A victory for "Liberal" science.

[Quantum Windbag]

That doesn't even make sense on so many levels.

First, no one ever said "snail darters were more important than human life" until you.

Second, "liberal" scientists believe, through study and data, that all organisms on earth are interconnected. What happens in an animal population can tell you if there are toxic wastes in the environment that might get into our food chain or damage our children. And that is just two examples.

Simply killing off entire species is the fastest way of killing off ourselves.

Why does everything have to be explained? Can't some of you reason these things out on your own?

Liberal scientists believe.

That is the essence of the problem here, they believe, they do not know. They believe that 1000s of species are going extinct every day. They base this belief on wishful thinking and wild guesses. The real truth is no one knows, they just believe. And worrying about what might happen is far more important that dealing with what is happening.

I would rather believe them because they WANT to understand and that's why they "study" and "learn". You give the impression that "stupid and ignorant are GOOD".

Just the fact that you call science and study "wild guesses" proves it.

Worrying about what "might be happening" is the best motivator for finding out and preparing for "what might happen". It's why we study weather and learn about volcanoes and earthquakes. Apparently, only the right wants to be another "Pompeii".

How do I give that impression when every single time you and I have discussed an issue revolving around science I have handed you your ass? Is it actually possible that I believe science should be free of politics, and you think it should be nothing but politics? That your insistence on politicizing everything results in you thinking that science is on the side of Democrats, when the real truth is that only political activists are on their side?

The facts are pretty clear.

• Climate change is occurring.
• Humans have an impact on that change.
• We cannot sit around and hope that everything will be fine and expect the universe to let us get away with it.
• The only real way to test out theories is through real world experiments.

Yet you are sitting there and arguing that we should stop the experimentation, the real science, because if we experiment it might hurt some species that may, or may not, be critical. On the other hand, most scientists say that if we do nothing that same species will definitely be negatively affected because the climate change will be catastrophic.

Guess what rdean, you have officially jumped the shark and become anti science.

Another thing to think about, I have just handed you your ass in a discussion that revolves around science. Again. Thanks for making it easy for me.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Science is never settled. History, however, is. History points out that the Earth has gone through a climate change every few thousand years. This includes the medieval warming period, that had higher temps than are projected as a result of AGW, and the little ice age that we are currently leaving. Climate changes.

A wonderful demostration of speaking on a subject when totally ignorant of that subject. Here, learn something.

NOAA Paleoclimatology Program - NCDC Paleoclimatology Branch

As usual you missed the point entirely, however once again you post a link to a site that confirms what the other guy said, do you actually bother to read these things or do you just hope no one else will?

Here is just one of many statements that is made that reinforces what QW said..


"Following the end of the last glacial period about 11,500 years ago, the Earth's climate system began to look and behave more like it does today. The large continental ice sheets shrank, sea level rose, temperatures ameliorated, monsoons grew in strength. Around 8,200 years ago, however, a surprising event occurred. The 8.2 ka event, as it is now known, was first discovered in the Greenland ice core GISP2, where high-resolution analyses indicate that over two decades temperature cooled about 3.3°C in Greenland (Alley et al., 1997; Kobashi et al., 2007). The entire event lasted about 150 years (Thomas et al., 2007; Kobashi et al., 2007) and then temperatures warmed, returning to their previous levels."

Why do you keep injecting facts into discussions with Old Rocks, you know they just confuse him.

 

[rdean]

Liberal scientists believe.

That is the essence of the problem here, they believe, they do not know. They believe that 1000s of species are going extinct every day. They base this belief on wishful thinking and wild guesses. The real truth is no one knows, they just believe. And worrying about what might happen is far more important that dealing with what is happening.

I would rather believe them because they WANT to understand and that's why they "study" and "learn". You give the impression that "stupid and ignorant are GOOD".

Just the fact that you call science and study "wild guesses" proves it.

Worrying about what "might be happening" is the best motivator for finding out and preparing for "what might happen". It's why we study weather and learn about volcanoes and earthquakes. Apparently, only the right wants to be another "Pompeii".

How do I give that impression when every single time you and I have discussed an issue revolving around science I have handed you your ass? Is it actually possible that I believe science should be free of politics, and you think it should be nothing but politics? That your insistence on politicizing everything results in you thinking that science is on the side of Democrats, when the real truth is that only political activists are on their side?

The facts are pretty clear.

• Climate change is occurring.
• Humans have an impact on that change.
• We cannot sit around and hope that everything will be fine and expect the universe to let us get away with it.
• The only real way to test out theories is through real world experiments.

Yet you are sitting there and arguing that we should stop the experimentation, the real science, because if we experiment it might hurt some species that may, or may not, be critical. On the other hand, most scientists say that if we do nothing that same species will definitely be negatively affected because the climate change will be catastrophic.
Guess what rdean, you have officially jumped the shark and become anti science.

Another thing to think about, I have just handed you your ass in a discussion that revolves around science. Again. Thanks for making it easy for me.

You don't even make sense. Everytime I read someone like you saying, "Most scientists say....", I know we are in for some silliness.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I would rather believe them because they WANT to understand and that's why they "study" and "learn". You give the impression that "stupid and ignorant are GOOD".

Just the fact that you call science and study "wild guesses" proves it.

Worrying about what "might be happening" is the best motivator for finding out and preparing for "what might happen". It's why we study weather and learn about volcanoes and earthquakes. Apparently, only the right wants to be another "Pompeii".

How do I give that impression when every single time you and I have discussed an issue revolving around science I have handed you your ass? Is it actually possible that I believe science should be free of politics, and you think it should be nothing but politics? That your insistence on politicizing everything results in you thinking that science is on the side of Democrats, when the real truth is that only political activists are on their side?

The facts are pretty clear.

• Climate change is occurring.
• Humans have an impact on that change.
• We cannot sit around and hope that everything will be fine and expect the universe to let us get away with it.
• The only real way to test out theories is through real world experiments.

Yet you are sitting there and arguing that we should stop the experimentation, the real science, because if we experiment it might hurt some species that may, or may not, be critical. On the other hand, most scientists say that if we do nothing that same species will definitely be negatively affected because the climate change will be catastrophic.
Guess what rdean, you have officially jumped the shark and become anti science.

Another thing to think about, I have just handed you your ass in a discussion that revolves around science. Again. Thanks for making it easy for me.

You don't even make sense. Everytime I read someone like you saying, "Most scientists say....", I know we are in for some silliness.

Does that mean the next time you point out that most scientists are Democrats I can laugh at how silly you are being?

 

[rdean]

How do I give that impression when every single time you and I have discussed an issue revolving around science I have handed you your ass? Is it actually possible that I believe science should be free of politics, and you think it should be nothing but politics? That your insistence on politicizing everything results in you thinking that science is on the side of Democrats, when the real truth is that only political activists are on their side?

The facts are pretty clear.

• Climate change is occurring.
• Humans have an impact on that change.
• We cannot sit around and hope that everything will be fine and expect the universe to let us get away with it.
• The only real way to test out theories is through real world experiments.

Yet you are sitting there and arguing that we should stop the experimentation, the real science, because if we experiment it might hurt some species that may, or may not, be critical. On the other hand, most scientists say that if we do nothing that same species will definitely be negatively affected because the climate change will be catastrophic.
Guess what rdean, you have officially jumped the shark and become anti science.

Another thing to think about, I have just handed you your ass in a discussion that revolves around science. Again. Thanks for making it easy for me.

You don't even make sense. Everytime I read someone like you saying, "Most scientists say....", I know we are in for some silliness.

Does that mean the next time you point out that most scientists are Democrats I can laugh at how silly you are being?

Hey, check out this thread. It has to be coming from one of "your people".

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/145877-the-science-is-fixed.html

"Where are Republican Scientists?"

This is "hilarious".

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You don't even make sense. Everytime I read someone like you saying, "Most scientists say....", I know we are in for some silliness.

Does that mean the next time you point out that most scientists are Democrats I can laugh at how silly you are being?

Hey, check out this thread. It has to be coming from one of "your people".

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/145877-the-science-is-fixed.html

"Where are Republican Scientists?"

This is "hilarious".

Pointing out that scientist might have a political agenda is hilarious? Does that also make it hilarious when you point out that only 6% of scientists are Republicans?

 

[rdean]

Does that mean the next time you point out that most scientists are Democrats I can laugh at how silly you are being?

Hey, check out this thread. It has to be coming from one of "your people".

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/145877-the-science-is-fixed.html

"Where are Republican Scientists?"

This is "hilarious".

Pointing out that scientist might have a political agenda is hilarious? Does that also make it hilarious when you point out that only 6% of scientists are Republicans?

Does that also make it hilarious when you point out that only 6% of scientists are Republicans?

For me, "Yes". For Republicans, "probably not".

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Hey, check out this thread. It has to be coming from one of "your people".

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/145877-the-science-is-fixed.html

"Where are Republican Scientists?"

This is "hilarious".

Pointing out that scientist might have a political agenda is hilarious? Does that also make it hilarious when you point out that only 6% of scientists are Republicans?

Does that also make it hilarious when you point out that only 6% of scientists are Republicans?

For me, "Yes". For Republicans, "probably not".

Trust me on this rdean, everyone thinks you are hilarious.

 

[daveman]

Does that also make it hilarious when you point out that only 6% of scientists are Republicans?

For me, "Yes". For Republicans, "probably not".

Would you trust economic solutions proposed by a group of economists who were only 6% Democrats?

 

[rdean]

Does that also make it hilarious when you point out that only 6% of scientists are Republicans?

For me, "Yes". For Republicans, "probably not".

Would you trust economic solutions proposed by a group of economists who were only 6% Democrats?

Not if the other 94% were Republicans. They can't touch something without ruining it.

Take a blank sheet of paper.

On one side, write out Republican failures.

On the other side, right out Republican success.

Weigh the value of the failure and the success.

For instance, Bin Laden would get a plus 2 and a minus 10. Two for chasing him from his stronghold. Minus 10 for letting him go.

Katrina - plus 1 for finally doing something. Minus 20 for waiting so long before doing anything.

Installing a government in Iraq. Plus 2 for giving the Iraqis a chance to write their own constitution and minus 50 for letting them make Islam the National Religion, putting women into burkas and ruining their lives and killing all the gays they could find (some Republicans would give this a plus 10).

Tax break - plus 0.00002 because millionaires didn't ask for more money. Minus 30 for using the middle class as "bargaining chips" and threatening to ruin their Christmas.

So keep going. When you finish add the points up. If there are more minus than plus, then you need to seriously re-evaluate the ties to your political party.