Let Conservatives keep their kids out of college

Keep conservative away and you won't have any doctors, engineers etc. All you'll have is snowflakes chasing liberal arts degrees with little chance of actual employment.

 

Whatever you say

 

I'm sure you don't anymore. But you did before. You cared enough to latch onto it.

Correct! And the inaccuracy would also be identical. It was not "funding". It was just a payment for a service.

The "funding", and the "grants" that Exxon paid actually produced the same results as the "funding" and the "grants" from (to you se your word) "Academia".

So the only problem here is yours confusing articles that Exxon distributed knowing that the content was false, and made up only for the money, with actual research.

.
That is correct. And it was a nightmare. I participated in discussion forums like this one at the time and you would see these articles constantly being brought up by science denialists

At that point (2003), the consensus position was already in place. And research to prove the consensus position continued for a few years only because denialists and their politicians insisted. And we lost several years (about 7 or 8 years) and many "grants" showing the same thing over and over when we already knew the results. Resources which would have been better spend on research about mitigation and dealing with the consequences.

So the consequences of listening to Science denialists after 2003 was nothing but negative. Change could probably have been slowed quite a bit.

Now the debate is over. The "AGW Conspiracy"; can be laid to rest. I have no interest in wasting my time with it anymore.

If you are interested in discussing the consequences of AGW, how to deal with them, mitigation and maybe even how to slow down the process, I'm all ears.

Now that we know Oil Companies have agreed with the consensus opinion for 40 years, debating whether it's a fact or not is trivial.

Correct!

Ok. That means you deny Science itself. Because the Scientific Method is based on the premise that, through it, you can obtain objective conclusions.

So we have you on one side, and we have the conclusions that Science considers objective on the other. You vs Science. The latter can claim responsibility for things like doubling the life expectancy of humans, technology that has taken us to the Moon, that has created this device you are reading this on, the lamp over your head, ... even most of the food you eat. The former (you) on the other hand.... well....

 

What far right ideas are worthy of inclusion in a college curriculum? Almost every Econ department in the nation is filled with right wingers even if they think they are leftees. Do you think there is a right wing history? Is mathematics leftist? Philosophy, now that is definitely leftist, they teach people how to think, horrible idea. Is English a leftist plot? Does learning physics demand leftism? Is chemistry leftist? Biology? Geology? Genetics? Engineering? Computer science? Do tell us which of these majors is indoctrinating kids into liberal Marxists because I am searching for that basis...

 

What is your point? Insinuating without making a point is a definite sign of somebody who is about to plunge head-first into a conspiracy theory.

What does "an enormous political aspect" mean? And what are the effects on editors who have no particular interest on pushing some "agenda" but do have a huge interest in keeping their jobs and keeping their publications credible?

What are you saying?.... Just say it!

This whole conversation is trivial anyway. Whatever "conspiracy" you are trying to insinuate is now pointless. Because if there were a conspiracy, why would Oil Companies participate in it?

So now that we are at the end of the political side of the AGW debate (the Scientific one ended in the early 2000s), truns out that whatever you are accusing peer-reviewed publications of is moot, given that the Consensus Position is endorsed by the industry that, not only once used all it's resources to fraudulently undermine, but would be the most affected if AGW turned out to be correct.

So I don't know what the point is of continuing this discussion.

I hope those, like yourself who, having no experience in Science Research and how Science works can use this moment in a positive way. For so many years you have had to defend a twisted vision of Science. That, by itself is terrible. Maybe even worse than the defense of the now defunct anti-AGW conspiracy. But now you can use the opportunity in a positive way to catch up, and learn how Science really works, and why it's always worth supporting it instead of attacking it.

That's my hope.
​

 

Nope.
It is the truth.
Those that think public education is a scam, are the one's who didn't get educated.

 

Obama's worst beat bush 2's worst by a long shot.
Remember the crash of 2007/2008? The greatest recession this country has seen. Perhaps the world.

 

Bingo!!! Spot. On.

 

That has been brought up several times in this thread, mostly crickets was the response. But most have left the thread.
For they know that the RW talking points make their claims of public education as a scam is nonsensical.

 

Well ok

You’re a liberal

But if I said the same thing to you it would be flamebait

 

Many people are revolted by the snowflake/socialist/progressive environment that has begun to dominate college campuses. Further, that their tax dollars are going to support such nonsense.

You can whine and complain, but many people find it difficult to be enthusiastic about a place where a young person is supposed to take on life long debt in order to be more indoctrinated than educated.

 

Its going to get worse with time

Our best and brightest are the least competent in history

After they take over America is finished

 

Here we go again......how exciting. I can hardly wait to see more of your feigned condescension. You are like the little train that could.....if at first you dont succeed....try try again......

-You are sure I "dont anymore"? I never cared about your specific example. I am going to repost what I actually said...

"This is precisely the aspect that the left does not understand. You quickly identify the funding bias that exists from Exxon only giving grants to those proposing studies with anti global warming as its hypothesis, but then you completely ignore the funding bias that comes from the uber left educational establishment that funds only research that exclusively begins with a pro global warming hypothesis. "

....You see, I cared about your specific example, only to the extent that it was an example of you making a big deal out of a funding bias and how that effects outcomes on one side, while wholly ignoring the funding bias from the other side; and how that similarly impacts outcomes. The big deal that you made out of the word grant was always irrelevant and I said as much from the beginning. So no, I didn't "latch on" to your specific example. It only mattered due to it being an example of you complaining about biased funding. Nothing more. Nothing less.

​

Funding is money provided for a particular purpose ( although I know that you like to deny the pesky "dictionary". I hate to break this to you, but payment for a service is ABSOLUTELY correctly called a form of "funding". No doubt you will deny this reality. I can lead a horse to water, but cannot make him drink.

.

-So now you are using your self reported forays into a message forum as source material to prove your point?.......YEESH.

-So after all of this, you are trying to transition the argument from evil oil financed essays to the all encompassing debate about what constitutes "settled" science?....LOL...Cmon. Its as if this entire time you keep trying to goad me into an argument that I am specifically not making. I avoid wide ranging AGW debates like the plague. Why?.....because they are a colossal waste of time. There is this large segment of leftists that are insanely fanatical about the issue. Its like arguing religion with a Born Again Christian. It may be interesting the first few times, but after a while it just becomes this redundant, entirely predictable argument that is a colossal waste of everyone's time. Seriously, I dont care about AGW, and I truly mean that. I dont even have that strong of feelings about it. I see it as an interesting theory, DEFINITELY worthy of further exploration, but I also believe that it is FAR from settled science. There are millions of variables in our ecosystem that impact carbon levels, and we have barely scratched the surface in our understanding of how these variables interact, especially regarding the earths ability to filter that carbon under differing environmental circumstances. This is where the argument turns to a lot of suppositional BS. While anyone can agree and acknowledge the concept of a greenhouse effect which is really all that is being referred to when making the claim that there is consensus, the notion of predictive models and their accuracy is REALLY where the rubber meets the road.

Yes we can agree that man impacts climate, but the true debate is by how much. That range could be almost nothing, to catastrophic, worldwide famine. Trying to quantify that impact is FAR from settled science. Some scientists believe that the impact is negligible, and others believe it is catastrophic. The people pushing the notion that it is catastrophic garner the headlines. It is fundamentally dishonest to parade around the 97% consensus number which is theoretically encompassing all scientists ( even those that think it is negligible) along with the predictions of gloom and doom. Not all of those 97% are gloom and doomers, but when presenting those concepts simultaneously, it gives the false impression that 97% of scientists believe man made global warming is the biggest challenge facing mankind.

I am saying all of this to let you know why I dont engage in all encompassing global warming debates. That reason is that to people like yourself, it truly is a religion. There is this blind faith, and nothing anyone says can possibly change your mind. People like yourself act as if the whole of science believes that AGW is without any doubt going to be catastrophic, and anyone that dares question this inevitability is branded a heretic. I see no need to go back and forth. People like yourself will invariably mix up all of your facts, and pretend like they are one when they are not. People like yourself will roll out an endless supply of links that are obviously aggregated on some leftist blog somewhere that only has an interest in presenting one side of this story. People like yourself will turn this into the never ending conversation, because your devotion is analogous to a devout adherent to a particular religion.It becomes a tedious exercise in futility. Did I mention that I dont care about this issue? To me, it is a nothing burger. Sincerely.

For those reasons, I purposefully only nibbled around the edges, and correctly pointed out your inconsistency in recognizing how biased funding impacts results on one side, while pretending it doesnt affect the other. I have more than proven my point. Whether you recognize that or not is of no consequence. I am more than happy to let the reader decide.

I know that I am correct. That correct definition outlines perfectly why conclusions in a scientific study are considered subjective. T "Not influenced by personal interpretation. " When you are talking about a complex set of scientific data, each person interprets the meaning of that data. One persons interpretation is NOT objective. It is subjective. This is why they purposefully build in disclaimers such as "this seem to indicate.....". They do so in order to convey the subjective nature of conclusions. This is the strangest argument. I didnt make this up. Your argument isnt with me, it is with the scientific establishment that as a matter of protocol labels conclusions subjective. Dont shoot the messenger. Sheesh

ENOUGH ALREADY. It doesnt mean that I "deny science itself". It means that I understand how science categorizes conclusions. It means that you do NOT. Stop falsely pretending as if your ignorance somehow stands on the side of science. It does NOT.

 

​

This is just a whole lot of self aggrandizing nonsense. This is not worthy of a response. I am bored with you.

 

LMAO in the end the only way you can defend Obama's economy is to compare it to the bottom of the housing bubble burst. That really is funny and I really am laughing.

 

I didn't see mac-7's response, so here you go, proof of his statements:

1) Many boys are turned off by education. "Boys are 30 percent more likely than girls to flunk or drop out of school..." http://www.pbs.org/parents/raisingboys/school.html

2) Sex education is counter-productive. "The results of a five-year report from the Health and Human Services’ (HHS) Office of Adolescent Health show that a half billion dollars of spending and half a decade of work has failed to produce the effective sex education programs promised. In fact, a closer look at the data from the HHS office shows that in some cases, the federally-funded sex education programs helped contribute to an increase of pregnancy and sexual exploration in teenagers, while other programs didn’t impact behavior changes at all." https://www.liveaction.org/news/planned-parenthood-infiltrates-ny-school/

3) Many people never wise up. "Results indicate that dropping out of high school is positively associated with later crime..." https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1745-9125.1985.tb00323.x

4) The Democratic Party is the party of criminals and welfare users. "Democrats Introduce Federal Bill to Reinstate Votes of Convicted Felons" "Seven in 10 felons register as Democrats" http://freebeacon.com/issues/democrats-introduce-federal-bill-reinstate-votes-convicted-felons/ "60-80% of welfare recipients are Democrats, while full time Workers are evenly divided between parties." https://tino.us/2012/02/are-welfare-recipients-mostly-republican/



5) Others see the error of their ways and struggle to make something of their lives. "Since the beginning of the year, nearing 50,000 registered Democrats in Pennsylvania have switched to the Republican Party and as many as 20,000 Democrats in Massachusetts have made the same move in their state." https://www.cbsnews.com/news/why-are-people-changing-their-party-affiliation-this-election-cycle/

6) A good plumber or electrician is better at his job than many teachers. This is one of those, "Well, duh," comments. The opposite is also true, a good teacher is better at his/her job than many plumbers or electricians. Talent in any field is a bell curve, with very few at the top of the talent curve (the best) and hopefully the few at the bottom of the curve (the worst) being encouraged to find a different field of endeavor. Teaching is one of the few occupations where sucking at your job doesn't necessarily get you fired, though. I'll give you an example from my own experience with law professors. Studying for the bar exam, I took a preparatory course which had a variety of professors recorded to video teaching the different areas of law. The most entertaining professor was the criminal law professor, and I could see why that particular video was kept even though it was older than the others. However, when I did the practice exam, I discovered that he hadn't taught me a damn thing worth knowing for the bar. I knew some from my previous crim. law courses, but I had to study hard on my own to get up to par on that particular topic. So while this particular professor should have been fired (or his video removed from the curriculum, anyway) because he sucked at his job, he wasn't because he was entertaining.

 

I made a big deal? It was just an example in a discussion about education, for God's sake! Which, BTW, as you have now been told, has nothing to do with "funding".

Not in the context of Scientific Research and education. In that context the meaning is much more precise. One that does not apply to money paid for articles they knew in advance would be full of inaccuracies, pseudo-science and outright lies.

The dictionary is great. The fact that you don't understand it's uses and limitations is what is "pesky". A dictionary gives you the usual meanings of a word. But it doesn't provide context, for example. And it's not intended to become a substitute for arguments when discussing a concept within a discipline.

Oh no! Now you got me debating the dictionary! I can do better. I'll skip the nonsense hoping there is some "meat" in this post.

Gee! I don't know. What "point" are you talking about? What is the point you are trying to make?

Well... sorry.... I just thought that discussing the current state of the AGW debate was more relevant than what I have debated for decades.

What do you want me to say about that? That i didn't debate this for decades? Or that science denialists didn't use these articles to advance political points using pseudo-science? That would be misleading to you because anybody else who was around during the course of this debate has seen the articles produced by the Exxon Cop-out. My mistake is that I though you had been around too and had seen them. I'm not going to waste my time digging up that garbage, though. I had too much of it for too many years. So you're on your own on that.

You don't even have to do anything. Forget I said it, if you want. Because my example was relevant in the discussion about Education. Not relevant at all when discussing AGW.

So let that be the end of the story....

I don't debate religious beliefs. I only debate knowledge based on scientific studies. Sorry.

How can 150 years of research, producing scientific studies funded by all sources (private, academic, governments,,...) all coming to the same conclusion, be "scratching the surface"?

How does the debate end, in your opinion? Let's say (assume) AGW was a fact. When would we know it? Do we wait until half the planet is under water and the other half is in the middle of a famine? Would we know at that point? What would be needed to establish that?

Models are meant to provide a general idea of where we might be heading. They are not meant to predict the future. Anybody who lives in Florida when a hurricane approaching understands this concept. Models have had very little (if anything) to do with establishing the consensus. They have had to do with explaining to the public what could happen. Much like a hurricane projected path graph explains where a hurricane could hit. So if a model predicts that the hurricane has a high probability of hitting you directly but, in the end, it doesn't, that doesn't mean the hurricane didn't exist. Or that it didn't cause damage somewhere else. . On the same token, most AGW models have been reasonably accurate. For the most part, they have fallen short of the consequences we have actually experienced so far. Which doesn't necessarily imply that they will be as accurate in the future. But to ignore them is like ignoring models that predict that a Cat 5 will hit your home within the next 24 hours.

So if "models" is the source of your disagreement, then there is no disagreement at all. Only misunderstanding. Models are not as relevant to the consensus opinion as you seem to think.

"Catastrophic' is not part of the consensus. It's extremely likely that it will be, but it's not part of the consensus position. The headlines you read are the same I see when a hurricane approaches. I have had several "scares" in which it finally just drifts off to sea after I had boarded my house. But I have seen the damage to those who didn't heed the alerts, and just though "Oh... this is just another "scare". So I board my house, buy tons of bottles of water and canned goods, fill my tank, check the oil in my generator and test it,... every single time. I would be just plain irresponsible with my family if I didn't do so.

I don't know what 97% consensus you're talking about. Only consensus I'm aware of is AGW. But that's 100%..

It is irrelevant what scientists "believe". Only thing that matters in Science is what they can prove.

You should, because it looks like you're a bit ou

I see. So even though you're the one expressing and using "beliefs" as an argument, while I'm not, in your mind I'm the one who sees it as a religion. Curious how your mind "works"

I can clearly see why you don't. This paragraph make is clear that your only arguments are ad-hominems. Not what anybody would call "serious arguments"

Lucky you! I don't. I have very high confidence that I'm correct. But not 100%. Same level of confidence I have in Quantum Mechanics, the Laws of Gravity, Evolution, that the medication I take before going to bed won't kill me, and that tomorrow the sun will come out. But that's the best I can do. And it's also the best that can be expected of Science, BTW

Actually, as I have shown, it demonstrates that you have a huge propensity to project. Which is not entirely a bad thing. Because it indicates that, at some level of consciousness, you recognize your problem and you can correct it.

 

Which, if you remember history, was the beginning of obama's term. There was a monster hole to climb out of. A reversal of jobs and the economy to over come, before any sort of recover could take place.
You should laugh. For your buddy prez bush turned our country on it's head. And that you laugh about it says a whole lot about you.

Any way, obama hasn't been prez in over a year. You don't need ODS any more.

 

No reply to your questions. Can't say I'm shocked. It would force those who think there is some vast indoctrination conspiracy to admit they are wrong.

 

Too many kids in college aren't built for college, but think they're forced to go. Just had this conversation last night. Coworkers older brother dropped out of high school and became an electrician. My coworker went to UF and got a Masters and has become a very successful leader at the company, and says his brother is still WAAAAAY more successful then he is and my coworker is doing VERY well. He said his brother wasn't made for school, but he busted his ass. My coworker busts his ass too, but took a different route. He did the 6-7 yrs in college and went corporate. The brother dropped out, learned to be an electrician and started a company. At only a few yrs older, he really doesn't "work" all that much anymore, my coworker said. He's jealous=) And they're in their early 40s.

 

Mu uncle did better than my aunt. He got a college degree, my aunt was a home maker.

 

Most of your post is nonsensical bickering, and I am going to refrain from quoting or responding to the meaningless nonsense....

What I want you to do is to stick to the actual subject being discussed. What I dont want you doing is throwing out strawman after strawman where you arent arguing against what I said, but apparently are arguing against what you WISHED I had said. "WE" weren't discussing whether or not AGW is settled science. "YOU" WERE.

150 years?...really? Isnt that exaggerating just a bit? If you are going to say 150 years, you may as well say 300 years since that is when the thermometer was invented. Our scientific knowledge has grown vastly in the last 50 years or so, and any research on this topic that was conducted prior to that is fairly inconsequential. At any rate, fine, lets say 150 years. How do you suppose our understanding of climate and how it interacts with the biosphere is going to change over the next 150 years? Do you suppose that we will find anything different, or is it your contention that we have it 100% correct, and the next 150 years of research will be irrelevant? Has "science" ever had to correct itself in the past? Do you think just maybe there is a chance that some of what we think we know now may be corrected during the next 150 years of scientific research?

So yes......we are just scratching the surface.

When does what debate end?... Mans activities in relation to climate and how the biosphere reacts is so infinitely complex, that you are talking about millions of different debates. Each of those debates end when they cease being theories, and can properly be called laws which can be put into a formula and produce accurate results every time.

Are you calling the debate "man impacts climate"? Are you being that general? Of course man impacts climate, because if nothing else our body temperature alone has an impact. Are you calling the debate "there is a greenhouse effect"? Of course there is a greenhouse effect. None of that however tells us to what degree our activities will change global temperatures. To me, therein lies the debate. How the biosphere reacts to differing stimuli, especially in regards to filtering greenhouse gasses is INFINITELY complex. We arent even close to being able to answer that question. We have only just begin to scratch the surface on that issue.

Undoubtedly, you want to take your BELIEF ( not proven science) that mans activities are going to create a cataclysmic event, and use that to dictate economic policy as it relates to energy. You are hiding behind the accepted "science" that a greenhouse effect exists, and insisting that we need to cater to your BELIEF that the results will be catastrophic. Therein lies the problem. Your BELIEF about catastrophe, and the SCIENCE behind greenhouse gasses are mutually exclusive, yet you are insisting that we behave as if they were one. You act as if my skepticism of your catastrophic belief, in combination with my recognition of the SCIENCE behind greenhouse gasses somehow equates to me denying science. I recognize the science, yet am skeptical of your belief as to the meaning of that science once it is applied to the infinitely complex biosphere.

Put more simply, models are an educated guess. Just as a hurricane projected to hit Florida may miss completely, a projection of catastrophic outcomes from mans impact on climate can also miss completely( It is misleading to even imply that current climate models are as accurate as current hurricane models however) This is why you cannot call these projections settled science. You can only call the greenhouse effect settled science, or other similar relatively non specific scientific principles. Again, my argument against your viewpoint is that you want to shove your BELIEF in the catastrophic consequences of man made global warming down everyone's throat by mandating that the USA use what are now more expensive forms of energy thus creating a competitive imbalance with those parts of the world that do not live under those same mandates. If your BELIEF turns out to be correct, then your proposed mandates would have been worthwhile ( perhaps), but if your belief does not turn out to be correct, you have unnecessarily and severely hampered our economy. In my opinion, we need something far more concrete then your BELIEF before taking such drastic action. Therein lies the problem. When confronted, you will acknowledge that the models are unreliable, but you want us to take drastic actions because of those models all the while acting like anyone that dares question your models to be anti science. You act as if the models are settled science. They are not. Hence, there is no mandate to take such drastic action unless and until those models become reliable. Just because you keep repeating that the greenhouse effect is settled science, does NOT equate to the unquestioning need to mandate more expensive less competitive forms of energy.

-You are now distancing yourself from the models, and if you think of the conversation we were ACTUALLY having, your complaint was with EXXON putting out a call for people to write thoughtful criticisms and limitations of climate models. If even you now arent defending the models, why are you so offended about the notion of someone wanting to explore the notion of their limitations? In fact, your first statement was "For example when, in the early 2000s, Exxon offered anybody with a Science Degree $10000 for each article they would write denying AGW"....In reality they had asked for thoughtful critiques on the limitations of climate models, showing exactly what Im talking about with you mixing all of those concepts into one. Just because you are distancing the two arguments now, doesnt mean that is what you have been doing all along.

OF COUSE its not part of the consensus, but that is not what you are implying when you continue combining all of these concepts into one tidy package by declaring AGW is settled science and insisting that we take drastic evasive action.

 

Although I know that this thread is about Global Warming, I'm going to try to hijack it with a reference to education.

If you like to back up your prejudices about American education with facts, here's a place to start, "The Nation's Report Card".

 

You defend obama and his stagnant economy, I laugh at you. Same thing different day.

 

Somehow I missed this post. So I'll just comment on what I hadn't commented already before.

I'm not, nor have ever been "close" to the models. I'm not nor have been "distant" from the models. They're just models. I'm only explaining to you what they are because you seem to be ascribing some weird property to them which I can't even pinpoint.

Pay attention! AGW is settled Science, but the consequences are not part of the Scientific consensus. However, there is a generalized opinion that consequences will be dire. You simply confused the two. That 97% opinion that you mention sounds consistent with the latter. I seem to remember reading somewhere that that's the percentage of scientists who believe that consequences will be catastrophic if we don't take action. But a scientist's opinion is as valid as anybody else's Only what they can prove is relevant. The "proof" that they were right is not scientific. It's anecdotal. And it's based on the effects that we have actually been seeing. So I would say it's clear that any other position is extremely foolish and irresponsible.

You will probably be able to expand on this and study it more when you learn how to do a search in less than 2 hours. That is most definitely a disadvantage for you and one that you should strive to correct.