Huntsman supports science

[The Rabbi]

A candidate that is logical enough to accept the fact that he isn't a scientist and, that being the case, should defer to expert opinion?

That will never fly with the whacked out base of the GOP!

Plus, their corporate polluter/religious fundy overlords will really take a hit in the wallet if the public starts to pay attention to this.

I like Huntsman. He's too genuine to do a damn thing in the GOP as it is right now. It's a shame. I am pulling for Romney simply because he might actually win and is not batshit loco. Though, Romney is a giant pussy that changes his position at the drop of a hat.

Which scientists should he defer to, since many scientists say the whole thing is made up?

I think the Republicans here should note which candidate the liebturds support and which ones drive them crazy and vote for the latter.

What is with you people and not citing information, fucking hell.

You can't just imagine a statistic and make it true, BACK IT UP!

Put up or shut up.

The Climate Crisis Hoax - Forbes.com

OK, will you STFU now? Or will you carp about "Corporatism"?

 

[The Rabbi]

Which scientists should he defer to, since many scientists say the whole thing is made up?

I think the Republicans here should note which candidate the liebturds support and which ones drive them crazy and vote for the latter.

"Many"?

In the field of science, when you aren't an expert on something the logical thing to do is to defer to the expert consensus. With global warming, the overwhelming consensus agrees on global climate change that is caused by man.

It's supremely hilarious watching this be debated on an internet message board as if it makes a fucking difference. The overwhelming majority of people that have devoted their careers to studying this aren't wasting their time debating the patently obvious.

Furthermore, the issue can't even be discussed on this board without the introduction of conspiracy theory.

All piped in here like elevator music second hand from the talking heads that conveniently work for the big polluters. There's a conspiracy theory for you that actually has some teeth. I hear the right often refer to the left as "useful idiots". How does it feel to be a useful idiot for the corporation that runs your party? They've successfully convinced people to give them tax breaks and deregulate them. Times aren't tough in this country if you are a billionaire.

If you are anywhere in below that, you are getting squeezed after a couple of decades of converting this country to a big business oligarchy while hilariously blaming "liberals" for the problems of the day.

Bachmann drives me craziest. By all means, vote for that fucking retard. The country will continue to go to shit and you can continue to blame the liberals in your own back yard as opposed to your own political party that is bought and paid for.

Suckers.

No, idiot.
I tried schooling you above on "the scientific method." "The scientific consensus" is meaningless. It is a worthless statement. There is no such thing because you cannot go around and poll every scientist. Nor have you done so.

Go learn something about science before you post stupidity again.

 

[candycorn]

Which scientists should he defer to, since many scientists say the whole thing is made up?

I think the Republicans here should note which candidate the liebturds support and which ones drive them crazy and vote for the latter.

"Many"?

In the field of science, when you aren't an expert on something the logical thing to do is to defer to the expert consensus. With global warming, the overwhelming consensus agrees on global climate change that is caused by man.

It's supremely hilarious watching this be debated on an internet message board as if it makes a fucking difference. The overwhelming majority of people that have devoted their careers to studying this aren't wasting their time debating the patently obvious.

Furthermore, the issue can't even be discussed on this board without the introduction of conspiracy theory.

All piped in here like elevator music second hand from the talking heads that conveniently work for the big polluters. There's a conspiracy theory for you that actually has some teeth. I hear the right often refer to the left as "useful idiots". How does it feel to be a useful idiot for the corporation that runs your party? They've successfully convinced people to give them tax breaks and deregulate them. Times aren't tough in this country if you are a billionaire.

If you are anywhere in below that, you are getting squeezed after a couple of decades of converting this country to a big business oligarchy while hilariously blaming "liberals" for the problems of the day.

Bachmann drives me craziest. By all means, vote for that fucking retard. The country will continue to go to shit and you can continue to blame the liberals in your own back yard as opposed to your own political party that is bought and paid for.

Suckers.

No, idiot.
I tried schooling you above on "the scientific method." "The scientific consensus" is meaningless. It is a worthless statement. There is no such thing because you cannot go around and poll every scientist. Nor have you done so.

Go learn something about science before you post stupidity again.

14 hours ago you unleashed this gem when Perry denied global warming was manmade...politicizing the tragedy that is to come.

Only 6% of scientists are Republicans. Fact!

Apparently you cite as a fact that all scientists have been polled and only 6 percent are Republicans.

I'll buy you a mirror so you can debate yourself. I can see why you like Perry so much....you (and he) will say anything etc....

 

[Photonic]

Which scientists should he defer to, since many scientists say the whole thing is made up?

I think the Republicans here should note which candidate the liebturds support and which ones drive them crazy and vote for the latter.

What is with you people and not citing information, fucking hell.

You can't just imagine a statistic and make it true, BACK IT UP!

Put up or shut up.

The Climate Crisis Hoax - Forbes.com

OK, will you STFU now? Or will you carp about "Corporatism"?

Congratulations. You have managed to cite a single (non-scientist) espousing his belief on the politics of the situation.

It might surprise you to learn that I don't give a shit about the politics, I'm more interested in the science.

 

[Mr. Peepers]

Or maybe it was Athens, Ga., home of REM and my favorite place ON EARTH!!!

Mine too! Of course, it's also my hometown.

 

[The Rabbi]

"Many"?

In the field of science, when you aren't an expert on something the logical thing to do is to defer to the expert consensus. With global warming, the overwhelming consensus agrees on global climate change that is caused by man.

It's supremely hilarious watching this be debated on an internet message board as if it makes a fucking difference. The overwhelming majority of people that have devoted their careers to studying this aren't wasting their time debating the patently obvious.

Furthermore, the issue can't even be discussed on this board without the introduction of conspiracy theory.

All piped in here like elevator music second hand from the talking heads that conveniently work for the big polluters. There's a conspiracy theory for you that actually has some teeth. I hear the right often refer to the left as "useful idiots". How does it feel to be a useful idiot for the corporation that runs your party? They've successfully convinced people to give them tax breaks and deregulate them. Times aren't tough in this country if you are a billionaire.

If you are anywhere in below that, you are getting squeezed after a couple of decades of converting this country to a big business oligarchy while hilariously blaming "liberals" for the problems of the day.

Bachmann drives me craziest. By all means, vote for that fucking retard. The country will continue to go to shit and you can continue to blame the liberals in your own back yard as opposed to your own political party that is bought and paid for.

Suckers.

No, idiot.
I tried schooling you above on "the scientific method." "The scientific consensus" is meaningless. It is a worthless statement. There is no such thing because you cannot go around and poll every scientist. Nor have you done so.

Go learn something about science before you post stupidity again.

14 hours ago you unleashed this gem when Perry denied global warming was manmade...politicizing the tragedy that is to come.

Only 6% of scientists are Republicans. Fact!

Apparently you cite as a fact that all scientists have been polled and only 6 percent are Republicans.

I'll buy you a mirror so you can debate yourself. I can see why you like Perry so much....you (and he) will say anything etc....

Your irony meter is off kilter.
The 6% statement comes courtesy of RDean, your brother in stupidity. I was making fun of it.

 

[The Rabbi]

Do you even know what the scientific method is?

The scientific method states that truth is arrived at by reproducible experiments. Thus if 5000 scientists say one thing and one scientist says something different and he can produce a reproducible experiment then the one scientist is correct and the 5000 scientists are wrong.
That is scientific method.
Where is the reproducible experiment on man made global warming?

You don't know what the scientific method is.
It has nothing to do with what scientists say.
Damn Rabbi, you stand by this post?

So why don't you explain what the scientific method is, genius?
This ought to be good.

 

[GHook93]

For crying out loud, he never had much of a chance to begin with it. My gawd he was polling at something like 1%.. NO one has hardly heard of the guy and from what I hear I'm not impressed..
here's a suggestion, why don't you all go ask him to change parties and run against Obama. Now that I would love to see

Actually I was pretty impressed with the guy. I think his economic plan wasn't half bad. I like his experience in China, the next President will actually have to fight the trade war with China!

 

[JamesInFlorida]

The scientific method states that truth is arrived at by reproducible experiments. Thus if 5000 scientists say one thing and one scientist says something different and he can produce a reproducible experiment then the one scientist is correct and the 5000 scientists are wrong.
That is scientific method.
Where is the reproducible experiment on man made global warming?

You don't know what the scientific method is.
It has nothing to do with what scientists say.
Damn Rabbi, you stand by this post?

So why don't you explain what the scientific method is, genius?
This ought to be good.

In your own words if 1 out of 5,000 scientists proves the other 4,999 wrong, the scientific method says that 1 is correct.

However one of the fundamental basics of the scientific method is that it must be duplicated by peers (AKA-peer reviewed), in order to be seen as credible. If one scientist came up with one result, and no other scientists did as well- the results would NOT be seen as credible, according to the scientific method.

edit: for the record I'm not saying what gdawg said was accurate.

 

[The Rabbi]

You don't know what the scientific method is.
It has nothing to do with what scientists say.
Damn Rabbi, you stand by this post?

So why don't you explain what the scientific method is, genius?
This ought to be good.

In your own words if 1 out of 5,000 scientists proves the other 4,999 wrong, the scientific method says that 1 is correct.

However one of the fundamental basics of the scientific method is that it must be duplicated by peers (AKA-peer reviewed), in order to be seen as credible. If one scientist came up with one result, and no other scientists did as well- the results would NOT be seen as credible, according to the scientific method.

edit: for the record I'm not saying what gdawg said was accurate.

Coorect. It requires reproducible results.
This was the issue with the claim many years ago that some scientist had achieved cold fusion. He had good data and all but no one else could produce the same results.

 

[geauxtohell]

No, idiot.
I tried schooling you above on "the scientific method." "The scientific consensus" is meaningless. It is a worthless statement. There is no such thing because you cannot go around and poll every scientist. Nor have you done so.

Go learn something about science before you post stupidity again.

By all means, school me. I know you have absolutely no background in the natural sciences, so it should be funny. I don't claim to be a great researcher or to have much of a background in "bench science", but I do have my name on one paper that we are still trying to get published.

I'll assume that is one more than you.

If you really want to discuss the "scientific method", then you'd better be prepared to discuss some biostats (i.e. p values, sensitivity, specificity, positive predicitive value, negative predicitive value, Relative Risk, Odds Ratios, Chi Squared, etc), because that is where I start to pay attention to it. Especially when it comes to hypothesis and the null hypothesis.

Scientific consensus is a byproduct of scientific work which is done under the scientific method.

I've listed it once already:

Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To claim that consensus is irrelevant is idiotic. But, then again, so are you.

See? We both used the term "idiot" in our post!

 

[geauxtohell]

What is with you people and not citing information, fucking hell.

You can't just imagine a statistic and make it true, BACK IT UP!

Put up or shut up.

The Climate Crisis Hoax - Forbes.com

OK, will you STFU now? Or will you carp about "Corporatism"?

Congratulations. You have managed to cite a single (non-scientist) espousing his belief on the politics of the situation.

It might surprise you to learn that I don't give a shit about the politics, I'm more interested in the science.

LMAO! They just don't get it............

 

[geauxtohell]

So why don't you explain what the scientific method is, genius?
This ought to be good.

In your own words if 1 out of 5,000 scientists proves the other 4,999 wrong, the scientific method says that 1 is correct.

However one of the fundamental basics of the scientific method is that it must be duplicated by peers (AKA-peer reviewed), in order to be seen as credible. If one scientist came up with one result, and no other scientists did as well- the results would NOT be seen as credible, according to the scientific method.

edit: for the record I'm not saying what gdawg said was accurate.

Coorect. It requires reproducible results.
This was the issue with the claim many years ago that some scientist had achieved cold fusion. He had good data and all but no one else could produce the same results.

There's your set up.

Now start whipping out those peer-reviewed articles and published papers.

Hint: you won't find them in Forbes.

 

[Gadawg73]

The scientific method states that truth is arrived at by reproducible experiments. Thus if 5000 scientists say one thing and one scientist says something different and he can produce a reproducible experiment then the one scientist is correct and the 5000 scientists are wrong.
That is scientific method.
Where is the reproducible experiment on man made global warming?

You don't know what the scientific method is.
It has nothing to do with what scientists say.
Damn Rabbi, you stand by this post?

So why don't you explain what the scientific method is, genius?
This ought to be good.

There are six steps to the scientific method.
One step less than the 7 step program you need to start immediately.

 

[The Rabbi]

No, idiot.
I tried schooling you above on "the scientific method." "The scientific consensus" is meaningless. It is a worthless statement. There is no such thing because you cannot go around and poll every scientist. Nor have you done so.

Go learn something about science before you post stupidity again.

By all means, school me. I know you have absolutely no background in the natural sciences, so it should be funny. I don't claim to be a great researcher or to have much of a background in "bench science", but I do have my name on one paper that we are still trying to get published.

I'll assume that is one more than you.

If you really want to discuss the "scientific method", then you'd better be prepared to discuss some biostats (i.e. p values, sensitivity, specificity, positive predicitive value, negative predicitive value, Relative Risk, Odds Ratios, Chi Squared, etc), because that is where I start to pay attention to it. Especially when it comes to hypothesis and the null hypothesis.

Scientific consensus is a byproduct of scientific work which is done under the scientific method.

I've listed it once already:

Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To claim that consensus is irrelevant is idiotic. But, then again, so are you.

See? We both used the term "idiot" in our post!

You cite Wiki? No wonder you're still waiting for publication. Don't quit your day job while you;re at it!

 

[The Rabbi]

You don't know what the scientific method is.
It has nothing to do with what scientists say.
Damn Rabbi, you stand by this post?

So why don't you explain what the scientific method is, genius?
This ought to be good.

There are six steps to the scientific method.
One step less than the 7 step program you need to start immediately.

Non-answer.
Try again, genius.

 

[geauxtohell]

No, idiot.
I tried schooling you above on "the scientific method." "The scientific consensus" is meaningless. It is a worthless statement. There is no such thing because you cannot go around and poll every scientist. Nor have you done so.

Go learn something about science before you post stupidity again.

By all means, school me. I know you have absolutely no background in the natural sciences, so it should be funny. I don't claim to be a great researcher or to have much of a background in "bench science", but I do have my name on one paper that we are still trying to get published.

I'll assume that is one more than you.

If you really want to discuss the "scientific method", then you'd better be prepared to discuss some biostats (i.e. p values, sensitivity, specificity, positive predicitive value, negative predicitive value, Relative Risk, Odds Ratios, Chi Squared, etc), because that is where I start to pay attention to it. Especially when it comes to hypothesis and the null hypothesis.

Scientific consensus is a byproduct of scientific work which is done under the scientific method.

I've listed it once already:

Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To claim that consensus is irrelevant is idiotic. But, then again, so are you.

See? We both used the term "idiot" in our post!

You cite Wiki? No wonder you're still waiting for publication. Don't quit your day job while you;re at it!

That was the kind of lame-assed retort I expected from you. As I said, I am more than prepared to discuss the scientific method and process with you if you want to step up the plate.

Also, you've been called on your bullshit.

So go ahead and produce some peer reviewed work to back up your claims.

 

[geauxtohell]

So why don't you explain what the scientific method is, genius?
This ought to be good.

There are six steps to the scientific method.
One step less than the 7 step program you need to start immediately.

Non-answer.
Try again, genius.

Irony.

 

[westwall]

Global warming isn't science.

Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sorry, real scientists disagree with you.

CERN proposes otherwise.

 

[Gadawg73]

The United States Navy issued a report last year on the rising seas at Naval Station Norfolk and the rising seas there. They cite global warming as the cause.
Of course everyone knows that the United States Navy and their Admirals are all left leaning liberals motivated by cash.
And get this: Just as soon as the report came out the goon squads found where decades ago a Navy Admiral went to work for the NOAA. They used that to claim that the current Navy Admirals were motivated by a possible future job at NOAA and that is why they issued the scientific report as fact and made their recomendations accordingly.
Are people really this stupid? To believe that THE THOUSANDS of scientific studies conducted on this are ALL motivated by greed and the results ARE ALL junk science?