Subject:
|
Re: Finally--a use of public funding that I can really get behind!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 19 Aug 2003 18:36:45 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
531 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
| |
First of all, you’re inferring an underlying agenda simply because you don’t
like the results of the study. To verify the presence of an agenda, you have
to do more than simply object to the findings. Secondly, where in the
article to you see evidence that the researchers altered their data?
|
Showing that they have an agenda: what is their comparable study on the
psychological causes of liberalism? It starts from an inferred premise that
liberalism is simply right, and there must be deficiencies in conservatives to
make them believe conservative ideas.
They altered their data first and foremost by terming Hitler and Mussolini as
right-wing conservatives. Oh, and anyone who abuses power is a conservative
too, regardless of whether they hold liberal ideas or not:
“There are also cases of left-wing ideologues who, once they are in power,
steadfastly resist change, allegedly in the name of egalitarianism, such as
Stalin or Khrushchev or Castro (see J. Martin, Scully, & Levitt, 1990). It is
reasonable to suggest that some of these historical figures may be considered
politically conservative, at least in the context of the systems they defended.”
(Psychological Bulletin, 2003, Vol. 129, No. 3, p. 343)
So, their definition of conservative is useless, therefore the study is bunk.
Or, as they say around here, horse hooey.
| |
As a
useful counterpoint, the Bush administration deleted big portions of a recent
EPA report on global warming, specifically to exclude data that would
identify human use of fossil fuels as a key contributor to increased levels
of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. So in that case, your tax dollars
were used to modify scientific findings to achieve an industry-friendly end.
|
Tax dollars were spent to ignore bad science. Measures of atmospheric
temperatures since the 1970s show no change or slight cooling. Measurable
warming in the 20th century occurred primarily before 1940. Most greenhouse gas
emissions occurred after 1940.
| |
Well, let’s be fair. Assuming a tax base of just 120 million citizens,
you’re paying $.01 toward that study.
|
True enough. But if $.01 can be wasted for garbage like this “study,” then on
what else should it be wasted?
| |
And consider that your your tax
dollars are also being used to fund studies to allow the logging industry to
cut down chunks of Federal forests, and your tax money is being used to pay
Halliburton billions to rebuild a country that your tax dollars helped to
destroy.
|
I’ve never understood the liberal hatred of logging companies. After all, if
they cut everything down, they’re out of business. If it takes 30 years for a
pine tree to mature to the point at which it can be cut down, that means that
they have to have 29 other trees when they cut one tree down to ensure that
they’re in business.
One of the best hiking and climbing places in this area is managed by a timber
company, and it’s gorgeous. Every now and then you see a tree stump, or a tree
marked for removal, but you have to look for them.
Don’t bother with the study, let ‘em log. And stop killing trees for garbage
like the Psychological Bulletin.
As for Iraq, there’s a lot more to build than was there be destroyed and then
rebuilt.
Best regards,
Carl
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
34 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
