The GOP verses Science Thread

[JimH52]

Please post appropriate links:

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/01/house-gop-science-committee-akin-gingrey.php

It is amazing! What does the GOP have against Science?

[Peter1469]

Let's see if anyone from the GOP wants to defend this.

[Chris]

Please post appropriate links:

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/01/house-gop-science-committee-akin-gingrey.php

It is amazing! What does the GOP have against Science?

Why don't you tell us, jim?

[JimH52]

Let's see if anyone from the GOP wants to defend this.

Evidently no one...

[Peter1469]

Evidently no one...

I am not sure if we have many GOP members here.

[Adelaide]

Most people have beliefs before they have proof of those beliefs - when push comes to shove, anyone can find proof of almost anything they believe because there are a lot of kooky, privately funded institutions that will do "research" to support all sorts of assbackwards theories and have more holes than swiss cheese. This isn't limited to the GOP.

[Chris]

If you've proven something in science you're on the wrong track. Maybe you're a mathematician, or philosopher, not a scientist.

[Adelaide]

If you've proven something in science you're on the wrong track. Maybe you're a mathematician, or philosopher, not a scientist.

How does a philosopher prove something?

At any rate, I was referring to reliable scientific evidence, or evidence which is strongly supported by the scientific community through numerous studies and/or extensive research with respect to the scientific method.

[Mister D]

How does a philosopher prove something?

At any rate, I was referring to reliable scientific evidence, or evidence which is strongly supported by the scientific community through numerous studies and/or extensive research with respect to the scientific method.

Proof is a matter of logic and thus appropriate to philosophy. It is a misleading term for science.

[Chris]

How does a philosopher prove something?

At any rate, I was referring to reliable scientific evidence, or evidence which is strongly supported by the scientific community through numerous studies and/or extensive research with respect to the scientific method.

Logic. Which is also how mathematicians prove things.

Yes, science depends on reliable evidence and all but remains tentative, incomplete and probabilistic.

[Dr. Who]

Please post appropriate links:

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/01/house-gop-science-committee-akin-gingrey.php

It is amazing! What does the GOP have against Science?I don't defend or support the GOP, but that man is simply an ignoramus, and shouldn't be considered as a representative of intelligent opinion.

[sedan]

One of my favorite anti-science Tea Party Republicans is Rep. Joe Barton.

Here's a clip of Barton questioning former Energy Secretary (and Nobel Prize winner) Steven Chu about where oil comes from:




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgKepHebKRc


What's doubly delicious is that Barton himself posted this video.

Apparently, he thinks he caught Mr. Smartypants Scientist in a 'gotcha' moment. :)

[Chris]

One of my favorite anti-science Tea Party Republicans is Rep. Joe Barton.

Here's a clip of Barton questioning former Energy Secretary (and Nobel Prize winner) Steven Chu about where oil comes from:




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgKepHebKRc


What's doubly delicious is that Barton himself posted this video.

Apparently, he thinks he caught Mr. Smartypants Scientist in a 'gotcha' moment. :)


One of my favorite anti-science Tea Party Republicans is Rep. Joe Barton.

He's not tea party. He is a member of the Tea Party Caucus but that is antithetical to tea party principles of less taxes, smaller government and more liberty, it's an attempt to hijack the movement, and many Tea Party supporters in Congress refuse to join.

If science is about seeking and explaining facts, your post was unscientific.

[sedan]

He's not tea party. He is a member of the Tea Party Caucus but that is antithetical to tea party principles of less taxes, smaller government and more liberty, it's an attempt to hijack the movement, and many Tea Party supporters in Congress refuse to join.

If science is about seeking and explaining facts, your post was unscientific.

Hmm ... so my post is 'unscientific' because I called a Republican who is a member of the Tea Party Caucus a 'Tea Party Republican'?!?

You're almost as funny as Barton is -- thanks for the laugh! :)

[Chris]

Hmm ... so my post is 'unscientific' because I called a Republican who is a member of the Tea Party Caucus a 'Tea Party Republican'?!?

You're almost as funny as Barton is -- thanks for the laugh! :)

Yes. And thanks for the wimpy ad hom.

[JimH52]

Hmm ... so my post is 'unscientific' because I called a Republican who is a member of the Tea Party Caucus a 'Tea Party Republican'?!?

You're almost as funny as Barton is -- thanks for the laugh! :)

Your logic is lost with Chris. Until you learn to talk in circles, that is.

[JimH52]

One of my favorite anti-science Tea Party Republicans is Rep. Joe Barton.

Here's a clip of Barton questioning former Energy Secretary (and Nobel Prize winner) Steven Chu about where oil comes from:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgKepHebKRc


What's doubly delicious is that Barton himself posted this video.

Apparently, he thinks he caught Mr. Smartypants Scientist in a 'gotcha' moment. :)

This video may be described as a Doctor explaining the science of DNA to a walnut. Texas is changing though. There is hope.

[Chris]

Your logic is lost with Chris. Until you learn to talk in circles, that is.

Sedan, logic, oxymoron, jim.

Circles? You mean how you misstate something and I demonstrate it and you want to run away from it while I keep going back to it? Sorry if you don't want to stick to the point.

[JimH52]

Sedan, logic, oxymoron, jim.

Circles? You mean how you misstate something and I demonstrate it and you want to run away from it while I keep going back to it? Sorry if you don't want to stick to the point.

You must lead a sad existence...sorry.

[Chris]

You must lead a sad existence...sorry.

More pathetic ad hom.

[sedan]

Sedan, logic, oxymoron, jim.

Oooh! oooh! oooh!!!

Ad hom!! Ad hom!! Ad hom!!!!!

You really aren't very good at this. :)

[jillian]

More pathetic ad hom.

as opposed to saying that logic and a particular poster in one sentence is an oxymoron?

really?

you need to stop doing that. it makes you look silly.

but i understand, you don't like this topic so need to disrupt any possible discussion about it.

whether you like it or not, science is science and religion is not science...

and religion is based only on faith.

[Chris]

Oooh! oooh! oooh!!!

Ad hom!! Ad hom!! Ad hom!!!!!

You really aren't very good at this. :)

See what I mean, your posts are anything but logical.

[Chris]

as opposed to saying that logic and a particular poster in one sentence is an oxymoron?

really?

you need to stop doing that. it makes you look silly.

but i understand, you don't like this topic so need to disrupt any possible discussion about it.

whether you like it or not, science is science and religion is not science...

and religion is based only on faith.

I was addressing sedan's posts, jillian, nice try though at twisting things out of context into a straw man.


you need to stop doing that. it makes you look silly.

Practice what you preach much?


but i understand, you don't like this topic

Let's not get emotional, please.


science is science and religion is not science.

That's deep.


religion is based only on faith

What is science based on?

[jillian]

See what I mean, your posts are anything but logical.

well, given that he was imitating you.......

[Chris]

This is what I commented on, both posts sedan's:


One of my favorite anti-science Tea Party Republicans is Rep. Joe Barton.


Hmm ... so my post is 'unscientific' because I called a Republican who is a member of the Tea Party Caucus a 'Tea Party Republican'?!?

No logic there at all.

[Chris]

well, given that he was imitating you.......

You just can't quit the ad hom can you.

[JimH52]

You just can't quit the ad hom can you.

Chris, please think before you post. It is becoming quite embarrassing to read your ramblings. Just think before you put your fingers on the keyboard.

[Chris]

Chris, please think before you post. It is becoming quite embarrassing to read your ramblings. Just think before you put your fingers on the keyboard.

You're embarrassing? Thought that one out, didn't you.

[jillian]

You just can't quit the ad hom can you.

you're funny

[JimH52]

you're funny

But Jillian, it wasn't deliberate humor...:rollseyes:

[Mister D]

But Jillian, it wasn't deliberate humor...:rollseyes:

The Scalia "article" was. :rofl:

[sedan]

I was addressing sedan's posts, jillian, nice try though at twisting things out of context into a straw man.

What complete and utter bullshit.

You were NOT addressing my posts.

These are your words: "Sedan, logic, oxymoron, jim."

That's ME you are addressing.

But like everyone else I've ever met who hides behind this 'ad hom' silliness, I'm sure you'll find a way to weasel out of this in your own mind.

[Chris]

What complete and utter bullshit.

You were NOT addressing my posts.

These are your words: "Sedan, logic, oxymoron, jim."

That's ME you are addressing.

But like everyone else I've ever met who hides behind this 'ad hom' silliness, I'm sure you'll find a way to weasel out of this in your own mind.

This all started with your illogical post, sedan, here's the context:


One of my favorite anti-science Tea Party Republicans is Rep. Joe Barton.....

He's not tea party. He is a member of the Tea Party Caucus but that is antithetical to tea party principles of less taxes, smaller government and more liberty, it's an attempt to hijack the movement, and many Tea Party supporters in Congress refuse to join.

If science is about seeking and explaining facts, your post was unscientific.

Hmm ... so my post is 'unscientific' because I called a Republican who is a member of the Tea Party Caucus a 'Tea Party Republican'?!?

You're almost as funny as Barton is -- thanks for the laugh!

Yes. And thanks for the wimpy ad hom.

Your logic is lost with Chris. Until you learn to talk in circles, that is.

Sedan, logic, oxymoron, jim.

We're discussing your lack of logic, sedan. I pointed out your factual flaws, you came back with fallacious ad hom.

Defend your illogic if you can but leave out logical fallacies.

[sedan]

We're discussing your lack of logic, sedan. I pointed out your factual flaws, you came back with fallacious ad hom.

You did nothing of the sort.

You disagreed with my characterization of Barton as a 'Tea Party Republican'.

In your opinion, Barton isn't 'Tea Party'.

But in my opinion, someone who is a Republican and who is a member of the Tea Party Caucus is, by definition, a Tea Party Republican.

Maybe you don't think he's a Tea Party Republican, but I bet he thinks of himself as one, and I bet thousands of people who vote for him think he's one.

I also say that Michele Bachmann is a Tea Party Republican. Why? Because she's a Republican who's a member of the Tea Party, that's why.

But in your strange universe, I'm the one who's being illogical? That is simply amazing.


Defend your illogic if you can but leave out logical fallacies.

First of all, there's a difference between an ad hominem attack and an ad hominem fallacy.

An ad hominem attack is "You are stupid."

An ad hominem fallacy is "Your argument is false because you are stupid."

Sadly, like most people who play the 'ad hom' game, you're unable to distinguish between the two.

Instead, what you do is whenever anyone says something that you can interpret as even slightly disparaging (like "you are funny") you immediately start whining about 'ad hom' this and 'ad hom' that. This is what you do as a substitute for making a real argument. Then, when you say something disparaging about someone else (like "sedan is illogical") and get called on it, you claim that you are discussing that person's posts, not the person. Which is a thoroughly disingenuous and transparently weak tactic.

BTW, your initial post really did make me laugh out loud (it was that absurd). So when I said you are almost as funny as Barton I was telling the absolute truth about how I reacted to your post. So if your discussion of me isn't an 'ad hom' because you're discussing my posts, then my initial reaction to your post wasn't an 'ad hom' either. By your own set of rules you falsely accused me of making an 'ad hom' when in fact I had not. We can call this the 'false accusation' fallacy, if you like.

[Chris]

You did nothing of the sort.

You disagreed with my characterization of Barton as a 'Tea Party Republican'.

In your opinion, Barton isn't 'Tea Party'.

But in my opinion, someone who is a Republican and who is a member of the Tea Party Caucus is, by definition, a Tea Party Republican.

Maybe you don't think he's a Tea Party Republican, but I bet he thinks of himself as one, and I bet thousands of people who vote for him think he's one.

I also say that Michele Bachmann is a Tea Party Republican. Why? Because she's a Republican who's a member of the Tea Party, that's why.

But in your strange universe, I'm the one who's being illogical? That is simply amazing.



First of all, there's a difference between an ad hominem attack and an ad hominem fallacy.

An ad hominem attack is "You are stupid."

An ad hominem fallacy is "Your argument is false because you are stupid."

Sadly, like most people who play the 'ad hom' game, you're unable to distinguish between the two.

Instead, what you do is whenever anyone says something that you can interpret as even slightly disparaging (like "you are funny") you immediately start whining about 'ad hom' this and 'ad hom' that. This is what you do as a substitute for making a real argument. Then, when you say something disparaging about someone else (like "sedan is illogical") and get called on it, you claim that you are discussing that person's posts, not the person. Which is a thoroughly disingenuous and transparently weak tactic.

BTW, your initial post really did make me laugh out loud (it was that absurd). So when I said you are almost as funny as Barton I was telling the absolute truth about how I reacted to your post. So if your discussion of me isn't an 'ad hom' because you're discussing my posts, then my initial reaction to your post wasn't an 'ad hom' either. By your own set of rules you falsely accused me of making an 'ad hom' when in fact I had not. We can call this the 'false accusation' fallacy, if you like.

I showed your post illogical.

Sorry you don't like that.

If your ad hom wasn't, then explain the logic of it. You're simply feeling something is true is not rational.



Instead, what you do is whenever anyone says something that you can interpret as even slightly disparaging (like "you are funny") you immediately start whining about 'ad hom' this and 'ad hom' that.

Straw man. Why would I complain about the lack of logic in your posts? I'm merely pointing it out. You're the one now going on and on whining bout it.

Try and be a little more rational.



Ad hom is simply arguing the messenger instead of the message. Not sure where you come up with all your trifling nuances. Argue the message, not the messenger and I won't point out your ad hom.

[Chris]

One of my favorite anti-science Tea Party Republicans is Rep. Joe Barton.

...


He's not tea party. He is a member of the Tea Party Caucus but that is antithetical to tea party principles of less taxes, smaller government and more liberty, it's an attempt to hijack the movement, and many Tea Party supporters in Congress refuse to join.

If science is about seeking and explaining facts, your post was unscientific.

Despite all your hand waving and wringing, this counterargument still stands.

[sedan]

Despite all your hand waving and wringing, this counterargument still stands.

Dude.

Simply making an assertion is not making an argument.

Just because you say that Barton isn't a Tea Party Republican doesn't mean diddly squat to me.

I'm sure there are lots of Tea Party folks out there saying other Tea Party folks aren't real Tea Party for one reason or another.

To a sane observer, this looks a lot like Mensheviks and Bolsheviks arguing over who's a real communist.

Be that as it may, I'm willing to go out on a limb and say that people who call themselves Tea Party Republicans are, in fact, Tea Party Republicans.

[Chris]

Dude.

Simply making an assertion is not making an argument.

Just because you say that Barton isn't a Tea Party Republican doesn't mean diddly squat to me.

I'm sure there are lots of Tea Party folks out there saying other Tea Party folks aren't real Tea Party for one reason or another.

To a sane observer, this looks a lot like Mensheviks and Bolsheviks arguing over who's a real communist.

Be that as it may, I'm willing to go out on a limb and say that people who call themselves Tea Party Republicans are, in fact, Tea Party Republicans.

I didn't merely assert it, DUDE, I gave an argument. You so far have done nothing to defend your illogical claim.

No one's calling anyone Tea Party Reps but libs like you in your post.

This guy you're attacking is a member of Bachmann's Tea Party Caucus, not the tea party movement:


An article in Politico stated that many Tea Party activists see the caucus as an effort by the Republican Party to hijack the movement. Utah congressman Jason Chaffetz refused to join the caucus, saying "Structure and formality are the exact opposite of what the Tea Party is, and if there is an attempt to put structure and formality around it, or to co-opt it by Washington, D.C., it’s going to take away from the free-flowing nature of the true tea party movement."[6]

In an attempt to quell fears that Washington insiders were attempting to co-opt the Tea Party movement, Rep Michele Bachmann stated "We're not the mouthpiece. We are not taking the Tea Party and controlling it from Washington, D.C. We are also not here to vouch for the Tea Party or to vouch for any Tea Party organizations or to vouch for any individual people or actions, or billboards or signs or anything of the Tea Party. We are the receptacle."[7] [8]

Additionally, Senators Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania and Marco Rubio of Florida, all Tea Party supporters, refused to join the caucus.[9][10] Toomey said he would be "open" to joining, and spoke at the first meeting, but did not ultimately join.[11] Johnson said that he declined to join because he wanted to "work towards a unified Republican Conference, so that's where I will put my energy."[12] Rubio criticized the caucus, saying "My fear has always been that if you start creating these little clubs or organizations in Washington run by politicians, the movement starts to lose its energy."[13]

@ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_Caucus

Get your facts straight.

[sedan]

Speaking of Tea Party Republicans who are anti-science, here's Michele Bachmann:




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wX1UnAtynU

[Agravan]

Speaking of Tea Party Republicans who are anti-science, here's Michele Bachmann:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wX1UnAtynU

You, on the left, love talking about those on the right, especially the Tea Party, as being "anti-science".
Please explain how not falling for every "discovery" made by pseudo-science, such as AGW, makes one anti-science. Or do you just call the right anti-science because, somehow, that make you feel superior in some meager, pathetic way.

[Chris]

Speaking of Tea Party Republicans who are anti-science, here's Michele Bachmann:




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wX1UnAtynU



Again, a straw man invention of the left. Tea Party Movement and Republicans are two different things. One is grassroots and libertarian, and the other organized and authoritarian. Bachmann is not a member of the tea party movement, she's a Republican who has hijacked the name for her own purposes. I earlier posted a wiki article explaining this.

But I guess if a logically fallacious straw man is posted enough times some start to believe it.

[Chris]

You, on the left, love talking about those on the right, especially the Tea Party, as being "anti-science".
Please explain how not falling for every "discovery" made by pseudo-science, such as AGW, makes one anti-science. Or do you just call the right anti-science because, somehow, that make you feel superior in some meager, pathetic way.

Ask him what he thinks science is. That would be a bit of fun. The left isn't interested in science, in what man is, biologically, but what they can re-engineer and perfect ideologically.

[sedan]

Ask him what he thinks science is. That would be a bit of fun. The left isn't interested in science, in what man is, biologically, but what they can re-engineer and perfect ideologically.

Ad hom!! Ad hom!! Ad hom!! Ad hom!!!!!

Dude -- do you have to be so insulting?!?

Please stop posting these fallacious ad hominem straw men!!

Someone might actually believe them if they get posted enough!!!

[Chris]

Ad hom!! Ad hom!! Ad hom!! Ad hom!!!!!

Dude -- do you have to be so insulting?!?

Please stop posting these fallacious ad hominem straw men!!

Someone might actually believe them if they get posted enough!!!

Dude, where's the ad hom? Cry wolf much?

So, sedan, tell us, since you're criticising others for being anti-science, tell us what science is....

[JimH52]

I recall some Repub friends of mine that argued for years that the tobacco companies were not lying about dosing cigarettes with nicotine. They even denied that nicotine was addicting. The science and medical evidence was just not good enough for them. Of course, a lot of them are dead now from smoking. A few even admitted that cigarettes were addicting before they went.

In a few years, the GOP will be asking the Dems, "Why didn't you do anything about the Global Warming?" They will conveniently forget they denied it for years, like they defended the tobacco companies for years.

[Chris]

I recall some Repub friends of mine that argued for years that the tobacco companies were not lying about dosing cigarettes with nicotine. They even denied that nicotine was addicting. The science and medical evidence was just not good enough for them. Of course, a lot of them are dead now from smoking. A few even admitted that cigarettes were addicting before they went.

In a few years, the GOP will be asking the Dems, "Why didn't you do anything about the Global Warming?" They will conveniently forget they denied it for years, like they defended the tobacco companies for years.

I would guess at the time the scientific evidence wasn't readily available.


But here's one for Democrat Scientists: Medical Science says the embryo is alive and human. You don't deny that now do you?

[Agravan]

I recall some Repub friends of mine that argued for years that the tobacco companies were not lying about dosing cigarettes with nicotine. They even denied that nicotine was addicting. The science and medical evidence was just not good enough for them. Of course, a lot of them are dead now from smoking. A few even admitted that cigarettes were addicting before they went.

In a few years, the GOP will be asking the Dems, "Why didn't you do anything about the Global Warming?" They will conveniently forget they denied it for years, like they defended the tobacco companies for years.

Jim, why didn't the Dems do anything about the coming Ice Age that these same scientists predicted was coming in the 70's? Or did you conveniently forget about that?

[Dr. Who]

Ask him what he thinks science is. That would be a bit of fun. The left isn't interested in science, in what man is, biologically, but what they can re-engineer and perfect ideologically.
I resemble that remark! LoL. That is a bit of a generalization, don't you think? Neither the left or right corner the market on science. Scientists come in both varieties. Onlookers may have their opinions, but science is pure. It's about the research. Politics only come in to it where funding is involved. I'm interested in string theory. Does that make me a fake leftist?

[Dr. Who]

I would guess at the time the scientific evidence wasn't readily available.


But here's one for Democrat Scientists: Medical Science says the embryo is alive and human. You don't deny that now do you?
Tell me why the embryo that is spontaneously aborted is any different, less important, less human, from the one that is aborted deliberately? 31% of pregnancies confirmed after implantation end in miscarriage. http://miscarriage.about.com/od/riskfactors/a/miscarriage-statistics.htm

[Agravan]

Tell me why the embryo that is spontaneously aborted is any different, less important, less human, from the one that is aborted deliberately? 31% of pregnancies confirmed after implantation end in miscarriage. http://miscarriage.about.com/od/riskfactors/a/miscarriage-statistics.htm

Ok, so how is a person that just dies of natural causes different or less human from somebody who is deliberately murdered?

[Chris]

I resemble that remark! LoL. That is a bit of a generalization, don't you think? Neither the left or right corner the market on science. Scientists come in both varieties. Onlookers may have their opinions, but science is pure. It's about the research. Politics only come in to it where funding is involved. I'm interested in string theory. Does that make me a fake leftist?

Yes, an overgeneralization.

I was thinking generally, though, in terms of how liberals tend to want to perfect mankind without acknowledging the nature of mankind.

[Chris]

Tell me why the embryo that is spontaneously aborted is any different, less important, less human, from the one that is aborted deliberately? 31% of pregnancies confirmed after implantation end in miscarriage. http://miscarriage.about.com/od/riskfactors/a/miscarriage-statistics.htm

It's not. Just as a person who dies of heart failure is not less important than one who doesn't.

[truthmatters]

Again, a straw man invention of the left. Tea Party Movement and Republicans are two different things. One is grassroots and libertarian, and the other organized and authoritarian. Bachmann is not a member of the tea party movement, she's a Republican who has hijacked the name for her own purposes. I earlier posted a wiki article explaining this.

But I guess if a logically fallacious straw man is posted enough times some start to believe it.

pretending the driving force of the tea party is not anti sceince gets you no passes

[Chris]

pretending the driving force of the tea party is not anti sceince gets you no passes

Nice accusation, now substantiate it.....

[truthmatters]

global warming?

what is the tea party stance on that?

[Chris]

global warming?

what is the tea party stance on that?

Not going to do your job for you, matters. I'll wait for you to try and substantiate your claim....

[Cigar]

Everyone with eyes and half a brain can see that natural disasters are happening more frequently, causing more damage and are costing more each year.

So can someone with common sense tell me why we would cut the amount going to FEMA.

What does the GOP expect next ... if a town gets wiped ... too bad?

[Chris]

Everyone with eyes and half a brain can see that natural disasters are happening more frequently, causing more damage and are costing more each year.

So can someone with common sense tell me why we would cut the amount going to FEMA.

What does the GOP expect next ... if a town gets wiped ... too bad?

Science doesn't poison the well of discussion with phrases like "Everyone with eyes and half a brain" and "someone with common sense".

Try some science instead.

[truthmatters]

Not going to do your job for you, matters. I'll wait for you to try and substantiate your claim....


oh the tea party is pro protecting the enviroment from pollution which is causing global warming.


can you prove that?

[Chris]

oh the tea party is pro protecting the enviroment from pollution which is causing global warming.


can you prove that?


You made the claim, you substantiate it. I got all day...

[truthmatters]

http://www.weather.com/news/science/environment/global-warming-poll-believe-hoax-20130403



A 2011 study conducted by Yale University and George Mason University (http://environment.yale.edu/climate/files/PoliticsGlobalWarming2011.pdf) found that 62% of Democrats but only 19% of "Tea Party" members believed that global warming is happening and primarily caused by human activities.

[Chris]

http://www.weather.com/news/science/environment/global-warming-poll-believe-hoax-20130403

Yes, and?

[truthmatters]

that means 81% of tea party people dont believe in GW

[Agravan]

global warming?

what is the tea party stance on that?

the coming Ice Age that was predicted in the 70's. Whatever happened to those doom and gloom predictions? Remember, the science was settled then too.

In either case, Global warming/cooling is cyclic in nature. It has occurred many times in the past before man existed and will continue to occur long after man is gone no matter what we do. How do you propose to turn it around??

[Agravan]

that means 81% of tea party people dont believe in GW

Wrong, it means they believe it's cyclic, which it is, and not caused by man.

[truthmatters]

It means what it means.


Now why are you pretending they dont believe how they answered the polls?

[truthmatters]

Only 19 % believe in sceince

[Chris]

that means 81% of tea party people dont believe in GW

Your claim was the tea party is anti-science. A percentage of all Americans believe it's a hoax. By your illogic, (all) Americans believe it's a hoax. And it's just a poll.

Next, you need to demonstrate "global warming" is scientifically correct.

I can wait.

[Chris]

Only 19 % believe in sceince

Your source does not say that, matters, don't make things up.

[truthmatters]

it is the prevailing sceintific beliefs.


You dont trust the sceintists and chose instead a smaller group of them over the vast majority.


You pick what you believe so it will fit your already decided historically failed beliefs

[truthmatters]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:97%_of_Climate_Scientists_Confirm_Anthroproge nic_Global_Warming.svg



http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/41/97%25_of_Climate_Scientists_Confirm_Anthroprogenic _Global_Warming.svg/746px-97%25_of_Climate_Scientists_Confirm_Anthroprogenic _Global_Warming.svg.png (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/41/97%25_of_Climate_Scientists_Confirm_Anthroprogenic _Global_Warming.svg)

[Agravan]

It means what it means.


Now why are you pretending they dont believe how they answered the polls?
So anyone that does not agree with "concensus science" is an idiot in your view?


Only 19 % believe in sceince

Not believing junk science is not the same as not believing in science.

[Agravan]

it is the prevailing sceintific beliefs.


You dont trust the sceintists and chose instead a smaller group of them over the vast majority.


You pick what you believe so it will fit your already decided historically failed beliefs

No conclusive evidence, just a theory that is being used to scam people out of their hard-earned money. just ask Algore.

[Chris]

it is the prevailing sceintific beliefs.


You dont trust the sceintists and chose instead a smaller group of them over the vast majority.


You pick what you believe so it will fit your already decided historically failed beliefs

Substantiate that.

To begin with what you say about me is made up of whole cloth. You don't substantiate an opinion by making things up, matters.

Next, science is not determined by popular vote. Thus you have demonstrated you do not know what science is to begin with.

[Agravan]

Next, science is not determined by popular vote. Thus you have demonstrated you do not know what science is to begin with.
That ^^^^^^^^

[JimH52]

Everyone with eyes and half a brain can see that natural disasters are happening more frequently, causing more damage and are costing more each year.

So can someone with common sense tell me why we would cut the amount going to FEMA.

What does the GOP expect next ... if a town gets wiped ... too bad?

Not only is it too bad. They should not get any federal help until we cut the same amount from another place in the budget. That is the stance of the GOP. They are slowly digging their own grave.

Anyone got a front end loader they can borrow?

[JimH52]

it is the prevailing sceintific beliefs.


You dont trust the sceintists and chose instead a smaller group of them over the vast majority.


You pick what you believe so it will fit your already decided historically failed beliefs

Cherry Picking? Where have a I heard that term before?

[truthmatters]

sceince is determined by what the prevailing belief is.


are you going to deny that is true?

[truthmatters]

No conclusive evidence, just a theory that is being used to scam people out of their hard-earned money. just ask Algore.



see this is denying science.



when you just throw away our best knowledge on a subject for political reasons you are not believing in sceince

[Agravan]

sceince is determined by what the prevailing belief is.


are you going to deny that is true?
That is idiotic. In the dark ages, people believed the world was flat and that the Sun revolved around the Earth. Did their overwhelming belief make it true?

[Chris]

sceince is determined by what the prevailing belief is.


are you going to deny that is true?

That is false, matters, science is not determined by popular belief.

[Dr. Who]

Ok, so how is a person that just dies of natural causes different or less human from somebody who is deliberately murdered?The difference is that we are not talking about a fully developed human being. In case you are wondering, I draw the line at 12 weeks. The same period of time that most woman don't announce a pregnancy, because it is not a sure thing. The fetus in a miscarriage does not die of natural causes in most cases, it is ejected by the mother's body for any number of reasons. Stress is a major factor. I don't see how your analogy is appropriate.

[Agravan]

The difference is that we are not talking about a fully developed human being. In case you are wondering, I draw the line at 12 weeks. The same period of time that most woman don't announce a pregnancy, because it is not a sure thing. The fetus in a miscarriage does not die of natural causes in most cases, it is ejected by the mother's body for any number of reasons. Stress is a major factor. I don't see how your analogy is appropriate.
I can see where you wouldn't.

[Dr. Who]

It's not. Just as a person who dies of heart failure is not less important than one who doesn't.If there is a grand plan in the universe, call it God or what you will, it would not make sense, if one third of all pregnancies are miscarried, that the fetus would have any sentience or awareness or anything that truly makes them human other than DNA. You could make the same argument in respect of a parasitic twin. The DNA is human, it has human flesh, bone, hair and even teeth, but it is not a human being.

[Chris]

The difference is that we are not talking about a fully developed human being. In case you are wondering, I draw the line at 12 weeks. The same period of time that most woman don't announce a pregnancy, because it is not a sure thing. The fetus in a miscarriage does not die of natural causes in most cases, it is ejected by the mother's body for any number of reasons. Stress is a major factor. I don't see how your analogy is appropriate.


The difference is that we are not talking about a fully developed human being.

A human doesn't fully mature till 25 or so.


In case you are wondering, I draw the line at 12 weeks.

Why such an arbitrary line?

[Chris]

If there is a grand plan in the universe, call it God or what you will, it would not make sense, if one third of all pregnancies are miscarried, that the fetus would have any sentience or awareness or anything that truly makes them human other than DNA. You could make the same argument in respect of a parasitic twin. The DNA is human, it has human flesh, bone, hair and even teeth, but it is not a human being.

Your argument applies to all humans from conception to death.

If the fetus is not a human being, what is it, a cow? Your argument here is simply absurd.

Some more common definitions:


human being (Homo sapiens), a culture-bearing primate that is anatomically similar and related to the other great apes but is distinguished by a more highly developed brain and a resultant capacity for articulate speech and abstract reasoning.

@ http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/275376/human-being


human being
noun
1.
any individual of the genus Homo, especially a member of the species Homo sapiens.
2.
a person, especially as distinguished from other animals or as representing the human species: living conditions not fit for human beings; a very generous human being.

@ http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/human+being

[Dr. Who]

Your argument applies to all humans from conception to death.

If the fetus is not a human being, what is it, a cow? Your argument here is simply absurd.

Some more common definitions:



@ http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/275376/human-being



@ http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/human+being


but is distinguished by a more highly developed brain and a resultant capacity for articulate speech and abstract reasoning. Using your own argument, a fetus within twelve weeks does not have a highly developed brain or at that point in time any capacity for speech or abstract reasoning.

[Chris]

Using your own argument, a fetus within twelve weeks does not have a highly developed brain or at that point in time any capacity for speech or abstract reasoning.

Serious? The comparison was not within the species but across species distingishing human beings from other animals. So yes let's stick with my argument, from conception it's a human being.