"The Republicans’ war on science and reason"

Robert Prey said:
Democracy is mob rule. That is why our Founders gave us a Republic. Another illustrative definition of "Democracy" is three wolves and a sheep deciding by majority vote as to what they shall eat for dinner.
Click to expand...

A democratic republic of course.
 
TimCallahan said:
Had space exploration been left to the private sector, it simply wouldn't have happened. Consider this: There was nothing stopping private space exploration. So, why didn't it happen?
Click to expand...

Perhaps because there was no reason for any group of investors to put up money fora dumb project that promised to reap no benefit in terms of profit.
 
Robert Prey said:
Not that evidence would convince you, but PolitiFact disagrees with you (and so do the overwhelming majority of climate scientists).

Science deals with a search for truth. It does not equate a majority view of a political selection of any group to define truth.
Click to expand...
Robert, you screwed up the quoting in this post. You attributed part of Bri's post to yourself, thereby making you look halfway sane. If you ask a mod to fix it, I'm sure they would be happy to help.
 
Corsair 115 said:
Your awareness is wrong. See the following PDF file: The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus.

(Credit to lomiller for the link, mentioned in in this post which appears in the thread entitled Why is there such a massive disconnect?)
Click to expand...

The notion of "consensus" comes from the Intergovernmental Panel which is just a group of political hacks, 80 percent of whom are not even climate scientists. The whole movement is rooted in 19th century spread the wealth Marxism.
 
Corsair 115 said:
Your awareness is wrong. See the following PDF file: The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus.

(Credit to lomiller for the link, mentioned in in this post which appears in the thread entitled Why is there such a massive disconnect?)
Click to expand...

"When meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age.

Telltale signs are everywhere —from the unexpected persistence and thickness of pack ice in the waters around Iceland to the southward migration of a warmth-loving creature like the armadillo from the Midwest.Since the 1940s the mean global temperature has dropped about 2.7° F. Although that figure is at best an estimate, it is supported by other convincing data. "

Time Mag, 1974




http://neoconexpress.blogspot.com/2010/12/time-like-newsweek-predicted-coming-ice.html


Brrrrrrrr!!!!
 
SezMe said:
Time magazine. Your unrivaled source for peer reviewed science.
Click to expand...


Indeed. It's humorous, actually, since Mr. Prey offers up Time magazine while the link I offered by way of lomiller was an examination of the actual published peer-reviewed studies from the time period in question. The scientific reality did not match the media's sensationalized reality.

But then, Mr. Prey's opposition to global warming is clearly rooted not in facts but in ideology and politics, as this quote makes clear (emphasis added):

Robert Prey said:
The notion of "consensus" comes from the Intergovernmental Panel which is just a group of political hacks, 80 percent of whom are not even climate scientists. The whole movement is rooted in 19th century spread the wealth Marxism.
Click to expand...


When someone has disappeared that far down the political ideology hole, there is perhaps little use in continuing the conversation. For Mr. Prey, it seems the equation is: politics > proof; ideology > evidence.
 
Last edited:
Corsair 115 said:
Indeed. It's humorous, actually, since Mr. Prey offers up Time magazine while the link I offered by way of lomiller was an examination of the actual published peer-reviewed studies from the time period in question. The scientific reality did not match the media's sensationalized reality.

But then, Mr. Prey's opposition to global warming is clearly rooted not in facts but in ideology and politics, as this quote makes clear (emphasis added):




When someone has disappeared that far down the political ideology hole, there is perhaps little use in continuing the conversation. For Mr. Prey, it seems the equation is: politics > proof; ideology > evidence.
Click to expand...

Oh, you know very well that Time merely reflected the "consensus" of what they considered the scientific community, as evidenced by this:

1972 and 1974 National Science Board

"The National Science Board's Patterns and Perspectives in Environmental Science report of 1972 discussed the cyclical behavior of climate, and the understanding at the time that the planet was entering a phase of cooling after a warm period. "Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end, to be followed by a long period of considerably colder temperatures leading into the next glacial age some 20,000 years from now."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling
 
Robert Prey said:
And so, your point is?
Click to expand...
What do you hope to gain by simply ignoring the specific evidence people are posting here? Surely you must know that no one else is convinced by your pretending no one has clearly shown that you are wrong.

You said my post lacked specific examples and citations:
Robert said:
Your post lacks specificity as well as any examples.
Click to expand...
So I spelled out the specific examples for you that you neglected to notice in the link I posted answering your charge. Most everything on that list is a specific example of Republican attempts to quash real scientific evidence replacing valid conclusions with lies that further the Repub political causes.
 
Robert Prey said:
Oh, you know very well that Time merely reflected the "consensus" of what they considered the scientific community, as evidenced by this:

1972 and 1974 National Science Board

"The National Science Board's Patterns and Perspectives in Environmental Science report of 1972 discussed the cyclical behavior of climate, and the understanding at the time that the planet was entering a phase of cooling after a warm period. "Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end, to be followed by a long period of considerably colder temperatures leading into the next glacial age some 20,000 years from now."
Click to expand...
You emphasized the wrong part. It's the part that I highlighted which is most relevant here. The climate change science has shown to be factual and anthropogenic is concerned with, say, the next 200 years, not the next 20,000. You're off by a factor of 100.
 
Robert Prey said:
Oh, you know very well that Time merely reflected the "consensus" of what they considered the scientific community, as evidenced by this:

1972 and 1974 National Science Board

"The National Science Board's Patterns and Perspectives in Environmental Science report of 1972 discussed the cyclical behavior of climate, and the understanding at the time that the planet was entering a phase of cooling after a warm period. "Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end, to be followed by a long period of considerably colder temperatures leading into the next glacial age some 20,000 years from now."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling
Click to expand...
You're citing some prediction from 40 years ago? What is that supposed to prove? In case you don't get it, the fact that the scientific consensus changes as new better more extensive evidence accumulates is a good thing, not a bad thing. Scientific knowledge grows, it doesn't randomly vacillate.

And, as SezMe noted, you are looking at the wrong timeframe. We know that we are in an interglacial period. That doesn't change the global warming problem we are facing.
 
Last edited:
Robert Prey said:
I am also aware of the climate "experts" of the early 1970s warning that current trends forecast another Ice Age. What does that tell you about "experts"?
Click to expand...

Not as much as it tells us how willing you will believe anything you hear without rearguard to the facts. The vast majority of climate experts back in the 70’s were predicting CO2 induced warming.

A few experts were pointing out that we should be in a log term cooling trend were it not for human activity. A few others were concerned with solar dimming; a phenomenon where human produced aerosols have cut the amount of sunlight the earth receives significantly. Both of these proved to be perfectly accurate but the cooling generated is simply swamped by greenhouse warming.
 
Robert Prey said:
1972 and 1974 National Science Board

"The National Science Board's Patterns and Perspectives in Environmental Science report of 1972 discussed the cyclical behavior of climate, and the understanding at the time that the planet was entering a phase of cooling after a warm period. "Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end, to be followed by a long period of considerably colder temperatures leading into the next glacial age some 20,000 years from now."
Click to expand...

The fact that changes in the Earth’s orbit should be causing the earth to be in a cooling trend is is not in depute so there is no “error” here other than your error in understanding.
 
lomiller said:
The fact that changes in the Earth’s orbit should be causing the earth to be in a cooling trend is is not in depute so there is no “error” here other than your error in understanding.
Click to expand...

Changes in the earth's orbit? How about changes in the Sun? Changes in the ocean currents? Changes in volcanic activity? Changes, Changes, Changes, all natural?? Change as the everlasting rule of climate.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
What do you hope to gain by simply ignoring the specific evidence people are posting here? Surely you must know that no one else is convinced by your pretending no one has clearly shown that you are wrong.

You said my post lacked specific examples and citations:So I spelled out the specific examples for you that you neglected to notice in the link I posted answering your charge. Most everything on that list is a specific example of Republican attempts to quash real scientific evidence replacing valid conclusions with lies that further the Repub political causes.
Click to expand...

Complex questions don't work well in this small space. So I merely chose the most ridiculous of your anti-science contentions.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom