OCinBuffalo Posted April 24, 2012 Share Posted April 24, 2012 (edited) the battle between politics and science is somewhat divorced from private entities funding research. the majority of these instances would be found in govt funded initiatives, i believe. but since you brought up private funding, your link brings up 2 interesting possible motivations for big oil supporting this. their stsaed motivation strongly infers their buying into the concept of global warming. i'll take them at their word. but the moe sinister motive of public relations is put forth. if you believe that then you must infer that big oil sees at least some potential for the theories being valid. either way its a tip of the cap to the concept. either way, it's not an example of the battle between politics and science. to use your words, try again. I was waiting for this point....4 posts ago. It is as irrelevant to your charge that Republicans oppose science, as it is ineffective, because you can't be against science, and fund it to this level, at the same time. We are talking about oil companies making (smart) business decisions...not Republicans making anti-science decisions. The science, even if it's BS, is getting funded. As I said...both irrelevant, and ineffective. You are the idiot defining this as a battle, specifically, a Republican battle, against science. I am saying that's a ridiculous assertion. I don't think either party is more/less guilty of twisting the facts to suit their needs. Politics has been inseparable from the science of global warming, since day 1(check the date of the article I linked....not by accident). This was done intentionally, by both the scientists and the liberals. Now, there are consequences. Sure Republicans have been against the political side of Global Warming....it's political How else should a political party respond to the same old unpopular, failed political policies they have been fighting for the last 30 years; being repackaged and renamed, but this time being misrepresented as science? What will it be next time? Republicans and their chief contributors(according to liberals) are not anti-science, and this is easily proven by merely standing one liberal assertion against another: Please explain how Republican politicians, have conspired to ignore science....by seeing to it that their "scientific enemies" get funded, massively, by their supposed political best friends. Both assertions cannot be true. We know oil companies fund science, lots of it, so they cannot be anti-science. Now are you willing to say that Big Oil has no/little influence on Republicans? Logic....it's a B word isn't it, birddog? We cannot have a purely scientific debate about Global Warming until liberals choose to remove themselves, their political agendas, and their political "solutions" from the debate. Until then, it's a political debate, and as liberals have already proven their willingness to flat out lie about this, you don't get to cry when it becomes a political weakness, that gets hit by every Republican/Libertarian across the spectrum, from the cats at http://reason.com to the biggest bible thumpers there are. Edited April 24, 2012 by OCinBuffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted April 24, 2012 Author Share Posted April 24, 2012 are the idiot defining this as a battle, specifically, a Republican battle, against science. I am saying that's a ridiculous assertion. I don't think either party is more/less guilty of twisting the facts to suit their needs. Politics has been inseparable from the science of global warming, since day 1(check the date of the article I linked....not by accident). This was done intentionally, by both the scientists and the liberals. Now, there are consequences. Sure Republicans have been against the political side of Global Warming....it's political How else should a political party respond to the same old unpopular, failed political policies they have been fighting for the last 30 years; being repackaged and renamed, but this time being misrepresented as science? What will it be next time? Republicans and their chief contributors(according to liberals) are not anti-science, and this is easily proven by merely standing one liberal assertion against another: Please explain how Republican politicians, have conspired to ignore science....by seeing to it that their "scientific enemies" get funded, massively, by their supposed political best friends. Both assertions cannot be true. We know oil companies fund science, lots of it, so they cannot be anti-science. Now are you willing to say that Big Oil has no/little influence on Republicans? Logic....it's a B word isn't it, birddog? We cannot have a purely scientific debate about Global Warming until liberals choose to remove themselves, their political agendas, and their political "solutions" from the debate. Until then, it's a political debate, and as liberals have already proven their willingness to flat out lie about this, you don't get to cry when it becomes a political weakness, that gets hit by every Republican/Libertarian across the spectrum, from the cats at http://reason.com to the biggest bible thumpers there are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted April 24, 2012 Share Posted April 24, 2012 exactly....no reply at all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted April 25, 2012 Author Share Posted April 25, 2012 (edited) exactly....no reply at all there you go again with your assumptions...believe it or not i had some other stuff to do. like buying led bulbs to replace incandescents for earth day. but i digress. might it be that big oil knows that sooner or later it will become obvious that global warming is real? might they then be able to say "look, we've been funding research on this for years!" all the while continuing high profit generating current practices? this approach covers all the bases. if the data obtained disproves global warming they (and all of us) win. if it proves it, they still look good and i'm betting that they're betting on the latter scenario. Edited April 25, 2012 by birdog1960 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 look, I've got no problem with people wanting to believe whatever they want to believe in. You can all worship Xenu if you want, I don't care. But don't force what is (IMO) a beyond ridiculous concept such as "Intelligent Design", which is nothing more than an attempt to put a "scientific" spin on the creationisim idea, into a damn science class. You want to teach ID? Fine, do it in theology class where it belongs... But if its a public school, you !@#$ing libtard Nazis wont allow a Theology Class becuase "religion doesnt belong in the public square." Made funnier by the point that you !@#$s think "gay studies" and "fisting classes for 11 year olds" do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 (edited) there you go again with your assumptions...believe it or not i had some other stuff to do. like buying led bulbs to replace incandescents for earth day. but i digress. might it be that big oil knows that sooner or later it will become obvious that global warming is real? might they then be able to say "look, we've been funding research on this for years!" all the while continuing high profit generating current practices? this approach covers all the bases. if the data obtained disproves global warming they (and all of us) win. if it proves it, they still look good and i'm betting that they're betting on the latter scenario. Yeah. No schit. Like I said...I was expecting this response, 6-8 posts ago. Business people doing the smart thing and hedging, and also buying themselves the "we've been funding research on this for years" insurance policy. That's pretty much why we pay PR/Marketing people. They don't just sit in meetings telling themselves how smart they are, and bang secretaries all day, like on TV. Dude, I've met a lot of executive clowns, and studs, in my time. But, I've never met a CEO who is revered for his/her "low profit generating practices". Hah Hah Hah Hah...." " How does any of this prove that Republican politicians are anti-science? How does any of this prove your science vs politics battle? The reality: there has been a politics vs. POLITICS battle going on when it comes to Global Warming. As per standard practice when it comes to political stuff that might significantly affect the bottom line: corporations fund both sides. Edit: what would you have them do? Nothing? Only fund one side, guess wrong, take a beating and get fired? We're talking about CEOs here, not Obama. Edited April 25, 2012 by OCinBuffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeviF Posted April 26, 2012 Share Posted April 26, 2012 (edited) But if its a public school, you !@#$ing libtard Nazis wont allow a Theology Class becuase "religion doesnt belong in the public square." Made funnier by the point that you !@#$s think "gay studies" and "fisting classes for 11 year olds" do. What the hell public school did you go to? My alma mater has a theology course, and history of various world religions was included in my regents history course. And every 11 year old needs to know how to fist safely. Edited April 26, 2012 by LeviF91 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted April 26, 2012 Share Posted April 26, 2012 What the hell public school did you go to? My alma mater has a theology course, and history of various world religions was included in my regents history course. And every 11 year old needs to know how to fist safely. Ah, when self defense was taught in school. Those were the good days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted April 26, 2012 Author Share Posted April 26, 2012 (edited) Yeah. No schit. Like I said...I was expecting this response, 6-8 posts ago. Business people doing the smart thing and hedging, and also buying themselves the "we've been funding research on this for years" insurance policy. That's pretty much why we pay PR/Marketing people. They don't just sit in meetings telling themselves how smart they are, and bang secretaries all day, like on TV. Dude, I've met a lot of executive clowns, and studs, in my time. But, I've never met a CEO who is revered for his/her "low profit generating practices". Hah Hah Hah Hah...." " How does any of this prove that Republican politicians are anti-science? How does any of this prove your science vs politics battle? The reality: there has been a politics vs. POLITICS battle going on when it comes to Global Warming. As per standard practice when it comes to political stuff that might significantly affect the bottom line: corporations fund both sides. Edit: what would you have them do? Nothing? Only fund one side, guess wrong, take a beating and get fired? We're talking about CEOs here, not Obama. geez, you're right what was i thinking....idealistically believing (or wanting to believe) that even big oil execs give a sheit about the continued existence of the world as we know it or of mankind? who would ever guess that they would deliberately misinform the media about the severity of the oil spill in the gulf? profits are clearly infinitely more important. of course they should expend all their considerable energy and intellect maximizing that. what an idiot! i'll try to be more cynical. i'm sure i'll be happier that way. Edited April 26, 2012 by birdog1960 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted April 26, 2012 Share Posted April 26, 2012 geez, you're right what was i thinking....idealistically believing (or wanting to believe) that even big oil execs give a sheit about the continued existence of the world as we know it or of mankind? who would ever guess that they would deliberately misinform the media about the severity of the oil spill in the gulf? profits are clearly infinitely more important. of course they should expend all their considerable energy and intellect maximizing that. what an idiot! i'll try to be more cynical. i'm sure i'll be happier that way. ....while funding the very same green organizations, who apparently do care about the existence of the world so much...that they will gladly take this oil money. Yes, they will be living very nice lives studying the effects of said oil spill...for the next 10 years. They will be bashing the oil companies and execs who pay them, but never disclose where their dinner really hangs. Meanwhile, said green people will be adding 0 value to the economy, except for basic consumption, and spending those 10 years to tell us what we already know: "um, oil spills are bad, mmkay? They kill birds." Hey, you said you wanted to be more cynical, well, there it is. Except, let's replace the word cynical...with factual. As in ALL the facts, not the just the ones that fit our delusions. I'm pretty well buzzed, and feeling happy, but that doesn't mean I don't know the difference between being cynical...and being...factual. What's your excuse? Are you ready to admit that the "science" here is inseparable from the politics and the funding, and that your premise is false...or is that going to take another 6-7 posts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted April 26, 2012 Author Share Posted April 26, 2012 Are you ready to admit that the "science" here is inseparable from the politics and the funding, and that your premise is false...or is that going to take another 6-7 posts? wow, are you drinking absynthe? maybe moonshine? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted April 26, 2012 Share Posted April 26, 2012 wow, are you drinking absynthe? maybe moonshine? You know I tossed that in there....just so you would have something to say, right? Actually, I'm not drinking at all. Simply an exercise in maintaining my trolling skills. In reality, I'm trying to figure out why the F this turd CIO keeps pushing this poorly designed integration tool. I've done 3 prototypes in it tonight, it's buggy, lame and its asynchronous messaging was designed by an unmitigated moron. The only conclusion appears to be: it's political (yeah, that's for your benefit too)..... working on it........................................................................................................................Hmmm....yes!! I have an idea! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts