"Obama has now fired more cruise missiles than all other Nobel Peace Prize winners combined."

[Agoxlea]

Okay, that was a pretty funny video, but in reality most (or at least many) liberals aren't too happy with Obama either. There are definitely some people out there like that but they're few and far between. If we're being honest, there is only one side of the political spectrum that frequently ignores facts/science. hint: not liberals.

 

[One Brow]

If we're being honest, there is only one side of the political spectrum that frequently ignores facts/science. hint: not liberals.

Arianna Huffington, who just got paid million for a wretched hive of scum and quackery: liberal
Deepak Chopra, woomeister supreme: liberal
Bill Maher, who thinks he is immune to colds because he avoid "toxins": liberal

How long a list would you like?

Science is under seige from all parts of the political spectrum, just in different ways.

 

[LogGrad98]

Okay, that was a pretty funny video, but in reality most (or at least many) liberals aren't too happy with Obama either. There are definitely some people out there like that but they're few and far between. If we're being honest, there is only one side of the political spectrum that frequently ignores facts/science. hint: not liberals.

If this is a reference to things such as global warming, you have to remember that dispute is different from ignore.

I think the "ignore" perception happens because on many disputed "science" issues (e.g. global warming) republicans want to ensure we are balanced about the issue, while democrats want to rush into action without fully assessing impact. The Kyoto protocol, for example, was a huge disaster waiting to happen - economically, strategically, and functionally. If we had fully embraced the kyoto protocols we would have severely crippled our industry and economy while having a very negligible impact on the potential problem since many of the heaviest poluters were not going to follow it.

It worries me how things get so polarized and people stop thinking about the issues in the grand scheme of things, and just latch on to catch phrases ("Bush lied, people died") and then wash their hands at the issue as if adopting that mentality absolves them of understanding and truly supporting issues that we all face. Group think is one of the most damaging parts of our bi-partisan system of government. Latch onto the dem or repub POV, spout the one-liners, jump on the bandwagon, and pretend we are thinking about things. Scary.

 

[Agoxlea]

Really we don't need to list those in each party that have said ignorant things. Notice how none of those listed were successful politicians. Arianna Huffington might have start the Huffington Post, but it is a lot of user created content which obviously is going to be pretty horrendous. Bill Maher has quite a few more problems than that, although he is a comedian so I'm not too concerned about his intelligence. It doesn't affect me, I can choose to ignore it.. I can't ignore a sizable number of politicians that choose to make equally terrible mistakes. Unfortunately most (not all) of these politicians happen to be conservative.


Let me clarify, both sides have people that are pretty far out there such as Chopra, in fact most new-agey types are most likely liberal. Both sides also have many very intelligent supporters. What I meant is that liberal politicians aren't representative of the crazy people that support them. There is a large list of conservative politicians that choose to ignore facts, and that is where the problem lies.

Although I wasn't specifically referring to climate change, I would like to address that. According to a paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 97%-98% of the most actively publishing scientists accept global warming. Yes, I got this from wikipedia, but can provide a link to the original source if desired. Those politicians that choose to ignore this are not in any way qualified to make a more education decision than these scientists, yet they base this on a gut feeling. In addition to climate change I could throw in those that are opposed to natural selection. They don't understand the scientific meaning of the word 'theory'. Natural selection is observable in real time. I don't believe there are any anti-vax politicians in Congress (thankfully) although I'm not positive.

I actually really enjoy your posts loggrad, and I'm not trying to argue just for the sake of taking a side. There are quite a number of fiscal policies which I believe conservatives actually have the right idea. I would be willing to vote republican if their position on taxes wasn't to oppose them at all costs. I think fiscally there could definitely be some reasonable compromises, and politicians have been too ideologically attached to their principle on both sides of the aisle; especially lately. Yes the Kyoto Protocol would have hurt us economically. It might not seem like it, especially now, but there are issues out there other than the economy. In my opinion (not fact) it will cost more in the long run to ignore our environmental issues due to famines, droughts, natural disasters, collapse of industries that depend on consistent weather(wine industry), rising food prices, and a number of other things.

I wasn't trying to start an argument, and criticize specific conservatives that are in the media, because like I said both sides have intelligent and misinformed supporters, but I believe that blatant disregard for science is more widely accepted as far as being a conservative politician is concerned.

 

[LogGrad98]

Yes the climate change debate is a whole other animal. That the climate has undergone changes is all but undeniable. Now whether humans and their 1/1000th of one percent impact on the atmosphere really has an impact....well therein lies the core of the debate. I agree that other issues are important beyond the economy but the liberal side seems to latch onto one part of the issue and make it the whole truth and nothing but the truth and demonize it at the same time (man caused global warming, the environmental damage is going to cost us more long-term = destroy our economy now at all costs). Really for any issue like this we need a non-partisan approach that balances both the immediate concerns (damaging an already frail economy) and long-term impact (alternate fuels, reduce/eliminate dependency on oil, etc.). But so often we can't make any progress because one side or the other just won't give an inch. DEMS: FIX IT NOW NOW NOW NOW NOW...FINE EVERYONE WHO EVER BURNS ANYTHING! REPUBS: GLOBAL WARMING IS A MYTH...CARBON FOOTPRINT MY ***...STOP AL GORE! Moderator: Ok what if we look at the economic and environmental impact and try to find a mid.....BOTH: NOT JUST NO BUT ****ING HELL NO YOU ********!!

Pardon the hyperbole but it sure seems that way sometimes.

(by the way, mentioning "climate change" instead of "global warming" is an interesting commentary on changes in scientific consensus of "fact"....but again that is another debate for another time)



And my last paragraph in my other post was meant in general not aimed at you Ag. It was a commentary on the video really and politics in general.

 

[Agoxlea]

I totally agree, although I wasn't aware Karl Malone was participating in this debate. To me lately the repubs idea of compromise has been to be stubborn even if the dems try to meet them in the middle. I'm sure it happens both ways, but the seems like recently the repubs are the ones unwilling to budge. There are definitely changes that need to be made from both sides though.

I chose climate change for a reason. Yes, the global temp is going up on average so it is still global warming, but that might mean some places get cooler while others get warmer. Climate change to me makes it easier to visualize from the perspective of one person. It like estate tax vs. death tax. Same thing, but one sounds a lot more terrible.

 

[One Brow]

If this is a reference to things such as global warming, you have to remember that dispute is different from ignore.

However, there is also a difference between genuine dispute and industry-funded denialism, and global warming so-called skepticism is the latter.

 

[One Brow]

Notice how none of those listed were successful politicians.

You mean like Sen. Tom Harkin, D-IA, who is constantly fighting to fund quackery? Again, how large a list do you want, and how "sucessful" do they need to be to be on that list?

Arianna Huffington might have start the Huffington Post, but it is a lot of user created content which obviously is going to be pretty horrendous.

Huffington is a hard-core, dyed-in-the-wool nutjob who strongly supports anti-vaccine propaganda and other quackery.

What I meant is that liberal politicians aren't representative of the crazy people that support them.

Really, how embarrassed do you want to be by all of these incredably naive statements? Your foot is practically down your throat already, you just haven't realized it yet.

I wasn't trying to start an argument, and criticize specific conservatives that are in the media, because like I said both sides have intelligent and misinformed supporters, but I believe that blatant disregard for science is more widely accepted as far as being a conservative politician is concerned.

That depends on the science in question. Conservatives have scientific findings they like and those they hate, same as liberals.

 

[One Brow]

(by the way, mentioning "climate change" instead of "global warming" is an interesting commentary on changes in scientific consensus of "fact"....but again that is another debate for another time)

Actually, it's an acknowledgement that the warming effect describes an overall average, but is not seen in every specific location. Some locations will be cooled by global warming due to secondary effects.

 

[PearlWatson]

According to a paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 97%-98% of the most actively publishing scientists accept global warming.

We need to look no further than the liberal eugenics movement to see the dangers of consensus "science."

I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

Let's be clear: The work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period. . . .

I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way. . . .

 

[LogGrad98]

Nice quote Milsapa. Consensus science has brought us such wonders as the earth-centered universe. Disputing which, Gallileo almost paid for with his life.

 

[Agoxlea]

You mean like Sen. Tom Harkin, D-IA, who is constantly fighting to fund quackery? Again, how large a list do you want, and how "sucessful" do they need to be to be on that list?

He definitely counts as successful. As far as unsuccessful I specifically meant Huffington. She may have political aspirations, but hasn't been elected to anything. I have no desire to defend her, and she may not even deserve defending; The media on both sides has many others just like her.Tom Harkin's position on alternative medicines is exactly the type of blatant disregard for fact that I was referring to in my earlier posts. The difference here, in my opinion, is that Harkin's outlandish positions on alternative medicine hasn't been adopted by the Democratic party as a major issue. There are a number of individuals in both parties that have some wild ideas, however in the republican party these ideas seem to pick up steam with a larger group.

Huffington is a hard-core, dyed-in-the-wool nutjob who strongly supports anti-vaccine propaganda and other quackery.

Agreed almost entirely.

Really, how embarrassed do you want to be by all of these incredably naive statements? Your foot is practically down your throat already, you just haven't realized it yet.

My statements for the most part I think have been fairly realistic, however "crazy" may not have been the best word, and that may not have been the most well thought out idea. That a larger proportion of alternative ideas are accepted by a larger proportion of the repub. part than the dem. is maybe a better and clearly valid statement.

I'm not suggesting that based on this one should make a decision and blindly follow one party or the other. It is much easier to avoid voting for those specific dems with outlandish ideas. The denial of global warming is a key issue in my opinion. Although I may agree with some fiscal policies of the repubs, it is much more difficult to find a repub that will acknowledge global warming. Because of this I feel my choices are much more limited with repubs, and I may vote for them LESS often (but occasionally).

That depends on the science in question. Conservatives have scientific findings they like and those they hate, same as liberals.

True, but my point was the mainstream acceptance of such ideas, but a large group of politicians vs. select outliers. Yes, I realize repubs have outliers too. I don't think Michele Bachman is representative of the entire party (I hope not). I feel Joe Barton does have some alternative ideas that are much more widely accepted by his party, and that is one example of an outlier that a large group supports.

You did hit the nail on the head with explaining the term climate change vs. global warming. I explained it in a similar fashion in an earlier post, however you got right to the meat of the subject and had a nice concise clarification.

 

[Agoxlea]

Nice quote Milsapa. Consensus science has brought us such wonders as the earth-centered universe. Disputing which, Gallileo almost paid for with his life.

Galileo disputed this idea with observations and evidence that were suppressed for religious reasons. It's hard to tell what tone comes across in these posts, and I am definitely not trying to argue or be negative, I am just interested in this conversation so don't get me wrong. There is really very little reason that the mainstream scientific community would suppress new evidence that countered global warming. Yes, individuals may lose funding, and there have been issues regarding falsified data for this very reason. These falsified reports have however been acknowledged by the scientific community as a whole, and there is still a consensus (scary word). One can argue that there would be more to gain with a credible scientific discovery disproving climate change. This hasn't really happened and there is no mutual reason to suppress such evidence, even if one or a few individuals would be interested in doing so. You have to admit this comparison to and geocentric universe is a stretch at best.

 

[Agoxlea]

Originally Posted by Michael Chrichton
I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

Let's be clear: The work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period. . . .

I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way. . . .

I admit climate change is less concrete than these ideas, however natural selection is not. Natural selection is observable. Yes, it is called the "Theory" of Natural Selection, but there is also the Theory of Gravity. This word is used differently in the scientific community. You do have a valid point, although climate change is becoming less and less consensus each year as we gather more evidence of the climate change actually occurring. I believe loggrad pointed out that the issue is about the human linkage to the climate change. That is more debatable and relies more on the consensus are so against. If that is your argument it is a valid one, and so be it, but the actual occurrence of climate change should not be up for debate.

 

[Agoxlea]

Also this is Michael Crichton's opinion. Just because he believe consensus to be a bad thing, does not make it so.

 

[PearlWatson]

I admit climate change is less concrete than these ideas, however natural selection is not. Natural selection is observable. Yes, it is called the "Theory" of Natural Selection, but there is also the Theory of Gravity. This word is used differently in the scientific community. You do have a valid point, although climate change is becoming less and less consensus each year as we gather more evidence of the climate change actually occurring. I believe loggrad pointed out that the issue is about the human linkage to the climate change. That is more debatable and relies more on the consensus are so against. If that is your argument it is a valid one, and so be it, but the actual occurrence of climate change should not be up for debate.

Why do you get your panties in a bunch over these useless "theories?"

So the fit survive! The cavemen figured that out when they picked up a club for the first time.
Wow, the climate changes. Woopdeedoo. I guess it's a good thing we have the ability to adapt.

Why can't you get more concerned with useful theories that help human kind in some way?

 

[One Brow]

Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant.

What stark, flaming ignorance (combined with the Galileo gambit). You build consensus in science by being right, and being able to demonstrate you are right. Pretending they are separate is just rhetoric. The germ theory of disease is the consensus because it is right. The rasioactivity of uranium is the consensus because it is right. Global warming is consensus because it is right.

 

[One Brow]

Consensus science has brought us such wonders as the earth-centered universe. Disputing which, Gallileo almost paid for with his life.

Please name all the scientists who wanted Galileo killed.

 

[One Brow]

Wow, the climate changes. Woopdeedoo. I guess it's a good thing we have the ability to adapt.

There has never been a human civilization on a much cooler or warmer climate than we currently have. We may survive as a species, butthat doesn't mean our civilizations will survive along with it.

 

[Agoxlea]

What stark, flaming ignorance (combined with the Galileo gambit). You build consensus in science by being right, and being able to demonstrate you are right. Pretending they are separate is just rhetoric. The germ theory of disease is the consensus because it is right. The rasioactivity of uranium is the consensus because it is right. Global warming is consensus because it is right.

Exactly this.