anabolicrhino
Well-known member
Invalid Link Removed
Surgeon General - Bush Cripples Science ?
- Thread starter anabolicrhino
- Start date
spunkles182
Member
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
Well-known member
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 !!!
spunkles182
Member
anabolicrhino
Well-known member
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 Invalid Link Removed
Global warming Invalid Link Removed 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
Member
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
Member
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.
Invalid Link Removed
gdbear65
Member
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
Member
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
Member
Didn't here about any of that. I'd be interested in seeing some articles on that.
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.
I'm thinking though from your style you only smell one kind of skunk instead of all 37 flavors of skunk.
Al Gore is a fruitcake. Never saw Inconvenient Truth, figured it was Michael Moore style trash.
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.
That doesn't even remotely sound biased :think:
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
Member
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
Banned
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
Member
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.
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.
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.
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.
Dwight Schrute
I am faster than 80% of all snakes
fitnecise
Member
I am not convinced global climate change is anthropogenic however I did read an article about that video (I have watched it too) that the producers edited it in a way that one of the scientists is made to seem against human causes but he is not, and the scientist was going to sue. I recall another discrepancy but don't remember details- point being some of that info is likely incorrect.
fitnecise
Member
tee hee
Dwight Schrute
I am faster than 80% of all snakes
I would be pretty amazed if a video like this was not criticized...
Its now to the point where investors are solidifying the viewpoint because the "green" industry is such a beast.
Whenever you edit something the bias factor will always be brought up. I would rather see a video like this which gives a counterpoint to another film in which several viewpoints are "conveniently" left out.
Tiberius
Member
Bobo, that's like one of those 911 conspiracy theory videos. You should know better.
And I gotta say, JESUS ****ING CHRIST! I come on here and say FOXNEWS is biased and get blasted like I'm some liberal dirtbag. Look if you don't want to admit FOXNEWS is ridiculously biased, fine, live in a dream. But don't blast me for pointing out the obvious.
Dwight Schrute
I am faster than 80% of all snakes
Yeah, the list of scientists refuting AL Gore with actual data is like a 9/11 conspiracy film. Wow. That might be the weakest statement you've ever made. You seriously are lost with comments like that.
I should know better? I do, unlike your assumption that thousands of scientists (even though its not) must be right. Yeah, I should know better.
Dwight Schrute
I am faster than 80% of all snakes
Tiberius
Member
Fine I'll levae the thread. You folks sit there and pat each other on the back and congratulate each other on uncovering the grand super duper liberal conspiracy between thousands of the world's top climatologists.
Later...
anabolicrhino
Well-known member
Lousy stinkin' fact based video trying to prove an unpopular theory
as if the freedom of speech included everyone and not just the popular kids! How dare they ?!?!?!
Dude , if I was a climatologist I would be like, "oh yeah it serious give us more money, so we can figure this thing out, this may take years. oh and don't pay attention to outrageous conspiracy theories to the contrary."
Dwight Schrute
I am faster than 80% of all snakes
I'm going to propose a sociological based study on message boards with an emphasis on the effects of global warming. Then I'll get paid.
