Page 9 of 13 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 130

Thread: NSFW Democrats are anti-science

  1. #81
    Agua pa' la gente.... Rasselas's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    32,547
    Thanks
    5714

    From
    in my head
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayor Snorkum View Post
    The terrible thing about politics is that socialists lie their asses off every single day, and their goal is the destruction of freedom.

    Glad we got that settled.
    Thanks for that unrelated and silly little rant about 'socialists.'

    But yes, because science is beyond politics, eventually the hoaxes are revealed. Carl Sagan's libtarded Nuclear Winter scam, the Global Warming scam, the New Ice Age Scam, Population Doomsday, the other Malthusian nonsense, it always falls apart with due regard to real science.
    If all this were true--if science were full of scams--then the premise you accept here would be false. People do all kinds of stuff with scientific information in order to persuade people, but it's not science when they do that. Climate change is a widely understood concept that has not be successfully challenged. No one seriously questions the fact that our climate is changing. The causes are less well-understood, but the fact that humans play at least some role has not been successfully challenged. The sort of dismissive position you take is itself highly unscientific--at least as unscientific as the chicken littles you condemn.
    Oh, bulshit.

    Start proving that psuedo-scienitific hoaxes the Mayor listed were based in reality if you're going to make such statements.
    The concerns you raised are with politics, not science. Science doesn't have values nor does it have an agenda.
    Science is a method of extracting truth and rejecting falsity. You could try studying the history of science if this is unclear to you.
    You use the terms 'truth' and 'falsity' in almost moral terms. Science has no morals. "Truth" can't be 'extracted.' Hypotheses can be tested, and the whole point of the testing is to try to prove the hypothesis wrong. There is no 'truth' in the terms you appear to be using that word.
    No. The Mayor's post didn't equate anything. The examples were chosen to illustrate the deceitful practices of the left, since this thread is attempting to claim the misguided beliefs of a fringe of the Republican party are typical of the majority of Republicans and conservative Americans.
    Anyone who claims that one set of politicians have a corner on either 'truth' or 'deceit' is delusional. When 44% of Americans believe in young earth creationism (and most of them are Republicans), you can't have much of a claim on superiority via science.

    The only unifying elemnt in pseudo-scientific twaddle, such as those listed, is the desire to decieve. You want to claim there's no other unifying element among the examples listed, that's fine. No argument there. The unifying element was stated, and that statement is being ignored in your responses.
    That's because your list of particulars is so diffuse that any analysis is pointless. You've filled in the gaps with your own prejudices--there's little else to put them together.


    As for Keynes, it's interesting you say that it doesn't work,

    You mean, besides the fact that it doesn't work?

    Yeah, really interesting, that.

    Trillions of dollars wasted by Obama, jobless rate climbs,economy stagnates. [/quote]Better than completely collapsing, which could very well have happened. The problem with anyone who makes arguments like this is that they never account for the alternatives--most of which were worse than what we got.

    What a coincidence that this is what also happened when FDR tried it, too.



    So? Your argument is that the Mayor must be wrong because a president the Mayor didn't vote for embraced the same failed policies of FDR?
    Your black-and-white thinking is tiresome. You need to learn the word 'ameliorate.' That's when you don't solve the problem, but you do make it better than it would have been.

    And you want to discusss the MAYOR'S grasp of the scentific method thereby?
    If you want to compare economics to physics, I'd say your grasp is tenuous.



    No. Science rejects theories that fail and politicians embrace them like hot lonely dirt finding a Swiffer.
    Science tests hypotheses and replaces them with new hypotheses. It does so coldly and without emotion. Your rhetoric is so filled with emotion it obscures even what you think you want to say.

  2. #82
    Senior Member carpe diem's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    16,741
    Thanks
    849

    From
    San Diego, CA
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasselas View Post
    Every time you write about this subject, you suggest that we should be dismatelling regulations. Which ones do you like and which ones do you oppose? To be sure, every business is opposed to every regulation that costs it money in any way, so business in general is interested in dismantalling all regulations. I never see anything so nuanced from you as the suggestion that there are good regulations and bad ones, so it's reasonable to take you at your word that you want to get rid of regulations generally. Where are your limits?

    And how is what I've said 'reactionary?' Reactionary means wishing to return to the customs and laws of a previous time--that's the opposite of what I want.
    My limits would start at rational levels...not irrationally dismantling an industry based upon fears from a hoax. CO2 fears...Global warming fears...It would be rational to have heavily tested MTSB before ordering it as a requirement. It would be rational to offer different light bulbs besides invandescant...instead we get zealots forcing regs and requirements that end up being worse than what they were suposed to address.

    Rational people do not call refrigerants that are inert poisons, irrational reactionaries do. Forcing changes and creating additional useless(fruitless)costs to installations...replacing a known chemical compound (Chlorodifluoromethane) with an isotope that we do not yet understand under the guise that the original MAY cause harm, when we know very litttle about it's replacement.
    Last edited by carpe diem; 26th September 2011 at 09:22 PM.

  3. #83
    Senior Member carpe diem's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    16,741
    Thanks
    849

    From
    San Diego, CA
    Quote Originally Posted by Hollywood View Post
    Wow, this is like magic or something. I mention something and it immediately pops onto my screen.........HUGE TITS.

    And it's CorpoRats NOT CorpoRATS. Although, I think I like your spelling better, so I'll use it. Where on earth did I say you were a CorpoRAT for not voting for President Obama, or a racist for that matter? Quote the post.
    You're a CorpoRAT for your slavish kissing of the collective corporate ass and your obvious belief that their selfish interests are more important than just about anything or anyone else.





    HUGE BOOBS
    Are you feeling guilty? I said "some"...you know those you don't complain about. Simply pointing out your hypocrisy.

    I defend all equally..,instead of acting bigoted and hating on an entity based upon the class they happen to be...You see you jumped to another irrational conclusion, based upon your bigotry.

  4. #84
    Agua pa' la gente.... Rasselas's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    32,547
    Thanks
    5714

    From
    in my head
    Quote Originally Posted by carpe diem View Post
    My limits would start at rational levels...not irrationally dismantling an industry based upon fears from a hoax. CO2 fears...Global warming fears...
    Someone is 'dismantling an industry?' Really? I thought they were trying to develop new industries....
    It would be rational to have heavily tested MTSB before ordering it as a requirement.
    In all honestly, I've looked up these initials, and none of the results sound like they belong in this discussion, and I can't have an opinion on things I can't even track down.
    It would be rational to offer different light bulbs besides invandescant...instead we get zealots forcing regs and requirements that end up being worse than what they were suposed to address.
    I don't know if I believe that last part, but I agree that requiring and forbidding should come later rather than earlier in a process.

    Rational people do not call refrigerants that are inert poisons, irrational reactionaries do. Forcing changes and creating additional useless(fruitless)costs to installations...replacing a known chemical compound (Chlorodifluoromethane) with an isotope that we do not yet understand under the guise that the original MAY cause harm, when we know very litttle about it's replacement.
    From what I understand, ozone depletion is a serious problem, but one that has been reversed since chemicals that caused it were banned. And even safer compounds will be used in the coming years. I don't think there is any 'may' in the harm CFC's cause.
    Last edited by Rasselas; 26th September 2011 at 11:38 PM.

  5. #85
    Senior Member
    Joined
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    9,876
    Thanks
    764

    Quote Originally Posted by Rasselas View Post
    Thanks for that unrelated and silly little rant about 'socialists.'
    It's an inescapable aspect of the Left's pursuit of pseudo-science to further political goals. One cannot understand the desire of the typical leftist to tell lies and believe lies unless one understands the Perpetual Lie they're pursuing.

    Ergo, it's neither unrelated nor a rant.

    The Mayor could apologize for Gore-ing your ox, but he doesn't like to lie without purpose.

    If all this were true--if science were full of scams--then the premise you accept here would be false.
    The history of science is replete with hoaxers. The Cardiff Giant, the Piltdown Man, the National Socialist uber-man theories, alar, Nuclear Winter, and Anthropogenic Global Warming. Scientists are human, and humans are dishonest.

    Here, just in case you missed it

    People do all kinds of stuff with scientific information in order to persuade people, but it's not science when they do that.
    Yes, that's what the Mayor was telling you.

    Climate change is a widely understood concept that has not be successfully challenged.
    No. "Climate change" is widely understood and cannot be successfully challenged because the phrase refers to nothing but the ongoing process of change in climate and the bare phrase makes absolutely no reference to mechanisms. So saying "climate change" is like saying "sunrise", "sunset", "there's the Moon", and "Look ma, a cow!"

    No one seriously questions the fact that our climate is changing.
    No shit? Really?

    That's what the scientists have been saying in response to the Global Warming alamists who've trying to re-brand themselves as Climate Change alarmists....except they don't use the word "alarmist" for some strane reason having something to do with their essential dishonesty.

    The causes are less well-understood, but the fact that humans play at least some role has not been successfully challenged.
    More importantly, the idea that the observed events haven't been caused by Sindarin Elves hasn't been successfully challenged, and there's a splinter theory blaming Saruman which has never been refuted either. More importantly, though, what hasn't been shown is irrefutable evidence, or even strong evidence, or even somthing resembling a connection, between human activity and global warming.

    The Mayor will continue to use the phrase "Global Warming" because the Climate Pantswetters have adopted the phrase "climate change" to hide the failures of their alarmist theories of Global Warming. According to the Pantswetters, increasing CO2 concentrations are responsible for "climate change", even though their theory only accords increasing CO2 levels the power to raise temperatures. That re-branding is part of their deceit.

    The sort of dismissive position you take is itself highly unscientific
    Oh.

    In other words, the Mayor is supposed to treat the Theory of Combustion equally with the Theory of Phlogiston.

    Hint: When a "theory" fails, it's rejected. The AGW Hoax never even met the requirements of being a real theory. OF COURSE the Mayor rejects it. It's correct science to do so. It's called a "hoax" for a reason.

    The evidence is in, AGW is a hoax. The science is closed on that matter.

    The concerns you raised are with politics, not science.

    Science doesn't have values nor does it have an agenda.
    The value of science is truth.

    It's agenda is the end of ignorance.

    You use the terms 'truth' and 'falsity' in almost moral terms.
    That's because the Global Warming Pantswetters have wrapped themselves up in a blanket of moral superiority because their cultist faith in their religion grants them a feeling of superiority to people who aren't True Believers, who are the evil Denialists, those nasty people who reject the cultists' God of Chicken Shit Reigning From On High.

    If you can't see the immorality in the promotion of the greatest hoax in the history of science to ever be perptrated upon the people of the earth, it's no wonder you object to people citing honesty as a moral virtue.

    Honesty, and skepticism, are what make real scientists great scientists.

    The GWP's brook no skepticism. In fact, they denigrate those who reject their claims as "skeptics", even though skepticism is the very heart of true science.

    You did know that, didn't you?

    Right?

    Science has no morals.
    Scientists are supposed to have them, though.

    "Truth" can't be 'extracted.'
    Yes, it can. That's the purpose of the scientific method.

    Hypotheses can be tested, and the whole point of the testing is to try to prove the hypothesis wrong.
    Only half right.



    True theories make what true scientists like to call "predictions". No theory is complete unless it contains testable predictions that allow the theory to be "falsified", which means unlike the AGW hoax, nothing more than proving the theory wrong. This falsification must be peculiar to the theory, or it's not a test of the theory.

    AGW Hoax-ology failed to predict the coolng event of the first decade of the 21st century. That, and other things, proved AGW Hoax-ology is false and nothing but pseudo-scientific twaddle that's consumed hundreds of billions, if not trillions, of dollars.

    Einstein's theory of General relativity made falsifiable predictions. These predictions were verified by astrometry during a solar eclipse. Repeated attempts to falsify Relativity, both General and Special, have been attempted and failed, and in the process much learning, much truth extraction, has occured. The latest challenge to Relativity is the recent experimental meaurements of possible super-luminal speeds of neutrinos. Further experiment will resolve the issue, and if it means Relativity's presumption of the speed of light being the ultimate barrier is false, then new theories will have to be derived.


    There is no 'truth' in the terms you appear to be using that word.
    Yes, there is.

    Anyone who claims that one set of politicians have a corner on either 'truth' or 'deceit' is delusional.
    Anyone who claims the Mayor said any such thing is dishonest, even if this particular discussion is focused on the damage caused by the Left's pursuit of pubic terror via scientific fraud.

    You never addresss the specifics. You never affirm that alar was indeed deadly, that nuclear winter was valid. You just quibble around the edges without committing yourself to any concrete claims.

    When 44% of Americans believe in young earth creationism (and most of them are Republicans), you can't have much of a claim on superiority via science.
    Since the Mayor isn't a Republican, since the belief mentioned has had neglible economic impact on the nation, the Mayor most certainly does have a claim on the superior scientific viewpoint when discussing the issue of the economic damage done to the nationl and the global economy by short-sighted politicians riding a pseudo-scientific fear mongering hoax predicting apocalyptic disaster if the world doesn't destroy it's economy as soon as possible.

    Stay focused, dude.

    That's because your list of particulars is so diffuse that any analysis is pointless. You've filled in the gaps with your own prejudices--there's little else to put them together.
    AGW is a confirmed hoax, with e-mails to prove it as well as the confirmed fraud of the Hockey Stick Plot, the IPCC's editing policies, and any number of related topics showing the inherent dishonesty of the Hoaxers, such as the refusal of the Hoaxers to release their raw data for peer review.

    That particular enough for ya?

    We could discuss Silent Spring, and how the fraudulent book which led to the ban of DDT world-wide led to the deaths of three million people annually, mostly in Africa, of malaria in the forty years since Rachel Carson penned her farce. Rachel is responsible for the deaths of 120 million people because she wrote lies.

    How's that for the effectiveness of pseudo-scientific twaddle?

    Better than completely collapsing, which could very well have happened.
    Well, there you have it. Government action driven by unfounded theory used to promote panic, just like those True Believing Pantswetters moaning and groaning over non-existent global warming...er "climate change" to use the modern deceitful repackaged euphemism.

    120 million people dead because of panicked response to one author's unfounded book.

    A trillion hard earned dollars wasted keep bankers out of the poorhouse, so the people keeping the bankers rich can then continue to villify the rich bankers. The failed theory here, in addition to the failed Keynesan theory, is the assumption that markets can be beaten into stability by government edict. 2008 proved the falsity of that theory.

    An unknown by vast sum wasted by governments around the world to control CO2 emisions, even now, after the AGW theory hsa been proven to be a hoax.

    Abuse and misrepresentation of science and outright fraud, leading to death and economic disaster.

    The problem with anyone who makes arguments like this is that they never account for the alternatives--most of which were worse than what we got.
    The people who sound like you never account for the very real possiblity that your bladder control is less effective than other people's and that the humidity of your nether regions is not a barometer for political action.

    The reality is that fear should not be the principal engine of public policy.
    Last edited by Mayor Snorkum; 27th September 2011 at 12:02 AM.

  6. #86
    Senior Member
    Joined
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    9,876
    Thanks
    764

    Quote Originally Posted by carpe diem View Post
    It would be rational to have heavily tested MTSB before ordering it as a requirement.
    MBTE

    It would be rational to offer different light bulbs besides invandescant...instead we get zealots forcing regs and requirements that end up being worse than what they were suposed to address.
    No.

    It would be rational to assume that people are smart enough to know how much their electric bills are and it would be mature to recognize that the government wasn't formed to force people to lower their utility bills by restricting their light-bulb choices.

    It would be best to realize that the United States is supposed to be a free country, and a free country doesn't try to micromanage the most insignificant aspect of people's lives.

    Rational people do not call refrigerants that are inert poisons, irrational reactionaries do. Forcing changes and creating additional useless(fruitless)costs to installations...replacing a known chemical compound (Chlorodifluoromethane) with an isotope that we do not yet understand under the guise that the original MAY cause harm, when we know very litttle about it's replacement.
    An isotope? You're referring to a chemical element with a specific number of neutrons?

  7. #87
    Senior Member
    Joined
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    29,683
    Thanks
    9

    From
    See you in a new existence!
    Quote Originally Posted by carpe diem View Post
    Sure...Let's outlaw alcohol and MJ too... afterall the effects could cause a death or too...Isn't it better to be safe?

    I'm hoping you can recognize the foolishness in you response.
    No need for you to fall back on insults, but if you continue to feel the need, then please present some facts to back up your assertion that I'm foolish.

    Your line of argument is flawed. First, there is a difference between an individual consuming alcohol or nicotine and a corporation slipping it into your children's food at school. You and I can choose to consume alcohol, drugs or engage in known risky behavior but when a corporation dumps it into our water or food supply, we can't very well choose not to ever eat or drink water again.

    Second, pollution and corporate irresponsibility is why we need government oversight of capitalism. Capitalism has provided the wealth we love to enjoy, but if unrestrained, our waterways and atmosphere would be as polluted as it was during the 1960s. If you were around in those days, then you'll know what I'm talking about. China is going through that phase right now with pollution so bad it is harming its citizens.

    Chinese Villagers Protest Pollution - WSJ.com
    Hundreds of people in eastern China carried out sometimes violent protests over pollution they blame on a solar-panel maker's factory, the latest example of unrest spurred by anger over the country's environmental problems.
    In China, Pollution Worsens Despite New Efforts - NYTimes.com
    China, the world’s most prodigious emitter of greenhouse gas, continues to suffer the downsides of unbridled economic growth despite a raft of new environmental initiatives.

    The quality of air in Chinese cities is increasingly tainted by coal-burning power plants, grit from construction sites and exhaust from millions of new cars squeezing onto crowded roads, according to a government study issued this week. Other newly released figures show a jump in industrial accidents and an epidemic of pollution in waterways.

    The report’s most unexpected findings pointed to an increase in inhalable particulates in cities like Beijing, where officials have struggled to improve air quality by shutting down noxious factories and tightening auto emission standards. Despite such efforts, including an ambitious program aimed at reducing the use of coal for home heating, the average concentration of particulates in the capital’s air violated the World Health Organization’s standards more than 80 percent of the time during the last quarter of 2008.

  8. #88
    Senior Member Micro Machines Champion, Race Against Time Champion Tedminator's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    13,977
    Thanks
    2741

    From
    South Florida
    am pro-science and technology.. it alerted me to the presense of boobies in this thread


  9. #89
    Senior Member Dr Sampson Simpson's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    11,794
    Thanks
    2467

    Quote Originally Posted by Tedminator View Post
    am pro-science and technology.. it alerted me to the presense of boobies in this thread

    Everywhere I look I"m reminded of her

  10. #90
    Senior Member
    Joined
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    29,683
    Thanks
    9

    From
    See you in a new existence!

Page 9 of 13 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed