delegitamizing science

The only thing you've cleared up is providing more support for your myopic inanity. When real scientists push creationism in place of biological sciences and manipulate the scientific process to do so, you will have a point. But, as usual, you don't.

It wouldn't occur to most "real" scientists to push "magical creation" over evolutionary science, so your point doesn't make much sense.

However, I suspect your point is that you are trying to compare the science of "climate change" to right wingers pushing "mysticism" as real science. The difference is that "climate change" IS real science. We know the climate will change, whatever the agent of that change, it WILL change. It's inevitable. It's the nature of the earth.

So, a few scientists are found to be "lying" because they have an agenda. Oh well, it happens. How many Christians do that to support their case against the gays? How many right wingers do that to support a case against Obama with lies of "death panels" and "kill grandma"?

There is a right wing war on science in this country. It exists. Rather than demanding that funding be increased and the science of climate change legitimized so we know exactly what is happening, the right wants to throw scientists under the bus. Science had done a lot more for this country than the "occult" and will continue to do so. It's the "super-naturalists" that lead the charge against scientists. Of course, that is not in their best interests, but that's never stopped them before.

The Bush administration was leading the fight against science.

Thank God, they are gone.
Really? I wonder why funding for research in the sciences was at unprecedented high levels during the Bush administration?

Go figure.

With respect to the topic, the enemies of science are those who try to excuse the inexcusable.
 
It wouldn't occur to most "real" scientists to push "magical creation" over evolutionary science, so your point doesn't make much sense.

However, I suspect your point is that you are trying to compare the science of "climate change" to right wingers pushing "mysticism" as real science. The difference is that "climate change" IS real science. We know the climate will change, whatever the agent of that change, it WILL change. It's inevitable. It's the nature of the earth.

So, a few scientists are found to be "lying" because they have an agenda. Oh well, it happens. How many Christians do that to support their case against the gays? How many right wingers do that to support a case against Obama with lies of "death panels" and "kill grandma"?

There is a right wing war on science in this country. It exists. Rather than demanding that funding be increased and the science of climate change legitimized so we know exactly what is happening, the right wants to throw scientists under the bus. Science had done a lot more for this country than the "occult" and will continue to do so. It's the "super-naturalists" that lead the charge against scientists. Of course, that is not in their best interests, but that's never stopped them before.

The Bush administration was leading the fight against science.

Thank God, they are gone.
Really? I wonder why funding for research in the sciences was at unprecedented high levels during the Bush administration?

Go figure.

With respect to the topic, the enemies of science are those who try to excuse the inexcusable.

Oh please.

The only thing that is inexcusable is you and your buddies attack on science.
 
The Bush administration was leading the fight against science.

Thank God, they are gone.
Really? I wonder why funding for research in the sciences was at unprecedented high levels during the Bush administration?

Go figure.

With respect to the topic, the enemies of science are those who try to excuse the inexcusable.

Oh please. ....
"Oh please" what? The funding of the sciences during the GWB administration were at unprecedented high levels. Historically, there have been some administrations that have been quite generous to the sciences and some that have had to make hard cuts. Looking at the data for federal expenditures for scientific research and development from 1953 to 2007, it would be hard to say whether the Democrats or Republicans are more generous to the sciences. In fact, the Republicans have some of the highest percentages of increases, but they also have some big decreases.

Here is a summary of the federal expenditures for scientific research and development during the time that president was in office*:
Eisenhower [R] –-- 177% increase in federal expenditures for scientific R&D

Kennedy [D] (during his tragically short time in office) –-- 25.9% increase

Johnson [D] –-- 18.9% increase

Nixon [R] –-- 17.1% decrease

Ford [R] –-- 1.41% increase

Carter [D] –-- 9.90% increase

Reagan [R] –-- 43.1% increase

GHW Bush [R] –-- 11.2% decrease

Clinton [D] –-- 5.82% decrease

GW Bush [R] –-- 23.8% increase
So, it appears that, regardless of the party in office, some cuts occurred and some fabulous increases occurred. No matter how much one may want to vilify one party, it doesn’t appear as if the facts will support it. My apologies for any dashed hopes of making this a partisan issue.




* Data obtained from here: http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf08317/figure3.xls

.... The only thing that is inexcusable is you and your buddies attack on science.
You're confused, Chris. My attack is on those who apparently sold out scientific integrity, as is the CRU's. Those who sell out scientific integrity to some other ideology are the enemies of science.
 
Who the fuck is Marjorie Heins?

Marjorie Heins is coordinator of the Free Expression Policy Project at the Brennan Center for Justice

Those are some impressive scientific credentials. LOL.

You are still confused, Chris. But, it is no surprise. The enemies of science often conflate policy and activism with science.
 
Who the fuck is Marjorie Heins?

Marjorie Heins is coordinator of the Free Expression Policy Project at the Brennan Center for Justice

Those are some impressive scientific credentials. LOL.

You are still confused, Chris. But, it is no surprise. The enemies of science often conflate policy and activism with science.

Yes, you do.

You obviously did not read the post. To be expected.
 
Who the fuck is Marjorie Heins?

Marjorie Heins is coordinator of the Free Expression Policy Project at the Brennan Center for Justice

Those are some impressive scientific credentials. LOL.

You are still confused, Chris. But, it is no surprise. The enemies of science often conflate policy and activism with science.

Yes, you do. ....
Yes, I do what?

.... You obviously did not read the post. To be expected.
Wrong. But, that is no surprise.
 
In February 2004, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) released a similar, but longer and more detailed report. Divided into two parts, it first documented "Suppression and Distortion of Research Findings at Federal Agencies," including information on climate change (global warming), air quality (mercury emissions from power plants and other air pollutants), reproductive health (sex education, HIV-AIDS, and the alleged breast cancer-abortion link), airborne bacteria, Iraq's aluminum tubes (erroneously claimed by the administration to be part of a nuclear weapons program), endangered species, and forest management. The second part of the UCS report, "Undermining the Quality and Integrity of the Appointment Process," described the purging of qualified scientists from federal advisory panels, the appointment of less qualified, and often industry-connected replacements, and the vetting of panel candidates with political questions such as whether they had voted for President Bush and would support his policies.

The Attack on Science
 
Ummm, Chris? Would you answer the questions I posed to you? Parroting others' ideas is not any answer.

Quoting Nobel Prize winners about your attack on science is parroting?

Hardly.

No, from evolution, to CO2, to stem cell research, to mercury poisoning, to the dangers of second hand smoke, to appointing industry people to be in charge of scientists, it is the right that continually attacks science and scientists. Why? Because science disproves your worldview.
 
Ummm, Chris? Would you answer the questions I posed to you? Parroting others' ideas is not any answer.

Quoting Nobel Prize winners about your attack on science is parroting? ....
I see, you are still playing with your strawman.

Let me know when you are able to address what I actually say, not something you make up.

And, you quoted Marjorie Heins. Refresh my memory on what Nobel Prize she won.
 
Last edited:
Quoting Nobel Prize winners about your attack on science is parroting? ....
I see, you are still playing with your strawman.

Let me know when you are able to address what I actually say, not something you make up.

What you actually say is nothing.
Don't backpeddle now. You said I am attacking science. Yet, it is not even close to what I have done. If you feel that I have, then it should not be difficult to use the search function to show my words where I have done so.

The rest of the folks can wait for your supporting your claim. I however, know that waiting for such support from you would be a waste of my time.

Now what?
 
In February 2004, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) released a similar, but longer and more detailed report. Divided into two parts, it first documented "Suppression and Distortion of Research Findings at Federal Agencies," including information on climate change (global warming), air quality (mercury emissions from power plants and other air pollutants), reproductive health (sex education, HIV-AIDS, and the alleged breast cancer-abortion link), airborne bacteria, Iraq's aluminum tubes (erroneously claimed by the administration to be part of a nuclear weapons program), endangered species, and forest management. The second part of the UCS report, "Undermining the Quality and Integrity of the Appointment Process," described the purging of qualified scientists from federal advisory panels, the appointment of less qualified, and often industry-connected replacements, and the vetting of panel candidates with political questions such as whether they had voted for President Bush and would support his policies.

The Attack on Science

See what I mean about Warmers sounding like a Japanese soldier found in Guam who still think WWII is on?
 
OMFG! LOL Did you read the first sentence in Chris's "Attack on Science" Article?

"From environmental hazards to sex education, the federal government in the past several years has been twisting science to political ends"

LOLOLOLOLOL Yeah, hiding the decline is no way twisting science...no way
 
The delusionary nature of you Flat Earthers is amazing.

Every scientific society on the earth is plotting against you.

Glenn Beck told me so.
 
OMFG! LOL Did you read the first sentence in Chris's "Attack on Science" Article?

"From environmental hazards to sex education, the federal government in the past several years has been twisting science to political ends"

LOLOLOLOLOL Yeah, hiding the decline is no way twisting science...no way

Who's hiding the decline?

1998 was the hottest year on record.

No one denies that.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top