War on reason.

[verytwistedmind]

"We will restore science to its rightful place, and wield technology's wonders to raise health care's quality and lower its cost,"

- President Barak Obama

Let us examine how he has remained true to these powerful words.

· Lifted the ban on embryonic stem cells research.

o Embryonic stem cells injected into patients can cause disabling

Comments

[chemchick]

I feel like you're being a bit disingenuous about the human embryonic stem cell research. Scientists have only been able to use them in research since 1998 when it was discovered how to isolate and propagate the cells. While there has been a ban in federal funding in place since 1996 (Thanks to President Clinton), private funding was still allowed and how they made that discovery. Further discoveries were greatly hindered by President Bush's decision in 2001 to not allow scientists to experiment outside of the already available cell lines. Cell lines that were later discovered to have been contaminated

[verytwistedmind]

I have moral issue with embryonic stem cells. I have an issue with wasting money on red herrings.

Your comment seems to suport my statement. Unless your arguement is that we need more time to research embryonic stem cells. My arguement is that it will not produce what we had originally assumed it would. That adult stem cells will because they are more controlable. As you noted.

[chemchick]

My comment in no way supports your statement

[verytwistedmind]

I do not have a moral issue*

Pardon that typo

[hannahsarah]

Science had better know it's rightful place. We can't have it getting all uppity on us.

[lestat77]

I'd rather not take 1998 or 2002 as my point of reference on global warming. How about 1898? Or whenever they started getting reliable temperature readings. Compare these to CO2 levels and...

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/co2-temp-sm.jpg

People need to stop trying to refute global warming by taking little bits and pieces of data that don't support it. If the most comprehensive look at available data doesn't support your claim, don't just start cherry-picking stuff that does. That's totally not how science works. No one is trying to say that there is a perfect year-to-year correlation between CO2 levels and global temperature.

[melvin_udall]

People need to stop trying to refute global warming by taking little bits and pieces of data that don't support it. If the most comprehensive look at available data doesn't support your claim, don't just start cherry-picking stuff that does. That's totally not how science works.

Damn straight! You tell them!

Only the Climate Research Unit is allowed to falsify results, change data, cherry pick, delete information to thwart FOIA and blackball any dissent.

THAT'S how real science works!

[lestat77]

I don't see any scientific information in this article, or even links to such information. I've seen this tactic used for a while now, trying to bring discussion of climate change out of the scientific arena and make a chaotic spectacle of it to distract from the real facts.

The vast majority of scientists in relevant fields believe that Earth is getting hotter, and that humans are largely responsible. For those of us who aren't scientists, it only makes sense to side with them. If there's ever a reversal of those numbers, I'll be thrilled, because it'd mean I won't have to worry so much about the impact of my activity on the planet. What to scientists have to gain from misleading people into believing that we're making the earth hotter? I keep hearing about this leftist-scientist agenda of forcing or manipulating people into changing their lifestyles to reduce carbon emissions. I'm baffled as to how that could be an end in itself, or to what anyone could possibly have to gain from it.

[melvin_udall]

Either you're an imbecile or you didn't bother to read the contents of the link. You would have fit right in with the Inquisition.

Do you know what the named organization is? Are you aware of the recent scandal that has come to light? Do you not understand what it means?

Or is it that the truth is you have no interest whatsoever in "how science works" but rather you're regurgitating the global socialist dogmatic talking points just like the true believers of a religion.

What to scientists have to gain from misleading people into believing that we're making the earth hotter?

Clearly either option I opened with is a possibility. I find it impossible to believe you are unaware of the answer.

Money. Promotion of their ideology. I see no need to elaborate, as you aren't actually interested in the answers.

The vast majority of scientists in relevant fieldsThe vast majority of scientists thought ulcers were caused by stress. Until they didn't. And it took ONE scientist to prove them wrong by actually ingesting the bacteria he

Wow...THATS A FIRST!

[flaming_nymph]

Thank you for pointing out some problems with science. Even though i'm just a kid (and i mean JUST A KID) I understand when science has crossed the line. It's so new for me to be hearing someone other than Fox saying this kind of thing. Most kids are so . . . liberal. World peace and all that. Science will save us! -- ah, no. It makes me happy to hear someone expressing some actual non-think-happy-thoughts opinions towards it.

Now, i have to ask this, what do you think of CLONING? (sorry, little off topic here) Does anyone agree with me that it can stop evolution if abused? I mean, people will change slowly with the environment. So if we keep using the same genes, doesn't that make it so they can't change at all? Sorry, i'm dying to know. This is interesting to me. I cant ask a science teacher, that wouldn't go well, so i will ask a random stranger who happens to agree with me on some scientific matters! ^^
Thanks!
~ Nymph ~

Re: Wow...THATS A FIRST!

[verytwistedmind]

"it can stop evolution if abused"

What do you mean?

Re: Wow...THATS A FIRST!

[flaming_nymph]

If we over use it.

Let's use pandas as an example.
If we clone too many pandas, the panda population will increase. That's a good thing. The issue comes it when they reproduce, the pandas will be combining almost, if not completely, identical genes. Therefore, the little baby panda is pretty much a clone in a smaller scale. The pandas, in a way, will be cloning themselves. The pandas can't truly evolve when the genes and DNA are so similar/identical, therefore, as the climate changes, the pandas will either:
a.) not change at all
or
b.)change at a pace too slow to match the pace of the enviorment's change.

I'm not the best at explaining things. Sorry!

Re: Wow...THATS A FIRST!

[verytwistedmind]

Wow, you're a very clever thinker. I need to address t his but I think I will have to dig up some old research first. Things like the theory of Entropy and Mutation come to mind.

However I think you are on to something....

[x_eleven]

"We will restore science to its rightful place, and wield technology's wonders to raise health care's quality and lower its cost,"

-- President Barak Obama

So he's going to depoliticize science?

This is just one more example of the lib's saying one thing while meaning another. To libbies, the "rightful place" of science is subjugation to the political, and service to the state. That's what the whole "global warming" furfrahah is all about: science in the service of powercrats that want to become our overlords.

Good ol' "Uncle Joe" Stalin's Central Committee regularly granted its imprimatur on "correct" science.

To some, George Orwell's 1984 is a warning. To others, it's a "how to" manual.

[verytwistedmind]

I hate to out myself here but O'Brien and Ellsworth Toohey are some of my personal heros and icons.

If I ever become rich enough to afford being a liberal I will be a lot like Toohey.