Politics

"Science" When It Suits Them

Forget about creationism and start worrying about the left's faith-based devotion to government.

|

So every now and then, liberals are treated to a big self-righteous laugh at the expense of some backwoods Christian conservative candidate who "ignores science" by doubting evolution or global warming—or, gasp, both.

Much, for instance, has been made of Texas Gov. Rick Perry's recent suggestion that evolution is a "theory that's out there" with "gaps in it." He even insinuated that evolution and creationism should both be taught in schools—because folks are "smart enough to figure out which one is right."

Sanctimony to red alert!

Now, I have no interest in watching my kids waste their time with creationism, but unlike progressives, I have no interest in dictating what other kids should learn. Remember that these folks, bothered by the very thought of their offspring's hearing a God-infused concept in school, have no problem forcing millions of parents to accept bureaucrat-written curricula at government-run school monopolies. They oppose home schooling. They oppose school choice. They oppose parents choosing a religious education with their tax dollars.

As a voter, like me, you may find Perry's view on creationism disconcerting and a sign of an unsophisticated candidate. But the fact is that the progressives' faith-based devotion to government is far more consequential than Perry's faith-based position on evolution.

Despite the rare political dispute, in the real world, science—real science—is rarely controversial. It's politicized science that is prickly. And science is easy to politicize. Maybe if schools began teaching students that "life" begins at conception and that each zygote, embryo, and fetus is a unique human being in some early stage of development just waiting to be born, liberals would see the point.

No, my kids haven't been chewing over Charles Darwin text or the Holy Bible in elementary school. There's simply no time. Not with global warming out there.

Perry, not surprisingly, was also recently asked about "global warming." He responded that "the issue has been politicized" and that pouring billions of dollars into "a scientific theory that has not been proven and … is more and more being put into question" is not worthwhile.

It is interesting watching the nation's defenders of reason, empirical evidence, and science fail to display a hint of skepticism over the transparently political "science" of global warming. Rarely are scientists so certain in predicting the future. Yet this is a special case. It is also curious that these supposed champions of Darwin don't believe that human beings—or nature—have the ability to adapt to changing climate.

Like 99 percent of pundits and politicians, though, I have no business chiming in on the science of climate change—though my kids' teachers sure are experts. Needless to say, there is a spectacular array of viewpoints on this issue. The answers are far from settled. There are debates over how much humans contribute. There are debates over how much warming we're seeing. There are debates over many things.

But even if one believed the most terrifying projections of global warming alarmist "science," it certainly doesn't mean one has to support the anti-capitalist technocracy to fix it. And try as some may to conflate the two, global warming policy is not "science." The left sees civilization's salvation in a massive Luddite undertaking that inhibits technological growth by turning back the clock, undoing footprints, forcing technology that doesn't exist, banning products that do, and badgering consumers who have not adhered to the plan through all kinds of punishment. Yet there is no real science that has shown that any of it makes a whit of difference.

So no doubt, it is reasonable for voters to query presidential candidates about their views on faith, religion, God, Darwin, and science. It matters. Sometimes, though, it matters less than they'd like you to think it does.

David Harsanyi is a columnist at The Blaze. Follow him on Twitter @davidharsanyi.

COPYRIGHT 2011 CREATORS.COM

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

411 responses to “"Science" When It Suits Them

  1. Childish views on evolution are less worrisome to me than childish views on spending money.
    I mean there’s dumb, and then there’s dumb about things that actually matter.

    1. Re: Tim,

      Childish views on evolution are less worrisome to me than childish views on spending money.

      One has to remember just how insighful the Founding Fathers were on the issues of money and freedom, despite the fact that almost all were believers in a creator. Contrast this with the most terrible of mass-murderers – Stalin and Mao – who didn’t believe in anything except their own greatness.

      I also do not think that belief in a creator or in creation makes any difference when it comes to a politician. What’s important is that they believe in what is morally good and morally evil and act accordingly.

      1. I agree 100%.

      2. What is also important is that they don’t spit in the face of evidence in favor of a fairy-tale.

        1. Re: Metazoan,

          What is also important is that they don’t spit in the face of evidence in favor of a fairy-tale.

          I don’t give a shit as long as the politicians do not believe in fairy-tales that affect my wallet and my liberty, like: Keynesianism, or in the power of the State to solve all human maladies.

          1. No, I still don’t want anyone pushing their religion down my kid’s throats, whether it is Christianity, CAGW, or Keynesianism.

            1. Re: Bill,

              No, I still don’t want anyone pushing their religion down my kid’s throats, whether it is Christianity, CAGW, or Keynesianism.

              Your beef is still with the religion of Statism, Bill – they, the Statists, are the ones that push for compulsory education.

              I also don’t want my kids to be indoctrinated in any form of religion, be it theological or secular. But I can only avoid either by schooling my children at home, and defending my decision in the courts.

              1. Boo hoo! Poor tough you living in your imaginary victim world.

            2. Currently it is Statist Keynesian-ism. Fight the war in front of you. Leave the evil Christians for another day.

          2. I just paid $22.87 for an iPad2-64GB and my girlfriend loves her Panasonic Lumix GF 1 Camera that we got for $38.76 there arriving tomorrow by UPS. I will never pay such expensive retail prices in stores again. Especially when I also sold a 40 inch LED TV to my boss for $675 which only cost me $62.81 to buy. Here is the website we use to get it all from, HitPenny.?om

        2. there is no more evidence that discounts the presence of a deity than there is evidence that confirms it. Hmmmm, you don’t suppose that is why it is called faith, do you?

          1. Amen, brother

          2. to correct a common misconception of what Jehovah means when the Bible talks about faith: the Bible`s own definition of faith Hebrews 11:1 ” 1 Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld. “

    2. >”hearing a God-infused concept in school”…but which god?
      >”They oppose home schooling”…not if they pass the same standardized tests.
      >”They oppose school choice”…not if the local voters vote to transfer local their taxes thru vouchers. the gop opposes the local vote.
      >”They oppose parents choosing a religious education with their tax dollars”…same as school choice (above)
      _
      [REASON] can do better than parrot wingnutz memes

      1. Sorry, double-asshole, I wasn;t paying attention – you mooed?

        1. ur not {REASON]. ur ol fart

          1. Oh, so you did moo.

            Can you talk? As in “coherently”?

            1. again – [REASON] can do better than parrot wingnutz memes

              1. Re: Double Asshole,

                again – [REASON] can do better than parrot wingnutz memes

                Ahh, some actual language, at last!

                Oh, and you’re full of shit.

          2. Some hick town out in the Ohio boonies called. They lost their mentally retarded crackhead and he was apparently running loose, unleashing his stupidity upon the world. Anyone seen anybody like that around here?

    3. Especially since most anti-evolutionists usually find a way to make exceptions where it matters for evolution as well — generally they accept micro- but not macro-evolution, which lets them deal with most applicable cases (bacterial resistance, selective breeding, etc.) just fine.

      1. Bacterial resistance is an example of natural selection, not “evolution.” Selective breeding is an example of artificial selection, not “evolution.”

        Try again.

    4. Except that childish views on evolution are not restricted to theocratic Republicans.

      It takes a similar amount of creationism to believe that human populations living in reproductive isolation from each other for 50,000 years in radically different environments are cognitively equal and that the visible difference between races are merely superficial, random stuff that is irrelevant. All humans are equal, and if you don’t agree with me you are a RACIST and deserve to be excommunicated from society!

      1. You’re a white supremacist but you aren’t racist. Got it.

    5. A pox on both houses. Is it really too much to ask that our president be a rationalist instead of one who believes in special friends and good fairies?

  2. You use dog-whistles on humans at your own peril. They drive away as many as they attract.

    1. BUT, sometimes you gotta throw the dog a bone.

      1. Stop all the clocks, cut off the telephone,
        Prevent the dog from barking with a juicy bone,
        Silence the pianos and with muffled drum
        Bring out the coffin, let the mourners come.

  3. Upon blind faith they place reliance.
    What we need more of is science.

  4. What is with all the articles on Perry? Did I miss the primaries? Has he already been named the Republican nominee? I could have sworn there were other people running.

    1. He’s the new Sarah Palin du jour: the redneck that the Cosmotarians have to kick on a daily basis in order to maintain their Beltway cred and their cocktail party invites.

      Unlike Palin though, Perry is running and there’s a chance he could actually win. So you have anywhere from five to fifteen more months of it to look forward to.

      1. Though to be fair, I should note my snark doesn’t apply to Harsanyi, who is one of the only writers at Reason who is willing to go after the democrats just as hard as he goes after the republicans. He must not be inside the Beltway.

        1. The reps are the only ones I’m interested in kicking, and here’s why:
          everyone already knows the dems are stupid and full of shit. I mean, they come right out and say it. They openly advocate big-government as a solution to all problems. How much more stupid and full of shit can you be?

          So anyway, they’re a lost cause and there’s no use attacking them; it’s like pointing to an obviously retarded kid and yelling, “Hey everybody look, he’s a retard!” Well, no shit.

          Republicans, OTOH, constantly profess a belief in small government and free markets, then shit all over it whenever convenient (i.e. if needed to win an election, and certainly after the election). These hypocrites must be called out at every opportunity. It’s like a retarded kid who walks around claiming, in all seriousness, to be top of his class. That kid needs to have it pointed out that he’s a retard.

          1. This. And sadly, Reason seems to be cozying up to GOP jerkwads more and more every week.

            1. So Scotty, do you prefer Reason cozy up to the Dem jerkwads?

              You’re the main jerkwad here.

          2. I’m more interested in kicking the democrats than the republicans, because the democrats are the ones who hold virtually all of the power, especially at the federal level.

            And the federal level becomes more and more overbearing with every passing day, especially when you take into account the “permanent government”: the bureaucratic regulatory superstate that actually implements and enforces the rules that increasingly affect our daily lives.

            And this overbearing regulatory state is almost entirely controlled by leftists regardless of who actually wins the elections. As we speak, the EPA is attempt to deliberately subvert the will of Congress to regulate energy production.

            1. I’ll grant you that the dems wield more power right now, so that’s a legit complaint and a reason to kick dirt in their faces.

              However, I’m curious why you think all the regulatory agencies are all overrun with leftists. Did the rep congress and president during the last decade not appoint any non-leftists to them?

              I don’t want this to veer into California-crazy territory, where everything is the fault of the Last Republican on Earth in their legislature, and if only HE was gone, everything would be fine. I think claiming the reg. agencies, regardless of the party in charge of congress and the presidency, are always run overwhelmingly by leftists gets into that kind of argument. “Well even though the republicans control congress and the white house, it’s not REALLY their fault things are going wrong, because the leftists still control the reg. agencies!”

              Apologies if that’s not what you’re saying and/or I’m misinterpreting it.

              1. Well, let me just speak from my own experience. The government is staffed, in anything close to a decision making/authority holding level by poli sci majors, people with degrees in “public administration, and lawyers. These are people who believe in government. People who are skeptical of government, who distrust government do not go to work for the government.

                Republican bureaucrats are very left wing compared to the rank and file of the GOP. I went to school at the Catholic University of America for a while, which turns out a large number of young Republican poli sci people. These are the kids that staff GOP Congressmen and Senator’s offices, go on to get their JDs and becomes Assistant Deputy Undersecretaries in GOP administrations. They are, in the main, Northerners who think people like Mitt Romney are good mainstream conservatives and not squishy moderate Northeasterners who are to the left of 80% of the GOP. So for quite a few issues/polices they don’t disagree with the liberal consensus position.

                That’s not even getting into the fact that the EPA, as an explicitly ideological agency, is always going to be staffed by ideological people. It doesn’t matter if you put someone in charge of the EPA to rein it in if the entirety of the (unfireable) staff is working at cross purposes.

                1. This is an important both regarding both sides.

                  Average citizens have little reason to change their views to help themselves (with a few exceptions like hollywood and academia). They believe what they believe for real reasons. Whereas politics is a selection process that rewards saying what other people believe even when you have no convictions on your own about it. Look how every major presidential candidate on both sides realizes on the campaign trail they oppose gay marriage. They are much more likely to just be blowing smoke and not hold a conviction at all.

                2. Didn’t Schumpeter warn us of such people? People without marketable skills but lots of education who believe they should be paid well because of it? It is they, Schumpeter said, who will push for socialism politically. I’d say it was good prediction.

      2. Do the drinking rules include “inside-the-Beltway cocktail parties”?

        Because, for obvious reasons, they should.

    2. Re: Montani Semper Liberi,

      Has he already been named the Republican nominee?

      Seems like he has, if one believes the pundit-sphere:

      http://dailycaller.com/2011/08…..king-poll/

    3. Nahh, there is only one other person running : Mitt Romney. Haven’t you heard that the only two candidates are Mitt Romney and Rick “Forced Inoculation” Perry? Those other candidates like Ron Paul and Gary Johnson are just figments of your immagination.

      1. Sir! I am not a potted plant!

        1. We would prefer the potted plant.

    4. Dude, the Bilderbergs picked him to be the next president, so it’s settled. Reason is just letting us know what to expect from the guy.

      1. Ha, bilderbergs, is that still a thing? haven’t checked out the crazy at infowars in a long time

    5. Maybe they know something you don’t.

  5. 300+ posts talking about abortion.

  6. Perry’s religion is Christianity.

    Team Blue’s religion is Government.

    Neither should have ultimate power – or ANY power, for that matter.

    1. I’ll trust a god worshiper before I’ll trust a government worshiper.

      Government worshipers often say “We are government”.
      If they worship government, and they believe they are government, then they are worshiping themselves.

      They believe people can be elevated to the status of god.

      1. And God worshippers often claim to be carrying the will of a divine being… I don’t see how that’s much better, at least in principle.

        1. At least god worshipers have a sense of right and wrong.
          I’ll trust that before some lefty government worshiper whose “morality” defines wrong only as getting caught.

          1. So you think lefty government worshipers have an incorrect morality.

            I also think god worshipers have an incorrect morality.

            Wow, that got us really far.

            1. A government worshiper is more likely to consider violence as a legitimate means of getting their way when compared to a god worshiper.
              If they are government and government is god, who do they have to answer to other than themselves?

            2. Re: nicole,

              So you think lefty government worshipers have an incorrect morality.

              120 million victims clamoring from the shadows for revenge cannot be wrong, nicole…

              I also think god worshipers have an incorrect morality.

              Worshipping an invisible superbeing is in itself not immoral, so I don’t understand your argument. Unless you want to tell me that interventionism, busybodyism and nannyism are moral acts….

              1. “Worshipping an invisible superbeing is in itself not immoral…”

                Religion is anti-reason and anything that is anti-reason is anti-man. So yes, worshiping an invisible super being IS immoral.

                I – like you – would rather trust a god worshiping politician than a government worshiping politician simply because there’s a chance that they’re inconsistently irrational. Government worshipers are consistently irrational…which is not only immoral but evil.

                1. Religion is anti-reason and anything that is anti-reason is anti-man.

                  Preach it, brother!

            3. Nicole,
              The dominant form of deity worship in the country is Christianity. What is immoral about it? Spare me the ‘I knew this one guy who was a real asshole …’ stories. Give me a doctrinal position of this belief system that is itself immoral.

              I can think of a plethora of Nanny Statist positions that are immoral.

              Lets separate the reason from the knee jerk bigotry.

              1. – Do what God says or go to hell (OT, NT)
                – Believe in Jesus or go to hell (NT)
                – Homosexuality is a sin (OT, NT)
                – Stone your unruly children (OT)
                – Original sin being washed away by human sacrifice. (OT, NT)
                – slavery (OT, NT)

                These are just the things that throughout history have been commonly believed and that are supported textually in the bible itself.

                Then you have all the things the bible teaches about reality that are used by actual real Christians to curb science/society. People who try to get creationism taught in schools, anti-stem cell research etc.

                Granted Christianity has been calmed over the years so many different denominations don’t believe everything in the bible, but do you really need to ask what’s immoral about Christianity?

            4. God worshippers can’t take your money at gunpoint.

            5. So you think lefty government worshipers have an incorrect morality.

              I also think god worshipers have an incorrect morality.

              God worshippers can’t take your money at gunpoint. Not legally, anyway.

            6. nicole, when “god worshipers” go too far, bad shit happens.

              Same thing with “government worshipers”.

          2. u mean like the taliban “god worshipers” sense of right n wrong?

            1. Re: Double Asshole,

              u mean like the taliban “god worshipers” sense of right n wrong?

              The taliban are fighting an invader. If it’s wrong to defend your land, then let me know so I can take yours.

              1. Re: Double Asshole

                I wondered what that moniker meant.
                Born with two assholes.
                Poor guy. Wiping must be a bitch.

                1. so do u “trust” the taliban “god worshipers” sense of right n wrong ?

                  1. Re: O2,

                    so do u “trust” the taliban “god worshipers” sense of right n wrong?

                    I trust they can write more coherently than you.

              2. The taliban are fighting an invader. If it’s wrong to defend your land, then let me know so I can take yours.

                And that is why Red Dawn was one of the best 50 movies ever made.

                1. Wolverines!

            2. u mean like the taliban “god worshipers” sense of right n wrong?

              The Taliban are half way around the world. It will be a while before they have any kind of influence in this country.

        2. Re: Metazoan,

          And God worshippers often claim to be carrying the will of a divine being…

          There is more disagreement between people when it comes to what God wills than what the State is supposed to do. You may have read about wars of religion but one thing is certain about most of them: They end in stalemate. Instead, the wars that the States fight against their own end up in wholesale massacres as the 20th Century can atest. There are more victims of the State than there have been ever of followers of god.

          1. That’s silly. Religion and religious people are responsible for uncountable amounts of wholesale massacres as well.

            1. Battle of Hattin 1187 50,000 engaged, 25,000 casualties. Duration was one day

              Battle of Stalingrad 1942-1943: over 3 million engaged, 2 million casualties, 6 months.

              Yeah I’ll take the god worshipers over the State worshipers any day.

      2. govt worshipers tend to believe they ARE god…god worshipers only pray to one.

  7. It isn’t just the “Religious Right” that doesn’t get the First Amendment:

    What enables the Anti-Religious Left to use public education as a political weapon in the culture wars? The pretense that they are fighting only to maintain the “wall of separation between Church and State.” And what makes that pretense possible is a contemporary “liberal” interpretation of Jefferson’s metaphor — and thus Madison’s amendment — that is actually a misrepresentation on almost every point, i.e., an approach that can only topple that wall. The Founders’ “Church” is not a synonym for Christianity or even supernaturalism. It stands for the religious convictions of American citizens — whatever they might be. That’s why the First Amendment guarantees freedom of “religion” to the atheist as well as to every kind of theist. Quoting Jefferson: “[I]t does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god.” And the “State” does not mean government in any form. It stands for the limited state, the federal government established by the Constitution. It is by limiting itself to an area of specific functions (Article I, Section 8) that the “State” separates itself from those areas then left to the “Church,” that is, the various private (i.e., consensual) institutions formed by a free people wherein to practice their diverse beliefs. (With the Fourteenth Amendment, the “State” came to subsume also the state governments. See Michael Kent Curtis’ No State Shall Abridge: The Fourteenth Amendment and the Bill of Rights.)

    Regrettably, most of this is lost on today’s self-designated “civil libertarians,” who have instead distilled the metaphor — and thus the amendment — to mean: “Where the State is, the Church cannot be.” But here the “State” is the interventionist state. As this government bursts its original boundaries and expands into previously separated areas, their native institutions must be purged of all expressions of religious conviction. It is ultimately a theory of, not classical liberal Church-State separation, but state imperialism — i.e., not secularism, but socialism. And if you’ve never seen it stated quite so explicitly, we’ve all witnessed it being implemented publicly for decades.

    1. “That’s why the First Amendment guarantees freedom of “religion” to the atheist as well as to every kind of theist.”

      Sometimes it seems that atheists would rather place their beliefs outside of the 1st amendment protection ofr relgious freedom than have their beliefs classified as “religious” in any sense of the word.

      1. Atheism is a lack of faith.

        Hostility towards people with faith does not immediately follow.

        I think you’ll find that many who are actively hostile towards religion are statists (people who put their faith in government).

        1. Atheism is a lack of faith.

          Hostility towards people with faith does not immediately follow.

          Yes that would be antitheism. But everyone tends to equate the two. Personally I find having religious beliefs “forced on me” no more and no less offensive than having to listen to someone’s thoughts about Dr Who or the Matrix.

          It’s an outdated subject and the obsession with purging it strikes me as just like the stupid obsession with racism nowadays.

    2. Well put.

  8. “”the progressives’ faith-based devotion to government””

    “”Team Blue’s religion is Government.””

    What should “progressives” and team blue get all the credit? Team Red worships govenment just as much.

    1. Team Red worships govenment just as much.

      No they don’t.
      Team Red reads the First Amendment as recognizing that certain freedoms exist.
      Team Blue reads it as government granting those freedoms to the people.
      Team Red reads the Second Amendment as recognizing a right to keep and bear arms exists.
      Team Blue reads it as government granting the right to keep and bear arms.

      You get the drift.

      For Team Blue government is the source of all things.
      Government is god.

      1. …because sarcasmic sez so

          1. Did double asshole has just crap out of both orifices?

      2. You must be joking. You’re seriously going to come on here and state point-blank that republicans are better than democrats when it comes to the state. Man, I’m glad Reagan and Bush rolled back all those huge government programs, really slowed the growth of the state, and got us back on a path to balanced budgets!

        1. That’s not what I said.
          Nice straw man though.
          Can I set it on fire?

          1. Team Red worships govenment just as much.

            No they don’t.

            So, a reasonable interpetation of those statements is not that Team Red is better on the state than Team Blue? It’s exactly what you said.

            1. Context. Look it up.

            2. The comment to which you replied was in context of where rights come from.
              The left will say rights come from government (making government the Supreme Being), and thus can be taken away.
              The right is more likely to say rights exist (some will say they come from a Supreme Being), and it is the duty of government to protect them.

              I will not disagree with you on their track record regarding government growth. But that is not what I was talking about.

              1. That’s not the only way to worship government. You’ve created your own strawman.

                1. That’s not the only way to worship government.

                  When did I say it was?

                  You’ve created your own strawman.

                  You said the right worships government just as much.
                  I pointed out an aspect where they don’t.
                  How is that a straw man?

              2. Besides, what does it matter where they claim rights originate when they are just as willing to usurp them?

                The right claims rights are God given including the right to life, but have no problem backing government’s revoking of that right if they feel the crime is bad enough.
                IOW, the right have no problem with the notion that the government’s right to execute usurps God’s grant of life.

                1. So you admit that the right claims rights come from God while the left says rights come from government.

                  Doesn’t that mean the left substitutes government for God?

                  Doesn’t that mean the left worships government?

                  Thank you for proving my point.

                  1. “”So you admit that the right claims rights come from God while the left says rights come from government.””

                    I was just following your example. I believe the statement fails under the fallacy of generalization

                    1. So I forgot a couple qualifiers.
                      Ooopsie!
                      That does not negate my general point that there are areas where some? many? most? righties worship God while some? many? most? lefties worship government.
                      Hence the left worships government more than the right.

                      Which I believe refutes your general statement of “Team Red worships govenment just as much.”.

                  2. “”Thank you for proving my point.””

                    I proved nothing.

                    The issue is does the Rs worship government. You statement doesn’t prove they do not. You simply created a context in which you could say your correct, as long as you deny other contexts which shows your wrong.

                    1. “The issue is does the Rs worship government.”

                      The statement to which I originally responded was “Team Red worships govenment just as much.”

                      Now you’re moving the goal posts.

                      I win.

                      c-ya!

                    2. Put it this way, you are simply presenting lip service and fact. Rs are good at giving lip service about the foundation of rights, but that’s it. When it comes to backing up that lip service they fail.

                      They don’t believe the right to life is from God because government has a greater say. Therefore, it’s government’s right to revoke or not.

                    3. “”you are simply presenting lip service and fact. “”

                      Ooops, that should say, as fact.

                2. Besides, what does it matter where they claim rights originate when they are just as willing to usurp them?

                  It suggests they are more redeemable.

        2. “…everyone already knows the dems are stupid and full of shit. I mean, they come right out and say it. They openly advocate big-government as a solution to all problems. How much more stupid and full of shit can you be?”

          Either the dems are so bad that they are irredeemable (and therefore worse than the GOP when they hold power), or they are not. Saying that the Dems are worse than the Republicans is a relative comparision. It does not mean that the Republicans are paragons of anti-statism.

          1. Either the dems are so bad that they are irredeemable (and therefore worse than the GOP when they hold power)…

            It’s the bold part that derails your argument, as I do not believe that it follows that being irredeemable makes the blues worse. They’re both irredeemable. That does not make one worse than the other. It’s just that one of them are hypocrites about it, so I want to see those walls of lies torn down. Both of them want to enslave you; one of the teams just comes out and says, “we want to enslave you for your own good”, while the other one says, “we don’t want to enslave you!” as they sneak up with chains hidden behind their backs.

            1. sarcasmic is a gop shill

        3. You must be joking. You’re seriously going to come on here and state point-blank that republicans are better than democrats when it comes to the state. Man, I’m glad Reagan and Bush rolled back all those huge government programs, really slowed the growth of the state, and got us back on a path to balanced budgets!

          Better doesn’t mean perfect. Or even good when it comes to outdoing the left. It’s a lesser of two evils argument. do you want socialists who cynically embrace limited capitalism (and the current level is still way more than they are comfortable with apparently) or capitalists that embrace limited socialism. Your choice.

          Really the odds of the two sides being identically as bad as each other is zero, unless you are making an angsty-teen argument about everyone sucking equally. So pick your least unfavorite.

  9. Meanwhile, the NYT has a big scoop:

    Of all the places to hear fulminations against President Obama, one of the least expected is the corner of 71st Avenue and Queens Boulevard, in the heart of a Congressional district that propelled Democrats like Geraldine A. Ferraro, Charles E. Schumer and Anthony D. Weiner to Washington.

    But it was there that Dale Weiss, a 64-year-old Democrat, approached the Republican running for Congress in a special election and, without provocation, blasted the president for failing to tame runaway federal spending. “We need to cut Medicaid,” she declared, “but he won’t do that.” She shook her head in disgust. “He is a moron.”

    After nodding approvingly for a time, the Republican candidate, Bob Turner, signaled for an assistant to cut off Ms. Weiss. Frustration with Mr. Obama is so widespread, he explained later, that he tries to limit such rants to about 30 seconds, or else they will consume most of his day.

    Whaaaaaaa?

    But they’re Democrats! And they live in New York!

    1. clearly a racist.

  10. Don’t know that much yet about Perry and how religion motivates him. Is he one of those who’s always saying “I discussed the problem over with the Lord and he spoke to me and gave me the solution?” Or is he more in the mould of LBJ, Nixon, Clinton who claimed to be religious but didn’t appear to let “what would Jesus do” affect their behavior or governance?

  11. The theory of evolution of species by natural selection is too far-fetched for me. Sorry.

    1. I’m ahead of the curve, by the way. Someday all the respectable people will be saying this. It really is too far-fetched.

      1. Well evolution within species is amply demonstrated.

        Evolution OF species is still just a theory.

        IE, if you take two dogs and start breeding, they can get bigger, smaller, hairier etc. But no matter how many times they breed, you don’t get a cat.

        1. Technically that’s not “natural” selection, but I get your drift.

          1. Genetic drift? Har-de-har-her

        2. The same trite misrepresentation of the theory from another dumb fuck troll.

          1. Oh noes, I said something you dont’ agree with, I must be a troll, and not someone that’s been posting on this site for years.

            You got me…

            1. OK, so you’re a dumb fuck regular.

            2. But no matter how many times they breed, you don’t get a cat.

              This statement makes you a dumb fuck or a dishonest prick. You choose.

              1. I will be happy to retract my statement when shown proof of two dogs breeding a cat.

                1. So dumb fuck and dishonest prick. Works for me.

                  1. kinnath, so he does not agree with evolutionary theory. Is that reason to turn into a mindless epithet spewing retard? If you his position offends you, how is this going to get him to alter his position?

                  2. kinnath, I am interested to hear your honest retort to his, as you said, ‘misrepresentation’.

        3. Something I’ve always found curious – man supposedly evolved from apes, but man can’t breed with apes, and yet each of the progressive, unique species, managed to evolve male and female concurrently, maintaining the ability to breed.

          That is to say, I totally get that the potential for mutation within a species can happen, as in the Kroneborge’s example of the two dogs breeding offspring that are bigger, smaller, hairier, etc. Those mutations rarely are so significant that they can’t breed with other dogs, though. What are the odds, though, that mutations would occur that were so significant that backward breeding were no longer possible, and to happen not just to one offspring, but to several, and in such a manner that they could continue to breed with each other as a new species, but not with any of their forebears?

          1. Have you tried reading some basic biology primers dude?

          2. man supposedly evolved from apes, but man can’t breed with apes,

            I don’t think I want to associate with the volunteers in that study.

          3. Take a large popultion of critters (dogs/wolves) for example. Seperate them into two sub-populations; impose geographics barriers to prevent the two sub-populations from interbreeding. Expose the two sub-populations to differing environmental pressuers for say 10,000 to 100,000 generations. Then see if member of the two sub-populations can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. If they can’t, then they have become different species.

            Given that a bitch becomes fertile in about a year, you are only looking at 10,000 to 100,000 years to make new species.

            Given that a human generation is about 20 years, if you send a 10K population or so into space on a long journey, they won’t be human in about a million years.

            1. OK. I’ll do that and get back to you.

              I’ll let you know what the first wolf that can breed with other wolves and produce fertile offspring, but, for some reason, cannot breed with dogs and produce fertile offspring.

              But then that wolf will die, and maybe pass on that trait to one or two of her pups. These pups now have a mutant super power of being able to breed with wolves but not dogs. This mutant super power is so awesome that it is naturally selected for until the majority of wolves can breed with wolves but not dogs. Evolution!

              Except it somehow sounds more like devolution to me. Entropy. I mean, they can do less stuff than they could before. Before they could pass their genetics off to a wolf or a dog. Now they can only pass their genetics off to a wolf. Subtraction. Take one population and break it a little bit so it can’t breed with the other population. This still isn’t making anything new.

              1. unteachable

              2. Dogs/Wolves was intended to mean “or” so you missed the point entirely.

                1. Not entirely. My point still stands. I’ll let you know when the first wolf in population #2 cannot breed with wolves from population #1 (but for some unspecified reason, can still breed with wolves from population #2).

                  That wolf will pass off the trait of not being able to breed with wolves from population #1 to a couple of pups. Those pups will have the mutant superpower of not being able to breed with wolves from population #1, but still be able to breed with population #2. This mutant superpower is beneficial to the survival of those pups (for unspecified reasons) so that they have a comparative advantage compared to other pups. Their mutant superpower is naturally selected for, and before you know it, the majority of wolves from population #2 can’t breed with population #1. Evolution in action!

                  1. Missed it by that much

                  2. I’m confused. If dogs can’t breed with wolves, what are wolfdogs then?

                    You must feel pretty stupid.

              3. I think you might be getting close to calling specialization devolution. Example: primates, what we supposedly have evolved from, can physically do much more than humans can, while human beings have a large mental capacity. Species all have an individualized biology for their specific role in nature, if you will.

                Evolution is a tough subject for me get my head around sometimes because a general, often constant train of thought about it is that species evolve to comply with an environmental change. However, the case is almost the opposite, environmental change is what causes a species to be eliminated, while those that can already outproduce, or outsurvive the change continue. This is where it gets iffy for me… what actually causes the change of species? The species left? The lackthereof? It’s pretty interesting to think about, maybe some day I’ll have a solidified position on it.

              4. Genes mutate. Most mutations are undesireable or benign. A few would lead toward a new species. This would not happen overnight.

          4. Note that we have been fucking around with dogs for about 15,000 years, but they still belong to same species as wolves and will produce fertile offspring when bred with wolfs.

            1. Behold the terror of the wolf-poodle hybrid. (Scroll down a bit.)

              That is one nasty-looking animal.

            2. Only 15,000 years? That’s a blip in the larger scheme of things.

              1. Domestication of animals is a relatively “modern” practice.

              2. Wikipedia (for what it’s worth):

                Archaeology has placed the earliest known domestication at potentially 30,000 BC, and with certainty at 7,000 BC. Other evidence suggests that dogs were first domesticated in East Asia.

                Due to the difficulty in assessing the structural differences in bones, the identification of a domestic dog based on cultural evidence is of special value. Perhaps the earliest clear evidence for this domestication is the first dog found buried together with human from 12,000 years ago in Palestine.

                15,000 is a nice round number.

        4. And you never will. Every single time an organism reproduces, you will get a member of that organism’s species, and one very genetically similar to its parents.

          Species diverge over long periods of time over many generations.

          To repeat: every organism shares a common ancestor with every other organism. The offspring of every organism is exactly the same species as the original. These two things both occur in nature.

          The problem is not with then science of evolution, just your understanding of it.

  12. Don’t libertarians have faith in big-government entitlement programs like the privation land title offices?

    1. Please stop feeding this retard. Please.

      1. My incif file size has gone up by 50% in the past 48 hours.

        I think he should shout louder. And write longer essays. Unique ones. 😉

        1. Yup. My reasonable ignore file is huge.

    2. the govt programs we like aint big intrusive govt

      1. A genocide of 90 million souls, nearly eliminating the First Families from the surface of the earth, and occupying nearly every square meter of Earth’s fertility to quickly exhaust – and you don’t think that’s big, intrusive government? LOL

        “If we are to wage a campaign against these Indians the end proposed should be their extermination, or their removal beyond the lakes of the Illinois River. The same world would scarcely do for them and us.” ~Thomas Jefferson, Governor of Virgina

        1. What does this have to do with anything? Besides, Jefferson was just trying to protect their life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness after all.

  13. It’s fascinating how people who laugh at “intelligent design” in nature embrace it in the economy. Of course in the economy, they want to be the Designer.

    1. They believe government to be god.
      They believe themselves to be government.
      Through government they can become gods.

      1. who’s “they”?

        1. maybe “they” who schedules as in “they didnt post overtime”

          1. nah, “they” is the dozen or so libtoids nationwide

        2. The “they” referred to in the post to which I replied, dipshit.

          1. oh ok u mean “they” who laugh at ID believe themselves to be god AND government. makes sense now…!?

  14. I really have to say… my problem with creationists is not so much with their doubt about evolution. It’s the whole “Earth is only 6000 years old” part that gets me. Doubting a fairly unobservable process like macroevolution is one thing, saying that The Flintstones is basically a documentary is another.

    1. It’s not just biology they’re tossing out the window. Other victims of Young Earthism include cosmology and geology.

      1. And physicists and chemistry, given their “variable carbon 14 decay rate” shtick.

        Hell, is there any hard science that Young Earthism doesn’t make a hash of?

        1. And physicists and chemistry, given their “variable carbon 14 decay rate” shtick.

          Oddly enough, the same group that posits this BS is still quite worried about nuclear proliferation.

          Either science understands decay rates, the basis of which form the fundamentals of calculating the nuclear fission process, or they don’t.

          Humans of all stripes want to be able to control others for their own gain, and it knows no political boundaries.

          Go figure.

          1. Humans of all stripes want to be able to control others for their own gain, and it knows no political boundaries.

            Yep.

        2. I’m no creationist, but we have seen the possiblilty that decay rates are not quite as stable as we once thought, although it’s only been one study so far, afaik. Basically, decay rates changed due to solar flares and due to how close the Earth was to the Sun.

          1. Apparently, there is some confusion between the rate of decay (which doesn’t change) and the rate of formation (which can vary slightly)

        3. The only trouble with C14 and other dating techniques based on radioactive decay rates is that it depends on extrapolation of observed data going back less than 50 years.

          Mathematically extrapolation is one of the most error prone activites one can engage in. Humanity only recently has been able to measure such phenomina, how do we ‘know’ it is constant and does not have a time dependent term that is small enough not to be observable yet.

          1. According to Wikipedia, C14’s half-life is 5,730 ? 40 years.

            So there might be a small time-dependent term. But anything which would mistake 4.5 Byears with 6 Kyears isn’t small.

    2. Macroevolution = microevolution. It is infuriating for those of us in the life sciences to see public figures babble about how they “believe” in microevolution (just smaller steps of evolution) but not macroevolution (what stops micro from becoming macro?). Evolution is not a pie-in-the-sky idea. It is even used industrially to generate new useful protein catalysts (enzymes) that are helping our society achieve a more economically efficient chemical industry.

      1. I’m using their parsing of the term, d00d. I firmly believe we are descended from monkeys.

        1. Sorry. I get too excited about this.

        2. Not to nitpick but we didn’t “descend” from monkeys. Monkeys and humans have a common primate ancestor.

          1. Did every lose their sarcasm-o-meter in the earthquake yesterday?

            1. Apparently.

              Forgive me for I have sinned.

              1. America has needed the sartalics font now more than ever.

            2. Reset that meter!

              August 23, 2011

              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…..re=related

            3. Not me. The only comment I was contemplating was an equally sarcastic reply to the effect that this statement is unfair to the monkeys.

              1. The there’s the classic trailer for EARTHQUAKE. I particularly enjoyed the moment at 2:17 when George Kennedy, surrounded by idiots tells them it’s time to help themselves.

                http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…..re=related

          2. In the future apes will descend (and conquer) humans. I saw a movie about it.

      2. ^^^^this.

        There is NO DIFFERENCE between Macro and Micro evolution other than the words macro and micro. It’s the same process.

        If you don’t think Macroevolution is plausible but you do microevolution, all that means is that you don’t understand evolution.

        1. and the first thing to understand is that its selective adaptation

    3. Speaking for myself, it’s possible to be a Christian and not take the Bible literally.

    4. Didn’t we hash through all this yesterday?

      Perry isn’t a creationist – he believes in evolution as God’s methodology for creating man. He does not take the 6,000 year Biblical timeline literally.

      1. Didn’t we hash through all this yesterday?

        Was there a Perry post yesterday?

    5. I don’t know a single person and have never met a single person in my life who says the earth is 6000 years old. In my experience Christians, or at least the very large majority of them, don’t believe that.

      1. I have. And I don’t exactly go running around in fundy circle, either.

        At first I thought he was kidding to take the piss out of me, but it became obvious he sincerely believed it.

        Yikes.

        1. Have you ever seen the tv show about the Duggars (I think that is right). They call themselves “quivers” and have about 20 kids because some passage in the bible says to have as many kids as there are arrows in a quiver.

          They took the whole brood to see a creationism museum that had humans hunting dinosaurs. Priceless.

          1. Amazing a place like that even exists; I’ve heard of the show, but now I wish I actually watched it… at least that episode… hilarious.

        2. I know plenty of people who are pretty religious and I don’t know a single person who believes that. Maybe some of them do and it just doesn’t come up.

          This may come as a shock to atheists, but evolution is in the grand scheme of things a pretty boring and unimportant topic.

          1. So Creationism is just a false flag operation by atheists to make Christians look bad?

            Uh-huh. Sure.

            1. No. Claiming every christian think the earth is 6000 years old is just something atheists tell themselves to make themselves feel better.

              1. Where did I claim that? Hmm?

                1. I just don’t understand why it`s called creationism. it tends to lump together those that believe in creation with those that also believe that the Bible says it happened in 6 literal days, somewhere between 6000 and 10000 years ago.

      2. I know some. It’s maddening.

      3. There’s a very successful museum not too far from where I live that is premised exactly on that idea.

        1. The flat earthers probably have a museum too. But that doesn’t mean they are a significant group. Show me some data where even a decent minority of Christians actually believe this. If you can’t do that and have nothing but anecdotes, it is just a smear. I am sure if I looked hard enough, I could find some Libertarians who are truthers or believe in the trialateral commission. So what?

          1. And when they say they are Truthers, I’ll mock them just the same.

            You have morons on your side John. Fucking face facts. You think I don’t acknowledge there are some truly deep-seated idiots that call themselves atheists?

            1. Being a creationist is not the same as believing the earth is 6000 years old. You can believe the bible is a metaphor and that evolution was God’s method of creating the earth. That is what every Christian and a lot of non Christians I know believe.

              It is not creationism that is the smear. It is the 6000 year old earth.

              1. The Creation Museum–dedicated to the belief that the Earth is 6,000 years old and T-Rexes ate coconuts–is 70,000 square feet, cost 27 million to build and claims to have had 1.4 million paying visitors in the 4 years it’s been open. That’s a little under a 1,000 visitors a day.

                Creationism is Young Eartherism. If you believe in an Old Earth–even if it was created ultimately by God–and evolution, you are not a Creationist.

                Intelligent design is a faith-based approach that accepts Old Earth and evolution, but then I am and have been exclusively criticizing Young Earthers the entire time.

            2. You think I don’t acknowledge there are some truly deep-seated idiots that call themselves atheists?

              SHUT UP!!!

              You might summon Shrike.

              1. They banned rather. Shrike-puppet went away around the same time. Curious that…

                1. They banned rather.

                  Really?

                  why?

                  1. why?

                    My guess is that they walk the capitalist walk – if people want to advertise here, then they need to pay for it.

                    1. I don’t even think Rather had adds on his site.

                      My guess if it happened it had somehting with playing a Shrike/Rather spoof game.

                      Who knows….perhaps i will go to his site and see if he wrote anything about it.

                    2. I don’t even think Rather had adds on his site.

                      No. The constant blogwhoring was an attempt to ‘advertise’. Hit&Run; doesn’t exist to pimp out other sites.

                      Maybe she/he was hacked. Who knows.

                2. They banned rather. Shrike-puppet went away around the same time. Curious that…

                  Lies!!!

                  rather has an instant message thing on her blog…

                  I asked and she said she got hacked and that is why she left.

                  Also she denies being Shrike…and that she claims that she is a she.

                  Also please do not post unconfirmed rumors….as I do not want to have to go back there.

                  *Shudders

                  i need a shower.

                  1. If she’s worried about getting hacked, why not just stop blogwhoring and annoying the hell out of everyone? No one forced her to post her personal stuff. I guess not being able to safely blogwhore kills her whole reason for existence. But I don’t think she ever did anything egregious enough to get the banhammer.

      4. “”I don’t know a single person and have never met a single person in my life who says the earth is 6000 years old. In my experience Christians, or at least the very large majority of them, don’t believe that.””

        I’ve had this debate many times. They do believe it only that old but fall back on the how long a year is in God time.

        1. even using fuzzy math, it dont add up to the geologic record.

          1. Of course not. But you and I can’t possible know enough about God time to dispute their claim. 😉

    6. I think the ardent new-earther could argue that God created the earth with the appearance of age. Nobody thinks that God created the earth without plenty of things that take time to happen already having happened. Plants would already have been adults; Adam and Eve were adults; they didn’t have to spend the first 4 months in Eden staying off the lawn so the grass could grow. Given that all the evidence of how the trees would have gotten there, had they not been poofed into existence at some point in time was readily observable, why would all the evidence of how humans would have gotten there, to include fossilized remains of organisms that never existed in live form, not have been there as well?

      Of course, from there it’s not a difficult leap to agreeing that clearly God did it that way for a reason and that while the observable evidence may not reflect what actually happened, it certainly reflects the way the universe works now, and that clearly God would have intended for us to study it for the betterment of the world. Sadly, few have made that leap.

        1. 7 in 10 Americans who sit on the phone to take a poll are idiots.

    7. And this hurts you how?

  15. This issue is a non-starter ever since Judge John E. Jones III, a conservative Republican appointed in 2002 by George W. Bush, issued the greatest rebuke to teaching ID in schools to ever grace our Judicial System.

    Judge Jones wrote an opinion that set back the ID movement permanently when he explicitly detailed why ID isn’t science and thus doesn’t belong in a science classroom.
    (see here for more – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K…..l_District )

    In Texas, there have been attempts to force creationism in to the science classrooms, and Perry may have supported them, but they have all been struck down and Texas does not teach creationism in its science classrooms as far as I know.

    This would be a dumb reason to attack Perry in that he clearly hasn’t succeeded in getting ID in classrooms in Texas so what chance would he have on a federal level?

    1. ID is re-written creationism per the dover decision

    2. The answer to that question is to get the government out of the school business. Then parents are free to send their kids to any school they want to that teaches whatever they want to. It is only an issue because of government funded education.

      Get rid of government funded education and then only the real assholes who can’t stand leaving people alone will have a problem. And they of course can go to hell.

      1. That does not help, too many people who are “believers” in evolution do not want the creationaists children to avoid being exposed to evolution. Part of it is a desire to indoctinate.

        1. Part of it is a desire to indoctinate.

          I think the idea is that children aren’t the responsibility of the parents, but of the State. Children are being ‘oppressed’ by being taught views not approved by the State. Therefore, the State must intervene and prevent children from being taught these views and force them to learn views that *are* approved.

      2. Re: John,

        The answer to that question is to get the government out of the school business. Then parents are free to send their kids to any school they want to that teaches whatever they want to.

        ^^ THIS ^^

        Unfortunately, State-worshippers will insist on a single curriculum to churn out more State-worshippers like the Borg churned out unthinking, biomechanical slaves – pretty much the same thing as a State-worshipper BTW.

        1. Absolutely they will. And the funny thing about such a system would be the kids from the Christian schools, because they would be held to standards and taught actual knowledge rather than PC fairy tales would kick the ass of the kids from the liberal schools. Evolution is a pretty small part of science and an even smaller part of general knowledge.

          1. Evolution is a pretty small part of science.

            Um, I beg to differ. Evolution is a fundamental aspect of biology. Understanding how natural selection works is essential to developing vaccines and anti-viral medicines to fight disease. Genetic profiles used to discover the propensity and likelihood of certain cancers for individuals would not exist without our understanding of evolution.

            1. effing scientific method – how do it work?

              1. However it works, you won’t get the right answer from people who banned DDT and believe in “Green jobs” as the future.

                Seriously double asshole, you are every bit as irrational and stupid as the people who believe the earth is 6000 years old, only you are irrational and stupid about things that matter.

            2. Even all you listed is still a reasonably small part of science. At most you are left with “it is a big part of biology”. It is not a big part or any part of engineering, math, physics, history, English, or anything else.

              1. Even all you listed is still a reasonably small part of science.

                BIOLOGY is small part of science? Really?

                Medicine? Healthcare? Small parts of science? Pharmaceuticals?

                John, this is a losing argument. Evolution is a scientific principle on par with gravity in terms of its importance to science. There are entire scientific industries that wouldn’t exist without our understanding of this principle.

                1. Allllllllllllllllll the way from Rick Perry holds iffy beliefs about dinosaurs to The Utter Annihilation of the Pharmaceuticals Industry Entire, in one easy falsetto shriek.

                  Clutch those pearls any more tightly, and you’re only going to end up choking yourself.

                2. There are entire scientific industries that wouldn’t exist without our understanding of this principle

                  Industries? I kind of doubt that. Remember, the debate is over evolution, not genetics.

            3. Understanding how natural selection works is essential to developing vaccines and anti-viral medicines to fight disease.

              Yes, I could see how this would be needed for those school contests for students to create new vaccines and medicines.

              1. Yeah sure, “school contests”…

                http://www.elsevier.com/wps/fi…..escription

                Uh huh.

            4. Um, I beg to differ. Evolution is a fundamental aspect of biology. Understanding how natural selection works is essential to developing vaccines and anti-viral medicines to fight disease. Genetic profiles used to discover the propensity and likelihood of certain cancers for individuals would not exist without our understanding of evolution.

              you realize you are arguing about private schools that hypothetically might not teach evolution versus public schools who’s graduates are ILLITERATE.

          2. Evolution is a pretty small part of science and an even smaller part of general knowledge.

            The concept of evolution is valuable and can be applied to many areas. The theory of biological evolution put forward by Darwin is not really that important. How would we be worse off if no one gave this a second thought (which most don’t).

            1. Hi DLM et al, new here.

              To answer your question, DLM, ‘evolution’ as a concept deals only with the fact that change occurs through mutations. Natural selection, which was more what Darwin put forth, is the simple, elegant explanation for HOW evolution proceeds. Natural selection allows biologists/geneticists/medical researchers/plenty of others to make predictions as to how specific mutations will affect the organisms they’re attached to, and how environmental factors might cause those mutations (as well as a wealth of other uses). Evolution, the concept, is fairly useless without Darwin’s natural selection theory.

              An analogy: Evolution is an automobile. Natural selection is made up of the engineers/mechanics/designers who explain how it works, and how to repair it/modify it/keep it working.

    3. The problem with ID is that those who want it in schools really want the bible’s version. But they don’t realize a class on ID would have to teach different theories of creators, which goes against God’s teachings. As soon as you start talking about teaching people that we could be just an experiment from some life from other than God, they start crying foul.

      1. TV,

        Check out Judge Jone’s decision in the Kitzmiller vs. Dover case. He details what you stated in such brilliant prose it completely annihilates the idea that ID could ever be considered a scientific principle.

      2. Very good point. ID, to be credible, can not be restricted to a single omnipotent ‘creator’.

  16. I’d like to repeat the sentiment of poster “Tim” above; I’d much prefer it if Lefties understood basic arithmetic in the first place before waxing philosophic on science and the scientific method

    basic arithmetic like understanding that $500,000 of debt and costs per person over a person’s LIFETIME, let alone the next 50 years, is an amount of money that just doesn’t exist. And that’s ignoring that that number is going to increase massively as baby boomers retire etc.

    1. ^ THIS ^, x1,000,000,000,000. I don’t give a wet, sour fart if Perry/Bachmann/Paul/Biden/[Insert Politician Here] honestly believes velociraptors used to cruise the primeval seas in crude flint Polaris subs, so long as he/she has their head on straight insofar as fiscal policy and the basic fucking laws of economics are concerned.

      Remind me to dither and gibber to the breathless, panicky effect of “OHNOES!DINO ERRORS!!OMG!!!11!!”, should said big boys ever stage a sudden zoological comeback — not before.

      Not while Obama and his fellow gaggle of government grifters are currently using the nation’s purse as their own communal spooge sock, at any rate.

  17. I’m much more concerned if a candidate believes in the global warming fraud than creationism.

    I’m not sure what destructive policies would come from creationst beliefs, but the negative consequences of ‘climate chaos’ nonsense are staggering.

    1. Two great resources for ya’ll:

      Index to Creationist Claims
      http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

      How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: Responses to the most common skeptical arguments on global warming
      http://www.grist.org/article/series/skeptics

      1. Please. AGW is a fraud, full stop. I have studied the issue for the last 15 years, actually read the so-called ‘scientific’ studies. You need a decent aptitude with figures, charts, graphs, and a familiarity with the jargon (which comes with experience).

        It’s a fraud, Deal with it.

        1. Evolution is denied by Westerners for the same reason as AGW; facing the truth tends to confound the premises of their Taker Culture.

          Private property rights are based on the fantastic notion that Big Chief in the Sky owns the earth, and gave it to a single Specie that is somehow his favorite to use and abuse.

          1. REAL “denialist culture” in all its rancid, anit-intellectual glory.

            … and it’s for the KIDDIES, to boot!

          2. Educate yourself, please.

          3. What matters it the Golden Rule. He who has the gold makes the rules.

      2. People who quote Grist also believe that global warming causes earthquakes.

        The problem with many of the people who believe in the coming AGW apocalypse can’t describe the phases of the moon or why there are seasons.

        The ignorance of science of both Team Red and Team Blue is brain addling. Though it’s not so much ignorance as the inability to form an independent opinion. How many people, both left and right, proudly proclaim their ignorance of mathematics, and I am not talking about arithmetic.

        One lament I heard from a biologist was how many people joining the recent Darwin anniversary celebrations thought that biologists just read Darwin’s books and nothing has happened in the last 150 years.

      3. I noticed that site missed my biggest complaint: that environmental scientists and climate researchers get grant money from governments and donations from individuals and organizations by warning of impending scientific doom. If there’s no question that much of the corporate-funded skeptical research is tainted by money according to the environmentalists, why does their side get a pass? Because they feel their morals and value are so much purer than those other people who lie in the name of cold hard cash and some political outcome?

        But greens gotta eat too, I guess. C’est la vie.

    2. Yeah, as long as there’s no “creation tax,” I could care less.

  18. This ding dong is one the Glen Beck’s stable of blathers.

    I get tired of twits on the left spouting global warming and twits on the right spouting their invisible man shit this this – disguised as reason.

    F’em both.

  19. All TEAM RED/ TEAM BLUE haters should go here, perhaps.

    Currently it looks like more independents that lean left than right are getting involved, but the concept is at least interesting.

    http://www.americanselect.org/

    1. Here’s the problem… you can’t proceed past the “Define Your Priorities” page if you don’t move any of the sliders. And I don’t want a president that does any of the things offered.

      1. He could “focus on” the economy by deregulating.

        1. Ummmmmmmmmmmm… I don’t see what, if anything, there might possibly be in that for me

  20. Is the holy grail of atheistic libertarianism the discovery that prayer to a non-existent God causes global warming?

    1. Technically since thinking is a heat producing process, and like all processes, raises entropy and produces heat. Prayer actually does cause global warming, but so does meditation.

  21. When it comes to economics, lefties utterly reject reason and base their quack nostrums on feelings.

    “We should tax teh rich until their asses bleed! Why? Because it’s soooooooo unfair that they’re rich, that’s why!”

    1. so are the wealthy [JOBZ] creators creating [JOBZ] yet?

      1. Re: Double Asshole,

        so are the wealthy [JOBZ] creators creating [JOBZ] yet?

        What if they aren’t?

        1. then return to the clinton tax rates when the economy did NOT suck

          1. It’s a deal if we also go back to Clinton era spending and regulation. I’d make that trade.

            1. me too ! why cant DC make a deal like that?

              1. me too ! why cant DC make a deal like that?

                Because they’re DC.

      2. Re: O2
        I’d have loved to watch the other sissies slap the shit out you as a child.

        1. quit thinkin about my shit

          1. Well, then stop throwing it in our faces like a tiresome little monkey.

            1. dont like the question?…are the wealthy [JOBZ] creators creating [JOBZ] yet?

              1. What I don’t like is your tiresome little schtick; it shows that you don’t understand economics; but worse than that, it’s boring.

              2. the “wealthy”, who in a free market would have lost it all and their resources would have fallen into the hands of more competent managers, got a huge bail out (private profit and socialized risk create fun and destructive perverse incentives) and then got free loans from the government and are now getting payed by the government to not invest their money….plus with their free loans they instantly buy treasuries and make money off the interest the government pays them.

                I could also point out studies that shows that government debt over 70% of GDP cuts growth by at least 1% and with a debt of over 100% the cut is even greater.

                Then you have all the stupid shit the Fed is doing which devalues the dollar making it more expensive to buy oil which makes doing anything more expensive which again slows the economy.

                Then you have stimulus which directed the economy to chase government money rather then you know build and manage their businesses.

                Then you have Obamacare which discourages new hires.

                Then you have Obama shutting down the entire offshore drilling industry because one operator fucked up….why did the people who ran safe rigs and did the right thing get shut down again? Pretty clear message to Job Creators on which direction the government is heading.

                Then you have the GM bail out which took the away the assents of the company from the creditors and gave it to unions. Again a good signal to job creator on which direction the government is going.

                Then you have the constant threat of raising taxes, so why grow your business if taxes will go up soon and you have no fucking idea how you will pay for the taxes as well as the build out of you business.

                Then you have the unions suing Boeing for growing their business.

                And then you have the millions of pages of new regulations that Bush put into law. I do recall reason noting that Bush created the most regulations then any other president….that is any other president until Obama.

                And then you have Obama starting a trade war with china.

                and that is just the federal government.

                State and local government in most areas are seeing huge budget short falls and until 2010 most houses and governors were run by democrats who in order to make up for the short fall raised taxes and permit fees and created more fees.

                I could go on about how the left is fucking up the economy but looking at the other part of the equation; Taxes. the left has called to raise taxes on the top wage earners which would bring in a measly 50 billion….It should also be noted the left does not want to raise taxes on the middle class…cuz you know it would hurt (GOBZ)

                I will leave you with this video of JFK:

                http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEdXrfIMdiU

                1. the gop doesnt want to extend the payroll taxcuts which helps ALL working people.

                  1. I have not heard that.

                    Please provide a link on what you are talking about.

                    If they do then I oppose the GOP…which should not be a surprise as I am libertarian posting on a site that bills itself as being about free minds and free markets.

                    Also if the GOP are threatening not to extend a Tax cut then that is simply one more reason why there are no {DGOBZ|

              3. Actually, Howard Schultz of Starbucks and a bunch of other CEOs came out with a statement that they wouldn’t give any political donations until the debt crisis is resolved and would make a more concerted effort to create jobs. If corporations didn’t feel the need to bribe politicians for outcomes, maybe they’d spend more on creating more permanent wealth, like jobs.

      3. No, and they’re not going to as long as Dumbo and his minions are in the White House.

  22. Like?

  23. Science vs. Creationism is wholly different than Man vs. Science You Don’t Believe In. That is why this article fails.

  24. Why do otherwise rational people think that any politician believes in God? You can’t fear God and get elected to office. Too much lying is required.

    1. There is no love in fear. ~1 John 4:18

      1. I dunno if this thread is dead, but ill say this anyway. my translation says that `there is no fear in love` NWT. I fear my mother and father, in the sense that I fear displeasing them. of course I also am not afraid of telling them when I see something they are doing which I think is harmful to them, imperfect as all of us are.

        just my 2 cents.

  25. Obviously, nature cannot offer consent to being plundered, as there is no “nature” to request it from?nature is, at best, a shorthand for referring to all the complex, interrelated cycles of life going on throughout the universe. First, we must assume that nature has no value in itself, that it is, in a sense, itself “property” to some form of deity. In a sense, then, Locke’s property rights are already relying on circular logic: human property rights are dependent on divine property rights, so that we have a right to property because there is a right to property.

    Such a god creates nature, thus making nature his “property” to do with as he pleases?including allow humans free access to it, if he so desires. Does this god know the ultimate outcome of such an arrangement, and of all the suffering and death that will be unleashed on the various plants and animals he has made, essentially selling them into slavery to another of his creations?

    “Property by ownership” ends up being an unfounded mythology that must be maintained in spite of all facts and logic…

    excerpts from:
    The Right to Property
    by Jason Godesky | 18 July 2005
    http://rewild.info/anthropik/2…..-property/

    1. god gave all seed-bearing plants unto mankind.

      1. Said the patriarchal dominionist.

        Do you think women should shut up in church too? God said that in the Bible.

        Do you think it’s ok for a follower of God to kidnap, sexually humiliate, and rape a female war captive? God commanded that in the Bible.

        1. nope, i simply quoted the bible. im a methodist & we barely believe the translations are righteous

        2. god didn’t say anything in the bible. A bunch of men claim that god said a lot of things.

    2. Great! I’m going to come over to your place and drive away in your car. You’re cool with that, right?

      1. If your values are the same as the articles, then of course. If your values are not the same, then why would you think about breaking them? Just to be a Taker? Maybe that’s your true moral value system?

        Egalitarian societies built on sharing and cooperation and guided by consensus were much more adapted to the niche humans exploited than the hierarchical troops of other primates. This egalitarianism even became part of our very bodies?humans have some of the lowest sexual dimorphism in the entire animal kingdom, on par with penguins. Compare this to, say, the baboon, where males may be up to three times the size of females. In some animals, the genders look like entirely different species to the untrained eye.

        Thesis #7: Humans are best adapted to band life.
        by Jason Godesky | 22 September 2005
        http://rewild.info/anthropik/thirty/

        1. The Marchantiophyta /m?r?k?nti??f?t?/ ( listen) are a division of bryophyte plants commonly referred to as hepatics or liverworts. Like other bryophytes, they have a gametophyte-dominant life cycle, in which cells of the plant carry only a single set of genetic information.
          It is estimated that there are 6000 to 8000 species of liverworts, though when neotropical regions are better studied this number may approach 10,000. Some of the more familiar species grow as a flattened leafless thallus, but most species are leafy with a form very much like a flattened moss. Leafy species can be distinguished from the apparently similar mosses on the basis of a number of features, including their single-celled rhizoids. Leafy liverworts also differ from most (but not all) mosses in that their leaves never have a costa (present in many mosses) and may bear marginal cilia (very rare in mosses). Other differences are not universal for all mosses and liverworts, but the occurrence of leaves arranged in three ranks, the presence of deep lobes or segmented leaves, or a lack of clearly differentiated stem and leaves all point to the plant being a liverwort.
          Liverworts are typically small, usually from 2?20 mm wide with individual plants less than 10 cm long, and are therefore often overlooked. However, certain species may cover large patches of ground, rocks, trees or any other reasonably firm substrate on which they occur. They are distributed globally in almost every available habitat, most often in humid locations although there are desert and arctic species as well. Some species can be a nuisance in shady green-houses or a weed in gardens.[4]

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marchantiophyta

        2. Egalitarian societies built on sharing and cooperation and guided by consensus

          Are a fairy tale.

          1. No, that humans evolved to as sharing, egalitarian primates is based on empirical data.

            One evidence is low sexual dimorphism and zero sexual dichromaticism. You’re not 3x larger than female humans and you don’t have a red ass, like the hierarchical baboons. Species with low sexual dimorphism demonstrate shared child rearing, etc.

            Your power tie is a humorous attempt at artificial dichromaticism.

            There is much more empirical evidence of humans evolving as egalitarian. See, for one decent text, Hierarchy in the Forest: The Evolution of Egalitarian Behavior
            (Harvard University Press.)

            1. Um hate to break it to you, but primitive men were violant cannibals. There is plenty of archaeological evidence that shows human bones that were cut up and devoured. Quit pushing this idotic “Nobel Savage” myth.

              1. What you’re breaking out is city-boy fairy tales.

                Cannibalism in homo sapiens is extremely rare in paleolithic societies; however, it is strongly associated with agricultural societies.

                The sites in Europe to which you are probably referring are a different species, H. neanderthalensis.

                Or if you’re thinking of the cannibals of New Guinnea, I hate to break it to you, but that place was a cradle of agriculture.

                New Guinea: A cradle of agriculture
                K Neumann – Science, 2003 – sciencemag.org

                Donner, party of 47, your table is ready.

                1. No, actually Neanderthals were cannabalized by nomaid Cro-Magnons that migrated out of Africa towards Iberia and France where Neanderthals had been living for thousands of years. It’s unclear if Neanderthals are a totally seperate species that went extinct or if they had their genes absorbed by the new populations of Cro-Magnons. Regardless, Cro-Magnons murdered, raped, and ate Neanderthals. And they weren’t farmers either.

                  1. Neanderthal cannibalism at Moula-Guercy, Ardeche, France
                    Defleur, T White, P Valensi, L Slimak? – Science, 1999 – sciencemag.org

                    Neanderthals were cannibals, bones show
                    E Culotta – Science, 1999 – sciencemag.org

                    A potential role for Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies in Neanderthal extinction
                    S Underdown – Medical hypotheses, 2008 – Elsevier

        3. “Thesis #7: Humans are best adapted to band life.”

          Which may be true, but it does not alter the fact that band life sucks, and few people would want to live on that basis 24/7 365 days/year, as well as the fact that we cannot go back to such without eliminating the greater part of the world’s population. Given thiose facts, discussing this incessantly just makes one a crank.

          1. Oh, I don’t know, band life can’t be that bad. Look at the Rolling Stones, for example.

          2. Saying “band life sucked” is like a poodle saying “pack life sucked.”

            You’re the domesticated poodle. It’s logical for you to think that way, now that you’re nearly neutered of any evolutionarily selected traits and as artificial as Madonna’s cone breasts.

          3. Given the fact that we’ve got big government, and always have, discussing how to reduce it incessantly just makes one a crank.

            See how that works?

        4. Humans are not an egalitarian species. I don’t think that’s too tough to figure out.

          I’m detecting the distinct odor of college weed in this thread…

          1. Humans are an egalitarian species. It is viewed by some scientists as our most unique trait, even more unique than walking upright (and related.)

            Hierarchy in the forest: The evolution of egalitarian behavior
            C Boehm – 2001 – Harvard University Press

    3. The main breeding season for newts is between the months of June and July. After courtship rituals of varying complexity, which take place in ponds or slow moving streams, the male newt transfers a spermatophore which is taken up by the female. Fertilised eggs are laid singly and are usually attached to aquatic plants. This distinguishes them from the free-floating eggs of frogs or toads, that are laid in clumps or in strings. Plant leaves are usually folded over and adhered to the eggs to protect them. The tadpoles, which resemble fish fry but are distinguished by their feathery external gills, hatch out in about three weeks. After hatching they eat algae, small invertebrates or other tadpoles.
      During the next few months the tadpoles undergo metamorphosis, during which they develop legs, and the gills are absorbed and replaced by air-breathing lungs.[5] Some species, such as the North American newts, also become more brightly coloured during this phase. Once fully metamorphosised they leave the water and live a terrestrial life, when they are known as “efts”.[6] Only when the eft reaches adulthood will the North American species return to live in water, rarely venturing back onto the land. Conversely, most European species live their adult lives on land and only visit water to breed.[7]

    4. “as there is no “nature” to request it from?nature is, at best, a shorthand for referring to all the complex, interrelated cycles of life going on throughout the universe. First, we must assume that nature has no value in itself, that it is, in a sense, itself “property” to some form of deity.”

      The way you define nature must, by definition, include humankind in nature. Therefore, establishing property rights in nature is an assertion of self-ownership.

      Really, Godesky seems to be proving too much and to what point? Any creature, especially animal has to “plunder” nature in order to survive. If we are “pludering” nature than that means nature is plundering itself. It seems a foolish nosensical argument that is likely more a rationalization for a conclusion.

      1. Anyone who has spent any time around animals knows they have a highly developed sense of “what’s mine” (both as it relates to food and real estate).

        To say that “property” is a completely artificial construct with no basis in “nature” requires ignoring, well, nature.

        1. If you read the article, or anything I’ve said, you’d know that property by use, tools and belongings needed to survive, have long been recognized in egalitarian Non-State bands and tribes. Other animals to have a sense of “property by use” for those things needed to survive, and defend it.

          Abstract property by ownership is that which you claim beyond, and often well beyond, what one needs to survive.

          Squirrels squirrel away nuts.

          I don’t see any squirrels claiming they own the whole forest and shooting other squirrels as trespassers if they don’t pay the abstract ownership claimant rent.

          1. You need to acquaint yourself with the concept of “territoriality” by animals. They’ll chase off, fight, and if need be kill, other animals that trespass on their turf.

            1. I’m well aware of territoriality.

              You need to acquaint yourself with how human paleolithic territoriality actually worked.

              Erratic Retaliator Strategy
              Daniel Quinn
              http://www.lejournalmural.be/e…..a-2.html#2

              1. You need to acquaint yourself with how human paleolithic territoriality actually worked.

                From the writings of a novelist?

                1. I provide simple online referenced that summarize the journal articles and texts that are unavailable to most people. Quinn’s essay is based on empirical evidence. In fact, he wrote the book as non-fiction, but re-wrote it as fiction to make it appeal to more people, since the non-fiction work has already been done.

    5. First, we must assume that nature has no value in itself, that it is, in a sense, itself “property” to some form of deity.

      Lost me on the first curve.

      1. Genesis 1:26

        1. “The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway”…?

  26. Harsanyi, you’d be a lot more convincing if you showed a bit of skepticism about the following statement:

    Perry, not surprisingly, was also recently asked about “global warming.” He responded that “the issue has been politicized” and that pouring billions of dollars into “a scientific theory that has not been proven and … is more and more being put into question” is not worthwhile.

    See, here’s the thing. From a scientific perspective, it’s just NOT ‘more and more being put into question.’ The questions are more and more being answered. Hell, even ClimateGate is turning out to be a big pile of horseshit, and it’s starting to look like Mann did perfectly good work and the leaked emails were taken completely out of context. So Perry’s pretty much completely full of shit on AGW/Climate Change as well as pretty much every other bit of science I’ve heard him speak about.

    Then you compound the problem by showing your own blinkard ignorance of scientific inquiry:

    It is interesting watching the nation’s defenders of reason, empirical evidence, and science fail to display a hint of skepticism over the transparently political “science” of global warming. Rarely are scientists so certain in predicting the future.

    That’s some blindingly ignorant sophistry. Scientists make predictions about the future pretty damned regularly. Theoretical scientists pretty much HAVE to make predictions, or their theories are unfalsifiable. That’s not to say that scientists don’t show care about what predictions they’re willing to make (no geophysicist will tell you he can predict earthquakes, nor that he can predict volcanic eruptions with great precision) but predictions such as “This toxic spill will likely migrate into the water table, and eventually contaminate X river”, or “Irene has a 100% chance of hitting the outer Bahamas with hurricane-force winds” are both science, and predictions.

    And ultimately, there’s one particular bit of Perry’s attitude towards science that matters rather a lot to one of libertarianism’s core principles. That is that the state should have to prove its case before taking the freedom or life of one of its citizens. Perry’s actions on that front are about as appalling as any major candidate has been in the past two decades, Red or Blue. When the Texas Forensic Science Commission seemed likely to examine the Cameron Todd Willingham execution, and report that not only was Willingham likely not guilty of a crime, but that the science should’ve shown that there was no crime in the first place, Perry actively intervened, firing three skeptics and replacing them with cronies – one of whom (John Bradley) was a prosecutor who actively worked to destroy evidence, and saw innocence as a burden.

    There are plenty of reasons to go after breathless anticapitalist global-warming panic-mongers, but finding Rick Perry to be an unhinged Christo-authoritarian reality-denying mysticist douchebag is not among them.

    1. And ultimately, there’s one particular bit of Perry’s attitude towards science that matters rather a lot to one of libertarianism’s core principles. That is that the state should have to prove its case before taking the freedom or life of one of its citizens.

      Legal process =/= science.

      1. Sorta, but Perry’s actively working to make sure that Texas Forensic Science Commission != science, as well.

        Willingham was executed, in large part, because a forensic investigator claimed that science told him the fire that killed Willingham’s kids was intentional. But science has pretty definitely shown that every single bit of evidence that the arson investigator pointed to as ‘proving’ arson can be caused by conditions that are not arson.

        Perry actively interfered with a commission with ‘Science’ right there in the name to prevent them from giving an official stamp on what seems to be the current scientific consensus, that Willingham was executed for a fire that was likely — not possibly, not plausibly, but likely — an accident.

        That goes beyond overselling the science, which is the worst any reasonable person could claim the Al Gores of the world do. If there’s a conspiracy, or even an unintentional tendency, to generate false confidence in AGW among the anticapitalist left, the joke’s on them, because the facts of anthropogenic global warming are pretty convincing on their own. But in Perry’s case, the facts are not just not on his side, but very clearly on the opposing side, and he’s actively working to undermine those facts.

        Al Gore is drawing unsupported conclusions from correct science. Perry is working to deny the science at hand, and come up with conclusions that directly contradict the facts on the ground, both in the case of evolution, where the effects are diffuse and maybe profound, maybe inconsequential, and in the case of the Cameron Todd Willingham and the Texas Forensic Science Commission, where the effect is to prevent real reform of forensic practices, and to run a very real risk of the state killing more innocent people.

    2. Re: luncheater,

      That’s some blindingly ignorant sophistry. Scientists make predictions about the future pretty damned regularly.

      Only in the case of systems that show regularity, lunch. Chaotic, multi-variable systems such as the Climate defy prediction.

      The questions are more and more being answered.

      Like Joshua has shown here, it looks to me that the whole thing is unraveling.

      Hell, even ClimateGate is turning out to be a big pile of horseshit[…]

      Sure, after the government-sponsored scientists were exonerated by government-sponsored investigators. Government won the day – yay.

      Cloud formation is influenced by cosmic rays, only some of which are solar in origin, but neither cloud formation nor global temperature track with solar flare activity.

      Temperature does track with sun spot activity. That has been known for years.

      1. Yeah, Corning’s links are unimpressive. All of the actual interpretation links Corning comes up with are from the Climate Change equivalent of the Discovery Institute.

      2. Temperature does track with sun spot activity. That has been known for years.”

        I’m not sure how it could be”known,” being as it’s manifestly false.

  27. ::watching Obama Re-Inauguration in 2012, on television::

    “Well, at least I managed to keep a demonstrable madman, hellbent on ruining us all, out of the White House!”

    1. Exactly the same length and quality Shorter Lunchstealer:

      ::watching Perry Inauguration in 2013*, on television::

      “Well, at least I managed to remove a demonstrable autocrat, blithely indifferent to ruining us all, from the White House!”

  28. I agree with your article except the part about global warming.
    I’m a libertarian but I think global warming is not much man made.

  29. Can we get off Perry’s nuts…please???

  30. Speaking of science…the CLOUD experiment just confirmed that recent warming is primarily caused by the Sun.

    http://www.thegwpf.org/science…..hange.html

    And so ends the politicization of climate change.

    Someone tell Ron he has to change his position on climate change again.

    1. Umm, no it doesn’t. Cloud formation is influenced by cosmic rays, only some of which are solar in origin, but neither cloud formation nor global temperature track with solar flare activity. There’s just no real-world correlation between solar flare activity and climate. The CLOUD results do not undermine those empirical results.

      The sun has just not caused global warming, because you can look at historic solar activity and climate observations, and they are wholly independent of each other.

      1. but but the sun has only been around for 6000 yrs…or something like that

        1. The law of comparative advantage, HOW DOES IT WORK?!?!

      2. The sun CO2 has just not caused global warming, because you can look at historic solar activity CO2 levels and climate observations, and they are wholly independent of each other higher CO2 levels seem to follow, rather than precede, warm periods.

        1. In the modern climate, there’s only some truth to that (the end of the little ice age predates major carbon output), and even then the data is iffy on a global scale. Certainly modern global temperature measurement post-dates the industrial-age increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations, so that’s not clear for this warming event. For the current period, CO2 emissions are correlated to warming.

          The evidence for a solar component to the modern-era warming event is not merely inconclusive, it’s non-existent. There’s been no significant long-term increase in solar activity since measurements have been taken, while there has been a long-term trend of atmospheric warming.

          1. There’s been no significant long-term increase in solar activity since measurements have been taken

            really?

            Then how was this graph produced?

            http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi…..umbers.png

            Note the Modern Maximum at the end of the graph.

            Is your whole “thing” to simply deny reality to fit your politics?

            1. Sunspots and solar output are two different things.

              Is your whole “thing” to simply deny reality to fit your politics?

      3. There’s just no real-world correlation between solar flare activity and climate.

        From Wikipedia:

        Like the Dalton Minimum and Sp?rer Minimum, the Maunder Minimum coincided with a period of lower-than-average global temperatures.

        That seems pretty real world to me.

        anyway solar flares =/= the sun

        Cloud formation is influenced by cosmic rays, only some of which are solar in origin

        and by “some” you must mean the vast majority of the kind that hit the earth and effect cloud formation. If you do not then you are simply wrong.

        1. and by “some” you must mean the vast majority of the kind that hit the earth and effect cloud formation. If you do not then you are simply wrong.

          opps

          here it is a correction from Nature

          http://www.nature.com/news/201…..1.504.html

          The number of cosmic rays that reach Earth depends on the Sun. When the Sun is emitting lots of radiation, its magnetic field shields the planet from cosmic rays. During periods of low solar activity, more cosmic rays reach Earth.

          so yeah they do not originate from the sun…they are in fact regulated by the sun….so yes it is still the sun doing the climate changing.

        2. “anyway solar flares =/= the sun”

          True, but missing a massively relevant point.

          1. Could it be this point?

            http://www.friendsofscience.or…..uments/FOS Essay/SvensmarkCosmicRay1700small.jpg

            Note the peak at the end of the graph.

      4. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi…..umbers.png

        also note the end of the graph that says “Modern Maximum”

        How is a “Modern Maximum corresponding to current modern warming not real world evidence again?

        1. http://climatechange.thinkabou…..es/Sea.jpg

          this graph seems pretty empirical.

  31. This article is a travesty. The relevant faith-based believers in American politics are the following:

    Christianists
    Market worshipers

    Nobody “worships” government. That is a straw man meant to put liberals on equal footing with you guys, market worshipers.

    I know you’re market worshipers because you can never come up with an example of a market failure, and if one is pointed out to you, it’s not in fact a failure, but something to be celebrated as a feature of the market, no matter how many human lives are negatively affected.

    The recent financial crisis is a big, gigantic fuckup of capitalism.

    Global warming is a massive fuckup of capitalism.

    Does government play a role in both of these? Of course; all markets exist in the context of government policy. When you say “worship government” what you’re referring to is people who understand that government will always exist so it might pay to make government work in the interest of people.

    For any problem that has a market solution you will find that it’s necessary to have government policy directed at realizing that solution in the market. It’s not either/or, even though you guys want to pretend that it is.

    And you sound like an idiot talking about global warming as politicized science. Of course it’s politicized: by those who don’t believe in it. Just because some oil shill or slack-jawed radio host decides to take issue with a particular field of science doesn’t mean the “controversy” is automatically legitimate. Anyone else remember this exact same snake oil during the creationism/ID vs. evolution debates?

    Rather than desperately trying to force liberals down to your level (that would be anti-intellectual when convenient to your dogma), you should be wondering why you share economic policy goals with people who believe in invisible friends in the sky and that humans and dinosaurs coexisted.

    1. I want to have your baby

    2. Global warming is a massive fuckup of capitalism.

      In case you have not heard Tony Global warming is caused by the sun…not CO2.

      http://www.nature.com/news/201…..1.504.html

      Do they have capitalism on the sun?

      1. From what I read in the article, the science is FAR from settled, especially if they have to admit that the CERN experiment raises more questions than it settles. People like lunchstealer here and the Algorians are so full of shit.

      2. It’s funny how selectively you trumpet evidence. From your article:

        “At the moment, it actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate”

        Oh wait, that’s no evidence at all.

        1. Two things

          First the researchers were told by the CERN director to shut the fuck up.

          The Director General of CERN stirred controversy last month, by saying that the CLOUD team’s report should be politically correct about climate change

          and second the correlation between sunspot activity and global climate has been established for some time…the problem was that there was no mechanism to explain it….or at least a mechanism with material proof to back it up. This CLOUD experiment establishes that Mechanism as real. It is the missing piece to finish the last part of the puzzle.

          And third this is how real scientists conduct themselves. They do not put out press releases telling the world is coming to an end even though their study does not say that. Real scientists focus on what they found specifically, crossing their Ts and dotting their Is. I realize that you base base your whole belief system on crazy speculation of non-peer reviewed propaganda pamphlets from Green Peace or hide the decline hockey stick proxy graphs generated by using tricks….well now you have a real example of real science to compare to your land of unicorns and gremlins.

          trick reference here:

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BQpciw8suk

          1. Ok so I’m kind of on the brutal side of pragmatic. I think dissent should be crushed in this matter. Its proponents should be professionally destroyed.

            Why? Because the other side is doing it already, much more successfully. And because they are extremely dangerous to the human species.

            Liberals (people who actually care about general human well-being, unlike libertarians) are awful at selling anything, and I don’t really know why, but I’m sure it has to do with the fact that they are right and reality is more complicated than the slogans of the reality-dissenters.

            1. no idea what you are talking about. It has no relation to my comments.

              Are you spoof Tony?

              1. Your disdain for the First Amendment was already made clear in the Citizens United threads, Tony.

                1. Your disdain for the First Amendment was made clear in your support for the Citizens United ruling.

                  People have the unfettered right to say anything they want. That does not mean they should have an unfettered right to own means of communication.

                  1. Bullshit. *I* don’t go around advocating shutting people up, whereas you have, Tony.

                  2. WTF?!?!?! Where the fuck in the text of the First Amendment is free speech limited to individuals?

                    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

                    Moreover, the Citizens United case was about the right to broadcast a corporate-funded documentary, which must be somehow different than all the corporate-media-funded documentaries how? I don’t get where Congress gets the authority to draw the line between what is “valid” press and what isn’t.

    3. global warming is an idea that does not even rise to the level of a theory. Most theories allow for a null hypothesis, that the independent variable has NO effect on the dependent. Global warming exempts itself from this reality, making it not only not a theory, but the antithesis of science itself.

      Does hard data show temp fluctuations from year to year? Sure, it does and always has. One might ask where temp stations are located – are they in urbanized areas full of concrete, asphalt, and other materials that add to air temperature, are they subject to wind, etc.

      Govt is politicized at its most basic level – the studies that claim to prove its existence are inevitably funded by govt, which has a vested interest in the outcome, just as much as energy companies do. And, there remains a total absence of evidence that points to man being the culprit of warming, climate change, or whatever term is in vogue.

      1. It’s inappropriate to apply a null hypothesis to global warming. You want a statistical correlation between increasing greenhouse gases and increased warming, when that relationship is known, and can be predicted successfully, based on the laws of physics.

        Recent variation is well outside the norm for historical changes, in terms of speed. If anything, the assumption should be that be there is a relationship, and you should have to explain what ‘natural’ alternative there is.

        All that aside, there’s plenty of evidence anyway.

        1. The laws of physics: fundamental rules of the universe, or liberal conspiracy?

          And that’s why billionaires shouldn’t pay taxes.

          1. Jesus was a capitalist billionaire whose most sublime saying was:

            Thou shalt own thy neighbor as thyself.

    4. Global warming is a massive fuckup of capitalism.

      “The solution is socialism because we all know that starving people don’t use energy that pollutes!”

      all markets exist in the context of government policy.

      “All sex exists in the context of rape.”

      Rather than desperately trying to force liberals down to your level

      “Liberals are very smart! They voted for a very smart person, didn’t they???”

      1. “The solution is socialism because we all know that starving people don’t use energy that pollutes!”

        You live in the ridiculous fantasy world in which oil will last forever, or some new technology will break through just in time to minimize upheaval, despite institutional barriers. You are causing starvation through ignorance. Starvation is something on my radar, not yours. You don’t give a fuck. What exactly are you lecturing me about?

        “All sex exists in the context of rape.”

        It’s more like, you want to have unprotected sex all you want and don’t think you will get a disease, because you are special.

        You don’t care about anything but your own selfish whims, and you think I should be subjected to them. You’re just a psychopathic douchebag. Besides, Saint Ayn loved rape.

        “Liberals are very smart! They voted for a very smart person, didn’t they???”

        Yes, they did. It’s funny how blind right-wing hatred just becomes the assumed narrative around here.

        1. You don’t give a fuck.

          soooo Mexico has stopped being a country of bone crushing poverty to only being a poor county by simply opening trade with them. Also in our life time in China we have seen literally 100s of millions of people pulled out of bone crushing poverty simply by deregulating their economy…..

          It is not that we don’t give a fuck Tony…it is that our solutions actually work at stopping starvation.

          Your solutions only gave us 4 trillion dollars of debt, a 9% unemployment rate, bail outs for the richest banks in the history of the world, hand outs to insurance companies, a falling dollar, 4$ a gallon gas prices, a AA+ credit rating, the biggest wealth gap between whites and blacks since Jim Crow, a third war working on a fourth, and a failed cash for clunkers program….oh yeah and some shovel ready projects moved up to be double plus plus shovel ready and created a job for every $200,000 spent….

          But yeah you care more….you really really care. We can see that now. your empathy practically oozes from the screen.

          1. Like Tony’s Team Leaders actually “give a fuck”.

            Sure, the underlings for Team Blue might, for the most part, actually *care* about [insert cause du jour of the day], but the underlings don’t have power. The ones at the top, though, DO have power, and they will glom on to whatever fits the Team Blue template… as long as they can wield those tools to pretend to give a shit, they have the majority of the masses fooled into thinking the Team actually cares about said causes.

            There’s little-to-no altruism in either Team, by the way… Team Red latched on to “God, guns, and gays” and the Drug War (the latter of which some Team Blue Lord-High Puddin’-Heads [e.g., Charlie Rangel] use as a “See? We care!” bludgeon when they get in front of a TV camera.

            Why the Tonys don’t see it – and why, for instance, the Freepers don’t see it, either – is simply beyond mind-boggling.

          2. What, they’re my solutions because I’m lumped in with all statists even those whose ideas I vehemently oppose?

            Your problem is you demonstrate concern for human welfare simply by assuming the world’s largest can opener. What solutions for starvation do you propose? Tax cuts for the wealthy? A global race-to-the-bottom labor market?

            The wealth gap is a natural product of capitalism. It must always be vigilantly pushed back against by positive action. Just because politicians on both sides believe in the state instead of an airy-fairy market utopia doesn’t mean it’s my fault that Reaganomics has failed.

            1. Positive action against a naturally occurring phenomenon? To what end?

              Unless and until all human beings are endowed with equal ability, industriousness, character, and luck, then there will always be those who are more successful than others. This is not a cause for concern or action, “positive” or otherwise, but an inescapable aspect of reality.

              If you are truly concerned about the least capable (sometimes called the least fortunate) and their happiness in life as determined by economic conditions, then the best thing to do is work to create economic growth. They will benefit from it least, but they will still benefit. They’ll never be the equal of someone whom God or natural selection has blessed with competence, but they’ll be better off than they were before. They’ll be more likely to have food in their belly even if they do still have rocks in their head.

              Reaganomics didn’t fail, but worked spectacularly.

              Life isn’t fair, and efforts by government to somehow make it so are childish.

              1. Life isn’t fair, but there’s no reason to emphasize its unfairness rather than mitigate it. That’s what having government is all about–socializing certain costs so that no individual is unduly burdened with large tasks.

                I see human welfare as the end of political action. You seem to see human need as an inconvenience within some other scheme. Reaganomics did succeed spectacularly if you have some goal other than human welfare in mind: say, in distributing wealth to the wealthy.

                There seems to be a moral argument here, which I find completely inadequate. It seems to say that people who succeed are virtuous by definition, and people who fail are vicious, and THEREFORE we ought to have a system that rewards good people and punishes bad. Virtue, again, defined by productive work, which is simplified to simply “having wealth” via Reaganomics. It’s disastrous and morally bankrupt. Capitalism should be a tool for human prosperity, not the end itself.

                1. Still spouting that egalitarian bullshit, I see…

          3. Leftists don’t care, they emote.

            1. Nothing he said actually *works*, that’s for true. If it did, we’d see results.

          4. Joshua Corning,

            Didn’t you know that was all caused by deregulation and tax breaks?

      2. The Soviet Union was especially known for their lack of carbon emissions. They never manufactured anything or had any factories there.

    5. [::squats::]

      [::squirts::]

    6. “Global warming is a massive fuckup of capitalism.”

      Yeah… ‘cuz the Soviets never had a major environmental catastrophe. And the only reason they didn’t emit as much CO2 is because they were incapable of developing that level of economic activity. Not ‘chose not to’. ‘Couldn’t’. They tried their damnedest.

      1. Global Warming is a lie in the first place.

        Arguing about its supposed causes is like arguing about whether Santa Claus wears long underwear.

    7. A bunch of unsupported claims and no argument. As fucking ever.

  32. “Hide the decline”, Mr. Bailey.

  33. I support the members.

  34. This is libertarian post-modernism:

    Needless to say, there is a spectacular array of viewpoints on this issue. .. There are debates over many things.’

    Not really, David. There is no division among climate scientists on the basic question over whether humans contribute to the planet’s warming.

    This is no more a “debate” than the question of whether the media leans left or whether tax cuts increase revenue. The only debate is within the Republican presidential field.

    1. Oh, wonderful… another pussy who believes We Are Doom’d because his neighbor drives a Chevy Avalanche.

      Has your wife left you yet, Jack?

    2. I love that you called libertarians postmodern. That’s exactly right. (Nevermind that the postmodern era is pretty much over.)

      This is the big irony of the “first principles/natural rights” crowd, and it’s the same one that plagues the religious fundamentalists. In order for their ideas to have any merit that have to assert relativism, since they are competing with science and reason.

  35. Nobody “worships” government.

    BWAHAHAHAHAAA

  36. Nobody “worships” government.

    *snicker*

  37. Nobody worships government.

    BWAHAHAHAHAAA

  38. Joshua Corning|8.24.11 @ 4:30PM|#

    Speaking of science…the CLOUD experiment just confirmed that recent warming is primarily caused by the Sun.

    Are you fucking kidding me?
    You don’t understand the experiment AT ALL if that is the conclusion you draw from it.

    This CLOUD experiment establishes that Mechanism as real. It is the missing piece to finish the last part of the puzzle.

    [sigh]

    Or to paraphrase the lead scientist on the study – it is an early and interesting finding that as yet says nothing about cloud formation or climate.

    Is WATTSUPDOC promoting this one as the holy grail or something?

    1. Is WATTSUPDOC promoting this one as the holy grail or something?

      Watts the matter? Angry that somebody dares to interfere with the narrative? Watts was entirely correct when he pointed out the temperature errors due to improper TG sitings.

      The AGW crowd was angry at him for daring to point out a problem.

      As a member of a cult of belief, you should refrain from using terms like ‘holy grail’.

  39. Despite the rare political dispute, in the real world, science?real science?is rarely controversial.

    Now there’s a patently false and absurd assertion. These matters are politicized all the time, so by that definition of “rare”… anything goes!

  40. hilarious!
    the author presents no evidence whatsoever to support his argument and his piece is all about – wait for it – arguing from evidence!

    keep pretending there’s no consensus, guys. it would have been awesome if you would have supplied the names of hundreds of climate scientists on one one side of the issue and compared them to the names of a few dozen on the other side… and then double checked the latter list against the list of scientists who promoted the idea that smoking has no relation to lung cancer (’cause it’s the same group of bought and paid for hacks!)

  41. And try as some may to conflate the two, global warming policy is not “science.”

    For example, this article does a pretty good job conflating politicians who want the policies with scientists who who want the answers.

  42. Harsanyi, doesn’t fairly characterize the Science/Creationism accurately. Religious views are absolute and based of faith. Science is pragmatic and based on evidence that can be reproduced at will–you can do things with scientific theories. Evolution is the basis of biology. With this science, and it’s principles, you can accomplish many advance which are advantageous for the human community. By using religious practices only–including their avowed most powerful tool, prayer–we are destined to revert to the dark ages.

    In science, contrary to religion, as the facts change which are not explained by currently accepted theories, new theories emerge to be tested.  Sometimes, out of practicality, both theories are used–as is the case with Newton’s Laws and Einstein Relativity–because some theories easily work in some cases but not others.   Science is not absolute.  When a new theory proves more useful than the previous  one, scientific beliefs change–unlike religious beliefs (which are not useful for anything except wishful thinking). 

  43. Perry, like all politicians who want to get elected, is pandering to the single issue voters who have been manipulated from a young age by religious zealots into seeing a belief in creationism and a belief in atheism as an either/or proposition; a false dilemma.

    It is not Perry that is stupid or intellectual incurious or ignorant or bamboozled, but the potential voters who will pull the lever for another candidate if he does not at least pretend to believe that the earth is 6,000 years old and that we are all the inbred descendants of a man and woman fashioned directly from clay in a secret garden somewhere. Pure nonsense, but don’t let them catch you saying so if you expect to be elected on the Republican ticket.

    As someone else mentioned on another site, I’d support Charlie Sheen for president over Obama at this point, and I’m certainly not going to let calculated pandering to an important, if noxious, constituency stand in my way of giving Perry my support. If he can do for the nation what he has already achieved in Texas, I don’t care how he thinks human beings came to exist.

  44. Does CO2 absorb sunlight? Yes.
    Does this absorption add to warming for the globe? Yes.

    Does peeing produce water? Yes.
    Does peeing in the ocean raise the water level? Yes.

    So if you’re worried about Global warming and the rise of the oceans, mandate that no person be allowed to pee in the ocean.

    That or maybe find out to what extent and degree something contributes to a potential problem before trying to “take action”.

    Or did we get the 5-6 degree increase from 1980’s to 2000 that the scientists were sure would happen if we didn’t… given them full control of the government and industry as they demanded?

    You know, they’ve been making these 10-20 year predictions for decades; has the ocean risen 3-4 feet and swamped all beaches from the 1970’s? No?

    Is snow a thing of the past for D.C. or the entire Continental US? No?

    Well maybe these computer models aren’t quite as accurate as they were claimed… but who cares. Data and evidence and reality have no place in science.. you must believe the scientist regardless what he says… or something. Appeal to Authority is the new Scientific Proof… that’s going to make College easier for the next generation… but it might make their “discoveries” less valuable.

    1. Global Warming is nothing but Marxism through other means.

      1. So is the liberal idea that human individuals, as well as races, are equally capable of being productive in a free-market, no-welfare society.

        The reality of cognitive differences between individuals and entire races is the consensus view of psychologists, yet it is routinely suppressed or dismissed as racist by marxist egalitarians who think that all humans should be equal, mother Nature and 50,000 years of divergent evolution be damned!

        1. Are you really saying there are genetic differences in cognitive ability based on race? Can I have a citation for this position? Besides “The Bell Curve” please. Cuz that’s BS.

      2. Yes, of course, a critique of 19th century capitalism combined with a prediction that the proletariat will revolt and…

        sounds exactly like studying ice samples, weather models, etc.

    2. Think I’ll stop over in FUCKING NEW YORK.

      1. Cool. It’s nice of you to come back to New York. It’s been years.

    3. Europe was ice covered for 950,000 of the past 1 million years. This warmer weather has coincided with man’s asention as a species. Mankind has always sought to control that which he can’t even understand.

  45. WTF is this article about? It’s so convoluted and messy, it’s like reading something from Freshman Composition.

    I’m not getting into the truth/falsity/other of any of the arguments, just the construction of them.

    This is like George Will submitted an article to Dave Barry for editing who then read the result aloud to someone–once–who then had to reconstruct George Will’s original argument for a local newspaper.

    The editors at Reason are pretty awesome, but some of the outside work they republish leaves something to be desired. I guess maybe the reason is that they don’t have final editorial control over those works, as they are merely reprinted from other sources?

  46. I am so tired of all these republican candidates putting their religious views in everyone’s face. It’s making it really hard to want to vote republican in this upcoming election. I really don’t see how they have to do with anything besides getting people of similar religious groups to vote for them. I really wish that they would shut up about it. I’m pretty sure that the fact that you’re christian or mormon has nothing to do with the job of running the country. I just wish that Ron Paul would get as much coverage as these other candidates who just spew their religious views all over.

    1. Liberals push their religions, too… they are government-based, of course.

  47. Note to “Author” “putting” “air quotes” around “Science” does not “diminish” the “evidence” “supporting” “it”.

  48. Good article more useful to me, I will continue to pay attention, and I love discount evening wedding dress,I hope you lot just my site! discount aline wedding dresses

  49. Can’t believe the amount of Libertarians willing to turn a blind eye to the danger of religous stupidity. Fair enough, it is an individuals right to encourage their children to read garbage about ‘Intelligent Design’ but don’t try to dismiss it’s damage outright because it hasn’t recently had the potency or reach of the state. I thought reason was the tool that emancipated us from *all* forms of coercion.

    1. Government has a LOT more power than religion, Calvin.

      And more guns.

  50. The china nfl jerseys wholesalers supply the authentic nfl jerseys wholesale, cheap nfl wholesale jerseys, nfl authentic jerseys,
    all of those nfl jerseys are cheap and best quality,buy cheap nfl wholesale jerseys from china now!

  51. Whenever I start to read an article on Reason.com, and I think to myself, “Wow, this really doesn’t live up to the standard I expect from Reason,” there is one name, inevitably, at the bottom:

    David Harsanyi

    Harsanyi is a hack, a joke, and intentionally partisan. I’ve read him in The Denver Post (my local paper) and on Reason, and without a doubt, I am certain that he is possibly among the stupidest human beings alive.

  52. I’m a long-time Reason subscriber. I find this thought-free and disappointing.

    In particular what turns me off is this attitude: “I don’t know much about climate science, I’m sure not going to look into it to write this essay, but I hear there is a lot of disagreement among scientists, and even if I have no clue what I’m talking about and I’m totally wrong, it doesn’t have to affect what I think should be done about it.”

    This is Mitt Romney’s position too. I’m not sure how else to say this: you’re going to have to do better than that. Talk with a climate scientist. Think it over. Come back when you’ve got some opinions informed by fact.

  53. Oh my, I’m tearing up that was so funny – you should write for the Onion. Can’t believe all these people taking this seriously. Zing! you almost got me.

  54. It’s perfect: the author is trying to set himself up as a defender of good science, but he does it by 1) trivializing the importance of the most fundamental concept in biology, and 2) being a denialist about climate change. Scientists are certain (to a reasonable degree) about predicting the future in this case because all the data points in this direction ? you have to willfully reject the evidence in order to disagree. Maybe if he were a little less blas? about evolution he’d also realize that this isn’t an issue of capacity to adapt ? trust me, you don’t want to live under an intense selection regime that changes the population’s mean physiology in a few generations ? but of a common sense recognition that rapid climate change will be disruptive and have a severe economic cost.

    And the answers are settled. Ongoing climate change is a fact. Pretending there is a serious debate about it is what the creationists do.

    I suppose one solution would be to blow up all the factories and return to a 15th century lifestyle?if we didn’t mind killing a few billion people in the process, and wanted to live lives of hard labor in squalor. I don’t see anyone on the left advocating that, though. Instead, I see advocacy for sustainable energy policies and a demand that industry factor in all of the invisible, long-term costs that they’ve been hiding ? which is, of course, anathema to Libertarians who believe in giving corporations a free ride at the expense of human beings.

  55. Just stopped by to say you’re an idiot.

  56. Pandering to corporations and their pet politicians taken to a new low, even for [Un]Reason.

  57. This is why glibertarians hold no political office in this country, nor will you in the future. You people are an absolute joke.

  58. Mr. Harsanyi, what would you have teachers do? Teach everything, no matter how utterly ridiculous, inane and not even worthy of mention in the classroom. Yeah we teach geo-centrism because it was the predominant world view and we mock those that clung to or still cling to that belief and we teach that many thought the world was flat but luckily those morons stayed at home and didn’t try to sail around the world. Then there are the millions of other beliefs or goofy theories that were main stream or fringe or known only to some tiny odd cult. If we get pressured by some cult to start adding their beliefs about science to the school curriculum according to you we should let it happen, we should allow kids to be taught nonsense because we don’t want to rob them of the chance to what, debunk it themselves? Besides, the same way these goofy old theories such as geocentrism and flat Earth are laughable, so is creationism. When you mention creationism in the classroom, and you do have a group of intelligent students who haven’t been brainwashed by fundementalist anti-science nonsense, your creationsim believing students will be mocked and snickered at for their stupidity, they will go home and cry to mommy and daddy and then the school will get calls about how their kid is being bullied for his/her religious views. I say leave creationism out of the classroom, not just because its wrong, but because we need to protect the creationist kids from mocking and the cough-mufffled shouts of “moron” that should be directed at their parents and people like you that want to let any view, no matter how arcane, be taught because kids should have the choice to hear stupid stuff at school.

  59. Wow. This article is such an impressive exercise in projection.

  60. The climate is warming…that is the trend the data shows.

    CO2 is a green house gas…fact.

    We are and have been pouring TONS of CO2 into the atmosphere…recorded history.

    The last time this CO2 was in the atmosphere, the climate was MUCH MUCH warmer than today.

    CONNECT THE DOTS.

    Can the environment adapt? sure. BUT… http://imgur.com/gallery/o79ym

  61. ” …bothered by the very thought of their offspring’s hearing a God-infused concept in school,”

    Creationism and ID are bad theology as well as pseudoscience. They are both about tribalism, something that Jesus Christ condemned.

    “But the fact is that the progressives’ faith-based devotion to government is far more consequential than Perry’s faith-based position on evolution.”

    I’m a progressive and don’t have any faith-based devotion to government. Moreover, evolution denialism is about lack of faith, not an abundance of it. If they had faith, they would be producing new evidence instead of rhetoric, but they are afraid to look for themselves. It’s hearsay over evidence, and any intelligent person knows which is more reliable.

    “Despite the rare political dispute, in the real world, science?real science?is rarely controversial.”

    I’m a scientist, and I know that the polar opposite is true. Cutting-edge science is ALWAYS controversial, and the controversies are settled by real scientists going into the lab or the field to produce new evidence. Controversies aren’t settled by debates, no matter how much creationists lie about it.

    “Maybe if schools began teaching students that “life” begins at conception and that each zygote, embryo, and fetus is a unique human being in some early stage of development just waiting to be born, liberals would see the point.”

    The point would be a lie, as any intelligent child can figure that a pair of twins (the product of a single zygote) are TWO unique human beings.

    So why can’t you see that, Captain Obvious?

  62. Ah yes, the “so called” science. Thats a nice dog whistle you have there. Listen sonny jim, scientists know what they’re doing. Your attacks against them only serve to show your ignorance.

    I will remind you that we know how fast the speed of light is — we need to in order for your computer to work. If we were wrong we couldnt have this conversation. Ill remind you that we have and are using a global communications network with 100% uptime.

    I remind you that all that healthcare you get day after day came about thorugh this process.

    No one on the left is arguing against climate change, and it isnt because we arent qualified. What does qualified mean exactly? I scored in the 99th percentile of science on one of the major standard tests. Does that mean I’m qualified?

    Lets assume yes since you never actually defined it. So listen to me quite clearly – Yeah, we are doing it. NO credible questions to the theory remain. You take advantage of the problem that empirical science cannot ever disprove anything.

    You’re a fraud, or at best a liar.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.