Re: CNN=Always Fair and Balanced

[TimV]

On 2/9/12 2:35 PM, Ctrl¤/Alt¤/Del¤ wrote:
> http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/cnn-calls-cpac-petri-dish/366806
>
> And we wonder why Democrats in this group, like Huck, have no common
> sense.

Doesn't surprise me to know that the anti-science party wouldn't
understand a science analogy.

T

[xyzzy]

On Feb 9, 4:09 pm, TimV <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
> On 2/9/12 2:35 PM, Ctrl /Alt /Del wrote:
>

> >http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential...

>
> > And we wonder why Democrats in this group, like Huck, have no common
> > sense.
>
> Doesn't surprise me to know that the anti-science party wouldn't
> understand a science analogy.

Perzactly.

Martyrbation!

[lein]

So what is anti-science about the Republican Party?

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

Disculpa Senora lein, pero did you really mime the following on
2/9/2012 11:15 PM???

What isn't?

--
Lighthouses are more helpful than churches.
-- Not Benjamin Franklin

[lein]

On Feb 9, 8:38 pm, Zaphod Beeblebrox <victor.ki...@verizon.net> wrote:
> Disculpa Senora lein, pero did you really mime the following  on
> 2/9/2012 11:15 PM???
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 9, 1:13 pm, xyzzy<xyzzy.d...@gmail.com>  wrote:
> >> On Feb 9, 4:09 pm, TimV<nos...@nospam.com>  wrote:
>
> >>> On 2/9/12 2:35 PM, Ctrl /Alt /Del wrote:
>
> >>>>http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential...
>
> >>>> And we wonder why Democrats in this group, like Huck, have no common
> >>>> sense.
>
> >>> Doesn't surprise me to know that the anti-science party wouldn't
> >>> understand a science analogy.
>
> >> Perzactly.
>
> >> Martyrbation!
>
> > So what is anti-science about the Republican Party?
>
> What isn't?

You tell me.

[DanS.]

On 2/9/2012 3:35 PM, Ctrl¤/Alt¤/Del¤ wrote:
> http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/cnn-calls-cpac-petri-dish/366806

>
> And we wonder why Democrats in this group, like Huck, have no common
> sense.

She misspelled "we're morally bankrupt" in that description.

--
Yours,
Dan S.

[mianderson]

On Feb 9, 3:09 pm, TimV <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
> On 2/9/12 2:35 PM, Ctrl¤/Alt¤/Del¤ wrote:
>

> >http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential...

>
> > And we wonder why Democrats in this group, like Huck, have no common
> > sense.
>
> Doesn't surprise me to know that the anti-science party wouldn't
> understand a science analogy.

and that's a bad thing why?

[TimV]

Not a bad thing, just surprising. However, it is humorous when you throw
a hissy fit when someone compliments you.

T

[RaginPage]

On Feb 9, 11:38 pm, Zaphod Beeblebrox <victor.ki...@verizon.net>
wrote:

> Disculpa Senora lein, pero did you really mime the following  on
> 2/9/2012 11:15 PM???
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 9, 1:13 pm, xyzzy<xyzzy.d...@gmail.com>  wrote:
> >> On Feb 9, 4:09 pm, TimV<nos...@nospam.com>  wrote:
>
> >>> On 2/9/12 2:35 PM, Ctrl /Alt /Del wrote:
>
> >>>>http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential...
>
> >>>> And we wonder why Democrats in this group, like Huck, have no common
> >>>> sense.
>
> >>> Doesn't surprise me to know that the anti-science party wouldn't
> >>> understand a science analogy.
>
> >> Perzactly.
>
> >> Martyrbation!
>
> > So what is anti-science about the Republican Party?
>
> What isn't?
>

There is nothing anti-science about the Republican Party. It's a
completely stupid statement to make.

Brent

[Jim Brown]

Those dumn bastards can't see it's only a zygote fer starters!

[RaginPage]

There are ignorant statements and stances from both sides of the
issue. The whole "part of her body" argument obviously flies in the
face of science given the genetic components, making it clear that an
embryo is not merely just part of her body. For example. There are
more on both sides.

It doesn't make either side anti-science, though.

Brent

[michael anderson]

well if you don't understand it's a compliment then it makes
sense.....

the larger issue though is that it is true that most conservatives
dont care how many protons are in an atom or whatever, or what the
molecular weight of air is. So we aren't offended or bothered when
someone 'calls us out' on it....anymore than we are offended when
someone points out we don't know how to make salt water taffy.

if anything, we take it as a compliment.


>
> T

[Jim Brown]

On Feb 9, 10:15 pm, lein <boomer_the_...@my-deja.com> wrote:

[lein]

I have a friend who gave birth 6 months into her pregnancy? Are you
telling me those twins that she holds are zygotes and not human beings?

[The Undead Edward M. Kennedy]

"lein" <boomer_...@my-deja.com> wrote

> > > > >http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential...
>
> > > > > And we wonder why Democrats in this group, like Huck, have no common
> > > > > sense.
>
> > > > Doesn't surprise me to know that the anti-science party wouldn't
> > > > understand a science analogy.
>
> > > Perzactly.
>
> > > Martyrbation!
>
> > So what is anti-science about the Republican Party?
>
> Those dumn bastards can't see it's only a zygote fer starters!
<
<I have a friend who gave birth 6 months into her pregnancy? Are you
<telling me those twins that she holds are zygotes and not human beings?

Anyone arguing for abortion at 6 months should be shot.
Anyone comparing zygotes to 6 month old fetuses is simply
an idiot.

--Tewdard

[TimV]

Abortion isn't a scientific question, it is an ethical and philosophical
question. Scientifically, a zygote is just as human as a 5 year old child.

I'm talking more about the debates on evolution and climate change. The
latter certainly has political implications and the cause and proposed
remedies should certainly be up for debate. But it gets really, really
silly the way republicans attack the underlying data as if the world
isn't getting substantially warmer. Cause? Questionable. Existence? Not
even remotely close. Remedy? Not politically feasible as currently proposed.

[Dennis J]

On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 10:27:12 -0600, TimV <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:

>On 2/10/12 8:38 AM, Jim Brown wrote:
>> On Feb 9, 10:15 pm, lein<boomer_the_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>> On Feb 9, 1:13 pm, xyzzy<xyzzy.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Feb 9, 4:09 pm, TimV<nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> On 2/9/12 2:35 PM, Ctrl /Alt /Del wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential...
>>>
>>>>>> And we wonder why Democrats in this group, like Huck, have no common
>>>>>> sense.
>>>
>>>>> Doesn't surprise me to know that the anti-science party wouldn't
>>>>> understand a science analogy.
>>>
>>>> Perzactly.
>>>
>>>> Martyrbation!
>>>
>>> So what is anti-science about the Republican Party?
>>
>>
>>
>> Those dumn bastards can't see it's only a zygote fer starters!
>>
>
>Abortion isn't a scientific question, it is an ethical and philosophical
>question. Scientifically, a zygote is just as human as a 5 year old child.

I don't know... a Zygote has the DNA of a human, but no organs yet.

>
>I'm talking more about the debates on evolution and climate change. The
>latter certainly has political implications and the cause and proposed
>remedies should certainly be up for debate. But it gets really, really
>silly the way republicans attack the underlying data as if the world
>isn't getting substantially warmer. Cause? Questionable. Existence? Not
>even remotely close. Remedy? Not politically feasible as currently proposed.

--

"The omnipotence of clairvoyance is dreadfully dualistic in its agnosticism" MISC Quote
"Education is the progressive discovery of our own Ignorance" Will Durant
"One can't have a sense of perspective without a sense of Humor" -- Wayne Thiboux
"the Glass is not only half full, it has been delicious so far!!" -- ME
To reply, SCRAPE off the end bits.

[RaginPage]

On Feb 10, 11:37 am, Dennis J <drjud...@frontier.SCRAPE.COM> wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 10:27:12 -0600, TimV <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
> >On 2/10/12 8:38 AM, Jim Brown wrote:
> >> On Feb 9, 10:15 pm, lein<boomer_the_...@my-deja.com>  wrote:
> >>> On Feb 9, 1:13 pm, xyzzy<xyzzy.d...@gmail.com>  wrote:
>
> >>>> On Feb 9, 4:09 pm, TimV<nos...@nospam.com>  wrote:
>
> >>>>> On 2/9/12 2:35 PM, Ctrl /Alt /Del wrote:
>
> >>>>>>http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential...
>
> >>>>>> And we wonder why Democrats in this group, like Huck, have no common
> >>>>>> sense.
>
> >>>>> Doesn't surprise me to know that the anti-science party wouldn't
> >>>>> understand a science analogy.
>
> >>>> Perzactly.
>
> >>>> Martyrbation!
>
> >>> So what is anti-science about the Republican Party?
>
> >> Those dumn bastards can't see it's only a zygote fer starters!
>
> >Abortion isn't a scientific question, it is an ethical and philosophical
> >question. Scientifically, a zygote is just as human as a 5 year old child.
>
> I don't know... a Zygote has the DNA of a human, but no organs yet.
>

Isn't that really the crux of the whole debate?

Brent

[Dennis J]

Well, some claim it's when the Zygote forms, others when it can live
outside the womb... next time you see a doc ask them what the term is
for miscarriage...

[TimV]

But that is still a philosophical question. When do we consider a human
a human? If we go by your definition of organs, a brain dead individual
has organs. So taking them off life support is tantamount to murder.

But again, this isn't what I was talking about. Abortion is not a
scientific question.

T

[RaginPage]

That's part of the problem, Tim. You expect Republicans to appreciate
the nuance you just put in "Cause? Questionable" without appreciating
theirs. Many of the AGW folks refuse to acknowledged that the cause
is even questionable. Does that mean I should just ignore the
statement you made and put you in their category? Of course not.
Similarly, many Republicans are questioning the "cause" without
questioning the effect.

Evolution? Same thing. Many Republicans question the theory of Macro
evolution without questioning micro evolution. It may seem silly to
parse out Evolution into those two groups, but it's important in order
to understand nuance.

If you want to paint Republicans as anti-science by refusing to
acknowledge the nuance in their arguments and understanding that
different people on the same side of the issue have differing levels
of comprehension on the topic, you have to accept that they are likely
to do the same to you and paint the Democrats as either anti-science,
or fundamentally misunderstanding science. Especially when so many
think that the observed absence of a thing is "proof" of the absence
of a thing. Which scientists learn at a pretty early stage, isn't
true at all.

So, having said all that, which is it? Can we just say everyone is
stupid, or do you want to be reasonable and back off the broad paint
brush statement?

Brent

[Dennis J]

I know what you're saying, I'm more of a person inclined to lean
towards it being o.k. during the first Trimester, when it's not viable
outside the womb. I also think that *at most* it should be once in a
lifetime experience for a woman if at all.

[The Undead Edward M. Kennedy]

"TimV" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote

>>>>>>>>>> http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential...
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And we wonder why Democrats in this group, like Huck, have no common
>>>>>>>>>> sense.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Doesn't surprise me to know that the anti-science party wouldn't
>>>>>>>>> understand a science analogy.
>>>>
>>>>>>>> Perzactly.
>>>>
>>>>>>>> Martyrbation!
>>>>
>>>>>>> So what is anti-science about the Republican Party?
>>>>
>>>>>> Those dumn bastards can't see it's only a zygote fer starters!
>>>>
>>>>> Abortion isn't a scientific question, it is an ethical and philosophical
>>>>> question. Scientifically, a zygote is just as human as a 5 year old child.
>>>>
>>>> I don't know... a Zygote has the DNA of a human, but no organs yet.

My fingernail clippings are human and have DNA too.

>>> Isn't that really the crux of the whole debate?
>>>
>>> Brent
>>
>> Well, some claim it's when the Zygote forms, others when it can live
>> outside the womb... next time you see a doc ask them what the term is
>> for miscarriage...
>> --
>
>
> But that is still a philosophical question. When do we consider a human a human? If we go by your definition of organs, a brain
> dead individual has organs. So taking them off life support is tantamount to murder.

No, murder is actively killing someone. You are presupposing an
obligation to provide life support (and possibly against the patient's
pre-recorded wishes), a philosopical error.

> But again, this isn't what I was talking about. Abortion is not a scientific question.

Strictly speaking, no, but it clearly has scientific issues. We can
demonstrate when brain activity starts, and that is where I draw
the line. If the lights are on, then somone's home. Before that
I contend it is merely human, and not a human being.

--Tedward

[TimV]

Still not a scientific question. Philosophically, you have to decide
what makes a human a human. Only then you can apply the scientific
method to the problem. It could be viability, brain function, pain
sensation or anything else. But the decision that life begins with brain
function is not a scientific decision.

T

[xyzzy]

On Feb 10, 1:22 pm, Ctrl¤/Alt¤/Del¤ <Ctrl¤/Alt¤/Del¤®@Ctrl¤/Alt¤/Del

¤®.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 10:27:12 -0600, TimV <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:

> Lady Ann says it the Democrats who are afraid of science:

Ann Coulter said it, you believe it, that settles it.

[TimV]

Democrats aren't putting bills up demanding intelligent design be taught
in science classes. You don't have Democrat Presidential candidates
proudly trumpeting that they don't believe in evolution. Sure, you get
Democrats abusing the scientific method, but not generally questioning
the motives of the scientists and just outright dismissal of fundamental
scientific principles. You don't see Democratic politicians talking
about the great global warming hoax and seriously trying to claim that
the world has not gotten warmer over the last few decades.

And frankly, all that is fine. I'm not even critical of it. But the
reality is that Republicans on balance most certainly are, on balance,
pretty anti-science. Just like on balance, Democrats tend to be pretty
anti-business.

T

[TimV]

On 2/10/12 12:22 PM, Ctrl¤/Alt¤/Del¤ wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 10:27:12 -0600, TimV<nos...@nospam.com> wrote:

>

> But just to be safe, we all better stop driving cars, eating off of
> clean dishes and using aerosol sprays.
>
> Some of the other scientific studies and innovations that make liberals
> cry are: vaccines, IQ studies, breast implants and DDT.
>

Lets see here.

Aerosol sprays destroy the ozone layer. Most people, democrat and
republicans like the effect of the ozone layer so that really is not a
left-right thing. Not a question of science but between a balance
between competing interests.

Vaccines- I know as many conservatives that are vaccine haters as
liberals. These people just get lumped into stupid.

IQ Studies - we're talking science here, not pseudoscience or soft
psychological science.

Breast implants- tell that to the thousands of women in Europe right now
that are have to have implants removed because they ruptured and the
company used industrial silicone and all these women are very ill.
Silicone breast implants apparently do cause health problems. Saline do
not. Not a scientific question really.

DDT - not a scientific question. No one argues the fact that DDT is bad
for the environment but good for people. That is a question of balance
between competing interests.

Nice try though.

T

[The Undead Edward M. Kennedy]

True, but you cannot from the properly frame philosophic questions
withuot science. Those relying merely on conception do not have
musch to hang their hats on, let alone explain why they don't spend
as much time and effort railing about miscarriages.

--Tedward

[RaginPage]

Sure you do. You see it all the time. If you look at it from a
purely scientific standpoint. From a Science standpoint, MOST of the
articles cited and used by Democrats are downright laughable in the
scientific community.

I'll give you just one example. Frankenfoods. You think the
Democrats aren't just as laughably uninformed, you need to explain
that whole thing. The next, is high fructose corn syrup. The funny
part on that one, is that there may indeed be some health issues with
it, but it's running the circles long before the studies were even
done how harmful high fructose corn syrup is.

> You don't see Democratic politicians talking
> about the great global warming hoax and seriously trying to claim that
> the world has not gotten warmer over the last few decades.

No, but I do see them as trying to label potatoes of all things,
unhealthy. I also see them putting down ethanol technology while
trumpeting solar and wind as viable alternatives. All of these
literally require one to ignore the science of it.

> And frankly, all that is fine. I'm not even critical of it. But the
> reality is that Republicans on balance most certainly are, on balance,
> pretty anti-science. Just like on balance, Democrats tend to be pretty
> anti-business.

You just aren't looking at the right issues. Democrats are, and have
been "anti-science" by your definition as long or longer than
Republicans have been.

Brent

[Dennis J]

On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 12:24:45 -0600, Ctrl¤/Alt¤/Del¤

<Ctrl¤/Alt¤/Del¤®@Ctrl¤/Alt¤/Del¤®.net> wrote:

>Swee Lady Ann also says this:
>
>"If you can somehow force a liberal into a point-counterpoint argument,
>his retorts will bear no relation to what you've said -- unless you were
>in fact talking about your looks, your age, your weight, your personal
>obsessions, or whether you are a fascist. In the famous liberal
>two-step, they leap from one idiotic point to the next, so you can never
>nail them. It's like arguing with someone with Attention Deficit
>Disorder." -– Ann Coulter

so... Lady Ann is anti-Liberal... it's fine because that kind of
stance can paint one into a corner faster than Lady Michelle Bachman
got stuck...

[TimV]

Frankenfoods is not anti-science any more than anti-vaccine is
anti-science.

HFCS is bad for you, so that is a bad example.

>
>> You don't see Democratic politicians talking
>> about the great global warming hoax and seriously trying to claim that
>> the world has not gotten warmer over the last few decades.
>
> No, but I do see them as trying to label potatoes of all things,
> unhealthy. I also see them putting down ethanol technology while
> trumpeting solar and wind as viable alternatives. All of these
> literally require one to ignore the science of it.

Again, not anti-science. Those aren't science questions, they are
economics questions wrt to energy. If they were arguing that there is no
energy content in ethanol, that would be one thing. Arguing that the
energy yield of ethanol is so low that it is a poor energy choice
compared to solar or wind is not a scientific question but a question of
pure economics.

As for potatoes, again, not really a science questions. Potatoes in
moderation are not unhealthy. Potatoes in excess are certainly
unhealthy. Water in moderation is fine. Gets pretty deadly in excess.

>> And frankly, all that is fine. I'm not even critical of it. But the
>> reality is that Republicans on balance most certainly are, on balance,
>> pretty anti-science. Just like on balance, Democrats tend to be pretty
>> anti-business.
>
> You just aren't looking at the right issues. Democrats are, and have
> been "anti-science" by your definition as long or longer than
> Republicans have been.
>
> Brent

If you are going to label things as "science" that aren't scientific
questions, you're going to have that opinion.

T

[RaginPage]

It is when you are making blanket statements about how unnatural it is
and therefore must be bad for you.

> HFCS is bad for you, so that is a bad example.

Not in moderation it's not. So right back at ya.

>
> >> You don't see Democratic politicians talking
> >> about the great global warming hoax and seriously trying to claim that
> >> the world has not gotten warmer over the last few decades.
>
> > No, but I do see them as trying to label potatoes of all things,
> > unhealthy.  I also see them putting down ethanol technology while
> > trumpeting solar and wind as viable alternatives.  All of these
> > literally require one to ignore the science of it.
>
> Again, not anti-science. Those aren't science questions, they are
> economics questions wrt to energy. If they were arguing that there is no
> energy content in ethanol, that would be one thing. Arguing that the
> energy yield of ethanol is so low that it is a poor energy choice
> compared to solar or wind is not a scientific question but a question of
> pure economics.

Are you seriously arguing that studies on efficiency aren't
scientific?

> As for potatoes, again, not really a science questions. Potatoes in
> moderation are not unhealthy. Potatoes in excess are certainly
> unhealthy. Water in moderation is fine. Gets pretty deadly in excess.

See HFCS, above. Apparently, you aren't willing to look at this even-
handed.

> >> And frankly, all that is fine. I'm not even critical of it. But the
> >> reality is that Republicans on balance most certainly are, on balance,
> >> pretty anti-science. Just like on balance, Democrats tend to be pretty
> >> anti-business.
>
> > You just aren't looking at the right issues.  Democrats are, and have
> > been "anti-science" by your definition as long or longer than
> > Republicans have been.
>
> > Brent
>
> If you are going to label things as "science" that aren't scientific
> questions, you're going to have that opinion.
>

Okay, Tim. You keep your viewpoint. No skin off my nose. You know
darn good and well that there are scientific studies that question
global warming, and plenty that challenge macro-evolution, as well.

If you want to ignore them, while defending the liberals, that's your
business. I'm pretty sure that's not how you were taught to weigh
evidence though.

Brent

[michael anderson]

On Feb 10, 1:13 pm, TimV <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
> On 2/10/12 12:22 PM, Ctrl¤/Alt¤/Del¤ wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 10:27:12 -0600, TimV<nos...@nospam.com>  wrote:
>
> > But just to be safe, we all better stop driving cars, eating off of
> > clean dishes and using aerosol sprays.
>
> > Some of the other scientific studies and innovations that make liberals
> > cry are: vaccines, IQ studies, breast implants and DDT.
>
> Lets see here.
>
> Aerosol sprays destroy the ozone layer. Most people, democrat and
> republicans like the effect of the ozone layer so that really is not a
> left-right thing. Not a question of science but between a balance
> between competing interests.
>
> Vaccines- I know as many conservatives that are vaccine haters as
> liberals. These people just get lumped into stupid.
>
> IQ Studies - we're talking science here, not pseudoscience or soft
> psychological science.

if you're going to limit it in this way, I'd say the whole point is
pretty irrelevant then.

[TimV]

People are worried about it because there hasn't been adequate testing
on its safety. If you want to call that anti-science, I guess you're
free to.

>
>> HFCS is bad for you, so that is a bad example.
>
> Not in moderation it's not. So right back at ya.

Depends on what you mean by moderation. While both are natural, our body
did not evolve to deal with that level of inbalance between glucose and
fructose. And in the levels we are consuming these days, it most
certainly is bad for you.

>>
>>>> You don't see Democratic politicians talking
>>>> about the great global warming hoax and seriously trying to claim that
>>>> the world has not gotten warmer over the last few decades.
>>
>>> No, but I do see them as trying to label potatoes of all things,
>>> unhealthy. I also see them putting down ethanol technology while
>>> trumpeting solar and wind as viable alternatives. All of these
>>> literally require one to ignore the science of it.
>>
>> Again, not anti-science. Those aren't science questions, they are
>> economics questions wrt to energy. If they were arguing that there is no
>> energy content in ethanol, that would be one thing. Arguing that the
>> energy yield of ethanol is so low that it is a poor energy choice
>> compared to solar or wind is not a scientific question but a question of
>> pure economics.
>
> Are you seriously arguing that studies on efficiency aren't
> scientific?
>

Efficiency is both a scientific question and an economics question. If
you want to go to science, then ethanol is a horrible choice for energy
as it is terribly inefficient. Economically it is more efficient than
solar and wind.

>> As for potatoes, again, not really a science questions. Potatoes in
>> moderation are not unhealthy. Potatoes in excess are certainly
>> unhealthy. Water in moderation is fine. Gets pretty deadly in excess.
>
> See HFCS, above. Apparently, you aren't willing to look at this even-
> handed.

Well, if you bring up actual examples of things that are "anti-science",
I guess I'll look at something more even-handed.

>
>>>> And frankly, all that is fine. I'm not even critical of it. But the
>>>> reality is that Republicans on balance most certainly are, on balance,
>>>> pretty anti-science. Just like on balance, Democrats tend to be pretty
>>>> anti-business.
>>
>>> You just aren't looking at the right issues. Democrats are, and have
>>> been "anti-science" by your definition as long or longer than
>>> Republicans have been.
>>
>>> Brent
>>
>> If you are going to label things as "science" that aren't scientific
>> questions, you're going to have that opinion.
>>
>
> Okay, Tim. You keep your viewpoint. No skin off my nose. You know
> darn good and well that there are scientific studies that question
> global warming,

No there are not. There are plenty of good studies that question the
cause. You'd have to be an absolute idiot to not recognize that the
world is substantially warmer today that it has been for 500 years. Yet
there are idiots in the Republican party that actually try to argue that
it isn't warmer and bring up every big snow storm as evidence against
warming.

>and plenty that challenge macro-evolution, as well.

feel free to cite them. I've never seen a legit study that at all
questions "macro" evolution. Not a single one. I guess this is like
"teach the controversy", when there is no controversy within the field.

> If you want to ignore them, while defending the liberals, that's your
> business. I'm pretty sure that's not how you were taught to weigh
> evidence though.
>
> Brent
>

I'm not defending liberals. They say some pretty stupid stuff too. But
they generally do not ignore scientific evidence (and vaccines do not
count because that is not a liberal-conservative split).

Again, I'm not even criticizing being conservative and anti-science. I
think it is kind of silly, but being conservative is the acceptance of
certain core principles that do not change or change very, very slowly.
That is a good thing for the most part. I'd even say that is a good
thing with respect to climate change. Since we don't know the exact
cause, I think it would be stupid to destroy our economy to "fix" that
cause unless the entire world agreed to do it simultaneously.
Unfortunately, the conservative approach can be polluted by
fundamentalists that believe that man cannot affect its environment that
much so they'll ignore evidence that the environment is warming just so
they do not have to even entertain the thought that our activities could
be responsible.

To equate the outright dismissal of evidence that is not in question
amongst the scientists in the field to questions about safety of foods
or health problems associated with foods for which we actually lack
enough data to actually scientific make a solid claim one way or
another, is pretty weak. But if it makes you feel better, most
republicans and hippie democrats are anti-science.

T

[DanS.]

On 2/9/2012 4:09 PM, TimV wrote:
> On 2/9/12 2:35 PM, Ctrl¤/Alt¤/Del¤ wrote:

>> http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/cnn-calls-cpac-petri-dish/366806

>>
>>
>> And we wonder why Democrats in this group, like Huck, have no common
>> sense.
>
> Doesn't surprise me to know that the anti-science party wouldn't
> understand a science analogy.
>

> T
Ok Hammett

--
Yours,
Dan S.

[TimV]

Generally, if one is going to argue about science, a limitation to
science topics is probably appropriate.

T

[michael anderson]

my point was that if you're going to view "science" that way then
science is fairly meaningless in general and who the hell cares
anyways.


>
> T

[RaginPage]

How do you define "adequate"? It's not as if there haven't been
multiple reviews of the science, potential threats etc by the top
scientists in the field. If you want to dismiss that, one could
easily argue that you are anti-science.

> >> HFCS is bad for you, so that is a bad example.
>
> > Not in moderation it's not.  So right back at ya.
>
> Depends on what you mean by moderation. While both are natural, our body
> did not evolve to deal with that level of inbalance between glucose and
> fructose.

55% fructose and 42% glucose
or
42% fructose and 53% glucose
is a large imbalance to you?

Whereas sucrose is 50% 50%

Are you sure you want to wade into this Tim?

>And in the levels we are consuming these days, it most
> certainly is bad for you.

That's a lot of assuming. If one is careful about their diet and
eating healthily to begin with, it's not dangerous.

I'm actually kind of suprised that you not only are defending this
stance, but seem to embrace it.

Do you even know the scientific basis of why HFCS *might* be bad for
us?

> >>>> You don't see Democratic politicians talking
> >>>> about the great global warming hoax and seriously trying to claim that
> >>>> the world has not gotten warmer over the last few decades.
>
> >>> No, but I do see them as trying to label potatoes of all things,
> >>> unhealthy.  I also see them putting down ethanol technology while
> >>> trumpeting solar and wind as viable alternatives.  All of these
> >>> literally require one to ignore the science of it.
>
> >> Again, not anti-science. Those aren't science questions, they are
> >> economics questions wrt to energy. If they were arguing that there is no
> >> energy content in ethanol, that would be one thing. Arguing that the
> >> energy yield of ethanol is so low that it is a poor energy choice
> >> compared to solar or wind is not a scientific question but a question of
> >> pure economics.
>
> > Are you seriously arguing that studies on efficiency aren't
> > scientific?
>
> Efficiency is both a scientific question and an economics question. If
> you want to go to science, then ethanol is a horrible choice for energy
> as it is terribly inefficient. Economically it is more efficient than
> solar and wind.

Actually, ethanol is not terribly inefficient when compared to solar
and wind, it is inefficient when compared to gasoline, as is
everything else.

> >> As for potatoes, again, not really a science questions. Potatoes in
> >> moderation are not unhealthy. Potatoes in excess are certainly
> >> unhealthy. Water in moderation is fine. Gets pretty deadly in excess.
>
> > See HFCS, above.  Apparently, you aren't willing to look at this even-
> > handed.
>
> Well, if you bring up actual examples of things that are "anti-science",
> I guess I'll look at something more even-handed.

I most certainly have and you have exposed your bias plainly in not
seeing it that way.

The feat over frankenfoods is nearly identical to the global warming
controversy but you refuse to view it that way.

>
> >>>> And frankly, all that is fine. I'm not even critical of it. But the
> >>>> reality is that Republicans on balance most certainly are, on balance,
> >>>> pretty anti-science. Just like on balance, Democrats tend to be pretty
> >>>> anti-business.
>
> >>> You just aren't looking at the right issues.  Democrats are, and have
> >>> been "anti-science" by your definition as long or longer than
> >>> Republicans have been.
>
> >>> Brent
>
> >> If you are going to label things as "science" that aren't scientific
> >> questions, you're going to have that opinion.
>
> > Okay, Tim.  You keep your viewpoint.  No skin off my nose.  You know
> > darn good and well that there are scientific studies that question
> > global warming,
>
> No there are not. There are plenty of good studies that question the
> cause. You'd have to be an absolute idiot to not recognize that the
> world is substantially warmer today that it has been for 500 years. Yet
> there are idiots in the Republican party that actually try to argue that
> it isn't warmer and bring up every big snow storm as evidence against
> warming.

And far more idiots that point to a polar bear on a chunk of ice
claiming that the polar cap is melting as "evidence", nevermind that
fact that the melting happens every single year.

> >and plenty that challenge macro-evolution, as well.
>
> feel free to cite them. I've never seen a legit study that at all
> questions "macro" evolution. Not a single one. I guess this is like
> "teach the controversy", when there is no controversy within the field.

You've seen no studies citing the lack of evidence, or referencing the
missing link?

Are you actually a scientist? You aren't doing a very good job of
debating this topic from that perspective if you are.

> > If you want to ignore them, while defending the liberals, that's your
> > business.  I'm pretty sure that's not how you were taught to weigh
> > evidence though.
>
> > Brent
>
> I'm not defending liberals. They say some pretty stupid stuff too. But
> they generally do not ignore scientific evidence (and vaccines do not
> count because that is not a liberal-conservative split).

They most absolutely generally DO ignore scientific evidence. As you
have proven in this thread alone, by your own statements. That you
can't see the one-sidedness of what you are saying, tells me that you
are not a very good scientist when it comes to weighing and analyzing
evidence.

> Again, I'm not even criticizing being conservative and anti-science. I
> think it is kind of silly, but being conservative is the acceptance of
> certain core principles that do not change or change very, very slowly.
> That is a good thing for the most part. I'd even say that is a good
> thing with respect to climate change. Since we don't know the exact
> cause, I think it would be stupid to destroy our economy to "fix" that
> cause unless the entire world agreed to do it simultaneously.

And yet you claim that those that do advocate such aren't ignoring
scientific evidence. They are. They are ignoring the evidence they
don't want to hear.

> Unfortunately, the conservative approach can be polluted by
> fundamentalists that believe that man cannot affect its environment that
> much so they'll ignore evidence that the environment is warming just so
> they do not have to even entertain the thought that our activities could
> be responsible.

Well, there are two groups. There are some that don't believe warming
is happening and/or that we can't do anything about it. Then there
are those that believe warming is happening, but believe, based on
scientific evidence, that we can't do anything about it. Why do you
want to lump them together?

> To equate the outright dismissal of evidence that is not in question
> amongst the scientists in the field

It depends on what the question is, Tim. If you want to ask whether
or not global warming is happening, that's one thing, but the topic as
it exists in the spotlight, is not that. The question is what should
we be doing about it? That's where the camps start forming. There is
evidence to support that this a natural cyclyical event that is not
likely alterable by simply cutting down emissions.

> to questions about safety of foods
> or health problems associated with foods for which we actually lack
> enough data to actually scientific make a solid claim one way or
> another, is pretty weak. But if it makes you feel better, most
> republicans and hippie democrats are anti-science.

I think it's reasonable to question what studies have been done on the
long term effects of genetically modified food. I think most people
talking about the issue or protesting "Freankenfoods" are not doing
that.

Brent

[TimV]

On 2/10/12 7:57 PM, RaginPage wrote:
> On Feb 10, 7:03 pm, TimV<nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>> On 2/10/12 4:47 PM, RaginPage wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> It is when you are making blanket statements about how unnatural it is
>>> and therefore must be bad for you.
>>
>> People are worried about it because there hasn't been adequate testing
>> on its safety. If you want to call that anti-science, I guess you're
>> free to.
>
> How do you define "adequate"? It's not as if there haven't been
> multiple reviews of the science, potential threats etc by the top
> scientists in the field. If you want to dismiss that, one could
> easily argue that you are anti-science.

There hasn't been that many studies. Now, if we did have studies and
anti-GMO people rejected those studies simply because the foods weren't
natural or how God intended, yes, they would be anti-science.

For the record, as a molecular biologist, I would normally think it
multiple kinds of silly to be opposed to GMO foods that merely involve
cloning a natural insecticide or pesticide resistance gene into crops.
However, studies have shown some toxicity of the GM corn on rats so
maybe there is something to it. The whole point of the Ames test and
other related toxicology tests is that perfectly harmless substances can
be toxic or carcinogenic when modified in the body.

>
>
>>>> HFCS is bad for you, so that is a bad example.
>>
>>> Not in moderation it's not. So right back at ya.
>>
>> Depends on what you mean by moderation. While both are natural, our body
>> did not evolve to deal with that level of inbalance between glucose and
>> fructose.
>
> 55% fructose and 42% glucose
> or
> 42% fructose and 53% glucose
> is a large imbalance to you?
>
> Whereas sucrose is 50% 50%
>
> Are you sure you want to wade into this Tim?

Sucrose sweetening isn't exactly healthy or natural either.

>
>> And in the levels we are consuming these days, it most
>> certainly is bad for you.
>
> That's a lot of assuming. If one is careful about their diet and
> eating healthily to begin with, it's not dangerous.

Of course not. No one is arguing that it is some kind of poison. But in
case you haven't noticed, Americans have not exactly been careful about
their diet or eating healthily over the past five decades. So you can't
argue that it is perfectly harmless as long as someone practices
behaviors that few in American seem to practice anymore.

> I'm actually kind of suprised that you not only are defending this
> stance, but seem to embrace it.
>
> Do you even know the scientific basis of why HFCS *might* be bad for
> us?

Yeah, way too much sugar. Extremely rapid rise in blood glucose levels
combined with the fructose effects on triacylglycerol concentrations.
You'll get the same effects with sucrose. But it wasn't until the last
300 years until sucrose became a major part of our diet. Prior to that,
the majority of carbohydrates would have come from starches with some
minor amount of sucrose and fructose from fruit. But certainly not in
the absurd levels we consume it today.

>

>>
>>> Are you seriously arguing that studies on efficiency aren't
>>> scientific?
>>
>> Efficiency is both a scientific question and an economics question. If
>> you want to go to science, then ethanol is a horrible choice for energy
>> as it is terribly inefficient. Economically it is more efficient than
>> solar and wind.
>
> Actually, ethanol is not terribly inefficient when compared to solar
> and wind, it is inefficient when compared to gasoline, as is
> everything else.

Solar and wind are only inefficient due to cost. Ethanol is inefficient
because of energy required to produce it.

>>>> As for potatoes, again, not really a science questions. Potatoes in
>>>> moderation are not unhealthy. Potatoes in excess are certainly
>>>> unhealthy. Water in moderation is fine. Gets pretty deadly in excess.
>>
>>> See HFCS, above. Apparently, you aren't willing to look at this even-
>>> handed.
>>
>> Well, if you bring up actual examples of things that are "anti-science",
>> I guess I'll look at something more even-handed.
>
> I most certainly have and you have exposed your bias plainly in not
> seeing it that way.
>
> The feat over frankenfoods is nearly identical to the global warming
> controversy but you refuse to view it that way.

Not really. No one is dismissing any evidence with respect to GMO. They
are dismissing real live data and their own lying eyes with respect to GW.

>>
>>>>>> And frankly, all that is fine. I'm not even critical of it. But the
>>>>>> reality is that Republicans on balance most certainly are, on balance,
>>>>>> pretty anti-science. Just like on balance, Democrats tend to be pretty
>>>>>> anti-business.
>>
>>>>> You just aren't looking at the right issues. Democrats are, and have
>>>>> been "anti-science" by your definition as long or longer than
>>>>> Republicans have been.
>>
>>>>> Brent
>>
>>>> If you are going to label things as "science" that aren't scientific
>>>> questions, you're going to have that opinion.
>>
>>> Okay, Tim. You keep your viewpoint. No skin off my nose. You know
>>> darn good and well that there are scientific studies that question
>>> global warming,
>>
>> No there are not. There are plenty of good studies that question the
>> cause. You'd have to be an absolute idiot to not recognize that the
>> world is substantially warmer today that it has been for 500 years. Yet
>> there are idiots in the Republican party that actually try to argue that
>> it isn't warmer and bring up every big snow storm as evidence against
>> warming.
>
> And far more idiots that point to a polar bear on a chunk of ice
> claiming that the polar cap is melting as "evidence", nevermind that
> fact that the melting happens every single year.

Really? The cap has never melted in recorded history until the last few
years. Sure, it likely melted a millenium ago, but they spent several
centuries searching for a northwest passage. We have one now every summer.

>
>>> and plenty that challenge macro-evolution, as well.
>>
>> feel free to cite them. I've never seen a legit study that at all
>> questions "macro" evolution. Not a single one. I guess this is like
>> "teach the controversy", when there is no controversy within the field.
>
> You've seen no studies citing the lack of evidence, or referencing the
> missing link?

What, is this 1925 Mr Bryant? The constant stream of intermediary
fossils are not good enough for you? How about the molecular evidence
demonstrating the relatedness of animals based upon shared SNPs, RFLPs,
VNTRs, mobile genetic elements and identical frameshifts? Was God just
trying to confuse us with ample evidence of a clear family tree of
shared ancestors?

If your next question is to ask why if we evolved from chimps are the
chimps still here, I'm going to scream.

>
> Are you actually a scientist? You aren't doing a very good job of
> debating this topic from that perspective if you are.

Not really. I get all my science education from World Net Daily and Ann
Coulter.

>
>>> If you want to ignore them, while defending the liberals, that's your
>>> business. I'm pretty sure that's not how you were taught to weigh
>>> evidence though.
>>
>>> Brent
>>
>> I'm not defending liberals. They say some pretty stupid stuff too. But
>> they generally do not ignore scientific evidence (and vaccines do not
>> count because that is not a liberal-conservative split).
>
> They most absolutely generally DO ignore scientific evidence. As you
> have proven in this thread alone, by your own statements. That you
> can't see the one-sidedness of what you are saying, tells me that you
> are not a very good scientist when it comes to weighing and analyzing
> evidence.
>
>> Again, I'm not even criticizing being conservative and anti-science. I
>> think it is kind of silly, but being conservative is the acceptance of
>> certain core principles that do not change or change very, very slowly.
>> That is a good thing for the most part. I'd even say that is a good
>> thing with respect to climate change. Since we don't know the exact
>> cause, I think it would be stupid to destroy our economy to "fix" that
>> cause unless the entire world agreed to do it simultaneously.
>
> And yet you claim that those that do advocate such aren't ignoring
> scientific evidence. They are. They are ignoring the evidence they
> don't want to hear.

I said no such thing. I said most republicans do not believe the earth
is warming. Poll after poll show that. Poll after poll also show that
republicans think the whole thing is overblown. That might be true. But
when only 30% of republicans believe we are seeing effects of global
warming, that is some serious denial.

>
>> Unfortunately, the conservative approach can be polluted by
>> fundamentalists that believe that man cannot affect its environment that
>> much so they'll ignore evidence that the environment is warming just so
>> they do not have to even entertain the thought that our activities could
>> be responsible.
>
> Well, there are two groups. There are some that don't believe warming
> is happening and/or that we can't do anything about it. Then there
> are those that believe warming is happening, but believe, based on
> scientific evidence, that we can't do anything about it. Why do you
> want to lump them together?
>
>> To equate the outright dismissal of evidence that is not in question
>> amongst the scientists in the field
>
> It depends on what the question is, Tim. If you want to ask whether
> or not global warming is happening, that's one thing, but the topic as
> it exists in the spotlight, is not that. The question is what should
> we be doing about it? That's where the camps start forming. There is
> evidence to support that this a natural cyclyical event that is not
> likely alterable by simply cutting down emissions.

But that isn't the argument most on the right are doing. The few that
accept GW just don't believe it is AGW. I'm cool with that. But far more
argue there isn't any warming at all and promptly crow everytime we have
a blizzard.

>> to questions about safety of foods
>> or health problems associated with foods for which we actually lack
>> enough data to actually scientific make a solid claim one way or
>> another, is pretty weak. But if it makes you feel better, most
>> republicans and hippie democrats are anti-science.
>
> I think it's reasonable to question what studies have been done on the
> long term effects of genetically modified food. I think most people
> talking about the issue or protesting "Freankenfoods" are not doing
> that.
>

Well that is nice. But I don't personally hear people saying that we
shouldn't eat GMO foods because scientists made them and so therefore
they must be evil. I hear people of all political stripes say they don't
understand them and they don't know if they are safe. That isn't
anti-science.

[TimV]

So if science is limited to science, it is meaningless so who cares.
Sounds reasonable.

BTW, I think Alabama is a pretty worthless football program due to its
infrequency of making the final four in hoops.

[michael anderson]

yes it is very true that if you limit the definition to what you have
constructed in this thread, then it is very much not all that
relevant.....obviously with something like aerosol sprays(and a
billion of other things), the issue at hand is a matter of
disagreement over degree, or how strong a cause and effect is, and
then that sets the tone for the competing interests debate.
To say stuff like that "isn't about science" makes probably 90% of
such science arguments "not about science".

[Kyle T. Jones]

On 2/10/12 8:23 AM, RaginPage wrote:
> On Feb 9, 11:38 pm, Zaphod Beeblebrox<victor.ki...@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>> Disculpa Senora lein, pero did you really mime the following on
>> 2/9/2012 11:15 PM???

>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Feb 9, 1:13 pm, xyzzy<xyzzy.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Feb 9, 4:09 pm, TimV<nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> On 2/9/12 2:35 PM, Ctrl /Alt /Del wrote:
>>
>>>>>> http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential...
>>
>>>>>> And we wonder why Democrats in this group, like Huck, have no common
>>>>>> sense.
>>
>>>>> Doesn't surprise me to know that the anti-science party wouldn't
>>>>> understand a science analogy.
>>
>>>> Perzactly.
>>
>>>> Martyrbation!
>>
>>> So what is anti-science about the Republican Party?
>>

>> What isn't?
>>
>
> There is nothing anti-science about the Republican Party. It's a
> completely stupid statement to make.
>
> Brent
>

Sure there is. Both parties make it their standard policy to pick their
truths first, then go on their happy way filtering out any data that
questions those truths.

It's, like, what they do. Maybe the GOP a little more - if for no other
reason then the fact that they traditionally support more Concrete Set
In Stone Values, and tend to hold more truths to be Self Evident Big
Style Unquestionable Truth truths - those are kinda anti-science modes
of operation.

I've never been scolded by a leftie for having a mind "so open it's
likely to fall out" - have been told that a time or two by a
right-leaner - again, same sort of thing. They're deliberately
steadfast in their opinions - science strives to be less so (with mixed
results).

Cheers.

[Michael Press]

In article
<f88cb5b7-a22f-4c49...@v2g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>,
RaginPage <btpag...@yahoo.com> wrote:

A scientific approach is intrinsically conservative.
New claims need good evidence. Anybody who wants to
argue that I assert anything about conservatives is
welcome to do so. It will be good exercise spotting
the logical fallacies used.

The words "liberal" and "conservative" have been
shamelessly debased. It is a scandal.

--
Michael Press

[Glen Heiman]

"Kyle T. Jones" <onexpa...@EVOMERyahoodotyouknow.com> wrote in message
news:jh6jud$njm$1...@dont-email.me...

So! People that believe(d) and support(ed): the global warming
power-grabbing scam, chicken little scare that all oil will be gone by 1980,
that we are going into an ice age in the 70's, Hitler, Stalin, that big
gov't; can satisfy everyone's needs, bigotry, wealth redistribution, and
that unchecked DDT will destroy the world's ecology, support your opinions?
You must be proud!!

Heiman

[Michael Press]

In article <n2oaj7p9daqn3d5g9...@4ax.com>,

Ctrl€/Alt€/Del€ <Ctrl€/Alt€/Del€®@Ctrl€/Alt€/Del€®.net> wrote:

> On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 10:27:12 -0600, TimV <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>

> >On 2/10/12 8:38 AM, Jim Brown wrote:
> >> On Feb 9, 10:15 pm, lein<boomer_the_...@my-deja.com> wrote:

> >>> On Feb 9, 1:13 pm, xyzzy<xyzzy.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On Feb 9, 4:09 pm, TimV<nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>> On 2/9/12 2:35 PM, Ctrl /Alt /Del wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>>> http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential...
> >>>
> >>>>>> And we wonder why Democrats in this group, like Huck, have no common
> >>>>>> sense.
> >>>
> >>>>> Doesn't surprise me to know that the anti-science party wouldn't
> >>>>> understand a science analogy.
> >>>
> >>>> Perzactly.
> >>>
> >>>> Martyrbation!
> >>>
> >>> So what is anti-science about the Republican Party?
> >>
> >>
> >>

> >> Those dumn bastards can't see it's only a zygote fer starters!
> >>
> >
> >Abortion isn't a scientific question, it is an ethical and philosophical
> >question. Scientifically, a zygote is just as human as a 5 year old child.
> >
> >I'm talking more about the debates on evolution and climate change. The
> >latter certainly has political implications and the cause and proposed
> >remedies should certainly be up for debate. But it gets really, really
> >silly the way republicans attack the underlying data as if the world
> >isn't getting substantially warmer. Cause? Questionable. Existence? Not
> >even remotely close. Remedy? Not politically feasible as currently proposed.
>

> Lady Ann says it the Democrats who are afraid of science:
>

> LIBERALS: THEY BLINDED US WITH SCIENCE
> March 23, 2011
>
>
> In response to my column last week about hormesis -- the theory that
> some radiation can be beneficial to humans -- liberals reacted with
> their usual open-minded examination of the facts.

Reminds me


Ever been to Utah? Ra-di-a-tion. Yes, indeed. You hear the most
outrageous lies about it. Half-baked goggle-box do-gooders
telling everybody it's bad for you. Pernicious nonsense.
Everybody could stand a hundred chest X-rays a year. They ought
to have them, too. When they canceled the project it almost did
me in. One day my mind was full to bursting. The next day -
nothing. Swept away. But I'll show them. I had a lobotomy in the end.

--
Michael Press