"Falsified data is hard evidence?"
Yeah, I am sure 97% of all climatologists falsified information. You can deny it all you want, the data is working against you.
I am not really happy about the entire green movement, as I feel certain things like ethanol for fuel seem to be a poor solution, but there is more money to be made in complete denial. That is why fossil fuel companies are actively working against the scientific community:
nofaith. There were several peer reviewed studies conducted on what scientists thought. These studies were then taken up by the media and passed along. You can see a video from the lead author here: http://bcove.me/c1li8rcl
NASA's into it as well: http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consens…
These are the citations to some other studies:
W. R. L. Anderegg, “Expert Credibility in Climate Change,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Vol. 107 No. 27, 12107-12109 (21 June 2010); DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1003187107.
P. T. Doran & M. K. Zimmerman, "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change," Eos Transactions American Geophysical Union Vol. 90 Issue 3 (2009), 22; DOI: 10.1029/2009EO030002.
N. Oreskes, “Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change,” Science Vol. 306 no. 5702, p. 1686 (3 December 2004); DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618.
Agreed, Sean. Saying the issue is manageable shows this authors lack of scientific research. Correcting the events that we have set in motion may not even be possible with severe changes in our society. We should do what we can, and push for more research. I don't like the "relax, it will all be ok" approach. That seems rather disingenuous.
97% buy in? Source? And hard evidence? Falsified data is hard evidence?
I'm looking at the big fears that people had that turned out not to be true and guess what, none of them turned out to be true! Therefore, this big fear is likely not true.
How about in context with the predictions that DID pan out?
I think Ned has somehow reproduced himself.
@CityDweller, it depends on what caused it to be a reviled and archaic symbol. If it becomes the banner under which the United States fights to preserve and expand one of the worst atrocities the world has seen in its human history, then... yeah, probably, and rightly so. Not a lot of legitimized love for the Nazi flag, after all, and they weren't ALL about the Holocaust, either.
Your analogy is a little bit off, however. If you were to celebrate and honor a whaling *company* then I'd say someone highly offended by the practice of whaling would be fair to dislike you. That's why, by itself, McConnell's re-enactment hobby is not bad. If I were a fan of Civil War era cannons, for example, that's different than revering the Confederate flag. It's the context and the big picture that's ugly, despite the bright spots Ford talks about. The problem is the same lack of perspective that allows Confederate sympathizers to surgically remove the generational torture of slavery from the Confederate balance sheet - if you take everything individually, out of context, and totally ignore the inexcusable, of COURSE everything seems fine.
You are always allowed to like whatever you want. Other people have the same right to DISlike you based on the things you say you like. That's not "thought police" that's basic social interaction. The KKK gets to march, Westboro Baptist got to protest, and the SCV gets to do its thing too. "Freedom" isn't, and has never been, the idea that you should be able to think and say whatever you want without social consequence, or that society MUST recognize and morally validate those ideas as socially valuable just for the sake of existing at all.
You are always free to be wrong, in other words.
I wonder to what degree he examines the state of the scientific literature at each historic scare? Climate change as an issue has widespread buy in within the scientific community (97% by one survey). I actually doubt something like the overpopulation scare had wide scientific buy in... maybe a few names. Even as someone who communicates the findings of climate science, I see laymen opinions that veer off what science tells us. Its normal. But these past events don't nearly have the hard evidence that exists for human induced climate change.
"@ engineer Bought my first board from Bill and PS at Ocean Sports in 1984. It was a compliment you ignorant wretch."
It is hard to gauge compliment from attack with your caps lock posts. I think you have anger management issues.
@ engineer Bought my first board from Bill and PS at Ocean Sports in 1984. It was a compliment you ignorant wretch.
When the US flag becomes a reviled and archaic symbol in the near future, will people who hold its memory dear be shunned for that association?
A person should be allowed to like things. I like old whaling vessels even though know it represents something that is now widely regarded as a horrible practice. The rise of "thought police" may bring about the real demise of freedom and people who welcomed them will probably suffer just as much as those who opposed them.
I am so fortunate to be a volunteer for FFC! Diane is an amazing woman - always on high energy and so passionate. I volunteer as much as I can at PetSmart and have adopted kittens from FFC as well. I hope this article inspires more folks to volunteer and especially, to donate to this worthy cause. There are never enough resources to meet the needs.
Just Jerry, the school paid $70K to an independent consulting firm during this "search". When the consultants returned their list of qualified candidates McConnell's name was not on it. The search committee, acting on this recommendation, did not include him among their candidates either. The Trustees then call a closed door meeting and tell the committee that McConnell will be a candidate moving forward.
He is verifiably unqualified. That's why he should have been eliminated and that is what the pressure against the Trustees is all about. I think most were resigned from the beginning to the fact the next president was likely going to be a conservative.
Huh, it's the same list. I do believe, for example, that the other candidates displayed and had a better record of a "commitment to academic excellence." Same thing for the student focus. My objection to some of the others stem from answers he provided to questions almost directly worded the same, not partisan subjectivity or dishonesty, unless McConnell was being untruthful and hiding his competence for an unknown reason.
You hold his political career in high esteem. Bully for you. Thankfully, we had him in Columbia long enough to rocket the state of South Carolina to the top of... all (any?) standard of living measures. Politicians CAN do a fine job as a college president, but just BEING a politician does not qualify you. Unfortunately, leading a college requires some qualities and capabilities he just does not appear to possess.
Sorry you're ducking out of the conversation, unfortunately for the College I think we can look forward to being on the same side next time it rolls around.
From the cofc website:
Page 28, pretty much sums up what McConnell has done his entire career. Anyone who looks at that and believes that the others were more qualified based on that list is just being extremely subjective or just plain dishonest.
I am sure there are things that he will have to deal with that are in pretty bad shape but that is not something you can blame him for which is what his opponents are trying to do.
Like I said, he hasn't even started doing the job and he is getting bad employee evaluations. I was not being flippant before, if he does a bad job I will be against him as well but he needs to at least have a chance to start working.
Good conversation. I am out of it now!
Well, actually, historically, the input of staff, faculty, and students was always solicited and clearly considered. During the public Q&A's they held they even passed out questionnaires and stressed how important the feedback was. I'm not saying that they have to make the decision based on what the employees and students want but it ought to be a major consideration for any board of a public organization that is making that kind of decision in a responsible way.
I'm looking at the attributes they were looking for on their own website, and we must be looking at completely different lists. McConnell would have to check "N/A" for a number of these, just at a glance. I'm not being obstinate, I just question this assertion that he "fits it to a T."
I'm not saying that he shouldn't have been allowed to try and make a case for being qualified, as he has a lot of high profile experience in things that he could potentially stretch to be relevant to a higher ed institution. He certainly was given more opportunities than most people to continue to make that case, as he wasn't supposed to be a finalist to begin with (likely because of the obvious shortcomings). Based on what he said, when he was making the case, he fell much shorter than the other candidates - which was an opinion shared by over 80% of the people who were paying attention... luckily for McConnell 100% of the Board of Trustees fell in that tiny minority. Coincidentally (I guess?), McConnell was also the favored choice for the state legislature.
It's not that I don't like McConnell - I didn't particularly care for any of the candidates, it's just that he was pretty clearly the worst, by merit and by comparison, taking each candidate by both resume and what they said at the public forums and interviews, and then wins in a unanimous landslide. The problem is that the process was so nakedly political to select him, and it's not supposed to work that way.
The next section of the presidential search application that details priorities has 2 or 3 things he is already going to walk in failing miserably at that are going to take major work to correct, so if you want I'll keep a seat warm for you on this wagon. If you're being honest, anyway.
If you're looking for a thoughtful and honest opinion on anything, Robert Ford is your guy. Here's hoping his removal from the state legislature hasn't exacerbated his "problem."
They are also not supposed to eliminate qualified candidates because of pressure from staff, faculty or students which is what those groups were attempting to accomplish. The search firm brought back candidates that did not align with the stated characteristics they were being paid to seek out. If anything the Board of Trustees should be asking for their money back, especially when the ideal candidate was right here. Also, with any candidate search there is always the possibility that the search firm will ignore or miss an ideal candidate. Which based on their selection is something that happened here.
I am not the one with blinders. I can see that based on McConnell's experience he fit the attributes that they were seeking to a 'T' whereas the others, while having excellent resumes in the academic arena, did not have the same type of experience that McConnell has based on the qualifications the board said they were seeking.
I don't believe that there is anything I can say that will get you to even consider that. If your supposition that the board's decision was inevitable is correct your decision to dislike the man no matter what is just as inevitable. You have prejudged the man as a person and you are second guessing the Board's decision to go with him without knowing the reasons behind a confidential interview process.
I understand it, you have made up your mind. That is perfectly fine. I will keep my mind open and, as I said earlier, if he does a bad job I will jump in line with you to rally against him. But, until then, I would rather see him at least start working there before talking about how bad he is for the College.
"@engineer THANKS for noticing! ONLY BLEEDING GASHES WEAR HOODS SURFING IN THE WINTER!"
Obviously you don't surf. I am not wearing a hood, nor do I own one. Try again.
The last few presidents of the College were Republican, no protests, no votes of no confidence. At least one of the other candidates was Republican, no protest.
Everyone had every expectation that the president was likely to be a conservative, that's sort of a fact of life if you live in South Carolina these days. That isn't, and hasn't been the problem. I'm sorry your red/blue blinders keep you from seeing that.
Yes, the board picks the president, not the staff, faculty, or students. But they're not supposed to pick the president under duress from the legislature. If you can't see how inconceivable it is that nearly everyone directly invested with the actual service delivery aspect of the College thought McConnell was unqualified and not the right person for the job, and nearly everyone POLITICALLY invested with McConnell getting the job thought he was perfect, and then the board, who is supposed to be concerned with the service delivery and not the politics, votes unanimously for the political favorite and says that he's actually the best candidate for service delivery and politics had nothing to do with it, you're either extraordinarily partisan or you're naive to the point of being handicapped by it.
They did the search because that is the ethical standard practice, to try and assist the boards with transparency to assure people that the job isn't given away as a political gift, as patronage or cronyism. The fact that these well-respected professional resume evaluators, who the College paid $100k for their opinion, did not include McConnell in their list of finalists does not bother you? You know better than them? You think the board does? Is that hubris or blindness?
Powered by Foundation
© Copyright 2014,
Charleston City Paper