House Science Committee tweets embarrassing climate change tweet

I was attempting to respond to specific parts of things you said that I either took issue with, or disagreed with, so it was more a reaction to off-topic references you made in the midst of your on-topic stuff.

Civil?

It's civil to declare someone's entire viewpoint as a lie and only back it up with personal opinion?

It's to declare an entire country's educational system to be garbage (the truth of it isn't pertinent) because it is influenced by a bogus religion (The influence part is plain false, I'm honestly surprised you didn't know this. The bogus part is declaring an entire belief system to be a lie, which is going to be insulting to anyone that holds those beliefs.)?

Heavy sarcasm is civil?

A general statement implying a lack of intelligence in the people you're talking to is civil?

That's this page only. It wasn't so much the last thing, as pretty every other post you've made in this thread that strikes me as looking-down-your-nose or angry.

So forgive me if I misunderstood your intentions, that was just how your posts seemed to me.

 

dunno you were going on tangents about trump which pretty much leads nowhere these days

If that viewpoint is that science is something you opt into? Yeah. Yeah it is. There is no debate about whether or not science can be accepted as truth. Science is. This idea that you can opt into accepting some of its findings is just further playing into this illusion that you can cherry pick whatever works for you.

I wasn't really sure what your answer was that I was quoting, whether you were talking about my own country or yours. So I had to dot the i's. Your educational system IS garbage. From the things you learn to the abhorrent fees you pay to seek even the most average of higher levels of education. While you may have some of the most prestigious universities in the world, your average student performs awful on tests compared to other first world nations. It's even funnier considering the amount of people that don't receive a higher education.

I wasn't sarcastic, I was genuinly asking you to show me references to these studies, albeit I was laughing cause I found that hard to believe, but hey, that's what studies are for, so have at it.

This is what you wrote "You don't have to believe in something, regardless of its truth or not. That's kinda the whole point."
Just again this incredible idea that you can cherry pick your truths in this world, as if somehow truth is something that you can choose to reject or accept to fit your agenda. I have legitemately not hope for someone who is basically saying that he'll only accept the things he sees are correct, and other info, regardless of truth can be rejected on the notion that you can opt into it or not. I literally cannot explain the levels of dumbfounded I am that someone with access to internet in the 21st century is this far removed from reality.


To sum it up, I think you're delusional and there's no point arguing with you about it, because apparently you can just choose to not believe anything I say and that's that.

 

Um, deciding to believe in something only if you think it is true is fairly sensible, that's what I was trying to say?

I'll agree with that.

By the technical definition of science, yes. With the knowledge that members of the scientific community have lied/been wrong (on rare occasions), just believing anything declared "science" doesn't seem good to me.
"Belief" is merely the perception of what is true, and you can easily perceive something within science to not be true (especially since science isn't always right).

I was looking at some earlier, but got a call from a distant friend, I'll try to get them to you later.

 

Alright, a specific example then, if I tell you the wind is really some divine being blowing really hard, what then?
What is stopping this simple example from going serious places if "belief is merely the perception of what is true and you can easily perceive something in science to not be true". What is the difference between climate change and air moving between different areas of pressure?

If the scientists are wrong, by all means prove them wrong and to humanity a favor. But you can't logically say "I don't belief in X just because it's possible the scientists are wrong, even though I have no substantial evidence to back this up, just my belief".

To me, what you're suggesting is just a state of mind that is so far down a specific path that you create the idea that you can shape reality to the science to fit your needs. That's just not how it works.

 

I'm not saying that doing something like that is right or good, I'm just saying that it shouldn't strike you at all as surprising that someone might choose to not believe it. There are, after all, plenty of things you don't believe in (I imagine) that other people would think you'd be insane not to believe in.

What I'm getting at is much less a support for a type of mindset, and more just saying that that's how perception and belief work. That's just reality, not an argument of how things should be. Is it dumb to not believe in something from the scientific community based on such a flimsy reason as "I don't trust them because one of them lied 50 years ago."? Yes, yes it is dumb, that doesn't mean it doesn't happen or that you shouldn't expect it to happen.

Honestly at this point I'm a little lost as to how we got to this point, but first I want to go read the path notes.

 

I mean, sure I don't believe in things other people might believe in. But you can't prove God or ghosts or Astrology as you can climate change.

 

i mean, maybe if you weren't born when mars was in retrograde you'd be more open to the truth

 

if jupiter's 3rd moon wasn't in the 6th house when YOU were born you wouldn't say that

 

But do you believe in our lord and savior, C3PO?

 

The phantom menace was the best star wars film

 

ignored

 

Damn right it was. That final lightsaber battle > all the other movies combined.

 

Great show by the guru of talk radio, Dr. Michael Savage, on 12-14-16! Thanks to Trump victory, Savage has pivoted to other areas that he is VERY passionate about. Yesterday's topic focused on saving the whales. He correctly points out that the Right has retreated on environmental issues, and has essentially let very left Lefties control the entire narrative. Bad juju on us for this mistake.

I especially enjoyed the interview of Paul Watson, a former member of Greenpeace and founder of Sea Shepherd Conservation Society. Some of you may have seen them on Whale Wars, as filmed by Animal Planet. Great stuff! Inspiring people sacrificing to save 1000s of whales.

This is a topic I would like to learn a LOT more about. Opine if you desire.

 

Is "pathetically average" a new classification globally, or just in Belgium? Perchance this is a BP-centric matter only...


Global grade: How do U.S. students compare?

How do U.S. students compare to students in other countries? It's not as bad as some say, but there is room for improvement.

by: Marian Wilde | April 2, 2015

Students in the United States performed near the middle of the pack. On average 16 other industrialized countries scored above the United States in science, and 23 scored above us in math. The reading scores for the United States had to be tossed due to a printing error.

Experts noted that the United States’ scores remained about the same in math between 2003 and 2006, the two most recent years the test — the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) — was given. Meanwhile, many other nations, Estonia and Poland being two, improved their scores and moved past the U.S.

“Neither major nations such as those belonging to the G7 or G8 group (the main economic competitors of the U.S.), nor the vast majority of nations participating in international education surveys, have populations as diverse as the U.S.,” says Erling E. Boe, Professor of Education and Co-Director of the Center for Research and Evaluation in Social Policy at the University of Pennsylvania. “Only the U.S. collects survey data for the race/ethnicity of students in the study samples. Canada, for example, has a substantial minority group (East Asians), but no data on such Asians as compared with Caucasians. The U.S. has sizable minority groups of Black and Hispanic students that do poorly in international comparisons and lower overall average scores for the U.S., while East Asians generally perform at a high level in math and science achievement. Therefore, it is possible that the overall scores for Canada are enhanced by its East Asian minority population.”

One of the most interesting new trends in international comparisons is the effort by some policy groups to compare individual states — rather than the United States as a whole — with other countries. This is seen as a way to pressure state governments to improve education. It also highlights the discrepancy in education that exists within the U.S.

http://www.greatschools.org/gk/articles/u-s-students-compare/

Article contains many nuggets of gold, but decided against copying and pasting even more of it here.

Comparing individual states to other countries sounds like a legit stronK idea to me.

 

Even in test scores it's the blacks and hispanics' fault

Just considering that you're the greatest country on earth, you'd expect a much less lacking educational system.

let qui gons be bygones

not sure if sad or relieved

also confused that it came to this

 

I don't have the time to listen to it all tonight, but 5 minutes into it I got to say: I strongly dislike the rhetorics he uses. Disregarding the content, I wonder how you can take someone seriously who uses such obvious rhetorical tricks.

 

The test scores are the test scores. Facts > your feelings on the matter BP. Next you will tell me all groups have the same bell curve for IQ?

Did you even read the part of the article I copied and pasted? Some of our states have FANTASTIC education, while others are less than average.

I wonder how much easier it would be to manage the education of a tiny and homogenous country, as compared to the US of A.

 

Sorry to hear that you were unlucky enough to be born in a less than average state.

 

I expect to disagree a fair amount with each other human being on the planet, so I often focus on the commonalities instead of the differences.

Skip to the interview of Paul Watson, which starts a bit after 16:50 and continues for about 40 minutes. That was the part I enjoyed the most anyhow.

 

Yet another clue that you don't know, or don't care to know, how averages and bell curves and such play out in the real world.

The lowest grade I ever received in University was an A-. What an unlucky motherEffer I am! Right BP? Cause feelings. Right? Sure homeslice. Sure.