Energy...

[byteware]

ipcc.ch

This is what I'm talking about. It has been proven that the IPCC will post anything that supports AGW, and a doomsday view of the results of Climate Change.

They are peer reviewed, and statements with absolutely NO scientific basis pass peer review.

This is NOT an organization with scientific standards.

The fact that you are quoting them, even after we've posted a couple of the glaring problems here, shows that you don't know anything about climate science, but someone told you it was caused by man, and you believe them.

 

[ElasticNinja]

^^^^
have you read your own skeptic sites dude ?

 

[ElasticNinja]

Low blow?

no, the word you are looking for is tasteless

 

[ElasticNinja]

And I suppose you can cite a few examples, right?

wait, you think there really isnt a very strong anti-science (anti-academia?) element in the GOP

 

[byteware]

^^^^
have you read your own skeptic sites dude ?

I'm not quoting skeptic sites. I'm using accepted scientific facts (accepted by BOTH sides).

 

[byteware]

wait, you think there really isnt a very strong anti-science (anti-academia?) element in the GOP

That's the way Democrats portray the GOP. That doesn't make it the way the GOP actually is.

You are falling for the caricature that the Democrats paint. It's always better to get first hand information.

 

[ElasticNinja]

That's the way Democrats portray the GOP. That doesn't make it the way the GOP actually is.

You are falling for the caricature that the Democrats paint. It's always better to get first hand information.

lookit, lets compare representatives between the two parties
Both sides have them, no doubt, but which has ( a lot ) more?

 

[byteware]

lookit, lets compare representatives between the two parties
Both sides have them, no doubt, but which has ( a lot ) more?

a lot more what? Representatives? Well, right now Republicans have more, since they control the House of Representatives.

If you mean Crazies? Well, both sides have them about in equal measure.

 

[ElasticNinja]

a lot more what? Representatives?

a lot more representatives who have little regard for science
Whether they actually deeply mistrust science or use it to get votes, it still happens

BTW, yes they both have their crazies, one was (is?) house speaker

 

[byteware]

a lot more representatives who have little regard for science
Whether they actually deeply mistrust science or use it to get votes, it still happens

Prove it.

You've made the claim that Republicans have more anti-science people than Democrats. Prove it.

 

[Homan13PSU]

no, the word you are looking for is tasteless

Lighten up Francis.

 

[ElasticNinja]

Prove it.

You've made the claim that Republicans have more anti-science people than Democrats. Prove it.

who has more climate change deniers, creationists etc
there is a good reason they don't get much of the academic vote ...

Lighten up Francis.

I wouldn't care, but theyve started attacking again... and reorganising

 

[Homan13PSU]

I wouldn't care, but theyve started attacking again... and reorganising

Isn't the IRA a legit political party these days?

 

[byteware]

who has more climate change deniers

So, you admit that Republicans are more scientific minded?

creationists

So, you think you should judge someone's scientific abilities based upon their religious beliefs?

I wouldn't care, but theyve started attacking again... and reorganising

 

[ElasticNinja]

So, you admit that Republicans are more scientific minded?

-.-

So, you think you should judge someone's scientific abilities based upon their religious beliefs?

I go to a Catholic school., former monastery, cross in every room, some teachers even say prayers in class

Even the monks will tell you creationism was simply an simple explanation for the feebly minded folks of past millenias