ChrisWeigant.com

Please support ChrisWeigant.com this holiday season!

Science Wins Over Politics

[ Posted Tuesday, March 18th, 2014 – 16:21 PDT ]

A scientific study just received permission from the federal government to go forward. This really shouldn't even be news, but it is indeed newsworthy because it is a milestone achievement. It is the first time anyone can remember that the beneficial medical effects of marijuana have been allowed to be legally studied. The group trying to do the study has been requesting permission to do so for over two decades, just as one measure of how monumental a breakthrough this may be.

I have to say "may be" at the end of that last sentence, because getting approval to study marijuana is a three-step process. The Food and Drug Administration, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Drug Enforcement Agency all have to sign off on such studies. The F.D.A. had already approved the study, and the recent news is that H.H.S. has now given it the green light as well. But the D.E.A. still has final say (because, to legally study marijuana you must get legal marijuana from the one farm that the federal government grows it on), so there's always a chance that the study could still be blocked. Or delayed another decade or two, for that matter.

Allowing such a study -- in specific, studying how marijuana could help returning soldiers with post-traumatic stress disorder -- is a crucial step in reversing course on the entire federal War On Weed. It appears to be part of a policy reversal by the Obama administration, one that has begun gradually over the course of the past year. Most of these policy shifts have come from Attorney General Eric Holder, but this one is more important than lightening up a few of the Draconian federal marijuana laws -- because it is about science. Science that has not been allowed to be performed, for nothing short of political reasons.

There are many people who are quite adamant about their refusal to see marijuana as medicine. Some of these people have federal jobs which require them not to ever see anything beneficial about marijuana, in fact. To bolster their position, they always fall back on the same argument: "marijuana has never been properly studied as medicine, therefore it cannot be valid because there is no scientific basis to back up anecdotal evidence."

But this argument is nothing more than a Catch-22 situation. Marijuana is listed as the most dangerous of drugs (more dangerous than crystal methamphetamine), because there are no accepted medical uses. There are no accepted medical uses because there are no scientific studies on how marijuana can be used medicinally. Such studies are never approved because marijuana has no accepted (or "politically-acceptable," perhaps) medical uses. It is such a dangerous drug that it can't even be scientifically studied, and we know this because there are no scientific studies which contradict this position.

You can see the circular nature of this logic. What proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that this is a purely political stance is the fact that scientific studies on marijuana have been allowed to take place -- as long as your study is designed to prove what a dangerous drug marijuana is. A study on helping soldiers with P.T.S.D. was not politically acceptable before now, because the study wasn't designed to measure how bad marijuana is. That is politics trumping science, in an almost totalitarian way. It smacks of the "Sentence first -- verdict afterwards!" reasoning of Alice's Red Queen, in fact.

The drug warriors have gotten away with the "you have no scientific proof" dismissal of marijuana's medicinal uses for decades, now. But when the same drug warriors have veto power over approving any such studies, the argument is downright laughable. Now, for the first time in decades, smoked or ingested marijuana's benefits are about to be studied, in a rigorous scientific environment. Hopefully more studies will be likewise approved, for all the other anecdotal evidence out there that marijuana helps with all kinds of illnesses. Hopefully these studies will produce a mountain of data. Perhaps some will show disappointing results -- which will be made public and perhaps prove that marijuana doesn't really help for illnesses X, Y, or Z. But other studies will perhaps show that marijuana is beneficial to the treatment of A, B, or C. That is the nature of science -- forming hypotheses and then rigorously testing to produce verifiable results.

The federal government has held the power to approve such studies since the Drug War began. It has approved all the studies designed to show negative effects of marijuana. It has stopped cold any studies designed to show any positive effects. For nothing more than politics.

Which is why this is such a big deal. A scientific study just received permission from the federal government to go forward -- something which shouldn't even be considered newsworthy. And, hopefully in the future, it won't. The first such study approved is indeed news. The second or third might be. But the fifteenth? Or the forty-second? That's not news at all.

When Barack Obama took office, he made a promise that policy decisions would be made on the basis of science, and not politics. In his first term, Obama did not exactly do a great job of keeping this promise. There was the whole "Plan B" court fight, where the White House took the side of overruling scientists for nothing more than sheer politics, and there was the crackdown on medical marijuana in several states where it was legal. Politics won out over science. Since the start of his second term, however, Obama has been doing a much better job on this issue. The White House finally threw in the towel on the "Plan B" fight, and by doing so, allowed science to trump politics. And now, by approving a study of the beneficial medicinal uses of marijuana, science is getting the chance it has never had to offer up proof to the doubting drug warriors. Science just won a big victory over politics. And that is indeed newsworthy.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

74 Comments on “Science Wins Over Politics”

  1. [1] 
    Michale wrote:

    Science just won a big victory over politics. And that is indeed newsworthy.

    Let's hope it's a trend that continues into ALL aspects of political/ideological BS that masquerades as "science"...

    Michale

  2. [2] 
    cbuslib wrote:

    Thanks for a very interesting column. I didn't realize the catch-22 nature of studies on the medical benefits of marijuana. Haven't seen this anywhere else; now I'm looking forward to seeing if any such studies are allowed to progress.

  3. [3] 
    Michale wrote:

    So...

    Will ya'all accept the science, even if it clearly indicates that marijuana has absolutely NO MEDICAL VALUE whatsoever??

    It's easy to say, "It's all about the science!!!"..

    It's a lot harder to actually ACCEPT that, when the science doesn't go the desired way..

    We see that time and time and time again...

    Michale

  4. [4] 
    TheStig wrote:

    It's not like there isn't any medical marijuana research going on, it's just all happening off shore.

  5. [5] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Up next for science ...

    - Evolution
    - Climate change
    - Income inequality

    Maybe science is making a comeback!

    -David

  6. [6] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Speaking of science, anyone watch the premier of the new Cosmos with Neil deGrasse Tyson?

  7. [7] 
    Michale wrote:

    Up next for science ...

    - Evolution
    - Climate change

    Do we REALLY want to go there???

    No one argues Climate Change...

    The ONLY argument that is up for debate is whether or not Climate Change is A> completely caused by humans and their industrialization and 2> if it will cause catastrophic catastrophes in our lifetime..

    Is there ANY evidence that this will be the case??

    No, there is not...

    The SCIENCE clearly shows that there isn't anything to worry about..

    http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/03/19/us-in-its-third-straight-year-of-record-low-tornado-activity/

    Of course, the POLITICAL/IDEOLOGICAL bullshit says something quite different..

    But who gives a RIP about political/ideological bullshit??

    We're all about SCIENCE here... Right?? :D

    Speaking of science, anyone watch the premier of the new Cosmos with Neil deGrasse Tyson?

    I heard it was a disaster.. We don't watch network TV, so I can't say for sure..

    But I *DID* watch THE DESOLATION OF SMAUG today...

    Was a time when movies DIDN'T have a 'TO BE CONTINUED' tacked onto them... :^/

    Michale

  8. [8] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    David,

    Isn't that a repeat of the Carl Sagan series I watched years ago?

    Actually, I wouldn't mind seeing it again!

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    I mean, I am all for being ALL for science..

    But, if we're ALL for science, shouldn't we all be for ALL the science??

    Rather than just all for only the science that supports one's chosen ideology??

    I mean, doesn't that make sense???

    Michale

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    Isn't that a repeat of the Carl Sagan series I watched years ago

    FOX took over the COSMOS series and had a lot riding on it's debut..

    From what I hear, it didn't go very well..

    Cue "well it's from FOX" accusations... :D

    Michale

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    Speaking of "science"...

    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/03/19/surgeon-general-nomination-forces-senate-democrats-to-hide-gun-views/?intcmp=HPBucket

    I can name a whole plethora of issues where Democrats ignore science in favor of political ideology....

    Tit-for-tat anyone???

    Michale

  12. [12] 
    Speak2 wrote:

    Can Washington and Colorado fund studies with state dollars? It's not quite legal or as legit as California funding stem-cell research when the feds refused to, but it is interesting.

    As the nation moves towards legalization, it could give those two states a real economic advantage over other states.

  13. [13] 
    Speak2 wrote:

    In fact, any state that has approved of medical marijuana has in-state sources that researchers could access (at least, in theory), rather than rely on the federal pot farm.

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    Do you know how you can tell REAL science from political/ideological based "science"??

    Transparency...

    Let's postulate a scenario where the US government, under the auspices of a GOP Congress and a GOP White House, wholeheartedly jumps in with both feet into studying the medical benefits of marijuana.

    After a couple years of study, the "scientists" release there findings that there are no medical benefits to marijuana.

    But these so-called "scientists" refuse to be transparent about their methodology. They refuse to release ALL the information so that other scientists, REAL scientists can duplicate the experiments and record the results.

    So, since these "scientists" refuse to be transparent about their experiments and methodology, would ya'all accept this "science"??

    Of course you wouldn't. And why??

    Because duplication is the VERY foundation of science.. If other scientists can't use the same data and replicate the so-called "scientists" work and findings, then it's not real science..

    That's the problem with the "science" in the other things David mentioned..

    I am going to add a corollary to my "If It Has To Be Marketed, It Ain't Science" rule..

    If it ain't transparent to allow other scientists to replicate the work, then it ain't science...

    Michale

  15. [15] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Isn't that a repeat of the Carl Sagan series I watched years ago?

    It's a new version, Liz. With a new host. Haven't seen yet but looking forward to.

    No one argues climate change ...

    Really? Since when?

    If so, that's a welcome shift. But I think there's a lot of people who argue against climate change. Chief among them, the big oil and energy companies.

    Do you know how you can tell REAL science from political/ideological based "science"?

    I partly agree with you, Michale. Peer review is an important part of the process. Scientists publish, question, duplicate, and critique.

    How you can tell real science is by reading valid science journals and talking with scientists.

    There's a number of ways to tell "fake" science:

    1. If it doesn't stand up to peer review within the scientific community

    2. If no credible scientific evidence exists for it

    3. If a group is demanding that science be "fair". That is, if a group is demanding equal time for an opposing opinion without any scientific credibility.

    4. If the chief proponents of a theory have a political or religious motivation.

    That's the problem with the "science" in the other things David mentioned.

    With which "science"? Evolution? Climate change?

    Evolution has been verified again and again. Isn't it at the heart of most of the DNA research?

    Global warming has as well. In fact, it's gotten to the point where average citizens can verify. I can see it in what will grow in my garden. I can plant earlier (because it's warmer) and what I can grow is changing. Blackberries are not fairing well anymore (they're moving north).

    Now here's where the politics gets interesting. The USDA changed the maps for farmers but they don't want to offend anyone or something so they won't say there's any "climate change" happening.

    Even though, by definition, the new maps show a climate change. Now that's politics.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/post/new-usda-plant-zones-clearly-show-climate-change/2012/01/27/gIQA7Vz2VQ_blog.html

    -David

  16. [16] 
    akadjian wrote:

    I understand the game though.

    Keep saying something confidently and often enough and many people will believe you.

    Especially if you own the media.

    -David

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:

    David,

    If so, that's a welcome shift. But I think there's a lot of people who argue against climate change. Chief among them, the big oil and energy companies.

    No one has EVER argued that the climate isn't changing.

    Not ONE SINGLE PERSON...

    The argument WAS that Global WARMING was not occurring.. And, as we see by the past almost 20 years, that argument was correct.

    Then the Hysterical Left panicked and marketed a new name, "Climate Change"..

    And built an elaborate straw man argument against the "deniers" (a pathetic attempt to re-market the Holocaust) who "denied" that the climate is changing.

    No one has denied that the climate is changing. The climate HAS been changing for a couple billion years..

    WITHOUT the help or hindrance of industrialized humans, I might add...

    1. If it doesn't stand up to peer review within the scientific community

    Not true. As has been PROVEN, scientists will band together to disallow science that doesn't fit the ideology.. So, "peer review" is not the end all get all it used to be..

    2. If no credible scientific evidence exists for it

    Are you saying that "no credible scientific evidence exists" that disproves the Human Caused Global Warming theory??

    Is THAT what you are really saying???

    Further, how do you define "credible"??

    Do you believe that evidence that disputes the theory is not credible SOLELY based on the fact that it disputes the theory??

    Global warming has as well. In fact, it's gotten to the point where average citizens can verify. I can see it in what will grow in my garden. I can plant earlier (because it's warmer) and what I can grow is changing. Blackberries are not fairing well anymore (they're moving north).

    You can end the debate right now..

    Point to ONE global warming model or prediction that has actually been accurate...

    Just ONE single model or prediction.

    And I don't mean general predictions like "Oh it's going to rain harder" or "Oh there will be a massive snow storm eventually"..

    Give me a SINGLE model or prediction that has predicted specific events. Like the current cold wave.. Or the current very cold winter that is breaking temp records across the board..

    Give me ONE SINGLE model or ONE SINGLE prediction that has accurately predicted ANYTHING..

    You can't because no such evidence exists..

    I admire your faith, David..

    But that is all it is. Faith...

    Faith that, EVENTUALLY, one of the models or predictions will actually accurately predict something of relevance...

    http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/20/the-top-seven-global-warming-alarmist-setbacks-in-2013/

    When the Hysterical Left can actually POINT to models and predictions that are ACCURATE, then I'll concede that there may be something to it..

    But almost 30 years of being wrong, wrong, wrong and STILL being wrong...

    "Com'on gimme something I can use...."
    -Jo Dee Messina, MY GIVE A DAMN'S BUSTER

    :D

    Michale

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    You can end the debate right now..

    Point to ONE global warming model or prediction that has actually been accurate...

    Just ONE single model or prediction.

    And I don't mean general predictions like "Oh it's going to rain harder" or "Oh there will be a massive snow storm eventually"..

    Give me a SINGLE model or prediction that has predicted specific events. Like the current cold wave.. Or the current very cold winter that is breaking temp records across the board..

    Give me ONE SINGLE model or ONE SINGLE prediction that has accurately predicted ANYTHING..

    I mean that..

    Give me ONE relevant prediction made by the Global Warming cult that is A>relevant and specific and B> was accurate.

    Just one...

    And I will NEVER bring up the Human Caused Global Warming (Yet Historically Speaking, CO2 Emmisions Have ALWAYS Been The RESULT Of Global Warming, Not The Cause) theory ever again...

    Just one is all I need...

    Michale

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    Keep saying something confidently and often enough and many people will believe you.

    A technique that Democrats have ALSO perfected during the Obama years...

    "If you like your insurance plan, you can keep your insurance plan. PERIOD"

    Obama said it over and over and over and over until Americans actually thought it was true...

    Especially if you own the media.

    Exactly!

    Did you catch CNN?? They theorized that Malaysia Flight 370 was swallowed by a black hole..

    THAT is what passes for news and "science" amongst the Left Wing MSM...

    Michale

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    As I said..

    NO ONE denies that there is climate change..

    I will even allow that there is a possibility that humans have had a hand in it...

    The ONLY question is this:

    Is Climate Change going to cause the end of the world or the end of the human race in the next 100 years or so..

    THAT is the story that the hysterical Left is putting out..

    And there is simply NO EVIDENCE to support that claim..

    NONE whatsoever...

    So, let's see if we can find at least ONE area of agreement.

    Do you believe that climate change will cause the destruction of the planet or the human race in 100 years??

    Michale

  21. [21] 
    akadjian wrote:

    One?

    We just talked about one. The prediction that the world is warming.

    Again, when planting schedules change because of warmer weather, even average people can see it.

    -David

  22. [22] 
    akadjian wrote:

    BTW, I completely agree with you that the endless Malaysian airline speculation is ridiculous.

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    We just talked about one. The prediction that the world is warming.

    Not very specific.. The prediction made VERY specific predictions about how MUCH the world is warming.

    And they were WAY WAY off...

    Even THAT is not accurate. The fact is, there has been no statistically significant warming in the last 17 years...

    Again, when planting schedules change because of warmer weather, even average people can see it.

    So, the weather is changing.. The weather has been changing for billions of years..

    That's not a prediction. That's a guess based on the odds..

    I predict it's going to rain this year...

    Next time it rains, I get to crow how right I am..

    I'll save you some time searching.

    There hasn't been ANY model or prediction coming out of the AGW proponent crowd that has been accurate.

    NOT ONE SINGLE ONE...

    Usually, when a theory is refuted THAT completely it is dropped from consideration..

    But, there is too much money to be made from it...

    Look how rich Al Gore and Richard Branson have become...

    Michale

    Michale

  24. [24] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Akadjian, Liz -

    Thumbs up on the new Cosmos series.

    The old Cosmos was great, but it's now about 30+ years out of date. That's a long time, especially in terms of astronomy/cosmology. The animation and special effects in the old series look pretty cheesy by current standards.

    DeGrasse Tyson is a worthy successor to Sagan and the scripts have been good so far (2 episodes). I miss the epic score and especially the live actor science reenactments of Cosmos 1980. The new series uses cartoon reenactments that don't pack the same punch.

    Fox Entertainment and Fox News are very different animals.

  25. [25] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Just one is all I need...

    What happened to "just one"?

    When you talk about complex systems like the entire planet, there is going to be dispute about exactly how fast the world is warming.

    When I can see that growing patterns have changed in less than my lifetime, this tells me that change is happening pretty fast.

    If energy companies (and our country) wants to fight this, I believe they (and we) are shooting themselves in the foot. They will be surpassed by other companies and countries who have more foresight.

    It's unfortunate that we are likely to fall behind in technology because we have so many people in large multinational companies focused on short term profits.

    A great example is how far behind our country is in rail:

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/03/16/1285080/-Amazing-photos-show-us-why-the-American-transportation-network-has-fallen-off-the-rails

    We are also behind the rest of the world in wind, solar and other alternative energies.

    Why?

    Because companies can make more money temporarily by sticking their heads in the sand.

    Thumbs up on the new Cosmos series.

    I look forward to checking it out, Stig! I'm a big fan of DeGrasse Tyson.

    -David

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    BTW, I completely agree with you that the endless Malaysian airline speculation is ridiculous.

    I know, right!?

    Especially since I have already figured out what happened.

    Aliens were testing their teleportation device... :D

    Michale

  27. [27] 
    akadjian wrote:

    In other words, we are losing the "space race" of today because we won't even acknowledge it exists

    God, this is cool ...

    http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/smart-takes/the-new-arms-race-china-planning-high-speed-rail-network-to-russia-india-europe/

    -David

  28. [28] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Aliens were testing their teleportation device... :D

    Buahahahahah!

  29. [29] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Stig,

    Thanks for the review ... I'll definitely be checking it out!

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    What happened to "just one"?

    Still waiting on it.. :D

    "The world is warming" just doesn't cut it.. :D See my "It's gonna rain analogy"..

    Has the world been warmer before??

    Yes it has..

    So saying that the world is warmer doesn't prove anything beyond the world is warmer.. Even if it WERE true...

    Which it's too incomplete to come to a proper conclusion..

    Warmer than what?? Warmer than when??

    You see my point??

    We are also behind the rest of the world in wind, solar and other alternative energies.

    Why?

    That's easy...

    ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS

    It's what happens when one is worried more about a spotted tree frog or a frakin' owl's crap radius than actually doing something beneficial for the planet....

    You eliminate the eco-nutjobs and their "animals before humans" moronicness and you'll see some great strides in the field of alternative energy...

    The ONLY reason we HAVE global warming fanatics is that Thatcher thought that enviro-nuts would actually see LOGIC and reason....

    Boy was she ever wrong...

    Michale

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    God, this is cool ...

    http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/smart-takes/the-new-arms-race-china-planning-high-speed-rail-network-to-russia-india-europe/

    Yea??

    If we ignored the environmental impact, the US could easily achieve things of this magnitude..

    You want to mirror China's EPA??? :D

    What about their work "ethic"???

    Labor laws???

    That the US doesn't undertake projects like that has nothing to do with know-how or desire..

    It's the simple fact that there is ALWAYS going to be some group that holds up progress...

    We're STILL dicking around about the Keystone Pipeline, despite ALL the advantages it will give the US in the area of energy independence..

    The American way gives way TOO much power to any nutjob group with a soapbox...

    Michale

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:

    The problem is that the Left wants to have the most awesomest delectable omelette in the entire universe, but they refuse to inconvenience the eggs in any way, shape or form...

    And THAT is why the US lags behind, David...

    Michale

  33. [33] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Let's hope it's a trend that continues into ALL aspects of political/ideological BS that masquerades as "science"...

    If only you would follow your own advice...

    Will ya'all accept the science, even if it clearly indicates that marijuana has absolutely NO MEDICAL VALUE whatsoever??

    Will you accept the opposite? Or only if the left switches to the opposite view?

    Do you know how you can tell REAL science from political/ideological based "science"??

    You are not a go to for real science. I don't think I have read a single post that dealt with actual science from you in the years I have read this blog...

    The argument WAS that Global WARMING was not occurring.. And, as we see by the past almost 20 years, that argument was correct.

    Unless, of course you actually look at the data. Sure there are periods of years that are cooler, or cooler in certain areas but if you look at the world mean it's pretty obvious. Check the NASA temperature graphs. They go up even in republican administrations...

    Point to ONE global warming model or prediction that has actually been accurate...

    Define accurate. No really. Beyond your hysteria, read actual scientific papers on the computer models. Most of them do not make single predictions. They run a bunch of simulations with different assumptions, increases or reductions of gas use for example. You will find if you look at the actual science that few of the models match a temperature graph exactly, they do surround it rather closely.

    Also your argument that a model being off means the science is wrong is seriously flawed. IPCC model of glacial ice melt was off by quite a bit. The glacial ice is actually melting much faster than predicted...

    I predict it's going to rain this year...

    And I predict the sky will remain blue and water will still be wet. Really awful analogy. Tell me how much it will rain and where rather than stating the obvious.

    "ONE" eh? Should be easy, define your parameters. I'll do it but I want to know before hand the constraints. None of this weasel out afterword and move the goal posts crap...

  34. [34] 
    akadjian wrote:

    That the US doesn't undertake projects like that has nothing to do with know-how or desire.

    Right ... It's because of liberals!!!!

    This country is going to hell because of ... liberals!!!!! They hate our freedoms!!!!

    Heheh.

    Well, I guess it's good to know you never change, Michale.

    I would even vote for Republicans if they recognized that there's a huge opportunity for alternative energy. The one thing I do know, however, is that liberals aren't blocking it.

    -David

    p.s. Keystone XL is oil. Not exactly groundbreaking. Most of the which would be exported.

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    Bashi,

    If only you would follow your own advice...

    I always do.. :D

    Will you accept the opposite?

    Absolutely..

    *I* am never one to put ideology before facts.

    No one else here can make that same claim..

    Unless, of course you actually look at the data. Sure there are periods of years that are cooler, or cooler in certain areas but if you look at the world mean it's pretty obvious. Check the NASA temperature graphs. They go up even in republican administrations...

    NASA?? :D

    How many times have they been wrong in their predictions?? HUNDREDS

    How many times have they been right...

    ZERO...

    Nice track record there.. :D

    "ONE" eh? Should be easy, define your parameters. I'll do it but I want to know before hand the constraints. None of this weasel out afterword and move the goal posts crap...

    Should be. Yet no one, to date, has been able to do it...

    I want an ACCURATE prediction/model that is specific.

    For example, did ANY model/prediction show 17 years of no statistically significant warming?

    Nope..

    Did ANY model/prediction show the INCREASE in Arctic ice??

    Nope..

    Did ANY model/prediction come true on ANY specific event???

    Himalayas melting?? Nope

    Polar bears extinct?? Nope

    Snow disappearing from the weather patterns?? Nope

    No Arctic Ice whatsoever?? Nope

    Not ONE SINGLE PREDICTION has come true.

    Not ONE SINGLE MODEL has been accurate...

    NOT ONE...

    And ya'all STILL believe that the planet is doomed and humans are responsible.

    And ya call that SCIENCE???

    Like I said, SCIENCE is taking into account ALL the science. Not just the politically correct science..

    No one here (sans yours truly) can do that..

    And that is why ya'all always lose these debates..

    Because all I have to do is point to the science that refutes the hysterical claims and silence descends...

    David,

    The one thing I do know, however, is that liberals aren't blocking it.

    So, your claim is that environmental regulation has NOTHING to do with it??

    REALLY?? :D

    Michale

  36. [36] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    *I* am never one to put ideology before facts.

    All evidence to the contrary. But then I'm still waiting for you to post an actual fact...

    How many times have they been wrong in their predictions?? HUNDREDS

    How many times have they been right...

    ZERO...

    Nice track record there.. :D

    Really? I'm pretty sure they made some ridiculously good predictions. Otherwise was it pure luck that we made it too the moon or have rovers still driving around mars?

    If you have problems with their MEASUREMENTS please post them. You do know that measurement is the other half of science, right?

    Heh...that's a lot of words just to say you can't define your parameters. Just a lot of hot air then? Figures...

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:

    Really? I'm pretty sure they made some ridiculously good predictions.

    By all means..

    Post one..

    And if you post that NASA predicted that the sun will rise in the east and will set in the west, I shall taunt you a second time... :D

    Heh...that's a lot of words just to say you can't define your parameters

    Yer right.. I refuse to debate with you what the meaning of "IS" is...

    What part of ACCURATE prediction is unclear???

    Let's face it. You KNOW you can't find an ACCURATE prediction or model so you are looking for some kind of equivocation...

    ACCURATE is ACCURATE...

    If you can't find an ACCURATE prediction then simply concede the point..

    Michale

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    But then I'm still waiting for you to post an actual fact...

    Remember how all hysterical "scientists" were predicting that, by 2013, the Arctic Ice Caps would be completely gone..

    Lo and behold, Arctic Ice actually INCREASED by 29% in 2013...

    http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/09/28/article-2415191-185A43E400000578-982_640x365.jpg

    ANOTHER moronic prediction that was utterly and completely WRONG...

    A specific and relevant prediction...

    Utterly and unequivocally wrong..

    Find me one of those specific and relevant predictions that actually was right..

    THEN you'll have an argument..

    But until you do, you don't got nuttin'....

    Michale

  39. [39] 
    akadjian wrote:

    So, your claim is that environmental regulation has NOTHING to do with it??

    My claim is that oil and car companies are the primary blockers of alternative energy in the US.

    A recent example is Néw Jersey (& Ohio) blocking Tesla sales in their states because the auto dealerships have contributed heavily to their campaigns.

    -David

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    My claim is that oil and car companies are the primary blockers of alternative energy in the US.

    You mean that a business is looking out for the best interests of it's business!!???

    OH MY GODS, THE HORROR!!!!

    So, why are the eco-nutjobs primary blockers of the energy independence movement?

    Because they are looking out for the best interests of THEIR business...

    And so it goes and so it goes..

    You want to vilify those on the Right, but refuse to even cast a glance over those on the Left...

    Again, it's political ideology at work.

    A recent example is Néw Jersey (& Ohio) blocking Tesla sales in their states because the auto dealerships have contributed heavily to their campaigns.

    And trial lawyers contribute heavily to Democrats campaigns which is why we don't have tort reform in TrainWreckCare...

    I understand your need to condemn the greedy crooks. I share that need...

    But wouldn't it behoove you to be fair about it. Rather than ignore the greedy crooks that are politically acceptable..

    I saids it befores and I'll says it again...

    You want to clean up this country, wouldn't it be easier to start with your own house first???

    Michale

  41. [41] 
    akadjian wrote:

    My own house? You've lost me.

    Corruption is corruption.

    Your argument seems to be that corruption which benefits Republicans is ok.

    Get rid of it. Period.

    -David

  42. [42] 
    Michale wrote:

    Your argument seems to be that corruption which benefits Republicans is ok.

    Au contraire..

    I condemn ALL corruption, regardless of which side of the political spectrum it comes from..

    But ya'all only condemn the corruption from the Right...

    With ya'all, any corruption from a Right Winger is indicative and an indictment of the entire RIGHT Wing..

    But any corruption from a Left Winger is simply an aberration, a single instance un-related to the Left Wing as a whole..

    I can find many MANY examples of this if you dispute the claim...

    The Left is no better than the Right when it comes to looking out for their own interests at the expense of the American people.

    That has ALWAYS been my position...

    A position, I might add, that I have been alone on...

    "Yea... I can live with that.."
    -Keannu Reeves, THE REPLACEMENTS

    :D

    Michale

  43. [43] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Post one..

    They predicted the orbits of both planets and how by using a gravity sling shot they could get a space craft to Mars and be sure that when the space craft showed up, Mars would be where predicted.

    And if you post that NASA predicted that the sun will rise in the east and will set in the west, I shall taunt you a second time... :D

    By "taunt" You mean make yourself look foolish? Be my guest...

    Remember how all hysterical "scientists" were predicting that, by 2013, the Arctic Ice Caps would be completely gone..

    Which scientists and which paper specifically? Not press story but actual scientific paper?

    Yer right.. I refuse to debate with you what the meaning of "IS" is...

    Translation: you refuse to argue without weasel room when you are proven wrong...

    What part of ACCURATE prediction is unclear???

    Quite a bit actually. What measurement model am I trying to match? Which prediction in an actual scientific paper was wrong? I've yet to see anything posted so far that relates to real science. It's all generally bad science reporting, which happens on both sides of the political spectrum, and only the most hysterical headline you can find at that...

    Find me one of those specific and relevant predictions that actually was right..

    You mean they have to predict exact numbers even though they would not have accurate input data? Can you tell me exactly how much fossil fuel will be burned per year for the next 5 years, for example? Or their predicted trends are fairly close to what actually happened? The first is not science. The second has been pretty close for quite some time.

    Lo and behold, Arctic Ice actually INCREASED by 29% in 2013...

    Instead of using a NASA picture covering a single year posted on a conservative political site how about using actual science?

    With every link you contradict your opening statement more and more. So much for you keeping political/ideological BS out of the debate...

  44. [44] 
    akadjian wrote:

    But ya'all only condemn the corruption from the Right...

    Not really. There's plenty of Democrats in the grip of "old energy" companies. Joe Manchin of W. Virginia is my favorite. And i'm using the word
    "Favorite" sarcastically. Completely bought by the coal industry.

    This is why he's been largely fighting against the people wanting clean drinking water in West Virginia. By no means is corporate corruption limited to Republicans.

    -David

  45. [45] 
    Michale wrote:

    Bashi,

    They predicted the orbits of both planets and how by using a gravity sling shot they could get a space craft to Mars and be sure that when the space craft showed up, Mars would be where predicted.

    I guess the word "relevant" was too confusing or ambiguous for you...

    Which scientists and which paper specifically? Not press story but actual scientific paper?

    "Given the estimated trend and the volume estimate for October [to] November of 2007 at less than 9,000 km3, one can project that at this rate it would take only nine more years or until 2016 ± 3 years to reach a nearly ice-free Arctic Ocean in summer."
    http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev-earth-042711-105345

    I know, I know. You don't like it when the facts prove you wrong..

    I assume you'll live.. :D

    Remember, find me a prediction or model...

    Specific...

    Relevant....

    Accurate...

    It shouldn't be too hard, if the "science is settled"....

    As you claim...

    Michale

  46. [46] 
    Michale wrote:

    The 20th century warming of 1-1.4°F is within the +/- 5°F range of the past 3,000 years.
    Arthur B. Robinson, PhD, et al., "Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide" (3 MB) , Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, Fall 2007

    A 2003 study by researchers at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics shows temperatures from 1000-1100 AD (before fossil fuel use) that are comparable to those from 1900-1990.
    Anders Moberg, PhD, et al., "Highly Variable Northern Hemisphere Temperatures Reconstructed From Low and High Resolution Proxy Data," Nature, Feb. 2005

    Rising CO2 levels are a result of global warming, not a cause of it. As temperatures increase, CO2 is released from "carbon sinks" such as the oceans or the Arctic tundra.
    Timothy Ball, PhD, "Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?," http://www.canadafreepress.com, Feb. 5, 2007

    Measurements of ice core samples show that over the last four climactic cycles (past 240,000 years) periods of global warming preceded global increases in CO2.
    Nicholas Caillon, PhD, and Jeffrey P. Severinghaus, PhD, et al., "Timing of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature Changes Across Termination III," Science, Mar. 14, 2003

    Due to the inherent unpredictability of climate systems it is impossible to accurately use models to determine future weather. Climate models have been unable to simulate major known features of past climate such as the ice ages or the very warm climates of the Miocene, Eocene, and Cretaceous periods. If models cannot replicate past climate changes they should not be trusted to predict future climate changes
    Richard S. Lindzen, PhD, "Testimony of Richard S. Lindzen Before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee" (199 KB) , www-eaps.mit.edu, May 2, 2001

    Rising temperatures are caused primarily by water vapor, the most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, not by CO2. Water vapor concentrations in the atmosphere are driven by natural storm systems and ocean currents. According to a Mar. 5, 2010 study by researchers at NOAA, water vapor in the stratosphere was responsible for increasing the rate of warming during the 1990s by 30%
    Susan Solomon, PhD, et al., "Contributions of Stratospheric Water Vapor to Decadal Changes in the Rate of Global Warming," Science, Mar. 5, 2010

    William Gray, PhD, US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works Hearing statement, "The Role of Science in Environmental Policy-Making," epw.senate.go, Sep. 28, 2005

    I could go on and on all day, but what's the point??

    Ya'all aren't interested in SCIENCE, if it conflicts with your political ideology...

    Michale

  47. [47] 
    Michale wrote:

    This is why he's been largely fighting against the people wanting clean drinking water in West Virginia. By no means is corporate corruption limited to Republicans.

    And yet, you never demonize the Dem Party because of the Joe Manchins...

    Why??

    Michale

  48. [48] 
    Michale wrote:

    Re: #46

    Now, ya'all will produce a bunch of science that proves your right..

    Which will simply confirm what I have been saying.

    The SCIENCE is not settled...

    I also note that NO ONE has deigned to answer my question.

    Does the current evidence indicate that the planet will be destroyed or that human kind will be destroyed in the next 100 years??

    Of course it doesn't....

    So, there is no urgency or imminence to this calamity, even if it is truly a calamity...

    Are alternative forms of energy a good idea?? Of course they are.. I myself am trying to perfect a ZPM....

    But YOUR solution of giving millions and billions to blowhards like Gore, Branson, and science whores like Hansen, Mann and all of the others won't do a DAMN THING to help ANYTHING...

    These are the facts, whether you acknowledge them or not..

    Michale

  49. [49] 
    akadjian wrote:

    And yet, you never demonize the Dem Party because of the Joe Manchins...

    I don't "demonize" the Republican Party either. Show me a republican FOR alternative energy & I'd consider voting Republican. I just don't think there are any.

    -David

  50. [50] 
    Michale wrote:

    I don't "demonize" the Republican Party either.

    Yea.. And I don't "demonize" Obama or the Democrats either.. :^/

    hehehehehehehe

    Show me a republican FOR alternative energy & I'd consider voting Republican.

    I honestly don't believe you would.

    Because you don't strike me as a one issue guy...

    If you were, then you would have ditched your support for Obama a long time ago for him being more Bush/Cheney than Bush/Cheney...

    But I'll tell you what.. I'll find a GOP'er who is FOR alternative energy. Then you can tell me whether you will vote for him or not..

    I can tell you right now that *I* am for alternative energy.. Like I said, I am working on a ZPM as we speak.. :D

    But, if ANYTHING has been made clear, it's that the current level of technological expertise is not available to make solar/wind/subspace energy viable for the mass market...

    If you could get the eco-nutjobs to ease up on R&D requirements, we MIGHT be able to change that..

    But in this regulate-sue-regulate-sue-regulate-sue country we find ourselves in....

    It just ain't gonna happen...

    Michale

  51. [51] 
    Michale wrote:

    Let me put it this way..

    Do you think the Left would compromise it's environmental "principles" if the Right would compromise it's support of Big Oil??

    Of course not...

    And so here we are....

    Michale

  52. [52] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Michale-

    [45] Not sure what's the problem here. But the article is only partially about the quote. On the specific quote: "...one can project that at this rate it would take only nine more years or until 2016 ± 3 years to reach a nearly ice-free Arctic Ocean in summer.". 2016 + or - 3 years...lets see if by 2019 there is a "nearly ice free summer". It ain't wrong yet...

    So far not bowling me over here...

    As for [46] Uh...got any links? The one you give brings up a general news page and the rest I would need to see the context. If I put any of the quotes in to google I get pages of climate change deniers sites. So, unless you can provide some actual links to the scientific papers, or articles directly related to each specific paper (most of the papers are probably hidden behind pay walls) I'll have to assume this is no more than a copy and paste hack job off a denier site...

    Does the current evidence indicate that the planet will be destroyed or that human kind will be destroyed in the next 100 years??

    Is anyone other than you asking this question? Kind of hysterical and silly, yes? No the earth will not be destroyed. Neither will it be an asteroid field or a lifeless planet equivalent to mars. Same for humanity. Both the earth and humans will be here in a hundred years if you limit the possible pitfalls purely to climate change.

  53. [53] 
    Michale wrote:

    Is anyone other than you asking this question? Kind of hysterical and silly, yes? No the earth will not be destroyed. Neither will it be an asteroid field or a lifeless planet equivalent to mars. Same for humanity. Both the earth and humans will be here in a hundred years if you limit the possible pitfalls purely to climate change.

    Ahhhhhhh

    Common ground.

    So, we are in agreement.

    There is no dire emergency.. There is no imminent catastrophe..

    And anyone, any group, who claims this is just pursuing their own agenda.

    We really have nothing to debate on this issue anymore.. :D

    Michale

  54. [54] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    There is no dire emergency.. There is no imminent catastrophe..

    And anyone, any group, who claims this is just pursuing their own agenda.

    Lets turn this around to show just how silly you have taken it. Terrorism will neither destroy the earth nor kill off humanity. Does that mean we should just completely ignore it? Does that mean you are just pursuing an agenda with all your posts on the subject? Putting yourself before country, in other words?

  55. [55] 
    Michale wrote:

    Lets turn this around to show just how silly you have taken it. Terrorism will neither destroy the earth nor kill off humanity. Does that mean we should just completely ignore it? Does that mean you are just pursuing an agenda with all your posts on the subject? Putting yourself before country, in other words?

    That's an interesting take..

    But there is a big difference.

    Humankind CAN influence terrorism and terrorists.. That's been proven time and time again..

    There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE to support the claim that humans can control the climate.

    And there is a BUTTLOAD of evidence that we really don't know all that much about exactly how the climate of the planet works.

    As evidenced by the fact that there is no consensus on the current cooling trend that's been going on for almost 2 decades..

    Given humankind's propensity to frak things up, is it REALLY a smart idea to go mucking around with things we barely understand??

    Further, some global warming would actually be BENEFICIAL to the planet.. During the Meideval Warming Period, humans were able to actually able to live in Greenland. Why do you think it's CALLED 'Greenland'??

    So, I'll give ya half a kewpie. Yer close, but no cigar.. :D

    As I have mentioned time and time again, I have NO problem with alternative energy, curbing pollution or other ecological/environmental enhancements.

    MY beef is (and ALWAYS has been) that A> the irrational fear mongering that the Hysterical Left uses to achieve their agenda and 2> that we can actually control the planet's climate if we only give billions and billions to morons like Al Gore and Richard Branson and science whores like Mann, Hansen, etc etc...

    Now, if you disagree with those points, fine..

    At least we agree that there ISN'T any imminent catastrophe or climactic calamity waiting...

    Michale

    Michale

  56. [56] 
    Michale wrote:

    Michale

    Michale

    "Pizza

    Pizza"
    -Little Caeser

    :D

  57. [57] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE to support the claim that humans can control the climate.

    Wrong.

    And there is a BUTTLOAD of evidence that we really don't know all that much about exactly how the climate of the planet works.

    Wrong.

    As evidenced by the fact that there is no consensus on the current cooling trend that's been going on for almost 2 decades..

    Wrong again.

    Humankind CAN influence terrorism and terrorists.. That's been proven time and time again..

    There is greater consensus on climate change than this being true...

    Further, some global warming would actually be BENEFICIAL to the planet.. During the Meideval Warming Period, humans were able to actually able to live in Greenland. Why do you think it's CALLED 'Greenland'??

    It's not variation in temperature. It's the speed of change that is the problem. Plus, how was it in the rest of the world during this period?

    MY beef is (and ALWAYS has been) that A> the irrational fear mongering that the Hysterical Left uses to achieve their agenda and 2> that we can actually control the planet's climate if we only give billions and billions to morons like Al Gore and Richard Branson and science whores like Mann, Hansen, etc etc...

    Yes, it's well known your anti-climate change argument basically comes down to: hate Al Gore = climate change wrong. Which really isn't much of an argument. Personally, could care less about Al Gore. I prefer to follow the actual science...

    At least we agree that there ISN'T any imminent catastrophe or climactic calamity waiting...

    There is no agreement here. Lots of people are going to die if this gets worse. Most of them will not be in modern industrialized countries, so we will see how much the rest of us care.

    It's also a tipping point. Lets put it in terms of your Tom Clancy view point: There is a terrorist cell working on a nuke. We know where it is. We also know they plan to put it in the shipping system to get it to a US city and they have shielding technology to reduce the chance it will be picked up by sensors. They might move the project. It will be at least five years before they finish and get all preparation for shipping done. Do we deal with this now even though it is not an imminent threat? Or do we wait until it's in the shipping system and hope our detection systems are up to the job?

  58. [58] 
    Michale wrote:

    Wrong.

    Cite??

    Wrong.

    See above...

    Wrong.

    See above the above..

    There is no agreement here. Lots of people are going to die if this gets worse.

    Lots of people are going to die if a solar flare fries the earth..

    Should we give billions and billions to some loudmouth to prevent it??

    Is even such an event preventable

    No, it is not..

    Humans CANNOT control climate..

    This is fact..

    It's also a tipping point. Lets put it in terms of your Tom Clancy view point: There is a terrorist cell working on a nuke. We know where it is. We also know they plan to put it in the shipping system to get it to a US city and they have shielding technology to reduce the chance it will be picked up by sensors. They might move the project. It will be at least five years before they finish and get all preparation for shipping done. Do we deal with this now even though it is not an imminent threat? Or do we wait until it's in the shipping system and hope our detection systems are up to the job?

    If we had the technology to deal with it now, then of course..

    But we DON'T have the technology...

    We can't even tell if there is a nuke even OUT there...

    So, your solution is to spend billions and billions of dollars making Al Gore and Richard Branson richer in hopes that, IF there IS a nuke, they will prevent it from going off..

    THAT is the scenario of the here and now..

    There MIGHT be a catastrophe in 500 or 1000 years..

    But to bankrupt whole countries NOW in hopes that, somehow, magically, it will prevent a catastrophe that might not even exist??

    Well, that's just moronic...

    Bottom line. We can't control the planet's climate anymore than we can control the planet's rotation.

    It's THAT simple...

    We could fire off every nuke on the planet, bounce the rubble a million times over...

    Guess what??

    In a few thousand years, climate change will still exist...

    Michale

  59. [59] 
    Michale wrote:

    There is greater consensus on climate change than this being true

    Only amongst the Hysterical Left...

    This is fact...

    But, as I said.. There really isn't anything to debate.

    We are in agreement that there is no imminent catastrophe in our lifetimes or 100 years...

    That's enough reason to stop making Al Gore or Michael Mann richer from their fear mongering bullshit..

    I prefer to follow the actual science...

    No, you only prefer to follow the science that agrees with your ideology...

    You don't follow the science that DOESN'T agree with your ideology. You don't even recognize that AS science..

    Which is NOT science.. It's called faith.

    Michale

  60. [60] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Humans CANNOT control climate..

    This is fact..

    Start a nuclear war. Get nuclear winter. Climate change...

    If we had the technology to deal with it now, then of course..

    But we DON'T have the technology...

    We do have the "technology". Stop burning fossil fuels. It's lack of desire that is the problem.

    So, your solution is to spend billions and billions of dollars making Al Gore and Richard Branson richer in hopes that, IF there IS a nuke, they will prevent it from going off..

    No, this is your often repeated but has nothing to do with the argument delusion...

    We are in agreement that there is no imminent catastrophe in our lifetimes or 100 years...

    Why do you keep repeating this when it is blatantly false? No one but you are defining an "imminent catastrophe" as destruction of the earth or death of humanity.

    No, you only prefer to follow the science that agrees with your ideology...

    You don't follow the science that DOESN'T agree with your ideology. You don't even recognize that AS science..

    Which is NOT science.. It's called faith.

    Keep dreaming religious boy. I follow the tens of thousands of papers and research that makes up the science of climate change including the ones that conflict. As far and I can tell you follow a handful of out of context quotes scraped off denier sites... who here is really basing their argument on faith, ideology and politics?

  61. [61] 
    Michale wrote:

    Start a nuclear war. Get nuclear winter. Climate change...

    No, that's weather change..

    As you yourself have pointed out time and again, just because it's cold a few winters in a row, that doesn't mean there isn't any global warming.

    Fire off every nuke and you might change the WEATHER for a few hundred years or even a thousand years.

    But the CLIMATE of the planet moves on... It simply CANNOT be controlled with the current technology..

    eep dreaming religious boy. I follow the tens of thousands of papers and research that makes up the science of climate change including the ones that conflict.

    Yea?? But in your conclusion, you IGNORE the one's that conflict with your ideological makeup..

    It's like saying a Christian takes into account ALL of the science but yet still believes there is a god..

    If you took into account ALL the science you simply CANNOT conclude there is a consensus...

    Why do you keep repeating this when it is blatantly false?

    Both the earth and humans will be here in a hundred years if you limit the possible pitfalls purely to climate change.

    We are in completely agreement..

    Human kind will go on.. The planet WILL go on..

    There is no imminent threat of destruction from climate change...

    We are in complete agreement..

    The planet's climate has been changing MILLIONS of years before human's existed and it will CONTINUE to change millions of years AFTER humans cease to exist...

    Nothing humankind, in the here and now, can do will change that...

    Michale

  62. [62] 
    Michale wrote:

    I don't know what yer bitchin about..

    We are in COMPLETE AGREEMENT that there is no danger of the earth being destroyed or humans becoming extinct because of Climate Change in the next 100 year...

    Is it THAT hard to admit that I am right?? :D

    Michale

  63. [63] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Sorry, I think I'll stick with the scientific definition of weather and climate thank you very much...

    As to the rest, it seems we are back to an old chestnut of yours, make up a two sided argument, assign one half to someone then argue the other half. Too bad the half that you have assigned to me is not the same as the one I have been making, and no amount of reasoning seems to change that. Guess I'll just let you continue on arguing with yourself...

  64. [64] 
    Michale wrote:

    Sorry, I think I'll stick with the scientific definition of weather and climate thank you very much..

    Of course you will..

    When it suits your agenda to do so..

    When you want to ridicule people for their claims about "weather" you go the other way.. :D

    Guess I'll just let you continue on arguing with yourself...

    As long as we agree there is no imminent danger of the planet being destroyed or the human race dying out, then I am pleased as punch.. :D

    Michale

  65. [65] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, isn't it just AMAZING that ALL the science that you believe in lines up PERFECTLY with your political ideology!

    What are the ODDS that your politics and your science mesh so perfectly together!??

    It must be so gratifying to know that your politic ideology is so lockstep in tune with the universe...

    {/sarcasm}

  66. [66] 
    akadjian wrote:

    I honestly don't believe you would. Because you don't strike me as a one issue guy.

    Fair enough. You're probably right. Though a Republican that actually believed in science and was willing to listen to experts would be pretty huge. I know people like this; they're just not running for office.

    And I know you believe in science, Michale. I also know that a lot of people who vote Republican believe in science.

    The issue is that the Republican base is extremely religious. So by and large, Republican politicians cater to their base.

    I think it's a shame because I don't think religion and science are at war. All science says is that we don't know because there's no evidence. But many fundamentalist religions which believe in literal interpretations of the Bible insist on an absolute truth.

    The other issue is that politicians aren't likely to say anything which might offend their major donors (Dems included). And the oil industry, I believe, donates more to Reps.

    Anyhoo ... got diverted.

    There is one issue which would sway me though. It's the economy.

    -David

  67. [67] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    David,

    There is one issue which would sway me though. It's the economy.

    Well, that's a pretty substantial and significant single-issue to base a vote on.

    And, I'd say that any Republican candidate who eschews the precepts of the Republican cult of economic failure would be worth taking a serious look at for voters of any political stripe.

  68. [68] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Holy Moley -- over 65 comments!?!

    OK, I'm going to attempt to answer everything here...

    cbuslib [2] -

    Search "marijuana facts" or "marijuana library" to see more facts. The classification of marijuana as Schedule I is an ongoing disgrace...

    Michale [3] -

    All I'm asking for is the science to be legally performed. I'll happily stand by the results.

    TheSitg [4] -

    Good point.

    akadjian [6] -

    I still like the original, but the update is pretty good, too. I like NdGT. But I almost wrote a whole column on the idiocy (in BOTH the original and the update) of the "whooshing" of the imaginary ship, when traveling through space. Hrrmph. I'm a stickler for details, especially in "science-based" programming...

    Michale -

    Just to warn you, I'm going to ignore any threads on global warming. Re-read the column.

    LizM [8] -

    It's a re-imagining of the original series. Much of the script remains unchanged, but has been updated to reflect new info. It's still pretty good, I have to say, after having seen two of them.

    Michale -

    Haven't heard any ratings, one way or the other. Have you seen it? What did you think?

    I was astonished (if truth be told) that it aired on Fox. Kind of like how I'm still astonished that the Simpsons are still on the same network...

    Speak2 [12] -

    They probably can, but the Catch-22 is that no matter what studies are done, the FDA (and the rest of the federal apparatus) ignores them unless they were legally conducted with federal weed. They even threaten universities' funding, to enforce this, so it's kind of a big thing. But with weed fully legal in CO and (soon) WA, this may become less of a factor, we'll see...

    You can do all the studies you want, but if the FDA ignores them, then they are worthless in terms of changing federal law. At least, as things stand currently. Things could always change, of course....

    Michale [14] -

    I've already said: "I'll take that bet." Name your quatloos, pal.

    akadjian [15] -

    OK, this is going in a whole different direction, and it's late, so I'm going to have to cut things off here.

    More tomorrow, I promise!

    :-)

    -CW

  69. [69] 
    Michale wrote:

    Holy Moley -- over 65 comments!?!

    I did my best!! :D

    All I'm asking for is the science to be legally performed. I'll happily stand by the results.

    Once again, you are the exception that emphasizes the rule. :D

    Just to warn you, I'm going to ignore any threads on global warming. Re-read the column.

    Probably safer. Arguing with someone's religion is ALWAYS a mine field.. :D

    I've already said: "I'll take that bet." Name your quatloos, pal.

    Which bet?? #14 doesn't seem to have any bet in it??

    Michale

  70. [70] 
    Michale wrote:

    David,

    The issue is that the Republican base is extremely religious. So by and large, Republican politicians cater to their base.

    You say it as if it's a BAD thing. :D

    Which I agree.. It is...

    It's also a BAD thing when Democrats cater to THEIR base..

    No??

    All science says is that we don't know because there's no evidence.

    EXACTLY!!!!

    Once again.. Common ground.. :D Although, in the current discussion, I wouldn't say there is "NO" evidence. It's obvious that there is conflicting evidence..

    But many fundamentalist religions which believe in literal interpretations of the Bible insist on an absolute truth.

    Which is why I shy away from "truth" and base everything I do and say on FACTS..

    Truth is subjective. Facts are not..

    The other issue is that politicians aren't likely to say anything which might offend their major donors (Dems included). And the oil industry, I believe, donates more to Reps.

    And, as you point out, Dems have their own donors that they don't want to offend.

    Yet, it seems that, here in Weigantia, it's only Republicans that are slammed for that...

    Mebbe we need a "FAIRNESS DOCTRINE" for Wegantia, eh?? :D For everything bad I say about Obama or Democrats, I have to say something good..

    I probably wouldn't have a problem with that. :D

    But the flip side would be a nightmare for the vast majority of Weigantians.. :D

    Michale

  71. [71] 
    Michale wrote:

    Interesting note..

    Ya'all don't acknowledge the science that disputes or disproves the Human Caused Global Warming theory..

    Therefore that makes ya'all as much of a "denier" as you accuse the Right of being..

    Interesting, iddn't it? :D

    Michale

  72. [72] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yea...

    Human caused global warming is why it's so difficult to find Malaysia Flight 370....

    http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/03/climate-change-malaysia-airlines-370-search

    And you people SERIOUSLY wonder why RATIONAL Americans roll their eyes every time these moronic fanatics open their mouths???

    Like I said...

    There is NO difference between religious fanatics and Human Caused Global Warming fanatics.

    It's all GW (god's will)...

    It's all GW (global warming)....

    Fanatics.... Plain and simple...

    Michale

  73. [73] 
    Michale wrote:

    Bashi, David, et al

    THIS is exactly the fear-mongering bullshit that earns the Human Caused Global Warming fanatics my scorn...

    http://bigstory.ap.org/article/global-warming-dials-our-risks-un-report-says

    It's this END OF THE WORLD crap that ya'all embrace that is why normal everyday people roll their eyes and mutter "fanatics" under their breath...

    As I have said time and time again.

    Modern Environmentalism has become a religion that is completely oblivious and blinded to the ACTUAL facts..

    And, apparently, James Lovelock (the father of modern Environmentalism and the creator of the GAIA theory) agrees with me because he has said the EXACT same thing..

    So, ya wanna tell me again how wrong I am??? :D

    Because the overwhelming evidence of the FACTS seem to indicate that it is ya'all who are wrong..

    I'm just sayin'...

    Michale

  74. [74] 
    Michale wrote:

    Consensus, my ass....

    IPCC: “Risk of death, injury, and disrupted livelihoods in low-lying coastal zones and small island developing states, due to sea-level rise, coastal flooding, and storm surges.”

    NIPCC: “Flood frequency and severity in many areas of the world were higher historically during the Little Ice Age and other cool eras than during the twentieth century. Climate change ranks well below other contributors, such as dikes and levee construction, to increased flooding.”

    IPCC: “Risk of food insecurity linked to warming, drought, and precipitation variability, particularly for poorer populations.”

    NIPCC: “There is little or no risk of increasing food insecurity due to global warming or rising atmospheric CO2 levels. Farmers and others who depend on rural livelihoods for income are benefitting from rising agricultural productivity throughout the world, including in parts of Asia and Africa where the need for increased food supplies is most critical. Rising temperatures and atmospheric CO2 levels play a key role in the realization of such benefits.

    IPCC: “Risk of severe harm for large urban populations due to inland flooding.”

    NIPCC: “No changes in precipitation patterns, snow, monsoons, or river flows that might be considered harmful to human well-being or plants or wildlife have been observed that could be attributed to rising CO2 levels. What changes have been observed tend to be beneficial.”

    IPCC: “Risk of loss of rural livelihoods and income due to insufficient access to drinking and irrigation water and reduced agricultural productivity, particularly for farmers and pastoralists with minimal capital in semi-arid regions.”

    NIPCC: “Higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations benefit plant growth-promoting microorganisms that help land plants overcome drought conditions, a potentially negative aspect of future climate change. Continued atmospheric CO2 enrichment should prove to be a huge benefit to plants by directly enhancing their growth rates and water use efficiencies.”

    IPCC: “Systemic risks due to extreme [weather] events leading to breakdown of infrastructure networks and critical services.”

    NIPCC: “There is no support for the model-based projection that precipitation in a warming world becomes more variable and intense. In fact, some observational data suggest just the opposite, and provide support for the proposition that precipitation responds more to cyclical variations in solar activity.”

    IPCC: “Risk of loss of marine ecosystems and the services they provide for coastal livelihoods, especially for fishing communities in the tropics and the Arctic.”

    NIPCC: “Rising temperatures and atmospheric CO2 levels do not pose a significant threat to aquatic life. Many aquatic species have shown considerable tolerance to temperatures and CO2 values predicted for the next few centuries, and many have demonstrated a likelihood of positive responses in empirical studies. Any projected adverse impacts of rising temperatures or declining seawater and freshwater pH levels (“acidification”) will be largely mitigated through phenotypic adaptation or evolution during the many decades to centuries it is expected to take for pH levels to fall.”

    IPCC: “Risk of loss of terrestrial ecosystems and the services they provide for terrestrial livelihoods.”

    NIPCC: “Terrestrial ecosystems have thrived throughout the world as a result of warming temperatures and rising levels of atmospheric CO2. Empirical data pertaining to numerous animal species, including amphibians, birds, butterflies, other insects, reptiles, and mammals, indicate global warming and its myriad ecological effects tend to foster the expansion and proliferation of animal habitats, ranges, and populations, or otherwise have no observable impacts one way or the other. Multiple lines of evidence indicate animal species are adapting, and in some cases evolving, to cope with climate change of the modern era.”

    IPCC: “Risk of mortality, morbidity, and other harms during periods of extreme heat, particularly for vulnerable urban populations.”

    NIPCC: “A modest warming of the planet will result in a net reduction of human mortality from temperature-related events. More lives are saved by global warming via the amelioration of cold-related deaths than those lost under excessive heat. Global warming will have a negligible influence on human morbidity and the spread of infectious diseases, a phenomenon observed in virtually all parts of the world.”

    You see???

    There ain't no consensus...

    And anyone who says there is, is simply pursuing a political/ideological agenda that is contrary to the facts and to science...

    It's religious fanaticism... Pure and simple..

    Michale

Comments for this article are closed.
[Powered by WordPress]