Canadian Cons and science - http://www.academicmatters.ca/2013/05/harpers-attack-on-science-no-science-no-evidence-no-truth-no-democracy/ Harper's doubling down even more since the article.
Wow, the ad hominem attacks on me on ridiculous. People can't even have a debate without it, quite sad.
Thanks for the article. Too bad there isn't more posters like yourself, who actually can contribute to a conversation with logic, and not personal attacks. 1 like for not being an internet tough guy!
Did you forget posting this yesterday? For the record I'm a conservative so you called me a moron, anti-science, a liar, and an idiot then you complain about getting attacked? Are you serious? You poor thing.
Perhaps he should have used the term right-wing (or tea Party) Conservative. Same mistake many make when using Liberal to describe the left wing nutters. But none the less, Good point Cactus.
there is no debate. Only ignorants claiming conservatives (half the nation) are anti science, and smart people showing those ignorants how stupid they are ffor making such insulting open ended claims not based in reality. The liberal propaganda machine at work -yuri
Perhaps he should have been more specific but I did give him a chance to clarify exactly who it was he was insulting. I wasn't really complaining about the insults, I was responding more to the hypocrisy. I understand his opinion of conservatives, I feel the same about many of them, especially when discussing cannabis.
Really? Our President is trying to pass the TPP and all you care about is Cannabis lol Please Speak on IMPORTANT issues. There's a reason it's still illegal, they don't want the public to think or be healthy. It would put BIG PHARMA out of business and Oil Companies and of course MAKE MORE PEOPLE THINK. Fluoride is in the Water Supply for God sakes. Presidential elections are a Sham. Two party system is broken and gives the Public an Illusion of choice. Come on man
the momentum for legalization is too great for it to suddenly hit a wall the gooberment has stake in legalization as they stand to make a lot of green, and they know it the hold up has to do with implementing a system, a standard for which to tax and track the market I give it 10 years
Sorry that's how things are. Cannabis would be Legal If Ron Paul Was Elected. Of course the mainstream media blacked him out...... Chris Christie said legalizing weed would bring "Blood Money"....That makes no sense, the government has said it can cure cancer and is less dangerous then alcohol. It should be legal all over the Country. President is trying to pass the TPP, we don't have much time left to be talking about legalization. Sorry. Ron Paul has the same view point and he's been trying to wake people up.
Ron Paul? The guy on TV that does the drag queen contests? I dont know much about him but he probably had smoked weed
Yuri - It is scientific consensus that humans are effecting the climate. SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS. In the same way that we have scientific consensus on evolution and gravity. Denying scientific consensus is the very definition of anti-science. And yes, the anti-gmo nuts are the climate deniers of the left.
No. It's not just me, saying so. It's not even just scientists saying so. It. Is. Scientific. Consensus. There is a consensus of evidence. Peer reviewed. Scientific evidence. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009EO030002/pdf http://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107.full.pdf+html~~</span></a></span><br/>Preliminary http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full I could post a million more links, but I really doubt you're reading any of them. It's been debated before, and you've ignored it all before.
It isnt a "scientific consensus" it would be "a consensus amongst scientists" "Climate deniers" is another pointless label. I doubt anyone denies the climate is changing (it always has and always will), or that human have 'some' effect on it. I think the part that is hard to swallow is that humans are having some massive impact. Think about it, with enough global warming.... i mean climate change, we will have a new continent to live. C'mon, dont be an Antarctica denier
What conservatives typically think about global warming is actually much more scientific than the typical progressive opinion on it. The conservative position is rational and logical and is as follows. 1. Global warming and climate change are real. There is no question about either one because we have in incontrovertible evidence that climate change is constantly occurring and that global warming has been going on for thousands of years. 2. The earth has been much, much warmer and cooler before, so we aren't in any sort of "new" pattern. 3. Every model of "radical climate change" projecting dangerous escalation of temperatures has proven to be wrong and when reality doesn't reflect the "science" it's not reality that is flawed. 4. Without proof that whatever "climate change" we are actually experiencing is all of the following, it is foolhardy to pass legislation that will restrict industry and individuals in their activities for the sake of it. ( A ). It is driven by man's activities. ( B ). It is catastrophic. ( C ) it is reversible through actions or inactions of man. And so far, there isn't solid proof of any of that. 5. That liberal/progressives have glommed onto the "issue" as a campaign tool and political gambit for the sake of political gain and as an ulterior motive for engaging in wealth redistribution activities and legislation. AGW may be a real problem but, scientifically speaking, we only have questions and no matter how much we try to pretend we have the real answers to the hard questions, we just don't. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
The problem lies in both sides of the debate like many. Both sides overhype their claims and distract from the real issues such as massive ocean pollution, greater spread of tropical diseases, and other less sexy issues of climate change. People on the side of stricter regulations will use doomsday like predictions that are largely overhyped to validate massive government expansion. At the same time, many politicians will play off climate change as something to not worry about really at all, or bother trying to change. At the end of the day the truth really lies somewhere between the two sides. Really we need to focus on alternative energy sources such as through cellulose or cold fusion, because it will ultimately lead to less pollution and much more energy security. The thing that concerns me the most is just more volatile weather patterns that I think man is agitating and contributing to. Ultimately, we are gonna have an effect on the environment and fuck it up through all the shit that we do, the question is just how much and unfortunately there isn't a clear cut definitive answer but there is some decent theories out there.