Stupid Parents
Tweet
Far right evangelical parents are up in arms over An Inconvenient Truth being shown in school. In 10-15 years we are going to have two types of people: smart mainstream folks and amazingly dumb products of far-right evangelical households. Strangely enough this will be proof again that evolution is real.
64 Responses to “Stupid Parents”
GOP Rep. Spencer Bachus Facing House Ethics Probe For Insider Trading
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
Does anyone else here occasionally get really depressed about information like this?
For me, its just so damn difficult to muster the energy to be outraged and annoyed about people who deliberately ignore scientific truth on religious/political grounds, whether it’s in regards to stem cell research, global warming, etc….
I know its not productive, but there are times when I just feel like throwing my hands in the air and conceding defeat. You can’t win battles against those who don’t respond to reason and logic.
Here’s where I may differ. While I think we should fight with our all when these morons get into positions of power and are able to influence the mainstream and our kids, if they want to screw themselves and their offspring up – I DON’T CARE. It just means a couple of dumb-dumbs for my future children to point and laugh at.
Well, the problem is that they are trying to dumb down all of our kids by keeping stuff like science, evolution, and true history out of the schools.
Bad enough they dumb down their kids, but they should do that in the home, not in the schools. What happened to all that parental authority they are talking about? If they don’t have it, they shouldn’t be asking teachers to be proxies for their beliefs. . . .
I could go on and on, but these people are dangerous.
Another solution for me is not to live where they live. . . .
Oliver,
I think that a factor that contributes to my disgust and quasi-surrender is the fact that these kinds of people manage to get into positions of power at all. It demonstrates a very sad ignorance on the part of the American public as a whole that it could be allowed to happen. There’s other corroborating evidence as well, such as the fact that atheists are the most distrusted minority group in the U.S., and that only about 30% of our population believe in evolution.
All that being said, your outlook is more courageous and probably much healthier than mine.
and LT, I agree with you completely. I honestly think that the dangers from domestic, uninformed ideologues (like much of the Christian right) are greater to us as a nation than the dangers posed to us by Islamic radical fundamentalists.
I eagerly await an assault on my character for the blasphemy I’ve just committed.
Well, let’s just say “a harbinger of the end times” and we all agree, OK?
So they get lots of emails and phone calls and they still opt for a phony baloney balance.
Well also throw in an agnostic centrist parent as one admantly opposed to government sanctioned political indoctrination of children – which is whay I consider professional leftist politician Gore’s phoney baloney hysterical tract.
This movie is not a ‘documentary.’ It’s a political vehicle and should not be shown to kids in school. For any reason. It’s not ‘science.’ It is political propaganda and yes I have seen the film.
Every ignorant fool that makes a buck off the global warming ‘crisis’ is saying that global warming is the cause of all the crazy weather we’ve had the last couple of months when meteorologists all over are saying it has nothing to do with global warming and is the direct result of El Nino.
You want to teach kids about the weather? Bring in somebody that doesn’t have some kind of financial stake in the global warming debate to discuss the issue.
I see Jay. This movie about the environment… that’s political. But this crazy Frosty Harriman(sic) guy, no, he’s not political at all…
I’ve already given up. It just isn’t worth it any more. I’m too tired to keep fighting. It’s finished.
I’m not defending Hardiman and I could care less about his motives.
This movie has no place in the classroom.
I can hardly even be bothered to argue with such breathtaking ignorance. Even though there is debate over the specific degree of the effects of global warming and how best to deal with what problems it may eventually pose, the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community is that anthropogenic climate change is real. In spite of teh librul media presenting the issue in terms of a debate between equal sides (truth and untruth, in this case) as Gore points out in the movie, the number of peer-reviewed scientific journal articles that claim global warming is not happening is between negligible and none, leaning toward the latter. Pretending that someone cataloging all the science is speaking phoney-baloney nonsensical propaganda is delusional in the extreme. If it is “political” it is only because the right has managed to turn the future wellbeing of the planet into a political issue instead of a serious one.
Rex, the issue is not about climate change, but rather the issue over man-made climate change which is completely different. People like Gore and his ilk are convinced beyond any doubt that the change is man-made and we must do something to stop it while certain issues are still in dispute.
You want to teach kids about the weather? Bring in somebody that doesn’t have some kind of financial stake in the global warming debate to discuss the issue.
You mean like, I dunno, scientists? Excellent idea!
By the way, Inconvient Truth is not about weather, but climate. If you’re not clear on the difference, you may be able to look it up on the Internets.
You mean like, I dunno, scientists? Excellent idea!
Right. And we know that all scientists conduct their research with money given to them by the tooth fairy.
Jay–
You’re right that the issue is still in dispute. But as with, say, the earth’s age, evolutionary theory, and the existence of leprechans, it’s only disputed by morons. You were saying?
Right. And we know that all scientists conduct their research with money given to them by the tooth fairy.
Dang, now we can’t trust the scientists! I guess The Bible is the only thing we can trust. Fags and shellfish–you’re on notice!
Dang, now we can’t trust the scientists!
Uhh. No dumbass. I said nothing of the sort.
How difficult would it be to find scientists that don’t have some kind of monetary stake in all of this?
Please, go back and play with the other children and leave the adults alone.
What we need is an “opt-out” form, so that if and when we can reverse climate change, and if and when medical advances are made from stem-cell research, all those opposed or skeptical can “opt out” of the advances made.
OK. Your objections are noted. Real-life professional scientists will continue working on the problems, then when they get results, you don’t have to reap any of the benefits.
It just means a couple of dumb-dumbs for my future children to point and laugh at.
Except when they grow up and get elected (sic) President.
How difficult would it be to find scientists that don’t have some kind of monetary stake in all of this?
So you only trust scientists who do their research as a hobby?
Man-made climate change? Natural climate change? El Ninõ, El, Ninã?
What difference does it make? The planet is in trouble. Period. It makes no difference who started it. Something should be done sooner rather than later. Period.
All this bickering about who’s fault it is is pointless.
I’m a scientist that doesn’t have a monetary stake in this. Does that mean that my opinion on climate change, as an experimental psychologist, is more valuable than those people who get paid to research the climate?
Yes, those scientists who are talking about manmade climate change surely have a conflict of interest. After all, if their research shows that climate change is NOT happening, there wouldn’t be any research left to do! And then they would be robbed of their exorbitant salaries! Collusion, I tell you, conspiracy!
Or, there’s this: http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/01/23/climate.report.ap/index.html
How difficult would it be to find scientists that don’t have some kind of monetary stake in all of this?
So you only trust scientists who do their research as a hobby?
Exactly. Also, ever heard of peer review? (another thing you could probably look up on the Internets)
So you only trust scientists who do their research as a hobby?
Are you people deliberately being obtuse or were you born that way?
And Duros, it actually does matter. If the climate change is more of a direct result of natural occurrences rather than man-made, then the solutions (if any) would be different.
Jay says:
I’m not defending Hardiman and I could care less about his motives.
Then Jay says:
And we know that all scientists conduct their research with money given to them by the tooth fairy.
So for some reason Jay doesn’t care about the motives of a Bible thumping idiot, but he criticizes scientists because they’re trying to “make a buck “off gloabl warming.
You’re awesome, Jay. Just awesome.
I’m going to take a page from you, Jay. Next time my mechanic tells me there might be something wrong with my car, I’m going to ignore him because he stands to make money off it if it’s true.
Jesus.
You people are not understanding what I am talking about and it is not all that difficult.
Would any of you accept as gospel a study about gun crime from a researcher working on behalf of the NRA even if he was a criminologist? No.
I find it almost amusing that because the word ‘science’ is involved, people believe that science couldn’t be skewed in favor of a particular outcome.
There are big bucks involved. It would not be difficult to locate professional scientists that aren’t generating revenue from this issue to discuss it.
Also, try and listen to other people as well. I suggest people read up on climatologists like John Cristy and Richard Lindzen to see what they have to say about man made climate change.
I’m going to take a page from you, Jay. Next time my mechanic tells me there might be something wrong with my car, I’m going to ignore him because he stands to make money off it if it’s true.
Good example. And mechanics have never been known to inflate the problems associated with somebody’s car like telling them they need a new transmission when maybe all they need is a new flywheel.
I don’t think you could pick a worse possible example to ‘prove’ your point.
If the climate change is more of a direct result of natural occurrences rather than man-made, then the solutions (if any) would be different.
Ok, Lucy, ‘splain. How so?
There are big bucks involved.
This is in line with my theory that we will never find a cure for cancer for the same reasons.
Well, I did say “my mechanic”, whom I trust, rather than “some mechanic I’ve never heard of who’s telling me something different than a consortium of respected mechanics”. Perhaps I could have been clearer.
It’s fascinating how the wingnuts among us have a way of dismissing concepts like those proposed in Gore’s film, while often buy lock stock and barrel verbatim all that is written in the bible.
In keeping with the car anaolgy (irony, anyone?), I’ll revise mine from a couple of days ago.
If you’re driving down a mountain road with loose lug nuts holding your tire on, are you gonna stop and fix it or are you gonna keep going because there is no consensus that the nuts will come off and no one can say with absolute certainty how long it will take for the nuts to fall off and you’ll be killed?
I think it is better to err on the side of caution, regardless of the percentage of human cause. Maybe cow farts are solely responsible for climate change; does that mean we shouldn’t do anything because hey, it ain’t our fault, let the cows handle it.
Mr. Jay:
Those highly respected scientists you mentioned. Were their studies peer reviewed? Just wondering.
Mr. Jay:
You might also wish to read up on what Dr. James Dobson has to say about homosexualism and the age ofteh earth and evolution. The guy’s a doctor, you know.
Now i’m curious; Is there a rebuttal to An Inconvenient Truth? I mean, if these folks are up in arms about it being shown to kids in schools, do they have an alternative that can be shown or discussed?
Just asking.
Ok, Lucy, ‘splain. How so?
Treaties like Kyoto stem from the global warming debate and from the conclusion that such climate changes are for the most part, man-made. Would such a radical treaty be proposed were the climate changes natural in occurrence? I don’t think so.
The reason Gore’s film should not be shown in schools is because it is the theory of man-made global warming is accepted as concrete fact and that any contrarian viewpoint is immediately dismissed. That’s not ‘educational’ material.
And mechanics have never been known to inflate the problems associated with somebody’s car like telling them they need a new transmission when maybe all they need is a new flywheel.
A fair point, but if every certified mechanic in the state tells you the exact thing is wrong with your car, you’d be a fool not to get it fixed, wouldnt you?
Part of the problem here I think is that anybody who studies anthropogenic climate change from any side of the “argument” and does so professionally de facto has a vested financial interest (risk of losing their job) in being right. This is why I think we cannot reliable look at this scientist or that, but need to examine the data as a whole, and specifically not the number of, say, newspaper articles that frame global warming in terms of a debate between two sides, but in terms of science journal articles that have undergone rigorous vetting be professionals from all disciplines.
The article I pointed to was in fact about the concensus on Man’s effect on warming, showing the overwhelming consensus with the position of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that “Human activities … are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents … that absorb or scatter radiant energy. … [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations.” I realize how glib it is to say something like this is what Science says, but in a very real sense its true. The Scientific community through their standards for evidence, argument, proof and reason have fundamentally concluded that Global Warming (Anthro-Climate Change) is real. There is disagreement over extent and how best to address it, true, and that should be considered before any far reaching government program for instance to address the matter, but it doesnt change the fact that the matter being addressed is a very real one.
Also, I know its off topic and he’s not posting here anymore, but I need to say it to fill my addictive cravings, so Eat Dick Frank.
Jay,
If a scientist is getting paid by the tobacco industry to research the health effects of cigrarettes it makes sense to suspect the results. The tobacco industry, afterall, is not going to be paying people who prove that cigarettes will kill you, we have to assume.
That doesn’t mean the results should be automatically disregarded. They still need to be tested independently.
That said, how is this scenario in any way similar to global warming research? What industry with millions if not billions of dollars to spend has a vested interest in proving that global warming is man made? The alternative fuel industry? The electric car industry?
The point being that if global warming researchers are delivering suspect results to keep the research cash flowing, who are they delivering this research to who in turn stand to profit even more from dour predictions?
What industry or institution is profiting so greatly from the Kyoto Accord that it’s worth funnelling millions of dollars into research?
Finally, if some nefarious institutions are trying to stack the scientific deck with dubious research, bought and paid for, who are these institutions? What major corporations or foundations are funding this research?
Can you name them and then point to their vested economic interest in a certain conclusion?
You have a lor more explaining to do before anything you say makes any sense.
That’s because the “contrarian” argument is almost always oil-industry fueled b.s. in search of yet more fake “balance”.
Also Jay, a simple, binary (e.g., “yes” or “no”) question:
Were the studies by the scientists you mentioned peer reviewed?
Yes or no?
Thanks in advance!
(yes or no)
Is there any doubt that depletion of the ozone layer was caused by human internvention? I didn’t think so. The fact that that depletion occurred to such an extent in such a relatively short amount of time (what, since the invention of the aerosol can) is cause for concern. The fact that such chloroflourocarbons are not used to the same extent for the same purposes illustrates my point that no matter the cause, actions make a difference.
Like I and others have said, no matter the cause, what is the down side of changing our ways and reducing pollution?
The General has more on this:
http://patriotboy.blogspot.com/2007_01_21_patriotboy_archive.html#116969922157328428
“Strangely enough this will be proof again that evolution is real.”
Actually, no. It’s proof that ignorance can be prolonged by withdrawal from knowledge, but that’s not evolution.
Now, the argument that climate change may be real, but isn’t necessarily man-made is a little beside the point. If climate change is real, and the mechanism that’s driving at least part of it can come from man — CO2, for instance — then it dosen’t bloody matter whether man is causing it. Man can help or hinder the survival of his civilization by how he (us) reacts to the crisis. Keep doing things that make it worse, and, even if climate change (global warming) is NATURAL, bring on the tipping point that kills back the human population catastrophically, OR stop doing things that hasten the change, and at the very least buy some time to understand and adapt our society to the coming changes.
If the wheel is falling off, and we can keep it from falling off till we find a place to park, or pull over and fix it now, instead of where we’re going, we should do it. We can argue whether it’s your mechanic or my mechanic who forgot to tighten the lugs later.
Ed
That’s exactly what I’m saying.
Jay:
“There are big bucks involved.”
“I suggest people read up on climatologists like John Cristy and Richard Lindzen…”
Let’s see. John Cristy “has performed research funded by NASA, NOAA, DOE, DOT and the State of Alabama.”
Should we trust him? He’s getting paid for his research, so he’s obviously biased.
And Richard Lindzen has been published by the Cato Institute. He’s obviously biased, too.
Ed, I have to slightly disagree with you for the same reasons that I gave to Duros. If the changes are more natural than man-made, it does affect how we go about correcting anything. It’s the difference between something like the Kyoto Protocol and something more stripped down.
And Frame, I’m not talking about industries that will benefit (though there are quite a few – think the ethanol industry doesn’t have a stake in this?), nor am I accusing those scientists who have a financial stake in all of this (like multi-million dollar grants) of purposely fudging their work. But when you’re livelihood depends upon a conclusion those donors want to see proven, it’s not out of the realm of possibility that their judgment could be clouded. How many times have we seen science deliver cures or treatments for various afflictions in the form of medication only to find later that it produced deadly side effects?
Remember, just over 30 years ago, scientists were telling of a coming ice age. The NY Times wrote in May of 1975, “a major cooling of the climate is widely considered inevitable” since it was “well established” that the Northern Hemisphere’s climate “has been getting cooler since about 1950.” Various other warnings were in other science journals and magazines.
Were they right or were they wrong?
So Jay, just wondering if you could find the time to answer my simple, yes or no, question: Were the pertinent studies by the scientists you cited peer reviewed.
Thanks in advance!
Oh Jay. Also, if you could produce the specific studies from the New York times piece and the “Various other warnings were in other science journals and magazines” too. That would be swell.
Thanks in advance!
So, screw it then? Let the friggin’ cows figure it out, is that what you’re saying, Jay?
Personally, I don’t think the Kyoto protocols will accomplish much other than making industrialized nations feel better about themselves, so I can’t even imagine what a “stripped down” version would amount to.
when you’re livelihood depends upon a conclusion those donors want to see proven,
.. it should no longer be considered scientific. The term prostitution springs to mind.
How many times have we seen science deliver cures or treatments for various afflictions in the form of medication only to find later that it produced deadly side effects?
The inverse is also true.
Were they right or were they wrong?
I would have to say they were not wrong. doesn’t mean I think they were right either. Nice thing about time is you get to learn more as it goes on.
Or not.
Ed, last time I checked, I wasn’t your little frigging do-boy. Learn how to use Google.
o, screw it then? Let the friggin’ cows figure it out, is that what you’re saying, Jay?
No, that is not what I am saying at all. But I am also not going to be swayed by doomsday predictions based upon unproven conclusions.
Now Jay, no need to get snippy. Our (the “scientific”) side has produced peer reviewed studies to support our argument. It seems only fair that you might at least try to do so too.
Also, you say, “Various other warnings were in other science journals and magazines.” That’s kind of vague (not very “scientific” as it were). I’m not your “frigging do-boy”. Could you please be more specific? (If you could please also establish if these “various” studies were peer reviewed, that would also be helpful.)
Thanks in advance!
“But when you’re livelihood depends upon a conclusion those donors want to see proven …”
Jay, what donors? Who exactly wants it proven that global warming is real and man made and stands make more money back than what they are putting into the research.
You’re suggesting the ethanol industry? Seriously? Are you joking?
You can’t compare global warming research to pharmeceutical research or cigarette research unless you can give us a specific industry or company or foundation that stands to make a substantial profit from evidence that gloabl warming is real. In both other situations the answer is obvious: The pharmeceutical industry and the tobacco industry, both of which are billion industries that can afford to spend millions on scientific research.
I’ve seen plenty of evidence recently that major oil companies have been buying research to support to the opposite conclusion of most global warming science. Again, a billion dollar industry that can afford to spend millions on research to fight off even more expensive regulation.
Where are the fact cats getting rich off dire predictions of global warming? Name a few and then maybe you wouldn’t be a total idiot.
Frame, once again you come off as a total moron because you’re missing the point. Though it is obvious as the one on your head, it doesn’t have to be somebody that gets rich or “fat cats.”
I’m not going to continue wasting my time explaining it to you. It’s a complete waste of my time because you’re nothing but a hack.
Cheers
The very fact that the people who push the 1 degree increase in global temp since 1900 as a wholly manmade phenomenon must resort to arguing “consensus” is a clear indication of a fundamentally faulty substructure to their case. Since when does science depend upon a ‘consensus” ?
“Sir, we’ve voted. Storks migrate in each October and birth rates increase that month. Our scientific consensus is that storks bring babies. Now go out there and smear anybody who disagrees with you. Take away their professional credentials if they dare oppose the CONSENSUS.”
http://denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm
Check out Newsweek’s 1975 lament about what must be done to avert the next Ice Age. Notice how data from select time priods is marshalled to buttress the global cooling argument. How about sprinkling the Arctic and Antarctic with black powder. I mean scientists said it needed to be done and they neeed to act. Just like we do now.
Al Gore dodged Lomborg.
Dugger, you seem to be operating under a misapprehension. Consensus isnt the same as Voting on something, and very different to the sort of Mob Rule scenario you propose where nonbelievers in Stork-Baby correlations are lynched. By Consensus I’m referring to what data and argument remains after basically the entire scientific community has picked apart every detail of everything. This is why I’m sticking on the Peer-Reviewed Articles angle, because people on all sides of all debates will have had to go over the data, the methods, the facts, the theories, and conclude at the end of it all that it is sound and reasonable. Thats what is meany by scientific consensus, not five people saying that three of them have decided the Moon is made of cheese so it must be so.
Yes, Global cooling, a theory basically developed after the realization that global climate can be affected large-scale, turned out to be very wrongheaded, and the trick there is how little scientific support of the theory there was when trying to compare it to Global warming. Yes, to have acted in the way you describe would have been severely irresponsible given the circumstances, and tehre again is another distinction. Black Powder might have damaged the global ecosystem for all we know. What damage is going to be done to it by me getting an Energy Smart home and driving a hybrid car? What damage will be done by getting on to alternative energies (well okay Hydroelectric dams can screw things up a bit, I suppose) instead of staying on a limited petrochemical resource? From what I remember of Gore’s movie (which, for the record, I didnt much care for) he’s not suggesting global initiatives as much as he is private efforts to conserve. Where, I ask you, is the harm?
Also, had you considered that maybe a former vice president trying to promote a film doesnt necessarily have time to speak to every random scientist with a discredited book?
“I’m not going to continue wasting my time explaining it to you.”
Global warming researchers are addicted to easy money? What tainted sources are all this money coming from, Jay? You have yet to make a legitimate case that any such sources exist.
So, yes, please, do us all a favor and stop trying to explain why we should be suspicious of global warming research without a shred of evidence on which to base such a claim.
rex,
Well Lomborg wrote a bestseller and believes in man made warming. They were to appear together and Gore nixed it. Lomborg has been the victim of an orchestrated smear campaign by rad enviros – including physical violence.
And actually I am all for sensible conservation of all sorts. But I believe in a hard-headed cost-benefit anlysis before we damage people’s lives and national economies – which is not possible if one side cooks the books, or restricts the debate.
I’ll ask again: what has “science” firmly established as to the percent of manmade versus natural causes re the recent 100-year or so small spike in global warming. Not correlations, not suspicions but proven through scientific method. And if it hasn’t been proven, why should we take any drastic steps until we know. They were saying in 1975 we couldn’t wait to take steps to avert global cooling. Now they are saying the same things about global warming. And already, ALREADY, these same backers of the all-manmade global warming theory have changed their tune. The Al Gore ocean rise doomsday scenario is being backed away from.
For the record I dont even agree with Gore’s prognostications of the doom to come, or of the limited amount of time we have to work with before we reach a “tipping point”, but I suppose I’m not as well read on the meat of the matter as I would like to be so I’m not going to debate either side of that particularly.
And yes there should also be a reasoned cost-benefit analysis as far as switching energy types and conservation. Forcing any person or country or whatever to adopt measures they cannot afford is a problem that needs to be addressed to mitigate potential damage and spread potential good in more detail than I could possibly offer here. (One potential plan would be for a developing country to ask say the US for a loan to become more energy efficient and pay it back over time with their savings in fuel costs and such, but I digress)
Frankly there are a number of reasons Gore might have not wanted to do the Lomborg debate with Jyllands-Posten, not least of which might involve the thing with their publishing the mohammad cartoons, being associated with them might make it a challange to spread his conservatory message to the muslim world for instance. Or maybe its a problem with Lomborg personally, as I linked there are several relevant criticisms of his scientific methods. I believe Mr. Gore should debate this sort of thing publically, but that doesnt mean he has to do so with every person who disagrees with him. I wish I could correctly attribute the quote here: “That would look very good on your resume, but not on mine.”
…I honestly cant even imagine why I said conservatory when I clearly meant conservationalist…
Rex
I’m not about to say anything about anybody’s typing problems.
Lomborg is not a fly-by-nighter and actually does not so much dispute the majority- view science of global warming but the estimated impacts and various catastrophes. He says the likely outcome using UN data etc, is not particularly dire and does not warrant major expenditure of bucks.
I once emailed and had a decent discussion with an English enviro who hit Lomborg with a pie (and proudly bragged about it). Asked him why he would do such a thing. His response was that it wasn’t so bad and freedom of speech etc.
Al Gore dodged Lomborg.
Lomborg? The “I’m going to need you to go ahead and come in this weekend” guy from Office Space?
Uh, dude, he’s fictional.