Do Republicans see any need for scientists?

[Lewdog]

What kind of scientists are you talking about? The kind who keep an open mind to ALL possibilities or the kind who take government grants from liberals, then give them the results they want for political gain?

So just because the results come out in favor of what the study is for, it HAS to be false. You realize the fallacy in that right?

What results would those be? Over the past 3 decades, about a trillion dollars has been spent on climate "science" and to date

1. There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the man made climate change hypothesis over natural variability...

2. There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.

3. There has not been a single paper published in which the hypothetical warming due to the greenhouse gasses we produce has been empirically measured, quantified, and blamed on those greenhouse gasses.

Now, for a trillion dollars, isn't it reasonable to expect at least a single piece of evidence or a single paper that would satisfy any of the 3 statements above?

Which evidence are you talking about? Lets see some of it....lets see any that would satisfy any one of the 3 statements above?

There is a very simple answer to everything you just said.

Scientist know that throughout the history of the Earth there have been heat increases and cool down periods, but what they can't answer however, is exactly why because no one was alive at the time to do tests to confirm the cause. Even when comparing the last decade with other periods of time where there is better documentation, but without well collected data because science was not sophisticated enough at the time, the scientist of today can not appropriately match the data together.

So with that being said, scientist can only definitively work with the proper data collected since the field has become much more defined and armed with the proper tools. Now, because of that the data many scientist report, confirms that man made climate change has indeed disrupted the planet with the last few years including the one we are in now, are the hottest, or one of the hottest, since science has been keeping track of that. So you can argue until you are blue in the face that they have not properly proved it, but you are only correct because it is impossible for them to compare it to the history of climate on Earth that there is no proper data for. That doesn't make you right however, it just makes their hypothesis unproven... not wrong.

 

[MoonPie]

Minimum wage should be increased to $15/hr

The arguments we hear about it now are the same arguments when Truman doubled the minimum wage.

We'd end up with more taxpayers, more taxes being paid, fewer people on the welfare rolls, fewer people receiving food stamps, etc.

This could have been resolved by Trump agreeing to raise minimum wage in exchange for support for the border wall.

We'd end up with more taxpayers, more taxes being paid, fewer people on the welfare rolls, fewer people receiving food stamps, etc.

Sounds like magic!!!


What's the downside?

Not nearly as many layoffs as they're claiming. Again, the same arguments against it now are the same arguments used back when Truman doubled minimum wage.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Minimum wage should be increased to $15/hr

The arguments we hear about it now are the same arguments when Truman doubled the minimum wage.

We'd end up with more taxpayers, more taxes being paid, fewer people on the welfare rolls, fewer people receiving food stamps, etc.

This could have been resolved by Trump agreeing to raise minimum wage in exchange for support for the border wall.

We'd end up with more taxpayers, more taxes being paid, fewer people on the welfare rolls, fewer people receiving food stamps, etc.

Sounds like magic!!!


What's the downside?

Not nearly as many layoffs as they're claiming. Again, the same arguments against it now are the same arguments used back when Truman doubled minimum wage.

Not nearly as many layoffs as they're claiming.

Why would there be any layoffs?

 

[MoonPie]

Minimum wage should be increased to $15/hr

The arguments we hear about it now are the same arguments when Truman doubled the minimum wage.

We'd end up with more taxpayers, more taxes being paid, fewer people on the welfare rolls, fewer people receiving food stamps, etc.

This could have been resolved by Trump agreeing to raise minimum wage in exchange for support for the border wall.

We'd end up with more taxpayers, more taxes being paid, fewer people on the welfare rolls, fewer people receiving food stamps, etc.

Sounds like magic!!!


What's the downside?

Not nearly as many layoffs as they're claiming. Again, the same arguments against it now are the same arguments used back when Truman doubled minimum wage.

Not nearly as many layoffs as they're claiming.

Why would there be any layoffs?

How many work for under $15/hr? Something like 40%? Not that many people make minimum wage ($7.25) and we can assume those would be the hardest hit. At first anyway.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Minimum wage should be increased to $15/hr

The arguments we hear about it now are the same arguments when Truman doubled the minimum wage.

We'd end up with more taxpayers, more taxes being paid, fewer people on the welfare rolls, fewer people receiving food stamps, etc.

This could have been resolved by Trump agreeing to raise minimum wage in exchange for support for the border wall.

We'd end up with more taxpayers, more taxes being paid, fewer people on the welfare rolls, fewer people receiving food stamps, etc.

Sounds like magic!!!


What's the downside?

Not nearly as many layoffs as they're claiming. Again, the same arguments against it now are the same arguments used back when Truman doubled minimum wage.

Not nearly as many layoffs as they're claiming.

Why would there be any layoffs?

How many work for under $15/hr? Something like 40%? Not that many people make minimum wage ($7.25) and we can assume those would be the hardest hit. At first anyway.

How many work for under $15/hr? Something like 40%?

I don't know.

Not that many people make minimum wage ($7.25) and we can assume those would be the hardest hit.

People who are only worth $7.25 would be hurt if the minimum wage was raised to $15? Why?

 

[MoonPie]

Minimum wage should be increased to $15/hr

The arguments we hear about it now are the same arguments when Truman doubled the minimum wage.

We'd end up with more taxpayers, more taxes being paid, fewer people on the welfare rolls, fewer people receiving food stamps, etc.

This could have been resolved by Trump agreeing to raise minimum wage in exchange for support for the border wall.

We'd end up with more taxpayers, more taxes being paid, fewer people on the welfare rolls, fewer people receiving food stamps, etc.

Sounds like magic!!!


What's the downside?

Not nearly as many layoffs as they're claiming. Again, the same arguments against it now are the same arguments used back when Truman doubled minimum wage.

Not nearly as many layoffs as they're claiming.

Why would there be any layoffs?

How many work for under $15/hr? Something like 40%? Not that many people make minimum wage ($7.25) and we can assume those would be the hardest hit. At first anyway.

How many work for under $15/hr? Something like 40%?

I don't know.

Not that many people make minimum wage ($7.25) and we can assume those would be the hardest hit.

People who are only worth $7.25 would be hurt if the minimum wage was raised to $15? Why?

Ah now I didn't say they were worth $7.25 or $15 either. I think only about 500,000 work at minimum wage and a whole lot more who work for less than that.

I see Trump is trying to tie immigration reform to gun control. I really wish he had tried that with the border wall and minimum wage since they're related.

 

[mudwhistle]

From their comments, it's questionable. They think scientists just get government money but don't really do anything of importance?

Yor a bigot.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

We'd end up with more taxpayers, more taxes being paid, fewer people on the welfare rolls, fewer people receiving food stamps, etc.

Sounds like magic!!!


What's the downside?

Not nearly as many layoffs as they're claiming. Again, the same arguments against it now are the same arguments used back when Truman doubled minimum wage.

Not nearly as many layoffs as they're claiming.

Why would there be any layoffs?

How many work for under $15/hr? Something like 40%? Not that many people make minimum wage ($7.25) and we can assume those would be the hardest hit. At first anyway.

How many work for under $15/hr? Something like 40%?

I don't know.

Not that many people make minimum wage ($7.25) and we can assume those would be the hardest hit.

People who are only worth $7.25 would be hurt if the minimum wage was raised to $15? Why?

Ah now I didn't say they were worth $7.25 or $15 either. I think only about 500,000 work at minimum wage and a whole lot more who work for less than that.

I see Trump is trying to tie immigration reform to gun control. I really wish he had tried that with the border wall and minimum wage since they're related.

I think only about 500,000 work at minimum wage

Would these workers currently earning $7.25 be harmed if the minimum wage was raised to $15? If so, why?

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

We don't need people telling us what kind of car we can and cannot drive.

Yes you do. Do your car look anything like the steel boat your parents drove when you were a kid? Nope. They are now made of plastic, lighter, cheaper, safer, airbags. You MUST wear a seatbelt, cadalitic converter must be on, no lead gas, etc....

Otherwise, you would see non car manufacturing cars on the road. Like I can't make a car and drive it on the public roads. It has to be safe.

And yet I can still go out, buy and drive antique cars all day long. Buy the way you can build your own car and drive it on the streets. People do it all the time.

 

[mudwhistle]

 

[sealybobo]

We don't need people telling us what kind of car we can and cannot drive.

Yes you do. Do your car look anything like the steel boat your parents drove when you were a kid? Nope. They are now made of plastic, lighter, cheaper, safer, airbags. You MUST wear a seatbelt, cadalitic converter must be on, no lead gas, etc....

Otherwise, you would see non car manufacturing cars on the road. Like I can't make a car and drive it on the public roads. It has to be safe.

And yet I can still go out, buy and drive antique cars all day long. Buy the way you can build your own car and drive it on the streets. People do it all the time.

True. I wonder why someone doesn't try to start their own car company. Like blacks talk black owned business'. Start a black Ford car company. You know those cars would be cool af. LOL

 

[SSDD]

There is a very simple answer to everything you just said.

Scientist know that throughout the history of the Earth there have been heat increases and cool down periods, but what they can't answer however, is exactly why because no one was alive at the time to do tests to confirm the cause. Even when comparing the last decade with other periods of time where there is better documentation, but without well collected data because science was not sophisticated enough at the time, the scientist of today can not appropriately match the data together.

So are you saying that man made global warming looks just like and is indistinguishable from natural variability?

So with that being said, scientist can only definitively work with the proper data collected since the field has become much more defined and armed with the proper tools. Now, because of that the data many scientist report, confirms that man made climate change has indeed disrupted the planet with the last few years including the one we are in now, are the hottest, or one of the hottest, since science has been keeping track of that. So you can argue until you are blue in the face that they have not properly proved it, but you are only correct because it is impossible for them to compare it to the history of climate on Earth that there is no proper data for. That doesn't make you right however, it just makes their hypothesis unproven... not wrong.

I made three statements regarding the "evidence" for man made climate change.. You haven't even begun to challenge any of them...you are simply repeating the party line...do you believe the party line constitutes evidence? It doesn't... Can you provide any actual evidence or are you limited to simply parroting the dogma?

 

[Lewdog]

There is a very simple answer to everything you just said.

Scientist know that throughout the history of the Earth there have been heat increases and cool down periods, but what they can't answer however, is exactly why because no one was alive at the time to do tests to confirm the cause. Even when comparing the last decade with other periods of time where there is better documentation, but without well collected data because science was not sophisticated enough at the time, the scientist of today can not appropriately match the data together.

So are you saying that man made global warming looks just like and is indistinguishable from natural variability?

So with that being said, scientist can only definitively work with the proper data collected since the field has become much more defined and armed with the proper tools. Now, because of that the data many scientist report, confirms that man made climate change has indeed disrupted the planet with the last few years including the one we are in now, are the hottest, or one of the hottest, since science has been keeping track of that. So you can argue until you are blue in the face that they have not properly proved it, but you are only correct because it is impossible for them to compare it to the history of climate on Earth that there is no proper data for. That doesn't make you right however, it just makes their hypothesis unproven... not wrong.

I made three statements regarding the "evidence" for man made climate change.. You haven't even begun to challenge any of them...you are simply repeating the party line...do you believe the party line constitutes evidence? It doesn't... Can you provide any actual evidence or are you limited to simply parroting the dogma?

I don't need to. I gave you the very direct and simple answer as to why the scientist aren't wrong... but at the same time not confirmed right either.

 

[SSDD]

I don't need to. I gave you the very direct and simple answer as to why the scientist aren't wrong... but at the same time not confirmed right either.

No..you did nothing but blow smoke......the direct and simple approach would have been to provide at least a single piece of observed, measured evidence which at least challenged any one of the 3 statements I made...since there is no such evidence in existence...the only option left to you is to blow smoke...spew the dogma...and pretend to be incredulous that I won't accept it as evidence.. We are talking about science aren't we?

In real science, evidence to support the hypothesis is what it is all about...in pseudoscience, funding is what it is all about and real evidence isn't necessary so long as the funding continues..

 

[Lewdog]

I don't need to. I gave you the very direct and simple answer as to why the scientist aren't wrong... but at the same time not confirmed right either.

No..you did nothing but blow smoke......the direct and simple approach would have been to provide at least a single piece of observed, measured evidence which at least challenged any one of the 3 statements I made...since there is no such evidence in existence...the only option left to you is to blow smoke...spew the dogma...and pretend to be incredulous that I won't accept it as evidence.. We are talking about science aren't we?

In real science, evidence to support the hypothesis is what it is all about...in pseudoscience, funding is what it is all about and real evidence isn't necessary so long as the funding continues..

Sorry you didn't understand my post. Here, let me say it one more time. When scientists make a hypothesis, and they are unable to verify it, it doesn't make it wrong, it makes it unproven. Do you need me to describe the difference between the two? Want to say they are wrong? PROVE they are wrong... which you can't do. Why? For the same reason they can' prove their hypothesis verified, lack of proper data from past global warming and cooling periods.

 

[SSDD]

I don't need to. I gave you the very direct and simple answer as to why the scientist aren't wrong... but at the same time not confirmed right either.

No..you did nothing but blow smoke......the direct and simple approach would have been to provide at least a single piece of observed, measured evidence which at least challenged any one of the 3 statements I made...since there is no such evidence in existence...the only option left to you is to blow smoke...spew the dogma...and pretend to be incredulous that I won't accept it as evidence.. We are talking about science aren't we?

In real science, evidence to support the hypothesis is what it is all about...in pseudoscience, funding is what it is all about and real evidence isn't necessary so long as the funding continues..

Sorry you didn't understand my post. Here, let me say it one more time. When scientists make a hypothesis, and they are unable to verify it, it doesn't make it wrong, it makes it unproven. Do you need me to describe the difference between the two? Want to say they are wrong? PROVE they are wrong... which you can't do. Why? For the same reason they can' prove their hypothesis verified, lack of proper data from past global warming and cooling periods.

When scientists make a hypothesis, they test it against reality...and in real science, if that hypothesis experiences a single predictive failure, it is very often grounds to toss the hypothesis out and start work on a new one that will not experience predictive failures...if they don't toss it out, they at least modify it in an effort to avoid further predictive failures which would be sufficient grounds to toss it out. The scientific landscape of the past 30 years is literally littered with the predictive failures of both the greenhouse effect hypothesis, and the AGW hypothesis. No actual modifications have been made on either hypothesis...the only thing that has been done is to increase the margin of error so that as the predictions made by the hypotheses fail in the future, they can say that the failure is still within the margin of error...that is not science.

Again, in actual science, a single predictive failure is sufficient to have a hypothesis thrown out and work begin on a new one that won't experience predictive failures...in pseudoscience, however, any number of predictive failures are fine so long as the funding continues...

so honestly, do you really thin that the greenhouse effect hypothesis, and the AGW hypothesis are being managed under the rules of good sceince, or are they being managed like pseudoscience?

 

[Lewdog]

I don't need to. I gave you the very direct and simple answer as to why the scientist aren't wrong... but at the same time not confirmed right either.

No..you did nothing but blow smoke......the direct and simple approach would have been to provide at least a single piece of observed, measured evidence which at least challenged any one of the 3 statements I made...since there is no such evidence in existence...the only option left to you is to blow smoke...spew the dogma...and pretend to be incredulous that I won't accept it as evidence.. We are talking about science aren't we?

In real science, evidence to support the hypothesis is what it is all about...in pseudoscience, funding is what it is all about and real evidence isn't necessary so long as the funding continues..

Sorry you didn't understand my post. Here, let me say it one more time. When scientists make a hypothesis, and they are unable to verify it, it doesn't make it wrong, it makes it unproven. Do you need me to describe the difference between the two? Want to say they are wrong? PROVE they are wrong... which you can't do. Why? For the same reason they can' prove their hypothesis verified, lack of proper data from past global warming and cooling periods.

When scientists make a hypothesis, they test it against reality...and in real science, if that hypothesis experiences a single predictive failure, it is very often grounds to toss the hypothesis out and start work on a new one that will not experience predictive failures...if they don't toss it out, they at least modify it in an effort to avoid further predictive failures which would be sufficient grounds to toss it out. The scientific landscape of the past 30 years is literally littered with the predictive failures of both the greenhouse effect hypothesis, and the AGW hypothesis. No actual modifications have been made on either hypothesis...the only thing that has been done is to increase the margin of error so that as the predictions made by the hypotheses fail in the future, they can say that the failure is still within the margin of error...that is not science.

Again, in actual science, a single predictive failure is sufficient to have a hypothesis thrown out and work begin on a new one that won't experience predictive failures...in pseudoscience, however, any number of predictive failures are fine so long as the funding continues...

so honestly, do you really thin that the greenhouse effect hypothesis, and the AGW hypothesis are being managed under the rules of good sceince, or are they being managed like pseudoscience?

You continue to ignore the lack of precise and extensive data for comparison. It's hard to talk about scientific hypothesis with someone that has confirmation bias. I said all I needed to say.

 

[SSDD]

I don't need to. I gave you the very direct and simple answer as to why the scientist aren't wrong... but at the same time not confirmed right either.

No..you did nothing but blow smoke......the direct and simple approach would have been to provide at least a single piece of observed, measured evidence which at least challenged any one of the 3 statements I made...since there is no such evidence in existence...the only option left to you is to blow smoke...spew the dogma...and pretend to be incredulous that I won't accept it as evidence.. We are talking about science aren't we?

In real science, evidence to support the hypothesis is what it is all about...in pseudoscience, funding is what it is all about and real evidence isn't necessary so long as the funding continues..

Sorry you didn't understand my post. Here, let me say it one more time. When scientists make a hypothesis, and they are unable to verify it, it doesn't make it wrong, it makes it unproven. Do you need me to describe the difference between the two? Want to say they are wrong? PROVE they are wrong... which you can't do. Why? For the same reason they can' prove their hypothesis verified, lack of proper data from past global warming and cooling periods.

When scientists make a hypothesis, they test it against reality...and in real science, if that hypothesis experiences a single predictive failure, it is very often grounds to toss the hypothesis out and start work on a new one that will not experience predictive failures...if they don't toss it out, they at least modify it in an effort to avoid further predictive failures which would be sufficient grounds to toss it out. The scientific landscape of the past 30 years is literally littered with the predictive failures of both the greenhouse effect hypothesis, and the AGW hypothesis. No actual modifications have been made on either hypothesis...the only thing that has been done is to increase the margin of error so that as the predictions made by the hypotheses fail in the future, they can say that the failure is still within the margin of error...that is not science.

Again, in actual science, a single predictive failure is sufficient to have a hypothesis thrown out and work begin on a new one that won't experience predictive failures...in pseudoscience, however, any number of predictive failures are fine so long as the funding continues...

so honestly, do you really thin that the greenhouse effect hypothesis, and the AGW hypothesis are being managed under the rules of good sceince, or are they being managed like pseudoscience?

You continue to ignore the lack of precise and extensive data for comparison. It's hard to talk about scientific hypothesis with someone that has confirmation bias. I said all I needed to say.

In real science, predictive failure is death to a hypothesis...the greenhouse hypothesis and AGW have been littering the scientific landscape with predictive failures for over 3 decades now...

That is not the sort of thing that can be shrugged off. The atmosphere, and the movement of energy through it are eminently observable and measurable...what is the excuse for not having precise data? There is plenty of precise data out there...it just doesn’t support the AGW hypothesis...a million radiosondes say that the models are wrong and that there is no tropospheric hot spot as predicted by the greenhouse hypothesis..

 

[Billy_Bob]

I don't need to. I gave you the very direct and simple answer as to why the scientist aren't wrong... but at the same time not confirmed right either.

No..you did nothing but blow smoke......the direct and simple approach would have been to provide at least a single piece of observed, measured evidence which at least challenged any one of the 3 statements I made...since there is no such evidence in existence...the only option left to you is to blow smoke...spew the dogma...and pretend to be incredulous that I won't accept it as evidence.. We are talking about science aren't we?

In real science, evidence to support the hypothesis is what it is all about...in pseudoscience, funding is what it is all about and real evidence isn't necessary so long as the funding continues..

Sorry you didn't understand my post. Here, let me say it one more time. When scientists make a hypothesis, and they are unable to verify it, it doesn't make it wrong, it makes it unproven. Do you need me to describe the difference between the two? Want to say they are wrong? PROVE they are wrong... which you can't do. Why? For the same reason they can' prove their hypothesis verified, lack of proper data from past global warming and cooling periods.

When scientists make a hypothesis, they test it against reality...and in real science, if that hypothesis experiences a single predictive failure, it is very often grounds to toss the hypothesis out and start work on a new one that will not experience predictive failures...if they don't toss it out, they at least modify it in an effort to avoid further predictive failures which would be sufficient grounds to toss it out. The scientific landscape of the past 30 years is literally littered with the predictive failures of both the greenhouse effect hypothesis, and the AGW hypothesis. No actual modifications have been made on either hypothesis...the only thing that has been done is to increase the margin of error so that as the predictions made by the hypotheses fail in the future, they can say that the failure is still within the margin of error...that is not science.

Again, in actual science, a single predictive failure is sufficient to have a hypothesis thrown out and work begin on a new one that won't experience predictive failures...in pseudoscience, however, any number of predictive failures are fine so long as the funding continues...

so honestly, do you really thin that the greenhouse effect hypothesis, and the AGW hypothesis are being managed under the rules of good sceince, or are they being managed like pseudoscience?

You continue to ignore the lack of precise and extensive data for comparison. It's hard to talk about scientific hypothesis with someone that has confirmation bias. I said all I needed to say.

Let me make this simple for you...

Reality is the green circles, they are radiosondes data, empirically observed temperatures taken of the earths atmosphere. Your models fail empirical review at 100% which is demonstrated by the red arrows and the diversion from reality. THIS IS EMPIRICAL FALSIFICATION OF THE AWG MODELS and by extension the hypothesis.

 

[MoonPie]

Not nearly as many layoffs as they're claiming. Again, the same arguments against it now are the same arguments used back when Truman doubled minimum wage.

Not nearly as many layoffs as they're claiming.

Why would there be any layoffs?

How many work for under $15/hr? Something like 40%? Not that many people make minimum wage ($7.25) and we can assume those would be the hardest hit. At first anyway.

How many work for under $15/hr? Something like 40%?

I don't know.

Not that many people make minimum wage ($7.25) and we can assume those would be the hardest hit.

People who are only worth $7.25 would be hurt if the minimum wage was raised to $15? Why?

Ah now I didn't say they were worth $7.25 or $15 either. I think only about 500,000 work at minimum wage and a whole lot more who work for less than that.

I see Trump is trying to tie immigration reform to gun control. I really wish he had tried that with the border wall and minimum wage since they're related.

I think only about 500,000 work at minimum wage

Would these workers currently earning $7.25 be harmed if the minimum wage was raised to $15? If so, why?

Oh yeah, I'm sure some of them would be laid off and some (inefficient) businesses would close. Or maybe hire illegals if they aren't already. But this isn't really about those who work the actual minimum of $7.25/hr anyway, it's about the 40% of Americans who work for less than $15/hr. $9 to $15 isn't double, it's about a 67% increase. $12 to $15 is 25%. So in reality, 'doubling the minimum wage' gives the vast majority a much smaller boost.