Mitt's Right: Some of us feel entitled

[zoogs]

hey, if you want to believe everything you are told go right ahead. I don't.. "real science" has tried to tell me humans evolved from apes but that hasn't worked out so well for them.

 

I just have to shake my head. This really, genuinely, makes me sad.

 

Who's the one believing everything some guy(s) are telling him?

 

The problem is you are attempting to debunk science without using the tools provided by science. The other problem is that you've made up your mind already. There's a reason science is based on evidence, replication, consensus, and not "belief."

 

The third problem is that you have a pretty poor understanding of the science. Please, take a course in biology.

[huskerXman]

keeping shaking your head.. more from the above link

 

In writing about NAPAP's 1987 Interim Report, I noted:

The assessment concluded that acid rain was not damaging forests, did not hurt crops, and caused no measurable health problems. The report also concluded that acid rain helped acidify only a fraction of Northeastern lakes and that the number of acid lakes had not increased since 1980. The assessment also agreed that acid rain hampered visibility in the eastern United States.

The report ignited a firestorm of protest. Rep. James Scheuer (D-NY), chairman of the House Subcommittee on Natural Resources, Agriculture Research, and the Environment, said the assessment was "intellectually dishonest" and badgered NAPAP witnesses before his committee. Environmentalists belittled the document because it came from the Reagan administration. They were especially angry at J. Lawrence Kulp, whom Reagan had appointed NAPAP director.

Scientists, however, generally endorsed the study. Documents from the International Conference on Acid Precipitation in 1988 show participants agreed with most of NAPAP's conclusions almost unanimously. In fact, the scientists from Canada agreed with Krug on the important watershed acidification theory, which was partly at odds with the Interim Assessment. In other words, NAPAP's conclusions were scientifically correct, if not politically correct.

The secondary reaction to the study by the government was indifference, in that the government could do nothing, and the eastern United States would not have been any worse off, environmentally speaking. However, because the NAPAP report was politically incorrect, the Bush administration (which took office in 1989) suppressed its findings — with no objection from the NYT or any other mainstream journalistic outfit — except for one, "60 Minutes."

[zoogs]

I don't know. I haven't really ever studied up on the acid rain discussion to any extent. I could point out to you the highly superficial nature of the first article you posted. I've barely skimmed through the second one. I can tell you it's a clearly politically charged piece written by an economics professor, and that I'm unimpressed with your near devotion to the words of some guy speaking about a subject matter neither he nor you are especially an expert in - or that you expect me, upon reading those words, to be swept up by the same devotion.

 

* - n.b., I'm indicating to you that I haven't made up my mind on the unfamiliar subject matter of the acid rain question. I'm not likely to investigate further, but it's important for me to make the distinction that I am not saying this person is wrong. Just that his words don't strike me as anwhere near as conclusive as you apparently believe (judging by your dropping of all this quoted text with zero comment, as if it were meant to be a revelation...)

 

Anyway, back to the biology, or even the anthropogenic climate change topic, why don't you explain to me how "'real science' has tried to tell [you] humans evolved from apes but that hasn't worked out so well for them."

[huskerXman]

http://www.andweb.demon.co.uk/environment/krug.html

 

Unfortunately for Krug, she isn't the only one who doesn't like his ideas. Congress ignored NAPAP's findings, and when Krug tried to point out that the federal government is forcing utilities to spend billions of dollars to solve a problem that doesn't exist, a federal agency did everything in its power to keep the media from listening to him. Krug's research has upset the plans of some of Washington's most powerful bureaucrats, and they aren't happy. Because of them, the 44-year-old Krug has experienced numerous reality checks.

[huskerXman]

I don't know. I haven't really ever studied up on the acid rain discussion to any extent. I could point out to you the highly superficial nature of the first article you posted. I've barely skimmed through the second one. I can tell you it's a clearly politically charged piece written by an economics professor, and that I'm unimpressed with your near devotion to the words of some guy speaking about a subject matter neither he nor you are especially an expert in - or that you expect me, upon reading those words, to be swept up by the same devotion.

 

* - n.b., I'm indicating to you that I haven't made up my mind on the unfamiliar subject matter of the acid rain question. I'm not likely to investigate further, but it's important for me to make the distinction that I am not saying this person is wrong. Just that his words don't strike me as anwhere near as conclusive as you apparently believe (judging by your dropping of all this quoted text with zero comment, as if it were meant to be a revelation...)

 

Anyway, back to the biology, or even the anthropogenic climate change topic, why don't you explain to me how "'real science' has tried to tell [you] humans evolved from apes but that hasn't worked out so well for them."

 

lol, you haven't really studied acid rain but yet you came in here telling me how wrong I was/am?

 

That is about like the guys claiming to have knowledge only to find out they know what they have been told.

 

No wonder you want to latch on to my last statement.

[huskerXman]

Well, I am done with this.

 

I hope I didn't offend anyone.. wasn't my intentions.

[zoogs]

Yeah, because that last statement is shockingly insane. To put it blandly, it's the statement of someone who has abandoned reason. Given that you do not subscribe to the methods of science to begin with, I find it puzzling that you would be tossing around these pseudo-scientific articles with "numbers" and "data" to use as "evidence."

 

And what, may I ask, is your background in acid rain? Please don't tell me you've googled a lot of stuff in your day. Come on, Professor, let's have it. Do you have a scientific or academic background, or are you just latching on to contrarian ideas you find appealing?

 

I suppose you didn't read my n.b., but to clarify, I am not telling you that you are wrong about acid rain. I'm pointing out that it is inane to treat some isolated, non-academic ramblings as holy. You are clearly putting them on a pedestal - dropping chunks of text here like it's supposed to be impressive. Given your attitude regarding global warming, evolution, and your citing of what appear to be fringe sources in other fields of expertise from politically motivated magazines, I have to say I am highly skeptical of any of your claims. But, no, I can't claim to have a background knowledge on all of them.

 

No worries - you haven't offended anyone. I do hope we'll get somewhere in this discussion. Scientific reasoning is not about emotions or bias or being offended. But you have to make a choice: either accept scientific reasoning, and argue your points on a scientific level. Or abandon it wholesale and make your arguments, but without attempting to use evidence in them.

[huskerXman]

I actually followed this issue back in the day.. other than that I don't have a background.. The difference here is I have not claimed to have superior knowledge nor I have made posts claiming you or any of the other 2 guys are clueless (it was implied). My posts were based on their claims of having knowledge.

 

I am 43, so back then I just graduated, this was a big topic. I am not against science, not at all.. just lies using science to spread more lies.

 

Honestly, I don't really care to get into the whole ape thing.

[huskerXman]

I suppose you didn't read my n.b., but to clarify, I am not telling you that you are wrong about acid rain. I'm pointing out that it is inane to treat some isolated, non-academic ramblings as holy. You are clearly putting them on a pedestal - dropping chunks of text here like it's supposed to be impressive. Given your attitude regarding global warming, evolution, and your citing of what appear to be fringe sources in other fields of expertise from politically motivated magazines, I have to say I am highly skeptical of any of your claims. But, no, I can't claim to have a background knowledge on all of them.

 

So those that actually did the study from the National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program is now considered isolated non-academic ramblings?

[huskerXman]

ok, really, I am done. I tried my best to defend my claims. I don't expect anyone to agree or believe me.

[sd'sker]

i just want to say that i have never heard of the 'acid rain scam' until glancing over this thread.

[zoogs]

I would entreat you to reconsider your position on the 'ape thing', Xman. I'm very curious just to understand your position here to begin with. What did real scientists try to explain about how 'humans evolved from apes'? How did this 'not go well for them'? Why is one of the central pillars of modern biology and one of science's big, established ideas, wrong or full of holes?

 

Now, about this:

 

So those that actually did the study from the National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program is now considered isolated non-academic ramblings?

Well, I was more or less talking about the scant blog post and the Reason magazine article from the economics guy - but let's talk about NAPAP. I gather that you mean to confer legitimacy upon NAPAP. Sure. However, the most recent NAPAP report to Congress appears to be the furthest thing from regarding the impact of acid rain as a scam. So, where does that leave us?

 

I'm curious if you can share any more insight into this Edward Krug guy. I really can't find a darn thing about this alleged 'genius' stalwart of the field, apart from variations of the same article you posted. I did manage to dig up the paper he authored, but I'm unable to glean at all what the response of the academic community was towards this. Even papers published in Science aren't meant to be holy: there are standards for acceptance and a great many ideas are published, but fail to gain traction. Sometimes deservedly, sometimes not. For my part, I'm unable to figure out where this paper falls (but I haven't read it yet )...so if you can share insights on that, it would be great.

 

I did find a short blurb in Nature: commenting on it. Unfortunately, this doesn't reveal much, either. If anything, it appears to portray a scenario where the scientific community largely disregarded Krug's arguments, with one example of a 2007 article that may signal a challenge to some currently held ideas.

 

That is not an indictment. Many a scientist was "onto" something with his research, only to have their ideas buried because there wasn't enough supporting evidence for it for a long time. Those situations, and the underlying scientific understandings of various phenomena, can and do evolve over time.

 

However, there's nothing here so far that indicates to me a widespread, legitimate scientific consensus in favor of Krug's alternative hypothesis. Perhaps I am wrong, and I welcome you to illustrate this for me if I am. Science after all, is a pursuit of knowledge, and if my understanding of something is incorrect I would be more than happy to have it corrected.

 

It's just, you have to understand, the standards for doing so are pretty rigorous. Anyone, even scientists, can be wrong - and can advance flawed arguments with pictures and graphs and numbers. If the consensus just isn't there, then I see two possibilities: a) Krug's argument could still have merit, but there's still yet not enough compelling evidence for it, or b) his argument is flawed. Either way, if the consensus isn't there, it isn't fair to treat this paper as a major idea indicating the existence of grand flaws in the current (government? public?) understanding of Acid Rain. That really is the question: is this regarded as a major idea? A fringe idea? A potential, but scarcely supported idea? Or a garbage idea? I don't know, and maybe your personal interest back in the day can shed more light about the nature of the consensus, than I can.*

 

However, I must give you your due credit for raising a topic worthy of discussion, and for now discussing it on a scientific level. So a handshake to you, sir I hope I haven't chased you away with some of my earlier acerbicness, and apologize if I stepped out of line. I always welcome a good discussion.

[JJ Husker]

Darn! I've not perused the politics forum in awhile but this subject caught my attention. I suspected there would be the usual suspects berating Romney and defending how 47% of the people do not expect the government or others to take care of them but all I saw was some quibbling over acid rain or some such thing. Extremely disappointed

[sd'sker]

you don't always get what you want, but sometimes you do:

[carlfense]

again with the duck dodge and deflect? you made the claim of knowledge..

Seriously . . . what are you talking about? I said that I know a bit about the EPA and the Clean Air Act. I never claimed to have a background in the area. You shouldn’t equate the two . . . it makes it look like you don’t understand the difference.

 

We can plan semantics games all night but the cold hard facts are the current clean air act does involve global warming.

It’s not semantics. You made a very specific statement that is factually wrong. No word play involved . . . you’re wrong.

 

You said:

. . . but I will point out the protection of the ozone was one of the reasons it [the Clean Air Act] was created in the first place.

 

1. The Clean Air Act was passed in 1963.

2. Ozone depleting CFCs were regulated in the US starting in 1978.

3. You cannot claim that something that was passed in 1963 was “created in the first place” to do something that wasn’t even understood until 15 years later.

 

By all means though . . . keep drawing attention to your argument. You’re doing a far better job of convincing everyone that you’re wrong than I can.