The scientists reply

[ScienceRocks]

That is just what I read on a republican site named free republic, but it was likely wrong.

I'm a thousand percent opposed to cap and trade and feel it is a very stupid idea and in fact feel that humanity deserves the ass kicking it gots coming to it. If it's natural then we can't do a damn thing about it anyways and it is coming one way or the other...If we added a little c-4 on top of then we asked for it.

But anyways I believe that we should have a strong economy. In which can develop new ways to survive the ass kicking. We must remain strong and adapt.

Weakening our selfs is the stupidest thing we can do...But inventing and thinking is what we should be doing.

 

[rdean]

If the oncologist has a known history of deliberate misdiagnosis so as to sell expensive unnecessary/ineffective treatments, yeppers I might trust the opinion of the dentist more.

And scientists have that history? Yea, unlike Republicans. Iraq anyone?

yeppers a good many 'scientists' will say damn near anything to advance their career. Its a human thing.

And this is why the right is rarely taken seriously when it comes to science. No wonder only 6% of scientists admit to being Republican. They are ashamed to be associated with such a political party.

Many Republicans feel that scientists are college graduates who get government handouts and do nothing.

The truth is, to be a top scientist takes years of study and research and that's before you can make any meaningful contribution. This is one of the reasons Nobel Prize winners are usually very old people.

Such motivated and talented people are going to work for some government handout and then just "stop" and live off their education? How likely is that?

One of the ways the right dismisses scientists is by saying they have no "common sense".

How many right wingers have a story where they "knew" a scientist who was so lacking common sense, they wouldn't come out of the rain?

 

[rdean]

That is just what I read on a republican site named free republic, but it was likely wrong.

I'm a thousand percent opposed to cap and trade and feel it is a very stupid idea and in fact feel that humanity deserves the ass kicking it gots coming to it. If it's natural then we can't do a damn thing about it anyways and it is coming one way or the other...If we added a little c-4 on top of then we asked for it.

But anyways I believe that we should have a strong economy. In which can develop new ways to survive the ass kicking. We must remain strong and adapt.

Weakening our selfs is the stupidest thing we can do...But inventing and thinking is what we should be doing.

Weakening ourselves? And yet, following Republican policies of moving American jobs to Communist China to make a quick buck is making them stronger and us weaker. How strange is that?

 

[rdean]

And, that appears to be Westall's point - make no decisions until there is adequate evidence - but it went right over your and deanie-do's head.

And at what point is there "adequate science". If you followed that reasoning, that point would never come.

Scientists don't deal in "absolutes", like the right wing. Of course, "absolutes" makes things so much more, well, "simple".

Like I said asshole.........................

This is what you said:

Indeed...........in the political arena................were the graphs and numbers matter..............

Why do you believe you are clever? I'm, pardon the word, "mystified". Are you saying, "numbers and graphs" don't matter for the right? Then what does matter? The "supernatural" and the "occult"?

 

[Si modo]

see now you're asking for evidence so you can educate yourself better on the topic. this is generally needed before announcing a conclusion about that topic. again, that appears to be his point, no?

And, that appears to be Westall's point - make no decisions until there is adequate evidence - but it went right over your and deanie-do's head.

My, my, what a threesome to draw to, Walleyes, Kookybill, and ol' Si. All full of yap-yap, and no evidence.

Hey, Dodge...nice to see you again.

Now, where are the answers to my questions you consistently dodge?

We have quite a tally of dodged questions from you:

1. Again, what is my position on AGW? I've told you beforee yet you keep misrepresenting it. Ort, it's too complicated foryou to understand. You keep lying about it. So, what is it?

2. You say the 'deniers' are denying the 'process of science'. As you consistently call Westall and I 'deniers', then you can provide evidence of either of us denying science. Unlike your consistent lack of comprehension of the logic of scientific discovery.

We'll just deal with those two, for now, then address the others that you keep dodging.

And, the evidence you say you need for my post above is included directed in my post. Westall's point is lost on you and deanie-do.

You really need to start thinking rather than lying, if that's possible.

 

[rdean]

And, that appears to be Westall's point - make no decisions until there is adequate evidence - but it went right over your and deanie-do's head.

My, my, what a threesome to draw to, Walleyes, Kookybill, and ol' Si. All full of yap-yap, and no evidence.

Hey, Dodge...nice to see you again.

Now, where are the answers to my questions you consistently dodge?

We have quite a tally of dodged questions from you:

1. Again, what is my position on AGW? I've told you beforee yet you keep misrepresenting it. Ort, it's too complicated foryou to understand. You keep lying about it. So, what is it?

2. You say the 'deniers' are denying science. As you consistently call Westall and I 'deniers', then you can provide evidence of either of us denying science. Unlike your consistent ack of comprehension of the logic of scientific discovery.

We'll just deal with those two, for now, then address the others that you keep dodging.

And, the evidence you say you need for my post above is included directed in my post. Westall's point is lost on you and deanie-do.

You really need to start thinking rather than lying, if that's possible.

It's not that I'm dodging, it's that you are so cryptic, who knows what you say or believe? If I suggested that you "denied science", then, based on some particular post, my position is that you did. As to what that was? Who knows? I don't memorize your ravings.

 

[Si modo]

My, my, what a threesome to draw to, Walleyes, Kookybill, and ol' Si. All full of yap-yap, and no evidence.

Hey, Dodge...nice to see you again.

Now, where are the answers to my questions you consistently dodge?

We have quite a tally of dodged questions from you:

1. Again, what is my position on AGW? I've told you beforee yet you keep misrepresenting it. Ort, it's too complicated foryou to understand. You keep lying about it. So, what is it?

2. You say the 'deniers' are denying science. As you consistently call Westall and I 'deniers', then you can provide evidence of either of us denying science. Unlike your consistent ack of comprehension of the logic of scientific discovery.

We'll just deal with those two, for now, then address the others that you keep dodging.

And, the evidence you say you need for my post above is included directed in my post. Westall's point is lost on you and deanie-do.

You really need to start thinking rather than lying, if that's possible.

It's not that I'm dodging, it's that you are so cryptic, who knows what you say or believe? If I suggested that you "denied science", then, based on some particular post, my position is that you did. As to what that was? Who knows? I don't memorize your ravings.

Not you, deanie-do. Rocks is Dodge. You just happen to miss the point of Westall and me: Make no decisions until there is adequate evidence to do so. We're not into the reactionary panic based on inflamatory rhetoric like so many dilettantes.

 

[skookerasbil]

That is just what I read on a republican site named free republic, but it was likely wrong.

I'm a thousand percent opposed to cap and trade and feel it is a very stupid idea and in fact feel that humanity deserves the ass kicking it gots coming to it. If it's natural then we can't do a damn thing about it anyways and it is coming one way or the other...If we added a little c-4 on top of then we asked for it.

But anyways I believe that we should have a strong economy. In which can develop new ways to survive the ass kicking. We must remain strong and adapt.

Weakening our selfs is the stupidest thing we can do...But inventing and thinking is what we should be doing.

Holy sh!t..........I actually agree with this guy for once...............

But heres the thing...........we are decades if not 50 years from technology that is needed so not to wreck the economy and the k00ks know it. But to them..........it doesnt matter. They dont care who gets totally fcukked in the process of lobbying for this foolish ass strategy...........

Thats why this whole debate is beyond hair brain..............

 

[rdean]

Hey, Dodge...nice to see you again.

Now, where are the answers to my questions you consistently dodge?

We have quite a tally of dodged questions from you:

1. Again, what is my position on AGW? I've told you beforee yet you keep misrepresenting it. Ort, it's too complicated foryou to understand. You keep lying about it. So, what is it?

2. You say the 'deniers' are denying science. As you consistently call Westall and I 'deniers', then you can provide evidence of either of us denying science. Unlike your consistent ack of comprehension of the logic of scientific discovery.

We'll just deal with those two, for now, then address the others that you keep dodging.

And, the evidence you say you need for my post above is included directed in my post. Westall's point is lost on you and deanie-do.

You really need to start thinking rather than lying, if that's possible.

It's not that I'm dodging, it's that you are so cryptic, who knows what you say or believe? If I suggested that you "denied science", then, based on some particular post, my position is that you did. As to what that was? Who knows? I don't memorize your ravings.

Not you, deanie-do. Rocks is Dodge. You just happen to miss the point of Westall and me: Make no decisions until there is adequate evidence to do so. We're not into the reactionary panic based on inflamatory rhetoric like so many dilettantes.

Stop it. You know that for you, there will NEVER be "adequate evidence". Can't you ever be honest?

 

[Si modo]

It's not that I'm dodging, it's that you are so cryptic, who knows what you say or believe? If I suggested that you "denied science", then, based on some particular post, my position is that you did. As to what that was? Who knows? I don't memorize your ravings.

Not you, deanie-do. Rocks is Dodge. You just happen to miss the point of Westall and me: Make no decisions until there is adequate evidence to do so. We're not into the reactionary panic based on inflamatory rhetoric like so many dilettantes.

Stop it. You know that for you, there will NEVER be "adequate evidence".

....

Apparently, you seem to think you know me better than I, because I know nothing of the sort. Go on, tell me more about myself, though.

.... Can't you ever be honest?

And how would I answer such a dishonest question? Such irony.

Less than 6% of your posts contain any sense.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

AGW is not science; it's homeopathy, it's phrenology, it's palmistry.

If it were science there would be laboratory experiments showing how a tiny wisp of CO2 causes all the climactic disruptions they claim it does.

They can't even come up with a name for it! Global Warming, um it's not warming, so now it's Climate Change, um not scary enough so now it's Global Climactic Disruption.

Don't you know when you're being sold a line of bullshit?

No lab = no science.

It's that simple

 

[westwall]

Which is a very good thing to do, certainly. The problem is when people decide to get interested in a topic enough to speak on the topic and NOT have the good judgment you exhibit by researching it first. And it seems those are the types of people rdean is speaking out against.

Now the case can be made that people don't need a formal education and extensive experience in a topic to understand the basic tenets, but the problem still comes when people draw conclusions without seeking evidence with which to support their conclusion, or worse yet IGNORING evidence that happens to refute their conclusion. Such cherry picking of information is commonly done in the political arena, but strongly disparaged in the scientific and academic community.

rdean lashes out at pretty much anyone who doesn't have his/hers same viewpoint. Regardless of whether they are well read on the subject or not. In the few threads I heve seen rdean involved in he/she has not come across as being particularly well read on any of those subjects. I will grant you that that is a small sample size but the trend is not favourable.

 

[skookerasbil]

It's not that I'm dodging, it's that you are so cryptic, who knows what you say or believe? If I suggested that you "denied science", then, based on some particular post, my position is that you did. As to what that was? Who knows? I don't memorize your ravings.

Not you, deanie-do. Rocks is Dodge. You just happen to miss the point of Westall and me: Make no decisions until there is adequate evidence to do so. We're not into the reactionary panic based on inflamatory rhetoric like so many dilettantes.

Stop it. You know that for you, there will NEVER be "adequate evidence". Can't you ever be honest?

then it aint science s0n!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Not you, deanie-do. Rocks is Dodge. You just happen to miss the point of Westall and me: Make no decisions until there is adequate evidence to do so. We're not into the reactionary panic based on inflamatory rhetoric like so many dilettantes.

Stop it. You know that for you, there will NEVER be "adequate evidence". Can't you ever be honest?

then it aint science s0n!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to skookerasbil again.

 

[skookerasbil]

Stop it. You know that for you, there will NEVER be "adequate evidence". Can't you ever be honest?

then it aint science s0n!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to skookerasbil again.

lmao........politically, the k00ks might as well march 'ole Gumby up to Capitol Hill!!!

 

[skookerasbil]

 

[skookerasbil]

William got a bit ornery at the Skeptics rally!!!!

 

[SmarterThanHick]

hahahah i really like that snowman picture. very amusing

but let me know when you're going to make a point.

 

[nraforlife]

And scientists have that history? Yea, unlike Republicans. Iraq anyone?

yeppers a good many 'scientists' will say damn near anything to advance their career. Its a human thing.

And this is why the right is rarely taken seriously when it comes to science. No wonder only 6% of scientists admit to being Republican. They are ashamed to be associated with such a political party.

Many Republicans feel that scientists are college graduates who get government handouts and do nothing.

The truth is, to be a top scientist takes years of study and research and that's before you can make any meaningful contribution. This is one of the reasons Nobel Prize winners are usually very old people.

Such motivated and talented people are going to work for some government handout and then just "stop" and live off their education? How likely is that?

One of the ways the right dismisses scientists is by saying they have no "common sense".

How many right wingers have a story where they "knew" a scientist who was so lacking common sense, they wouldn't come out of the rain?

Given the source of income stream most 'scientists' rely upon it would not be too surprising that a disportionate number are democrat- follow the cash. Much of 'science' in the USA has sunk to a par with Lysenkoism. pardon me if I continue to trust the gifted amateurs and their ability to shred the PC thesis for pay pro's.

BTW a large chunk of the AAAS membership are not 'scientists' and many/most? real working scientists are not members heck I and most of my working peers COULD join as best I can determine none have. The AAAS is really more of a left political than a 'science' organisation and anything they have to say needs to be weighed with that reality in mind. They no more represent science than the AARP represents old folks.

 

[Old Rocks]

My, my, here we go again. All them thar pointy headed librul scientists don't know jack shi-it!

God almighty, people like you are why most scientists do not consider themselves conservatives. The denigration of scientists while posting is incredibly ironic.