WaGuns.org

Benja455 wrote:

DSynger wrote:This seemed relevant.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/johntamny/2015/03/15/global-warming-hype-is-mocked-by-the-worlds-most-powerful-market-signal/

That article is exactly what Soly (and I) are talking about. The author basically makes the argument that because half the world's population lives near the coast and those coastal cities will be affected the most by rising sea levels - therefore climate researchers are wrong. This is the Forbes magazine/real estate version of pointing to snow in Texas or Arizona and saying the earth isn't getting warmer - it's getting colder.

Again, this is why our schools need train young people how to determine a fallacious argument.

With that said, the author also knocks the claim that one must have "very unique schooling and training" to understand climate change science...again, I disagree with that idea. It's fairly elitist, seems to suggest that science is inaccessible to the general population and basically ensures anyone using the argument will lose the respect/attention of most audiences within a few seconds. America is already pretty anti-intellectual - why continue to feed that?

Yup!

So... If Soly is a supporter of climate change and the inevitable sea level rise it brings. Why does he live in Seattle? Granted, most of us will be dead by the time it happens, but why aren't the intelligent people and sme moving inland now?

Kinda seems like some people are calling the climate change deniers stupid, while they themselves build houses and businesses in what will eventually be a low tide beach.

solyanik wrote:I keep harping on science because this is the discipline that is most sorely lacking in US right now. You may nor see how bad it is if you don't have the background, but imagine the stupidest possible argument that you ever heard about guns from a person who have never held one. Now multiply the stupidity by a factor of 100 and you get TYPICAL Republican Democrat position on almost anything scientific.

And no, you cannot assess different arguments if you have no idea about the field. This is exactly what people are trying to do. And they are failing badly.

Fixed it! Yes, Al Gore is a Democrat!

DSynger wrote:

Benja455 wrote:

DSynger wrote:This seemed relevant.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/johntamny/2015/03/15/global-warming-hype-is-mocked-by-the-worlds-most-powerful-market-signal/

That article is exactly what Soly (and I) are talking about. The author basically makes the argument that because half the world's population lives near the coast and those coastal cities will be affected the most by rising sea levels - therefore climate researchers are wrong. This is the Forbes magazine/real estate version of pointing to snow in Texas or Arizona and saying the earth isn't getting warmer - it's getting colder.

Again, this is why our schools need train young people how to determine a fallacious argument.

With that said, the author also knocks the claim that one must have "very unique schooling and training" to understand climate change science...again, I disagree with that idea. It's fairly elitist, seems to suggest that science is inaccessible to the general population and basically ensures anyone using the argument will lose the respect/attention of most audiences within a few seconds. America is already pretty anti-intellectual - why continue to feed that?

Yup!

So... If Soly is a supporter of climate change and the inevitable sea level rise it brings. Why does he live in Seattle? Granted, most of us will be dead by the time it happens, but why aren't the intelligent people and sme moving inland now?

Kinda seems like some people are calling the climate change deniers stupid, while they themselves build houses and businesses in what will eventually be a low tide beach.

So... Did you look up what the projected see level rise will be in the next century before writing this? Or are you just trying to underscore Ben's point that decisions are made based on idiotic rhetoric rather than data?

Benja455 wrote:It's fairly elitist, seems to suggest that science is inaccessible to the general population and basically ensures anyone using the argument will lose the respect/attention of most audiences within a few seconds. America is already pretty anti-intellectual - why continue to feed that?

So obviously my goal is to not make science inaccessible :-). In fact, the more people participate in it, the longer I will live :-). However, most of this knowledge is highly specialized, and does require decades of study. Actually, most of professional work is like this today - you really don't want to do appendectomy based on what you have read on the Internet - you need a doctor with years of training. You don't want to defend your company in a patent lawsuit - you need a real lawyer. It's the same with much of the modern science - you CAN'T judge the validity of climate models without spending a couple of decades building a necessary mathematical and physical apparatus in school, and then another decade actually building them.

Rusoarmo wrote:Our elementary-high school is a complete joke...

By the time I was in 1st grade I knew enough math to cover me through 5th grade via my mom using old school Russian textbooks. (She is horrible at math herself).

World History is almost as pitiful as math.

Hell even college classes were filled with horrible professors.

Teachers and professors need to be tested/evaluated regularly.

i paid my way through college with my own damn money. i stopped attending after the first semester of my second year. all of the "college" courses were on par with ap courses in high school. even though i stopped attending classes, i still received passing grades, which makes me laugh even to this day.

DSynger wrote:

Benja455 wrote:

DSynger wrote:This seemed relevant.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/johntamny/2015/03/15/global-warming-hype-is-mocked-by-the-worlds-most-powerful-market-signal/

That article is exactly what Soly (and I) are talking about. The author basically makes the argument that because half the world's population lives near the coast and those coastal cities will be affected the most by rising sea levels - therefore climate researchers are wrong. This is the Forbes magazine/real estate version of pointing to snow in Texas or Arizona and saying the earth isn't getting warmer - it's getting colder.

Again, this is why our schools need train young people how to determine a fallacious argument.

With that said, the author also knocks the claim that one must have "very unique schooling and training" to understand climate change science...again, I disagree with that idea. It's fairly elitist, seems to suggest that science is inaccessible to the general population and basically ensures anyone using the argument will lose the respect/attention of most audiences within a few seconds. America is already pretty anti-intellectual - why continue to feed that?

Yup!

So... If Soly is a supporter of climate change and the inevitable sea level rise it brings. Why does he live in Seattle? Granted, most of us will be dead by the time it happens, but why aren't the intelligent people and sme moving inland now?

Kinda seems like some people are calling the climate change deniers stupid, while they themselves build houses and businesses in what will eventually be a low tide beach.

Actually Cliff Mass has said that the PNW will be a refuge for climate change: http://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2014/07/w ... imate.html

A compelling case can be made that the Pacific Northwest will be one of the best places to live as the earth warms.

And we'll see a lot of new neighbors when water rates in affected areas skyrocket because they have literally run out of water: http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la ... story.html

solyanik wrote:

Benja455 wrote:It's fairly elitist, seems to suggest that science is inaccessible to the general population and basically ensures anyone using the argument will lose the respect/attention of most audiences within a few seconds. America is already pretty anti-intellectual - why continue to feed that?

So obviously my goal is to not make science inaccessible :-). In fact, the more people participate in it, the longer I will live :-). However, most of this knowledge is highly specialized, and does require decades of study. Actually, most of professional work is like this today - you really don't want to do appendectomy based on what you have read on the Internet - you need a doctor with years of training. You don't want to defend your company in a patent lawsuit - you need a real lawyer. It's the same with much of the modern science - you CAN'T judge the validity of climate models without spending a couple of decades building a necessary mathematical and physical apparatus in school, and then another decade actually building them.

I know your goal isn't to make science inaccessible but that might be an unintended consequence - I love medical science and advances in life expectancy as much as you do. With that said, your post brings us full circle to the original topic of this thread - education. If we want a quality education system in the US, you'll need quality, professional teachers - someone with years of training much like the doctor, lawyer and scientist in your examples above. Yet, we don't recruit teachers that way, train our teachers that way, compensate them that way or respect them that way. We also hold our teachers accountable in ways that we would never consider for someone like a doctor (the most cited example is attempting to hold a doctor accountable for a patient who refused to follow a diet and did not lose any weight; yet we hold teachers accountable for students who refuse to do their homework and get bad grades/test scores). Beyond that, I find it infuriating that our society is actively de-professionalizing teaching via Teach For America and other alternative certification programs.

And that gets us back to decisions made based on idiotic rhetoric rather than data - thus far, there is very little evidence (after many years and billions of dollars) that TFA, KIPP, charter schools and vouchers make a significant (or any) impact on education. Yet, we keep plugging away at those "reforms," as if the outcomes will change - meanwhile, as the article Soly posted originally shows - we are getting our ass kicked in the global marketplace by education systems that are rigorous, don't bounce from one "flavor of the month" policy to the next and staff their schools with some of the most intelligent/motivated people in their country. How about we try that? It seems pretty easy...not like climate science or anything.

solyanik wrote:

DSynger wrote:

Benja455 wrote:

DSynger wrote:This seemed relevant.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/johntamny/2015/03/15/global-warming-hype-is-mocked-by-the-worlds-most-powerful-market-signal/

That article is exactly what Soly (and I) are talking about. The author basically makes the argument that because half the world's population lives near the coast and those coastal cities will be affected the most by rising sea levels - therefore climate researchers are wrong. This is the Forbes magazine/real estate version of pointing to snow in Texas or Arizona and saying the earth isn't getting warmer - it's getting colder.

Again, this is why our schools need train young people how to determine a fallacious argument.

With that said, the author also knocks the claim that one must have "very unique schooling and training" to understand climate change science...again, I disagree with that idea. It's fairly elitist, seems to suggest that science is inaccessible to the general population and basically ensures anyone using the argument will lose the respect/attention of most audiences within a few seconds. America is already pretty anti-intellectual - why continue to feed that?

Yup!

So... If Soly is a supporter of climate change and the inevitable sea level rise it brings. Why does he live in Seattle? Granted, most of us will be dead by the time it happens, but why aren't the intelligent people and sme moving inland now?

Kinda seems like some people are calling the climate change deniers stupid, while they themselves build houses and businesses in what will eventually be a low tide beach.

So... Did you look up what the projected see level rise will be in the next century before writing this? Or are you just trying to underscore Ben's point that decisions are made based on idiotic rhetoric rather than data?

No, I've been keeping tabs on it to see how I'll be impacted. I'm pretty accepting of Mother Nature and natural changes. I'm pretty sure estimates haven't changed too favorably in the past couple of years, or I would have seen something. The article does illustrate the irony of higher educated people, who tend to support climate change and live in coastal cities, not heeding their own warning of the impending doom.

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/seattle-calculates-how-climate-change-will-redraw-its-shores/

Seattle is situated on very steep hills. Most of the predictions are below 4ft/100yr, so very little property will actually be affected. I live on top of Queen Anne, so I will die of starvation as world's crops fail long before drowning. Just kidding. As an owner of a gun store in the post-apocalyptic world, I am actually very well set :-).

solyanik wrote:As an owner of a gun store in the post-apocalyptic world, I am actually very well set :-).

Or you're one of the biggest targets and will be one of the first to go. Different perspectives I guess.

sinus211 wrote:

solyanik wrote:As an owner of a gun store in the post-apocalyptic world, I am actually very well set :-).

Or you're one of the biggest targets and will be one of the first to go. Different perspectives I guess.

Dude. Russian gun dealer. That is almost the definition of post apocalyptic survivor. You get an automatic +5 to all survival traits just for being Russian. Add another +2 if grew up in the USSR.

Indeed, starvation and social unrest are likely to kill folks in Western WA before flooding or climate change induced inclination weather conditions (droughts for example).

And a quick comment on the United States as a statistical anomaly. As a soc major one of the interesting tidbits that stuck with me was the 3 basic stages of population growth/stabilization/recession.

Stage 1- High mortality rate/High birth rate. Pre western medicine and primarily agricultural society. Focus on sustaining the family unit. Mating couples have many children in order counteract high rates of death due to illness/disease/general lack of hygiene and medicine. Slow population growth if any due to high mortality.

Stage 2- Low mortality rate/High birth rate. Western medicine is introduced and industry grows along with basic institutional educational system. Focus is still on sustaining the family unit. Mortality rates drop drastically overnight. High birth rates continue as society gradually adjusts to the lower mortality rate. Children begin to become more of an expense than a way of generating sustenance for the family. Extremely high population growth rate.

Stage 3- Low mortality rate/Low birth rate. Family size drops substantially. Mating couples place more focus on higher education and personal fulfillment. Children become an expense and a luxury. Mating couples often have 1 child or less. Population size begins to decrease.


Now why is the U.S. population still growing rapidly? We should be in stage 3 by now. The answer, high levels of immigration from stage 2 countries.

And what does this have to do with education? Immigrants from stage 2 countries (Mexico, China, India...arguably) still have a strong focus on large family size and having children to help sustain the family unit. Lower emphasis on education vs. getting a job and bringing home the blue collar bacon to help the family. IMO the poor educational statistics in the U.S. are strongly influenced by a large influx of immigrants from countries in which education is not a priority. I also believe that the influx of immigrants has a negative influence on the statistics regarding class(financial) size and the unusually large lower class. That's an argument for another thread though.

IMO before we jump too quickly to blame the educational system we need to also look at the parenting support and what values are being emphasized at home in the areas where the poor numbers are coming from.

solyanik wrote:

Guns4Liberty wrote:

solyanik wrote:We are having exactly the same discussion about climate research. We call it "climate research", but this is actually just physics. I am not an expert in this specific field of physics, but after spending my early years studying high energy physics I am pretty damn sure that I cannot make "my own informed opinion" about modern climate models based on the internet research. This is the stuff you study for years, learn from super-smart people, and maybe then you can have an informed opinion.

Just to make sure I understand you...are you saying that the only path to formulating an informed opinion on scientific matters is to become a subject matter expert in said matters?

I think the only path to formulating an informed opinion on anything is to become a SME in the matter. Isn't that the definition of an informed opinion?

No, it is not.

informed (adjective): having information; educated, knowledgeable

opinion (noun): a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter

So an "informed opinion" is an educated/knowledgeable view formed in the mind of a person about a particular matter.

Now, contrast that with this:

subject matter expert (noun): a person who is an authority in a particular area or topic; a person with bona fide expert knowledge

So a SME is more than just knowledgeable about the topic in question; he (or she) is an authority on the matter because of expert knowledge. Ergo, having an informed opinion and being a SME are not the same thing; being a SME is a step or two above being an informed opinion-holder. Ergo, your assertion - that "the only path to formulating an informed opinion on anything is to become a SME in the matter" - is incorrect, and it reeks of intellectual snobbery.

I am neither a chemist nor a physicist, yet I hold an informed opinion on which types, qualities, and production methods of metals are (and aren't) well-suited for specific applications in firearms and ammunition. Research and personal experience have made me knowledgeable about metal characteristics such as elemental composition, molecular bonds, tensile strength, thermal conductivity, malleability, etc. I didn't have to earn a PhD in Chemistry to formulate an informed opinion on this matter. I will be the first to admit I am not a SME, but I don't pretend to be, either. And I certainly don't begrudge anyone else a claim to holding an informed opinion of their own.

You can certainly inherit informed opinion from an SME while not being one yourself. As you (hopefully) did in your research of production methods of metals. However, if all your knowledge came strictly from reading stuff on the internet, the informedness of your opinion, if it indeed is such, is purely coincidental.

I came across this article today. It got me wondering about political and societal beliefs over cultural differences. I know Britain, Japan, China, and India still have caste systems, of some sorts. Could those structures override the partisan split that Americans exhibit in their beliefs, as stated in the article. I know Japanese are taught from a very early age to respect authority, teachers, doctors, and scientists. While Americans have come to look suspiciously at scientist who have personal agendas or are sponsored by big corporations. Let's not forget about the authority for teachers that have diminished in the past 20 - 30 years. All of the scandals involving teachers and inappropriate interaction with the kids has caused a tremendous shift in how Americans view teachers.

http://qz.com/364207/its-not-just-climate-change-deniers-conservatives-and-liberals-distrust-science-equally/