anti-intellectualism

[Pepperkorn]

There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."

Quoted from Newsweek Jan 21, 1980

Relevant today -- or ever?

Discuss!

[oofrostonoo]

Quoted from Newsweek Jan 21, 1980

Relevant today -- or ever?

Discuss!

Of course I think it's very relevant. Look at the debate on Climate Change. So many republicans seem to be against it because it's being used to impose government regulations on business; not because there is actually any substantial data to prove otherwise.... The public isn't going to go out and do research or try to understand what peer review is, and weather or not there actually is much legitimate doubt over climate change.

Religious people in this country think science is the enemy in so many cases...

[DevilMinder]

Holy moly does this topic rile me up. You should see the debates I have had at work. Two of our clients on the total opposite spectrums got into a shouting match in our waiting room over this. The talking network heads are dividing this county right down the middle all in the name of ratings.

[DevilMinder]

It almost seems like the consensus is gone, the middle ground. Its I am right and you are wrong, not listening any more nah nah nah (plugs ears).

[devilsfan26]

Holy moly does this topic rile me up. You should see the debates I have had at work. Two of our clients on the total opposite spectrums got into a shouting match in our waiting room over this. The talking network heads are dividing this county right down the middle all in the name of ratings.

Yep and while everyone is distracted by the Democrat vs. Republican game, they work together to make sure nobody else can challenge them. Divide and conquer.

[Jerrydevil]

Quoted from Newsweek Jan 21, 1980

Relevant today -- or ever?

Discuss!

It's relevant. I think it's important to understand that "anti-intellectualism" is a pushback against the liberalism rife in colleges and universities ... not to mention that most teachers who work in grammar schools and high schools are left-leaning. That's what "anti-intellectualism" means to me. It doesn't mean embracing stupid, although some people do take it that far.

[devilsadvoc8]

I'll just let this slide.

Edited September 20, 2011 by devilsadvoc8

[DevsMan84]

Of course I think it's very relevant. Look at the debate on Climate Change. So many republicans seem to be against it because it's being used to impose government regulations on business; not because there is actually any substantial data to prove otherwise.... The public isn't going to go out and do research or try to understand what peer review is, and weather or not there actually is much legitimate doubt over climate change.

Religious people in this country think science is the enemy in so many cases...

I guess that whole scandal where that leading British scientist who made a big stink a few years ago about Polar Bears habitats were being destroyed due to Climate change only to have his methods called into question is nothing. I guess that in the last few years many studies refuting so-called "evidence" of global warming and climate change is being debunked.

Let's face it: the Earth is a not just some rock in space. Its top layer is made of living and breathing organisms and a planet with such diverse lifeforms is subject of going through long stretches of different temps. In fact, many scientists agree that we just started coming out of a mini ice-age since the mid 1800's. The temp is bound to change for stretches and it will vary a few degrees but this is over a thousands and millions of years. Let's put a lid on this.

This just proves that the cult of stupid or ignorance comes from both sides. Those who want to be in hysterics and not believe anyone else and those who choose to ignore the hysterical even if they may be right.

[Pepperkorn]

The above may be true on a local level, but it's not a global/presidential issue any more. Speaking out against the truth of global warming won't affect policy - it's just a talking point. I personally like my talking points to be based on fact not rote preaching that insult everyone's intelligence.

Choosing to say "There is no global warming" is the same as saying "Evolution is a myth" and any presidential candidate who DOES say that has zero personal integrity - because these candidates are highly educated people with plenty of personal resource. They are lying - deliberately misleading solely for personal gain. I find that repugnant. I find that BEYOND elitist as those same people label an educated stand point. I cannot imagine how anyone would trust a person like that to run the country. You're not part of his special society. YOU ARE PART OF THAT SAME COMMON ELEMENT HE IS TALKING DOWN TO. To lie that is to show nothing but distain for your constituency in my opinion.

So as for global warming as an issue -- we have scientific consensus. It is real and the human industrial era has had a statistically relevant impact. Clearly we have global consensus it is real. The issue at hand is more of a who blinks first thing -it's jockeying for position.

There are small steps being taken. It's much like the nuclear arms race. You're holding loaded guns at one and other - SOMEONE will be profitting off of the remaining natural fuel resources. No one wants to get shafted. And it's in the US best interests to ensure we lose no economic ground. BUT -- the resources WILL be gone and someone will need to fill the void. The US has traditionally had the engenuity and work ethic to sneak in and fill the VOID not grapple for the remaining scraps -- but that's got to be industries job not the federal govt.

THAT is a REAL PLATFORM. THAT is truth. All I ask is truth. but some dumb fvck like Rick Perry will shout down common sense, screaming "HYSTERIA HYSTERIA" hysterically.

Edited September 20, 2011 by Pepperkorn

[MantaRay]

I guess that whole scandal where that leading British scientist who made a big stink a few years ago about Polar Bears habitats were being destroyed due to Climate change only to have his methods called into question is nothing. I guess that in the last few years many studies refuting so-called "evidence" of global warming and climate change is being debunked.

There was no debunked methodology, only more oil company PR/propoganda.

Politicians and interest groups that deny climate change is happening leaped on the Monnett suspension story. They are misleading the public by falsely discrediting scientific findings about the impacts of climate change on polar bears, even though BOEMRE has subsequently clarified that the suspension was not based on any concerns over Monnett’s published science, but rather on some-yet-to-be identified concerns over whether appropriate administrative processes were followed.

The facts remain that climate change is real.

[DevsMan84]

There was no debunked methodology, only more oil company PR/propoganda.

Politicians and interest groups that deny climate change is happening leaped on the Monnett suspension story. They are misleading the public by falsely discrediting scientific findings about the impacts of climate change on polar bears, even though BOEMRE has subsequently clarified that the suspension was not based on any concerns over Monnett’s published science, but rather on some-yet-to-be identified concerns over whether appropriate administrative processes were followed.

The facts remain that climate change is real.

And these people who scream about climate change are telling the truth and not pushing their own agenda?

What about that whole scandal a year or two ago where emails between leading climate change "scientists" proved they were cooking their statistics to their favor even when evidence was thin at best? I guess that is more Oil company PR BS?

BOEMRE first reported it was over his methodology, but only when it became a big scandal where they backtracked to making it just a administrative issue. Do you believe their initial assessement or their assessment after the sh!t hit the fan and they had to protect themselves?

Also, how much has Al Gore made through the introduction of green carbon credits his company (he has an interest in the company that buys and sells green credits) made with his scare tactics? A recent report came out saying that his company is failing as more and more companies are seeing what a waste of money it is and that it makes minimal impact at best at a huge cost. Gore really did well in his snakeoil salesman pitch with these credits and now I hear he is moving on to other causes.

Keep drinking the climate change Kool-Aid. Raising the temperature 1 or 2 degrees is nothing when you see the entire scope of Earth's history that the average temperature CHANGES over time and like the stock market it has peaks and valleys.

This is one of the greatest cons in history of mankind.

[Pepperkorn]

You know - Gore has made very little compared to big oil (Bush, Cheney, Rice -- all Big Oil Babies from the last administration). It's so silly to try to haul out to divert the point. Gore is just trying to put his money where his mouth is. If there was any significant money to be made, there would be investment in alternative energy. We ain't so dumb as to beleive Al Gore invented climate change to make a few dollars on the side. You can try to pound it through - but why? The point isn't going to deflect from the reality of global warming. Like I said the reality of climate change and man's part in that, is now a non-issue globally. We message boarders should let go of it too. The issue is the profit to be made. and the profit is to be made at mankind's long term loss. I think you need to start from that point. To not do so is untruthful.

But it does raise an issue that kind of bums me out.

or maybe it's a question...

So Warren Buffit says global warming is real and we need to invest in alternative energy... but his major investment now is the coal industry - he's got controlling interest. So what does that say? I'm not sure how I feel about it. He's betting we'll make the wrong choice. So is that ethical? Investing based not on your personal integrity, but on what you know human frailty will beget? it's so profoundly cynical... I ought to research how he responds to the question - I'm sure someone has put it to him if I've thought of it.

Edited September 20, 2011 by Pepperkorn

[oofrostonoo]

And these people who scream about climate change are telling the truth and not pushing their own agenda?

What about that whole scandal a year or two ago where emails between leading climate change "scientists" proved they were cooking their statistics to their favor even when evidence was thin at best? I guess that is more Oil company PR BS?

BOEMRE first reported it was over his methodology, but only when it became a big scandal where they backtracked to making it just a administrative issue. Do you believe their initial assessement or their assessment after the sh!t hit the fan and they had to protect themselves?

Also, how much has Al Gore made through the introduction of green carbon credits his company (he has an interest in the company that buys and sells green credits) made with his scare tactics? A recent report came out saying that his company is failing as more and more companies are seeing what a waste of money it is and that it makes minimal impact at best at a huge cost. Gore really did well in his snakeoil salesman pitch with these credits and now I hear he is moving on to other causes.

Keep drinking the climate change Kool-Aid. Raising the temperature 1 or 2 degrees is nothing when you see the entire scope of Earth's history that the average temperature CHANGES over time and like the stock market it has peaks and valleys.

This is one of the greatest cons in history of mankind.

I'm not sure what their agenda achieves? What is the goal of someone who can read numbers, correlate a trend and report the information? Is there some kind of secret big payday?

The overwhelming consensus of scientists seem to be countered with smaller inflated issues like the email "scandal" two years ago. How does this one study out of tens of thousands delegitimize the rest? People AMPLIFY these problems and present them as equal sides. There is no debate among experts and people who work using the scientific method and peer review.

The only debate is among politicians who fear this could lead to government regulation on businesses. Boo fvcking hoo.

[Jerrydevil]

This is one of the greatest cons in history of mankind.

Indeed it is. In the name of the green movement, Western governments have heaped regulations on several industries ... great idea during a recession, too.

It seems as if the U.K. is trying to kill their aviation industry under the guise of "environmentalism." When they first jacked up their passenger tax a few years ago (they have increased it at least two times since), liberal politicians pitched the increase as a way to lessen emissions from air travel, when the truth is that none of the money went toward "green" inititaives. The U.K.'s treasury gets every nickel.

In this country we use "environmentalism" to hurt farmers and ensure that we are dependent on Saudi oil, among other terrible policy decisions. That's what makes it a con. It's a big-government feed-the-beast ruse, this green movement.

[DevsMan84]

I'm not sure what their agenda achieves? What is the goal of someone who can read numbers, correlate a trend and report the information? Is there some kind of secret big payday?

The overwhelming consensus of scientists seem to be countered with smaller inflated issues like the email "scandal" two years ago. How does this one study out of tens of thousands delegitimize the rest? People AMPLIFY these problems and present them as equal sides. There is no debate among experts and people who work using the scientific method and peer review.

The only debate is among politicians who fear this could lead to government regulation on businesses. Boo fvcking hoo.

That one report was the basis and foundation and was referenced for the tens of thousands of other reports that came out from the Climate Change zealots. When you have a foundation that is faulty, the building is then usually in jeopardy.

[Pepperkorn]

Keep drinking the climate change Kool-Aid. Raising the temperature 1 or 2 degrees is nothing when you see the entire scope of Earth's history that the average temperature CHANGES over time and like the stock market it has peaks and valleys.

This is one of the greatest cons in history of mankind.

Really? You honestly think that? It's not just an economic thing you're BSing through?

I never would have thought that... thats cool. So with sincerity I ask:

What is the con? What are the logistics?

Al Gore perpetrates the greatest con in the history of mankind... If I thought that was possible I'd have voted for the dude!

So where does the whole non-renewable part enter in to the equation?

Clearly you see things in a different way than I do and I'm eager to read what you think.

[DevsMan84]

Indeed it is. In the name of the green movement, Western governments have heaped regulations on several industries ... great idea during a recession, too.

It seems as if the U.K. is trying to kill their aviation industry under the guise of "environmentalism." When they first jacked up their passenger tax a few years ago (they have increased it at least two times since), liberal politicians pitched the increase as a way to lessen emissions from air travel, when the truth is that none of the money went toward "green" inititaives. The U.K.'s treasury gets every nickel.

In this country we use "environmentalism" to hurt farmers and ensure that we are dependent on Saudi oil, among other terrible policy decisions. That's what makes it a con. It's a big-government feed-the-beast ruse, this green movement.

Of course and many times while trying to reach their goals it turns out to be counter-productive.

Of course you can never question the Climate Change debate because if you ever do, you are either ignorant, stupid, or just siding with Big Oil.

A few years ago everyone bought into the whole vaccine was causing autism garbage. How did they know? Well because many thousands of "doctors" said it was happening. When they found out that the thousands of doctors were really trying to push their little side business of alternative medicines and that they were all basing their report on one British doctor's report that was later completely shown to be false in both his findings and methodology, his scam was exposed. All that we have left are thousands of kids who were either very ill or died because of diseases they should have been vaccinated for but because of these experts (including that idiot Jenny McCarthy) people bought into their hysterics and didnt vaccinate their children.

Even with all of these FACTS showing what BS the anti-vaccination crowd is, there is still a good number of people who are buying into these because of two things: 1) because they just know it according to them and 2) these idiot doctors who made money off of them are perpetuating this myth.

I see the same thing happening with the Climate change crowd, just on a bigger scale. They will never realize that temps over the history of Earth change and we are just on an upswing. They will still believe we should have signed the Kyoto Accords (how come China and India are allowed to spew as much smoke and coal into the air while the US cannot?). It is just a never-ending mass hysteria.

[DevsMan84]

Really? You honestly think that? It's not just an economic thing you're BSing through?

I never would have thought that... thats cool. So with sincerity I ask:

What is the con? What are the logistics?

Al Gore perpetrates the greatest con in the history of mankind... If I thought that was possible I'd have voted for the dude!

So where does the whole non-renewable part enter in to the equation?

Clearly you see things in a different way than I do and I'm eager to read what you think.

First he creates hysterics-->He convinces companies and governments to buy carbon credits or he will tell the public that these big, bad companies are contributing to global warming--> he invests heavily in company that sells carbon credits-- Profit$$$$$

By the way do you know the Sierra club hates wind farms and a lot of renewable energy sources? Yeah how many thousands windmills do we need to equal the output of 1 nuclear plant? How many more birds will be killed by these huge windmills (there was an article back a couple years ago where environmentalists were trying to stop windmill building because it killed so many birds and disrupting their migration). Solar farms are a joke in terms of output and reliability like wind farms.

Oh and let me ask you, how come former Mr environmentalist in the senate from Mass, the late Ted Kennedy was pushing for wind farms off the coast of Mass, but then when he saw they would build it close to his family compound was against it? Yeah, Mr. intelligent environmentalist cannot practice what he preaches.

Hypocrites.

[MantaRay]

First he creates hysterics-->He convinces companies and governments to buy carbon credits or he will tell the public that these big, bad companies are contributing to global warming--> he invests heavily in company that sells carbon credits-- Profit$$$$$

By the way do you know the Sierra club hates wind farms and a lot of renewable energy sources? Yeah how many thousands windmills do we need to equal the output of 1 nuclear plant? How many more birds will be killed by these huge windmills (there was an article back a couple years ago where environmentalists were trying to stop windmill building because it killed so many birds and disrupting their migration). Solar farms are a joke in terms of output and reliability like wind farms.

Oh and let me ask you, how come former Mr environmentalist in the senate from Mass, the late Ted Kennedy was pushing for wind farms off the coast of Mass, but then when he saw they would build it close to his family compound was against it? Yeah, Mr. intelligent environmentalist cannot practice what he preaches.

Hypocrites.

Victory to the Oil Company's and other pollution based industries! They made you a great pet.

[Pepperkorn]

Well - reading above from all who think it's a con - it's the same end. It's political jockeying. Whether global warming is real or not is a moot point - we need to curb the population anyhow so...I dont give a fvck if half of us fry The negotiations between party lines and countries is the same - you're just changing your justification.

Interesting. I don't believe that global warming is fiction. That doesn't make your points invalid or stupid.

As far as regulation -- the resources are running out - that cannot be contested. We'll just say global warming was falsely established to create an urgency for people who stand to make the most when the resources run out - who will actually be dead by then and don't trust their progeny to earn it I guess... you guys can help me out with that one - articulate the urgency a little more for me if that doesn't work for you.

So... seeking out alternative energy is still a wise long-term investment strategy.

I'm confused as to why regulating corporations would be good for government as well. Especially if it's on a global scale. How does the government gain from FAILING corporations? On a global scale you're writing about here JerryD soo ... I'm not sure I follow.

Edited September 20, 2011 by Pepperkorn

[Microwavepizza]

Everyone has their own agenda, scientists, politicians, whoever... thats humanity and how we get people on our side, but facts are facts, and those with facts should use them to help us as humans and this planet for the better...

the situation is the planet IS changing... we've seen some INSANE hurricanes over the last 15 years, a major increase in Tornados in the Midwest, some devastating droughts in the south... and thats only here on this side of the world... there was a MASSIVE flood in Pakistan, droughts all around Africa, and some of the harshest winters around europe and northern Asia ever seen by humans,

Now these things could have some part of a natural lifecycle... however, they are now becoming the norm, and that isn't something that should be happening.

The real issue is, the higher ups in this country (government, million/billionaires) don't want to do anything about it... why should they? they are making money now, who the hell cares about the future... this is now, and now is important to them.

Someday, the oil in this world will be GONE, its already getting there, and they want to work with Oil sands, which is just another non-renewable fossil fuel shoving more carbon into the atmosphere. New technologies are coming out, but companies like Chevron, Shell, ExxonMobile, etc, are enjoying the status quo. The transition to renewable energy is really in its infancy, and there not much funding it toward it compared to the funding toward oil and natural gas extraction... until the big energy companies can make billions off of renewables nothing will get done on a large scale.

People in america don't want to know about anything, they want things to just appear in Wal-Mart so they can buy it and use it and let OTHER people figure things out, which is why this country is in such crappy shape in so many ways... "eh, someone else will do it (for me)"

[Pepperkorn]

Victory to the Oil Company's and other pollution based industries! They made you a great pet.

No seriously -- I appreciate the logic being applied. it never made sense to me. it's all illusory let's just say.... this is interesting. Help understand don't shout 'em down. My husband won't even listen -- but that's because he's a lover of nature and a survivor. I like to see all sides to a thing.

[DevsMan84]

Well - reading above from all who think it's a con - it's the same end. It's political jockeying. Whether global warming is real or not is a moot point - we need to curb the population anyhow so...I dont give a fvck if half of us fry The negotiations between party lines and countries is the same - you're just changing your justification.

Interesting. I don't believe that global warming is fiction. That doesn't make your points invalid or stupid.

As far as regulation -- the resources are running out - that cannot be contested. We'll just say global warming was falsely established to create an urgency for people who stand to make the most when the resources run out - who will actually be dead by then and don't trust their progeny to earn it I guess... you guys can help me out with that one - articulate the urgency a little more for me if that doesn't work for you.

So... seeking out alternative energy is still a wise long-term investment strategy.

I'm confused as to why regulating corporations would be good for government as well. Especially if it's on a global scale. How does the government gain from FAILING corporations? On a global scale you're writing about here JerryD soo ... I'm not sure I follow.

When I was in the 5th grade in school in 95, we we told by a guest speaker that there will be no more oil reserves by the year 2000.

When I was in 10th grade in 2000, we were told by our teachers that there would be no more oil reserves by the year 2010 as it was also written in our text books.

What am I supposed to believe now? This is what the liberal media and think tanks want us to believe, that there is this great shortage of oil and that it will run out ASAP.

I do believe that alternate forms of energy need to be developed, but we should quit wasting our time on wind and solar and focus on other sources. About a decade ago a former founding member of Greenpeace said he supported the building of new nuclear power stations as they provide a lot of power and do not pollute like coal and oil plants. (We haven't had a new nuclear facility built since at least 1980 so they are much safer today). However because of what happened in Japan this year that idea will most certainly be rejected.

There is a ton of money to be made by going "green" and when I see these people crying about the Climate change while also accepting money for carbon credits, it just makes me think they are no better than big oil. At least big oil doesn't create hysterics to get customers.

[DevsMan84]

Everyone has their own agenda, scientists, politicians, whoever... thats humanity and how we get people on our side, but facts are facts, and those with facts should use them to help us as humans and this planet for the better...

the situation is the planet IS changing... we've seen some INSANE hurricanes over the last 15 years, a major increase in Tornados in the Midwest, some devastating droughts in the south... and thats only here on this side of the world... there was a MASSIVE flood in Pakistan, droughts all around Africa, and some of the harshest winters around europe and northern Asia ever seen by humans,

Now these things could have some part of a natural lifecycle... however, they are now becoming the norm, and that isn't something that should be happening.

The real issue is, the higher ups in this country (government, million/billionaires) don't want to do anything about it... why should they? they are making money now, who the hell cares about the future... this is now, and now is important to them.

Someday, the oil in this world will be GONE, its already getting there, and they want to work with Oil sands, which is just another non-renewable fossil fuel shoving more carbon into the atmosphere. New technologies are coming out, but companies like Chevron, Shell, ExxonMobile, etc, are enjoying the status quo. The transition to renewable energy is really in its infancy, and there not much funding it toward it compared to the funding toward oil and natural gas extraction... until the big energy companies can make billions off of renewables nothing will get done on a large scale.

People in america don't want to know about anything, they want things to just appear in Wal-Mart so they can buy it and use it and let OTHER people figure things out, which is why this country is in such crappy shape in so many ways... "eh, someone else will do it (for me)"

Since 2005 I keep hearing a recycled report that the upcoming hurricane season will break the 2005 record. And every year that doesn't happen.

These types of things happen all the time. Did you know in the early 1800's (I believe 1815) a volcano erupted in Indonesia and spewed so much ash into the air that it formed a global haze over the entire planet where the summer temps we way below norm? It is often called the "Year without a Summer." This sh!t happens and they did not go about and claim that the earth is changing and we need to spend money to save it.

Also meteors hit the Earth all the time (more often than most people realize), but most are either small chunks that do not do much, hit in the middle of nowhere or in the ocean. Do we need to create a defense network then against meteors?

[Pepperkorn]

A few years ago everyone bought into the whole vaccine was causing autism garbage. How did they know? Well because many thousands of "doctors" said it was happening. When they found out that the thousands of doctors were really trying to push their little side business of alternative medicines and that they were all basing their report on one British doctor's report that was later completely shown to be false in both his findings and methodology, his scam was exposed. All that we have left are thousands of kids who were either very ill or died because of diseases they should have been vaccinated for but because of these experts (including that idiot Jenny McCarthy) people bought into their hysterics and didnt vaccinate their children.

Even with all of these FACTS showing what BS the anti-vaccination crowd is, there is still a good number of people who are buying into these because of two things: 1) because they just know it according to them and 2) these idiot doctors who made money off of them are perpetuating this myth.

I see the same thing happening with the Climate change crowd, just on a bigger scale. They will never realize that temps over the history of Earth change and we are just on an upswing. They will still believe we should have signed the Kyoto Accords (how come China and India are allowed to spew as much smoke and coal into the air while the US cannot?). It is just a never-ending mass hysteria.

How funny is that? I ALWAYS thought the vaccine stuff was complete crap. Absolutely NO scientific justification. All scientists were horrified at the irresponsibility of it all. It's good to see who it is you think is touting climate change. ... except -- you're anti-climate change data is as reliable as the anti-vaccine data. You're on the wrong side of the scientific fence on climate change if you're going to equate the two. You'd be the guy saying the danger of vaccine is very real because one guy's marginal study says so.

An interesting a telling analogy - but inconsistent with scientific consensus.