----- Original Message -----

From: Gary Hoffman

To: Reason-Omaha@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Friday, November 13, 2009 4:19 PM

Subject: Re: [Reason-Omaha] UNL prof in denier camp

 

On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 9:57 PM, Sam Collins <sgcol50326@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>According to this slightly out of context observation, objectivity is fantasy and
> all we're left with is theory extracted from the air to satisfy our preconceptions.
> It's not an argument easy to refute, but it doesn't leave much to have any confidence
> in, except faith of course, which is indisputable.  Do you have a suggestion as to
> a more successful course one might follow to form a useful, if incomplete, understanding
> of the way the world works?  Better than the theory-bound untrustworthy efforts
> to infer from the meager empirical clues available whatever information one may
> wring from them?  One must be skeptical; certainty is elusive.  The best we can do
> is to use whatever means we have, including cooperation and argument, to come a
> little closer to a coherent picture.  ALL knowledge is theory laden, beginning with the
> seductive assumption that your mind correctly interprets what you see, smell,
> hear, touch or otherwise experience.  I prefer to assume it works, sort of, much of
> the time.
> Sam

What you describe is called "phenomenalism." as developed by Mill and
others. I don't subscribe to that nor to any form of constructivism.
Rather, what I was getting at is that learning involves both
observation and theory. "Experience arises together with theoretical
assumptions not before them, and an experience without theory is just
as incomprehensible as is (allegedly) a theory without experience:
eliminate part of the theoretical knowledge of a sensing subject and
you have a person who is completely disoriented and incapable of
carrying out the simplest action." Paul Feyerabend, Against Method at
149 (London: Verso, 3rd ed., 1993). There is also the related concept
of "incommensurability" developed by Feyerabend and Kuhn, which holds
that different theories or paradigms are difficult to compare in an
unbiased manner. So a sensing subject holding to one theory or
paradigm would find it extremely difficult to give fair consideration
of the observations of another sensing subject who holds to a
different theory or paradigm. Consider, for example, a dialog between
Aristotle, who adhered to the geocentric model (or Ptolemaic system),
and Galileo, who held to the heliocentric model.

I also objected to use of one scientific method to the exclusion of
others. While parsimony analysis (aka "Occam's razor") is common,
there are dangers in this approach.

There are many examples where Occam’s razor would have picked the
wrong theory given the available data. Simplicity principles are
useful philosophical preferences for choosing a more likely theory
from among several possibilities that are each consistent with
available data. However, anyone invoking Occam’s razor to support a
model should be aware that additional data may well falsify the model
currently favored by Occam’s razor. One accurate observation of a
white crow falsifies the theory that “all crows are black.” Likewise,
a single instance of Occam’s razor picking a wrong theory falsifies
the razor as a general principle.

"Parsimony" at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parsimony As Feynman
observed, "The idea is to try to give all the information to help
others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the
information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or
another."

Gary

On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 9:57 PM, Sam Collins <sgcol50326@...> wrote:
>
>
>
>According to this slightly out of context observation, objectivity is fantasy
and
> all we're left with is theory extracted from the air to satisfy our
preconceptions.
> It's not an argument easy to refute, but it doesn't leave much to have any
confidence
> in, except faith of course, which is indisputable.  Do you have a suggestion
as to
> a more successful course one might follow to form a useful, if incomplete,
understanding
> of the way the world works?  Better than the theory-bound untrustworthy
efforts
> to infer from the meager empirical clues available whatever information one
may
> wring from them?  One must be skeptical; certainty is elusive.  The best
we can do
> is to use whatever means we have, including cooperation and argument, to come
a
> little closer to a coherent picture.  ALL knowledge is theory laden,
beginning with the
> seductive assumption that your mind correctly interprets what you see, smell,
> hear, touch or otherwise experience.  I prefer to assume it works, sort of,
much of
> the time.
> Sam

What you describe is called "phenomenalism." as developed by Mill and
others. I don't subscribe to that nor to any form of constructivism.
Rather, what I was getting at is that learning involves both
observation and theory. "Experience arises together with theoretical
assumptions not before them, and an experience without theory is just
as incomprehensible as is (allegedly) a theory without experience:
eliminate part of the theoretical knowledge of a sensing subject and
you have a person who is completely disoriented and incapable of
carrying out the simplest action." Paul Feyerabend, Against Method at
149 (London: Verso, 3rd ed., 1993). There is also the related concept
of "incommensurability" developed by Feyerabend and Kuhn, which holds
that different theories or paradigms are difficult to compare in an
unbiased manner. So a sensing subject holding to one theory or
paradigm would find it extremely difficult to give fair consideration
of the observations of another sensing subject who holds to a
different theory or paradigm. Consider, for example, a dialog between
Aristotle, who adhered to the geocentric model (or Ptolemaic system),
and Galileo, who held to the heliocentric model.

I also objected to use of one scientific method to the exclusion of
others. While parsimony analysis (aka "Occam's razor") is common,
there are dangers in this approach.

     There are many examples where Occam’s razor would have picked the
wrong theory given the available data. Simplicity principles are
useful philosophical preferences for choosing a more likely theory
from among several possibilities that are each consistent with
available data. However, anyone invoking Occam’s razor to support a
model should be aware that additional data may well falsify the model
currently favored by Occam’s razor. One accurate observation of a
white crow falsifies the theory that “all crows are black.” Likewise,
a single instance of Occam’s razor picking a wrong theory falsifies
the razor as a general principle.

"Parsimony" at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parsimony As Feynman
observed, "The idea is to try to give all the information to help
others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the
information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or
another."

Gary

Poor Ramin. That's why I just can't stomach the FOX drivel. It literally feels
like I'm on that carousel from "Something Wicked This Way Comes." I can just
feel the weeks clicking off the end of my life. The only thing worse is that
there are people who lap this stuff up, lap it up unquestioningly, and then seem
energized from it. It just perplexes me.

"Theory-laden" seems to be a pejorative term against science in general,
analogous to "only a theory" that is used against the idea of evolution.
Well, there are theories and there are theories.

If one observes the time it takes for a heavy object to fall from the
roof of a building, and then infers the height of the building, that is
a "theory-laden" calculation. The theory is Newton's laws, and is very
well substantiated.

On the other hand, some calculations in cosmology are based on theories
which have not necessarily been very well-substantiated in that area,
but are the best we have at this time.

It is a major aim of science to build good theories.

������ Half of the University of Nebraska� regents have drafted a resolution that would limit embryonic stem cell research at the university�s medical center to stem cell lines approved under former President George W. Bush. The move would apparently make Nebraska the first state whose public university system adopts more stringent limitations on stem cell research than state law and federal guidelines allow.

����� To learn why the regents of the University of Nebraska consider such a step at a time when stem cell research is at last yielding human therapies, I invite you listen to my radio program Saturday morning from 8:30 � 9:00 CST (9:30 Eastern time) on KZUM 89.3 FM. Those of you out of radio range can tune in online at kzum.org. Just click on the button next to the �Listen Live Here� sign.

----- Original Message -----

From: Clayton Naff

To: Reason-Omaha@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Friday, November 13, 2009 12:47 PM

Subject: Re: [Reason-Omaha] torture (hilarious)

 

Is it as good as his Glenn Beck impersonation last week? Hard to top that!

Clay

On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 11:44 AM, Jim Bechtel <jimbechtel2@cox.net> wrote:

 

Jon Stewart and his doomed Teddy Bear watch Sean Hannity (to Carmina Burana):

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-november-12-2009/sean-hannity-apologizes-to-jon

("Kill me!")

--
Clay Farris Naff
Executive Director, Lincoln Literacy Council
Member, National Association of Science Writers
www.claynaff.com
(402) 310-0572
Lincoln, NE
USA

On Nov. 5, there was a rally outside the U.S. Capitol to pro­test pending health care legisla­tion, featuring the kinds of things we�ve grown accustomed to, including large signs showing piles of bodies at Dachau with the caption �Na­tional Socialist Healthcare.�

It was gro­tesque � and it was also omi­nous. For what we may be see­ing is America starting to be Californiafied.

The key thing to understand about that rally is that it wasn�t a fringe event. It was sponsored by the House Republican leader­ship � in fact, it was officially billed as a GOP press confer­ence. Senior lawmakers were in attendance and apparently had no problem with the tone of the proceedings.

True, Eric Cantor, the second­ranking House Republican, of­fered some mild criticism after the fact. But the operative word is �mild.� The signs were �inap­propriate,� said his spokesman, and the use of Hitler compari­sons by such people as Rush Lim­baugh, said Cantor, �conjures up images that frankly are not, I think, very helpful.�

What all this shows is that the GOP has been taken over by the people it used to exploit.

The state of mind visible at re­cent right-wing demonstrations is nothing new. Back in 1964, the historian Richard Hofstadter published an essay titled, �The Paranoid Style in American Poli­tics,� which reads as if it were based on today�s headlines.

Americans on the far right, he wrote, feel that �America has been largely taken away from them and their kind, though they are determined to try to repos­sess it and to prevent the final destructive act of subversion.� Sound familiar?

But while the paranoid style isn�t new, its role within the GOP is. When Hofstadter wrote, the right wing felt dispossessed be­cause it was rejected by both ma­jor parties. That changed with the rise of Ronald Reagan: Re­publican politicians began to win elections in part by catering to the passions of the angry right.

Until recently, however, that catering mostly took the form of empty symbolism. Once elec­tions were won, the issues that fired up the base almost always took a back seat to the economic concerns of the elite.

But something snapped last year. Conservatives had long be­lieved that history was on their side, so the GOP establishment could, in effect, urge hard-right activists to wait just a little lon­ger: Once the party consolidated its hold on power, they�d get what they wanted. After the Demo­cratic sweep, however, extrem­ists could no longer be fobbed off with promises of future glory.

Furthermore, the loss of both Congress and the White House left a power vacuum in a party accustomed to top-down man­agement.

At this point, Newt Gingrich is what passes for a sober, reason­able elder statesman of the GOP. And he has no authority: Republi­can voters ignored his call to sup­port a relatively moderate, elect­able candidate in New York�s special congressional election.

Real power in the party rests, instead, with the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin (who at this point is more a media figure than a con­ventional politician). Because these people aren�t interested in actually governing, they feed the base�s frenzy instead of trying to curb or channel it. So all the old restraints are gone.

In the short run, this may help Democrats, as it did in that New York race. But maybe not: Elec­tions aren�t necessarily won by the candidate with the most ra­tional argument. They�re often determined, instead, by events and economic conditions.

In fact, the party of Limbaugh and Beck could well make major gains in the midterm elections. The Obama administration�s job­creation efforts have fallen short, so that unemployment is likely to stay disastrously high through next year and beyond. The banker-friendly bailout of Wall Street has angered voters and might even let Republicans claim the mantle of economic populism. Conservatives may not have better ideas, but voters might support them out of sheer frustration.

And if Tea Party Republicans do win big next year, what has already happened in Califor­nia could happen at the national level.

In California, the GOP has es­sentially shrunk down to a rump party with no interest in actually governing � but that rump re­mains big enough to prevent any­one else from dealing with the state�s fiscal crisis. If this hap­pens to America as a whole, as it all too easily could, the country could become effectively ungov­ernable in the midst of an ongo­ing economic disaster.

The point is that the takeover of the Republican Party by the ir­rational right is no laughing mat­ter. Something unprecedented is happening here � and it�s very bad for America.

On Nov. 5, there was a rally outside the U.S. Capitol to pro­test pending health care legisla­tion, featuring the kinds of things we�ve grown accustomed to, including large signs showing piles of bodies at Dachau with the caption �Na­tional Socialist Healthcare.�

It was gro­tesque � and it was also omi­nous. For what we may be see­ing is America starting to be Californiafied.

The key thing to understand about that rally is that it wasn�t a fringe event. It was sponsored by the House Republican leader­ship � in fact, it was officially billed as a GOP press confer­ence. Senior lawmakers were in attendance and apparently had no problem with the tone of the proceedings.

True, Eric Cantor, the second­ranking House Republican, of­fered some mild criticism after the fact. But the operative word is �mild.� The signs were �inap­propriate,� said his spokesman, and the use of Hitler compari­sons by such people as Rush Lim­baugh, said Cantor, �conjures up images that frankly are not, I think, very helpful.�

What all this shows is that the GOP has been taken over by the people it used to exploit.

The state of mind visible at re­cent right-wing demonstrations is nothing new. Back in 1964, the historian Richard Hofstadter published an essay titled, �The Paranoid Style in American Poli­tics,� which reads as if it were based on today�s headlines.

Americans on the far right, he wrote, feel that �America has been largely taken away from them and their kind, though they are determined to try to repos­sess it and to prevent the final destructive act of subversion.� Sound familiar?

But while the paranoid style isn�t new, its role within the GOP is. When Hofstadter wrote, the right wing felt dispossessed be­cause it was rejected by both ma­jor parties. That changed with the rise of Ronald Reagan: Re­publican politicians began to win elections in part by catering to the passions of the angry right.

Until recently, however, that catering mostly took the form of empty symbolism. Once elec­tions were won, the issues that fired up the base almost always took a back seat to the economic concerns of the elite.

But something snapped last year. Conservatives had long be­lieved that history was on their side, so the GOP establishment could, in effect, urge hard-right activists to wait just a little lon­ger: Once the party consolidated its hold on power, they�d get what they wanted. After the Demo­cratic sweep, however, extrem­ists could no longer be fobbed off with promises of future glory.

Furthermore, the loss of both Congress and the White House left a power vacuum in a party accustomed to top-down man­agement.

At this point, Newt Gingrich is what passes for a sober, reason­able elder statesman of the GOP. And he has no authority: Republi­can voters ignored his call to sup­port a relatively moderate, elect­able candidate in New York�s special congressional election.

Real power in the party rests, instead, with the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin (who at this point is more a media figure than a con­ventional politician). Because these people aren�t interested in actually governing, they feed the base�s frenzy instead of trying to curb or channel it. So all the old restraints are gone.

In the short run, this may help Democrats, as it did in that New York race. But maybe not: Elec­tions aren�t necessarily won by the candidate with the most ra­tional argument. They�re often determined, instead, by events and economic conditions.

In fact, the party of Limbaugh and Beck could well make major gains in the midterm elections. The Obama administration�s job­creation efforts have fallen short, so that unemployment is likely to stay disastrously high through next year and beyond. The banker-friendly bailout of Wall Street has angered voters and might even let Republicans claim the mantle of economic populism. Conservatives may not have better ideas, but voters might support them out of sheer frustration.

And if Tea Party Republicans do win big next year, what has already happened in Califor­nia could happen at the national level.

In California, the GOP has es­sentially shrunk down to a rump party with no interest in actually governing � but that rump re­mains big enough to prevent any­one else from dealing with the state�s fiscal crisis. If this hap­pens to America as a whole, as it all too easily could, the country could become effectively ungov­ernable in the midst of an ongo­ing economic disaster.

The point is that the takeover of the Republican Party by the ir­rational right is no laughing mat­ter. Something unprecedented is happening here � and it�s very bad for America.

----- Original Message -----

From: Gary Hoffman

To: Reason-Omaha@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2009 7:50 PM

Subject: Re: [Reason-Omaha] UNL prof in denier camp

 

On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 10:02 PM, <jopollack@aol.com> wrote:
>
> "Some proxy data – based on isotopes rather than tree rings – do show those phenomena, but for that very reason we should also be skeptical. After all, if you pick and choose your proxies based on what you already expect, you’re not confirming anything but your bias." [Quotation from "Global Warming Science: Real? Or Too Raw?" by Gerard Harbison (3 November 2009)]
>
> Without isotopes, we would be missing a wealth of ways of obtaining information about past conditions and processes.  One example that immediately springs to mind is the Greenland and Antarctic ice cores.  We would not be able to infer temperatures when the ice was laid down, only CO2 levels, since temperature information comes from isotope fractionation of the frozen water.

According to a leading textbook on paleoclimatology, "[s]table-isotope
ratios of oxygen (^18O/^16O), carbon (^13C/^12C), hydrogen (D,
deuterium, ^2H/^1H), nitrogen (^15N/^14N), and other elements
constitute the single most important family of paleoclimate tools used
to reconstruct past climate parameters in many types of archives."
Thomas M. Cronin, Paleoclimates at 39-40 (NY: Columbia Univ. Press,
2010). [Note: the symbol "^" indicates a superscript of the associated
number.] With regard to oxygen isotopes, delta^18O is the standard
unit of measurement, which refers "to changes in the relative amounts
of these two isotopes . . . in parts per thousand (%)." William F.
Ruddiman, Earth's Climate -- Past and Future at 100 (NY: W. H.
Freeman, 2nd ed., 2008). [Note: subscripts are assigned to delta^18O
according to source (e.g., ice cores).] But, in an advance online
publication of Nature Geoscience, the authors (members of a Past
Global Changes (PAGES) project on Past Interglacials (PIGS)) note
significant problems with proxy data that are currently in use in
measuring integrated climate effects vis-a-vis the ebb and flow of
continental ice and state that at present "we are therefore unable to
assess whether interglacials with specific characteristics have a
higher propensity towards climate instability from others." P.C.
Tzedakis, et al., "Interglacial Diversity," Nature Geoscience
(Progress Article, 18 October 2009). They go on to argue that
delta^18O in benthic foraminifera from deep-sea sediments is the best
proxy in measuring interglacial diversity, the purpose of which is to
measure past interglacials with the current interglacial "to inform
projections on the duration and future evolution of the current
interglacial" and "to disentangle the natural variability from the
anthropogenic impact."

Of course, the problem with proxy data is that their validity rests
upon certain assumptions that are not necessarily falsifiable (to use
Popper's terminology). Moreover, according to Feyerabend and others,
empirical observations are not objective because they are
"theory-laden" (i.e., "observational judgments are affected by the
theoretical beliefs of the observer"). Peter Godfrey-Smith, An
Introduction to the Philosophy of Science -- Theory and Reality at 156
(Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press  2003). And that lack of objectivity is
affected by the social structure of science in which " the desire to
do work that is used requires using, and citing, the work of others,"
thereby trading "credit for support . . . in the hope that others will
do the same for them." Ibid. at 164.

In light of the foregoing, there is good reason to have a degree of
skepticism with respect to climate modeling (and supporting data) as
currently used. Indeed, the norms of science developed by Robert
Merton include organized skepticism, "a community-wide pattern of
challenging and testing ideas instead of taking them on trust." Ibid.
at 122-123. A claim of bias, therefore, logically follows when one
method of collecting data is selected to the exclusion of others,
particularly where the selected method is "theory-laden" and is thus
likely to result in an outcome that conforms with the observer's
expectations.

Gary Hoffman

On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 10:02 PM, <jopollack@...> wrote:
>
> "Some proxy data – based on isotopes rather than tree rings – do show
those phenomena, but for that very reason we should also be skeptical. After
all, if you pick and choose your proxies based on what you already expect,
you’re not confirming anything but your bias." [Quotation from "Global Warming
Science: Real? Or Too Raw?" by Gerard Harbison (3 November 2009)]
>
> Without isotopes, we would be missing a wealth of ways of obtaining
information about past conditions and processes.  One example that immediately
springs to mind is the Greenland and Antarctic ice cores.  We would not be able
to infer temperatures when the ice was laid down, only CO2 levels, since
temperature information comes from isotope fractionation of the frozen water.


According to a leading textbook on paleoclimatology, "[s]table-isotope
ratios of oxygen (^18O/^16O), carbon (^13C/^12C), hydrogen (D,
deuterium, ^2H/^1H), nitrogen (^15N/^14N), and other elements
constitute the single most important family of paleoclimate tools used
to reconstruct past climate parameters in many types of archives."
Thomas M. Cronin, Paleoclimates at 39-40 (NY: Columbia Univ. Press,
2010). [Note: the symbol "^" indicates a superscript of the associated
number.] With regard to oxygen isotopes, delta^18O is the standard
unit of measurement, which refers "to changes in the relative amounts
of these two isotopes . . . in parts per thousand (%)." William F.
Ruddiman, Earth's Climate -- Past and Future at 100 (NY: W. H.
Freeman, 2nd ed., 2008). [Note: subscripts are assigned to delta^18O
according to source (e.g., ice cores).] But, in an advance online
publication of Nature Geoscience, the authors (members of a Past
Global Changes (PAGES) project on Past Interglacials (PIGS)) note
significant problems with proxy data that are currently in use in
measuring integrated climate effects vis-a-vis the ebb and flow of
continental ice and state that at present "we are therefore unable to
assess whether interglacials with specific characteristics have a
higher propensity towards climate instability from others." P.C.
Tzedakis, et al., "Interglacial Diversity," Nature Geoscience
(Progress Article, 18 October 2009). They go on to argue that
delta^18O in benthic foraminifera from deep-sea sediments is the best
proxy in measuring interglacial diversity, the purpose of which is to
measure past interglacials with the current interglacial "to inform
projections on the duration and future evolution of the current
interglacial" and "to disentangle the natural variability from the
anthropogenic impact."

Of course, the problem with proxy data is that their validity rests
upon certain assumptions that are not necessarily falsifiable (to use
Popper's terminology). Moreover, according to Feyerabend and others,
empirical observations are not objective because they are
"theory-laden" (i.e., "observational judgments are affected by the
theoretical beliefs of the observer"). Peter Godfrey-Smith, An
Introduction to the Philosophy of Science -- Theory and Reality at 156
  (Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press  2003). And that lack of objectivity is
affected by the social structure of science in which " the desire to
do work that is used requires using, and citing, the work of others,"
thereby trading "credit for support . . . in the hope that others will
do the same for them." Ibid. at 164.

In light of the foregoing, there is good reason to have a degree of
skepticism with respect to climate modeling (and supporting data) as
currently used. Indeed, the norms of science developed by Robert
Merton include organized skepticism, "a community-wide pattern of
challenging and testing ideas instead of taking them on trust." Ibid.
at 122-123. A claim of bias, therefore, logically follows when one
method of collecting data is selected to the exclusion of others,
particularly where the selected method is "theory-laden" and is thus
likely to result in an outcome that conforms with the observer's
expectations.


Gary Hoffman

One important lesson that was underlined by this affair is: Never trust initial
reports on incidents like this. For example, initial reports said that Major
Hasan was educated in the Near East, and that there were two accomplices.
Reports said different things about his weapons. Some even had his rank wrong.
We had conflicting reports about his character and personality. Today it turns
out that it isn't yet clear just who shot him.

----- Original Message -----

From: Clayton Naff

To: Clayton Naff

Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2009 7:16 AM

Subject: An Alien Talks About God

New blog post at:

http://open.salon.com/blog/clay_farris_naff/2009/11/12/an_alien_talks_about_god

Regards,


Clay
--
Clay Farris Naff
Executive Director, Lincoln Literacy Council
Member, National Association of Science Writers
www.claynaff.com
(402) 310-0572
Lincoln, NE
USA

----- Original Message -----

From: jopollack@...

To: Reason-Omaha@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 10:02 PM

Subject: Re: [Reason-Omaha] UNL prof in denier camp

 

This anti-isotope attitude:

"Some proxy data – based on isotopes rather than tree rings – do show those phenomena, but for that very reason we should also be skeptical. After all, if you pick and choose your proxies based on what you already expect, you’re not confirming anything but your bias."

Without isotopes, we would be missing a wealth of ways of obtaining information about past conditions and processes.  One example that immediately springs to mind is the Greenland and Antarctic ice cores.  We would not be able to infer temperatures when the ice was laid down, only CO2 levels, since temperature information comes from isotope fractionation of the frozen water.

John P.

-----Original Message-----
From: William Hay <whhay@...>
To: Reason-Omaha@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, Nov 10, 2009 11:19 pm
Subject: Re: [Reason-Omaha] UNL prof in denier camp

"anti-isotope attitude", ??  What are you referring to here?

 

Bill

----- Original Message -----

From: jopollack@aol.com

To: Reason-Omaha@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Friday, November 06, 2009 1:57 PM

Subject: Re: [Reason-Omaha] UNL prof in denier camp

 

If he's a biochemist, I wonder if his colleagues know about his anti-isotope attitude!
It's about as absurd as stating that you're opposed to weighing things because
people will just use the information to support their own biases.

John P.

-----Original Message-----
From: William Hay <whhay@...>
To: Reason-Omaha@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, Nov 6, 2009 12:17 am
Subject: Re: [Reason-Omaha] UNL prof in denier camp

I'd be more impressed if he were a climitologist instead of a biochemist.

 

Bill

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Clayton Naff

To: Reason-Omaha@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2009 1:59 PM

Subject: [Reason-Omaha] UNL prof in denier camp

 

See his op-ed here:

http://nebraska.statepaper.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2009/11/03/4af046682940f

--
Clay Farris Naff
Executive Director, Lincoln Literacy Council
Member, National Association of Science Writers
www.claynaff.com
(402) 310-0572
Lincoln, NE
USA

----- Original Message -----

From: William Hay

To: Reason-Omaha@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 11:50 PM

Subject: Re: [Reason-Omaha] UNL prof in denier camp

 

Look at this guy's blog, he's a real conspiracy hound.  He even calls it "The Right Wing Professor's Blog"

 

http://homepage.mac.com/gerardharbison/blog/RWP_blog.html

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Clayton Naff

To: Reason-Omaha@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2009 1:59 PM

Subject: [Reason-Omaha] UNL prof in denier camp

 

See his op-ed here:

http://nebraska.statepaper.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2009/11/03/4af046682940f

--
Clay Farris Naff
Executive Director, Lincoln Literacy Council
Member, National Association of Science Writers
www.claynaff.com
(402) 310-0572
Lincoln, NE
USA

----- Original Message -----

From: Harvey Madison

To: Reason-Omaha@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 4:59 PM

Subject: [Reason-Omaha] Fw: NYTimes.com: A Fateful Day, and the East Tasted Freedom

 

 

This piece helped me realize the feeling about the fall of the Berlin Wall that I had completely missed in 1989. Quite a day.

Harv

INTERNATIONAL / EUROPE   | November 09, 2009 A Fateful Day, and the East Tasted Freedom By SERGE SCHMEMANN The fall of the Berlin Wall was so fine a moment, it takes effort to recall how spontaneous the breach really was. Advertisement Copyright 2009  The New York Times Company | Privacy Policy

Carpool from Omaha?

  ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Brian Ellis" <bpe3812@...>
>> To: <progressiveomaha@...>
>> Sent: Saturday, November 07, 2009 12:34 PM
>> Subject: [progressiveomaha] LUNk Collective House
>>
>>
>>> Hello everyone,
>>>
>>> The LUNk (Lincoln's Underground Network) Collective has just started a
>>> collective house, LUNk House, in the North Bottoms of Lincoln - 1213 N.
>>> 12th near 12th and Charleston. This house is to serve as a hub for local
>>> progressive activists and a clearinghouse for our propaganda. The house
>>> will also serve as a free store, radical lending library, place for
>>> progressive groups to have meetings, debates, potlucks, movie showings,
>>> and other events. We will also be broadcasting LUNk Radio
>>> (www.lunkradio.org) with a low power AM transmitter.
>>>
>>> We are very excited about getting all of this started and would like to
>>> invite all of you to our open house event on November 14th (next
>>> Saturday), starting at 6 PM and going until 10 PM. Any donations would
>>> be much appreciated. Please bring vegetarian food and drink to share (No
>>> alcohol please - LUNk House is a drug and alcohol free space).
>>>
>>> Hope to see you soon,
>>>
>>> Brian Ellis
>>> For the LUNk Collective
>>>    To post on the ProgressiveOmaha Forums or Omaha/Lincoln Calendar, go
>>> to http://www.progressiveomaha.com/tikidir/tiki-forums.php and register
>>> in the top right corner
>>>    To unsubscribe from this list, send an email to
>>> progressiveomaha-unsubscribe@...
>>>    For complete info about this list, go to http://riseup.net and log
>>> in.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>