Government screws another thing up

[miami_thomas]

I wish the government would not pass regulations based on scientific theories. The government should only make laws regarding scientific fact. That is the problem today is when someone says “science study shows” everyone thinks it means it is fact. It does not mean it is a fact but it is still just a theory. Anyone can make a study say what they want it to say. It is truly sad that science has gotten to the point that they are no more valid than say a beat reporter trying to gain notoriety. I remember a time when science was always taken as fact because of the amount of study put in before making a determination. Now you can’t really trust them anymore because they don’t even try to disprove their theories anymore. But let me stop here because I could go one and one about this one.

EPA is pressured to drop ethanol mandate while drought drives corn prices up | Fox News

So no laws about Religion one way or the other?

Did I say that the government should make laws based on religion and not science? I’m re-reading what I posted and I do not see that in my post. Maybe it is in really, really small text. Can anyone else see this?

 

[Jarhead]

2) Ethanol mandates have nothing to do with science. They are all about politics. Specifically, the Iowa Caucus.

It's also about the politics of environmentalist wackos, and their fruity hunt for the holy grail of "renewable" energy....

"Environmental wackos" have spent years pointing out that Ethanol is a pollutant and its EROI is less than one.

But if all is theory...then why would we define anyone attmepting to prove otherwise as whackos? Isnt it human nature to want to find the truth in all that surrounds us? Do we want to disuade those that do so by calling them whackos?

I believe in God. But I support all those trying to prove that God does not exist. I do not see them as whackos.

I do not believe that global warming is predominantly a man made phenonemon. I belive most of it is natural. But I do not see those trying to prove that global warming is controillable as whackos. I suppoort their efforts.

However, I see those that claim it to be fact as people with an agenda and very irresponsible.

 

[miami_thomas]

I wish the government would not pass regulations based on scientific theories. The government should only make laws regarding scientific fact. That is the problem today is when someone says “science study shows” everyone thinks it means it is fact. It does not mean it is a fact but it is still just a theory. Anyone can make a study say what they want it to say. It is truly sad that science has gotten to the point that they are no more valid than say a beat reporter trying to gain notoriety. I remember a time when science was always taken as fact because of the amount of study put in before making a determination. Now you can’t really trust them anymore because they don’t even try to disprove their theories anymore. But let me stop here because I could go one and one about this one.

EPA is pressured to drop ethanol mandate while drought drives corn prices up | Fox News

i thikn you don't understand what a scientific "theory" is.

it is not something that some idiot gets up and makes up one day and says "oh...that's a nice idea".

It has become that. Maybe it is media that has made it that way but it is something that has happened. For instance just today there was an article stating that eating egg yolks is just as bad as smoking. It is published to make it look like it is fact. But there are other researches done that say egg yolk is actually good for you. The article does make that point at the very end but the article headline would make it seem that it is fact. Then everyone starts stating it as fact then the next thing you know New York is banning eggs.

 

[uscitizen]

Actually, that's cell theory.

There are things in the world that are fact. But the scientific method - used in all sciences, not just physics - doesn't produce facts. It produces testable hypotheses that become theories after rigorous testing.

Actually, that is not cell theory. Cell theory is in reference to the theory that cells are the basic unit of life. The amount of cells a one cell organism has does not refer to the theory of the cell being the basic unit of life. It refers to the amoiunt of cells that exist.

And in a one cell organsim, it is fact that there is only one cell.

Cell theory posits that a single cell is a building block. The thought that it is a single cell is theory (and also a bit of a tautology - the smallest unit of life is a cell, and we define a cell as the smallest unit of life...). Just as the theory of gravity posits that gravitrons create attraction between two mases. The thought that gravitrons create the attraction is theory.

But I'm pretty sure we're debating semantics here.

Lets not get antisemantic.

 

[DiamondDave]

I wish the government would not pass regulations based on scientific theories. The government should only make laws regarding scientific fact. That is the problem today is when someone says “science study shows” everyone thinks it means it is fact. It does not mean it is a fact but it is still just a theory. Anyone can make a study say what they want it to say. It is truly sad that science has gotten to the point that they are no more valid than say a beat reporter trying to gain notoriety. I remember a time when science was always taken as fact because of the amount of study put in before making a determination. Now you can’t really trust them anymore because they don’t even try to disprove their theories anymore. But let me stop here because I could go one and one about this one.

EPA is pressured to drop ethanol mandate while drought drives corn prices up | Fox News

i thikn you don't understand what a scientific "theory" is.

it is not something that some idiot gets up and makes up one day and says "oh...that's a nice idea".

Oh.. you mean like global warming...

 

[uscitizen]

I wish the government would not pass regulations based on scientific theories. The government should only make laws regarding scientific fact. That is the problem today is when someone says “science study shows” everyone thinks it means it is fact. It does not mean it is a fact but it is still just a theory. Anyone can make a study say what they want it to say. It is truly sad that science has gotten to the point that they are no more valid than say a beat reporter trying to gain notoriety. I remember a time when science was always taken as fact because of the amount of study put in before making a determination. Now you can’t really trust them anymore because they don’t even try to disprove their theories anymore. But let me stop here because I could go one and one about this one.

EPA is pressured to drop ethanol mandate while drought drives corn prices up | Fox News

So no laws about Religion one way or the other?

Did I say that the government should make laws based on religion and not science? I’m re-reading what I posted and I do not see that in my post. Maybe it is in really, really small text. Can anyone else see this?

"The government should only make laws regarding scientific fact."

A supreme being is not scientific fact.

 

[8537]

It's also about the politics of environmentalist wackos, and their fruity hunt for the holy grail of "renewable" energy....

"Environmental wackos" have spent years pointing out that Ethanol is a pollutant and its EROI is less than one.

But if all is theory...then why would we define anyone attmepting to prove otherwise as whackos?

That was Oddball's choice of words, not mine. People making legitimate attempts to test theories aren't wackos at all.

People trying to disprove the gravitron explanation of gravity aren't wackos at all. People who jump out of ten story buildings to disprove it? They might be wackos - and they don't understand the scientific method.

 

[Jarhead]

"Environmental wackos" have spent years pointing out that Ethanol is a pollutant and its EROI is less than one.

But if all is theory...then why would we define anyone attmepting to prove otherwise as whackos?

That was Oddball's choice of words, not mine. People making legitimate attempts to test theories aren't wackos at all.

People trying to disprove the gravitron explanation of gravity aren't wackos at all. People who jump out of ten story buildings to disprove it? They might be wackos - and they don't understand the scientific method.

exactly what is your avatar?

 

[8537]

exactly what is your avatar?

It's my liberal talking point machine - you put any topic in the bottom left hand section and the liberal talking points issued by Soros come out of the top each morning.


















Or it's the cover of the latest Wilco album.

 

[Jarhead]

exactly what is your avatar?

It's my liberal talking point machine - you put any topic in the bottom left hand section and the liberal talking points issued by Soros come out of the top each morning.

















Or it's the cover of the latest Wilco album.

The Whole Love

What is it though...any idea? It appears to be a shcematic of some kind.

 

[8537]

The Whole Love

What is it though...any idea? It appears to be a shcematic of some kind.

Oh, right. Good question. I never thought of that and I don't know.

 

[Jarhead]

The Whole Love

What is it though...any idea? It appears to be a shcematic of some kind.

Oh, right. Good question. I never thought of that and I don't know.

Well....in an effort of full disclosure...I didnt know what Wilco was until I googled it

 

[Ernie S.]

The ethanol mandate was penned by Bush in 2007. Now all of a sudden it is green energy supported only by Oblama.

Yes, he did sign it, but the bill was part of Pelosi's 100 hour plan of the 110th Congress where Democrats held functional majorities in both chambers.

 

[Oddball]

2) Ethanol mandates have nothing to do with science. They are all about politics. Specifically, the Iowa Caucus.

It's also about the politics of environmentalist wackos, and their fruity hunt for the holy grail of "renewable" energy....

"Environmental wackos" have spent years pointing out that Ethanol is a pollutant and its EROI is less than one.

I think not....The pimps for ETOH consistently use the enviro-wackaloon buzzwords like "renewable" and "sustainable"...The semantics are a dead giveaway.

The best advancements in pollution control and fuel efficiency have come from electronic ignition control, not by screwing with fuels.

 

[8537]

Well....in an effort of full disclosure...I didnt know what Wilco was until I googled it

See, thanks to me you are now more refined, with better taste and a higher likelihood of getting laid

YRMV.

 

[Moonglow]

The ethanol mandate was penned by Bush in 2007. Now all of a sudden it is green energy supported only by Oblama.

Yes, he did sign it, but the bill was part of Pelosi's 100 hour plan of the 110th Congress where Democrats held functional majorities in both chambers.

And now it's a big issue. the UN is pushing the hardest to waiver the mandate and I am sure the USDA will impose a waiver this year. I don't see why the big deal is ,it is being worked upon. But ethanol producers say they have enough stock as of now to continue making ethanol. The corn crop is ruined and most of what is grown is not eadible by humans, and the left overs from the process allow animals to eat that. Soybeans are another matter, another crop of that can still be planted and used for human consumption with the waiver. But the cattle producers are hurting cause they are selling off, there is no way to syop that even with a waiver. many i know have not sold their herds waiting for the price to rebound.
But now the republicans are saying the exact opposite of their stance when bush signed the ethanol waiver, well boo-hoo. farmers have the ability to plant whatever crop they think will get them the best yield and prices. A little late for them all to be bitching now.

 

[Shelzin]

2) Ethanol mandates have nothing to do with science. They are all about politics. Specifically, the Iowa Caucus.

I'm from Iowa... I absolutely agree.

But... It's also Illinois, Nebraska, and Minnesota... Not that it really changes anything.

Oh, I agree completely. Iowa just seems more important to me b/c no politician with White House ambitions can afford to piss off the folks of Iowa.

Uhh... We are sending 21 of 25 of our delegates to tampa in support of Ron Paul. Make no mistake... We are pissed off.

If the nation's first caucus was in Florida politicians would be singing the praises of running our cars on Orange Juice.

Actually I think that's one of the reasons why next election Iowa won't be first. Iowa is quickly becoming a state that doesn't support Democrats or Republican party platforms.

Iowa announced... What... Three winners? Bullshit... Ron Paul won. Not a doubt in my mind.

 

[uscitizen]

The ethanol mandate was penned by Bush in 2007. Now all of a sudden it is green energy supported only by Oblama.

Yes, he did sign it, but the bill was part of Pelosi's 100 hour plan of the 110th Congress where Democrats held functional majorities in both chambers.

And Bush could not find his veto pen?