quote:And Pod, what's wrong with making straight C's and being successful?
The problem is bragging about just getting by. I'm one of those guys who believes that for the most part, people who get higher grades probably learned the material better and took the classes more seriously. The President should be more remorseful about fumbling his through college, and if that's your plan, so should you.
_______
I've received more than my share of "C"s and have hacked my way through entirely too many classes, from kindergarten through college, but I'm not proud my effort. I am the worse for it. I was irresponsible with my opportunities at every level, and I'm trying to the best of my ability to arrest that behavior.
That's the lesson that I think is important enough to live by and teach to others, and that's the lesson that Bush so brazenly flouted by joking about his time at Yale.
posted
jeniwren, the "pro-abortion" is another part of the post that was offensive. I also, try to use terms groups themselves endorse. Like saying LDS instead of Mormon. Or writing God, instead of god. I know we had another thread about the difference between pro-choice and pro-abortion. Are you still trying to be offensive to people who don't agree with you?
quote: that abortion is killing a baby, which does mean that it is inherently anti-family
So, a 14 year-old should have a baby? That is "pro-family?" A 17 year-old should have a baby she can't afford, nor will be able to provide for, other than at a very low economic level? A 20 year old in an abusive relationship who is halfway through college? If they choose to have an abortion, this makes them "anti-family?" What if later in life, they each had a half dozen happy, well-adjusted kids? Would they still be "anti-family?"
From my perspective, you aren't pro-family. Your are actually "anti-family" and "pro-suffer the consqences of your own stupid actions, you moron." If you were pro-family, you wouldn't want teens making bad choices, like entering into a poorly thought out marriage in order to raise an unplanned, and possibly unwanted child, who will, by some, been seen as a burden and the fault of all lifes bitter disappointments. Cause that senario right there, is a recipe for an alcoholic husband, an angry, bitter wife and neglected and abused kid. Not really much of a family.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
SS- it isn't offensive. The presidency of the church asked that journalists refer to the church by its full name rather than as "Mormons". Probably just to emphasize that we are Christians (a fact many seem to overlook).
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Since I realize you guys are Christians, I hope you don't mind if I say 'Mormons'. LDS sounds like a corporate entity or something, and I ain't typing the full name of the church out whenever I'm posting to or about Mormons. Sorry. My fingers would soon fall off. Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Man Tom D. You sure know how to start threads that take on a life of their own. Is is some ancient Jatraquero trick that the rest of us just haven't caught onto yet?
posted
Go ahead and call us Mormons, Storm. Now and then, you'll find a silly Mormon who likes to correct people who use the word, but the rest of us all use that word to describe ourselves more often than anything else.
Posts: 2048 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Inserting random interesting fact here: From
quote: Study: Jilted birds land in bad homes From Ann Kellan CNN Sci-Tech Unit Tuesday, September 9, 2003 Posted: 9:43 AM EDT (1343 GMT)
Oystercatchers have a divorce rate around 8 percent.
(CNN) -- Shorebirds known as oystercatchers may provide evidence not only that birds, like people, get "divorced," but that those getting dumped are more likely to land in a shoddier home in a more dangerous neighborhood.
posted
I just ran across one of OSC's previous articles, where he seems to define the "establishment" a bit better and basically be making the same point, though with a slightly different spin.
posted
The problem with this essay is that it is a rant, not a pursuasive, reasoned analysis. It's filled with hyperbole, straw men, red herrings, and emotionalism. After having read similar essays by Card over the years, I've come to the conclusions that this is a highly personal issue for him. It strikes too close to home and he has been fighting against it for too long to be able maintain the objectivity needed to write a clear pursuasive essay about it. I suspect that he and his works have been denegrated by some of the Ivory Tower elite specifically because of his family and religious values. I have observed the biases he speaks of to be particularly egrigious in the performing arts community where affectations of melancholy are commonly mistaken for depth and anything pretty or with a tint of happiness is denounced as trite.
I can understand why, given his background, he feels the way he does. Unfortunately, he paints with too broad a brush and in doing so he alienates many, like myself, who should be his natural constinuency. The emotionalism in his essays harms his cause. In this essay for example, his central point is that parents need to teach their children critical thinking. Unfortunately, his point is nearly lost in the paragraphs of ranting about the evils of the educational establishment. Notice how few of the posts here even mention his conclusion.
As a university professor, I can assure that this is a point that nearly all faculty would support. This is a frequently discussed issue in faculty meetings and workshops. There is concern with the generally low level of critical thinking typical in students (and the general population), a recognition that we do a particularly poor job at the undergraduate level of teaching critical thinking and a concerted effort to find better ways to teach students to question authority, assess data and make reasoned decisions based on analysis of data. Although I am sure there are exceptions, all of the faculty members I know well are delighted when a student presents a well reasoned argument that challenges accepted theories. Unfortunately, it is far more common for students to rant than reason. By couching his thesis in the context of a rant, Card risks being equated to the students who are incapable of reasoned criticism. He virtually ensures that his thesis will be dismissed by those who ought to embrace it.
Card needs to step back and stick to what he does best, tell stories that reflect his values but are neither shallow nor trite and leave the essays to a more dispationate writer.
No one has ever changed a man's attitude by shouting bigot. Peoples prejudices are only changed by experiences that violate their preconceptions and force them to reevaluate their world view.
[ September 09, 2003, 06:41 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
That was well said, Rabbit. I think I've typed about five pages worth of stuff in trying to respond to that link, but I just couldn't make it sound anything other than mean and dismissive.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rabbit, you do realize that you are one of those liberal professors he's talking about, right? Why, just by riding your bike to work and being concerned about the environment, which isn't in danger from man, you are brainwashing those kids in your charge to the liberal point of view that cars are destroying the ozone and destroying the environment! Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
i don't think card was takling about personal activism.
he seems to be complaining more about instutional inquisitions. However in my experience at least, i've never heard of problems with political correctness crusaders in the faculty of my university. So i think that part of his argument is bunk, which is why i want more clarification on what he means.
Posts: 4482 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
What's particularly sad is his comment that anyone who doesn't see things as he does must be,themselves, a PC goon. A damned if you do, damned if you don't situation.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: I'm tired of the empty testimonials for global warming. Like the statement I recently read: "You won't find a serious scientist who doesn't believe in global warming."
posted
I found it disappointing OSC didn't care to name a couple serious scientists who don't think global warming is happening. Should certainly be possible, and would help his position a lot more than simply alleging it can be done. The scientific remarks he made don't support him at all because they aren't scientific-- they're sound bites. Basically he said: A lot of people say global warming is universally accepted. They're wrong. I'm not going to prove them wrong, instead I'm going to say a few sound bites with no sources or analysis despite claiming for some things evidence and for others lack of evidence, then I'm going to suggest you read a book which doesn't actually address whether or not global warming happens.
I'm particularly annoyed at some of his sound bites for the simple reason that they're well, wrong. For instance, alleging that the case for global warming is solely based off of short term temperature measurements plus computer projections. It's not just based on those, it also draws heavily on millions of years of historic data. He may dispute the interpretation of that data, but it still figures prominently in the case for global warming, a fact that he recklessly (and I hope not intentionally) overlooks.
I expect him to hold himself to a high standard when claiming to debunk others' ideas. He has not come anywhere close to such a standard in the section on global warming.
Standard disclaimers: I'm not a global warming alarmist, I think that it is at worst a concern for the future after more immediate concerns have been taken care of, and may be taken care of coincidentally by taking care of those other concerns.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Now, maybe I'm about to step in it again, but I don't think the real issue is "Does global warming occur?" but rather, "Does human behavior significantly impact Earth's temperature cycles?" If the answer is no, then alarmism and major anti-global-warming policy shifts are uncalled-for.
Posts: 2048 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just now saw Geoff's little trollish remark, claiming I am "anti-family." I don't see how being against marriage is "anti-family," unless your definition of marriage is so culturally narrow that you cannot imagine a positive family setting that does not include a marriage. With ehtnocentric statements like that I wonder why you try at all to consider other ways of life and other viewpoints than your own.
[ September 09, 2003, 07:59 PM: Message edited by: Duragon C. Mikado ]
Posts: 622 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
And honestly, if your position that marriage is a prison and a blight on society is not "anti-family" in the commonly-understood sense of being "against the traditional nuclear family", then the phrase has no useful meaning. Which may be the case I think that arguing over labels like this ("Pro-choice" versus "Anti-life" or "Pro-life" versus "Anti-choice") is a serious barrier to rational discussion.
Which is why I was JOKING. Let's all be friends.
In any case, your description of my "ethnocentric, culturally narrow-minded opinion" is completely silly. I don't know anyone who thinks that a family must include a marriage to "really be a family". You'd get a lot more persuading done if you'd address my actual opinion instead of just trying to demonize me for opinions I don't have.
posted
Well, all I was left to address was your remark that you now say is a joke. If you had prefaced all your arguments on this thread with it I guess it would be a substantiable point, but since it was made after I had thought I had already sufficiently addressed your points, I took it by itself. But hey, no offense taken, its just conversation.
This is why I like face to face conversation better, intent and purpose is a lot easier to gather with non-verbal communication present. Maybe I'll join you and Slash when he comes to stop by, he already sent me an email. Just give me times well in advance. I really enjoy meeting people that can defend things that totally go against my way of life as intelligently as you do.
[ September 09, 2003, 11:05 PM: Message edited by: Duragon C. Mikado ]
Posts: 622 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Geoffrey: except that's not the position he scoffs at. He scoffs at the position that all reputable scientists say it occurs. And he scoffs at it repeatedly, without ever disproving it. I'm not saying it can't be disproven, and in fact I bet it can, but he ridicules it and the people who hold it without bothering to disprove it.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: The very fact that the global warming advocates are constantly asserting, not their evidence, but rather the fact that "most scientists agree with us," is proof that they are not acting as scientists.
You know I have been reading the scientific literature on global climate change for 20 years and Cards assertions written in this article are patently false. The primary advocates of the theory that human activity is causing global climate change are scientists not environmental activists or politicians. This is a theory that was initially posed by scientists and which has been thoroughly researched for over 40 years. Initially, the theory was controversial, but it isn't any more. Card makes a whole slew of conjectures is this article that are patently false.
quote:After all, there's still no reliable evidence that it's happening.
If Card had made this statement during the drought of the mid 1980's, I would have agreed, but since that time their have been literally hundreds, if not thousands of studies published on this subject nearly all of which report reliable evidence that the global climate is changing.
quote:if it is happening, there is no serious evidence that it is happening because of human intervention rather than as a part of natural weather cycles.
Also patently untrue. Dozens of scientific studies including both theoretical models and experimental data have concluded that the climate change which has occurred during the past century cannot be explained by natural variability (including the influence of solar variability, changes in ocean currents and volcanoes) but can only be attributed to human activity. (see Science August 22, 2003).
quote: Meanwhile, the global warming theory still depends on nothing more than localized temperature measurements over too short a period of time to be interpretable, combined with fanciful computer models that, not surprisingly, return the desired results.
Also blatantly untrue. The theory of global climate change is based on the first law of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzman law of radiatiant heat exchange. The theory was originally proposed based on a scientific understanding of how carbon-dioxide, water, and other green house gases in our atmosphere influence radiant heat exchange between the sun, our planet and the void. No one (and that is not hyperbole) with even a basic understanding of science questions the validity of these theories. Because of the strength of the initial hypothesis, over 40 years of scientific study including both complex computer models, based on well established science not fantasy, and a multitude of measurments have been undertaken to refine the theory. There are still many unknowns in the equation, but the foundations of the theory are extraordinarily strong. What's more, over the past 20 years, the majority of controversies in the field have been resolved.
In the 80s, when my husband first began working in the field, virtual no one in the scientific community was claiming that any they had evidence that human activity was already modifying the global climate. Now, well over 99% of scientists involved in the field are convinced that we have measured change in the climate which is attributable to human activity. This is not because we have all suddenly forgotten our scientific training and fallen under the influence of a radical environmental movement. The change has occurred because the data collected over the past 20 years continues to strength the theory. That includes not only data from recent weather parents, but also data from ice cores and trees that give us a good picture of temperatures over hundreds of thousands of years.
quote: And if it is being caused by human intervention, there's no serious evidence that this global warming is actually going to have deleterious effects.
Here he has a point. The weakness in the science is that we do not completely understand how the oceans, forests, deserts, and clouds interact to produce climate. As a result, we can't accurately predict which parts of the planet will get warm and which parts of the planet will get colder, or which will have increased rain and which will experience drought. We can however confidently concluded several things. These include that it that the ocean level will rise about 1/2 meter which will have a significant deleterious effect in many costal regions, for a time severe storms and droughts will become more common in most parts of the world, major agricultural areas in North American and China will become more arid. Those items alone will have a significant deleterous effect on people and while it is true that people have adapted to changes before, this adaptation has often involved wars, famines and plagues that killed off a good fraction of the population.
Finally I would ask Card if he thinks that its a wise choice to smoke because it isn't 100% certain that you will get lung cancer or emphazema. Would you get on a plane knowing that it had a faulty engine that had a 20% chance of causing a crash? Do you step out in front of speeding cars because there is always a chance that they might see you and stop?
[ September 10, 2003, 07:59 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
OK, Now I'm going to rant. I have spent the better part of the last twenty years learning and doing science. It took me five to six years of study before I could read a current research article and understand the subtilties of the work enough to make an educated critique of the value and importance of any scientific work. This is largely because every article published in a peer reviewed journal is read and critiqued by leaders in the field before its published. If it has the kind of critical flaws that can typically be spotted by novices, it never makes it into publication. So when someone like George Bush or Scott Card who has little or no training in science believes that they can look at an entire body of scientific research and dismiss it as shoddy work, I'm appalled and insulted by their arrogance.
After taking one anatomy class, would you presume to teach an experienced spine surgeon how to best repair a spinal injury? That is exactly what politicians and the media are doing with global warming.
At least 99 out of 100 atmospheric scientists agree that global climate change is real and is being caused by the burning of fossil fuels. If hasn't always been that way, 20 years ago there was real controversy, today there isn't. I do not know of one recognized expert in atmospheric sciences who dismisses this as a specious theory. If you know of one, please give me his/her name so that I can review their work and assess the validity of their claims. The only scientists I know who still consider there to be any controversy are funded by the oil and coal industry or conservative think tanks or do not have any expertise in atmospheric chemistry. The arguments they make in public forums, have already been widely studied and refuted by leading scientists.
Controversies don't disappear arbitrarily in science. They only disappear when evidence piles up in favor of one side. That is what has happened in global climate change.
From inside the scientific community, the theory of global climate change is not controversial. When I have attended American Geophysical Union meeting (the premere scientific society for environmental research), no one is arguing about the theory of global climate change -- it has been accepted as true. There are plenty of controversies that people debate avidly, but the Greenhouse gas theory is not among them. It is nearly universally accepted. Controversy only exists in the media and politics.
Unfortunately, there are a few hold outs who have taken the debate to the court of public opinion specifically because they can't make their case among scientists. There criticisms don't hold water among scientist because we understand they issues well enough to critically review their work. Among politicians they are very popular because they tell people what they want to here. What they are doing is unethical and irresponsible? Those who listen to them are arrogant fools. Do they really believe that thousands of scientists throughout the world are incompetant? Or perhaps they believe that 99% of the atmospheric science community is part of a radical conspiracy to destroy the technological world?
Isn't it much more reasonable to believe that a small group of people who stand to make huge profits from selling oil, coal and gas don't want to believe the truth?
[ September 10, 2003, 12:10 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rabbit, you are wasting your breath. One of the core reasons that there has been a concerted attack on universities is so conservatives can dismiss research they don't like by sniffing 'oh, that's liberal science, not real science. We all know that scientists in universities have an agenda. :/
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
As usual, Dr. Rabbit, you blow me away. Excellent posts. I just had a much less eloquent version of this conversation with my boss a few weeks ago; I wish I'd had your post to refer to at that time.
It's unlikely that OSC will happen across this thread, but I would love to know what he had to say in response to your posts. I don't think you're wasting your breath, by the way; OSC strikes me as a bright, thoughtful person, and while he has strong opinions, I expect that they aren't fossilized, and would be subject to change as long as they weren't informed by his religious beliefs (so, for example, you might change his mind about global warming, but probably wouldn't change his mind about the effect of homosexuality on society).
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Aiieee! I skip a day and we are on to global warming from "anti-family!" Oh well, back to where I left off.
Geoff, you are right, I was being a bit silly with my last post but the point remains the same. I have no clear working definition of "anti-family" at the university level (where all those liberal intellectuals hang out) per the Card perspective. Kayla brought the point to a head, pitting the hot-button abortion topic against the "anti-family" terminology. Her examples were excellent and put the point in clear perspective: Are you "anti-family" if you support a 15 year old mother-to-be to have an abortion? Or, are you "anti-family" if you encourage that 15 year old girl to have the child and thus become, dare I say it, most likely a single parent. And since the traditional definition of "Anti-family" would scoff at the single parent household, it puts two strong ideals at odds.
I think it really does all come down to choice and this is a word that traditional conservative rhetoric can't abide, which is why it never really shows up in their dogma, as it does in liberal ideology.
You can be pro-choice regarding abortion but think that abortion is a horrible choice (as I do). You can be pro-choice with homosexuality (meaning people can choose who they want to marry or commit to in an intimate relationship) but be homophobic (not like me, but I know plenty of people who say they aren't comfortable with it but don't feel it is their place to tell adults who they can sleep with). You can be pro-choice with end of life issues but think that doctor assisted suicide is frightening.
While the liberals are derided because they put their faith in government to solve all problems (as Rush would point out, though I would disagree) Conservatives think the same way, except they want to limit choices or remove them completely. They, more than liberals, propose Constitutional amendments even, such as ban on Flag burning or ban on gay marriages that continue to get bandied about Congress. Heck with laws, go above them! If that isn't mis-use of government, I don't know what is.
So for my buck, I would say "anti-family" means supporting a choice of family structure that goes against the "traditional" grain, whatever that tradition is. For OSC, I assume it is the two parent, 2.3 kids, dog in the yard, etc. As long as the two parents are heterosexual, that is. My good lady friends who are married and have a child (and even the dog!) wouldn't fit that picture and, by having only the traditional definition of anti-family, would be probably considered by OSC (and other conservatives) to be "anti-family." It saddens me, I suppose.
If there is a better description of it, let me know.
fil
PS Also, thanks all for the conversation! These are tough topics and e-discussions make it hard to read people a bit, but I do just enjoy the discussion and not any "heat" that may be behind it. Excelsior!
Posts: 896 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Globally, sea level will rise at an increasing rate, although the rate of rise may not be significantly greater than at present. The most reasonable estimates for the rate of sea level rise are 5 - 40 cm by 2050 as compared to a rise of 5 - 12 cm if the rates of rise over the past century continue.
So I don't know if you should be quite so sure about your figures.
quote:The theory of global climate change is based on the first law of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzman law of radiatiant heat exchange.
I wonder about this. Those aren't esoteric scientific theories, those are some of the most basic things about science. Saying that the theory of global warming is based on those doesn't really establish much. I am sure that the actual models they use are far more complicated. The real question is whether the amount of greenhouse gases is increasing enough to have a significant effect on climate. I don't have much of an opinion on it, but I notice that the summary linked to above was much more moderate.
Fil says:
quote:Are you "anti-family" if you support a 15 year old mother-to-be to have an abortion? Or, are you "anti-family" if you encourage that 15 year old girl to have the child and thus become, dare I say it, most likely a single parent.
Since, of course, we know that those are the only two options. But what about adoption? That changes the equation a little bit. Suddenly, it is a girl having to go through nine months of discomfort in order to sustain a life she brought into being, or a girl ending that life in order to have full freedom of movement during what would have been the pregnancy. Quite frankly, I think that if she has voluntarily chosen to sleep with someone, she should have to endure the discomfort of pregnancy in order to preserve the child's life.
As for the article, I thought it was quite good. I don't think that there is enough diversity of opinion on campuses, especially in the humanities and social sciences. In a lot of your responses, I noticed quite a bit of, shall we say, "hyperbole, straw men, red herrings, and emotionalism." Note that some have said that he must think only conservatives should be allowed on campus. The whole point of his article was that more voices should be let in, not more shut out. And he did a decent enough job of defending it. His side points, like his bits about the family, were obviously not studied with as much depth of his main thesis. I think his article could have used a few more footnotes to better establish some details, but I don't think it was the masterpiece of irrationality that some have suggested.
Posts: 285 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hazen, I ought to proof read my post better. The post should have read 1/2 meter not 2 meters. Thank you for pointing out my error.
quote: I wonder about this. Those aren't esoteric scientific theories, those are some of the most basic things about science. Saying that the theory of global warming is based on those doesn't really establish much. I am sure that the actual models they use are far more complicated. The real question is whether the amount of greenhouse gases is increasing enough to have a significant effect on climate. I don't have much of an opinion on it, but I notice that the summary linked to above was much more moderate.
Please look at the context of my post. It was intended to refute Card accusation that Global warming theories were based solely on a few localized measurements and fanciful models. The accusation is not simply an exageration of the facts, it is demonstrably, completely and totally untrue.
You are correct that the summary you link to is more moderate than my statements. It is also 9 years old and much of what was considered uncertain or controversial a decade ago has become widely accepted because of additional research.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Boy . . . a lotta good posts by people on both sides. I'm not interested in joining in the debates on abortion, global warming, the free market, or homosexuality at this time (instead, I'll just be enigmatic and say that I think Card is 2 for 4 on these ). However, with a firm awareness of the fact that the plural of anecdote is not data, I will say that I double-majored in mathematics and literature (with minors in computer science and theology), I went to graduate school for literature, and have taken graduate courses in education in the course of my career. And, in my experience, while many professors of math, science, and computer science tend to be at least somewhat conservative, virtually every professor I ever had in literature, education, theology (in a Catholic university!), social science, and humanities was distinctly liberal in bent. And again, in my experience, the science teachers, the conservative teachers, were more open-minded, or simply less concerned. Their views were not strictly party-line, they more often managed to keep their politics out of the classroom, and they were not perturbed when people did express views that contradicted their own. I frequently had the experience in humanities classes of hearing teachers make irrelevant political statements in the middle of lectures, beginning dialogues with the consideration that certain premises were axiomatic, like that Bush (Sr.) was a bad president, promiscuity was normal and even a good thing, all men were rapists at heart, all straight men were terrified of homosexuals and would oppress them if given half a chance, abortion and euthanasia should be legal under all but the most extreme curcumstances, and all of the ills of the world were caused by white europeans. I'm not particularly conservative, by the way. I have voted for candidates from both major parties and one minor one, and consider myself predominantly liberal in most of my views, with some exceptions that are crucial to me. But I definitely had the experience in college (as I noted, a Catholic school!), grad school (Clemson University, in the heart of the conservative south!), and since, of keeping some views to myself, because I knew that expressing them would be detrimental to my grade in the class. (Cowardice? Yeah. So sue me. *shrug* Hopefully I'm older and wiser now.) I get the distinct impression from talking to others that this was a common feeling at many different schools. If your experience has been different, then maybe your school was not like this, or maybe you don't notice the oppressive climate because you happen to hold the same beliefs that are favored by the folks in power.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Icarus, I had much the same experience. Most of my science professors were probably conservative, but with the exception of one or two LDS English professors, ALL the humanities professors were wildly liberal.
However, there were only a few that made it very obvious. On the other hand, I went to school in small-town Utah, and a third of their students were return missionaries. If they had been too far to the left, they would have alienated their students completely. Some tried anyway, but the good ones could teach without fighting them.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rabbit, I was reading the current issue of New Scientist and came across an article that I'd be curious to hear your response to. It's called You Can't Control the Climate. Reducing carbon emissions in the hope this will stop global warming is a flawed idea, argues Philip Stott. Better to react to climate change as it happens.
Stott, who is listed as a professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London, states that "I am a mildly left-wing global warming sceptic. For me the real questions have never been 'Is climate changing?' or 'Are humans influencing climate?'. Climate always changes, and humans affect climate in many ways, not just through carbon dioxide emissions. I don't believe we will ever be able to manage the climate in a predictable manner by trying to manipulate just one of the enormous number of nautral and human factors involved."
I don't think that the article is available to non-subscribers online, and out of respect for the magazine I don't want to just transcribe it, but I will quote some other relevant passages.
quote:Over the past few weeks, a number of studies have emerged that cast doubt on the significance of human-made global warming and the climate models on which the dominant theory is largely based....One of the most important investigates the link between climate change and galactic cosmic rays (GSA Today, vol 13 p4).
The referenced article appears to be by Jan Veizer, a geochemist at the Ruhr University at Bochum, Germany and the University of Ottawa, Canada, and Nir Shaviv, an astrophysicist at teh Racah Institute of Physics at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. It claims that cosmic rays account for up to 75% of climate variations, and further states that the researchers found no correlation between temperature variation and the changing patterns of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
Apparently Veizer had an article about the latter claim in Nature in 2000 (vol 408, p 698).
Also, according to the New Scientist article, there was an article in last month's Progress in Physical Geography (vol 27, page 448) by Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics that was critical of the current models of the interactions between the oceans, atmosphere, land, and ice cover, on which current thinking about global warming is based.
The article states that "Soon and Baliunas go on to stress that no general circulation model has successfully simulated the observation that while temperatures at the surface of the Earth have continued to rise, the lower atmosphere has not warmed at all. Yet if CO2 plays the substantial role in climate change the global warming lobby insist it does, this layer should be warming faster than the surface air."
The author concludes with a paragraph in which he states that "though the 'global warming myth' has become immensely powerful, the science of climate change remains deeply uncertain. I believe it is vital to acknowledge this uncertainty."
So, what do you think? Are you familiar with the work of Veizer, Shaviv, Soon, and Baliunas? Does their work actually cast doubt on current models of global warming, as the New Scientist article states that they do? If so, what do you make of it? Are you familiar with Stott's work? I'm very curious to know what you think about this, as it flies in the face of my pervious understanding of the issue.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Since I realize you guys are Christians, I hope you don't mind if I say 'Mormons'. LDS sounds like a corporate entity or something, and I ain't typing the full name of the church out whenever I'm posting to or about Mormons. Sorry. My fingers would soon fall off.
I'm declaring a pogrom if you use the word "Mormon" instead of "a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints"
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
). However, with a firm awareness of the fact that the plural of anecdote is not data, I will say that I double-majored in mathematics and literature (with minors in computer science and theology), I went to graduate school for literature, and have taken graduate courses in education in the course of my career. And, in my experience, while many professors of math, science, and computer science tend to be at least somewhat conservative, virtually every professor I ever had in literature, education, theology (in a Catholic university!), social science, and humanities was distinctly liberal in bent. And again, in my experience, the science teachers, the conservative teachers, were more open-minded, or simply less concerned. Their views were not strictly party-line, they more often managed to keep their politics out of the classroom, and they were not perturbed when people did express views that contradicted their own. I frequently had the experience in humanities classes of hearing teachers make irrelevant political statements in the middle of lectures, beginning dialogues with the consideration that certain premises were axiomatic, like that Bush (Sr.) was a bad president, promiscuity was normal and even a good thing, all men were rapists at heart, all straight men were terrified of homosexuals and would oppress them if given half a chance, abortion and euthanasia should be legal under all but the most extreme curcumstances, and all of the ills of the world were caused by white europeans. I'm not particularly conservative, by the way. I have voted for candidates from both major parties and one minor one, and consider myself predominantly liberal in most of my views, with some exceptions that are crucial to me. But I definitely had the experience in college (as I noted, a Catholic school!), grad school (Clemson University, in the heart of the conservative south!), and since, of keeping some views to myself, because I knew that expressing them would be detrimental to my grade in the class. (Cowardice? Yeah. So sue me. *shrug* Hopefully I'm older and wiser now.) I get the distinct impression from talking to others that this was a common feeling at many different schools. If your experience has been different, then maybe your school was not like this, or maybe you don't notice the oppressive climate because you happen to hold the same beliefs that are favored by the folks in power.
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
