[andyt]

BartSimpson wrote:

sandorski wrote:

No, y'all only care about the Politically Expedient. That which best outrages those in the echo chamber.

The key issue in this is that the US is soon going to have to pay Russia $100 million per passenger to send astronauts to the International Space Station that we mostly paid for. And if the Russians get tweaked at us they can tell us to stay home.

That's just not acceptable.

Well just borrow another trillion from the Chinese and you can go back to building your own spacecraft.

[sandorski]

BartSimpson wrote:

sandorski wrote:

No, y'all only care about the Politically Expedient. That which best outrages those in the echo chamber.

The key issue in this is that the US is soon going to have to pay Russia $100 million per passenger to send astronauts to the International Space Station that we mostly paid for. And if the Russians get tweaked at us they can tell us to stay home.

That's just not acceptable.

It's not like this was an out of the blue situation. Besides, I wasn't even addressing that part of your post.

[Zipperfish]

BartSimpson wrote:

No, we don't care for scientists who cloak their biases in non-scientific BS like 'consensus' and then try to pass off opinions as science.

We've no objections to actual science and we're all in favor of astronomy. Point of fact, it's the Republicans who are working hard to prolong the Space Shuttle program and to ensure that its mission is carried on by the Orion program that Obama and the Democrats want to kill.

Obama wants to end the US dominance in space exploration and research and its the GOP and all those right wingers who are working to keep us in space.

Well, it's primarily the religious right that has been pushing to have creationism taught alongsice the theory of evolution in science classrooms, as well as the driving force behind global warming denialism. I'm not talking about skepticism (where we question and test what we are being told) but denialism (where the underpinnings of the science are summarily rejected).

Didn't Obama say he was going to put a human being on Mars? Guess that went out the window.

[Scape]

[BartSimpson]

Zipperfish wrote:

Well, it's primarily the religious right that has been pushing to have creationism taught alongsice the theory of evolution in science classrooms, as well as the driving force behind global warming denialism.

The religious right is NOT the driving force behind 'global warming denialism' (which itself is a loaded phrase ) the driving force behind AGW skepticism would be the climatologists who've lost their careers because they dared to question the pseudo-scientific orthodoxy.

Zipperfish wrote:

I'm not talking about skepticism (where we question and test what we are being told) but denialism (where the underpinnings of the science are summarily rejected).

That's because the 'science' is based on falsified data like Hansen's vaunted hockey stick that was debunked by a Canadian. And then there's the stream of prognostications from the AGW alarmists that just haven't been proven out - such as the UK Met office's prediction for a 'milder than usual' 2010 winter season. Hell, according to the official State of California Dept. of Water Resources site we're having a drought right now. I'm guessing they don't read the news much.

http://www.water.ca.gov/drought/

And then we have the new phrase your side has been using lately: Warm Globally, Cold Locally.

Meaning that it's so cold because it's so hot. Pardon me if I want to bash in someone's nose over that bit of nonsense.

Zipperfish wrote:

Didn't Obama say he was going to put a human being on Mars? Guess that went out the window.

That was Bush. The Orion program was part of the process of getting to Mars and now the Democrats want to kill it.

[Thanos]

The anti-science mentality has a lot of sources but one of the biggest problems has to be the duh-duh mouthbreather-ism that seems to be more rampant today than at any time in the recent past. People, in general, seem to be more and more incurious about the world around them. A lack of curiousity about nature and science, combined with being too willing to blindly follow fundamentalist religious figures, certain politicians, and the 24-hour-a-day cable propaganda machinery, might have really knocked the desire and willingness to look beyond themselves out of too many people.

We won't ever have to wait for a Chinese military invasion to take us out. We just have to wait long enough for our own declining standards, especially in education and infrastructure development/maintainence, to reach the point of no return. At that stage what's left won't be worth saving anyway.

[Scape]

BartSimpson wrote:

Zipperfish wrote:

Didn't Obama say he was going to put a human being on Mars? Guess that went out the window.

That was Bush. The Orion program was part of the process of getting to Mars and now the Democrats want to kill it.

What funding did Bush set aside for this little sojourn?

[EyeBrock]

andyt wrote:

Neocons don't like science unless it has an obvious, immediate monetary benefit. Otherwise it's just airy fairy stuff, along with all that artsy fartsy crap.

Nobody puts labels on people quicker than you andy. Everybody is pigeon-holed according to your personal prejudices. You need to lighten up and come for air outta that basement and experience the world and people with differing viewpoints mate.

[BartSimpson]

Scape wrote:

BartSimpson wrote:

Zipperfish wrote:

Didn't Obama say he was going to put a human being on Mars? Guess that went out the window.

That was Bush. The Orion program was part of the process of getting to Mars and now the Democrats want to kill it.

What funding did Bush set aside for this little sojourn?

Starting in 2005 he provided $6.6 billion to the program which was to include the Constellation lift vehicle. Both of which Obama and the Democrats want cancelled. The Republicans in the House and Senate saved Orion which will now use the remaining shuttle launch vehicles to get to orbit (I've yet to hear how this will be configured).

[Zipperfish]

BartSimpson wrote:

The religious right is NOT the driving force behind 'global warming denialism' (which itself is a loaded phrase ) the driving force behind AGW skepticism would be the climatologists who've lost their careers because they dared to question the pseudo-scientific orthodoxy.

There's a difference between deniers and skeptics. Skeptics question the science; deniers dismiss the science completely with lines like "It's ridiculous to think that paltry humankind could change the climate" or throw out nonsense like "it's cold today therefore AGW is a pile of crap."

It's the same difference between the AGW proponents and the alarmists. At each side of the political spectrum--left and right--you have ideologues trying to bend science to their will.

Zipperfish wrote:

That's because the 'science' is based on falsified data like Hansen's vaunted hockey stick that was debunked by a Canadian. And then there's the stream of prognostications from the AGW alarmists that just haven't been proven out - such as the UK Met office's prediction for a 'milder than usual' 2010 winter season. Hell, according to the official State of California Dept. of Water Resources site we're having a drought right now. I'm guessing they don't read the news much.

http://www.water.ca.gov/drought/

And then we have the new phrase your side has been using lately: Warm Globally, Cold Locally.

Meaning that it's so cold because it's so hot. Pardon me if I want to bash in someone's nose over that bit of nonsense.

Where to start? First of all, it was Mann's hockey stick, not Hansen's. Second of all, it wasn't falsified data, it was the use of an incorrect statistical tool (which, as McKitrick and Macintyre (M&M) showed, would show a hockey stick for virtually any input data).

M&M were true skeptics. They were treated shabbily by the scientific community when they debunked the hockey stick and personally attacked as corporate shills. To my shame, though I didn't personally attack them, nor did I defend them, when they ought to have been defended for the excellent science they did.

Quote:

That was Bush. The Orion program was part of the process of getting to Mars and now the Democrats want to kill it.

Both of them, I think.

[EyeBrock]

Well as reformacom/neocon type, I have to say that it’s quite obvious the planet is warming.

I’ve spent a bit of time in cold spots that are now unusually warm these days. Mud Lake in Labrador (very close to CFB Goose Bay) is an island that is used to an 8 month a year ice-bridge to Happy Valley. This year for the first time there was no ice in December. The Churchill River still hasn’t frozen. People are in spring clothing.

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada ... story.html

We are obviously into a warming cycle.

This is not an unusual event within a short time span. The last Ice Age was but 10,000 ago. That’s nothing in the big picture of a 5-6 billion year old planet.

The biggy is how much of an impact has pollution etc. had on the planet? It’s a given that we have had an impact. You’ll have to forgive some of the doubters after the fall of the total GW propaganda machine that was full of far left proponents.

Global warming is a reality.

Doubting it really is akin to adopting a creationist type mind set. The two views cross-pollenate.

We just have to suss out if we are really making an effect on the planet’s warming or not before we spend billions on things that won’t stop the warming cycle one bit.

The earth is 10,000 years old and global warming is a leftist myth.

[Lemmy]

It's a good thing this thread is in the "Rants and Raves" forum 'cause it has absolutely no fucking place in "science" or "reality" forums.

[EyeBrock]

It's all very silly Lemmy. Agreed.