Global Warming Final

[tertius]

http://nafaforestry.org/forest_home/...Kepkay2003.pdf

I was gonna look it up. LOL. Thanks though, that makes it easy.

[Mark E. Hurling]

But my point was simply that I found it unlikely that MEH truly wished to cede his right to privacy, simply to win the abortion debate. That seems... silly.

I can't cede a right I have not in fact been granted. As for abortion, I don't think I was aiming at winning or losing that particular discussion. I won't use the word argument because I am not against abortion where the life of the mother is truly at stake or in cases of incest or rape. So in a significant number of instances I don't have a problem with Roe.

Now back to privacy. We have no inherent right to privacy. We do have the right to worship, exercise the free press, own firearms, be secure from unreasonable search and seizure, etc. This "right" was created out of whole cloth to justify the SCOTUS Roe decision not unlike a skyhook. It is as specious as the assertion of freedom from religion under the Bill of Rights.

[tertius]

I can't cede a right I have not in fact been granted. As for abortion, I don't think I was aiming at winning or losing that particular discussion. I won't use the word argument because I am not against abortion where the life of the mother is truly at stake or in cases of incest or rape. So in a significant number of instances I don't have a problem with Roe.

Now back to privacy. We have no inherent right to privacy. We do have the right to worship, exercise the free press, own firearms, be secure from unreasonable search and seizure, etc. This "right" was created out of whole cloth to justify the SCOTUS Roe decision not unlike a skyhook. It is as specious as the assertion of freedom from religion under the Bill of Rights.

Oh, so you only have rights because the government GRANTS them to you? You have no rights otherwise?

If you have no right to privacy, why does the government need a warrant to search your house, listen to your conversations, or track your movement with a GPS device?
Why am I not allowed to see your medical records? Or your educational transcripts?

Why are these things protected (some quite explicitly)? Because they amount to intrusions on your privacy.
Many of the rights protected in the Constitution make no sense as being valuable unless you also value privacy. To say otherwise is just silly.
Hence the right to privacy is a "penumbral" right.

Nor was the right to privacy invented in Roe. It dates back to the 1890s. It was codified in the 60's, with Griswold, and then the development of the "Reasonable Expectations" test in Katz.
Roe served to raise it to the level of a fundamental personal right, though it is likely this would have happened sooner or later anyway.

[Drewcar]

I was gonna look it up. LOL. Thanks though, that makes it easy.

The groundrules are in there, and it happens to be one of the best and most honest case studies of policy-science interactions that I've seen. I was involved in the process right out of grad school, so it hit close to home for me.

A watershed group in northwest CA used the TFW model to successfully solve sediment-fish issues as well. I've been trying to introduce some of the concepts for forestry-water issues in CA, but with limited success. They are too wed to the command-and-control model as you might expect.

[tertius]

The groundrules are in there, and it happens to be one of the best and most honest case studies of policy-science interactions that I've seen. I was involved in the process right out of grad school, so it hit close to home for me.

A watershed group in northwest CA used the TFW model to successfully solve sediment-fish issues as well. I've been trying to introduce some of the concepts for forestry-water issues in CA, but with limited success. They are to wed to the command-and-control model as you might expect.

Yeah, that doesn't surprise me, unfortunately. C&C is unduly popular in this country for environmental management issue, which is kind of weird to me.

I'm actually looking forward to reading it. I read the introductory bits, and I see a lot of things that resonate so far.

[BryanM]

Well, since this has devolved into a politics thread as it was predestined to, I googled the political affiliations of scientists. When put between the choice of Republican and Democrat:

http://www.people-press.org/2009/07/...-and-religion/

12 percent.

I'm going to go poop now.