Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
Curious- Do you ever bother criticizing your own party when they refuse to adopt policies backed overwhelmingly by science?
like ... ?
Curious- Do you ever bother criticizing your own party when they refuse to adopt policies backed overwhelmingly by science?
like ... ?
Nuclear power? Opening Yucca Mountain? Animal testing?
Nuclear power? Opening Yucca Mountain? Animal testing?
2861U2 said:Nuclear power? Opening Yucca Mountain? Animal testing?
I think you're tipping your hand a bit here, do you really think the majority of liberals are long-haired hippies doused in petuli oil?Nuclear power? Opening Yucca Mountain? Animal testing?
and these are all on the same scale as global warming know-nothingism ... how? none of these are even in the same ballpark, both in terms of scientific evidence as well as political attention.
I won't coment on Yucca Mountain as I'm not familiar enough, but as for nuclear power and animal testing - there is scientific consensus? On what? I'm genuinely confused.
Do you see this as a serious answer?
You're comparing apples and brownies just trying to grasp for a straw or two in this.
You 're not helping yourself look book "learned" with posts like this.2861U2 said:A majority of scientists support drug testing and other experiments on animals, as well as the development of nuclear power. Aren't liberals generally much less inclined to support these two ideas?
A majority of scientists support drug testing and other experiments on animals, as well as the development of nuclear power. Aren't liberals generally much less inclined to support these two ideas?
Where do the majority of scientists stand on the STABILITY of nuclear power? Have you already forgotten about Japan?
Well the majority of scientists are socialists, so maybe you're right.deep said:isn't that just a lefty knee jerk??
my guess is a lot more people have died as a result of coal powered electric plants and the petroleum and gas fired power plants, especially when you include all the health related illnesses and deaths from the fuel sources for electric power.
so per kilowatt generated, nuclear is most likely the safest, with less health related side effects.
A majority of scientists support drug testing and other experiments on animals, as well as the development of nuclear power. Aren't liberals generally much less inclined to support these two ideas?
Not at all. I simply reject the idiotic notion that the left has a monopoly on science and will support any and all ideas grounded therein. It's simply not true.
So I can be skeptical of climate change, and you guys can denounce developing nuclear power as a legitimate form of long-term energy for the United States. Which one of our opinions more significantly halts the forward progress of this country?
wow, even science is political for you? science is science, it's the application of it's findings that become politicized. climate change is the best political example of one side outright rejecting consensus and then funding hacks to disagree with said consensus.
A majority of scientists support drug testing and other experiments on animals, as well as the development of nuclear power. Aren't liberals generally much less inclined to support these two ideas?
Please tell me how I'm pushing a statist agenda simply because I think we should be doing more about not fucking our planet. I'd love to hear it.It also shows how another ideology is willing to use "the science" to push its statist agenda.
It also shows how another ideology is willing to use "the science" to push its statist agenda.
wow, even science is political for you? science is science, it's the application of it's findings that become politicized. climate change is the best political example of one side outright rejecting consensus and then funding hacks to disagree with said consensus.
are you skeptical of climate change because of the science or because you agree politically with those who fund scientists to disagree with the overwhelming consensus or are you skeptical because you don't believe that the steps necessary to combat it's advance are good for the country/world but you're too scared to come out and say "i don't care about the environment, i care about money" and so you pay for the patina of science to give you the ability to look at yourself in the mirror the next day?
Every time the whiff of a science debate gets started on this forum and cogent points are presented from middle of the road or leftist posters, the few conservative posters grab the conservative radio talking points without fail.Look at the lies and deception perpetrated by Al Gore and a number of scientists.
But climate change? I don't know or care if it exists or how.
Irvine511 said:and there we go.
Don't say I don't care about the environment. That's not true.
But climate change? I don't know or care if it exists or how.