91–100 of 119 posts
Funny thing. Everyone here compares climate denial to other left wing bugaboos: 'creationism' 'ancient science' 'earth is the center of the universe' So why not compare to things where the left wing is wrong? Why not say, "if we're not going to give equal time to one thing where science is settled (climate change), we also shouldn't give equal time to..." 1. Economic fact: Minimum wage hurts low earners 2. Economic f…
Last Week Tonight with John Oliver had a great bit about this problem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjuGCJJUGsg
Hmm let's play "recognize the phenomenon": 1. An important truth will cause cataclysmic consequences because it's not recognized by the general populace. 2. The deeper aspects of this truth are in the possession of an elite. 3. Only the elite is qualified to speak about this truth. 4. The elite is self-selected and meets in regular councils that issue binding pronouncements. 5. The only solution is for the populace t…
Funny thing. Everyone here compares climate denial to other left wing bugaboos: 'creationism' 'ancient science' 'earth is the center of the universe' So why not compare to things where the left wing is wrong? Why not say, "if we're not going to give equal time to one thing where science is settled (climate change), we also shouldn't give equal time to..." 1. Economic fact: Minimum wage hurts low earners 2. Economic f…
Also, economics is not a science.
Soon they'll throw you in jail for questioning it, like they do with the Holocaust. Won't that be progressive!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have read US history and not once did religiously motivated dissent to scientific consensus result in the advancement of science or the advancement of any other measure of human progress.
Religiously motivated dissent is, by a large measure, what started what became the US, and the importance of dissent is ingrained deeply in the ideological base of the US republic. Also, you can read on abolitionist movement and their religious motivations (science was playing racial theories with gusto at that time and continued for some time even after the slavery was abolished). So your rosy picture of triumphant…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"it should be free to be debated." Right but it shouldn't be subsidized and given an artificial equal weight with a vast scientific consensus of experts. That's misleading which is the opposite of what journalists are supposed to do.
Journalists arent supposed to involuntarily spread goverment mandated propaganda. If the vast scientific consensus isnt able to make their point even to journalists and have to force them to print state mandated "truth", then maybe, just maybe their point isnt defensible in the first place. It is hard to sell "we need global socialism or we're all gonna die!" when your whole argument amounts to "when I press this but…
Funny thing. Everyone here compares climate denial to other left wing bugaboos: 'creationism' 'ancient science' 'earth is the center of the universe' So why not compare to things where the left wing is wrong? Why not say, "if we're not going to give equal time to one thing where science is settled (climate change), we also shouldn't give equal time to..." 1. Economic fact: Minimum wage hurts low earners 2. Economic f…
I've seen argument and published studies against (1) so you're not off to a good start. These are clearly not points of view that would get 97% of economists agreeing on, are they? Also, economics is not a science.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
These people do not participate in science.
They should ban Songs of Praise as well then... Edit: if you're going to down vote at least have the balls to explain your position.
The post to which I replied ironically stated that this is "a great victory for science", to which I responded that these people are not really participating in science (but rather playing politics).
Your comment on banning Songs of Praise seems to imply that I'd like all non-scientific TV to be curbed or banned, which is a straw man argument.
I've always had mixed feelings regarding man-made climate change, seeing it as a marketed mainstream show. For me, this broad, somewhat blind, frightening threat is the ecological equivalent of the idea of terrorism. I can't help myself to think that there are a lot of other ecological issues, even more critical, and affecting our societies today. Water/soil pollution for instance does kill millions of people a year.…
Do you think equal time should be given to all opinions on scientific issues that are not backed by evidence? Should we teach Christian creationism next to evolution? Should we teach about the balance of humors next to germ theory?
No one suggests there has been no warming at all and a measure of this will reasonably be due to CO2 emitted by man. The argument is about the extent. It's also about spending billions (follow the money! Who, specifically wants to stop that?) to 'prevent' a rise in temperature. Using IPCC figures, it can be shown that whatever Britain does (to take an example) even if it went back to the stone age, the effect on global temperature would not be measureable. Meanwhile the old and poor die in the winter while their increased charges for power subsidize useless wind turbines.