Go Back   CityProfile.com Forum - Local City and State Discussion Forums > General Discussion > National Politics / Debate
Click Here to Login

Reply
Old 09-08-2011, 11:10 AM  
mohel
 
blucher's Avatar

Keizer, OR
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,383 | Kudos: +123
Images: 99
Denying Climate Science

National Politics / Debate

Huntsman Warns That GOP Can't Win the White House by Denying Climate Science

Huntsman Warns That GOP Can't Win the White House by Denying Climate Science - NYTimes.com

Quote:
Republican White House candidates yesterday attacked President Obama for failing to create green jobs while distancing themselves from claims that gasoline would drop suddenly under GOP policies.

The comments came during a Republican presidential debate at the Ronald Reagan Library in Simi Valley, Calif., where many candidates also asserted that climate change is based on "unsettled science."

Just one candidate, former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman, defended climate research and warned that voters won't elect a Republican who ignores scientific findings.

"When you make comments that fly in the face of 98 out of 100 climate scientists, to call into question the science of evolution, all I am saying is that in order for the Republican Party to win, we can't run from science," Huntsman said. "By making comments that basically don't reflect the reality of the situation, we turn people off."

Politico's John Harris, a debate moderator, pressed Texas Gov. Rick Perry to name the scientists that he refers to on the campaign trail as credibly refuting the international consensus that humans are contributing to global warming.

Perry did not identify an expert, but argued that expensive government policies to reduce carbon emissions are unjustified.

"The fact of the matter is the science is not settled on whether or not the climate change is being impacted by man to the point where we're going to put America's economics in jeopardy," Perry said.

And Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann pointed to Obama's decision last Friday to suspend tougher ozone standards as proof that environmental regulations are being developed to fit Democrats' political agenda on climate change.

"On this issue of human activity being the cause of climate change, it's important to note the president recognized how devastating the EPA has been in their rulemaking," Bachmann said. "What we're seeing is a political agenda being advanced instead of a scientific agenda."

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney sought to undercut Obama's clean energy employment policies one day before the president will propose a jobs plan to a joint session of Congress.

"He keeps talking about green jobs. Where are they?" Romney said. "We can have real jobs. We can have energy jobs."

Romney, who in the past has both supported and opposed a regional carbon cap-and-trade program, said he wants to expand offshore oil drilling, nuclear power, natural gas development in shale and "of course renewable" energy.

The assertion aggravated clean energy groups, who are highlighting jobs in the renewable sector as one of the fastest-growing areas during the lingering recession.

Within minutes of Romney's claim, the League of Conservation Voters distributed an email rebutting the former governor. The LCV and other environmental groups point to an analysis by the Brookings Institution finding that the U.S. clean energy economy employs 2.7 million people.

Most of those workers reside in the mature aspects of the sector, like manufacturing and public services in wastewater and public transit. Although the report calls the sector "modest in size," it notes that there are more jobs in clean energy than in the fossil fuel industry.

The debate also addressed a controversial claim by Bachmann that she could lower the price of gasoline to $2 a gallon.

She did not repeat that assertion last night, although she said, "It's entirely possible for us to get back to inexpensive energy."

Copyright 2011 E&E Publishing. All Rights Reserved.

For more news on energy and the environment, visit 9/8/2011 -- ClimateWire -- The Politics and Business of Climate Change.
Denying Climate Science-12f799e72c57.jpg 

__________________

__________________
I'll believe corporations are persons when Texas executes one.: LBJ's Ghost
Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2011, 02:49 PM  
Senior Member

Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,892 | Kudos: +92
Evolution and AGW are opinion based science rather than real science. Neither have been proven and yet supporters are not open to debate.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2011, 04:44 PM  
mohel
 
blucher's Avatar

Keizer, OR
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,383 | Kudos: +123
Images: 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddie_T View Post
Evolution and AGW are opinion based science rather than real science. Neither have been proven and yet supporters are not open to debate.
Only to the uneducated or the greedy.
__________________
I'll believe corporations are persons when Texas executes one.: LBJ's Ghost
Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2011, 08:50 PM  
Senior Member

Bristol, Tennessee
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,062 | Kudos: +48
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddie_T View Post
Evolution and AGW are opinion based science rather than real science. Neither have been proven and yet supporters are not open to debate.
all science beyond the simplest thigns are based on fact based theories, do you deny gravity? it is just a scientific theory after all, TO BE CLEAR, we know evolution does exist for a fact, that is non debatable, Evolution and how it relates to the beginning of life we don't have all the data (but are gaining more data and facts that confirm the rest of the evolutionary theory of the beginning of life all the time. In science a theory is NOT just a hypothesis as the term is used elsewhere, a theory is fact supported and true where testable, Creationism is no more then a wild hypothesis
__________________
Please help babies...... http://www.intactamerica.org/
Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2011, 10:55 AM  
Senior Member

Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,892 | Kudos: +92
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedJeepXJ View Post
all science beyond the simplest thigns are based on fact based theories, do you deny gravity? it is just a scientific theory after all, TO BE CLEAR, we know evolution does exist for a fact, that is non debatable, Evolution and how it relates to the beginning of life we don't have all the data (but are gaining more data and facts that confirm the rest of the evolutionary theory of the beginning of life all the time. In science a theory is NOT just a hypothesis as the term is used elsewhere, a theory is fact supported and true where testable, Creationism is no more then a wild hypothesis
Evolution is based upon assumptions and a mindset established and promulgated by peer pressure. For example when a scientist views a fossil what he sees depends upon the mindset whereas the only fact is that a creature met a sudden death when rapidly inundated by silt (as in Noah's flood). Here's a fast talking creationist that has 40 or so clips on youtube:
Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2011, 11:50 AM  
Senior Member

Kent, Ohio
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,237 | Kudos: +67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddie_T View Post
Evolution is based upon assumptions and a mindset established and promulgated by peer pressure. For example when a scientist views a fossil what he sees depends upon the mindset whereas the only fact is that a creature met a sudden death when rapidly inundated by silt (as in Noah's flood). Here's a fast talking creationist that has 40 or so clips on youtube:
That's far from "the only fact" - he also has the known decay rates of certain slightly radioactive elements present in all life forms on the planet, and the relative concentrations of those elements to decay products present in a particular fossil. He can verify those decay rates with a variety of evidence from around the globe, and apply them at this particular site. The efficacy of decay rates could have been proven from studying the remains of individuals with independently verifiable dates of death.

That's just a "for example". There are tons of other data available from just your little sample.



The theory you just suggested, that this particular creature's demise was consistent with Noah's Flood - Are you insinuating that all creatures who died when rapidly inundated with silt, throughout time, must have died during those 40 days and 40 nights of the flood? Are you suggesting that all ancient situations where creatures have died in silt actually occurred nearly simultaneously? That would be an extraordinarily useful piece of information to have. A near-extinction-level event, contemporary to humanity's existence, would provide massive amounts of information that could be extrapolated into who knows how many fields of study.

I'm not speaking facetiously, either. Being able to rely on such an event would catapult natural sciences forward by generations, and would massively influence theoretical sciences. We would be able to develop entirely new systems of mathematics, based on the information derived from that single event. Should that fact be demonstrable, the information God would have provided us would change the course of humanity, by allowing our God-given curiosities to reach deep within the mind of God himself, becoming more and more what God wants us to be.

Unfortunately, in every flood, great and small, creatures die in silt. Knowing that, if we find evidence of two floods that did not occur simultaneously, we know that at least one of them was not Noah's flood, and we must continue our investigations free from the assumption of the biblical flood.
__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2011, 12:56 PM  
Senior Member

Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,892 | Kudos: +92
The waters of the flood prevailed 150 days (rain for 40 days plus the fountains of the deep). Noah was in the ark 371 days before the waters receded enough to leave the ark. Such a flood easily explains the vast fossil graveyards, creation geologists have even used flood theory to predict oil deposits.

Dating schemes use accurate decay rates but apply them with evolutionary assumptions to determine dates. Many dating schemes are correlated with "known" fossil ages and/or the geological column (which doesn't exist anywhere on earth).

It all depends upon one's mindset. I call it the Columbus Syndrome, Columbus expected to find the Indies do he found Indians and we have people groups misnamed until this day (in fact one has the designate real Indians to avoid confusion with the others).

What one believes determines what one thinks, what one thinks dictates what one does, and what one does dominates one's life. Our educational system is set up to promulgate evolution so those scientists who are creationists had to expand their horizons and step out of the box. In our culture one is considered educated if one "knows the right answers." That is, if one knows which answers are the politically correct ones, others tend to be ridiculed rather than debated.
Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2011, 08:52 PM  
Senior Member
 
Jake7's Avatar

Honolulu, Hawaii
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,294 | Kudos: +135
Images: 45
I'm not a science buff, but I've got 3 degrees and work in intel, so I consider myself educated.

I think we need more time before we can call global warming a "fact". While I don't deny that there are definitely evidences of climate change, I'm not convinced that they're man-made. The earth has been documented as going through many different temperature cycles - that much is known.

In the 1970's, there was a big "Global Cooling" scare. People thought that, since temperatures were dropping, that we were going into another ice age. Now, 40 years later, we've got another story.

I'll be interested to see what people are saying in another 30-40 years. I don't deny science, I just acknowledge that it hasn't been proven, and I know the power of an impressionable public.
__________________
Discover Scentsy at Lucky Lucy Scentsy Products - an independent Scentsy consultant!


https://luckylucy.scentsy.us/Scentsy/Buy
Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2011, 09:45 PM  
mohel
 
blucher's Avatar

Keizer, OR
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,383 | Kudos: +123
Images: 99
It's fact but when you're satisfied you'll admit it. The ones that sold everything they owned before False Rapture Prediction # 4023 and the coal industry will never admit it.

One thing I've always loved about those hardcore dumb or greedy types is their humility in the face of ridicule.

You may have noticed much of the US tried out as Arizona this past Summer. OR on the other hand waited for Fall before resembling July. Hudson's Bay is becoming an open water port and the Southwest has been on fire since late May. I blame the FSM myself.
Denying Climate Science-fsm-nativity-scene.jpg 

__________________
I'll believe corporations are persons when Texas executes one.: LBJ's Ghost
Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2011, 10:00 PM  
Senior Member
 
Jake7's Avatar

Honolulu, Hawaii
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,294 | Kudos: +135
Images: 45
Unfortunately, we just don't have enough data to prove it's manmade.

The earth has been through at least 5 major ice-ages. After each one, the earth warmed up and melted the ice. All without man's help.

Was that your way of calling me hardcore dumb?

Haha, heatwaves happen, my friend. It's a fact of life. Has been for millions of years.
__________________

__________________
Discover Scentsy at Lucky Lucy Scentsy Products - an independent Scentsy consultant!


https://luckylucy.scentsy.us/Scentsy/Buy
Reply With Quote
Reply

Go Back   CityProfile.com Forum - Local City and State Discussion Forums > General Discussion > National Politics / Debate
Bookmark this Page!

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes


Suggested Threads

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.