• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

GOP's contempt for science hits rock bottom

bit_pattern

Unregistered
bit_pattern
Joined
Apr 22, 2010
Messages
7,406
Even McCain has jumped ship and joined the ranks of anti-science woo-mongers who are now the mainstream of the entire party

Vale, conservative reason :(

McCain Has Become A Climate Conspiracy Theorist

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), once a champion of strong action to fight global warming pollution, has joined the rest of the Republican Senate caucus in questioning the overwhelming science. From 2003 to 2007, McCain pressed for Congress to pass comprehensive cap-and-trade legislation to ratchet down greenhouse gas pollution, because, he said, global warming is “such a threat to our planet and our future and our children.” Now, like every other GOP candidate for the U.S. Senate this year, he opposes the climate policy he once supported. In a little-noted appearance stumping for Senate candidate (and fellow denier) Kelly Ayotte in Nashua, NH, this March, McCain gave credence to the outlandish Climategate smear campaign against climate science:

I think it’s an inexact science, and there has been more and more questioning about some of the conclusions that were reached concerning climate change. And I believe that everybody in the world deserves correct answers whether the scientific conclusions were flawed by outside influences. There’s great questions about it that need to be resolved.​
Click to expand...
 
Yeah, the GOP's contempt for science is so deeply institutionalized that it's hard for something like this to really shock or offend very much.
 
theprestige said:
Why doesn't the quoted passage support the thread title or OP's commentary?
Click to expand...
It seems to be a reading copmprehension problem on your part. McCain was one of the few GOPers willing to address AGW as a scientific fact. Now he has chugged a Mass of the Koolaid that was brewed up after the leak of the climate scientists' e-mails. I am so glad I didn't vote for that nitwit.
 
Thanks for that Sgt. I just facepalmed when I read the reply and bit my tongue, any response I would have made would have raised the ire of the mods.
 
Wait. Every GOP candidate for senate this year has taken an anti-science position?

I understand that for some it's probably just pandering to the base to get elected, but that doesn't make me feel any better.
 
Upchurch said:
Wait. Every GOP candidate for senate this year has taken an anti-science position?

I understand that for some it's probably just pandering to the base to get elected, but that doesn't make me feel any better.
Click to expand...

It shouldn´t, because it means that the base got drunk on the "climate hoax" Kool-Aid.

Congratulations, folks, your country is officially going down the toilet.
 
Upchurch said:
Wait. Every GOP candidate for senate this year has taken an anti-science position?

I understand that for some it's probably just pandering to the base to get elected, but that doesn't make me feel any better.
Click to expand...

It makes me feel queasy and kind of scared for America's future. I mean, ****, the Dems aren't going to be in power forever :covereyes:
 
leftysergeant said:
It seems to be a reading copmprehension problem on your part. McCain was one of the few GOPers willing to address AGW as a scientific fact. Now he has chugged a Mass of the Koolaid that was brewed up after the leak of the climate scientists' e-mails. I am so glad I didn't vote for that nitwit.
Click to expand...

Hint: Destroying the economy for little to no gain is not "scientific fact". That's scientists involving themselves in economic predictions, demonstrated to be unmitigated failure. The cure would be far worse than the disease.
 
Beerina said:
Hint: Destroying the economy for little to no gain is not "scientific fact". That's scientists involving themselves in economic predictions, demonstrated to be unmitigated failure.
Click to expand...
Okay. What does that have to do with the validity of scientific conclusions?

FWIW, the reverse is also true. Politicians and economists involving themselves in science is also an unmitigated failure.

Beerina said:
The cure would be far worse than the disease.
Click to expand...
That depends on what you are trying to cure.
 
Ushering in a clean tech revolution would destroy the economy?! Bwhahaha, yeah, good one. And your current fossil fuel model is doing so well atm too! :rolleyes:

But, I jest, I guess it's a good thing that scientist have sweet f.a to do with policy approaches beyond proscribing a safe level of CO2 concentration then! We have economists to deal with that side of things.
 
Last edited:
Upchurch said:
Okay. What does that have to do with the validity of scientific conclusions?

FWIW, the reverse is also true. Politicians and economists involving themselves in science is also an unmitigated failure.


That depends on what you are trying to cure.
Click to expand...

I'm sure it's just like Video Games.
 
Upchurch said:
Beerina said:
Hint: Destroying the economy for little to no gain is not "scientific fact". That's scientists involving themselves in economic predictions, demonstrated to be unmitigated failure.
Click to expand...
Okay. What does that have to do with the validity of scientific conclusions?
Click to expand...

The conclusion is that the problem isn't that much of a problem.

Such-and-such is happening and therefore (huge, unwarranted leap) massive government intervention is warranted.

The effect on humanity of global warming is an economic issue -- how will humanity handle it? What are the economic downsides it would lead to?

These are the massive failures the environmentalists do not understand.



FWIW, the reverse is also true. Politicians and economists involving themselves in science is also an unmitigated failure.
Click to expand...

I thought politicians spending money on science was a good thing. :confused:
 
bit_pattern said:
Ushering in a clean tech revolution would destroy the economy?! Bwhahaha, yeah, good one. And your current fossil fuel model is doing so well atm too! :rolleyes:

But, I jest, I guess it's a good thing that scientist have sweet f.a to do with policy approaches beyond proscribing a safe level of CO2 concentration then! We have economists to deal with that side of things.
Click to expand...


The articles, reports, analyses and commentaries included here generally reflect and build on the following principles:

  • Risk and uncertainty are fundamental to the climate problem; the magnitude and the irreversibility of uncertain, but possible, worst-case climate impacts dominate the analysis of policy options.
  • Ethics and equity are inseparable from economic analysis; there are deep questions of fairness between rich and poor today, and between present and future generations, at stake in the debate.
  • The severity of the problem and the scope of the required response are so great that marginal analysis of small changes and modest adjustments of market-based instruments are inadequate to the task of understanding and protecting the earth’s climate.
Click to expand...

What was the term you used? "Bwahahaha" or something like that?


Let's rephrase the bullet points.

Bullet 1:
  • We intend to use fear and uncertainty and gloom and doom and the sky is falling to jam down political changes.

Nothing scary or unusual (sadly) about that.


Bullet 2:
  • Same old BS about the fraudulent red herring of "inequality" of outcomes. This is just class warfare with a new label, with the same, tired, disproven claims and solutions. It also has nothing to do with the subject.
Proof it's a red herring: "Income inequality" is an irrelevant measurement. You actually want to measure average wealth and health and longevity of people. After all, if extreme inequality also mapped to the highest average health for the "common man", wouldn't that be the desired situation? "Oh noes! Big inequality!" is thus just the fraud of class warfare, transparently.



Bullet 3:
  • This is where the core of the misunderstanding takes place. Something is happening, then, with no understanding whatsoever, claims are made that massive economic changes must be made, presumably with beknighted genius to care for bullet 2 while we're at it. :rolleyes:



This simple list screams nothing but leftist, quasi-Marxist desires on controlling the economy. If I were a climate scientist, I'd run screaming from it. It does nothing but provide more evidence that the far left attached itself to environmentalism because it provides rationale for massive control of the economy, something that freedom-based capitalism demonstrated socialism was terrible at, leading to it getting rejected at the polls more and more, and correctly so.



If you disagree, I encourage you to shout loudly and proudly as the election approaches.
 
Last edited:
Beerina said:
If you disagree, I encourage you to shout loudly and proudly as the election approaches.
Click to expand...

Do you run around with a bell screeching 'UNCLEAN. UNCLEAN!' whenever you come across something not ideologically pure enough for you? :p
 
I take issue with the term "rock bottom" used in the thread title. It's bottomless.
 
^^ Touche...

Phrost said:
Just going to leave this here:

Click to expand...


Nah, not buying it, I'm sure the man has a point but really, I couldn't give tupenny***** about overall science funding (at least not in this context) or the fact that the GOP pour cash into things like Star Wars (it science spending!) at a rate higher than democrats, I'm concerned with the fact that we have a 10-20 year window to get our **** together and seriously reduce CO2 emissions if we want to have the slightest chance of avoiding a catastrophic 3-4 degree C temperature rise. And the fact that the GOP Senate doesn't even believe there is a problem to be solved is a serious risk to everybody on the planet.
 
Last edited:
Beerina said:
Hint: Destroying the economy for little to no gain is not "scientific fact". That's scientists involving themselves in economic predictions, demonstrated to be unmitigated failure. The cure would be far worse than the disease.
Click to expand...

You need to upgrade to a better google. Every link you post is to that same site.
 
Dancing David said:
You mean the contempt for science could go deeper? :D
Click to expand...

Deeper than saying that questions about scientific accuracy have been raised, and should be answered?

As low as this may seem to some people, yeah, I think contempt for science could go a lot deeper. I mean, it's not like McCain said "magnets, how do they work?"
 
theprestige said:
Deeper than saying that questions about scientific accuracy have been raised, and should be answered?

As low as this may seem to some people, yeah, I think contempt for science could go a lot deeper. I mean, it's not like McCain said "magnets, how do they work?"
Click to expand...

It's not like the old coot offered any evidence that the science is questionable, either. All he did was refer to some bogus "evidence" concocted by a sleazeball hacker.
 
"Evidence" that HAS been answered, not once, not twice, but THREE TIMES already. The only "questions" that remain are those being raised by politically motivated flogs like John McCain and the GOP whose goals are to generate doubt in the minds of the masses.
 
thaiboxerken said:
You should throw your garbage in the trash can, not leave it out for everyone to suffer.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, I thought Neil Tyson was a world-renowned physicist and champion for Science in general.

You consider his point of view trash? Why, because it conflicts with yours?
 
Phrost said:
I'm sorry, I thought Neil Tyson was a world-renowned physicist and champion for Science in general.

You consider his point of view trash? Why, because it conflicts with yours?
Click to expand...
As a political scientist, Tyson makes a wonderful astronomer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom