[anabolicrhino]

NEW WORLD RHINOS: SURGEON GENRAL - BUSH CRIPPLES SCIENCE !

[spunkles182]

Originally Posted by anabolicrhino

NEW WORLD RHINOS: SURGEON GENRAL - BUSH CRIPPLES SCIENCE !

thats a pretty biased report and leaves out a lot of pertinent information. bush was against government spending on stem cells. Bush already spends over $100 million federal tax dollars per year on planned parent hood alone. (in planned parenthoods own income statement it says they received over $250million.)

but the real question is do we want our policitians pretending to be scientists when they have no background in the field? ie al gore and global warming.

[anabolicrhino]

Originally Posted by spunkles182

thats a pretty biased report and leaves out a lot of pertinent information. bush was against government spending on stem cells. Bush already spends over $100 million federal tax dollars per year on planned parent hood alone. (in planned parenthoods own income statement it says they received over $250million.)

but the real question is do we want our policitians pretending to be scientists when they have no background in the field? ie al gore and global warming.

It's pretty hard to prove a point without being biased. This report was just the opinion of the former surgeon generals, if you have an interest you can research it for yourself.

Should the government spend money on stem cell or other morally ambiguous research? absolutely not !

Should the government inhibit free market research done by private industry? absolutely not !!!

I don't think the government should be involved at all with this kind of project. These are areas that can best be served by the private sector, who then could reap the benefits of their own research!

I would love to have the choice between Glaxo or Pfizer brand stem cells !!!

That is how the free market is intended to serve mankind !!!

[Tiberius]

Meanwhile, Europe is gaining a sizable lead in biotech research.

[spunkles182]

Originally Posted by anabolicrhino

It's pretty hard to prove a point without being biased. This report was just the opinion of the former surgeon generals, if you have an interest you can research it for yourself.

Should the government spend money on stem cell or other morally ambiguous research? absolutely not !

Should the government inhibit free market research done by private industry? absolutely not !!!

I don't think the government should be involved at all with this kind of project. These are areas that can best be served by the private sector, who then could reap the benefits of their own research!

I would love to have the choice between Glaxo or Pfizer brand stem cells !!!

That is how the free market is intended to serve mankind !!!

i agree with you for once.

[anabolicrhino]

Originally Posted by Dr. John

It must REALLY cook your noodle then that PhD Climatologists are being fired from their jobs for daring to disagree with the politically correct global warming hysteria--by politicians.

Well as for my noodle its been al dente for years!

Global warming has been with us for millions of years and is caused mostly by the sun and the oceans creating rising thermals.

Global warming "Hysteria" is a complete fraud designed to create a world tax.

Along with other agendas, the main reason for governments worldwide to back Global Warming so heavily is so that a "Global Carbon Tax" can be levied upon the population of the Earth. According to another article by Paul Joseph Watson of PrisonPlanet.com, "the New York Times ran an editorial calling on the government to impose a carbon tax on humans for the air we breathe!"

Whenever you hear the words "politically correct" it means thought control or don't think!

[Tiberius]

Originally Posted by anabolicrhino

Well as for my noodle its been al dente for years!

Global warming has been with us for millions of years and is caused mostly by the sun and the oceans creating rising thermals.

Global warming "Hysteria" is a complete fraud designed to create a world tax.

Along with other agendas, the main reason for governments worldwide to back Global Warming so heavily is so that a "Global Carbon Tax" can be levied upon the population of the Earth. According to another article by Paul Joseph Watson of PrisonPlanet.com, "the New York Times ran an editorial calling on the government to impose a carbon tax on humans for the air we breathe!"

Whenever you hear the words "politically correct" it means thought control or don't think!

I dunno; thousands of world scientists got together and said "humans are contributing to global warming." All the top climatologists in the world agreed on that. When that many climatologists agree on a point, it tends to discredit any notion of a conspiracy theory. Especially since when the politicians got involved they demanded the wording of the report be made less severe and for global warming to sound less harsh.

I'm of the mind that unless you yourself are an expert on climatology, you don't really have enough credentials to go against the majority who ARE. Doc, I'm not any kind of an expert on HRT. So you'd agree that for me to argue with you about HRT would be pretty stupid right? Well, I think we should all really think about that the next time we argue with what the majority fo teh world's best climatologists think.


So if nearly every single climate nerd in the world says humans are contributing to global warming; I'm inclined to trust what they say. As for a "global tax" that's really nonsense. There is a LOT more money to be made by with oil, coal, wood, and all the other CO2 releasing fuels.

[spunkles182]

Originally Posted by Tiberius

I dunno; thousands of world scientists got together and said "humans are contributing to global warming." All the top climatologists in the world agreed on that. When that many climatologists agree on a point, it tends to discredit any notion of a conspiracy theory. Especially since when the politicians got involved they demanded the wording of the report be made less severe and for global warming to sound less harsh.

I'm of the mind that unless you yourself are an expert on climatology, you don't really have enough credentials to go against the majority who ARE. Doc, I'm not any kind of an expert on HRT. So you'd agree that for me to argue with you about HRT would be pretty stupid right? Well, I think we should all really think about that the next time we argue with what the majority fo teh world's best climatologists think.


So if nearly every single climate nerd in the world says humans are contributing to global warming; I'm inclined to trust what they say. As for a "global tax" that's really nonsense. There is a LOT more money to be made by with oil, coal, wood, and all the other CO2 releasing fuels.

ha ha.. at one time the "majority" thought that the world was round and the sun revolved around the earth. and in modern times these are the same "top climatologists" who brought you global cooling back in the 1970's.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15391426/site/newsweek/

[gdbear65]

Originally Posted by Tiberius

I dunno; thousands of world scientists got together and said "humans are contributing to global warming." All the top climatologists in the world agreed on that. When that many climatologists agree on a point, it tends to discredit any notion of a conspiracy theory. Especially since when the politicians got involved they demanded the wording of the report be made less severe and for global warming to sound less harsh.

I'm of the mind that unless you yourself are an expert on climatology, you don't really have enough credentials to go against the majority who ARE. Doc, I'm not any kind of an expert on HRT. So you'd agree that for me to argue with you about HRT would be pretty stupid right? Well, I think we should all really think about that the next time we argue with what the majority fo teh world's best climatologists think.


So if nearly every single climate nerd in the world says humans are contributing to global warming; I'm inclined to trust what they say. As for a "global tax" that's really nonsense. There is a LOT more money to be made by with oil, coal, wood, and all the other CO2 releasing fuels.

If climatologists are such experts, why can't we get accurate weather forecasts? The truth is that they only think they know better than average person, but climatology as a science is in it's infancy, so there are no real "experts".

[Tiberius]

Originally Posted by gdbear65

If climatologists are such experts, why can't we get accurate weather forecasts? The truth is that they only think they know better than average person, but climatology as a science is in it's infancy, so there are no real "experts".

The weathmen around here are pretty darn accurate. They get more and more accurate every year.

As for the evidence you are pointing to, Doc, I'm no climatologist and niether are you. We don't have the expertise needed to argue from that level. I do know that big report that came out did NOT say humans are the CAUSE of global warming, just that they are a definite contributor. So I'm sure all the stuff you mentioned there was taken into account.

Like I said, you criticizing them would be like me coming in here and saying "HRT is bogus, everyone knows Testosterone kills brain cells, blah blah blah." You'd go off on me and you'd have every right to. You've got a medical degree and are possibly the most respected HRT specialist in the country. At the very least in "our" community you are. I have no medical degree. You had years of education and experience. I have not. I would have absolutely positively NO GROUND to stand on the issue compared to you.

Likewise neither of us has any ground to stand on when arguing against the opinion of an expert climatologist. The best we can do is find experts who disagree. And then we can't really pick apart their arguments, all we can do is look for alterior motives, etc.

[Tiberius]

Originally Posted by Dr. John

When I see and hear the experts who quit the project, and demanded all mention of their names removed from the paper interviewed, I place value upon their opinions. Their voices have been silenced.

Didn't here about any of that. I'd be interested in seeing some articles on that.

Why don't you all know of them?

THAT is the real question. You see, whether or not the earth is warming is actually a highly debated topic--amongst true professionals. And whether it is caused by Mankind is debatable as well, but a point on top of that. Another point, the one which completely clouds the picture, is the purposeful misinformation being propagated for political gain. THAT should enrage everyone.

Yeah it IS annoying when any kind of political entity gets involved in skewing science. It's bad enough when they take research already conducted and spin it. It's a lot worse when they outright hinder ongoing research.

So you see, I am merely listening to both sides of an arguement, making sure I have gathered information from both sides, made by legitmate experts. I do not claim to be any sort of authority on the weather. Don't need to in order to smell a skunk.

I'm thinking though from your style you only smell one kind of skunk instead of all 37 flavors of skunk.

So, is Al Gore a weather expert? Funny, he thinks he can tell you what the temperature will be in 30 years, but he still has problems with his own election results.

Al Gore is a fruitcake. Never saw Inconvenient Truth, figured it was Michael Moore style trash.

I have seen, heard and read so many expert opinions of how ridiculous the claims in the movie "Inconvenient Truths" are. Please see my previous post for examples.

I'm not qualified to determine the validity of scientific statement with respect to climatology. It's beyond me. Beyond you too I bet since neither of us are climatologists. What I'd like to see though are some links to statements made by climatologists.

Do you recognize it is the Democrats, with their buddies in the Liberal media, who are thus "crippling science"? "Ulterior motives" for sure.

That doesn't even remotely sound biased

Perhaps you should take a look at the actual problem: non-scientists messing with scientific study. It ain't liberal, it ain't conservative. It's about people who don't know **** trying to mess with the work of people who do. If you only focus on one political party messing with scientists, all you get is science messed with by another political party. Which is just as bad.

[spunkles182]

Originally Posted by Tiberius

I'm not qualified to determine the validity of scientific statement with respect to climatology. It's beyond me. Beyond you too I bet since neither of us are climatologists. What I'd like to see though are some links to statements made by climatologists.

no, i think he'd be well qualified. Being a doctor, i would assume that he is well versed in the scientific method. and in being versed, he could look at the data that they use to try and explain the global warming hypothesis and tell whether its bs or not. its really not that complicated as you are trying to make it out to be

[CNorris]

Originally Posted by anabolicrhino

Well as for my noodle its been al dente for years!

Global warming has been with us for millions of years and is caused mostly by the sun and the oceans creating rising thermals.

Global warming "Hysteria" is a complete fraud designed to create a world tax.

Along with other agendas, the main reason for governments worldwide to back Global Warming so heavily is so that a "Global Carbon Tax" can be levied upon the population of the Earth. According to another article by Paul Joseph Watson of PrisonPlanet.com, "the New York Times ran an editorial calling on the government to impose a carbon tax on humans for the air we breathe!"

Whenever you hear the words "politically correct" it means thought control or don't think!

Wow I actually agree with anabolicrhino! Its too bad you had to get information from the 911 nutjob conspiracy site prisonplanet though. Alex Jones is a fraud and a liar.

[Tiberius]

Originally Posted by Dr. John

I am looking at the "actual problem". That is what we are talking about here.

In this case, it IS Liberal. Neither ABC, NBC, CBS, NPR or CNN have carried these facts.

Yeah I'll agree those folks have a liberal slant which is a shame. But TV stations don't have power over research. They can spin it one way or another and pull scare tactic crap, but they aren't the guys funding it. And they sure as heck don't have the power ot pull the plug on any research.

I saw the interviews on FOXNEWS--where you get both sides of a story.

Back up there chief. You only get 2 shades of FOXNEWS: neocon and REALLY neocon. Both sides of a story? No. Not on your life. That's like saying Michael Moore is "fair and balanced." Don't kid yourself. We have 2 kinds of news stations in the US, liberal, and neocon. Fox is neocon, everyone else is liberal. BBC is the only news I've seen which gives news straight. Though they've been focusing lately a little too much on stupid crap like who the Prince is dating. At least they don't talk about Lindsay Lohan and Pris Hilton 24/7 like here in the States.

Then again, Lohan and Hilton are like watching a trainwreck. Strangely fascinating.

And with a PhD level scientifically trained mind, I am able to separate the wheat from the chaff with respect to whether arguements are being presented appropriately. But it doesn't take all that--merely common sense (which ain't too common, eh?).

Common sense goes out the window when you have to take into account quantum physics and chaos theory. The weather doesn't operate on "common sense."

As for being scientifically trained, all that means is depending on the complexity of what is being looked at, you may be able to tell whether or not they have enough information to come to the conclusion they are claiming to have come to.

It's just that ALL we keep hearing/seeing/reading about is how bad the Bush Administration is for "crippling science". Just adding some fair and balanced perspective.

No, you were adding an opposing force, not offering a fair and balanced perspective. The thread started with "The right is evil" and you countered with "no! The left is evil!" Like I said, this isn't some bull**** war between sides cus neither is correct! A fair and balanced perspective would recognize that those who are not scientists and more specifically those who are not experts in fields relevant to climatology should have no say in what is or isn't research with respect to global warming.


And likewise, with thousands of the world's top climatologists all coming to a consensus and saying humans contribute to global warming says to me, they are probably right. It's tough to get that many to agree, so whe nthey do, you better listen.

[Frank Costanza]

Originally Posted by Tiberius

I dunno; thousands of world scientists got together and said "humans are contributing to global warming." All the top climatologists in the world agreed on that. When that many climatologists agree on a point, it tends to discredit any notion of a conspiracy theory. Especially since when the politicians got involved they demanded the wording of the report be made less severe and for global warming to sound less harsh.

I'm of the mind that unless you yourself are an expert on climatology, you don't really have enough credentials to go against the majority who ARE. Doc, I'm not any kind of an expert on HRT. So you'd agree that for me to argue with you about HRT would be pretty stupid right? Well, I think we should all really think about that the next time we argue with what the majority fo teh world's best climatologists think.


So if nearly every single climate nerd in the world says humans are contributing to global warming; I'm inclined to trust what they say. As for a "global tax" that's really nonsense. There is a LOT more money to be made by with oil, coal, wood, and all the other CO2 releasing fuels.

Not all. Not even close.