The Anti Science Left

[flacaltenn]

Is it warming in Oregon, Florida, South America? Show me!

ALL of what you just said in those posts demonstrates how ABSYMALLY stupid and anti-science it is to argue about a single number like Global Average Temperature. The Earth doesn't have and never had just ONE CLIMATE !! And the effects of KNOWN NATURAL variations like the AMO (look it up Atlantic Temp cycles) have MUCH greater effect on hurricanes than a 1degC rise Globally in your lifetime. In fact -- I don't know that the 1degC globally gives us any valuable insight into the magnitude or trajectory of the climate changes..

As for the lull in Global Warming. It's real but doesn't mean diddly in the great scheme of things except --- that the models are inadequate to form $Trill social policies upon..

Again and again science loses whenever it gets mixed with politics...

 

[flacaltenn]

The authors' aim is to depoliticize scientific research. "A pox on both their houses" he says. Interesting idea, logically laid out concepts. I think however, the real determining factor of the pro or anti science stance of either party regarding a given scientific issue is not the ethical or ideological pulse of said party, but the political temperment and history of campaign contribution of the company backing the research--foremost, and secondly, the fear of the party's public base, or more poignantly how transparent to the public support of any given scientific issue by a politician may be. This issue is another example of great potential lost, lost in the maelstrom of the political arena. How many scientific advances forwarded over the last century have been killed before real consideration by political gaming? One can at least always depend on DARPA to innovate and innovate well--behind closed doors.

And as the author said many of the clashes are NOT over the science, but viable ethical and economic implications and arguments.. They SHOULD be debated separately from the science...

 

[Chris]

Give me 3, 4 or 5 years of constant global scale warming before you bring up the lie of global warming again.

I'm serious. You can point out the arctic ocean but that isn't global.

"The arctic ocean isn't global."

Classic.

Sandy would disagree.

 

[Lakhota]

Well, at least lefties don't believe Jesus rode dinosaurs.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Give me 3, 4 or 5 years of constant global scale warming before you bring up the lie of global warming again.

I'm serious. You can point out the arctic ocean but that isn't global.

"The arctic ocean isn't global."

Classic.

Sandy would disagree.

Outside of the arctic you don't see any warming. How is it global?

 

[Chris]

Give me 3, 4 or 5 years of constant global scale warming before you bring up the lie of global warming again.

I'm serious. You can point out the arctic ocean but that isn't global.

"The arctic ocean isn't global."

Classic.

Sandy would disagree.

Outside of the arctic you don't see any warming. How is it global?

Warmest ocean temperatures on record.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The libertarians do love their false equivalence fallacies and crazy strawmen. It's how they shill for the GOP while pretending they're not shilling for the GOP.

Tell us, are the Democrats casting out anyone who isn't an antivaxxer, like the Republicans are casting out anyone who isn't a denialist? Yeah, the two sides are exactly alike.

The Republicans kicked out Huntsman because of climate change? When did that happen? Was it before, or after, they kicked out Smith and Pawlenty?

Maybe you aren't as smart as you think accusing libertarians of false equivalencies, especially when the video is very careful not to make any equivalencies.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Well done --- as usual by the Reason staff.. I popped some GMO popcorn into my nuclear powered microwave to enjoy while I watched this..

Isn't it also the progressive left that has the hots for such frauds as homeopathic remedies and crystal worship???

They do love Dr Oz, who knows so little about science he would lose a debate to rdean.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Well, at least lefties don't believe Jesus rode dinosaurs.

Wanna bet? Last time I checked 4 in 10 Democrats don't believe in evolution. That number is up from what it was 5 years ago, while the number of Republicans who deny evolution is down.

In U.S., 46% Hold Creationist View of Human Origins

You really aren't smart enough to post on anything, are you?

 

[editec]

This is one rather confused little boy, kids

He's confusing objections to applied technology with being anti-science.

For example, saying that people who object to fracking are anti-science is rather silly.

Fracking isn't SCIENCE, it's a drilling technique. The objection to fracking is is based concerns regarding pollution of the water caused by fracking. That's not anti-science, that's just objecting to FRACKING UP our water supplies.


Objecting to nuclear power plants likewise is not objecting to SCIENCE. Objecting to the risks associated with Nuke plants isn't anti-science, it's ANTI-RISK.

Think that there's no real risk with nuke plants?

The INSURANCE cCOMPANIES completely disagree with you then.

Does anyone here want to make the case that they think insurance companies don't understand RISK?

 

[BoredDead]

Glad to see a non-partisan perspective on the politics of science.

 

[Bfgrn]

Classic False Equivalence on Political Abuse of Science

Rep. Michele Bachmann claims HPV vaccine might cause ‘mental retardation’

The best comment:

Large, wealthy, politically powerful corporations make a lot of money from carbon pollution, animal research, GMOs, nuclear power, and vaccines. And in each case, the Republican position is simply to support the profit interests of those corporations, regardless of what science has to say about the matter one way or another.

 

[flacaltenn]

This is one rather confused little boy, kids

He's confusing objections to applied technology with being anti-science.

For example, saying that people who object to fracking are anti-science is rather silly.

Fracking isn't SCIENCE, it's a drilling technique. The objection to fracking is is based concerns regarding pollution of the water caused by fracking. That's not anti-science, that's just objecting to FRACKING UP our water supplies.


Objecting to nuclear power plants likewise is not objecting to SCIENCE. Objecting to the risks associated with Nuke plants isn't anti-science, it's ANTI-RISK.

Think that there's no real risk with nuke plants?

The INSURANCE cCOMPANIES completely disagree with you then.

Does anyone here want to make the case that they think insurance companies don't understand RISK?

The entire Global Warming is ALSO (in your parlance) about RISK then.. But I think not.

Most of the nuclear fear-mongerers I've debated have NO CONCEPT of the diff between a power plant and a bomb. To them --- the risks are HUGELY overblown with respect to the science.

Take FOOD IRRADIATION for example.. PERFECTLY safe -- yet people die because the leftist greenies FEAR IT..

And there IS science to fracking. Science that says its CLEANER AND SAFER than say "Geothermal Mining" which is a MUCH dirtier mining operation. Yet THAT ONE is enshrined on top of the list of Green preferred alternatives. Science TELLS you it is IRRATIONAL to bore and develop geothermal wells when you object to simple fracking.

 

[hazlnut]

Where has Alex Berezow ever done scientific research?

FAIL.

Where has Alex Berezow ever published in a peer-reviewed journal?

FAIL.

You post some 'author' blogger and think that means something...

FAIL.

 

[flacaltenn]

Where has Alex Berezow ever done scientific research?

FAIL.

Where has Alex Berezow ever published in a peer-reviewed journal?

FAIL.

You post some 'author' blogger and think that means something...

FAIL.

Take out Alex B's name and insert the Noble Prize winning Al Gore.. That's my reply..

 

[whitehall]

The left operates on emotion not science. They simply disregard facts that interfere with their personal feelings about a subject. Alleged "scientists" feed the liberal emotion base as long as the funding keeps rolling in. When things get rough politically the radical emotion based left leaves the words "man-made" off the "man-made global warming" theory and pretend that they are shocked when a hurricane comes rolling up the Atlantic.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

This is one rather confused little boy, kids

He's confusing objections to applied technology with being anti-science.

For example, saying that people who object to fracking are anti-science is rather silly.

Fracking isn't SCIENCE, it's a drilling technique. The objection to fracking is is based concerns regarding pollution of the water caused by fracking. That's not anti-science, that's just objecting to FRACKING UP our water supplies.


Objecting to nuclear power plants likewise is not objecting to SCIENCE. Objecting to the risks associated with Nuke plants isn't anti-science, it's ANTI-RISK.

Think that there's no real risk with nuke plants?

The INSURANCE cCOMPANIES completely disagree with you then.

Does anyone here want to make the case that they think insurance companies don't understand RISK?

When Kennedy claimed that vaccines cause autism he was only objecting to applied technology?

Who'd a thunk?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Classic False Equivalence on Political Abuse of Science

Rep. Michele Bachmann claims HPV vaccine might cause ‘mental retardation’

The best comment:

Large, wealthy, politically powerful corporations make a lot of money from carbon pollution, animal research, GMOs, nuclear power, and vaccines. And in each case, the Republican position is simply to support the profit interests of those corporations, regardless of what science has to say about the matter one way or another.

Kennedy said they cause autism, what's your point?

 

[FJO]

On one hand, liberals claim that humans are no more significant in the great scheme of things than a lowly worm or insect. On the other hand they claim that human influence can have a strong and irreversible effect on the world.

While I can't deny - just by personal experience and seeing the longer and warmer summers and the shorter and warmer winters - that there seems to be a general warming, I have serious doubts that it is caused by human activity.

There seems to be warming on Mars, in spite the remarkable shortage of SUV's and coal-burning generation stations there. Ditto for pretty much all the other planets in the Solar System.

A few years ago the most highly respected scientists warned about freezing to death. Then another group of scientists came along, realizing that their grants won't be renewed if they don't publish something - ANYTHING - came up with a lucky guess: Global warming, which seemed to coincide with the regular cycles of the Sun. So, the current craze is Global Warming, or more politically correctly Climate Change.

This is something entirely new and unexpected. There never was a climate change on Earth before humans and SUV's. There never was an Ice Age. There never was warming before. If humans could only go away and die, there would still be those glorious dinosaurs roaming the Earth.

On their behalf, the Employment Prevention Agency (aka EPA) denied water to thousands of California farmers, condemning them to bankruptcy and starvation, in order to save a breed of minnows that the aforementioned agency considers more worthy than the farmers. In order to promote the well-being of a certain species of rat (or squirrel) the same agency forbids the cutting down highly flammable brush which resulted in millions of dollars worth of destructive fires.

In the meantime, Al Gore has a palace that consumes more energy than five or ten ordinary homes, he rides in limousines and flies on private jets.

 

[rdean]

Believers in magical creation calling anyone "anti science". Hilarious.