The most trusted NEWS source in America?

[Irvine511]

Curious- Do you ever bother criticizing your own party when they refuse to adopt policies backed overwhelmingly by science?

like ... ?

 

[Canadiens1131]

like ... ?

Free markets solve everything!!!

 

[Irvine511]

we didn't lose in Iraq! it was a tie!

 

[2861U2]

like ... ?

Nuclear power? Opening Yucca Mountain? Animal testing?

 

[Irvine511]

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.

 

[anitram]

Nuclear power? Opening Yucca Mountain? Animal testing?

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.

 

[BVS]

Nuclear power? Opening Yucca Mountain? Animal testing?

Do you see this as a serious answer?

Do you see a blanket consensus on both sides? In other words is there a close to consensus of science on all these? No.
Is there a consensus opposition on these from the party? No.

Let's get some serious analogies please.

 

[Canadiens1131]

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?

Also, what do nuclear power, opening Yucca Mountain, and animal testing have to do with ongoing scientific research in the same genre of climate change?

You're comparing apples and brownies just trying to grasp for a straw or two in this.

 

[2861U2]

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.

But they all would affect our lives significantly more than climate change does. Are you against applying scientific findings to meaningful public policy?

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.

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?

Do you see this as a serious answer?

I was responding to the profoundly insightful and serious post essentially declaring that "conservatives don't go in for all that book-learnin" and presented a few policy areas backed by science where the left has been tepid, at best, in their support.

You're comparing apples and brownies just trying to grasp for a straw or two in this.

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?

 

[BVS]

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?

You 're not helping yourself look book "learned" with posts like this.

Where do the majority of scientists stand on the STABILITY of nuclear power? Have you already forgotten about Japan?

Do you honestly think the majority of democrats are PETA members? You really need to stop watching Fox, please!!!

 

[Tiger Edge]

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?

I don't think anyone is arguing that animal testing doesn't work or isn't beneficial to humans. This is a moral issue. I personally get animal testing, even though it comes at a great expense to innocent animals. I think it's sad and that science can probably figure out a way to test things that doesn't harm animals in the near future, but on the importance scale, I'd rather they kill some dogs than continue to let people die of cancer.
They kill dogs in shelters anyway, and there's nothing to be done about it unless people spay and neuter. At least they're serving people (and other animals! when cancer is cured for people, cancer will be cured for pups too!).
My dog benefited from diabetic and thyroid medication for years at the expense of other dogs (cats, rats, monkeys and so on).

PETA sucks.

 

[deep]

Where do the majority of scientists stand on the STABILITY of nuclear power? Have you already forgotten about Japan?

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.

 

[BVS]

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.

Well the majority of scientists are socialists, so maybe you're right.

 

[anitram]

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?

I think that you're thinking of Greenpeace and PETA not "liberals." And among the contingent of "liberals" who don't support these, you won't find people who deny the existence of the atom.

I am way left of the Democratic party and I support nuclear power and see animal testing as essential to medical research, and should be regulated properly.

Who do you think does the majority of animal and nuclear power research? Tea partiers or left-leaning academics?

 

[PhilsFan]

i have no problem with nuclear power and would like a place like yucca mountain to be used.

 

[Irvine511]

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.

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.

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?

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?

 

[INDY500]

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.

It also shows how another ideology is willing to use "the science" to push its statist agenda.

 

[maycocksean]

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?

What the. . .

How did I not get these memos, guys?!?

 

[PhilsFan]

It also shows how another ideology is willing to use "the science" to push its statist agenda.

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.

I'm like the opposite of a tree hugger. I hate nature and I'm allergic to goddamn grass. Unless I'm outdoors for sports or concerts or like at the shore, I'd prefer to be indoors.

But I also understand that long-term pollution and over-reliance on scarce resources is really, really fucking bad.

 

[Irvine511]

It also shows how another ideology is willing to use "the science" to push its statist agenda.

there a difference between the science that's created an overwhelming consensus on the reality of global warming.

and the GOP and oil companies manufacturing "the science" to create some sort of political cover for doing nothing.

but, please, equivocate between the two (after all, who can really say anything for certainty?).

if nothing else, that's been Fox's great contribution to the world. you can say whatever the fuck you want so long as you can present it as "the other side."

 

[2861U2]

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?

Look at the lies and deception perpetrated by Al Gore and a number of scientists. A surefire way to increase skepticism is to be dishonest. How is that a difficult concept to comprehend? And is it only the scientists that agree with me that have financial incentives to be misleading? There aren't any who you cite who are fearmongers who rely on half-truths and manipulation to keep the grant money flowing? Can you introduce me to some of these saints?

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. Regardless, it's about number 700 on the list of things I'm worried about. What I don't want is billions of dollars in investment and policies that nobody knows for sure will work or to what degree. Was the Solyndra investment grounded in science or in blind faith?

 

[Canadiens1131]

Look at the lies and deception perpetrated by Al Gore and a number of scientists.

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.

Fascinating.

Al Gore! Michael Moore! Anarchist groups on college campuses mobilizing! Good white suburban Christians marginalized! At least you can still get a good glass of raw milk from some places these days, I tell ya.

 

[Irvine511]

But climate change? I don't know or care if it exists or how.

and there we go.

 

[BVS]

and there we go.

Yeah that statement is pretty telling...

 

[Diemen]

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.

You are aware that these two statements are contradictory, right?

 

[Canadiens1131]

 

[LJT]

As far as i'm aware the only time that the science on climate change was heavily claimed as fabrication the scientists were found not guilty in the courts, they got criticised for how they acted around their findings but there were no issues found with their results.

Everything seems so short termist from the majority of politicians though especially seeming from the right, where it is all about growth and nothing else, to hell with the future of the environment or what kind of culture you wish future generations to be brought up in. Even if you aren't sold on climate change there surely can be no denying that you know oil, gas and coal pollute quite heavily and are widely known to be not too great for your health or the environment, why is it so bad to focus on something a bit cleaner and safer? Won't somebody please think of the children?

 

[Canadiens1131]

 

[Tiger Edge]

Socialist swine, muppet propagandists!

You'll not have me care about endangered frogs! Me? I'm going to eat pork and wash it down with a glass of raw milk.

 

[Irvine511]

Rainbow Connection, indeed.

(photo obviously taken in West Hollywood)