Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 16
Thanks Tree13Thanks

Thread: Five Ways Liberals Ignore Science

  1. #1
    B04
    B04 is offline
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    15,199
    Thanks
    6274

    From
    gone

    Five Ways Liberals Ignore Science

    or some conservatives, harmonizing issues of faith and science can be tricky. What excuse do Democrats have?

    How do we deal with the false perception that liberals are more inclined to trust science than conservatives? Or, how do we approach the media’s fondness for focusing on the unscientific views of some conservatives but ignoring the irrational—and oftentimes, more consequential—beliefs of their fellow liberals?

    It’s no big deal for us to ask Republican evolution skeptics to raise their hands or force a bogus Senate vote to try and shame Republicans, yet no reporter would ever think to ask a pro-choice politician if they believe life begins at conception.
    Though outing a GOP candidate as a skeptic of science may confirm the secular liberal’s own sense of intellectual superiority, it usually has nothing to do with policy. Then again, if you walk around believing that pesticides are killing your children or that fracking will ignite your drinking water or if you hyperventilate about the threat of the ocean consuming your city, you have a viewpoint that not only conflicts with science but undermines progress. So how do we approach matters that have been settled among scientists but are not widely accepted by liberals?

    Vaccines:
    There is little proof that conservatives are any less inclined to vaccinate their children than anyone else. If we’re interested in politicizing the controversy, though, there is a good case to be made for the opposite.
    The communities where anti-vaxxers cluster are also among the most liberal. Marin County, San Francsico County and Alameda County all voted overwhelmingly for Obama in 2008. In Marin, 78 percent of the vote went to Obama. In San Francisco, it was 84 percent. And in Alameda, it was 79 percent. That’s all higher than what Obama got in his own home county of Cook County, Illinois.

    Global Warming Alarmism:
    The perception that one political group is less science-savvy than another is predominately driven by the unwillingness of many conservatives to accept global-warming alarmism and the policies purportedly meant to mitigate it. But when it comes to climate change, volumes could be written about the ill-conceived, unscientific, over-the-top predictions made by activists and politicians.
    We could start with our own Malthusian Science Czar, who once predicted that climate change would cause the deaths of a billion people by 2020 and that sea levels would rise by 13 feet. In 2009, James Hansen, one of nation’s most respected climate scientists, told President Obama that we have “only four years left to save the earth.” In 1988, he predicted parts of Manhattan would be underwater by 2008. If you don’t like high-speed rail, Jerry Brown will let you know that LAX Airport is going to be underwater. And so on and on and on. What we most often hear from science-loving environmentalists is nothing more than speculation.

    Genetically Modified Foods:
    Across the world, almost every respected scientific organization that’s taken a look at independent studies has found that GMOs are just as safe as any other food. There is no discernable health difference between conventional or organic food. There is a difference, though, in productivity, in environment impact and the in ability of the world’s poor to enjoy healthier, high-caloric diets for a lot less money.
    Yet, while Republicans are evenly divided on whether genetically modified foods are unsafe, Democrats believe so by a 26-point margin. Liberals across the United States—New York, California, Oregon, and Massachusetts recently—have been pushing for labeling foods to create the perception that something is wrong with it. Science disagrees. Reporters at some of the country’s biggest newspapers might wonder how Democrats will approach this matter that has been settled among scientists.

    Fracking:
    Hydraulic fracturing is as safe as any other means of extracting fossil fuels. It creates hundreds of thousands of jobs. It provides cheaper energy for millions of Americans. It has less of an environmental impact than other processes. It means less dependency on foreign oil. It helped the economy work its way out of a recession. So 62 percent of Republicans support science and 59 percent of Democrats oppose it. Even though numerous scientific studies— one funded by the National Science Foundation that debunked the purported link between groundwater pollution and fracking—have assured us that there’s nothing to fear.

    Astrology/Fortune Telling/Space Invaders/Everything Else:
    According to a Huff Post/YouGov poll, 48 percent of adults in the United States believe that alien spacecrafts are observing our planet right now. Among those who do believe extraterrestrials are hanging around, 69 percent are Democrats, a far higher number than Republicans. Democrats were also significantly more likely than Republicans to believe in fortune telling, and about twice as likely to believe in the astrology. I won’t even get into 9/11 truthers.

    Liberals... flummoxed by science. As usual.
    Thanks from Rorschach and texmaster

  2. #2
    Banned Camp
    Joined
    May 2013
    Posts
    9,879
    Thanks
    7707

    From
    Boise, ID
    Towels (or very dark sunglasses) OUT everyone!

    ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.............. ..........ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.... ....................ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzz........................ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz........................ZZZZZZZZZZ ZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz........................ ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.............. ..........ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.... ....................ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzz........................ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz........................ZZZZZZZZZZ ZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz........................ ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.............. ..........ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.... ....................ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzz........................ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz........................ZZZZZZZZZZ ZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz........................ ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.............. ..........ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.... ....................ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzz........................ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz........................ZZZZZZZZZZ ZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz........................ ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.............. ..........ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.... ....................ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzz........................ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz........................ZZZZZZZZZZ ZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz........................ ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.............. ..........ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.... ....................ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzz........................ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz........................ZZZZZZZZZZ ZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz........................ ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.............. ..........ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.... ....................ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzz........................ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz........................ZZZZZZZZZZ ZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz........................ ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.............. ..........ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.... ....................ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzz........................ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz........................ZZZZZZZZZZ ZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz........................ ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.............. ..........ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.... ....................ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzz........................ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz........................ZZZZZZZZZZ ZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz........................ ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.............. ..........ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.... ....................ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzz........................ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz........................ZZZZZZZZZZ ZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz........................ ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.............. ..........ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.... ....................ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzz........................ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz........................ZZZZZZZZZZ ZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz........................ ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.............. ..........ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.... ....................ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzz........................ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

    Thanks from TennesseeRain, OldGaffer and Redwood

  3. #3
    RNG
    RNG is offline
    Moderator RNG's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    8,808
    Thanks
    5082

    From
    Between everywhere
    I visit the fivethirtyeight site quite often and find various and sundry interesting things there. For those of you not familiar, it is Nate Silver's site, the guy who got his 15 min by correlating a whole bunch of polls before the 2012 election, analyzed them and made some amazingly accurate predictions.

    He often summarized and "averages" various polls on a certain subject or just reports on a poll that interested him. And I definitely do not mean averages in the mathematical sense, analyze would be better but still not correct.

    Anyway, I found this one interesting.
    Thanks from BoiseBo

  4. #4
    Banned Camp
    Joined
    May 2013
    Posts
    9,879
    Thanks
    7707

    From
    Boise, ID
    Wait wait WAIT!!

    Silver is that freaking genius who debunked the "Romney Landslide" and ended up guessing 49 out of 50 states correctly?

    Pew Research is that leftist quack polling company that turned out to be THE most accurate.

    I LAUGH at your madness! ;-)

  5. #5
    Senior Member Loki's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    9,997
    Thanks
    3728

    From
    East coast USA
    The Federalist is a web magazine, launched in September 2013, that covers politics, policy, culture, and religion.[2][3] It was co-founded by Ben Domenech and Sean Davis; senior editors include David Harsanyi and Mollie Hemingway.[4] According to Domenech, the site has "a viewpoint that rejects the assumptions of the media establishment".[2] Other sources have described The Federalist as conservative and as a "right-wing outlet"
    Thanks from BoiseBo, RNG and OldGaffer

  6. #6
    Banned Camp
    Joined
    May 2013
    Posts
    9,879
    Thanks
    7707

    From
    Boise, ID
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    The Federalist is a web magazine, launched in September 2013, that covers politics, policy, culture, and religion.[2][3] It was co-founded by Ben Domenech and Sean Davis; senior editors include David Harsanyi and Mollie Hemingway.[4] According to Domenech, the site has "a viewpoint that rejects the assumptions of the media establishment".[2] Other sources have described The Federalist as conservative and as a "right-wing outlet"
    So you're saying they're even less credible than the usual Nutter & Gloomer sources like WeaselZippers, PJmedia, ZeroHedge, PrisonPlanet and Breitbart?

    I'm SHOCKED!! ;-)
    Thanks from Loki and OldGaffer

  7. #7
    Veteran Member DebateDrone's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    31,219
    Thanks
    26401

    From
    SWUSA
    Did the President?s Nominee for Science Advisor Say He Thinks A Billion People Are Gonna Die? ? The Questionable Authority

    No. But that’s apparently not enough to keep some people from making the claim.

    There’s a story that’s making the rounds on some right wing blogs that John Holdren said, at his confirmation hearing, that he thinks that 1 billion people will die as a result of global warming by 2020. So far, that claim has been made at The National Review Online by Chris Horner:

    Just got this e-mail from someone up on the Hill, regarding John “Clearly NOT the ‘Science’ Guy” Holdren’s confirmation hearing as (of all things) chief science advisor to the president). I do think it’s fair to say we told you so on this one. Possibly Gore turned the job down?

    [Louisiana senator David] Vitter got Holdren to admit (three times) that he thinks 1 billion people will die from Global Warming by 2020. Also hammered him on the population control issues. It was beautiful!

    A second article, also by Chris Horner, has been posted on a blog at the American Spectator’s website:

    Well, old habits die hard. The email I received noted that Louisiana Senator David Vitter had a difficult time simply rolling over for the notion that this guy should stroll into regular access to the president without having to remind everyone, for the record, of just what a Moonbat he really is. Per my correspondent:

    Vitter got Holdren to admit (three times) that he thinks 1 billion people will die from Global Warming by 2020.

    That’s right, one beeellion bodies! Imagine if the recent cooling trend weren’t projected even by alarmists to continue until then (by the way, what’s “global warming” without the “warming”?). I mean, that’s already as many people as Americans who will lose their jobs in two months if we don’t immediately pass the Porculus bill, by Nancy Pelosi’s math.

    One of the commenters on one of yesterday’s posts seems to share Mr. Horner’s perspective.

    That’s the view of what happened from fantasyland. Here in realityville, what happened is a bit less dramatic. Vitter asked Dr. Holdren about a statement that Dr. Holdren made back in 1986, where Dr. Holdren said that global warming could cause the deaths of 1 billion people by 2020. The key word in that sentence is “could.” Just in case you are as unfamiliar with the English language as Mr. Horner’s source appears to be, allow me to point out that “could” is not in fact a synonym for “will”.

    Dr. Holdren responded by saying that he thought that was unlikely to happen. For the comprehension impaired, which apparently includes both Mr. Horner and his hearing room confidant, that means that he doesn’t actually think that’s going to happen.

    Vitter interrupted him, saying, “do you think it could happen?” Dr. Holdren said that he though it could happen. Vitter interrupted him again, saying, “so you would stick to that statement?” Dr. Holdren replied that he didn’t think it was likely. Vitter repeated his question again, and Dr. Holdren agreed that it could. Vitter clarified by asking, “one billion by 2020?” and Dr. Holdren responded by saying, “It could.”

    At the end of his questioning, immediately after being chastized by the chair for already being well over his allotted time, Mr. Vitter returned to the topic, asking yet again if Dr. Holdren thought that 1 billion deaths was still a possibility. Dr. Holdren agreed that it is in fact possible.

    Examining the actual sequence of questions I outlined demonstrates several things very clearly. It shows us that Dr. Holdren did not actually say that he thinks that 1 billion people will die due to climate change in the next 12 years. It also shows us that Horner’s source is not only functionally illiterate, but also apparently innumerate – Dr. Holdren did not admit three times that he thought 1 billion were going to die, but he did say four different times that he thought 1 billion people could die. Finally, this sequence of questions, the remainder of his questions for Dr. Holdren, and what can best be described as an enormous volume of additional evidence all demonstrate that Senator Vitter is, in fact, a complete tool.

    Oh, almost forgot. It shows that Chris Horner is at least as much of a tool as the Senator from Louisiana.

    If you’re interested, I’ve put a full transcript of Senator Vitter’s question period below the fold.


    Transcript:

    Vitter:

    Dr. Holdren, one of the lines in the President’s Inaugural Address which I most appreciated was his comment about science, and honoring that, and not having it overtaken by ideology. My concern is that as one of his top science advisors, that many statements you’ve made in the past don’t meet that test, and so I wanted to explore that. One is from 1971, an article with Paul Ehrlich, titled Global Ecology, in which you predicted that, “some form of eco-catastrophe, if not thermonuclear war, seems almost certain to overtake us before the end of the century.” Do you think that was a responsible prediction?

    Holdren:

    Well, thank you, Senator, for that…, um…, for that question. First of all, I guess I would say that one of the things I’ve learned in the intervening nearly four decades is that predictions about the future are difficult. That was a statement which at least, at the age of 26, I had the good sense to hedge by saying “almost certain”. The trends at the time were not, ah…, were not positive, either with respect to the dangers of thermonuclear war or with respect to ecological dangers of a variety of sorts. A lot of things were getting worse. I would argue that the motivation for looking at the downside possibilities – the possibilities that can go wrong if things continue in a bad direction is to motivate people to change direction. That was my intention at the time. In many respects there were changes in direction which reduced the possibility of nuclear war through arms control agreements and there were changes in direction in national and international policy with respect to environmental problems, including a good many laws passed by this Congress.

    Vitter:

    Given all that context, do you think that was a responsible prediction at the time?

    Holdren:

    Senator, with respect, I would want to distinguish between predictions and, ahh, description of possibilities which we would like to avert. I think it is responsible to call attention to the dangers that society faces, so we’ll make the investments and make the changes to reduce those dangers.

    Vitter:

    Well, I will call “seems almost certain” a prediction, but that’s just a difference of opinion. What, specifically, what science was that prediction based on?

    Holdren:

    Well, it was based in the ecological domain on a lot of science, on the evidence of the accumulation of persistent toxic substances in the body fat of organisms all around the planet, on the rise of the atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, of sulfur oxides, of particulate matter, on trace metals accumulating in various parts of the environment in large quantities, on the destruction of tropical forests at a great rate…

    Vitter (interrupting):

    Is all of that dramatically reversed since this “almost certainty” has obviously been averted?

    Holdren:

    Some of it has reversed, and I’m grateful for that. And, again, I think that it’s been reversed in part because of sensible laws passed by the United States Congress and signed by various Presidents. Some of it has not reversed. We continue to be on a perilous path with respect to climate change, and I think we need to do more work to get that one reversed as well.

    Vitter:

    OK. Another statement. In 1986, you predicted that global warming could cause the deaths of one billion people by 2020. Would you stick to that statement today?

    Holdren:

    Well, again, I wouldn’t have called it a prediction then, and I wouldn’t call it a prediction now. I think it is unlikely to happen, but it is …

    Vitter (interrupting):

    Do you think it could happen?

    Holdren:

    I think it could happen, and the way it could happen is climate crosses a tipping point in which a catastrophic degree of climate change has severe impacts on global agriculture. A lot of people depend on that…

    Vitter (interrupting):

    So you would stick to that statement?

    Holdren:

    I don’t think it’s likely. I think we should invest effort – considerable effort – to reduce the likelihood further.

    Vitter:

    So you would stick to the statement that it could happen?

    Holdren:

    It could happen, and …

    Vitter (interrupting):

    One billion by 2020?

    Holdren:

    It could.

    Vitter:

    In 1973, you encouraged “a decline in fertility to well below replacement” in the United States because “280 million in 2040 is likely to be too many.” What would your number for the right population in the US be today?”

    Holdren:

    I no longer think it’s productive, Senator, to focus on the optimum population for the United States. I don’t think any of us know what the right answer is. When I wrote those lines in 1973, I was preoccupied with the fact that many problems the United States faced appeared to be being made more difficult by the rate of population growth that then prevailed. I think everyone who studies these matters understands that population growth brings some benefits and some liabilities. It’s a tough question to determine which will prevail in a given time period. But I think the key thing today is that we need to work to improve the conditions all of our citizens face economically, environmentally, and in other respects. And we need to aim for something that I have been calling for years ‘sustainable prosperity’.

    Vitter:

    Well, since we’re at 304 million, I’m certainly heartened that you’re not sticking to the 280 million figure. But, much more recently, namely a couple of weeks ago, in your response to my written questions, you did say on this matter, “balancing costs and benefits of population growth is a complex business, of course, and reasonable people can disagree about where it comes out.” I’ll be quite honest with ya. I’m not concerned where you or I might come out. I’m scared to death that you think this is a proper function of government, which is what that sentence clearly implies. You think determining optimal population is a proper role of government?

    Holdren:

    No, Senator, I do not. And I did not, certainly, intend that to be the implication of that sentence. The sentence means only what it says, which is that people who have thought about these matters come out in different places. I think the proper role of government is to develop and deploy the policies with respect to economy, environment, security, that will ensure the well being of the citizens we have. I also believe that many of those policies will have the effect, and have had the effect in the past, of lowering birth rates. Because when you provide health care for women, opportunities for women, education, people tend to have smaller families on average. And it ends up being easier to solve some of our other problems when that occurs.

    Vitter:

    Final question. In 2006, obviously pretty recently, in an article, “The War on Hot Air,” you suggested that global sea levels could rise 13 feet by the end of this century. Now, in contrast to that, the IPCC’s 2007 report put their estimate at between 7 and 25 inches. So their top line was 25 inches – about two feet. What explains the disparity? Why is the IPCC 600% off in their top level assessment?

    Holdren:

    The disparity, Senator, is that the IPCC chose not to include in that numerical estimate the mechanisms by which the great ice sheets on Antarctica and Greenland could disintegrate very rapidly in a warming world. What they considered is the effect of…

    Vitter (interrupting, and inaudible):

    Holdren:

    No, I don’t say it was a mistake. It says so in the report. In the IPCC’s report, it says we’re not going to include those rapid mechanisms because our models are not yet good enough to represent them quantitatively in terms of how much they could do by a particular year. My statement was based on articles in the journals Science and Nature, peer-reviewed publications by some of the world’s leading specialists in studying ice, who had concluded that twice in the last 19,000 years, in natural warming periods of similar pace to the warming period that we’re experiencing now in part because of human activities, the sea level went up by as much as 2 to 5 meters per century. And that was not an article I wrote, that was an interview in which I was quoted, and I had mentioned that research which had indicated that those high rates were possible. And the IPCC did not refute that, it simply said, our models cannot represent the phenomena that did that, so we’re going to produce an estimate that only includes some…

    Vitter (who had been trying to interrupt for some time):

    So, bottom line, do you think that the better worse case estimate is 25 inches or 13 feet?

    Holdren:

    The newer analyses that have been done since the IPCC report came out indicate that the upper limit for the year 2100 is probably between 1 and 2 meters, and those are the numbers that I now quote, because they are the latest science.

    Vitter:

    So you would no longer quote 13 feet?

    (In background, another member is trying to get the chair’s attention,)

    Holdren:

    I would no longer quote 13 feet, because newer science indicates that the upper limit is only about six and a half feet.

    Vitter:

    But going back to my first question…

    Chairman Rockefeller, interrupting, as another member continues to try to get his attention)

    Senator, you’ve had almost ten minutes.

    Vitter:

    Just a final follow-up. You would say – I think you did – that 1 billion people lost by 2020 is still a possibility?

    Holdren:

    It is still a possibility, and one we should work energetically to avoid.

    Vitter:

    Thank you, Mr. Chariman.



    I know how much you guys like to copy paste...and read all the info on the subject.

    This says the claim of Obama's guy saying that 1,000,000,000 people are going to die by 2020 due to GW ...is pure fucking bullshit.

    So much debunking calling out bullshit to do...

  8. #8
    B04
    B04 is offline
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    15,199
    Thanks
    6274

    From
    gone
    Quote Originally Posted by DebateDrone View Post
    ....shortened for length and to avoid COPYRIGHT INFRINGMENT.......



    I know how much you guys like to copy paste...and read all the info on the subject.

    This says the claim of Obama's guy saying that 1,000,000,000 people are going to die by 2020 due to GW ...is pure fucking bullshit.

    So much debunking calling out bullshit to do...
    my comments in RED above


    Must read: Senator Vitter asks Sec. Holdren about his eco-doom predictions (transcript) | Climate Realists

    Senate Commerce Committee – February 12, 2009

    Vitter:
    OK. Another statement. In 1986, you predicted that global warming could cause the deaths of one billion people by 2020. Would you stick to that statement today?

    Holdren:
    Well, again, I wouldn't have called it a prediction then, and I wouldn't call it a prediction now. I think it is unlikely to happen, but it is ...

    Vitter (interrupting):
    Do you think it could happen?

    Holdren:
    I think it could happen, and the way it could happen is climate crosses a tipping point in which a catastrophic degree of climate change has severe impacts on global agriculture. A lot of people depend on that...

    Vitter (interrupting):
    So you would stick to that statement?

    Holdren:
    I don't think it's likely. I think we should invest effort - considerable effort - to reduce the likelihood further.

    Vitter:
    So you would stick to the statement that it could happen?
    Holdren:
    It could happen, and ...

    Vitter (interrupting):
    One billion by 2020?

    Holdren:
    It could.

  9. #9
    Banned Camp
    Joined
    May 2013
    Posts
    9,879
    Thanks
    7707

    From
    Boise, ID
    Vitter? *snicker*

    Thanks from TennesseeRain

  10. #10
    Veteran Member DebateDrone's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    31,219
    Thanks
    26401

    From
    SWUSA
    Quote Originally Posted by B04 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DebateDrone View Post
    ....shortened for length and to avoid COPYRIGHT INFRINGMENT.......



    I know how much you guys like to copy paste...and read all the info on the subject.

    This says the claim of Obama's guy saying that 1,000,000,000 people are going to die by 2020 due to GW ...is pure fucking bullshit.

    So much debunking calling out bullshit to do...
    my comments in RED above



    Thanks...you're doll.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Ways Liberals Make War on Women
    By meridian5455 in forum Civil Rights
    Replies: 46
    Last Post: 17th February 2014, 01:05 PM
  2. Silly liberals, science is for Tea Party members.
    By Liberal Doses in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 42
    Last Post: 18th December 2013, 01:08 AM
  3. Replies: 13
    Last Post: 31st August 2013, 12:45 PM
  4. Another anti-science Republican on the House science committee..
    By teamosil in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 8th October 2012, 04:48 AM
  5. Electric cars and liberals’ refusal to accept science
    By roberthughey in forum Current Events
    Replies: 450
    Last Post: 23rd March 2012, 01:48 PM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed