What's new

A Place for Conservatives

Wait, so who's supposed to dictate policy?

Dictate, as is informing the policy choices, the elected officials obviously make policy. A simple proposition: policies that involve science should be based on (dictated by) actual science, not psuedo-science or political ideology masquerading as science, although obviously other factors (e.g., economic impact, etc.) should be considered.

This is more of an answer than your snarky response deserved.
 
Dictate, as is informing the policy choices, the elected officials obviously make policy. A simple proposition: policies that involve science should be based on (dictated by) actual science, not psuedo-science or political ideology masquerading as science, although obviously other factors (e.g., economic impact, etc.) should be considered.

This is more of an answer than your snarky response deserved.
Umm, you made a clumsy statement that indicated you thought scientists should be in charge of policy and everyone else should stfu. You're welcome for giving you an opportunity to clarify.
 
BP is a pretty straightforward person. Lol.

Perhaps, but I trust you, so I'll take your word for it. Although interpreting what I wrote (as inartful as it might have been typed in haste) as advocating for scientists to usurp the policymaking role seems to me to be a bit of a stretch.
 
I don't believe that's what you actually thought I meant.
That's what you said, so there was a discrepancy between what I assumed you meant and what you said. So I asked a question for clarification. It wasn't snarky.
 
I don't know, lol. I don't remember the film at all, although I did see it. Here's enough "Gore got it wrong" links to choke a horse, and a few in support of Trump. Again, better to stick with primary sources, and not movies, I would think.

https://skepticalscience.com/resources.php?a=links&arg=74

Sorry, looks like a lot of those "Gore got it wrong" links are dead...

Maybe this will help, but I am at a disadvantage, as you apparently remember the Gore film like the back of your hand, and I do not...

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/changing-climate-10-years-after-inconvenient-truth

According to one climate science in this entry, climate scientists did not predict a global catastrophe by 2018:

https://skepticalscience.com/comeback-strategies-al-gore.html

Reprinted from here, if you don't feel skeptical science can be trusted:

https://www.yaleclimateconnections....-comeback-strategies-al-gore-said-what-part3/
How convenient of the climate alarmists to divorce themselves from Gore at this point. When he said these things, which really aren't that difficult to remember because they were so extreme and alarmist, the leftists were praising him for taking the point position in saving the planet. I don't recall a peep from the scientists whose research he was citing explaining that he may have overstated their predictions. Nobody in that camp seems to care if a proponent of climate change overstates the case, even if their proposed solutions are ridiculous and would result in the collapse of our economy, but if someone suggests that it might not be as bad as predicted, or God forbid that CO2 might have positive impacts as well, they go bananas.

It won't surprise me if a decade from now the most vociferous proponents of climate change will be divorcing themselves from the current cadre of politicians who are trying to use this "emergency" to advance their careers and jumping on the bandwagon of a new generation of alarmists. Of course, none of them will acknowledge the obvious parallels to Chicken Little.
 
Don’t confuse al gore with a scientist. Dude is a politician. He cherry picks info on global warming. So while his support of the general idea of global warming is correct. He has many details and the conclusions he draws are bogus.
Just like AOC and Beto and Bernie and Kamala and all the rest of the Dems running for president? But we should take this new generation of political alarmists seriously, right?
 
Just like AOC and Beto and Bernie and Kamala and all the rest of the Dems running for president? But we should take this new generation of political alarmists seriously, right?
What about the IPCC that is under the United Nations who's entire purpose is to study this stuff saying that it's a serious issue?
 
Just like AOC and Beto and Bernie and Kamala and all the rest of the Dems running for president? But we should take this new generation of political alarmists seriously, right?

I agree. They are almost as bad as the dude who got elected saying that America was no longer great, NAFTA/ TPP were catastrophes, hordes of rapists in caravans, etc.

However, I do take AOC and others seriously and welcome the debate! I just think their policies are wrong. If fiscal conservatives run from a debate by attacking individuals, we would be the epitome of cowardice.
 
From what I can glean at this point, thinking and dealving into it a bit more, it seems to me that Gore's book and movie helped promote climate change as an issue. And it sounds to me that he was not speaking for consensus science when he made the statement involving 10 years. So I assume thst would be Gore's mistake and responsibility, and not that of climate science. And I don't remember the film at all at this stage, but I don't have any reason to look to Al Gore in the first place. He popularized the issue, raised consciousness of it, and likely made other mistakes in the process. I doubt there was any scientific body that appointed him official spokesman for the science, either. I doubt there was any scientific consensus behind his statement at all, and if he avoids answering to that, or does not want to talk about it, that's on him. Not climate science.

This is spot on. One can believe that Al Gore is an idiot and that climate science can be believed.

Gore was a carnival barker and many scientists were cringing about the way he exaggerated and framed this issue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Red
Your point appeared to me to be that these scientists know more about their subject matter than I do so, to you, I sound "foolish" for doubting them. I told you why I doubt them.

If that wasn't your point, please explain.

Here's the point, anyone without engineering training can reasonably conclude if a bridge collapses that the engineer who designed erred (assuming it was an issue with design & not with materials or shoddy workmanship). Same if, for example, a space shuttle blows up, a non-expert can reasonably conclude that the experts who designed it erred.

The same people, however, would look foolish trying to tell the structural engineers how to design the bridge or the aerospace engineers how to design a space shuttle. My point of reference is clearly issues for which an expertise is required not after-the-fact failures that don't require any expertise to conclude, "yeah, that didn't work out."

It's not that hard, really.
 
Awesome Jimmy. No shoulder needed, thank you. You have made "vigorous" assertions of your opinions and I have provided a mountain of evidence of liberal bias in the main stream media. To each his own.

Here's the thing, I've never disputed the existence of liberal bias in the mainstream media, not once. I concede the point. You've been arguing over and over a assertion I never made. Next time, try actually reading what I, or someone else, write before launching into your prepared talking points. (Putting forward an op-ed piece by the moronic son of the moron-in-chief as "proof" of your assertion was a real laugher.)

My point is that conservatives long-term whining about liberal bias was never, ever a principled opposition to media bias, but only a convenient argument against left-leaning media bias. Conservatives are perfectly happy with right-leaning media bias.

Plus, there are now so many source of right-leaning media that any conservative who wants the comforting embrace of the right-wing media bubble has multiple options where to get it. Fox News, in particular, has become a media juggernaut. So it's time to STFU and stop whining and crying about media bias. The bias has been to a large extent redressed, and, given the right's contentment to continue to push out biased news on a massive scale, it's whining and crying about left-wing media bias rings hollow and is an incredibly self-serving display of brazen hypocrisy. In other words, "we can do it all we want, but if the other side does it, we're going to whine and cry and play the persecution card" Again, STFU already about it.

Finally, conceding the presence of left-leaning media bias by no means implies equivalence with Fox New, and in particular it's opinion shows, which have become, for all intents and purposes, the propaganda arm of the TrumpsterFire administration. This is unprecedented in the modern era and sets a very dangerous precedent. If you are OK with this now, I will expect you to be OK with it if, and when, the tables are turned.
 
Let's not forget, Fox News is the highest rated television news source. So this idea that all of the U.S. is getting fed lies from liberal "fake news" media is simply incorrect. No political side has a corner on news coverage. One way or another all bias is being represented in our news media.
 
Repeat rant alert:
There's a huge difference between a slight bias in media and the dishonest things that some news does. Fox has a bias, I could get over that bias in their news. What I can't get over is slipping in opinions into news reporting. It's fine to have opinion shows and pieces, isn't not okay to mix opinions into news. Fox news, Breitbart, and occupy Democrats are guilty of this.

Just stick to good news, there is plenty of it. Christian science monitor and Wall Street journal are both great news reporting that both tend to lean conservative with their bias. New York times and NPR both are great and slightly lean left.

The other issue is people think it's all liberal news if they lean left. The bias in news are fairly limited in good news. They do show up but they also show up both ways. NY times has reporters and editors that lean right. Those biases show up as well, just slightly less often than left.

More media tends to be slightly left for many reasons but mainly because most major news comes from metro areas where people tend to lean left. Rural local news tends to lean right. Reporters are usually college educated and college educated people lean left as well. But again those are just overall there are many people leaning all over the place.

Plus there is the fact that most people have biases on individual issues. Even someone leaning left most likely leans right on many issues.

But we do have people who just follow the party line and clearly have bought into their parties propaganda. There are plenty of examples of that here, like @Heathme.
 
Let's not forget, Fox News is the highest rated television news source. So this idea that all of the U.S. is getting fed lies from liberal "fake news" media is simply incorrect. No political side has a corner on news coverage. One way or another all bias is being represented in our news media.
Fox News is the highest rated cable news source with about 2.5 million prime time nightly viewers. In comparison, network news programs still average far more viewers. CBS, NBC and ABC each have between 6 and 9 million viewers to their nightly prime time news. Fox News influence far outweighs the relatively small number of people that actually watch on a nightly basis.
 
How convenient of the climate alarmists to divorce themselves from Gore at this point. When he said these things, which really aren't that difficult to remember because they were so extreme and alarmist, the leftists were praising him for taking the point position in saving the planet. I don't recall a peep from the scientists whose research he was citing explaining that he may have overstated their predictions. Nobody in that camp seems to care if a proponent of climate change overstates the case, even if their proposed solutions are ridiculous and would result in the collapse of our economy, but if someone suggests that it might not be as bad as predicted, or God forbid that CO2 might have positive impacts as well, they go bananas.

It won't surprise me if a decade from now the most vociferous proponents of climate change will be divorcing themselves from the current cadre of politicians who are trying to use this "emergency" to advance their careers and jumping on the bandwagon of a new generation of alarmists. Of course, none of them will acknowledge the obvious parallels to Chicken Little.

Yeah, I guess there's some truth to your description of what amounts to human nature when it comes to "distancing", but I can't even remember the movie, so whatever was said there, or in his book, which I did not read, are in fact difficult for me to remember. I remember attending a showing with friends, and that's about it. I remember the friends I saw his movie with, the movie, I remember ice, and polar bears. I can't speak for the scientists. At this moment in time, both their recent assessments certainly conveyed urgency. I take them seriously. You don't.

I get the alarm, if a climate change skeptic is jaw dropped at the prospect of collapsing the economy over something that does not even exist. That would rank as an epic human failure, historic failure.

Or the UN and Trump administration assessments might be accurate.

As for the Green New Deal, AOC is a kid, she's idealistic, ambitious, driven. The scientists are stressing the urgency of the situation. The saying "something's gotta give" will probably apply here. We have a president who's on your side: "I don't believe it". Remember, he said science was all but in his genes, so he should know, right? I should be happy he's leading all the skeptic's, right? But the future might judge him a bit more harshly then the climate skeptics do, and it won't have anything to do with Russia or hush funds.

Something's gotta give. I wish I were 20, I want to see the future, regardless of what it will bring. But,I have a different prediction to yours. I foresee a time where climate skeptics find themselves saying "oh ****".
 
Let's not forget, Fox News is the highest rated television news source. So this idea that all of the U.S. is getting fed lies from liberal "fake news" media is simply incorrect. No political side has a corner on news coverage. One way or another all bias is being represented in our news media.


How you just gonna throw out Fox news ratings and act like that means something when 95% of every other news source is left leaning. Common sense is add that **** all together and then compare to Fox' numbers. Of course Fox's number will be high if its the only place people on the right have to go.

You are never going to convince anyone with a brain there isnt a giant liberal news bias out there that dwarfs anything the right has.

You think there isnt a left leaning news bias because of just how much and how bad it is. You think its just normal news. Of course it would seem that way when there is hardly nothing out there to juxtapose it to.
 
Top