Why the Right Wing Rejects Science

Still regurgitating that utterly debunked canard?

 

Query FH. He/she will explain to you that abortion does indeed terminate a human life but that human life is inferior and therefore there is not immoral to do so.

 

Thank you for ADMITTING that you were WRONG again!

 

Ok, good, we are narrowing down on some of your confusion. So, when you clone someone, you don't just photocopy that person. Who that person is at their core, their personality, their experiences don't transfer. We know this for sure because (along with an understanding of how genetics works) like clones, identical twins share the same genome, and yet they are individual people. So, by focusing so much on the semantics, you have put yourself in an awkward position of having to say that there is a possibility of an infinite number of humans who exist as human as you and I but do not live... or something.

I know what a gamete is I know what an embryo is, and alleles, and zygotes etc. The reality is that words sometimes have important meanings, they often don't. In physics, we say an electron has negative charge, that doesn't mean there is anything wrong with it, and in fact it would have made life a bit easier if we had called it positive, but here we are, it's just a word that doesn't represent the concept behind it.

You can try to say human life begins at conception, and under some set of semantics, you could maybe even sort of argue your point, but it has no real bearing on anything in the real world. It doesn't really help define any moral calculus on the subject because they are just words. Usually in science, they define certain specific things, but not necessarily the things you want it to define.

Not refuting science, just your interpretation.

No, you couldn't pin down the instant that happened.

 

The electron is not as simple as it looks.-- (William) Lawrence Bragg, British Physicist(1890-1971)

 

I think I would argue against the right wing being emphatically more anti-science than the left, it just so happens that the things the right denies are much more important issues.

 

The right wing platform is anti-science. The left wing platform is not.

Are there plenty of liberals who chant while wearing energy crystals? Sure. But you don't see them running for office.

You don't see lefties arguing that we should teach meditation and how to stimulate your chakras, in school, as science!

 

Yeah... lol, you're right. That's a good point. There are democrats in congress who are anti-gmo or anti-vaccine, but as far as I can tell, the republicans still outnumber them. I just took a quick look, and haven't done a deep dive, so maybe there is more to find, but at this point, I'll concede that point. And, it isn't a small one.

 

It is the single biggest reason I side with the lefties these days.

That and issues of personal liberty. The so-called conservatives who cry about the nanny State are the first to try to control everyone else's lives - from the right of choice, to our sexuality, to how we choose to live, to the right to die.

I was a huge fan of supply-side economics. I saw Reagan as akin to a father figure. Unfortunately all of those tax cuts only went to funding overseas production. So much for the trickle down nonsense. So again I was driven to the lefties. The righties still haven't figured out that their economic platform is dead and their party betrays the principles of conservatism. They are a party in denial in a many respects. Now it is just plain chaos and insanity.

Oh where oh where is Bill Buckley? I long for the days of an intelligent right wing.

 

Of any single reason, I can't think of a better one.

I'm still with them on many of the nanny state issues, or at least I'm with the libertarians, I agree with you on at least all of the issues you list there.

lol, My economics kung fu isn't super up to snuff, but there are still things I agree with the right about in that regard too. It gets into some pretty deep philosophical conundrums though.

I also agree hat it would be nice to see some leadership from the party, you can make some arguments for John McCain, but it has been very disappointing to see them fall in line and follow an obvious loser. To some extent maybe that's just trump doing what trump does and decimating everything he touches, but then again they let him in the door and haven't shown a lot integrity since. However, I'm not sure that you could be sure that if say a che guevara got in the door on the left that you wouldn't see the same thing happen. On the other hand, we had bush, and trump, in recent years, so the rolling average is very lopsided right now. In the end, it's getting harder and harder to argue in favor of the right, and almost impossible right now.

 

I miss Bill Buckley!

What he would have to say about today's GOP would be well worth reading IMO. I very much doubt that he would be apologizing for imposing the Twitlter-in-Chief on the nation he loved so dearly. Instead he would be reaming him out every opportunity he had.

 

Human life begins at conception. Abortion terminates a human life. FH agrees with the preceding. Falsify that.

 

The science is clear. Human life begins at conception. That has never been falsified. The Hypothesis stands.

 

I have no confusion the question is do you have a point since now youvhave to jnject extradinary artifical means to duplicate a human being.

Again do you have a point and the differences between haploid and diploid and organisms and gametes are not semantical.

Its not just me scroll back. I cited the medical and scientific textbooks such as I learned from.

Refute the science I posted which is quite uneqivical not an interpretation.

Not just me but the science.

 

The best place is the IPCC. They have completely disengaged from even mentioning the dishonest hockey stick and removed it from their logo. The Skeptical Science site was created by the hockey team to again dishonestly defend the indefensible.

The science is clear on global warming. The emotionalism is with the alarmists who ignore the scientific method. The climate models have been implicitly falsified by the inclusion of the 1.5 deg C climate sensitivity to CO2 lower limit based on observations. The models yield a range of 2 - 4.5 deg C.

 

Anyone who argues that supply side economics funded overseas production needs to do some homework. Supply side economics has produced 3X the gdp growth rate of Obamanomics.

Pro life advocates try to preserve human life.

 

Because this definition now means that we can have any number of real (not artificial, but real) human beings who by this definition lived an entire life and died, all without having begun their life. Which should quite obviously mean that this definition is meaningless, and in fact it's meaningless to try to label it.

It is semantic if we are discussing semantics.

When a scientific textbook says "This was the dawn of the age of man.." They don't mean that the sun suddenly rose one day and there was man. You are trying to read more into a set of words than is there.

Science can't either.

 

Human life begins with conception. No semantics are needed. This applies to all human beings.

 

I hate to engage with this guy because he is just a troll, but... for anyone reading through these.

He is trolling, it was never a part of any logo, and of course older models are updated as new information comes out. You can look at the discussion on the link I posted above.

More trolling more words that don't really even make sense. You could think that maybe he is implying that Mann was behind the creation of the skeptical science website to defend his model. But again, he's not, this guy is more or less just crapping out random words.

More cut and paste trolling, but it's important to realize that what he pasted should very much alarm you as most scientists put a warming of 2 degrees as pretty much the disaster range.

"Global warming of 2°C would leave the Earth warmer than it has been in millions of years, a disruption of climate conditions that have been stable for longer than the history of human agriculture. Given the drought that already afflicts Australia, the crumbling of the sea ice in the Arctic, and the increasing storm damage after only 0.8°C of warming so far, calling 2°C a danger limit seems to us pretty cavalier."

And you can imagine what 4.5 would be.

Let me also add that I'm not a client scientist, and probably nobody reading this is either, so it's almost impossible not to screw the information up, what is important is what the consensus of the climate science community is. Which is to say, man-made climate change is happening.

 

Economic analyses show that global warming results in net benefits for temperature increase of 3 deg C above the temp in 2000. For a climate sensitivity to CO2 of ~ 1 deg C it will take 200 - 300 years to warm by 3 deg C. That is based on science and economics. Assuming the globe continues to warm it would take ~ 400 years for a 4.5 deg C warming.

It was ~ 1 deg C warmer 1000 years ago than it is today. The Medieval Warm Period (and also the Minoan and Roman Warm Periods) were times of great economic and cultural advancements.

The dishonest Mann hockey stick was the basis for the alarmism of the IPCC TAR (Third Assessment Report). The hockey stick does not appear in the latests IPCC Fifth Assessment Report which lowers the climate sensitivity to CO2 to 1.5 deg C based on observation.

It's obvious that you don't know much about climate science.

 

If any real people are concerned with anything here, let me know.

 

The real people who take the time to understand climate science and the global warming alarmism are concerned that politicians are signing up their respective countries to sacrifice economic growth and the prosperity of their citizens for no significant reduction in global average temperature.

 

I'm reading exactly what scievncs states and artifical manipulations do not change that theblife of that human began at original conception this is just a copy of that. It is still a human life at that stage of its life.

 

The whole point is that Scholes and Merton ---Nobel Prize Winners for their work on derivatives at Long Term Capital Management, couldn't predict they'd have financial trouble, failed to warn investors, failed to predict how much money would be lost and failed to predict the length of time the turmoil would last.

Science is all about being able to make accurate successful predictions.

When "Climate Scientists" (snicker) can prove successfully what the Earth's average temperature should be, and how high the average global temperatures will be for this Inter-Glacial Period, then it wlll be a real bona fide science. Until then, it's no different than pseudo-sciences like Anthropology. Psychology, Sociology, Medicine and Psychiatry, which cannot make accurate successful predictions like Chemistry, Physics or Mathematics.

 

So? That means that Science hasn't advanced enough to do that. Doesn't mean it's not a Science.

Is Quantum Physics not a Science because it can't predict if Schrödinger's cat is dead or alive? (I am, of course, not literally referring to a cat, but to the problems of quantum superposition and entanglement)

All of which do make very accurate, demonstrable, testable and repeatable predictions.

The fact that you are ignorant of the fact does not make them any less Sciences. Especially given that you're the one who believes that mixing two chemicals over and over is Science. Which demonstrates once again that the problem is that you have no idea what Science is.