"The Republicans’ war on science and reason"

[elbe]

A reasonable interpretation imo.

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

Some say both parties have been moving towards the extremes, but the average voter is probably a lot more moderate (progressive republican, conservative democrat) than either party really wants to cater to. Of course it's interesting that, at least with the Reps, that those who run more moderate end up being called "in name only". What happened to big tent parties?

 

[SezMe]

A reasonable interpretation imo.

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

As just one example of many, I presume you know who Chuck Grassley is.

 

[Upchurch]

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.

What led you to believe that here is ever a single piece of evidence that proves a theory? Theories are the culmination of lots of research. Believing something after seeing only one piece of evidence is called "being gullible".

Real life isn't a campy detective novel. There is no single piece of evidence that proves anything. it just isn't that simple. If you want to understand, you have to work. We can help. This is an educational forum, after all.

 

[TimCallahan]

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

No, you are flat-out wrong. Go back to the beginning of this thread and you will see that, along with the issue of global warming - which nobody, BTW, is abandoning - many of use, myself included, criticized the creationism of most of the GOP candidates, along with their denial of global climate change.

So, does it bother you that most of the Republican candidates, along with being climate science deniers, are also creationists? Please don't dodge the question.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

So, does it bother you that most of the Republican candidates, along with being climate science deniers, are also creationists? Please don't dodge the question.

I'm late to this thread, and avoid global warming discussions like the plague, but...

1) Have you considered they may just be saying they're creationists to get elected? 'Round these parts, believing in evolution is not a far cry from Satan worship.

2) Years ago I watched a debate between Newt Gingrich and a paleontologist over whether T-Rex was a predator or a scavenger. Newt's really bright, and from that debate it would appear he at least accepts an old earth, which is a start!

BTW, just curious - are you Tim Callahan, the author?

 

[Alferd_Packer]

2) Years ago I watched a debate between Newt Gingrich and a paleontologist over whether T-Rex was a predator or a scavenger.

wha?????

that has to exist in an archive somewhere.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

wha?????

that has to exist in an archive somewhere.

I've searched. To no avail.

But searching for "Newt Gingrich Paleontology" gives lots of hits, one of which reminded me that I'm pretty sure it was Jack Horner who he debated.

Anyway, I did come across this from Newt, who hedges his bets just a bit:

Do you view evolution as "just a theory" or as the best explanation for how we came to be?

Evolution certainly seems to express the closest understanding we can now have. But it's changing too. The current tree of life is not anything like a 19th-century Darwinian tree. We're learning a lot about how systems evolve and don't evolve. Cockroaches became successful several hundred million years ago and just stopped evolving.

Where do you come down on teaching intelligent design in schools? Do you think the ruling in the Dover, Pennsylvania, case was appropriate?

I believe evolution should be taught as science, and intelligent design should be taught as philosophy. Francis Collins's new book, The Language of God, is a fine statement that combines a belief in God with a belief in evolution. I do not know enough about the Dover case to critique the judge's decision, but I am generally cautious about unelected judges establishing community standards—that is the duty of elected officials."


Link here: http://discovermagazine.com/2006/oct/discover-interview-newt-gingrich

 

[Corsair 115]

I see Mr. Prey has ignored my fourth request for evidence supporting his claims. The mantle of "crank" is hereby officially bestowed.

 

[TimCallahan]

I'm late to this thread, and avoid global warming discussions like the plague, but...

1) Have you considered they may just be saying they're creationists to get elected? 'Round these parts, believing in evolution is not a far cry from Satan worship.

2) Years ago I watched a debate between Newt Gingrich and a paleontologist over whether T-Rex was a predator or a scavenger. Newt's really bright, and from that debate it would appear he at least accepts an old earth, which is a start!

BTW, just curious - are you Tim Callahan, the author?

Of course, these people are running for national office. So they should be a bit lass parochial and a it more cosmopolitan.

Yes, I am the author of Secret Origins of the Bible and a regular contirbutor to Skeptic Magazine.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

Yes, I am the author of Secret Origins of the Bible and a regular contirbutor to Skeptic Magazine.

Cool.

"Bible Prophecy - Failure or Fulfillment" is on my bookshelf!

 

[TimCallahan]

Cool.

"Bible Prophecy - Failure or Fulfillment" is on my bookshelf!

Glad you liked it!

 

[Robert Prey]

No, you are flat-out wrong. Go back to the beginning of this thread and you will see that, along with the issue of global warming - which nobody, BTW, is abandoning - many of use, myself included, criticized the creationism of most of the GOP candidates, along with their denial of global climate change.

So, does it bother you that most of the Republican candidates, along with being climate science deniers, are also creationists? Please don't dodge the question.

I don't know how humans were created and neither do you, If by evolution, it doesn't bother me at all as to whether a candidate believes it or not.

 

[jj]

I don't know how humans were created and neither do you,

You're partially right, I certainly don't know they were created, because they EVOLVED, which is not 'creation' in the common sense of the word. It is not very nice of you to try to slide your counterfactual "created" through there in spite of all the evidence.

If by evolution, it doesn't bother me at all as to whether a candidate believes it or not.

Why do you use all these rhetorical FX all the time, anyhow. You claim, against the host of evidence, that there is no global warming. Now prove it or admit you have no idea. You claim, again against the host of evidence as quoted in this post, that humans were created. Again, prove it or admit you have no evidence.

You're the one making claims against the mainstream, the proof is entirely on your doorstep, and every time you dodge it, you look once again like you're simply being an antiscientific agitator.

 

[Robert Prey]

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

Originally Posted by Robert Prey View Post
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.

The recent disclosure of hacked e-mails from global warming biased "scientists" show further evidence that the entire movement is in fact an attempt to extract wealth from the productive, to the benefit of the non-productive -- 19th century spread the wealth "Marxism"

"One marked difference from the original 2009 release is that the person or persons responsible has included a message headed "background and context" which, for the first time, gives an insight into their motivations. Following some bullet-pointed quotes such as "Over 2.5 billion people live on less than $2 a day" and, "Nations must invest $37 trillion in energy technologies by 2030 to stabilise greenhouse gas emissions at sustainable levels," the message states:"

From The Guardian, Nov. 22, 2011

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/nov/22/fresh-hacked-climate-science-emails

 

[Robert Prey]

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.

Sorry, but like most people, I do not dwell on the fact that eventually the human species may become extinct. What I do dwell on is where I will get the next dollar in order to survive the Obama depression (food, clothing shelter and gas and retirement ) which your cacamamy save the planet ideas will only exacerbate.

 

[jj]

The recent disclosure of hacked e-mails from global warming biased "scientists" show further evidence that the entire movement is in fact an attempt to extract wealth from the productive, to the benefit of the non-productive -- 19th century spread the wealth "Marxism"

Please produce the emails that support your allegation. Just as the first "climategate" proved nothing except that scientists can get very weary of dealing with provocation and lies, the few mails leaked so far from the second criminal act of these hackers shows more of the same.

The fact that scientists everywhere are sick and tired of the fraudulent fakery around the warming denialists, around the evolution denialists,etc, shows only that they are sick of dishonest attacks on science.

 

[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?

If you want a dialogue, then cite your single best piece of evidence for whatever your point is. I don't have the space or the time to write an entire book in this small space. Meanwhile, for your edification, check out

Dr. Roy Spencer

"The evidence continues to mount that the IPCC models are too sensitive, and therefore produce too much global warming. If climate sensitivity is indeed considerably less than the IPCC claims it to be, then increasing CO2 alone can not explain recent global warming. The evidence presented here suggests that most of that warming might well have been caused by cloud changes associated with a natural mode of climate variability: the Pacific Decadal Oscillation."

From:
Global Warming as a Natural Response to Cloud Changes Associated with the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO)

by Roy W. Spencer, Ph.D.

October 20, 2008 (updated December 29, 2008)

http://www.drroyspencer.com/research-articles/global-warming-as-a-natural-response/

 

[Robert Prey]

Get ready to watch Robert move the goal posts.

"Direct observations find that CO2 is rising sharply due to human activity. Satellite and surface measurements find less energy is escaping to space at CO2 absorption wavelengths. Ocean and surface temperature measurements find the planet continues to accumulate heat. This gives a line of empirical evidence that human CO2 emissions are causing global warming."

That is an assertion un-supported by anything in the blogger's post. CO2 is rising. We know that. The earth is warming (slightly) ever since the last Ice Age, but not recently. But the empirical evidence that human CO2 emissions are causing global warming simply isn't there. I suggest you all open your collective minds to a natural explanation:

"The evidence continues to mount that the IPCC models are too sensitive, and therefore produce too much global warming. If climate sensitivity is indeed considerably less than the IPCC claims it to be, then increasing CO2 alone can not explain recent global warming. The evidence presented here suggests that most of that warming might well have been caused by cloud changes associated with a natural mode of climate variability: the Pacific Decadal Oscillation."

From:
Global Warming as a Natural Response to Cloud Changes Associated with the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO)

by Roy W. Spencer, Ph.D.

October 20, 2008 (updated December 29, 2008)

http://www.drroyspencer.com/research-articles/global-warming-as-a-natural-response/

 

[Fast Eddie B]

...I do not dwell on the fact that eventually the human species may will become extinct.

Fixed that for ya!

 

[varwoche]

If you want a dialogue, then cite your single best piece of evidence for whatever your point is. I don't have the space or the time to write an entire book in this small space.

That's a discussion more suited for the science section. Here I'm just trying to make a meta point which doesn't require you to delve into the list of studies I linked to; all you need to do is cursorily examine the list and determine that one or more are actual studies conducted by actual scientists.

And then, armed with your new-found knowledge, you won't make patently idiotic statements that there is no evidence supporting AGW. (As if you hadn't already been provided evidence before I chimed in. )