Letters to the Editor
-
The inability to distinguish between consensus scientific understanding and the rantings of this one guy in Birkenstocks and a faded tie-dye is not Science's problem.
Actually it is science's, and everyones, problem if the mental defect you describe is so widespread (or high up) that the society collectively is unable to support scientific activity.
-
Anonymous
Would you mind explaining to me the difference between science and consensus?
-
Um...consensus means everyone agrees, science is a specific process of investigation
so a scientific consensus is when all or nearly all the relevant investigators agree on a consclusion.
-
weak willed liberal
All I can say is that you are a jackass with no conception of what is going on in this world
-
1970 Cambodian Incursion
I would like to correct the inaccuracy of the article whis stated that the US had bombed Eastern Cambodia for a year prior to our official incursion in the spring of 1970. I was there during the entire year prior to our invasion. I was in Tay Ninh Province which is on the border and precisely adjacent to the invaded region. I can catagorically state that there was no pre-invasion bombing of that part of Cambodia. It was neither targeted as a matter of policy nor a victim of rogue do-it-yourselfers. I don't know the source(s) of the author, but in this case they are erroneous and unreliable.
-
Yeah, Iraq isn't Cambodia
Anyone with a map can see that. Yet, you attempt to describe the situation as if the only forces molding the situation were the US, the Vietnamese, and Cambodians. NO analysis of the cause, events, and ESPECIALLY the aftermath can be anything but horribly distorted, if you leave out the role of the Communists, the Soviets in particular, and the partisans in the US who fomented domestic insurrection for political purposes.
To focus SOLELY on "bombing cambodia" and pretend that Pol Pot wasn't responsible for millions of deaths, or at least wasn't as big of monster as we make him out to be, is to deliberately try to mislead people about the big picture.
Which brings us to Iraq. There ARE cultural components to the violence in Iraq, but they are actually quite small. The big picture, is that just like Vietnam and Cambodia, the field of conflict is just the site, not the factor. Again, we have major outside forces which are seeking to exert control over a region. While we had the Soviets and so on back in the 60's and 70's, we now face Iran, Syria, and a multinational loose coalition of ideologues, who have GENERATIONS of experience at fomenting and infiltrating middle eastern countries and societies.
To ignore the largest components of the factors in the Vietnam conflict, and now in the Iraq conflict is to be willingly blind, or else to be deliberate in an effort to paint a picture which is not true.
The methods and means by which the wholesale slaughter would be DIFFERENT in Iraq, but it would VERY much happen. Iran, Syria, and assorted loosely affiliated organizations spread throughout the middle east and elsewhere as well, are pouring huge amounts of money, people, and talent into the conflict now. What they would do if we left, is to foment civil war. To continually inflame until they found a way to spark a Sunni - Shia all out war, to spark conflict between the Kurds and Turkey, to foment endless terror until a "solution" rises in the form of a strongman theocratic tyrant rises and rules by absolute force. Pol Pot had his ideology, this new force would have its as well, though while different, the OUTCOME would be just as devastating.
The Middle East has not had any kind of peace over the last century, nor the one before that. Archeology shows us the monuments - some large and some small - to the passing of great powers and conflicts, in an endless progression.
HOW COULD THERE EVER BE PEACE if the ideologies based upon absolute control are left to rule? Humanity itself cries out to the rest of the world - how could we leave countless millions in the grip of these sick and murderous ideologies? They must be defeated, if for no other reason, than the defense of humanity itself.
-
My wrestling sessions with Camille (links provided)
it pays to be wary with Camille. she conjures her own wee maelstrom of images, sounds, smells, that can quickly drag the initiate under. it is challenging to pick between the craziest letter writer, and the craziest response.
so i confess i skimmed , dodged rivers of urine flowing from hormonally imbalanced football fans afraid of using american military toilets (is this right?), slipped past the grasp of Britney & Barbara & Bubble. and gorgeous, pouting, stellar Diane Feinstein, thanks to warnings by Glenn Greenwald. only to fall into the hands of the deranged environmental groundwater geologist, 'Hanson', hideously mutated from years examining PCB's, heavy metals &c in Brooklyn.
all I had to my credit was a cryptic mail from Ben Goldacre of badscience fame (www.badscience.net). but it just says, with reference to Camille's global warming heebie jeebies, 'sigh yeah bonkers'. what could this mean? would that the science heroes at the Royal Society (http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/landing.asp?id=1278) would respond to being labelled "Inert, Passive and Cowardly". alas, they take no notice.
on second thoughts, perhaps they are just following Shaw's advice on wrestling with pigs. ie don't. You get dirty. And besides, the pig likes it.
-
Apology?
LeftyChris, IMHO you owe @Altaira99 an apology! `Cuz she was basically right, and you were basically wrong.
She'll get half an apology from me, for being a little snarky and for the fact that if she were talking about the overall weight of carbon dioxide she'd have been right. She did say, however, 20 pounds of CARBON, which is not true. She needs to use more precise language in the future if she doesn't want her posts misinterpreted :-)
-
maybe 3/4 of an apology, I don't know
the carbon is chemically released from it's hydrogen bonds but the resulting oxygen bond results in a given amount of CO2 being "released" into the atmosphere and it is the amount and presence of atmospheric CO2 that is relevant so I think you could say that it is correct to say that 20lbs or whatever of CO2 is being released even though it is true that a big part of the total weight of the material is made up of a component (O2) which was already present.