"The Republicans’ war on science and reason"

[Upchurch]

I do hope that anytime anyone mentions 'Marx' or 'Marxism' as evidence it really ought to be declared as 'Poe'.

ftfy. It appears that these folks do exist and, although self-parodying, I wouldn't call it an actual parody. As incredible as it may seem, I really do think Robert is being sincere.

 

[varwoche]

What claims? I'm still waiting for your evidence of man made global warming. Got any?

I realize this is a waste of time but hope springs eternal and all that. Here are several dozen studies supporting AGW. Enjoy.

And oh yeah, minimally, could you stop claiming there is no evidence for AGW? Is that too much to ask?

 

[elbe]

ftfy. It appears that these folks do exist and, although self-parodying, I wouldn't call it an actual parody. As incredible as it may seem, I really do think Robert is being sincere.

He's like a less verbose BaC.

 

[TimCallahan]

Robert Prey: We've been talking for some time about global warming and seem to have argued it to a stand-still. So, I'd like to ask you: What do you think of the creationist leanings of many of the Republican candidates?

 

[cwalner]

And from all that could you kindly direct me to just one piece of evidence that confirms that global warming is largely or even partially caused by Man. Not opinions, but evidence????? Then maybe you could shut me up. But till then.... I'm still waiting.

OK, lets assume, for the sake of argument, that global warming is not caused by man. We still have to face the fact that if current trends continue, the planet may not be able to continue to support human life in abundance.

Then guess what. the answer is still to use science to find out how we can change the climate to our advantage in order to continue as a species.

In a way we are much better off knowing that the increased rate of climate change is due to human activity. Because if we are capable of causing climate change to our detriment, we are also capable of either stopping it or changing it to our benefit. If the warming is not anthropogenic, then we may find that we don't have the tools to reverse the trend and have no choice but face decreased population and possible extinction.

Accepting that we have the power to change the climate is actually much more hopeful for the future of our species.

 

[Corsair 115]

What claims?

Oh, have you forgotten already? Very well. I shall remind you. Here is my fourth request on the following:

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.

Please provide evidence which substantiates the claims made in the above. The claims are in bold text so you shouldn't miss them.

 

[R.A.F.]

What claims? I'm still waiting for your evidence of man made global warming.Got any?

Why should anyone want to do that when the burden of proof is all yours.

 

[R.A.F.]

And from all that could you kindly direct me to just one piece of evidence that confirms that global warming is largely or even partially caused by Man. Not opinions, but evidence????? Then maybe you could shut me up. But till then.... I'm still waiting.

...and you'll continue to wait...the burden of proof is yours.


Why are you having such difficulty proving yourself correct??

 

[Robert Prey]

Robert Prey: We've been talking for some time about global warming and seem to have argued it to a stand-still. So, I'd like to ask you: What do you think of the creationist leanings of many of the Republican candidates?

I think it's a nice little red herring for folks like you to divert from the subject at hand.

 

[Robert Prey]

I realize this is a waste of time but hope springs eternal and all that. Here are several dozen studies supporting AGW. Enjoy.

And oh yeah, minimally, could you stop claiming there is no evidence for AGW? Is that too much to ask?

OH, but that's the same old trick. Several studies which I am supposed to tred through to find out what your point is. No. You find a single piece of evidence, cite it, and then direct me to it, otherwise you guys just continue to prove the bankruptcy of your argument, which is nothing more than a left wing fantasy.

 

[Robert Prey]

Speaking of QED, Robert demonstrates the OPs point fairly well.

Which isn't to say that every Republican is like Robert. I'm quite sure there are some who understand and accept logic and science with few reservations, realizing that it is a self-correcting system and represents the best understanding we currently have. However, I would guess that, to varying degrees, most Republican voter fall in line with Robert's point of view, which is thoroughly anti-science and anti-reason.

No. They are called RINOs.

 

[Upchurch]

No. They are called RINOs.

Who are called RINOs? Those Republicans who respect science and reason or those Republicans who agree with your perspective?

 

[cwalner]

OH, but that's the same old trick. Several studies which I am supposed to tred through to find out what your point is. No. You find a single piece of evidence, cite it, and then direct me to it, otherwise you guys just continue to prove the bankruptcy of your argument, which is nothing more than a left wing fantasy.

No, it's not a trick, it's called science. A hypothesis as broad as AGW, or natural selection, or quantum mechanics (just to name a few) cannot be proven with a single citation. The scope of the theory requires many, many studies, with lots and lots of data to even be verified. Then it needs even more to advance from hypothesis to theory. The fact that AGW is widely accepted by scientists means that it is not a single piece of evidence, so you are asking for something that does not exist. There is no single piece of evidence that on its own proves or disproves AGW. However, by looking at more and more of the evidence, they all point in the same direction. AGW is real.

 

[SezMe]

I think it's a nice little red herring for folks like you to divert from the subject at hand.

No, it goes directly to the heart of the topic. The thread title is "The Republicans' War on Science and Reason". Now, one way this "war" manifests is denying global warming and we've been (trying to) discuss that. But there are a myriad of other ways this "war" manifests itself including creationism. So when TimCallahan asks you about that subject, he is right on topic.

So, your own red herring out of the way, would you like to respond to him?

 

[SezMe]

Here you rightly decried the use of a specific piece of data to argue a larger point.

Taking a statistic from one cheery picked number of years and extrapolating it to the equal number of future years is fallacious reasoning.

Here you demand a specific piece of data to support a larger point.

And from all that could you kindly direct me to just one piece of evidence that confirms that global warming is largely or even partially caused by Man.

Could you make up your friggin' mind?

 

[AlBell]

Who are called RINOs? Those Republicans who respect science and reason or those Republicans who agree with your perspective?

Democrats hope-hope-hope for a Republican opponent (RINO) who would be OK if the Rep won.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

OH, but that's the same old trick. Several studies which I am supposed to tred through to find out what your point is. No. You find a single piece of evidence, cite it, and then direct me to it, otherwise you guys just continue to prove the bankruptcy of your argument, which is nothing more than a left wing fantasy.

And there are posters here that still expect a serious discussion of the topic ?

 

[jj]

It's pretty clear that Prey is in fact proving the truth of the OP by his determination to misrepresent the entire understanding of Global Warming.

 

[elbe]

Democrats hope-hope-hope for a Republican opponent (RINO) who would be OK if the Rep won.

I'm having a teeny bit of trouble parsing that, but if I'm reading it right wouldn't it be true for everyone? Dems would rather have a Rep closer to their position in office than a fringe candidate, and vice versa.

 

[AlBell]

A reasonable interpretation imo.

Of course 'conservative Democrat' has become an oxymoron in the past few yrs.