Liberals vs Conservative thought differences: What does the Science say?

[Solar]

The telling thing about this clown is he spends an inordinate amount of time trying to belittle and dismiss Conservatism yet he never ever discusses Liberal policies. He stays far away from the polices his masters have put in place.

His obsession with trying to understand climate science, yet not bright enough to see the 100% prediction failures these so called scientists have made.
At some point, you'd think he'd ask himself what is the agenda behinds the drive, what is the end result, killing off our ability to produce?

Conservatives are smart enough to spot a scam from the start, which is why most of us ignore the claims they make, all backed by GIGO.
But do you see any studies trying to show the link of the liberal weakness in skepticism?
Of course not, Conservatives are smart enough to know they'll be ridiculed by anyone with the ability of critical thought, but not fools like Scifool, he buys any study disguised as scientific.

[walkstall]

If liberals ever told the truth what they believe they would never win an election outside of the west coast or NE.

LOL  we need a law, that a town/city cannot be over 10.000 people   

That would blow the liberals mind. 

[kopema]

The telling thing about this clown is he spends an inordinate amount of time trying to belittle and dismiss Conservatism yet he never ever discusses Liberal policies. He stays far away from the polices his masters have put in place.

I've noticed that liberals in general spend an inordinate amount of time arguing loudly about what they DON'T believe.

Whenever they try to say what they DO believe, most of it just boils down to self-congratulatory pap.  They take such heroic stances as, all else being equal, preferring "fairness," "justice," etc. to their obvious alternatives; while they tend to dislike such things as war, poverty and pollution.  All that really says nothing about their own political position, and everything about what evil inhuman monsters they presume all their critics to be.

But whenever you get down to the brass tacks of how they intend to pursue all those incredibly original and noble ideals, it's hard to find a hair's-width of separation between the statutes they recommend and those that a(n allegedly nonexistent) "real" Marxist would suggest to go from where we are now to one step closer toward the Fundamental Transformation into a "Workers' Paradise."

[kopema]

What happens when serious researchers finally decide we are in fact going into a cooling cycle, proving you droolers wrong? How fast will you deny you ever spoke out against global cooling? How fast will you start singing whatever tune you birdbrains receive from halfwits telling you what to say?

That's the lure of collectivism.  When the Perceived Consensus changes - or even completely reverses - every liberal will suddenly start agreeing with that.  Some of the "smarter" ones (if that word even makes any sense in this context) might experience a brief cognitive dissonance.  But even then they will never, even for the barest fraction of a second, consider the possibility that they might have been somehow "wrong" -- with every fiber of their being, every single day for the past twenty years.

That's why I get a kick out of bringing up the perfectly proven and safe carbon-free energy source.  Even if you accept as Gospel EVERY contention of Global Warming, then there could be no rational reason for liberals to not immediately give up the their now relatively insignificant fears, finally agree with conservatives, and help push for nuclear power in America at breakneck speed.  But no liberal can ever connect even those ridiculously convenient dots, because the media are not telling him it's a part of the new Perceived Consensus.  He's still got the old propaganda about the evils of nuclear power passively smoldering in the back of his brain, but he's received nothing new to contradict it.  So it just continues to sit back there.

That's why nuclear energy is such a glaringly gigantic blind spot in the minds of Global Warmingists.  They don't "agree" or "disagree" with the obvious connection, even when it's shoved directly in front of their faces -- they simply cannot see it.

[Sci Fi Fan]

Solar, you trying to speak about science sounds about as comedy worthy as me trying to speak about open heart neurosurgery.  You're literally making about as much sense as "if 5 + 5 equals 10 where does the + go?"

What a fool, you actually believe we know all there is to know about the universe?

Quote where I say this, please.

I love science, I also understand it's limitations, something you fail to recognize, I also understand that theories, are just that, until proven 100% beyond a reasonable doubt,

You're shooting yourself in the foot, again.  By the nature of empiricism you can never prove any scientific theory "100% beyond a reasonable doubt".  Newtonian mechanics were never proven; indeed they were eventually discovered to be approximations at low fractions of lightspeed.  Einstein's theory of special relativity is perhaps the most successful scientific model ever devised yet it merely works to predict and fit observed phenomena; you can never prove it with absolute certainty.

A scientific theory is not a guess and there is no promotion it receives into "fact".  Gravity is a (poorly understood at the quantum level) theory; that the world is round is a theory.  At no point can you prove anything in any subject to 100% certainty outside of possibly pure mathematics.

But there is of course a difference between "well there's an 80% chance that global warming is real" and "I am certain that global warming is a fraud, so certain I'll refuse to even debate the issue".  There's also the quite clear double standard that you certainly don't have prove beyond 100% certainty of your economic policies yet you seem quite certain on them.  But like so many of your distortions there are so many flaws in your statement that I really just have to focus on one, that being that you have no understanding of even the fundamentals of the scientific method.

-------

Now moving past your butchering of the fundamental concept and principle of science, you still haven't explained why literally every reputed scientific community on the Earth disagrees with you over climate change.  Do you understand that the field requires tens of thousands of hours of study to become an expert in, and not just a few perusals of wikipedia?

[Cryptic Bert]

Where's my hockey stick...

[Solar]

Solar, you trying to speak about science sounds about as comedy worthy as me trying to speak about open heart neurosurgery.  You're literally making about as much sense as "if 5 + 5 equals 10 where does the + go?"

Quote where I say this, please.



You're shooting yourself in the foot, again.  By the nature of empiricism you can never prove any scientific theory "100% beyond a reasonable doubt".  Newtonian mechanics were never proven; indeed they were eventually discovered to be approximations at low fractions of lightspeed.  Einstein's theory of special relativity is perhaps the most successful scientific model ever devised yet it merely works to predict and fit observed phenomena; you can never prove it with absolute certainty.

A scientific theory is not a guess and there is no promotion it receives into "fact".  Gravity is a (poorly understood at the quantum level) theory; that the world is round is a theory.  At no point can you prove anything in any subject to 100% certainty outside of possibly pure mathematics.

But there is of course a difference between "well there's an 80% chance that global warming is real" and "I am certain that global warming is a fraud, so certain I'll refuse to even debate the issue".  There's also the quite clear double standard that you certainly don't have prove beyond 100% certainty of your economic policies yet you seem quite certain on them.  But like so many of your distortions there are so many flaws in your statement that I really just have to focus on one, that being that you have no understanding of even the fundamentals of the scientific method.

-------

Now moving past your butchering of the fundamental concept and principle of science, you still haven't explained why literally every reputed scientific community on the Earth disagrees with you over climate change.  Do you understand that the field requires tens of thousands of hours of study to become an expert in, and not just a few perusals of wikipedia?

Wait, I post an entire comment on the thread, and you run with this nonsense?
Try responding to the actual topic, and I still expect an answer as to whether you actually believe this shit.
My post below.

It's pretty obvious what this study proves, that liberals are gullible and willing to accept pseudoscience as fact.
You, Scifool are a perfect example of useful idiot, you believe beyond a shadow of a doubt that man is killing the planet and it is imperative that the US stop all use of oil to save the planet, that somehow refusing to use nuclear energy is not part of this equation is irrelevant.
See the point here, or am I talking beyond you comprehension?

The leaps you make in your quest to prove you are somehow intellectually superior, screams emotional instability mixed with a heavy dose of fear, but I'm certain that no lib professor has done that study, since they are too busy trying to prove to themselves that backing big govt is somehow superior to self reliance.

And you wonder why I'm getting tired of your shit, you're like a pestilent child with a hammer, you see breaking down our culture as progressive, when every sane individual in the world knows you're simply dangerously destructive.

But the question holds, do you actually believe this shit?
I guess it goes without saying, because you swallowed AGW despite the evidence to the contrary.
I wish you could see what we see, a kid with a little knowledge. Remember when you told your parents you could make it on your own without them "I'm 16 and I know it all"?
Well, you're a little older and no smarter, and we see you as nothing more than an useful idiot for a destructive leftist agenda Hell bent on killing Capitalism..

[Solar]

Where's my hockey stick...

Yeah, they used that to lie with as well.

[Cryptic Bert]

Yeah, they used that to lie with as well.

And this idiot claims Conservatives are more emotional.

[Solar]

And this idiot claims Conservatives are more emotional.

I'm guessing he ran from his own thread, after getting his ass handed to him when I proved Obozo is a Marxist.
His handlers called him back for reprogramming, training.

[quiller]

I'm guessing he ran from his own thread, after getting his ass handed to him when I proved Obozo is a Marxist.
His handlers called him back for reprogramming, training.

He's been avoiding several threads. Bert's also been doing the chew-toy number on him. The troll's laughable insistence that the science is settled is now an open joke if the Boston Globe allows the Jeff Jacoby item challenging that very precept. The media is finally drawing a deep breath and cooling down their heat on the hot-air science they've been spewing.


http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2013/12/04/climate-alarmists-science-isn-settled-majority-vote/CZEk7XP10TfvpiiJ04zulK/story.html

[Pearl Earrring]

If conservatives are that smart, why haven't we found any WMDs in Iraq?

Daft comment.

[taxed]

Nobody smart buys into man made global warming.  Only academic bottom feeders are that gullible...

[Solar]

Nobody smart buys into man made global warming.  Only academic bottom feeders are that gullible...

And here is what REAL Scientists are saying.
S. Fred Singer is professor emeritus at the University of Virginia and director of the Science & Environmental Policy Project. His specialty is atmospheric and space physics. An expert in remote sensing and satellites, he served as the founding director of the US Weather Satellite Service and, more recently, as vice chair of the US National Advisory Committee on Oceans & Atmosphere. He is a Senior Fellow of the Heartland Institute and the Independent Institute, and an elected Fellow of several scientific societies. He co-authored the NY Times best-seller "Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 years." In 2007, he founded and has since chaired the NIPCC (Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change), which has released several scientific reports [See www.NIPCCreport.org]. For recent writings see http://www.americanthinker.com/s_fred_singer/ and also Google Scholar.

[quiller]

Daft comment.

For him, typical. Unable to process information not cleared by his leftist masters, his default setting is to change the subject (usually some vastly outdated jibe). In this case, we are now in the fifth year of the Obama Trauma, the GOP does not control Congress --- and yet he tries to blame the right wing for failing to accomplish thus-and-so.