Michael Hardner

The people who fought for it at that time. Maybe Thomas Jefferson ? Rousseau ? I don't believe that we as individuals get to take credit for what our culture established hundreds of years ago, especially those aspects of our culture that came from America and which Canadians actually helped fight against.

You have no basis for saying that I'm a 'fan' of moral equivalency, whatever that means.

There is a disconnect between the scientists and the HCs. There is no PR between the scientists and the 'skeptical journalists' at present. There is just a wide gulf there at present. I don't count the email hackers as public relations people.

The status quo ? Look at the disparity between the scientist believe in AGW and the public. Even if AGW was completely false, and the scientists were completely evil there shouldn't be so large a gap. They have ignored disseminating the message.

Ahhh.... hmmmm.... I thought cheaper.... the boat my dad went on was basically a cargo boat with some awful bunks in them. The next generation was more for the 'ascot and monacle' crowd. Volcanoes can be deadly and even a threat to humankind though, seriously: Supervolcanoes !

Wikipedia saves the day once again.

My dad took one to LeHavre in the 1960s, as far as I remember. Come to think of it, I think cheap passenger runs to Europe still happened even in the 1970s, though they were almost dead by then.

Come to think of it, I think cheap passenger runs to Europe still happened even in the 1970s, though they were almost dead by then.

They don't realize that they think of scientists as priests or shamans, but effectively that's what they are. If science doesn't cater to idiots, then who does ? Key to this discussion is how we think of 'the public'. What is 'the public' and what are 'the masses'. Those are two views of the people that, like the particle and wave theory of light are never 100% right or wrong. In fact, the public is a heterogeneous blob - made up of sheep, dolts, opinion leaders, and brilliant folks. How do you deal with that ? Good question. In my opinion, you need to simplify concepts to the point that the intellectually curious (not 'intellectuals') will understand them. The idiots will follow populist loudmouths (which I call hog-callers) of every stripe. One should make an effort to reach out to opinion makers, hog-callers, the intelligensia, and hope that the idiots fall in behind them.

That's fine, but your point of view will brand you as an 'idealogue', and rightfully so, if you don't tart it up somewhat. One man's entitlement is another man's 'basic human right'. There's something admirable about refusing to compromise, though. Priests and wizards are not exactly the same as scientists. I suspect that they were more pliable to those in power. But their position to the public is similar. Do they resist change or not ? I don't know about that. I would say that they pursue knowledge and that change is pursued as an application of the knowledge gained. What kind of change ? It's not change to you, in that government control will continue to grow. But it's a major change that they're proposing to the way economies are managed. Right, but the public as a homogeneous blob can't be expected to digest such things in whole. That's why we have to put 'DO NOT EAT' on packets of silica gel that come in the packing case that houses your big-box purchases. The public is heterogeneous and as such, members of the public must be identified as leaders. The message needs to be tailored to them. Ok.

Ships, man. When I was younger, it was still a cheap and viable way to cross the pond.

Ok, but it's also within their rights - probably even desirable that they do these things.

This is exactly the problem. Scientists think that their power comes from reason but it doesn't. It DOES come from faith, and the IPCC working group 1 doesn't understand this. They do their job as scientists, but the public believes in them as priests and they need to acknowledge that.

This represents only part of what they do. In my experience, almost nobody who wants control also rejects the idea that they are responsible for the areas that they control. In other words, saying the government wants to control, tax and spend ignores the aspect of paternalism that comes with those functions - for good or bad. Government wants to be our parent, not a parasite. Your understanding of that will help you promote alternatives to that model. This is not true at all, IMO. In the 20th century, science was seen as responsible for the arrival of many gadgets and comforts that made life easier. Also, there were wonders that boggled the mind, that priests and wizards of the past couldn't ever have delivered. So you have the ascendancy of science and the 'expert' happening at that time. With that, a lot of pseudo-science like Economics and Psychology gaining believe. The newspapers began quoting experts and in the post-war centralized authority coupled with expertise (the 'government man', the mathematician, the corporation, the engineer etc.) provided specialized expertise that were going to usher us into the next utopia. We count on the public to act in their own interest. There is a paradox there, though. The public can't be expected to digest issues that are beyond a certain complexity. But then again, neither can a board of directors. So somebody has to decide when to educate, when to summarize, and when to gloss over things. Identifying public opinion leaders and engaging them is the key, IMO. I can see opportunities to do this with 'the web' but there hasn't been a great breakthrough yet. Almost, but not yet.

You should separate those who make a living from gathering attention to themselves from those who make a living working in science, though. In other words, don't put legitimate skeptics such as Friis-Christensen and Henrik Svensmark in with the others.

Yes, highly recommended. Produced by a long-time science journalist who proves that the best jobs are done by volunteers. [edited to add]Watch the whole series, though, to see that he's critical of Al Gore and the Green hype machine as well. Just the facts.

Tea Party Founder Wanted ! But the headline contains editorial copy accidentally included.... the decline of journalism... the decline of politics... all in one article.

I tend to follow the YouTube channel of a science journalist, who always refers to journals: www.youtube.com/user/potholer54

I don't want to start reading skeptical websites... that is a long road to madness. I will read summaries of published literature. The sources I read always point to the literature.

It's Charest who is making an issue of this, I suspect in order to grab headlines.

Harry Callaghan would be rolling in his grave, were he not too tough to die !

Absolutely. What it is, is people making an all-out attempt to change policy through persuasion. You see it as a power-grab, but I don't. I think it's more likely that the earnest and altrustic greens are exactly as well-intentioned as they appear. Yeah, I don't think they're saying those things. Right. Waldo and Gore believe that it's more important to convince people that there is a problem than to educate them about the problem.

Absolutely. It's important to note, thought, that nobody knows if 5% is the required cut, or if it's 50% or it 50% more is needed. There is something called 'rightsizing', which means magically making the business fit exactly what needs to be done. I say magically because you need a crystal ball to know what the hell government DOES do these days.

What's going on ? Don't Conservatives believe in doing things for themselves anymore ? What's all of this falling back on the system, justice process etc. ? Next thing you know Conservatives will be championing Feminism by demanding an end to the Burka !

Ok... I don't know what to make of this: other than it's an interesting paradox.