OvermodI am still too appalled by that law-school dean's actions to comment.
The left would NEVER attempt to use the schools to influence public policy, would they?
Convicted One Overmod I am still too appalled by that law-school dean's actions to comment. The left would NEVER attempt to use the schools to influence public policy, would they?
Overmod I am still too appalled by that law-school dean's actions to comment.
False equivalence. You totally missed the point.
Nobody on either side is perfect. Yet the left always likes to make accusations against the other side while hiding their own skeletons...
charlie hebdo SD60MAC9500 Let's ask Patrick Moore, the Canadian co-founder of Greenpeace, and Frederick Seitz, formerly president of the National Academy of Sciences. How they feel about AGW data?.. I find all these articles on the theory of AGW quite funny as they're being disingenuous.. We hardly see, or don't see articles of "secret" funding to those pushing the AGW agenda. The theory of AGW reminds me of our tax structure.. The more productive you are the more taxes you pay.. The less productive your are... You get all sorts of perks: Section 8, EBT cards, You know the rest.. Better yet if these scientist who are pushing the AGW theory so concerned about their theory. Why don't they offer us a glimpse into their lifestyle? Do they drive Chevy Suburbans? Do they use NG in their homes to fire their furnaces, and stoves? Do they fly multiple times per month? I imagine so.. It's a waste of time responding to the inane postings of right wingers.. You have zero facts to support your contention, just red herrings and paranoid conspiracy theories.
SD60MAC9500 Let's ask Patrick Moore, the Canadian co-founder of Greenpeace, and Frederick Seitz, formerly president of the National Academy of Sciences. How they feel about AGW data?.. I find all these articles on the theory of AGW quite funny as they're being disingenuous.. We hardly see, or don't see articles of "secret" funding to those pushing the AGW agenda. The theory of AGW reminds me of our tax structure.. The more productive you are the more taxes you pay.. The less productive your are... You get all sorts of perks: Section 8, EBT cards, You know the rest.. Better yet if these scientist who are pushing the AGW theory so concerned about their theory. Why don't they offer us a glimpse into their lifestyle? Do they drive Chevy Suburbans? Do they use NG in their homes to fire their furnaces, and stoves? Do they fly multiple times per month? I imagine so..
Let's ask Patrick Moore, the Canadian co-founder of Greenpeace, and Frederick Seitz, formerly president of the National Academy of Sciences. How they feel about AGW data?.. I find all these articles on the theory of AGW quite funny as they're being disingenuous.. We hardly see, or don't see articles of "secret" funding to those pushing the AGW agenda. The theory of AGW reminds me of our tax structure.. The more productive you are the more taxes you pay.. The less productive your are... You get all sorts of perks: Section 8, EBT cards, You know the rest.. Better yet if these scientist who are pushing the AGW theory so concerned about their theory. Why don't they offer us a glimpse into their lifestyle? Do they drive Chevy Suburbans? Do they use NG in their homes to fire their furnaces, and stoves? Do they fly multiple times per month? I imagine so..
It's a waste of time responding to the inane postings of right wingers.. You have zero facts to support your contention, just red herrings and paranoid conspiracy theories.
Where are your facts about me being a right winger? See how that works? Speaking of.. What facts do you have to support AGW? I never claimed to have any facts on something that's not proven, and until the entire science communtiy agrees on AGW being the cause for GHG then maybe I'll consider their information.. Spend sometime on the farm so you can get a whiff of the horse hockey..
Tampering with academic employment and career is appalling no matter what ideology provides it. That the Left has a long history of very similar behavior does not justify 'the Right' doing it. Period.
I admit I still chuckle at the ongoing attempts to prove a 'vast right-wing conspiracy' considering the demonstrable organized-bias efforts all around, but it doesn't help when the right wing passes from advocacy to manipulation. I have commented fairly often on manipulation of research to prove or establish the priorities of the funders (interestingly, far more evident in things involving Government priorities like antidrug enforcement than in methodologically-legitimate studies underwritten by private companies). Gaming the results of research is opinion. Gaming the data is fraud. Gaming the participants is reprehensible, and gaming the participants based on ideology is, in my opinion, obscene.
This all ties back into railroads with respect to the original subject: railroad companies funding activity in ways that appear only tenuously (if at all) related to railroad priorities but significant to railroad owNee or 'stakeholder' priorities. ISTR there is a history of actual court action by rank and file members when Union management has done a similar thing with activism underwritten by general mandatory dues...
charlie hebdoFalse equivalence
Hardly
OvermodTampering with academic employment and career is appalling no matter what ideology provides it. That the Left has a long history of very similar behavior does not justify 'the Right' doing it. Period.
Of course it is appalling. But to point to any single incidence and claim it to be novel or unique seems disingenuous to me. Privileged segments of society have been using the schools to perpetuate their priorities for centuries.
Nothing new here.
Schools? You mean those socialist re-education camps I sent my six children to, just to have every moral value I taught them questioned and undermined?
Teach them proven facts, math, reading and science skills, teach them hands on skills like the trades, and critical thinking/problem solving, leave the moral education to the parents now that the society has decided not to adhere to a common set of standards.
When I was a child, my parents had a list of rights and wrongs. When I went to the neighbors house to play with Johnny, his mother had the same list. When I went to school the teacher and the principle had that same list, when I traveled into the town square, the shop keeper had the same list.
When I reached a certain age, and a certain level of maturity, I began to see that there was a small grey area between right and wrong. I made my own informed choices on those issues.
Not so with the children I raised.
Long before they had the maturity or skills to navigate the grey areas, teachers and others told them I was wrong and that the grey area was very large..........
The society is not a better place overall as a result.
Sheldon
ATLANTIC CENTRAL Schools? You mean those socialist re-education camps I sent my six children to, just to have every moral value I taught them questioned and undermined? Teach them proven facts, math, reading and science skills, teach them hands on skills like the trades, and critical thinking/problem solving, leave the moral education to the parents now that the society has decided not to adhere to a common set of standards. When I was a child, my parents had a list of rights and wrongs. When I went to the neighbors house to play with Johnny, his mother had the same list. When I went to school the teacher and the principle had that same list, when I traveled into the town square, the shop keeper had the same list. When I reached a certain age, and a certain level of maturity, I began to see that there was a small grey area between right and wrong. I made my own informed choices on those issues. Not so with the children I raised. Long before they had the maturity or skills to navigate the grey areas, teachers and others told them I was wrong and that the grey area was very large.......... The society is not a better place overall as a result. Sheldon
No big surprise there.
is an unchallenged moral a moral worth having?
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.
Convicted OneBut to point to any single incidence and claim it to be novel or unique seems disingenuous to me.
That's most certainly not what 'they' are doing: this is another instance in a very long line of perceived 'anti-scientific' actions by people and groups (such as the 'detested' Koch brothers and organizations affected by them) that don't care for the 'narrative' about anthropogenic influence on climate change. More often than not these claims are another place to insert the old chestnut about 'the science is settled' to deter any further discussion about the validity of the parts of the official pravda that the UN commission, among others, has suspiciously made difficult to review with any scientific rigor.
I'm basically against anything, either on the "Left" or on the "Right", that replaces actual scientific activity (as opposed to the battle of arrogant wills that has characterized so much of postwar science) with some official line of argument. Having carefully studied an earlier example, phlogiston theory, makes many of the methods employed 'behind the scenes' more familiar and reprehensibly manipulatory than they might otherwise be.
That does not excuse the 'two wrongs make fairer equality' argument, in my opinion ever. And I think no one sane can argue that any of the organized parties in the current ... well, 'debate' fits, particularly considering the way that term has devolved under the lawyer-based American Debate Association recently ... is producing single, novel claims about the other side. Which is sad, because any objective search for the most important aspects of AGW climatic effects seems to have been abandoned (as 'settled' on the one hand, ridiculous conspiracy on the other) far too early for the world-as-we-know-it's own good.
zugmannis an unchallenged moral a moral worth having?
Of course it is ... if it is worth having.
Unchallenged ethics ... that's another matter. If it's worth having, it's worth defending if challenged.
Overmod...that replaces actual scientific activity...
Would that be like the researchers who implanted dimes into the abdomens of lab rats, and determined, by accepted scientific practices, that dimes cause cancer?
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
tree68 and determined, by accepted scientific practices, that dimes cause cancer?
Not to mention that at one time heliocentrism was held in such contempt as to be prosecutable. Ethics-schmethics.
zugmann is an unchallenged moral a moral worth having?
Feel free to challenge my morals and beliefs directly, adult to adult all you want. But do not challenge my children, or undermine my authority with them, or my right to instill my beliefs in them while they are under my care and responsibility.
And then want to hold me accountable when all the liberal dribble social experiments fail, and they are not functioning members of the society.
I will give one example. Bullying. I believe we have created this problem with the liberal view of punishing children who defend themselves.
My father taught me to never lay the first hand on any person in violence, but also to never allow myself to me harmed. In others words fight back when necessary by ANY means. There is no such thing as a fair fight, only the one you win, and the one you loose.
I taught my children that same value. Contrary to the rules in the re-education camps......
Unless one has a personal stake in the ongoing profitability of carbon-based energy sources (oil, coal, natural gases), prudence would suggest acceptance of AGW/AGCC and carbon mitigation. This is similar to debates in on the dangers of cigarettes in the 1960s with bogus reasoning promulgated by tobacco companies through the Heartland Institute.
charlie hebdo Unless one has a personal stake in the ongoing profitability of carbon-based energy sources (oil, coal, natural gases), prudence would suggest acceptance of AGW/AGCC and carbon mitigation. This is similar to debates in on the dangers of cigarettes in the 1960s with bogus reasoning promulgated by tobacco companies through the Heartland Institute.
Really? We are going to compare climate change to taking drugs?
ATLANTIC CENTRALFeel free to challenge my morals and beliefs directly,
I think talking to the wall would be more prodcutive, given what you post here.
But the wall withstanding, why not send your kids to a private school that more alligned with your morals? Or home-school them?
Ganging up on Atlantic Central? The Mob. Shameful
With you all the way Atlantic Central. Your comments speak to truth and refute a bunch of dreary propaganda.
I am a lone sniper. Others will attest to that.
For example: his bullying argument. While I don't disagree with him, the origins of that comes from the zero tolerance movement of the 80's and 90s, which was pretty much an offshoot of the 'broken windows' school of thought. A lot of schools are trying to get away from that model, but the pendulum hasn't found it's resting spot yet. A but more coplicated than calling it a simple "libural policy".
There are very few 10-word answers.
zugmann I am a lone sniper. Others will attest to that. For example: his bullying argument. While I don't disagree with him, the origins of that comes from the zero tolerance movement of the 80's and 90s, which was pretty much an offshoot of the 'broken windows' school of thought. A lot of schools are trying to get away from that model, but the pendulum hasn't found it's resting spot yet. A but more coplicated than calling it a simple "libural policy". There are very few 10-word answers.
Much of the time when I reply or post comments, it is during short breaks in my busy work day. I'm not retired, and don't have time to write long dissertations. So you get the sound bite version.......
Convicted OneNot to mention that at one time heliocentrism was held in such contempt as to be prosecutable.
I think it would be extremely wise for you to actually research this before making any further stereotypical claims. It was not the heliocentricity that caused Galileo such problems; it was the contemporary equivalent of snarky trolling. Even if 'e pur si muove' weren't a myth, it would still not be accurate.
On the other hand, it's undeniable that the official 'Church' response was extreme. But no one (even Jesuits) would call that response 'scientific'.
Phlogiston, on the other hand... I recommend it to your attention. It ultimately has so many parallels with contemporary European climate scientism.
Someone will need to provide me with the hypothesis for the dime research. Post-'65 dimes contain 25% nickel, a recognized carcinogen, and this might have been investigating whether eliminating silver-copper as the coinage alloy might contribute to cancer in children swallowing the small coins. Without actually seeing the study, I couldn't judge whether it's Ig-Nobel grade science or not.
Far more 'to the point' is all the government-subsidized research conducted to demonize 'recreational chemicals'. I see no end of posters at the University of Memphis involving various scientific-looking justifications for banning substances. Makes me wonder if there really was so much scientific justification and support for Neurosine up to the time the Roosevelt administration decided marijuana needed to be branded as wholly evil with no medicinal value.
I do use a higher standard of scientific scrutiny for studies underwritten by industry. I also use a higher standard for 'science' that produces justification of prejudged outcomes -- often buried in fancy manipulation of statistics -- rather than fair inquiry using the hypothesis as it should be used: only as a starting point.
And here I thought we were discussing attempts to steer public policy by manipulating the schools?
You've cut a bit more directly to the heart of the matter than most people looking at the particular situation in this topic.
The peculiarly reprehensible thing in this kind of manipulation is the conscious interference with academic careers for relatively trivial reasons unrelated to individual academic intelligence, ability to teach and inspire, etc. The effect on students is less direct, but certainly no less important in the long run.
As a retired professor, I will say that academic freedom and integrity is a very important value. It regularly comes under attack from the right and left, for differing reasons and in different theaters. The law school dean's blatant attempt to shut down/manipulate research not in his department is taking this matter to a level of the gravest concerns.
OvermodSomeone will need to provide me with the hypothesis for the dime research. Post-'65 dimes contain 25% nickel, a recognized carcinogen, and this might have been investigating whether eliminating silver-copper as the coinage alloy might contribute to cancer in children swallowing the small coins. Without actually seeing the study, I couldn't judge whether it's Ig-Nobel grade science or not.
As I recall, there was nothing academic about the dime research, other than proving that research provides the answers you're looking for.
The central point was that, using accepted cancer research practices and parameters, something as innocuous as a dime caused cancer. They probably could have used glass pellets and gotten a similar result.
It was a dig at the cancer research of the day.
A large part of the coal mined in us today is shipped overseas to China and India. The US railroads have spent billions of dollars reducing their emision foot prints as stated in an earlier post.
As for the trash along the tracks. That has nothing to do with carbon emissions. Yes the climate is changing, but do not believe the "SKY IS FALLING, TREE HUGGING" hysterics about the railroads are to blame.
Food for thought
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/12/24/climate-change-predictions-2020-carbon-dioxide-weather-disasters/2622212001/
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
tree68As I recall, there was nothing academic about the dime research, other than proving that research provides the answers you're looking for.
This is reminiscent of the course of the 'bumblebees can't possibly fly' chestnut, where the story commonly heard turned out to bear comparatively little resemblance to the reality involved. You may remember that the Greek sophistic tradition reveled even in the days of Socrates into being able to 'prove' all sorts of wacky stuff 'logically' through carefully-crafted argument that is similar to the standards often used for scientific evaluation, and this is one of the reasons why rhetoric is (or at least ought to be) kept as rigorously as possible out of legitimate scientific practice and presentation.
The central point was that, using accepted cancer research practices and parameters, something as innocuous as a dime caused cancer.
The point being, perhaps, that it would. At least under the circumstances used. Remember the old Playboy 'scientific' proof that marijuana caused brain damage? You need to see the assumptions, the methodology, the details of the procedure before you can assess the validity, let alone the correctness, of the conclusions reached by the researchers.
This being even before you have to recognize that there are several different things considered as 'cancer' that are very different in origin and development. Retinoblastoma, for example, is not really a cancer at all in the typically-understood sense; it is normal embryonic development of the optic nerve that was not properly switched off by appropriate (and even as yet ill-recognized) growth sequencing before birth.
I am highly reminded of something I happily participated in that qualifies as dubious research, although it didn't 'look' like it, a "combined ocular melanoma study" in the late Eighties. This was an intensive retrospective study supposedly using a large number of cases in the records at New York Hospital and Mass General, going back in some cases over 40 years, to determine the most effective modalities to treat ocular melanoma (either of primary origin or metastatic). I carefully set up arrangements to have grad students use laptops for data entry right in the central records facilities, to gather large amounts of technically unrelated data in case there were unanticipated correlations, etc. etc. etc. And then one day, my father (about 5 beers in, at the Recovery Room bar on 70th) started grumbling about how the COMS was junk science. Having spent so much time and trouble on it, I asked him (with some asperity, as I was beginning to perceive I might have been wasting it) why he thought that. He pointed out that NO contemporary treatment for ocular melanoma had a survival rate much above 50% at five years, which meant there was little point in spending $2.5 million to establish to four-decimal-point instead of two-decimal-point statistically-correct accuracy that we had no effective way to treat ocular melanoma.
I had no answer to him then, and I find upon reviewing it now that I still don't.
Exxon. They have known the dangers of AGW since the early 90s. Now the are recognizing the danger and supporting an inadequate $40/ton carbon tax, but better than nothing, better late than never.
https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2019/12/03/exxon-carbon-tax-imperial-oil-canada/
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.