Two articles that explain everything that is wrong with the world

They're short, funny and well-written. And they're 100%, dead-on-balls accurate.  99% of everything that is wrong with the world is beautifully exemplified in these two articles:

4 Ways Oprah Screwed The World (Nobody Ever Calls Her On)

5 Reasons Conspiracy Theories Are Destroying the World

READ THEM.

 

Who doesn't care about facts...

So MEDIAMATTERS... LOL... Sorry... You can't make this stuff up.  Check out this Epic Graph-FAIL on the part of Fox News:

 Problems?  Well...

They included the average state tax of about 23 cents per gallon both in the category "state" taxes and in the category "state & local" taxes. The total of both state and local taxes is 30.4 cents on average. Fox also placed $3.83 at the bottom, as if taxes are in addition to the price for gasoline. But the $3.83 figure already includes the taxes. (MMFA)

An ACCURATE graph, using correct numbers and scale however, ins't nearly as compelling:

But, hey, why use accurate numbers when discussing an issue as important as tax subsidies going to our single largest (in terms of PROFIT) industry? This is particularly sad, because there are many perfectly legitimate ways to manipulate a graph (playing with the scale on the Y-AXIS, for example) in order to emphasise a point.  You really shouldn't have to out-and-out LIE and CHEAT with bullshit data.

Speaking of PROFITS, apparently, ExxonMobil would have you believe that they pay more in taxes than they make in profit. Which... anyone who's not a complete idiot should realize is a just about a mathematic impossibility... Unless of course you count the taxes paid by the CONSUMER at the pump!  Which I really wouldn't have that much of a problem with, seriously, if the Right wasn't also trying to make the case that lowering Federal Gas TAXES would lower the PRICE of Gas. If ExxonMobil is counting those taxes - paid by us - as a lost revenue opportunity for them, I think it's pretty clear what would happen to the price Gas if those taxes were lowered or repealed:

ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

And that's according to ExxonMobil's own talking point!

The only thing that would happen? The ExxonMobil's of the world would report more profit, still receive billions in tax subsidies, and the rest of us would not only pay exactly the same price at the pump, but we'd also see our property and state income taxes go up substantially in order to make up for the lost revenue our states were once using to maintain our roads.  Well, I don't know about YOU, but I think the ExxonMobil's of the world are taking a big enough chuck out of my paycheck as it is.  So I say: screw 'em. I pay MY taxes, they should sure as hell pay theirs.

--------------------------------

(And before anyone brings up subsidies for Electric Cars or Alternative Energy, let me say that I don't have any problem with eliminating those as well.  Let's just make sure that EVERYONE pays their fair share of taxes, and that BIG OIL covers the FULL COST of our continued consumption of their product, which they currently... what's the industry term? Oh yeah: EXTERNALIZE. Which is a fancy way of saying "fucks everybody else with it.")

News About the Chevy Volt

So I'm grabbing lunch today and I happen to pick up a copy of this week's "Tech Center News"- basically an industry rag that you can get for free, usually at Donut Shops or Gas Stations.  And I'm reading an article that I would like to share with you all regarding the Cheverolet Volt.  Called "Volt Is Not a Political Punching Bag."

First though, a little disclosure: I am an engineer in the Auto Industry. Secondly: I love the Volt, as a Liberal, yes, but as an ENGINEER first and foremost. I am still blown away by what GM has finally managed to do: Design and market a TRULY electric car.  And while the price is too high, and the gas-free range not nearly long enough, with time and further development? I predict that THIS is the fundamental power-plant model that will eventually ween us off of gasoline entirely and forever.

A little math, and I'll get back to the article.  The current Volt costs around $45,000. And not only GM sell them at a loss, but even their #1 fan (ME!) will admit that in no one's wildest fantasies in this a $45,000 car.  So to anyone who wants to argue the BUSINESS CASE of the Volt? Let me save you the time: I concede on all points!  For a purely business perspective, and by itself, in a vacuum? The Volt is a loser.  But what GM has designed here remains a TECHNICAL marvel. Lemme 'splain:
Fully charged, the current Volt can go ~35 miles without consuming a drop of gas.  And personally? If I were going to even CONSIDER spending that kind of money? I need AT LEAST a 50 mile range to get me to and from work every day.  But, as you may or may not know, the range of an electric car, at any assumed speed, is a purely linear function of it MASS.  Put simply? Cut the weight in half and you DOUBLE the range!  So, let's see... How do we get from 35 to 50 miles, gas free...?  Well, TAKE OUT THE INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE for a start!  See the Volt, unlike the Prius, just doesn't need it! So take it out! Save that weight! And the weight of the Alternator. And Radiator. And 10+ Gallons of fuel. And any extra Body Sheet Metal that you no longer need. And the engine mounts... You get the idea.  Because of how the Volt works, you don't actually NEED any gas at all.  The BATTERY drives the wheels, and the engine only acts to keep the battery going once it's depleted. But once the range is adequate for your daily needs? You can pull the engine out and never miss it!
Can't do that with a Prius. Because the Prius' wheels are still driven primarily but the Internal Combustion Engine, which is only ASSISTED by an electric motor. So while more efficient that standard vehicles, you still NEED gas.  It's like Doctor Emmet Brown said:
"[While] Mr. Fusion [...] powers the time circuits and the flux capacitor, [...] the internal combustion engine runs on ordinary gasoline; it always has."
And in the Prius? It still does. Not so in the Volt. And that? Is fucking AMAZING.

SO, with my personal biases disclosed and out of the way, I would like to refer you back to a story that NPR (and others) ran awhile back about FIRES in the Chevy Volt.  See... I'd like to file this under"Behold:Your Liberal Media!" And at first blush, some may miss the sarcasm in that. After all" General Motors? FIRES? Sounds familiar no? And what could be more Liberal than showing how a HUGE CORPORATION is putting out UNSAFE PRODUCTS and MISINFORMING THE PUBLIC, right?
Yeeeeeah...

Except that this in the VOLT. And apparently the media's oil-industry sponsors are as afraid of it's implication as I am impressed by them.  How do I mean?
Well... While NPR was fair - fairer than most - there were some small details that they failed to give proper prominence to in their story.  Like the fact that the fires happened anywhere from three days to three WEEKS after the NHTSA Crash Test: 35 mph into a solid, unmoving barrier.
So what? What does that matter? The cars still caught fire, right? What if it were parked in my garage? It could burn my house down, no?!
*sigh*
Well... That's the impression I felt the NPR stories would leave people with. But it's utter hogwash.

The fires occurred due to a COOLANT leak that corroded the terminals and after three days to three weeks caught fire.  Where was the car at the time? In the equivalent of A FUCKING GOVERNMENT JUNKYARD! Which is exactly where YOUR CAR would be after a 35+ mph crash! And, OK, suppose your car's not totalled. I can still guarantee you it's IN THE DAMNED SHOP!

I've been on both the receiving and giving end of SEVERAL crashes in my ~22 years of driving. NONE of them were over 35 mph. I know this for a fact because my airbags never deployed, and airbag typically deploy between 15 and 20 mph. So these were LOW SPEED crashes.  But anything over ~10? And my car (and usually the other guy's) was definitely IN THE SHOP.  It NEEDED repairs.  And if your mechanic notices a LEAK? Of literally fucking ANYTHING? That's pretty much the FIRST thing s/he's going to address!
(BTW... "she or he" (s/he) is used here as MY mechanic happens to be female. Odd but true, and she's AWESOME at it!)
See... These kinds of things: fires after a crash? Are a HUGE problem if it's something like GAS that's leaking. Mainly because that can catch fire while you're still in the car!  But as GM chairman Dan Ackerson was quoted as saying:

"[...] as one of our customers put it: If they couldn't cut him out of the vehicle in two or three weeks, he had a bigger problem to worry about."

 

And that's it. This? Is NOT A PROBLEM. "Fire" might make for a good story, but it a non-issue here, folks!  Do you what GM has to do about this? Precisely NOTHING. (Although they still are reinforcing the battery.)  But in all seriousness? As a bit of an industry  insider? Alert the mechanics that the coolant could be flammable if allowed to sit on the battery terminal for several days and that's pretty much IT.

Here are some FACTS about the Volt:

For you flag waving types? It's made in the USA, exclusively in GM's Hammtramack plant...
For you anti-supply-siders? ...by UAW, Union labor.

For you flag waving types? It will break your / our dependence on foreign oil.
For you eco-warriors? It can potentially eliminate your personal transportation carbon footprint.

And for you car enthusiasts? This thing looks COOL:

OK, so it's not the Corvette, or the Pontiac Solstice/Saturn Skye. THOSE? Were some damned fine lookin' cars. (The 'Vette still is, though I'm a  Mustang-man through and through myself!) But other than those? GM's not exactly known for it's bold styling. They've been making ugly Cadillacs for decades now, and I'm sure y'all remember the Aztek and wish you didn't, am I right?  But hey: I'll put this up against any comparably priced Toyota or Honda in terms of style and performance - not to mention SAFETY. Yes, SAFETY, as it was award a FIVE-STAR CRASH TEST RATING in both Driver and Passenger Frontal Impacts, Side Impacts and Rollover Rating.

Now... At $45,000...?

Nah, still too much. But lose the engine - which this power-plant makes possible - extend the range and reduce the cost? (Starting with the cost of the engine you've got to pull out ayway?) And this thing will one day be regarded as the Car that changed the world...
...or at least the point at which it all started!

...And the oil industry KNOWS IT!

Gee, go figure...

So it turns out that Science works.  If you test something a thousand times, your thousand and first test is basically guaranteed to yield the same result.  Of course, I'm not going to hold my breath for the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Fox News and every other brain-dead, anti-science, superstitious, Right-Wing moron to admit they were wrong, STFU and get out of the way while the rest of try to DO SOMETHING about it, and apologize for politicizing science and for being a bunch of bent-over, corporate whores, in the wake of the most recent study - one done BY CLIMATE DENIERS, in order to "disprove" global warming - which concluded that basically? Science already had it right: The world is getting warmer, and man's consumption of fossil fuels and the CO2 released room it are the primary driver.

So, as I figure it, the score stands at:

SCIENCE: Whatever
RELIGION & RIGHT-WING CORPORATE WHORES: -ZERO-

Thanks for playing.

...Not that I'm under any delusion that this will make a difference.  Limbaugh, Coulter and co. are FAR too well-paid to get of the grift anytime soon (plus I think they just enjoy it too much,) and America has shown no reluctance in the past to take scientific advice from these Conservative Scumsuckers, but personally? I hope they eaten by Grolar Bears.

Lessons from Solyndra

Right Wing screech-monkeys who haven't idea-one to offer with regards to the deficit, the economy, the environment or any other social problem (other than rich people in America not having enough money) find it easy instead to take advantage of those times when those who try inevitable stumble.  And the most recent flavor of the week of this tactic comes to us compliments of the crack management team at Solyndra.  Again, I'm a week behind on this, and many of you have probably already moved on, but for those who don't know, here's the short version: The Federal Government loaned Half a Billion Dollars to Solyndra, a solar panel maker. Two weeks ago (?) they filed for bankruptcy and that Half-Bil is now "up in smoke." 

Cue the screech-monkeys:

• It's Obama's fault
• It shows [the Obama team] doesn't have any business sense
• We need investigations of this rampant cronyism
• This is why Gov't shouldn't get involved in business
• This proves green-energy is a bust

Well... in the words of the REAL Niceguy Eddie Cabot, "OK, First things fucking last!"

Does the failure of Solyndra demonstrate the shortcomings of Green Energy?

Well... let me put it a different way...

Did the failures of Stanley Motors or Studebaker prove that the whole "horseless carriage" craze was just a passing fad?

Did the failure of Pets.com (and many, MANY other .com's) prove that this whole "Internets" thing Al Gore kept harping on about was just a flash in the pan?

Well... If you're reading this now, and/or happened to DRIVE ANYWHERE this week, you know that these statements are patently absurd.  But there IS still an important lesson to learn here!  In Climate discussions, there's always one of these same screech-monkeys claiming that we "can't even predict the weather TOMORROW, so how do we know what the CLIMATE will be DECADES from now?!"  (And yes, despite its grammatical structure, that's a CLAIM, not a QUESTION.  It's only a question if you're looking for an ANSWER. And screech-monkey's questions are ALWAYS rhetorical.)  And I liken tomorrows weather to the climate (or the local weather to the global climate) as a single company's performance to that of the entire economy.  That's very apt here.

As was the case with Automobiles or the Internet, there is little doubt that the TECHNOLOGY is going to be around for awhile, and that at some point will be a booming industry.  That's relative easy to foresee.  What's difficult? Is predicting WHICH COMPANIES will succeed in bringing that industry about.  Consider Cars: Just after the turn of the last century, there were over 100 Companies making automobiles in this country alone.  Today there are THREE. (And although I do recommend checking out the fine work being done by Tesla and Fisker, they aren't even a grain of sand on the mountain of the Big-3 yet. So, we'll stick with three.)  So... back in ~1910, if you wanted to invest in the Auto Industry, despite being pretty sure that the INDUSTRY would thrive, you would have a damned hard time picking which COMPANY would.  Same goes for the Internet: There was never any doubt that it would change the world and be HUGE.  But who bought Yahoo! instead of Google?  Who bought Pets.com?  Who bought into any one of a thousand other .com's that rose and fell in the late 1990's and early 2000's?

What's my point? Well... I'm sort of conceding the next couple of points up the list, actually:

1) The gov't shouldn't get this involved in business, because 2) It smacks of cronyism and (as I've laid out) it's nearly impossible to consistently pick which COMPANY will succeed, even if you know that the INDUSTRY is growing - Warren Buffet not withstanding, but 3) he's not Obama's economic advisor!  (That's three of their points conceded, in a post where I disagree with them! Dang!)

But hey: I'm a pretty green guy.  I'm no eco-warrior, but I do believe that Global Warming is a legitimate threat and that we need to seriously get away from what I call the "burning shit" model of generating energy.  So what do I suggest we do, if not directly support fledgling green-power businesses?

Well... there are a few things, and some of the philosophy borrows from Free-Market Libertarianism.  And the rest runs precisely counter to it!  Here's what might have been done instead:

1) Instead of making a Half-Billion dollar LOAN, why not put up a contract - FOR BID - for half a billion dollars worth of Solar Panels?  Then let companies compete to see who can come up with the scratch to support it and deliver.  Worst case? (They fail?) You don't pay a dime.  Best case? You've got economic stimulus, new technology, competition, etc... (All those things the Right says they want) and at the same time, you're helping the environment: Use the panels at all federal buildings, military bases, state buildings, etc...  And spur growth that way.

That's the Libertarian way, and I believe this is one instance in which their way is the better one.  Here's another way:

2) Raise CAFE Standards, sign and ratify Kyoto II (or whatever the latest climate treaty is), pass Cap and Trade... or better: just penalize those companies that don't meet the new, stricter emissions and Carbon standards.  Then? Go right back to the Libertarian way and let industry sort out for themselves how to make it all happen!

Why do I think this would work?  I'll go back to my example of Cars and the Internet...

In the late 1960's, Ralph Nader started a national campaign to improve automotive safety.  One of the things that came out of that was something known as FMVSS 209, aka: WHAT I DO FOR A LIVING. (I'm an automotive seat belt engineer. So... Thanks for my job, Mister Nader, but you can still GFY for giving us George W. Bush.  And the thing is, while you can't pass FMVSS 209 Testing without a seat belt (after all the regulation is FOR seat belts) it doesn't tell you HOW to make one. (Or WHO can make one.) Likewise, we have NCAP testing - this is where those 4-Star and 5-Star safety ratings come from.  Now... you can't get a good Star-Rating without airbags.  But the regulation does NOT tell you WHAT airbags you need, where to put them, or how to design them. And what we DO, as engineers, is to come up with better designs. We compete amongst our various companies to deliver BETTER safety restraints, and to do it CHEAPER and FASTER than the next guy.  And today we have fewer automotive fatalites annually that we did in the 1950's.  Not fewer per capita, mind you, or per mile driven, that's fewer OVERALL, despite having something like 10 times as many people on the road, each driving many times as many miles on average as they did way back when. 

This approach? (Set a target and let industry figure out to meet it?) WORKS.

Now consider the Internet.  When you consider the version that the legislation sponsored by former Vice President Gore helped bring about, it's fairly utopian: No one "owns" it, users generate their own content, all voices are equal, and anyone can use it as they see fit and as the technology they develop themself allows.  And that's what been the key to it's success: At no point in time did the Government, or a company step in to decide exactly HOW things would run, or WHAT it could (and could not) be used for.  No one pick and chose, and it wasn't managed. 

And the way this applies to Solar Energy?

Well... Who's to say that Solyndra's designs were the best, or that they're the company that will succeed?  Why pick and choose?  Set the target and let the ENGINEERS do their work.  Some companies will fail, but the TECHNOLOGY and the INDUSTRY isn't going away.  In the meantime, there's no reason to start placing bets on individual firms with tax-payer money.

As for it all being Obama's fault?

Well, shoot... EVERYTHING is Obama's fault, isn't it?

;)

Good article by a good man...

LOL - That got you curious, didn't it?

It's pretty likely that you don't know this author, but I know him very well, personally.  He is both one of very few truly good men in this world and and an underated talent.  He recently penned an interesting piece reporting on the Vatican's position on Global Warming.

I always find it interesting when science and religion can agree on something.  I wonder how this will affect the Catholic vote? (Sorry - the WHITE Catholic vote, I mean! LOL)

Actually, I'm sure this will just be more fodder for those other religious 'Mercans who view the Vatican as "just another European country that hates us." Yeah - I actualy got that in an email from a [Conservative, Baptist] friend of mine back when the pope was coming out against the execution of Saddam Hussein after having condemned the US's invasion of Iraq.  After a rather loud *sigh* I explained that this is, in fact, what a PRINCIPLED "pro-life" position looks like: Against abortion, yes, but ALSO against the Death Penalty and War, in general.  He conceded the point, but said he still thought it was "strange."

Well, there's plenty that the Vatican gets wrong, but I'll take them ANY day over the average 'Mercan Mega-Church.  It's nice to see them on the right side of this one.  Maybe religion can actually do some good after all!

Open Letter on Climate Change

I came accross THIS, from the Guardian a couple weeks back, following a link that was in my bible.  I've been meaning to post it ever since, and invite everyone to read it, use it, reference it, send it to your friends, etc...  and I kept forgetting to.  So before I forget again, please check it out.  It's a very simple, clear, concise rebuttal to the business and politics of climate change denial in general.  It doesn't deal in specifics, but it lays clear what is really behind climate change denial... and it ain't science!

Something I've noticed about Conservatives...

Yeah, yeah, big surprise. Niceguy Eddie's going to bash conservatives. Blah... Blah...

OK I got that out of the way! :) LOL.

There's something I've noticed about conservatives lately. I think it's always been there, but either it's gotten worse since 1/20/2008, or maybe 9/11/2001, or maybe it's always been this way, and I'm just becoming more aware of it lately. But there's something really wrong with the way Conservatives THINK. It's all backwards! And I don't mean that there's something wrong with WHAT they think. That a self-avowed liberal and a typical conservative would have different beliefs or opinions or conclusions is nothing profound. But more and more I'm noticing a very disturbing pattern the WAY that conservatives reach those conclusions... in HOW they think.

And before I go on, let me say that I do not personally speak for ALL liberals (I'm sure many want nothing to do with me! LOL.) So when I say "liberals" I'm speaking for myself and the few liberals I know well, or watch on TV. And obviously, I'm generalizing about conservatives, based on my observations of Fox, AM Radio, etc... and my interactions with conservative posters online (most of whom know I'm liberal) and my friends (who mostly trend conservative) and family (half & half,) none of whom really realize the extent to which I am liberal. (They seem to always assume that I'm somewhere between dead center and moderately conservative. I guess I USED to be, and I just don't go out of my my to present my self otherwise.) But that's what I'm basing this on. So if you're conservative and this doesn't sound like YOU, then either:

1) You're really a moderate liberal and just don't know it. (a few of you)
2) You don't realize that you are in fact thinking this way. (most of you)
3) Despite your misguided political tendencies, you are a very intelligent person and can articulate a good argument, and should really post online more often, because the conservatives who DO post there are embarrassing you. (so far I've only met ONE.)

So here's the way I see it.

When a "liberal" decides on his position, he tends to first look at the available evidence, decide what is credible and factual based on it's objectivity and scientific and academic merit, and construct a position that is supported by this evidence. The resulting ideology is then defined as "liberal," usually by those who disagree with the conclusions.

A "conservative," on the other hand, starts out with a set ideology. He then evaluates the merit of evidence based upon whether or not it fits his ideology. If it doesn't support what he already believe he dismisses it, or its source, as "liberal" and that is enough to satisfy him.

The examples of this are all over the place, but let look at a specific example:

GLOBAL WARMING

Now liberals believe that man's activity is causing a long-term warming trend that is independent of the numerous solar, oceanic, and other warming and cooling cycles that are on-going, well known and accounted for in all of the climate models that support this conclusion. (You see: our position was constructed to be supported by scientific evidence.) This being the case, we consequently believe that we should change our habits to stop or reverse this long term trend.

Now... conservatives DO NOT believe that man's activity is causing a long-term warming trend that is independent of the numerous solar, oceanic, and other warming and cooling cycles, etc... What is their evidence? Mainly studies done that have been funded by the energy industries and conservative think tanks.

WHOA! Hang on a sec... Did I just commit the same crime?! Did I just violate my FIRST PRINCIPLE?! No. And I'll explain why.

First of all, our judgement of the organizations is different. The Heritage Foundation (and other conservative think-tanks) proudly admit to being JUST THAT. They don't deny it. This means that anything they put out is going to be biased. Period. That's their stated purpose.That pretty much destroys any scientific or academic merit or objectivity the evidence may have had. As far as industry science goes... well, I'll admit: SOMETIMES industry is right. There are plenty of examples of say... LAWYERS, and the MEDIA, blaming some problem on some corporation and, in the end, the corporation tunrs out to have been blameless. Dow Corning and their Silcone Breast Implants comes to mind. But in THOSE case the corporate science is under assault by LAWYERS using JUNK SCIENCE to win over JURIES, not SCIENTISTS doing RESEARCH and publishing PEER-REVIEWED papers in ACADEMIC JOURNALS. Independent scientific research does trump corporate science on most days, because they're being paid to do research, not support conclusions.

The fact is that most scientific organizations stand little to gain for going on way of the other. The IPCC and other organizations have little to gain by going against industry. If they were interested in money, there's far more to be made by SUPPORTING industry. (If there was more money in GREEN ENERGY, we'd already be doing it! The big bucks right now are in FOSSIL FUELS, so there's no reason, except the scientific evidence, to have an agenda tha goes against this!) But because they reached a different conclusion, conservatives accuse them of being part of a LIBERAL AGENDA, and thus there data is no good. (In reality, and with most things liberal, the data drives the agenda, not the otehr way around.)

And you see there's also two major problems with their conclusions, independent of the agenda that fuels their research. First of all, the conservatives cannot produce a single Climatologist, doing active research, who supports their position. NOT ONE! (30,000+ Names of "Scientists" on a petition, and NOT ONE active climatologist!) What's more, when politics has been involved not a SINGLE scientist has ever accused the UN or some other Government Body of OVERSTATING the conclusions of their research. Whenever politics gets involved, it is invariably to DIMINISH the perceived threat. But unless they diminish it to the point where it's nonexistant, they're just accused of liberal bias or of havign a liberal agenda and dismissed! Again, the liberal agenda is driven by the evidence, not the other way around!

And besides... If it were not supported by SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE, why on earth would liberals, or anyone else for that matter, what to believe this anyway?! The conservatives will tell you it's because we HATE CORPORATIONS. Well, that's mostly bullshit. To the extent that any of us judge corporations harshly, it is because they have ACTED IRRESPONSIBLY, and we KNOW THIS because we have EVIDENCE!

...Which the conservative will simply dismiss as 'liberal'. (See how frustrating these people are?!)

See how that works? He can't convince us, because we don't share his [delusion] preconceived world view, and we can't convince him because he will not accept any evidence that doesn't support his [delusion] preconceived world view. But WHO'S RIGHT? (Personally I'd say the one that supported by the more objective, independant scientific evidence, but then I'm a liberal; so what do I know?)

Why would they think that Academics, Scientists, etc... are inherently liberal anyway? Simple: They comes to conclusions and repeatedy find evidence that doesn't support the conservative agenda or philosphy... So therefore they MUST be liberal! And so they conclude that the evidence must be wrong (or biased) rather then their philosophy or preconceived notions. The best of them may even realize how utterly intellectually dishonestly THEIR SIDE operates, but they still make the mistake of thinking we work the same way. So they HAVE to accuse universities, scientists, academics etc... of having some liberal agenda, because that's the only way they can refute the evidence.

And go figure: as a species we DON'T ALREADY KNOW EVERYTHING. So pretty much anything we learn will refute something we thought we knew. All scientific progress is based on this self-evident truth, and all conservative philosophy is built around resisting it!

And when we judge "evidence" from the Heritage Foundation, or some huge corporation to be garbage, it is not because we think they're conservative. We already KNOW they're conservative - they come right out and SAY IT. We treat it like garbage because we have BETTER EVIDENCE. Our side (talking about independent scientists now) evaluates their evidence and either incorporates it into their models or outright refutes it. In the case of global warming, for example, every competing hypothesis to explain the OBSERVED and MEASURED 100+ year warming trend has been accounted for and/or debunked! But the conservative groups will never TELL YOU THAT! They'll just keep bringing up the same old crap, that's been debunked or accounted for a hundred times over. Like when they point out that their hasn't been any warming for the past ten years... WHICH IS PREDICTED AND EXPLAINED BY THE VERY MODELS THEY'RE TRYING TO REFUTE!!!

Liberals ideology on this issue is driven by these models. Conservatives opinions of these models is driven by their ideology.

And if they were to ask us, what we would do if we were confronted with true, actual, objective, scientific evidence to the contrary? Well what do you think we would do? WE WOULD CHANGE. That's what Liberals DO after all: CHANGE. And the world is CONSTANTLY CHANGING. Liberals realize this, and change with it. Conservatives don't and try to resist change. This has ALWAYS been the case. But then again, they don't realize this, because they constantly make the mistake of thinking that we're just like them.

Again: It's not WHAT they think that's the problem. It's HOW they think. And at best, the conservatives of ANY generation are only just them coming to accept what the liberals of two generations ago already discovered, but were mocked for by the conservtaives of the day. The world doesn't change becasue liberals want it to. We jsut want to make sure that our philosphy keeps up with it. And likewise, the world will not STOP CHANGING just because conservatives want it to. But not being one, I have no ideas why they'd want to cling to outdated knowledge, or philosphies that no longer work.