• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Greenpeace activists arrested for banner on Mount Rushmore

Local news says these morons were charged with trespassing and climbing on Mt.Rushmore and released after a hearing.

Radio 1380 KOTA News-On-Demand
 
Last edited:
American said:
Global warming didn't exist in the early 70's, we were in an ice age then. I still have my parka. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Then they were trying to shut down American industries.

Just like now.

The banner they fly under changes, the mission and objectives do not.
 
Jerry said:
It's pretty clever until you realize that global worming is junk science no different than Intelligent Design or other pseudosciences.

Then it's just stupid people looking for a few blog hits.
Click to expand...





Global worming?



Is this the cause of Big Fish, and the corporate fisheries?



Or is it the Big Dog industry trying to worm all the dogs?


I just can't tell these days.
 
Joe1991 said:
It's called s-c-i-e-n-c-e, no dogma involved Jerry.
Click to expand...

It's j-u-n-k s-c-i-e-n-c-e. In the case of global warming, the so called science is no different than religion.
 
apdst said:
It's j-u-n-k s-c-i-e-n-c-e. In the case of global warming, the so called science is no different than religion.
Click to expand...

Yup, remember, Scientology is "s-c-i-e-n-c-e" also.
 
Joe1991 said:
Ahh, another conspiracy theorist that belives all the world's scientists are in cahoots with Al Gore to get rich by carbon credits. :roll:
Click to expand...

Again, how billions of dollars are on the table to fund global warming research and prevention?
 
Jerry said:
Yup, remember, Scientology is "s-c-i-e-n-c-e" also.
Click to expand...

There needs to be an amendment enforces a seperation science and state. It's just, if not more rediculous to enact laws based on science as it is to enact laws based on religion.
 
apdst said:
How much money do those groups stand to make from global warming grants? Is it millions, or billions?

There's more cash involved with global warming research than there is in the oil and gas industry.
Click to expand...

Silly person. Who funds what research and what possible financial reasons a resesarch may have in researching and finding a specific conclussion only is an issue and worthy of discussion when they find that man made global warming doesn't exist or is greatly exaggerated. Else its just giving money to legitmate, honest, non-biased scientists that only care about getting the truth and are uncorruptable or manipulatable.
 
apdst said:
It's just, if not more rediculous to enact laws based on science as it is to enact laws based on religion.
Click to expand...

Really? This is a pretty crazy statement here. It is not more ridiculous to enact laws based on science as it is to base them on religion. Science has many advantages, and many laws; including food and drug laws, are made based on science. I think the ridiculous thing is your statement.
 
Dr_Patrick said:
They should have been charged with defacing a national monument.
Click to expand...

I agree. If these people wish to be taken seriously, they need to dispense with the idiocy.
 
apdst said:
How much money do those groups stand to make from global warming grants? Is it millions, or billions?

There's more cash involved with global warming research than there is in the oil and gas industry.
Click to expand...
:2funny:

That's a good one!

Do you, by any chance, have some LINKS with FACTS to support your claims?

Or did this revelation come to you in a dream?


Spare us the far-right denialist crap. I get why creationists don't like science but does the entire GOP base have to off the deep end of willful blind ignorance??
 
Ikari said:
Really? This is a pretty crazy statement here. It is not more ridiculous to enact laws based on science as it is to base them on religion. Science has many advantages, and many laws; including food and drug laws, are made based on science. I think the ridiculous thing is your statement.
Click to expand...

What, "science", exactly are food and drug laws based on? I await with baited breath for the answer to that one. Is typhoid a scientific theory, or a fact?
 
apdst said:
What, "science", exactly are food and drug laws based on? I await with baited breath for the answer to that one. Is typhoid a scientific theory, or a fact?
Click to expand...

They have to do testing and developing of things. Do you think new drugs and such are just poofed into existence? There's a lot of biology, chemistry, and medical science going into the development and understanding of these things. Along with poisons, bacterium and the likes which can infect food, these specific types of toxins must be identified, controlled, and regulated. Then laws regarding the regulation, dosage, etc are created off of testing of the items for safe food or drug use. Jesus do you really think there's no science going into things? What about cars? The government makes rules on safety ratings based on...du du duuuuu.....SCIENCE. You do experiments, you make tests, you take statistics, and based off of that they make regulations and ratings. And that's just two examples. Wow. Just wow.
 
hazlnut said:
:2funny:

That's a good one!

Do you, by any chance, have some LINKS with FACTS to support your claims?

Or did this revelation come to you in a dream?


Spare us the far-right denialist crap. I get why creationists don't like science but does the entire GOP base have to off the deep end of willful blind ignorance??
Click to expand...

Ignorance, you say? You're not aware of the billions of dollars spent on global warming research?

Media: U.S. Should Throw Billions of Dollars at Global Warming
What will new Congress do? Though emissions-lowering programs have failed around the world, the media continue to embrace plans for more regulation that could crush the American economy.

By Julia A. Seymour and Amy Menefee
Business & Media Institute
11/8/2006 12:52:13 PM


How will the new Congress handle world pressure on the “dire” threat of global warming? If the media had their way, the United States would give in and join programs that are proven failures – costing taxpayers up to $180 billion per year in the process.

Media: U.S. Should Throw Billions of Dollars at Global Warming
Click to expand...

April 10, 2008
California to Flush $600 Million Down Global Warming Research Center
California's Public Utilities Commission voted 5-0 today to establish a new $600 million research center devoted to pretending there's such a thing as manmade global warming.

Moonbattery: California to Flush $600 Million Down Global Warming Research Center
Click to expand...

We've looked it over, and even we can't quite believe it. There's $1 billion for Amtrak, the federal railroad that hasn't turned a profit in 40 years; $2 billion for child-care subsidies; $50 million for that great engine of job creation, the National Endowment for the Arts; $400 million for global-warming research and another $2.4 billion for carbon-capture

A 40-Year Wish List - WSJ.com
Click to expand...

The answer has much to do with misunderstanding the science of climate, plus a willingness to debase climate science into a triangle of alarmism. Ambiguous scientific statements about climate are hyped by those with a vested interest in alarm, thus raising the political stakes for policy makers who provide funds for more science research to feed more alarm to increase the political stakes. After all, who puts money into science--whether for AIDS, or space, or climate--where there is nothing really alarming? Indeed, the success of climate alarmism can be counted in the increased federal spending on climate research from a few hundred million dollars pre-1990 to $1.7 billion oday. It can also be seen in heightened spending on solar, wind, hydrogen, ethanol and clean coal technologies, as well as on other energy-investment decisions.

Extra - WSJ.com
Click to expand...
 
Ikari said:
They have to do testing and developing of things. Do you think new drugs and such are just poofed into existence? There's a lot of biology, chemistry, and medical science going into the development and understanding of these things. Along with poisons, bacterium and the likes which can infect food, these specific types of toxins must be identified, controlled, and regulated. Then laws regarding the regulation, dosage, etc are created off of testing of the items for safe food or drug use. Jesus do you really think there's no science going into things? What about cars? The government makes rules on safety ratings based on...du du duuuuu.....SCIENCE. You do experiments, you make tests, you take statistics, and based off of that they make regulations and ratings. And that's just two examples. Wow. Just wow.
Click to expand...


Facts, not theory. You do know the difference. Yes?
 
Here's another one.

Universities researching here-and-now solutions to global warming stand the best chance of snagging part of the $100 million in grant money that's been offered up for the cause by The Doris Duke Charitable Foundation (DDCF). Specifically, the foundation is most interested in funding research efforts that promise to encourage rapid deployment of existing clean-energy technologies, or spur the development of new technology breakthroughs.

The Greentree Gazette: $100 Million in Grant Money Available For Global Warming Research
Click to expand...
 
apdst said:
Facts, not theory. You do know the difference. Yes?
Click to expand...

I'm a scientist, I know what science is. Your statement was ludacris and now you're trying to back peddle out. The government is intricately intertwined with science. They fund a ton of base science, they regulate a lot of science and engineering, the need a lot of science. Try having a modern day military without science. Separation of science and state....HA! Laughable at best. The Department of Energy funds lots of science, and they regulate even more based on scientific results and testing. Same with the Department of Defense.

You asked what science the FDA used, I told you. You're moving your goalposts because of the answer. You never stated scientific theory. You said:

apdst said:
There needs to be an amendment enforces a seperation science and state. It's just, if not more rediculous to enact laws based on science as it is to enact laws based on religion.
Click to expand...

What in there says "theory"? You said science, that's it. Not theoretical science, not proven science, just science; which encompasses it all. Now you're trying to back out, you're changing the goal posts. You've been shown wrong, there is plenty the government does based on and for science. Government needs science, government will fund science, government will regulate certain things and technologies based on science. You're original statement is ridiculous, deal with it.

Trying to come up with your little snide "fact or theory...doe you know the difference" crap when what you said was completely wrong. Face the facts you got your ass handed to you on this one.
 
Ikari said:
I'm a scientist, I know what science is.
Click to expand...

that's explains everything. Biased much? You have the same amount of credibility as a Baptist preacher.:rofl
 
apdst said:
that's explains everything. Biased much? You have the same amount of credibility as a Baptist preacher.:rofl
Click to expand...

nice dodge. Good to see you can't actually argue a point or engage in intellectually honest debate. Good show

Again, fact is that on this point, you just got your ass handed to you and now you're practically falling over yourself trying to back out. Running away from this debate faster than Palin ran from the Alaskan governorship. HAHAHA. Children shouldn't try to debate adults, you'll only embarrass yourself.
 
Last edited:
Ikari said:
nice dodge. Good to see you can't actually argue a point or engage in intellectually honest debate. Good show

Again, fact is that on this point, you just got your ass handed to you and now you're practically falling over yourself trying to back out.
Click to expand...

You're not interested in honest debate. You're only interested in telling the unwashed masses what's fact and what isn't. Only difference between someone like yourself and a Penecostal preacher, is that preacher beats a Bible. You beat a science book. One's just as full of crap as the other.
 
apdst said:
You're not interested in honest debate. You're only interested in telling the unwashed masses what's fact and what isn't. Only difference between someone like yourself and a Penecostal preacher, is that preacher beats a Bible. You beat a science book. One's just as full of crap as the other.
Click to expand...

Except that science has a lot more to back it up. Religion is faith-based.
 
apdst said:
You're not interested in honest debate. You're only interested in telling the unwashed masses what's fact and what isn't. Only difference between someone like yourself and a Penecostal preacher, is that preacher beats a Bible. You beat a science book. One's just as full of crap as the other.
Click to expand...

This is dumb. You said there should be forced separation of science and state, I have clearly given real world examples of government needing science, of funding science, of being intertwined with science. You have not ONCE been able to counter those examples, or shown why science and government should have to be separated when government needs science. The failure is all yours, an epic fail if you will. HAHAHAH. Again, the fact is that you got your ass handed to you on this point.
 
Ikari said:
This is dumb. You said there should be forced separation of science and state, I have clearly given real world examples of government needing science, of funding science, of being intertwined with science. You have not ONCE been able to counter those examples, or shown why science and government should have to be separated when government needs science. The failure is all yours, an epic fail if you will. HAHAHAH. Again, the fact is that you got your ass handed to you on this point.
Click to expand...

Personally, I'm concerned that anyone would try to put religion and science on the same level as if they are on some sort of level playing ground.
 
Dr_Patrick said:
Except that science has a lot more to back it up. Religion is faith-based.
Click to expand...

What backs it up? A scientist's word that it's fact? The preacher gives us his word, too. Seems to me that both are based on faith.

As with religion, there are scientists that say that other scientists are wrong. And, as with religion, it's all about who you want to believe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom