Quote:I'm honestly not sure which direction I'd go if it came down to the two of them.
Though things can change, as you illustrated a scenario above with Jeb Bush emerging a prime contender, at present I'm encouraged that his candidacy hasn't taken off. Other than parts of the establishment, Bush doesn't seem to have many enthusiastic supporters. Case in point on this Forum. Despite, a large % of people that participate being from Florida, I don't see anyone who is strongly supporting Bush, who has participated in the political discussions. Maybe I missed seeing it but it feels like the enthusiastic support for many other candidates is definitely higher than it is for Bush.
Quote:I think it's possible that between actual "discussion" and just mere presence on stage, any and all topics regaridng some kind of science was rebuked. And people wonder why the right is called a bunch of science deniers.
1.) Funny how you talk about the discussion of science and then present no evidence in the form of pull quotes from the debate to make your argument.
2.) I think the two practicing surgeons on stage would disagree with you.
3.) When asked about climate change all they said was "We aren't going to enact a policy that the experts themselves say will not solve or change the proposed problem but will significantly [BLEEP] our economy." When asked about vaccines all they said was use common sense to spread doses over longer periods of time not to overwhelm an infants ability to metabolize them. If that's what you call being
SCIENCE DENIERS then unfortunately that says a lot more about your personal bias than it does about the political right!
Quote:2.) I think the two practicing surgeons on stage would disagree with you.
Being a surgeon does not automatically make you a scientist. That's like saying being a car mechanic makes you an authority on aerospace engineering.
Just as an aside (homer alert) I think those criticizing Fiorina's business record are missing the big picture. While i do concede that when considering someone for the highest office in the land that every aspect of their professional career should be subject to scrutiny, i also think that it should be taken in its entirety. When you talk about Carly Fiorina you're not talking about the son of a captain of industry who ran their parents enterprise into the ground. You are not talking about someone who was locked away in the halls of academia theorizing and in their one shot at really pursuing a career failed. You're talking about someone who started as a secretary in a real estate office, became an entry level employee at At&t lead a successful spin off of an entire divsion and then became CEO of a fortune 500 company. The criticism of her time at the helm of HP boils down to the fact that after a controversial merger (that put her at odds with the son of the companies founder) she ONLY increased the sales of the new merged company by 9 billion dollars in a 6 year period that saw the bursting of the dot com bubble, 9-11 and the start of two wars....
I could get into the fact that ray kcrock almost went bankrupt 3 times, it took Thomas Edison 10k ittirations before he finally invented the light bulb, etc. etc. Heck, the united states of America had to tear up the articles of confederation, pass a new constitution immediately ammend it ten times and fight a civil war to get it right.
Quote:Just as an aside (homer alert) I think those criticizing Fiorina's business record are missing the big picture. While i do concede that when considering someone for the highest office in the land that every aspect of their professional career should be subject to scrutiny, i also think that it should be taken in its entirety. When you talk about Carly Fiorina you're not talking about the son of a captain of industry who ran their parents enterprise into the ground. You are not talking about someone who was locked away in the halls of academia theorizing and in their one shot at really pursuing a career failed. You're talking about someone who started as a secretary in a real estate office, became an entry level employee at At&t lead a successful spin off of an entire divsion and then became CEO of a fortune 500 company. The criticism of her time at the helm of HP boils down to the fact that after a controversial merger (that put her at odds with the son of the companies founder) she ONLY increased the sales of the new merged company by 9 billion dollars in a 6 year period that saw the bursting of the dot com bubble, 9-11 and the start of two wars....
I could get into the fact that ray kcrock almost went bankrupt 3 times, it took Thomas Edison 10k ittirations before he finally invented the light bulb, etc. etc. Heck, the united states of America had to tear up the articles of confederation, pass a new constitution immediately ammend it ten times and fight a civil war to get it right.
You must have missed the link I posted on her. One of the ways she increased sales was by selling to Iran, you know, the devil?
Quote:1.) Funny how you talk about the discussion of science and then present no evidence in the form of pull quotes from the debate to make your argument.
2.) I think the two practicing surgeons on stage would disagree with you.
3.) When asked about climate change all they said was "We aren't going to enact a policy that the experts themselves say will not solve or change the proposed problem but will significantly [BLEEP] our economy." When asked about vaccines all they said was use common sense to spread doses over longer periods of time not to overwhelm an infants ability to metabolize them. If that's what you call being SCIENCE DENIERS then unfortunately that says a lot more about your personal bias than it does about the political right!
1. )That's because anyone with your bias does not care and might celebrate it and those that don't have our bias are aware of it.
2. ) I think that no one shut down the non existant link to autism proves my point.
3. ) I call science deniers people that don't shut down nonsense about vaccines and "links" to autism and call them out as the scaremongering it is. People that are on stage that think the world is 6,000 old(or is it 10,000 now?) as science deniers. I know the only science a lot of people on the right cares about is the kind that makes the most money or the kind that kills the most evil doers but other people care about more than that. Seriously just run Jenny McCarthy she'll fit right in.
Quote:1. )That's because anyone with your bias does not care and might celebrate it and those that don't have our bias are aware of it.
2. ) I think that no one shut down the non existant link to autism proves my point.
What did they say? Take vaccines over time? Really. Is that so radical now? Really? I mean REALLY?
3. ) I call science deniers people that don't shut down nonsense about vaccines and "links" to autism and call them out as the scaremongering it is. People that are on stage that think the world is 6,000 old(or is it 10,000 now?) as science deniers. I know the only science a lot of people on the right cares about is the kind that makes the most money or the kind that kills the most evil doers but other people care about more than that. Seriously just run Jenny McCarthy she'll fit right in.
here's what you do. devise a plan from scratch on how to separate two twins who share the same brain and then you can come back to me and call somoene a science denier. Unbelievable. This is so disrespectful, so ignorant, so misguided, and so devoid of any substance that i think its a new low, even for you and that's saying something!
Quote:here's what you do. devise a plan from scratch on how to separate two twins who share the same brain and then you can come back to me and call somoene a science denier. Unbelievable. This is so disrespectful, so ignorant, so misguided, and so devoid of any substance that i think its a new low, even for you and that's saying something!
Wow did I offend you over the age of the earth comment or is Carson like your hero or something? I fail to see how his surgical accomplishments have a single thing to do with him being a young earther?
I must be missing the part of your response where you pointed out how I was wrong with anything I said?
Quote:Being a surgeon does not automatically make you a scientist. That's like saying being a car mechanic makes you an authority on aerospace engineering.
I think a surgeon is a lot closer to a scientist than a car mechanic is to an aerospace engineer.
The amount of science courses and practical physiology exercises they go through I certainly consider them superior to most scientists.
I mean anyone can put on a lab coat and do some scientific study the fact that a surgeon is proving scientific theories on a daily basis is pretty amazing. Its not like they just learn how to do surgery there is a mess of pre requisites (many high level chemistry/biology courses)just to get the degree to get the opportunity to do a long residency.
now are they a climate scientist, no but I think they can interpret data
I started reading some comments, but figure it's better to start a new thread.
Quote:You must have missed the link I posted on her. One of the ways she increased sales was by selling to Iran, you know, the devil?
That's a very inconvenient point for Fiorina backers, and you'll never get a serious reply to it.
Quote:here's what you do. devise a plan from scratch on how to separate two twins who share the same brain and then you can come back to me and call somoene a science denier. Unbelievable. This is so disrespectful, so ignorant, so misguided, and so devoid of any substance that i think its a new low, even for you and that's saying something!
One can deny certain aspects of science while embracing others. For instance, I would not dare to challenge Dr. Carson's knowledge of the human brain, but I will challenge him on geology any day of the week.
Quote:I think a surgeon is a lot closer to a scientist than a car mechanic is to an aerospace engineer.
The amount of science courses and practical physiology exercises they go through I certainly consider them superior to most scientists.
I mean anyone can put on a lab coat and do some scientific study the fact that a surgeon is proving scientific theories on a daily basis is pretty amazing. Its not like they just learn how to do surgery there is a mess of pre requisites (many high level chemistry/biology courses)just to get the degree to get the opportunity to do a long residency.
now are they a climate scientist, no but I think they can interpret data
Honest question: have you ever seen actual, unfiltered meteorological data? It's a brutal, unforgiving spaghetti bowl of numbers. Climatological data is much more complex than looking at temperatures over time. The numbers are every bit as mercilessly confounding as the numbers for meteorological forecast data are.
By virtue of one of my chosen hobbies, I know a lot of meteorologists. Like, a couple dozen, some of whom are still wrapping up their degree, and some of whom have PhD's in atmospheric science and climatology. There is absolutely no debate amongst them that global warming is real, it is happening, and despite what politicians playing to a base say, humanity has absolutely had an impact on it. How big of an impact is up for debate, but none of them is dumb enough to go onstage in front of millions of Americans and argue that climate change is made up, or that we have no impact on it. I'm not getting my frame of reference from hack journalists who will cherry pick one sentence out of an entire 30-page academic paper and base their entire argument on that; I'm getting it from people whose job is to look at those hundreds of pages of numbers and make sense of them.
The point I'm trying to get at is that anyone can look at numbers and draw a conclusion, yes, but there's a big difference between interpreting data well enough to be presenting your position on national television and reading just enough to back the conclusion you arrived at the second someone told you what the party line was. Anyone who stands on that stage and says that climate change isn't happening or that we aren't responsible for it to some degree is just playing to their base. Spend ten minutes with someone who's spent the last 20 years studying climatology for a living, then try and convince yourself that it's not real. Dr. Carson, clearly, has not included any climatologists or meteorologists in the band of advisors that will tell him exactly what to do and when to do it.
Quote:Wow did I offend you over the age of the earth comment or is Carson like your hero or something? I fail to see how his surgical accomplishments have a single thing to do with him being a young earther?
I must be missing the part of your response where you pointed out how I was wrong with anything I said?
lol... Trying to stay calm on this subject is taxing, but i'll give it a go.
you're right. His religious beliefs aren't what makes him a world renown neurosurgeon. It's his understanding of the physical sciences and specifically biology and organic chemistry of one of the most complex systems know to man.
for you to then take that man's religious beliefs and try and discredit his knowledge base is the baseline definition of asinine and the walking death of anything that used to resemble your credibility.
I am not a seventh day adventis, but just like any religious beliefs i respect his. But if you are silly enough to think that you could win an argument with Ben Carson about the half life of radioactive isotopes you're a lot more of a lost cause than i thought you were.
Quote:lol... Trying to stay calm on this subject is taxing, but i'll give it a go.
you're right. His religious beliefs aren't what makes him a world renown neurosurgeon. It's his understanding of the physical sciences and specifically biology and organic chemistry of one of the most complex systems know to man.
for you to then take that man's religious beliefs and try and discredit his knowledge base is the baseline definition of asinine and the walking death of anything that used to resemble your credibility.
I am not a seventh day adventis, but just like any religious beliefs i respect his. But if you are silly enough to think that you could win an argument with Ben Carson about the half life of radioactive isotopes you're a lot more of a lost cause than i thought you were.
Sorry you got offended I called him out as a science denier for thinking the earth is less then 10,000 years old. I am fully aware that Carson is likely the smartest guy on that stage and in his field but to attempt to equate his general intelligence or grasp of all sciences due to his proficiency is neurosurgery and medicine in general is absurd no matter how much you want it to be the case. If it did, then regardless of his religion he would not think the earth is less then 10,000 years old. The fact that you can so easily brush it under the rug is not really shocking but shows the general ambivalence of the right towards science in general.
"yeah he's probably wrong but w/e he's strong in his convictions so he is obviously capable of leading the country" That sounds like insanity to me. Young earthers are the worst and most obviously blatant form of science denial. It is absurd.
Quote:That's a very inconvenient point for Fiorina backers, and you'll never get a serious reply to it.
One can deny certain aspects of science while embracing others. For instance, I would not dare to challenge Dr. Carson's knowledge of the human brain, but I will challenge him on geology any day of the week.
Honest question: have you ever seen actual, unfiltered meteorological data? It's a brutal, unforgiving spaghetti bowl of numbers. Climatological data is much more complex than looking at temperatures over time. The numbers are every bit as mercilessly confounding as the numbers for meteorological forecast data are.
By virtue of one of my chosen hobbies, I know a lot of meteorologists. Like, a couple dozen, some of whom are still wrapping up their degree, and some of whom have PhD's in atmospheric science and climatology. There is absolutely no debate amongst them that global warming is real, it is happening, and despite what politicians playing to a base say, humanity has absolutely had an impact on it. How big of an impact is up for debate, but none of them is dumb enough to go onstage in front of millions of Americans and argue that climate change is made up, or that we have no impact on it. I'm not getting my frame of reference from hack journalists who will cherry pick one sentence out of an entire 30-page academic paper and base their entire argument on that; I'm getting it from people whose job is to look at those hundreds of pages of numbers and make sense of them.
The point I'm trying to get at is that anyone can look at numbers and draw a conclusion, yes, but there's a big difference between interpreting data well enough to be presenting your position on national television and reading just enough to back the conclusion you arrived at the second someone told you what the party line was. Anyone who stands on that stage and says that climate change isn't happening or that we aren't responsible for it to some degree is just playing to their base. Spend ten minutes with someone who's spent the last 20 years studying climatology for a living, then try and convince yourself that it's not real. Dr. Carson, clearly, has not included any climatologists or meteorologists in the band of advisors that will tell him exactly what to do and when to do it.
lol... this is so sad its funny. "I know a guy..." We're being lectured by people on interpreting vigorous scientific data based on the idea of... "I know a guy..."
No mathematical correlations, no longterm trends, no explanation for the fact that in the historical glacial records there is no direct correlation between an increase in CO2 and temperatures (sometimes increase in temperature pre-dates the increase in CO2 by centuries) no one stops to think that we have been collecting temp data directly for less than 1% of 1% of the estimated age of the earth...
More importantly no one COMES UP WITH AN ECONOMICALLY SUSTAINABLE PLAN TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT... and we know a guy.
I knew a bunch of climate scientists who went on a trip to Antarctica to prove the the loss of glacial ice and in the process there was so much more ice than they anticipated that it took two ice breaker tankers to go rescue them while they tried to calculate their carbon footprint for being rescued...
I KNOW A GUY... lol.
Quote:Sorry you got offended I called him out as a science denier for thinking the earth is less then 10,000 years old. I am fully aware that Carson is likely the smartest guy on that stage and in his field but to attempt to equate his general intelligence or grasp of all sciences due to his proficiency is neurosurgery and medicine in general is absurd no matter how much you want it to be the case. If it did, then regardless of his religion he would not think the earth is less then 10,000 years old. The fact that you can so easily brush it under the rug is not really shocking but shows the general ambivalence of the right towards science in general.
"yeah he's probably wrong but w/e he's strong in his convictions so he is obviously capable of leading the country" That sounds like insanity to me. Young earthers are the worst and most obviously blatant form of science denial. It is absurd.
yes yes... i confess... he believes in an omnipitent creator. A creator that tanscends all space all time and can depict the presentation of time, space, or concentration of radioactive isotopes as he sees fit. Please forgive us oh arbitor of all that is science!
UNBELIEVABLE. This level of arrogance is both shocking and appalling.
Quote:
Honest question: have you ever seen actual, unfiltered meteorological data? It's a brutal, unforgiving spaghetti bowl of numbers. Climatological data is much more complex than looking at temperatures over time. The numbers are every bit as mercilessly confounding as the numbers for meteorological forecast data are.
The point I'm trying to get at is that anyone can look at numbers and draw a conclusion, yes, but there's a big difference between interpreting data well enough to be presenting your position on national television and reading just enough to back the conclusion you arrived at the second someone told you what the party line was. Anyone who stands on that stage and says that climate change isn't happening or that we aren't responsible for it to some degree is just playing to their base. Spend ten minutes with someone who's spent the last 20 years studying climatology for a living, then try and convince yourself that it's not real. Dr. Carson, clearly, has not included any climatologists or meteorologists in the band of advisors that will tell him exactly what to do and when to do it.
I didn't hear anyone denying climate change, I heard most candidates say it is real but it is negligible the impact they could have on correcting climate change and would cost a fortune. The other problem is we are just one nation, until the entire world decides to get our act together its going to be a problem regardless.
What I would like to hear is people say they will strive to drive down costs of renewable energy and put a bigger effort on cleaning up our act and incentivizing other countries to follow the lead.
i have not seen unfiltered meteorological data and i don't expect the candidates to see it either unless they have a field expert who can help interpret it for them which I hope is exactly what happens. What we need is a candidate who can take those concerns and find realistic ways to make change for the better without destroying the average mans wealth and wellbeing in the process.
Maybe a nice way to go about this is to upgrade our electrical infrastructure or restrict people from building 50cent, or Holyfield size homes that just waste energy resources. If we can find a way to lower our power consumption we can find a way to lower our power plants pollution output. thats just one of the ways we are pouring crap into our atmosphere that doesn't need to be there. There are loads of examples and plenty of ways to go about fixing our prior century mistakes the thing I want is to start tackling the easier ones and start finding ways to fix the complex ones.
Quote:yes yes... i confess... he believes in an omnipitent creator. A creator that tanscends all space all time and can depict the presentation of time, space, or concentration of radioactive isotopes as he sees fit. Please forgive us oh arbitor of all that is science!
UNBELIEVABLE. This level of arrogance is both shocking and appalling.
He is denying science. You are giving him a pass for denying science all while getting upset that someone called him out on science denial. Slow clap?
Call me crazy but I don't think someone who can't separate his faith from logical analysis should be leading a country. You clearly are ok with that. I am not.
Quote:I KNOW A GUY... lol.
![[Image: whoosh_by_medli20-d520mia.gif]](http://img13.deviantart.net/20eb/i/2012/153/e/a/whoosh_by_medli20-d520mia.gif)
Quote:I didn't hear anyone denying climate change, I heard most candidates say it is real but it is negligible the impact they could have on correcting climate change and would cost a fortune. The other problem is we are just one nation, until the entire world decides to get our act together its going to be a problem regardless.
What I would like to hear is people say they will strive to drive down costs of renewable energy and put a bigger effort on cleaning up our act and incentivizing other countries to follow the lead.
i have not seen unfiltered meteorological data and i don't expect the candidates to see it either unless they have a field expert who can help interpret it for them which I hope is exactly what happens. What we need is a candidate who can take those concerns and find realistic ways to make change for the better without destroying the average mans wealth and wellbeing in the process.
Maybe a nice way to go about this is to upgrade our electrical infrastructure or restrict people from building 50cent, or Holyfield size homes that just waste energy resources. If we can find a way to lower our power consumption we can find a way to lower our power plants pollution output. thats just one of the ways we are pouring crap into our atmosphere that doesn't need to be there. There are loads of examples and plenty of ways to go about fixing our prior century mistakes the thing I want is to start tackling the easier ones and start finding ways to fix the complex ones.
This is what I was getting at. The point isn't that I "know a guy" (or a couple dozen meteorologists that I spend about a third of the year in constant contact with, but whatever), it's that candidates aren't looking at climatological data, and it seems that none of them have bothered to consult with an actual atmospheric scientist. I, on the other hand, have had lots and lots of discussions with atmospheric scientists, some of them heated (no pun intended), about climate change, how severe it is and how much humanity had to do with it. Is it too much to ask that a candidate pick up the phone and call the superstar teams at Oklahoma, Colorado, Colorado State and Penn State before going on national TV and saying that climate change is insignificant and not our fault?
And I'm with you on energy consumption, Pat. My A/C stays off unless it's warmer than 85 outside, lights are turned off when not in use, and we have our fireplace turned off at the valve from April through October to completely eliminate gas usage.
Quote:
This is what I was getting at. The point isn't that I "know a guy" (or a couple dozen meteorologists that I spend about a third of the year in constant contact with, but whatever), it's that candidates aren't looking at climatological data, and it seems that none of them have bothered to consult with an actual atmospheric scientist. I, on the other hand, have had lots and lots of discussions with atmospheric scientists, some of them heated (no pun intended), about climate change, how severe it is and how much humanity had to do with it. Is it too much to ask that a candidate pick up the phone and call the superstar teams at Oklahoma, Colorado, Colorado State and Penn State before going on national TV and saying that climate change is insignificant and not our fault?
And I'm with you on energy consumption, Pat. My A/C stays off unless it's warmer than 85 outside, lights are turned off when not in use, and we have our fireplace turned off at the valve from April through October to completely eliminate gas usage.
Ahhh A/C I remember what that was. It's a rare thing in Oregon. I know one person with A/C in their homes.
As far is Carson I have no issue with him having "no qualifications", these people have advisers for everything, I'm sure they even got ones that will tell them the proper techniques to wipe their [BLEEP]. That's not to say I agree with him, I just don't see that argument as a big deal.