Here's another new bit o' press: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=1a5e6e32-802a-23ad-40ed-ecd53cd3d320
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 12:58 AM, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
