Slashdot Mirror
Lamar Smith, Future Chairman For the House Committee On Science, Space, and Tech
An anonymous reader writes "Lamar Smith, a global warming skeptic, will become the new chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. Someone who disagrees with the vast majority of scientists will be given partial jurisdiction over NASA, EPA, DOE, NSF, NOAA, and the USGS. When will candidates who are actually qualified to represent science or at a minimum show an interest in it be the representatives of science with regard to political decision-making?"
Please vote them in to office.
I hope this caused some synapses to fire.
Hall's opposition was even more pronounced. One could even say that by appointing Lamar Smith, who only attacked "one sided coverage" (vs the 88 year old Hall's direct attack on the science), that Texas may be slowly warming up to the idea... http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/12/ralph-hall-speaks-out-on-climate.html
Gently reply
Politicians become politicians BECAUSE they're inept in every other field. Therefore politicians will never be qualified to represent .
I'm sure Gordon Freeman will be glad to know that Lamarr is in charge.
If he were merely a skeptic, that's ok; a skeptic is a person who's willing to look at the data and see what they say.
However, far too many of the people who call themselves "skeptics" are in fact not skeptics at all, but global-warming deniers: they don't care what the data is, and aren't really interested in learning. They're not really skeptical, because they already have their conclusion, and are only interested in arguments that support it.
To quote S. Fred Singer, "The deniers are giving us skeptics a bad name."
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
When will candidates who are actually qualified to represent science or at a minimum show an interest in it be the representatives of science with regard to political decision-making?
When a majority starts using their brains to vote. Which means, probably never.
The candidate (Lamar Smith) is not there to represent science, so he doesn't really need to be qualified for that. He's not there to represent NASA, EPA, DOE, NSF, NOAA, and the USGS. He's there to represent the people who elected him, and more broadly all of the people of the US. Just playing devil's advocate here. Not everyone in the US agrees with all things science.
People like this are the reason that scientists need to be very careful to present their data in an unbiased fashion. The temptation to show "simple" or "clear" data that supports something they are sure is true needs to be resisted. Any evidence that the scientists are in any way biasing their data can be used politically to discredit the entire field.
Define "vast majority of scientists"
If you want someone who understands science better, then someone like Roscoe Bartlett should not have been voted out of office, given the fact that he holds a PhD is physiology and is a former NASA engineer. Stop voting for politicians, vote for people with real world experience and technical knowledge. Get rid of the lawyers and elect doctors and scientists.
sudo make me a sandwich
> When will candidates who are actually qualified to represent science ... be the representatives of science with regard to political decision-making?
You know that Steven Chu is secretary of energy, right? And that the department of energy has a Basic Energy Sciences division which gets a lot of federal science money?
And wasn't there a slashdot story about a physicist-turned-congressman lately?
I mean, yes, I'd like it if it happened more often, and I'm not defending Lamar Smith's qualifications, but it's childish and petty to pretend that it _never_ happens.
2*3*3*3*3*11*251
To all of Slashdot's out-of-US readers: On behalf of the United States of America, I apologize for this event. I do not live in Smith's Congressional district; nor would I have dare voted that anti-freedom, anti-technology SOPA author and professional monster to Congress (let alone this apparently influential committee position) if I did.
Smith has left great bruises on the certainty of a free internet and will now leave a great and lasting scar on Science and the Useful Arts. He will not endanger the science of "climate change" or "global warming", he will endanger knowledge itself.
You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
"When will candidates who are actually qualified to represent science or at a minimum show an interest in it be the representatives of science with regard to political decision-making?"
When more scientists step up and become congresscritters of course. Until then....
It looks like the GOP doesn't think they have done a thorough enough job of convincing us that they have all either sold out or lost their freaking minds. Or both.
Just because a vast majority believe a certain thing to be true does not make it so. Things all fall at the same rate, the Earth revolves around the Sun, the Earth is a spheroid, etc. None of these beliefs was held by the vast majority at some time in the past. I don't know if there is global warming or not. Some of the data show a rise in sea level and a loss of polar ice. Is this man-made, man-enhanced, or just a natural cycle that the Earth is going through? How much carbon is put into the air from forest fires, volcanoes, etc.? How does that compare to what the cars and other man-made carbon spewers put into the air? Some unbiased data would be good. It is unfortunate that big business (and government, which really is just another big business) pays for most research. It makes it very hard to publish a study with a conclusion different from what the sponsor would like. Just my $0.02.
Finally, we'll get some sensibility and order to our so-called "science." This man will, by decree, ensure that there is no global warming, that all angles are obtuse - to avoid anyone getting poked - precisely identify how old the universe is, and declare cancer illegal, except in those cases where it brings in money for research companies and drug manufacturers. Oh, happy day! So much uncertainty will be wiped away by legislation. Imaginary numbers will no longer vex us. Glass will be neither a liquid nor a solid, or even a super-cooled liquid: it will be "magic" by God's intent. Take that you scientists with your harsh realities.
Faith-based science! Well he IS a Christian Scientist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamar_S._Smith#Personal_life
Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
He's also a "Christian scientist", which I'll let wiki explain
"Christian Scientists believe that sickness and disease are the result of fear, ignorance, or sin, and should be healed through prayer or introspection. Combined with a belief that the use of medicine is incompatible with Christian Science healing methods, this has led to outbreaks of preventable disease and a number of deaths. Its claim that sickness can be healed through prayer rather than medicine, its rejection of science as illusory, and its attempts to present itself as science make Christian Science a pseudoscience, in the view of philosopher John R. Searle."
The real reason for pushback against the global warmist 'consensus' is that it is frankly both scientific and political. It starts with observations of global climate, and ends up with the undeniable and unquestionable conclusion that First-World governments must do whatever it takes to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions in their countries. The entire chain of reasoning from observation to required government policy has been so sanctified that any one who questions or doubts even the tiniest aspect of it is labeled a "denier", implying that they are just as bad or worse than those who deny the Holucaust.
It's very puzzling that scientist's predictions of how an imperfectly-understood chaotic system will behave in the future, and recommendations for one particular policy approach to dealing with it, have achieved the inerrant status of Holy Writ, so that those who question any aspect of it must be burned at the stake.
He's a politician. He'll sabotage whatever he's paid most to sabotage. It's not unique to Lamar (who is a jackoff in his own right)... it's how politicians work. Make no bones about it, even if he was a proponent of sending all the Oil companies into space and using nothing but solar power, he'll STILL go to the highest bidder.
In other words.. this is MOTS... regardless of party... Anyone who's been awake for the last 4 years can realize now that there isn't a two party system anymore in the US.
It's the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.
It would be good to have a skeptic, someone who won't just dive in with spending trillions and curtailing rights every time someone brings up the climate change bogeyman.
What I am worried about is this guy is in the pocket of the entertainment industry. He wanted to strengthen the DMCA's provision on anti-circumvention software, and this is THE guy who introduced SOPA.
No, the Mexican government would have prevented this. In Mexico the lower house, the Chamber of Deputies, elects 3/5th of its members by district and 2/5th by proportional representation. Proportional representation puts a wrench in the gerrymandering machine. By contrast, in the US we would have to have a 5% greater Democratic vote than Republican vote just to get parity in the House due to a phenomenal level of gerrymandering (which the Supreme Court says is perfectly legal even outside of the census as long as there is no obvious attempt to define districts to disenfranchise people based on race). Unfortunately, the people only voted for Democrats by 0.5% more than Republicans, resulting in the Republicans having 33 more seats than the Democrats.
I really hate it when the headline isn't even a complete sentence.
That's like having Michele Bachmann on the Intelligence Committee. Oh, wait.
That's crazy! This is the worst possible person for the job in the whole fucking world! This guy isn't a global warming skeptic, he's an outright, card-carrying denier.
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
Why is it that all the Republicans on the House Committee of Science, Space and Technology; Deny Science {Evolution,Global Warming, etc.}, don't understand Technology {The Internet is a "series of tubes"} and are just a waste of Space?!?
Politics. They deny global warming because their $$$ sponsors expect them to, and they deny evolution because the people who vote in their districts expect them to.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
You have a religious interpretation of a scientific issue. Science doesn't matter how he "feels" or what he "believes". They are orthogonal.
All that matters is what he plans to do. I think he's planning to do the right thing, with right thing defined as causing the least overall human suffering.
I really don't care which sky god told him to do it, or what jumbled up mystery bounces around inside his head. Just continue to do the right thing and I'm happy.
It would be "nice" if he was in the community of the rational, but I'll take "doin the right thing" over that any day as a pragmatic outlook.
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
Right.
This is why he was elected. Well that and gerrymandering, but this is the job his constituents (the republican party and Fox news) chose him to do. To oppose these 'false elitist scientists' or however you want to phrase it.
In 2010 'Merican voters handed gerrymandering majorities to Republicans, this is what they did with it. We're complaining because this is what he publicly stood for before coming into office. That's what he believes, that's what he was elected to do. For all of the many faults of republicans the Tea Party has made them actually stand for the things they say they stand for. They might be ignorant fools, but at least they aren't liars (or at least not lying about the policies they are going to vote for). I guess thats supposed to be an improvement.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/20/sopa-withdrawn-lamar-smith_n_1219250.html
Is that the same lamar smith?
Nice. I agree.
exactly correct. and when such a large portion of the country is scientifically challenged, you would expect their government to also be challenged, and it is.
what happens is eventually said country becomes third world, relatively - not because of its communist leadership by a muslim, but because of its 'i want to screw my sister some more more after we read the bible' behavior, and they get taken over by a country who has 9 out of 10 of its politicians that are scientists (hint, they are a country that 'we borrow all our money from', in a move paralleling how banks owned the dumb in this country for so long, haha time for a taste of your own medicine).
slashdot troll = you make a compelling argument I do not like the implications of.
No science is ever "provable." Or can be.
And if he were skeptical, that wouldn't be a problem. But he seems to have made up his mind--not from looking at the scientific evidence, but based on economic interests. Mitigation would cost his owners money, so it can't be true. That's not skepticism.
Ignorance killed the cat. Curiosity was framed.
> why is even one cent of tax money going to rebuilding cities that are under the current sea level
Oh I agree you completely. This money is being wasted in a bipartisan way.
The word "skeptic" implies some rational basis for doubt,
He's a denier.
IS religion believes that god won't let anything jn happen to the world, so Global Warming isn't real.
Soon to be: Global warming is gods plan.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Science doesn't matter how he "feels" or what he "believes".
I keep trying to tell various AGW fanatics that, but it never penetrates. Maybe seeing it come from somebody they can consider to be on "their side" will make them believe it. Not, of course, that it matters if they believe it or not.
Good, inexpensive web hosting
I can see the NSF starting to issue CFPs for researchers to find Noah's Ark. What nobody realizes is that it's in the same warehouse as the Ark of the Covenant.
"Imaginary solutions to real problems."
As far as I know, the World Bank people have claimed warming will damage some economies. I have no idea what politics they have advocated, if any. I haven't kept up with that.
My point is that AFAIK nobody is calling the World Bank people "global warming deniers." Actually my real point is that the World Bank can advocate ANY political position, and still nobody is going to call them deniers.
The World Bank could say
and no matter how crazy the idea is, they won't be called deniers for their policies. It's only if they say "the tables of measurements are fake, despite how many differing measurements there are -- it's all a diabolical conspiracy, the greatest in human history!" that they'll get labeled as deniers.
Some people (read the comment I was replying to!) have claimed that they'll be called deniers based on their politics. I don't believe that. If I'm wrong (and yes, I could be) it will be because some moron yells "denier" without knowing what that word means.
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
"Someone who disagrees with the vast majority of scientists will be given partial jurisdiction over NASA, EPA, DOE, NSF, NOAA, and the USGS."
This is pure, unmitigated bullshit. These are Executive Branch agencies and Congress has ZERO jurisdiction over them, outside of changing the laws, which requires the President's approval in 99.999% of cases.
He'll be able to be a blowhard, but he won't be able to dictate agency policy.
If you're too stupid to get that there can still be SIGNAL of anthropegenic global warming in the NOISE of random CLIMATE VARIATION, you don't belong on slashdot. Go argue on a reality TV show fan site or something. J@sus!
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
The ones writing scientific articles in the peer-reviewed scientific journals.
You know, the ones who have spent 10 years post-secondary science education studying the details of the physics and chemistry of the atmosphere and oceans to the level of accepted PhD thesis, then gone on to do say 5-years post-doctoral research in a relevant specialty, then conducted accepted peer-reviewed research in these fields for years or decades.
Those ones. Especially the ones that have no funding associations with the fossil fuel industry.
If you seriously have no clue as to how to evaluate the credibility of sources of information, you're in a deep morass of ignorant hurt.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
To all of you, who say great, got a man in a position to ignore Global Warming, I have to ask you. Do you think that's all NASA, EPA, DOE, NSF, NOAA, and the USGS do? Have you even the faintest, vaguest idea how important the work of these organizations are to our day to day life, not to mention the critical future of our nation competing with other nations on maintain some miniscule hint of technological leadership in the rest of this century. Have you any idea what kind of damage a Luddite at the helm of our scientific organization can do you our economic viability or the development of our youth as scientists and engineers in a future which is going to DEMAND technological aptitude.
And you BOZOs applaud? Apparently Nero fiddling while ROME burned wasn't such a bizarre thing after all.
Sorry, but that is not true, that kind of position is fully assigned by the president here in México (I am the original poster of the comment), and the presidents here are used to commit the kind of illegallity popular over US.
I'm positive, don't belive me look at my karma
Skepticism is key to the scientific method. For someone who supposedly pushes science, I don't see why being skeptical is such a bad thing. To declare man-made global warming as settled science is a stretch.
Let's say that global warming is real. Shouldn't the question be what to do about it? There seems to be just as big a politically charged scientific quagmire proposing, without much humility, to have THE answer. I am not suggesting that nothing be done, but there does seem to be some very costly proposals with little evidence of effectiveness. Costly in monetary terms, opportunity costs, and possible unintended consequences.
That's a great modern myth, but it has nothing to do with reality.
First, Challenger was destroyed by the explosion of its external tank while climbing to orbit after an SRB joint seal failed and a jet of flame caused the aft SRB attach point to fail
Second, the foam impact did not "nearly tore the wing in half" of Columbia. The foam impact punched a hole about the size of a basketball in the leading edge of Columbia's left wing. Had the damage been as severe as you suggest, the orbiter would likely have been destroyed by aerodynamic forces on ascent, or it would have been visible to the ground-based Air Force telescopes that examined Columbia while she was on orbit (photos of that inspection are available online... none of the images was taken at a moment when the vehicle was oriented in a way that a basket-ball sized hole at that location would be visible, so the damage was not seen). The wing was indeed lost when the structure failed during reentry due to hot plasma entering the hole and melting aluminum structural elements during reentry.
Third, it was mangers (a younger generation than the ones who were there when the system was developed... remember: it operated for 30 years) and not scientists or engineers who did not know that foam could harm a shuttle's thermal protection system. While some managers were may well have been engineers previously, once you change "hats" and become a management weenie your analytical skills get rapidly replaced by "people skills" and budget and schedule concerns. The potential for foam lost from the ET to hit and damage an orbiter's TPS was well documented in the 1970s during the system design phase and there were proposals to have the crew carry a repair kit but the technology for such a repair kit was not available at the time so it was decided to minimize the possibility of damage in the first place to the extent possible while still ending up with a system that could fly. The documentation of all of this is in NASA's own archives, some of which are online. Of course, if you get your news from places like MSNBC and Comedy Central you do not know these things.
Well, knowledgeable people are divided on every topic. The question is divided how? If it's 50-50 or even 60-40, I can see some ambiguity. If it's 95-5 or thereabouts (which actually seems to be the case) then it's much less so.
Ah... but WHO are those people? A HUGE number of the "scientists" who support AGW and are often cited with the IPCC materials are not actually scientists of the sort we all generally associate with the term "scientist". Many are not researchers, but are instead, glorified clerks or science journalists, or government officials who hold science degrees etc. and nearly all either make money or stand to make money of AGW is "true" or "settled science" (whether or not it is actually true)
And maybe it's just me, but my mind doesn't go to "holocaust denier" when the term "denier" comes up. I've been hearing the term with regard to global warming for some time, and your post is the first time I've ever seen anybody try to draw that connection, and it certainly wouldn't have occured to *me*.
The you must have an extremely poor history education. The term "Holocaust" was not originally tied to any massacre of Jews; it was a typical word with a specific definition that could be applied where appropriate like any other word... just like the term "denier". The word "Holocaust", however, moved into a special category after it was applied (as no other word seemed more-appropriate to those who encountered the event first-hand) to the systematic NAZI massacre of the Jews. In the years after WWII, profoundly evil people around the world (mostly muslims and/or NAZIs and/or skinheads) sought to deny a history that the entire world had seen... and these people were termed "deniers" (thus moving the term "denier" into the same category as "Holocaust" as a term that we would now associate with "Godwin's law"). The people who started applying the term to anthropogenic global warming (AGW) skeptics openly admitted (and often with glee on their websites) that they were using the term specifically as a political effort to push their political opponents into the NAZI column.
Please pay more attention to both history and current events... as those who forget them are doomed to repeat them
Science doesn't matter how he "feels" or what he "believes".
I keep trying to tell various AGW fanatics that, but it never penetrates.
No wonder: your tack is completely wrong if you interpret science as belief and feelings, and try to convince scientists that science is belief and feelings. Did you try convincing them, with, you know, plausible arguments unpinned with repeatable observations and methodology? That might just swing it.
I met this guy once in a real meeting with genuine conversation. He's actually very bright. He went to Yale for instance. I know that's no guarantee you haven't been infected with some ideology virus, but ask yourself: if you had been to Yale and wanted a lot of red meat eating, capital punishment cheering, cousin marrying Texans to send you to Congress, what sort of stuff would you have to say in public? I really think that thought is at the bottom of a lot of his stuff. I think that he'll be okay as long as the spotlight isn't too bright. We just won't see a lot of progressive science leadership from him.
Q: When will candidates who are actually qualified to represent science or at a minimum show an interest in it be the representatives of science with regard to political decision-making?"
A: when hell freezes over
The US is a nation of dopes. We get the government we deserve, the one we are dumb enough to vote for.
At least we have someone who has the common sense not to swallow the global warming thing hook, line, and sinker. T
I believe global warming, or "climate change" as they so put it, is happening. However, I am skeptical that a majority is the cause of humankind.
Obviously you can be skeptical if you want to. Nevertheless, the evidence of human-induced global warming (aka "climate change") is overwhelming.
Back in the '80's, the deniers said "well, the physics says that carbon dioxide will cause warming, but we don't see it in the actual global temperature measurements (yet), so it's just a theory. NOW, apparently, what you're saying is "well, I agree we see it in the data, but I don't believe in the physics."
So here's the question: what the heck WOULD be considered sufficient evidence to convince the "skeptics"? The theory, computer models, ground temperature measurements, satellite measurements, balloon measurements, vertical temperature profiles, infrared emission spectroscopy-- every measurement says that carbon dioxide warms the planet, and the amount of carbon dioxide we put into the atmosphere is known and measured. As far as I can tell, there IS no possible amount of evidence to convince the "skeptics", because they are not skeptics at all, they are people who already have their conclusion they want and aren't going to change it.
Let me point out the three things that an alternate theory must explain:
1. An alternate theory must provide a mechanism to explain how it is that carbon dioxide does NOT increase global temperature, when the theory says it should. This is theory that's been well known since 1967.
2. The alternate theory must provide a mechanism to explain why the global temperature actually IS warming (coincidentally, just exactly the amount predicted if you take Manabe and Weatherald's 1967 calculation of the effect of carbon dioxide). This mechanism has to account for the fact that we now have good measurements of parameters such as solar intensity-- you can't just handwave; the theory has to fit the measurements, and there a many, many measurements.
3. Whatever mechanism you're proposing for part 2 will include some factor that amplifies a small forcing to an effect large enough to show up in the temperature measurements. Therefore, a third thing that you theory has to explain is why this amplification DOESN'T also amplify the greenhouse forcing.
So far, NOBODY has come up with a theory that fits these three criteria, other than "the greenhouse effect works pretty much as predicted by the models."
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
What I don't get is: why bother lying about such things? Everyone knows and expects gerrymandering. It is part of the system, and there's unanimous bipartisan agreement that it should happen (though of course disagreement about who the winning and losing parties should be) and saying that it isn't the primary goal of all redistricting and reapportionment operations, is instantly recognizable as a lie. So why lie?
Republicans and Democrats: don't say you don't gerrymander. Everyone knows you do. If you lie about obvious things, you'll never fool us into believing you when it's time to tell a subtle and not-so-obvious lie.
Unless you've supported some kind of constitutional amendment to have districting done by some kind of impartial algorithm, this unfairness isn't something to be angry about. It's either a desired unfairness that the system is supposed to have, or at least an unavoidable one.
Getting mad at parties for gerrymandering is like getting mad at wasps for injecting eggs into other bugs. Parties' purpose is to win.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
That's right, the rules are the same in all fields, so someone who "disagrees" with science in one field but not in others that follow the same methods and standards is not only a denialist, but also a little bit insane.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
You misunderstand. I'm trying to get AGW fanbois to understand that Science isn't about beliefs and feelings.
Good, inexpensive web hosting
Current estimates are that human emissions are responsible for 80-120% of global warming.
It's spelled Medieval.
What 10 years of cooling off? The last time that happened was in the 1950's/1960's.
How do you expect us to take you seriously when you won't even take 5 seconds to look up the spelling of a word online? You obviously have little knowledge of the science. Come back once you can converse on the subject at least semi-intelligently.
Personally, I have my doubts that the people claiming "Global warming is caused by burning fossil fuels, and it will kill us all if we don't STOP RIGHT NOW" folks really believe what they claim to believe.
If they believed it, wouldn't they be gung-ho to replace all our fossil-fuel-burning energy with a source capable of powering industrial/technological civilization that doesn't release CO2?
You'd think so, but (yes, there are exceptions) for the most part, those most gung-ho on the "Stop releasing CO2" thing are also the most vehement "No Nukes Shut Them All Down NOW" folks.
Instead, they pretend to believe, and ask those of us who can do arithmetic to believe, that industrial/technological civilization can be entirely powered by "sunny days when the wind is blowing" energy.
When the nuclear power plants are coming off the assembly line and being hooked up to the grid by the dozens, to the cheering of the AGW crowd (instead of omni-obstructionism) ... then I will believe that they belive it.
I am skeptical that humankind is causing more than 50% of whatever it is that contributes to global warming.
As I said, I can't stop you from calling this "skepticism," but you are basically ignoring the actual evidence, and asserting, without any sort of proof, an alternate hypothesis that there is (1) some as-yet unknown mechanism that makes human-induced warming is less than the models predict, (2) a different as-yet unknown mechanism that accounts for the observed warming matching the warming predicted by the models, and (3) yet another as-yet unknown mechanism that prevents the factors that amplify the forcing of mechanism 2 from also amplifying the greenhouse effect. Let me suggest perhaps you should exert your skepticism on that.
Saying "well, maybe human factors account for half of the warming" may sound like a reasonable compromise position-- "well, each side has points, so the true situation should be about halfway between"-- but this is in fact a logical fallacy known as "argumentum ad temperantiam", or "the fallacy of the mean." http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/middle-ground.html Turns out that the truth is not always halfway between two positions; particularly when there is extensive evidence for one side, and no evidence at all for the other.
Hence, if we magically shut down everything for a year, global warming will still continue, but more than half per year of what it was before.
If we magically shut down everything for a year, global warming would continue due to the carbon dioxide that we've already put into the air-- the effect is cumulative, and has a lag.
I am not saying that we aren't contributing to global warming. I am saying that I personally don't believe we are responsible for most of it.
Your "personal beliefs" are fine; just don't confuse "I personally believe" with "the evidence suggests."
...I don't favor bans of inefficient light bulbs, but I do favor excise taxes on them. I don't favor plastic bag bans, but I do favor excise taxes on them.
As it happens, in the United States the word "tax" is such a politically poisonous word that it is vastly easier to actually ban something than it is to tax it, even though a tax would allow greater freedom of choice and becthe preferred solution for everybody involved.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
You mean like Judith Curry?
Of course you didn't.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
I'm more than aware of both the history of the Holocaust and that of "Holocaust deniers." I would agree that Holocaust deniers fall into a special category, but I see no evidence that the term "denier" was dragged along with it.
You use the phrase "Holocaust denier" and that means something to me. You say "denier" on its own and it doesn't evoke the same thing. Sorry.
You were the first to Godwin this discussion, by dragging things into it that weren't there before.
Ignorance killed the cat. Curiosity was framed.
Whoa, Time out... The Boston church of Mary Baker Eddy, which publishes the Christian Science Monitor, is a very legitimate and focused denomination. Some of their founders beliefs (from 1879) have not aged well. I'm not a member of the Christian Science Church and certainly don't share all their health care beliefs, but coming from the South I always knew it to be among the most intellectual and reasoning of the several denominations (no problems with evolution or hard science). You are going to have to be willing to deal with Christianity in Texas, and writing Christian Scientists off the congressional jury pool is not going to improve your odds of getting a reasonable scientific outcome. Even in health care, I like having someone around who questions how many drugs and hormones we are pumping into our kids... perhaps it's not on the scale of global warming, but the meds are NOT filtered out of the urine at water treatment plants, and are experimenting with the ecosystem's tolerance for all the designer drugs Christian Science questions...
Gently reply