Republicans Against Science!

Osmium Steele · 08-30-11, 12:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vendor

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.

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.

Bubblehead1980 · 08-30-11, 12:59 PM

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.

Having said that, Obama is just as nutty as them.Obama's well documented partnership with various far left radicals over the years says it all in addition to his blind left wing policies which have done nothing but fail for going on 3 years now.

Sadly next election will prob be between a hick nut like Perry or a disgusting left winger like obama.Think I'll just write in Paul or vote for someone else.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.

Takeda Shingen · 08-30-11, 01:29 PM

Quote:

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 · 08-30-11, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Osmium Steele

The second part is dead on accurate.

Explain please.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Osmium Steele

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.

Could you provide a link to article?

Sailor Steve · 08-30-11, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kraznyi_oktjabr

Could you provide a link to article?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_926995.html

Note that Krugman is not seriously advocating that, but he is seriously advocating the need for government to do something to get people to let them raise taxes even more, which in my book makes him the enemy of every free person.

August · 08-30-11, 01:29 PM

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.

kraznyi_oktjabr · 08-30-11, 01:34 PM

Quote:

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 · 08-30-11, 01:41 PM

Quote:

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 · 08-30-11, 01:49 PM

Quote:

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 · 08-30-11, 02:00 PM

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 · 08-30-11, 02:24 PM

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 · 08-30-11, 02:41 PM

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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...

Quote:

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)

gimpy117 · 08-31-11, 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tchocky

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.

he gets points from the extreme right and fundamentalist Christians that refuse to believe, or even tolerate the idea of evolution. He's trying to win that base's vote. I am almost 100% positive he's not that dumb or super religious like that...he's just willing to play that game for the vote, which is sad

Osmium Steele · 08-30-11, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kraznyi_oktjabr

Explain please.

Quote:

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 · 08-30-11, 03:02 PM

Friendly unbiased source, I see.

Quote:

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.

08-30-11, 01:29 PM	#6
August Wayfaring Stranger Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Massachusetts Posts: 23,216 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	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. __________________ Flanked by life and the funeral pyre. Putting on a show for you to see.

08-30-11, 02:00 PM	#10
Tchocky Navy Seal Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 5,874 Downloads: 6 Uploads: 0	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. __________________ [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

08-30-11, 02:24 PM	#11
joegrundman Ocean Warrior Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 2,689 Downloads: 34 Uploads: 0	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. __________________ "Enemy submarines are to be called U-Boats. The term submarine is to be reserved for Allied under water vessels. U-Boats are those dastardly villains who sink our ships, while submarines are those gallant and noble craft which sink theirs." Winston Churchill Last edited by joegrundman; 08-30-11 at 03:02 PM.

08-30-11, 12:59 PM	#2
Bubblehead1980 Navy Seal Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Florida USA Posts: 7,121 Downloads: 605 Uploads: 44	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. Having said that, Obama is just as nutty as them.Obama's well documented partnership with various far left radicals over the years says it all in addition to his blind left wing policies which have done nothing but fail for going on 3 years now. Sadly next election will prob be between a hick nut like Perry or a disgusting left winger like obama.Think I'll just write in Paul or vote for someone else.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.