Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Motivated rejection of science (Score 0) 661

You don't really know your history very well, do you?

The phrase "useful idiot" was coined by Stalin, in reference to people in the United States and Europe who were trying to help overthrow capitalism in favor of communism. They really didn't understand the issue very well either, just like AGW people don't.

In this context, AC (and no I don't approve of him hiding in that fashion) was using it to describe the views of the blind AGW supporters who have only been exposed to one side of the science (much as communism supporters only ever saw what Stalin wanted them to see). Hence you scream and yell and holler in support of AGW propaganda without having a true picture of the actual scientific climatalogical findings.


Comment: Re: Motivated rejection of science (Score 0) 661

You seriously want to steal people's tax dollars and then refuse to give some back in the form of aid if they don't think "the right way"?

Leaving aside the fact that the federal government exists at the pleasure of the states, would you feel the same way if in 2020 President Cruz decided to deny state highway funds to any state that permitted, say, abortions? Or if in 2016 President Hillary denied welfare funds to any state whose senators/representatives supported a inquiry into Benghazi?

That's one of the most disgusting and hopefully not-well-thought-about comments I've seen in a while.


Comment: Re: Motivated rejection of science (Score -1, Troll) 661

Yeah, skepticalscience.com is pretty much the least trustworthy and most non-authoritative site you could list. It's funded by Soros and various green organization who have financial interests in getting people to believe in AGW.

The estimates of mankind dwarfing natural sources were made long before we discovered literally thousands of new volcanoes underwater. I have no idea what difference those might make and I think precious little analysis as to their emissions has been done to date, but at least know that this AGW meme is based on out-of-date information.


Comment: Have you LOOKED at those "standards"? (Score 1) 661

They're not standards, they're propaganda.

We want to teach students how to think for themselves, not to repeat rote consensus. Those standards are nothing more than yet another attempt to beat one viewpoint into their skulls, much like the Church did during the Dark Ages.

Teach kids how to think and then get out of the way. Don't tell them what to think.


Comment: There Really Is.... (Score 0) 627

by Ferretman (#46936187) Attached to: US Climate Report Says Global Warming Impact Already Severe
...no credibility to these people any more.

Even if they're 100% right (they're not).

Even if every scientist around the planet agrees with them (they don't).

Even if climate models were incredibly accurate (they haven't been).

There have been so many documented flat out lies coming out of this administration ("you can keep your doctor!"), and such hyperbolic politicization of the issue ("deniers should be thrown into jail for crimes against humanity!"), and nonstop flat-out hysterical proclamations from the AGW crowd continually ratchet up ("the Arctic will be ice free in 2013!")--that nobody not already drinking the kool-aid believes them any more.

Let's fix the economy and stop spying on everybody around the planet--then maybe we'll get around to worrying about global warming.


Comment: NOT always Republicans (Score 1) 509

by Ferretman (#46672295) Attached to: The Problem With Congress's Scientific Illiterates
By your own answer you've shown why it's needed.

Back in high school we spent a week covering creation myths--Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Indian, etc. This was in science class no less, by a teacher who to this day I have no clue what his personal beliefs were on the issue. It sparked a lot of interesting conversation. Nobody felt "attacked" or "threatened" or "pressured" in any way. Most of the kids there were Christian but not all, and we spent a lot of time discussing Hindu and Native American creation stories especially.

Discussing these in a rational, open setting like classroom is exactly the right place to do this, since that's how one is exposed to different ideas, different belief systems, different evidence. Having it at the start of Natural History class (basically focusing on the formation and evolution of the Earth) was the perfect place for it. The teacher referred back from time to time to the earlier discussion and I never once recall any judgmental pigeon-holing (of the type that would call any belief "religious bullshit") ever happening.

Referring to religious beliefs in this way is exactly why intolerance for others has increased and why society is becoming more riven. Most schools today are scared to death to approach the subject, and most parents and activists have chips on their shoulders just waiting for excuses to fly off the handle about it all.

My school was more better, and it's helped a lot in my understanding of where religious folks are coming from.


Comment: Re:The symptom, not the true problem. (Score 1) 509

by Ferretman (#46670919) Attached to: The Problem With Congress's Scientific Illiterates
I used to be a strong supporter of the Libertarian Party and helped try to get them elected in several campaigns, but they eventually proved to be no different than the Democrats or the Republicans. Oh they talk good game, but when push came to shove and they had some actual power they did squat-all with it.

Many years ago the Libertarian Party won the majority of the city council of a mountain town here named Leadville. They had three of the five seats, a clear majority of the voters behind them, and two fairly unpopular remaining Council members who were stunned at how their buddies had been tossed out. Things looked pretty good for the LP there for a bit.

Bu they didn't do anything. They didn't roll back any taxes. They didn't introduce a newer, simpler property tax system or even try to get rid of the existing system. They didn't take the state to court over any of their mandates, nor did they take the Feds to court over their silliness. They didn't even open up the town meetings to open-carry of firearms (Colorado is a local-rule city, so laws like this could certainly be implemented). I think one of them eventually got caught in some kind of influence-peddling scandal, though that might have been up in Denver instead.

In short, they did nothing at all to show that they were any different than the Democrats or Republicans who had come before them.

They failed catastrophically when they had the chance to prove that they were different, and that was the end of my energetic support. I'll vote for them over most Democrats and occasionally against a Republican, but that's the only time.


"It's my cookie file and if I come up with something that's lame and I like it, it goes in." -- karl (Karl Lehenbauer)