Posted on 09/02/2014 11:10:04 AM PDT by JimSEA
I don’t know, but claims such as higher category hurricanes need to be addressed and revised.
‘science votes Democrat.’?!?!?!?!?!
What a bizzare quote!
The Dems are almost ALWAYS against Science and common sense.
[ ‘science votes Democrat.’?!?!?!?!?!
What a bizzare quote!
The Dems are almost ALWAYS against Science and common sense. ]
No they simply ONLY vote for Payola via Boondoggles in the name of science....
Most don’t want to go with the kind of open mind that the scientific method needs to incorporate properly.
The Farmer almanac has been more accurate in weather forcasting than the computer models the nerds have been putting out because the farmer almanac uses common sense knowledge about the 11 year sunspot activity....
To the political left, science is politics, as is everything else. So anyone not of the left is by default anti-science. Global warming isn’t real to them because of the environment, but because people need to be controlled and forced to conform. God isn’t an outdated concept because of moral or spiritual reasons, but because it needs to be replaced with the state. Science is a blunt instrument for the attaining of one goal: socialism.
There is no such thing as ‘global warming denial’ until someone shows that there is such a thing as ‘global warming’. As yet, scientists can’t do that. Only politicians can.
Narrative is everything. Don’t use theirs.
The elimination of lead in gasoline was a triumph of science and science based thinking in reguards to the environment and environmental policy...
That being said...
Trying to apply the same standards to levels of CO2 in the atmosphere which already occcurs naturally in abundant amounts is like comparing Onions to Oranges...
Now, if this was a matter that was relatively inconsequential, say about the life cycle of a woolly caterpillar, I would not care one whit about the issue. But, they are asking our civilization to fork over billions of dollars, as well as sacrificing a large measure of our freedom in the name of 'solving global warming'. I don't trust the politicians glomming on to this issue any more than I trust the scientists faking the data. No denial, just a healthy dose of skepticism.
Nixon won by a huge margin.
It shows that the Left is disconnected with reality.
Facts aren't considered real unless they agree with the Left’s agenda (which hardly ever happens).
Science isn't REAL Science to them unless it promotes Socialism.
I wonder what leftists say when they’re reminded that the typical child in the womb has a measurable heart at something like 2 weeks development.
Leftists have no common sense and deny history - esp re: “globull warming”:
1. Many, many, many moons ago here in SW Ohio we were covered by a 2 mile thick glacier. Where did the warming heat originate to melt the glacier back to the artic?
2. When the Eric & his Vikings landed in Greenland, the island was so warm and lush in vegetation, he named the island “Greenland”. What was the source of the warming heat to create such a lush, green environment - esp considering it is mostly a cold, ice-covered island now?
3. OwlGore was so concerned with oceans rising from globull warming...yet he purchased a beach front mansion in California.
...just a few questions/comments that leftists are unable or unwilling to answer.
Well stated.
I’m disappointed that the article doesn’t actually discuss any science. The left is anti science because of these views and the right is anti science because of those views. No discussion of the reality of those views at all.
I am biased but the lefts anti science theories have been vigorously tested by well funded studies and the results should convince them that their views are contrary to science.
The right is just told that they are anti science and ignore the fact there is no evidence, just theories, and you have to accept because it is too dangerous not to believe.
Hoaxes are, and always have been, a problem in science. Piltdown man, phrenology, eugenics have all been labeled as scientifically valid and each has eventually disproven by “better” science. Also, scientists will periodically go off on wild goose chases that do damage before the correct relationships, measurements or hypothesis become evident.
I’d put climate change caused by increasing CO2 levels in that last group. The climate is always changing so it’s a difficult study and there are scientists sincerely believing their studies. It’s difficult for people to admit they’re wrong or partly wrong.
I’d like to see a piece on “The Politics of Enviroscam Artists and Government Grants.”
The only anti science groups on the right are centered in the young earth creationists and they only oppose some theories they find threatening. They are generally in agreement with much of science in practice.
I oppose evolution yet love science so your claim fall flat. Evolution is pure fiction neither scientific nor observable fact.
There is more science in this book than in all of the evolutionary fields combined, but then you appear to be too close-minded to read for yourself.
Center for Scientific Creation - In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/IntheBeginningTOC.html
Yet the fuel in your car, the metals it’s made of and the diamonds in your wife’s ring were all discovered using deep time and incrementalism.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.