Skip to main content

Are changes afoot at NASA? The Orlando Sentinel seems to think so and they have an idea or two why a change in leadership might happen:

Bolden's fate could be significant for Kennedy Space Center, which is charting a new future — as, among other things, a launch base for commercial spacecraft — in the wake of the space shuttle's 2011 retirement. Bolden has never fully embraced Obama's plan to remake NASA through heavy investment in technology, nor the idea of increased reliance on commercial rockets to ferry crew and cargo to the space station. Instead, he has been more closely aligned with the development of a big, new government-built rocket capable of taking astronauts to the moon or Mars, a rocket that Congress — with the administration's reluctant approval — ordered be built by 2017.
I'm not sure how that fits in with this move by (mostly) House Republicans to secure the director's job for a decade at a clip. BUT—I know people who do, and we're scheming to get them on Kagro in the Morning for you.
  • If polling is science I have to ask, how did Romney's peeps fuck this up so badly?
  • In the CNN video above, Bill Nye the Science Guy weighs in on Marco Rubio's willful ignorance about the age of the earth and explains why it matters to the U.S. economy. Sadly, Ken Hamm from Answers in Genesis weighs in on Nye, so PZ Myers weighs in on Hamm:
    Yes, exactly. We have accumulated information about the properties of matter that allow us to build smoke detectors, and that same information rules out the possibility that the earth is 6000 years old.
  • This week the AAS released a statement saying speculation that the Mars Curiosity rover has found something significant, like signs of life, is incorrect. Sad face. But remember, Curiosity's two-year mission has barely started!
  • Being a creature of habit I've found it hard to finally give up completely on Morning Joe. But give up I did, thanks to Current TV's morning line up with the Bill Press and Stephanie Miller shows, both highly recommended. I would love to see a little more science-y stuff on CTV though (Makes/whispers "call me" pantomine).  
  • I don't know if this video of the Bill O'Reilly fan having a come-to-jesus moment on climate change is legit or not. But the movie she reportedly saw that changed her mind is called Chasing Ice, and I'm gonna see it in Austin soon. Anyone who wants to go with is welcome:

Tags

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Mother Jones posted a great article (14+ / 0-)

    CHART: Only 0.17 Percent of Peer-Reviewed Papers Question Global Warming

    Powell reviewed 13,950 peer-reviewed scientific articles published between January 1991 and November 9, 2012 that mentioned "global warming" or "global climate change." The grand total of articles that questioned global warming or whether rising emissions are the cause: 24. That's 0.17 percent of all the literature on the topic.

    “We are not a nation that says ‘don’t ask, don’t tell.’ We are a nation that says ‘out of many, we are one.’” -Barack Obama

    by skohayes on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 06:08:10 AM PST

    •  And of those 24? (4+ / 0-)

      There are two different questions here, (1) whether warming is occurring at all and (2) whether emissions are the cause.

      In case (1), they can't really dispute observational data, and there might be some articles looking for some sort of cyclical pattern in the data.  Maybe 20 years ago, when observations were still within 95% confidence limits, there might have been some value in looking for such a periodicity.  Now that observation is fast outstripping even the most dire models of how temperature is rising, I would wonder if any more of these papers are showing up.

      In case (2), there probably are scientists who never had a good grasp on the vibrational spectrum of carbon dioxide and submitted papers based on phases of the sun or the tilt of the Earth's axis.

      It would be instructive to see how these 24 are distributed in time.  I'm guessing that they are exponentially bunched at the beginning of the time period in question.  To submit one today is, as Bill Nye says, equivalent to saying the Earth is flat.  

      •  You're right, sort of- (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        p gorden lippy, Siri
        To be classified as rejecting, an article had to clearly and explicitly state that the theory of global warming is false or, as happened in a few cases, that some other process better explains the observed warming. Articles that merely claimed to have found some discrepancy, some minor flaw, some reason for doubt, I did not classify as rejecting global warming.
        Desmogblog (http://s.tt/...)
        But if you follow this link that lists the 24 articles, you'll see they are spread out from as early as 1993 to as recently as 2011.
        http://www.jamespowell.org/...

        “We are not a nation that says ‘don’t ask, don’t tell.’ We are a nation that says ‘out of many, we are one.’” -Barack Obama

        by skohayes on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 07:04:26 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  The only problem is that you will never ... (5+ / 0-)

      get about 30% of the public to believe that this is not a hoax because about 30% of any population are either incompetent or insane.  Another 10% or so can be led in one direction or another, depending on how much Fox News they watch.  Finally you have the 60% or so who can be persuaded by real data, but some of which can occasionally be taken in by false statistical analysis (Note: what I just stated is not based on solid statistical analysis and should be taken with a large grain of salt - it is roughly based on the current percentage of people who now accept the idea that man caused global warming is real - at about 53% as I recall - plus a fudge factor of 7% to give some people who have no opinion the benefit of the doubt - THIS IS THUS NOT A SET OF SCIENTIFIC STATEMENTS, but partially snark on my part.

      A good example of bad statistical analysis that shows up in magazines, blogs and newspapers is a recent ranking of the "Most Dangerous Campuses in the United States."  A local New Mexico university was ranked #2 after a major California institution.  As I know the New Mexico institution well and have even walked the campus in the wee hours of the morning alone, I was somewhat shocked by the rating - until I discovered the following:

      1. The rankings were based on FBI reports which included the disclaimer that the data were only partial and should never be used for ranking schools!

      2. The ratings were based on a student population on the main campus, but did not include the population at the associated junior college, while still counting crimes committed on the junior college campus!

      3. The ratings were based on crimes committed on the whole campus, including outlying desert and mountains owned by the university, but on which almost no students would be found and included such things as writing graffiti on or defacing property along a road across the freeway from the main campus.

      4.  Only a fraction of the universities in the United States were considered in the report.

      5.  There was no correction for schools who did not accurately report their crime statistics, thus those with more accurate reporting were penalized.

      How to lie with statistics!  No wonder "science," as presented to the public, is sometimes looked at with suspicion.  Boy do we need critical thinking!

  •  CTV should pick up at least a couple... (4+ / 0-)

    ...of programming projects and ideas that were discarded when Discovery "deep-sixed" Planet Green.

    When you are right you cannot be too radical; when you are wrong, you cannot be too conservative. --Martin Luther King Jr.

    by Egalitare on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 06:09:35 AM PST

  •  Republicans have no use for science unless... (7+ / 0-)

    ... it makes gobs of money within the next two or three quarters.  Or kill lots of people in the wars that they keep starting every now and then.

    (-7.75,-5.64) Headline: "Man who told half the nation to go screw themselves somehow loses a national election".

    by Whirlaway on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 06:16:34 AM PST

  •  It's Ken Ham, not Hamm (5+ / 0-)

    If one ever wonders how to spell his name, just think of this nugget.  Ken Ham: Simple name for a simple mind.

    Long you live and high you fly, but only if you ride the tide; balanced on the biggest wave, you race towards an early grave.

    by Abelian on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 06:16:57 AM PST

  •  Nuclear reactors could explode RIGHT NOW! (6+ / 0-)

    Mr. Hamm's explanation of how the world is only 6000 years old claims that fundamental physical constants which govern the rate of nuclear decay are changing.

    Our design of nuclear reactors does not take into account the changing fundamental physical constants! If they change again, our nuclear reactors could go critical!

    I wish to thank my creationist friends (cough!) for pointing out the hazards of nuclear power to us.

    I eagerly await Mr. Rubio and other like-minded individuals proposals to save us from this clear and present danger.

  •  When/where is Chasing Ice playing in Austin? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    teknohed, p gorden lippy

    I'd love to join y'all.

  •  NASA (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    blue aardvark, Says Who, DarkSyde

    I think the President has the right idea. NASA should embrace the other sources out there with money who want to explore space. It makes sense with the fight to get money out of Congress you need to explore other avenues of funding. Let everybody work together and not at cross purposes to explore space.

    "A dreamer is one who can only find his way by moonlight, and his punishment is that he sees the dawn before the rest of the world." Oscar Wilde

    by michelewln on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 06:25:13 AM PST

  •  Here's the deal with Genesis (4+ / 0-)

    You add up all the ages of all the begetting and begatting in Genesis, you get a date of creation somewhere around 6000 years ago.

    We don't need to prove the earth is 4.5 billions years old to knock a hole in that. We need one method that reliably shows a thing on earth older than 6000 years.

    We have lots of those. Many, many artifacts; analysis of DNA changes; continental drift; layers of polar ice in Antarctica; migration patterns; analysis of linguistic drift.

    And once you say "OK, there's stuff that happened not described in Genesis" the game is up for Young Earth creationists.

    Economics is a social *science*. Can we base future economic decisions on math?

    by blue aardvark on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 06:28:24 AM PST

    •  Nope (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      p gorden lippy, blue aardvark

      You are a Godless heathen, the Bible is the only truth and that is that.  End of argument.

      It will never work.  You are expecting a rational process.  The only thing you can do is to keep them marginalized  and keep them out of the media and the schools.

      Forget argument, it's time to start laughing in their faces.

    •  You don't have to go back that far (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      blue aardvark

      By the 6000 year reckoning, Noah's flood took place somewhere around 2600 BC, give or take a decade or two.  Isn't it odd how The Great Flood went unnoticed by the Egyptians?  They continued their work, building on Sneferu's pyramid and when he died in 2589, they plopped him in it.

      This argument doesn't have any science at all in it (well, archeology, but it doesn't involve stuff like DNA and isotopes and advanced math).

      Once you say "there's stuff in Genesis that didn't happen" the game is up for Young Earth creationists as well.

  •  Nye (3+ / 0-)

    The important problem not discussed by Nye is how religion is entering school curriculum.  It's in history books, for example.  Such a slant uneducates a young mind--makes our youth not only misinformed, but cynical of real facts.  The R party goes along for votes, clergy demands this to get school funding as well as congregants.  From my perspective, the goal for them will be religious charter schools funded by the government.

    Apres Bush, le deluge.

    by melvynny on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 06:31:15 AM PST

  •  I have read only glowing reviews of this film (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    p gorden lippy

    Some report an emotional reaction to the movie.  Mother Earth is a powerful source/entity for humans.  We must love her and nurture her.

    In my personal mythology on this - Mother Earth and Father Extraterrestrials from somewhere, with great intelligence and a promising technical expertise - got together back in the day - and civilization  is the result.  By the way, it does not contradict the Christian, Muslim, Buddhist and other similar mythologies of high headed/high hatted men of great power/clerical authority, with somne c look at all humans of great traditional powers with ancient legacies - the Pope, Eastern Orthodox hierarchy, Queens and Kings throughout Europe, native American Warriors and Chiefs and Berdaches, most other ancient religious figures, Egyptian Pharaohs and various Queens (Cleopatra and Nefertiti) - all share a penchant or M.O. of High Hattedness connected to supreme power.

    I think this theory is fascinating.

    Honor and Love our home- Mother Earth and the legacy of intellect and civilization from our alien Fathers of space origin.  Lovely and exciting construct.

    •  "High-hattetness" = Space Travel Helmets Or (0+ / 0-)

      Spacesuits.  The Pope's mitres and tall golden crown.  
      The Pharaohs and Egyptian Queen's headdresses - those of Native Americans/First Tribes in Canada (Using natural feathers and cloth to make gigantic feathered headpieces) Estern Orthodox Clergy high hats, Kings and Queens of Medieva Europe high-layered golden/bejeweld crowns, Asian Royalty headpieces etc.

      Hats and Law Enforcement

      Hats and the military

      Hats and Cowboys

      Hats (Gigantic in Victorian days) for women

      Hats (Once required for all women entering Catholic Churches)

      Hats and Middle Eastern Sheiks/Royalty (examples - Arafat, Saudi Arabian men of power in that nation/society)

      Hats for Public Transit employees (Respect/Authority over general public) Bus Drivers, Airline pilots & Aircrew members (stewards & stewardesses - back in the day)

      And many other examples

  •  There's only one way the Christianists (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    VeloDramatic, Says Who, Munchkn

    are going to buy global warming. We need to find passages in the that trustworthy book of facts The Bible that implie the existence of global warming. I know that the "good book" if rife with stories and passages that can have widely divergent interpretations; perhaps one of our more knowledgeable (but sane) Bible enthusiasts could find some words that could be interpreted to mean something like "Satan will lead humans to warm the Earth, and people who fight against this by supporting conservation and green energy will be Saved by the Lord". Something like that. That's what we need. Maybe one of you guys could take a shot at it. It doesn't have to be airtight - Christians are pretty gullible. It just has to make the tiniest amount of sense.

    •  I don't think there is any passage that (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      p gorden lippy, Munchkn

      could convincingly be used as you suggest, though there are some that can be used to support caretaking the environment iin a general sense.  However those are already in use by some Christians (even some Evangelicals).

    •  the way some Christians already buy it (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      doc2

      is through the idea of "creation care" - God created Earth, it's perfect as is, we need to care for it and not harm it, etc.

      I've also seen a few arguments that fossil fuels come from Hell (underground), while the sun and wind come from Heaven.

      Mind you, I'm not passing this on as anything that I understand - I can't quote Bible verses. But it's a broad coalition, and I respect the effort to reach people in language that resonates with them.

      Congress can't redo the laws of physics. Do the math. @RL_Miller

      by RLMiller on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 08:43:18 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  The one about fossil fuels (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        RLMiller

        being underground could work. Christians believe that the devil lives underground, so the fact that oil comes from underground may be enough of a connection to exploit. Maybe the "devil's oil" is messing with the atmosphere to trap sunlight, which comes from "the heavens". So it's like the devil and Jesus are battling, and good Christians need to side with the heavenly sunshine, and invest in solar, etc., and shun the oil that is being pumped up from Hell, which is underground.

        I think there is something there, but I am terrible at deciphering what makes the Christian brain tick. The paragraph above sounds idiotic to me, but maybe that is just what is needed to convince these morons.

  •  One quibble about the ABC News clip (6+ / 0-)

    Which was otherwise good, but the claim that Antarctic ice is growing.

    It's not growing - a recent report states that ice mass is decreasing rapidly, as it is in the Arctic.  The SEA-ICE around Antarctica has been seasonally expanding, but sea ice does not contribute at all to sea level rise.

    I suppose that it's possible this ABC clip was created before that report came out (was it yesterday?), but the difference between sea and land ice in Antarctica is not newly released, and the denial claim about increasing ice in Antarctica has been debunked for at least a few years by now.

  •  We pay for the launch pad, (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DarkSyde

    and they use it for free.  If only we consumers and taxpayers could get the same deals.

    If money is speech, then speech must be money.

    by dkmich on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 06:48:01 AM PST

  •  I enjoy Stephanie Miller Show, (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    p gorden lippy, GustavMahler

    and recognize a fair amount of Daily Kos material, opinion, and even humor in her program content.

    Anyone else notice?

    skipping over damaged area

    by Says Who on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 07:08:50 AM PST

    •  I love Stephanie Miller! (0+ / 0-)

      The show is hilarious, I tape it and watch it after work everyday. Sometimes I crack up, sometimes I giggle, sometimes I learn something.

      I wondered how Obama's stimulus from 2009 kept lasting so long but I learned on her show that David Corn had written an article explaining that Obama had gotten a secret stimulus in 2010, but the media and a lot on the left assumed Obama had caved. Obama also forbid his staff from talking about this stimulus so no one knew.

      It didn't help that Summers, Axelrod, and other senior aides were not allowed to admit in public that the president had slyly achieved a second stimulus, for the S-word remained in disrepute.
      Interesting article  http://www.motherjones.com/...

      So even though her show is funny and silly, one can still learn things.

      The only foes that threaten America are the enemies at home, and those are ignorance, superstition, and incompetence. - Elbert Hubbard -9.62/-8.15

      by GustavMahler on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 01:21:32 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Astronomy Observing Sessions 4 Home Schooled kids (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    xgy2, jck, Liberal Thinking

    ...is something our local astronomy club occasionally did, along with more frequent events for conventional schools.  We'd set up our telescopes and let them have a look at a few celestial objects.  Typically, a higher portion of home schooled kids are from families with bibal-literalist creationist/young earth types of religious beliefs than is the case with regular schools, and the parents of course would accompany them to these outings.  And so, there was always a risk of stepping on someone's theological toes whenever the nature of some of the night's celestial objects was such as to spontaneously invite questions from the kids that unavoidably had answers involving millions or especially billions of years of age.  Lunar craters are an awesomely spectacular sight the first time one sees them through a good telescope (typically three to four billion years old), as are globular clusters (ten to twelve billion years old), or the distance to the Andromeda galaxy (over two million light-years).   The best way to convey the immense size of even the limited core portion of the Andromeda galaxy visible from less-than-dark-sky edge-of-suburbia these events are typically conducted at is to point out that light takes longer to travel from the left edge of the visible bright core to the right edge of it is some 20 to 30 thousand years.

    Fortunately, I haven't received any snippy admonishments from a parent, nor (at least within earshot) from any of them to their kid that what I was telling the kid wasn't true according to the Bible.  Nevertheless, there probably have been some "interesting" discussion in the family's cars on the way home.

    •  It's a Bit Further (0+ / 0-)

      Actually, the Andromeda Galaxy is about 2.5 million light years from here.

      That means that light you are seeing tonight left it about 2.5 million light years ago. That would be about 2.5 million years before the earth formed, according to certain theologians.

      As I pointed out in Looking Back in Time the age of the universe is a well-known quantity in astronomy. If you want to see that it is older than 10,000 years all you have to do is go out on a clear night and look up.

  •  I enjoy Stephanie Miller Show, (0+ / 0-)

    and recognize a fair amount of Daily Kos material, opinion, and even humor in her content.

    Anyone else notice?

    skipping over damaged area

    by Says Who on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 07:17:56 AM PST

  •  Bill Nye, propaganda guy (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DarkSyde

    Sheesh.

    Y'all continue to misrepresent Rubio -- even when you quote his words.

    Classy.

    Did you catch what he said? "PARENTS should be able to teach their kids what faith says"

    Is that a controversial position?  

    Is the Democratic party really willing to come out and say it opposes the First Amendment?  I know y'all have serious problems with  freedom of religion and speech -- especially when it's religious speech, but you generally have more sense to flat-out oppose it.

    Rubio is guilty of doing the same thing President Obama did earlier -- walk a line to avoid alienating people who might vote for him.  He didn't say the earth was only 6,000 years old.  He didn't say we should teach creationism in the schools.

    Regarding the age of the earth and the economy, Rubio is right.  Makes no damned difference at all.  Doesn't change the science.  Doesn't change anything.  If engineers from Alpha Centauri were to land tomorrow and tell us that they created the earth a billion years ago from old odds and ends they had lying around, would that change a damned thing (other than -- Hey! There are  people? out near Alpha Centauri), would that change anything? Science would still work.  People would buy things and sell things.  The economy would just go on.

    This whole thing is propaganda and continued hatred of those who dare to exercise their freedoms by people who most assuredly have spent time clucking about small-minded and racist Tea Party types.

    LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

    by dinotrac on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 07:19:09 AM PST

    •  Nye is saying that it matters that science (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      88kathy, jck, Liberal Thinking

      gets conflated with religion. Rubio is wrong. His "there are 2 sides" argument is wrong scientifically. There are so many kinds of observations that prove him wrong they are difficult to list. Fossils. Human artifacts. Biological changes. Nuclear transmutation. The speed of light. Stratigaraphy - to name just a few. In science, these all mesh into a unified view.

      No one is saying that parents can't teach their kids whatever they want, but to try to get money allotted for science to include religious nonsense in the science classroom instead of comparative religion class is foolish and dangerous to our ability to move forward in the world.

      How far we have fallen from the days when Jefferson re-wrote the NT with the miracles removed! And when the founders, just after the founding, fought bitter battles over whether there should be chaplains in the army, as it violated church-state separation.

      Fear is the mind-killer - Frank Herbert, Dune

      by p gorden lippy on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 07:32:02 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  There is nothing whatsoever wrong with what (0+ / 0-)

        Rubio said.

        There are two sides -- one religious and one scientific.
        And that's what he said.

        Fossils don't disprove that, and neither does evolution.
        Rubio's statement included nothing about allotting public money to teach religious beliefs in public classrooms.

        Your silly  propagandizing doesn't change the truth.

        LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

        by dinotrac on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 08:24:41 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  The Almost Lie (2+ / 0-)

          What Rubio actually said was:

          At the end of the day, I think there are multiple theories out there on how the universe was created and I think this is a country where people should have the opportunity to teach them all. I think parents should be able to teach their kids what their faith says, what science says. Whether the Earth was created in 7 days, or 7 actual eras, I'm not sure we'll ever be able to answer that. It's one of the great mysteries."

          I think that's a dispute amongst theologians and I think it has nothing to do with the gross domestic product or economic growth of the United States. I think the age of the universe has zero to do with how our economy is going to grow.

          This is an example of the "almost lie". It's something that's wrong, but allows the politician to say that they didn't know it was wrong, and therefore it isn't a "lie". The almost lie is used to direct the conversation away from a point where the politician knows they will lose the argument to a place where they can defend what they said without dealing with (and therefore losing) the original argument. It's a form of sophistry.

          What he literally says is that he doesn't know whether the earth was created in 7 days or 7 eras, and that it is a great mystery that we will never be able to answer.

          However, we know that the earth formed from gas and dust in the proto-solar system over a very long period of time and that its formation happened about 4.5 million years ago. It is not a "great mystery" and it isn't unknowable. Is he lying? You can't prove he is because he could just be ignorant. That's what makes this an "almost lie" instead of an outright lie.

          He also literally says that people have the right to teach their children what they want. However, the discussion isn't over whether parents can speak freely or teach their children what they want, but rather over whether the public schools will be forced to teach a lie to children.

          There's what Rubio says and whether it is factually correct, and then there's what he's telling people should be done and whether that is correct. Each individual statement in what he says may be correct or not, but that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the argument as a whole.

          So, he can say "I think there are multiple theories out there on how the universe was created and I think this is a country where people should have the opportunity to teach them all." Whether this is correct or not isn't all that meaningful. Yes, there are different theories (most of them variants of the Big Bang theory), but no one is preventing anyone from presenting or debating those.

          The point of what Rubio said was that schools should be forced to teach various kinds of creationism. It's the point of what he said I have a problem with. I don't want my money used to teach factually incorrect information to children and used to bias them against science.

    •  I (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      dinotrac

      don't think Rubio is the worst or did anything unforgiveable Dino, what I and others pointed out was his evasiveness for clear political concern over a simple question he should be able to answer or look up and say. I also posted it wasn't unique to Rubio or the GOP -- using a link to Obama saying somehting a bit vague -- on the Z or here a few weeks ago.

    •  You are neglecting the fact (0+ / 0-)

      that we are the laughing stock of the world. How can our country move forward when our children don't have math and science skills and critical thinking.

      What is next? Parents teaching their children that the earth is flat and the sun revolves around the earth? Maybe surgeons should stop washing their hands because we can't see any germs? Are we going to have any standards in this country?

      People of the world are laughing at us.

      The only foes that threaten America are the enemies at home, and those are ignorance, superstition, and incompetence. - Elbert Hubbard -9.62/-8.15

      by GustavMahler on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 01:28:12 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Can we all agree that the people who did (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    88kathy

    this should be stripped of their Internet privileges?

    Plaintiffs' Employment Law Attorney (harassment, discrimination, retaliation, whistleblowing, wage & hour, &c.) in North Orange County, CA.

    "I love this goddamn country, and we're going to take it back."
    -- Saul Alinsky

    by Seneca Doane on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 07:19:46 AM PST

  •  Can we all agree that the people who did (0+ / 0-)

    this should lose their internet privileges for a month?

    Plaintiffs' Employment Law Attorney (harassment, discrimination, retaliation, whistleblowing, wage & hour, &c.) in North Orange County, CA.

    "I love this goddamn country, and we're going to take it back."
    -- Saul Alinsky

    by Seneca Doane on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 07:24:00 AM PST

  •  The Chasing Ice Video Has An (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tampaedski

    error indicating that Antarctic ice is increasing. Wrong.

    The extent (square miles) is increasing in some places, but the volume (cubic miles) has been decreasing for years and years.

    How 5th Graders Calculate Amount of Ice

  •  If you rethink the Big Bang-call it the Separation (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Liberal Thinking

    -then Creation has the mysterious religious meaning it needs to have.

    Hey, GOP - Get In, Sit Down, Shut up, & Hang On!

    by 88kathy on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 07:45:32 AM PST

  •  Economic Stimulus (0+ / 0-)

    Got a concept I'd like to throw out for discussion. Subject: Economic Stimulus that benefits everyone.

    Problem: U.S. infrastructure needs $Trillions in new spending just to maintain a fruitful economy.

    Problem #2 - U.S. corporations have $Trillions of cash stored off-shore due to tax problems with repatriating these profits to U.S.

    Solution: Feds create Infrastructure Investment Bank such as the one they've been tinkering with in Chicago. These IIBanks fund infrastucture improvements by coordinating public/private funding for big projects. I say to fund this Bank with the $Trillions of off-shore money waiting to come back to US. Keep these funds tied up in this Bank for at least 5 years, rather than tax the hell out of these funds when they repatriate.

    Can we imagine what kind of stimulus these $Trillions would create? And who benefits - business owners, yes even the 1%, workers, tax systems, better roads, safer bridges, upgraded electrical grid, etc. After 5 years, let these corps start withdrawing funds from this Bank after these improvements have been showing increased economic activity.

    Wattayathink?

  •  Somehow my comment got deleted! (0+ / 0-)

    I don't think it was offensive, but I got an error something or other after it first appeared and then disappeared.

    Part of my comment was that I thought at least 30% of any population was likely to be misinformed, opinionated or insane.  I then pointed out that this was just my opinion, not a scientific statement, like much of what passes for science in the popular press.  

    Finally I noted that a recent headline story listing the most dangerous college campuses was a case in point.  A university with which I am intimately acquainted was listed as #2 in the country.  I pointed out that this was based on an FBI report which included the caution that the reports for each university were incomplete.  The ranking overlooked the fact that only a fraction of US universities were included in the report.  Also they used student population from the main campus, but crime reports from both the university and its associated community college.  They also included all the land covered by the university campus, which has a large part on the other side of the freeway where vandalism is common, but students are rarely likely to go. Finally they did not take into account that universities are not equal in what they report.  We certainly need better analysis of statistical data and a lot more critical thinking before such pseudoscience is passed off as science.

  •  Does Senator Rubio dispute that ... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Liberal Thinking, GustavMahler

    ... we are measuring things that are 13.5 trillion light years away? Does he believe that those far-off objects are really much closer and actually the light streaming through the pinholes of black cardboard as God patiently holds a flashlight on the other side? (God is our nightlight!)

    Somebody needs to put together a long list of questions for these 6,000-year-old-Earth crazies so that we can send it to any newspaper or TV station questioning the candidate prior to an election. For example:

    1.  Do you believe that all the stars in the universe are only 6,000 years old.

    2.  Do you believe that there are no fossils older than 6,000 years old.

    ---

    500. Do you believe it is impossible to scientifically measure the decay of radioactive isotopes?

    On another note, I hope Bill Press and Stephanie Miller call you! That would make my mornings even more enjoyable! They were the only option after I finally gave up on Morning Joe. Love me some Press and Miller, although I can do without the fart jokes from Miller's castmates. Finally, sorry about the lack of news from Mars. I was hoping ......

    I would tip you, but the man took away my tips.

    by Tortmaster on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 09:29:01 AM PST

    •  Yeah I thought that was great! (0+ / 0-)

      I think all reporters should start asking questions like this. Just basic science questions would smoke these idiots out.
      How old is the earth is such a great question!

      The only foes that threaten America are the enemies at home, and those are ignorance, superstition, and incompetence. - Elbert Hubbard -9.62/-8.15

      by GustavMahler on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 01:31:58 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  "If polling is science" (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    xgy2

    This is really why we are so messed up.  In our educational system, science is tested as set of facts.  You are given half of a DNA sequence, and asked to match it. You are asked to identify parts of a cell.  There is a debate over the facts of evolution.

    Ccience does not give us facts.  It gives us processes by which we can explore the world.  The result of any exploration, commonly know as an experiment, is a single data point.  It may have some relevance, or it may not.  Once you have a lot data points, you may apply deductive logic and get something that may be true much of the time.  The facts, however, are not as interesting as the way we got to them.  The results and process, however, can be used to achieve other results and processes and build cool stuff.

    One this that is often not talked about enough in casual discussions about science is the domain of studty.  For instance, newtons says that a net force will always result in an acceleration.  This is absolutely true in the domain he was exploring, that is speeds achievable in 1700, but not true for all speed.  He made an assumption, did not state his domain, and therefore we were left with incomplete results until Einstein did state the domain and modify the results.

    Which brings us to polling.  Like some many studies in the social and medical "sciences", the researches like to believe they are doing science when all they are doing is technical work with insufficient training.  In the lab a lot of time is spent defining the domain and variables.  Outside of the lab this is very difficult to be done reliably.

    In the case of election polling the domain of the poll, that is the people who responses are considered, but match the domain of those that actually vote.  This is impossible to do.  It may happen by accident, or may be close, but pollsters who are patting themselves on the back are at best naive.  Elections are going to won by campaigning, and on the day of the election.

    We see this healthy element of doubt in the search for the Higgs boson.  Most are pretty sure it exists.  Most though it would by found with the LHC.  Many think it has been found.  But much more data is needed.

    So, how did the polls get it wrong.  In they way they always do.  But drinking their own kool aid.  By not understanding domain.  By thinking science is easy.

  •  Freakin' historical records over 10,000 years old (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Liberal Thinking, GustavMahler

    exist. It's a fact. There are clay tablets in Mesopotamia from 8,000 BCE. Do these creationist nutjobs think that that entire civilization developed 5 minutes after the creation of the world? Where did their technology and written language come from?

    Think about it, these people are not just at war with some types of modern Science. The are against History, Archaeology, Geology, Cosmology, Biology (Evolution in particular), Philosophy, and of course, Democracy. They hate all progress since the Bronze Age.

    Just doing my part to piss off right wing nuts, one smart ass comment at a time.

    by tekno2600 on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 10:00:17 AM PST

  •  Bill Nye Nails It (0+ / 0-)

    He and PZ Myers are on the right track. We need to connect science to what people experience in their everyday lives and explain that the theories that underlie our understanding of the age of the earth are exactly the same theories that make all that stuff work.

    The age of the earth and the age of the universe are measurable values. They are observable. (That was my point in Looking Back in Time.)

    People do not have to be ignorant of the facts. There's plenty of room for people to have opinions about those facts. But the facts themselves are not that hard to understand and scientists need to make sure they don't back down on this argument, allowing more ignorance to creep in.

  •  GOP libertarianism 101 (0+ / 0-)
    As long as we’re guessing, here’s my wildest guess: there’s an enormous number of grifters preying on wingnuts these days. It’s a huge industry. They operate openly for the most part because, in most rightwing circles, any quasi-legal scheme to shameless enrich one’s self by exploiting anyone else, even the wingnut base, isn’t frowned upon, it is applauded. Maybe here and there Romney’s pollsters figured to themselves, ‘fuck it, let’s take this rich SOB for everything he’s got while the gettin’s good, let’s just tell him what he wants to hear and make bank.’

    yksitoista ulotteinen presidentin shakki. / tappaa kaikki natsit "Nous sommes un groupuscule" (-9.50; -7.03) 政治委员, 政委‽ Warning - some snark above ‽

    by annieli on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 04:30:59 PM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site