jryan

As I reminded you earlier, belief has nothing whatsoever to do with it. It's about accepting the evidence which is itself overwhelming, consistent, and (for all intents and purposes) conclusive.

Well that's wrong. When you are discussing climate in terms of 150, 500, 6,000 years, and statistically created chronologies and proxies it is always a matter of belief.

Belief in your proxy theory, belief in the accuracy of the proxies in the absence of directly observable data. Belief that the application of these proxies is correct and descriptive.

You are talking about theories and models that have either zero (furture) or limited (1800s) direct observational record of the actual measurable quantity of interest (temperature and more specifically global climate)

You will always be absent actual observed data for the period you are interested in, unless you focus soly on the last 60 years when the direct global measure of gridded temperature exist in large scale... but then you have to accept that a 10 year trend out of 60 is statistically significant.

So if you want to show that 10 years is statistically insignificant you have to BELIEVE in your proxies for the unobservable.

All of this crap about "phrenology" and "science has been wrong before" is a big stupid smokescreen... a bunch of hand waving that wastes everyones time, and deflects the conversation such that the denier is no longer required to argue their position on the merits and based on evidence.

I only brought up phrenology because CaptainPanic chose to question the "Heaven and Hell" book based on the fact that the author isn't a climatologist. I mentioned Phrenology as a branch of scientific study that had to be disproved from without.

Many here, including you, refuse to address opposition views beyond your opinions about the authors. The fact that such insular behavior is counter to the scientific method is not any fault of mine. It is simply setting up a paradigm where dissent will always come from outside the discipline.

I'm also still waiting for a reason why climatologists don't leave the statistical modeling to those with doctorates in the field, rather than do the modeling themselves.

If leaving climatology to the climatologists is a valid argument then why not leaving statistics to the statisticians?

 

And "flat-lined"?

 

Ok, so tell me, if you split that 30 year graph into a 20 year up slope between 1970 and 1999 that is heavily influence by a 1998 el Nino, and a 11 year down slope from 2000 to present, how big of a difference is that 30 year trend statistically given the 5,000 to 10,000 years we are supposedly comparing these trends to?

Not much, if any. Especially not is predicting future trends.

Hey look at that... not very flat there.

No, it's not. It's called selective sampling.

You seem to equate skepticism with climate change denial. That's a diction error. Phrasing like "dissent with the mainstream scientific assessment" is more apt.

No, it is the other side that equates skepticism with climate change denial. I don't deny climate change... it always changes. The only thing abnormal would be stasis.

I am SKEPTICAL about the attribution of the last 150 year trend.

I hope you can understand why when the mainstream scientific assessment is challenged the community here is skeptical of such challenges.

I hope you understand why I find "oh well he's just a..." rebuttals less than compelling.

Merged post follows:

You are, actually. Your argument is that scientific consensus has been wrong, therefore it isn't a valid basis for action. So if you find that people keep comparing you to a creationist, that might be a sign to reevaluate your logic. Am I as sure of AGW as I am of the fact of biological evolution? No, not at all. But it's probably true, and it is not rational to deny that. Obviously we should keep questioning. But in the meantime, we need to act as if it is true. Do you understand that much?

Well, no. To a hard core believer I can see why my insistence of questioning would seem like debating ID. I would just be prepared to be very wrong if I were you.

Seriously, we can whip out anything from scientific history and show that the minority opinion carried the day in the end, and times when the majority did. In this case, as we are discussing THIS case and IT'S merits, you are the phrenologist.

You got any evidence to back up that claim?

 

If we are going to argue hypothetical situations in the future, and you're not willing to accept other views in place of your own then there was no reason to actually make this thread.

 

Are you saying that you are 100% certain that GW is wrong? If so what do you base this on?

 

I accept that unneeded debt is bad, but first I have to see evidence to the fact that there is potential for that to happen.

 

If we are going to disregard evidence and purely look at both doomsday scenerios than yeah, I rather be stupid; then dead.

Who said I didn't accept your views? All I am saying is that your views of why you are worried about global warming would matter a hill of beans if the world spends trillions of dollars on preventing it only to find out their was little or nothing to prevent.

In a good faith effort to save your children from a perceived future you could condemn them to an unintentional one. It's all a matter of which side of the debate is actually correct, and what is done between now and your child's uncertain future.

Simple evidence to that claim would be global climate that is decreasing while CO2 is rising. Where does the trapped energy go on the Earth if CO2 is holding it in? Energy can not be destroyed, so unless we find some heat reservoir that is holding all the energy that we are not seeing in the troposphere, surface temps, ocean surface temps or deep ocean temps, then it is escaping the Earth through the increasingly CO2 rich atmosphere.

If that is happening, then how influential is CO2 really?

I'm not in the habit of handing over my wallet simply because someone claims they are an expert.

Merged post follows:

Who's pretending? I'm acting as if what is probably true, is. I act on the best available information. I'd "wait and see" if that were possible, but if what the evidence indicates is probably true, then there's really no time for wait and see. If new facts come to light pointing in a different direction, I'll adjust my position accordingly. That's how it works. You're making almost the exact same argument as creationists attempting to discredit science as a whole because "they used to think they Earth was flat."

No, I'm not. But you are indeed falling back on the same tired "you're like a creationist" argument that has no bearing on my questions. I am not the one calling for an end to the questioning, I am simply saying that it's not time to STOP questioning the theory of anthropogenic global warming.

Clearly this is a rhetorical question, but I have no idea what point it's trying to make.

The point is that consensus, even scientific consensus, is not as rock solid an endorsement of theory as it is projected to be.

At one point, before the fall of phrenology, the consensus was in favor of phrenology and the minority was in disagreement.

In the case of AGW we are asking that the individual layman pay and pay dearly for a remedy to an illness that may not exist. In that frame there is really little difference between the scientific and political consensus. Especially when you have scientists such as James Hansen making numerous political comments and appearances.

Merged post follows:

 

It's not about us, it's about our kids and their kids. I don't want on my concsious that I had reason to believe something bad may happen and know that I ignored it because of my ideology. Personally I find that it slight pre-mature to say that something so catasphoic IS certianly going to happen without definite absolute proof, but at the same time if a guy with a knife is standing in front of me telling me he's going to stab me, I am not going to chance the fact that he MAY not do it. Objectivity will be the key to handling this situation.

Well, now take that nobel belief and look at it this way: You are so worried about your kids furture planet that you take all your excess money and spend it on carbon credits, right down to their college funds.

You sleep well while they are young... but 10-15 years down the road, when you find out that anthropogenic C02 had little effect on climate, and your kid now has to take out a loan for school, how do you sleep?

We are giving our grandkids a future of astronomical debt assuming they won't be laughing at our stupidity in 70 years.

1. I don't think "skeptic" means what you think it means.

 

2. You have yet to distinguish between political consensus and scientific consensus. They are two very different things.

1. I fully understand what "skeptic" and "skepticism" mean.

2. Of course they are two very different things. I never claimed otherwise. But when you are using a supposed scientific consensus to justify a political consensus it is important to know the two can and do intermingle.

Gavin Schmidt and James Hansen are very political.

Why is phrenology now a discredited practice? Is it because of scientific consensus, or political consensus?

Did opposition to phrenology begin as a consensus? Political consensus in the case of phrenology isn't all that prevalent in any event as there was not that much policy derived from it's erroneous conclusions.

Eugenics, on the other hand, may be a better topic if you want to talk about improper union of scientific and political consensus.

Merged post follows:

I don't "write off" opposing evidence, I just note that it's much less abundant than supporting evidence. If that changes, so will my opinion. I ask again, is there any other reasonable approach for the layman?

Yes there is. You can also judge by the level of "just trust us" that comes from both sides of the argument.

When you have one side of a debate that regularly fights FOI requests, and regularly fails to follow the open source nature of scientific investigation (ie. claiming IP rights to their code or data sets, failing to provide such with their submitted studies), you should be at least somewhat suspicious or their conclusions.

The are very simple aspects of all scientific study, such as the scientific method, that all people are taught in grade school. If you find that such basic methodology is not used by one side of a debate you should question their results.

And on and on. There is a multitude of reasons why the method of finding is more important than the finding itself.

So the layman that cares about the science has a more important role, even as an autodidact, in their own opinion than simply a show of hands.

Consensus among people who are clueless is not important.

Consensus among experts is vital.

 

 

Of course there is crossover. There are physicists, chemists, meteorologists, climatologists, biologists, and a whole lot more professions involved in climate research.

These people all add their share to either support or disprove the climate change studies. They ask tricky questions or add new measurements/experiments.

 

It's just that politicians, carpenters, doctors and some other professions have very little experience with all the factors and parameters involved in the climate. Therefore their opinion is valued (a lot) less than the opinion of the experts.

 

Would you allow a lawyer to build your house? I sure would not. I'd ask a construction worker.

Then why make the distinction that the writer of "Heaven and Hell" is a geologist? Certainly HE is part of the scientific community as well.

Also, the notion of "experts" is bandied about rather carelessly in these discussions of climatology as well, and the climatologists don't seem to mind acting in the role of statistician where it suits them, even in the areas where expert statisticians question their methodology.

Would you ask a climatologist to do your statistical analysis?

Merged post follows:

Evidence.

 

That's the difference between science and faith. If it were an article of my faith that CO2 was responsible for global warming then I'd probably never change my mind. Since it's my scientific opinion then, if there were some strong evidence suddenly found that contradicted all the stuff that has gone before (and it would need to be strong evidence) then I would change my opinion.

Well surely that is true. But then everyone claims the same thing while writing off opposing evidence as articles of faith or the product of a conspiracy whose existence is itself an article of faith.

Actually, if I read iNow correctly, he believes consensus isn't important.

The belief that there is no crossover in science is erroneous. By that standard, Phrenology would remain a respectable line of study so long as Phrenologists believed in their work.

That's two votes for "no".

So what would it take for your opinion to change? Do you hold out belief so long as a few climatologists believe as you do? Or a few politicians?

I also assume neither read the book mentioned in the article?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124597505076157449.html

Has anyone here read "Heaven and Hell"?

I know this is a very non-skeptical crowd hear but was wondering is any of the non-skeptics have lowered themselves to read this book?

Also, if consensus shifts to a more skeptic view, will you still support CO2 limiting policy? If so, why?

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=36699

 

 

2008 was the coolest year since 2000. NASA attributes this primarily to large areas of the Pacific Ocean being cooler than the long-term average due to a La Niña episode that began in 2007.

It's interesting, too, because their has been some talk that the Earth will be cooling for as much as 30 years.

It is certainly a puzzle how this global powerhouse warmer that is CO2 can be put on hold for 30 years... or at all. Where does all this trapped energy go if it is indeed trapped?

You have clearly never heard of the Kinsey Scale then, or the more recent Klein Grid.

 

I have to admit they are rather obscure tools for most every day purposes, so it is perhaps not surprising if you have never seen those before. However I find it amazing that in this day and age -- when sexuality is understood so much better than in the past -- there are still people frequenting science forums who appear oblivious to the sexual spectrum.

Ugh, the level of defensiveness here is oppressive.

I am aware of the Klein scale. It is a handy tool for sociology, but you can't really mix sociology and genetics so easily any more than many here want to mix science and politics.

Any level of arbitrary labeling based on the Klein scale (as you and others are doing) is not particularly compelling.

Sorry jryan, but this is demonstrably incorrect.

Feel free to demostrate.

Ah yes, the old "gays don't/can't breed" bollocks. We have been over that many times before.

 

If "true" homosexual animals existed as you define them they would have to stop existing at the next generation for your reasoning to be correct. The fact that there are any gay people/animals at all demonstrates that this is not the case. You have to redefine "homosexual" to a ridiculously absolutist degree in order to make that argument, and it still falls down because it breaks its own genetics.

Bollocks. There are numerous genes in all animals that are not conducive to survival or procreation in general, and they continue to exist in the gene pool. Treating any genetic root for homosexuality as some alternate beneficial gene is pure politics just the same as claiming heterosexual genes as the only correct gene is purely a political statement, and not scientific.

As iNow said, someone who has homosexual relationships and/or sex their entire life does not stop being gay because they experimented as a teenager or had drunken sex with their rebounding housemate.

And I never said they do. I said that unless they have a child from that one night drunken fling their genetics are guaranteed to be tossed out of the gene pool. If you don't procreate, your unique genetic makeup is lost... how complicated is that for you people to understand?

It is the same for asexual animals (not animals that reproduce asexually), and animals that are heterosexual and happen to fail to procreate in their lifetime.

As I have said numerous times, my objection to iNow's original post (and it has nothing to do with my initial post.. which was simply a question) is that it is a great example of how far too many use science to push personal views.

Finally, on the "abomination" argument: That line of argument has no real end since the term "abomination" is subjective and can be neither proven nor disproved through the scientific method. Where it is used in "science" you will find politics.

In no particular order...

Originally Posted by jryan View Post

 

Also, to say "it happens in nature therefor its good!" is rather an absurd argument to make.

 

That's what we would call a strawman of my actual position. Since it was not my argument, I'll leave it at that.

Your very first line in this thread is as follows:

This thread is primarily in response to those who insist that homosexuality is an abomination, or that it harms peoples morals, or any of the other stupid nonsense people say after they've been poisoned by religious teachings.

My point was not a "straw man". Your whole point was that homosexuality is not an abomination, as some claim, because studies show that it happens in nature.

So that is the exact, and spruious, argument that you meant, or you had a poor choice of words.

Originally Posted by jryan View Post

 

Your initial post was decidedly political, and your comments there after, have been tainted with your politics more than they have been blessed by the science.

 

Okey dokey. My OP was intended to make a point using the science, which I've done. Not sure what your deal is, as you seem to be contrary here for little to no reason whatsoever.

No, you have intended to make a political point while misusing science.

So, if I'm specifically with other males intimately and sexually for my entire life, as my primary sexual activity and social behavior, but have sex with a female once I'm no longer gay? Interesting take you have there.

Not enough information exists in your "reductum ad absurdum" argument.

Okay, you seem not to have a clue what I'm saying. Let me summarize.

 

 

Person A: Homosexuality is unnatural. It's an abomination, and anyone who does it will burn for eternity in the devils fire. It's just not natural.

 

Me: It happens in nature all of the time, so your argument doesn't hold water. Here are over 1500 examples. In fact, there hasn't been a single species yet observed which has not also been observed to engage in homosexual behavior.

 

Does this clarify matters for you?

No, I understood you quite well. The problem was you stated your position poorly. You have now changed your initial statement and inserted a brand new "not natural" argument.

All you have adequately defended is the "not natural" argument, but you have failed to argue away the "abomination" argument.

Nature is full of actions that would be abominations if practiced by mankind.... and actually ARE abominations when practiced by mankind.

Listen, jryan... I can see that this discussion upsets your worldview, and that you're not inclined to accept the data shared in this thread (despite it's vastness and accuracy).

I have made no statement for or against this research other than the fact that "gay" or "lesbian" is an odd choice of terms if the "gay" and "lebian" geese have heterosexual sex.

Either way, though, the animals are engaged in homosexual behavior in nature, doing so exactly as it's defined in humans. I ask that you please read the links shared in this thread before commenting again, as your question/issue was already addressed by several of them (and it seems obvious that you are not willing to challenge any of them specifically).

Where did I ever state that I challenge ANY of them specifically? Or even the notion generally?

Here's one example of how your question/issue has been addressed already by those sources.

 

 

Animal preference and motivation is always inferred from behavior. In wild animals, researchers will as a rule not be able to map the entire life of an individual, and must infer from frequency of single observations of behavior. The correct usage of the term homosexual is that an animal exhibits homosexual behavior, however this article conforms to the usage by modern research applying the term homosexuality to all sexual behavior (copulation, genital stimulation, mating games and sexual display behavior) between animals of the same sex. In most instances, it is presumed that the homosexual behavior is but part of the animals overall sexual behavioral repertoire, making the animal "bisexual" rather than "homosexual" as the terms are commonly understood in humans, but cases of clear homosexual preference and exclusive homosexual pairs are known (see examples for details).

This isn't saying anything that I haven't already pointed out. Calling a bisexual animal "homosexual" or "lesbian" is simple politics and clearly inaccurate. True "homosexual" animals, not just one that includes "homosexual acts in it's repertoire", do not reproduce, and the genetics are not carried forward.

The problem is you have mistaken the adverb and the adjective. They are both 100% "homosexual"... ie. their is nothing heterosexual about a homosexual act, they are specifically and intentionally exclusionary. In that same way, "homosexual" animals and "heterosexual" animals lead very different

sexual lives.

Your initial post was decidedly political, and your comments there after, have been tainted with your politics more than they have been blessed by the science.

Also, to say "it happens in nature therefor its good!" is rather an absurd argument to make. I am working to help you make a better argument for your political case than one that would include blessing a woman for decapitating her lover after sex because "it happens in nature!".

It's like the "all natural" label on supposed health food. The same label would apply to a bottle of arsenic.

Setting aside the terms such as "likely" which are just rationalizations on your part, you and Mokele further stretch the very definition of gay and lesbian when you start talking about "lesbian" swans that procreate with males.

So how does this all fit in with Darwin's theory of evolution?

Should we assume that there is something in these gay animal's genes that nature doesn't want to pass to other generations?

I just don't think that's accurate. Other countries were basing their intelligence assessments off ours. That's because no western intelligence agency had anything like as complete a picture as we had. And we were cherry-picking our facts.

Well, that is not true. The Niger intelligence, for example, was from the UK and Italy, the US contribution was from Joe Wilson, who has since been discredited for his obvious omissions of fact or just plain ignorance.

And with regard to the rest of the case made by the Bush Administration, read the the arguments for holding Saddam in contempt of the cease fire, and then read the January 2003 report by Hans Blix to the UN:

http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/Bx27.htm

The two are not significantly different.

As Bush said early on in the run up to the war, he was moving forward in such a way that his mistakes would not be due to assuming U.S. enemies couldn't harm the U.S., and that he would take the necessary effeorts to be sure. In the case of Saddam, he actively symied efforts to inspect his WMD capabilities, and the only way Bush saw to be sure would be to go in and oust Saddam.

There is much to say on boths sides about the manner in which he went about doing that, but I understand his motive.

Have you read Bob Woodward's trilogy of Bush administration books, jryan? I recommend Plan of Attack first and foremost. You know who else recommends them? George W. Bush. He gave Woodward unprecedented access, and complimented him numerous times on his accuracy and integrity after he read Woodward's books. I believe there's a subtle message there -- he may not entirely agree with Woodward, but he's going to admit someday that he was wrong about invading Iraq, or come darn close to doing so. You heard it here first.

Yes, I've read them. And yes, they are excellent books. I would suggest you also read "Unholy Alliance" by David Horowitz as an interesting companion to those books and as interesting insight into the politics underlying the anti-war movement.

That he did. But in my opinion that is insufficient reason given the other inputs we were receiving and should have been heeding.

The administration listened to that "mostly harmless" assumption leading up to 9/11 as well.

I didn't say that. And I really don't think you can construe what I did say as an insult. It certainly wasn't intended that way.

 

Again, that wasn't my intent and you clearly missed my point. I wasn't trying to pigeon-hole you, I was trying to point out why you may be frustrated, and that reason had nothing to do with your ideological viewpoint, but rather your butting of heads with other people. The specific ideologies involved are just backdrop to that problem.

But that isn't what you said. And for the record, I wasn't offended by what you said, because I know enough to know that most people make the same mistake repeatedly. What you did was the norm. My point to iNow was that HE took offense when I said the same thing to him.

It goes back to the golden rule, which I obviously don't always follow, but when you are not intending to offend someone don't make associations that you yourself would find offensive. It would be like me saying that an AGW proponent is just spouting Al Gore talking points... even though we both know it is very possible to believe in AGW but disagree with Al Gore.

... hold please while I read your longer post....

Ok... here goes...

Really? That's interesting, because I came here to listen to what other people had to say. I already know what I think, what I don't know is what you think.

 

I'm certainly not here to listen to myself talk! (Contrary to popular opinion!!!)

So you don't post your opinions on this forum?

Well again, I realize it may not seem that way to you at the moment, but I don't approve of personal attacks, and I'm doing everything in my power to stop and prevent them. Sometimes I'm less successful at that than I would like to be, and I've even been known to participate now and then. But that is my intent -- I want this to be an hospitable place for open discussion.

At it may seem like you are succeeding during the periods when many in my boat abandon the site in frustration. But it is never felt like a very hospitable place, I can assure you.

But no, I don't think people who are in the minority should post things they don't believe just so they can fit in. I often find myself stating my opinion and then simply shutting up because repeating myself just to get the last word is a waste of my time and the time of others. I also tell myself that opinions are like a-hole's -- everybody's got one. What's the point of arguing opinions?

All discussion is opinion. You seem to be arguing against the necessity of this forum all together. Maybe just replace it with a bunch of links to studies that you trust best represent the reality of a given line of scientific study. Nobody will state their opinion, or dare to justify why they hold the opinion they do.

I know that isn't what you are saying... but a forum without opinion, or discussion of how these opinions were formed, seems rather pointless to me, whether the forum is about science or Hello Kitty.

So I focus on exposure to evidence, interpretations of that evidence, pointing out fallacious reasoning and hypocrisy in certain ideological groups, and so forth. It seems to me to be a much more valuable use of my time than telling somebody they're wrong (not that I don't end up doing that quite a lot, but it isn't my purpose).

And opinion is what you get after interpreting the evidence. And science, and even evidence, are often wrong. For instance, recently there was much to do about a discovered asteroid that was going to pass very close to the Earth. Alarms started going up about how this asteroid could get so close without us detecting it, and the potential effects...

Turns out it was a deep solar satelite that was programmed to do a close pass of Earth.

At one point we believed that our opinion of this "asteroid" were correct.

What I see is science that is becoming indistinguishable from politics, and a steady evaporation of the healthy humility of science and a rise in absurd belief that we ever know enough about anything to stop questioning.

But that's just how I see it (since you asked). I imagine there are other ways to look at it.

Unless you have access to levels of information that border on omniscience, your beliefs will always be opinion. And stating your beliefs will always be an opening for debate. Stating opinion without expectation for debate is naive.

I definitely don't think this sub-forum is a "breeding ground for partisanship". If anything it's the opposite -- more like a clearing house for misconceptions, and if it's a breeding ground for anything it's "finding the middle ground", something I think we actually do pretty well here. That's the legacy I'm trying to accomplish in my tenure here as moderator. Whether I'm successful at that is up to each member to decide.

I wasn't just talking about this subforum. I was more talking about all subforums in which the science is tightly attached to politics. I wouldn't guess that the Mathematics forum gets this heated.

But most of our members who've posted in Politics deliberately and consciously avoid specific familiar ideologies. That's one of the things I like about this board -- it may have a leftie bias, but it's refreshingly receptive to well-constructed (and politely phrased) logic. For me it's the best of all possible words (hence my handle) -- a crop of liberals that actually (usually) acknowledges your point when you're right and they're wrong. Ever try to win an argument at Democratic Underground or MoveOn.org? Are you KIDDING?

You are better than MoveOn.org... ummm... congrats? You are also far more informative than the "Loose Change" forum... since we are into damning with faint praise.

And the funny thing about your "insular and partisan" comment is that there are a few people here who agree with you -- they think it's too conservative! In fact we probably have more members here who think this board is too conservative than we have members who think it's too liberal. But you know what? The fact that some people think it's too conservative and others think it's too liberal tells me we're probably doing it about right.

All that says is that you have situated yourself in the middle of two groups. It doesn't say anthing about where those two grouops fall on the actual liberal/conservative continuum. If science is indeed more liberal leaning as you assert then you would have to assume that the political bell curve here would also be skewed left.... so the ones saying you are too liberal could be moderate and the ones saying you are too conservative may be Noam Chompsky.

My belief that your arguments are being exposed to the "cold light of day" here has nothing to do with board consensus or its generally liberal lean. It has to do with the specific arguments you are exposed to and how you react to them. But I'm not going to harp on this because I feel like I'm kicking you while you're down, which is really not my intent. I was just trying to help you out with a little insight as to why you keep breaking down in these discussions. For you to dismiss it as pure trolling on iNow's part is missing most of the picture.

You may THINK that is the case, but you and I would disagree. You are not kicking me when I am down. I am not so tied to this forum that I feel specifically hurt by any of this. But I do feel I have to point out to you that your attempt to placate the situation if fairly off base, and doesn't help.

I think that's a very insightful comment and it reminds me of why I enjoy reading your posts. I hope you work through this and stick with us.

Wow, so heart felt!

Contrary to popular belief, this is nothing that I have to work through. Or that I have to work though... or I have to work through.. depending on where you want to put the emphasis. That's like me saying "I hope you can work through your sites problems so that you can continue to be graced with my presence."

THis will be a whole lot of responding...

That's actually a very insightful comment, and I think that point is a valid one.

 

This, however, doesn't follow. While there may be a predisposition towards "territoriality" of worldview, most members and readers here will, in fact, alter their positions if the arguments being made are reasonable and supported.

You may be able to find a couple examples of this happening, but you shouldn't take that to mean that this is a reasonable board, I will discuss that difference a bit later.. The fact that it has such a strong bias should also not be mistaken to mean that a left-of-center world view is the only reasonable one.

Moderate world views are to the right of this board, too.

In other words, we DO learn, and we do change. I've had my mind changed on a number of issues when it was shown logically and well articulated, even when I was on the polar opposite of the issue at the start.

Learning and changing is not what I would consider a measure of being reasonable. You could just as easily learn and change to a more unreasonable point of view.

For someone who opened their post discussing the need for civility and a lack of personal attack, you're not exactly leading by example. You referred to members of this board as "trolls," and now you move on to equate the discussions here as "no better than O'Reilly or Limbaugh?"

I could also say that this site is no better than RealClimate.org, or any number of other partisan sites. The difference is you take it as an offense because the politics of the refrenced sites are different than yours. I only mentioned them because Pangloss metioned them.

So stop and think about that for a second. If you believe that my statement that this site is no better than O'Reilly is an insult, then would you also categorize Pangloss' assertion that my views are no different than O'Reilly's as an insult?

My response was to Pangloss' statement that this site has a liberal bias because it is a science forum. I am pointing out tha the two states of being are not as intertwined as that. I also am pointing out that in his attempt to educate this conservative rube he is really not doing anything different than he states he is trying to avoid.

If you don't intend this as a personal attack, then I apologize for the misinterpretation, but it's certainly burdened with logical fallacies if nothing else.

It was restating the same jab directed back at Pangloss, and on a subject (the liberal bias of this forum) that Pangloss already conceded. You took offense because you find O'Reilly offensive. You probably didn't see Pangloss statement to me as offensive because you have incorrect notion of who I am and where you believe my politics are.

Would you like some cheese with that whine?

That was not a complaint, nor a whine. That was just some of that learning and changing views that you say goes on all the time here.

Jyran, the issue is how frequently you seem to misrepresent others position, how frequently you read more into their words than what they are actually saying, and how frequently you pick fights based on arguments your "opponent" never even made.

Would that be in the same way that you and Pangloss have misrepresented my position based on your limited understanding of my politics? Because part of having a discussion is verbalizing what it is we understand about the other sides statements, and letting the other side correct those statements

You've done this to me repeatedly, where you assumed something from my post which simply wasn't there, and then went on to barade me like a "naive child," to borrow your own words.

If you believe you are the victim on this site when it comes to personal attacks, you may want to actually ask a few admins what the demerrit tallies are. It has been stated before that you lead the league currently in demerrits, and stating that is not an attack on you. You are just well known for your ability to turn snippy with others. If I in turn become snippy with you you may want to consider what came before that.

You would do much better in relaxing you condescending tone. It should be noted that although I am in the middle of THIS flame war, you seem to be in the middle of MOST flame wars.

I can appreciate the challenges of being in the minority on a position, especially on a board such as this where members are articulate and intellectual, but I suggest you follow your own advice above, start realizing that there are some gray areas in the positions of others, and do everything you can to understand the position of someone else before you lambaste it.

And this is a view you accept because it places all blame for a misunderstanding on the guy with whom you disagree. Try saying "You may not understand what I am saying" and then restate it, trying to learn from the other person's interpretation how you can better appeal to how they think while still making your point. You will find it works a lot better than "wow, your ability to misinterpret is unparalleled". All you are saying is that I think differently than you do while putting a pejorative spin on an otherwise obvious and innocent fact.

I see you take this road repeatedly, where you find others inability to understand what you write as a failing on their part. The only conclusion to take from this, that I can see, is that you assume that your belief, and you ability to state it, is unassailable. You should expect that, when talking to others who believe different than you, they will process what you say diffrent than you. That is just the way of the world.

Make your arguments. You're clearly a bright fellow, and whining like you've done above only hurts your position. Argue the issue, not the reaction.

Again, I am not whining at all. I am simply pointing out the frustration I have exibited in the realization that this site is simply as biased as Pangloss points out. The old adage is true: "Anger is born of Optimism"

I will read and respond to Pangloss after I take a lunch. I don't feel like mulling this debate over any more over a plate of pulled prok.

I think you guys both need to work on being okay with dissenting opinions and differing interpretations of what the facts mean and how they should affect political decision-making. I let that particular comment from iNow go because that's a perfectly valid way to look at it. It's simply a point of view I happen not to share. But why repeat myself?

 

And Jryan, you can beat yourself up about it, but in the end this is a predominantly left-of-center board, because that's where the scientific community is right now. But it's also a very realistic and responsive-to-evidence mind set that if you learn how to work with it can be very rewarding to communicate with. But you can't bludgeon it and you can't spin it. The very thing you find so frustrating about those GW discussions is the thing we actually like about this place.

 

And to be blunt, I think you're stumbling over some pretty obvious preconceived ideological spin that don't seem to survive the cold light of reality. I'm not going to let people insult you over it, but you're putting it right out there and people are reading it, so it's not exactly hidden. You might as well throw quotes around half your posts and attribute them directly to Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly. It's pretty obvious, guy.

 

My advice: Go to discussion boards to listen and learn first, and speak later. If you go in thinking you're going to convince people that you're right and they're wrong, you're always going to lose.

You could not be more wrong about my affiliation with O'Reily and Limbaugh, but what is the point of arguing that point when the majority here will always assume they know better what I read, watch or listen to, and the admins glad hand themselves over such bogus assertions.

As for trying to convince people they are wrong, what the hell does this board do then? What a strange thing to say on a supposed science centered board. I state my piece, you state your piece.

What do you think those people who don't agree with the majority are supposed to do, anyway? Post things they don't believe so they can fit in? I try and have discussions, and I have had several good discussions with some people on this board. I have no problem with people who disagree with me so long as they are civil about it. But certain trolls on this board can't seem to cope with disagreement without pulling out personal attacks.

Your view of how a poster should approach this message board is what has made this board as insular and partisan as it is, not the state of science (as you want to believe). Science has no bias. What you have here is a breeding ground for partisanship that you fool yourself into believing must be.

Yes, this board is very left biased, and therefor the political thread will have a heavy left bias. But don't kid yourself into believing that the consesus on a biased board amounts to anything approaching "the cold light of day".

I have always been of the opinion that, given the naturally broken sociology of the internet, that you do yourself no favors by ever hanging out for long in places that agree with you. The regulars in such places tend to have a very territorial instinct when it comes to their reality, and for all the self made consensus, they really never learn anything and show disdain for contrary views. This board is no different.

Would it be fair to say that this supposedly science minded board is really no better than I would expect to find in an O'Reily or LImbaugh forum? It appears that it is not. All it is is bias from the other side of the aisle.

For a while I felt that even though the majority here was decidedly left, that there were some that were at least fair in their application of their bias with regard to dissenting views. I think I may have been a bit over reaching in that estimate. Where I thought there would be room for dissent I get "shut up and read what we write.".

No thanks.

Ok, I agree with your saying that we have to look at those things, but each of those things is either manageable or out of context at the time of the invasion, so "looking at the big picture" is as much a matter of spin as ignoring them.

You are assuming that we had the benefit of hindsight in 2003, but we didn't. If you can look at that information without muddying it with what you know now and also consider that the existence of the WMDs is a conclusion that was held by most of the western intelligence agencies, you can see better where we were.

Given its limited shelf life, unless they're actively producing it we don't need to worry.

 

In 20/20 hindsight they hadn't been producing it for a decade.

And we didn't know whether that was the case. So shelf life would not have played a role in the decision. Saddam active stymied the ability of UNSCOM to uncover the truth, leaving us with the conclusion that he is either actively hiding nothing or actively hiding something.

Assuming the former was not in the cards.

Which claim?

"His points remain valid and accurate."

Source?

You don't look at the sources I give, apparently, becauise you could have easily looked it up on opensecrets.org:

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/sectors.php?sector=K

It's also a complete misrepresentation of the position I've shared. How about you stop putting words in my mouth?

 

I said:

 

It remains to be seen, so IMO

any certainty

of his "corruption" or "lies" or "sucking off the teet of of special interest money"

one way or the other

from either side

is not yet warranted

.

I quoted you whole statement, you didn't. Just befor that you said:

As I pointed out, every politician makes the same proclamation. Expecting everyone to grant Obama the benefit of the doubt, when in actuality the doubt should rest heavily on the side of "a politician will keep his word", is rather naive on your part.

Also, your assessment of what "special interests" say before giving out money is just plain silly. If a special interest were to give money to an elected official while saying that it would be bribery. Even when the expectation is there they will never come right out and demand it unless they are looking to a seat in the federal penitentiary.

And yet, you accuse me of coming to conclusions not grounded in reality? You're a hypocrit.

So, why would he not take the no-strings-attached public funding if not for the alure of more money and a bigger budget from fund raisers? Care to explain?

Have you bothered actually reading the thread before posting in it? This has been covered.

Yes, I have read the thread, and it and logic supporting your claim is conspiculously missing..

It's too bad you're not in charge. Many trillions of dollars and thousands of lives could have been saved had you been at the proverbial table when this all was going down.

That is circular logic. You have to accept that the war was about oil before the evidence that the war was about oil starts to make sense. Of course, I guess you could always fall back on "Har! Bush is so stupid that he started a war to take Iraq's oil and then didn't take it!"

In my opinion Sarin constitutes a "WMD", but it is insufficient causes belli in the case of Iraq.

 

(Edit: Not offering that as refutation, btw, just going on record for this thread.)

 

Crud. I just moved Phi's post into this thread, but it put it at the top instead of appending it to the bottom. Some sort of bug in VB?

Well, you can continue to take each bit of evidence in a vacuum and say that that particular bit is not enought to go to war, but when you take a step back and look at even some of the accepted pieces together the picture looks a little different.

Here some of the things that we know that by themselves would be insufficient to go to war:

1) Saddam actively acted against the articles of the cease fire and denied inspectors access to sites for several weeks at a time.

2) Saddam Fired on U.S. planes that were patrolling the No-Fly zones that were agreed to in the cease fire agreement

3) Saddam was actively planning to reconstitute his WMD programs as soon as the UN lifted sanctions

4) Saddam maintained stockpiles of WMDs and precursors

5) Saddam sought uranium from Niger (the only piece that requires a little assumption.... but the alternative explanation makes less sense)

6) Saddam gave financial support to families of dead terrorists

7) Saddam was running a massive scam in the "oil for food" that made him millions of dollars and allowed him to bribe numerous UN and foreign officials. The ensured that the sanctions would continue to only affect those in Iraq that the program was meant to help and fill Saddam's coffers.

8 ) Among other things funded by this income were missiles with extended ranges in direct violation with the cease fire agreement (such as the Al-Samoud missile)

etc. etc.

I wonder what is supposed to happen when you repeated break the articles of a cease fire....

I think sarin might constitute a WMD when it isn't 10 years past its shelf life

And the status of the Sarin in Iraq should have been known even though it was hidden because everyone knows the current administration is omniscient.

Firstly, you're mixing quotes from my responses to different people. Secondly, you are reaching with both hands into the assumption bag about my mentality, based on what I've said so far about this matter. It shows you have a rabid response to any kind of inquiry that is at odds with your opinions. And thirdly, despite attempts and entreaties to avoid going off-topic in this thread, you persist in doing so. Let's start another thread or resurrect one of the old WMD threads.

First, my statement was not rabid.

Secondly, please explainto me what your belief is in contrast to what I have stated.

Thirdly, I had stated that we should start a new thread, but everyone keeps responding here. I am not sure how it is MY fault that the responses to my post were put in that thread. But I have now split it off so that you won't have to.

Didn't I say that I was arguing against that very point. Oh, yes I did, just a bit earlier, in the first sentence of the last paragraph in post #30.

You sated in that post that you didn't think Sarin was a WMD. I asked you how you came to that conclusion.

Here is your post again:

The report is an excellent one, but it's a strawman for my argument that gases like Sarin hardly constitute WMDs as the administration claimed. I made no assumptions and attributed no motivations (no one had to do much more than say "nerve gas"), and you'll find only facts about Sarin from this CDC link so you won't have to rely on my misinformed opinion.

So again, how do you come to that conclusion based on the CDC entry you posted?

It is an area denial agent, meant to flush out an enemy so you can shoot him with bullets. It only kills when one can't leave the area.

That is completely false. If you dump Sarin into a large populated area, the people in that area will be as good as dead before they know they should be exiting the area. From the CDC article:

"Sarin is a clear, colorless, and tasteless liquid that has no odor in its pure form. However, sarin can evaporate into a vapor (gas) and spread into the environment."

So explain to me how a colorless, odorless, tasteless gas would be an effective "area denial" tool? It's hard to deny area when the opponent doesn't know the stuff is their until they are dying from it.

If used underground, where it's density concentrates its effectiveness, in a closed area packed with people like a subway, it can be lethal, as in the Tokyo subway attack in 1995.

Which is the primary reason we wanted the stuff out of the hands of Saddam Hussein. I am not sure why you want to do so many mental contortions so you can disqualify Sarin as a WMD. Whether it is MORE effective in certain locations rather than others is immaterial. It would be like saying nuclear bombs are not WMDs because they are only effective against large, above ground, cities. The fact that Sarin is MORE efficient in closed spaces make NO difference whatsoever.

Sarin is a weapon, I'll grant you. Mass Destruction? Two people got "destructed" in the Tokyo subway attack, a venue with circumstances that heavily favored Sarin's lethality. Do you think the American people would have counted Sarin as a WMD worth invading Iraq for if they had been told more than "deadly nerve gas"?

Well, actually it was twelve dead, fifty severly injured, and temporary blindness to thousands more... all that from just 900 milliliters of Sarin. Had they used as little as 2 liters in that same space the death toll would have skyrocketed.

Now think of as little as four liters of Sarin in a small backpack in a busy New York subway station, or a domed football stadium.....