What about the arguments by environmental and climate change lobbyists saying, "But the poles will melt and we'll all drown! We have to stop everything NOW!"?
What about the observational science that shows that CO2 levels lag behind temperature change?
What about the observational science that shows that the earth was both warmer and colder, running in cycles, long before humans showed up?
Oh, I forgot, those are all made up by big, evil businesses. All the scientists who say that are shills. All the scientists who say we're doomed are the honest ones. We should all throw away our standards of living and jobs and "go green." The government will take care of us. What? Who takes care of the government? Um...it does?
According to the logic, to regulate dumping chemicals in a lake, you'd have to show that not dumping chemicals in the same lake under the same conditions doesn't result in mass fish die offs, increased risk of cancer for local inhabitants, etc. Since regulations are issued only after something becomes a problem, you can't ever reproduce the pristine conditions. How do you know it was chemicals and wasn't the weather that killed all those fish? You didn't reproduce the experiment.
This is a false dilemma. Who says a study would have to be like that? Why wouldn't it be sufficient to show that these hypothetical chemicals are toxic to humans and animals, and therefore should not be dumped into a body of water?
Either through ignorance or stupidity, you introduced a false dichotomy and assumed people opposed to this have to be against science, and fell right into the trap. I would ignore you, but you are +5 so someone might be influenced by your idiocy.
You know, I thought your post was quite reasonable, until I got to the last line.
I didn't assume that people opposing the bill are against science. I didn't say anything of the sort. That's your assumption about me. I asked a question to make a point; namely, that requiring the government to disclose the data and methods it uses to justify its regulations is a good thing--the alternative is secrecy and blind trust, which is the antithesis of democracy. If someone is arguing against mandatory disclosure, one should question their motives, especially if their argument tends toward hypocrisy because of their accusing their opponents of all being "anti-science."
But I wouldn't want to influence anyone with my "ignorance," "stupidity," or "idiocy," so you should probably ignore me.
Wow, I don't think I've ever seen anyone take the IRS's side before.
Well, some people will do anything to defend Obama. We all know that he and his executive branch would never do anything wrong; they'd never, ever misuse or abuse their power to intimidate or inconvenience their political opponents. Yeah, yeah, there were documents and sworn testimony, but that's all made up BS. Why? Because...why am I replying to you? Sigh....
Researchers asked 1,185 random nationwide respondents what news sources they had consumed in the past week and then asked them questions about events in the U.S. and abroad.
On average, people correctly answered 1.6 of 5 questions about domestic affairs.
They found that someone who watched only Fox News would be expected to answer 1.04 domestic questions correctly compared to 1.22 for those who watched no news at all
If you think that constitutes an "objective fact," then you clearly don't know what an objective fact is.
Here, let me ask you 0.18 questions and see if you answer correctly: How does
Do you honestly expect anyone to take you seriously when you're calling your opponents "the Tealiban"?
You know, it's funny, I can't recall hearing any Tea Party folks make up names for their opponents that look and sound like an infamous group of terrorists recognized around the world as just plain evil. But it seems like people who disagree with Tea Party ideas can't even post a comment without resorting to labeling, name-calling, and well-poisoning.
Also, yes, Republicans are quite anti science. If they don't want the label, maybe they should be shoving creationism.
So, if there are any scientists who vote Republican, is that enough to disprove your mindless, well-poisoning generalizations? What if there are any scientists who believe that God created the universe?
Oh, wait, of course, I forgot: that's impossible, because "anyone with half a brain" knows that there is no God, so anyone who thinks there is a God must have no brain. Yeah, yeah, I know, plenty of scientists throughout history have believed in God, but they were all forced to say that; they didn't really believe in God. We're so much more enlightened now.
But what would be in our favor? Letting the EPA do whatever it wants, without having to justify it to anyone? Don't you know that there are lobbyists on the other side too, and that they manipulate government too?
Really, how can you argue against requiring the government to publicly disclose the scientific studies it uses to justify its regulations?
The GP just said that the bill requires the EPA's research to be made public. The scenario addressed is not that of the EPA's ignoring contrary studies, but the EPA's making regulations and refusing to disclose their own data to back it up. It's more like, "Nope, we don't have to prove that this regulation is based on sound science, you have to take our word for it. Thank you for playing, now go shut down your plants and put your people out of work. (Then they'll need government assistance, and then they'll vote for us, because we took care of them.)"
Don't you get it? Or are you so entrenched in your partisan views that you can't see the other side of the coin?
But Democrats would never believe in conspiracies, not even ones saying that every "right-wing nut"--I mean, Republican--is a corporate sellout.
I know I'm generalizing here, but I think it's telling that so many liberals fall back on ad hominems when conservatives try to have a reasonable, rational argument. One side doesn't need to resort to name-calling to make their point. The other side calls their opponents "nuts" and poisons the well by claiming they believe "nonsense" and conspiracy theories. What's sad is that, as was mentioned before, it seems like a large segment of society falls for it. But I guess nothing's really changed; Barnum was right.
That's basically the purpose of our entire structure of government, to prevent any one part of it from assuming too much power and doing too much damage. Our government is based on the fundamental distrust of people in power and government in general. And the result has been the most prosperous and free nation in the history of the world. I'm mystified as to why people nowadays want to go the opposite direction, why they suddenly believe government knows best--government that is run by people as messed up as everyone else on the planet.
What does "reproducible" mean? If there are 100 attempts to reproduce the results, and only 99 of them agree, is it reproducible? Do attempts at reproducing the results include work done by the very companies opposed to the regulations, who can't disclose all the details of their work because they're "proprietary"? Does it include work done by the equivalent of creation "scientists"? Can you tie a proposed regulation up in the courts for years because only 99 out of 100 attempts succeeded? Is there fine print saying that a regulation can't be implemented as long as there is "any reasonable legal challenge" or some other lawyerspeak BS that means throw a monkey wrench into the works?
Why don't you go read it and find out?
Or you could keep ranting and praising our glorious EPA who would never do anything wrong and must be trusted unequivocally to the point of not requiring them to base regulations with enormous economic and environmental and human impact on actual, reproducible science.
Maybe instead of making dogmatic rules that hamstring either the EPA or everyone else, we need to make rules that get rid of the idiots who make stupid decisions like the ones that affected you.
Also, this throws the precautionary principle out the window: until something is proven harmful, it can't be regulated. History shows that things often aren't obviously harmful until widely deployed, even though it was obvious to people who thought about it early on that there was likely to be a problem. That sort of hypothesis would argue for study first, then use product. But this rule would require use product, then study.
Neither extreme is reasonable or wise. Some people think that radio waves are cooking our brains and causing cancer. Should the EPA outlaw cell phones because "it was obvious to people who thought about it early on that there was likely to be a problem"? Or should it base its regulations on scientific studies and reasonable evidence?
If the precautionary principle is, "If we (do|don't do) X, something bad might happen, therefore we must (do|not do) X!" then I think the precautionary principle should be thrown out the window. We need to advocate intelligence and wisdom, not dogmatic, arbitrary rules.
Leave it to--well, I was going to say "Slashdot," but I'll just go with "the Internet"--to simultaneously complain about anti-science "denialists" and pro-science "Republicans." Their true colors are showing.
Not reproducible implies no uncertainty in a measurement.
So you're objecting to this common-sense, science-advocating, holding-government-responsible bill based on your own, arbitrary, made-up "implication," and advocating instead irreproducible "science"?
And you call Republicans scientifically illiterate and stupid.
Are you advocating the opposite, that the EPA should be able to issue regulations based on non-science?!
Oh, this bill was sponsored by Republican candidates, so it must be bad, because we all know that all Republicans are anti-science, bloodletting phrenologists. And, of course, Obama and the Democrates are all open and transparent and honest! Obama's EPA would never do anything that wasn't scientifically reproducible and valid, even if they won't show us how they did it!
Slashdot Mirror
What about the arguments by environmental and climate change lobbyists saying, "But the poles will melt and we'll all drown! We have to stop everything NOW!"?
What about the observational science that shows that CO2 levels lag behind temperature change?
What about the observational science that shows that the earth was both warmer and colder, running in cycles, long before humans showed up?
Oh, I forgot, those are all made up by big, evil businesses. All the scientists who say that are shills. All the scientists who say we're doomed are the honest ones. We should all throw away our standards of living and jobs and "go green." The government will take care of us. What? Who takes care of the government? Um...it does?
According to the logic, to regulate dumping chemicals in a lake, you'd have to show that not dumping chemicals in the same lake under the same conditions doesn't result in mass fish die offs, increased risk of cancer for local inhabitants, etc. Since regulations are issued only after something becomes a problem, you can't ever reproduce the pristine conditions. How do you know it was chemicals and wasn't the weather that killed all those fish? You didn't reproduce the experiment.
This is a false dilemma. Who says a study would have to be like that? Why wouldn't it be sufficient to show that these hypothetical chemicals are toxic to humans and animals, and therefore should not be dumped into a body of water?
Either through ignorance or stupidity, you introduced a false dichotomy and assumed people opposed to this have to be against science, and fell right into the trap. I would ignore you, but you are +5 so someone might be influenced by your idiocy.
You know, I thought your post was quite reasonable, until I got to the last line.
I didn't assume that people opposing the bill are against science. I didn't say anything of the sort. That's your assumption about me. I asked a question to make a point; namely, that requiring the government to disclose the data and methods it uses to justify its regulations is a good thing--the alternative is secrecy and blind trust, which is the antithesis of democracy. If someone is arguing against mandatory disclosure, one should question their motives, especially if their argument tends toward hypocrisy because of their accusing their opponents of all being "anti-science."
But I wouldn't want to influence anyone with my "ignorance," "stupidity," or "idiocy," so you should probably ignore me.
And that IRS scandal was complete BS.
Wow, I don't think I've ever seen anyone take the IRS's side before.
Well, some people will do anything to defend Obama. We all know that he and his executive branch would never do anything wrong; they'd never, ever misuse or abuse their power to intimidate or inconvenience their political opponents. Yeah, yeah, there were documents and sworn testimony, but that's all made up BS. Why? Because...why am I replying to you? Sigh....
From your link:
Researchers asked 1,185 random nationwide respondents what news sources they had consumed in the past week and then asked them questions about events in the U.S. and abroad.
On average, people correctly answered 1.6 of 5 questions about domestic affairs.
They found that someone who watched only Fox News would be expected to answer 1.04 domestic questions correctly compared to 1.22 for those who watched no news at all
If you think that constitutes an "objective fact," then you clearly don't know what an objective fact is.
Here, let me ask you 0.18 questions and see if you answer correctly: How does
Do you honestly expect anyone to take you seriously when you're calling your opponents "the Tealiban"?
You know, it's funny, I can't recall hearing any Tea Party folks make up names for their opponents that look and sound like an infamous group of terrorists recognized around the world as just plain evil. But it seems like people who disagree with Tea Party ideas can't even post a comment without resorting to labeling, name-calling, and well-poisoning.
"...extremist...abuse...wars...mindlessly..." Labeling your opponents is the easiest and cheapest way to avoid having a rational argument.
Also, yes, Republicans are quite anti science. If they don't want the label, maybe they should be shoving creationism.
So, if there are any scientists who vote Republican, is that enough to disprove your mindless, well-poisoning generalizations? What if there are any scientists who believe that God created the universe?
Oh, wait, of course, I forgot: that's impossible, because "anyone with half a brain" knows that there is no God, so anyone who thinks there is a God must have no brain. Yeah, yeah, I know, plenty of scientists throughout history have believed in God, but they were all forced to say that; they didn't really believe in God. We're so much more enlightened now.
Can this also be used against climate alarmists, atheists, humanistic cults etc?
I mean, as long as we're labeling people...
Does "-1, Funny" roughly equal "+1, Sad but True"?
You could be right.
But what would be in our favor? Letting the EPA do whatever it wants, without having to justify it to anyone? Don't you know that there are lobbyists on the other side too, and that they manipulate government too?
Really, how can you argue against requiring the government to publicly disclose the scientific studies it uses to justify its regulations?
The GP just said that the bill requires the EPA's research to be made public. The scenario addressed is not that of the EPA's ignoring contrary studies, but the EPA's making regulations and refusing to disclose their own data to back it up. It's more like, "Nope, we don't have to prove that this regulation is based on sound science, you have to take our word for it. Thank you for playing, now go shut down your plants and put your people out of work. (Then they'll need government assistance, and then they'll vote for us, because we took care of them.)"
Don't you get it? Or are you so entrenched in your partisan views that you can't see the other side of the coin?
But Democrats would never believe in conspiracies, not even ones saying that every "right-wing nut"--I mean, Republican--is a corporate sellout.
I know I'm generalizing here, but I think it's telling that so many liberals fall back on ad hominems when conservatives try to have a reasonable, rational argument. One side doesn't need to resort to name-calling to make their point. The other side calls their opponents "nuts" and poisons the well by claiming they believe "nonsense" and conspiracy theories. What's sad is that, as was mentioned before, it seems like a large segment of society falls for it. But I guess nothing's really changed; Barnum was right.
That's basically the purpose of our entire structure of government, to prevent any one part of it from assuming too much power and doing too much damage. Our government is based on the fundamental distrust of people in power and government in general. And the result has been the most prosperous and free nation in the history of the world. I'm mystified as to why people nowadays want to go the opposite direction, why they suddenly believe government knows best--government that is run by people as messed up as everyone else on the planet.
When did the EPA start regulating personal beliefs about the origin of the universe? or school curriculums?
Your hypocrisy is astounding.
How many things that you know have you personally observed or heard first-hand?
What does "reproducible" mean? If there are 100 attempts to reproduce the results, and only 99 of them agree, is it reproducible? Do attempts at reproducing the results include work done by the very companies opposed to the regulations, who can't disclose all the details of their work because they're "proprietary"? Does it include work done by the equivalent of creation "scientists"? Can you tie a proposed regulation up in the courts for years because only 99 out of 100 attempts succeeded? Is there fine print saying that a regulation can't be implemented as long as there is "any reasonable legal challenge" or some other lawyerspeak BS that means throw a monkey wrench into the works?
Why don't you go read it and find out?
Or you could keep ranting and praising our glorious EPA who would never do anything wrong and must be trusted unequivocally to the point of not requiring them to base regulations with enormous economic and environmental and human impact on actual, reproducible science.
There's definitely no way that you're the dupe.
As far as I know, the EPA doesn't regulate people's beliefs about the origin of the universe.
Well, more accurately, it's the problem with idiots, or more simply, with humanity.
Yeah, it would have the effect of totalitarianism.
Seriously, that would be nice, but it wouldn't be right.
Maybe instead of making dogmatic rules that hamstring either the EPA or everyone else, we need to make rules that get rid of the idiots who make stupid decisions like the ones that affected you.
Also, this throws the precautionary principle out the window: until something is proven harmful, it can't be regulated. History shows that things often aren't obviously harmful until widely deployed, even though it was obvious to people who thought about it early on that there was likely to be a problem. That sort of hypothesis would argue for study first, then use product. But this rule would require use product, then study.
Neither extreme is reasonable or wise. Some people think that radio waves are cooking our brains and causing cancer. Should the EPA outlaw cell phones because "it was obvious to people who thought about it early on that there was likely to be a problem"? Or should it base its regulations on scientific studies and reasonable evidence?
If the precautionary principle is, "If we (do|don't do) X, something bad might happen, therefore we must (do|not do) X!" then I think the precautionary principle should be thrown out the window. We need to advocate intelligence and wisdom, not dogmatic, arbitrary rules.
Leave it to--well, I was going to say "Slashdot," but I'll just go with "the Internet"--to simultaneously complain about anti-science "denialists" and pro-science "Republicans." Their true colors are showing.
Not reproducible implies no uncertainty in a measurement.
So you're objecting to this common-sense, science-advocating, holding-government-responsible bill based on your own, arbitrary, made-up "implication," and advocating instead irreproducible "science"?
And you call Republicans scientifically illiterate and stupid.
It is naive think that data, truth and science will prevail.
And it's not naive to think that the EPA is trustworthy?
Are you advocating the opposite, that the EPA should be able to issue regulations based on non-science?!
Oh, this bill was sponsored by Republican candidates, so it must be bad, because we all know that all Republicans are anti-science, bloodletting phrenologists. And, of course, Obama and the Democrates are all open and transparent and honest! Obama's EPA would never do anything that wasn't scientifically reproducible and valid, even if they won't show us how they did it!