The dangers of our new normal...

[B-Man]

 

They seem to be doing ok with you.

 

 

He's "unbeholden"

 

 

 

 

.

[IDBillzFan]

a large group of morons are with you. the educated and unbeholden largely aren't.

 

So to recap:

 

Believing the data supporting global cooling warming climate change is bloated, manufactured crap designed to grab more federal dollars = moron, but believing that global cooling warming climate change is the reason Isis and Boko Harem rape women and murder Christians = 'educated and unbeholden."

 

Got it.

[birdog1960]

 

 

He's "unbeholden"

 

 

 

 

.

debt free, unlike far too many pols.

 

and interestingly, which side members of the public take on this issue is less about education and more about conservatism and religion. i wonder what can be deduced by this finding. http://www.randalolson.com/2014/09/13/who-are-the-climate-change-deniers/

 

"It’s fairly clear from these graphs that religious, Republican American conservatives are the majority of climate change deniers today"

 

If Kahan is right, the implication is that we need to talk about climate science in a way that is entirely devoid of cultural meanings that will antagonize the right.

Edited May 26, 2015 by birdog1960

[IDBillzFan]

debt free, unlike far too many pols.

 

and interestingly, which side members of the public take on this issue is less about education and more about conservatism and religion. i wonder what can be deduced by this finding. http://www.randalolson.com/2014/09/13/who-are-the-climate-change-deniers/

 

"It’s fairly clear from these graphs that religious, Republican American conservatives are the majority of climate change deniers today"

 

If Kahan is right, the implication is that we need to talk about climate science in a way that is entirely devoid of cultural meanings that will antagonize the right.

 

WTF is a "religious Republican American conservative?" Is it the opposite of an "atheist Democrat American liberal progressive?"

 

Does it not strike you as odd that that the new research on global warming cooling climate change is now reduced to identifying those who dare not believe the data?

[TH3]

 

WTF is a "religious Republican American conservative?" Is it the opposite of an "atheist Democrat American liberal progressive?"

 

Does it not strike you as odd that that the new research on global warming cooling climate change is now reduced to identifying those who dare not believe the data?

 

not when worldwide the only people in denial are RRAC's

 

doesn't that seem odd to you?

 

doesn't seem odd that the only people in the world who have scripted the climate discussion in terms of liberal/I guess not liberal - are RRAC's

 

most people just see it as science

Edited May 26, 2015 by baskin

[Taro T]

not when worldwide the only people in denial are RRAC's

Really?

 

The only people in the entire world that don't believe the case for anthropomorphic induced climate change has been compelling made are "RRAC's?" No hyperbole there.

[Azalin]

 

not when worldwide the only people in denial are RRAC's

 

 

I'm not particularly religious, I'm not a republican, and I'm significantly more libertarian than conservative, yet I'm a climate change skeptic.

 

Why do believers in man-made climate change continue to presume any who disagree with them are outright deniers, and are automatically classified as religious and republican?

 

Isn't that kind of like saying all african-americans are rappers?

[DC Tom]

 

Why do believers in man-made climate change continue to presume any who disagree with them are outright deniers, and are automatically classified as religious and republican?

 

Because global warming is a political topic, not a scientific one.

[Azalin]

 

Because global warming is a political topic, not a scientific one.

 

Surely you don't mean to imply that they're not interested in learning the truth of the matter - that in fact their minds are already made up?

[birdog1960]

 

I'm not particularly religious, I'm not a republican, and I'm significantly more libertarian than conservative, yet I'm a climate change skeptic.

 

Why do believers in man-made climate change continue to presume any who disagree with them are outright deniers, and are automatically classified as religious and republican?

 

Isn't that kind of like saying all african-americans are rappers?

it's called polling. it's soft science, but sciencew nonetheless, thus the much of the far right despises it especially if it looks bad for their candidate, eg the last prez election.

[IDBillzFan]

it's called polling. it's soft science, but sciencew nonetheless, thus the much of the far right despises it especially if it looks bad for their candidate, eg the last prez election.

I suspect most of the far right despises it because -- beyond the Al Gore-level of hypocrisy that comes with it -- the left uses it to launder taxpayer dollars to stupid pet projects designed to line the pocket of campaign backers.

 

It's all a scam to grab dollars, and the left plays the scam like BB King played Lucille.

 

And now that it's directly linked to the rape of women, torture of children and murder of Christians? Well...someone shine some light on that solar-powered calculator because the left has some taxpayer dollars they need to start spreading around before Barry leaves office.

[Deranged Rhino]

The Woz weighs in on Snowden: He "gave up his own life to help the rest of us."

 

http://fortune.com/2015/05/26/steve-wozniak-edward-snowden/?xid=gn_editorspicks&google_editors_picks=true

[Azalin]

it's called polling. it's soft science, but sciencew nonetheless, thus the much of the far right despises it especially if it looks bad for their candidate, eg the last prez election.

 

You can call it polling or anything else you want, but that won't make it any more accurate. You're stereotyping people who disagree with you, and implying that they are scientifically ignorant, when they don't know any less about the issue than you do.

[IDBillzFan]

 

You can call it polling or anything else you want, but that won't make it any more accurate. You're stereotyping people who disagree with you, and implying that they are scientifically ignorant, when they don't know any less about the issue than you do.

 

A liberal is labeling people who disagree with him and then calling them uneducated simply because they disagree?

 

Huh. Never seen that before.

Edited May 26, 2015 by LABillzFan

[DC Tom]

it's called polling.

 

Which is politics, not science.

[birdog1960]

 

You can call it polling or anything else you want, but that won't make it any more accurate. You're stereotyping people who disagree with you, and implying that they are scientifically ignorant, when they don't know any less about the issue than you do.

so i can mark you down as against police profiling? cops should be just as likely to do searches on little old ladies as ex cons?

The Woz weighs in on Snowden: He "gave up his own life to help the rest of us."

 

http://fortune.com/2015/05/26/steve-wozniak-edward-snowden/?xid=gn_editorspicks&google_editors_picks=true

of course he does. entirely expected opinion but brave to publicly make it.

[DC Tom]

I suspect most of the far right despises it because -- beyond the Al Gore-level of hypocrisy that comes with it -- the left uses it to launder taxpayer dollars to stupid pet projects designed to line the pocket of campaign backers.

 

It's all a scam to grab dollars, and the left plays the scam like BB King played Lucille.

 

And now that it's directly linked to the rape of women, torture of children and murder of Christians? Well...someone shine some light on that solar-powered calculator because the left has some taxpayer dollars they need to start spreading around before Barry leaves office.

 

But you're not taking it to its logical conclusion:

 

The Keystone XL pipeline is part of the Republican War on Women.

[birdog1960]

 

Which is politics, not science.

demographic collection is a science. it's not always in reference to politics. it's frequently employed in the social sciences.

[GG]

demographic collection is a science. it's not always in reference to politics. it's frequently employed in the social sciences.

 

 

Social sciences are now science? Do you get a diploma from the same school that confers a BS degree in sanitation engineering?

[OCinBuffalo]

 

I don't disagree with you in theory, assuming that the actual intended purpose of this unconstitutional bulk collection of American's meta data was to combat or predict terrorist attacks. I just disagree that's what the system was designed for.

There's that word again: design. The troubles with design are either: it's a bad design, or, its a reasonable design, but executed poorly.

 

Frankly, I would gladly volunteer, and I already have clearance, to serve on a board to review NSA architecture. Just pay my travel expenses. Let's face it: a lawyer, a politician, or an admiral are all amateurs. Amateurs can be fooled easily. I cannot. Unfortunately, lawyers, politicians and flag-officer military are the people both in charge of the design and also serving as oversight of it. This is intolerable. The "decision-makers" are incapable of making proper decisions, themselves, and definitely rely on mercenary IT people to "help" them.

 

Why is this a problem? As a consulting group leader, if I plant your ass on a gig that bills $X00/hour, you damn well better be recommending things that keep you there. Competent, client-side management of consultants is the only thing that unplants asses. Where is the IT management competence amongst these decision makers? Or, if it is your permanent job to advise Senator X, you're about giving him whatever IT details he needs to suit his plans. Either agenda will cause tainted advice 100% of the time.

 

Even if you play it straight up, there's always a step in between the knowledge and the decision. And, that's the root cause of your "system design working as intended", quite valid objection. How do we know it is? Designed...by whom? Whose intentions are we actually serving? What if sound IT advice is actively being filtered by either the ideology, personal agenda, or plain stupidity of the advisee?

 

I think it would be smart to get a few real, independent, IT people involved. Libertarians especially. This way neither main party can influence them. I don't want to see the data, because I don't need to see it. All I need to see is the code/data model/integtration end points. Then, I can tell you "good" or "bad", without compromising anything or anybody. Hell we could use our own PPP rating scales, in 4 dimensions(security, success, intrusion(on liberty), and of course cost) with 3.5 being equivalent of a pH of 0.

Edited May 26, 2015 by OCinBuffalo