Well, for the record, Bill Clinton was post-modern, too. He was just less openly post-modern. But who can forget, “it depends what the meaning of ‘is’, is,” among other meaningless utterances.
Clinton’s comment was utterly tone-deaf and self-defeating, but it wasn’t meaningless. He was quibbling about tense, distinguishing an ongoing relationship from one in the past.
Most people would look down on an employer taking sexual advantage of a college intern aka student whether it was past or present tense.
Hanson is plenty post-modern about facts himself, swallowing the OH military vote smear whole:
Voter intimidation is asking for an ID at the polls — it is not trying to make it more difficult for those in the military to vote.
Hmm, I’m glad you pointed that out Jim. I don’t have a problem with shortening the period for voting but it is good to know that the law suit is to reinstate the original period and not shorten it for the military. I will tell any people I talk to that this is the case and I invite you dispel those rumors that voter ID laws are racist.
Democrats do have a record of disenfranchising the military vote as evidenced by the failure to comply with the Military Voter Protection Project and trying to block the count of military ballots in Florida circa 2000.
Conservatism writ large is completely postmodern. There was once a time when the preponderance of scientists on a subject like, say, climate science would have have held sway in the court of public opinion. But a small group of revisionists, largely funded by strong corporate interests in the oil industries, have managed to question the science and bring a radical, political viewpoint to the debate.
Same goes with historical revisionism at this and other sites. We are now to understand that Hitler and fascism was a product of the “Left”, rather than a reactionary right assault on the left. It’s turning accepted understanding on its head for the purpose of “controlling the narrative”. That Rush Limbaugh has stepped into the shoes of Derrida is postmodern irony at its best — and worst.
There was once a time when the preponderance of scientists on a subject like, say, climate science would have have held sway in the court of public opinion. But a small group of revisionists, largely funded by strong corporate interests in the oil industries, have managed to question the science and bring a radical, political viewpoint to the debate.
Hilarious. The narrative koolaid is strong in this one.
Unfortunately for your thesis, I’m still waiting for my check from Big Oil. The science has been questioned (as science should always be) because the science is literally and figuratively questionable.
Except that you’re not a scientist in that field. And in fact aren’t you an engineer? I believe there’s quite a difference between the two. It’s as ridiculous as listening to ex-weathermen talk about climate science as if he knows what he’s talking about.
You’re just committing the fallacy of arguing from authority. My view is that if these climatologists cannot explain their evidence for AGW in a way that convinces engineers, then they don’t have a case for AGW, particularly to justify the proposed fixes for it.
If climate alarmism from known weathermen is to be shunned, what does that say about the alarmism of anonymous guys on the internet named “Dave”?
Except that you’re not a scientist in that field. And in fact aren’t you an engineer?
I think it’s pretty clear at this point that you don’t understand the meaning of either the words “scientist” or “engineer.” What do you consider yourself?
That field didn’t even exist until a few years ago. They should have to prove their worth before their predictions of apocalypse are used to lower the quality of life for everyone on the planet.
Well, unlike a certain climate scientist, most engineers know not to use their data inverted (cough *Tiljander*) Plus, what’s being argued are the results of numerical models, interpretation of actual data, and parameterization of very complex physics. Frankly, any good engineer knows the substance of all three of those areas. So do an awful lot of chemists, physicists, geologists, astronomers, and even TV weather forecasters.
“Gaia” doesn’t bless special people with secret knowledge just because they attend the Church of Global Warming.
There was once a time when the preponderance of scientists … would have have held sway in the court of public opinion.
Contrary to your fragmented memory, no place on Earth has been ruled by a Science Council consisting of supercomputers living in See’n’Say frames that get carried around by dwarfish robots with Mel Blanc’s voice.
The extent to which scientists have ever held sway, or ever should, is the extent of the quality of their work. If they conceal the raw data to prevent others from verifying their claims, that’s a pretty good indicator that their “science” sucks dinosaur tits.
Scientists should never be put on a pedestal. They are human and prone to all the flaws common to the human condition.
People always claim that money is corrupting but they never think the money that flows from the government to researchers, from government to activist groups, from activists to politicians, or from activist groups to researchers has the potential for corruption.
Also the Nazis were the national socialist party.
Why is it that people on this site never question the fact that the climate change denialists are paid by prominent lobbyists like the ExxonMobil and the Koch brothers? Why are the motives of the people doing the science immediately more suspect than the handsomely-paid lobbyists? You guys aren’t blinded by science, you’re blinded by ideology. And once again, postmodern in ways that could have made Allen Bloom’s head explode from postmodern revionism.
What exactly is the question you think “people on this site” should ask?
Be specific and keep it to one non-rhetorical sentence, please.
Why is it that people on this site never question the fact that the climate change denialists are paid by prominent lobbyists like the ExxonMobil and the Koch brothers?
Perhaps because that’s not a “fact,” but a fantasy?
Why are the motives of the people doing the science immediately more suspect than the handsomely-paid lobbyists?
We continue to await some actual evidence that people who actually understand statistics and science are “handsomely-paid lobbyists.”
You guys aren’t blinded by science, you’re blinded by ideology.
Physician, heal thyself…
Oil companies have invested money in environmental groups. But why is it that the corruption is only one sided? Why wouldn’t AGW alarmists also be corrupted, it is not like they are more moral than anyone else.
I don’t think he’s ever denied the corruption of the warmists, just playing the tu quoque card over and over again (which, if I never see another one in this life, would be too soon — but that won’t happen because logical fallacies are the mortar that holds the internet together.)
Democracy is the ultimate post-modern form of government — do whatever you want and then vote on the consequences. How self-deluding is that? The feedback loop becomes not merely filtered down to the subsonic — it’s an open circuit, allowing personal behavior to hit the rail, folks scratching their head all the while wondering what went wrong, oblivious…
“Why is it that people on this site never question the fact that the climate change denialists are paid by prominent lobbyists like the ExxonMobil and the Koch brothers? ”
Ooooh . . . boogey-boogey-boogey. . . the Koch brothers . . . those evil bilionaires who WANT TO LEAVE YOU ALONE!!! Run for your lives!
Well, for the record, Bill Clinton was post-modern, too. He was just less openly post-modern. But who can forget, “it depends what the meaning of ‘is’, is,” among other meaningless utterances.
Clinton’s comment was utterly tone-deaf and self-defeating, but it wasn’t meaningless. He was quibbling about tense, distinguishing an ongoing relationship from one in the past.
Most people would look down on an employer taking sexual advantage of a college intern aka student whether it was past or present tense.
Hanson is plenty post-modern about facts himself, swallowing the OH military vote smear whole:
Voter intimidation is asking for an ID at the polls — it is not trying to make it more difficult for those in the military to vote.
Hmm, I’m glad you pointed that out Jim. I don’t have a problem with shortening the period for voting but it is good to know that the law suit is to reinstate the original period and not shorten it for the military. I will tell any people I talk to that this is the case and I invite you dispel those rumors that voter ID laws are racist.
Democrats do have a record of disenfranchising the military vote as evidenced by the failure to comply with the Military Voter Protection Project and trying to block the count of military ballots in Florida circa 2000.
Oh and here is your example of voter fraud, http://www.mediaite.com/online/new-book-alleges-that-voter-fraud-could-be-responsible-for-election-that-handed-senate-seat-to-al-franken/
Conservatism writ large is completely postmodern. There was once a time when the preponderance of scientists on a subject like, say, climate science would have have held sway in the court of public opinion. But a small group of revisionists, largely funded by strong corporate interests in the oil industries, have managed to question the science and bring a radical, political viewpoint to the debate.
Same goes with historical revisionism at this and other sites. We are now to understand that Hitler and fascism was a product of the “Left”, rather than a reactionary right assault on the left. It’s turning accepted understanding on its head for the purpose of “controlling the narrative”. That Rush Limbaugh has stepped into the shoes of Derrida is postmodern irony at its best — and worst.
There was once a time when the preponderance of scientists on a subject like, say, climate science would have have held sway in the court of public opinion. But a small group of revisionists, largely funded by strong corporate interests in the oil industries, have managed to question the science and bring a radical, political viewpoint to the debate.
Hilarious. The narrative koolaid is strong in this one.
Unfortunately for your thesis, I’m still waiting for my check from Big Oil. The science has been questioned (as science should always be) because the science is literally and figuratively questionable.
Except that you’re not a scientist in that field. And in fact aren’t you an engineer? I believe there’s quite a difference between the two. It’s as ridiculous as listening to ex-weathermen talk about climate science as if he knows what he’s talking about.
You’re just committing the fallacy of arguing from authority. My view is that if these climatologists cannot explain their evidence for AGW in a way that convinces engineers, then they don’t have a case for AGW, particularly to justify the proposed fixes for it.
If climate alarmism from known weathermen is to be shunned, what does that say about the alarmism of anonymous guys on the internet named “Dave”?
Except that you’re not a scientist in that field. And in fact aren’t you an engineer?
I think it’s pretty clear at this point that you don’t understand the meaning of either the words “scientist” or “engineer.” What do you consider yourself?
That field didn’t even exist until a few years ago. They should have to prove their worth before their predictions of apocalypse are used to lower the quality of life for everyone on the planet.
Well, unlike a certain climate scientist, most engineers know not to use their data inverted (cough *Tiljander*) Plus, what’s being argued are the results of numerical models, interpretation of actual data, and parameterization of very complex physics. Frankly, any good engineer knows the substance of all three of those areas. So do an awful lot of chemists, physicists, geologists, astronomers, and even TV weather forecasters.
“Gaia” doesn’t bless special people with secret knowledge just because they attend the Church of Global Warming.
Contrary to your fragmented memory, no place on Earth has been ruled by a Science Council consisting of supercomputers living in See’n’Say frames that get carried around by dwarfish robots with Mel Blanc’s voice.
The extent to which scientists have ever held sway, or ever should, is the extent of the quality of their work. If they conceal the raw data to prevent others from verifying their claims, that’s a pretty good indicator that their “science” sucks dinosaur tits.
Scientists should never be put on a pedestal. They are human and prone to all the flaws common to the human condition.
People always claim that money is corrupting but they never think the money that flows from the government to researchers, from government to activist groups, from activists to politicians, or from activist groups to researchers has the potential for corruption.
Also the Nazis were the national socialist party.
Why is it that people on this site never question the fact that the climate change denialists are paid by prominent lobbyists like the ExxonMobil and the Koch brothers? Why are the motives of the people doing the science immediately more suspect than the handsomely-paid lobbyists? You guys aren’t blinded by science, you’re blinded by ideology. And once again, postmodern in ways that could have made Allen Bloom’s head explode from postmodern revionism.
What exactly is the question you think “people on this site” should ask?
Be specific and keep it to one non-rhetorical sentence, please.
Why is it that people on this site never question the fact that the climate change denialists are paid by prominent lobbyists like the ExxonMobil and the Koch brothers?
Perhaps because that’s not a “fact,” but a fantasy?
Why are the motives of the people doing the science immediately more suspect than the handsomely-paid lobbyists?
We continue to await some actual evidence that people who actually understand statistics and science are “handsomely-paid lobbyists.”
You guys aren’t blinded by science, you’re blinded by ideology.
Physician, heal thyself…
Oil companies have invested money in environmental groups. But why is it that the corruption is only one sided? Why wouldn’t AGW alarmists also be corrupted, it is not like they are more moral than anyone else.
I don’t think he’s ever denied the corruption of the warmists, just playing the tu quoque card over and over again (which, if I never see another one in this life, would be too soon — but that won’t happen because logical fallacies are the mortar that holds the internet together.)
Democracy is the ultimate post-modern form of government — do whatever you want and then vote on the consequences. How self-deluding is that? The feedback loop becomes not merely filtered down to the subsonic — it’s an open circuit, allowing personal behavior to hit the rail, folks scratching their head all the while wondering what went wrong, oblivious…
“Why is it that people on this site never question the fact that the climate change denialists are paid by prominent lobbyists like the ExxonMobil and the Koch brothers? ”
Ooooh . . . boogey-boogey-boogey. . . the Koch brothers . . . those evil bilionaires who WANT TO LEAVE YOU ALONE!!! Run for your lives!