GeorgiaDon

You shouldn't pay so much attention to Ann Coulter; that kind of partisan hatred will rot your mind. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Oh by the way who's being "elitist" here? Why would you presume "ivy league" is so much better than "farmer joe ag school"? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

According to Cornell, it is fully a part of Cornell University. Who should I believe, a partisan hack trying to score a cheap political point or Cornell University? I personally don't much care about Olbermann. I do care about posters distorting facts out of any semblance of the truth, or posting outright lies, to score cheap (actually, worthless) points. I too suspect another agenda here. Christine O'Donnell is caught flat-out lying about her education, so the Tea Party apologists try to create a distraction by accusing some "liberal" of lying too. When it turns out that liberal actually did earn the degree, the next course of action is to claim the degree isn't a "real" degree, just a scrap of paper from a worthless "Farmer Joe" University. Never mind that by doing so, you are insulting everybody who has ever earned a degree from any land grant university. Conservatives seem not to have much respect for higher education anyway. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

What are you talking about? I don't have to defend it's existence. The Cornell web site provides ample evidence that it exists. And you haven't spent any effort trying to remedy what you "didn't know", did you? Fortunately your ignorance is no constraint on the range of topics covered in modern colleges of agriculture. Your insulting term "Farmer Joe school" only reflects your own prejudices, which you are obviously too lazy to bother trying to correct by spending some time investigating the range of degree programs offered by such colleges. Typical conservative BS: ignorant, prejudiced, and arrogantly proud of it. Thanks for reinforcing my point about the average quality of conservative posts. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Really?? You might want to tell Cornell that they don't even know what is and what is not part of their University. If we go to the Cornell University home page, we see right across the top a menu with: Admissions Academics Research Outreach Land Grant Student Life Alumni It's right there at the top, Skippy, you can't miss it. If we click on "Land Grant", we get a page with this right at the top: "Knowledge with a public purpose. Cornell fulfills its Land Grant mission by providing education, outreach, and applied research touching every aspect of life in New York. Read more" Right there in black and white, Skippy. "Cornell fulfills its land grant mission..." So apparently Cornell University thinks it has a land grant mission. But Skippy, great mind that he is, knows better. You might want to click on the "History" tab on the left side of that page, you would find out that Cornell was founded as the State land grant institution. Not some "old macdonald farm" tack-on, but an integral part of Cornell from its beginning. And yet here you are, Skippy the great conservative thinker, posting something that is completely untrue. So, either you didn't know that what you posted is shit, in which case you go about making assertions as fact when you don't have a clue what you are talking about (a behavior characteristic of idiots), or you post things you know are untrue, so as to get in a cheap shot at "liberals", a behavior best characterized as lying. Which one is it in this case, Skippy? I'm just sick and tired of so-called "conservatives" painting all "liberals" as liars, when often it is the "conservatives" who use outrageous distortions of fact or outright lies to make their point. A few "conservative" (or "libertarian") posters use actual intelligently constructed arguments to make their points, and those posts are interesting to read even if I sometimes disagree with the underlying philosophy. But all the posting of BS crap harvested from the conservative blogosphere without any critical thinking or the most cursory fact-checking is just stinking up this site. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

So just how regressive are you, actually? Civil rights too much to swallow? Suffrage for women? That whole Magna Carta thing pushing it too far? Don You are calling me regressive? Is this for real? I see you are very adept in using the same techniques of your beloved climate change/global warming radicals that currently control this debate. At best there is plenty evidence that the ones on top of the IPCC, are just so progressive that they will not use any stonewalling of dissent, and they are very clear on the position of open debate, by simple calling people idiots or "regresive", well, somehow you just fit the exact description. From progressive on climate change debate to civil rights hater, women suffage oppositor. Thank you for proving my theory that progressive are just simply obtuse. So your saying you're progressive? Sorry for the misunderstanding, I thought you hated anything progressive. My bad. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

First, thanks for such a long and detailed response. I will take the time to read the links you provided. Until I do I can't respond to most of your points, and I suspect that more often than not I'll be in agreement with you anyway. I don't want to be misunderstood as condoning bad behavior on the part of climate scientists. Clearly, hiding data or methodologies is unacceptable, in my own case it would be a violation of the conditions NIH imposes as a condition of receiving funding. The only exception is that you don't have to provide competitors with your raw data before you have had a reasonable opportunity to analyze and publish the results. My point was mainly that I doubt that there is something about climatology that intrinsically attracts only paranoid super-secretive pricks to the field. If they are that way (and not to say that such behavior is appropriate) it might be at least in part because they are tired of being called liars and frauds. You only have to read the various threads on climate change here in SC to see how successful the "denier" side has been in convincing at least some of the public that the whole field is made up to fraudulently obtain grant funding. I work on disease transmission by mosquitoes. If I was to be attacked continuously by people who claim that I created and released West Nile, or that the whole West Nile epidemic never happened and was just made up to get NIH to give out money, it would be hard for me to devote a lot of my time to trying to placate those people. That's just human nature, and scientists are as human as anyone else. Perhaps that would not be the most productive response, and indeed it would be damaging in the long run, but still it's a natural response. It's verifiable fact that the growing season is changing, the distribution of plants and animals is changing, all in a direction indicating warming. People are not making this shit up just to get funding. Regarding insect-transmitted diseases such as malaria, it would be stupid, verging on scientific malpractice, to refuse to even try to get a handle on what is going on. The distribution of diseases will change along with the distribution of the vectors, and if we don't anticipate those changes we'll be stuck reacting after epidemics hit areas where they didn't occur before. Already the distribution of the yellow fever mosquito Aedes aegypti has extended farther North in Europe than it has ever been seen before, bringing with it outbreaks of Chikungunya virus and potentially Dengue. Depending on the pace of warming, plants may not be able to disperse fast enough to keep even with the changing geography of where conditions are suitable for them, in which case they and the insects and other animals that depend on them are at risk of extinction. These are legitimate topics for research, not inventing shit to squeeze money from granting agencies. This is a legitimate point. However most scientists that I know kind of suck at this, in part because if that is your personality you'd probably end up in a field other than science, and in part because these days mastering any body of knowledge well enough to then go on and do publishable research is more than a full-time endeavor. Scientists, just like everybody else, compete for "status" and prestige, but in science status comes from the body of research that you have done. Many years ago a prominent Canadian geneticist, David Suzuki, started a second career doing science documentaries. He hosts the NOVA series, for example. Of course his productivity as a scientist fell when he did this, as there is only so much time in the day. Curiously, his efforts earned him a fair amount of disdain rather than respect amongst the genetics community, as he was no longer seen as a serious scientist. I've very recently heard similar comments about Richard Dawkins. So, even though science can benefit greatly from respected scientists who then change focus to public education, they pay a social cost within the community of their peers, which tends to discourage people from following a similar path. A self-destructive trait in the scientific community, to be sure. Again thanks for links and your insight. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Obama and his czars. Are you proposing to abolish the executive branch altogether, and have no-one as leader of the country? I assume you really mean give Obama the boot and replace him with someone more to your liking, in which case that person would still be entitled to the presidential salary, and I'm sure would appoint a cabinet and advisers to provide him with expertise and advise. So in fact your brilliant proposal would at best save virtually nothing, and might cost more depending on the advisers and the salary they negotiate. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Link is not functional: "This content is currently unavailable" Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

So just how regressive are you, actually? Civil rights too much to swallow? Suffrage for women? That whole Magna Carta thing pushing it too far? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Scientists expect their work to be critically evaluated. What is different here is a well financed and orchestrated campaign to deny every aspect of climate change science. Dr. Curry herself acknowledges that as much as 99% of the denier's claims have been rebutted many times. How many times does one have to keep answering the same arguments over and over? It would be as if every court verdict could be rejected out of hand by the defense, just keep redoing the trial over and over and over until the defense gets the verdict they want. Of course by adopting an overly defensive stance, the science runs the risk of ignoring the 1% of valid criticism that could make the science stronger. I'm not a climatologist so I can't speak from personal experience about their situation. I am a biologist, and so I am attacked (not personally, but as a member of the community of biologists) daily by proponents of creationism, usually under the guise of "intelligent design". These people keep repeating over and over the same lies and distorted half-truths that have been rebutted time and again. They do no experiments to bolster their argument, they ignore almost all of scientific literature, and they put great effort into "communicating with the public" and lobbying politicians (sort of like most of the climate change denier community). I could come in to work every day and spend the whole day typing up rebuttals to the crap posted on creationist websites, but the next day the same crap would still be up there and I would have got no work done on my own research. How much time do you think I should sink into such an enterprise? As far as "their livelihoods depend on it" goes, I somehow doubt that climatology is so well understood that there would be nothing for climatologists to do research on were it not for climate change. Perhaps so. Doubtless there are people outside the climatology field who nevertheless have expertise that could (and should) be brought to bear on the problem. So, when are you lawyers going to allow truck drivers and electricians to start trying cases or drawing up contracts? And damn those neurologists, insisting on people having actual medical training before poking around in peoples heads. Aren't lawyers and neurologists being cliquish too? Isn't that sometimes a good thing? Didn't you spend all those years in law school to acquire some actual expertise, so you'd actually know what you're talking about when you represent clients? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Interesting article. For those who are disinclined to read the whole thing, this quote (IMHO) sums up the point of the article: "So it is important to emphasize that nothing she encountered led her to question the science; she still has no doubt that the planet is warming, that human-generated greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, are in large part to blame, or that the plausible worst-case scenario could be catastrophic. She does not believe that the Climategate e-mails are evidence of fraud or that the IPCC is some kind of grand international conspiracy. What she does believe is that the mainstream climate science community has moved beyond the ivory tower into a type of fortress mentality, in which insiders can do no wrong and outsiders are forbidden entry." Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

You've misread, no-one said Hannity bitched about being fired, in fact just the opposite: "Hannity decided he ... would strike out on his own and not look back and bitch about what happened." I read that as: ...not look back and [not] bitch... As far as his employer not approving what he said, from the OP: "In 1989, a brash young guy was fired from his part-time talk radio gig at a college station in Santa Barbara, Calif., because of an exchange with a caller." It seems logical to me that he was fired by his employer, who else could it possibly have been? And when was the last time you saw a radio host get fired because the employer approved of what they said? "That was a great show Sean, we really like how you dealt with that caller, oh and by the way you're fired?" Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Sure, because what we really need is for congress to become even more the private realm of the super-rich than it already is. Why not just restrict eligibility to people who are already wealthy enough that they don't need any salary at all? They're sure to be the ones who really have their finger on the pulse of what concerns "real Americans". Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

This quote from the article, ""We've let our religious freedoms and constitutional rights be stripped away one by one, and I think it's time we took a stand," King resident James Joyce said." reminds me a lot of

Related how? Is there any evidence that Obama, or any of his staff, ordered the man fired? I agree that his union overreacted, and he shouldn't have been fired, but is the president really personally responsible for every single hiring/firing decision made in this country? Or just the ones you disagree with? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Actually, I think there would still be "institutional memory", but it would all be in the form of the unelected bureaucrats who do the day-to-day business of running government. Politicians set policy (or they should), but much of the actual wording of proposed laws, as well as regulatory rules governing how those laws are actually enforced, is done by bureaucrats, and their influence would be increased if there is no "institutional memory" on the part of the policy makers. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I agree with virtually everything you said. This has to be one of the most infuriating commercials on TV, on many levels. None of these services should be totally free to the consumer. Many studies have demonstrated that when things are given for free people don't respect or value them, so the services are often wasted. Even for the very poor, a nominal charge (so they have to give up something else, such as smoking for a week) will do a lot to ensure people only take the service if they need it. An out-of-pocket expense on the part of a real consumer will also do a lot to discourage fraud on the part of the medical service/device industry. Probably the real savings to the taxpayer would come from the reduction of fraud and waste, rather than from the revenue generated from the service fees. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

FWIW, I agree with you on pretty much all of this. I do think the situation with the military does illustrate some of the likely complications of reducing the budget, which I suspect are the actual reason why it is so hard to actually accomplish. How much of our aerospace industry, for example, is dependent on military spending? How could we cut spending in that area by, say, 25% without having a massive short-term impact on the industry, resulting in down-sizing and layoffs, and subsequently a long-term impact due to closing of manufacturing facilities and loss of trained personnel? Will the private sector really pony up the contracts to keep the industry viable? Can our military really be considered to be "strong" without the manufacturing and R&D capacity to back it up? The same questions can be raised about many other areas where government spending maintains important infrastructure capacity (biomedical research is another example). I think questions like this are one significant reason why it's easy to campaign on a slash-and-burn platform, but it never seems to happen once people are in office. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Interesting built-in contradictions in there: "Intrusive Government Stopped. English As Core Language Is Required. Traditional Family Values Are Encouraged." So the gov't will stop being intrusive, except that they'll tell you what language to speak and what your values should be. How much more intrusive can you get? "Government Must Be Downsized. National Budget Must Be Balanced. Deficit Spending Will End. Stronger Military Is Essential." Do they mean a stronger military, but also smaller and with less funding? I'm curious how, exactly, they aim to achieve that. Or do they mean an even larger military (and presumably military budget)? If so, I really wonder exactly what they plan to cut to balance the budget and yet spend still more on the military. Especially while leaving medicare and social security in place. As Kallend has said, the entire remaining balance of the budget isn't enough to close that gap. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Thanks Chuck. I used that in Google and went through the first 6-7 pages of hits. Most relate to constitutional rights of illegal aliens, such as education for children or access to health care. The only ones I saw that pertain to private property were the cases we've already discussed, where the issue is not detaining the illegals but rather administering a little impromptu "frontier justice". Frankly, I did not find a single thing that suggests that property owners can't try to keep out trespassers, or detain trespassers until law enforcement or the Border Patrol can come and pick them up. I also can't find any law or court judgment that suggests in any way that illegals have any rights that US citizens do not. If any such laws or judgments do exist, I'd really appreciate a specific link. Thanks, Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Sounds like an interesting premise for a science fiction story. I can't recall any that use this idea, does anyone know of one? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

STFU isn't rebutting an idea you disagree with, it's censorship. If you tell people to "STFU", it's basically admitting that the other side is factually correct, or at least that you can't refute their argument, so you'll prevent them from speaking instead. Adding the "America-hating liberal" crap doesn't make the post any less vacuous. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Your debating and logic skills are surely without equal. I'm duly impressed. Impressing you is not a difficult thing to do. Well, your avatar is indeed impressive. Your disdain for the first amendment is less so. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Chuck, Can you provide a link to articles about the incidents you mention, or the key words you used for a Google search? I searched with "illegals sue rancher" "Texas", but what I got was the following: In Arizona, a group of illegals sued a rancher for $35 million for violation of their civil rights. The court ruled that the rancher had a right to detain them and turn them over to the Border Patrol, so the illegals lost. However, they were awarded $78,000 for "infliction of emotional distress"; apparently for allowing his dogs to attack the group, or repeatedly threatening to do so (the article wasn't clear on the specifics) while waiting for the Border Patrol to arrive. In Texas, a rancher invited an anti-immigration group, "Ranch Rescue", to patrol his ranch. Ranch Rescue detained an illegal couple who were crossing the land, but then beat the woman and allowed their Rottweiler to chew up the man. The illegals successfully sued Ranch Rescue and the rancher, and obtained title to 70 acres from the rancher. The rancher was also charged, and convicted, of being a felon in possession of a firearm. I did see reference to another case in Texas (but I didn't find a real link to a credible news agency, just blog chatter) about a case where illegals successfully sued after they were detained, but in that case it seems the issue again wasn't that they were detained, but rather that they were beaten, attacked by dogs, robbed, had their shoes taken, then they were forced to march barefoot for several miles through rough desert to a road where the Border Patrol took custody of the group. It seems that in each of these cases, landowners or their proxies detained illegal immigrants on their land, which they are allowed to do, but then decided to administer a little "frontier justice" in the form of beatings, dog attacks, repeated threats of death or severe harm, and sometimes relieving the illegals of their money. While I really do understand the frustration that these ranchers must feel at the damage to their property etc, they do not have the right to beat, torture, or rob trespassers. It seems to me that the reality here is not that illegals have different (or more) rights than citizens do, but rather that when it comes to civil rights they have the same rights. Practically speaking, how could they not? If you say it is OK for ranchers to beat or rob trespassers because they are not US citizens, then don't you also say it wouldn't be illegal to rob or beat tourists on Miami Beach, just because they aren't US citizens? Unfortunately, it is the nature of the US judicial system that anyone can file a lawsuit, there are generally lawyers willing to take the case, and it costs money (maybe more than a landowner can afford) to defend against the suit. So the fact that suits are filed doesn't mean much in terms of what the law says is allowed or not allowed, you have to look at the rulings. Again, if you have a link to any case where any landowner has been successfully sued for simply detaining trespassers and holding them until law enforcement can come and pick them up, I'd really like to see it. Thanks. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)