Republicans Against Science!

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

I think this time would be great a serious Independent to jump in, would be nice if this election were the first time someone other than the R or D won.

Who are you, and what have you done with Bubblehead?

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

Originally Posted by August

I keep telling you guys not to expect an unbiased or fair report about the Republicans from the NYT. You might as well try to get a straight story from the Democrat party propaganda ministry. Ain't gonna happen.

You could also write like this: "...not to expect an unbiased or fair report about the Democrats from the Fox News Channel. You might as well try to get a straight story from the Republican party propaganda ministry. Ain't gonna happen."

Am I correct?

[August]

Originally Posted by kraznyi_oktjabr

You could also write like this: "...not to expect an unbiased or fair report about the Democrats from the Fox News Channel. You might as well try to get a straight story from the Republican party propaganda ministry. Ain't gonna happen."

Am I correct?

Sure but how often is Fox quoted by these self appointed forum news hawks vs the NYT?

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

Originally Posted by August

Sure but how often is Fox quoted by these self appointed forum news hawks vs the NYT?

Good point. I very rarely see finnish news media to quote Fox News. I personally believe that New York Times have better reputation as news source in international markets.

[Tchocky]

Or we could all calm down and remember that this is an opinion piece.


By the way, please to be ignoring Mr Perry's copious contributions from the oil & gas industry. Also ignore Sen. Inhofe's similar contributions.

Regarding his guff about evolution being "just" a theory that has lots of flaws, blech, talk to a biologist.
I seriously don't understand how a politician can go off railing against established scientific method and this makes him more popular.

It's different when they bang on about economics and job creation and whatnot, there the empirical evidence can be cut many ways, and it's also part of an elected representative's job to sift and sort that evidence to produce meaningful policy (TWO DOLLAR GAS TOMORROW SOMEHOW! VOTE BACHMANN!). But messing around with evolutionary biology isn't even on Perry's playing field.

gah, makes me mad.

[joegrundman]

it doesn't matter whether perry believes or disbelieves in evolution and the scientific method. all that matters for him is what washes with the voters, and drives them into his arms.

he reckons spouting this horse manure is what rubs God-Fearing Americans the right way.

Even if he gets elected, what difference does it make? It hardly has a direct bearing on his ability to govern.

And since the high-tech sector (inc. bio-tech) is hugely important to the US economy, even highly anti-evolution politician is highly unlikely once in power to actually do anything that may jeopardize america's future biological scientific capability. This is because to get into power, one is not typically a fool, and first and foremost one is a politician. In this case it is someone who understands that talking out of his hat is the best way to get Americans to vote for him.

However climate change is a different matter, since public skepticism will likely be linked to reduced funding for related programs.

[Penguin]

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

This is not ALL Republicans!!! Somehow the religious nuts have zoomed to the front, guess we can thank the ignorant religious types in the party.Huntsman is not even a real Republican or Conservative, would hate to see him even close to the oval office, just a fraud.

Ron Paul should be the face but he is just too sane and intelligent of a candidate it seems.

I agree that these are of course not all Republicans, but unfortunately they represent the top candidates. I miss a sane person like McCain among them.
It looks like they want to fish among he religious right, will be interesting to see if the calculation is right for them.
Why not try to fish off some Obama voters by endorsing a candidate who comes more from the center? Or would this put too many Republican voters stay away from the elections?

I disagree on many points with Ron Paul, on some he has interesting opinions, on some I agree.
Nevertheless I appreciate that he tries to think out of the bounds of partisan politics and has his own opinion. He would really make an interesting candidate. The present "top tier" candidates? Nothing really distinguishable among them, like they all come from the same factory.

Originally Posted by Tchocky

I seriously don't understand how a politician can go off railing against established scientific method and this makes him more popular.

Me neither. Sadly this is nothing complete new...

I have a great many questions about it. It is a theory, it is a scientific theory only. And in recent years it has been challenged in the world of science and is not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was. I think that recent discoveries down through the years have pointed up great flaws in it.

(Ronald Reagan about evolution at a speech in front of 10000 born-again christians, August 23, 1980)

[Osmium Steele]

Originally Posted by kraznyi_oktjabr

Explain please.

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.

SOURCE

[Tchocky]

Friendly unbiased source, I see.

He is the author of numerous fantastically entertaining books including 365 Ways to Drive a Liberal Crazy, Welcome To Obamaland: I've Seen Your Future And It Doesn't Work, How To Be Right

Bloody hell.


There's the publication link - http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture10343.html

The link that I had to go furrowing around for because your source doesn't link to the original material anywhere, preferring to quote from op-ed pieces and Blogspot. He clearly has an agenda to push, the face that it's ovbious doesn't exactly excuse him.

I'm not bothered looking for an educated piece of writing (that I can comprehend) on this at the moment.

[MH]

Republicans as much as they try downplay evolution need to evolve themselves or will go extinct.

I agree with Penguin here that they need to look more toward center and left for votes by quiting on those ridiculous issues.

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

Originally Posted by Osmium Steele

SOURCE

I'm not sure did you notice but you linked to blog. Nice side of blog is that writer of it is practically free from burden of proof. Can you provide anything else but this blog post?

Bloody hell.

So its a piece of rubbish then.

I'm not bothered looking for an educated piece of writing (that I can comprehend) on this at the moment.

I suppose you could go to CERN website, their CLOUD experiments are cunningly hidden under a big title about paricles involved in cloud formation and the effects of cosmic rays on them.
It may perhaps be ever so slightly more credible than a Osmiums journalist who writes conspiracy theories and has no background in science at all

[Gerald]

Originally Posted by Osmium Steele

The first part of Perry's statement is laughable and shows a remarkable lack of scientific knowledge.

The second part is dead on accurate.

You may want to rethink posting anything from the NY Times, let alone an article by the fellow who seriously advocated faking an alien invasion to stimulate the US economy.

Do you really think it works that way, the link comes from a respected columnist and provides a basis for a comment about what the title of the topic is based on, and what should I think about for? You should consider the facts before you make your move as irrelevant.

[NeonSamurai]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

I suppose you could go to CERN website, their CLOUD experiments are cunningly hidden under a big title about paricles involved in cloud formation and the effects of cosmic rays on them.
It may perhaps be ever so slightly more credible than a Osmiums journalist who writes conspiracy theories and has no background in science at all

That 'article' from that 'journalist' gave me a headache. I don't even know where to begin with all that is wrong with that article.

First off that research has nothing to do with man made global warming. It is about cosmic radiation affecting the clouds in the sky, and how the magnetic field of the sun (and also the earth) affect cosmic radiation. Also the author(s) is wrong, more clouds can actually increase the temperature over the short term (they can trap heat too), depending on the type of clouds and other factors.

Though this can certainly affect the temperature of the planet, as can surprise surprise... the sun itself, we already knew this. It has nothing directly to do with the main theories of man made global warming, as those are based on the mean temperature of the earth increasing for a number of different reasons, including carbon dioxide (one of the so called greenhouse gasses) trapping radiant heat in the atmosphere, that are being caused by the activities of man.

I will not comment on the rest of it, as it is just pure rhetoric, hyperbole, and the usual nonsense.


If you want to understand science, read the original scientific papers, or comments by other scientists (in that field). Stop taking scientific information from purely journalistic sources as they are ALWAYS wrong. Time and time again they misunderstand, misquote, and misrepresent it. Doesn't matter which journalistic source it is (actual scientific journals written by scientists in that field would be the exception).

That 'article' from that 'journalist' gave me a headache.

Just imagine how your head would feel if you read one of his books.