Posted on 08/22/2011 4:22:30 PM PDT by Kaslin
Whatever global warming might or might not have done to polar bears, it has put Rick Perry's presidential candidacy at risk.
The Texas governor clings to an ice flow of diminishing credibility, emerging in just about a week's time as intellectually unqualified to be president. He engaged in a brief dialogue with a child about evolution and came out the loser. Perry said there are some gaps in the theory. If so, he is one.
Maybe more important, Perry waxed wrongly on global warming. He rejected the notion that it is at least partially a product of industrialization, asserting that "a substantial number of scientists have manipulated data" to make it appear that mankind — our cars, trains, automobiles, not to mention China's belching steel mills — is the culprit.
He said that an increasing number of scientists have challenged this notion and that, in conclusion, he stood with them — whoever they might be. In Appleton, Wis., Sen. Joe McCarthy's skeleton rattled a bit.
The late and hardly lamented demagogue pioneered the political use of the concocted statistic. In his case, it was communists and they were, literally, everywhere. There were some, of course, just as there are some scientists who are global warming skeptics, but these few — about 2% of climate researchers — could hold their annual meeting in a phone booth, if there are any left. (Perhaps 2% of scientists think there are.)
(Excerpt) Read more at investors.com ...
Your typical Democrat is unable to evaluate raw data. They require others to give them all their answers.
Your typical Democrat is unable to evaluate raw data. They require others to give them all their answers.
Global warming sounds a lot like my ex-wife.
Richard Cohen is intellectually unqualified to be a commentator on, um, anything of substance.
He is apparently incapable of seeing past his own biases and blindness to understand the world that exists outside of his brain. Cohen “knows what he knows”. Critical thinking is a foreign idea to Cohen.
I’m no Perry supporter, but IBD has jumped a whole pod of sharks on this one.
There is not, nor has there ever been any evidence that humans can effect the climate.
And the theory of evolution is a gap.
By saying Global Warming is hooey — and in no uncertain terms — Perry got many more votes than he lost in yours, buddy.
See Cohen’s biography:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Cohen_%28columnist%29
Another leftist cheerleader in the mainstream media. What a surprise.
Headline needs correction:
Perry Campaign May Be Ruin Of Climate Change
IBD is usually staunchly conservative and full of common sense. Let’s not trash something good because of one bad apple.
In his farewell address in 1961, Eisenhower warned not only of a "Military-Induustrial Complex," which anti-war types remind us, but also of the corrupting influence of government money on scientific research: "Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity."
And I would add, maybe partly because of "looking out for #1." I wonder how long a team that found no evidence of AGW would be funded.
Whatever global warming might or might not have done to polar bears, it has put Rick Perry's presidential candidacy at risk.
So Perry is a fool because he doesn’t believe that a slight increase of a rare gas that compromises one part in two thousand six hundred and eleven of the atmosphere, allegedly caused by humans today, is to blame for an upward swing in temperature that began six hundred years ago.
To paraphrase a current ad campaign motto, “Show me the air facts.”
By the way, also show me how we can believe the result of “research” funded with the understanding that continued funding is predicated on support for AGW.
I point out that they’ve conceded the question by believing that something came from nothing in the original Big Bang and/or universe.
That is a good point, but the Big Bang actually is something from something. Scientists leave this something from for someone to define and theorize about but they don’t propose something from nothing.
Generically, they think energy to matter and matter to energy. So they believe that something created a huge amount of energy and that energy created matter.
The latest big bang theories to explain this something we come from... is that there are two branes (layers) that collided. Like two dimensions.
At some point you have to deal with the something from nothing, but they truly don’t have a theory that covers the something from nothing. In their reality, the default is everything exists vs everything doesn’t exist.
Most physicists confess they don’t know how something came into being from nothing and the default state is nothing.
Hell, the entire big bang theory is both an attempt to understand the universe and write God out of the picture.
And only 17% of Democrats are even reachable, and the ones that are reachable aren’t going to be swung on this. They are in that group of 22% that have doubts too.
50% vote Democrat blindly
another 15% communist/socialist
another 15% wack-os
why did they even bother bringing this up?
Eventually, no matter how many universes they, they have to get back to the something from nothing.
Yes, but they don’t have a theory for that
Get it?
Creation is a theory of something from nothing via a God .... a Grand Intelligence outside time ... a creator of time itself
Science doesn’t have a theory of nothing to something
In fact....They have a Scientific Law that says it is impossible....Einstein’s theory that matter can’t be destroyed, only converted to energy and energy can’t be destroyed, it can only be turned into matter. Anyone with elementary algebra knows it works the other way too.
In other words, energy comes from matter, matter from energy, you can’t get one without the other.
Try to write an equilateral equation with this and Null (nothing) doesn’t work.
So their own scientific laws don’t allow for there not to be such a theory.
I get, you get and at least it makes other people observing the conversation stop and think.
Every time I get into a conversation with an atheist person advocating that science explains everything... bringing this up just gets them to stuttering and eventual surrender or them walking away red faced.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.