Why do politicians (usually Republicans) hate science?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from StalkingButler. Show StalkingButler's posts

    Re: Why do politicians (usually Republicans) hate science?

    I like Phil, he's the "Bad Astronomer" blogger. On the other hand he's an unrepentant liberal so take what he says with a grain of salt.

     

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Why do politicians (usually Republicans) hate science?

    Didn't know politicians or republicans hated science.  I do know liberals are unquestioning in their scientific beliefs, however.  Liberals question nothing.  And seem to like to post long articles on their warmist religion posing as science.

     
  3. This post has been removed.

     
  4. This post has been removed.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Why do politicians (usually Republicans) hate science?

    Questioning global warming to liberals is exactly thesame as questioning the existence og God to religious zealots!

    Too many flaws, discovered biases and outright lies and cover ups discovered in the "scientific community" around global warming.

    The planet is expected to cool for the next 25 to 30 years!!

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: Why do politicians (usually Republicans) hate science?

     Lysenkoism, when the Soviet government suppressed science on genetics and evolution that didn’t toe the party line.

    "When a society’s government starts dictating what can and cannot be investigated, scientific and creative progress stalls."

    The Democratic Party line on global warming is a great example of Lysenkoism, actually. Inconvenient facts, ignored. Opponents, defunded and ridiculed. Government abusing science to power grab and scare the populace for political purposes. 

    The idea that science and Christianity are at odds is fundamentally wrong.

    "Attacks on science" to our liberal blogger, means actual accountability to taxpayers. He is better than we non-scientists, he is above the mere mortal concern with budgets...

     

     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Why do politicians (usually Republicans) hate science?

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    Still, thanks for clearly one thing up: Most conservatives here aren't actually responding to anything when they post.

     



    You are correct that, you are nothing.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: Why do politicians (usually Republicans) hate science?

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to tvoter's comment:

    You are correct that, you are nothing.



    Did you miss the class on punctuation?

     



    "thanks for clearly one thing up"

     

    Did you miss the class on spelling?

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Why do politicians (usually Republicans) hate science?

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    I do know liberals are unquestioning in their scientific beliefs, however.  Liberals question nothing.  And seem to like to post long articles on their warmist religion posing as science.



    Turn off speech-to-text before you break wind, please.

     



    Roger wilco.  Will do.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Why do politicians (usually Republicans) hate science?

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to tvoter's comment:

     

    Questioning global warming to liberals is exactly thesame as questioning the existence og God to religious zealots!

    Too many flaws, discovered biases and outright lies and cover ups discovered in the "scientific community" around global warming.

    The planet is expected to cool for the next 25 to 30 years!!

     




     

     

    LOL.

     

    LOL.

     

    LOL.

     

     

     

    1. The article is NOT ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING. The article mentions it precisely twice:

    - slamming science-hating "global warming deniers" and lumping them in with vaccine deniers and creationist bibletards.

    - Identifying a single Republican who is on record denying global warming with his political powers, which are clearly superior to science.

    The entirety of the article is on Republican - and, gasp, Obama - policies that hurt scientific advancement in general in America.

     

    But practiced morons skeeter20 and tvoter seem to think it is. Wonder why that might be Oh right. They don't read posts or threads before "responding." They're on auto-pilot.

    "What's the subject? Science. K. Now let me spit out whatever Fox told me to say about science."

     

    2. 98% of scientists in the field continue to accept global warming as valid. You are not scientists, so, shut up and sit down. Thank you for playing.



    "Slamming global warming deniers".

    well, I guess you are right. It is not about global warming, it is about "slamming global warming deniers".

    That's so right down the middle.

    do you even think when you post?

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Why do politicians (usually Republicans) hate science?

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

    The idea that science and Christianity are at odds is fundamentally wrong.

     

    Tell Galileo.



    So this year.  I am so glad to know that your most recent example is about 600 years old.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: Why do politicians (usually Republicans) hate science?

    "98% of scientists in the field continue to accept global warming as valid. You are not scientists, so, shut up and sit down. Thank you for playing."

    Didnt know scientific truth requires a poll. Didnt know scientists are above reproach.

    Did you know, until recently 100% of scientists believed ulcers were caused by stress.  Except one. And the one was right. He didnt sit down and shut up.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from miscricket. Show miscricket's posts

    Re: Why do politicians (usually Republicans) hate science?

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

     

    In response to tvoter's comment:

     

    Questioning global warming to liberals is exactly thesame as questioning the existence og God to religious zealots!

    Too many flaws, discovered biases and outright lies and cover ups discovered in the "scientific community" around global warming.

    The planet is expected to cool for the next 25 to 30 years!!

     




     

     

    LOL.

     

    LOL.

     

    LOL.

     

     

     

    1. The article is NOT ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING. The article mentions it precisely twice:

    - slamming science-hating "global warming deniers" and lumping them in with vaccine deniers and creationist bibletards.

    - Identifying a single Republican who is on record denying global warming with his political powers, which are clearly superior to science.

    The entirety of the article is on Republican - and, gasp, Obama - policies that hurt scientific advancement in general in America.

     

    But practiced morons skeeter20 and tvoter seem to think it is. Wonder why that might be Oh right. They don't read posts or threads before "responding." They're on auto-pilot.

    "What's the subject? Science. K. Now let me spit out whatever Fox told me to say about science."

     

    2. 98% of scientists in the field continue to accept global warming as valid. You are not scientists, so, shut up and sit down. Thank you for playing.

     



    "Slamming global warming deniers".

     

    well, I guess you are right. It is not about global warming, it is about "slamming global warming deniers".

    That's so right down the middle.

    do you even think when you post?




    Well...actually..it's not about global warming or "slamming global warming deniers"...did you even read the article?

    Politicians really should leave science to the scientists. When we start politicizing science..we are walking down a dangerous road.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: Why do politicians (usually Republicans) hate science?

    Politicians really should leave science to the scientists. When we start politicizing science..we are walking down a dangerous road.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Couldnt agree more. James Hansen is an example of politicizing science.

    Climate Change: The man who once compared coal trains to Nazi boxcars headed to crematoria leaves government service to fight what he calls the "pipeline to disaster" and promote his brand of climate quackery.

    In 2007, Dr. James Hansen testified before the Iowa Utilities Board not in his capacity as a government employee but, in his words, "as a private citizen, a resident of Kintnersville, Pa., on behalf of the planet, of life on Earth, including all species."

    Hansen told the board, "If we cannot stop the building of more coal-fired power plants, those coal trains will be death trains — no less gruesome than if they were boxcars headed to crematoria, loaded with uncountable irreplaceable species."

    Such is overheated rhetoric on global warming we came to expect from Dr. Hansen, who under the cover of his prestigious title as head of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), to put forth the long-discredited and overhyped theory of man-induced climate change ever since that day in June of 1988 when he told a Senate committee that "the greenhouse effect has been detected and it is changing our climate now."

    As the head of NASA's Weather and Climate Research Program from 1982 to 1994, John Theon was Hansen's supervisor. Hansen's testimony in 1988 was "a huge embarrassment" to NASA, and he remains skeptical of Hansen's predictions.

    "I don't have much faith in the models," Theon says, pointing to the "huge uncertainty in the role clouds play."

    Theon says the same kind of models that now predict runaway warming were predicting runaway cooling prior to 1975, when the popular fear was not melting ice caps but a new ice age, and "not one model predicted the cooling we've had since 1998."

    Roy Spencer, who served as the senior scientist for climate studies at NASA's Marshall Center, puts Hansen "at the extreme end of global warming alarmism."

    NASA was caught with its thermometers down when Hansen announced in 2007 that 1998 was the hottest year on record with 2006 the third hottest.

    NASA and GISS were forced to correct their data in 2007 when Steve McIntyre, who runs ClimateAudit.com, questioned the underlying data.

    NASA then announced that 1934, decades before the advent of the SUV, was in fact the warmest. In fact, the new data showed that four of the country's 10 warmest years were in the 1930s: 1934, 1931, 1938 and 1939.

    Hansen, who began the climate scare some two decades ago, was caught fudging the numbers again in declaring October 2008 the warmest on record.

    This despite the fact the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration had registered 63 local snowfall records and 115 lowest-ever temperatures for the month, and ranked it as only the 70th-warmest October in 114 years.

    In a recent Op-Ed, Hansen went after the Keystone XL pipeline, bemoaning the fact that a final review by "the State Department gave the president cover to open a big spigot that will hitch our country to one of the dirtiest fuels on Earth for 40 years or more."

    Crude from Canada's oil sands, Hansen claims, will exacerbate climate change.

    The State Department's second Keystone XL supplemental environmental impact statement found the pipeline would not accelerate global greenhouse gas emissions or significantly harm natural habitats.

    Canada was going to extract the crude anyway and sell the oil to China, if not to us.

    Like Al Gore, Hansen is now free to peddle his environmental snake oil on the green lecture circuit where fools and their money are soon parted.

    He has said in the past that "heads of major fossil-fuel companies who spread disinformation about global warming should be 'tried for high crimes against humanity and nature.'"

    One wonders what penalties he would recommend for himself and his fellow hysterics.



    Read More At Investor's Business Daily: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/040513-650859-nasas-hansen-quits-to-fight-keystone-pipeline.htm#ixzz2S5BC00YD
    Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sistersledge. Show Sistersledge's posts

    Re: Why do politicians (usually Republicans) hate science?

    Science is better than Bullsh.t and that is what the GOP sells , Bullsh.t , the GOP knows exactly what they want .. which is a bunch of dopes. An informed, responsive, well educated citizenry is the best weapon against them .

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sistersledge. Show Sistersledge's posts

    Re: Why do politicians (usually Republicans) hate science?

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sistersledge. Show Sistersledge's posts

    Re: Why do politicians (usually Republicans) hate science?

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from miscricket. Show miscricket's posts

    Re: Why do politicians (usually Republicans) hate science?

    In response to Sistersledge's comment:




    We are not called "Prison Nation" for nothing...

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from nhsteven. Show nhsteven's posts

    Re: Why do politicians (usually Republicans) hate science?

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

     

    "98% of scientists in the field continue to accept global warming as valid. You are not scientists, so, shut up and sit down. Thank you for playing."

    Didnt know scientific truth requires a poll. Didnt know scientists are above reproach.

    Did you know, until recently 100% of scientists believed ulcers were caused by stress.  Except one. And the one was right. He didnt sit down and shut up.

     



    I'll take my chances with scientists (especially, 98% of them) over politicians. (Note: Politicans overseas largely agree with these scientists in the overwhelming majority.) And do you have a link regarding the ulcers, specifically the part about the 100% of scientists? 

     

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: Why do politicians (usually Republicans) hate science?

    In response to Sistersledge's comment:



    Seems we like to break the law here

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sistersledge. Show Sistersledge's posts

    Re: Why do politicians (usually Republicans) hate science?

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Why do politicians (usually Republicans) hate science?

    In response to Sistersledge's comment:



    4th grade where? Is this a private or "christian" school or a public school?

    Big difference in a free society!

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Why do politicians (usually Republicans) hate science?

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:


    The trouble is that when science says something bad is happening, but the only way to stop that something bad is government/multiple government action, it takes - you guessed it - politics, to stop the bad something.

    When it comes to global warming, you choose to call that "politicizing science.

    But that's not what "politicizing science" means. Politicizing science is, for example, the Bush administration telling the EPA scientists to alter their reports to conform to political goals.

    Politicizing science flows this way:     Politics --> Science


    Using politics to address a scientifically identified issue looks like this:    Science --> Politics



    Scientist that are funded by big oil probably cant be trusted all the time.

    Scientist that are funded by the govt same, same.

    Especially when both have been proven to skew information in support of their money train!

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from ZILLAGOD. Show ZILLAGOD's posts

    Re: Why do politicians (usually Republicans) hate science?

    Science is based on facts.

    Politics is based on lies and exaggeration.

    The two don't mix well.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share