Who added happy world + to my groups? It's a bit more complicated than publish or die because there is a huge vanity press. Most stuff turned out by academics is dross or worse - not unlike the general press. A friend of mine was under pressure to use Gramsci in his PhD. I tossed him a standard tome and a dozen articles supporting the notion it was important he was a Sardinian rather than an Italian (all dross, but apparently respectable). He was commended for his diligence - hardly anyone really checks the references. Like Protagoras, we can support almost any argument in this fashion, including the argument that academic/ management fashion rules any given period. I have seen no argument on either side of the global warming debate that lets me feel I am relying on actual evidence in being swayed by it. I am firmly committed to belief in this area though and disagree with Chris almost entirely in some directions. I really don't need proof that man is screwing things up through CO2 in the main debate here. My questions here are:
1. In whose interests is it to have an academic system and general information system we cannot rely on? 2. Why do we rely on the masses to make informed decisions when we know they have poor decision-making equipment? 3. Why can most people do little other than break down to gibbering when asked how they make decisions? 4. Why do we never see arguments like AGW subjected to real, open debate - particularly in respect of what key observations and data are needed to convince all parties other than nutters. It's not that long in physics since the data indicated the Earth older than the universe, and of course, everyone now thinks this is piss? John Gribbin's book on this does show that even some of the dumber suggestions such as 4004BC by Bishop Usher were rather well worked out, even if decidedly wrong. 5. Pisswitter masquerading as argument and mis-information outpace even bullshit sliding in this particular arena. Argument itself is destroyed other than as the kind in pathetic courtroom battles. We should ask why? I think global warming is real, partly man-made (maybe this is part of "the plan"?) and amongst stuff we should prepare for by making our communities resilient and able to offer each other help and insurance. This makes sense to me, AGW or not. On 19 Jan, 14:47, "Ian Pollard" <[email protected]> wrote: > 2009/1/19 Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> > > > I added all from my inbox, couldn't find you! Is it this email address? > > Jajajajajajajajaja! > > Ian --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
