About Me

Name: Jack Fisher
Email: slickboy44@fastmail.fm Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 
Objective Religions Studies
Debunking Creationisms

A Balanced View of Climategate

A lot has been said recently on the scandal that has come to be known as Climategate. Stories that hacked emails from a climate research center in England reveal researchers possibly skewing data on climate change has caused an uproar. Many on the skeptics side have claimed that this is a smoking gun that global warming is a fraud. That somehow just because this data has been compromised the whole theory has to be thrown out. On the other side, the global warming alarmists claim this is just a ploy by skeptics to discredit their cause and prevent world governments from doing anything about it. In the end, they're both wrong. They both use the same flawed reasoning, appealing to conspiracy theories that makes their side out to be the side of truth and the other out to be the bad guys. But in this case, nobody is the real bad guy. Both sides believe they're equally right and they cannot be convinced otherwise.

So what are the facts? Well it's not too earth-shattering. Yes, the world is getting warmer. That's undeniable. Is mankind the sole reason? Nobody knows for sure, but mankind can influence the environment. Does carbon dioxide affect the climate? Definitely, but it isn't the sole driver. Are we heading for a catastrophic disaster? Probably not. Climate changes. It always has and it always will. The key is being able to adapt. Mankind has done it before. We've survived the ice age, the Toba supervolcano eruption, the Medieval warm period, and the infamous Year Without a Summer. To claim this is going to kill us all is to make the same mistake every doomsayer in the history of humanity has ever made. They don't know. Nobody can know. Anybody that claims they do know is a fraud.

Accurate reporting on this issue is hard to come by, but a recent interview between Bill O'Reilly and John Stossel has so far proven to be the most reasonable. You can see the clip below.


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (117) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Shame of Public Schooling

Over two years ago, ABC's John Stossel did a 20/20 special on education called "Stupid in America." The title was thought to be a little extreme, but it was later revealed to be entirely appropriate when dealing with education policy in America. But it isn't just referring to the students who continually rank lower than the rest of the Western world on standardized tests. More so, "Stupid in America" reflects the failure and outright arrogance of the system itself.

Stupid In America

But as hard hitting an assessment this program is, it is only recently that some of the dirty secrets of public schooling has come to light. This past week, the Associated Press did a story on the infamous 'rubber rooms' first described in the 20/20 special. In these rooms, troubled teachers are placed in rooms where they just sit around and do nothing all day and still collect their full salary. Why are they there? The reasons vary. Some are there due to insubordination on the job while others are there for serious offences like sexually harassing students. While such behavior would earn a quick firing in any other job, it doesn't work that way in a public government run school system that is heavily unionized. Because of union contracts, these teachers CAN'T be fired so in order to keep them from the students, the system just puts them away and keeps paying them until they can go through all the messy bureaucracy it takes to fire them.

700 Teachers Paid To Do Nothing

This is government programs at their worst. Never in the private sector would something like this be allowed. Any company that put troubled employess in these situations and kept paying them would go out of business in short order. It is only through a government run system where taxpayer dollars flow freely through endless bureaucracy that these egregious practices can propogate.

But despite this story and the two-year-old special done on 20/20, there is no serious talk to change the system. Barack Obama has talked about making education affordable and available to all people, but he has offered no substantive solutions on doing so. He has not talked about allowing private schooling to grow (even though he sends his own kids to private school) and he has not talked about taking on the teachers unions. In other words, these rubber rooms will be here to stay.

Now as someone with public school still fresh in my memory, I can attest how lousy it is. I was lucky to attend a fairly nice school in a good community, but it still felt like a government run internment center for teenagers and youths. I never got the sense that people wanted to be there, let alone enjoyed being there. But the worst part was the feeling of powerlessness and the total lack of choice. Nobody was allowed to really take control of their educational pursuit. Everybody had to jump through the same hoops. It was only when I got to the more open environments of college and the workplace that I learned so much more. To this day I see much of my public school career as mostly a waste of time.

In a free society where the government is limited by law, these sorts of endeavors are an affront to freedom. The government should not be in the business of education. It is in the business of protecting rights. Time and again the system's failures are exposed. But government continues to drag its feet, avoiding any real change in favor of bureaucrats.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

What's Intuitive Isn't Always True

Human intuition is an amazing yet complex phenomena. Many everyday decisions are made on intuition. Sometimes it's as simple as deciding what to eat and other times it's as complex as formulating an economic policy. Intuition is like instinct in that it feels intrinsically right so people don't question it or think too much about it. It's a good thing too because it saves on mental energy. But there are times when intuition may be false.
 
Take the current prevailing intuition among politicians and the average joe regarding the economy. They rationalize that since the economy has slowed, government spending will stimulate it by pumping money into it. It's an age-old tactic championed by the likes of FDR and Barack Obama. It sounds good on paper. It makes intuitive sense that pumping money into the economy will stimulate it. But anybody who has a more intimate knowledge of economics understands that it doesn't work that way. Government spending does not create any new wealth. It just takes the wealth from one area and tries to redistribute it into another, often hindering those who would create new wealth. It's the reason why the New Deal didn't end the Great Depression and why these huge economic bubbles keep popping and creating great upheavals. John Stossel explained it a great deal in his article appropriately titled "We can't spend our way to prosparity" 
 
Take another less complicated example. In the 70s, the drinking age laws across the country were changed from 18 to 21. The intuitive reasoning was that if the law said that youths couldn't drink until a later age it would cut down on alcohol related deviance. This makes sense on the surface, but research and statistics do not fully support this. The law will not stop youths from drinking. It is not a behavior that involves intruding upon the natural rights of others. It is an entirely self-regulated behavior that affects only the user and how it affects that user will differ from how it affects others. So while many may drink responsibily, there will be those who abuse it. But that applies to any substance or behavior including other drugs and activities like driving. In fact, some researchers claim that those who drink underage do so in more risky ways. Because its legality is taboo, it becomes a sourse of rebellion among users and that can be a reinforcing factor. Another article by John Stossel helps explain this matter further.
 
Take this notion of intuition other domains such as religion and faith. Many reason that if life looks like it's been created then maybe there's a creator. Others reason that because they intuitively feel the presence of the divine, there must be a divine force. These notions seem entirely reasonable, but they have no objective basis in reality. They are entirely subjective assumptions bound by human error. Intuition by its own nature is someone's way of coming to a conclusion when they do not have all the facts. And the irony is that nobody has all the facts and probably never will. So at the expense of torturing themselves over so much uncertainty, intuition provides what seems a safe and reasonable assumption that fills an otherwise uncomfortable void.
 
From humans to insects, intuition has its uses and shortcomings. What seems to make sense doesn't always hold true in a larger scheme. That is why it is important to use inductive reasoning, following the evidence to a conclusion before making a large assumption. And for that which is unknown or unknowable, one must become comfortable with the notion of uncertainty. It's difficult to say sometimes, but the best answer is often "I don't know." But uncertainty is not easy to deal with. Many would rather be certain than be right. That can provide comfort, but it can also cloud judgment. And in a society as complex as ours, poor judgment can lead to major consequences.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »