Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[mainiac]

When the change in republican science hating comes it will start with primary voters or change in the donors.  The politicians are just giving the base what it wants.

[RedKing]

I don't see how that happens, because science has become part of the culture war.
Other than possibly involvement of backers like Big Pharma. And hell, they're probably just as happy with a population that's low-information and anti-science.

"Worried about witches? Ask your doctor about new Hexeril, the only drug proven to ward off evil spells."

[mainiac]

Dogma comes and goes.  It wasn't that long ago that the ideas of conservatives not giving a crap about Jews and Italians in places of power would be radical.

[Zrk2]

Meanwhile, Rand Paul continues to prove just how stupid he is:
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/rand-paul-vaccines-can-lead-mental-disorders-n298821

And Chris Christie pandering to anti-vaxxers as well:
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/chris-christie-clarifies-vaccine-remarks-n298386

FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK. God dammit Rand, get your shit together.

[mainiac]

That is him with his shit together.

If you want someone who hates the government when it's invading privacy or drone strikes because he's a kneejerk anti-authority ideologue then he isn't just going to be anti the authority you dont like.  Someone with more naunced views would be, well, not Rand Paul.

[Rez]

If the GOP loses christian evangelicals , other republicans won't pretend to believe in YEC (from which derives lots of anti-evolution sentiment) and personhood at conception, as much  .  However, I think birth control has a lot of complexity as a moral issue (a maybe baby's rights vs the mother rights and, if you're into authoritarianism, society's gain), so it's not going to be much less important just because a former hard-line left.  I think the GOP just hangs onto these kinds of devout christians, because you basically need national approval and support to have political success, even on local levels.  Perhaps the GOP could schism in such a way that that group starts voting more like African-American religious so-cons.  That'd be really strange though.

Global heating is just obnoxiously political, I basically ignore any politician who brings it up.  The whole conversation should be academic, because nothing short of a totally authoritarian government could stop people from using IC engines (runnen' off moonshine if gasoline isn't refined anywhere) and hydrocarbon powerplants (ie generators if it's illegal to use central powerplants).  The big names in global warming travel by jet and live in mansions, ffs.  As a culture, we're addicted to energy (I'm not complaining!) and the buzz is just soooooo good.  I hope we ride the buzz into fusion and (non-crony) renewables before we start getting supply scares on coal and natural gas.  The best we can do is help our neighbors past as much dirty/destructive technology as we can and make all material goods as efficient as possible.  With sufficient technology, the only global heating we need to worry about is from waste heat. 

Anti-vaccination seems to be fairly bi-partisan, though I think it's a pretty uncommon position in general.  The general argument is just based on ignorance of disease and of science.  The libertarian argument makes me sad, because vaccines are quite safe and prevent so much suffering.   Requiring them is immoral, but I can't help but be a dirty pragmatist about it.

[Sheb]

I wish as I was optimistic/uninformed as you are.

[FearfulJesuit]

Yeah, heaven forbid we make people follow a few rules to keep society running smoothly. Requiring them for everyone is the pragmatist view.

[Rez]

Seriously?  Can't be civil?  That's exactly what I was saying.  I support mandating vaccinations despite my moral issues with it, because the common good is so overwhelming here.

[Bauglir]

I mean the problem with the academic discussion of global warming is that it's completely over. It's done. There's no more conversation left to be had. It's a real thing. There are only two roads left - some unforeseen technology that saves our asses, or social restructuring to mitigate the problem. Only one of those is something we can really do something about, and it requires a political conversation.

[smjjames]

I mean the problem with the academic discussion of global warming is that it's completely over. It's done. There's no more conversation left to be had. It's a real thing. There are only two roads left - some unforeseen technology that saves our asses, or social restructuring to mitigate the problem. Only one of those is something we can really do something about, and it requires a political conversation.

Yet some people refuse to admit it's happening, or don't think it's caused by humans. Even if it's not 100% caused by humans, we are still driving a large part of it. There aren't enough volcanic eruptions to explain the rise of CO2 since industrialization began if it wasn't caused by humans.

[Toady One]

(removed a few posts, muted LordSlowpoke for the drive-by trolling routine --there have been many warnings and they have all been ignored)

[smjjames]

Hope he doesn't end up getting himself banned.

[Frumple]

Yet some people refuse to admit it's happening, or don't think it's caused by humans. Even if it's not 100% caused by humans, we are still driving a large part of it. There aren't enough volcanic eruptions to explain the rise of CO2 since industrialization began if it wasn't caused by humans.

... are they still doing the volcano thing? That's, just... just. So trivially discountable? Last I checked the numbers, anyway. Think it came out to something like every year of human output for the last while has matched the totality of somewhere around a few (several? Dozen?) centuries of volcanic CO2 output. It's something ridiculous like that

[Mr. Strange]

Yet some people refuse to admit it's happening, or don't think it's caused by humans. Even if it's not 100% caused by humans, we are still driving a large part of it. There aren't enough volcanic eruptions to explain the rise of CO2 since industrialization began if it wasn't caused by humans.

... are they still doing the volcano thing? That's, just... just. So trivially discountable? Last I checked the numbers, anyway. Think it came out to something like every year of human output for the last while has matched the totality of somewhere around a few (several? Dozen?) centuries of volcanic CO2 output. It's something ridiculous like that

There was a site somewhere that had CO2 emissions humans had caused for every year from 1990 to 2012, and counted how much coal or oil would have to be burned to produce the same amount.
It was a lot, in case you wonder.