[jogs]

cherdano, on 2017-March-19, 17:15, said:

On a more general note, I find this whole "Protesting against XY's college talk is an attack on free speech"-line of argument pretty, uhm, ridiculous.

Who gets to decide which ideas are ridiculous?

Do you accept the idea that adult heights are correlated to ethnicity?

[billw55]

cherdano, on 2017-March-19, 17:15, said:

Tldr; - saying "Protest against XY is an attack on free speech" is an attack against free speech.

I would modify this as such:

1. Protest against XY is an expression of free speech.
2. Saying "Protest against XY is an attack on free speech" is also an expression of free speech.
3. Use of violence, vandalism, or intimidation in pursuit of item 1 or 2 is an attack on free speech.

and furthermore,

4. almost everything that everyone has said in this thread is an expression of free speech.

[helene_t]

Trinidad, on 2017-March-21, 04:54, said:

I am not going to advocate religion here, but in the past if one would tell a lie, one would go to hell. This made the information at least somewhat reliable, since hell didn't seem such a nice place. Nowadays, if you need to lie to sell something, it seems that you simply do that. So, who can you believe? Trump? The very dishonest media? Fox News?

I think many people, probably myself included, have a tendency to overestimate the glory of the past.

It may be true that the average facebook feed's bullshit-to-fact ratio is higher than that of a random selection of 1930 newspapers but on the other hand, today you can fairly easily find high-quality easily digestible balanced reports on almost every controversial topic. People can chose to stay ill-informed but at least it's their choice.

And I don't believe anyone ever went to hell for lying. People went to hell for saying something that was inconvenient for the establishment. Just like in North Korea.

W.r.t. not inviting climate change deniers to give talks at universities I agree with you. We don't invite flat-earthers to a serious symposium on plate tectonics either. There may be underrepresentation of serious yet heterodoxic views in social sciences, and to some extent I wonder about medicine also. But in the natural sciences I believe we mostly get the balance right.

[Winstonm]

jogs, on 2017-March-21, 07:51, said:

Ryancare repeals Obamacare, doesn't force healthy people to buy expensive individual health insurance, and relieves small businesses of the responsibility of providing health insurance to employees. Everything else in Ryancare is at best a minor improvement over Obamacare.
When will politicians learn that people want inexpensive health access, not health insurance? There needs to be a non insurer model for poor people without access in employer based health insurance or medicare. Insurers and lawyers are parasites increasing the cost of healthcare. Do not subsidize the insurers. Subsidize the poor directly. No individual health insurance for the uninsured. No malpractice lawsuits by the insured. For the poor there will never be affordable healthcare. Find ways to provide healthcare as cheaply as possible. At some point drugs should be provided a wholesale rate.
I suspect I will not like Rand Paul's plan either. Allow all uninsured to enroll into medicaid. A high deductible. All enrollees are means tested. All members of congress should be required to get their annual physical from their districts's medicaid group. Congressmen need to experience the type of healthcare coverage the poor is receiving.

Some of your suggestions are so radically liberal I cannot believe you support Trump.

[Zelandakh]

jogs, on 2017-March-21, 08:29, said:

Do you accept the idea that adult heights are correlated to ethnicity?

Less than you might think. Height is correclated much more strongly with diet, which is itself closely correlated with ethnicity. if you remove this factor then the relevance of ethnicity is not so large. For a well-known example of this, look at the figures for Japan since the Second World War, although there are plenty of other examples around to back this up.

[nige1]

helene_t, on 2017-March-21, 09:09, said:

W.r.t. not inviting climate change deniers to give talks at universities I agree with you. We don't invite flat-earthers to a serious symposium on plate tectonics either. There may be underrepresentation of serious yet heterodoxic views in social sciences, and to some extent I wonder about medicine also. But in the natural sciences I believe we mostly get the balance right.

Are those analogies fair, Helene?

• It's doubtful that a Flat-earther would want to address a plate-tectonics symposium. A talk in a college is a different matter. It would be interesting and entertaining. A sensible college principle would welcome the opportunity to test his abler students in their ability to challenge such ideas. Compared to Flat-earthers, Trump--supporters might be on less firm ground but there are probably more of them.
• Climate-change isn't basic science. Relevant issues, about which experts disagree, are worth discussion. Furthermore, both sides would probably regard such open debate as beneficial to public education on a vital concern. Please note that not everybody benefits from the certain knowledge of the average forum-member. (A case-study: the protracted corporate panic, in the West, over the threat to civilisation posed by the dreaded Millennium Bug. The crisis was predicted in 1984, although software engineers deal with such trivial fixes on a daily basis. The few who averred that the bug was a chimaera were unpopular with experts because software companies were making so much money from it).

[helene_t]

nige1, on 2017-March-21, 12:15, said:

Are those analogies fair, Helene?

Well if we are talking about someone who, on the basis of a solid understanding of climate science, argues that mainstream projections are too pesimistic/optimistic/whatever then OK. But if it's just some of the usual cliches about "climate scientists are bribed by the liberal mafia and besides, Newton turned out to be wrong, too, and then there is the hockey stick phenomena" etc then yes, it would be comparable to flat-earthers.

[y66]

Wow. Al Franken is one very sharp senator. Questioning Gorsuch now.

[cherdano]

Man, climate change really pushes a button for some posters here. I didn't even write about a speaker who is a global warming sceptic. I wrote about a global warming sceptic who doesn't understand the (very basic) physical chemistry underlying the concept of greenhouse gases. Is Nigel suggesting that these two categories are the same?

[nige1]

cherdano, on 2017-March-19, 17:15, said:

On a more general note, I find this whole "Protesting against XY's college talk is an attack on free speech"-line of argument pretty, uhm, ridiculous. Any series of college choice makes choices about which viewpoints are worth presenting - there are only so many speaking slots each term. E.g. if my University decided to spend tuition dollars (sorry, pounds) on inviting a global warming sceptic who doesn't even understand basic chemistry/physics, then I'd be quite supportive of students deciding to protest that - nothing can be learned from listening for an hour to a speaker whose basic arguments, are obviously wrong for anyone who has taking an introductory physical chemistry course.

jogs, on 2017-March-21, 08:29, said:

Who gets to decide which ideas are ridiculous?

cherdano, on 2017-March-21, 14:41, said:

Man, climate change really pushes a button for some posters here. I didn't even write about a speaker who is a global warming sceptic. I wrote about a global warming sceptic who doesn't understand the (very basic) physical chemistry underlying the concept of greenhouse gases. Is Nigel suggesting that these two categories are the same?

We disagree less than you imply, Cherdano. As demonstrated in these forums, some climate-change experts take basic physics and chemistry on trust from their respective gurus and concentrate on economic and other aspects. Also, as demonstrated in these forums, those on each side of the debate are adamant that their opponents, whatever their academic background, are obviously wrong.

Anyway, we agree that...

• Climate-change is a bit of a red-herring. (Unfortunately, IMO: the problem is worse with political controversy. Ignorant, stupid, and mad, are some of the milder labels used in this forum).
• Somebody has to decide whether to give a would-be speaker a platform. (However, IMO: he should try hard avoid prejudice. For example, he might take into account that Trump supporters are a significant proportion of the population, even if he supports Hilary. That isn't the end of the matter. He should seek and heed police-advice, if hoodlums threaten the speaker with disruption and violence).

[helene_t]

nige1, on 2017-March-21, 17:00, said:

Anyway, we agree that...
[*]Climate-change is a bit of a red-herring.

Huh?

[kenberg]

Later I want to get into the issue of how we can sort truth from fiction.Tough, I think. But I am still on my second cup of coffee so I offer this instead. I found it amusing.

I gather that Gorsuh undertands that the nomination is his, as liong as he riles nobody about nothing. I particularly liked

Quote

Leahy noted that Feinstein told him not to let Gorsuch's flattery "go to your head, Pat."

"Oh, he should!" Gorsuch insisted.

and

Quote

His was excruciatingly folksy, talking with Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) about his daughters riding sheep ("mutton busting") at the rodeo. Being called a "young Perry Mason" years ago was a "career highlight," he said. And he recalled a recent visit to the Lincoln Memorial, which he boasted was made of marble from his home state. He quoted from one of its inscriptions, "government of the people, by the people, for the people," which he said was from Lincoln's second inaugural address.

One of the Democratic senators informed him that this was actually from the Gettysburg Address.

Gorsuch put his head in his hands. "Gosh," he said.

Maybe this is fake news? No, you couldn't make this up.

[Trinidad]

nige1, on 2017-March-21, 06:18, said:

I agree with Trinidad about public tolerance of lies but I distrust his pragmatic approach to censorship.

I am not advocating censorship, at all. If I am advocating anything then it would be "Hell 2.0" for liars. I'm not really sure what form that sh/could take, but I would like it to be so that someone who flat out lies (i.e. knowingly, consciously present facts that aren't true) in a socio-political debate is properly called out with a loss in his/her social status.

As an example: When Trump says that Obama was tapping his wires in Trump tower and cannot provide any evidence, I want him to go and sit in the corner with a hat that has "Dumb ass" written on it. This might:
- stop him from doing it again
- show the general public that he told a lie

If, on the other hand, Trump says: "I think there are too many Muslims in the USA." then I, respectfully, disagree with him on that opinion, but I will not stop him from voicing that opinion.

Rik

[y66]

From Make No Mistake: Populism Is Winning by Max Fisher and Amanda Taub:

Quote

Much of the Western world, particularly its political establishments and liberal voters, celebrated last week’s Dutch elections as a sign that the populist tide had been turned back, or at least contained.

Maybe they’ll turn out to be right. But we have a hard time reaching the same conclusion based on last week’s results, which seem to show a modest victory for the Netherlands’ populist party and a significant victory for populism.

A few things to consider:

• The far-right Party for Freedom, led by Geert Wilders, grew from 15 to 20 seats in Parliament, where it’s now the second-largest party.
• The center-right People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy, which leads the government, shrank from 41 to 33 seats.
• The party shifted sharply right, co-opting anti-immigrant populism. Mark Rutte, the prime minister, told immigrants in an open letter shortly before the vote, “Act normal or leave.”
• The main center-left party collapsed from 38 seats to only nine.

Taken together, this means two things.

First: Dutch politics, already fragmented, are now more so, with individual parties holding fewer seats. This means less stability because a governing coalition must now include several parties with different agendas and constituencies. That takes some power away from the mainstream establishment parties and hands it instead to anti-establishment parties who will have greater leverage to act as spoilers.

Second and more important: There has been a shift toward populism in the Netherlands. Sure, Mr. Wilders’s party won slightly fewer seats than polls projected, hence the narrative of populism vanquished. But his message, his agenda, his style of politics succeeded in entering the mainstream.

Mr. Rutte embraced populism and saved his party from further losses. The center-left did not embrace populism and imploded. The lesson will not be lost on other parties: Populism is where the votes are.
In the meantime, Mr. Rutte is now beholden to an electorate that will expect him to deliver on that populism. If he follows through on his campaign promises, then the Netherlands is about to take an anti-immigrant turn. We don’t know how you can call that anything but a victory for populism.

Mr. Wilders, after the results came in, said on Twitter that Mr. Rutte “has not seen the last of me yet!!” We suspect he’s right: Mr. Rutte has to know that, if he doesn’t follow through on his promises, he will only widen Mr. Wilders’s opening in the next election.

Yascha Mounk, a political scientist who studies populism, wrote in a Slate column that populism has been slowly and incrementally but consistently gaining popularity since the 1960s. Many in the West took notice only last year, with the “Brexit” vote and President Trump’s election.

The trend felt sudden and overwhelming, which led many to wrongly assume that all other elections would show populist victories. When the Dutch election didn’t deliver a similar shock, it felt like the populist wave was over.

Instead, what has happened so far in 2017 is the same thing that happened in 2016 and nearly every year before it for a half-century: Populism has become slightly more popular. That doesn’t mean that populists are going to win every election. It means we’re probably going to see more elections like the one last week in the Netherlands.

Maybe, if you’re just looking at poll numbers, that looks like a defeat for populism. But if you’re a Dutch voter thrilled to see the mainstream center-right take a hard turn against immigrants, or an immigrant worried about what this means for your family, the results could look a little different.

[jogs]

Winstonm, on 2017-March-21, 09:10, said:

Some of your suggestions are so radically liberal I cannot believe you support Trump.

I don't support any healthcare model by any politician. They just don't understand that the 25% who are uninsured are mostly poor. For the poor there is no such as affordable healthcare. There is only how much in subsidies are the taxpayers willing to give.

My plan is to allow all uninsured to enroll into medicaid. But not free. A high deductible. Not written in stone. Tweak the amount of the deductible to find the best number. Also the deductible must be in constant dollars. That means if the deductible is $5,000 today, it may be $7,000 in ten years.

There isn't just one medicaid. There are 50 state medicaids. And many of them are terrible. Congressmen must use their district's medicaid for their annual physical.

[jogs]

Zelandakh, on 2017-March-21, 09:41, said:

Less than you might think. Height is correclated much more strongly with diet, which is itself closely correlated with ethnicity. if you remove this factor then the relevance of ethnicity is not so large. For a well-known example of this, look at the figures for Japan since the Second World War, although there are plenty of other examples around to back this up.

There isn't just one bell curve. There is a family of bell curves. Many of those bell curves one can control. It takes two or three generations before Japanese in America to catch up the whites in height.

[Winstonm]

jogs, on 2017-March-22, 07:39, said:

I don't support any healthcare model by any politician. They just don't understand that the 25% who are uninsured are mostly poor. For the poor there is no such as affordable healthcare. There is only how much in subsidies are the taxpayers willing to give.

My plan is to allow all uninsured to enroll into medicaid. But not free. A high deductible. Not written in stone. Tweak the amount of the deductible to find the best number. Also the deductible must be in constant dollars. That means if the deductible is $5,000 today, it may be $7,000 in ten years.

There isn't just one medicaid. There are 50 state medicaids. And many of them are terrible. Congressmen must use their district's medicaid for their annual physical.

So, you are saying that health care is a right for all, that you will provide healthcare for all, but 25% of the country will not be able to use their healthcare because of high deductibles.

[kenberg]

I am five feet ten inches tall. This could be from my Norwegian genes. Perhaps it is related to the fact my adoptive father came from Croatia or thereabouts (he was never sure of just where). Perhaps it is because we had a vegetable garden, two apple trees, raspberry bushes and grape vines in our back yard, and I ate from them frequently. Whichever it is, I am still five feet ten inches tall.

There are more important things than height. I have a level of mathematical talent. A high level for the neighborhood that I grew up in, a not so high level if I hang out at Fine Hall at Princeton. Does it matter if this is from my Norwegian genes, my adoptive Croatian father, or the carrots I ate pulled fresh from the garden (usually but not always washed with the hose before eating)?

We can do something about the food people have access to. We can do something about the education they have available. The rest really is not much under our control. So I recommend that we try to improve the parts of people's lives where we have some hope of making things better, and we let the genetic determinants play out however it goes. Stop, just stop, trying to predict or explain based on race. I am not making it up that my father was unsure of which country he came from, he had a very tough early life. But so? He was a pretty good guy. Some people who can trace their ancestry to the Mayflower are real jerks.

More help. less cataloging. That's my suggestion.

[barmar]

jogs, on 2017-March-22, 07:39, said:

My plan is to allow all uninsured to enroll into medicaid. But not free. A high deductible. Not written in stone. Tweak the amount of the deductible to find the best number. Also the deductible must be in constant dollars. That means if the deductible is $5,000 today, it may be $7,000 in ten years.

You keep saying this, and I keep not understanding it. Poor people can't afford that $5,000. If they get sick, they'll have to choose between going to the doctor and buying food or paying rent.

Jason Chafetz minimized this kind of issue by saying they'd have to choose between health care and a new iPhone. This is of course ridiculous, since they're an order of magnitude different in price.

[rmnka447]

Part of the problem with "climate change" is the way the terms are bandied about by both sides of the argument. It muddies all the discussion.

Geologic records clearly show the climate of the earth has naturally changed throughout its history. Throughout that history there have been periods of global warming and global cooling.

The controversy is over the effect of humans on those natural processes. The argument is that human use of fossil fuels is inordinately increasing CO2, a "greenhouse gas", which is causing accelerated warming of the earth. Based on this thesis, some climatologists have projected, through the use of complex computer models, predictions of the effects of this warming. The most widely reported and referenced model results are the "hockey stick" projections which predict rapid runaway global temperature after something like a 2-3 degree overall average temperature rise.

However, these model projections are not facts, but guesses. So they are only as good as their ability to reflect what is naturally occurring. The problem is that in order to develop these models of extremely complex natural processes, there are many assumptions about these processes that must be made. Some of these assumptions may have massive effects on what the models predict. So if these projections are to be taken as reasonably accurate, some assessment of how these assumptions affect the models is necessary. If a very small change in an assumption yields radically different results from the models, then that's a big red flag about the accuracy of the models. OTOH, if the assumption can have a wide range of values and still get essentially the same results, then one can have a much greater confidence in the models.

Finally, the underlying thesis has to be proven by scientific evidence. Einstein's theory of relativity was not confirmed until his predicted bending of light as it passed by the sun was observed during solar eclipses in the 1930s (I think that's the timeframe). So in the case of the theory of human caused global warming, the exact relationship between CO2 concentrations and global temperature needs to be confirmed.

Skeptics point to more recent global temperature data that is significantly lower than predicted at the given CO2 concentrations as an issue. Their contention is that CO2 may have less effect on global warming than is theorized. They also have concerns with the models assumptions. And in larger sense, they may have concerns about potential natural processes not reflected in the models or projections of the effects of temperature change. (For example, continental levels may rise ["float"] as sea levels rise. Also, the earth may naturally react to rising CO2 levels by increased plant activity which slow the rise in CO2 levels.)

Proponents usually aver "the science is settled" and seem to accept the model projections as dead certain fact. Anyone expressing concerns about those projections is ridiculed and delegitimized.

Perhaps the best we can hope for is some intersection and debate between the scientific skeptics and scientific proponents, so that we can come to a consensus about the most probable long term effect of global warming.

But beyond whatever those conclusions are, there needs to be some debate on how to change to help minimize global warming. Things like eliminating fossil fuels are likely to have a profound effect on our economy and society. So there needs to be some buy in by a super majority of society rather than imposition by governmental fiat. A key component of what we do has to be what impact our actions have overall global warming versus the displacement and change they force. If what we do has little or no impact on the overall result, then maybe the extent of any changes needs to be rethought.

I guess the bottom line is that if one is "right", one ought to be able to persuade those who think differently by the strength and eloquence of one's argument not by just insisting your right.