Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Links: political psychology, gay marrage

The more educated Republicans/conservatives are, the more they reject science.
True of liberals? Apparently not: they start out with an anti-nuclear bias, but more education on the subject lessens their worries, moving them closer to the scientific consensus, rather than further away, as with conservatives and global warming.

Medicalization of anti-authoritarianism.

Jeb Bush: "I used to be a conservative" http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/73242.html

gay marriage passes Maryland's Democratic legislature, referendum likely
Initiative in Maine likely, to overcome the anti-marriage referendum three years ago
(No links, just heads up.)

Santorum more scary than you thought:

See the comment count unavailable DW comments at http://mindstalk.dreamwidth.org/308098.html#comments



Feb. 25th, 2012 04:48 pm (UTC)
1. Bullshit. Among the products forced on Church bodies by this scum of a law there are abortifacients. If you don't know that, you ought to pay more attention to what your side is doing (or perhaps everything is justified in the sacred cause of forcing abortion on mankind?). It is the Administration that is trying to draw attention from that and to the issue of contraception, in the hope that, one, people might not notice, two, that they might think that this is an issue for Catholics alone, and, three, that it might serve Obama's long-term goal of causing a split in the Catholic Church and eliminating it as a political factor (since the Obamaites are apparently convinced that 96% of Catholic women use contraception, and so they must hope that the Bishops' teaching might be rejected by the flock). In fact, they have failed in all three goals. First, the Church has noticed the small matter of the prescription abortifacients (and it knows well enough that if once this much is given the enemy, they will use it to grab everything else). Second, other religious bodies haven't been fooled, and both Orthodox and Southern Baptists have come out swinging on the side of the Catholic position. Third, even if it were true - and it fucking well is not - there is a wide difference between sinning and refusing to accept that what one does is a sin, and I am willing to bet that the large majority even of those Catholic women who do in fact endanger their health by using the Pill will not put up with President Obama trying to force their Church. As a matter of fact, far from creating a break, the infamous Obama proposals have brought nearly every major Catholic dissenter to stand by the Bishops.

2 - Shows how much you know. The Guardian is timid, moderate, has claims to be a newspaper of record, and has been known to do some excellent journalism. But when one wants to hear the voice of British bourgeois progressivism in its natural state, raw and bloody, one goes to the Independent. It is the newspaper that employs the notorious Robert Fisk, the only journalist in history whose name has become a verb, and the infamous Johann Hari, the only journalist who has become a scandal in himself (and given the level of British journalism, that really is an achievement). To find an article against AGW in it is rather more surprising than to find it in, say, the Greenpeace newsletter.

3 - I don't rely on what this gentleman says to be sure that AGW, and especially its apocalyptic corollaries, are so much bullshit. I only mentioned him to show that it is only in the fortress of your skull that AGW is unchallenged. If you want the reason, it is to do with the fact that in the second century AD the Romans grew grapes in Northamptonshire, where they won't grow even now. What was releasing CO2 then - the leather of the legionnaires' shoes? Anyone who believes in this crap is ignorant of history, or, even worse, ignores it. I am a historian and I judge according to what I know.
Feb. 25th, 2012 07:21 pm (UTC)
A gullible blogger reporting the claims of an old and corrupt scientist isn't much of a challenge. But let's get down to business:

in the second century AD the Romans grew grapes in Northamptonshire, where they won't grow even now

I wonder what these vineyards in Northamptonshire are doing, then: http://www.englishwineproducers.com/midsvineyard.htm#nhants
None of those have good websites, but http://eglantinevineyard.web.officelive.com/default.aspx does, and it specifically mentions their own vines, not buying grapes to make wine with (which I've never heard of, but I'm being thorough) and it's in Nottinghamshire, exactly two counties due north of Northamptonshire.

Also http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/11/english-vineyards-again/ and http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/07/medieval-warmth-and-english-wine/

I could also note that one small region being warm doesn't mean the whole planet was warm, or other objections, but why bother? The 'fact' that you say you base your convictions that it's "so much bullshit" on is false. The grapes grow there. The grapes grow further north. There's a vineyard in Yorkshire, even further north.

Apparently your focus on history missed the existing booming English wine industry. Fair enough; that happens. Now you know more than you did; will you judge differently? Or will you act out the offending article by dismissing this somehow and preserving your beliefs unchallenged?
Feb. 25th, 2012 08:15 pm (UTC)
Apparently you like to ascribe any motive that suits you to anyone who has a good reason to disagree with you. I admit I didn't know about these vineyards, pioneer work of the last few years; the last I'd heard of was in Cheshire, I think some ten years ago, and it was then the northernmost in Britain. That - with modern techniques and new breeds of vines - the production has now reached the area which the Romans had colonized with their Mediterranean breeds of grape in eighteen hundred years ago can hardly be brought as triumphant evidence of unheard-of heat. What is more, it is certain that the wine grape has not been grown commercially in Britain for more than a few decades; vineyards in Kent and good winde from Sussex are still news to most connoisseurs. It is in my lifetime that the first light white bubblies have come to compete with the oceans of French and German product that used to be - and still is - exported to a previously grapeless Britain. But the Romans grew grapes here.
Feb. 25th, 2012 08:58 pm (UTC)
What motive?

Did you look at the links? http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/07/medieval-warmth-and-english-wine/
It seems England hasn't been grapeless since the Norman invasion. "Commercial" I can't speak to, but a low point of only 8 vineyards is described.

Cheshire is... further north than Northampthonshire, though also on the western coast.

"can hardly be brought as triumphant evidence of unheard-of heat"

I wasn't the one who brought up English wine; *you* were, claiming an absence of grapes for 1800 years as the foundation of your disbelief in global warming. I disproved that. I make no strong claims otherwise based on that; as the link points out, viticulture is a crappy proxy for global warming, being sensitive to skill at finding microclimates, varieties, and trade economics. (Though the fact that English wine is booming even while in free competition with cheap wine from around the world, vs. being a desperation measure in a time of expensive and erratic trade, is suggestive.)

Let me emphasize that. You have a belief, in AGW not being real. You implied this is based heavily on a 'fact' of grapes not growing in England, which *you* brought up. The fact is false. Rationally, that should at least weaken your confidence in your belief: you had a foundation, which has been knocked away. Instead, you seem to be regrouping and attacking arguments I didn't even make, just as the alternet article suggested: the belief must be defended, no matter the logic!

Production seems to have taken off in the 1950s, I don't know if 60 years ago is a few decades for you. 124 vineyards by 1977.

"However, one can conclude that those who are using the medieval English vineyards as a ‘counter-proof’ to the idea of present day global warming are just blowing smoke (or possibly drinking too much Californian). If they are a good proxy, then England is warmer now, and if they are not…. well, why talk about them in this context at all? "

"Current theories of climate change do not rely on whether today’s temperatures are ‘unprecedented’. Instead they examine the physical causes of climate change and match up what we know about their physical effects and time history and see which of the multiple drivers or combination can best explain the observations. For the last few decades, that is quite clearly the rise in greenhouse gases, punctuated by the occasional volcano and mitigated slightly by the concomittant rise in particulate pollution."

Edited at 2012-02-25 09:20 pm (UTC)
Feb. 26th, 2012 10:27 am (UTC)
You insist on arguing on stuff you know nothing about. It is evident from what you say that you have never had anything to do with wine-making - and it so happens that I have. Growing grapes in a country is no guarantee that you will be able to make wine. You have to be sure of regular harvests, and of harversts of suitable quality. Commercial wine making in Britain was in its infancy in the seventies, in spite of the widespread use of hardy northern varieties grown for the Rhineland and the Alps - an advantage the Romans did not have. Please stop embarrassing yourself.
Feb. 27th, 2012 01:03 am (UTC)
Were the Romans growing Mediterranean varieties, or or Gaulish ones? The Romans were around for few centuries, might they have bred varieties more adapted to Britain? Was their British wine any good, or was it just good enough people preferring wine to ales and facing expensive shipping?

Post Norman England apparently never had fewer than 8 vineyards, albeit perhaps producing lousy wine.

Anyway, take your own advice. This whole discussion isn't even relevant any more for AGW, as has been explained, starting with the reason "microclimates".
Feb. 27th, 2012 07:10 am (UTC)
OH, what the Hell. I've got other things to do. Surrree you're right. We're all going to boil to death in our own CO2. And pigs fly, New York City bridges can be bought for moderate prices from guys in trenchcoats, and BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN was the best movie on the year it was awarded. Why not?
Feb. 28th, 2012 04:02 am (UTC)
boil to death in our own CO2

How can you argue effectively if you can't even represent what your opponent says? The actual claims are about shifting weather patterns (like rain and temperature ranges for crops), loss of glacial water supplies (for cities and crops), increased evaporation (drying out crops), increased storm intensity, and sea-level rise. Also acidification of the oceans, though that's less about temperature and more about CO2 absorption by the oceans.

One better thing to do would be to read here:
Feb. 25th, 2012 08:12 pm (UTC)
Feb. 25th, 2012 08:16 pm (UTC)
The Church is not infallible in science, laddie, and does not claim to be. And it is very vulnerable to intellectual fad. It was an intellectual fad driven by contemporary academics and scientists that caused the condemnation of Galileo.
Feb. 25th, 2012 08:43 pm (UTC)
"Among the products forced on Church bodies by this scum of a law there are abortifacients."

What are they?
Feb. 27th, 2012 07:19 am (UTC)
http://blog.heritage.org/2012/02/01/obamacares-contraception-mandate-tramples-on-religious-liberty/ (For the facts about just exactly WHAT Obamacare mandates)

A link to a non-Catholic, indeed anti-Catholic source (it lies about what Catholic media have said): http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/02/16/panel-behind-obamacare-abortifacient-mandate-dominated-by-abortion-advocates/
Feb. 28th, 2012 03:58 am (UTC)
First link: "Thus, the Obamacare statute mandates that employer group health plans cover all FDA-approved contraceptive methods, including contraception, sterilization procedures, and “emergency contraception” (as the FDA calls the Plan B, Plan B One-Step, Next Choice, and Ella “morning-after” pills)."

Yes, it calls them emergency contraception, because they act by preventing ovulation, rather than aborting an implanted embryo like RU-486. So the page claims 'abortifacients' but fails to give evidence of any. This constitutes evidence against your claim.

Second link: gives no evidence just parrots a claim of abortifacients, and while they may be anti-Catholic, they're also obviously violently against Obama and health care reform.
Feb. 28th, 2012 04:03 am (UTC)
Bullshit. You will believe any lie that comes out of the Obama lie machine. And you have the fucking cheek to discard someone because they are against Obama on principle, without realizing that even if that were bad it would be no more than the mirror of your own attitudes. I've had enough and to spare of argying with you about things on which you would not take the word of anyone or anything. The experience of your fable-history should have been enough to tell me to keep the fuck away.
Feb. 28th, 2012 04:12 am (UTC)
What lies? My quotation was from YOUR link to the Heritage foundation, and quoting what they said the bill+regulations meant. The chemical nature and function of what they list is a matter of scientific record, or for the lazy Wikipedia. Nowhere did I quote anything from the Obama administration.

As for the second, well, they didn't actually say anything even worth discarding. The post was mostly listing political ties and donations, and the only relevance here was a single mention of 'abortifacients'.

Also, I'm not sure why you would admit they lie about Catholics and then expect me to believe they won't lie about Obama.

fable-history? What, India again?


Damien Sullivan

Latest Month

July 2019


Page Summary

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Lilia Ahner