Submitted by Andrew Yu-Jen Wang
B.S., Summa Cum Laude, 1996
Messiah College, Grantham, PA
Lower Merion High School, Ardmore, PA, 1993

“GEORGE W. BUSH IS THE WORST PRESIDENT IN U.S. HISTORY” BLOG OF ANDREW YU-JEN WANG

ONLINE ANTI-BUSH SCHOLASTIC RESEARCH: LISTING OF MAJOR ISSUES

http://andrewyu-jenwang.blogspot.com/2008/10/bush-is-worst-president-in-american.html

Why should someone be ashamed if they say what they really believe?

I think the adage is ‘evil happens when good men say nothing’, not ‘evil happens when someone disagrees with the majority’.

And you would be ashamed to be so easily led? Okay. From conversations we’ve had in the past, I believe you said you believe in God.

I’m questioning how much impact man has when the Earth is trapped in the orbit of a star with a mass a million times greater that burns at a couple of million Celsius. An Earth that has recorded evidence of continual warming and cooling cycles before the arrival of man. With a multitude of factors that effects its climate. I may not be right, but is the question really that outrageous? Is it really more naive than believing a Santa Claus type patriarch created the world, reigns over us, judges us and decides our eternal fate?

Eugene. Why not let it suffice that skeptics or deniers are at odds with the majority and the scientific consensus. Naive sheep that should be ashamed of themselves, might be a little over the top.

B-cup… I hope that’s your brother’s ex you’re marrying, right? Otherwise that would be creepy.

The good news: It is my brother’s ex.

The bad news, my brother’s ex is also my sister.

Hey, she’s good enough for family, she’s good enough for me.

: }

I’ll let you go. I’ve got a full plate of red state activities planned.

I’m going to church, then to a Nascar race. Later on, I’m getting married (to my niece’s mother) with just enough time left to teach my class on Intelligent Design. Hopefully, before I turn in, I’ll drink some moonshine with some kinfolk over at the Knights of the Southern Cross.

Good night y’all.
_______________

Wow… now that’s livin’ large. And I’ll bet that li’l sweetie yer gittin’ hitched to still has all her teeth too! Or at least someone’s teeth… keeps in a jar… by the bed.

1. Atmospheric CO2 has risen in direct proportion to measured human output.
2. Average global temps have risen in direct proportion to human CO2 emissions and atmospheric CO2 levels.
3. The last hundred years has seen the most rapid climb in average global history in, at least, 160,000 years.
4. Polar and glacial ice are melting at unprecedented rates.
5. We humans must reduce the release of ALL toxins into the environment.

Those are really the only relevant facts. The simple fact that we have limited the impact of many human activities proves that ingenuity can solve these issues. The fact that new technologies are needed ensures that reducing emissions will not destroy the world economy. The ONLY things standing in our way are greed and fear.

Ah, well, at least it’s not your niece. Best wishes to the blushing bride.

backup Says:
ralph. your sentiment is reasonable. I trust science. The findings of scientists should carry a lot of weight. But, it is not gospel. It’s not an excuse to do nothing, but it’s reason to keep healthy skepticism.

The findings of scientists that we are going to use to shape policy should easily withstand any of my (or any other) skepticism.

Agreed. That’s the way science works, and the way it’s supposed to work. that’s the essence of the Scientific Method.

But that process only works properly when the skepticism is honest, and driven by a desire to reach the truth, not when it’s driven by a desire to reach a predetermined outcome.

I’m not saying you fall into that latter camp — I suspect you do seek the truth, B-cup. But what concerns me is that you seem to be unduly influenced by that camp’s interpretation of the research and its tactics in evaluating the issue.

I’ll let you go. I’ve got a full plate of red state activities planned.

I’m going to church, then to a Nascar race. Later on, I’m getting married (to my niece’s mother) with just enough time left to teach my class on Intelligent Design. Hopefully, before I turn in, I’ll drink some moonshine with some kinfolk over at the Knights of the Southern Cross.

Good night y’all.

The findings of scientists that we are going to use to shape policy should easily withstand any of my (or any other) skepticism.

I think as long as we continue to question, our decisions will more likely be based on the deliberate science that you champion, and less on the fear based decision making favored by alarmists.

I agree with your sentiment on the subject.

But when you claim that “scientists are human” you imply that we have no reason to put confidence in any conclusions drawn from scientific research, ever. What makes this issue any different from, say the impact of DDT on the reproductive cycles of raptors, or the impact of cigarette smoking on the incidence of lung cancer? After all, scientists are human. they make mistakes.

Tobacco companies prolonged the propsperous life-cycles of their industry by highlighting exactly this kind of “well, we don’t really know for sure” appeal to “reason” and by funding and publishing their own research intended to enhance the debate by further muddying the waters.

My point is that you don’t seem to be anylizing the data honestly. You put great stock in anything that casts doubt on the widespread conclusions being drawn, and you allow this doubt to undermine solid scientific understandings.

I am not convinced that the disastrous scenarios painted by Al Gore and others, even real practicing climate scientists will come to pass — or, rather, I am aware that they don’t really know very much and that these pictures will change as the body of research grows.

But I trust the bulk of the scientific community to know what it’s talking about when it speaks of this phenomenon as a real threat to our survival on this planet. I trust they are looking at broad trends over long periods of time and are sufficiently well trained to be able to factor out noise and irrelevancies and come to a responsible conclusion.

You don’t seem to have that same level of trust.

you probably don’t understand any better than I do.

ralph. I’m very interested in science, but I go under the assumption that you probably understand the science much better that I do.

I trust science, but I think were I part ways is my level of confidence in scientists.

I think scientists are cool. But, scientists are human. The have ideology, just like anybody else. Just like soldiers, priests, journalists, businessmen, etc; they bring preconceived notions to the table. When they are presented with findings, they have the same human propensity to support information that advances their worldview and dismiss information that contradicts it. There could also be a hesitation to advance findings in disagreement with the consensus of their peer group.

Science is reality. Scientists, like everybody else, are human. It’s okay to ask the question: If man is the cause for global warming, and we haven’t changed our behavior, why do we anticipate a cooling period? It’s also okay to point out that there has been continual warming and cooling periods throughout Earth’s history and that there are many non-human factors at play; probably more significant factors. How sure are we that it is man causing the latest warming trend? And if we are considering tradeoffs, what level of intervention is appropriate to address our impact?

backup Says:
ralph. Maybe you’re right about the scientific findings being cautionary. But, you have to admit that Gore, rightly or wrongly, has been the poster child for the climate change issue. His less than cautionary views have been embraced by proponents out of expedience. And that message, for those not digging through scientific journals, is misleading.

I’ll give you that, point, B-cup, if it’ll move you off your insistence on criticizing the science based on how Al Gore presents it to the world.

Your original argument wasn’t that Al Gore was distorting the issue; it was that there’s too much uncertainty to reach any conclusions, and thus we should wait. You were ostensibly talking about THE SCIENCE.

When pressed, you somehow fell back to blaming Al Gore for being too certain.

“Reasonable people here” can do whatever the fu(k we want — admit or not admit anything that serves your or our purpose. In the end, that doesn’t matter because not one poster in a thousand here is qualified to actually offer authoritative opinions on the subject. The best we can do is evaluate the information that out there and make the best judgments we can about it. If you stop with what Al Gore says, you’re not really evaluating the BEST information that’s out there.

Zooey’s right. You come here claiming to be open to learning, but when it comes down to it, you always find a way to avoid it.

… okay, you usually find a way to avoid it.

Several commenters have tried in good faith to give you excellent information (I discount my own snark), and I hope that next time they will remember the futility of it.