ROTFL, that’s exactly what I thought about asking MW yesterday but was too “afraid” of his answer.

BTW currently German news are full w/ reports about global warming and rise of the oceans being even worse and coming faster than those “doomsters” predicted. Bah, all those communist media influencers

I think the only question that arises for educated people is this: Do we care about what the world will be like for our kids and grandkids? Or do we think everything’s just here for us old folks to use up and throw away?

_________________
“The only difference between me and a madman is that I’m not mad.” — Salvador Dali ★ Play a slooooow correspondence game with me on OGS?

Well said.
George Bush had to start war to protect us. so he said.
I think it can be argue that it was for our defense against radical jihad. which i agree.
and i will stop there because that is another political discussion which this forum prohibit.

these are my thought:
I never thought i was right wing until people said i am far right.
I always thought i was the norm and could not understand why so many ppl think different.
Rush makes dumb statement every now and then but that is true for everyone that i know.
i dont understand why he get blamed for that all by himself.
I dont think i will ever change my belief until i see some hard evidence and i dont see anyone providing me with that anytime soon.
I am not here to argue with everyone. I am curious how others think and why they think that way.
at least i found out that i am not alone.


I have you daughters who i want to give them clean environment and happy life.
I just dont believe that environment change will effect them enough for me to go along with that idea.
there are better ways we can give them better life. spending everything we have on something we can not even fix...is not a good idea.

_________________
"The more we think we know about
The greater the unknown"
Words by neil peart, music by geddy lee and alex lifeson

This is because you move in a very closed circuits. You listen to only "those" news, and read only "those" newspapers, and go to only "those" websites - and everything else you think of as 'garbage' as you say. This is very similar to other groups, like religious fanatics, for example, who by the virtue of their selective information intake are suffering from the false impression that 'everybody thinks like that' and 'only a small minority of blinded malcontents thinks otherwise' and 'if they only opened their minds they would see the truth' - all the time not realizing that it is *you* who has a closed mind.

The trick is - the people you listen to are very much interested in convincing you of this - after all, how can what they say be wrong if the vast majority agrees?

But in many cases, as with Global Warming, the vast majority does *not* agree! As a matter of fact - it is a very small minority, unfortunately backed by some very deep pockets, which tries to down-play any climate changes for their own purposes.

And so you are being fed lies on daily basis, until at some point you don't know what is what anymore, and you come up arguing like you do here. And then you seem surprised that your views are not really that popular.

This, if nothing else, should tell you how badly you are manipulated by the people you listen to.

This is why I keep stressing - do your own research, do not just rely on the word of politically-motivated sources. And there is political motivation on both sides, just to make it clear, so it is very important to think for yourself rather than just listen.

If everybody around you, and all the sources you listen to - they all tell you the same thing - be aware that something is wrong, and you need to expand your horizons. On political issues you *never* have consensus, usually not even a decisive majority, and if you think you do, you are wearing blinders. Look and think for yourself, dude.

_________________
- Bantari
______________________________________________
WARNING: This post might contain Opinions!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_Cave

esp. here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_o ... o_the_Cave

_________________
“The only difference between me and a madman is that I’m not mad.” — Salvador Dali ★ Play a slooooow correspondence game with me on OGS?

But maybe Darwin/evolution is a good example precisely because of a common misunderstanding.

The "problem" was reconciling theory and observations. What we see (what he and his contemporaries were seeing) is population of organisms organized in species with relatively narrow variation of form. In other words, if evolution were taking place, why were they not observing a continuum of form?

That's why his book was titled "Origin of the Species". Darwin was explaining why we would (at any spot in time) see the population of an organism organized as a species and the mechanism by which the characteristics of this species could change over time. Why we should expect to observe that even though evolution was taking place.

Understand? The opposition arguments of the day (*) were based on the expectation "if evolution were taking place we would be observing a continuum of form."

* I mean the scientific opposition to evolution, not the religious opposition to evolution.

I prefer Mendel's work over Darwin's, he came first quantitatively worked out the statistics for the inheritance of genes, and didn't marry his cousin, that's right the father of evolutionary theory married his cousin, most religions ban this practice, for good reason. The point here is that Darwin sort of stopped at the juicy part (man co-evolved from ape) and didn't really think his ideas all the way through.

I was reading the other day that the change of Ph in the sea is probably going to have a more significant and measurable impact than global warming, related to CO2, which makes sense to me since the atmosphere can expand when energy is added, unlike the sea which won't expand much.

a) Gregor Mendel was a monk. Of course he didn't marry his cousin (Augustinian Friars don't marry ANYONE)

b) Avoiding inbreeding in a population is more complicated than excluding all 1st cousin mating. There are other rules which would work equally well though allowing cousin marriage on one side or the other (but not both).

c) Be careful with statements about religions. I rather think you'd be hard pressed to name very many religions (as opposed to communities within a religion) that forbade all cousin marriage. Even when a person of religion X (and culture Y) tells you that they do or don't do something because of their religion you need to look closely at the situation ---- if there are people of culture Y but different religions acting the same way or there are people of religion X in different cultures that act differently then it's probably the culture, not the religion.

OK, but I think it is fair to say that Darwin didn't move the ball much with his thesis on the origin of the species, given that some people in religious circles knew that inbreeding wasn't a good idea, and he ignored this.

Alright, so now this train wreck of a thread is keeling over from a politically charged discussion masqueraded as "science" to religious views on the incest taboo, I like where this is going.
I'm not usually a fan of closing threads, but this one seems to be begging to be dragged behind a tool shed and be put out of its misery.

The 2013 Gallup poll results still show that there are many on both sides of the issue. See this report and the data linked. So I don't think MagicWand's views can be characterized as fringe or rare in that population, regardless of correctness. Of course, Gallup's question did not use the word "hoax" in the description and wording is fairly important in surveys. Without even researching the quality of the evidence, I would say no to "hoax" because the conditions for something to be called a hoax are fairly stringent in my mind. Hoaxes in modern science aren't super common. Piltdown Man was a hoax, and that's what I think of where I hear the word in this context.

Over time, I've come to think that in most cases belief is not a matter of volition. Trust models built early in life matter a lot. If you were raised by people who where kind to you and protected you are more likely to adopt their beliefs. Most people are not raised by scientists because there are few scientists, and there is some indication they have fewer children. (E.g., if you are female and pursuing a Ph.D., it's hard to find the time. I believe this research was published in the sociological journal, "Duh!" ) So many children grow up without much personal exposure to scientists and do not learn to trust them as people first. Those relationships often come later, if at all. At best, they may be raised by science enthusiasts.

I see this effect all the time. For example, children who grew up in situations where the local religious leaders were kind of dodgy are much less likely to keep religion as they mature. The opposite might be true if those leaders were community involved, accessible and trustworthy.

So the perceived reasonableness of a stance runs in groups. I think many people think it's a little crazy to take the risk of becoming a fireman or a policeman. But if your dad and grandfather or sister or even a couple of cousins did it, it may seem more reasonable. It may even become your dream. I'm pretty thankful it's someone's dream, at least. Since we are still in a Go forum, think about this: would you consider it reasonable for your child to pursue a career to try to become a professional go player? I think the number of people who would respond "yes" on this forum would be much higher than in the general population. Players who make it to pro often have easily accessible role models as children, maybe even parents.

I showed up for jury selection one day and the prosecuting attorney in a drug case asked me if I thought a policeman's testimony could be trusted. I said an officer would be taking a big risk to commit perjury, but of course there is nothing prevent them from lying or misinterpreting what they saw or heard. I was not selected. A number of people earlier thought no way would an officer lie. They were also eliminated, by the defense. I guess they had a lot of potential jurors left. It's kind of an art, whittling down the group to human putty. If you eliminate too many people too soon, you might wind up with a juror who can form their own opinion.

Gallup predicted Romney to win 50% of the vote to Obama's 49% (actual was 47% to 51%). Apparently Gallup only polls people with landlines who answer calls from blocked numbers.

Since Mitt Romney thinks global warming is real (as does all other recent Republican tickets for President), the argument that right-wingers don't have role models to expose this idea to them is nonsense.

Close enough for government purposes, as they say. And as I say. My point is that MagicWand is not some bizarre outlier. It can be hard to sample correctly from our own contacts. I was with a group of people once who said, "I can't believe Schwarzenegger was elected [governor of California]...I don't know a single person who voted for him!" To this, I'm thinking, "Really? You have to get out more."



I'm trying to refer to closer role models than presidential candidates. The influence of such external entities usually comes later in life, and their influence is often only accepted based on earlier identity formation. The fact that exposure to new ideas does not always have the effect on people that one might expect is central to my point.

MagicWand seeks to understand why people think differently about this issue than he does, otherwise he would not have posed the question. That is a noble enterprise, but an extremely challenging one. For decades I sought to understand the beliefs of some religious groups, with limited success. Only by trying to understand a specific person was I able to get anywhere. Even then, I am not sure.

Personally, I think that much of the global warming discussion misses the central point. There are too many places in the world that are just too hot. Forget trends. Any weather that climbs above human body temperature is way too hot. We should isolate farmland that needs to be hot under bubbles and terraform the hot places to something more reasonable.

This will also solve many social problems. People cannot think straight when it is too hot. It makes some people angry and violent, even. When we can terraform, our attitude toward many conflicts will change.

"Hey, there's a rebellion in Foozistan and the government is suppressing it with inhumane violence again."
"How's the climate control doing there?"
"It's been over 35C for the past month straight."
"What!!?? Can we get a tech in to fix that?"
"Right away, sir..."

Two weeks later, in Foozistan...

Rebel1: "The weather's pretty nice for a change. What are we doing again? Why are we shooting everyone?"
Rebel2: "I'm not sure. This has to stop!"
Rebel1: "What needs to be done?"
Rebel2: "Well, there is this one guy that has to be killed, and then things should be manageable."
Rebel1: "Do we really have to kill him? Can we capture him instead?"
Rebel2: "Sadly, he won't go down quietly. He survived the heat wave of '08. With no A/C!"
Rebel1: "So he's mentally deranged, then?"
Rebel2: "'fraid so."
Rebel1: "Okay, let's kill him then go to the beach, have some drinks and call it a day."
Rebel2: "Nice plan!"

We have big problems in the world. Poverty is a huge one, lack of food. Food is being stolen by evil warlords. These warlords are hard to overthrow in part because it's too hot to think straight in many of these places. But if we cool them down with terraforming, then the locals will be able to think straight and dispense of the evil warlords more readily without any additional troops or weapons which just make things worse.

HVAC is civilization. If you do not understand, it may not be your fault. It could just be that it's too hot where you are. Chill. Literally...

Edit: The above rant was tequila-inspired. Nevertheless, I can find scientific articles to support it. Starting with the heat/violence thing, this paper from Iowa State. As for the terraforming and farm bubble part, I'm sure that's just another couple of web searches to find experts who agree. Then I will proceed to ignore most contradictory evidence. At least on the heat / violence part. Air conditioning for all! Since the above paper starts with great Shakespeare quote, I'm done:

"I pray thee, good Mercutio, let's retire: The day is hot, the Capulets abroad, And, if we meet, we shall not scape a brawl; For now, these hot days, is the mad blood stirring." -William Shakespeare: Romeo and Juliet, Act III