GOP's contempt for science hits rock bottom

bit_pattern · 29th September 2010, 07:57 PM

Even McCain has jumped ship and joined the ranks of anti-science woo-mongers who are now the ~~mainstream of the~~ entire party

Vale, conservative reason

Quote:

McCain Has Become A Climate Conspiracy Theorist

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), once a champion of strong action to fight global warming pollution, has joined the rest of the Republican Senate caucus in questioning the overwhelming science. From 2003 to 2007, McCain pressed for Congress to pass comprehensive cap-and-trade legislation to ratchet down greenhouse gas pollution, because, he said, global warming is “such a threat to our planet and our future and our children.” Now, like every other GOP candidate for the U.S. Senate this year, he opposes the climate policy he once supported. In a little-noted appearance stumping for Senate candidate (and fellow denier) Kelly Ayotte in Nashua, NH, this March, McCain gave credence to the outlandish Climategate smear campaign against climate science:

I think it’s an inexact science, and there has been more and more questioning about some of the conclusions that were reached concerning climate change. And I believe that everybody in the world deserves correct answers whether the scientific conclusions were flawed by outside influences. There’s great questions about it that need to be resolved.

theprestige · 29th September 2010, 08:15 PM

Why doesn't the quoted passage support the thread title or OP's commentary?

maxpower1227 · 29th September 2010, 08:16 PM

Yeah, the GOP's contempt for science is so deeply institutionalized that it's hard for something like this to really shock or offend very much.

leftysergeant · 30th September 2010, 02:38 AM

Originally Posted by theprestige

Why doesn't the quoted passage support the thread title or OP's commentary?

It seems to be a reading copmprehension problem on your part. McCain was one of the few GOPers willing to address AGW as a scientific fact. Now he has chugged a Mass of the Koolaid that was brewed up after the leak of the climate scientists' e-mails. I am so glad I didn't vote for that nitwit.

bit_pattern · 30th September 2010, 03:23 AM

Thanks for that Sgt. I just facepalmed when I read the reply and bit my tongue, any response I would have made would have raised the ire of the mods.

Upchurch · 30th September 2010, 04:28 AM

Wait. Every GOP candidate for senate this year has taken an anti-science position?

I understand that for some it's probably just pandering to the base to get elected, but that doesn't make me feel any better.

Chaos · 30th September 2010, 04:36 AM

Originally Posted by Upchurch

Wait. Every GOP candidate for senate this year has taken an anti-science position?

I understand that for some it's probably just pandering to the base to get elected, but that doesn't make me feel any better.

It shouldn´t, because it means that the base got drunk on the "climate hoax" Kool-Aid.

Congratulations, folks, your country is officially going down the toilet.

bit_pattern · 30th September 2010, 04:44 AM

Originally Posted by Upchurch

Wait. Every GOP candidate for senate this year has taken an anti-science position?

I understand that for some it's probably just pandering to the base to get elected, but that doesn't make me feel any better.

It makes me feel queasy and kind of scared for America's future. I mean, ****, the Dems aren't going to be in power forever

:

Beerina · 30th September 2010, 06:40 AM

Originally Posted by leftysergeant

It seems to be a reading copmprehension problem on your part. McCain was one of the few GOPers willing to address AGW as a scientific fact. Now he has chugged a Mass of the Koolaid that was brewed up after the leak of the climate scientists' e-mails. I am so glad I didn't vote for that nitwit.

Hint: Destroying the economy for little to no gain is not "scientific fact". That's scientists involving themselves in economic predictions, demonstrated to be unmitigated failure. The cure would be far worse than the disease.

Upchurch · 30th September 2010, 06:44 AM

Originally Posted by Beerina

Hint: Destroying the economy for little to no gain is not "scientific fact". That's scientists involving themselves in economic predictions, demonstrated to be unmitigated failure.

Okay. What does that have to do with the validity of scientific conclusions?

FWIW, the reverse is also true. Politicians and economists involving themselves in science is also an unmitigated failure.

Originally Posted by Beerina

The cure would be far worse than the disease.

That depends on what you are trying to cure.

bit_pattern · 30th September 2010, 06:47 AM

Ushering in a clean tech revolution would destroy the economy?! Bwhahaha, yeah, good one. And your current fossil fuel model is doing so well atm too!

But, I jest, I guess it's a good thing that scientist have sweet f.a to do with policy approaches beyond proscribing a safe level of CO2 concentration then! We have economists to deal with that side of things.

Dancing David · 30th September 2010, 08:14 AM

Originally Posted by theprestige

Why doesn't the quoted passage support the thread title or OP's commentary?

You mean the contempt for science could go deeper?

Shalamar · 30th September 2010, 08:21 AM

Originally Posted by Upchurch

Okay. What does that have to do with the validity of scientific conclusions?

FWIW, the reverse is also true. Politicians and economists involving themselves in science is also an unmitigated failure.

That depends on what you are trying to cure.

I'm sure it's just like Video Games.

Alferd_Packer · 30th September 2010, 01:53 PM

Originally Posted by Upchurch

I understand that for some it's probably just pandering to the base to get elected.

No, not John McCain!

Alferd_Packer · 30th September 2010, 01:55 PM

Originally Posted by Dancing David

You mean the contempt for science could go deeper?

Well, Snookie O'Donnell seems to be onboard with that evolution stuff.

Oh, wait . . .

leftysergeant · 30th September 2010, 02:02 PM

Originally Posted by Beerina

The cure would be far worse than the disease.

Excuse me, but were you laboring under the assumption that money is edible?

Beerina · 30th September 2010, 02:24 PM

Originally Posted by Upchurch

Originally Posted by Beerina

Hint: Destroying the economy for little to no gain is not "scientific fact". That's scientists involving themselves in economic predictions, demonstrated to be unmitigated failure.

Okay. What does that have to do with the validity of scientific conclusions?

The conclusion is that the problem isn't that much of a problem.

Such-and-such is happening and therefore (huge, unwarranted leap) massive government intervention is warranted.

The effect on humanity of global warming is an economic issue -- how will humanity handle it? What are the economic downsides it would lead to?

These are the massive failures the environmentalists do not understand.

Quote:

FWIW, the reverse is also true. Politicians and economists involving themselves in science is also an unmitigated failure.

I thought politicians spending money on science was a good thing.

Beerina · 30th September 2010, 02:34 PM

Originally Posted by bit_pattern

Ushering in a clean tech revolution would destroy the economy?! Bwhahaha, yeah, good one. And your current fossil fuel model is doing so well atm too!

But, I jest, I guess it's a good thing that scientist have sweet f.a to do with policy approaches beyond proscribing a safe level of CO2 concentration then! We have economists to deal with that side of things.

Quote:

The articles, reports, analyses and commentaries included here generally reflect and build on the following principles:

Risk and uncertainty are fundamental to the climate problem; the magnitude and the irreversibility of uncertain, but possible, worst-case climate impacts dominate the analysis of policy options.
Ethics and equity are inseparable from economic analysis; there are deep questions of fairness between rich and poor today, and between present and future generations, at stake in the debate.
The severity of the problem and the scope of the required response are so great that marginal analysis of small changes and modest adjustments of market-based instruments are inadequate to the task of understanding and protecting the earth’s climate.

What was the term you used? "Bwahahaha" or something like that?

Let's rephrase the bullet points.

Bullet 1:

We intend to use fear and uncertainty and gloom and doom and the sky is falling to jam down political changes.

Nothing scary or unusual (sadly) about that.

Bullet 2:

Same old BS about the fraudulent red herring of "inequality" of outcomes. This is just class warfare with a new label, with the same, tired, disproven claims and solutions. It also has nothing to do with the subject.

Proof it's a red herring: "Income inequality" is an irrelevant measurement. You actually want to measure average wealth and health and longevity of people. After all, if extreme inequality also mapped to the highest average health for the "common man", wouldn't that be the desired situation? "Oh noes! Big inequality!" is thus just the fraud of class warfare, transparently.

Bullet 3:

This is where the core of the misunderstanding takes place. Something is happening, then, with no understanding whatsoever, claims are made that massive economic changes must be made, presumably with beknighted genius to care for bullet 2 while we're at it.

This simple list screams nothing but leftist, quasi-Marxist desires on controlling the economy. If I were a climate scientist, I'd run screaming from it. It does nothing but provide more evidence that the far left attached itself to environmentalism because it provides rationale for massive control of the economy, something that freedom-based capitalism demonstrated socialism was terrible at, leading to it getting rejected at the polls more and more, and correctly so.

If you disagree, I encourage you to shout loudly and proudly as the election approaches.

Upchurch · 30th September 2010, 02:49 PM

Originally Posted by Beerina

I thought politicians spending money on science was a good thing.

It absolutely is, but politicians still don't get to dictate the conclusions just because they pay the bills.

Phrost · 30th September 2010, 02:54 PM

Just going to leave this here:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

bit_pattern · 30th September 2010, 04:27 PM

Originally Posted by Beerina

If you disagree, I encourage you to shout loudly and proudly as the election approaches.

Do you run around with a bell screeching 'UNCLEAN. UNCLEAN!' whenever you come across something not ideologically pure enough for you?

hgc · 30th September 2010, 04:33 PM

I take issue with the term "rock bottom" used in the thread title. It's bottomless.

bit_pattern · 30th September 2010, 04:34 PM

^^ Touche...

Originally Posted by Phrost

Just going to leave this here:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Nah, not buying it, I'm sure the man has a point but really, I couldn't give tupenny***** about overall science funding (at least not in this context) or the fact that the GOP pour cash into things like Star Wars (it science spending!) at a rate higher than democrats, I'm concerned with the fact that we have a 10-20 year window to get our **** together and seriously reduce CO2 emissions if we want to have the slightest chance of avoiding a catastrophic 3-4 degree C temperature rise. And the fact that the GOP Senate doesn't even believe there is a problem to be solved is a serious risk to everybody on the planet.

thaiboxerken · 30th September 2010, 04:38 PM

Originally Posted by Phrost

Just going to leave this here:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

You should throw your garbage in the trash can, not leave it out for everyone to suffer.

Captain.Sassy · 30th September 2010, 04:42 PM

Originally Posted by Beerina

Hint: Destroying the economy for little to no gain is not "scientific fact". That's scientists involving themselves in economic predictions, demonstrated to be unmitigated failure. The cure would be far worse than the disease.

You need to upgrade to a better google. Every link you post is to that same site.

bit_pattern · 30th September 2010, 04:51 PM

Dooood, it's the ULTIMATE resource! Julian Simon is obviously God

theprestige · 30th September 2010, 05:20 PM

Originally Posted by Dancing David

You mean the contempt for science could go deeper?

Deeper than saying that questions about scientific accuracy have been raised, and should be answered?

As low as this may seem to some people, yeah, I think contempt for science could go a lot deeper. I mean, it's not like McCain said "magnets, how do they work?"

leftysergeant · 30th September 2010, 05:27 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

Deeper than saying that questions about scientific accuracy have been raised, and should be answered?

As low as this may seem to some people, yeah, I think contempt for science could go a lot deeper. I mean, it's not like McCain said "magnets, how do they work?"

It's not like the old coot offered any evidence that the science is questionable, either. All he did was refer to some bogus "evidence" concocted by a sleazeball hacker.

bit_pattern · 30th September 2010, 05:36 PM

"Evidence" that HAS been answered, not once, not twice, but THREE TIMES already. The only "questions" that remain are those being raised by politically motivated flogs like John McCain and the GOP whose goals are to generate doubt in the minds of the masses.

Phrost · 4th October 2010, 04:01 PM

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

You should throw your garbage in the trash can, not leave it out for everyone to suffer.

I'm sorry, I thought Neil Tyson was a world-renowned physicist and champion for Science in general.

You consider his point of view trash? Why, because it conflicts with yours?

mumblethrax · 4th October 2010, 05:06 PM

Originally Posted by Phrost

I'm sorry, I thought Neil Tyson was a world-renowned physicist and champion for Science in general.

You consider his point of view trash? Why, because it conflicts with yours?

As a political scientist, Tyson makes a wonderful astronomer.

Phrost · 5th October 2010, 12:15 PM

Originally Posted by mumblethrax

As a political scientist, Tyson makes a wonderful astronomer.

Same thing goes for Chomsky and Linguistics.

29th September 2010, 07:57 PM	#1
bit_pattern Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 4,349	GOP's contempt for science hits rock bottom Even McCain has jumped ship and joined the ranks of anti-science woo-mongers who are now the ~~mainstream of the~~ entire party Vale, conservative reason Quote: McCain Has Become A Climate Conspiracy Theorist Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), once a champion of strong action to fight global warming pollution, has joined the rest of the Republican Senate caucus in questioning the overwhelming science. From 2003 to 2007, McCain pressed for Congress to pass comprehensive cap-and-trade legislation to ratchet down greenhouse gas pollution, because, he said, global warming is “such a threat to our planet and our future and our children.” Now, like every other GOP candidate for the U.S. Senate this year, he opposes the climate policy he once supported. In a little-noted appearance stumping for Senate candidate (and fellow denier) Kelly Ayotte in Nashua, NH, this March, McCain gave credence to the outlandish Climategate smear campaign against climate science: I think it’s an inexact science, and there has been more and more questioning about some of the conclusions that were reached concerning climate change. And I believe that everybody in the world deserves correct answers whether the scientific conclusions were flawed by outside influences. There’s great questions about it that need to be resolved.
bit_pattern Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 4,349	__________________ "You are the epitome of the 'pigeon playing chess'. No matter how good I am at chess, you are just going to knock the pieces over, **** on the board and strut around like you've won something" "In this political climate, all of science is vulnerable to ideological attack when reality disagrees with political beliefs."

29th September 2010, 08:15 PM	#2
theprestige Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 8,661	Why doesn't the quoted passage support the thread title or OP's commentary?
theprestige Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 8,661

29th September 2010, 08:16 PM	#3
maxpower1227 Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 1,045	Yeah, the GOP's contempt for science is so deeply institutionalized that it's hard for something like this to really shock or offend very much.
	__________________ Warning. If you don't want to see your treasured "evidence" completely pwned in public, don't show it to the posters at JREF. - Rolfe

30th September 2010, 02:38 AM	#4
leftysergeant Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Spanaway WA Posts: 18,613	Originally Posted by theprestige Why doesn't the quoted passage support the thread title or OP's commentary? It seems to be a reading copmprehension problem on your part. McCain was one of the few GOPers willing to address AGW as a scientific fact. Now he has chugged a Mass of the Koolaid that was brewed up after the leak of the climate scientists' e-mails. I am so glad I didn't vote for that nitwit.
	__________________ No civilization ever collapsed because the poor had too much to eat.

30th September 2010, 03:23 AM	#5
bit_pattern Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 4,349	Thanks for that Sgt. I just facepalmed when I read the reply and bit my tongue, any response I would have made would have raised the ire of the mods.
bit_pattern Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 4,349	__________________ "You are the epitome of the 'pigeon playing chess'. No matter how good I am at chess, you are just going to knock the pieces over, **** on the board and strut around like you've won something" "In this political climate, all of science is vulnerable to ideological attack when reality disagrees with political beliefs."

30th September 2010, 04:28 AM	#6
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: Funky Town (STL, MO) Posts: 23,428	Wait. Every GOP candidate for senate this year has taken an anti-science position? I understand that for some it's probably just pandering to the base to get elected, but that doesn't make me feel any better.

30th September 2010, 04:36 AM	#7
Chaos TAM Chocolate Dispenser Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: The Heart of Old Europe Posts: 9,778	Originally Posted by Upchurch Wait. Every GOP candidate for senate this year has taken an anti-science position? I understand that for some it's probably just pandering to the base to get elected, but that doesn't make me feel any better. It shouldn´t, because it means that the base got drunk on the "climate hoax" Kool-Aid. Congratulations, folks, your country is officially going down the toilet.
	__________________ Grand Master, Knights of the Question Mark Illusion: too good to be true - Reality: too true to be good Authors build castles in the sky, readers live in them and publishers collect the rent. - Maxim Gorki Folks enjoy a witch-hunt as long as they are on the blunt end of the pitchfork. - Suezoled You can't use logic to talk a man out of a position that he didn't use logic to get himself into - passed down by Nyarlathotep Kids these days are better than their parents since they constitute the newest edition, the beta version of our societies - Cleopatra YouÂ´ll have to accept the fact that some people are just plain nuts. - Paul C. Anagnostopolous

30th September 2010, 04:44 AM	#8
bit_pattern Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 4,349	Originally Posted by Upchurch Wait. Every GOP candidate for senate this year has taken an anti-science position? I understand that for some it's probably just pandering to the base to get elected, but that doesn't make me feel any better. It makes me feel queasy and kind of scared for America's future. I mean, ****, the Dems aren't going to be in power forever :
bit_pattern Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 4,349	__________________ "You are the epitome of the 'pigeon playing chess'. No matter how good I am at chess, you are just going to knock the pieces over, **** on the board and strut around like you've won something" "In this political climate, all of science is vulnerable to ideological attack when reality disagrees with political beliefs."

30th September 2010, 06:40 AM	#9
Beerina Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: A floating island above the clouds Posts: 23,835	Originally Posted by leftysergeant It seems to be a reading copmprehension problem on your part. McCain was one of the few GOPers willing to address AGW as a scientific fact. Now he has chugged a Mass of the Koolaid that was brewed up after the leak of the climate scientists' e-mails. I am so glad I didn't vote for that nitwit. Hint: Destroying the economy for little to no gain is not "scientific fact". That's scientists involving themselves in economic predictions, demonstrated to be unmitigated failure. The cure would be far worse than the disease.
	__________________ "Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales *now!* More, cheaper, better games, right? Right?

30th September 2010, 06:44 AM	#10
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: Funky Town (STL, MO) Posts: 23,428	Originally Posted by Beerina Hint: Destroying the economy for little to no gain is not "scientific fact". That's scientists involving themselves in economic predictions, demonstrated to be unmitigated failure. Okay. What does that have to do with the validity of scientific conclusions? FWIW, the reverse is also true. Politicians and economists involving themselves in science is also an unmitigated failure. Originally Posted by Beerina The cure would be far worse than the disease. That depends on what you are trying to cure.

30th September 2010, 06:47 AM	#11
bit_pattern Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 4,349	Ushering in a clean tech revolution would destroy the economy?! Bwhahaha, yeah, good one. And your current fossil fuel model is doing so well atm too! But, I jest, I guess it's a good thing that scientist have sweet f.a to do with policy approaches beyond proscribing a safe level of CO2 concentration then! We have economists to deal with that side of things.
bit_pattern Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 4,349	__________________ "You are the epitome of the 'pigeon playing chess'. No matter how good I am at chess, you are just going to knock the pieces over, **** on the board and strut around like you've won something" "In this political climate, all of science is vulnerable to ideological attack when reality disagrees with political beliefs." Last edited by bit_pattern; 30th September 2010 at 06:50 AM.

30th September 2010, 08:14 AM	#12
Dancing David Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Central Illinois Posts: 34,729	Originally Posted by theprestige Why doesn't the quoted passage support the thread title or OP's commentary? You mean the contempt for science could go deeper?
	__________________ Hell, dynamiting fish in a barrel is more challenging. - Ladewig I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager

30th September 2010, 08:21 AM	#13
Shalamar Dark Lord of the JREF Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Super Star Destroyer Executor Posts: 2,397	Originally Posted by Upchurch Okay. What does that have to do with the validity of scientific conclusions? FWIW, the reverse is also true. Politicians and economists involving themselves in science is also an unmitigated failure. That depends on what you are trying to cure. I'm sure it's just like Video Games.
	__________________ "The truth is out there. But the lies are inside your head."

30th September 2010, 01:53 PM	#14
Alferd_Packer Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 7,222	Originally Posted by Upchurch I understand that for some it's probably just pandering to the base to get elected. No, not John McCain!
	__________________ No laws of physics were broken in the writing of this post

30th September 2010, 01:55 PM	#15
Alferd_Packer Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 7,222	Originally Posted by Dancing David You mean the contempt for science could go deeper? Well, Snookie O'Donnell seems to be onboard with that evolution stuff. Oh, wait . . .
	__________________ No laws of physics were broken in the writing of this post

30th September 2010, 02:02 PM	#16
leftysergeant Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Spanaway WA Posts: 18,613	Originally Posted by Beerina The cure would be far worse than the disease. Excuse me, but were you laboring under the assumption that money is edible?
	__________________ No civilization ever collapsed because the poor had too much to eat.

30th September 2010, 02:24 PM	#17
Beerina Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: A floating island above the clouds Posts: 23,835	Originally Posted by Upchurch Originally Posted by Beerina Hint: Destroying the economy for little to no gain is not "scientific fact". That's scientists involving themselves in economic predictions, demonstrated to be unmitigated failure. Okay. What does that have to do with the validity of scientific conclusions? The conclusion is that the problem isn't that much of a problem. Such-and-such is happening and therefore (huge, unwarranted leap) massive government intervention is warranted. The effect on humanity of global warming is an economic issue -- how will humanity handle it? What are the economic downsides it would lead to? These are the massive failures the environmentalists do not understand. Quote: FWIW, the reverse is also true. Politicians and economists involving themselves in science is also an unmitigated failure. I thought politicians spending money on science was a good thing.
	__________________ "Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales *now!* More, cheaper, better games, right? Right?

30th September 2010, 02:34 PM	#18
Beerina Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: A floating island above the clouds Posts: 23,835	Originally Posted by bit_pattern Ushering in a clean tech revolution would destroy the economy?! Bwhahaha, yeah, good one. And your current fossil fuel model is doing so well atm too! But, I jest, I guess it's a good thing that scientist have sweet f.a to do with policy approaches beyond proscribing a safe level of CO2 concentration then! We have economists to deal with that side of things. Quote: The articles, reports, analyses and commentaries included here generally reflect and build on the following principles: Risk and uncertainty are fundamental to the climate problem; the magnitude and the irreversibility of uncertain, but possible, worst-case climate impacts dominate the analysis of policy options. Ethics and equity are inseparable from economic analysis; there are deep questions of fairness between rich and poor today, and between present and future generations, at stake in the debate. The severity of the problem and the scope of the required response are so great that marginal analysis of small changes and modest adjustments of market-based instruments are inadequate to the task of understanding and protecting the earth’s climate. What was the term you used? "Bwahahaha" or something like that? Let's rephrase the bullet points. Bullet 1: We intend to use fear and uncertainty and gloom and doom and the sky is falling to jam down political changes. Nothing scary or unusual (sadly) about that. Bullet 2: Same old BS about the fraudulent red herring of "inequality" of outcomes. This is just class warfare with a new label, with the same, tired, disproven claims and solutions. It also has nothing to do with the subject. Proof it's a red herring: "Income inequality" is an irrelevant measurement. You actually want to measure average wealth and health and longevity of people. After all, if extreme inequality also mapped to the highest average health for the "common man", wouldn't that be the desired situation? "Oh noes! Big inequality!" is thus just the fraud of class warfare, transparently. Bullet 3: This is where the core of the misunderstanding takes place. Something is happening, then, with no understanding whatsoever, claims are made that massive economic changes must be made, presumably with beknighted genius to care for bullet 2 while we're at it. This simple list screams nothing but leftist, quasi-Marxist desires on controlling the economy. If I were a climate scientist, I'd run screaming from it. It does nothing but provide more evidence that the far left attached itself to environmentalism because it provides rationale for massive control of the economy, something that freedom-based capitalism demonstrated socialism was terrible at, leading to it getting rejected at the polls more and more, and correctly so. If you disagree, I encourage you to shout loudly and proudly as the election approaches.
	__________________ "Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales *now!* More, cheaper, better games, right? Right? Last edited by Beerina; 30th September 2010 at 02:40 PM.

30th September 2010, 02:49 PM	#19
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: Funky Town (STL, MO) Posts: 23,428	Originally Posted by Beerina I thought politicians spending money on science was a good thing. It absolutely is, but politicians still don't get to dictate the conclusions just because they pay the bills.

30th September 2010, 04:27 PM	#21
bit_pattern Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 4,349	Originally Posted by Beerina If you disagree, I encourage you to shout loudly and proudly as the election approaches. Do you run around with a bell screeching 'UNCLEAN. UNCLEAN!' whenever you come across something not ideologically pure enough for you?
bit_pattern Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 4,349	__________________ "You are the epitome of the 'pigeon playing chess'. No matter how good I am at chess, you are just going to knock the pieces over, **** on the board and strut around like you've won something" "In this political climate, all of science is vulnerable to ideological attack when reality disagrees with political beliefs."

30th September 2010, 04:33 PM	#22
hgc Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 13,028	I take issue with the term "rock bottom" used in the thread title. It's bottomless.
	__________________ Bowel-shaking earthquakes of doubt and remorse assail him and wail him with monster truck force. - Cake, The Distance Was there a second singer on the grassy Knowles? - Stephen Colbert

30th September 2010, 04:42 PM	#25
Captain.Sassy Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 2,180	Originally Posted by Beerina Hint: Destroying the economy for little to no gain is not "scientific fact". That's scientists involving themselves in economic predictions, demonstrated to be unmitigated failure. The cure would be far worse than the disease. You need to upgrade to a better google. Every link you post is to that same site.
	__________________ Evolution a poem As luck would have it, people.

30th September 2010, 04:51 PM	#26
bit_pattern Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 4,349	Dooood, it's the ULTIMATE resource! Julian Simon is obviously God
bit_pattern Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 4,349	__________________ "You are the epitome of the 'pigeon playing chess'. No matter how good I am at chess, you are just going to knock the pieces over, **** on the board and strut around like you've won something" "In this political climate, all of science is vulnerable to ideological attack when reality disagrees with political beliefs."

30th September 2010, 05:20 PM	#27
theprestige Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 8,661	Originally Posted by Dancing David You mean the contempt for science could go deeper? Deeper than saying that questions about scientific accuracy have been raised, and should be answered? As low as this may seem to some people, yeah, I think contempt for science could go a lot deeper. I mean, it's not like McCain said "magnets, how do they work?"
theprestige Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 8,661

30th September 2010, 05:27 PM	#28
leftysergeant Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Spanaway WA Posts: 18,613	Originally Posted by theprestige Deeper than saying that questions about scientific accuracy have been raised, and should be answered? As low as this may seem to some people, yeah, I think contempt for science could go a lot deeper. I mean, it's not like McCain said "magnets, how do they work?" It's not like the old coot offered any evidence that the science is questionable, either. All he did was refer to some bogus "evidence" concocted by a sleazeball hacker.
	__________________ No civilization ever collapsed because the poor had too much to eat.

30th September 2010, 05:36 PM	#29
bit_pattern Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 4,349	"Evidence" that HAS been answered, not once, not twice, but THREE TIMES already. The only "questions" that remain are those being raised by politically motivated flogs like John McCain and the GOP whose goals are to generate doubt in the minds of the masses.
bit_pattern Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 4,349	__________________ "You are the epitome of the 'pigeon playing chess'. No matter how good I am at chess, you are just going to knock the pieces over, **** on the board and strut around like you've won something" "In this political climate, all of science is vulnerable to ideological attack when reality disagrees with political beliefs."

4th October 2010, 04:01 PM	#30
Phrost The Fighting Skeptic Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Cowtown, Missouri Posts: 1,656	Originally Posted by thaiboxerken You should throw your garbage in the trash can, not leave it out for everyone to suffer. I'm sorry, I thought Neil Tyson was a world-renowned physicist and champion for Science in general. You consider his point of view trash? Why, because it conflicts with yours?
	__________________ "I never intend for my posts to read like I'm aggressive or confrontational, but I am so they do." Executive Director: Bullshido.net Fighting BS in the Martial Arts Amateur No-Holds-Barred/MMA Fighter, Skeptic, Bright. www.Phrost.com

4th October 2010, 05:06 PM	#31
mumblethrax Species traitor Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 1,062	Originally Posted by Phrost I'm sorry, I thought Neil Tyson was a world-renowned physicist and champion for Science in general. You consider his point of view trash? Why, because it conflicts with yours? As a political scientist, Tyson makes a wonderful astronomer.

5th October 2010, 12:15 PM	#32
Phrost The Fighting Skeptic Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Cowtown, Missouri Posts: 1,656	Originally Posted by mumblethrax As a political scientist, Tyson makes a wonderful astronomer. Same thing goes for Chomsky and Linguistics.
	__________________ "I never intend for my posts to read like I'm aggressive or confrontational, but I am so they do." Executive Director: Bullshido.net Fighting BS in the Martial Arts Amateur No-Holds-Barred/MMA Fighter, Skeptic, Bright. www.Phrost.com