IS THE GOP ANTI-SCIENCE? OR JUST ANTI-RATIONALIST?
How Glennallen Walken got roped into playing a conservative boob who takes questions from “sincere” left wing readers at Salon I’ll never understand.
The money must be really good to prostitute oneself in such a way, playing the fool for a bunch of liberal swells. And I’m jealous as hell they didn’t ask me to do it first.
Regardless, Walken has a weekly “Advice to the Intellectually Challenged Liberal” column that answers questions from lefties who appear to get all their information about conservatives from Democratic party talking points or sites like Think Progress and Raw Story. I don’t know what’s more pathetic; Liberals asking questions that prove how clueless they are about the world around them or Walken feeling he has to answer their idiocies seriously. Either way, the unintentional comedic result goes so far over the head of Salon’s daily readers that it doesn’t even muss their hair on the way by.
Here’s a question from an earnest fellow who wants to know if conservatives have become a bunch of Luddites or if they’re just crazy:
Why has the Republican Party (and, it seems, a large portion of the conservative movement in general) embraced such an anti-science, anti-intellectual position? Growing up in a Republican household in the 1970s and ’80s, I was exposed to the likes of William F. Buckley, Jack Kemp and others who promoted the GOP as a party that could tackle issues intelligently. Basic sciences were supported, at least if seen as leading to improvements in business or defense.
Thirty years on, whatever intellectual elements that are left in the GOP seem to be drowned out by the likes of Limbaugh and Palin, who appear to be openly contemptuous of educated people. Senators such as James Inhofe sneer at any science that may challenge their worldview.
Is this mind-set now integral to the GOP and the conservative movement? Is there any path back to a party the embraces intelligence and scientific curiosity?
The second question along the same lines is equally bizarre - as if the questioners were asking about some weird species of slug that emerged from underneath a rotten log:
Are conservatives really anti-science? This would seem to be an odd position to hold, especially as you seem otherwise so keen on industry, commerce, business and enterprise. But this is what we conclude from attempts to restrict the teaching of evolution in public schools, denial (and outright denigration) of climate change, and the ridicule poured on anyone with any thoughts on how to minimize the damage being done to the environment. Sometimes it seems like Luddism; sometimes it seems like you haven’t even noticed that you are attacking the basic laws of biology and physics in order to keep the tortuous logic for some ideological convictions going.
As Walken patiently explains, the party that committed this country to SDI, renewing a push for nuclear power, using new technologies to drill for offshore oil while we fund research into alternative energy, and vastly increasing funding for the bread and butter of science; basic research, can hardly be called anti-science unless you ignore the facts and substitute an alternate narrative.
The meme “conservatives oppose funding for stem cell research” is a case in point. During the Bush years, there was no limit on federal funding for adult stem cell research and there was, in fact, funding of embryonic stem cell research based on lines already culled prior to the Bush decision of 2001.
How this morphed into “conservatives oppose funding for all stem cell research” is a textbook case of how the media advances Democratic party talking points at the expense of the truth. In a society with an unbiased media, that talking point would have been shot down long ago instead of being accepted as conventional wisdom.
But Walken does miss the boat on two issues that show conservatives to be if not anti-science, then certainly anti-rationalist. On Climate Change, Walken rightly points out the abandonment of scientific objectivity by liberals:
To conclude, conservatives are not anti-science or anti-technology. If anyone is anti-science it is the global warming, excuse me, global climate change extremists who, ignoring the holes in their own theories and the inconsistencies in their own projections, are willing to cripple U.S. industrial manufacturing, energy production and the economy in an attempt to reduce carbon emissions.
What Walken doesn’t take on is the exact same attitude on the part of Climate Change deniers - most of whom are conservatives - who refuse to accept any data that contradicts their idea that man made global warming is a leftist conspiracy and a fraud. This attitude, personified by Senator James Inhofe, is as damaging to the scientific method as anything the Climate Change proponents have ever done.
I wish there could be a legitimate debate over evidence of man made climate change but that will never happen. Hence, we are all left describing what we “believe” about global warming, pro or con, rather than what the scientific evidence in its totality proves to us. Selective reading of media stories on climate change gives fodder to both sides and is worse than useless because it presents a false, misleading picture of the confusing nature of the scientific process.
It doesn’t help that global warming proponents in the scientific community have the backing of interests that care much less about future climate change than the fact that they relish the opportunity such a “crisis” engenders by allowing them to promulgate draconian measures that would give them virtual control of the west’s economies.
Being a climate change denier does not automatically make you anti-science - unless you have closed your mind to contradictory data that prevents you from examining the issue in a rational manner. And here is where I believe the excessively ideological conservative base gives conservatism as a whole a bad rep on science. Using global warming skepticism as a litmus test to determine who truly is a conservative, the base has abandoned rationalism in favor of seeing the issue of climate change through a political prism as skewed as their opponents.
And Climate Change isn’t the only issue on the right where litmus tests are administered instead of leaning on rationalism to examine scientific issues. There is a fairly small but very vocal minority of conservatives who go absolutely bonkers every time someone mentions “evolution” or “Darwin.” A smaller subset of this group wishes to turn our public schools into purveyors of myth masquerading as “science” by trying to get local school boards to teach creationism or, it’s poor relation “Intelligent Design” in the same curricula that teaches evolution.
“Letting the kids decide for themselves” whether evolution or creationism should be the accepted theory of how life arose on earth and how humans came into being is a little like asking the kids to decide whether the earth is round or flat. If you wish to believe in creationism, fine. Why the Christian belief in how the earth got started is any more viable than say, the Hindu belief or even Native American creation myths escapes me. Seems if we’re going to teach creationism, we have to include all the other religious creation myths as well if not to be fair then at least so that we can “let the kids decide for themselves” what they want to believe.
Mentioning evolution in a favorable way automatically brands one as a suspect conservative in some quarters of the conservative base. Not all, of course. But it is a sizable enough and vocal enough minority as to make it appear to the public at large (thanks to a media that blows these incidents out of proportion) that at the very least, conservatives have rejected rationalism and are promoting the naked advancement of the Christian religion in public schools.
Conservatives are not anti-science - not by a long shot. But by not recognizing that excessively ideological positions that reject scientific rationalism outright in favor of a narrow, rigid interpretation of data that feeds preconceived political notions, conservatives fall into the exact same trap that their equally ideological opponents have set for themselves.
Sticking to one’s principles is great. But doing so while abandoning rational thinking and substituting emotion for logic only shows that some in the conservative base are not only irrational, but anti-intellectual as well. For when you abandon critical thinking in favor of groupthink; when you toss away an open mind and substitute rigid ideology, you lose your most cherished possession - an independent, rational mind.
The liberal counterpart to conservative stupidity on evolution can be found on any number of environmental issues.
On balance it’s probably a good thing to avoid extinctions, but no, the world will not become a cold, dark, joyless place if we subtract one subspecies of worm or fish or bat.
And the word “big” is not synonymous with “evil.”
And we are not running out of open space — climb in a jet, look out the window: lots and lots of open space. Fresh water not so much, but open space?
While we’re at it, there’s no scientific basis for the morbid fear of second-hand smoke. It smells bad, but it won’t kill you if your neighbor smokes a cigar in his back yard while, let’s say, just to pick something completely at random, typing a comment on Rightwingnuthouse.com.
Comment by michael reynolds — 5/11/2009 @ 10:17 am
Star Trek is a great prelude to this article. What many people miss (both on the left on the right) is that the most important point in science is the ’scientific methodology’. You observe, you interpret and then you test. Of course you have to be your own worst ‘devils advocate’ and willing to destroy your own pet theories. This, as I have stated many times, has nothing to do with politics and should be taught as such in a science classroom.
The difficulty occurs when you model tour projections into the past or future. For example, you can test evolution in action in a mere two weeks (let’s say bacterial evolution in response to antibiotic). So there can be no doubt evolution is happening. However, it is much trickier to remodel life’s history which will give opponent fodder claiming that evolution really is not real (which of course is nonsense).
Same with climate change. It is just very difficult to model earth’s climate with so many variable. However, that does not make all these efforts ‘pseudo science’.
In my opinion, this should be a political non issue.
Comment by funny man — 5/11/2009 @ 10:18 am
This post — and no doubt the comments to come — kind of founder on an overly broad definition of science in the context of conservative Republican heterodoxy.
While SDI and nuclear power are “science,” they are not “science” like stem-cell research, environmental research and medical marijuana research to pick three examples kind of at random.
In the cases of these three examples, the Bush administration abandoned scientific rigor in order to, as it did in so many instances, pander to the views of its political base.
In these instances it was the kids in charge who decided for themselves.
Wrong about stem cells. Adult stem cells had no problem getting funded during the Bush administration. And they were the first to authorize embryonic stem cell research. You disagree with the medical ethicists who recommended that only the existing lines of embryonic stem cells be used. Fine. This is a question of ethics, not politics.
To make the broad claim that Bush opposed funding for stem cells is not only wrong, it’s repeating a lie, a talking point, a mindless partisan bromide with no basis in fact and deliberately used to paint the GOP as anti-science.
And you failed to make note of teh massive increases in basic research funds, doubling NIH monies for instance. Your science friendly president is CUTTING those funds. Who’s on the side of rationalism now?
ed.
Comment by Shaun — 5/11/2009 @ 11:17 am
I think the “climate change” science is far more complicated such that many of all sides of the arguments are just plain wrong.
On the other hand, “cap-n-trade” is just plain bad.
Cap-and-trade is the temple of doom. It would lock in disasters for our children and grandchildren. Why do people continue to worship a disastrous approach? Its fecklessness was proven by the Kyoto Protocol. It took a decade to implement the treaty, as countries extracted concessions that weakened even mild goals. Most countries that claim to have met their obligations actually increased their emissions. Others found that even modest reductions of emissions were inconvenient, and thus they simply ignored their goals.
Why is this cap-and-trade temple of doom worshipped? The 648 page cap-and-trade monstrosity that is being foisted on the U.S. Congress provides the answer. Not a single Congressperson has read it. They don’t need to – they just need to add more paragraphs to support their own special interests. By the way, the Congress people do not write most of those paragraphs – they are “suggested” by people in alligator shoes.
The only defense of this monstrous absurdity that I have heard is “well, you are right, it’s no good, but the train has left the station”. If the train has left, it had better be derailed soon or the planet, and all of us, will be in deep do-do. People with the gumption to parse the 648-pages come out with estimates of a price impact on petrol between 12 and 20 cents per gallon. It has to be kept small and ineffectual, because they want to claim that it does not affect energy prices!
It seems they would not dream of being honest and admitting that an increased price for fossil fuels is essential to drive us to the world beyond fossil fuels. Of course, there are a huge number of industries and people who do not want us to move to the world beyond fossil fuels – these are the biggest fans of cap-and-trade. Next are those who want the process mystified, so they can make millions trading, speculating, and gaming the system at public expense.
.. that’s coming from an “AGW alarmist”
Comment by Neo — 5/11/2009 @ 11:18 am
Rick said,
Depends on whether or not you include social conservatives.
As I tried to explain - but apparently went over your head - SOME conservatives are anti-science. Taken on a whole, the vast majority are not. And if you “include social conservatives” you have SOME conservatives who are anti science.
duh.
ed.
Comment by Chuck Tucson — 5/11/2009 @ 11:25 am
Yeah, the piece was so deep that I had trouble understanding it. Or maybe I couldn’t get past feeling that on the whole you were making excuses for conservatives in general, trying as hard as you could to make it seem like it’s only the tiniest minority in your party who’s anti science. The party base isn’t exactly a minority.
Comment by Chuck Tucson — 5/11/2009 @ 12:19 pm
Most liberals and conservatives who are partisan are both pro-science and anti-science depending on if the scientific findings support their partisan positions — the real problem is that both parties are basically anti-rational in the sense they both lack the ability or inclination to be objective.
Comment by mike farmer — 5/11/2009 @ 12:39 pm
“…when you toss away an open mind and substitute rigid ideology, you lose your most cherished possession - an independent, rational mind.”
Rick you nailed the issue right on the head! Both sides suffer from this. Microclimate vs. macroclimate. Very different issues and both very complicated. Mankind most definitely plays a part on a microclimate scale (heat islands, etc.) but IMO the data does not show any macroclimatic influence from all of us peoples.
Both sides are right. Both sides are wrong. LOL.
Comment by Anonymous — 5/11/2009 @ 2:01 pm
As with a number of things, a huge part of the anti-science image problem has to do with the guy that occupied the head job at the Whitehouse from 2001-2008. He clearly catered to, and I think it’s pretty clear he relied on, that “smaller subset” that does stuff like push Creationism in sciences classes. If it was an act by him then he deserves an Oscar nomination nod because he played the “ignorant hick populous” so convincingly well.
When such factions of the GOP so clearly have the ear of the President it is hardly surprising that the President’s party as a whole gets painted, regardless of the actual head count they represent. *shrug* Weighting by influence makes perfect sense.
P.S. On the matter of future drilling oil offshore in North America, Obama has probably advanced that further than any President in some time. Using the more traditional tools of politicians. How? By tossing a bone to Cuba, laying the foundation for the day with the ol’ Beard-o finally kicks the bucket and Cuba finally has someone running the place [without being undercut by Castro] that can be dealt with. His brother Raul tries to ratchet down the traditional bile and what does Castro do? Stomp in out of “retirement” and toss gas on the fire again. :/
Comment by Dwight — 5/11/2009 @ 2:36 pm
I assume that you used this interview with Bush’s Science and Technology Director to support your case: http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/after_the_storm/But, you failed to mention the most important quote in which he makes it clear that the last prez didn’t care much for questioning his “beliefs” by encouraging debate or any kind of scientific method: http://tinyurl.com/9dj77h. Is this anti-science or anti-rationalist? Does it make a difference? As an approach, it’s just plain stupid. And what about the email from top scientists criticizing Bush for a “retardation of research” and “systematic suppression of scientific evidence that does not support administration plans” just days before he left office?: http://tinyurl.com/3ap7vv Were all those who signed it crazy liberals or concerned citizens?
Comment by panderwatch — 5/11/2009 @ 3:16 pm
Very good article
I am on the skeptic side of Global Warming or Climate AChange whatever they call it this week. I am because of the actual scientific method. With the AGW propagandists do not tell you is the IPCC is not done by scientists and many of the scientists thatdid the scientific work do not agree with their conclusions. The IPCC report is done by bureaucrats in the UN.
And most of the scientific method used by the Deniers, can be backed up by the actual results, not models done on a computer.
And the whole thing with ID and Evolution is going bat crazy. Geez, didn’t we already have the Monkey trials. This ID craze is driving people away from the conservative movement.
Can the people on the right please start fighting the real enemy, the Leftists that want to bring European Socialism to the United States and not with each other.
Comment by Stix — 5/11/2009 @ 4:20 pm
*head desk* Oy. So many folks can’t tell the difference between Darwinism, ID and Creation Science.
Three totally different theories.
Amazing how many “pro-science” can’t be bothered with any argument but mis-lableing…. May as well argue against Islam by arguing against the Catholic Church!
Comment by Foxfier — 5/11/2009 @ 6:55 pm
Foxfier,
I was talking about evolution not Darwinism, ID or creationism. You can actually test evolution by looking at the genome after a given time exposed to different conditions. The other theories are untestable hence unscientific.
Comment by funny man — 5/11/2009 @ 7:09 pm
Everything you’ve said is true, but it doesn’t really address the core problem. We conservatives have allowed a small, vocal minority to dominate public perception of the GOP. The mainstream media doesn’t give us any help, but if you were not paying attention you would think Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh and Dr. James Dobson represented main stream conservatives. Even if you grant that each of them has something intelligent to say on some topic (and I am not always certain of that), they don’t represent the average conservative.
We don’t need to run to the middle, because we already reflect the values and beliefs of typical Americans. It just doesn’t sound like it in the press!
Comment by Mark — 5/11/2009 @ 7:34 pm
While I can appreciate your wanting to rid the conservative party of knee-jerk reactionaries, Rick, I must say you’re off-base with regards to global warming. Liberals are overwhelmingly guilty of using global warming as an ideological litmus test and launchpad for demagoguery. It’s not even a close contest.
Do some conservatives have ridiculous views on global warming? Sure. But anyone with an appreciation for science who has honestly and objectively studied the liberal argument would have to consider the conservatives the least of their worries.
Comment by Ryan Garns — 5/11/2009 @ 7:36 pm
Ryan,
Fine, the science on global climate change is fuzzy. Aren’t most of the things we should do to counter global warming good ideas anyway? Less dependence on fossil fuels, more investment in conservation measures and energy efficiency, and development of alternative energy to a rational degree make sense. Global warming is a red herring. Let’s not get caught up in bad argument. Let’s just take some reasonable steps toward sound energy policy.
Comment by Mark — 5/11/2009 @ 7:53 pm
“And if you ‘include social conservatives’ you have SOME conservatives who are anti-science.”
(one of these days, I’ll learn how to do that uber-1337 “quote prior comment in a box” or “italicize” — its good to have goals)
The problem (as you’ve mentioned) is that the small sub-set of anti-science conservatives are also unfortunately also the extremely loud sub-set of conservatives. The rest of you get tarred with the same brush when they make noise. So few conservatives offer a voice of sanity in a public venue — keep tilting at windmills Mr. M. The country needs you and yours.
p.s. — I have no problem with ID in schools. I think its a facinating concept, and one that personally I (sort of) ascribe to. It just doesn’t belong in science class . . . and it rankles me to no end when its called the “theory” of Intelligent Design. Hell, its not even a hypothesis considering its utterly untestable. Its the exact opposite of a Theory.
On a related note: On the off chance she’s reading this,
Dear Ms. Alanis Morrisette — in regards to your song “Ironic”. Absolutely nothing in your song constitutes irony. “Isn’t it ironic, don’t you think?” No. No I don’t, and neither does Merriam-Webster’s or American Heritage.
Comment by busboy33 — 5/11/2009 @ 8:01 pm
Busboy:
I agree. ID should be taught. Perhaps in psychology class.
Comment by michael reynolds — 5/11/2009 @ 8:16 pm
@funny man
The difficulty occurs when you model tour projections into the past or future. For example, you can test evolution in action in a mere two weeks (let’s say bacterial evolution in response to antibiotic). So there can be no doubt evolution is happening. However, it is much trickier to remodel life’s history which will give opponent fodder claiming that evolution really is not real (which of course is nonsense).
You are passing judgement about others not understanding yet you fail miserably here? You can, and there has been a lot of work, looking back into the past with evolution. What you hypothesis is something like “if this evolved from that, you should see a certain type of structure or mechanism within the organism itself”. Over and over when this expected result is looked for, boom, the predicted finding has been found.
By itself each piece of this evidence is not proof. But the effect of accumulated pieces of evidence has moved us past reasonable doubt about the role of evolution over roughly 1 billion years, going back to a [more or less] single point.
Those that argue otherwise are relying on ideas that were dubious decades ago and have over recent years have become entirely laughable.
Comment by Dwight — 5/11/2009 @ 9:33 pm
Science has become like patriotism ..
if you don’t agree with me you’re unpatriotic and anti-science .. take your pick
Comment by Neo — 5/11/2009 @ 10:20 pm
It would be very surprising if a significant number of the conservatives who are anti-science are NOT social conservatives. As several commentators have said, it is the perception that the social conservatives are a significant force in the GOP that gives ALL republicans a bad name when it comes to science.
Comment by Surabaya Stew — 5/11/2009 @ 11:04 pm
The problem isn’t so much how loud or not-loud the disagreeable sub-groups are– they still would be the only examples pointed to, because it’s a good club.
If you don’t want to actually deal with someone’s argument, you start calling them names. If you are loud enough, and have sympathetic coverage, it works– may as well be screaming “pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!”
Can anyone here imagine Rush Limbaugh calling even Jessie Jackson a “house N****”? How about a ‘political comic’ with him done up like a turn-of-last-century stereotype?
Yet Dr. Rice and, well, pretty much any other African American that’s conservative can be called and drawn thus without attention being drawn outside of some of the “alternative media.”
Comment by Foxfier — 5/11/2009 @ 11:34 pm
Dwight,
I don’t understand your point. I’m not saying you can’t model life’s history into the past but it is difficult to do. You have all the sequenced genomes now so you can develop a tree of relatedness but it is harder to say when species diverged. What is the rate of change for a certain gene and what do you do with horizontal gene transfer. Those are just a few examples.
What judgement am I passing on?
Comment by funny man — 5/11/2009 @ 11:40 pm
Excellent points on Stem Cell research.
“Fine, the science on global climate change is fuzzy. Aren’t most of the things we should do to counter global warming good ideas anyway?”
No, if CO2 is harmless then we are talking about huge and stupid diversions of resources to address a non-problem. that makes people poor and gets people killed. Saving energy for economic reasons should be done on the basis of economics.
A lot of Co2 driven ideas like biofuels are a huge waste of money. so is solar.
‘Let’s just take some reasonable steps toward sound energy policy.”
Yeah, so lets NOT close Yucca mtn or take offshore oil off limits, or shut down nuke plants or stop coal plants or waste billions on ethanols. bad ideas ALL.
I also think Sen Inhofe has been fairly good and responsible, given the fact that he is a senator up against a big power structure in the IPCC. He deserves a medal for political courage for what he does on behalf of the truth about CO2.
Comment by Travis Monitor — 5/12/2009 @ 12:00 am
Not a single creationist has forced me to pay higher taxes or a higher energy bill for their mythical belief system. But I’ve already had to pay for gore’s mythical belief system.
Creationism is not “anti-science.” I know educated people who believe in creation theory and are engineers and not ‘anti-science’. They dont want to stop science or attack it, they just have faith that overrides conventional thinking on certain matters. I can assure you, NOBODY gets harmed by it at all. So why the character attacks on the GOP on the basis of it?
the whole meme is just a fine example of liberal agit-prop that is successful enough to be ‘conventional wisdom’. It’s an attempt to make the GOP less popular is all. nothing more.
In fact, liberals are anti-science. They have attacked people who dispute global warming ‘consensus’ in vicious and personal ways. that is attacking the scientific process. I dont see any conservatives doing that AT ALL. Only people I know that are anti-science in a real sense are liberals.
Anyone who believes the earth is 6,000 years old is not using reason or logic. Anyone who believes man walked with the dinosaurs, ditto. Anyone who rejects carbon dating and other time measuring methods that are widely and universally accepted by the scientific community that shows the earth to be billions of years old rejects science and not just “faith that overrides conventional thinking on certain matters.”
When those “certain matters” spell the difference between reality and fantasy, accepting the fantasy places one in the position of rejecting science and thus proving themselves to be anti-science.
ed.
Comment by Travis Monitor — 5/12/2009 @ 12:09 am
Travis Monitor -
Well said.
We shouldn’t follow stupid plans because some of the steps are alright; if the actions can’t stand on their own, we shouldn’t do them “because CO2 will destroy the world!!!!”
A lot of the things are ones I’d do– buy energy efficent houses, various other energy-saving measures, because they save money and effort.
Comment by Foxfier — 5/12/2009 @ 12:12 am
Imagine you are a candidate in a debate to be the Republican nominee for President. You think evolution might come up in the questioning. How do you suppose your handler will instruct you to answer the question?
Comment by bsjones — 5/12/2009 @ 1:34 am
@funny man:
Don’t mean to wade in between you two . . . well, scratch that. I’m obviously doing exactly that.
Let me try this again . . .
I may be reading you and Dwight wrong, but as near as I can tell both of you seem to be saying the exact same thing. Both of you agree that there is immediate verifiable support for the theory. Both of you seem to agree that while you can postulate the application of the theory across vast expanses of time, and sometimes the guesses prove correct and sometimes the guesses prove wrong, the farther back in time (and the more overarching the hypotheses) the more likely the guesses won’t pan out 100%.
Dwight sees the investigation that does pan out as justification for crediting the theory’s reach, and you see the investigations that don’t pan out as justification for questioning its reach.
( . . . or I’m way off base and typing all this because I’m trying to goof off as long as possible before I have to go back to work. Taking bets at the side window . . . )
If thats in the ballpark, then I don’t know that either of you will make any headway. Half-empty, half-full, but its the same glass of water.
Of course, the back and forth is far more entertaining than anything else on the Intertubes, so let me pop another bag of popcorn while y’all reload the muskets. I would like to point out though that this IS RightWingNutHouse . . . and the paucity of personal disparaging insults is starting to become uncomfortable. Standards, man . . . standards.
@Mike Reynolds:
Put it in Philosophy class . . . that’s where I got sold on it a few decades ago. Back then it was still called “The Rabbi And The Inkwell” (which btw sold the idea more effectively and beautifully than any ID spokesperson has since — sometimes simplicity is best for simple ideas). As an added bonus, philosophy students have practice in completely ignoring “common sense”, “rational thought”, “logic”, or any of those other oppressive Thought Police tactics, so “it doesn’t make sense” will come off as a challenge.
Comment by busboy33 — 5/12/2009 @ 3:38 am
@Travis M:
“No, if CO2 is harmless then we are talking about huge and stupid diversions of resources to address a non-problem.”
And if CO2 is harmful then we are talking about the likely destruction of most of the human race and the necessary (though huge and expensive) changes needed to stop the problem before it is unstoppable.
Personally, I feel the same way you do in regards to recycling. Stupid waste of my time and money — the Earth’s fine, there’s plenty of space, the ecosystem won’t suffocate under (cheap) plastic grocery bags, etc.
Of course, I’ll be dead by the time definitive proof develops, so its no skin off my nose.
“Creationism is not ‘anti-science.’ I know educated people who believe in creation theory and are engineers and not ‘anti-science’. They dont want to stop science or attack it, they just have faith that overrides conventional thinking on certain matters. I can assure you, NOBODY gets harmed by it at all.”
You’re right — Creationism isn’t anti-science. Creationists, on the other hand . . .
Have you seen the Creationism meuseum in KY? If you’re ever in the area (just west of the Cincinnati airport), I highly reccomend it — some of the best animatronics outside of a Disney Park. The Homo Sapiens essentially domesticating dinosaur species show really seem lifelike.
Completely, factually, verifiably wrong . . . but entertaining.
There is nothing in the idea of Creationism that posits the Old Testament timeline for the history of the Earth is accurate. Creationism doesn’t mention the Old Testament in any way, shape, or form. North American Creationists, though, can’t separate Creationism from fundamentalist Christianity — and that’s wrong.
No harm? Ask those Creationism scientists if they think the planet is roughly 4,000 years old (for those keeping score, the Young-Earthers as opposed to the Old-Earthers). Then ask them how far they would have gotten in their training and their professions if they refused to consider or believe anything that arguably didn’t agree 100% with the KJB. “Creationists” home-school their children about history and science . . . and if future generations of Americans don’t know (or refuse to consider) basic fundamental tenets of human knowledge, then that diminishes our country. THAT’s harm. Real harm.
Comment by busboy33 — 5/12/2009 @ 4:09 am
You lost me at “denier”. Can it - will it - ever penetrate the echoing vastness of your skull that name calling is not logical argument?
There is plenty of rational discussion about weaknesses in the AGW hypothesis - from inadequate measurement and management of data to the use of hitherto unheard of statistical diddling to make the fudged data fit AGW preconceptions. See, for example, the dozens of posts at climateaudit.org, surfacestations.org, and wattsupwiththat.com, and then come back and explain to me how settled is the science of AGW.
Comment by Person of Choler — 5/12/2009 @ 7:52 am
Fantastic piece as usual Rick.
One thing that I don’t believe you touched on is how Walken’s column in some ways legitimizes the idea that “conservatives” are a homogeneous group. Whether Walken refutes or acknowledges the veracity of his questioners’ perceptions, he perpetuates the idea that a single person can speak for all conservatives. Obviously, this is to some degree unavoidable when speaking of large groups, but conservatism has been increasingly portrayed as having an almost cultish uniformity of opinion and because of this it is becoming increasingly important to emphasize the fact that no single person (and no single faction) within conservatism can speak for the entity as a whole. Walken’s responses, while free of the bombast and bile of a Limbaugh or a Coulter, do little (or nothing) to advance the idea of a heterogeneous conservatism. Until such an idea becomes prevalent, we cannot legitimately hope to be addressed as individuals, but rather will continue to be saddled with the stereotypes that are popular within a small subset of liberalism.
Comment by Aaron — 5/12/2009 @ 9:50 am
busboy33-
Great, so you don’t like their religion. Fine. Amazingly, they’re use to that, and they can cope.
If you’re worried about a generation growing up ignorant of science, you might want to worry about the ones already here– you know, the same ones that sign petitions to ban “dihydrogen monoxide”? The ones that accept computer models of the future that can’t accurately model the past conditions and reach the current present, because a movie was made of them?
BTW, please buy my megalodon repellent next time you are out in a boat; if there isn’t a shark the size of a bus out there– it’s a waste of money. If there is, though, it could save your entire ship! Isn’t that risk worth the cost? Oh, and it’s a little radioactive, so it might actually cause some harm…but not from sharks!
(CO2 in the air makes plants grow better; this has been shown in several different experiments–I can look them up, if you’d like? Reduce it much further than it is now, and it can get to dangerous lows where plant growth is harmed.)
Comment by Foxfier — 5/12/2009 @ 10:03 am
Foxfier,
the CO2 conc is higher now than it has been for a long time so no need to worry about plants not getting enough (of course they grow faster with higher CO2).
Just because you detest Al Gore doesn’t mean all climate science is junk.
Comment by funny man — 5/12/2009 @ 10:33 am
The right should take respect science lessons from the left? No thanks. I’m interested in nuclear energy and protecting African children from malaria.
Comment by EBJ — 5/12/2009 @ 11:58 am
“Just because you detest Al Gore doesn’t mean all climate science is junk.”
Al Gore has made more money turning people on to a consensus than Bernie Madoff ever dreamed of. When you look up the word consensus, you find ther definition “1) Collective Opinion 2) General Accord.” Nowhere do you see any reference to science. In fact when you look up the term Politics, you find “1) The art or science of government.” (Both courtesy of Webster’s II New Riverside Dictionary)
Neither of them would lead you to believe that science has ever been “settled.” And yet that is what Gore states over and over. We have had scientific consensus time and again that was WRONG. The Earth is Flat. (Flat Earth Society still believes it to this day) The Earth is the Center of the Universe. And the list goes on and on. A consensus has nothing to do with science and every thing to do with politics.
I don’t know if the AGW theory regarding Climate is correct or not but I do know that when someone stands up and says I should be treated like a holocaust denier if I question it waves a huge red flag in my face.
And, for the record I am a conservative. And also for the record, I am an environmental professional. And as far as AGW is concerned the debate is still on and the matter has not been “settled.”
Comment by SShiell — 5/12/2009 @ 12:15 pm
@Foxfier:
You misunderstood me. I don’t give a hairy damn about their religion. In full disclosure, I don’t give a damn about anybody’s religion except my own.
Everybody in this country can believe, or not believe, whatever the hell they like. If your religion teaches you that atoms can’t be split, good for you — but just because you believe it reeeeeeeeealy strongly doesn’t make it so. Feel free to believe that Yahweh prohibits using medicine. Feel free to believe that only prayer can heal your child . . . but don’t get upset when the authorities come and arrest you for negligent homicide. When faith is used to change fact, then its a problem for our society, and as a member (and beneficiary) of that society now its a problem for me. When faith is used as a substitute for fact, then the problem grows exponentially.
In regards to GW . . . lets just for giggles postulate that GW hasn’t been “proven” to a 100% level of certainty. Do I understand correctly from your post that there is ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY, no empirical data indicating it whatsoever? EVERY study, EVERY scientist . . . utter and total bullfeces? You don’t believe it, goodie for you. But to therefore completely reject even the possibility as a result . . . well, in regards to the issue of “substituting belief for reason”, I give you Exhibit A.
Comment by busboy33 — 5/12/2009 @ 12:50 pm
@Mark
In answer to your question, no, I don’t think we should allow the federal government to control the minutia of our daily lives based on a fuzzy global warming theory — even if some of the ideas have merit.
By the same logic, religion has some good ideas, too — but without proof of God’s existence, I don’t want the government forcing it upon everyone.
Comment by Ryan Garns — 5/12/2009 @ 1:02 pm
I think some of you are mixing a few things up. The Arctic ice is melting so obviously something is happening (just check out satellite images). This could be due to a) normal cyclic solar activity, b) human pollution etc etc. So there is real evidence out there that there is global warming. The more interesting question then is what do we as an individual and as a society do with his information. I personally have absolutely no problem with building more energy efficient cars, houses etc. because that is good even for other reasons (less dependency on foreign oil). I have more of a problem with some weird carbon trading system.
Comment by funny man — 5/12/2009 @ 1:36 pm
What evidence does anyone have that social conservatives are anti-science? I know it’s the stereotype and you can find anecdotal evidence on teh internetz of teh soc con who thinks the world was created in 6 days…but does anyone have any actual evidence that social conservatives are anti-science?
I’m a social conservative and I live in a state with a lot of social conservatives but my state is definitely not anti-science. This is anecdotal evidence as well but it’s why I wonder why people equate social con with knuckle-dragging neanderthal.
Comment by Bald Ninja — 5/12/2009 @ 2:10 pm
funny man, check out various posts discussing the vaunted “melting of Arctic ice” at http://www.wattsupwiththat.com. There have been problems with data acquisition and interpretation, all biased in the direction of AGW alarmism.
To the folks who keep telling me about “consensus” in “science”: If consensus meant squat, doctors would not sanitize their hands between autopsies and baby deliveries because the scientific consensus was that Ignaz Semmelweis was a quack. We would still be analyzing combustion in terms of Phlogiston because top scientists said that Phlogiston was the explanation for stuff catching fire. The consensus of the best minds in geology was that Alfred Wegener was a nutjob; continents could not possibly drift. A committee of German scientists arrived at the consensus that Albert Einstein’s relativity theories were some sort of Jewish anti-science claptrap and should be suppressed. We would still be trying to model the electromagnetic transport with the concept of Luminiferous Aether because it was common knowledge among scientists that such a medium was necessary to explain the wave phenomena involved.
Et cetera ad nauseum et infinitum.
Comment by Person of Choler — 5/12/2009 @ 2:22 pm
Person of Choler,
we can talk about science, fine. However, your posts in this regard come very close to this conspiracy ‘they are trying to hide the truth from us’. Sure the ‘consensus’ among most scientists can be wrong. Luckily, you can test the theories but for every ‘later proven to be true theory’ you have hundreds of totally absurd ones. So are you telling me that the satellite images of the arctic ice are wrong? I’m not saying that every scientific finding has to be believed but it is also true that some people on the right have already decided that global warming is a (liberal) hoax that only serves the purpose to allow more government interference. This is just nonsense (and I’m conservative).
Comment by funny man — 5/12/2009 @ 3:30 pm
Person of Choler,
shouldn’t it be ‘ad infinitum’?
Comment by funny man — 5/12/2009 @ 3:31 pm
I ams still trying to figure out the “consensus” when 31,000 actual scientists denounce the IPCC report that was not even done by real scientists.
Did we have Global Warming?? Yes since the last Ice Age. Do we have Global Cooling now, well for many scientists we are in a cooling trend, just like the Little Ice Age,when the Sun’s productivity was low. And looking at the Sun today we are having a lull in Sun Spots and Solar Flares.
And is anyone thinks that Dinosaurs were roaming with Cavemen, really need to look at some scientific literature that makes it impossible for them to be roaming together, not the Creationism library run by a non-scientific hack that has no training in geology or geography.
The Earth is not 6,000 years old. That was said by a Minister in the 19th century way before the geology was better understood. No where in the Bible does it say the Earth is 6,000 years old.
And the Ice in the Arctic is melting on one side and gaining on the other. Does not come to any kind of real conclusion. Mainly the Ice is thicker than it was back in the 70s. And the Antarctic Ice is growing more than the Arctic
Comment by Stix — 5/12/2009 @ 4:18 pm
funny man -
Define “a long time.” Fifty years? Kinda true– went from lower to upper half of 300 PPM.
250? Higher than today, from the measurements taken at the time. Millions of years? Not so much.
There’s also that CO2 isn’t that bad
Your accusations that folks are conspiracy nuts really doesn’t respond to anything said, it’s just throwing monkey doo….
Busboy-
Everybody in this country can believe, or not believe, whatever the hell they like.
Yay! Good! So stop complaining about them not agreeing with you.
Never responded to the current massive ignorance of basic science from the folks who aren’t home schooled.
I’ll tell you what– we’ll each make companies with a group of doctors, a group of architects and a group of folks to design rockets.
You take the folks from only public school, I’ll take only home-schooled kids, for their K-12 education.
I don’t care if they think that Zeus made the land by sneezing, my group will still have a better grasp of hard sciences– even if they don’t agree with all of your favorite little theories.
(Shoot, the home schooled kids could probably even explain that the “Theory of Gravity” is so called because, even though we know stuff will fall when we drop it here on Earth, we still aren’t sure how it works in the greater universe. That is, there are still different theories on the details.)
Comment by Foxfier — 5/12/2009 @ 6:28 pm
Foxfier,
obviously there were times when CO2 was higher (perhaps when Yellowstone erupted half million years ago; it’s about time again..). However, as you know it’s more and more difficult to measure the more you go back in time but for the immediate past (last 500 years) I think ice cores are probably reasonably accurate. In my opinion, CO2 is also not the worst of greenhouse gases, methane and N2O might do more damage.
About throwing a little monkey poo, guilty as charged (but so are you). As long as it doesn’t get personal
Comment by funny man — 5/12/2009 @ 6:47 pm
@bald ninja:
“does anyone have any actual evidence that social conservatives are anti-science?”
Are there people who are both members of the “so-con” group and the “whack-a-doodle” group? I do know some Whack-a-doodles, and they are so-cons in addition to being Whack-a-Doodles.
Are there so-cons that aren’t anti-science? Well, you’re one, so again clearly the answer is “yes”.
I think the reason the so-cons get so brightligned in with the Young-Earthers and such is twofold. First, many of the so-con principles and ideas are arguably tracable to conservative Christian dogma, and the whack-a-doodles almost uniformly also trace their whack-a-doole-ness to conservative Christian dogma. Doesn’t mean anything in and of itself, since there’s multiple flavors of conservative Christian dogma (as well as multiple interpretations for each) but its a perceived association.
That ties into the second connection. Surely not all so-cons are whack-a-doodles, but I’m hard pressed to find one whack-a-doodle that isn’t a so-con. So-cons and W-a-Ds may be sitting on different benches in the building, but the benches sure as heck are grouped together, and for somebody looking in quickly at a distance from the outside the similarities seem to outweigh the differences.
No question its not fair that you and yours get generalized in with the W-a-Ds, but sloppy generalizations are unfortunately the way people deal with issues like this. Obama is more liberal than you? Then he’s a commie-socialist-facist-dictator-cultleader-Martian. Refuse to utterly reject Global Warming? Then you’re a Goreian-treehugging-commie-anticapitalist. Easier than thinking about things, I guess.
Comment by busboy33 — 5/12/2009 @ 9:42 pm
@foxfier:
” my group will still have a better grasp of hard sciences– even if they don’t agree with all of your favorite little theories.”
Well, I guess you win then. Such irrefutable and overwhelming factual evidence. I had no idea it was your opinion on the matter — I’ll certainly say no more in the face of such powerful and persuasive debate.
By the way, I just double-checked my posts in this thread. I can’t find a single attack on a single religion or religious theory, so I’m not too sure where you felt the need to leap to the defense of the unfairly persecuted as I not only didn’t attack anybody’s religious faith but at least twice clearly defended faith.
The closest I got was in rejecting Creationism. That’s not religious — it an alleged geologic concept rooted in religion. As I said, faith don’t make science.
Whoops! My bad — its your opinion that rejecting Creationism is an attack on religion, and as we’ve already established if you think it then its correct. Thanks for straightening me out there — its so helpful having someone explain to me what I’m saying and meaning. How do the rest of humanity get along without such guiding light?
Comment by busboy33 — 5/12/2009 @ 10:02 pm
Busboy-
Well, I guess you win then. Such irrefutable and overwhelming factual evidence.
But of course, had to match your own proof via stereotype.
The closest I got was in rejecting Creationism.
By…accusing them of being so anti-medicine that they’d let their child die. By accusing them of being failures because they don’t believe in the goop to geek form of human development.
Comment by Foxfier — 5/12/2009 @ 10:08 pm
Travis M and Ryan
You both skipped the part of my response that said “…to a rational degree…”
Obviously the steps we should take need to make economic sense. What do you think I am, a liberal? Biofuels are a great example of a supposed conservation measure that doesn’t conserve anything at this point. It may make sense to continue research on biofuels, but that can be funded by the private sector. If it can be made to pay for itself, they will work that out. The government shouldn’t fund that research.
Solar is a slightly different story. I don’t want the government to pay for this, but I don’t want them to get in my way either. Solar is not a panacea for all our energy needs. The implementation cost is way too high for most applications. However, in Southern California there are some situations where solar is an economical peak load shedding measure, especially for large facilities. Unfortunately, the utility rate structure approved by the California PUC provides a disincentive to that option. This has nothing to do with the production cost per kilowatt. SCE wants to retain control of energy production. I can’t blame them, but they shouldn’t get help from the government to do it.
My answer is the exact opposite of letting the government control the minutia of our daily lives. Get the hell out of my way and let me take the steps that make economic sense.
All of this goes back to my basic point. Why have we let ourselves get dragged into an argument over global warming and CO2? Nobody wins this fight except liberal politicians and movie stars. Sound energy policy can make us less dependent on foreign oil, lower energy prices, and would generally reduce carbon emissions, in the event we decide that matters. More importantly, it would provide rational stability to energy market, which is good for American business. Last time I checked, we still wanted to keep those in the U.S. so at least a few people will have jobs.
Comment by Mark — 5/13/2009 @ 12:34 am
Person of Choler,
“So are you telling me that the satellite images of the arctic ice are wrong?”
No. I’m suggesting that you look at the posts at http://www.wattsupwiththat.com which discuss problems with busted satellite sensors, misinterpretation of data, and inconsistencies between different monitoring techniques and check your opinions against the observations of others.
Forget, please, the nonsense about my coming close to some conspiracy theory. Argument through guilt by association went the way of Joe McCarthy.
“et” means “and” in Latin, but the only Latin I learned was as an altar boy and may have the grammar all wrong.
Comment by Person of Choler — 5/13/2009 @ 7:50 am
Bald Ninja
Once you have a solid understanding of the scientific method - and an appreciation for it’s application and results - it’s not difficult to equate the two.
Comment by Chuck Tucson — 5/13/2009 @ 9:04 am
person of choler,
et is and that is correct. ‘ad infinitum’ means to infinity. However, if you say ‘ad nauseum et ad infinitum’ it might be correct because nauseum and infinitum are not causally linked. Sorry, but this is also many, many years ago for me. Fun though:
homo homini lupus est
Comment by funny man — 5/13/2009 @ 10:58 am
@busboy33
No, you aren’t reading me correctly. :p
@funny man
My point is you can continue to test the hypothesis. Even if you (or any of humanity for that matter) weren’t present for the start point.
Trying to figure out the exact path is difficult, and horizontal transfers certainly complicate that and brings in new wrinkles. But horizontal transfers actually help support the theory of evolution itself.
Comment by Dwight — 5/13/2009 @ 11:09 am
Dwight,
of course horizontal gene transfer supports evolution. In contrast to small incremental changes due to mutations you can have the whole set of genes much quicker.
However, this makes phylogenetic trees much more complicated. I think we agree on most things, I just wanted to point out the difficulties you have to reconstruct life’s pathway. For example did we really have a single common ancestor or was it multiple microorganisms swapping genes. These are all competing theories and we’ll see.
Comment by funny man — 5/13/2009 @ 12:10 pm
@foxfier:
Wow. Snark aside, you completely misread that post.
I never suggested Creationists are oposed to medicine, anymore than I suggested they believe that an atom can’t be split. Both of those ideas are examples of belief conflicting with the realities of the material world. The splitting atom example is a hypothetical (I don’t know of any religion that holds, as a tennant of faith, that atoms can’t be split). The prohibition against medicine is a real component of some Christian sects . . . as are the criminal prosecutions that have resulted when prayer didn’t save children’s lives (fun fact: Medicare reimburses the prayer healers for their services).
Also . . . both of those examples I SUPPORTED a person’s right to believe in them:
“***Feel free*** to believe that only prayer can heal your child . . . but don’t get upset when the authorities come and arrest you for negligent homicide.”
Do you disagree with that? Do you feel that a person’s honest belief that God prohibits the use of medicine is wrong? If they are premitted to believe that, should society take no action if a parent lets their child die when there were means available to save them?
Faith shouldn’t direct the material, that was and is my point. I don’t care if a person (NOT Creationists) believe, as a matter of faith, that the morning after pill is murder. I do mind when that person, as a pharmacist, now imposes their belief on others by morally deciding what medicine people should have access to.
Creationists can believe whatever they like. When people start rejecting factual data as a result of their faith, then it becomes a problem because it affects me. Believe the universe popped into fully formed existence in less than a week? Goodie. Maybe we should start basing our governmental policies on that? Certainly makes the energy issue easier to deal with . . . don’t have to worry about running out of oil, since it can appear in one day should the Creator wish it (and the Deity certainly isn’t going to let the Faithful suffer, being a Merciful Power). No worries, right?
Comment by busboy33 — 5/14/2009 @ 6:30 am
Chuck,
I see you have so much evidence to prove that social cons are science haters that you decided to attack my intelligence rather than provide the evidence.
Some socials cons are young-earthers who don’t want the satan science taught to their children - ok, I agree they are out there and some of them are vocal. So what? Are most social cons this way? Who knows.
But when liberals warp science (e.g., global warming) to push their agenda (strange how all the ’solutions’ to global warming fit well into the liberal ideology of how we can also solve every social ill) they don’t get labelled as anti-science. At least the satan-science-conservative is in clear opposition to certain disciplines of science - the liberals try to subvert and pervert it to meet their ends. You tell me which is more damaging to science in the long run?
Comment by Bald Ninja — 5/14/2009 @ 8:04 am
What kind of evidence would you like? Can I just say Intelligent Design, and be done with it, or are you looking for specifics? Specifics like Bill Nye getting attacked in Texas for telling people that God didn’t create a second light in the sky, it’s just the moon, and the moon reflects sunlight. Seriously, what kind of evidence would convince you that Social Conservatives hate science? None, I’m guessing.
Some are more extreme than others, but Yes, most social conservatives are this way. It’s pretty much the definition of Social Conservative. When a religious ideology is allowed to trump science, everyone loses. It’s just that some people simply don’t understand (or care) that they’ve lost.
So, you’re giving me a choice between people who use scientific data to push their agenda, and people who oppose certain disciplines of science? I don’t much like my choices, so I’ll pick neither. Clearly though, opposition to science - you pick the discipline - is pathetic and counter productive.
But on that note, what is the liberal agenda? As far as I can tell, it is to make sure that the activities of human beings don’t impact the earths climate in a way that would be detrimental towards humans both now and in the future. Obviously you perceive this to be a bad thing, but I’m at a loss to understand how.
Comment by Chuck Tucson — 5/14/2009 @ 9:28 am
“But on that note, what is the liberal agenda? As far as I can tell, it is to make sure that the activities of human beings don’t impact the earths climate in a way that would be detrimental towards humans both now and in the future. Obviously you perceive this to be a bad thing, but I’m at a loss to understand how.”
Uh, because the entire thing is complete BS. I love how Chuck I’m a Real Conservative See My ID Card from Tucson is just A-OK with a massive expansion of govt. power.
Comment by Why — 5/14/2009 @ 2:09 pm
Please explain. Blanket logical fallacy doesn’t count.
Yeah, well, eight years of massive expansion of government power and debt under the Republicans tends to numb you to that sort of thing.
Comment by Chuck Tucson — 5/14/2009 @ 4:31 pm
Chuck,
“But on that note, what is the liberal agenda? As far as I can tell, it is to make sure that the activities of human beings don’t impact the earths climate in a way that would be detrimental towards humans both now and in the future. Obviously you perceive this to be a bad thing, but I’m at a loss to understand how.”
I guess you missed my statement that it’s curious how every solution to the impending climate disaster is perfectly in line with liberal ideology or is a complete scam perpetrated by a liberal? Carbon credits? Cap and Trade? Massive taxation?
I never said the choice was between social cons who hate science and liberals who twist it - I was pointing out the disparity in how the media portrays these things and apparently how you perceive it.
As to your evidence that not only are most social cons anti-science but that to be anti-science is the definition of anti-science - let me apply your exact logic to other scenarios (none of which I believe but this is just to illustrate how ridiculous your claim is):
* Most gay people wear leather thongs and a gag-ball. I’ve seen the pictures of some big parade in San Franciso.
* Most Muslims are all for stoning homosexuals - I’ve seen video and heard reports of it!
* Most atheists have a desire to create a totalitarian regime under which they will ban religion and anything else they consider to be unreasonable - like free markets and capitalism
If any idiot from whatever ‘group’ who happens to get media attention by doing something idiotic can be used as iconic and representative of that group then there is no end to the disgusting stereotypes that can be rationalized as accurate.
Comment by Bald Ninja — 5/14/2009 @ 5:19 pm
Chuck,
“Yeah, well, eight years of massive expansion of government power and debt under the Republicans tends to numb you to that sort of thing.”
I’m with you on this one - Bush did a horrible job in this regard. But you still didn’t explain how it’s ok for liberals to use the threat of impending natural disasters to expand government. Just saying ‘Republicans did it first but not as well’ isn’t really an argument.
Comment by Bald Ninja — 5/14/2009 @ 5:21 pm
I love you Bald Ninja. You win.
Comment by Chuck Tucson — 5/14/2009 @ 10:33 pm
Chuck,
Thanks =)
I’ll email my mom this web page and she can print it out and put it on her fridge!
However I do think that social cons (like me) who aren’t anti-science need to do a much better job of speaking up and distancing ourselves from the satan-science social cons. Maybe there are fewer social cons like me than I think but I hope not.
Comment by Bald Ninja — 5/15/2009 @ 9:11 am