|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224
Dawg Talker
|
OP
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224 |
Quote:
OP-ED COLUMNIST
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: August 28, 2011
Jon Huntsman Jr., a former Utah governor and ambassador to China, isn’t a serious contender for the Republican presidential nomination. And that’s too bad, because Mr. Hunstman has been willing to say the unsayable about the G.O.P. — namely, that it is becoming the “anti-science party.” This is an enormously important development. And it should terrify us.
To see what Mr. Huntsman means, consider recent statements by the two men who actually are serious contenders for the G.O.P. nomination: Rick Perry and Mitt Romney.
Mr. Perry, the governor of Texas, recently made headlines by dismissing evolution as “just a theory,” one that has “got some gaps in it” — an observation that will come as news to the vast majority of biologists. But what really got peoples’ attention was what he said about climate change: “I think there are a substantial number of scientists who have manipulated data so that they will have dollars rolling into their projects. And I think we are seeing almost weekly, or even daily, scientists are coming forward and questioning the original idea that man-made global warming is what is causing the climate to change.”
That’s a remarkable statement — or maybe the right adjective is “vile.”
The second part of Mr. Perry’s statement is, as it happens, just false: the scientific consensus about man-made global warming — which includes 97 percent to 98 percent of researchers in the field, according to the National Academy of Sciences — is getting stronger, not weaker, as the evidence for climate change just keeps mounting.
In fact, if you follow climate science at all you know that the main development over the past few years has been growing concern that projections of future climate are underestimating the likely amount of warming. Warnings that we may face civilization-threatening temperature change by the end of the century, once considered outlandish, are now coming out of mainstream research groups.
But never mind that, Mr. Perry suggests; those scientists are just in it for the money, “manipulating data” to create a fake threat. In his book “Fed Up,” he dismissed climate science as a “contrived phony mess that is falling apart.”
I could point out that Mr. Perry is buying into a truly crazy conspiracy theory, which asserts that thousands of scientists all around the world are on the take, with not one willing to break the code of silence. I could also point out that multiple investigations into charges of intellectual malpractice on the part of climate scientists have ended up exonerating the accused researchers of all accusations. But never mind: Mr. Perry and those who think like him know what they want to believe, and their response to anyone who contradicts them is to start a witch hunt.
So how has Mr. Romney, the other leading contender for the G.O.P. nomination, responded to Mr. Perry’s challenge? In trademark fashion: By running away. In the past, Mr. Romney, a former governor of Massachusetts, has strongly endorsed the notion that man-made climate change is a real concern. But, last week, he softened that to a statement that he thinks the world is getting hotter, but “I don’t know that” and “I don’t know if it’s mostly caused by humans.” Moral courage!
Of course, we know what’s motivating Mr. Romney’s sudden lack of conviction. According to Public Policy Polling, only 21 percent of Republican voters in Iowa believe in global warming (and only 35 percent believe in evolution). Within the G.O.P., willful ignorance has become a litmus test for candidates, one that Mr. Romney is determined to pass at all costs.
So it’s now highly likely that the presidential candidate of one of our two major political parties will either be a man who believes what he wants to believe, even in the teeth of scientific evidence, or a man who pretends to believe whatever he thinks the party’s base wants him to believe.
And the deepening anti-intellectualism of the political right, both within and beyond the G.O.P., extends far beyond the issue of climate change.
Lately, for example, The Wall Street Journal’s editorial page has gone beyond its long-term preference for the economic ideas of “charlatans and cranks” — as one of former President George W. Bush’s chief economic advisers famously put it — to a general denigration of hard thinking about matters economic. Pay no attention to “fancy theories” that conflict with “common sense,” the Journal tells us. Because why should anyone imagine that you need more than gut feelings to analyze things like financial crises and recessions?
Now, we don’t know who will win next year’s presidential election. But the odds are that one of these years the world’s greatest nation will find itself ruled by a party that is aggressively anti-science, indeed anti-knowledge. And, in a time of severe challenges — environmental, economic, and more — that’s a terrifying prospect.
Link
Is this a mischaracterization of the current candidates? How important is it for a candidate to be able to stand back from their biases and objectively evaluate a subject matter? Should they defer to experts?
To be honest, this is the main reason for me not being excited about republicans as a whole, as the writer of the article says, they seem to push the idea of "I reject your reality and insert my own!" when it comes to science. Needless to say, it is not only counter productive, but also wrong ... demonstrably wrong. And yet when faced with these facts they ignore it, repeatedly, as if their own belief is backed by fact also. Is that what we really want in a candidate? Someone who ignores fact? Someone who ignores data?
Bah. I'm at a loss this election season and have a feeling I'm going to end up leaving the presidential candidate space blank.
There are no sacred cows.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
In fact, if you follow climate science at all you know that the main development over the past few years has been growing concern that projections of future climate are underestimating the likely amount of warming. Warnings that we may face civilization-threatening temperature change by the end of the century, once considered outlandish, are now coming out of mainstream research groups.
Of course it is. That is unless the space aliens invade first to save our planet from the people who are destroying it.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,682
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,682 |
Science knows ice has been receding for over 1000 years.
Ohio was covered in ice at one point.
I wonder what cavemen were doing to cause global warming??
Seeing how we didn't even have this planet mapped until maybe 400 years ago...a rough map to boot, and weather records aren't more than 100 years or so deep, I don't see how these pinheads can predict anything.
You want to know how to save this planet??
Lose about 1 -2 billion humans. Problem solved.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. GM Strong ![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/small-gator-chomp.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,887
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,887 |
I just watched a documentary on Dinosaurs in South America and I clearly heard the narrator say that back in that time the Earth was much warmer than it is today and much of the land masses were covered by deserts.
Has anyone established what the normal temperature of the Earth should be?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,507
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,507 |
Quote:
I just watched a documentary on Dinosaurs in South America and I clearly heard the narrator say that back in that time the Earth was much warmer than it is today and much of the land masses were covered by deserts.
Has anyone established what the normal temperature of the Earth should be?
Or .... is there a "normal" temperature?
10,000 years ago, we were coming out of an ice age. Just a few hundred years ago, Europe was in a mini ice age. This mini ice age was the reason that the Revolutionary War was fought in such brutal winter conditions. Look at the climate of England before, and after the mini ice age. That's an example of natural, 100% non-man-made climate change. Real climate change. Man has done nothing even remotely close to that.
Some scientists try to treat the Earth as though it is a static environment, and as if climate will always remain a constant unless man screws it up somehow. Just the past 5 or 6 centuries will disprove that. The Earth change. Climates change. Is part of it man's doing? Possibly. Is it a large part? Probably not. Man tried with the CFCs and leaded gasoline and other horribly destructive products released into the air. We destroyed part of the ozone layer. That was something visible. It was obvious. It had to change, and we did change. The ozone layer is restoring itself over time.
Could man do something similar in the future? Probably. That's why we have to be aware of evidence of actual destruction. The climate changing is not evidence of this IMHO. The climate changes naturally. To me it would be like saying that a product ages you because you look older at 60 than you did at 30. There are natural processes that occur as we age that will happen no matter what else we do. It is the same for the planet. The planet will have changing climates no matter what we do. There will be cycles of life no matter what we do. If global warming people concentrated on specific evidence of actual destruction, then I would have no problem with them. However, far too many use what is a natural process, documented in the history of the world, as "evidence" of impending doom. They can study temperature changes all they want, but until they can say that it is absolutely because of certain actions, and not part of the natural evolution of the planet. then I will remain a skeptic.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
Quote:
To me it would be like saying that a product ages you because you look older at 60 than you did at 3
I think your onto something here. We should start a class action suit against McDonald's cause the Big Mac made me age. 
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,144
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,144 |
What, an anti-republican article from the ultra liberal Mr. Krugman of the NYT? I can't believe it! That said, even if one believes in man-made global warming, we do not have the science to establish with any certainty that handcuffing US corporations by forcing cap and trade type legislation (while worldwide competition pollutes at will) can do anything to prevent climate change. Given it's such a hot topic and their research is frequently relied upon, I find it peculiar that there are no climate change news updates on the NAS site since 2009. The actual reports and findings from the research council can be downloaded here: http://americasclimatechoices.org/panelscience.shtml
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul.
- John Muir
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224
Dawg Talker
|
|
OP
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224 |
Did no one read my epilogue to the article?
There are no sacred cows.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 34,622
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 34,622 |
j/c
That's one of my problems with the republicans too. I truly feel that they have morphed into a niche of bible thumping dolts incapable of individual intellectual thought or sound reasoning. Furthermore, the Tea Party (perceived as part of the republican party) is yet another offshoot in this new breed of idiocy. They almost remind me of the clans in a Mad Max movie at times!
And before anyone flames me, remember that I used to vote republican all the time. I am really stuck between the two evils with my vote these days. I wish another Clinton would have been elected...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,144
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,144 |
Quote:
Did no one read my epilogue to the article?
Yes, and my statement was directed at the article itself, not you. You do seem to put a lot of credence into what Mr. Krugman has to say though, despite the fact he didn't at all address the counterpoint of dems skewing data to support their own initiatives.
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul.
- John Muir
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224
Dawg Talker
|
|
OP
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224 |
Seriously, you're making into this an us vs them thing. I'm not interested in playing that game. You can go to a fistful of threads in the backlogs here and beat the dead horse all you want. Regardless of who is bringing it up, and I've never heard of this guy before today, do you disagree with his premise that republicans are inherently anti science or anti intellectual, and more often than not place their own nonfactual beliefs on the same pedestal as fact? Quote:
despite the fact he didn't at all address the counterpoint of dems skewing data to support their own initiatives.
Again, irrelevant to my original question.
Facts and scientific theories are based on natural observations and experimentation. People are fallible, true, and sometimes personal bias gets in the way of a pet hypothesis. But, that doesn't change the facts. It's a fact that polar ice caps are shrinking and will more than likely reach a new observed low. It's a fact that carbon dioxide emission and deforestation is at an all time high. It's a fact that Carbon dioxide takes a photon and instead of releasing it as light, it's re-released as heat. And yet there are people like Perry and Bachmann that still won't admit that the earth is warming and that it could possibly be due to human endeavors, and not part of the "normal" current cycle.
Dang, drew me into a climate debate again ...
There are no sacred cows.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,144
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,144 |
Quote:
Seriously, you're making into this an us vs them thing. I'm not interested in playing that game. You can go to a fistful of threads in the backlogs here and beat the dead horse all you want.
You post an article/thread with the title "Republicans Against Science" by an admitted flaming liberal from the NYT (which you may not have been aware of).....and I'M the one making this into an us vs. them thing? 
Quote:
Again, irrelevant to my original question.
Of course it is, because the question is a baited one suggesting that only one particular party is ignoring or skewing science.
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul.
- John Muir
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826 |
Quote:
Quote:
Seriously, you're making into this an us vs them thing. I'm not interested in playing that game. You can go to a fistful of threads in the backlogs here and beat the dead horse all you want.
You post an article/thread with the title "Republicans Against Science" by an admitted flaming liberal from the NYT (which you may not have been aware of).....and I'M the one making this into an us vs. them thing?
Quote:
Again, irrelevant to my original question.
Of course it is, because the question is a baited one suggesting that only one particular party is ignoring or skewing science.
100% correct.
Al Gore himself has done more to harm the "man made global warming" argument than any other individual. When you see how much money he makes off of it, when you see how he himself lives - totally ignoring everything he wants others to do - and when he lies and propagandizes (if that's a word).........aside from the fact that man made global warming has never been shown to be true - Gore is the worst spokesman this "cause" could have.
Plus, haven't we been hearing rumblings of a new ice age, or global cooling?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,507
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,507 |
The problem is this .... Why is deforestation at an all time high? Because there are more people. Kill half the people on Earth and it's Problem Solved. Seriously though, 4 billion people on Earth will have more of an impact than 400,000 or so when recorded history began. How much impact? We don't know. We really don't. The Earth is warming. Is it because of what man is doing ..... is it simply because there are more people on Earth ..... or is it because of a natural cycle in the Earth's life? We don't know for sure. No matter what anyone says .... we don't know. I am all for reasonable conservation efforts ...... reasonable energy saving standards .... and so on. They make sense for more reasons that just the environment. What I oppose is people making a living, and lots more to boot, off of supposed science that is full of holes at best.I oppose the holier than thous who fly across the nation in private jets telling people they they are killing the Earth. I oppose people who whom a 23 year study is gospel as far as the Earth's ecosystem as a whole. "The Amazon River is flooding its banks! That didn't happen when we started studying it 23 years ago! We're killing the Amazon!" No .... maybe it's just the natural evolution of the Amazon. Ice caps melt. Ice caps freeze. Temperatures and climates change all by themselves. We have seen that. What we haven't seen is any hard evidence that man is doing it. We have suppositions and theories ..... but nothing concrete. Why? Because we are looking at a ridiculously short sample to base theories upon. It wold be like me saying that England has always been cold and rainy ...... when we have historical accounts and evidence that this is not so. That's my problem with the "science".
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,144
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,144 |
Quote:
Plus, haven't we been hearing rumblings of a new ice age, or global cooling?
....and that the sun itself has a much bigger role in our climate than any other factor:
financialpost.com
New, convincing evidence indicates global warming is caused by cosmic rays and the sun — not humans
The science is now all-but-settled on global warming, convincing new evidence demonstrates, but Al Gore, the IPCC and other global warming doomsayers won’t be celebrating. The new findings point to cosmic rays and the sun — not human activities — as the dominant controller of climate on Earth.
The research, published with little fanfare this week in the prestigious journal Nature, comes from über-prestigious CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, one of the world’s largest centres for scientific research involving 60 countries and 8,000 scientists at more than 600 universities and national laboratories. CERN is the organization that invented the World Wide Web, that built the multi-billion dollar Large Hadron Collider, and that has now built a pristinely clean stainless steel chamber that precisely recreated the Earth’s atmosphere.
In this chamber, 63 CERN scientists from 17 European and American institutes have done what global warming doomsayers said could never be done — demonstrate that cosmic rays promote the formation of molecules that in Earth’s atmosphere can grow and seed clouds, the cloudier and thus cooler it will be. Because the sun’s magnetic field controls how many cosmic rays reach Earth’s atmosphere (the stronger the sun’s magnetic field, the more it shields Earth from incoming cosmic rays from space), the sun determines the temperature on Earth.
The hypothesis that cosmic rays and the sun hold the key to the global warming debate has been Enemy No. 1 to the global warming establishment ever since it was first proposed by two scientists from the Danish Space Research Institute, at a 1996 scientific conference in the U.K. Within one day, the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Bert Bolin, denounced the theory, saying, “I find the move from this pair scientifically extremely naive and irresponsible.” He then set about discrediting the theory, any journalist that gave the theory cre dence, and most of all the Danes presenting the theory — they soon found themselves vilified, marginalized and starved of funding, despite their impeccable scientific credentials.
The mobilization to rally the press against the Danes worked brilliantly, with one notable exception. Nigel Calder, a former editor of The New Scientist who attended that 1996 conference, would not be cowed. Himself a physicist, Mr. Calder became convinced of the merits of the argument and a year later, following a lecture he gave at a CERN conference, so too did Jasper Kirkby, a CERN scientist in attendance. Mr. Kirkby then convinced the CERN bureaucracy of the theory’s importance and developed a plan to create a cloud chamber — he called it CLOUD, for “Cosmics Leaving OUtdoor Droplets.”
But Mr. Kirkby made the same tactical error that the Danes had — not realizing how politicized the global warming issue was, he candidly shared his views with the scientific community.
“The theory will probably be able to account for somewhere between a half and the whole of the increase in the Earth’s temperature that we have seen in the last century,” Mr. Kirkby told the scientific press in 1998, explaining that global warming may be part of a natural cycle in the Earth’s temperature.
The global warming establishment sprang into action, pressured the Western governments that control CERN, and almost immediately succeeded in suspending CLOUD. It took Mr. Kirkby almost a decade of negotiation with his superiors, and who knows how many compromises and unspoken commitments, to convince the CERN bureaucracy to allow the project to proceed. And years more to create the cloud chamber and convincingly validate the Danes’ groundbreaking theory.
Yet this spectacular success will be largely unrecognized by the general public for years — this column will be the first that most readers have heard of it — because CERN remains too afraid of offending its government masters to admit its success. Weeks ago, CERN formerly decided to muzzle Mr. Kirby and other members of his team to avoid “the highly political arena of the climate change debate,” telling them “to present the results clearly but not interpret them” and to downplay the results by “mak[ing] clear that cosmic radiation is only one of many parameters.” The CERN study and press release is written in bureaucratese and the version of Mr. Kirkby’s study that appears in the print edition of Nature censored the most eye-popping graph — only those who know where to look in an online supplement will see the striking potency of cosmic rays in creating the conditions for seeding clouds.
CERN, and the Danes, have in all likelihood found the path to the Holy Grail of climate science. But the religion of climate science won’t yet permit a celebration of the find.
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul.
- John Muir
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
do you disagree with his premise that republicans are inherently anti science or anti intellectual, and more often than not place their own nonfactual beliefs on the same pedestal as fact?
"Republicans" is a large group of people. I happen to work for a construction management firm and almost my entire office is republicans, almost all of them are engineers... very logic and scientific based thinkers... every one with a college degree in engineering, many with a masters... almost all of them attend church regularly. Almost all of us believe that the earth climate will change but are skeptical of the amount of influence that people can have on it... and the knee jerk media who tries to link every weather event (or lack of event) to global warming does nothing but harm their cause. Almost all would be willing to admit that evolution has occurred but most still believe that God created the universe and the living things in it.
There are more anti-intellectual republicans than I would like to admit and the single biggest reason that there isn't a republican candidate destroying Obama right now is a result of the influence they have.
With that said, the mainstream media seem to spent an inordinate amount of time covering the moronic things from the those on the right while ignoring he equally moronic things from those on the left.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,013
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,013 |
i feel the important point Krugman makes is being missed here. it is not about climate change or evolution in particular. it is about rejecting scientific pursuits and the benefits that result in order to pander to those who want a well-defined and unchanging answer instead of a dynamic process of discovery and public policy to reflect that process.
forget the philosophical debates between the "elitist" academics and the "Bible-thumping" creationists. this should be recognized for the fundamental economic issue it is. the rampant anti-intellectualism in this country is sugar in our economic gas tank. our future is not in textiles, steel, etc. and i certainly HOPE it is not solely consumer goods and services. if we are to remain relevant, we must be an information & technology economy...obvious, right?
computing (in whatever form), information management, renewable energy, biomedicine, nextgen infrastructure, etc...these are opportunities to be had by the nations which can adapt and adopt. notice that these areas that require significant and ongoing R&D. basic AND applied...public AND private.
and yet, rather than grabbing these opportunities by the throat, too many Republican (and Libertarian) politicians pander to those who wish the world to be flat, white, and God-fearing. for example, calling evolution "just a theory" is a blatant misrepresentation of the truth. gravity is a theory, too...reject that one at your own peril. the other example: climate change is happening...how are we impacting it? noone knows for sure, but if i was driving a bus full of people down the road and told them that i may or may not drive them off a cliff, should they not take action to make sure they don't die? should they say "nonsense" and carry on about their business?
Browns fans are born with it...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,507
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,507 |
However, using your example, if you have someone who has questionable credentials, character, and/or motives telling that you may drive off a cliff if you keep going straight, should you slam the wheel hard left into the cliff face without any additional information?
Of course not.
What a reasonable person would do is to proceed carefully, neither flooring the gas, nor slamming the brakes and crashing into the cliff face.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,887
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,887 |
Quote:
i feel the important point Krugman makes is being missed here.
No I get the point, I just find it wrong.
Quote:
and yet, rather than grabbing these opportunities by the throat, too many Republican (and Libertarian) politicians pander to those who wish the world to be flat, white, and God-fearing.
Wow...just wow. Where should I start......well lets start with the race card. I'm a white, God-fearing republican and I can tell you I believe the world is round and I don't wish the world to be "white".
Second, it's not about taking those opportunities by the throat. You can't guarantee those opportunities are going to preserve our economy or have any major impact on "saving the environment". To use your insanely stupid analogy it's like saying "I'm driving down the road in a bus full of people and they are seeing signs that says DANGER ROAD OUT AHEAD AND IF YOU KEEP GOING YOU ARE GOING TO DRIVE OFF A 100 FOOT CLIFF AND DIE and I tell them don't worry we will be fine.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224
Dawg Talker
|
|
OP
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224 |
Quote:
i feel the important point Krugman makes is being missed here.
Thank you! People are too worried about labels, or that i'm trying to offend them and those like them, that they're not reading. The republicans that the author is talking about are not the people you attend church with YTown, he's talking specifically about the presidential candidates. Why is it that we hold up people to put into the highest office that have no inkling of what a scientific theory is, or how to critically think and evaluate a topic to come to a logical conclusion?
As for the global warming and evolution stuff, we've gone over it and will again ... just not right now in this thread.
There are no sacred cows.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224
Dawg Talker
|
|
OP
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224 |
Quote:
No I get the point, I just find it wrong.
How so?
There are no sacred cows.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248 |
Quote:
Why is it that we hold up people to put into the highest office that have no inkling of what a scientific theory is, or how to critically think and evaluate a topic to come to a logical conclusion?
You seem to think this is restricted to just Republicans though. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,887
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,887 |
Quote:
Quote:
No I get the point, I just find it wrong.
How so?
Because people Perry doesn't believe in what you and Mr. Kruger believe then you say they are wrong and are ignoring data. Perry isn't saying there isn't or hasn't been Global Warming he is saying he isn't convinced that it's Man-Made Global Warming. There is a difference there.
Most Republicans have acknowledged that fact. They aren't ignoring it. They are just stating that the Theory it's man made is just that a Theory.
And there has been Research data that has been manipulated. Mann's Hockey Stick Graph for example.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,288
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,288 |
Quote:
Why is it that we hold up people to put into the highest office that have no inkling of what a scientific theory is, or how to critically think and evaluate a topic to come to a logical conclusion?
There are people in this country who elected into the "highest office" a man who had never previously run anything in his life...a community organizer whose claim to fame in his very limited time in congress was his votes of "present"...on the occasions that he actually WAS present.
Scientific theory? How about a little common sense first.
Last edited by WSU Willie; 08/31/11 12:15 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,013
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,013 |
ok, if my daughter will let me sleep, this will be my last weigh-in tonight. YTOWN... 100% right with you. and i only listed climate change b/c it's in the article. actually, i don't believe it fits well with the overarching theme b/c it is nowhere near a scientific theory status, and economic pros and cons can be made for both over- and under-regulation. this is not true for most scientific issues, IMO. you either take advantage of the knowledge at hand or you don't. FREEAGENT... Quote:
No I get the point, I just find it wrong.
i'm not sure you get the point, as you are focusing on the climate change thing. the broad argument is that science is taking a backseat to ideology...you find this to be wrong? creation being taught in science class, stem cell bans are evidence of it. and though Krugman doesn't go into it, this is what is detrimental to our economy's future.
Quote:
To use your insanely stupid analogy it's like saying "I'm driving down the road in a bus full of people and they are seeing signs that says DANGER ROAD OUT AHEAD AND IF YOU KEEP GOING YOU ARE GOING TO DRIVE OFF A 100 FOOT CLIFF AND DIE and I tell them don't worry we will be fine.
i admittedly don't make good analogies, so you win there...the point is, there is no clear right or wrong on that particular issue. it's about what one values. to pretend otherwise is posturing, and not helpful to the "riders".
Quote:
Wow...just wow. Where should I start......well lets start with the race card. I'm a white, God-fearing republican and I can tell you I believe the world is round and I don't wish the world to be "white".
if you believe that the world is round, then you are able to take current scientific understanding and act accordingly...what i mentioned before as adapt and adopt. and while you may not fit the labels i put on those being pandered to (albeit in a sweeping manner), there are many people like this. if you don't know any, come to one of my extended family gatherings. and let's end this heated topic here...it's not about race per se, so maybe that's my bad for invoking it...my comment was more an off-the-cuff amalgamation of the folks that have turned their backs against intellectual pursuits.
Quote:
Second, it's not about taking those opportunities by the throat. You can't guarantee those opportunities are going to preserve our economy or have any major impact on "saving the environment".
of course there are no guarantees. that's just dumb, and i never said it. i said we will not succeed without embracing scientific advances, not that embracing them guarantees anything but relevance in the global economy moving forward.
DAYZ...
i agree with EXCL it is not just Republicans...it is more the majority of all politicians. in fact, Huntsman is a pro-science guy. that's not to say he knows what he's talking about either, but being pro-science doesn't require full understanding. if i can use another potentially bad analogy, i don't need to understand law to believe in and promote the rule of law.
Browns fans are born with it...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224
Dawg Talker
|
|
OP
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224 |
Quote:
Quote:
Why is it that we hold up people to put into the highest office that have no inkling of what a scientific theory is, or how to critically think and evaluate a topic to come to a logical conclusion?
There are people in this country who elected into the "highest office" a man who had never previously run anything in his life...a community organizer whose claim to fame in his very limited time in congress was his votes of "present"...on the occasions that he actually WAS present.
Scientific theory? How about a little common sense first.
Who said anything about Obama? Don't derail the conversation with a tu quoque argument.
There are no sacred cows.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224
Dawg Talker
|
|
OP
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224 |
Quote:
Quote:
Why is it that we hold up people to put into the highest office that have no inkling of what a scientific theory is, or how to critically think and evaluate a topic to come to a logical conclusion?
You seem to think this is restricted to just Republicans though.
Yes, the majority are running on anti-science, counter-reality, platforms. I cant rag on Democrats because there's only one running, and so far he's been pretty pro-science regardless of his lackluster track record.
There are no sacred cows.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224
Dawg Talker
|
|
OP
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
No I get the point, I just find it wrong.
How so?
Because people Perry doesn't believe in what you and Mr. Kruger believe then you say they are wrong and are ignoring data. Perry isn't saying there isn't or hasn't been Global Warming he is saying he isn't convinced that it's Man-Made Global Warming. There is a difference there.
Most Republicans have acknowledged that fact. They aren't ignoring it. They are just stating that the Theory it's man made is just that a Theory.
And there has been Research data that has been manipulated. Mann's Hockey Stick Graph for example.
Perry is on record saying that "In texas, we teach both creationism and evolution." First, it's wrong. Teaching creationism in public schools has been ruled against by the supreme court twice in the past 50 years. Second, he is a young earth creationist and doesn't believe evolution to be the process by which all current species came to exist on this planet. He is also on the record stating that "Global warming is a hoax and is based on scientists manipulating data. He said he wouldn't devote federal resources to battling the environmental concern." So yeah, he doesn't believe it's occurring regardless of the evidence that states it is. Both of these ignorant statements were made within the past two weeks. And for the record, there is only one republican presidential candidate who has said that both evolution and climate change are fact, Huntsman. I commend him for going against the grain of the party. Everyone else has come out against both i believe.
You're right, it's a scientific theory, not a layman theory which is synonymous with a scientific hypothesis. There's more to this than the hockey stick. And it comes back to increased carbon dioxide, that we can track as man made, in the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas because it absorbs light, and re-transmits it as heat. Do we know exactly the ramifications of this? No, not really. That's where the uncertainty comes in. But we do know that the earth is warmer, glaciers are melting, and the northern ice sheet is decreasing in size each year. By changing the inputs like ocean temp, ice coverage, etc, to global weather, you will impact global weather.
There are no sacred cows.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224
Dawg Talker
|
|
OP
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224 |
Quote:
....and that the sun itself has a much bigger role in our climate than any other factor:
Thats not what the publication says at all. Sure the article you cited does, but the research team from CERN doesn't even come close to saying that. This is an interesting finding, as well as validation for these researchers, but saying what you just said is putting massive words into the researchers mouths and is a severe over-representation of the data. If what you said were true, we'd see wild swings in climate and weather every solar cycle between its 11 year minimums and maximums. Guess what? We don't. Is weather affected? Yes. To the vast degree you are inferring? No. The sun's activity is involved, but our atmosphere is primarily responsible for climate.
There are no sacred cows.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 15,979
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 15,979 |
The Republicans may not always be right, but the democrats are Always Wrong!  Say NO to democrats and SAVE AMERICA! Wake up people! global warming is Nothing!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224
Dawg Talker
|
|
OP
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224 |
Are ... are you being serious?
There are no sacred cows.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,288
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,288 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Why is it that we hold up people to put into the highest office that have no inkling of what a scientific theory is, or how to critically think and evaluate a topic to come to a logical conclusion?
There are people in this country who elected into the "highest office" a man who had never previously run anything in his life...a community organizer whose claim to fame in his very limited time in congress was his votes of "present"...on the occasions that he actually WAS present.
Scientific theory? How about a little common sense first.
Who said anything about Obama? Don't derail the conversation with a tu quoque argument.
You asked a question about why people do what they do/did. I answered that question. If the answer was a thread de-railer, then the question became the tu quoque argument.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224
Dawg Talker
|
|
OP
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224 |
I don't know, but I hope he is. A mentality like that is sad.
There are no sacred cows.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
ah, be careful with Perry. he loves playing 'the game'
he'll say they teach creationism and evolution in TX but will purposefully keep out the phrase "in schools". he knows the left-side of the media will jump all over that so that he can keep his name in the news and come back with the explanation that TX has one of the highest per capita christian households, so that creationism is being taught at home/church.
he'll say things like evolution and global-warming are theories because they are scientific theories. they are NOT 'scientific fact' and even those who study classify it as such (as your article shows). now, they are scientific theories with alot of data backing them up, yes. but, Perry loves to play that line and he'll continue to do so.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224
Dawg Talker
|
|
OP
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224 |
Do you know what a tu quoque is? Essentially its someone saying, "Well you (or someone like you) did it (or something like it) too. Therefore it's ok." It's an appeal to hypocrisy logical fallacy. Which is what you did. You think I'm saying that all republicans are anti-science, so you said democrats have no common sense. Somehow that makes it ok that these people are ruled by bias and willful ignorance?
This conversation had nothing to do with Obama, or the past election. It doesn't have anything to do with present/yay/nay votes while in congress. So why bring it up? Because you don't want to address the actual gist of issue? That's what it seems like ...
There are no sacred cows.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224
Dawg Talker
|
|
OP
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224 |
Here's his full quote: Quote:
“Your mom is asking about evolution. You know, that’s a theory that’s out there; it’s got some gaps in it. In Texas, we teach both creationism and evolution in our public schools — because I figure you’re smart enough to figure out which one is right.”
He told that to a six year old kid. Do you remember what we were taught in first grade science? Animal types, the solar system maybe, and he expects a 6 year old to be able to think critically and objectively, and weigh the options of creationism vs evolution? He couldn't decide which shirt and pants to wear this morning more than likely ...
There are no sacred cows.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,761
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,761 |
Quote:
Seeing how we didn't even have this planet mapped until maybe 400 years ago...a rough map to boot, and weather records aren't more than 100 years or so deep, I don't see how these pinheads can predict anything.
quod erat demonstrandum
Without those "pinheads" you'd probably still be in a cave or already be dead because of a cold....but I guess all those centuries worshipping and praying to god is the reason for longer life expectancy
#gmstrong
"Players come along at different points in time" - Ray Farmer
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
ok, that's a mis-step for him for sure then. i've heard him use that line before but he's left out the school part and then a couple days later come back with the full explanation.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224
Dawg Talker
|
|
OP
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224 |
Is it a misstep if that's what he really believes? I'd rather he be honest about his beliefs than hide behind "the game," as you put it.
There are no sacred cows.
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum Republicans against science
|
|
![[Linked Image from mypsn.eu.playstation.com]](http://mypsn.eu.playstation.com/psn/profile/Letherface.png)
