Fluffeh writes:
"For a few years the National Research Council, National Science Teachers Association, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have been working to put together a set of standards for teaching science in public education schools. So far, nine states and the District of Columbia have adopted the standards. Wyoming doesn't appear to have issues with evolution. Instead, climate science appears to be the problem. That's not because any of the legislators have actually studied the science involved and found it lacking. The issue appears to be solely with the implications of the science.
State Representative Matt Teeters had this to say '[The standards] handle global warming as settled science. There's all kind of social implications involved in that that I don't think would be good for Wyoming.' Specifically, Teeters seems to think that having citizens of the state accept climate science would 'wreck Wyoming's economy,' which relies heavily on fossil fuel production."
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 17 2014, @04:06AM
Another climate change flame war.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Fluffeh on Monday March 17 2014, @04:27AM
Well, that's the funny thing here. They don't seem to be trying to debunk it in any way - just want it omitted as it "doesn't make them look good" to sort of paraphrase. It really seems to be a case of "See no Evil, Hear no Evil, certainly Speak no Evil". Geroge Orwell would have been impressed with this Doublethink [wikipedia.org] - to both accept Climate Change as true, yet to totally remove it from education lest it is questioned by the youth.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 17 2014, @04:38AM
You are jumping to the conclusion. Opposition on the ground that it hurts my pocketbook doesn't mean admission of its validity. The guy is probably a lawyer, and likely used to pushing his argument on any and all grounds, even those that contradict each other.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Fluffeh on Monday March 17 2014, @04:54AM
...even those that contradict each other...
You realize that is EXACTLY the whole concept of Doublethink right?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 17 2014, @05:00AM
And you exhibit a similarly asinine behavior of pulling stuff out of their context. Good luck to your propaganda campaign.
(Score: 2) by davester666 on Monday March 17 2014, @05:05AM
It's not wrong, it's that the kids will eventually grow up and they might make us do something about it.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Angry Jesus on Monday March 17 2014, @03:35PM
> It's not wrong, it's that the kids will eventually grow up and they might make us do something about it.
Seems like the progression in thinking has been:
1) Climate change is not real
2) Climate change is real, but is a natural phenomenon
3) Climate change is real, is man-made, but it is no big deal
4) Climate change is real, is man-made, is a big deal, but humans will just invent news ways to cope like GMOs
The one thing in common is that at every step of the way the goal is to come up wtih an excuse to protect the oil industry.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by VLM on Monday March 17 2014, @12:06PM
"to both accept Climate Change as true, yet to totally remove it from education lest it is questioned by the youth."
That's widely seen as an excellent idea when the topic is changed to "measurable racial variations in average intelligence" or any number of other controversial topics. So as an argument that is pretty weak.
"Nothing good is likely to come of discussing that" certainly applies to climate change, which invariably involves a wallet-grab.
I can add something useful to the discussion which is from the right perspective what gets under their skin about climate change is the fundamental dishonesty of it. So... fundamentally, you want to take away my money and give it to someone more politically useful to you. I can respect that. I can totally disagree with it but I can respect the honesty of it. But from a right perspective the fundamental dishonesty of it is "star trek technobabble so I'm gonna grab your wallet".
Consider a mugger. Walks up, says "I'm literally hungry so I'm gonna steal your wallet". I don't like that but I respect that a lot more than hearing "Jesus told me to steal your wallet so you can't judge or blame me". In the end they're going to steal your wallet anyway, its just why the heck can't they be a little more humane, a little more honest, a little more ethical about it? Its not like it'll cost anything.
(Score: 1) by Angry Jesus on Monday March 17 2014, @03:30PM
When your go to counter-example is scientific racism [wikipedia.org] you know you are on rock-solid ground. What's next? Will you be telling us that the overwhelming majority of anthropologists believe that race is the primary determinant of intelligence?
(Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday March 18 2014, @01:55PM
Although calm and reasoned appeals to authority via wikipedia (as if wikipedia is much of an authority) or scientists does superficially appear to undermine by claim that its the most toxic discussion topic imaginable, in context in a semi-educational setting I don't think calm and reasoned logical fallacies would be likely, probably the result would more likely to resemble a riot as I claim.
Another way to look at it, is I'm trying to identify which discussion topic is most likely to incite a riot in a semi-educational setting, and even if I step back and agree its at least in theory possible to discuss in a civilized manner as per the above paragraph, I still think that particular topic can still remain as "the most likely of all topics to incite a riot". As a counterexample to this paragraph, I would have to admit defeat if you provided a counterexample of an even more "likely to incite a riot" discussion topic.
So you bring up a good point as a theoretical counter example, but I still claim that even if I take two small steps back from my original claim, its still fundamentally a correct argument that its the most riot inducing of all topics. Have a nice day!
(Score: 1) by Angry Jesus on Tuesday March 18 2014, @02:12PM
Your position appears to be that scientific racism, a theory barely more viable than homeopathy, is the equivalent of climate change because the concept pisses people off. That is to completely miss the forest for the trees.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday March 18 2014, @02:21PM
I more or less agree with your assessment, and explain my reasoning as incitement to riot has no educational value. Wasn't the whole point, to provide educational value?
(Score: 1) by mvdwege on Tuesday March 18 2014, @09:55AM
Yeah, those measurable racial variations that disappear if you account for confounding factors like language differences, cultural influence and social status.
Why don't you fuck off back under your rock, you bigoted piece of shit?
(Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday March 18 2014, @01:41PM
Awesome, thanks for making my point via example of "Nothing good is likely to come of discussing that".
Its an inherently toxic discussion in modern culture, just like climate change. I had to mentally stretch a bit to find that topic as an example. There are probably other example of inherently toxic discussion topics. Cultural imperialism vs western Renaissance era liberalism. How about, in a word, religion, or more specifically who exactly is going to hell and why according to whom. But I think I selected the "best" inherently toxic discussion I could think of, at least WRT being the most toxic of all possible topics. Have a nice day!
(Score: 1) by mvdwege on Wednesday March 19 2014, @10:23AM
Sometimes a bigoted prick is just a bigoted prick. It is good that discussions are toxic to them.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday March 19 2014, @12:59PM
(shakes head slowly)
I was trying to avoid the meta Godwins law of mentioning Godwins law, but I'm basically paraphrasing that law, that there exist some discussion topics so toxic that they eliminate all further discussion. Godwin says Hitler will do it. I say discussing climate change will do it. I also mention other topics that work just as well and people freak out at the mere public mention of the topics, which was exactly the point I was trying to make, which is kind of hilarious.
Are you familiar with Godwins law? That might be the place to start if we're to have a meeting of the minds on this topic. The next little step is I say there exist many other discussion topics just as toxic as hitler. Then a tiny little baby step from there, to I claim climate change is a member of the set of toxic discussion topics.
I am making the (huge?) assumption that pointless kneejerk flamewars and riot inducement and distraction from the original issue is inherently uneducational, which was where the whole discussion began, with the assumption that riot inducement is a great educational technique or some such assumption.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 17 2014, @01:14PM
True... Also many these sort of flame bait click articles follow the same formula. My XYZ cause is not being taught to the children.
So?
No really. Take for example evolution/creationism. This subject is very important to some people. Yet if you look at it in the whole of the entire debate about what should be taught in school? It is a couple of pages in 1 class that you do not really take until somewhere around 8-10th grade. Its just not that big of a deal.
Climate change is the same thing. 1-2 pages or maybe 1-2 days of class work in one class.
A little here and there do add up. But overall the basic three R's are better to focus on for many. With some history classes to help back it up.
People should stop being outraged about [pet idea] and look to see if their kids can do simple things like read, write, arithmetic. Those are the foundation we build the rest of the education system on.
(Score: 1) by xtronics on Monday March 17 2014, @06:20PM
Yes - Dear editors - If I want to read AGW propaganda for either side I could go to one of these websites..
www.realclimate.org or wattsupwiththat.com
Lets stick with something that is not such a dead horse.
( I could go on a long rant about epiphenomenology and the difference between what is knowable in studies of populations of things verses understanding small limited machines - it appears neither side understands such stuff or is willing to profess some things are unknowable when there are long lists of confounding variables.. )
(Score: 2, Insightful) by dr_zaius on Monday March 17 2014, @04:18AM
Seriously, again? Whenever I hear the words "settled science" I can tell an agenda is being pushed and I grab my wallet. Some of us don't think climate change ranks very high on the top concerns that are facing mankind for the 21st century. Get over it.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Kell on Monday March 17 2014, @04:34AM
Well, there are some things in the world we've studied very hard and understand pretty well - we call it settled science. Take mechanics, for instance. We have a fairly capable grasp of Newtonian mechanics at non-relativistic speeds and Einsteinian physics at relativistic speeds. These days we even understand quantum mechanics pretty well. So far as everybody but the fringe is concerned, Mutationem motus proportionalem esse vi motrici impressae, et fieri secundum lineam rectam qua vis illa imprimitur is settled and that's that.
Evolution has a similar quantity of supporting evidence and absence of refutation over a hundred years of study - it's hardly controversial to call it settled unless you're unfamiliar with the science. As for climate change, whether you can call it 'settled' largely depends on who you talk to - but even then that doesn't mean they have an agenda. It's simply a question as to whether the consensus agrees that the evidence is sufficiently compelling. To this day, it astounds me that people imagine that science isn't consensus driven.
Scientists ask questions. Engineers solve problems.
(Score: 4, Informative) by khallow on Monday March 17 2014, @04:46AM
To this day, it astounds me that people imagine that science isn't consensus driven.
That's because it's evidence driven. Even you admitted that there had to be evidence that was "sufficiently compelling".
(Score: 5, Informative) by Kell on Monday March 17 2014, @05:15AM
I was actually expecting a reply to this effect. Science is consensus driven because A. science isn't a reasoning thing in of itself, it's made up of the people who need to be convinced (Science is Peeoople!) and B. it is not generally possible to prove anything absolutely.
To gain credence, evidence must convince scientists. Not all evidence is created equal, and what is sufficient proof to you may not be sufficient proof to me. If we are both rational reasoning people, however, we will be swayed by evidence. In the real world, all evidence and all facts come with uncertainty and doubt attached. As we accumulate more evidence that reinforces the conclusions drawn from other evidence, it becomes easier for a particular interpretation to make a convincing argument for truth. When the weight of evidence becomes overwhelming, every reasonable person will be convinced.
It is not possible, however, to ever prove anything "for certain" in the real world. Just because a rock has fallen under gravity a million times before, does not mean the law will not be falsified if it shoots into the sky on the million-and-one-th experiment. At some point, scientists conclude that further experiments will not yield contradictory results; otherwise, we would continue to do basic experiments ad infinitum on the chance that the next one will falsify the thesis. Now, should a contradictory experiment every be performed, then obviously scientists will be swayed by new evidence to revise the law; it does happen with some regularity.
That doesn't mean the science wasn't "settled" (it was); but science is a philosophy and not a dogma. There are no sacred cows.
Scientists ask questions. Engineers solve problems.
(Score: 1) by FakeBeldin on Monday March 17 2014, @10:53AM
That is why *good* science not only explains known stuff (experiments), but makes (testable) predictions about unknown stuff.
Basically, good science explains to you how to falsify itself (and explains to you why that approach indeed falsifies the science), in a testable way. This basically structures (or, if you will, replaces) the consensus process: it's good science if it proposes a good, testable method which can falsify its results, and the results of that good, testable method do not falsify the result.
In that case, there just might be something to the science.
<offtopic> /Needham-Schroeder(-Lowe) and the TLS implementation.
wrt your signature: scientists also identify solutions. They just hardly ever get round to implementing them... Hence the big difference between such things as Diffie-Hellman / RSA / ELGamal
</offtopic>
(Score: 1) by HiThere on Monday March 17 2014, @06:44PM
It's not that straightforwards. Bayesian theory shows that given certain pairs of starting "priors" the same evidence will convince each reasoner that a different theory of what the evidence shows is correct, and that no amount of evidence will be able to change this.
Experimentally, this is confirmed in many tests. For instance the TV show "Archie Bunker" tended to confirm racists in their prejudice while simultaneously confirming to liberals that racism was wrong. BOTH were more confirmed in their beliefs after watching the show for a season. And both viewpoints thought that the show was clear evidence that their view was correct. (A TV sitcom, evidence? Yet they did believe this.)
P.S.: When I say "confirmed", please understand that the theory came after the experiment, though the theorizers didn't know (or don't appear to have known) of that particular study. In any case, the theory is math, and has been verified as math by those expert in the field. (Not me.) One might question whether people are actually Bayesian reasoners, but I feel that they are, though they are more complex with emotional, etc., preferences that need to be included in as priors, even though they don't quite act the way normal priors do. (E.g., they can't be explicitly listed ahead of time. They tend to be active only when stimulated. Etc. This means that any Bayesian model of humans will be drastically oversimplified, but I still believe that the reasoning used by people is Bayesian when it isn't "just" pattern matching.)
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 17 2014, @04:49AM
We see Newtonian mechanics validated over and over in everyday life. Same deal with evolution. We observe mutation over and over.
It's blatantly disingenuous to compare them with the current climate models.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by FatPhil on Monday March 17 2014, @08:54AM
It's not as if we've had to invent invisible-woo-woo matter or anything in the last couple of decades in order to fix it. Not that they call it that, they call it "doesn't interact with light, except we've proved its existence because of how it interacts with light" matter, or something.
Nice invocation of <i>omnia dicta fortiori, si dicta Latina</i>, by the way.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 1) by mvdwege on Tuesday March 18 2014, @10:01AM
Very well indeed, ask any artillerist.
You do realise that OP made it very clear that there are areas where Newtonian mechanics no longer fit? He did mention Relativity after all.
So if you are trying to be pedantic, you are merely making yourself look like an idiot. Don't do that. Or do, but then people are not going to take you seriously.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Sunday March 23 2014, @01:17PM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 17 2014, @04:37AM
"Some of us don't think climate change ranks very high on the top concerns
that are facing mankind for the 21st century."
Well at least, like Wyoming, you dont deny all the science, you just think
other things matter more. Progress of sorts I suppose.
So, care to give us a sample of the concerns you think rank higher?
(Score: 1) by joekiser on Monday March 17 2014, @04:10PM
Debt is the currency of slaves.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by wjwlsn on Monday March 17 2014, @04:41AM
I think you might have skimmed the summary a little too quickly. It wasn't the "pro-warming-educator" crowd that made the "settled science" claim in this case. Rather, it was the Wyoming state legislator expressing a concern that the proposed standards seemed to push a "settled science" agenda; his position actually appears closer to what you seem to believe (based solely on your reply).
Please note - this post is *not* expressing support for any side of the climate change / global warming debate. I refuse to get drawn into that quagmire. I think we've all pretty much chosen sides on that argument, for now... and are hopefully willing to change our opinions (either way!) should compelling new evidence come to light.
I am a traveler of both time and space. Duh.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 17 2014, @09:33AM
Fourier called, basic chemistry is not a debate. (anymore)
(Score: 2) by wjwlsn on Monday March 17 2014, @02:30PM
You don't even know what I believe about climate change or global warming, and I'm not going to enlighten you. However, that is an interesting statement you just made... Suppose there was some major new discovery that had the potential to change our understanding of basic chemistry -- or of any other science that currently seems set in stone -- would you still say that it's not up for debate?
I am a traveler of both time and space. Duh.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 17 2014, @04:26AM
When I was a undergrad, I tool a course in reasoning which taught basic logical falacies.
The statement "Climate science is settled science" is a combination of two of those falacies:
1) Argumentum ad populum
2) Argumentum ab auctoritate
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 17 2014, @04:43AM
When the only people opposing it anymore are Faux News and other assorted right
wing lunatics I think its fairly safe to say its "settled".
(Score: 0, Troll) by Yog-Yogguth on Monday March 17 2014, @08:21AM
"Nice" ad hominem and association fallacy there, that AC got four for the price of two.
Could those who think they're successfully arguing in favor of anthropogenic global climate change (AGCC) at least please increase their level from "A Guide to 101 Fallacies" up and through the level of gaining an understanding of falsifiability [wikipedia.org] as an important part of the scientific methodology and possibly reach a point where anything they say has a change of becoming mildly interesting?
Am I patronizing? You bet your ass I am, and the "believers" deserve it until they can do the above. Any secondary grade pupil should be failed for the nonsense they espouse and which has been repeated ad nauseam (another fallacy) throughout all of society. The onus is on them; they're the ones who have made extraordinary claims for at least twenty years running and with only failed computer models to back it up.
When people can come up with better stuff as easily as this [coyoteblog.com] the "IPCC acolytes" really ought to die of shame (Gore first please).
Or maybe it just isn't about science after all? Maybe it's all about perception of assumed benefits from rallying around the AGCC banner? Well, if it isn't about the science how would they ever justify that they think they know? At that point they've passed dogmatic religion and gone straight for "benevolent" fascism with themselves (of course) at the helm.
<End Of Rant>
Bite harder Ouroboros, bite! tails.boum.org/ linux USB CD secure desktop IRC *crypt tor (not endorsements (XKeyScore))
(Score: 2) by lubricus on Monday March 17 2014, @08:24AM
Sure, in as much as "_____________ is settled science" is.
... sorry about the typos
(Score: 1) by DeathMonkey on Monday March 17 2014, @05:36PM
Fallacy: (2) Argumentum ab auctoritate (Argument from Authority)
Only if you don't know what an Argument from Authority fallacy actually is. Hint, if the person who supports your argument is an actual authority on the subject then it isn't a fallacy to reference that support.
(Score: 1) by HiThere on Monday March 17 2014, @06:58PM
The problem here is that you are thinking that a popular presentation is an example of formal reasoning, when it's actually rhetoric.
I agree that your arguments are valid criticisms of it as a logical proof. There are others, e.g. the basis of the reasoning is not explicitly listed. This is a much more basic criticism of it as a statement of formal logic. But nobody is foolish enough to expect that all the supporting lemmas (experimental evidence) would be listed. So to criticize it as formal logic is incorrect.
This isn't even a scientific paper. There aren't citations from the sources that are depended on.
This is rhetoric. It is intended to convince people who aren't willing to actually look at the evidence. If you do it becomes clear that "settled science" is a vast overstatement, but that certain portions of it are relatively settled, while other portions are doubtful. What degree of sea rise can we expect from a 2 C raise in temperature? Not settled. Some raise? Settled. Etc.
P.S.: You do not appear to be willing to check and understand the existing evidence, so I suspect that you will need to settle for rhetoric rather than for science, much less logic. (Science is much less certain than logic, as any scientist should admit. Science depends on not only logic, but on selection of evidence AND the interpretation of that evidence. OTOH, you can't use only logic to design a steam engine. You depend not only on Science, but also on Engineering, which is even less certain, having many procedures that are based purely on "best practice", but with no theoretical backing, merely "what has worked before".)
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by GungnirSniper on Monday March 17 2014, @05:35AM
Who's going vote for a politician who puts in place a curriculum that teaches children that their profession is harmful to the world?
Whenever we move off coal, Wyoming, West Virginia, and a whole lot of other places are going to need new employment options or face local depressions. Until then, it's not just an energy program but a jobs program as well.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 17 2014, @06:04AM
Fossil fuel production is not evil - it produces highly valuable products, and jobs that put food on the table for many many families.
But it also leads to the unfortunate byproduct of pollution and other environmental damage. These by themselves are good enough reasons to try to move away towards alternate energy sources, but the idiots demonize the work and people who make living doing it because of the AGW zealotry.
For the sake of environment, including maybe the climate, I hope the AGW jihadi faction gets squashed down good and proper.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by zocalo on Monday March 17 2014, @07:44AM
Still, I can't help but feel this is just another case of people sticking their heads in the sand because they don't have an answer and hoepfully the next generation will. Trouble is, with this approach, the next generation won't be widely aware there is an issue either, so how is that going to help inspire them to think of a solution? The real solution would be to embrace the issue head on; "the coal is harmful and is going to run out anyway, so what are we going to do about it?"
I've been to Wyoming; an unusual destination for a European since many don't realise that the Tetons and Yellowstone are essentially within the state. It's a fantastically beautiful part of the U.S. that is largely unspoilt and scarcely populated. It's as much "big sky country" as Montana over the state line, and has those fantastic National Parks. Other countries have transitioned to tourist based economies in a carefully managed way (you need to avoid the mass influx to avoid ruining everything), perhaps Wyoming could do the same.
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Reziac on Tuesday March 18 2014, @01:05AM
Tourism has a basic problem as your economic base:
It depends on other people having disposable income, that they are willing to spend on your tourist attractions.
When others' economies dip, the tourism economy dies. And the only jobs it provides are in the service industries.
Tourism is fine as a secondary industry, but relying on it is folly.
(I speak as a resident of Montana, having watched swaths of this state's economy go to hell when the gas crunch killed "See the USA in your Chevrolet" as everyone's summer vacation.)
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 4, Informative) by VLM on Monday March 17 2014, @11:49AM
"Whenever we move off coal, ... West Virginia, ... going to need new employment options or face local depressions."
"Nobody" mines coal in WV anymore. First thing to realize is WV is nearly unpopulated. I live in a metro area of 4 million people, in a state with a lot more people, far enough away from Chicago not to be considered part of CHC, but not rural either. The entire state of WV only has 2 million people. Its more like Wyoming that you'd expect, in that way.
Coal mining is all mechanized, like farming, so whereas a century ago, or even just a couple decades ago, practically everyone labored in a mine, practically no one does now. Like 20K people outta 2M people or roughly 1% of the population.
Coal isn't very profitable. About as many people work in the chemical industry, but that accounts for about half the total GDP of the entire state. So anyone who can get a job at a chemical plant, ranging from cubical dweller to laborer to engineer, already has. WV people love their chemical plants and love their chemical plant jobs, even if practically none of them work there, its the alpha job in the area.
Another transition area would be forestry, about twice as many people work above ground harvesting renewable lumber and sawing it up, as work underneath the ground "harvesting" nonrenewable coal.
The oil industry already collapsed and almost no one works w/ oil in WV although historically it was a very big deal. Once its removed, its gone; WV people have a pretty good understanding of that.
About three times as many people work in tourist traps vs mining coal. The pay is supposedly about the same. You'll get to hear a lot about the highest paid most experienced longest tenure miner at the highest paid mine is very well compensated, but most of the grunts clear about as much as a waitress, or so I heard. Its much like being a public school teacher... if you can stand 40 years and suffer thru a PHD in Ed you can in fact pull $100K for your last couple years, but that in no way means the majority of the just hired / soon to burn out are making more than $30K.
According to her, most of the "dirt poor farmers" are actually expert grade tax evaders who actively encourage the stereotype of WV people being pretty stupid. And there's a lot of them. So on paper, trackable rural financial transactions make WV look very poor, but when accounting for untraceable cash they live at least as well as your average state. Or I guess rephrased the state is absolutely crawling with small scale entrepreneurs who only declare the absolute minimum required income to avoid IRS hassle, so the state is full of people who only make $10K/yr on paper, yet somehow drive nearly new trucks and live in nice houses and pay cash for absolutely everything they can pay cash for. Its kind of un-banked. They need to declare income for titled property and taxes and a few other things, and that's coincidentally about all they declare.
Culturally poor and lower class smoke tobacco, but in WV everyone in that category does meth. Like everybody at the bottom 10% or so. Or prescription pills. So thats weird. Like locally everyone who's poor and/or uneducated smokes cigarettes, but in WV the same people ALL do meth. Its like a style or fad kind of thing. Some do smoke tobacco, of course, especially old people. I just thought that was interesting compared to where I live where meth is not cool at all. Apparently the coolness is extremely regionalized.
Source: I got friendzoned by a hot chick from West Virginia a long time ago.
(Score: 3, Informative) by bucc5062 on Monday March 17 2014, @01:08PM
You got me curious so I walked about the 'net a little and discovered that you are basically correct. [workforcewv.org] only 4.4% of non-farm labor goes to mining and logging. Kind of changes the perspective when you see that kind of number compared to the largest employer in WV, the government (20/1%). However, the Mining/logging numbers did increase from 2000 to 2012 so is that revitalizing the industry, or just minor fluctuations.
If does call into question that idea that WV is a mining state. Wyoming has a stronger mining percentage at 27.6% in 2012 and that has been a growing percentage. In one way I can then see that WY would not like to negatively impact it's mining industry for it is jobs. What is odd, when people connect global warming with "taking my wallet"? Is it just not another business opportunity? Seems to me that entrepreneurs have gotten lazy in this century, or are such greedy fucks that they get in their own way. There was a time when people took risks, spent money to get in on the next best thing. Now I just watch industry "captains" grip the wheel of their sinking ship even tighter and keep believing the all will remain the same.
Life is change. Now is the time to invest in solar, wind or other renewable energies. Now is the time to invest in changing how we transport ourselves and our goods. Now is the time for now it is still new and the market is wide. Instead, if I can't make double digit profit, if I can't increase my value by another billion in a year, it is not worth it.
I think if I had 1 billion dollars I have more fun spending it all trying to finding new, better ways to do things then playing Scrooge McDuck and go swimming in my bank vault of gold.
The more things change, the more they look the same
(Score: 2) by VLM on Monday March 17 2014, @01:57PM
"discovered that you are basically correct."
I should point out that my post does not accurately reflect my dating game, even a long time ago, although all the generically discussed trends came from hanging out and talking. So yeah, WV is the chemical plant state not the coal state, and the best and brightest, like her, go out of state, get that chem eng degree like we both wanted (at that time), come home and work at the alpha employer for like six times median household income. If not more. About of third of grunts work in mining or related, about two thirds work in logging or related.
The "taking the wallet" thing is because of confusion. One side wants the wallet and cheaply and disrespectfully uses science as a distractor (look over there, not at the hand grabbing your wallet). They don't care at all about the science in and of itself other than as a convenient distractor. The other side is pissed off about the whole "wallet thief" thing, so when they say they don't care about the science (which is only being used as a distractor) the thieves go all PR rep on them about how culturally we all worship at the altar of STEM as a magic source of jobs and how can you disrespect science like that and BTW ignore this hand reaching for your wallet while we're talking about how we all worship science.
Neither side cares about the science, one side uses it as a distractor to commit a theft, and the other side gets pissed off about someone trying to distract them so as to better rob them.
The actual science of it, of course, is true, or as true as any reasonably non-controversial scientific theory can be. The totally separate question of if its a great idea to use it to help steal money, or even if it really matters in the long scale geologic picture, are two totally different topics. Or another great question is if its morally acceptable to troll people trying to steal from you. I don't do it but I admit to laughing out loud at some of it.
Personally I am pretty sure climate change is real, because the climate certainly never has been constant before, so expecting it to be constant in the future would be pretty dumb, and I'm also pretty sure on the big picture it is just noise that doesn't matter that we have little control over, and eventually the thieves will find a new FUD PR campaign to pick our pockets with anyway, so just be patient till the noise dies down.
In the long run, non-renewable costs have been so heavily optimized they are horizontal to increasing as we burn the cheap stuff up, and renewable seems on an inevitable long term collapse in price, so it seems like a pretty dumb idea to build a coal plant today instead of a solar plant, much less after another decade of coal prices going up and solar prices going down.
Also most of what we can economically burn, has been burnt, so there seems little point in worrying about it. Like it or not, we're going to stop soon enough, and there's not must we can do about the past.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Hairyfeet on Monday March 17 2014, @01:14PM
I refuse to call it "climate change" as that is bullshit, there has never been a point in this planet's violent history when climate DIDN'T change, might as well cal it "weather change" for all the good that BS name does. But here is my problem with it...AGW discussion has been hijacked by a handful of rich leeches on the ass of society that have turned ANY chance to change anything into a repeat of Reagan era trickle down voodoo economics.
For example look up "Al Gore carbon billionaire" to see how a guy that farts around in a personal Lear jet and owns a McMansion with its own ACed basketball court has turned any talk of footprint reduction into "carbon indulgences" where the rich like himself won't be affected (and in fact will get tax breaks for being pigs by buying "carbon credits" from their own shell corps overseas, thus allowing them to also avoid paying taxes on gains) or this scam by Goldman Sachs [nakedcapitalism.com], the only corp that can give Monsanto and Halliburton a run for "most evil corp" that will let them pull the same credit default swap scam with any implementation of cap and trade. And notice how neither Gore nor GS says a single word about limiting trade with China and India, the 2 biggest polluters? Why don't be silly, it would limit our profits lulz.
So until I see actual solutions proposed that are NOT able to be condensed to "take more money from the poor and give to the 1%" you can be damned sure I will fight tooth and nail against AGW. Is it happening? Probably but don't be fooled into having a "we have to DO something!" mindset because powerful forces are spending huge amounts of money to make sure that "something" will only produce what we've had far too much of the last 40 years, the concentration of the world's wealth into the hands of the top 1%, who already have stolen more than 86% of the wealth of the planet and leave us to fight over the scraps. If they have their way we'll be paying a "carbon tax" directly to them while they get tax credits for sending factories to countries that refuse to play the carbon shell game.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 2) by etherscythe on Tuesday March 18 2014, @12:08AM
I'm with you on the evil corporations bit.
However, saying you don't "support AGW" (whatever that means) is kind of like saying we should immediately defund the fire department because one of the firefighters is a douchebag, even though you know at least one house across town is on fire right now, and if they don't put it out your own house could eventually be consumed like that giant conflagration in Chicago decades ago.
Look, we can agree that the immediate impact of AGW isn't so scary that we have to immediately hop on the solutions bandwagon. The thing is, though, if we're going to take a long-term view, it becomes very important to focus on what the right thing is to do, because while the planet will happily continue to spin right up to the Red Giant stage of our local nuclear reactor called the Sun, whether or not Homo Sapiens survives the journey is very much in question. We're tenacious little bastards certainly, but if we don't get sustainable habitation out into space fast enough, the next K-T event [wikipedia.org] could be the end of the line for us. Or if Yellowstone pops. Or if we screw up our ecology enough that our society in total doesn't have the resources to support a full space program, because we're busy fighting wars over shrinking island spaces in the habitable zones, and we never get there.
Humanity is big enough, collectively, that "don't shit where you sleep" now applies to the entire planet, in a broader sense. We need to adjust our behavior accordingly.
"Fake News: anything reported outside of my own personally chosen echo chamber"
(Score: 1) by Hairyfeet on Tuesday March 18 2014, @12:40AM
If your fire dept was taken over by a group that raised taxes by 3000% and sent it overseas and gave you in return a picture of a fire truck would YOU support them? It honestly doesn't matter whether AGW is 100% proven or not if THE ONLY SOLUTIONS the 1% allow are "Give us money to send more jobs to China" and that is ALL we are getting. Carbon indulgences, cap and trade, its gonna not cause AGW to drop by a single ounce, and in fact might speed it up as it sends more to countries that have less protections than the west, so all you are doing by supporting the "We gotta DO something!" mindset is giving the 1% more money for doing jack shit....is that REALLY what you want?
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 2) by etherscythe on Tuesday March 18 2014, @04:46PM
You say that like there's only two solutions to this problem. That's a false dichotomy.
Due to consumer pressure, MBA types have decided it's now a great idea to start playing the Green Business game. Now that they've begun to bother with it, many have discovered that they could have been saving money all this time doing things like growing grass on the roof of their big manufacturing facility, cooling it by absorbing sunlight rather than let it hit the aluminum panels and reducing the energy bill for air conditioning. When that reduces load on the coal-fired power plant, this is a very positive step against AGW, not to mention waste in general.
Yes, industrial operations are a disproportionate percentage of the waste, and keeping them following the spirit of the solutions available will require vigilance. Yes, cap-and-trade has some problems. There's not always a silver lining to every aspect of the issue. But the only way to ensure failure is to stick your head in the sand and refuse to do anything about it.
"Fake News: anything reported outside of my own personally chosen echo chamber"
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 17 2014, @01:36PM
How nice to know that Soylent News is going to be blissfully free of any attempt to maintain a neutral point of view on reporting items.
Sheesh, we might as well go back and suck down whatever Dice wants us to swallow.
(Score: 1) by GeminiDomino on Monday March 17 2014, @02:47PM
Too bad you posted AC, because I had a similar reaction. Even Dice's weak excuses for editors would have derailed trolling *that* blatant.
"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of our culture"
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Daniel Dvorkin on Monday March 17 2014, @05:41PM
"One person says computers run on electricity, and another says they run on unicorn farts. Don't be so biased, SoylentNews! Treat both sides of the controversy with respect!"
Pipedot [pipedot.org]:Soylent [soylentnews.org]::BSD:Linux
(Score: 1) by GeminiDomino on Tuesday March 18 2014, @01:56PM
Whoever modded this up needs to be put in the corner with a dunce cap on, since they share parent's inability to recognize the difference between complaining against actual facts and complaining about using incendiary language to accomplish nothing other than being a prick.
"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of our culture"
(Score: 2) by Daniel Dvorkin on Tuesday March 18 2014, @03:03PM
When sweet reason doesn't work, mockery is about all that's left.
Pipedot [pipedot.org]:Soylent [soylentnews.org]::BSD:Linux
(Score: 1) by mvdwege on Tuesday March 18 2014, @10:07AM
Why don't you just fuck off back to Slashdot, to be with the rest of the Teenage Libertarian Randroids and AGW Denialists?
It was a hissy fit. There is no equivalence between relatively settled science on the one hand and political rhetoric on the other.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Mesa Mike on Monday March 17 2014, @06:34PM
... then we can quit taxpayer-funding the scientists, right?