• 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

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

I am going to assume that you were not aware that the four links you posted were all OPINION pieces.

Because when I ask for FACTS to support your claims, only a total idiot would knowingly post four OP-ED ARTICLES. In fact, someone that stupid wouldn't be able to use a computer; so I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming that, in your rush to be right, you hastily posted the first links you came across. It happens.

As soon as you do come across some actual FACTS to back up your claims, please get back to me.:2wave:
 
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.

This dismissive statement is all you have. I'm a physicist, I'm capable of rational, unbiased thought. You haven't even proven my bias, you just stated it and then ran away from the debate. I gave real world example of the necessity of science to government and how government uses scientific result to make certain laws. You never countered those, you never stated how they were unjust. You just ran away from the argument. Then you had the gall to claim I didn't want honest debate. All you have is accusation and unsupported claim; I gave real world examples. Again, you fail. You got your ass handed to you on this point and are now trying desprately to backpedal your way out of it. Run away little girl, run away.
 
I am going to assume that you were not aware that the four links you posted were all OPINION pieces.

Because when I ask for FACTS to support your claims, only a total idiot would knowingly post four OP-ED ARTICLES. In fact, someone that stupid wouldn't be able to use a computer; so I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming that, in your rush to be right, you hastily posted the first links you came across. It happens.

As soon as you do come across some actual FACTS to back up your claims, please get back to me.:2wave:


I already did and all the personal attacks in th world isn't going to change that.
 
I am going to assume that you were not aware that the four links you posted were all OPINION pieces.

Because when I ask for FACTS to support your claims, only a total idiot would knowingly post four OP-ED ARTICLES. In fact, someone that stupid wouldn't be able to use a computer; so I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming that, in your rush to be right, you hastily posted the first links you came across. It happens.

As soon as you do come across some actual FACTS to back up your claims, please get back to me.:2wave:

Are you denying the fact that governments are wasting billions of dollars on global warming ....er climate change....research, money which would not be spent if people would grow up and calm down and realize the sky isn't falling, it's just propaganda?
 
This dismissive statement is all you have. I'm a physicist, I'm capable of rational, unbiased thought.


And, we're supposed to just take your word at that. Right? Have faith in your ability for rational and inbiased thought?
 
And, we're supposed to just take your word at that. Right? Have faith in your ability for rational and inbiased thought?

Can you actually refute any of the facts or real world examples I have laid out as to how government uses science and how it makes policy and laws for certain things based on scientific study and result? Yes or no?
 

CRUT3V_and_MSU.jpg



SPPI8YR.jpg


These results flatly contradict the predictions of AGW theory.

:2wave:
 
You got your ass handed to you on this point

You want us to believe how brilliantly infalable you are and you keep saying the same thing over and over.

At one time, "scientists", thought that the world was flat. There was a time in American history when, "scientists", thought that infection was caused by a toxic vapor in the air. During the Civil War, when a soldier's wound was turning ganrenous, I'm sure he had faith then the doctor told him, "we'll just leave crusted and bloody bandage on there a few more days. It should be fine".


Granted science has done alot for the world. However, it's not the alpha and the omega of information on any particular subject.
 
Are you denying the fact that governments are wasting billions of dollars on global warming ....er climate change....research, money which would not be spent if people would grow up and calm down and realize the sky isn't falling, it's just propaganda?

I think that definitely some people go overboard with the results and interpret things which don't have proper evidence for. And on those cases we do need to be careful. You can't make policy off of incomplete scientific survey and result. However, I wouldn't necessarily say we are wasting billions of dollars because I think there is lots of proper environmental research which could be done to understand the changing environment and mankind's impact, if any, on the environment. There's no reason not to investigate and research obvious things like this, but we also must make sure to keep a level head about the results. The sky is not falling, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to understand the fundamental dynamics of global weather patterns and effects man could possibly have. And if we have effect, it's reasonable to research ways into how we can mitigate those effects. Though due to consequence of living and how our species interacts with the world, that's probably never going to be zero. But we could work on rational ways to mitigate effects for sure. And I think these are perfectly reasonable areas for funding of research. Mankind has not advanced to the level it is at through stagnation and not pushing new technologies and understanding. Stagnation is slow death.
 
You want us to believe how brilliantly infalable you are and you keep saying the same thing over and over.

At one time, "scientists", thought that the world was flat. There was a time in American history when, "scientists", thought that infection was caused by a toxic vapor in the air. During the Civil War, when a soldier's wound was turning ganrenous, I'm sure he had faith then the doctor told him, "we'll just leave crusted and bloody bandage on there a few more days. It should be fine".


Granted science has done alot for the world. However, it's not the alpha and the omega of information on any particular subject.

Can you actually refute any of the facts or real world examples I have laid out as to how government uses science and how it makes policy and laws for certain things based on scientific study and result? Yes or no?
 
Can you actually refute any of the facts or real world examples I have laid out as to how government uses science and how it makes policy and laws for certain things based on scientific study and result? Yes or no?

Sure I can. We can take a tally of the number of class action lawsuits that we see on TV sueing drug companies for drugs, approved by scientists as safe that wound up killing people. I bet someone had faith in them scientists, too.

Are you able to support the notion that gangrene was caused by noxious aerial vapors?
 
Last edited:
How much money do those groups stand to make from global warming grants? Is it millions, or billions?

Oh, it's definitely billions. Al Gore has already raked in over a $100 million personally, and that's just his personal cut; he'll be a billionaire in just a couple of years, and then there are the university 'research' payoffs to reach the proper 'data interpretations', and then the tax breaks for big Corporations, and the financing of the bonds and IPO's, etc., right on down the line.

At least that is what they're hoping will happen, but apparently the Cake Eaters have absolutely no idea how bankrupt the peasants are they need to shake down to pay for all of this, like a whole entire upper income demographic as ignorant as Marie Antoinette was when we wondered why there were bread riots in Paris and uttered her famous 'observation'.

Whether or not global warming is actually real or not is not a concern. We've all been told it is by our Masters, and that's that.
 
Last edited:
Sure I can. We can take a tally of the number of class action lawsuits that we see on TV sueing drug companies for drugs, approved by scientists as safe that wound up killing people. I bet someone had faith in them scientists, too.

There are certainly some inefficiencies pushed by market forces of the FDA and some things which are not properly researched. That, however, does not negate the fact that things such as technologies, drugs, and other innovations are necessary for the continued growth and defense of the country. Nor does it negate the fact that the government uses and funds science specifically to accomplish things on its ends and needs the developing science to maintain modern day economy and military. You stated there should be a forced separation of science and state, which means the state would not fund any scientific research. Which means you could not produce the military we have now, we would not have the medical advancements and proceedures we have now, and we wouldn't have the available technologies the public at large now possess.

Yes, there have been cases of incomplete science and unforeseen side effects. However, more people owe their lives to science and advancement of technology than don't. Things such as pencillin for example has saved countless, pasteurization, understanding of medical disease and proper treatments, the development of new drugs, of new safer technologies implemented in a wide variety of things from household appliances to cars. Is your argument that science has overall done more harm than good and should be removed in full from government?
 
Let's not make this about science vs. religion. Let's just concentrate on the giant and massive farce that is AGW theory. We are experiencing a cooling trend in global temperatures that has lasted for approximately eight years now - this is in utter contradiction with the predictions of AGW theory. As we all know, when a scientific theory fails to make accurate predictions, it is consequently rendered invalid.
 
There are certainly some inefficiencies pushed by market forces of the FDA and some things which are not properly researched. That, however, does not negate the fact that things such as technologies, drugs, and other innovations are necessary for the continued growth and defense of the country. Nor does it negate the fact that the government uses and funds science specifically to accomplish things on its ends and needs the developing science to maintain modern day economy and military. You stated there should be a forced separation of science and state, which means the state would not fund any scientific research. Which means you could not produce the military we have now, we would not have the medical advancements and proceedures we have now, and we wouldn't have the available technologies the public at large now possess.

Yes, there have been cases of incomplete science and unforeseen side effects. However, more people owe their lives to science and advancement of technology than don't. Things such as pencillin for example has saved countless, pasteurization, understanding of medical disease and proper treatments, the development of new drugs, of new safer technologies implemented in a wide variety of things from household appliances to cars. Is your argument that science has overall done more harm than good and should be removed in full from government?


However, you're insisting that we must have faith that things are properly researched and that the science is complete and that there are no unforseen side effects. Sounds like a religion to me. All of us among the swinish masses aren't educated in the sciences, just like we're not educated in theology, therefore, either way, we're putting our faith in someone that we deem to know more than we do. All-n-all, scientists have turned out to be wrong more often than preachers have turned out to be wrong. Except, most times, when scientists are wrong, people die.
 
Let's not make this about science vs. religion. Let's just concentrate on the giant and massive farce that is AGW theory. We are experiencing a cooling trend in global temperatures that has lasted for approximately eight years now - this is in utter contradiction with the predictions of AGW theory. As we all know, when a scientific theory fails to make accurate predictions, it is consequently rendered invalid.

The whole "the sky is falling" stuff was made up completely. The truth is that there isn't enough research for us to fully understand global weather dynamics. Now you can ask rationally do we have an effect on the environment. And I think clearly the answer to that is yes. Our presence and actions do have some effect. What degree is that effect? It's unknown. It's not 100% though, we just can't influence global trends to that extent. But I would bet dollars to donuts that it's not 0% either. If I had to guess, I would say we probably have a 5-10% tops effect. That doesn't mean we shouldn't worry or shouldn't do things to lessen our effect. But it doesn't mean we need to go overboard and chicken little it up either. Continue to push new, green technologies and investigate alternate energy sources and such. Mankind has not come this far through stagnation, we should always be looking to improve upon ourselves.
 
However, you're insisting that we must have faith that things are properly researched and that the science is complete and that there are no unforseen side effects. Sounds like a religion to me. All of us among the swinish masses aren't educated in the sciences, just like we're not educated in theology, therefore, either way, we're putting our faith in someone that we deem to know more than we do. All-n-all, scientists have turned out to be wrong more often than preachers have turned out to be wrong. Except, most times, when scientists are wrong, people die.

I have made no such assertion. I merely commented that your separation of science and state is ridiculous and stated how government needs and funds certain scientific programs and even uses the results of scientific query to make laws and regulations in some cases.
 
Let's not make this about science vs. religion. Let's just concentrate on the giant and massive farce that is AGW theory. We are experiencing a cooling trend in global temperatures that has lasted for approximately eight years now - this is in utter contradiction with the predictions of AGW theory. As we all know, when a scientific theory fails to make accurate predictions, it is consequently rendered invalid.

That's why global warming is the farce that it is. We're all supposed to blindly accept the word of a few scientists that it's fact and empty our pockets to pay them to figure out how to stop it. Sounds alot like, "tithing", to me.
 
Let's not make this about science vs. religion. Let's just concentrate on the giant and massive farce that is AGW theory. We are experiencing a cooling trend in global temperatures that has lasted for approximately eight years now - this is in utter contradiction with the predictions of AGW theory. As we all know, when a scientific theory fails to make accurate predictions, it is consequently rendered invalid.

Global warming = religion.
 
The whole "the sky is falling" stuff was made up completely. The truth is that there isn't enough research for us to fully understand global weather dynamics. Now you can ask rationally do we have an effect on the environment. And I think clearly the answer to that is yes. Our presence and actions do have some effect. What degree is that effect? It's unknown. It's not 100% though, we just can't influence global trends to that extent. But I would bet dollars to donuts that it's not 0% either. If I had to guess, I would say we probably have a 5-10% tops effect. That doesn't mean we shouldn't worry or shouldn't do things to lessen our effect. But it doesn't mean we need to go overboard and chicken little it up either. Continue to push new, green technologies and investigate alternate energy sources and such. Mankind has not come this far through stagnation, we should always be looking to improve upon ourselves.

I agree with this whole heartedly. That's why it's imperative for the whole AGW mass hysteria nonsense to be exposed for what it is. Al Gore is a fraud and a disgrace to science. The man was awarded a damn Nobel Prize for Chrissakes. When science becomes politicized by ass-hats like Gore then we're in real big trouble. Politics has NO PLACE in science. Science is pure and it must remain that way. AGW theory threatens the foundations of scientific objectivity and progress.
 
Let's not make this about science vs. religion. Let's just concentrate on the giant and massive farce that is AGW theory. We are experiencing a cooling trend in global temperatures that has lasted for approximately eight years now - this is in utter contradiction with the predictions of AGW theory.

Completely untrue. We have been getting warmer, even despite a La Nina in 2007-08. Seven of the hottest years since the recording of temperature has began (late 1800's) have happened in the 21st century, so that ain't cooling.
 
Quick quick chicken little better increases taxation on gasoline, coal, and electricity, the poor aren't hurting enough yet.

You need to work on your debating skillz, cuz that ain't going to convince me.
 
I have made no such assertion. I merely commented that your separation of science and state is ridiculous and stated how government needs and funds certain scientific programs and even uses the results of scientific query to make laws and regulations in some cases.

No, that's exactly what you said. You said that you're, "capable of rational and unbiased thought". Want me to link that? Or can we agree that that's exactly what you said? Ok, now, you're making that claim to convince me that you would never make an uninformed, politically motived, monetarily motivated, rational, unbiased decison on anything. Well, we can only take your word for that. You have no way to prove that.
 
Back
Top Bottom