Texas State BOE - Shrewd (not)- Religion as Science (Howe: income, taxes)

[thesonofgray]

Originally Posted by mimimomx3

What I hate is when the government gets involved to mandate it, or corporations/wall street get involved to make money off of it (Al Gore??). That bothers me.

Isn't that what capitalism is all about?

Originally Posted by TexasReb

Skipping -- for the moment -- thru the volcano (or not) phenonmenon,

You'd like that, wouldn't you.

Originally Posted by TexasReb

I just LOVE the way the larger point is ignored. Which is that those committed to the Global Warming "church" will ignore or vilify, respectively, all other evidence/speakers. If so confident in it, then let the debate begin!

If you're implying that I am a so-called believer of the "Global Warming church", and ignore and vilify all other "evidence", well... First, I acknowledged the "evidence" you presented that supposedly supported your notion that human actions are dwarfed by natural events on a world-wide environmental scale (which you contradict later). I didn't ignore anything. Second, what you presented was misinformation. Your "evidence" was an absolute lie created to further ignorance for political gains. I am more than happy to vilify that. Guilty as charged.

Originally Posted by TexasReb

The volcano vis a vis aersol cans may well BE false (and no, I didn't get it from Rush Limbaugh...another ploy, perhaps, eh? ), but the source you present is hardly un-biased.

Like the source that lays out real, measured data and shows in no uncertain terms that the "volcano vis a vis aerosol cans" is false? That's hardly unbiased? Look at the numbers and interpret them yourself. I included the first article since someone actually took the time to explain how the "volcano" crap came about, which was quite interesting to me and unfortunately all too typical of these misinformation campaigns.

Originally Posted by TexasReb

When did I ever say I didn't think humans can have an impact on the environment?

Your words, minus the small government advert: "even if the earth's temp has increased a bit...the effect humans can have...is negligible..."

Originally Posted by TexasReb

What I SAID, and stand by, is that Global Warming -- if it exists at all -- is one on a scale that it damn well better be debated/discussed -- with no censorship -- before the country/world starts passing laws. Because the "solutions" may end up being worse than the so-called problem!

I don't disagree with that. I am ALL for debate. And part of that debate is completely rejecting false information - trying to get the turbidity down to reasonable levels for a productive conversation.

Originally Posted by TexasReb

Which is generally the end-result when legislative mandates come into play over something that not a person nor group of them in this world has enough knowledge about, to presume to solve. What transpires, invariably, is self-righteous prophets (such as algore) and beaurecrats empowering themselves.

I'd just like to point out how all references to Al Gore have been made by those who vehemently deny the existence of global warming (and/or human causes of such), including some who present false information to support their case. Why even bring him up? Don't you guys have something a little more productive to say than cursing Al Gore up and down to no end? I don't think anyone has professed any adoration for Mr. Gore in this thread, so...really...what's the point.

Originally Posted by TexasReb

With all that said, I DO agree that people can make a difference as concerns the environment. Individual concerns and efforts can make all the difference in the world. Pun intended.

I agree with you here. And, in all honesty, I think the large majority of these "evil environmentalists bent on destroying your conservative values" really just want people to be aware of the difference, and therefore damage, they can do to the environment. Maybe all they're looking for is a little more.....personal responsibility when it comes to taking care of our home?

And it's hard to get the masses to take on that responsibility when there's plenty of misinformation (such as the silly notion that one volcano puts more chlorine in the stratosphere than ALL man made sources) causing them to think their actions on a daily basis make no difference one way or another.

The end goal of all these evil environmentalists is to take care of the environment. However that is accomplished, whether by individual actions or government mandate, is ultimately up to the people. Maybe if we stop furthering the ignorance, we'll all get what we want in the end.

[Pontificator]

Oy vey! Looks like this disintigrated into a giant political mish-mash -- and I guess that is what public education is all about these days. So glad that we just said a big adios to public education after nineteen years of tiresome ineptitude with occasional moments of greatness. Oh wait, there will be grandkids......

[mlassoff]

I think the media is more to blame than the public schools. There is no truth any more-- Only conservative vs. progressive perspective. It's really sad that we except complete lies in our political discourse if it fits our personal belief systems. That fact, itself, is quite anti-science.

[TexasReb]

You'd like that, wouldn't you.

I neither like nor dislike it. Go back and read. I said in the very next segment that I found the background you presented on the origins of the volcanoes vis a vis man-made causes, interesting. And informative. Hell, I minored in journalism, have published a pieces of shlit at one time or another, so have no problem at all publicly stating "I stand corrected" if the source I originally quoted is eclipsed by another, better, one. Are we on the same page now?

If you're implying that I am a so-called believer of the "Global Warming church", and ignore and vilify all other "evidence", well...

Well....whaaaat? Again, read what I wrote. If the shoe fits, wear, it. If it doesn't? Then don't. "You" are not the subject here. Actually, in many ways, you come across open-minded.

First, I acknowledged the "evidence" you presented that supposedly supported your notion that human actions are dwarfed by natural events on a world-wide environmental scale (which you contradict later).

How were they contradicted? Not sure what you mean by this...

I didn't ignore anything. Second, what you presented was misinformation. Your "evidence" was an absolute lie created to further ignorance for political gains. I am more than happy to vilify that. Guilty as charged.

The sentence for your admitted heresy is to be burned at the stake at sunrise. However, since you plead guilty, it shall be the guillotine. That would be more environmentally friendly, don't you agree? BWHAHAHAHA

But seriously, I, personally, present no "evidence"...as I am not a scientist. Are you? What I presented was alternative viewpoints....which are often greeted by hysteria by the true believers.

Like the source that lays out real, measured data and shows in no uncertain terms that the "volcano vis a vis aerosol cans" is false? That's hardly unbiased?

Didn't I say you might be right on that one? Not saying you are...cos it is still being studied. Still, the sources you present to counter it take into account MUCH more than aersols cans. If I was wrong on relying upon questionable sources for that one, then I frankly admit it. Or will. I intend to do more research on this one...

Look at the numbers and interpret them yourself. I included the first article since someone actually took the time to explain how the "volcano" crap came about, which was quite interesting to me and unfortunately all too typical of these misinformation campaigns.

Misinformation? Well, we might agree on that one. But if you think the Global Warming folks are devoted to the facts, ma'am, just the facts, then....well.... there is always the ocean front property in Tuscon, Arizona...

Your words, minus the small government advert: [i][b]"even if the earth's temp has increased a bit...the effect humans can have...is negligible..." I don't disagree with that. I am ALL for debate. And part of that debate is completely rejecting false information - trying to get the turbidity down to reasonable levels for a productive conversation.

Wellllll, what do you know? We might actually agree on something!

I'd just like to point out how all references to Al Gore have been made by those who vehemently deny the existence of global warming (and/or human causes of such), including some who present false information to support their case. Why even bring him up? Don't you guys have something a little more productive to say than cursing Al Gore up and down to no end? I don't think anyone has professed any adoration for Mr. Gore in this thread, so...really...what's the point.

It is really very simple why Algore is brought up. It is because he is most well-known and self-identified spokesman and prophet for the Global Warming camp. And "Ozone-Man" is a hypocrite, like many of that camp are. He was the same with tobacco. It is an "inconvenient truth" is its own right...and is why he is often mentioned. Kennedy is another.

False information? Probably on both sides. But I will maintain that the Global Warming bunch have the mouthpiece in most of the major media and academia. And contrary evidence is being shouted down or censored.

Interesting debate transcript here:

FOXNews.com - Live Earth Disappoints With Everything But Shrill Rhetoric - Sean Hannity | Alan Colmes | Hannity & Colmes (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,288815,00.html - broken link)

I agree with you here. And, in all honesty, I think the large majority of these "evil environmentalists bent on destroying your conservative values" really just want people to be aware of the difference, and therefore damage, they can do to the environment. Maybe all they're looking for is a little more.....personal responsibility when it comes to taking care of our home?

I am an "environmentalist" too. As a hunter and fisherman and camper and lover of the great outdoors, I have a real problem with certain things. However, what is resented is the elitist presumption that personal responsibility need be federally -- even universally -- mandated to the extent many in the Global Warming camp would take it.

There is nothing wrong at all with concerned people (of whatever cause) making their concerns known. Nothing wrong with trying to change people's minds. But when it is built upon a black-out of the other side, then it becomes something different. And regardless of original purpose and good intentions, when government gets involved, the end result is often personal empowerment -- as it is the nature of the beast -- as many unscrupulous and power-hungry politicians will use it as a stalking horse for their own benefit. Yet, typically, fail to follow the mandates they seek to impose on others.

And it's hard to get the masses to take on that responsibility when there's plenty of misinformation (such as the silly notion that one volcano puts more chlorine in the stratosphere than ALL man made sources) causing them to think their actions on a daily basis make no difference one way or another.

The masses? LMAO This terminology speaks volumes. The masses. Do you mean the millions of individual, oridinary Americans who go about their daily lives, go to work, pay taxes, and yes, ARE capable of altering their life-styles or whatever when convinced they can make a difference? I gave the mild example of the trashing of American highways in an earlier post. And people DID make a difference. I am all for that, whatever the arena. Global warming or ozone layer depletion included. On an individual and voluntary basis, because at present there is simply no scientific consensus on the causes of the so-called problem.

And oh man, are you are gonna play up that volcano thing forever? LOL. How many times have I said, the information I used could easily be wrong. In fact, you might enjoy reading THIS one...which seems to be very balanced. I am inclined to agree with this person. You probably won't like some of it, but in others aspects, it backs up your position. That is to say, the author's thesis is that those skeptical of ozone depletion do nothing but make ourselves look foolish when citing questionable sources. I agree totally.

Ozone Depletion (http://rous.redbarn.org/objectivism/writing/RobertBidinotto/OzoneDepletion.html - broken link)

The end goal of all these evil environmentalists is to take care of the environment. However that is accomplished, whether by individual actions or government mandate, is ultimately up to the people. Maybe if we stop furthering the ignorance, we'll all get what we want in the end.

Sorry, this "evil environmentalist" sarcasm is wearing thin. Most of us are environmentalists to some degree or another. Surely you are not implying that those of us who are skeptical about all the claims of the Global Warming church are wanting to destroy the environment...? Truth is, not all activist-type "environmentalists" are motivated by purity and/or a selfless concern for "Mother Earth" and their fellow man. Most are, I don't doubt. However, some are "back to nature" nuts, plain and simple. Others are useful idiots. And some -- the type to fear -- are those who will use a legitimate concern to empower and enrich themselves thru government cohersion.

But you are right. Maybe if we stop furthering ignorance...? Which is why I say let's let both sides be heard. It can start with the major media and academia.

And finally, I plead guilty to having played a large role in hijacking this thread. I apologize. And will get back on target. Or else stay out of it. My sentence shall be to Anartica where the ozone hole is largest!

[thesonofgray]

I don't really have anything else to add except for two things:

In the post above, the seventh time TexasReb quotes me, what is quoted is mish-mashed in a way that misrepresents what I actually said. I assume this was an honest mistake.

Second, thanks for the thesis on the types of environmentalists. I have no doubts that there are hacks in every wavelength of the political spectrum, which is why I don't click on Fox News Hannity & Colmes links to get my information about scientific topics. Did you not read what Mr. Bidinotto had to say?

[TexasTheKid]

Originally Posted by TexasReb

My main point is that a lot of counter-evidence is being shouted down and/or ignored.

Ok, ok... It appears that this thread has kinda gone off the rails a bit here, so please allow me to help steer us back on course.

First, TexasReb has generally proven to take fair, even-handed approaches to all issues presented here. They haven't always been the politically correct stance, and I'm sure he'll be more than happy to admit they haven't always been the correct stance, but they're always even-handed, well-articulated and thoroughly though-out. In other words, he's proven consistently to be big enough to admit he's wrong when he's wrong, but he doesn't tend to make wholesale statements that are easily proven false. That said, there's really not a right side to the global climate change debate. There just isn't. There's a side with more evidence than the other, but no side wins out entirely. Let's accept that and move on.

Second, as anyone who's studied the history of science would know (I've worn out my library card and practically live in Half-Priced Books), it's dangerously easy for the leading minds in science to lead the rest of the scientists into pushing false paradigms. It's very easy. There are as many political machinations that occur within the scientific community as there are in any other human realm. The world recently witnessed Pluto's demotion to planetoid status from planet status - was anyone aware this was due to a couple of rival astronomer factions being at war with each other? Having formerly been working towards a career as a scientist, I witnessed firsthand how certain powerful paradigms were pushed to the detriment of new, innovative and conflicting schools of thought. Scientists are often black-balled by the community if their proofs don't align with the community at large. Being black-balled can lead to an inability to publish (the biggest single blow to a scientist's career), loss of a teaching position or an inability to get a promotion.

Third, let's just say for a moment that we can't affect climate change. What harm can come from reducing our pollutants? Is this strictly a question of money? or global competitiveness? Money shouldn't be an issue with this. It just shouldn't. You know why? Suppose the 90% of scientists who say humans do affect climate change are correct and not just rats following the pied pipers who lead the scientific community. We've only got one planet. Until we've figured out how to colonize Mars, we need to treat this planet as if it is our only planet.

Fourth, the question of whether or not the planet's climate is changing is moot. Everyone with an ounce of science training knows the Earth goes through various climatic cycles from ice ages to natural periods of warming. The question isn't whether or not this happens, but how fast is it happening and are we wholly or partially reponsible for it? Almost all the evidence points to a faster than normal warming period that originated around the time humans industrialized. Could it be a coincidence that our industrialization and the Earth's heating are two events that coincide? Sure, anything's possible, but that would be one hell of a coincidence.

Fifth, and back to the OP, I think schools should teach magical creation (or whatever the hell you want to call it) - so long as they teach it in a class dedicated to understanding the world's various theologies. And, I think they should save the climate debate for science classes. Let's keep each debate where they belong. (Sort of like how the mods move threads that turn political into the politics forum, let's do the same in our schools.)

[joejitsu]

Originally Posted by TexasTheKid

Fifth, and back to the OP, I think schools should teach magical creation (or whatever the hell you want to call it) - so long as they teach it in a class dedicated to understanding the world's various theologies. And, I think they should save the climate debate for science classes. Let's keep each debate where they belong. (Sort of like how the mods move threads that turn political into the politics forum, let's do the same in our schools.)

So, now taxpayers have to pay for the teaching of religion in school. You know there are Native Americans that believe a turtle puked out the universe. Its just as scientific as christian creationism. So now kids will get to learn about thousands of crazy religious beliefs, while violating the first amendment principle of separation of church and state.

[thesonofgray]

Originally Posted by joejitsu

So, now taxpayers have to pay for the teaching of religion in school. You know there are Native Americans that believe a turtle puked out the universe. Its just as scientific as christian creationism.

Well now I feel robbed of an intellectual childhood since I never knew that.

[TexasTheKid]

Originally Posted by joejitsu

So, now taxpayers have to pay for the teaching of religion in school. You know there are Native Americans that believe a turtle puked out the universe. Its just as scientific as christian creationism. So now kids will get to learn about thousands of crazy religious beliefs, while violating the first amendment principle of separation of church and state.

If it's offered as an elective, I could wholeheartedly support a measure that allowed a class on world religions. And sure, the directive should require an equal measure of time dedicated to as many religions as are known. And really, the church/state separation thing is a bit worn out. If offered as a choice, a class like that wouldn't violate any constitutional rights. Besides, state funded universities offer similar courses, what's the difference if it's offered to high school kids too?

Maybe, just maybe, learning that Christianity isn't the only religion out there would do a number of people in this world some good. It could help teach perspective, understanding and respect.

[blakesq]

reread the first amendment. no mention of separation of church and state there. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Originally Posted by joejitsu

So, now taxpayers have to pay for the teaching of religion in school. You know there are Native Americans that believe a turtle puked out the universe. Its just as scientific as christian creationism. So now kids will get to learn about thousands of crazy religious beliefs, while violating the first amendment principle of separation of church and state.