British writer whines that McDonald’s using local ingredients and localizing its Italian menu is an insult to Italians. Huh. I always thought the criticism of McDonald’s was that it was too regimented, cookie-cutter, and culturally hegemonic. Now they’re criticized for catering to local tastes.
Job opening for losers!
Conan O’Brien is a classy guy.
“A Nation of Racist Dwarves.”
Bruce Schneier: “In order to comply with government search warrants on user data, Google created a backdoor access system into Gmail accounts. This feature is what the Chinese hackers exploited to gain access.”
UN climate change panel based claims about disappearing ice on a student dissertation and an article in a mountaineering magazine.
This entry was posted
on Tuesday, February 2nd, 2010 at 10:03 am by Radley Balko
and is filed under Uncategorized.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
TheAgitator.com
Regarding Conan: The union representing his stagehands said it was “very happy” that O’Brien paid severance to his former stagehands. Why didn’t the union pick up the tab? You’d think that unexpected unemployment benefits would be something a union might cover, especially one as prominent as the IATSE.
The vast majority of scientific research appears in student dissertations. I’ll need a little more information about why this particular student dissertation is believed to be as unreliable as a mountaineering magazine before I think ill of it.
I have found a good reason not to switch to gmail.
Well, knowing that the federal government requires backdoor access to almost every communications network product in use by common carriers, I feel really really secure against cyber terror attacks.
Thanks, U.S. government, for sacrificing the security of our public network infrastructure for the high-minded goal of pursuing your illegal, but always forgiven, warrantless intrusions into the personal business of U.S. citizens, hoping to catch some poor nitwit in the act of naively thinking they have privacy. Knowing that the free and easy exchange of information is the biggest threat facing any government, I’m quite sure the Chinese are exceptionally grateful to have you on their side in the fight to bring the internet under total government control. I would call you a name, but words to accurately express the ultra-galactic magnitude of your incompetent and treasonous abuse of power have not yet been invented.
The physical disparities between North and South Koreans made me think of P.J. O’Roarke’s descriptions of East Germans shortly after the wall came down.
In the Philippines, all of the fast food restaurants (McD’s, BK, Wendy’s, KFC, JITB, etc.) sell the standard Filipino fast food meal: a piece of fried chicken and some spaghetti with a hot-dog sauce, along with a 12-oz drink. This along with the standard burgers, chicken sandwiches, etc.
Click on “Chicken”:
http://www.mcdelivery.com.ph/
I’m sure that they do something similar in each country.
More info:
http://trifter.com/practical-travel/budget-travel/mcdonald’s-strange-menu-around-the-world/
They’ve found three poorly sourced claims in a massive document. Right.
Now, if they’d had found NONE, I’d of actually been more suspicious that someone was rigging the input data.
Re: Conan,
I’m usually a live and let live guy and don’t concern myself with most issues concerning famous people (I really could care less), especially when they involve a lot of drama. Having said that, I find myself wishing that the new Leno show fails miserably, and I mean even worse than the show he left to return to Conan’s spot.
Is this wrong?
BTW, I really want a McItaly now.
Got to love how how being militaristic, xenophobic, and racist makes North Korea far right now that communism is no longer explicitly promoted…
I think Hitchens was just repeating what the book’s author said without examining it though.
The author of the climate change article unsurprisingly is unfamiliar with how academic research works. Most research is done by graduate students and published in their theses. Of course, the majority of it is also published in peer reviewed journals as well. Occasionally useful nuggets are only in the thesis and don’t make it into journal articles.
Regardless, the issue here is not that the results are in the thesis, but that they are based solely on anecdotal evidence from untrained observers who cannot have possibly actually witnessed the relevant phenomenon because of the long time scale associated with it.
I wish the author of this article had done a better job focusing on the real issue.
Globe and Mail: Newfoundland Premier Danny Williams is scheduled for heart surgery in the United States, a move that throws into question his province’s and his nation’s health-care system.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/danny-williams-to-undergo-heart-surgery-in-us/article1452524/
Financial Times: US Housing Bubble v2.0
http://ftalphaville.ft.com/blog/2010/02/01/138151/us-housing-bubble-v2-0/
The second one really pisses me off. Those government assholes, after 2 years of “the free market caused the housing crash because they didn’t have to answer to Us Smart People who would never be so short-sighted as to keep housing prices artificially high”, are simultaneously saying “look, we’re keeping housing artificially high for you, love us, love us.” Look at the graph in the article and tell me that’s not a PERFECT description of the government’s actions in creating Housing Bubble v1.0.
@#2 delurking:
I don’t think the problem is that they were referencing a research article by a student, but that the student was attempting to obtain a *geography* degree and that the study in no way made conclusions as to the cause of the decrease in ice. After reading the linked article, it seems that the paper was an attempt to classify safety changes relating to the difference in ice composition while mountaineering on the effected areas.
If that is the case, the research is related to X, and the UN makes conclusion Y about the data that may have nothing to do with it and was not conducted to support that conclusion with proper controls. That’s no how scientific studies are supposed to work.
I hate it when foreigners bitch about American chains opening overseas as if their culture is really being destroyed by Coke and Starbuchs. Culture doesn’t get destroyed, it changes. America absorbs foreign culture like a sponge and changes constantly, propably more than anywhere else on Earth. (Canada is probably a close 2nd) I like how this writer claims that McDonalds is homogeneous, bland, and all the same. Then goes on to state that Italy is great because everything is homogenously Italian everywhere.
Imagine the international horror if we kicked out all the Chinese, Mexican, and other ethnic restruants claiming that they were destroying our local Anglo-Saxon based culture. Europeans display a tremendous amount of hipocritical xenophobia. Which really makes them a lot more like us than they would like to admit to.
@ phlinn | February 2nd, 2010 at 11:43 am
Every communist regime has turned ultra-nationalist and even racist. This is not a new phenomenon.
The “workers of the world” slogans are strictly meant for the foreign apologists for the horrors inflicted upon the people of the ‘communist’ states.
@10: “Then goes on to state that Italy is great because everything is homogenously Italian everywhere.”
We must have read different articles. In mine, the author celebrates the non-homogeneity of Italian cuisine, with its diversity granular to the village, almost to the house.
Shitty article in any case.
Didn’t you know that McDonalds is secretly borrowing from Microsoft’s playbook to “embrace and extend” local cuisines so it can dominate everywhere?
@ #10 | Mattocracy | February 2nd, 2010 at 12:24 pm
Dear god! I’d have to leave. Probably move to Mexico. Not eating Mexican at least once a week is un-American I tell ya!
And of course the whole McDonald’s (starbucks, et al) thing is more of the Liberal elitists telling everyone what is best. I always loved how they rioted at McDonald’s in France. I’ve never understood any of it. If it’s so awful and such an insult to your culture, don’t eat there. But ah, they do. The lowly serfs eat there and so they profit and open more.
@Mattocracy
You do realize that if you use e-mail over the internet at all – it goes over a public network in the clear right? If you want to keep your e-mail communications secret – use encryption.
Unless you are willing to say “anthropogenic global warming is not real,” then I don’t understand the point of highlighting months old stories about relatively minor data errors in specific publications.
All you are doing is spreading a belief in the truth or falsity of something for which you have no actual evidence. Sound familiar?
Encryption, is considered probable cause which permits them to completely wire your entire house with audio and video and add you to the do-not-fly list and ship you off to a secret prison in an Eastern Block country where they pummel and waterboard you until you admit to having sex with farm animals and being “linked” to al qaeda and are then never heard from again.
Oops. Never mind. I forgot they can do that even if they don’t have probable cause.
A Brit telling Italians what food they should eat. Now I have heard everything.
Mr. Schneier is giving a free lecture at Boise State University this thursday, Feb. 4th @7p.m.. Not sure how many Agitatortots are in the Treasure Valley but here’s more info if you’re interested:
http://news.boisestate.edu/update/2010/02/01/bruce-schneier/
The issue with the global warming ‘debate’ is the recurring theme of fundamentally bad science. Nobody of consequence is denying the existence of climate change. Or even warming. Any more, the larger concern for me is that political ideology drove the science, not the other way around. Even if the end result was correct, it is a bad precedent that scientifically enlightened cultures should have long since evolved beyond, not fallen back into.
The very idea that it became ‘unpopular’ to question the science flies in the face of what science is all about. The simple existence of bigotry and hate towards anyone that suggests we may not be drawing the right conclusions from the data, or that further study is justified, is unacceptable among anyone truly dedicated to letting observation drive the conclusions and not the reverse.
Each time someone suggests there may be more to surmise from the research into climate change, and all of supporters, in a bizarre Pavlovian response of vitriol, start yelling “They are paid by the oil companies!” or “There is a consensus!” or “Conspiracy!” it belittles their own position.
Strong scientific positions can withstand continued examination of the data. When people fall under attack, or even lose their jobs, for not going along with a given conclusion or when politics and ideology can stifle further examination of a set of variables, true science cannot survive. When so many people outside of the scientific community have planted their flag on one set of conclusions so strongly that simple discussion of alternative conclusions causes so much distress, then cognitive dissonance alone will keep people married to their stance even when it is self-destroying. That may not be the case in this particular subject, but it has laid the groundwork for future scientific debate and conclusions to be made based on popular belief and not good science.
Sorry for the long post. Cheers.
In regards to the N Korea article. There was a good video documentary of a couple guys that visited there. Can’t remember the site. But the place was just eerie. You’d see these huge streets, buildings, stadiums. But it was empty. You might see a couple people on bikes riding down a twelve lane roadway.
Chris,
The issue isn’t just the bad or falsified science. And I may disagree with you that no one is denying climate change. The problem is that people use climate change, which is a naturally occuring process, when they mean AGW or man made climate change interchangably. We appear to be heading into a cooling cycle now. You also have contradictory information such as from the weather stations and satelites which do not show that.
The main issue is that there has been no ‘debate’ about climate change. It was presented as a fait d acompli. Those that disputed the issue were labeled ‘deniers’ and marganilized.
The climate is a very complex system we don’t understand. We know it has been cooler in the past, in some places in the US they were under a mile of ice as recently as 14k years ago. Not very long ago in terms of the age of the earth. All the computer models they’ve used have proven inaccurate. They also exclude major factors such as sun activity and water vapor.
The issue for global warming alarmists is they keep changing the terms of the debate so they can’t be wrong. First it was a coming ice age in the 70′s. We were going to be buried in ice. Then it was global warming at the start of 21st century. Now it’s climate change. The climate always changes. The wheels are in the process of coming off. Study after study that they have used to justify the money being thrown their way are slowly showing to have been falsified and no real science has occured.
“but that they are based solely on anecdotal evidence from untrained observers who cannot have possibly actually witnessed the relevant phenomenon because of the long time scale associated with it.”
Based upon my experience climbing in South America there is significant glacial retreat since the 1950-80s. When planning a climb you can’t rely on early trip reports for accurate route descriptions. Unfortunately, retreating glaciers tends to make routes more dangerous since the Andes generally have crappy rock.
expanding on what #25 was saying.
Of what I have seen of North Korea it seems to be a realization of ‘Airstrip One’ in 1984. All of the illusion of progress and industry, but its so degraded and unused its clear that something has gone awry. For all the talk of greatness they appear to be living literally as slave/peasants from some feudal society. With a conscious emphasis on destroying technology and convenience so as to make the lives of the people as hard and short as humanly possible. While the upper class lives in near decadence just from simple western conveniences, the poor are being steadily pushed back into pre-industrial living conditions.
It truly is a terrifying country, made more so by the fact that the North Koreans appear to generally believe just how great their nation is. The idealist in me hopes that that is only due to the complete control their government has on the flow of information.
@ Duckboy,
I wasn’t trying to argue that all Italians cook the same, but that the idea that Italy should only have Italian food is kind of ridiculous. Maybe they don’t want carbs and red sauce with everything no matter how varied it is from village to village.
Waste93:
Are these the videos with the guys visiting North Korea you were talking about?
http://www.vbs.tv/watch/the-vice-guide-to-travel/vice-guide-to-north-korea-1-of-3
http://www.vbs.tv/watch/the-vice-guide-to-travel/vice-guide-to-north-korea-2-of-3
http://www.vbs.tv/watch/the-vice-guide-to-travel/vice-guide-to-north-korea-3-of-3
@ tim,
Yes, I realize that my email is not that secure with yahoo or hotmail or anything else. I just don’t like the fact that google is so willing to comply with government intrusion into anyone’s private life.
@ Waste93
Sounds like we are in agreement. My early point was that you really don’t hear much from anybody denying that climate change exists anymore. Of course it changes. The question is why. It is the ‘why’ question that sets most people off. They take the position that if you don’t think it is man made, you must also think that pollution is ok, which is, of course, rubbish. But too many people are too invested in the one theory to allow legitimate study.
My fear is that we will spend billions or trillions trying to reduce emissions only to find out that the main climate drivers were cyclical phenomena like sun activity and the results on our climate were always inevitable. That we will discover too late that we should have been spending those trillions preparing for the situation instead of a pointless effort to fend it off that could never succeed. I am not saying that is the case, only that we have tried to stifle any science that could have come to that conclusion. Then we would have let the alleged ‘consensus’ be our downfall.
waste, there is no denying anthropogenic climate change. Climate analysis of the last 650,000 years is possible and repeatable using ice core samples in Antarctica. There has been a natural cycle of ice ages and warming periods over that time frame. And as you pointed out the difference between an ice age and a warm period is a mile of ice over most of what is considered the temperate climate zones of today. According to the natural cycle of things we were due for another ice age in a 1000 to 2000 years.
The problem is that human activity has completely derailed this process. For the past two centuries we have been digging up and burning various fossil fuels that had been buried and collecting for millions of years. Not to mention our distortion of the biosphere, our livestock create a surprisingly large percentage of the greenhouse admissions. CO2 levels are currently twice as high as they have been recorded in the 650,000 years worth of core samples. What such a massive shift in concentrations of the atmosphere will do to the earth is unknown. We’ve never observed something like this, and to be fair even the scientific community wasn’t aware of it until the late 70′s.
We don’t know if we have accelerated the likelihood of a coming ice age or if we have disturbed the natural cycle so much that all previous observation is worthless. To admit that we are facing an unknown is one thing, but to claim that it is impossible for humanity to affect our environment is a bald faced lie. Furthermore it is a potentially ruinous lie as the claim from many individuals, corporations, and even entire political movements is to abandon climate change research all together. Even the most generous critics suggest ignoring the current findings until more information is gathered, at which point they suggest ignoring the current findings until more information is gathered.
Far too many of the climate change critics have made a foregone conclusion that nothing bad can happen if we maintain the status quo. Given how drastically humanity has altered the atmosphere, biosphere, and even the surface of the earth itself, it is an arrogantly dangerous assumption to make. But hey its cold right now, so all those decades of findings must be wrong.
Apologies for the long post.
That backdoor that google included in gmail was essentially to give out the sender and subject line of the emails, but not the contents. This is supposed to be “envelope” information on the emails. I think this has some sort of pre-email significance to how extensive a warrant is, and google provided automated access to that less sensitive information, for better or worse.
I still think we should be researching HOW to change the climate, not whether or not we already have. Even if we haven’t done dick to it, I have to think that at some point a hiccup in the sun will leave us wishing we knew how to terraform.
I vote worse.
Oh, and spewing gobs of goo into the stuff we breathe without figuring out what it would do to us and the world around us seems like a worse idea than ignoring what we dump into the water…which we did for an awful long time and still do in some places.
This doc was filmed by a Dutch film maker and it made it past the North Korean censors. This the way North Korea actually WANTS the world to see it… and it is scary as hell.
North Korea: A Day in the Life (2004)
http://www.netflix.com/WiMovie/North_Korea_A_Day_in_the_Life/70054274?strackid=6fa4643a6d39e779_6_srl&strkid=595141497_6_0&trkid=438381
How is Christopher Hitchens, apostle of intolerance and aggressive war, calling anyone else “weird” and “despicable) (even Kim Jong-il) not a sublime example of Unconscious Irony?
#24 | Nobody of consequence is denying the existence of climate change.
Not true at all. The rest of your posts displays logic and critical thinking.
Nobody of consequence. You mean like smokers? They proved to be pretty inconsequential to the tsunami of non-smokers who are well along the path to a complete smoking ban.
I see something similar in the global warming debate. It’s not so much that inconsequential people have the wrong opinion. It’s that having the wrong opinion is what makes them inconsequential.
Well BamBam, you would have to show me where somebody of consequence is making a case that the climate does not change at all.
@ Dave K
Boy, you are reading a lot more into that one sentence than it deserves. First of all, as my post clearly states, the marginalization of people who disagree with the consensus is exactly what I was speaking against.
Second, I said that nobody of consequence is denying that the climate does change, because clearly it does. Similarly, I would say that nobody of consequence is saying that the sun revolves around the earth. For if they said that, they would be beyond being taken seriously.
Here is another ‘controversial’ statement then…nobody of consequence believes the moon is made out of green cheese. Did I just make the green cheese believers inconsequential? Yes. I freely admit it.
Conan’s tonight show ratings were down 60 or 70% from Leno’s tonight show. He took a shot, he sucked, he got fired, he got more money in severance than 20 people make in a lifetime. What the problem is?
Chris is AL,
I wasn’t taking issue with your post so much as climbing on the bandwagon about your use of that single phrase characterizing as inconsequential those who haven’t signed on to global warming (not just change). Summary dismissal of opposing viewpoints is a strategy that has permeated the global warming movement so thoroughly that almost any skepticism about any aspect of the problem or the proposed solution is now met with a brand of ridicule which basically says, if you don’t agree with us, then you’re in denial (ie: stupid and not worthy of serious discussion).
I’m also a little disappointed to hear we’re not in agreement about the moon, either.
#41, it’s a semantics game when one goes from global warming -> climate change (as in serious, unnatural changes, which is how the pro-government cap and trade, the world is dying, etc. types define it) -> “you can’t disagree that the climate never changes”.
That’s being dishonest, and no debate can be had if you want to play games like that. Of course the climate changes — it does this every day. Is there climate change on a global scale that is unnatural and is causing Mother Earth to die? There are plenty of people, scientific types even, that will say NO.
Reading these multithread posts is an odd experience. Here’s my contribution:
Google should stop homogenizing McDonald’s food in Italy because everyone knows that the North Korean research showing that the Italian alpine glaciers are receding was in fact done by Conan O’Brien.
#45
Er, the “weather” may change on a daily basis, but the “climate,” as in, by definition, long term trends in the weather, does not. It’s got to be strange arguing with a straight face for someone else’s dishonesty when you characterize global warming as people believing that its “causing Mother Earth to die.”
Global warming, for the vast majority of people, is nothing but an asinine political litmus test. You’re fooling yourself if you think that the majority of people who believe in anthropological global warming, or disbelieve in it, are doing so because of any reasoned understanding of the contours of the debate. Most people simply aren’t scientifically literate enough to make any meaningful judgment call, so they just parrot whatever talking head happens to align with their overall political orientation.
I believe in anthropological global warming for the only legitimate reason there is for someone not professionally schooled in a branch of the environmental sciences to believe in it – because the overwhelming majority of scientists that are schooled in the appropriate branches of science contend that it’s true. And every conspiracy theory I’ve ever heard to explain why the extreme minority are the extreme minority involves such bizarre and paranoid leaps of faith, that they are infinitely less plausible than the alternative explanation: that the science really does stack up in favor of the theory of anthropological global warming.
And anybody that tries to convince you of anything else is totally full of shit.
#47
The vast majority of people who plant their flag on global warming / climate change believe Mother Earth is dying, that we are killing the planet. Just listen to High Priest Al Gore, the father of this crap, and his dire warnings of what will happen in 10-20 years if we don’t act now, and then listen to the acolytes repeat the mantra. The next step down from that is people who believe that destruction is further out in the timeline. If there wasn’t a belief that irreparable harm was being done (killing Mother Earth) and therefore action is required, then there would be no debate. If there was temporary harm but it was able to heal itself, then why would anyone have a beef?
Lastly, I know the difference between weather and climate, but am glad you define for those that don’t know the difference. I used the same dishonest tactic of making a patently false statement as #41 with “show me where somebody of consequence is making a case that the climate does not change at all.” Two douches don’t make a snatch less stinky, but it sure gave you a thrill.
“And of course the whole McDonald’s (starbucks, et al) thing is more of the Liberal elitists telling everyone what is best. I”
Not so simple. At least in the developing world these chains are aimed at the upper classes, not at the poor. I don´t pay the price of a good meal for a Big Mac.
Things to agree on:
1) Humans CAN drastically alter the earth and the components that make up this habitable planet.
2) Not enough data has been collected and studied with NO BIAS by many parties to ensure it is pure science analysis.
3) Scientists don’t have enough knowledge to fully understand the entire data set. Who knows if/when this point will be reached.
4) More scientific study should be done on human effect on planet.
5) Politicians and government control should be shunned from the debate.
#49
I’ve never heard Al Gore say anything like “Mother Earth is dying” or that you can “kill a planet.”
However, I HAVE heard Al Gore say things like: hundreds of millions of people in third world countries face imminent death if sea levels rise and flood their homes and they have no means to successfully relocate inwards.
And I have heard him say things like dramatic changes in current climatological patterns could disrupt modern agriculture and produce famine on a global scale.
But to be concerned about those things, you only have to be concerned with human suffering. You don’t have to believe in some weird anthropomorphic “Mother Earth” fantasy, or that it’s possible to “kill a planet” (whatever that means).
#53
“hundreds of millions of people in third world countries face imminent death if sea levels rise” and “dramatic changes in current climatological patterns could… produce famine on a global scale.”
The key words there are “if” and “could.
One can easily make other harrowing statements with little basic for actually fearing for your life, such as “We will all die a painful death IF demonic unicorns trapple us to death” or “licking rainbows COULD cause oral cancer if not done in moderation”.
#54
Those WOULD be the key words IF I had debating the veracity of Gore’s claims regarding anthropological global warming. But since I was instead debating the far more inane topic of BamBam’s ridiculous micharacterizations of what exactly prominent advocates of anthropological global warming actually claim — those aren’t the key words at all.
Please do try following the bouncing ball.
watch this. watch it. send it to people who are disconnected to middle America.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xt7-wlWxpRE&NR=1
(*I believe you mean anthropogenic, here.)
That is basically why I agree. From the limited part of the data that is meaningfull to me as a layman, I find the observed lengthening of the average annual frost free periods (particularly in higher latitudes) and the generally observed reduction in glacier mass persuasive.
What I do find objectionable in the soi-disant “environmentalists” is the frequent portrayal of the most extreme possible results of AGW as imminent catastophes that can only be averted by the drastic course of action they demand.
Yeah, me too. But I have to warn you, that is precisely the reason why I used to believe that homosexuality was a mental illness, ulcers were caused by stomach acid, multiple personality disorder really existed, smoking is more addictive than heroine, nuclear energy was going to be too cheap to meter, corn was going to replace oil, wind power was going to replace oil, hydrogen was going to replace gasoline, water drains the opposite direction in the southern hemisphere, we should all drink eight glasses of water a day, and electrons are the smallest subatomic particles.
Luckily, I listen to the news a lot so I can stay up to date, because nary a week goes by when some new scientific study doesn’t overturn some past scientific truth. I’m not saying that will happen with climate change. Like most people I think climate change is one of those things that we know absolutely everything about for certain, like for example, classical physics. You know, because “that many scientists can’t be wrong” and because the modernized scientific method now requires that skeptics be ridiculed which provides that extra little incentive it takes to nudge those annoying holdouts into line.
Fortunately, we will never be seriously affected by global warming because the world is coming to an end on December 21, 2012.
#14 Aresen:
That’s of course true, but irrelevant. I questioned the description of the regime as right wing. Racism and nationalism are not inherently right wing phenomena. Ceasing to promote communism as such does not automatically convert the regime from far-left to far-right. Count as said all the standard complaints about a 1 dimensional political spectrum.
@ #51 | André Kenji | February 2nd, 2010 at 8:11 pm
“Not so simple. At least in the developing world these chains are aimed at the upper classes, not at the poor. I don´t pay the price of a good meal for a Big Mac.”
Point taken. Even in Europe they are expensive. A friend in Switzerland recently paid $10 for a big mac. In that case, they’re just hypocrits. If they’re so damaging, why are they eating them?
“In that case, they’re just hypocrits. If they’re so damaging, why are they eating them?”
Because the people that complain about it aren´t the same people that eat it. Here in Brazil the people that complain about it are mostly from the gauche caviar.
I don´t eat there because I find their food pure crap. And I don´t trust the workforce of any fast food chain.
//That is basically why I agree. From the limited part of the data that is meaningfull to me as a layman, I find the observed lengthening of the average annual frost free periods (particularly in higher latitudes) and the generally observed reduction in glacier mass persuasive.//
What about the existence of Viking settlements in areas of Greenland where it’s too cold to grow anything? Supposedly that was just a “localized” phenomenon, but there’s no real evidence that it was, nor is there any evidence of any means by which it could have been. The AGW alarmists consistently downplay the fact that their “remediation” efforts revolve around a “carbon credits” market which would drain billions if not trillions of dollars from the economy and serve no purpose except to enrich Al Gore et al.
#58:
Dave,
Your examples don’t indicate any absurdity in my position. The fact is, we know, to the best of our ability to know anything, that things are true that not that long ago we believed were false. And it’s PERFECTLY REASONABLE for that to be the case, because our knowledge about the natural world increases every day and expands the limits of what types of things we know. At one time, it was perfectly logical to believe that man could not successfully travel faster than the speed of sound, or that the nucleus of an atom was indivisible. Even though these things were actually false, to believe otherwise at certain points in history, for the layman at least, would have actually been UNREASONABLE simply because it wasn’t based on any credible evidence that it was true.
Of course, you pick ridiculous examples by design. But even among your examples, it’s not clear which of those exactly rose to the level of overwhelming scientific consensus. The only one that comes close is that scientists did really believe that ulcers were caused by stomach acid before they figured out it was bacteria. And if you were a scientific layman at the time that the overwhelming majority of scientists believed that, you would have been IRRATIONAL to have believed it was something else, simply because you lacked the specialized knowledge to make a reasoned determination of the countervailing evidence.
Some of your other examples – smoking being more addictive than heroin, wind power replacing oil – never truly maintained a scientific consensus.
Some of your other examples – multiple personality disorder; homosexuality being a mental illness – are first, of dubious scientific merit because their “scientific” field (psychology) is a soft science, and second, because they have more to do with the redefinition of psychological concept of a “disorder” than anything else.
But anyway, I never claimed that we shouldn’t be open to new evidence of legitimately competitive scientific theories. But the simple fact is, there is no real debate – or rather, the real debate regarding anthropogenic (thanks Aresen) global warming is taking place by people who are arguing well within the theory, fighting over its specific contours. The outliers barely register as an opposition, except that they receive media coverage disproportionate to their number, thanks to certain ideological factions within the media.
McDonald’s has for many years (>15) here in Hawaii served the Teriyaki Burger as well as Spam and Eggs with Rice as well as a Taro Pie in addition to the usual Apple Pie. Those are all local dishes that aren’t typically served elsewhere in the country… in the same menu, that is.
I’ve heard that Clickbank makes it very difficult to earn money by forcing you to re-sell loads of unique items by assorted credit cards plus Paypal. I’d like to work with Clickbank but I’m concerned about this situation. Is it correct?