6 Responses to “Fin de siècle”

1. 1. Jason Says:
   June 25th, 2008 at 11:27 pm

   I still haven’t found where Concensous has anything to do with the Scientific Method. Did you see last month when around 32,000 Scientists signed a paper saying they disputed the fact that mankind is causingGlobal oops I mean Climate Change since we are infact cooling now.

2. 2. Ben Says:
   June 26th, 2008 at 8:53 am

   I tried searching for the 32,000-signatory thing. I found exactly no referenes from legitimate news organizations.

   The closest thing came from Science News:

   When I (one of perhaps eight to 10 reporters in the audience) asked whether there were any climatologists who had signed the petition, Robinson said yes, 40 of them. Another 341 were meteorologists, and 114 were atmospheric scientists, he said. Add in environmental scientists and the total in this composite category jumps to 3,697. Some 900 were trained in computer science, math, or statistics. Roughly 9,900 were trained as engineers or in general science (whatever that means). An additional 5,690 were trained as physicists, 4,800 as chemists, and 2,923 as biochemists. Several thousand more were trained in still other fields. Of the total, roughly one-third said they held PhDs.

   But there’s an important caveat. There’s been no vetting of the petition’s signers to confirm that they indeed trained in the field they claimed to have had. What’s more, Robinson’s group made no attempt to find out whether people worked in the field for which they trained. So someone educated as a physical chemist or computer scientist might actually be working today as a stock broker, pianist, or taxi driver.

   The media screws up a lot, and covers a lot of bullshit stories in really dumb ways. But they’re kind of like the CIA, too: you don’t hear about all the stuff they deal with behind the scenes. Reporters investigated the 32,000 letter, realized it was a moronic and disingenuous attempt to influence public debate, and ignored it.

   Depending on your point of view, it means either that some reporters did their jobs well, or that there’s a massive anti-American media conspiracy to drown out conservative opinion (which, by the way, is exceedingly rare on TV these days) and bring our country down a rung or two.

3. 3. Jason Says:
   June 27th, 2008 at 12:44 am

   here is the site with all the info on that petition http://www.petitionproject.org/

4. 4. ETG Says:
   June 27th, 2008 at 12:02 pm

   The R-team turning into tree-huggers is an interesting concept. It will take a total revolution in the GOP for this to happen. I don’t see all that many of the economic wing of the party signing on and they wield the real power in the GOP. The gunner/hunters and the Christians might form a coalition to take over the party, but it seems that their priority’s are pretty divergent.

   It is clear that the GOP has to do some serious thinking about what they stand for, as they are looking at a major wipeout this year in elections. I look at that prediction with mixed emotions. If Bush/Cheney and the associated NeoCons hadn’t fucked up so royally, we would not be looking at anything like what is going to happen electorally. On the other hand, they have done real damage to the country during their tenure. Nobody but the most starry-eyed of dead-enders doesn’t accept that premise.

   I hope, but don’t really think will happen, that we are done with fear and wedging as political tools. That McCain is taking advice from Rove likely means it isn’t going to happen soon. It is clear evidence of the state of denial the GOP is in that the guy who has almost singlehandedly destroyed their party is given any credence at all. Of course, the Dems still listen to Bob Shrum, too, so it is a bipartisan affliction.

   The supremes delivered a well-placed nut-shot on the GOP yesterday as well, with their 2nd amendment decision. Guns are pretty much off the table now that they have spoken. I imagine there were many cheers in GOP territory yesterday, followed by the realization that the supreme court just shaved 10% of their coalition away.

   Sometime it just rains shit on you. It is happening to the GOP now. It is well past time for that to happen…

5. 5. Zach Says:
   July 8th, 2008 at 1:14 am

   I think that the idea of a conservationist Republican party is absolutely silly.

   But, so is the compassionate conservative.

   I think that what’s happened is that Republicans have listened too much to Democrats calling us all terrible people. I think that individuals can be conservative conservationists. And I think that individuals can be compassionate conservatives.

   I think, however, that the silliness comes into play when you think about a party trying to pass compassionate and conservationist regulations. Republicans should have faith in people’s individual abilities and desire to be compassionate, rather than passing compassionate regulations. Similarly, the government should be spending money trying to come up with greener technologies, rather than passing environmental restrictions. The government should seek to conserve by creating an environment in which (without subsidies or other government interference), it is in a business’s best interest to do the green thing.

   NOw, that being said, we saw the “Compassionate Conservative” thing happen. Why not the “Green conservative?” Why don’t we continue to regulate things until the only difference between the Republicans and the Democrats is that, despite the fundamental concepts of the parties, the Republicans continue to regulate people’s personal lives? To make it even better, let’s keep regulating them in ways that show that we are completely out of touch with the changes in society, and obviously don’t need or want the support of a growing number of women, minorities, and gays?

   Sounds wonderful.

   http://zachthinks85.blogspot.com
   http://gamingtips.today.com

6. 6. Ben Says:
   July 8th, 2008 at 8:12 am

   Zach: I’m not sure how possible it would be for the government to create particular economy (in which environmentally-friendly business practices are favored) without interfering in that economy in some way. Also, I’d prefer to see the free market fill the role of “coming up with greener technologies”.

   The government has a role in funding scientific research, but the commercialization of that research is best left to the private sector (for much the same reason that a carbon tax/cap-and-trade program is much more efficient than simply regulating how much of what pollutants can be emitted).

   If there are externalities associated with pollution and environmental protection (and everyone agrees that there are), how can they be addressed other than by government action?

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website