Warning: Table './mypetpee_mpp3/watchdog' is marked as crashed and last (automatic?) repair failed query: INSERT INTO watchdog (uid, type, message, variables, severity, link, location, referer, hostname, timestamp) VALUES (0, 'php', '%message in %file on line %line.', 'a:4:{s:6:\"%error\";s:12:\"user warning\";s:8:\"%message\";s:272:\"Table './mypetpee_mpp3/cache_views_data' is marked as crashed and last (automatic?) repair failed\nquery: SELECT data, created, headers, expire, serialized FROM cache_views_data WHERE cid = 'most_popular:block_1:results:303f9672e4ab6fe51f929ed9e62b3209'\";s:5:\"%file\";s:62:\"/home/mypetpee/domains/mypetpeeves.com/html/includes/cache.inc\";s:5:\"%line\";i:27;}', 3, '', 'http://www.mypetpeeves.com/rant/28259', 'http://www.mypetpeeves.com/rant/28259', '193.201.224.90', 1408620399) in /home/mypetpee/domains/mypetpeeves.com/html/includes/database.mysqli.inc on line 134

Warning: Table './mypetpee_mpp3/watchdog' is marked as crashed and last (automatic?) repair failed query: INSERT INTO watchdog (uid, type, message, variables, severity, link, location, referer, hostname, timestamp) VALUES (0, 'php', '%message in %file on line %line.', 'a:4:{s:6:\"%error\";s:12:\"user warning\";s:8:\"%message\";s:6227:\"Table './mypetpee_mpp3/cache_views_data' is marked as crashed and last (automatic?) repair failed\nquery: UPDATE cache_views_data SET data = 'a:3:{s:6:\\"result\\";a:10:{i:0;O:8:\\"stdClass\\":8:{s:3:\\"nid\\";s:5:\\"19939\\";s:42:\\"votingapi_cache_node_points_vote_sum_value\\";N;s:10:\\"node_title\\";s:49:\\"Another brave American stands up for our rights. \\";s:10:\\"users_name\\";s:10:\\"Mad Vulcan\\";s:9:\\&quot in /home/mypetpee/domains/mypetpeeves.com/html/includes/database.mysqli.inc on line 134

Warning: Table './mypetpee_mpp3/watchdog' is marked as crashed and last (automatic?) repair failed query: INSERT INTO watchdog (uid, type, message, variables, severity, link, location, referer, hostname, timestamp) VALUES (0, 'php', '%message in %file on line %line.', 'a:4:{s:6:\"%error\";s:12:\"user warning\";s:8:\"%message\";s:271:\"Table './mypetpee_mpp3/cache_views_data' is marked as crashed and last (automatic?) repair failed\nquery: SELECT data, created, headers, expire, serialized FROM cache_views_data WHERE cid = 'most_popular:block_1:output:d2595fa0ff8c86fc757c193a8ffc22f7'\";s:5:\"%file\";s:62:\"/home/mypetpee/domains/mypetpeeves.com/html/includes/cache.inc\";s:5:\"%line\";i:27;}', 3, '', 'http://www.mypetpeeves.com/rant/28259', 'http://www.mypetpeeves.com/rant/28259', '193.201.224.90', 1408620399) in /home/mypetpee/domains/mypetpeeves.com/html/includes/database.mysqli.inc on line 134

Warning: Table './mypetpee_mpp3/watchdog' is marked as crashed and last (automatic?) repair failed query: INSERT INTO watchdog (uid, type, message, variables, severity, link, location, referer, hostname, timestamp) VALUES (0, 'php', '%message in %file on line %line.', 'a:4:{s:6:\"%error\";s:12:\"user warning\";s:8:\"%message\";s:10434:\"Table './mypetpee_mpp3/cache_views_data' is marked as crashed and last (automatic?) repair failed\nquery: UPDATE cache_views_data SET data = 'a:4:{s:4:\\"head\\";s:0:\\"\\";s:3:\\"css\\";a:0:{}s:2:\\"js\\";a:3:{i:0;a:5:{i:0;s:34:\\"sites/all/modules/views/js/base.js\\";i:1;s:6:\\"module\\";i:2;s:6:\\"header\\";i:3;b:0;i:4;b:1;}i:1;a:5:{i:0;s:39:\\"sites/all/modules/views/js/ajax_view.js\\";i:1;s:6:\\"module\\";i:2;s:6:\ in /home/mypetpee/domains/mypetpeeves.com/html/includes/database.mysqli.inc on line 134
Study shows liberal aetheists are more intelligent | MyPetPeeves.com

Study shows liberal aetheists are more intelligent

To those who will reject it even before reading the study, know this - denial is at best a waste of time and at worst something even far less desirable. IOW resistance is futile. LOL

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/02/26/liberals.atheists.sex.intelligence/index.html?hpt=P1

"The study found that young adults who said they were "very conservative" had an average adolescent IQ of 95, whereas those who said they were "very liberal" averaged 106."

Comments

It makes perfect sense to me.

It makes perfect sense to me. The better your critical thinking skills, the more likely you are to consider the long-term effects of your actions, to consider the effects on people outside your group, and to reject absolute faith in anything. People with high-IQs are probably more likely to be good critical thinkers. 

There have been similar studies in the past finding a strong, positive correlation between education level, liberalism and atheism. Again, the more educated you are, the better your critical thinking skills are likely to be.

I must say, I'm a little depressed by the article's conclusion though.

None of this means that the human species is evolving toward a future where these traits are the default, Kanazawa said.

"More intelligent people don't have more children, so moving away from the trajectory is not going to happen," he said.

It's sad but true that people with a low IQ and/or education level tend to procreate far more than those with a high IQ and good education. That means if we aren't careful, we might find ourselves in an evolutionary rut. Our best bet is to somehow convince the masses that improving the educational system is in their best interest (which it is). A better educational system can actually increase the average IQ level. Over time, this will tend to decrease procreation in general. It may also elevate intelligence as a desirable quality in a mate. Again, over time, this may mean that intelligent people tend to reproduce more successfully, thus increasing the intelligence of the species. It may be a long shot, but one can hope. 

This might be a little off

This might be a little off topic, but you may find it interesting to note that researchers have also found a positive correlation between IQ and use of Macintosh computers.

Mac user here, have been since 1984

What amazed me most about the entire Mac vs. PC argument over the years was that I was able to run Windows on a Mac but the PC's were never able to run Mac. Virtual PC and SoftWindows were so good even 15 years ago that I was able to learn Windows well enough to go do a professional hardware installation on a Micron (Windows-based PC) without ever having touched a PC before in my life. I'll admit one quick phone call to Micron about IRQ's and that was all the assistance needed, no reading books, no training courses, never read or went to courses for the Mac Ever either. Meanwhile, everyone else in business was paying a thousand bucks here and another thousand there to learn how to use their PC. They paid hundreds for hardware and thousands for service just to get things like sound or video that Macs came with included from the factory. And Mac did not cost thousands more. They also suffered complete loss of all data over and over again from failing hard drives (never so sturdy as the SCSI type Macs were using) and due to viruses. They paid out the ass for virus protection while I've never had to pay a single cent and never been affected.

It's not stupidity so much that caused the PC users to jump off the roof when all their friends did it, it's the lemming effect. That comes from fear of being different, fear of being an outcast somehow. They actually thought that it was better to jump with everyone else rather than take the perceived risk of being safer. Can it get any more ironic than that? They thought being safer was actually a higher risk? Wow. Unfortunately that explains a lot about the way the majority of people think, mob mentality, not educated thought processes but what is deemed "safe" simply because "everyone else was doing it". That doesn't hold up in the court of Mom and Dad "if everyone else jumped off the roof would you also jump?" and it doesn't hold up in the legal system courts, so why do they do it? They see only the short term. It's not about being smarter or less smart means you have some magical connection with Mac or PC. It's a choice between A or B, something that appeals on a base level vs. something that appeals to those who think ahead. As you pointed out, considering the long term is a higher thought process.

It Does not Make a Difference

Mac's are nice but way too locked down for my tastes (same with I-Phone and I-Pad). I think when I buy a computer I should be able to configure it the way *I* want it and not what Steve Jobs thinks I need. I like the freedom to choose an AMD or Intel processor or opting for a Blu Ray player on my computer, options that aren't allowed by Apple. I'm also put off by the lack of software that Mac's have, you're very limted as to what you can install on a Mac. I can play any PC game on my Windows 7 machine but the Mac has a very poor game selection in comparison.  I think most people don't wanna have to replace hundreds of dollars worth of software to switch to an Apple computer, if there are even replacement programs to be found for Macs.

I really don't understand why people pay the Apple premium then turn around and buy Windows to run on a virtual environment. Whaet ever....

I take issue with being called a lemming. I am an informed consumer, that knowledge lead me to the conclusion that Microsoft is more suited to my needs and to my budget. I'm glad you found Macs to your liking but please don't chastise me if I don't agree with your choice.

Wow I am inpressed give the

Wow I am inpressed give the athiest liberals a fucking cookie. Just reading this part here

("The study found that young adults who said they were "very conservative" had an average adolescent IQ of 95, whereas those who said they were "very liberal" averaged 106.")

Boy I am fucking impressed.

Speaking of the whole Mac and

Speaking of the whole Mac and PC thing. Researching this the video cards are exactly the same the processors are the same. So really you are just buying the same thing that runs on different OS. But PCs are much more powerful then Macs are now. Macs used to be the bomb but now they are just over priced peice of plastic.

They are not the same

But they are close. The differences I spoke of that were in the past were, um, in the past. Duh. Need to borrow a few IQ points? LOL

You REALLY made me LOL when you said "you're very limted as to what you can install on a Mac" and then in the next breath admit that Macs can run Windows, which DUH means you can DUH run EVERYTHING that Windows runs and MORE.

Self contradiction like that does seem to be something certain lower IQ folks have a particular knack for yet at least I'll give you this MV, you are consistent.

 

aetheists are more intelligent

more intelligent maybe no faith yes but they are definitely curious to each is own great stuff really informative keep it up

 

 

by colleen  custom essay

I so didn't mean to pull the

I so didn't mean to pull the discussion in this direction, but I can't resist...

Mac's are nice but way too locked down for my tastes

I've found Macs to be very configurable. Even the hardware (depending which model you buy). And now that the OS is built on BSD Unix, you can do just about anything with the software. Of course, Apple does a pretty amazing job when it comes to user experience, so often there isn't much I need to do. 

I'm also put off by the lack of software that Mac's have, you're very limted as to what you can install on a Mac.

There's TONS of Mac software out there. All the big stuff (and much of the small stuff) is cross-platform anyway. There are some niche products that are PC only, but by and large I haven't had any problem finding software to do anything I would want.

can play any PC game on my Windows 7 machine but the Mac has a very poor game selection in comparison.

Yes, there are fewer games on the Mac. There are plenty of them available, but you're right that the PC has far more. However, I don't buy computers primarily for games. And if video games were that important to me I would just run Windows on my Mac. Why sacrifice my day-to-day usability for the occasional game, when I can easily dual-boot or run Windows in a virtual machine.

Speaking of the whole Mac and PC thing. Researching this the video cards are exactly the same the processors are the same. So really you are just buying the same thing that runs on different OS. But PCs are much more powerful then Macs are now. Macs used to be the bomb but now they are just over priced peice of plastic.

There are many components that go into a computer beyond the CPU and video chips. Apple happens to make some of the best hardware out there. An Apple Macintosh can run Windows faster than most PCs you find out there. And they're not really over priced. Apple just doesn't make cheap consumer PCs. On the high-end, they are actually cheaper. I saved a couple grand when building a Mac Pro system verse what I would have spent if I bought a Windows Box.

I know Apple has some quality

I know Apple has some quality parts. But now they do not do the cutting edge stuff. Plus they are just way overpriced. You can't get a ddr 5 ati radeon card with them well at least not the last time I checked. Are they running the I 7 chips yet? Or the ddr 3 ram?

Wow I am inpressed give the

Wow I am inpressed give the athiest liberals a fucking cookie.

No need to get all testy, MV. We didn't commission the study, though I am not surprised by its findings. 

Me neither because they just

Me neither because they just interviewed who they wanted. No way can you get an accurate picture. Plus this is not the first time this pap has been published. Just another shot at religion. I seen a guy today at word and he was doing the preaching stuff. Which I just wish people would just STFU and not preach at a college. It is just stupid.

Your not going to change anyone's mind. What pissed me off was an older gentlemen coaching him on. Really people your not going to persuade anyone. I go to church that is where I want to hear preaching not at the college or any place else.

I don't want to hear the atheist bullshit or the religious bullshit. Because they are both full of shit.

One Cotton Pickin Minute!

@TGIX: "You REALLY made me LOL when you said "you're very limted as to what you can install on a Mac" and then in the next breath admit that Macs can run Windows, which DUH means you can DUH run EVERYTHING that Windows runs and MORE."   You can't *duh* install an AMD processor, you can't *duh* choose a mother board, Apple has *duh* determined that Blu Ray is a dud and won't allow Blu Ray installations, etc.  Getting the point yet?

Software is often turned down by Apple for both the Mac and I-Phone for no apparent reason. Case in point, there are dozens of fart apps but Apple rejects a Family Guy App?  It's hypocracy on Apple's part considering they have no problem selling the videos in the I-Tunes Store.  Sure the APP rejections get more attention but the same thing happens with Macs.

I still don't understand that when buying a Mac why you would go out and buy Windows to run on a Apple PC.  Why buy an Apple if it doesn't run everything you want or need?  Forget about what a waste of money this is, but also consider the time it takes to run a virtual envrionment and the resources required to run it. My understanding is that virtualizing Windows eats alot of system resources which slows the Apple machines considerably; not worth it at all in my book.

The moral of the story is if Steve Jobs doesn't like it then you can't have it on an Apple product.   

I actually like Apple computers. Apple computers are easy to use and nicely built, but I just don't like an environment that I don't have full control over. I fully acknowledge that for some people Apple's locked down system is just fine for them but for people like myself I like the freedom to tweak my computer as I see fit and screw Steve Jobs with a cactus if he doesn't like it.

 

Well.....

@strangequark: Apple does use nice components but they don't make most of them anymore. 

I couldn't disagree more about Mac prices! I can custom build a computer similar to an Apple PC and do it at a fraction of the cost with Windows and especially Linux. My current PC had nearly identical specs to the Macs (at the time) but I payed $400 less than if I had purchased the Apple PC. And by the way I used Apple equivlent parts on this PC.

It's about the long run vs. short sightedness

That's what the study was more about I think; and probably because most people who bought Macs were avoiding all the need to do what you did, shop all over and compare and find out what's just like Mac so you could use it in your computer and then install it all... whew! I'm tired just typing all that. Why not just do it the easier way? You won't deny your time is worth money, or will you? LOL, I mean c'mon, own up to it. Those things did not all just come to you in a dream. You clearly spent a Lot of time working that configuration all up and procuring it (from how many suppliers?) and then assembling it all...

I'm gettin' too tired again from typing all that so gonna rest now. I rest my case.

I am very picky about my

I am very picky about my computers. When my last one died it took me 3 months to finally buy one. I wanted it to be a certain configuration and for the best price. The search was on. I checked MAC and come to the conclusion they are peices of shit. Checked Dell WAY OVER PRICED. ibuypower.com had some great deals. However when I finally found what I wanted I paid 1200 bucks.

Got every thing I wanted and more. For the same Dell it would have run me around 3 grand. No wonder Dell is having problems. Just like MAC over priced peices of plastic.

On Apple...

I know Apple has some quality parts. But now they do not do the cutting edge stuff.

Sure they do. In fact, lately they've been getting stuff from Intel before it's released to other vendors.

Plus they are just way overpriced.

Not by my calculations. They're very reasonable for what you get. They just don't make low-end machines.

You can't get a ddr 5 ati radeon card with them well at least not the last time I checked.

My Mac Pro has a Radeon card with GDDR5.

Are they running the I 7 chips yet? Or the ddr 3 ram?

I'm writing this email on an iMac with both. Perhaps you should do a little more research before you bash a product. 

Software is often turned down by Apple for both the Mac and I-Phone for no apparent reason.

Apple does turn down some apps for the iPhone, but they do give reasons for doing so. We may not agree with all their reasoning, but that's a different issue. However, the assertion that they turn down Mac applications is patently false! Anyone can release a Mac application and there is no mechanism for Apple to do anything about it. 

I still don't understand that when buying a Mac why you would go out and buy Windows to run on a Apple PC.  Why buy an Apple if it doesn't run everything you want or need? 

Windows does far less of what I need, but at least the Mac can run both operating systems. That way I can stay in the Mac OS for 99% of what I do, switching over to Windows or Linux only when necessary. For me the main reason to run Windows would be for cross-platform website testing. If I were more of a video gamer, then I might use it for that as well. But there's no way I would subject myself to Windows on a daily basis just so I could play some games in my free time.

My understanding is that virtualizing Windows eats alot of system resources which slows the Apple machines considerably; not worth it at all in my book.

Of course running two operating systems at the same time is going to use some system resources, but any Mac on the market today can easily handle it. Virtualization is extremely common in IT these days. If you have your own website, it is probably running in one of several virtual machines on a server. And on a desktop, the ability to switch between multiple operating systems on the fly is amazing. 

The moral of the story is if Steve Jobs doesn't like it then you can't have it on an Apple product.

Inaccurate... but funny. They guy has strong opinions, but he ain't THAT powerful. 

@strangequark: Apple does use nice components but they don't make most of them anymore.

I wouldn't expect them to make every component in their computers. But when they can't find an adequate component to accomplish what they want, they're not afraid to roll their own and I respect that. And they stuff they outsource is good quality.

I can custom build a computer similar to an Apple PC and do it at a fraction of the cost with Windows and especially Linux.

I'm sure you could undercut the cost of a Mac if you were building your own from components. Of course that means you need to build a computer from components. I don't know about you, but my time is worth more than the $400 you say you saved, given how long it would take to research and assemble all the parts. And in doing so you loose the support of a single vendor if the computer gets hosed. You also loose the bundled software, which may be crap on a typical Windows box, but is actually quite useful on a Mac. You also loose the elegant design of Mac hardware, which may not be the biggest issue, but it does count for something. Most importantly though, you loose the Mac OS user experience, which is extremely well thought out from a design perspective, and can have a major impact on your productivity. When I buy any product—especially big-ticket items like computers—user experience is a top priority. 

For what it's worth, you can actually do quite a bit of customization on a Mac, depending which model you get. I've outfitted my Mac Pro with six internal drives and a non-Apple RAID card. It's awesome. 

On the study...

@MV

Me neither because they just interviewed who they wanted. No way can you get an accurate picture.

No, they didn't just interview who they wanted. That's not how scientific studies work. A well designed study with good statistical modeling can achieve surprisingly accurate results. And incase you didn't notice (you did read the article before bashing it right?), the study's author is not a liberal, so if there's any bias here it isn't in the direction you're implying.

Plus this is not the first time this pap has been published.

Oh! So this study is confirming a repeatable result that has been shown in several earlier studies? Well then that makes it much less believable! How could I have been so silly as to put faith in something with that much evidence behind it.

Just another shot at religion.

How so? This really doesn't say anything about pros and cons of religious observance. All it does is provide a little more insight into who believes what and why. 

I don't want to hear the atheist bullshit or the religious bullshit. Because they are both full of shit.

Yeah, I'd hate for you to be exposed to any ideas that you don't already agree with. What ever you do, don't keep an open mind. That could be dangerous!

Yeah, I'd hate for you to be

Yeah, I'd hate for you to be exposed to any ideas that you don't already agree with. What ever you do, don't keep an open mind. That could be dangerous!

No you misunderstand me. I will talk to atheist and I will talk to people that believe in god. What I wont stand for is the nut cases on both sides. But do not ever tell me I do not have an open mind.

My youngest son is an atheist my oldest son goes to church every Sunday. I support them both. So how is that not an open mind? How is not an open mind that I have already made up my mind god exists. Ya at one time I was on the fence about god. But no longer. What I do not need is some asshole trying to give some report trying to say that people who believe are dumber. I do not care if you believe in god that is fine. If you do not believe in god that is fine also. To each his own. I think what really fucking make me mad is on both sides of this issue if you take that stand that I have taken you catch hell from both sides being called names or not having an open mind.

 

What I want to do is be able to walk down the street or across campus and not hear some jerk preaching. Also I do not need to see some jerk in the newspaper saying on how people that believe in god are stupid. If anyone cannot respect that then fuck them. Those are just 2 examples there are many more I hate.

This study is worththe same amount as...

the SAME study I read that Repulicans are less likely tobe depressed as Democrats, that a poverty level Republican is happier than a Democrat at the same economic level, and it goes on and on. It is all based on who you ask, even worse, based on STATISTICS! Next you are gonna see 'proof' that the Climate Warming warnings were based on faulty data or something....well, that DID happen didn't it?

They Cherry pick what they

They Cherry pick what they want Walter.

@MV My youngest son is an

@MV

My youngest son is an atheist my oldest son goes to church every Sunday. I support them both.

I'm glad to hear it.

How is not an open mind that I have already made up my mind god exists.

That depends. If you've "made up your mind" in the sense that you currently believe that there is a god, but you're still open to hearing contradicting philosophies and could conceive of changing your mind should a convincing case be made (even if you're a bit dubious that such a case could be made), then I suppose your mind is open. If, on the other hand, you have absolute faith in god's existence, such that nothing could dissuade you from such faith, then I would say your mind is quite closed. 

By definition, having an open mind means being receptive to new ideas and information, and being willing to change one's beliefs based on this new information. This is in direct opposition to having absolute faith. 

For my part, I have faith that there is no god. However, I'd be willing to drop that belief like a bad habit should I see evidence to the contrary. Experience tells me that I'm unlikely to see such evidence, but I'm open to it and continue to actively search for it. 

What I do not need is some asshole trying to give some report trying to say that people who believe are dumber.

That's not at all what the report said. And this is not a report by some nut case. All it said is that—on average—people with higher IQs have a greater probability of being liberal and atheist than those with lower IQs. And that men with higher IQs are more likely to maintain sexual exclusivity in relationships. It didn't say there aren't smart theists, or dumb atheists. It just recognized the existence of an interesting correlation. I'm sorry if you don't like the correlation, but that doesn't mean it isn't there and it certainly isn't any reason to bash the researcher who published it. 

@Walter

This study is worththe same amount as the SAME study I read that Repulicans are less likely tobe depressed as Democrats, that a poverty level Republican is happier than a Democrat at the same economic level, and it goes on and on.

That actually sounds like a very interesting study. I'd love to look at the article if you have a link. I don't cherry pick my research based on what I want to be true. In fact, these results wouldn't shock me in the least.

It is all based on who you ask, even worse, based on STATISTICS!

And what is the problem with statistics? Statistics provide powerful tools to help us analyze the universe in which we live. In some cases statistical analysis is far more accurate than direct measurements. In fact, some things can only be understood through statistical analysis. The best part is that statistics not only tells us the likelihood of something, but it also tells us how much potential for error there is in that result. So we get a calculation AND a measure of how much we should trust that calculation. Statistics is awesome!

Next you are gonna see 'proof' that the Climate Warming warnings were based on faulty data or something....well, that DID happen didn't it?

Actually no. It didn't. I know what you're referring to Walter, but you're drastically overstating the matter. The data still overwhelmingly point toward global climate change. Yes, there are some climactic events for which scientists do not have a good explanation, but that is not unexpected. The amazing thing about science is that every answer leads to many more questions. But having a question does not completely nullify your existing calculations. I mean, sure Newton's laws of motion break down when you approach the speed of light. For that you need relativistic equations. But Newton's equations are still extremely accurate approximations at any speed your likely to experience in your day-to-day life.

And MV, I cherry pick

And MV, I cherry pick nothing.

By the way, MV—since I've seen you do this countless times now—I'd like to acquaint you with the blockquote button on the toolbar in the comment text box. It's the button that looks like blue double-quotes. Please use that when you're quoting people in your comments, rather than using all bold or italicized text. It's much easier to follow your posts that way. It's also the accepted convention in online media. 

The republicans are happier

The republicans are happier link - http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/060315_happiness_pew.html

 

Oh and y'all have to look through my HOST of sites listing all the various scientist showing where the 'popular' data was mis-used, changed, sensors in odd places (I believe one of the links showed a sensor on the blacktop of an airport runway), and most recently, how many of the climate temperature data was never collected because they were in Russia and the areas they are in were considered not needed, even though they numbered in a few hundred in the colder areas of the planet. So when you cut out the cod gauges, of COURSE things appear to be warmer. Funny though, they are now saying they are going to look closer at the 'Little Ice Age' data they had previously said was irrelavent.

I would go back and pull out all that, but this would take more time than I am willing to take away from my next paper. But it is there, I have posted the links and posted the studies over and over, I haven't deleted them, I know they are there.

 

Oh, by the way, every one of my business degrees have shown that anyone can get ANY measurement to say what you want it to using statistics and data. Guess how they come up, for instance, with the 9 out of 10 doctors surveyed agree... They ask groups of ten doctors whatever the study is based on, and keep asking ten different groups until they get 9 out of 10 to say what they are expecting to hear. Those x oout of y studies don't actually have to TELL how many they went through to get that ratio, they just have to say they GOT that ratio to be 'legal'. It is that reason alone that I do not trust statistics. There is nothing you can say that will make me trust the most easily corrupted math there is.

Walter, there is a HUGE

Walter, there is a HUGE difference between the pseudo-statistics used in a "9 out of 10 dentists agree" style commercial and the real statistics used in a scientific study. Of course the commercials are pure bullshit, but that crap won't fly in science. One has nothing to do with the other. The commercials aren't actually using statistical techniques. Their just trying to find loopholes in the regulations so they can lie to the public to improve their bottom line.

The article you posted looks interesting. The study actually makes perfect sense to me, and I have some theories about why these happiness disparities exist, but I don't want to get into them here and lead us on a tangent. In any case, I am fully prepared to embrace the results of this study, despite the negative implications it has relating to my personal philosophy. 

No There's Not...

How do you explain that two scientific studies about the same product can often come up with wildly different and opposing conclusions? How can one study conclude that coffee is healthy for you while another says otherwise?

To say that these studies are incorruptable is silly, billion dollar industries usually get what they want, including from the studies they fund. 

SQ

I honestly can not recall the last time a person made more sense or was so articulate. I'm fascinated. How did you come to develop such a keen sense for reason? I'm also in awe of your tact.

It's all so uncanny, clean, precise, put so well that it can not be deconstructed towards adverse means. On a side note however I will (as I trust you will appreciate) stop short of worshipping you. LOL!

One thing though SQ

You wrote, "The study actually makes perfect sense to me, and I have some theories about why these happiness disparities exist, but I don't want to get into them here and lead us on a tangent."

Well, I just happen to be willing to take that one on. Here are the facts of the matter:

Anyone who is happy about the state of the world today is a moron as there is far too much ignorance, poverty, disease, injustice, corruption, murder right on up to downright Genocide for anyone with a thimble full of grey matter to KNOW that this is not a good situation.

Those of us who are able to think for themselves know we not only can do better but we Must do better.

Those who know these facts will not be happy until we have done everything in our power towards righting these wrongs.

To be on the only decent side of this eqation requires one to have a heart. That is a quality ascribed to those many label as liberal and they tend to be overwhelmingly democratic.

Ya but all that is George

Ya but all that is George Bush's fault.

That is the best you can do?

sad. very sad indeed.

so instead of trying to see it the right way too, or perhaps even put up a respectable arguement, all you can come up with is some sorry ass cynicism or sarcasm... it figures.

You all are the ones that

You all are the ones that blamed everything on George Bush not me.

Get your studies straight

@rkinne

How do you explain that two scientific studies about the same product can often come up with wildly different and opposing conclusions? How can one study conclude that coffee is healthy for you while another says otherwise?

Barring any mistakes in a studies execution, or wholesale fraud, scientific studies don't typically arrive at opposing results. In fact, its a major tenet of the scientific method that experimental results must be reproducible. When conducted properly, each new study builds on the results of previous studies, bringing greater resolution to the conclusions which can be drawn. Of course, in the case of a question like "is coffee healthy," it really depends on how you define healthy and different studies may look at different variables. So, one study could look at the effect of coffee on cholesterol levels and conclude that it is healthy, while another could look at the effect of caffeine on developing fetuses and conclude that it's dangerous. 

To say that these studies are incorruptable is silly, billion dollar industries usually get what they want, including from the studies they fund.

Now you're talking about fraudulent studies done for marketing purposes, rather than peer reviewed scientific studies. Please stop mixing one with the other. This rant is referencing a social psychology study, conducted by a reputable researcher, with no ulterior motive. There's nothing pointing to fraud in the study's results. There's no reason to throw out the results of this perfectly reasonable scientific study just because the Coka-Cola Company says nine out of ten people prefer Coke, while Pepsi Co. is saying nine out of ten people prefer Pepsi. 

This is a little off topic, but the Coke/Pepsi thing is actually pretty interesting. it turns out that if you give people a sip of Coke and a sip of Pepsi, most people will choose the sweeter taste of Pepsi. However, if you give them a case of Coke and a case of Pepsi and ask them to drink a can at a time, then most people will prefer the Coke, since the sweeter taste of Pepsi can become overwhelming in larger doses. So even in this instance the studies aren't conflicting at all. They're just testing different things. The problem comes when you try to oversimplify the results and fit them into a marketing blurb.

@TGIX

SQ I honestly can not recall the last time a person made more sense or was so articulate. I'm fascinated. How did you come to develop such a keen sense for reason? I'm also in awe of your tact.

Awe shucks. Thanks TGIX. Every post I make on this site represents a significant time commitment. I don't just post the first thing that comes to me. I research what I'm saying, check my statements for accuracy (as well as everyone else's) and do my best to make sure I'm phrasing things clearly. I've made it a point in life to hone my critical thinking skills, and I place a high value on knowledge and reason.

Anyone who is happy about the state of the world today is a moron as there is far too much ignorance, poverty, disease, injustice, corruption, murder right on up to downright Genocide for anyone with a thimble full of grey matter to KNOW that this is not a good situation.

Those of us who are able to think for themselves know we not only can do better but we Must do better.

Those who know these facts will not be happy until we have done everything in our power towards righting these wrongs.

To be on the only decent side of this eqation requires one to have a heart. That is a quality ascribed to those many label as liberal and they tend to be overwhelmingly democratic.

That's not exactly where I was going to take this, TGIX, but if you really want to get into the happiness study then I'm happy to oblige. The study already indicates that one reason for increased happiness among Republicans is higher wealth among Republicans. I suspect this is significant given that wealth has a huge impact on happiness, but as the study points out, this is not the only reason. 

Another posible reason which the article doesn't address at all is geographic location. Democrats tend to be concentrated in large metropolitan areas, while Republicans tend to be more abundant in smaller towns and rural areas. The hustle and bustle of big city life has many stressors that would therefore weigh heavier on Democrats than Republicans. Big cities can also tend to isolate people from one another, while smaller towns tend to build a stronger feeling of community support, thus adding to their residents' sense of happiness. 

To a large extent, your happiness will be determined by how well your life is living up to your expectations. I would bet that people who choose to live in small towns tend to have lower expectations for themselves, relative to what they are reasonably likely to achieve. Someone from West Bend Iowa doesn't expect to become a movie star. Or if they do, then they move to LA, where they probably become another unhappy Democrat with unfulfilled dreams.

Another big factor which the article mentions, but doesn't go into enough, is religiosity. I would guess that there is a higher concentration of very religious people in the Republican party than among the Democrats and, as the article points out, religious people also tend to be happier. Part of this is because of the sense of support created by participation in a religious community. Just like living in a small town, this tends to increase your happiness. Religion has other psychological impacts however that go beyond the community effect. Religious people tend to have a feeling of righteousness. They believe they are following god's will, which gives them divine justification for their actions and beliefs. This helps overcome any feelings of guilt. If I know I'm following god's will and you have different beliefs then me, then you can't possibly be following gods will, so I must be right and you must be wrong, so I am perfectly justified in anything I do to thwart your ungodly behavior. And if you know you're right then you will tend to be happier. Religious people also tend to believe that they are part of god's plan and that everything which happens does so for a reason, even if it is one that only god can understand. This can have a wide-reaching impact on one's psyche. Again, it helps remove feelings of guilt or personal responsibility, since god planned for this to happen. That same logic helps dull the impact of unmet expectations or personal loss. 

@MV

You all are the ones that blamed everything on George Bush not me.

I have never blamed everything on George Bush and I don't know anyone who has. There are many evils in this world and while George Bush may be one of them, he isn't the only one, or even the worst. He was just a spectacularly bad president who damaged this country in ways that, at best, will take years, or even decades, to undo. 

TGIX would have a post

TGIX would have a post everyday when Bush was president about how he fucked this up or that up. He even went as far as wanting him thrown in jail.

 

SQ you are about the most level headed left leaning person I have seen. I do not believe you are a full fledged liberal. You do listen to both sides. I can have a conversation with you. However for some reason TGIX brings out the worst in me. Although I have been a lot better about it.

 

As far as this study goes it has been done before nothing new. Now if people are not as smart that believes in god I say good. But what I have a problem with is this. Many times people have said scientist that believe in GW are paid off by the oil industry. Well I will say this those that do have a political agenda and are paid off by the billionaires that want to make a whole lot of money. But back to the subject those that did the survey. Are they atheist and were they looking for a certain result? What if Liberty University or BYU did a study saying those that believe in god are smarter then atheist? I will say this those that attend religious colleges tend to be smarter then those that attend public colleges. Do I have proof or a study no just from my experience putting one kid through college which was a christian college. Which is very hard to get into. Any study can be manipulated.

 

But I will say you have at least kept to the subject and did no name calling good job.

 

Here are some of the nasty

Here are some of the nasty things TGIX wrote.

 

who is "They" anyway. Could you sound any more paranoid if you tried?

Funny thing is that I might even believe the story is true if you were able to find one credible respected web site that it's posted on, not the wacko right wing republican sites. By the way, did you happen to hear just how extreme white power and all that shit they've become? A full 89% of republicans are white!!!!!!!!! HELLO!!!!!!

Now, even if the story was contrived, and it really doesn't matter, infringing on other families' rights to privacy and peace in their neighborhood without having a full blown institution and countless visitors coming and going in cars and trucks they call "SUV's" all the time is their right. You have a problem with that? That is NOT a problem with religion. No decent religious folk would even think twice about it once the neighbors have complained that it is upsetting their calm neighborhood with all the extra traffic and loud sounds. They may very well be of the same religion but they may also practice the Golden Rule. The self riteous nutcases that think they actually have a claim to what's right , and yet are 89% white (having driven everyone else off with their sinister lies whenever they claim to not be bigot bastards, are still not learning. They are dinosaurs and incapable of learning. They have no respect for the rights of others and even used a sick and twisted ad on their official GOP web site comparing a high ranking woman senator to a movie character called "Pussy Galore". Now that just shows how low they will stoop - so far. Tomorrow they'll stoop even lower. Just wait and see. They're violent murderers when they don't get their way, shooting and blowing up unarmed doctors who are husbands and parents and brothers and sons. They couldn't get a whole lot sicker in the head if they tried.

 

 

This how bad it got. this was by AKsnowbunnie.

Just tell me already: Who's dick do I have to suck to get an ignore button so I don't have to deal with TGIX bringing up politics during a boob rant? I mean come on! And when you answer that, tell me who's dick I have to suck to get "TGIX" under the "People Who are" category! Sooo many times I have wanted to be able to put a little check next to "TGIX" over there on the right!
TGIX

The U.S., under our beloved Mr. Bush, has in it's infinite wisdom ignored the fact that over 60,000 jobs are being lost every month. It ignored the fact that Airbus is under investigation by the U.S. at this very moment. It ignored the fact that Airbus is not a U.S. company so there are security risks. It ignored the fact that Boeing (a U.S. company) has done a Superb job of designing and building EVERY airborne refueling tanker that we have ever had. And what did Mr. Bush's government do? It awarded a contract to Airbus to build airborne refueling tankers. How much money is involved? Not much so maybe we shouldn't make so big a deal out of this. It's only $40 billion, to start. We all know how these amounts usually double over the term of the contract, NO exaggeration - so a mere $80 billion... ah, who cares? It's only money, it's only our economy, our jobs, oh, and a wretched foreign exchange rate between the dollar and the Euro since other countries have lost so much faith in the U.S. economy during Bush's reign.

Is there ANY sanity to this or anything else Mr. Bush does? And before anyone says *HE* doesn't make these decisions - BULL because he certainly COULD influence them and nix that PATHETIC deal if he wanted to. Other presidents had the balls and the clout to do so. What makes him so idiotically and Dangerously lame or foolish that he can't or refuses to fix this miserable mess? Not one single word from him or his spokesman or anyone in the administration. They simply look the other way giving it their tacit approval!

Are YOU happy with this matter? If so, please explain exactly how you think it will benefit the U.S. to send so many jobs and so many many billions of our dollars overseas to a foreign company to be in charge of one of our MOST Vital security interests? And these clowns claim to be so gung ho about our national security... Screw that.

Name calling... typical republican response. Skewing the facts maybe just a little too, eh? Another favorite right winger tactic. See, I happen to remember the boycott against the French for not supporting us in Bush's invasion of Iraq. What's funny though is just how impossibly stoooopid Americans can be. I have a commercial client who is the sales department manager for an enormous grocery store chain. I asked him back then "Is the boycott having any affect on your stores?" He answered that it was hilarious because people were NOT boycotting products made in France such as Phillips light bulbs, brie cheese made over there etc. They were instead boycotting French's mustard and french fries that are made HERE! I still shake my head in wonder and also chuckle to myself every time I think of that.

It's no wonder there are still some who support that other party even after this bone headed deal with Airbus. They just don't get it and I fear the few die hards who still don't never will. It takes intelligence.

I have more here is my last one for this post.

Bush's excesses are only a little worse than the one who was the worst ever before him - Ronald Reagan, the other who also campaigned on cutting the size of government and then also, like Bush, increased it's size more than any other administration ever in the history of this country.

Hypocrisy and irresponsible spending, it's what republicans do best. They just do it with debt, causing our children to have to pay a gargantuan amount in interest while democrats spend by taxing which is spent now, MUCH MUCH more responsible rather than paying for the expenses AND ENORMOUS ENORMOUS borrowing costs added on.

What's wrong, you still can't accept the facts -

or you're just unwilling to do so?

On being liberal.

@MV

TGIX would have a post everyday when Bush was president about how he fucked this up or that up. He even went as far as wanting him thrown in jail. 

I wasn't posting here then, so I don't know what TGIX was saying. However, I can say that I too was cursing GW most days. I still do, sometimes, as the effects of his presidency have tended to linger. The guy was just a really, really bad president. I don't know about imprisonment, but impeachment was certainly justified. 

SQ you are about the most level headed left leaning person I have seen. I do not believe you are a full fledged liberal. You do listen to both sides. I can have a conversation with you.

Well, I hate to disappoint you, but I'm about as liberal as they come. At least by today's standards. One of the reasons I'm not a registered Democrat is the conservative bent I see in the party. I also can't stand the unproductive polarization of a two party system like this, but that's an issue for another day.

Nothing about being liberal makes one closed off to hearing multiple points of view. That is just an unfortunate human trait, and one which effects both sides of the political divide. If anything, someone who is liberal should be more open minded. By definition, being liberal means being "open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values," while being conservative means "holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation, typically in relation to politics or religion." At least that's what the dictionary says.

For my part, I believe in empirical evidence and rational debate. I listen to everything, but I give little credence to broad, unsupported claims or accusations. I point out the fallacy of these claims when I hear them and I do my best to avoid making such claims myself. I hope that by speaking from a place of reason I can elevate the value of the dialogue. 

However for some reason TGIX brings out the worst in me. Although I have been a lot better about it.

As they say, two wrongs don't make a right. You yourself have pushed my buttons on more than one occasion since I started posting on MPP, but I still do my best to keep my composure when responding. 

But back to the subject those that did the survey. Are they atheist and were they looking for a certain result?

According to the article, no they weren't. And from all appearances, the study was conducted appropriately, without any signs of statistical fraud.

What if Liberty University or BYU did a study saying those that believe in god are smarter then atheist?

I would question the results because they go against those of previous studies. I would want to know what the scientific community thought about the study and its conduct. If it was found to be above reproach, then I would expect a thorough review of all studies on this matter to see where the discrepancy lies. 

I will say this those that attend religious colleges tend to be smarter then those that attend public colleges. Do I have proof or a study no just from my experience putting one kid through college which was a christian college. Which is very hard to get into.

So now you're making a general statement about the intelligence of college kids based on a single data point. Worse yet—talk about bias—you're the parent of that data point. Do you see the problem with this? This is an excellent example of bad pseudo-science. In fact, this is just the kind of hypothesis that statistics were made to test (in an unbiased and infinitely more accurate way, I might add).

Any study can be manipulated.

The fact that something can be manipulated doesn't mean it has been manipulated. The question is, what is the likelihood that it was manipulated? This is where critical thinking skills come to play. Experience tells me that the claims made by this study can be accepted as accurate. 

This is also why I place my faith in the scientific community, rather than just listening to a single person who happens to have a theory I like. Members of the scientific community are constantly checking and rechecking each other's research—trying to disprove each other and expand on previous results. This makes both manipulation and inadvertent errors much more likely to be caught and corrected. 

But I will say you have at least kept to the subject and did no name calling good job.

My pleasure. 

Here are some of the nasty things TGIX wrote.

This is unnecessary. First of all, I can't really pass judgement on TGIX based on a few statements you've purposefully taken out of context in order to prove how bad he is. In any case, while TGIX doesn't express himself the way i would choose to do so, I don't see anything so damning in these quoted comments. I certainly don't see anywhere where TGIX blames Bush for "everything," as you stated. To be honest, the most hateful statement in there came from AK in response to TGIX. Not that I'm surprised, given the way she's treated me in other posts on this site.

Well, I hate to disappoint

Well, I hate to disappoint you, but I'm about as liberal as they come. At least by today's standards. One of the reasons I'm not a registered Democrat is the conservative bent I see in the party. I also can't stand the unproductive polarization of a two party system like this, but that's an issue for another day.

 

There is as liberal as they come then there are the fanatics. The name calling fanatics. You do not strike me as one of those.

 

So now you're making a general statement about the intelligence of college kids based on a single data point. Worse yet—talk about bias—you're the parent of that data point. Do you see the problem with this? This is an excellent example of bad pseudo-science. In fact, this is just the kind of hypothesis that statistics were made to test (in an unbiased and infinitely more accurate way, I might add).

No because my son did not make it into the same college it was a comunity college and he is an atheist.

This is also why I place my faith in the scientific community, rather than just listening to a single person who happens to have a theory I like. Members of the scientific community are constantly checking and rechecking each other's research—trying to disprove each other and expand on previous results. This makes both manipulation and inadvertent errors much more likely to be caught and corrected.

 

But when scientist say GW is not man made here comes the oh they work for the oil companies yet they are scientist. You have one group that says it is real one group that says it is not real. Then there is the scientist that say beyond proof dinosaurs were extinct by a asteroid. But then you have the ones that say hold on minute it was volcanic explosions that made them extinct. I question everyone.

 

This is unnecessary. First of all, I can't really pass judgement on TGIX based on a few statements you've purposefully taken out of context in order to prove how bad he is. In any case, while TGIX doesn't express himself the way i would choose to do so, I don't see anything so damning in these quoted comments. I certainly don't see anywhere where TGIX blames Bush for "everything," as you stated. To be honest, the most hateful statement in there came from AK in response to TGIX. Not that I'm surprised, given the way she's treated me in other posts on this site.

 

Oh I could post a hell of a lot more. Like how he has said all republicans are evil.

 

GW most days. I still do, sometimes, as the effects of his presidency have tended to linger. The guy was just a really, really bad president. I don't know about imprisonment, but impeachment was certainly justified.

 

NO it was not. He committed no crime. Second all this stuff did not happen until after 2006 when the democrats took over both houses. Bush did nothing wrong. Bill Clinton did do wrong but was it impeachable. Depends if you think he lied about sex. Or if you think he tried to use his power to deny an ordinary person there day in court. Lets not forget Clinton lost his law license. Me myself I believe Clinton just like Bush should have never been impeached.

 

Science and impeachment

But when scientist say GW is not man made here comes the oh they work for the oil companies yet they are scientist. You have one group that says it is real one group that says it is not real. Then there is the scientist that say beyond proof dinosaurs were extinct by a asteroid. But then you have the ones that say hold on minute it was volcanic explosions that made them extinct. I question everyone.

Of course you should question everyone. And yes, there will always be some individual scientists who put their faith in unconventional theories. But again, that is why we have a scientific community. You can almost always find a few people with some scientific credentials who'll say just about anything you'd like. But if the vast majority of the scientific community are standing behind theory-X, then theory-X should be considered reliable science. 

In the case of global warming, there is near unanimous support in the scientific community for the assertion that human activities are contributing adversely to global climate change. This theory has been endorsed by every national science academy who has released a statement on climate change—including the science academies of all major industrialized nations—and there isn't a single scientific society known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change. To me, this seems like pretty compelling evidence. Are there dissenting opinions out there? Sure! Should we listen to them? That depends. If they're just pointing out gaps in our understanding, then that isn't very useful and it certainly isn't a reason to dump conventional theories. If they bring new data to the table that can expand our understanding of the science, then I'm all ears. But this new data must be looked at in the light of all preceding data on the subject, so while it may refine our understanding of global climate change, it is unlikely to completely upend the fundamentals of current theory. 

And as for impeachment...

NO it was not. He committed no crime. Second all this stuff did not happen until after 2006 when the democrats took over both houses. Bush did nothing wrong. Bill Clinton did do wrong but was it impeachable. Depends if you think he lied about sex. Or if you think he tried to use his power to deny an ordinary person there day in court. Lets not forget Clinton lost his law license. Me myself I believe Clinton just like Bush should have never been impeached.

There is a great deal of debate about the legal standard by which a president can be impeached. Article II § 4 of the United States Constitution states: "The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." Most interpretations of this statement hold that that an offense need not be indictable to warrant impeachment. For one, the word "misdemeanor" did not have a specific criminal connotation at the time of the Constitution's framing.

I agree with you that Clinton never should have been impeached. He lied when asked a question that legally he never should have been asked, about something which was irrelevant to the official duties of his office. The only person who should have been punishing him for that particular offense is his wife. 

George Bush, on the other hand, knowingly misled the American people in order to justify a preemptive war. In my mind, that more than qualifies. It relates directly to the duties of his office and its impact on the country was enormous. I would also say GW's illegal surveillance of American citizens was an impeachable offense. 

In the case of global

In the case of global warming, there is near unanimous support in the scientific community for the assertion that human activities are contributing adversely to global climate change. This theory has been endorsed by every national science academy who has released a statement on climate change—including the science academies of all major industrialized nations—and there isn't a single scientific society known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change. To me, this seems like pretty compelling evidence. Are there dissenting opinions out there? Sure! Should we listen to them? That depends. If they're just pointing out gaps in our understanding, then that isn't very useful and it certainly isn't a reason to dump conventional theories. If they bring new data to the table that can expand our understanding of the science, then I'm all ears. But this new data must be looked at in the light of all preceding data on the subject, so while it may refine our understanding of global climate change, it is unlikely to completely upend the fundamentals of current theory.

There is as much division among scientist on this as every thing else. For every scientist you say believes in it I can find one that says it is false. Not to mention all the fraud that has gone on in the scientific world with the emails and the corruption that has gone on. Which has been well documented.

 

George Bush, on the other hand, knowingly misled the American people in order to justify a preemptive war. In my mind, that more than qualifies. It relates directly to the duties of his office and its impact on the country was enormous. I would also say GW's illegal surveillance of American citizens was an impeachable offense.

This has not even been remotely proven. There is no concrete evidence that he mislead anyone. Not only that if you are going to blame him for misleading for the war then you have to blame every democrat that voted for the war and everyone one that was on the intelligence committee. They had the same exact information that Bush had. No one wants to talk about that because it does not fit in there little world I want Bush in jail. Clinton on the other totally abused his power as president to deny Paula Jones her day in court which to me was far worse then anything about Lewinsky. The judge got it right in Clintons case he lost his law license as he should have.

 

I would also say GW's illegal surveillance of American citizens was an impeachable offense.

Hold on just a second there. Because Obama just argued a case for the same thing. So you are saying that Obama should be impeached now also. Because Bush was doing it for known terrorist calling INTO the U.S. Obama is arguing that he can tap any cell phone in the U.S. without a warrant. Not only that the patriot act was just signed by Obama with the same rules as Bush. So please start screaming impeachment for Obama. Or are you going to just say I don't know nothing about that like all the other libs?

 

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10451518-38.html

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123638765474658467.html

 

So there is the information. But I bet you think Obama should not be impeached for it.

What controversy?

There is as much division among scientist on this as every thing else. For every scientist you say believes in it I can find one that says it is false.

While that's a popular statement by many global warming detractors, in truth it is utterly false. There are thousands of scientists who have gone on record in support of global climate change predictions and only a handful who have opposed the mainstream scientific opinion. In fact, when one organization published a list of supposed global warming detractors, within hours dozens of scientists on the list responded in outrage, denying that their research supported the organization's claims and demanding that their names be removed. Global warming may be a political controversy, and even a social controversy, but it is hardly a big scientific controversy. 

Not to mention all the fraud that has gone on in the scientific world with the emails and the corruption that has gone on. Which has been well documented.

I am fully aware of the email incident, but I am also aware that the incident was blown way out of proportion. Most of the criticism was based on largely baseless interpretations of the email's contents and their authors motivations. Besides, even if there was some huge conspiracy in that research group, the data in question is only a very tiny fraction of the climate data on which current predictions are based. And the vast majority of the data is publicly available. This was a public relations nightmare to be sure, but it's largely a problem of perception, not science.

Hold on just a second there. Because Obama just argued a case for the same thing. So you are saying that Obama should be impeached now also. Because Bush was doing it for known terrorist calling INTO the U.S. Obama is arguing that he can tap any cell phone in the U.S. without a warrant. Not only that the patriot act was just signed by Obama with the same rules as Bush. So please start screaming impeachment for Obama. Or are you going to just say I don't know nothing about that like all the other libs?

That's not entirely true. Bush blatantly violated FISA and in doing so violated the Fourth Amendment. To me, this is just plain dumb, given the leniency of FISA and the fact that you don't even need to get judicial approval for surveillance until 72 hours after you initiate it. If three days after you start spying on someone you can't come up with a good reason for why you're spying on them, then maybe you shouldn't be spying on them to begin with. But I digress. Based on the articles you linked to, what Obama is doing is very different. First, his Justice Department is arguing that the judiciary can't force the Executive Branch to reveal the details of Bush's warrantless wiretapping program. So it's not that Obama is continuing to violate FISA (at least not that we know), he's just protecting the information from Bush's program as a matter of national security. Secondly, the Obama administration is arguing that cell phone location data collected by telecommunications companies not protected by the Fourth Amendment and can therefore be used by law enforcement without a warrant. This actually brings up some interesting legal questions that have not been answered by the courts yet. Personally I would dispute Justice's arguments in both these cases, but at least they seem to be going through proper legal channels to make their case. 

!face

¡

While that's a popular

While that's a popular statement by many global warming detractors, in truth it is utterly false. There are thousands of scientists who have gone on record in support of global climate change predictions and only a handful who have opposed the mainstream scientific opinion. In fact, when one organization published a list of supposed global warming detractors, within hours dozens of scientists on the list responded in outrage, denying that their research supported the organization's claims and demanding that their names be removed. Global warming may be a political controversy, and even a social controversy, but it is hardly a big scientific controversy.

Then explain this.

But things are not so clear. It is not just the University of East Anglia data that is at question. There are about 450 academic peer-reviewed journal articles questioning the importance of man-made global warming. The sheer number of scientists rallying against a major intervention to stop carbon dioxide is remarkable. In a petition, more than 30,000 American scientists are urging the U.S. government to reject the Kyoto treaty. Thus, there is hardly the unanimity among scientists about global warming or mankind's role in producing it. But even for the sake of argument, assuming that there is significant man-made global warming, many academics argue that higher temperatures are actually good. Higher temperatures increase the amount of land to grow food, increase biological diversity, and improve people's health. Increased carbon dioxide also promotes plant growth.

Wow 30 grand is really handful.

 

I am fully aware of the email incident, but I am also aware that the incident was blown way out of proportion. Most of the criticism was based on largely baseless interpretations of the email's contents and their authors motivations. Besides, even if there was some huge conspiracy in that research group, the data in question is only a very tiny fraction of the climate data on which current predictions are based. And the vast majority of the data is publicly available. This was a public relations nightmare to be sure, but it's largely a problem of perception, not science.

Of course you say it was blown out of proportion you want it to be real.

 

That's not entirely true.

Actually it is true. Obama wants the warrantles wire tapping. Not only that Bush which you guys seem to ignore only did those calls originating from outside the U.S. Not U.S. call originating in or U.S. to U.S. Call. People ignore that fact. I have no problem with it. Matter fact TGIX has no problem with it because he does not care if China busts into his email. Not to mention that Clinton Authorized wiretapping without a warrant. People said oh they were looking for code words bullshit. They were listening in on those conversations. I tell you what also every time the president travels all phone conversations are listened to within 150 miles. I can't say how but I know it happens. Without a warrant.