Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Liberal's War On Science

Re: Liberal's War On Science

Unread postby jedrider » Fri 24 Apr 2015, 09:16:23

I don't quite see the point of this repost. However, if what one means is that Liberals are, in general, anti-technology, well, the environmental wing of Liberals is certainly anti-technology. I doubt Liberals are anti-science, though, although if one equated Communism with Liberalism, the Soviets had a history of bending science to suit their dogma, unless it was weapons science at issue.

Considering the record of technologies use to subdue the Earth, the Anti-technology wing of Liberalism has much to recommend. Luddites, they certainly are. Peak Oilers are all Luddites to some extent.
User avatar
jedrider
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 913
Joined: Thu 28 May 2009, 09:10:44

Re: Liberal's War On Science

Unread postby Plantagenet » Fri 24 Apr 2015, 11:19:20

jedrider wrote: Peak Oilers are all Luddites to some extent.


Not really.

IMHO Its quite possible to believe in peak oil and also to think folks should use every bit of science and technology they can to ameliorate the effects of peak and otherwise improve people's lives. :)

"Its a brave new world"
---President Obama, 4/25/16
"Il bel far niente"
---traditional Italian saying
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 20622
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: Liberal's War On Science

Unread postby Pops » Fri 24 Apr 2015, 12:07:05

jedrider wrote:I don't quite see the point of this repost.

Just the question I asked, how do you gauge your own personal opinions and beliefs to find out if they are anything close to reality or are they just subjective party-line votes?

The answer seem to be that most don't, or at least in this thread they defend their "party."

Did anyone say anything about gauging their own opinions? Timo did, he said to use to use replicated peer reviewed studies (of course after attacking the editors of SciAm for the title of the article LOL). That makes sense to an extent but how many studies have said cholesterol in diet is bad, for example, and are refuted here regularly. Ditto Glyphosate. GMOs, etc.

I find the answers to lots of questions are not close to clear cut, maybe that's just me. If one peer reviewed study confirms an opinion and 100 refute it, is it OK to cite the one confirming my opinion? 10 on my side? Do I need 100 to have a 50/50 opinion?

The best part of the thread is the liberals getting all bowed up at the article accusing liberals of having unfounded, unscientific opinions, none do more than cite their own opinion as evidence tho...
article wrote:41 percent of Democrats are young Earth creationists, and 19 percent doubt that Earth is getting warmer.
jedrider wrote:I doubt Liberals are anti-science,
If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen we must live through all time or die by suicide.
-- Abraham Lincoln
User avatar
Pops
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 17642
Joined: Sat 03 Apr 2004, 03:00:00
Location: QuikSac for a 6-Pac

Re: Liberal's War On Science

Unread postby davep » Fri 24 Apr 2015, 12:17:03

Timo wrote:
kanon wrote:I would add that we are not as smart as we think, so all knowledge is inherently suspect and subject to revision.

Speak for yourself! :badgrin:


Image
What we think, we become.
User avatar
davep
Senior Moderator
Senior Moderator
 
Posts: 4568
Joined: Wed 21 Jun 2006, 02:00:00
Location: Europe

Re: Liberal's War On Science

Unread postby dohboi » Fri 24 Apr 2015, 14:38:39

I've grown accustomed to the occasional troll swarms, here. When a mod starts posting like a troll, though, I have to wonder whether it's time to move on.
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 16834
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Liberal's War On Science

Unread postby Whitefang » Fri 24 Apr 2015, 14:56:31

So my question is, how does one know if they are simply employing healthy skepticism in investigating alternate explanation for [whatever] or rather, are indulging in an ego trip fantasy that they are the real life Neo with greater insight into reality than that of mainstream science?


http://www.prisonplanet.com/us-mastermi ... staff.html
“The United States has single-handedly masterminded all military conflicts. Today the Western countries have positioned themselves as the main ‘architects’ of the international relations and the United States as the only superpower in the world,” Lt. Gen. Andrei Kartapolov, the head of the General Staff’s Main Operations Directorate, said.


Not that KGB/Chinese mob rule would be any better....
User avatar
Whitefang
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 384
Joined: Fri 12 May 2006, 02:00:00

Re: Liberal's War On Science

Unread postby Pops » Fri 24 Apr 2015, 17:23:51

dohboi wrote:I've grown accustomed to the occasional troll swarms, here. When a mod starts posting like a troll, though, I have to wonder whether it's time to move on.

Maybe so if you think a thread on fact checking on one's own bias is trolling or that ad homs are a valid debate tactic.

Funny, your initial response was pretty well spot on in answer to my question. I find it hard to decide what to decide on a great many topics. But, although my knee jerks left instinctively and hard left occasionally, I have no problem at all realizing neither political "side" has any lock on science, or truth, or the American way. Most shocking of all, I have no trouble agreeing with things endorsed mainly by right-wingers or disagreeing with stuff "my" party is big on.

I agree that vetting sources is more important than finding a cherry, although I have been on many a cherry picking expidition. Especially if it is something I already feel strongly about—that is where I find I make my biggest factual mistakes, when I start out spouting an opinion with "The fact is..." and it turns out it isn't fact at all.

I use some of these fro time to time:
Snopes, sourcewatch, open secrets, allsides, PolitiFact, factcheck, deep-web, scholar, ...
What else?

Here is a good tip from deep web (1 of 11) this one I kinda stumbled over myself in snooping out actual trolls and spambots at PO.com:
See if the material you found is actually a copy of a primary source. So go clip out a unique sentence and use one of several search engines to see if you can find the original website/web page. This may provide you with 1. True Author and/or 2. Date written.

Easy too to simply start clicking hotlinks on the page, especially if you are looking at a secondary (or lower) blog post. Just because you may be a stalwart rationalist doesn't mean the guy you're reading isn't a red-fingered Cherry-picker.

I find myself many times arguing from various sides of whatever topic. Sometimes, like trying to understand the Wedge or whatever idea or crystal ball vision, I wind up making arguments from opposing sides and it helps me see the strength of ideas and the opposite. After I look at something from different directions I sometime change my mind altogether. For example, years ago I was convinced renewables were energy sinks, now not so much. Another is the Pre-Salt, I thought it could be a big deal but now not really. Of course I though fracking was a bust but now I think it might keep nat gas going a while.

Maybe no one else does that, maybe everyone else just automatically knows the truth or would rather not go to the effort.
If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen we must live through all time or die by suicide.
-- Abraham Lincoln
User avatar
Pops
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 17642
Joined: Sat 03 Apr 2004, 03:00:00
Location: QuikSac for a 6-Pac

Re: Liberal's War On Science

Unread postby AgentR11 » Fri 24 Apr 2015, 20:04:28

Hmmmm... I think the title reveals a lot in how we're approaching this. I'd go a little farther and I think round them all up together. Its not Liberals nor Conservatives waging war on science. Its liberal arts majors. I know liberals who *are* scientists, and I know conservatives, who *are* scientists. They share something in common, that is anathema to the Liberal Arts guys and gals (both conservative and liberal). They uniformly get really really squeamish when folks try to push them to talk past the observable, testable, peer-reviewed fact.

On the other hand, a Liberal Arts person, conservative, or liberal politically, will take peer-reviewed fact, and run with it like its money in the bank if they can use it for any imaginable purpose; extending it well and far beyond the accepted peer-reviewed points. All of a sudden, we go from "Climate Change is real" to, "science tells us to levy a carbon tax and redistribute the proceeds as a form of dole to the poor." Science says no such thing. Science says the climate is changing, notes the cause, and uses models to project various curves depending on future inputs to the cause.

Liberal Arts folks are in charge of choosing which curve they prefer, and that will be the curve humanity follows.

In the process of choosing which curve they prefer, they will come up with any and every possible rationale and attack anything and anyone that interferes with their choice. The attacks have no need to be based in reality, they only need to stick. And stick they do; because most of humanity is of a Liberal Arts mindset.

So you ask yourself, when do you know when you're being honestly skeptical vs cherry picking? Its easy. If you are toting a PhD in that field, and have published something beyond the scope of your initial dissertation, then it is mildly possible that you are engaged in honest skepticism, if that skepticism is directly related to your principle field of study. If it is outside, or you lack those credentials, you are absolutely cherry picking, and you should be content to cherry pick, because it is what we humans do, no sense being embarrassed about it.... and besides, cherries are delicious.
Yes we are, as we are,
And so shall we remain,
Until the end.
User avatar
AgentR11
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 6129
Joined: Tue 22 Mar 2011, 08:15:51
Location: East Texas

Re: Liberal's War On Science

Unread postby Cid_Yama » Fri 24 Apr 2015, 20:36:59

The lead of your article you just happened to leave off. By leaving this intro out, it biased what it appeared the author was saying.

We are well aware of the Republican war on science from the eponymous 2006 book (Basic Books) by Chris Mooney, and I have castigated conservatives myself in my 2006 book Why Darwin Matters (Henry Holt) for their erroneous belief that the theory of evolution leads to a breakdown of morality. A 2012 Gallup poll found that “58 percent of Republicans believe that God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years,” compared with 41 percent of Democrats. A 2011 survey by the Public Religion Research Institute found that 81 percent of Democrats but only 49 percent of Republicans believe that Earth is getting warmer. Many conservatives seem to grant early-stage embryos a moral standing that is higher than that of adults suffering from debilitating diseases potentially curable through stem cells. And most recently, Missouri Republican senatorial candidate Todd Akin gaffed on the ability of women's bodies to avoid pregnancy in the event of a “legitimate rape.” It gets worse.


Seems the premise you were trying to push was a false equivalency between left and right, which is clearly not the case.

Also, one should look at the source of the source the author is quoting.

Alex B. Berezow - author of Science Left Behind

Describing himself as ideologically neutral or moderate, he nonetheless described Pres. Barack Obama as being on the "far Left" when promoting his book, Science Left Behind at the American Enterprise Institute on Oct. 24, 2012. Just how rightist must one be to credit description of a president who saved finance capital from its managerial excesses with enormous bailouts and has been more aggressive in prosecuting the War on Terror with drone strikes than former President G.W. Bush of being not just "left" but "far-left"?

Berezow may not believe that about Obama, but his hyperbolic pandering to this conservative audience included whining about the supposed leftist bias of U.S. news coverage, now that reminds us of Conservapedia. That claim is not supported by scientific findings. Indeed it has been unambiguously dis-confirmed. See Tien-Tsung Lee's "The Liberal Media Myth Revisited: An Examination of Factors Influencing Perceptions of Media Bias." Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media. 49, 1 (2005): 43-64.


The book, Science Left Behind, was funded and promoted by the American Enterprise Institute.

The American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research (AEI) is an extremely influential, pro-business, think tank founded in 1943 by Lewis H. Brown. It promotes the advancement of free enterprise capitalism and its people have served in influential governmental positions. It is the base for many neo-conservatives.

link

Yes, there are some undereducated folks lacking critical thinking skills across the political spectrum, but statistics show most of them fall to the right of that spectrum.

But the issues on the left about nuclear power, fossil fuels and climate change are not anti-science as what was attempted to be claimed.

We really DON"T know how to handle Corium when something goes wrong.(Fukushima) And nuclear plants ARE potential time bombs in a societal collapse or natural disaster. And we are still storing the waste onsite.

Fossil fuels DO produce greenhouse gasses, and atmospheric chemistry DOES show they lead to potentially catastrophic warming (and extreme weather events), that would lead to crop failures around the globe.

Fracking DOES contaminate ground water, as we face a looming clean water scarcity.

These are not 'knee-jerk' positions. These are scientifically verified facts. All leading to a very REAL future you won't like.

Sure there are no easy answers. But pretending there is no problem is not an answer.

Seems those on the right are more concerned that those on the left are trying to 'take everything away', and leave them without their toys and gadgets.

Those concerned about the above issues don't automatically advocate returning to the 18th century. But these issues need to be addressed and not suppressed. They are real, and they are deadly.

And Yes, people will die. No matter what is done. All choices are bad ones. Time to grow up and face the real world, and stop worrying people are trying to take your toys away.

That techno future was always an unrealistic illusion, not a promise, not your birthright, so get over it.
"For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst and provide for it." - Patrick Henry

The level of injustice and wrong you endure is directly determined by how much you quietly submit to. Even to the point of extinction.
User avatar
Cid_Yama
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 6952
Joined: Sun 27 May 2007, 02:00:00
Location: The Post Peak Oil Historian

Re: Liberal's War On Science

Unread postby Plantagenet » Fri 24 Apr 2015, 21:58:31

I had to laugh at Cid's post above....He omitted to copy and post the actual start of the article when he claimed he was copying and posting the start of the article. :lol:

Here's how the article in Scientific American really started:

"Believe it or not—and I suspect most readers will not—there's a liberal war on science. Say what?"

Thats a pretty clear and powerful statement to start their article with---no wonder Cid dissembled and left it out. Now lets see why Scientific American is saying these mean things about liberals.... Scientific American explains it thusly:

"The left's war on science begins with the stats cited above: 41 percent of Democrats are young Earth creationists, and 19 percent doubt that Earth is getting warmer. These numbers do not exactly bolster the common belief that liberals are the people of the science book. " :lol:

Scientific American identifies some other bizarre liberal views that conflict with science.

"... belief in the mind as a tabula rasa shaped almost entirely by culture has been mostly the mantra of liberal intellectuals, who in the 1980s and 1990s led an all-out assault against evolutionary psychology via such Orwellian-named far-left groups as Science for the People, for proffering the now uncontroversial idea that human thought and behavior are at least partially the result of our evolutionary past.

There is more, and recent, antiscience fare from far-left progressives, documented in the 2012 book Science Left Behind (PublicAffairs) by science journalists Alex B. Berezow and Hank Campbell..... if it is true that conservatives have declared a war on science, then progressives have declared Armageddon.

..Try having a conversation with a liberal progressive about GMOs—genetically modified organisms—in which the words “Monsanto” and “profit” are not dropped like syllogistic bombs. Comedian Bill Maher, for example, on his HBO Real Time show on October 19, 2012, asked Stonyfield Farm CEO Gary Hirshberg if he would rate Monsanto as a 10 (“evil”) or an 11 (“f—ing evil”)? The fact is that we've been genetically modifying organisms for 10,000 years through breeding and selection. It's the only way to feed billions of people.
"

Finally, in their last paragraph, Scientific American says this:

"Surveys show that moderate liberals and conservatives embrace science roughly equally (varying across domains), which is why scientists like E. O. Wilson and organizations like the National Center for Science Education are reaching out to moderates in both parties to rein in the extremists "

Cheers!

"Its a brave new world"
---President Obama, 4/25/16
"Il bel far niente"
---traditional Italian saying
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 20622
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: Liberal's War On Science

Unread postby KaiserJeep » Sat 25 Apr 2015, 07:10:10

I find that labels are a means of distorting reality. I have never joined a political party, and my views are simply that the greatest evils in the present day USA are those committed by political partisans in the name of a political agenda.

Republican or Democrat, Liberal or Conservative, Scientific or Anti-Science, Religious or Anti-Religious - all labels without any real meaning. Every human being is unique, and as eccentric as a pet raccoon. Applying labels to others is - worst of all - a means of self-deception.

Let me mention some things that I do believe:

There is only one choice remaining in today's overpopulated world, where the simple presence of 7.3 billion human beings is the most serious and deadly "extinction level event" recorded in the fossil record of the planet. You can choose to knowingly become an advocate for and supporter of Humanity, or you can choose to knowingly become an advocate for and supporter of "Mother Earth", Gaia, Nature, Scientific facts, Objective Reality, etc. (All labels that one applies to deliberately deceive one's self and other people.)

The "or" in the paragraph above is an "exclusive or". There once was an entire spectrum of valid positions in between these two extreme political viewpoints. The presence of the (at least) 6.3 billion overshoot human population has reduced and simplified things tremendously. The only choice remaining is quite simple, and there are only two rational and self-consistent and logical political positions remaining, and I told you what those were. If you think I am wrong about that, you are deceiving yourself.

"Climate Change" is an entirely meaningless label. Climate changes all the time, all over the globe, and the only place one finds climate stability is in obscure and exceptional environments such as deep underground caves. The dominant natural climate trend is one of Warming, as we withdraw from the last Glacial period, and approach the peak inter-glacial temperature commonly labeled the "Climatic Optimum". The fossil record is explicit about that as well - it is that time when the peak amount of animal and plant biomass is present on the Earth's surface, before the long slide into the next glacial period begins. The lowest temperature extreme between inter-glacials is that time in the climate cycle where the living biomass is at a minimal value.

===> In actuality, "Mother Nature" does not give a rodent's behind whether that biomass consists of giant ferns, ocean plankton, countless species of dinosaurs, humans and their animal/plant food species, or ants. Ants may be the most successful species at this moment in time, as there are thousands of them for every human. Or perhaps that most successful species is a soil nematode or some form of deep undersea life we know nothing about, and have not yet labelled. Ultimately, whatever species that would be changes continuously and does not matter - unless you believe as I do that humans are different and unique and the most successful species yet produced by the planet, in that eyeblink of geological time when life existed, between two really really long periods of planetary sterility.

AGW is another ultimately meaningless term - because it truly does not matter whether mankind is capable of, or is in fact, changing climate, because there are so many people present at this time and in this place, that we cannot change what is happening. We can make extreme and significant lifestyle changes, and if it turns out that I am wrong and mankind is changing the climate, the absolute best thing that we can bring about is a momentary slowing in the rate of change, or a moderation of the peak temperature of the Climatic Optimum. This is ultimately meaningless and does not change the fate of humans or any other species - or all collective species on Earth. Don't waste more than a few seconds of thought on AGW, we can't make any changes that matter, our fate is already known.

The survivors of the next Glacial when it ebbs might be considered "humans" or not - we went into the last Glacial with several hominid species in contention, and modern humans emerged.

Wikipedia:
According to the Recent African Ancestry theory, modern humans evolved in Africa possibly from Homo heidelbergensis, Homo rhodesiensis or Homo antecessor and migrated out of the continent some 50,000 to 100,000 years ago, replacing local populations of Homo erectus, Homo denisova, Homo floresiensis and Homo neanderthalensis.

Archaic Homo sapiens, the forerunner of anatomically modern humans, evolved between 400,000 and 250,000 years ago. Recent DNA evidence suggests that several haplotypes of Neanderthal origin are present among all non-African populations, and Neanderthals and other hominids, such as Denisova hominin may have contributed up to 6% of their genome to present-day humans, suggestive of a limited inter-breeding between these species. Anatomically modern humans evolved from archaic Homo sapiens in the Middle Paleolithic, about 200,000 years ago. The transition to behavioral modernity with the development of symbolic culture, language, and specialized lithic technology happened around 50,000 years ago according to many anthropologists although some suggest a gradual change in behavior over a longer time span.


There is only ONE question remaining of any interest to me - or anybody else who has thought the matter through:

===> Are humans successful enough to spread beyond the confines of a single planet and in habit other places in our Solar System, before the entirely natural climate cycle cashes in our chips, and another species emerges from the next Glacial, and tries again to escape the planet, before the cycle completes yet again?

Call me a wild optimist, because I believe in today's Humanity. We can escape our fate, all it takes is the desire to do so.

So CHOOSE ALREADY from the only two positions that remain. Choose to be an advocate of humans and trashing the planet, or to be an advocate of the planet, by promoting the extinction of our species.

===> Or deceive yourself with the belief that other meaningful choices exist.
KaiserJeep 2.0, Neural Subnode 0010 0000 0001 0110 - 1001 0011 0011, Tertiary Adjunct to Unimatrix 0000 0000 0001

Resistance is Futile, YOU will be Assimilated.

Warning: Messages timestamped before April 1, 2016, 06:00 PST were posted by the unmodified human KaiserJeep 1.0
KaiserJeep
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 4263
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 16:16:32
Location: California's Silly Valley

Re: Liberal's War On Science

Unread postby Pops » Sat 25 Apr 2015, 07:46:32

Cid_Yama wrote:The lead of your article you just happened to leave off.

Naw, I didn't happen to do anything, I mentioned it specifically and I explained why in the opening sentence.

The current meme that we're all familiar with is that conservatives are anti-science, and I think it is true to an extent especially with very conservative people, but the reason I quoted that particular article and used the original title was to point out that liberals are equally anti science in quite a few areas of their own. I really am surprised at how excited liberals are at the very idea, well the few represented here anyway.

The point of course was introspective, since we are all subject to our own subconscious biases, how can we go about checking ourselves.

The main reaction turned out to be defending the liberal bias. LOL

AR probably has the good solution, if you aren't paid to know, believe whatever you want, doesn't matter.
If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen we must live through all time or die by suicide.
-- Abraham Lincoln
User avatar
Pops
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 17642
Joined: Sat 03 Apr 2004, 03:00:00
Location: QuikSac for a 6-Pac

Re: Liberal's War On Science

Unread postby Timo » Sat 25 Apr 2015, 09:38:05

Pops wrote:Did anyone say anything about gauging their own opinions? Timo did, he said to use to use replicated peer reviewed studies (of course after attacking the editors of SciAm for the title of the article LOL).

I was objecting to the title of this thread, but why bother explaining or trying to figure out the moderator's motives in using such language. Click bait! It works, but it remind me of the tactics used by Fox Snooze.
Timo
 

Re: Liberal's War On Science

Unread postby Ibon » Sat 25 Apr 2015, 10:04:48

Great thread. Examining ones personal bias and being ever vigilant must be a constant exercise during inquiry.

For anyone reading this thread thinking they are free of this you are probably the most in need of heading this advice.
Our resiliency resembles an invasive weed. We are the Kudzu Ape
blog: http://blog.mounttotumas.com/
website: http://www.mounttotumas.com
User avatar
Ibon
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 6039
Joined: Fri 03 Dec 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Volcan, Panama

Re: Liberal's War On Science

Unread postby evilgenius » Sat 25 Apr 2015, 11:16:23

First of all, a person's take on science is not as an investigator. Everywhere, and in every way unless you are employed doing actual research, a person's understanding of science lies in adhering to a dominant paradigm. The adoption of this paradigm is a lot like faith. Some people adhere to it on the most obtuse of levels, with no direct knowledge of the bits and pieces that go into putting the whole together.

Look, when you read an article somewhere that purports to challenge the theory of the Big Bang, for instance, the article may make a great case for adjusting the age of the universe, or some other aspect of the theory. That doesn't mean that the dominant paradigm has changed, though. You might be convinced, but the scientific establishment probably hasn't been. As time goes by, you might hear of further ramifications brought about by that article. If so, you can say you 'had a hunch' way back when. If not, you will probably forget about it and maintain whatever grasp you have upon the dominant paradigm.

That's the way that science speaks to people, through the consensus which is itself a sort of faith based operation in the sense that in order for the notion of it to exist in people's heads there needs to be an amount of faith involved. Few people come along and propose anything that really upsets the natural order of how this paradigm changes. Even Einstein's proposals were initially met with dumbfoundedness. I think it took like a year after he wrote his first paper for anybody to take serious notice of what he was saying. And what he proposed changed everything!

What you've got going on is a political establishment that knows that the scientific paradigm is reliant upon faith for its existence. Hence, they, meaning both sides, use propaganda designed to prey upon people's connection to it. There they can create a world, because remember we are talking about what exists in the realm of human faith, where verified parts of the consensus can coexist alongside proposals that are seemingly anathema to them. Even if you play a numbers game you can't refute them, so long as they have chosen the battlefield. Numbers become subservient to emotion. Good thing emotion is temporary in nature, huh?
User avatar
evilgenius
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 2243
Joined: Tue 06 Dec 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Stopped at the border.

Re: Liberal's War On Science

Unread postby PrestonSturges » Sat 25 Apr 2015, 11:25:01

By the sound of it, there must be a presidential election coming up so the GOP needs to rebrand itself as "Now 50% Less Batshit Crazy Than We Were At The Midterms." Let's check the calendar ...... well what do you know, there is an election coming up.

It's the GOP that has politicians talking about Biblical prophecy. In the case of Ted Cruz, his dad (who actively campaigns for him) talks about how demons control every day life. This is common on the Bachmann/Palin end of the spectrum. And you can find GOP members of congress describing evolution in terms ranging from "controversial" to "Satanic." ANd of course Michelle Bachmann explicitly said vaccines cause autism.

When Bobby Jindhal decided he was ready for prime time he talked scornfully about "volcano monitoring" in a tone that suggested "volcanoes" are a made up thing like unicorns and monitoring them was just some sort of scientific financial scam. Naturally a week later there was a volcanic eruption in Alaska.

Scott Walker's supporters are crying foul because reporters asked him if he believed in evolution, and they said that this was hostile ambush. Little Scotty refuses to answer if he believes in evolution.

Also, this smells like previous attempts by conservatives to claim 9-11 Truthers are liberals, even though many Truthers are Ron Paul fans and white supremacists (not to mention the white supremacist Ron Paul fans). And if you want to find people who don't like GMOs, they can be found at the usual conspiracy web sites warning about UN invasions and FEMA camps.
User avatar
PrestonSturges
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 6052
Joined: Wed 15 Oct 2008, 02:00:00

Re: Liberal's War On Science

Unread postby Tanada » Sat 25 Apr 2015, 12:24:05

I find it fascinating how thin skinned some people are when their personal biases are challenged. Doesn't matter if you are left, right, up, down, front or back, most people when they feel challenged lash out emotionally without actually refuting anything.
I should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, write, balance accounts, build a wall, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, pitch manure, program a computer, cook, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 14097
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: Liberal's War On Science

Unread postby PrestonSturges » Sat 25 Apr 2015, 13:29:28

Tanada wrote:I find it fascinating how thin skinned some people are when their personal biases are challenged. Doesn't matter if you are left, right, up, down, front or back, most people when they feel challenged lash out emotionally without actually refuting anything.


Here's a video where a neuroscientist talks about how severe child abuse, especially in kids under 10, leaves a person with cognitive and emotional problems and measurable physical differences in the brain size and brain wave patterns. And this applies to something like 15% of the population. Notice that conservatives love to brag about how when they were small children their parents beat them catatonic nearly every day, while liberals are more focused on rape (which conservatives ridicule?). Either way, they end up with a similar personality and similar brain dysfunctions.

https://youtu.be/N2NTADxDuhA

It also means that when they meet an obvious scumbag (IRL or politics) they will sacrifice themselves to protect and shield the abuser. This is why people like Jerry Sandusky (or David Vitter) can float through life as if they are protected by an invisible force shield.
User avatar
PrestonSturges
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 6052
Joined: Wed 15 Oct 2008, 02:00:00

Re: Liberal's War On Science

Unread postby Pops » Sat 25 Apr 2015, 13:53:32

Now there is some bias.
Take note ye of Leftish pride.
LOLOL
If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen we must live through all time or die by suicide.
-- Abraham Lincoln
User avatar
Pops
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 17642
Joined: Sat 03 Apr 2004, 03:00:00
Location: QuikSac for a 6-Pac

Re: Liberal's War On Science

Unread postby Cid_Yama » Sat 25 Apr 2015, 14:46:02

Yes, plant, those are quotes from the neocon funded and promoted book Science Left Behind. Funded and promoted by the American Enterprise Institute. On par with the Heritage Foundation.

You do realize that just because someone writes it down in a book, doesn't make it true. Especially when it comes from those people, who have a serious credibility problem.

Go on, spout some more nonsense.

That book was clearly an attack on those opposed to the actions of the very profitable oil, gas and nuclear industries. Attempting to claim that those opposed to the actions of these industries were anti-science, and were opposed because of a political bias, not based on science. Horse apples.

And I will reiterate.

But the issues ...about nuclear power, fossil fuels and climate change are not anti-science as what was attempted to be claimed.

We really DON"T know how to handle Corium when something goes wrong.(Fukushima) And nuclear plants ARE potential time bombs in a societal collapse or natural disaster. And we are still storing the waste onsite.

Fossil fuels DO produce greenhouse gasses, and atmospheric chemistry DOES show they lead to potentially catastrophic warming (and extreme weather events), that would lead to crop failures around the globe.

Fracking DOES contaminate ground water, as we face a looming clean water scarcity.

These are not 'knee-jerk' positions. These are scientifically verified facts. All leading to a very REAL future you won't like.


Go ahead, try to tell me what I just said isn't true and isn't scientifically based.

Some people really don't want to have to drink chemically contaminated water, or face starvation, or be subject to potential nuclear catastrophes. These are real issues, as much as these industries would like them to go away.

These are not 'Liberal' problems, these are human problems. Those that don't want to believe the science behind these concerns, are the ones suffering from a bias.
"For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst and provide for it." - Patrick Henry

The level of injustice and wrong you endure is directly determined by how much you quietly submit to. Even to the point of extinction.
User avatar
Cid_Yama
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 6952
Joined: Sun 27 May 2007, 02:00:00
Location: The Post Peak Oil Historian

PreviousNext

Return to Environment, Weather & Climate

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests