'Scientific' liberals should accept results of science

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    'Scientific' liberals should accept results of science

    http://washingtonexaminer.com/shikha-dalmia-scientific-liberals-should-accept-results-of-science/article/2529368

    The core trait of a scientific mind is that when its commitments clash with evidence, evidence rules. On that count, what grade do liberals deserve? Fail, given their reaction to the latest evidence on universal health care, global warming and universal preschool.

    The policy world was rocked recently by a New England Journal of Medicine study showing that Medicaid doesn't improve the health care outcomes of uninsured individuals.

    The study compared the health status of adults who were randomly enrolled in Oregon's Medicaid program with those who weren't. It found that two years after patients received Medicaid, "no significant improvements in measured physical health outcomes" such as hypertension, cholesterol and diabetes resulted. Coverage did, however, lower depression rates and reduced financial strain.

    How should a scientifically-inclined liberal have reacted? By acknowledging that if the findings hold in subsequent years, Obamacare's plan to use Medicaid to achieve its universal coverage goal -- at half-a-trillion-dollar price tag over a decade -- would need to be reconsidered.

    Some liberals such as Ray Fisman of Slate did just that -- but they were the exception. Most liberals either dissed the study's methodology after praising it previously (Kevin Drum, Mother Jones) or ignored its core findings and reported the good news (Jonathan Cohn, The New Republic) or attacked Obamacare's opponents as heartless fools (Paul Krugman of The New York Times)........

    Liberals don't just want universal health insurance -- they also want universal preschool. But the evidence for government-funded preschool is even more dubious than for government-funded health care.

    Numerous studies on Head Start, the federal pre-K program for poor kids, show that its reading and math gains virtually evaporate by fourth grade. And the latest evidence from Oklahoma and Georgia, two states that implemented universal pre-K in the 1990s, only confirms this.

    Oklahoma's high-school graduation rates have dropped since it embraced UPK and Georgia's remain stagnant. The average reading score of Oklahoma's fourth graders on the NAEP -- the national report card -- dropped four points between 1998 and 2011.

    Georgia just reached the national average. The NAEP reading gap between black and white children in Oklahoma was 22 points in 1992. In 2011? The same. Georgia had a 28-point spread in 1992. In 2011? Twenty-three points.

    How should President Barack Obama, who had promised evidence-based policy, have responded? By renouncing his commitment to UPK. What did he do? Jetted to Georgia and declared its program a national model.

    It's not that conservatives don't have ideological fixations that are impervious to science. However, they don't pretend to don the mantle of science. Liberals do."

    Another example is scientific research which show different ethnic groups have different average IQs. The science is clear. It is an average, doesnt reflect on any individual. The reason for this, no one knows for sure.

    But any mention of this scientific research and liberals screech about racism...not very science-based, are they?

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sistersledge. Show Sistersledge's posts

    Re: 'Scientific' liberals should accept results of science

    Br'er Crankup what was the final scientific results of the Heritage Foundation Immigration Study ?

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: 'Scientific' liberals should accept results of science

    In response to Sistersledge's comment:

    Br'er Crankup what was the final scientific results of the Heritage Foundation Immigration Study ?



    I don't know about that,  But I'll tell you this:  The science is absolutely settled on the temperature being in the 30's tonight.  It is global warming.  Clearly.  not making this up.  1,000 out of 1,000 climatologists will agree, tomorrow morning, that the temperature plunged into the 30's in the Boston area.  

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: 'Scientific' liberals should accept results of science

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

    Another example is scientific research which show different ethnic groups have different average IQs. The science is clear. It is an average, doesnt reflect on any individual. The reason for this, no one knows for sure.

    But any mention of this scientific research and liberals screech about racism...not very science-based, are they?



    Except in this case, the "science" behind the argument just plain s**ks.  When the methodology is flawed, the results are instantly biased in favor of the author's intent and against what might have been a scientific "finding".

    And as so many are constantly reminding us: one poll, one study, or one set of data points is only the beginning of trying to find the truth.

    Maybe after a few dozen more studies executed more rigorously there might be an argument to make.  

     

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: 'Scientific' liberals should accept results of science

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to Sistersledge's comment:

     

    Br'er Crankup what was the final scientific results of the Heritage Foundation Immigration Study ?

     



    I don't know about that,  But I'll tell you this:  The science is absolutely settled on the temperature being in the 30's tonight.  It is global warming.  Clearly.  not making this up.  1,000 out of 1,000 climatologists will agree, tomorrow morning, that the temperature plunged into the 30's in the Boston area.  

     



    You're talking about weather, not climate.

    Difference.

     

     

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: 'Scientific' liberals should accept results of science

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

     

    Another example is scientific research which show different ethnic groups have different average IQs. The science is clear. It is an average, doesnt reflect on any individual. The reason for this, no one knows for sure.

    But any mention of this scientific research and liberals screech about racism...not very science-based, are they?

     



    Except in this case, the "science" behind the argument just plain s**ks.  When the methodology is flawed, the results are instantly biased in favor of the author's intent and against what might have been a scientific "finding".

     

    And as so many are constantly reminding us: one poll, one study, or one set of data points is only the beginning of trying to find the truth.

    Maybe after a few dozen more studies executed more rigorously there might be an argument to make.  

     



    No, I think it is, in your opinion, the result that s**ks.  It doesn't support your liberal worldview.  that seems to be the only issue.

    If you want to keep your health insurance...Benghazi caused by a video...IRS janitors targetting the TEA party...

    Yah, I guess it kinda s**ks when liberalism fails to deliver on its promises.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sistersledge. Show Sistersledge's posts

    Re: 'Scientific' liberals should accept results of science

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to Sistersledge's comment:

     

    Br'er Crankup what was the final scientific results of the Heritage Foundation Immigration Study ?

     



    I don't know about that,  But I'll tell you this:  The science is absolutely settled on the temperature being in the 30's tonight.  It is global warming.  Clearly.  not making this up.  1,000 out of 1,000 climatologists will agree, tomorrow morning, that the temperature plunged into the 30's in the Boston area.  

     




    Every night during the last week my wife has been giving me a hard time for bringing in the flowers boxes with the new annuals in them .

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: 'Scientific' liberals should accept results of science

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

     

    Another example is scientific research which show different ethnic groups have different average IQs. The science is clear. It is an average, doesnt reflect on any individual. The reason for this, no one knows for sure.

    But any mention of this scientific research and liberals screech about racism...not very science-based, are they?

     



    Except in this case, the "science" behind the argument just plain s**ks.  When the methodology is flawed, the results are instantly biased in favor of the author's intent and against what might have been a scientific "finding".

     

    And as so many are constantly reminding us: one poll, one study, or one set of data points is only the beginning of trying to find the truth.

    Maybe after a few dozen more studies executed more rigorously there might be an argument to make.  

     

     



    No, I think it is, in your opinion, the result that s**ks.  It doesn't support your liberal worldview.  that seems to be the only issue.

     

    If you want to keep your health insurance...Benghazi caused by a video...IRS janitors targetting the TEA party...

    Yah, I guess it kinda s**ks when liberalism fails to deliver on its promises.



    No, the result is suspect, because the methodology of the research is highly flawed.

    You are the one taking a single study as reinforcement of your jaded, anti-minority views, not me.  The problem is you have such a vague standard for your own beliefs than you do for anyone else's.

    This is not science.  It's belief.  Again...BIG difference.

     

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: 'Scientific' liberals should accept results of science

    In response to Sistersledge's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to Sistersledge's comment:

     

    Br'er Crankup what was the final scientific results of the Heritage Foundation Immigration Study ?

     



    I don't know about that,  But I'll tell you this:  The science is absolutely settled on the temperature being in the 30's tonight.  It is global warming.  Clearly.  not making this up.  1,000 out of 1,000 climatologists will agree, tomorrow morning, that the temperature plunged into the 30's in the Boston area.  

     

     




    Every night during the last week my wife has been giving me a hard time for bringing in the flowers boxes with the new annuals in them .

     



    I still have my ice scraper in my car.  I guess that's going to be a good thing tomorrow.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: 'Scientific' liberals should accept results of science

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

     

    Another example is scientific research which show different ethnic groups have different average IQs. The science is clear. It is an average, doesnt reflect on any individual. The reason for this, no one knows for sure.

    But any mention of this scientific research and liberals screech about racism...not very science-based, are they?

     



    Except in this case, the "science" behind the argument just plain s**ks.  When the methodology is flawed, the results are instantly biased in favor of the author's intent and against what might have been a scientific "finding".

     

    And as so many are constantly reminding us: one poll, one study, or one set of data points is only the beginning of trying to find the truth.

    Maybe after a few dozen more studies executed more rigorously there might be an argument to make.  

     

     



    No, I think it is, in your opinion, the result that s**ks.  It doesn't support your liberal worldview.  that seems to be the only issue.

     

    If you want to keep your health insurance...Benghazi caused by a video...IRS janitors targetting the TEA party...

    Yah, I guess it kinda s**ks when liberalism fails to deliver on its promises.

     



    No, the result is suspect, because the methodology of the research is highly flawed.

     

    You are the one taking a single study as reinforcement of your jaded, anti-minority views, not me.  The problem is you have such a vague standard for your own beliefs than you do for anyone else's.

    This is not science.  It's belief.  Again...BIG difference.

     

     



    Flawed?  how so?  It is using actual data.That takes it out of the realm of opinion.

     

    Nice throwdown of the race card, BTW.  (eyeroll).

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: 'Scientific' liberals should accept results of science

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

     

    Another example is scientific research which show different ethnic groups have different average IQs. The science is clear. It is an average, doesnt reflect on any individual. The reason for this, no one knows for sure.

    But any mention of this scientific research and liberals screech about racism...not very science-based, are they?

     



    Except in this case, the "science" behind the argument just plain s**ks.  When the methodology is flawed, the results are instantly biased in favor of the author's intent and against what might have been a scientific "finding".

     

    And as so many are constantly reminding us: one poll, one study, or one set of data points is only the beginning of trying to find the truth.

    Maybe after a few dozen more studies executed more rigorously there might be an argument to make.  

     

     



    No, I think it is, in your opinion, the result that s**ks.  It doesn't support your liberal worldview.  that seems to be the only issue.

     

    If you want to keep your health insurance...Benghazi caused by a video...IRS janitors targetting the TEA party...

    Yah, I guess it kinda s**ks when liberalism fails to deliver on its promises.

     



    No, the result is suspect, because the methodology of the research is highly flawed.

     

    You are the one taking a single study as reinforcement of your jaded, anti-minority views, not me.  The problem is you have such a vague standard for your own beliefs than you do for anyone else's.

    This is not science.  It's belief.  Again...BIG difference.

     

     



    Flawed?  how so?  It is using actual data.That takes it out of the realm of opinion.

     

    Nice throwdown of the race card, BTW.  (eyeroll).



    The topic of the "research" is effective race-baiting over the immigration debate.  Try to stay on point.

    "Actual data" is not the same as "reliable data" - a distinction which only adds other  opinions, some of them questionable on their face.

    If you look through it, there are several assumptions and illogical connections made which aren't supported by the data-as-presented.

    The larger point is that there is good and bad "science" on both sides of an argument, while any results from the accumulation of such studies usually rest somewhere in the middle

     

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: 'Scientific' liberals should accept results of science

    Professor Matty speaks:
    "The larger point is that there is good and bad "science" on both sides of an argument, while any results from the accumulation of such studies usually rest somewhere in the middle."


    Funny, you never referred to this "good and bad science" notion when defending your climate change scientists...there, science has God-like certainty, because, dammit, it is science.

     
  13. This post has been removed.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: 'Scientific' liberals should accept results of science

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

    Professor Matty speaks:
    "The larger point is that there is good and bad "science" on both sides of an argument, while any results from the accumulation of such studies usually rest somewhere in the middle."


    Funny, you never referred to this "good and bad science" notion when defending your climate change scientists...there, science has God-like certainty, because, dammit, it is science.



    I've mentioned it many times.  You just weren't paying attention, as usual.

    However, unlike the issue of "IQ & Race", the issue of "Climate Change" has been studied much more extensively and with much greater level of detail and academic rigor...

    ...which, although does not make the results absolutely certain, they definitely have narrowed the realm of possibility.  Both issues are data-driven, but the latter is more quantitative.

    But, I don't defend scientists; they can defend themselves with their work.  I'm more interested in defending ideas (with good science).

     

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sistersledge. Show Sistersledge's posts

    Re: 'Scientific' liberals should accept results of science

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: 'Scientific' liberals should accept results of science

    Jason Richwine at Harvard wrote a doctoral thesis in which he concluded that the IQ of illegal aliens is lower than natural born residents in the country.  That has been discovered, and he is now being charged with racism and bigotry.  He's out of the Ivy League.  He's got the perfect pedigree.  He comes out of Harvard.  There were a number of people on the review board for his doctoral thesis.  Want to hear some of the names?   Richwine's dissertation committee at Harvard included George Borjas, a professor of economics and social policy, Cuban born scholar, got his PhD in economics from Columbia.  He's an award-winning labor economist, National Bureau of Economic Research associate.  Has written countless books. 

    Next, Richard Zeckhauser.  Richard Zeckhauser is a professor of Political Economy at the Kennedy School of Government.  He also signed off on Richwine's dissertation. Zeckhauser earned a PhD of economics from Harvard.  He belongs to the Econometric Society, the American Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Medicine.

    The final member of the committee that approved Richwine's thesis, Christopher Jencks.  Christopher Jencks is a professor of Social Policy at Harvard's JFK school.  "He is a renowned left-wing academic who has taught at Harvard, Northwestern, the University of Chicago and the University of California, Santa Barbara. He edited the liberal New Republic magazine in the 1960s and has written several scholarly books tackling poverty, economic inequality, affirmative action, welfare reform and, yes, racial differences ('The Black-White Test Score Gap')."

    So all of these achieved and highly acclaimed scholars reviewed Jason Richwine's doctoral thesis and granted him approval, and not one of them at the time they reviewed it accused him of racism or bigotry or prejudice or bias.  He sailed through the doctoral program.  But because his work has been cited in the Heritage Foundation on the Gang of Eight's amnesty bill, he is now targeted for destruction.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: 'Scientific' liberals should accept results of science

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to Sistersledge's comment:

     

    Br'er Crankup what was the final scientific results of the Heritage Foundation Immigration Study ?

     



    I don't know about that,  But I'll tell you this:  The science is absolutely settled on the temperature being in the 30's tonight.  It is global warming.  Clearly.  not making this up.  1,000 out of 1,000 climatologists will agree, tomorrow morning, that the temperature plunged into the 30's in the Boston area.  

     

     



    You're talking about weather, not climate.

     

    Difference.

     

     



    Is climate warmer than weather?  I sure hope so.  It's cold out.

    If it's cold, it's not the "weather", it's the "climate" that matters.  If it is warm, record high temperatures (i.e. "weather") proves global warming.

    You global warmists need to straighten out your theology, er, science.

     

     
  18. This post has been removed.

     
  19. This post has been removed.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: 'Scientific' liberals should accept results of science

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    Is climate warmer than weather?  I sure hope so.  It's cold out.

    If it's cold, it's not the "weather", it's the "climate" that matters.  If it is warm, record high temperatures (i.e. "weather") proves global warming.

    You global warmists need to straighten out your theology, er, science.

     

    Obviously, you need some schooling on the terminology.

    The weather is but one piece of the regional climate which is in turn part of the global climate.

    That's why you skeptics look so foolish when trying to present snow as non-evidence of climate change.

     

     

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: 'Scientific' liberals should accept results of science

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
     

    Is climate warmer than weather?  I sure hope so.  It's cold out.

    If it's cold, it's not the "weather", it's the "climate" that matters.  If it is warm, record high temperatures (i.e. "weather") proves global warming.

    You global warmists need to straighten out your theology, er, science.

     Obviously, you need some schooling on the terminology.

    The weather is but one piece of the regional climate which is in turn part of the global climate.

    That's why you skeptics look so foolish when trying to present snow as non-evidence of climate change. 



    Yea a decade ago the alarm was that the Himilayan ice caps would be gone in 30 years. How'd that work out? They have seen zero loss the last 10 years.

    We would have way more frequency and severity of Hurricanes. Take out the phenomenon of Sandy and storms are down considerably.

    Scientist are predicting we are entering a 2 decade cooling trend now due in part to a low predicted frequency of solar flares.

     

     

     

     
  22. This post has been removed.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: 'Scientific' liberals should accept results of science

    In response to tvoter's comment:

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
     

    Is climate warmer than weather?  I sure hope so.  It's cold out.

    If it's cold, it's not the "weather", it's the "climate" that matters.  If it is warm, record high temperatures (i.e. "weather") proves global warming.

    You global warmists need to straighten out your theology, er, science.

     Obviously, you need some schooling on the terminology.

    The weather is but one piece of the regional climate which is in turn part of the global climate.

    That's why you skeptics look so foolish when trying to present snow as non-evidence of climate change. 

     



    Yea a decade ago the alarm was that the Himilayan ice caps would be gone in 30 years. How'd that work out? They have seen zero loss the last 10 years.

     

    We would have way more frequency and severity of Hurricanes. Take out the phenomenon of Sandy and storms are down considerably.

    Scientist are predicting we are entering a 2 decade cooling trend now due in part to a low predicted frequency of solar flares.

     


    Hence the "change" part of "climate change".

    When the baselines change, then so do the estimates. 

    But now that you mention it:

    Cosmic rays and global climate are poorly correlated.  Even so, the sun and climate are trending in opposition.

     

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share