Global Warming: "Pseudoscientific Fraud"

[Jeff Lebowski]

While the anti-vaccination thing seems to be more prevalent on the left, I am not sure either side has a monopoly on quack medicine in general.

By the way, this essay seems to be nicely balanced analysis of left/right biases regarding science:

http://reason.com/archives/2011/10/04/more-anti-science-democrats-or/

[Northwestcoug]

Steve Jobs was diagnosed in 2003 and didn't die until 2011. He refused even to have the mass excised for 9 months after his initial diagnosis in favor of vitamins, juicing, acupuncture, etc.

I hadn't realized Jobs lived for that long after the diagnosis.

[Topper]

While the anti-vaccination thing seems to be more prevalent on the left, I am not sure either side has a monopoly on quack medicine in general.

By the way, this essay seems to be nicely balanced analysis of left/right biases regarding science:

http://reason.com/archives/2011/10/0...-democrats-or/

I loved this quote for its irony,

The left doesn’t abuse science; it merely has policy disagreements about what it all means.

and this one, which is why many dislike regulatory interference.

imposes a burden of proof on those who create potential risks, and it requires regulation of activities even if it cannot be shown that those activities are likely to produce significant harms

This is a good summary:

As law professor Dan Kahan and his colleagues at the Yale Cultural Cognition Project have shown, the strong urge to avoid scientific and technological risk is far more characteristic of people who have egalitarian and communitarian values, that is to say, left-leaning folks. As I reported earlier, according to research by Kahan and his colleagues individualists tend to dismiss claims of environmental risks because they fear such claims will be used to fetter markets and other arenas of individual achievement. Hierarchicalists tend to see claims of environmental risk as a subversive tactic aiming to undermine a stable social order. In contrast, Egalitarians and Communitarians dislike markets and industry for creating disparities in wealth and power. In fact, they readily believe that such disparities generate environmental risks that must be regulated.

In other words, everybody has values that they are anxious to protect and everybody, including liberals, struggles with confirmation bias. The operation of the scientific process is the only truly effective way humanity has developed for overcoming confirmation bias and figuring out reality. In most cases it can reduce, but not eliminate, uncertainties, and correct mistakes as we go along. Unfortunately, as the autism/vaccine incident shows, unscientific approaches like the precautionary principle actually feed into the confirmation biases associated with a specific ideological tendency.

[Omaha 680]

Nothing makes me more angry than the thought of my baby sharing a subway car with potentially measles-infected kids while she waited a year to be able to receive the MMR vaccine. I do not like the anti-vaccine whackos.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I loved this quote for its irony,

and this one, which is why many dislike regulatory interference.

This is a good summary:

I was expecting you to do some cherry-picking from that article. You may notice that virtually everyone (on the left and right) in these essays agrees that the right is anti-science when it comes to climate change.

Also, here are the original essays in question:

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/...News+-+Opinion)

http://www.desmogblog.com/unequivocal-today-s-right-overwhemingly-more-anti-science-today-s-left

Both authors make some decent points, but Mooney is absolutely right about the main issue: the right is far more anti-science when it comes to major policy issues and ideas embraced the majority of the people on either side. Anyone who paid the least amount of attention to the last presidential election and watched the republican primary debates would have to admit that. Heaven help us if we can't get some better republican candidates this time around.

[Topper]

I was expecting you to do some cherry-picking from that article. You may notice that virtually everyone (on the left and right) in these essays agrees that the right is anti-science when it comes to climate change.

Also, here are the original essays in question:

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/...News+-+Opinion)

http://www.desmogblog.com/unequivocal-today-s-right-overwhemingly-more-anti-science-today-s-left

Both authors make some decent points, but Mooney is absolutely right about the main issue: the right is far more anti-science when it comes to major policy issues and ideas embraced the majority of the people on either side. Anyone who paid the least amount of attention to the last presidential election and watched the republican primary debates would have to admit that. Heaven help us if we can't get some better republican candidates this time around.

That point is debatable. In any event, the explanation for opposing the conclusions upon policy decisions in the environmental realm is set forth plainly.

As I reported earlier, according to research by Kahan and his colleagues individualists tend to dismiss claims of environmental risks because they fear such claims will be used to fetter markets and other arenas of individual achievement.

That is my primary concern.

[Uncle Ted]

Steve Jobs is a hero to people across political lines, but he was a hardcore lefty and a genius who had no clue as to the limits of his genius. His faith in science didn't extend to his own cancer treatment. The reliance on hokey witch doctor nonsense doesn't only extend to those in Utah that believe in the healing powers of fragrant oils, it has a big time following within the more crunchy granola factions on the left. Steve Jobs and Dave Rose had the same kind of pancreatic cancer, one is dead and the other is alive.

Jobs, even though he was a bare foot, witch doctor loving liberal hippy, talked and acted like a capitalist pig conservative...

"You're headed for a one-term presidency," he told Obama at the start of their meeting, insisting that the administration needed to be more business-friendly. As an example, Jobs described the ease with which companies can build factories in China compared to the United States, where "regulations and unnecessary costs" make it difficult for them.


Jobs also criticized America's education system, saying it was "crippled by union work rules," noted Isaacson. "Until the teachers' unions were broken, there was almost no hope for education reform." Jobs proposed allowing principals to hire and fire teachers based on merit, that schools stay open until 6 p.m. and that they be open 11 months a year.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/20/steve-jobs-biography-obama_n_1022786.html

Of course, your point about all those deeply conservative folks in Utah pushing things like magic oils makes one wonder if those freaks are all hippies as well.

[Jeff Lebowski]

In any event, the explanation for opposing the conclusions upon policy decisions in the environmental realm is set forth plainly.

That is my primary concern.

You do realize that he is listing common anti-science logical fallacies leading to confirmation bias, right? But good for you for owning that one, I guess.

[Topper]

You do realize that he is listing common anti-science logical fallacies leading to confirmation bias, right? But good for you for owning that one, I guess.

Of course. I recognize my own bias in matters affecting business, individual liberty and individual achievement is linked to the fears he listed.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Of course. I recognize my own bias in matters affecting business, individual liberty and individual achievement is linked to the fears he listed.

OK, we get it. Liberty and individual achievement >>>>>> facts and science!

[byu71]

Of course. I recognize my own bias in matters affecting business, individual liberty and individual achievement is linked to the fears he listed.

Duh, I along with you don't understand why some people don't get it.

Let's see, science says your taking a mighty big risk Columbus floating across the ocean. Columbus decides for whatever reason it is worth the risk. Let the debate begin whether he should have listened to science or not.

[Topper]

OK, we get it. Liberty and individual achievement >>>>>> facts and science!

You are no better than a Tea Party member in terms of discussing options. This is the Abby Hoffman approach to public discourse. Exaggerate and Ridicule.

In my perspective, and you disagree to some degree, the most dynamic part of our culture is economic mobility and freedom, as well as certain constitutional liberties, including but not limited to, free speech, right to bear arms, right to enjoy one's property, right to counsel, right against self-incrimination, and others included in the Bill of Rights. Rights of the collective are not as important to me as rights of the individual. Rights of the collective are not as important because the possible tyranny of the majority and the inherent protections the majority already possess. The collective rarely, if ever, protects the individual.

Thus, where those use "science" to advocate in favor of abrogating those liberties, I am skeptical as to motives. Usually, those using the arguments of "science" are just as likely to use non-scientific arguments to win the policy battle, just as long as they win. In other words, when science is convenient, use it. When lies are convenient use them as well. That is the function of government and politics. And you wonder why people are skeptical no matter the source of argument?

I have no intention of voting for regulation which unduly restrains industries which are vital to our economic welfare, if the costs of such restraints merely promote environmental concerns. If environmental changes are affordable and do not affect vital concerns, such as energy or manufacturing, I won't oppose them. In terms of policy debate, scientific concerns are not the sole considerations.

[Jeff Lebowski]

You are no better than a Tea Party member in terms of discussing options. This is the Abby Hoffman approach to public discourse. Exaggerate and Ridicule.

You should be flattered. That is an awesome painting.

And while googling it, I found this masterpiece:

[CJF]

Duh, I along with you don't understand why some people don't get it.

Let's see, science says your taking a mighty big risk Columbus floating across the ocean. Columbus decides for whatever reason it is worth the risk. Let the debate begin whether he should have listened to science or not.

Do you think that debate should just now begin or are you saying you were there when that debate did in fact begin?

[Topper]

You should be flattered. That is an awesome painting.

And while googling it, I found this masterpiece:

What masterpiece?

I dislike art that depicts modern political discourse, or least what I have seen before.