Stem Cell research.

[whistler]

There's more to it than that. I'm the last person to support Bush, but I don't consider global warming to be the problem most people think it is either. Now I KNOW global warming exists. It's happened before in cycles - I've learned all about it in Oceanography class (in which the Professor himself convinced me about the myths of global warming). But to think people can cause it? That's giving us too much credit. There isn't any real data to support it if you look at the big picture. The only data we have is less than 100 years old, when the earth is billions of years old. I don't think we should pollute with impunity for many other reasons, so you won't ever see me protest against people worried about global warming, but there's more politics behind global warming than science.

We've got recent ice core samples, for one. Almost weekly, there are new data that are highly consistent with a rapid increase in C02 in the last 50 years and a corresponding increase in temperature. Check out recent issues of Science or Nature. I'm not sure where the skepticism is propogated from, but it certainly isn't from any scientific body in the US or elsewhere. No scientist would argue global warming is definitely caused by human activity, but the vast majority of relevant scientists (from what I know) would say it's extraordinarily likely. No scientist wold say we need conclusive proof (that will never come). Only non-scientists make that argument. (I know those aren't your words.)

Anyone who thought Iraq was worth invading pre-emptively ought to think it's worth acting pre-emptively against the potential consequences of global warming. It's a simple cost-benefit analysis.

 

[Helter Skelter]

84% of Americans describe themselves as Christians. It is misleading to attempt to lump all conservative Christians into the category of creationists.

When using standard issue far-left talking points, I suggest you avoid the term "Christian right-wing". It makes you look ignorant, and largely unpopular with the vast majority of the population. Global warming is a completely seperate issue from Christianity.

Stay off the liberal smear sites. They'll steer you wrong every time.

I don't know any liberal sites. Christian right wing refers to a "certain portion of the population" So that my point is clear on who I'm talking about.
It doesn't refer to the christian left or moderate christians. It refers to those christians who put the Bible before everything else much like islamic extremist's. I'm talking George Bush is God and can do no wrong freaks.

 

[Shiftkey]

84% of Americans describe themselves as Christians. It is misleading to attempt to lump all conservative Christians into the category of creationists.

When using standard issue far-left talking points, I suggest you avoid the term "Christian right-wing". It makes you look ignorant, and largely unpopular with the vast majority of the population. Global warming is a completely seperate issue from Christianity.

Stay off the liberal smear sites. They'll steer you wrong every time.

No, there is such a thing as the religous right, which is made up of fundamentalist Christians. Even my polisci text books talk about it - there's nothing ignorant about including them in discussion.

 

[Shiftkey]

We've got recent ice core samples, for one. Almost weekly, there are new data that are highly consistent with a rapid increase in C02 in the last 50 years and a corresponding increase in temperature. Check out recent issues of Science or Nature. I'm not sure where the skepticism is propogated from, but it certainly isn't from any scientific body in the US or elsewhere. No scientist would argue global warming is definitely caused by human activity, but the vast majority of relevant scientists (from what I know) would say it's extraordinarily likely. No scientist wold say we need conclusive proof (that will never come). Only non-scientists make that argument. (I know those aren't your words.)

Anyone who thought Iraq was worth invading pre-emptively ought to think it's worth acting pre-emptively against the potential consequences of global warming. It's a simple cost-benefit analysis.

The science only points to it existing, and that sometime in the future it might happen. It doesn't support claims that humanity is causing it. Increases in CO2 over 50 years isn't even a drop in the bucket for the earth's timeline - it's entirely likely that we are witnessing a natural fluctuation, much like the "hole in the ozone" that mysteriously shrunk in 2002 according to NASA satalite imagry. It's also unknown how much CO2 is needed to trigger global warming. As to the temperatures rising, that only occurs in highly populated areas where electricity and machines cause the temporature change. Outside of the cities are a different story.

http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/20020926ozonehole.html

 

[Shiftkey]

As a member of the National Wildlife Federation and World Wildlife Fund and dozens more enviromental organizations global warming is a no brainer. It's a fact.

It's a no brainer huh? Ever stop and actually question it? Think back to elementary school and how much effort was put forth by teachers telling you how bad and scary global warming is. I bet you were a fan of Captain Planet when you were a kid too

Calling global warming a no brainer is akin to following Bush without questioning his policies.

 

[whistler]

The science only points to it existing, and that sometime in the future it might happen. It doesn't support claims that humanity is causing it. Increases in CO2 over 50 years isn't even a drop in the bucket for the earth's timeline - it's entirely likely that we are witnessing a natural fluctuation, much like the "hole in the ozone" that mysteriously shrunk in 2002 according to NASA satalite imagry. It's also unknown how much CO2 is needed to trigger global warming. As to the temperatures rising, that only occurs in highly populated areas where electricity and machines cause the temporature change. Outside of the cities are a different story.

http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/20020926ozonehole.html

Nearly all science is based on probability.

80% of what I read is peer-reviewed journal articles. I've come across a multitude of cautious empirical articles in the past few years, and ALL of them present data consistent with human-induced global warming.

The consensus here seems nearly akin to the consensus on evolution.

What are you reading to inform your opinion?

Can you paste in a URL or two?

 

[Helter Skelter]

Human beings are fuucking up the planet. This is true.
Just look around, especially if you live in New Jersey.
Over 99.9 % of all living things in history are now extinct.
Human beings will probably be extinct someday too.

 

[belividere]

Yeah so anyways this thread was originally about stem cells not global climate fluctuations right?

The big arguement that the anti-embryonic stem cell lobby resorts to is the misunderstood definition of cloning. Unfortunately there is little science introduced on either side of the arguement. Most of the justification for the research comes from moral standpoints, save lifes vs. destroy lifes.

One of the biggest truths in science, really one of the only truths in science, is that until it is proven it means nothing. As a scientist myself I can say that the biggest concern to me is the fact that limiting research funding based on non-scientific beliefs is limiting the advancement of humanity. Aside from advancing humanity it is likely that the countries investing in such emerging technologies will develop cures and make trillions of dollars, mainly from the US. From an economic standpoint this is the equivalent of ignoring oil based inovations and investing in steam.

 

[Shiftkey]

Yeah so anyways this thread was originally about stem cells not global climate fluctuations right?

lol yea we did kind of hijack this thread. I guess I'm taking advantage of a political thread that hasn't been locked yet. Plus no one is dissagreeing about stem cell research, and it gets kind of boring when everyone's agreeing with everything

Wait, did I say there wasn't such a thing as a religious right? I honestly don't remember that. Actually, I just reread my post. I DIDN'T say that. And please tell me that you aren't insinuating that the only religious fundamentalists in this country are right-wing Christians. If you read that in your poli-sci textbooks, I suggest that you send them back to Michael Moore ASAP and demand a full refund.

No need to get overbearingly anxious here You told Helter Skelter not to use the term "Christian right wing" which is synonymous with the term "religious right" in the context he was using it in.

Nearly all science is based on probability.

80% of what I read is peer-reviewed journal articles. I've come across a multitude of cautious empirical articles in the past few years, and ALL of them present data consistent with human-induced global warming.

The consensus here seems nearly akin to the consensus on evolution.

What are you reading to inform your opinion?

Can you paste in a URL or two?

My opinion that we are not causing global warming probably started when I took an Oceanography class in college where the professor's pet peeve was the lack of science behind global warming. I have to confess that he'd make a much better agruement than I ever could. My opinion was further enforced by discussions in other college classes, a fictional novel by Michael Crichton called The State of Fear, and my distrust of political agendas.

Would you like to try and convince me that global warming is caused by us? Since you read so many journals I'm sure you have some good URLs on your favorites.

 

[Morphiex]

OMG its not a political thread and stop making it into one , i asked a simple question about what a group of people believed.

and if you want to talk about global warming make your own godamn thread , this one is intended for stem cell research , ffs cant we have a normal discussion about a serious topic without it reverting into a political debate.... deus ex your always staring up trouble on these kind of threads and start making em into political threads with your constant attacks on the left side....

ffs leave politics alone and talk about the issue ....

 

[Helter Skelter]

Oh wait, no no no. That's not what you said. You said "Christian right-wing", not "Christian extremists". If you meant extremists, you should have said EXTREMISTS. Instead, you made a far-left freudian slip and assumed everybody would equate the term "right-wing" with "extremist." Good job in completely distorting the facts by pulling a Rosie O'Donnell and comparing Christian extremists to Islamic extremists, though. Only a true kool-aid drinker would ever buy into an argument that people who don't believe in evolution are in the same league as people who blow up women and children in the name of the Koran. Get your thoughts in order, and then come back to me when Christian extremists hijack Saudi Arabian airliners and fly them into Mecca.

Christian extremist's are terrorist's. Instead of hijacking airplanes they send our military to their work. You look like your desperate for an argument. If you didn't know what I meant...that's just too bad.

 

[Helter Skelter]

You heard it right, folks. There are people out there that believe that Christian Fundamentalists are TERRORISTS. When you go out on November 7th, please remember that if his side gets control, that these are the type of people that you'll have running your country.

Those are the type of people we having running the country now. That's why were at war with Iraq.

I keep forgetting, why are we there?

Please give me suggestions for other countries we can invade while Bush is still in office.

 

[Desdinova]

Political and religious discussion is not allowed on the forum.

Thread Closed.