slug.com slug.com
36 4

Is science-denialism the same on the Left as it is on the Right? Conservatives (mostly in the US) often deny scientifically-backed man-made climate change [skepticalscience.com] whereas people on the Left deny scientifically-backed Race-IQ differences [nymag.com] , Muslim-integration challenges [cato.org] , gender-differences [stanmed.stanford.edu] , and overall confirmation bias in Left-leaning journals [theatlantic.com] . If the purpose of science it to seek the truth, why is it is so easily overlooked when there are adverse political implications?

Admin 8 June 12
Share
You must be a member of this group before commenting. Join Group

Be part of the movement!

Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.

Create your free account

36 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

11

'Right? Conservatives (mostly in the US) often deny scientifically-backed man-made climate change'
Aaarrgghhh!!!! This one boils my blood!!!
For anyone that has genuinely looked into this subject at any level of all, they will know that this is not an opinion held by the vast majority of scientists, and it is entirely a political agenda.
How many times do the lies have to be exposed before the brain dead understand that continual liars are somewhat unlikely to be telling the truth?
Turning this into a right vs. left perspective is just yet more intentional division, when this has nothing to do with ideology, and everything to do with lazy people falling into a cult and ignoring anything resembling a fact.
I get especially mad about this now, because in the UK, 17,000 people died this past winter directly because of energy poverty brought about because of this bollocks. Never mind some fairytale doomsday in a date that changes every week when the 'predictions' fail again, pushing this crap is killing people now!

>> How many times do the lies have to be exposed before the brain dead understand that continual liars are somewhat unlikely to be telling the truth?

Uh, objection your Honor, asked and answered!

@jwhitten If this is supposed to be some kind of indication of you not having got it yet, do you want to swap facts? Shall I get it going by stating the fact that 97% consensus is in FACT 0.03%, or how about how NASA re-wrote the temperature history of the entire 1930's, maybe try remembering the lies from University of East Anglia, or should we look at th farce that is the HadCRUT4 Temperature Dataset, where do you want to start?!!

@PaulBuckingham >> If this is supposed to be some kind of indication of you not having got it yet

It isn't often that I meet someone who can't read their own printed writing... 😉

@jwhitten I quite often come across people that want to make comment that has no meaning.

@PaulBuckingham Apologies for being pedantic about it-- but specifically asked how many times the "lies could be exposed" before the "brain dead understand"-- and I'm saying that you've pretty much answered your own question as you were asking it.

@jwhitten once again, look back and see the examples of the lies being told by the climate scare mongerers, which you are contending are the lies, so prove it wrong, prove that the scare mongers are right if you can, unless you of course you are one of those 'special people'. There are many more examples, so I'll look forward to you explaining all of it. Go one by one, and start with the 97%.

@PaulBuckingham I am literally quoting your own words back to you, and you're telling me I'm wrong. Did you actually read what you wrote?

@jwhitten So far you are saying precisely squat, and failed to answer any question. I have noted a comment you made further down this thread, which essentially goes along the lines of 'we must go with the policy of the boy who cried wolf, because the wolf came at the end'. Lovely, apart from the fact that this is a fairytale.

Anyway, you say nothing, plainly only have the ability to call yourself a parrot, have nothing of any value to add, so feel free to go and be braindead somewhere else.

@PaulBuckingham I'm going to try one last time. I'm going to use VERY SMALL words. Try and follow along because they are YOUR words...

YOU said and I quote: "How many times do the lies have to be exposed before the brain dead understand that continual liars are somewhat unlikely to be telling the truth?"

From which I pulled the following words as the KEY ELEMENTS: "lies have to be exposed" and "brain dead understand"...

You are making my POINT perfectly, albeit UNWITTINGLY:

BRAIN DEAD PEOPLE don't understand DIDDLY-SQUAT no matter how many times you explain it to them.

@jwhitten Here's a small word for you to work out: THRUSH.

Just interrupting to note jwhitten's agreeing with you, @PaulBuckingham. He's not fighting you--well, until you didn't see he was agreeing with you.

@PaulBuckingham >> Here's a small word for you to work out: THRUSH.

Lessee...

  • You're secretly Napolean Solo, the Man From U.N.C.L.E.

  • You're quietly suffering from a Vaginal Yeast Infection

  • You dislike Glenn Thrush from the New York Times (stand in line, he's been #MeToo'd)

  • You're concerned about the Wood Thrush in the Northeastern United States

  • Or... it's something else that only you know since you haven't provided any actual context,..

So what's your point?

@PaulBuckingham >> I have noted a comment you made further down this thread, which essentially goes along the lines of 'we must go with the policy of the boy who cried wolf, because the wolf came at the end'. Lovely, apart from the fact that this is a fairytale.

BTW, I let this go earlier-- but... prove it. Show me where I said anything like that.

@chuckpo I did get that, but sometimes, just because someone agrees, it doesn't make their manner any less irritating, hence thrush (which he obviously hasn't figured out, but hey, when you want to jump in a certain way, then you can only respond in kind).

@PaulBuckingham, okay. Just seemed like a misunderstanding, so I tried to point that out. I'll butt out now...

11

This is why when people scoff at religion and declare, "I'm a rational person of science!" I call b.s.

If science tells us anything about human nature, it's that we are intuitive by nature, not rational. We may have the ability to think rationally, but few manage it. And in fact, the smarter you are, the more likely you are to irrationally defend your intuitive beliefs because you're better at coming up with a bunch of reasons to justify yourself (see The Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt).

The problem scientists have when they try to use science to justify a certain morality as they often begin their inquiries based upon their own biased assumptions, which most are not very good at accounting for. This is particularly a problem in the social sciences where morality plays a huge part.

They'd like to think this is only a problem for the ignorant, religious group of deplorables in the middle of the country... the people who "cling to their guns and their religion." But the truth is, they're just as blinded by their own biases.

jnaatjes Level 7 June 12, 2019

Religion is one of my litmus tests for intelligence--and humility. It's an enticing trap fakes/ pseudo-scientists can't seem to avoid. It's like they raise their hands to be chosen as the one to expose their limitations publicly. Amusing and a little disturbing. Hey fakes/pseudo-scientists, try, 'I DON'T KNOW'! It works--probably the single best tool in science.

I don't know about intuitive vs. rational. Do you have an argument for that assertion?

Yeah, biased going in is going to be bias coming out. If you're passionate about the outcome before you start, you're not going to be very likely to learn and switch it up. You're going to serve your own interests. TONS of research in this category, the parent shaming spanking debate, for example. A lot of that 'research' is crap. I mean really terrible research. I'm not a massively pro-spanking guy, but having had kids I know you do what works and you're just trying to survive without having your kids hate you. It's really hard. Those damned things come with their own wills. I had one that would clearly overthrow the throne if given the chance. I kept my eye on that little sucker. Actually, he's a good kid--on his way to being a good person (19) in spite of himself. He doesn't realize he's becoming a good man. He's putting up a good fight. He counter-cultures the crap out of me, but it distracts him from his own goodness. NOOOOoooooooooooooo!

Science has rules. They're being disregarded in mass, and I find so many people got a degree in a scientific field without learning about science. Biologists, physicists, social scientists--whatever. Few are knowledgeable on what science is and how to best implement it.

@chuckpo the rationality vs intuition piece comes from psychologist Jonathan Haidt. A month or so ago I read his book The Righteous Mind, and he describes the whole thing.

Basically there's pretty solid evidence that people from all backgrounds and cultures and intelligence levels have an initial intuitive reaction (even if not necessarily "emotional" ) when presented with moral questions, or a fictional scenario that offers a moral dilemma. It's been empirically shown that everyone usually makes that initial judgement, and then uses their reason to justify their judgement to themselves retroactively. And smart people are even worse at this because their brains can come up with all sorts of excuses very quickly. Which is why it's silly when people say, "Well, Stephen Hawkings doesn't believe in God and he's really smart. Or Bill Gates is a liberal and he's really smart. So..."

High IQ doesn't make you a great moral philosopher. In fact, it might have a tendency to do the opposite.

In my opinion, non-intellectual types are at least more likely to rely on tradition, which has some benefit because it represents the collective wisdom of an evolving species, even if the rancher in Wyoming doesn't really understand the reasons behind why he's loyal to the traditions he was raised with. He at least has the wisdom to see it's working, and the humility to not assume he definitely knows better so now he can mold society off of his own ideas. It's not even close to infallible to rely on tradition, but it's more often better than thinking you can radically alter society based on your pseudoscience.

@jnaatjes, I'm not liking something in there. It's a good argument. Something in the area of intuition regulated by reason. That sounds like a good thing. In fact, there seems to be an assumption in your argument that the intuition of smart ppl is bad and then they compound this badness by falsely supporting it with bad reasoning that only confirms their flawed intuition. There doesn't seem to be an escape from the loop. But, I challenge the premise. Can that happen? Absolutely. But, it that the rule? I see no evidence or reason why that conclusion must follow.

The tradition argument is really interesting. I think that's a solid point about cumulative knowledge, but depending solely on tradition would seem to limit, if not cut off progress completely. And, innovation that led to tradition is discounted, but last year's tradition was derived from prior innovation. Always a balance.

@chuckpo >> I think that's a solid point about cumulative knowledge, but depending solely on tradition would seem to limit, if not cut off progress completely.

I think that's always the reality and the danger. I think that new ideas and technology kind of have to prove themselves a little before getting begrudgingly accepted as improvements and more history still before they dispace the dominant technology which came before-- if they even do. Sometimes they go side by side just fine for a long time until one or the other simply keels over for some reason.

@RichardD It depends on the tradition and the culture within which the tradition is practiced.

10

Is there evidence that any climate has been changed at all? Thirty years of failed climate change predictions is science enough that proves what science doesn't know. We've had a cold wet year including the second straight winter that spread deep into April. Spring did not arrive until June. I live in a relatively cold climate, and it is still cold, and trending colder. Are polar ice caps are still frozen, and our deserts are still hot, so as of yet, no climate has changed. Some claim that glaciers are receding, well, glaciers had receded north of the Great Lakes, and the last ice age ended before human civilization began. The most drastic climate change in world history occurred before the invention of the wheel. So-called climate science just is not making its case. The phenomenon that man has changed any climate since industrialization is speculative and political. There, I said it, lol.

Facci Level 7 June 12, 2019

The evidence Facci is that all historical predictions from this BS agenda have a 300% margin of error. If that doesn't mean anything, an acceptable margin of error is 3%, so this level of error is the very definition of made up crap.

10

This topic pisses me off. Science is about exploring and explaining, but is always about skepticism. People don't deny science; people question conclusions and inferences. Such questioning and skepticism isn't denial, but science.

govols Level 8 June 12, 2019
7

“scientifically-backed man-made climate change”
I really think you might’ve used bad examples. Of course, I’m only going to address this one.

First off, I don’t think that there is anyone anywhere that will disagree with the concept of Provable Climate Change (scientifically or otherwise) it’s when you throw in the “Man Made” aspect ... and claim that it’s “Scientifically Backed” (or any other “Scientific ........” phrase) that the conversation falls to pieces.
Not to mention using “SkepticalScience.com” as a source. That’s almost as bad as using Bill Nye as a “source”.

Part of the problem I suppose is that people consider adding the cachet of “science” to be synonymous with ... the case is closed on the subject.
People ... most people ... who are not familiar with what science IS think it is somehow the “Final Answer” when really it’s a pile of complex theories that are subject to slow or fast change depending on the arrival of new data.

Sometimes ... often times ... “science” is subject to “political” determination ... the Sumerians knew the earth is a globe and revolves around the sun. The Greeks knew at least that the earth was not only a globe but had a pretty good idea of its diameter and circumference. The Europeans in the 1100-1450’s knew that the earth was flat and everything revolves around the earth. They knew it to the point that Copernicus did not have his works published until he was dead and Galileo spent most of his life imprisoned/constrained by the Church (which was extremely political at that time ... if it ever actually changed). Then, there is the recent release that the “Big Bang” may not be a correct theory.

I tend to lend a great deal of credence to hard sciences and be leery of placing too much emphasis or faith in theoretical sciences although I tend to accept long standing theory as at least a fairly reliable basis to operate under.

It seems that people of Neo-Liberal or “Left” bent are overly willing to abandon science, or indeed any sort of “proof” and operate ... think ... based on “consensus” ... if enough like minded people “agree” that something is so, then they are willing to take it as “fact”. However, they tend to display the typical responses of those who are not “really” sure ... who are “guilty” of having no actual facts ... by becoming almost hysterical ... vociferous ... in promoting their thought process ... in defending their thought process.
In fact, this is one of my ways of gauging how well a person knows ... how comfortable they are with ... what they’re saying. The more aggressively they push ... the louder they get ... the more frantic they become ... the less they are likely to be basing their thought process on anything resembling “facts”.

7

Kinda depends on who you pay for your scientific data....

[globalwarminghoax.com]

7

Huh....one side questions one the most complex and and most difficult to prove sciences, and the other side questions male and female. Nope, no difference there.

Judah80 Level 7 June 12, 2019

On the contrary, one-sided questions are the easiest... This is how you handle them, repeat after me:

"I'm right and you're an idiot".

6

climate change is not scientifically backed.

chrisyt Level 6 June 12, 2019
6

There is a lot of money involved in going green. Money spent but also money made. Follow the $.

There's a lot of money to be made in NOT going green. Just ask Koch Industries. Industrialists make the profits, while their constituents drink and inhale the pollution. Externalities. Beautiful clean .... coal. Ash. Smoke. Ack. Suck on that tailpipe.

Why in the world do you think the money is not on the side of the people who run all those dirty industries now? That's WHY we can't really do anything about them.

@Babou If you like Teslas, you'd best embrace coal.

@Facci I'm not especially enamored of Teslas. Their best feature is they run on wind, solar, and nuke, which they only get 25 or 30% of the time. So yes, the rest of the time they effectively run on electricity from some central coal or gas power plant.

What does coal have to do with Teslas? The first thing to do with the coal we burn is replace it with natural gas. Then something better.

@Babou money drives either side of the argument.

@JobyOneKenobi Alas, true. But just the respiratory deaths from fossil fuels (forget global warming) should be enough tip the scales. They aren't. If you die from coal or car emissions, it doesn't say that on your death certificate. It just says "pneumonia." You have to have come up out of West Virginia coal mine to get anything else.

@Babou
Not that this is particularly part of this discussion but ... that death thing ...
It’s funny perhaps, but since the 50’s the average lifespan of the average person in industrialized nations has risen by some 20+ years or about 30%.
It’s directly due to being industrialized that this is true because of ease of access to thousands of things including quality food and non-stop electrical power. Power driven overwhelmingly by “fossil fuels” which cannot be even partially replaced by “alternative sources” excepting possibly nuclear.
Yet people complain and point to several of these things, especially “fossil fuels” and some foodstuffs as being the reason for ... and behind ... death.

Isn’t this a strange dichotomy?

Without “fossil fuels” the likelihood of surviving into your mid 60s is/was pretty doubtful but now, if people die in their 70s or 80s well, it’s maybe the “fossil fuels” that killed you ... ?
Trump, Bernie, Biden, Pelosi and ... are all in their 70s and ... arguably ... still even “productive”. People are “going back to work” or finding they “have to go back to work” in their mid-60s ... and many complain about this without even considering the fact that, by all rights, just a few decades ago, they should have been ... dead.

Both of my grandmothers died at 99 and my maternal grandfather died at 110 and each time the Doctors requested of my Largely Medically Oriented Family the chance to perform an autopsy. When asked why, they replied that they wanted to know “why” they died. They wanted to come up with a “statistic” they could write down (another one of those stats saying well, it was due to ... probably something having to do with industrialization...). Uniformly they were denied because the familial response was; “Oh, for cripe sake ... they WORE Out!”

Like this question about “science” ... why people die is an ever changing answer ... theory ... and oddly it seems like this one comes down to, they live because of industrialization which, in the end, killed them ... or maybe it’s your DNA or Genes Degrading ... or maybe ...

Today, they posit a bunch of statistics and one of the biggest one is respiratory failure which is attributable to ... “fossil fuels”?
Isn’t that a bit like saying that the Chicken died because ... well ... EGGS?

@Babou you seem to be unaware how Koch Industries is also involved in alternative energies as well.
Don't let your hate/jealousy blind you.

6

HYPOTHETICAL computer modeling is not SETTLED science.
The key is in the capitalized words.
No science requires shame to prove the thesis.
That would be religion.

6

Yeah, goes further than that. Real science is being suppressed because of politicization and weaponization. The right questions aren't always being asked because it's politically incorrect to do so. The questions that are asked restrict the breadth of legitimate inquiry to only politically correct topics. Then, the system of publish or perish sets up an environment of quid pro quo, intellectual nepotism. You RARELY see published articles where data didn't support the hypothesis. People set up studies with built in biases based on worldview, ideology, even the researcher's theory. Suspect operational definitions. No coherence within or between studies. The field of research is actually pretty pathetic--worse in social science and medicine/pharmacology. MOST people really don't understand even the fundamental tenets of science. Those are the novices using science they don't understand to bludgeon opponents in conversations.

To answer the question, I think both sides do it. Oh, and a big unnecessary flaw is people can't admit when there are two reasonable positions that are defensible in the data (gun debate). There are simply good arguments on both sides--despite me being a gun owner and a clear 2A/ self-defense supporter.

chuckpo Level 8 June 12, 2019

Translation: It's difficult to teach a man a thing that's not in his best interest to learn.

Interesting The IPCC clearly and intentionally refuse to add real data that influences the climate immediately it occurs. i.e the suns influence via cosmic rays and particle forcing. Volcanic activity and many other influences. This is the reason The IPCC have been wrong on all their predictions. As far as the 97% consensus that was one paper that has been shown to have dropped out 66% of the papers looked at..not reviewed but just downloaded from google. This particular paper is quite incorrect and I am astounded that so many people quote it.

4

I wouldn't use the term "science denialism" to describe the reactions by liberal or conservative minded individuals. Instead, I would submit that findings (data) from studies are manipulated to achieve a certain result. Those results are agenda driven and used to shape and drive the perception of the public. Remember that studies are funded. Those entities holding the purse strings, whether governmental or private entities, are always agenda driven. The desired end being money and/or power, and of course, manipulation of the public.

4

You really can't call any of this "Science Denial". They keep telling us about "The Big Bang" and the "Expanding Universe" and everything-- and every time they do, ten years later they come back with "Ooops, my bad-- we just found this, and recomputed that and then there's that other thing that happened which we never expected and.... blah blah blah."

I think we should just put all of the Scientists in a big cage-- Two scientists enter, one scientist leaves!

And then when we get down the last guy-- we go with whatever he says.

USC (Ultimate Science Challenge) Commentator 1: Hey, when did Chuck Norris become a scientist?
USC Commentator 2: It says here that he has an advanced degree in Macro Sapient Termination Systems and a PhD in an unusual field of study apparently called, Do You Want To Make Something of It.
Commentator 1: Well, alright then. Impeccable credentials.

3

The LEFT wants to talk, not listen to facts. Facts are far to upsetting to them.
The poster has it right!

Serg97 Level 8 June 12, 2019
3

I'll stipulate that science seeks fact, but not that it seeks truth.

govols Level 8 June 12, 2019

how can a fact be untruthful - of course we are using the word "fact" as it applies to scientific applications. We can gather factual evidence (demonstrable data) about fluctuations in average global temperature over a given period of time and the use of the word Truth when talking about that data would be undeniable.
Causation of those fluctuations can only be a matter of speculative analyses of the data. Which is to say that there can not be any conclusive declaration of "truth" but only theoretical language about causation would apply - the word "truth" would not be applicable but words like "possiblity" and "probability" and "theoretically" certainly do apply in this case.
The word "Truth" is often misused in todays hyper political language. Here is an example of its misuse: "you sir are NOT entitled to your own "facts" on this matter"! Here the word "facts" is grossly out of place. It should be replaced thusl: "you sir are expressing your own conclusions and opinions which are NOT the same thing as "facts"!
In order to be a "fact" something must be demonstrable and unarbitrary in its place or as it lies. There are many things which people often mistake for "factual" information which are in "fact" completely false.
One example of this would be the "fact of police shootings of Black people" are racist and disproportionate in comparison to all police shootings" - almost everyone accepts this as "factual information" when in "fact" all the data gathered on the subject shows the opposite is true.
I am always skeptical when I hear voracious arguments about things presented as "facts". Alarmist and emotional tones alert my BS radar instantly. If the matter at hand were in fact "fact based" there would be no need for emotional voracious argument on it.
It is interesting to note that the presentation of "climate change" arguments are almost always alarmist and emotionally expressed with dire warnings and admonitions about use of fossil fuels. The same emotional tone is applied in arguments against the data regarding correlative relationship between IQ and ethnic categorization.
The leftist minded people seem to be much more emotional and voracious and often violent when presenting their "concerns" about their favorite causes. The more conservative minded people tend to rely mostly upon data gathered and objectively analyzed and not so emotional about things - except perhaps in the case of the abortion issue.

@iThink Okay, that was deep. The more passionately a truth claim is expressed the more likely that the facts aren't yet well known or interpreted.

@govols I would say your statement has a very high probability of being "factual" and truthful...but could not say with certainty without having done or seen a thorough and objective study on it...Ha! LOL

2

There's a lot of things the authorities don't tell us. Look at Julian Assange. HR wanted to drone him. US is not in any real danger, not from terrorism any more than smoking cigarettes. Btw in the 70's it was called Global Freezing. That got debunked. In the 00's it was called Global Warming. Now that's debunked. So it's called Climate Change. Yes it happens 4 times a year. They're called "seasons".

I thought the most telling thing about Assange wss the testimony they gave regarding him, they finally admitted under oath that the info he published hadn't actually gotten anyone killed (the point they kept pushing to prosecute him)

Look afa the whole AGW thing, the thumb has been on the scales for a long time, just look at how they have manipulated the data blatantly, and further who's paying the bills. The worry is how we are ignoring what is really going on, and how LOW CO2 levels are, and could be the end of all life on Earth if we keep to this downward spiral if we get into a deep /long ice age. We don't have a too much problem, we have a too little problem, and no one wants to talk about it scientifically because it's science suicide.

Meanwhile, is it 356 genders or 477? (/sarc)

2

It's like these days their are two world's. The world described by the media and the world you physically live in.

chrisyt Level 6 June 13, 2019
2

I live by the sea. It's not risen one inch in the 50 years I've lived by it. (Given tides coming in and out of course)

chrisyt Level 6 June 13, 2019
2

The hallmark of all science is skepticism. This should apply to all "sides."

Being a skeptic myself I am skeptical jaja

2

this is good!
business guy explaining it.

chrisyt Level 6 June 12, 2019

Sorry, he's wrong. FWIW, I'm also a business person... his argument was basically "IF we are to see TEN+ feet of ocean rise in the next 40 years, why would any bank underwrite loans for business/etc around the coastline?". Fair enough IF that's what science is saying but it's not (see [en.wikipedia.org]. Oceans are currently rising about 1/8"/year (and accelerating) or about 1 foot in the next 40 years. The longest financing for building projects is about 30 years. Most cities besides Miami can handle 1 foot rise. Also, the Earth has been around for 4B years... not 13.8B years.

@Admin You on fire tonight girl jaja

They said 16 feet tide rise 20+ years ago. 4 years ago (ish) the ipcc said i would be now living under water. They keep changes their 'science'

when i was a kid, (a long time ago) in the 70's it was all global cooling and coming ice age, 10 years and we all doomed. didn't happen. then was warming and we all fry 90's ish. didn't happen, now it's drowning didnt happen except they giving that one a re run.
i should of kept the maps the ipcc gave out. of how the planet was going to look, approx 4 years ago now. but it will be out again soon with a new date on.
it's like cry wolf over and over again.

@chrisyt let alone we were all going to starve to death because we couldn't grow enough food.

@Paisley_Pirate problem with that is, we can't ALL grow our own food, i'm told anyway. also takes so long to grow so possibly not sustainable if we all did it. i've been shown, might not be true.

2

Science is not immune from the biases of its practitioners. At one time eugenics was at the forefront of scientific research (and it seems to be making a comeback in some corners of the scientific world). But with replication, debate, consensus-building, and examination of historical and social context, it is our best tool for figuring out how the universe works. Those factors mean the difference between science denialism and scientism.

I was with you till “social context”
Science doesn’t care how anyone feels.

@Cheetolini, @RichardD The application of science does. It's helpful to have a sense of historical and social contexts in order to test for when the application of science would achieve or is achieving undesirable results and to recognize when our biases are getting the best of us.

Especially since people aren't good with uncertainty and tend to interpret conditional scientific results universally.

@Cheetolini, @WilyRickWiles, @RichardD Also, while none of you stated otherwise, it is worth remembering that science and testing do go hand-in-hand, but that science is only ever as good as its ability to test. The key point being the testing and the limits of that testing.

(RichardD, this is your point expanded)

@WilyRickWiles
I disagree. Inserting social impact as a factor necessarily skews the data in the direction of the collectors bias. It poisons the data with preconception.
This is the main problem with hypothetical computer modeling touted as “settled science”.
Precondition and selective data ranges touting a hypothetical as conclusive.

After all, science isn't automated and can't tell us much about value.

2

The matter should not be about those who arbitrarily accept or deny those things - the question should be about the integrity and the validity of both "science based" conclusions. There needs to be an objective "scientific" study of the methods and methodologies and the data analyses of both and then perhaps an objective non-political conclusion can be reached.

iThink Level 9 June 12, 2019
1

Funny thing, if there is any truth to the concepts of man-made global warming, then it is science's fault. Industry is science. So, we'll all know who to blame should it ever be definitively proven by scientists. Oddly, the scientists are so sure, yet they have not developed the science to rectify the supposedly science-backed man-made climate change. The speculation, I mean science, has been stagnant for 30 to 40 years, what have we been working on all of this time. Solar and wind are ancient technology. Where's the beef?

Facci Level 7 June 12, 2019

>> Where's the beef?

Busy farting into the atmosphere...

All you need to do is look around to see who is quietly getting rich and that will tell you all you need to know.

@jwhitten Al Gore and David Suzuki come to mind

@fisherman0707 They come to my mind too.

1

There are lots of bite sized truths that can be agreed on regarding global warming. If I state that CO2 levels are rising due to man made causes I think most people could quickly come around to that. If I said that a bunch of well meaninged bureaucrats in Washington DC need control over our energy decisions so they can save the world, only an historically ignorant troglodyte would agree with that.

I think the race IQ problem is on both sides of the political spectrum. Although ignorant, it feels good to suggest that everyone can accomplish their dreams. Actually, unless your dreams are bland, no one can accomplish their dreams. We are assigned inherent abilities at birth and we are stuck with them. We have no say over cosmic justice.

Never thought of Muslim integration as being related to science denial More so, I think it has to do with how disposable some people treat their own beliefs and then transfer that (incorrectly) to people who actually have a doctrine that guides their life.

The gender confusion goes along the same lines as the IQ delusion. We are not our own god.

As for left leaning journals, I think we'd do ourselves a service to name exactly which journals published the rubbish and then hold them accountable. When we demand accuracy in our information sources, we will get it. If we excuse them for their partisanship we release sewage into our drinking water.
[en.wikipedia.org]

But isn't sewage in drinking water the libertarian and conservative dream? Water, you know, is all one big mixed and communal gemmish, like air. Why shouldn't anybody be free to dump their shit into it? Anything else is quite obviously a restraint of individual freedom in order to serve some woolly socialized "society".

@Babou Flint, Michigan is Democrat.

@Facci So it is, but Flint was not, and is not, your standard kind pollution where somebody dumps something into air or water and causes problems.

In Flint they changed to a different cheaper water source which was just as good, or would have been in any Western city. In Flint, the pH changed (dropped) and leached stable lead hydroxide and carbonate out of some very old piping. Which had been doing nothing and was safe with the previous water supply. A perfect storm.

The problem with Flint was not that it was not foreseen, as it was very tricky. The problem was that when it WAS detected, they tried to ignore or cover it up.

1

I've often wondered if the majority of human beings truly desire the truth or handle the truth (ultimate reality)? In our daily lives we are constantly bombarded by diversions (some disguised as entertainment venues), some of which run opposite of reality. No shortage of reality deniers on both political sides...

The "Truth" is not always absolute anyway. Many times it's a matter of perspective-- which generally implies politics.

@jwhitten Truth isn't absolute... but reality itself sure is.

@DrN1 No ones, reality doesn't belong to anyone, it is what it is.

Write Comment

Recent Visitors 140

Photos 116 More

Posted by Admin Does teaching "white guilt" also cultivate a "white pride" backlash?

Posted by Admin Is it time to take a knee on the Superbowl?

Posted by Admin Why not equality right now?

Posted by Admin How's Biden doing?

Posted by Admin How many good friends do you have from other political tribes?

Posted by Admin What did Trump do, if anything, to incite violence?

Posted by Admin Is free speech dead?

Posted by Admin Is free speech dead?

Posted by Admin Is free speech dead?

Posted by Admin Under what time and circumstance is the use of violence warranted?

Posted by Admin Now what?

Posted by Admin What do you expect to be achieved by this week's pro-Trump DC rally?

Posted by Admin What did you learn in 2020?

Posted by Admin Do you have a "line in the sand" regarding political or social change?

Posted by Admin Should big tech firms hire more Blacks and Hispanics?

Posted by Admin Should big tech firms hire more Blacks and Hispanics?

  • Top tags#video #media #racist #world #biden #truth #liberal #racism #democrats #government #conservatives #politics #society #youtube #community #friends #Identity #justice #hope #policy #vote #videos #conservative #culture #violence #FreeSpeech #book #IDW #economic #Police #evidence #liberals #Google #reason #Socialmedia #money #USA #god #tech #whites #campaign #laws #religion #TheTruth #guns #equality #democrat #gender #college #censorship ...

    Members 9,849Top

    Moderator