Because the government generally has fuck-all to do with causing the recession?
So, if we insist on getting our way at once, we are reckless, but if we are cautious, we are hypocrites? Or are you just asking questions?
Checks and balances.
Take this to ATMB. You have been around long enough to know that it does not belong in this thread.
[ /Moderating ]
Because they’re deluded and angry that reality doesn’t agree with them?
One item has to be noticed on about the polls.
Just about 9% of the scientists call themselves conservatives, Polls of climate scientists, surveys of the papers published and the official positions of scientific organizations show that about 97% of the scientists do think that humans are affecting the climate. Regardless if one does make the 3% of scientists that do not support the idea that humans are responsible for the current warming to be 100% conservative, that still leaves a big majority of the remaining conservative climate scientists that are in favor of the current consensus.
And just about one of the few clever things the Democrats did in many past congressional hearings was to invite a number of those conservative and Republican scientists to educate the congress-critters, many Republicans politicians however choose not to learn a thing.
(Prof. Richard Alley Testifies Before Congress on Climate Change)And Republican Dana Rohrabacher has no intelligence.
The group was identified: FOTE. “Friends of the Earth.”
I don’t think that mosquito example is very strong, but it’s obviously true that there are anti-science beliefs floating around on the Left.
The difference, on that score, is that the elements of the Left with those beliefs have no political power. By contrast, the anti-science people on the Right have all the political power. What were there, like three Republican Senators who agreed that humans contribute substantially to climate change? How many Democratic Senators do you think oppose GMO food or vaccination?
I think the mosquito example is part of anti-GMO/anti-science on the part of the Left. Anti-nuclear is probably a better example - it is an anti-science position, and people like Harry Reid and Algore and similar fruitcakes are not without power in the US.
Regards,
Shodan
Agreed.
Yep. Killing the Yucca mountain nuclear waste repository was immensely anti-science (and damaging to America in the long-term) and the Democrats in office have (mostly) been wrong on it. One of the few issues in which the Democrats have consistently pissed me off more than the Republicans.
So now it’s your turn to discuss how pissed you are that so many Republicans consistently flirt with and promote creationism as science.
Regarding Nuclear I found in past discussions that it is NIMBY the biggest force out there and it affects Republicans as well as Democrats, Same for GMOs.
Of course I do agree that the Democratic politicians that oppose nuclear power do piss me off, but usually when things come to a vote and bills that support green energy (with nuclear power being supported at the same time with solar and wind) it is the Republicans the ones that usually vote against bills like those or the support for them from the conservatives is virtually not there.
I know this was directed at Shodan, but to the extent it’s interesting to you I’ll share that I’m quite pissed at young-earth creationists masquerading their belief as science.
… and you’re especially pissed at many prominent Republicans for giving creationism lip service and going for ‘creationism applause lines’ at debates and in public, right? 
I am marginally less pissed at YE creationists, because anti-nuclear and anti-GMO foolishness has a more direct and more nearly immediate impact on the public good than “teaching the controversy” does. Reid and Obama shutting down Yucca Mountain means that nuclear power is less available now, and thus we are more likely to waste our efforts on marginal sources of energy like solar, or continuing our reliance on oil and thus contributing to global climate change. Believing in Jesus horses is wrong, but it doesn’t prevent the implementation of practical solutions to problems the anti-nukes claim are urgent and vital.
I was going to say I was pissed off at the usual attempts to change the subject away from anything Democratic and stupid, but I am kind of used to it.
Regards,
Shodan
I think it has a serious impact on the public’s opinions on education and science in general. They’re both bad; I don’t think one is necessarily worse than the other (though these are not the only issues related to science that one party has a problem with).
This doesn’t seem fair, considering my whole-hearted agreement with your assertion on the nuclear issue.
Can someone explain how being anti-nuclear equates to being anti-science? I see it as more a matter of which risks you want to accept, but perhaps I’m not up on all these debates. Which specific scientific positions are being disputed by people who oppose nuclear power?
[Conversely, I’m also skeptical as to whether the anti-GW Republicans are as anti-scientist as is being suggested here, and here too ISTM to a large extent that it’s about how much you’re willing to sacrifice based on current models, versus outright denial of a human role in GW.]
Which do you think will have a greater effect on global warming - the widespread implementation of nuclear power, or making it illegal to “teach the controversy” in biology class?
Regards,
Shodan
The anti-nuclear folks tend to highly exaggerate the actual risks, totally botch the science of how radioactivity and contamination actually works, falsely conflate issues of nuclear power and nuclear weapons, and make similar sorts of counterfactual claims.
The problem here are the words “tend to”.
IME most positions - including legitimate ones - have adherents with disparate positions, ranging from crackpots with far out theories to intelligent thoughtful ones with more nuanced and responsible positions. So the fact that there are anti-nuclear folks who highly exagerate the actual risks etc. doesn’t mean that Harry Reid’s position is based on disputing the scientists about scientific principles (though like any other politician he probably engages in some rhetoric here and there).
And the same would go for global warning and any number of other issues. You need to pay attention to what the actual people you’re condemning are saying, rather than taking the most extreme positions of fringe people and attributing them to anyone who expresses some sympathy for the general position.