The Democrats’ “War on Science”
November 13th, 2007 at 01:49pm Matt Margolis
Hillary Clinton has been accusing President Bush of waging a “war on science” for some time now. While I was flipping through stations on the TV the other day, I caught her giving a speech using the same rhetoric. It appears to be one of her favorite talking points. Be it global warming, stem cell research, or abortion, Hillary seems determined to accuse President Bush and Republicans of denying scientific research in favor of political ideology.
But let’s look at these issues, and really see which party is putting ideology over science.
Global Warming
Democrats claim that their is a consensus in the scientific community that (a) global warming is occurring and (b) that it is man-made. But, if that was the case, why does Al Gore refuse to debate global warming skeptics, and why has there been numerous reports of scientists and meteorologists refuting both notions? Instead of recognizing that there is actually a debate about global warming’s existence and/or the cause of it, they instead want to impose economically catastrophic restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions and support all kinds of legislation imposing restrictions on private businesses.
Stem Cell Research
Democrats have failed to give any credence to discoveries indicating that useful stem cells can be obtained from sources other than human embryos. Instead of pushing for ethical ways to continue with stem cell research, they continue to promote stem cell research that requires the destruction of human embryos.
Abortion
Do I really need to explain how pro-abortion advocates abhor 4D ultrasound technology, which can give parents the opportunity to see real time moving 3-dimensional images of their unborn child. House Democrats also voted overwhelmingly against the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act of 2006, clearly letting ideology trump science.
So, on these three issues alone, Democrats are undeniably allowing liberal political ideology to “interfere with research and scientific evidence.”
I would even call it the Democrat’s war on science.
Entry Filed under: Campaign 2008, Democrats
75 Comments
1. french student | November 13th, 2007 at 3:22 pm
Global warming : the two links you provide are for a blog post written by yourself or one of your co-authors (which does not name its sources) and from a weatherman, who has a formation of meteorologist, not climatologist.
but do you know the IPCC?
Their 2007 report states :
Now remember, these guys are mostly scientific expert reviewers. That means it is their job to look at all the data and to summarize it in a way a layman can understand.
In short, htey offer the most complete review of the “debate” you claim exists. Now read back their conclusions.
both quotes are from wikipedia, ipcc page
stem cell research:
Nowhere have I seen any report of stem cell research on these adult cells being blocked by democrats. However I have seen plenty of stem cell research being blocked by republicans.
the most glaring example being
(wikipedia again)
and remember guys, before you say this bill would have murdered babies (a debate for another day) that we are talking about discarded embryos, that is embryos that would never be carried to term anyways .
So this is not an effort to stiffle research and harm science from the democrats, it is an effort from republicans to shut down a whole branch of research in order to chanel the money in a less efficient branch.
abortion
Oh Goody, another debate on abortion! I saw no answer to my comment on the other thread, btw.
Could you please cite the democrat that said he hated 4D ultrasound technology ? Because your link explains what it is, not how it is seen by the politcian community.
As for the fetal pain awareness act, it has little or nothing to do with science, it is just one more layer of red tape that the republicans try to bind the women who want access to an abortion into. It brings nothing to science or research.
So I’d still say that the republicans, who ignore the most comprehensive studies on global warming on behal of biased sources paid for by oil companies, who try to stop research that could lead to a cure for cancer or the growing of replacement limbs on the pretext that the research would destroy embryos already slated for destruction, and who want to deny women access to medical procedures, are the ones who are waging a war on science.
And that does not include any of the other sciences like, let’s see,
sociology, which tells us the best way to reduce the number of abortions is to make contraception easily and widely available. (see the other topic comment I made for the article)
pedagogy, that tells us students who followed an “abstinence-only sex-ed course” are just as likely to have sex as those who did not, and more likely to get pregnant or a STD as a result of said sex than students who have had a proper sex-ed curriculum.
http://www.mathematica-mpr.com/publications/PDFs/impactabstinence.pdf
economics, that show that supply-side economic theory does not mean that cutting taxes always generate more revenue :
(wikipedia gain, search “supply side”)
and so on and so on and so on.
Now I elieve some of the politicians, on the right and on the left, simply do not understand most of the scientific issues. It is not their areas of expertise. Geeks don’t get elected.
But I have never seen any democrat fly in the face of established evidence in order to make a political point.
I have, however, seen many republicans tak stand on religious grounds even when the religious arguments have been proved wrong by science (the sex-ed issue comes to mind ).
So yes, I think the ones who want to stop science, stop educating the public, are the republicans. and that is because they are much better at playing on people’s emotions. When the voter listens with a cool head and is fully informed on the issues, they are less likely to vote republican. To substantiate my claim, I will cite the present administration.
GWB got elected on a platform of “he’s a guy everybody would want a beer with”.
He claims, even brags, he makes his decisions on religious grounds (he even claimed od told him to invade Iraq at some point)
He was endorsed by religous extremists ( I’m thinking the whole christian right lobby) which by definition reacts on emotion, not reason.
So yes, the war on science is waged in red uniforms, in my opinion.
2. Ricorun | November 13th, 2007 at 3:27 pm
Matt: I would even call it the Democrat’s war on science.
Is there a concensus on that? Lol!
3. neocon | November 13th, 2007 at 4:19 pm
french student,
While I also use wikipedia as a source, you need to understand the inherent shortcomings of the source and need to reference it with other sources to prove the veracity of the information. Your above post exclusively refernced wikipedia, so it is taken very lightly. The fact remains that:
- global warming debate, vis a vis, mans contribution is very much open for debate.
- Bush has approved adult stem cell research and there are no indication that embryonic stem cell research will bring about any better results.
- And the effort to limit abortions is an effort to preserve the sanctity of life. Something you should care more about.
Please consider the following when exclusively using wikipedia:
Wikipedia welcomes and allows edits by anonymous IP addresses, which results in rampant vandalism that is overwhelmingly liberal. Credible wikis, including Conservapedia, do not permit editing by anonymous IP addresses.
Here’s a sample of the anti-Christian bias he cites:
Wikipedia administrators accept evolution as a sourced fact, and will censor material that contradicts it
4. french student | November 13th, 2007 at 4:49 pm
neocon
Actually the quote about man’s contribution to global warming came from the IPCC report, quoted by wikipedia. you ar attacking the wrong source her, and have to either prove the IPCC was misquoted or that the IPCC is wrong.
In fact, whenever I quote wikipedia, I make sure to look into the sources usedto make the article I quote, and refrain from quoting the article if and when the sources seem fishy.
Embryonic stem cells research has a gharantee of being more efficient, if only because there is one step less to figure out in the process : the step that turns adult, differenciated cells back into stem cells. Plus, there is a part of each chromosome, called telomeres, that countes the number of replications left in the cell. Adult cells cans replicate fewer times, therefore being able to produce less biomatter or shorter-lived biomatter. That is what happened to Dolly, the first cloned sheep, who as an ambryo had the genetic age of her mother.
Sorry, no source for that except my high school biology classes.
As I said in t least one other post, the effort to reduce abortion, which I agree with in principle, is tragically mishandled by the republicans. It has been proven that the best way to reduce the abortion rate is to make contraception widely and easily available, and that legislating to forbid abortion makes abortions less safe, not fewer.
As for the sanctity of human life issue, I disagree with you. I am an atheist, and do not believe in a god or a soul. What I believe should be preserved is conscience, self awareness, the ability to think using abstractions. Abortion does nothing to destroy that, as long as it happens before the foetus is an independant being.
While the frontier is very difficult to define, I adopt as a rule of thumb that as soon as, given the current technology, the embryo can live outside of the womb and become a child, that is the case. Until that, the woman should have the choice. After this point, an abortion is morally wrong and should be replaced by an extra-utero growth. In no situation should a woman be forced to carry or raise a kid she does not want. She would end up botching the job and producing an unhappy mother and an unhappy child.
Also, if the pregnancy puts both the mother and the child a risk, it should be terminated in a way that maximises the chances of both.
And when you quote someone to discredit a source, please docment your quote. I have tried to say where my quotes come from every time, so that a reader can find the quote in context and make up his/her mind. Please have the courtesy to do the same.
Oh and “accepting evolution as a fact” is not evidence of bias, but of trust in science. This is another debate for another time, of course, but I would someday like to know how you define evolution and what, if any, your beef with it is. In my experience, there are only two reasons for not believing in the theory of evolution : a blind religious refusal and a lack of education as to what exactly the theory of evolution is.
5. french student | November 13th, 2007 at 4:52 pm
on a totally different topic, while I love the new site (on an ergonomic level) there is one function that I find missing : there is neither a “preview” nor an “edit” function. In my case, this results in spelling errors all over my posts and it irks me.
Is any such function in the forseeable future?
6. neocon | November 13th, 2007 at 4:59 pm
…and have to either prove the IPCC was misquoted or that the IPCC is wrong. - french
(Chicago IL - June 29, 2007) On June 28, in an historic move the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has released the expert review comments and responses to its latest assessment of the science of climate change. The IPCC report is the primary source of data for Al Gore’s movie and book titled “An Inconvenient Truth.”
Many of the comments by the reviewers are strongly critical of claims contained in the final report, and they are directly at odds with the so-called “scientific consensus” touted by Gore and others calling for immediate government action.
Embryonic stem cells research has a gharantee of being more efficient,…french
That’s a lie.
I am an atheist, and do not believe in a god or a soul.
There’s no point in debating you any further. You’re less than human and I will pray for your soul.
7. neocon | November 13th, 2007 at 5:01 pm
Abortion does nothing to destroy that, as long as it happens before the foetus is an independant being. - french
An independent being?????
That would mean you support the murder of infants and toddlers, as they are still far from being independent.
8. neocon | November 13th, 2007 at 5:05 pm
..but I would someday like to know how you define evolution and what, if any, your beef with it is. - french
Evolution does not explain the origin of the universe, and leaves many unaswered questions. I believe God created the universe and put evolution into motion.
btw, Mark, I loathe the “two words” posting requirement.
9. Ricorun | November 13th, 2007 at 5:10 pm
neocon (to frenchstudent): Your above post exclusively refernced wikipedia, so it is taken very lightly.
No it doesn’t. Moreover, most of what he took from wikipedia is not in dispute. The IPCC report does say exactly what wikipedia says it does. Likewise, the wikipedia’s account of the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005 (HR 810) is also accurate. The stuff about the Laffer curve, well, that’s definitely open to opinion. Then again, that’s what wikipedia says.
By the way, can you tell me where I can find the expert review comments and responses to the IPCC report? I’m sure you’ve read them. I’d like to as well.
As far as stem cell research goes, limiting abortions, even preventing them entirely, would have NO EFFECT on the availability of embryos that could potentially contribute to embryonic stem cell research, because no one (well, not many anyway) condones using aborted fetuses for such a purpose. And I would say that if you truly cared about preserving the sanctity of life you should be seriously up in arms about in-vitro fertilization. That’s the procedure that has produced millions of embryos that have already been declared nothing more than medical waste, and hundreds of thousands more in the deep freeze waiting to succomb to the same fate through freezer burn. But you don’t seem to care about that, so I’d have to say your argument is at best disingenuous. I’d much prefer to think you were both well informed and sincere.
10. Ricorun | November 13th, 2007 at 5:11 pm
DARN THOSE BOLDS! Sorry about that.
11. neocon | November 13th, 2007 at 5:20 pm
Rico,
I am not a fan of in-vitro.
And I am always sincere, but not always the most well informed. LOL.
12. neocon | November 13th, 2007 at 5:22 pm
Why would ANYONE want to limit the debate on global warming; the supposed issue of our time?
IF it is that important, how can further debate hurt?
And, since it is not scientific theory, and only consensus, wouldn’t limiting debate harm the scientific process?
13. french student | November 13th, 2007 at 5:31 pm
neocon
who were these reviewers? what were there qualifications? Again, this is the best effort that was made to compile all research on the subject. Of course, if people complain on the grounds that thay don’t like the conclusion, it does not invalidate the sientific consensus.
Wow , what a reasonned argument! Reminds me of debates I had with my brother when we were 4 and 8 respectively.
No seriously, if that is a lie, point it out and cite sources to back you up. Did I say anything untrue in the lines where I explained why embryonic stem cell was more efficient?
And here ladies and gentlement is the famed christian toleance and open-mindedness.
a round of applause please?
Be careful, branding whole swaths of the population as “less than human” is a slippery slope.
And, of course, I disagree with you on that point.
Did you read the whole paragraph afterwards where I explained what I meant by “independant being”?
So you are actually in both categories!!
You see, the theory of evolution is not here to explain the origin of the universe. It is used to explain how different species appear and why they share basic similarities and why they appear related by genres, species, etc… And it explains the fossil record . It does not try to explain the origin of the universe, that is a very specific province of physics.
As for god creating the word and setting evolution in motion (btw, how can god set evolution in motion if, as you said you believe, there is no evolution?), well, while there are still questions left unnswered, I personnally do not feel obligated to belieeve god is the answer, much less the judeo-christiano-muslim god. He has no more credibility to me than jupiter, quetzalcoatl or santa claus.
14. french student | November 13th, 2007 at 5:37 pm
neocon
Personnally, I believe anyone coming wit new data should be listnened. Of course, this should apply to new scientific data and the data should be subject to the same perr-reviewing and scrutiny as the rest of research is.
However, the thing with science is that each and every answer brings up more questions. If you wait final answers to do anything, the window of opportunity will have passed. In fact, to transpose it to another political issue, it would be like demanding to know the exact number, names, and dates of crossing the border of every single illegal immigrant before a law against immegal immigration is passed.
would you support such a course of action?
15. neocon | November 13th, 2007 at 5:44 pm
French,
It is a lie to unequivocally state that embryonic stem cells offer more promise. And I never said that I did not believe in evolution. That’s another lie from you. You’re starting to dig a hole.
And I will continue to pray for your soul.
While we all are concerned that we find cures for those suffering from disease, such cures do not lie in destroying living human embryos. They lie instead in research developments that, in many cases, are already here. CBHD
“Today’s papers do not settle the adult-versus-embryo dispute: they suggest that both could yield promising therapies. Different cell types might best treat different diseases, so most scientists advocate supporting both types of research.”
16. neocon | November 13th, 2007 at 5:48 pm
If you wait final answers to do anything, - french
We are not waiting. We are currently implementing emission controls and other measures designed to curb the warming effects.
What we object to is the effort to stymie debate and implement draconian measures.
May God Bless your soul.
17. french student | November 13th, 2007 at 5:55 pm
neocon.
I did say that embryonic stem cell offers more promise, but I also stated reasons why I believe it is so. Did you actually debunk those reasons? No. You did not so much as allude to them. You are, therefore, accusing me of lying without proof, nor any reasonnable reason to do so. Of course, if you can point to any reason why what I said is untrue, and back it up with facts, I will then take what you say into account te revise my position.
As for your not believing in evolution, I gladly concede that I read your post a little fast. You did not actually say you did not believe in evolution. However, you stated:
I took that, with your earlier quote implying that taking evolution for granted was a proof of anti christian bias and your references to god (plus the fact that 80% of your countrymen define themselves as christian) , as a statement that you did not believe in evolution. I am sorry for the mistake and shall not do it aain.
However, my comments on what the theory of evolution covers and does not cover stand.
18. Ricorun | November 13th, 2007 at 5:56 pm
neocon: I am not a fan of in-vitro.
If you are sincere about the sanctity of life, it’s not enough to simply fail to be a fan of in-vitro — you are compelled to be an opponent of it. The primary argument in favor of in-vitro fertilization on the one hand and fetal stem cell research on the other are essentially the same — or at least one piggy-backs on the other. The argument in favor of IVF is that it provides parents that could not otherwise reproduce with the opportunity to do so. That’s a good thing. The down side is that it also invariably generates embryos that are either discarded immediately or put in the deep freeze for potential later use. And only a very small portion of those in the deep freeze ever make it out before they are discarded.
Similarly, the argument in favor of fetal stem cell research is that it has the potential to lead to developments that could save countless lives. That’s a good thing. The down side is that harvesting the stem cells leads to the destruction of the embryo. But it is an embryo that will eventually be discarded anyway. That’s the dilemma. And the only real way to avoid the dilemma is to avoid generating fetuses that will eventually be discarded. And that means preventing IVF. To me, that’s where the controversy should hinge. To the extent that it doesn’t strikes me as absurd. To the extent that it doesn’t the argument boils down to trying to make sense of why it’s better to throw away tissue that is, or eventually will be, considered medical waste rather than using it in a way that could benefit mankind in potentially dramatic ways.
I’m not in favor of IVF. I think it’s a terrible thing and I would like to see it stopped. To me it’s just selfishness. But even if it was banned tomorrow there’s still the issue of what to do with the hundreds of thousands of frozen embryos that already exist. To me, preventing any alternative to throwing them away is as wrong as allowing them to be produced in the first place. And two wrongs don’t make a right.
19. KCJ | November 13th, 2007 at 5:58 pm
I love how liberals here base so much of their rebuttals on questioning sources. Why can’t they just admit that there is a DEBATE about global warming instead of pretending there is a consensus? French student, we can play the sources game forever but that doesn’t negate the points made in this post. There are scientists who question global warming. Why can’t you admit that?
20. french student | November 13th, 2007 at 5:59 pm
Neocon
Then we agree!
Of course, where we disagree is on what constitutes a “draconian” measure and on where the fine line between legitimate debate and time-consuming, political flame wars is placed.
21. neocon | November 13th, 2007 at 6:00 pm
I did say that embryonic stem cell offers more promise, but I also stated reasons why I believe it is so. - french
I personally did not dispute that as I am not a PhD or MD, so I would not even attempt to pretend to be an expert.
I referenced the Institute of Science in Society and the Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity, along with many other scientists that refute your assertions.
22. neocon | November 13th, 2007 at 6:07 pm
If you are sincere about the sanctity of life, it’s not enough to simply fail to be a fan of in-vitro — you are compelled to be an opponent of it. - Rico
I am compelled to do neither. While not a fan of in-vitro, I am not going to be the judge and jury of a couple who are trying their last ditch effort to have a child.
That’s one thing that seperates liberals and conservatives. Liberals like to pretend that they are the authority and see most everything in black and white (mainly because many of them do not recognise a Higher Power, and consider man to be all knowing)
Conservatives realise that there are many shades of gray in our world, and while we pray for the wisdom to make the right choices, we realise that we are not the ultimate authority.
23. french student | November 13th, 2007 at 6:08 pm
KJC
I fully admit there are scientists who question global warming. However, I have yet to see a compelling case for their being right. Plus I tend to take studies paid for by companies that have a vested interest in one or the other conlusion with a grain of salt.
Now I easily conced that I do not have the capacities, or the time, to understant and review myself each and every paper on the subject. But I have faith in the scientific method, and believe that if tomorrow someone made a set of measurements that disproved the existence of gloal warming, the scientific community would start changing its mind. the melting polar ice caps, however, are disagreeing, for example.
Plus, I also concede that there is a debate, nd a quite lively one, on the details of global warming and the appropriate actions. But the fact that there is a global warming has been proved to my satisfaction until more acts come to disprove it.
24. neocon | November 13th, 2007 at 6:14 pm
….I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind” - Albert Einstein
25. french student | November 13th, 2007 at 6:14 pm
neocon
Actually on the abortion issue (to cite only one) it is the conservatives that try to make it a blak and white issue (in this case, black) and try to regulate. There is a reason progressives are pro-choice on this issue.
Plus, could you provide links or at least document your quotes whan you cite sources? I actually had no idea that you quoted the Institute of Science in Society and the Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity until you said it in another post, since you had not said that along with your quotes.
I’d like to form an opinion on them myself, since I am not familiar with them.
26. french student | November 13th, 2007 at 6:15 pm
wooops forgt to close a tag here, sorry
[NOTE FROM EDITOR: All fixed up.]
27. neocon | November 13th, 2007 at 6:17 pm
the melting polar ice caps, however, are disagreeing, for example. - french
How about the following french?
As glaciers from Greenland to Kilimanjaro recede at record rates, the central icecap of Antarctica has been steadily growing for 11 years, partially offsetting the rise in seas from the melt waters of global warming, researchers said Thursday
28. french student | November 13th, 2007 at 6:17 pm
http://skeptically.org/thinkersonreligion/id8.html
29. french student | November 13th, 2007 at 6:18 pm
link or source?
30. neocon | November 13th, 2007 at 6:21 pm
Actually on the abortion issue (to cite only one) it is the conservatives that try to make it a blak and white issue (in this case, black) and try to regulate. - french
What’s wrong with putting some brakes on an irreversible procedure that takes the life of an infant and, in many cases, psychologically harms the woman.
Conservatives are not trying to end all abortions, we want more thought and education brought to the issue.
31. Michael | November 13th, 2007 at 6:21 pm
if your posting with italics or bold make sure to put the stop in for the html it would look like this with the asterisk being the i or the b this will stop the formating
32. neocon | November 13th, 2007 at 6:23 pm
http://www.usatoday.com/news/science/cold-science/2002-01-18-wais-thicker.htm
33. Michael | November 13th, 2007 at 6:23 pm
That didnt come through and totally off topic </ just make sure to close it with the other bracket
34. neocon | November 13th, 2007 at 6:25 pm
This is not to say that Einstein was agnostic or atheistic, though many have made that assumption about him. We learn in this book, however, that nothing was further from the truth. To clarify his religious views Einstein wrote “What I Believe” in 1930. Here he made clear that he did not believe in human freedom in the philosophical sense but that persons act “not only under external compulsion but also in accordance with inner necessity” (73). Describing the only sense in which it could be said that he was religious, Einstein wrote,
Advertisement
A knowledge of something we cannot penetrate, our perceptions of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty, which only in their most primitive forms are accessible to our minds-it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute true religiosity; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man (73).
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4044/is_200507/ai_n15328838
35. neocon | November 13th, 2007 at 6:26 pm
Thanks Michael
36. KCJ | November 13th, 2007 at 6:28 pm
frenchstudent:
“I fully admit there are scientists who question global warming. However, I have yet to see a compelling case for their being right. Plus I tend to take studies paid for by companies that have a vested interest in one or the other conlusion with a grain of salt.
Now I easily conced that I do not have the capacities, or the time, to understant and review myself each and every paper on the subject.”
then it seems to be you are accepting the findings of the IPCC in part due to the fact that it agrees with your position.
I don’t know much about the IPCC, but i looked at its website, and just clicking around there left me thinking that they conducted their research on the assumption that global warming was man made, and could very well have ignored methods of research that could have proved otherwise. I can’t say this for sure, but that’s the feeling i got.
Also, did you even click on the link to his other blog? If you have you’d have seen that that blog references a separate article… so nice try there to avoid acknowledging that part
37. french student | November 13th, 2007 at 6:30 pm
sorry neocon, what you say does not match the data.
First, go down a couple of threads and read the article I posted there about how abortion rates don’t go down when abortion is outlawed.
Second, we disagree on the definition of infant. I gave you mine, and if you will tell me that a group of cells invisible to the naked eye is a human being, I’ll have to disagree with you.
Third, I really do not believe there is a woman who does not think before she has an abortion. And anyway, such a woman would make a terrible mother.
Lastly, what I have seen of abortion-control bills are about forbidding certain procedures, or abortions in certain conditions… Hell I remember Bill O’Reilly wanting to forbid abortions in every case including rape and denying some abortion were medically necessary.
Women are going to have abortions. And they will do it after careful consideration. The point here is to make abortions as safe as possible, and to avaoid as much traumatism as can be avoided.
And, of course, to reduce the number of abortions, to promote contraception.
38. Keith | November 13th, 2007 at 6:35 pm
In about a month, I’m gonna be prayin’ for some global warming.
I’m doing my part for global warming. I throw half of my recyclables in the trash, turn on a television I’m not watching, and warm up my car for ten minutes, when five would suffice.
It’s the Sun, folks, and normal climate variations that have been occurring ever since God created this wonderful planet. Nothing more than that–I’ve reached a consensus with myself. lol
39. Jeremiah | November 13th, 2007 at 6:36 pm
Abortion is never justified, because the unborn baby within his/her mother is not part of her. If it were part of her, then we could say that the woman has four legs, four arms, four eyes, two heads, and well…you get the picture.
Hence, abortion cannot be justified, because it is th execution of an innocent.
No murder can be justified, simply because it is against God’s law, and if murder is committed? Then therein is where the Death Penalty comes into play! For God instituted the Death penalty.
40. neocon | November 13th, 2007 at 6:36 pm
french,
When did I ever suggest that abortions should be outlawed and that that will bring abortion rates down?
That’s your third lie today.
And yes, we disagree, what a shock!
Life begins at conception.
Do you support partial birth abortion?
41. Jeremiah | November 13th, 2007 at 6:37 pm
It’s the Sun, folks, and normal climate variations that have been occurring ever since God created this wonderful planet.
Amen. Keith!
:)
42. neocon | November 13th, 2007 at 6:39 pm
THE PSYCHOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF ABORTION
Researchers investigating post-abortion reactions report only one positive emotion: relief. This emotion is understandable, especially in light of the fact that the majority of aborting women report feeling under intense pressure to “get it over with.”8,23
Temporary feelings of relief are frequently followed by a period psychiatrists identify as emotional “paralysis,” or post-abortion “numbness.”18 Like shell-shocked soldiers, these aborted women are unable to express or even feel their own emotions. Their focus is primarily on having survived the ordeal, and they are at least temporarily out of touch with their feelings.
Studies within the first few weeks after the abortion have found that between 40 and 60 percent of women questioned report negative reactions.3,23,35 Within 8 weeks after their abortions, 55% expressed guilt, 44% complained of nervous disorders, 36% had experienced sleep disturbances, 31% had regrets about their decision, and 11% had been prescribed psychotropic medicine by their family doctor.3
http://www.abortionfacts.com/reardon/after_effects_of_abortion.asp
43. french student | November 13th, 2007 at 6:45 pm
neocon
first, tanks fo the link.
It is not enough, oon its own, to change my mind, but I am sure it will be taken into consideration.
On the subject of einstein’s religiosity. He did not believe in a personnal god, nor in an acting god. It says so right in the article you linked to.
I will speak no more of this subject, partly because it is off-topic and partly because, frankly, it does not matter.
As for the “why I believe the IPCC, of course it is easier to believe because what they say fits with the rest of what I believe. Total objectivity is a myth. Are you willing to say your disbelieving them does not stem from the same source?
And once more, what they say may not be perfect, but it is the best we have. If you have evidene of bias in teir research, and you can explain it, plase do so. Until them, I will take the word of specialists over that of a layman.
44. neocon | November 13th, 2007 at 6:53 pm
Until them, I will take the word of specialists over that of a layman. - french
What you are, in effect, saying is that you believe the scientists that refute global warming are “layman”. Awfully judgemental. Secondly, NOBODY refutes the warming, what is seriously questioned is mans culpability and the dire prognostications.
How can anyone firmly believe that, without even scientific theory, a planet that has survivied millions and millions of years of violent volcanic eruptions, meteors, solar flares and earthquakes, has fallen gravely ill because of 150 years of mans carbon emissions?
45. Jeremiah | November 13th, 2007 at 6:54 pm
Without a belief in The Creator, there is only room for error. All other belief systems fail, because they have no basis or Foundation in which to back their claims up with.
46. french student | November 13th, 2007 at 6:55 pm
neocon
I never said you said that, I said that conservatives said that. I mentionned O’Reilly.
Stop putting words in my mouth and pretending they are lies. As for the other two, one was no lie and the other was an honnest mistake I recognised.
As for the psychological effects of abortion, I never disputed them.
Jeremiah
at the point of foetal developpement we are talking about, the foetus has no legs nor arms nor anything.
As for where the line is in my opinion, read my position higher.
keith : sources, links, proofs?
Now this shall probably be my last post tonight, since it is 1 am where I am and I am rather tired. This makes me irritable, and a little sloppy with my logic.
See you tomorrow
47. neocon | November 13th, 2007 at 7:03 pm
french,
How could I take the following any other way? You only referenced O’Reilly in the THIRD paragraph on another related abortion position.
sorry neocon, what you say does not match the data.
First, go down a couple of threads and read the article I posted there about how abortion rates don’t go down when abortion is outlawed.
This is what I said:
What’s wrong with putting some brakes on an irreversible procedure that takes the life of an infant and, in many cases, psychologically harms the woman.
Conservatives are not trying to end all abortions, we want more thought and education brought to the issue.
48. french student | November 13th, 2007 at 7:04 pm
neocon
no, I am calling YOU a layman (BTW, the plural is laymen) and am nt taking your evaluation of the IPCC as seriously as if you had a pHd.
As for the survival of earth, it has never been into question. What is into question is the survival of the human race.
Remember the dinos from jurassik park? Impossible in reality. They were cold-blooded and could only live in air around 60°C . And that is what they had. we could not have survived in that heat. that is why the first mammals were so small : they had to be in order not to cook from their own body heat.
But since then, a lot of carbon was trapped first in the huge cretacean forests, then under layers of dust and rock (because of whatever wiped the dinos) and more was trapped into forests. thus the temperature fell.
You wanna guess what happened to that carbon? It became oil. wanna guess what is happening to it now?
49. Ricorun | November 13th, 2007 at 7:04 pm
neocon: Life begins at conception.
Are you sure? Does that necessarily equate with human life? Is that when the body and soul merge? Are you absolutely sure? There’s no gray area?
50. Ricorun | November 13th, 2007 at 7:05 pm
oh poo.
51. Jeremiah | November 13th, 2007 at 7:15 pm
at the point of foetal developpement we are talking about, the foetus has no legs nor arms nor anything.
As for where the line is in my opinion, read my position higher.
french student,
Ok, first, here is a nice little exhibit
When life begins!
Now, essentially, what you’re doing, you’re trying to say that God is “flawed”, which is beyond ludicrous.
If God were “flawed”, then most of us wouldn’t be typing the computer right now, there would be no infrastructure, no hospitals, no doctors, no trains, no cars, no boats, we would all be a bunch of neophytes, and illiterates on everything.
So don’t try and tell me that God is “flawed” or that He “doesn’t” exist, because that’s a no brainer.
Women are going to have abortions. And they will do it after careful consideration.
Therein lies the reason they have them, it is the misleading way in which Leftists convey the message, by saying “oh it’s ok” — Hogwash!
Abortion should NEVER be condoned or encouraged, NEVER!!
God’s Law forbids it, because it is Murder, God’s law supercedes Man’s and all other laws–He is ruler Supreme.
Jeremiah
52. french student | November 13th, 2007 at 7:19 pm
jeremiah
As I said, I do not believe in god. No more than in santa claus.
Until you prove that a) he exists and b) you know what he wants, and you prove these points to my satisfaction (hint : assuming the bible is true is no way to achieve that), you can not say what god’s law is and expect me to agree with you.
53. Ricorun | November 13th, 2007 at 7:23 pm
neocon: Conservatives are not trying to end all abortions, we want more thought and education brought to the issue.
If that’s so, I wholeheartedly agree. Apparently like you, I don’t think abortion can be considered a singular issue in some kind of vacuum. Then again, I don’t get the impression that many conservatives share our view. For example, check out Jeremiah’s comment above. In fact, he pretty much puts the kibosh on that “gray area” argument of yours. But that’s just him, right? One conservative’s views should not be confused with another conservative’s views. Heck, one person’s views should not be confused with another person’s views, regardless of where they stand on the political spectrum. Right? But I have to say, your POV does sound an awful lot like that of Hillary’s. If you don’t think so, explain why not.
54. Jeremiah | November 13th, 2007 at 7:31 pm
Heck, one person’s views should not be confused with another person’s views, regardless of where they stand on the political spectrum. Right?
Ricorun,
Yes, it pays to not get confused. Unfortunately, too many people have already become confused, and look at what it has cost us?
40.000.0000 innocents!
Just goes to show what happens when a Nation turns their back on Almighty God!
55. Ricorun | November 13th, 2007 at 7:37 pm
Let me ask you Jeremiah, do you distinguish between body and soul? In other words, is a person’s corporeal and spiritual existence one and the same, or can they be distinguished in one or more ways, including the chronological? Are you aware of what various Judeo-Christian philosophers, dogma, and texts throughout the ages have had to say about the matter? If you did I suspect you might share, or at least appreciate neocon’s “gray” conception a little more — even if he doesn’t really appreciate it himself, lol!
And by the way, how do you feel about in-vitro fertilization? Depending how you answer that question you might want to bump up that “innocents” figure a couple of million at least.
56. Eric T | November 13th, 2007 at 7:55 pm
Something I never hear mentioned about global warming, It could take you back to Jr. High Science class. Remember the life of the star, Nova, Supernova and all that. As the star ages it EXPANDS, burns hotter up until the point that it uses up its fuel.
If the sun is getting larger, then there is global warming, but we can’t do anything about it. Gore’s snake oil sales of carbon credits and other horsepucky don’t address the problem, they are just trying to dream up new taxes like(Kyoto Treaty).
Alternative Energy should always be explored
George Bush mandating 10% ethanol in gasoline was a great start to energy independance.
His more market based stance on CAFE standards is the right way to approach the issue.
Letting the Big 3 build and sell the products that customers want and will buy. I think CAFE standards could be devastating for the Sports Cars and people that love them and want to buy them. Or big smooth riding Luxury Cars like Cadillac’s, Lincoln’s and Crown Victoria’s. The auto industry knows that the customers want fuel effiency and are building things like The GM Volt (electric car), 6 speed transmissions and other hybrids that may revolutionize the automotive world and have such an impact that it decreases world demand for oil driving down gasoline prices. Or say Chevron or Exxon hit a vein of oil in the gulf that is trillions of barrels and prices drop for fuel. Iran may have santions lifted. No one knows what the market will do. Why try and tell the big three how to build cars and what to build and tell consumers they no longer have a choice? If they wanted to give consumers a big tax break on the hybrids. That would steer them away from pick-ups and big cars. But to come out and just demand control and say this is how it is going to be. That just is not Freedom.
57. neocon | November 13th, 2007 at 8:20 pm
Until you prove that a) he exists and b) you know what he wants, and you prove these points to my satisfaction - french
I feel sad for you french. If you quieted your soul and became a bit more humble, you might begin to learn for yourself of His presence. The proof is within you.
Rico,
I differ greatly with Hillary on abortion. I would absolutely, unequivocally outlaw partial birth abortion. I would then put in a 7 day waiting period, or something to that effect with abortions so that woman could obtain information and explore other options. Of course, extreme situations would be dealt with accordingly. What I am opposed to is making law specifically for those extreme situations, which is what we are doing now.
I respect Jeremiahs opinion (unlike many liberals) and I am not saying that he is wrong and I am right. Again, when you have faith, you don’t have the sense of superiority that those without faith project. I pray for the wisdom to arrive at the right decision.
58. Jeremiah | November 13th, 2007 at 8:33 pm
Let me ask you Jeremiah, do you distinguish between body and soul? In other words, is a person’s corporeal and spiritual existence one and the same, or can they be distinguished in one or more ways, including the chronological?
In effect, what you’re saying is in the physical or person realm, (our own ideologies that are expounded from our own heart).Yes, of course, they at times affect not only our own life, but can at times affect others. If you stump the toe, your whole body tends to it. You say something arrogant and hurtful then it can affect others by hurting their feelings. In the Spiritual Sense, the Decisions we make in our hearts will affect our Souls on an eternal basis, and also, let me give you an example, Governor Purdue of Georgia made a statement of prayer from his heart to the Most High God and it can affect all of those who are in the realm of Gods mercy by providing rain upon the affected areas that are upon his heart. So I know what the Judeo/Christian Philosophers say concerning many of the things we discuss at the same time, Like Billy Graham said– my friend, “I know very, very little but Am learning.” I do know this, that What I do personally will affect me Eternally and What I say can affect others here and now and also what I say can also affect others Eternally because of their own decisions in which they make according to my message. Now, I must give you answers according to what is truth, and every man should give an answer to him that is afforded by what is truth. And in that I try to do, although I do not have all the answers but I know one who does and to Him I gain that enrichment and value of what His Word puts forth. And that’s what I present in my texts to you. There have been many philosophers down through the ages, but only a few that had it correct and whose philosophy was not of their own, who laid the Foundation for mankind’s only Hope!
The shedding of blood in any manner is wrong, no ifs, ands, or buts about it, and no excuses, PERIOD. That’s truth. And you may say, “Oh, Then why war?” Well, that’s another subject that can be discussed later, but God ordains life at conception, because He Created us in His image that we may Glorify Him and He also ordains governments, and He raises up whom He chooses, (Like Pharaoh) He brings down those whom He chooses, (Like Nebuchadnezzar). So, yes I understand but don’t know everything, and I will present to you the best I can.
A society of people who thinks and believes they are all alone in this world and what they say, is “Supreme” and won’t affect others will come to a sad reality in finding that it can destroy entire Nations and as a reminder just look at Hitler and Stalin and Jim Jones and other that have destroyed so many lives, and it affected not only them, but it affected others also.
So just remember, what you say has consequences not so great for yourself, but for millions of others who hear your message.
What can we say then? That when we say something, it must originate from the Only Truth—God’s Holy and Righteous Word—so that we may set others and our Nation on the course– forward!!
As to invitro-fetilization? It is wrong as Abortion is wrong, because it interferes with the natural processes ordained by God.
I hope this helped to answer your questions. If not? Please let me know what you don’t understand, and I’ll try to capitalize on those areas.
Jeremiah
59. Ricorun | November 13th, 2007 at 8:37 pm
EricT… I assume you’re trying to be serious. In which case, I don’t know quite what to say.
But assuming you’re NOT serious, that was very funny!
60. Jeremiah | November 13th, 2007 at 9:15 pm
unlike many liberals
Neocon,
I’m not sure if you’re stating that I’m a “Liberal” or if you are?
Just curious, which is it?
I would hope that you are in fact a Conservative, being that is the way you sign your name.
Am I right?
Jeremiah
61. Almiranta | November 13th, 2007 at 9:24 pm
The so-called “french student”—kinda reminds you of the so-called “Canadian observer”, doesn’t it?–is apparently on just to hold up the radical Left, neomarxist, flag.
But that doesn’t make him right, just committed.
OK, so the radical Left has chosen to make science a popularity contest, one in whicn the side which gets the most votes wins. (”Consensus”) Fine. That is no more irrational than most of the other foundations for the arguments they make.
Fact: The Earth is, at this point in time, getting warmer.
Fact: Some people think this is caused by human activity, and some do not, and some have yet to be convinced but concede that human activity may play a role. It may, it may not—and no one knows exactly to what degree it may, if it does.
Fact: The Earth has gone through periods of warming (and cooling) over its history, and has undergone warming periods more severe than this one, far back in time when there was no possibility of human influence.
Fact: It was only a decade or so ago when there was a “scientific consensus” that we were facing a new Ice Age.
Fact: A group of Japanese scientists has warned us of their own “consensus” that we are facing a dramatic cooling period in the very near future as the Earth moves farther from the Sun.
All of these should be considered and included in any rational debate on the topic of global warming. The fact that the allowable topics are so rigorously censored by the radical Left, which allows only its handpicked “facts” to be considered, makes me highly suspicious of both its motives and its objectivity.
Another highly suspicious tactic is that of what I call the Chicken Little Syndrome—it’s not just something worth study, IT IS A DISASTER OF IMMENSE PROPORTIONS WITH POLAR BEARS DYING AND CITIES DROWNING AND THE SEA RISING AND OH ME OH MY THE SKY IS FALLING!!!!!!!!!!!! AND THERE IS ONLY ONE PROBLEM AND IT IS THE ONE WE DECIDE ON, AND THERE IS ONLY ONE ANSWER AND IT IS THE ONE WE DECLARE IT TO BE!!!!!!!!!!
Another is the steadfast refusal to even acknowledge the many benefits of a certain degree of global warming. There is historical evidence of benefits of global warming in the past—of extended life expectancies, of increased agricultural production, of advances in art and science. Even now, we can, if we take a deep breath and stop hyperventilating, realize that a certain degree of global warming would be very beneficial to mankind.
The decreased pollutants put into the atmosphere as the result of less need for heating our homes and businesses should be factored in. The increased production of foodstuffs is significant. The ability to expand inhabitable areas is important. The overal reduction in use of various natural resources should be considered. When so-called scientists completely ignore significant aspects of an argument, it makes me look pretty hard at their agendas.
Sure, it’s convenient to take the position that embryos are not human life and are, therefore, expendable, and can be used, misused, manipulated, dissected, killed, and discarded at will. It’s a very passionate argument. The thing is, we have heard it before, and it always seems to come up when it benefits those making it.
It was convenient to declare that blacks were not really human beings, when some people had personal reasons to want that to be true. It was convenient to claim that Native Americans were not really human, when we found their existence problematic. It was convenient to find Jews to be sub human when a country wanted their property.
You would think we would learn that every time we look at some form of human life and declare it insignificant, we are later proved not only wrong but vile in our assumptions. But there is a faction which benefits by declaring human life to be inhuman based on any number of artificial and arbitrary definitions and standards, ranging from number of cells to whether or not it has taken a breath to, in at least one case, whether or not strangers have deemed that life “worth living”.
And as long as this faction benefits from its determination that some life is theirs for the using, for the taking, and for the defining, they will continue to do so.
The rest of us just look at their eagerness/willingness to believe what they want to believe, for some kind of personal gain, and find them somewhat despicable.
62. neocon | November 13th, 2007 at 10:10 pm
Almiranta,
Nicely stated.
Jeremiah,
I am conservative. That quote was meant to point out liberals intolerance of your positions.
63. Jeremiah | November 13th, 2007 at 10:47 pm
I am conservative. That quote was meant to point out liberals intolerance of your positions.
Neocon,
My apologies, I was pretty sure up until that point.
Ok, now I’m double sure.
I see!
Thanks!
:)
64. Ricorun | November 13th, 2007 at 11:44 pm
neocon, you’ve confused Jeremiah. Shame on you.
Almiranta, you’ve confused me. Shame on me I guess. Or maybe not. One thing that confuses me the most is your use of the term “concensus”. Is it really true that we should equate a handful of scientists back in the 70’s (when computers, and thus climate models, essentially didn’t exist), or a handful of Japanese scientists on the one hand, with virtually every relevant scientific organization and 20,000 or so affiliated scientists on the other? Is that really a rational way to look at it?
You forgot to mention another fact: GHG concentrations haven’t been nearly as high as they are now in at least a million years. Prior to that there certainly were episodes when GHG concentrations were higher — sometimes much higher (in the far distant past). But the times when it happened, especially when the change was abrupt (”abrupt” is defined here in terms of geologic time — several thousands of years or more), it wasn’t exactly pleasant for most species existing at the time. That’s not something you can just ignore.
Be that as it may, I’m not saying that we’re getting close to some sort of cataclysmic climate shift. That’s an issue where “the concensus” breaks down. Then again, a cataclysmic climate shift isn’t required to have a significant economic and/or humanitarian impact. As you pointed out, it’s quite possible that even if the earth gets a couple of degrees warmer than it is now, with proper adaptations and migrations it could continue to sustain the same population as it does now. However, it could be a major problem to the extent that migrations occur over national boundaries. That could produce a politically unstable situation, perhaps many times over. I certainly can’t provide details, but I think it’s reasonable to say that in general the more rapidly the earth heats up the more problems of that sort are likely to occur. And that assumes no cataclysmic climate shift occurs. Such an occurrence seems rather unlikely, but you certainly can’t ascribe to it a probablility of zero. Unfortunately, what probability is best ascribed to it is hard to say — at least some of the “traditional” feedback mechanisms may turn out to very non-linear if the system is pushed too far.
But, as I’ve said many times in the past, GW is only a part of the overall equation. Added to that is the fact that oil and gas reserves are being consumed at an ever-increasing rate. The “oil peak” may be a generation or more away. Then again, maybe it’s not. Added to that is the fact that much of the remaining oil and gas reserves are controlled by countries that don’t like us much. So there’s a national security aspect to it all.
I would like to think that most people recognize that there is a confluence of reasons why the development of alternative fuels is a good idea. But I do wonder sometimes. It seems like those that scream the loudest about the putative dangers of GW are the most silent when it comes to discussing solutions. Likewise, it seems that those that think GW is wholly or largely a pile of crap don’t recognize that other pressing considerations are involved, and that because of them attempting to preserve the status quo — i.e., reacting not at all — could easily be as costly as overreacting.
Granted, with oil at $100/bbl, market forces alone are now a significant force — assuming that cost level is maintained. That’s one of the problems: many of the emerging technologies, even those that are ready to go, often have lead times of about a decade, and require heavy capital investment in facilities before they can become productive. They’re not going to do that without a reasonable guarantee that their investment will pay off. Others, like enhanced geothermal systems and enzymatic-based cellulosic biofuels (both of which hold considerable promise on a very large scale) require a bit more R&D. I would very much like to see more incentives provided to those technologies. Actually, I’d like to see some kind of broader incentive — perhaps some kind of carbon tax — to stabilize the price of carbon-based fuels. That would allow a broad spectrum of other technologies to compete most fairly, and in a way that is least susceptible to the corruptive influences usually associated with more narrowly focused subsidy programs. There are so many cool technologies out there that just need to get over the hump — high speed flywheel batteries that could help increase the efficiency of power grids and make power sources like wind turbines and photovoltaic cells more reliable; wind belts, which appear to be more efficient than wind turbines, at least on smaller scales; and here’s a new one I just heard of — a more efficient way to harvest hydrogen. According to this report, not only is the technology remarkably more efficient at producing hydrogen (for applications like hydrogen fuel cells), but when coupled with waste treatment plants has the added advantage of helping to purify drinking water and/or producing fertilizer.
65. Mark Noonan | November 14th, 2007 at 3:17 am
Ricorun,
Oil prices will collapse - and collapse pretty soon, I’ll bet. There is no economic justification of even $50 a barrel oil, and $100 is just a huge, speculative bubble which will pop quite abruptly…mostly as the world gets clogged with unused oil supplies because everyone and his brother is now pumping for all their worth to get their oil on the market before the suckers…errr…the commodities traders figure out thaty they got themselves into an impossible situation.
That aside,
The problem with the theory of a global warming catastrophe (which is really what we’re talking about - that is the hook to get us into massive changes) is that there is insufficient data for us to make any such predictions. If you look at the reports on it, they are all couched in nebulous terms…while there are some good, alarming bits of propaganda in there, when you get down to the nitty-gritty, you find a lot of “may”, “could” and “perhaps”…in other words, the headline is “We’re All Gonna DIE!!!!”, but the lede is actually, “if A, B and C happen in this exact sequence, then we’ll get bad result D…but if any of the three don’t happen precisely as required, we won’t get that result at all; furthermore, we don’t know with precision what might actually cause A, B or C to happen.”
What we have is a whole bunch of “maybe” being used to insist on a “must”. I’m not buying - especially I’m not buying as each and every environmentalist prediction of disaster in my lifetime has been proven not just wrong, but laughably false.
66. Keith | November 14th, 2007 at 5:25 am
Now this shall probably be my last post tonight, since it is 1 am where I am and I am rather tired. This makes me irritable, and a little sloppy with my logic.
You’re rather tired a lot, no?
As I said, I do not believe in god.
You believe in two gods–AlGore and Karl Marx.
But that doesn’t make him right, just committed.
He should be committed–aren’t there any mental institutions in France?
Oil prices will collapse - and collapse pretty soon, I’ll bet.
///snark/// Not if Bush/Cheney/Halliburton/Blackwater have their way, Mark. ///snark off///
67. dr luba | November 14th, 2007 at 7:47 am
FACT: Some poeple believe that the earth orbits the sun, and some do not. (10-20% of Americans, according to recent survey.)
Does that put heliocentrism into question?
68. Eric T | November 14th, 2007 at 8:47 am
Ricorun,
You mentioned a highspeed flywheel for power grids. Is that (Beacon Power) your speaking about? I totally agree with you, some of these real small companies have wonderful ideas that could bring energy cost down alot if their small scale inventions could be implemented and used on a larger commerical scale.
69. TiredofLibBullshit | November 14th, 2007 at 3:15 pm
dr lube,
the fact that there are those who question the causes of global warming against the “man-made” cause that is…..has evidence to back those questions.
This puts man-made global warming into question. Not because there are those who just simply question it as you simple-mindedly assert.
But it is interesting that you bring up earth as the center of the universe theory. At one time, there was a “concensus” as to this being fact based on observations.
70. Rana Quijotesca | November 14th, 2007 at 3:44 pm
French Student-
As a fellow Atheist, I support you. It’s getting quite annoying… you know… being berated because we want our belief structure to have a logical basis…
Both sides of the isle misuse science… I don’t think that any informed observer can say otherwise with a straight face or without lots of drugs and/or self-deception.
That being said, Republicans are much worse when it comes to this than are Democrats. Be it Gingrich shutting down the OTA (presumably for telling Reagan that putting lasers in space wasn’t feasible in the mid 80’s), manufacturing a link between abortions and breast-cancer (popular in the ’90’s among conservatives), denying the causation (even the correlation) of second-hand smoke to respiratory illness, or denying that burning fossil fuels is bad for the environment, Republicans make a habit of questioning science in order to further an ideological viewpoint or to fatten the wallets of big donors.
Let’s not even talk about global warming for a second. SO2, a byproduct of coal-burning, mixes with rain water, creating weak sulfuric acid. The resultant acid rain falls on farms and decreases crop yields, not to mention increased erosion rates and damage done to buildings.
CO2, while good for plants, is an irritant to the human respiratory system. The increased rates of CO2 emissions, coupled with deforestation, add more of this gas to than plants can convert to oxygen and, thusly, add more to the atmosphere for us to breathe. (if you don’t believe that CO2 is bad for human respiratory systems, sit in a closed garage with your car running–the catalytic converter should get most of the CO out of the air).
On Abortion… believing the truth of the bible to the same extent that I believe the truth of the Iliad, I don’t usually buy the “life begins at conception” line. For me, it’s drawing the line where a fetus becomes a person. For me, it’s brain development, so I generally abhor abortions after the first trimester. I believe in reducing, if not eliminating the need for abortions through increased development of contraceptives and making them and knowledge about them more available.
Also… if finding a cure for cancer required the use of embryonic stem cells, would you still restrict their use?
71. sleepygene | November 14th, 2007 at 4:00 pm
Speaking of Science did anyone catch the show on PBS last night, at least in Chicago, Intelligent design on trial? It was riveting stuff. It was about the Dover Pa school board who wanted to have ID taught alongside darwin. Yet a very conservative judge ruled ID, as it was proposed by the school board, violated the establishment clause, because ID is basically creationism repackaged.
72. french student | November 14th, 2007 at 5:18 pm
keith
and once again you have the level of discourse of the “attack dog”.
You know, this monicker fits you rather well :
you attack whoever seems to threaten your master,
you aim low,
use stupid tactics,
only attack people, having not demonstrated any talent with ideas,
and a little thick skin or padded sleeve is protection enough against you.
So yes, be proud, keith, you are the attack dog. Now go ask for a treat.
73. sleepygene | November 14th, 2007 at 5:44 pm
Well played French Student. Kiefer is just a crank who likes to bark at kids who walk on his lawn.
74. Almiranta | November 15th, 2007 at 11:23 am
Rico, I return the “compliment” and your post left ME a tad confused—but I don’t think you disagreed with me. It seemed as if you expanded on what I said.
Another complaint I have about the religious fervor of the GW crowd is that they steadfastly refuse to acknowledge the ongoing research, and progress, in areas of conserving energy and finding less damaging ways of providing for our needs.
Mine is a somewhat Almiranta-centric world, on a day to day basis, so let me share some of what I am trying to deal with.
I will be building a village, as I say, when I establish my new ranch in Wyoming. I have to build employee housing for four, plus a house for myself, plus two horse barns, an indoor arena, cow sheds, and a cattle barn. It’s a pretty major project.
The trolls would say that, as a Republican, I would just charge ahead and to hell with the environment. But I am doing a lot of research on how to build a compound that is, ideally, self-sufficient and more realistically very energy conscious. And I’m running into problems.
For example, though the research into solar power and PV panels has made astounding progress, silica, needed to build those panels, is in short supply. “Environmentalists” are blocking the mining of silica. With abundant silica supplies, the cost of solar panels would plummet, and that, combined with the other technological advances, would bring solar power into the 21st century.
For example, I would like to use fiber optics for lighting. I could light an entire indoor arena and two barns with only one bright light bulb at night, and with sunlight in the daytime. Yet fiber optics are not widely used, much less available, in this country. A friend sent me a link to a site about a company which used a parabolic dish to focus sunlight into a mirrored collector box, which fed that bright light into fiber optic cables leading to the entire manufacturing floor. Not only was the lighting energy efficient, but they did not have to use nearly as much air conditioning, as the lighting created no heat.
This is a perfect example of a technology which is simple, available, and underutilized. But it’s there, and when there is a market for it, it will be developed.
Automobiles are getting very efficient. A brother has a diesel Jetta which gets 49 MPG, and another brother is putting together financing for a multi-million gallon biodiesel plant. To do this, he has done research into oil-producing plants which use less water and require less tilling, all resulting in savings in various types of energy. (Interesting result: one of the best sources for dryland-produced oil is hemp. There goes another conservative stereotype.)
I could go on—as you all well know. But the end point would be that our energy needs are not going to go away, and that insisting on slashing them as the only way to deal with energy availability and energy use resulting in (possibly) harm to the environment is simply simple-minded and silly.
If we could stop concentrating on throwing stones at the opposition —-if we could get over the IDEA of ‘opposition’—we could solve so many energy-related problems fairly quickly and easily. There are ways to address our energy needs, but there is no one “comprehensive” solution, any more than there is any one “comprehensive” solutiuon to health care or illegal immigration. It is a step by step process, and it is not helpful to either block steps or pretend they are not taking place because of dedication to a political position which depends on maintaining the illusion of no progress and Republican wickedness.
When and if the radical Left can overcome some of its inherent problems, they might actually become a real component in American politics, instead of the speed bumps they seem to be committed to being.
Examples: Opening up mining and oil extraction operations; advancing R&D in areas such as fiber optics; working on legislation that is blocking certain avenues of expansion (such as the use of agricultual hemp); advancing the clear-cutting of millions of acres of beetle killed pine in the mountain West for various uses and to decrease the massive pollution and cost of wildfires; and so on.
There actually IS a technology which can extract pure light crude from, basically, any carbon-based material. It now works best with material that is already wet, such as the famous “turkey guts” reference, and it has some glitches, but has worked in small batches. This technology, if perfected, could provide 40 billion barrels of light crude a year, plus solve the landfill problems of the entire country. (Grinding up tires and mixing the powder with water to make a slurry will allow the extraction of the petroluem product, leaving the carbon black separate, to be used again, instead of merely letting it pass into the ecosystem through disposal of tires in landfills.)
Newt Gingrich is working on a program he calls American Solutions, in which he is putting together people who can and will overcome political partisanship to actually work on problems and their solutions. A few weeks ago he had nationwide meetings, chaired by Dems and Republicans alike, to address various issues facing the country, and one of his ongoing themes is the need to set aside partisanship for the good of the country.
I have had some off-blog conversations with people who are more interested in solutions than in mere partisan-bashing, and we talked about the need to get the people back into politics, but we didn’t have the knowledge, contacts, resources, or time to do anything like this. For those who really want to ACCOMPLISH something, I suggest his web site— americansolutions.com
I also suggest a strong move toward doing the unthinkable, and reducing the federal government down to something closer to what was discussed in the Constitution. This ranges from educating our judges—including the so-called conservative judge who still thought that acknowledging religion is the same as “establishing” it—to expanding the House of Representatives so that there is more actual representation of the populace, to putting a huge amount of what is now paid for by the government into the hands of the state and local governments.
Read the 10th Amendment—whatever is not specifically assigned to the federal government through the Constitution is supposed to be the responsibility of the states.
The thing is, we are so mired in partisan hatred and distrust and jockeying for power that no matter what anyone from one side proposed, the other side will demonize it. This is hardly a pathway to progress.
75. Blogs For Victory »&hellip | November 15th, 2007 at 7:27 pm
[...] My earlier post on the Democrats’ war on science sparked some interesting debate on the three issues I highlighted where Democrats ignore science in favor of ideology. [...]