide the truth and their ability to create significant personal wealth from riding the Trojan Horse.

There is no doubt the climate has warmed, especially when you use the last mini ice age as your beginning data point. The contribution of human activity is very, very, very small. One burp from a volcano clears the slate.

It is interesting that democrats did nothing to implement cap and trade or similar legistation when they controlled the entire US government during President Obama's first 2 years. Some might say it is immoral to not deal with the greatest peril facing the World's future, actually I think it was said a couple hundred times in commencement addresses these last couple of weeks.

Others think it's a great topic for political fund raising.

Hum, that just might be a motivation for consensus.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Scientific consensus on 05/19/2014 19:16:45 MDT Print View

"It is interesting that democrats did nothing to implement cap and trade or similar legistation when they controlled the entire US government during President Obama's first 2 years."

Ha, ha, ha, good one Ken

Democrats had a filibuster-proof majority for a short time after a Republican switched parties before Ted Kennedy was replaced by Scott Brown. I think it was 2 months.

They should have got more done I suppose.

The Democrats aren't as unified as Republicans and it's hard to get every one to vote for anything. Some Democrats are fairly conservative.

Charles G.
(Rincon) - M

Locale: Desert Southwest
Scientific Consensus on 05/19/2014 20:57:18 MDT Print View

Scientific consensus is a fragile thing. Just because a lot of scientists agree on a particular paradigm there is no strong reason to accept it as absolute truth. Global climate change is one such paradigm; there have been others.

Alfred Wegener was a German geologist in the early part of the 20th century. He noted a strong coincidence of coastlines particularly between Africa and South America. He also noted matching fossil suites on the widely separated coasts. He proposed an hypothesis that the continents were drifting apart in places and together in others. The scientific consensus in response to his hypothesis was that he was mad. Fifty years later, the idea of plate tectonics and continental drift was well established and buttressed by paleomagnetic observations. Moral? Scientific consensus is often wrong.

Craig W.
(xnomanx) - F - M
Re: Scientific Consensus on 05/19/2014 21:16:21 MDT Print View

How about we roll out case after case in which scientific consensus was correct despite great public, religious, economic, and political backlash…even when scientists faced a death sentence for their claims?

"Moral? Scientific consensus is often wrong."

Or perhaps scientific consensus is often right but our social, religious, political, and economic institutions are unwilling to accept a threat to the status quo.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Scientific Consensus on 05/19/2014 21:20:56 MDT Print View

Somebody came up with the idea of plate techtonics, people thought he was a nut, gradually more and more people agreed, now that's the consensus. To say that the continents were created in their current position is nutty.

Similalry, a few people proposed that man could put enough greenhouse gas into the atmosphere to affect climate. People thought they were nuts. Gradually more scientists agreed. The theory is a few decades behind plate techtonics. The fossil fuel companies are desperately delaying as long as possible so they can continue making money.

Similarly, a few people proposed that tobacco causes cancer. The tobacco companies resisted as long as possible so they could continue making money. Now, everyone agrees tobacco causes cancer and most people have quit using it.

I think the comparison between global warming and tobacco causing cancer is better, because there is a large industry making money that wants to delay the new paradigm as long as possible.

With plate techtonics, it's more just scientific. No huge industry stood to lose money when plate techtonics was adopted.

Marko Botsaris
(millonas) - F - MLife

Locale: Santa Cruz Mountains, CA
Re: Scientific Consensus on 05/20/2014 01:59:56 MDT Print View

Wegener WAS a bit mad because at the time there was NO good evidence. Plate tectonics got accepted largely due to the magnetic pattens on the sea floor near the mid Atlantic ridge much later. Democritus proposed that matter was made up of atoms 2 1/2 millennia ago, but lucky guesses don't count.

A totally uninformed comparison to a scientific body of work like climate change contributed to by ten of thousand researchers with ton of data. Very facile argument about "scientific consensus". However, very convenient as it allows people to criticize ANYTHING without ever having to either understand it, or delve into how the conclusion are or aren't related to the data.

Charles G.
(Rincon) - M

Locale: Desert Southwest
Scientific consensus. on 05/20/2014 07:05:20 MDT Print View

Craig, Jerry, Marcos: please be aware that I was not making a claim that climate change is not occurring: it is if for no other reason than we are still warming from the little ice age. My point was that those who claim that "scientific consensus" proves anything may be in error. The "20,000,000 Frenchmen can't be wrong" argument is a logical fallacy. The scientific literature is full of widely accepted theory that was later either radically revised or debunked. For example Eugenics was widely accepted by the scientific community at one time but is no longer; so was/is the role of low fat diets for weight loss and cardio health. Scientists are humans like the rest of us and are just as capable of blind spots and bandwagon jumping as are the unwashed masses. I spent 35 years working as an environmental scientist, I have published extensively in the field and am well aware of how this can occur. I had my fair share of blind spots and jumped on a few bandwagons in my day and have had to eat my fair share of crow. The field of climate science is complex, to say the least, and the role of anthropogenic carbon dioxide in climate change is still unclear but with time and research will be resolved. In the meanwhile, the notion of climate change is exploited shamelessly by those who have other agendas and who use exaggerated claims of future disaster to further these agendas; the "deniers" are guilty of similar tactics. Only time will tell for sure.

Edited by Rincon on 05/20/2014 10:54:58 MDT.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Scientific consensus. on 05/20/2014 07:42:50 MDT Print View

I agree it's complicated and the effect of the greenhouse gasses is unclear. The scientists could be off by factors of 2 on temperature increase.

So, don't eliminate cars and power plants and destroy the economy. But we should do the easy things, like keep increasing efficiency.

Build more windmills which are possibly even cheaper than conventional power plants. Use natural gas when the wind doesn't blow. Over time, figure out how to use alternate fuels a larger percentage of time.

What bugs me is there's no federal push to use natural gas more. We have a surplus. Like, start having federal vehicles use natural gas. Subsidize a first round of natural gas fuel stations to encourage others to use natural gas.

We should have some plants that make LED light bulbs here in the U.S. rather than just allowing China to take over that market too.

etc...

Marko Botsaris
(millonas) - F - MLife

Locale: Santa Cruz Mountains, CA
Re: Scientific consensus. on 05/20/2014 08:36:54 MDT Print View

I agree about bandwagons. I don't agree that eugenics is a good example. With a little thought one can come up with a dozen GOOD examples. Climatology is a soft science with some hard sciences mixed in. It's theses can not be verified under controlled conditions. I think many people on both sides including here don't want to a or are not capable of distinguishing between the cloud of flies (political stuff) and the meat (science).

Sorry if I was strident but as a professional hard scientist I occasionally boil over at the way people on here feel justified in reading a few articles on line and then writing off whole areas of science. My favorite tactic is when people claim scientific consensus is EVIDENCE that something is wrong. They will often take some isolated fact without understanding how it fits into the whole picture and claim this show everything is wrong.

Edited by millonas on 05/20/2014 09:10:26 MDT.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: Scientific consensus. on 05/20/2014 08:50:09 MDT Print View

yeah

and difficult to have controlled studies about the climate

after 9/11 there were no airplanes for a few days. Enabled them to do some measurements of how much airplanes contribute to global warming