how does the explain rdean's and chris' head?this thread is full of fail
nature abhors a vacuum.
oh, and all the moronic troofers
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
how does the explain rdean's and chris' head?this thread is full of fail
nature abhors a vacuum.
No way...! They're troofers too???? I only thought they were warmist tards.how does the explain rdean's and chris' head?this thread is full of fail
nature abhors a vacuum.
oh, and all the moronic troofers
no, i didnt mean rdean and chris were troofersNo way...! They're troofers too???? I only thought they were warmist tards.how does the explain rdean's and chris' head?nature abhors a vacuum.
oh, and all the moronic troofers
Wow... Concentrated Duh! A powerful force in nature.
got ya coveredDoh! I have to spread some rep around before I can get back to you Baruch.
to the op: post an interesting thread or two and see if it goes anywhere?
I may have to revise my estimate on the death of "Green" up to maybe under 3 years instead of 5.Oil giants BP PLC and ConocoPhillips and heavy-equipment maker Caterpillar Inc. said Tuesday they won't renew their membership in the three-year-old U.S. Climate Action Partnership, a broad business-environmental coalition that had been instrumental in building support in Washington for capping emissions of greenhouse gases.
The move comes as debate over climate change intensifies and concerns mount about the cost of capping greenhouse-gas emissions.
On a range of issues, from climate change to health care, skepticism is growing in Washington that Congress will pass any major legislation in a contentious election year in which Republicans are expected to gain seats. For companies, the shifting winds have reduced pressure to find common ground, leading them to pursue their own, sometimes conflicting interests.
Last week, the head of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, Billy Tauzin, said he would step down as president of the industry's main lobby in Washington, amid criticism from some in the industry over the alliance he made last year with the White House to support health-care legislation.
BP, ConocoPhillips and Caterpillar Pull Out of Climate Partnership - WSJ.com
From the actions of recent administrations, the evidence is that Republican's do not like real science at all. And are quite willing to go against the Constitution to stifle real research that does not agree with their agenda or world view.
Science -- NCAC
INTRODUCTION
The impulse to stifle scientific speech is not a recent development. Government and religious officials have often sought to quash scientific findings that threaten their political message or value system. The censure (and imprisonment) of Galileo by the Catholic Church during the Inquisition for his theory that the sun, not the earth, was the center of the universe and, later, Stalin's brutal repression of scientific inquiry in the totalitarian Soviet Union, are but two examples of the long history of suppression of scientific thought. Even a democracy such as ours has experienced tension between the often competing aims of the scientific community and our political leaders, as evidenced, for example, by Nixon's frayed relationship with his science advisors and Reagan's bitter reaction to the scientific community's skeptical evaluation of his Strategic Defense Initiative.
Under the George W. Bush Administration, however, the federal government, motivated by a desire to sustain a specific political agenda, suppressed and/or distorted scientific reports to a degree not previously seen in this country. This incursion on the scientific community impinged on a wide range of topics, including the environment, climate change, contraception and abstinence education, stem cell research, missile defense, energy sources and evolution. These acts raise serious First Amendment and free expression concerns and represent a general assault on the scientific process.
Though most of the censorious practices of the Bush Administration were terminated by President Obama, censorship of science, especially on the state and local level, is still with us. There are also other systematic ways in which scientific researsh is suppressed and distorted - especially by means of the strings attached to funding mechanisms - which remain unchenged no matter who takes the political leadership of the country.
For reports on specific acts of scientific censorship, see below. And to learn more how about this issue, check out NCAC's The Knowledge Project: Censorship & Science.
From the actions of recent administrations, the evidence is that Republican's do not like real science at all. And are quite willing to go against the Constitution to stifle real research that does not agree with their agenda or world view.
Science -- NCAC
INTRODUCTION
The impulse to stifle scientific speech is not a recent development. Government and religious officials have often sought to quash scientific findings that threaten their political message or value system. The censure (and imprisonment) of Galileo by the Catholic Church during the Inquisition for his theory that the sun, not the earth, was the center of the universe and, later, Stalin's brutal repression of scientific inquiry in the totalitarian Soviet Union, are but two examples of the long history of suppression of scientific thought. Even a democracy such as ours has experienced tension between the often competing aims of the scientific community and our political leaders, as evidenced, for example, by Nixon's frayed relationship with his science advisors and Reagan's bitter reaction to the scientific community's skeptical evaluation of his Strategic Defense Initiative.
Under the George W. Bush Administration, however, the federal government, motivated by a desire to sustain a specific political agenda, suppressed and/or distorted scientific reports to a degree not previously seen in this country. This incursion on the scientific community impinged on a wide range of topics, including the environment, climate change, contraception and abstinence education, stem cell research, missile defense, energy sources and evolution. These acts raise serious First Amendment and free expression concerns and represent a general assault on the scientific process.
Though most of the censorious practices of the Bush Administration were terminated by President Obama, censorship of science, especially on the state and local level, is still with us. There are also other systematic ways in which scientific researsh is suppressed and distorted - especially by means of the strings attached to funding mechanisms - which remain unchenged no matter who takes the political leadership of the country.
For reports on specific acts of scientific censorship, see below. And to learn more how about this issue, check out NCAC's The Knowledge Project: Censorship & Science.
This was reported in every science and engineering publication starting within 6 months of George Bush taking office during his first term and lasting until Obama. You can't really blame Republicans. They have ALWAYS been up front about their disdain of science. Even Popular Mechanics was complaining and they are hardly "radical".
From the actions of recent administrations, the evidence is that Republican's do not like real science at all. And are quite willing to go against the Constitution to stifle real research that does not agree with their agenda or world view.
Science -- NCAC
INTRODUCTION
The impulse to stifle scientific speech is not a recent development. Government and religious officials have often sought to quash scientific findings that threaten their political message or value system. The censure (and imprisonment) of Galileo by the Catholic Church during the Inquisition for his theory that the sun, not the earth, was the center of the universe and, later, Stalin's brutal repression of scientific inquiry in the totalitarian Soviet Union, are but two examples of the long history of suppression of scientific thought. Even a democracy such as ours has experienced tension between the often competing aims of the scientific community and our political leaders, as evidenced, for example, by Nixon's frayed relationship with his science advisors and Reagan's bitter reaction to the scientific community's skeptical evaluation of his Strategic Defense Initiative.
Under the George W. Bush Administration, however, the federal government, motivated by a desire to sustain a specific political agenda, suppressed and/or distorted scientific reports to a degree not previously seen in this country. This incursion on the scientific community impinged on a wide range of topics, including the environment, climate change, contraception and abstinence education, stem cell research, missile defense, energy sources and evolution. These acts raise serious First Amendment and free expression concerns and represent a general assault on the scientific process.
Though most of the censorious practices of the Bush Administration were terminated by President Obama, censorship of science, especially on the state and local level, is still with us. There are also other systematic ways in which scientific researsh is suppressed and distorted - especially by means of the strings attached to funding mechanisms - which remain unchenged no matter who takes the political leadership of the country.
For reports on specific acts of scientific censorship, see below. And to learn more how about this issue, check out NCAC's The Knowledge Project: Censorship & Science.
This was reported in every science and engineering publication starting within 6 months of George Bush taking office during his first term and lasting until Obama. You can't really blame Republicans. They have ALWAYS been up front about their disdain of science. Even Popular Mechanics was complaining and they are hardly "radical".
NCAC is the National Coalition Against Censorship. As if anyone is for censorship, except those deep in political correctness. This is a self congratutory screed by a group currying favor amongst those who have a need to feel superior in this case superior to conservative Republicans. Interesting that President Bush first funded stem cell research, but placed limits on the source of the embryonic stem cells. It was limited to existing stem cell lines, and adult stem cell funding was not restricted and was supported by President Bush as a more viable means of research. It turns out that adult stem cells have been much more productive than embryonic. It's not a disdain of science that guided that decision, it was respect for human life. We know that given a chance, virtually every new process will be exploited, included human cloning.
There is an appearance that some here hope that some of the star qualities will rub off on themselves. I'm a conservative, live in a town and gown environment, know both liberals and conservatives. I don't see a lot of difference between the two in interest in the sciences. But I do note, for instance, a greater proportion of liberals oppose manned space flight than do conservatives. Mentioning new plans for the space program proposed by the administration to a scientist at IU, I found him entirely unfriendly to the subject. Seems he thought the money could be better spent on things right here on Earth. I do see a difference between the two in their willingness and propensity for ridicule and looking askance and disdain at those who don't share their prejudices. The above article is full of their own intrepretations of what they see, or hope to see, almost as if looking around for some new McCarthyism.
No, to be accurate you can just assume that I am posting my own opinion. And I stand by my original opinion that what I called a screed was a screed.When you don't post any links, then one assumes you are just repeating "talking points" that you heard somewhere.
No, to be accurate you can just assume that I am posting my own opinion. And I stand by my original opinion that what I called a screed was a screed.When you don't post any links, then one assumes you are just repeating "talking points" that you heard somewhere.
She's a warmer?While I don't disagree with you at all, I am on this forum for discussion of politics, primarily. I can get my fill of science, and damn good science, elsewhere.So many cool things in science, all forms of science. Yet every forum I"ve been on, including this one, nobody seems all that interested. Kind of sad, they would rather babble on about partisan nonsense, call each other names, etc than actually discuss many of the amazing things this world has to offer.
Really? I see no evidence that you would recognize good science from your posts. In fact, you seem to be very much into the type of actions to de-legitimize real science.
You have started exactly ZERO science threads.to the op: post an interesting thread or two and see if it goes anywhere?
I have, and pretty much don't get much response.
No, to be accurate you can just assume that I am posting my own opinion. And I stand by my original opinion that what I called a screed was a screed.When you don't post any links, then one assumes you are just repeating "talking points" that you heard somewhere.
You didn't just present "opinion", which of course should be respected. You also gave what you thought were a couple of "facts":
Interesting that President Bush first funded stem cell research, but placed limits on the source of the embryonic stem cells. It was limited to existing stem cell lines, and adult stem cell funding was not restricted and was supported by President Bush as a more viable means of research. It turns out that adult stem cells have been much more productive than embryonic.
Which I responded to:
In 1973 a moratorium was placed on government funding (which would lead you to believe that government funding was taking place BEFORE 1973) for human embryo research. In 1988 a NIH panel voted 19 to 2 in favor of government funding. (which proves that it was taking place in 1988 before either Bush was president).
That means that NEITHER Bush was "first".
Then your other claim that adult stem cells were "better". Was that also "opinion"?
Links support "opinion" with "facts".
I've heard plenty of news reports since Bush allowed Fed spending. (Updated April 11, 2007)Then your other claim that adult stem cells were "better". Was that also "opinion"?
Links support "opinion" with "facts".