Weather kills people all the time. The forensics is a little trickier though: fewer fingerprints and more computer simulations, fewer explosives and more droughts. On the flip side, there's still plenty of expert testimony.
That's very true. Weather kills all kinds of people. However, none of that weather can be attributed to man-made global warming (although, I've heard people claim that the recent tsunamis were global warming related!). Weather has killed millions of people throughout history, weather the earth was warm or in an ice age. Actually, ice ages are more of a hazard.
But to get this back on topic... In a flood, would you rather be in an SUV or a Volt? For that matter, I would say that the fight against global warming has killed more people than global warming itself. How many have died of heat stroke in California brownouts because the greens in CA won't allow new power plants to be built? How many people have died riding motor cycles and mopeds because they got better gas mileage? I don't have the numbers, but if it's greater than one, it's a bigger killer than global warming.
That's OK.. he lost me when he said terrorism was a real and immediate risk.
Can you list the name of the people who have been killed by global warming over the past 10 years?
HERE is a partial list of those killed by terrorism. I think you will find that mine is bigger, proving that terrorism is a real and immediate threat when compared to global warming.
So let me get this straight. You are using an electric computer to send an electric signal over electric wires and routers to an electric powered server and then back to me to lecture me that what I do affects the environment? The icing is when you spoke of the evils of coal generated power plants! That's rich!
You prove my point! You are Group A, telling me in Group B what to do. You are telling me that I can't drive an SUV because it wastes energy. However, you fail to recognize the irony that you are wasting energy to tell me that.
Unfortunately, you don't understand how freedom works. Freedom means that I am FREE to do what I wish as long as I don't take YOUR freedoms. You are also free... and here's the kicker... as long as you don't take MY freedoms away. Unfortunately, you want to take the freedom away from me and use the excuse that what I do harms YOUR environment. Really? Would it be better if we all lived in government housing, two to three families per room? That would save energy and protect the environment, right? We could all share and re-use toilet paper as to not harm any more trees. That's good for the environment. We could all work in our government assigned jobs close to our government assigned homes and only have our government licensed children. All that should save the environment, plus whatever else big brot... I mean our government deems necessary to ensure that my life has no effect on yours. Sure, it's hyperbole, but it makes the point that when governments start telling one group what to do based on the recommendations of others, freedom dies.
Or, we can be free and you can mind your own fucking business and stay out of my affairs, thank you very much.
To your credit, your fix isn't too biased. My point, though, is that even your seemingly-simple comment belies the fact that you place a lot of weight on whether or not you've seen the consequences of that risk in the past. (Past terrorism is not a risk, and future terrorism is still a possible risk, not guaranteed.) This is no far cry from fearing a terrorist attack over a car accident.
Granted. The fact is that I don't like someone else telling me what to do. Now, I understand asking me for ID before I board a plane. I like the idea because I want everyone else to have to show ID. I would be a hypocrite if I refused but thought that everyone should. It makes me feel better about boarding a plane after seeing two of them slam into buildings, killing 3000+.
However, I tend to get a bit upset when someone who can't afford a car tells me I have to ride the bus. I even get MORE upset when someone flies a private jet to give a speech telling me that I have to cut back on my carbon usage. I lose it when governments are trying to take my stuff and freedoms from me based on reports from scientists who were PAID BY THE GOVERNMENTS TAKING THINGS AWAY FROM ME!
meanwhile, when you throw your beer can from your hunting blind, you're an asshole. you have no freedom, nor did you ever have the freedom, to do that.
If it's MY deer blind on MY land and MY beer... you bet your ass I have a right to do that! It's MINE. Now when you come and tell me what I can and can't do with MY stuff on MY property... you are truly taking away MY freedom.
When you tell me what I can own and what I can do with, you are taking away MY freedom. Property rights are just as important as privacy rights. When you start telling what I can buy, you are taking away my property rights. When you start adjusting the thermostat in my home, you are taking away my property rights (AND privacy rights).
Now I understand that there are certain concerns that need to be addressed. Speed limit and drunk driving laws are necessary for public safety, just as it is important to know who you are before you board a plane. These are real and immediate threats to personal safety. Global Warming and the climate, on the other hand, is very poorly understood. The climate has actually been COOLING for the past several years against the advice of our most recent models. In the future, it will warm again, just as it has warmed in the past, well before the SUV. So why would you take away my property and rights to live as I see fit (read: freedom) over something has been happening naturally long before man existed?
Do you really consider the government tapping your phone having no impact on your life whatsoever? Do you not have any respect for your basic rights?
Do they breath heavy on the phone? Do they somehow affect the signal quality? Truth is, if the government has some black-suit in a basement listening to everyone of my conversations, and they do nothing with it and I never find out about it, how has it affected my life? Does it keep me from going for a Sunday drive? Does it keep me from driving to a grocery store and buying a 6-pack? Does it limit what I can watch on TV? No, No, and NO, respectively.
Now, tell me what kind of car I can drive or make me pay through the nose for energy of any kind... now THAT has an affect on my life. That really will keep me from taking that Sunday drive. That really will keep me from DRIVING to the store and will keep me from watching TV or running my air conditioner to keep my little girl from sweating.
I've seen terrorists kill people. So far, I've seen no one die from Global Warming.
Yes, we know people are terrible at risk assessment and balancing real and immediate risk against perceived and possible long-term risk. You don't have to show it off.
Fixed that for ya.
The whole point was that people won't give up freedoms for known and real threat, but they will gladly give up freedoms for threats that may or not come to be.
you know what conservatards? sometimes you need a large government and strong regulations. no, really, you really do
Like the PATRIOT Act. Gotcha!
You'll give up your freedoms because Al Gore says there is a danger, but not because George Bush says it?
I've seen terrorists kill people. So far, I've seen no one die from Global Warming. When the government taps my phone, it makes absolutely no difference in my life whatsoever. It has absolutely no impact on my freedom. Taxing gas or telling me what I am or am not allowed to drive has a DIRECT impact on my life.
Are they using the term 'evolution' the wrong way?
Nope. It seems correct to this biology teacher. This is a clear case of directional selection. Keep eliminating the larger fish and the median size of fish in the population will be smaller. So, by taking the large ones, we are selecting against them and for smaller fish and juveniles. If, over time the frequencies of the alleles for large and small change in the population, then we have, by definition, evolution.
What makes you think this wouldn't be an example of evolution?
My take on it is that this is more of a case of Intelligent Design (or Unintelligent Design...whatever, but design either way). And as we all know, ID != Evolution. In fact, many see them as complete opposites. I guess no one has ever considered that maybe evolution is a product of design. In other words, maybe species were "designed" to "evolve".
The supposed ethical issues with embryonic stem cells were a red herring. What the loonies really want is no stem cell work at all to take place. So now the self appointed guardians of morals and ethics must put on their pointy hats and try to find a way to declare skin cell derived stem cells immoral.
How moral or ethical is it for these ignorant idiots to have opinions in the first place?
Strawman! Absolutely not true. No one has a problem with adult derived stem cells. OK, sure, there are the fringe kooks, but there are also people who think that the human race should go extinct for the good of the planet. These people are discounted and with good reason. So, labeling those that are against killing human embryos for scientific research as being against ALL stem cell research is the same as me labeling you one who WANTS to kill human embryos to aid in human extinction. Both would be a load of crap. The only difference is that I'm not shoveling the crap, you are.
The great fear of the abortion movement is that the public would become aware that the vast majority of embryonic material wouldn't be from abortion (where 95% of the material is mutilated tissue of little value) but the unused fertilized eggs contained in hundreds of thousands of fertility clinics around the country that are no longer needed by the parents that successfully produced children.
First, there are not hundreds of thousands of fertility clinics in the US. Although, that's a nit-pic.
The main point is that your statement is a straw man. It's not that those opposed to embryonic stem cell research think that these cells will come from abortions. The problem is that these frozen embryos in these fertility clinics are thawed and encouraged to begin development before they are destroyed in order to harvest the stem cells from them. The problem is that human life is human life. Experimenting on human life without consent is considered unethical by anyone with morals above the common Nazi. Even those that support abortion rights would be against removing a live fetus for the purpose of scientific research.
No, I'm afraid that abortion is brought into this by those that support embryonic stem cell research. Abortion proponents fear that if you grant human rights to a five cell embryo (read: deem it human), then you grant human rights to all fetuses, making abortion murder. This is why they push for federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. To do so will strip zygotes of being recognized as human by law, thus further securing abortion rights. This is the goal for many that support the destruction of human embryos for the purpose of stem cell research. The fact that the research performed embryonic stem cells has produced little when compared to the advances and potential of adult derived stem cells means nothing. The push for funding for embryonic stem cells on NEW stem cell lines is for no other reason than to push a political agenda.
Further proof that this is to push an agenda: * There is no ban on research for embryonic stem cell research. Just a ban on federal funding based on NEW stem cell lines. * The US federal funding ban has no effect on government funding from all the other countries in the world. NASA chose Mars over Venus. The USSR went to Venus. Much of what we know about Venus is because the Soviets went there. Is that knowledge no good? Much of what the world knows about Mars is because the US went there. Knowledge is knowledge, regardless of which government funded it. * The US funds stem cell research. Bush made a decision to focus that funding on existing stem cell lines and stem cells produced without destroying a human embryo. Protesting the US federal funding ban would be like protesting NASA for going to Mars instead of Venus. * There is no ban on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research for NON-humans. Don't we experiment with mice before people? Why the rush to go straight to human trials?
I think you'll find that Science in general has a habit of being controversial (e.g. "Big Bang vs. God"), but that doesn't make the findings any less valuable or useful.
I hate to correct you here, but the "Big Bang Theory" was a proposed by a Catholic Priest named Georges Lemaitre. Lemaitre went counter to the then scientific consensus that the Universe was static, as was supported by Einstein's most recent theories. Lemaitre saw the Big Bang as proof that the universe had a beginning, or a creation, and thus a creator.
My point is that there is no conflict between religion and science in respect to the Big Bang. However, in the case of embryonic stem cells, there is a conflict, and it is not necessarily religious. The problem is that some people, regardless of their religious beliefs, see that human life is human life. That means that a human is a human, regardless of the number of cells. Of course, we can all agree that experiments on people without their consent is unethical. So, destroying a human embryo in the name of scientific research is also deemed unethical. I would like to stress that this is not exclusively a religious view. There are many people that don't think man has the wisdom to know when a human becomes a person and decides to err on the side of caution. So rather than say a zygote gains human rights when it reaches X number of cells or reaches a certain stage of development, many believe that human rights should start at the beginning, which is a single cell.
Which brings me back to the original point of the Big Bang/Religion false controversy. Many people like to paint religion as anti-science. They like to claim that anyone opposing their views is doing so in order to force their religious beliefs on those that have no interest in them. Of course, there are religious "sects" that opposed science and label it as heresy, but there are also non-religious people that think that they were anally probed by aliens. These "extremists" need to be eliminated from the discussion as they add nothing but strawmen for the other side.
The truth is that religion as a whole has nothing against stem cell research. It's the destruction of embryos (seen as people) to create stem cells that causes the conflict. Even when Bush offered funding to stem cell research (the first to do so), he banned funding for research that resulted in the destruction of human life. However, he did allow for funding to go toward embryonic stem cell research, provided it used stem cells from the then existing 71 lines of stem cells because "we should allow federal funds to be used for research on these existing stem cell lines, where the life-and-death decision has already been made." (From HERE. Read the whole thing!) So, there are no limits on stem cell research, even embryonic stem cell research, provided no further embryos are destroyed to create the stem cells. And as this discovery and so many others like it show, the destruction of embryos is completely unnecessary, and merely serves to push a political agenda.
I read the article, and indeed something was done. It allowed research on contaminated lines. You might have also noticed how few lines are available for federal dollars.
My analogy of the poisoned well stands.
Maybe you didn't read TFA:
Researchers at UCLA have accomplished a task that has long vexed stem cell researchers: Theyâ(TM)ve created the first electrically active neurons from induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells. This is a great leap forward for stem cell researchers, who can apply these neurons to the study of neurodegenerative diseases.
Here, a group of scientists and probably students were successful in creating active, working neurons from iPS cells.
In other words, a group of thirsty scientists drank from the well you said was poisoned and are fine. Turns out that there was nothing wrong with the water after all. Now, you analogy would be correct if they took federal money, did all kinds of research and determined that nothing could be done with iPS cells. Fortunately, that is not the case. Since they were successful, your analogy fails. I don't see why this is so hard to under stand.
Is it really that hard to admit that Bush did something that was not 100% completely wrong? Don't let your partisan hatred cloud reality.
Citing Bush's funding of embryonic stem cells is like being happy you have a poisoned well.
Yea, you can get water out of the well, but you can't do anything with it.
Um... read the article. It proves that you are wrong. The whole point is that something WAS done. Looks to me like they were able to get water from the well, drink it, and they found it refreshing, healthy and not poisoned at all.
Yes, thereby forcing anyone with federal funding of any sort that wanted to research on lines that weren't already in place by 2001 to create entirely separate laboratories to work with these new lines.
Gosh, I sure am glad that he supported stem cell research.
My first response is, "So?"
Next, you know they could actually pay for the research themselves. The research was not banned, just not funded with tax payer dollars. Maybe they could ask the German government for grant money. Maybe hit up the Saudi's for cash. Science is not dependent on government funding.
Pretty soon the people not in favor of using embryonic stem research will likely join this thread and start talking about how we can just use adult cells and how that means we should never do any research on embryonic stem cells. However, this research, like most research involving adult stem cells, relied on prior work with embryonic stem cells. This sort of research is only doable because of embryonic stem cell research.
Then it's a good thing President Bush funded such research. From HERE:
Federal Policy President Bush's Criteria
On August 9th, 2001, Former President George W. Bush announced that federal funds may be awarded for research using human embryonic stem cells if the following criteria are met:
* The derivation process (which begins with the destruction of the embryo) was initiated prior to 9:00 P.M. EDT on August 9, 2001.
* The stem cells must have been derived from an embryo that was created for reproductive purposes and was no longer needed.
* Informed consent must have been obtained for the donation of the embryo and that donation must not have involved financial inducements.
NIH's Role
The NIH, as the Federal government's leading biomedical research organization, is implementing Former President Bush's policy. The NIH funds research scientists to conduct research on existing human embryonic stem cells and to explore the enormous promise of these unique cells, including their potential to produce breakthrough therapies and cures.
Investigators from 14 laboratories in the United States, India, Israel, Singapore, Sweden, and South Korea have derived stem cells from 71 individual, genetically diverse blastocysts. These derivations meet Former President Bush's criteria for use in federally funded human embryonic stem cell research. The NIH has consulted with each of the investigators who have derived these cells. These scientists are working with the NIH and the research community to establish a research infrastructure to ensure the successful handling and the use of these cells in the laboratory.
Sorry for the flame, But wow, it turns out you don't need to run the pissing matches with the pro life activists to get things done.
We ARE funding this. This is the type of research that was funded under our previous president. The only thing that was not funded was embryonic stem cell research from NEW lines. Stem cell research from then existing lines of embryonic stem cells was funded.
Unfortunately, your are not the only one who is not aware of this. Since it was so popular to bash Bush, the common thought was that Bush banned all stem cell research. This is absolutely NOT true. Bush banned nothing! What Bush did by executive order dealt with federal funding only, and even then the only restriction was that it not fund research based on NEW stem cell lines from "discarded" embryos.
As for your quip about funding - everyone is after money. Which means that it is a completely useless metric to determine the accuracy of a scientific study.
Actually, it's a great tool to determine the accuracy of a scientific study. Let's see, a scientist writes a report that will ultimately give more power to the body that pays his salary and for his possible future grants. Combine that will all the scientists that lost grants and/or their jobs because they dared challenge the governments pre-determined conclusion. You really don't see anything wrong with that?
Former astronaut Harrison Schmitt, who walked on the moon and once served New Mexico in the U.S. Senate, doesn't believe that humans are causing global warming.
"I don't think the human effect is significant compared to the natural effect," said Schmitt, who is among 70 skeptics scheduled to speak next month at the International Conference on Climate Change in New York.
Schmitt contends that scientists "are being intimidated" if they disagree with the idea that burning fossil fuels has increased carbon dioxide levels, temperatures and sea levels.
"They've seen too many of their colleagues lose grant funding when they haven't gone along with the so-called political consensus that we're in a human-caused global warming," Schmitt said.
You may call me a kook. That's fine. I will call you a sheeple. Go ahead and give your rights to the government because they funded a study says that we will all die if you don't. Sheeple!
We are release trillions of Tons of CO2 that has not been in the Air for millions of years, and we are releasing millions of years worth of CO2. This mean there is no naturally mechanism currently in place to deal with the volume of CO2 in the air.
Great! I'm being lectured by a guy who is using his electric powered computer to do it. You know, most electricity comes from coal right? Even if you have solar panels on your ceiling, does you ISP? How about all those routers and switches between your house and the/. servers? So, until you are willing to walk the walk and shut off your computer so you don't pollute the earth, the STFU you hypocrite!
If you are throwing your leftover waste into my yard then I do have a right to stop you.
See above. The CO2 from powering your computer is coming into my yard. I demand that you shut if off now and never turn it back on.
You our completly ignorant of what people are talking about when they say global warming. Is that willful ignorance, or are you just simple?
You are completely ignorant of English grammar. "Are" is the verb you looking for here. "Our" represents shared possession. You are also completely ignorant of what powers your computer. Again, see the fist paragraph here and tell me again how wrong I am for using electricity. Tell me again that you can tell me what to do if I release CO2 into the atmosphere and then explain to me why your computer is still on since I told you to turn it off.
Do you not see the hypocrisy here?
The issue here is how fast it is increasing, and how much CO2 is in the air. CO2 sampling goes back 750K year, soon to be a million. There is planty of evidence to support that CO2 is causing an unprecedented change in cycle, as well as poisoning the earth.
Actually, it shows that CO2 levels rise AFTER a global warming, by 200-800 years, not before it. Let's see, what happened 200-800 years ago? Not sure, but I heard about Brits walking on the River Thames because it was frozen over. Then it warmed up. Gee, THAT couldn't be the CO2 that's in the air now, could it? But hey, don't let the facts get in the way of your conclusion. Isn't that what these guys did and the whole point of the article? If the facts don't match you conclusion, change the facts!
No, it is the government's business deciding whose affairs are more important. When two peoples' rights come into conflict, there has to be some sort of compromise. That's the entire friggen point of the legal system.
Bullshit! That's not what is going on here. You are trying to get the government to come into my home to take what is mine and tell me what I am allowed to do with the rest... all because you don't want me having it or don't like what I do with it. If I run my AC at 60 degrees all day, that doesn't conflict with your rights. You may say it does so you can try to control me, but sorry, it doesn't. As long as I pay my electric bill, it's none of your damn business!
When it is filled with fit Bikini clad women. However the truth is it will be filled with over 50 out of shape Bikini clad women.
No, the is an ECO resort. That means it will be filled with middle aged, unwashed and unshaven bikini clad hippie chicks. Expect to see lots of armpit hair at best, 70s bush at worst.
What if "your affairs" are harming other people? Should the government continue to leave you alone?
Or should it step in to protect other people's "affairs"?
The government has no business deciding whose affairs are more important. Nor does the government have the right to limit my consumption. The only things that should limit my consumption are my available resources and self control. You have no right to take something off my plate simply because YOU think that I eat too much.
Now if you can show me that the climate did not change until we started driving SUV's, then you may have a point. But the climate has always changed. It has either gotten warmer or cooler every single day since the birth of the Earth. Don't try to use it as an excuse to take stuff away from people you don't like.
Um, didn't they say that there would be NO ICE on the north pole in 2008? It's 2009 and there is still ice on the North Pole.
Actually, no. They didn't. It was people like you who said that they said that. And congratulations on completely misrepresenting the current conclusion by the scientists, as well as the actual facts behind the conclusion. It's stupidity, ignorance and lies like this that demonstrate to me that a) global climate change is happening (otherwise there'd be better counter arguments floating around) and b) we're all doomed (you. duh.)
Actually, what they said was that an ice-free north pole was "quite possible". Here's a quote from the National Snow and Ice Data Center:
Taken together, an assessment of the available evidence, detailed below, points to another extreme September sea ice minimum. Could the North Pole be ice free this melt season? Given that this region is currently covered with first-year ice, that seems quite possible.
"Based on the current sea ice conditions, aerospace engineering Research Professor Jim Maslanik said the Northern Sea Route -- the shipping lane from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific Ocean along the Russian coastline -- might also open up this summer. "It also is quite possible that extensive ice-free conditions could develop at or near the North Pole," said Maslanik.
I wonder why they would make such dire predictions?
CU-Boulder's Arctic Regional Ice Forecasting System group -- the only research group in the world currently making seasonal Arctic sea ice forecasts based on probability -- receives funding from the National Science Foundation, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA.
Not doing it will be catastrophic. We'll be eight degrees hotter in ten, not ten but 30 or 40 years and basically none of the crops will grow. Most of the people will have died and the rest of us will be cannibals. Civilization will have broken down. The few people left will be living in a failed state â" like Somalia or Sudan â" and living conditions will be intolerable. The droughts will be so bad there'll be no more corn grown. Not doing it is suicide.
Rupert Murdoch:
Imagine if we succeed in inspiring our audiences to reduce their own impacts on climate change by just one percent. That would be like turning the State of California off for almost two months.
Slashdot Mirror
Weather kills people all the time. The forensics is a little trickier though: fewer fingerprints and more computer simulations, fewer explosives and more droughts. On the flip side, there's still plenty of expert testimony.
That's very true. Weather kills all kinds of people. However, none of that weather can be attributed to man-made global warming (although, I've heard people claim that the recent tsunamis were global warming related!). Weather has killed millions of people throughout history, weather the earth was warm or in an ice age. Actually, ice ages are more of a hazard.
But to get this back on topic... In a flood, would you rather be in an SUV or a Volt? For that matter, I would say that the fight against global warming has killed more people than global warming itself. How many have died of heat stroke in California brownouts because the greens in CA won't allow new power plants to be built? How many people have died riding motor cycles and mopeds because they got better gas mileage? I don't have the numbers, but if it's greater than one, it's a bigger killer than global warming.
That's OK.. he lost me when he said terrorism was a real and immediate risk.
Can you list the name of the people who have been killed by global warming over the past 10 years?
HERE is a partial list of those killed by terrorism. I think you will find that mine is bigger, proving that terrorism is a real and immediate threat when compared to global warming.
Do they not teach math before the 10th grade?
So let me get this straight. You are using an electric computer to send an electric signal over electric wires and routers to an electric powered server and then back to me to lecture me that what I do affects the environment? The icing is when you spoke of the evils of coal generated power plants! That's rich!
You prove my point! You are Group A, telling me in Group B what to do. You are telling me that I can't drive an SUV because it wastes energy. However, you fail to recognize the irony that you are wasting energy to tell me that.
Unfortunately, you don't understand how freedom works. Freedom means that I am FREE to do what I wish as long as I don't take YOUR freedoms. You are also free... and here's the kicker... as long as you don't take MY freedoms away. Unfortunately, you want to take the freedom away from me and use the excuse that what I do harms YOUR environment. Really? Would it be better if we all lived in government housing, two to three families per room? That would save energy and protect the environment, right? We could all share and re-use toilet paper as to not harm any more trees. That's good for the environment. We could all work in our government assigned jobs close to our government assigned homes and only have our government licensed children. All that should save the environment, plus whatever else big brot... I mean our government deems necessary to ensure that my life has no effect on yours. Sure, it's hyperbole, but it makes the point that when governments start telling one group what to do based on the recommendations of others, freedom dies.
Or, we can be free and you can mind your own fucking business and stay out of my affairs, thank you very much.
To your credit, your fix isn't too biased. My point, though, is that even your seemingly-simple comment belies the fact that you place a lot of weight on whether or not you've seen the consequences of that risk in the past. (Past terrorism is not a risk, and future terrorism is still a possible risk, not guaranteed.) This is no far cry from fearing a terrorist attack over a car accident.
Granted. The fact is that I don't like someone else telling me what to do. Now, I understand asking me for ID before I board a plane. I like the idea because I want everyone else to have to show ID. I would be a hypocrite if I refused but thought that everyone should. It makes me feel better about boarding a plane after seeing two of them slam into buildings, killing 3000+.
However, I tend to get a bit upset when someone who can't afford a car tells me I have to ride the bus. I even get MORE upset when someone flies a private jet to give a speech telling me that I have to cut back on my carbon usage. I lose it when governments are trying to take my stuff and freedoms from me based on reports from scientists who were PAID BY THE GOVERNMENTS TAKING THINGS AWAY FROM ME!
meanwhile, when you throw your beer can from your hunting blind, you're an asshole. you have no freedom, nor did you ever have the freedom, to do that.
If it's MY deer blind on MY land and MY beer... you bet your ass I have a right to do that! It's MINE. Now when you come and tell me what I can and can't do with MY stuff on MY property... you are truly taking away MY freedom.
When you tell me what I can own and what I can do with, you are taking away MY freedom. Property rights are just as important as privacy rights. When you start telling what I can buy, you are taking away my property rights. When you start adjusting the thermostat in my home, you are taking away my property rights (AND privacy rights).
Now I understand that there are certain concerns that need to be addressed. Speed limit and drunk driving laws are necessary for public safety, just as it is important to know who you are before you board a plane. These are real and immediate threats to personal safety. Global Warming and the climate, on the other hand, is very poorly understood. The climate has actually been COOLING for the past several years against the advice of our most recent models. In the future, it will warm again, just as it has warmed in the past, well before the SUV. So why would you take away my property and rights to live as I see fit (read: freedom) over something has been happening naturally long before man existed?
Do you really consider the government tapping your phone having no impact on your life whatsoever? Do you not have any respect for your basic rights?
Do they breath heavy on the phone? Do they somehow affect the signal quality? Truth is, if the government has some black-suit in a basement listening to everyone of my conversations, and they do nothing with it and I never find out about it, how has it affected my life? Does it keep me from going for a Sunday drive? Does it keep me from driving to a grocery store and buying a 6-pack? Does it limit what I can watch on TV? No, No, and NO, respectively.
Now, tell me what kind of car I can drive or make me pay through the nose for energy of any kind... now THAT has an affect on my life. That really will keep me from taking that Sunday drive. That really will keep me from DRIVING to the store and will keep me from watching TV or running my air conditioner to keep my little girl from sweating.
I've seen terrorists kill people. So far, I've seen no one die from Global Warming.
Yes, we know people are terrible at risk assessment and balancing real and immediate risk against perceived and possible long-term risk. You don't have to show it off.
Fixed that for ya.
The whole point was that people won't give up freedoms for known and real threat, but they will gladly give up freedoms for threats that may or not come to be.
you know what conservatards? sometimes you need a large government and strong regulations. no, really, you really do
Like the PATRIOT Act. Gotcha!
You'll give up your freedoms because Al Gore says there is a danger, but not because George Bush says it?
I've seen terrorists kill people. So far, I've seen no one die from Global Warming. When the government taps my phone, it makes absolutely no difference in my life whatsoever. It has absolutely no impact on my freedom. Taxing gas or telling me what I am or am not allowed to drive has a DIRECT impact on my life.
Are they using the term 'evolution' the wrong way?
Nope. It seems correct to this biology teacher. This is a clear case of directional selection. Keep eliminating the larger fish and the median size of fish in the population will be smaller. So, by taking the large ones, we are selecting against them and for smaller fish and juveniles. If, over time the frequencies of the alleles for large and small change in the population, then we have, by definition, evolution.
What makes you think this wouldn't be an example of evolution?
My take on it is that this is more of a case of Intelligent Design (or Unintelligent Design...whatever, but design either way). And as we all know, ID != Evolution. In fact, many see them as complete opposites. I guess no one has ever considered that maybe evolution is a product of design. In other words, maybe species were "designed" to "evolve".
(Did I just cross the streams?)
The supposed ethical issues with embryonic stem cells were a red herring. What the loonies really want is no stem cell work at all to take place. So now the self appointed guardians of morals and ethics must put on their pointy hats and try to find a way to declare skin cell derived stem cells immoral.
How moral or ethical is it for these ignorant idiots to have opinions in the first place?
Strawman! Absolutely not true. No one has a problem with adult derived stem cells.
OK, sure, there are the fringe kooks, but there are also people who think that the human race should go extinct for the good of the planet. These people are discounted and with good reason. So, labeling those that are against killing human embryos for scientific research as being against ALL stem cell research is the same as me labeling you one who WANTS to kill human embryos to aid in human extinction. Both would be a load of crap. The only difference is that I'm not shoveling the crap, you are.
The great fear of the abortion movement is that the public would become aware that the vast majority of embryonic material wouldn't be from abortion (where 95% of the material is mutilated tissue of little value) but the unused fertilized eggs contained in hundreds of thousands of fertility clinics around the country that are no longer needed by the parents that successfully produced children.
First, there are not hundreds of thousands of fertility clinics in the US. Although, that's a nit-pic.
The main point is that your statement is a straw man. It's not that those opposed to embryonic stem cell research think that these cells will come from abortions. The problem is that these frozen embryos in these fertility clinics are thawed and encouraged to begin development before they are destroyed in order to harvest the stem cells from them. The problem is that human life is human life. Experimenting on human life without consent is considered unethical by anyone with morals above the common Nazi. Even those that support abortion rights would be against removing a live fetus for the purpose of scientific research.
No, I'm afraid that abortion is brought into this by those that support embryonic stem cell research. Abortion proponents fear that if you grant human rights to a five cell embryo (read: deem it human), then you grant human rights to all fetuses, making abortion murder. This is why they push for federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. To do so will strip zygotes of being recognized as human by law, thus further securing abortion rights. This is the goal for many that support the destruction of human embryos for the purpose of stem cell research. The fact that the research performed embryonic stem cells has produced little when compared to the advances and potential of adult derived stem cells means nothing. The push for funding for embryonic stem cells on NEW stem cell lines is for no other reason than to push a political agenda.
Further proof that this is to push an agenda:
* There is no ban on research for embryonic stem cell research. Just a ban on federal funding based on NEW stem cell lines.
* The US federal funding ban has no effect on government funding from all the other countries in the world. NASA chose Mars over Venus. The USSR went to Venus. Much of what we know about Venus is because the Soviets went there. Is that knowledge no good? Much of what the world knows about Mars is because the US went there. Knowledge is knowledge, regardless of which government funded it.
* The US funds stem cell research. Bush made a decision to focus that funding on existing stem cell lines and stem cells produced without destroying a human embryo. Protesting the US federal funding ban would be like protesting NASA for going to Mars instead of Venus.
* There is no ban on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research for NON-humans. Don't we experiment with mice before people? Why the rush to go straight to human trials?
I think you'll find that Science in general has a habit of being controversial (e.g. "Big Bang vs. God"), but that doesn't make the findings any less valuable or useful.
I hate to correct you here, but the "Big Bang Theory" was a proposed by a Catholic Priest named Georges Lemaitre. Lemaitre went counter to the then scientific consensus that the Universe was static, as was supported by Einstein's most recent theories. Lemaitre saw the Big Bang as proof that the universe had a beginning, or a creation, and thus a creator.
My point is that there is no conflict between religion and science in respect to the Big Bang. However, in the case of embryonic stem cells, there is a conflict, and it is not necessarily religious. The problem is that some people, regardless of their religious beliefs, see that human life is human life. That means that a human is a human, regardless of the number of cells. Of course, we can all agree that experiments on people without their consent is unethical. So, destroying a human embryo in the name of scientific research is also deemed unethical. I would like to stress that this is not exclusively a religious view. There are many people that don't think man has the wisdom to know when a human becomes a person and decides to err on the side of caution. So rather than say a zygote gains human rights when it reaches X number of cells or reaches a certain stage of development, many believe that human rights should start at the beginning, which is a single cell.
Which brings me back to the original point of the Big Bang/Religion false controversy. Many people like to paint religion as anti-science. They like to claim that anyone opposing their views is doing so in order to force their religious beliefs on those that have no interest in them. Of course, there are religious "sects" that opposed science and label it as heresy, but there are also non-religious people that think that they were anally probed by aliens. These "extremists" need to be eliminated from the discussion as they add nothing but strawmen for the other side.
The truth is that religion as a whole has nothing against stem cell research. It's the destruction of embryos (seen as people) to create stem cells that causes the conflict. Even when Bush offered funding to stem cell research (the first to do so), he banned funding for research that resulted in the destruction of human life. However, he did allow for funding to go toward embryonic stem cell research, provided it used stem cells from the then existing 71 lines of stem cells because "we should allow federal funds to be used for research on these existing stem cell lines, where the life-and-death decision has already been made." (From HERE. Read the whole thing!) So, there are no limits on stem cell research, even embryonic stem cell research, provided no further embryos are destroyed to create the stem cells. And as this discovery and so many others like it show, the destruction of embryos is completely unnecessary, and merely serves to push a political agenda.
I read the article, and indeed something was done. It allowed research on contaminated lines. You might have also noticed how few lines are available for federal dollars.
My analogy of the poisoned well stands.
Maybe you didn't read TFA:
Researchers at UCLA have accomplished a task that has long vexed stem cell researchers: Theyâ(TM)ve created the first electrically active neurons from induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells. This is a great leap forward for stem cell researchers, who can apply these neurons to the study of neurodegenerative diseases.
Here, a group of scientists and probably students were successful in creating active, working neurons from iPS cells.
In other words, a group of thirsty scientists drank from the well you said was poisoned and are fine. Turns out that there was nothing wrong with the water after all. Now, you analogy would be correct if they took federal money, did all kinds of research and determined that nothing could be done with iPS cells. Fortunately, that is not the case. Since they were successful, your analogy fails. I don't see why this is so hard to under stand.
Is it really that hard to admit that Bush did something that was not 100% completely wrong? Don't let your partisan hatred cloud reality.
Citing Bush's funding of embryonic stem cells is like being happy you have a poisoned well.
Yea, you can get water out of the well, but you can't do anything with it.
Um... read the article. It proves that you are wrong. The whole point is that something WAS done. Looks to me like they were able to get water from the well, drink it, and they found it refreshing, healthy and not poisoned at all.
Yes, thereby forcing anyone with federal funding of any sort that wanted to research on lines that weren't already in place by 2001 to create entirely separate laboratories to work with these new lines.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/24/science/24conv.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1
Gosh, I sure am glad that he supported stem cell research.
My first response is, "So?"
Next, you know they could actually pay for the research themselves. The research was not banned, just not funded with tax payer dollars. Maybe they could ask the German government for grant money. Maybe hit up the Saudi's for cash. Science is not dependent on government funding.
Pretty soon the people not in favor of using embryonic stem research will likely join this thread and start talking about how we can just use adult cells and how that means we should never do any research on embryonic stem cells. However, this research, like most research involving adult stem cells, relied on prior work with embryonic stem cells. This sort of research is only doable because of embryonic stem cell research.
Then it's a good thing President Bush funded such research. From HERE:
Federal Policy
President Bush's Criteria
On August 9th, 2001, Former President George W. Bush announced that federal funds may be awarded for research using human embryonic stem cells if the following criteria are met:
* The derivation process (which begins with the destruction of the embryo) was initiated prior to 9:00 P.M. EDT on August 9, 2001.
* The stem cells must have been derived from an embryo that was created for reproductive purposes and was no longer needed.
* Informed consent must have been obtained for the donation of the embryo and that donation must not have involved financial inducements.
NIH's Role
The NIH, as the Federal government's leading biomedical research organization, is implementing Former President Bush's policy. The NIH funds research scientists to conduct research on existing human embryonic stem cells and to explore the enormous promise of these unique cells, including their potential to produce breakthrough therapies and cures.
Investigators from 14 laboratories in the United States, India, Israel, Singapore, Sweden, and South Korea have derived stem cells from 71 individual, genetically diverse blastocysts. These derivations meet Former President Bush's criteria for use in federally funded human embryonic stem cell research. The NIH has consulted with each of the investigators who have derived these cells. These scientists are working with the NIH and the research community to establish a research infrastructure to ensure the successful handling and the use of these cells in the laboratory.
Why aren't we Funding this?!
Sorry for the flame, But wow, it turns out you don't need to run the pissing matches with the pro life activists to get things done.
We ARE funding this. This is the type of research that was funded under our previous president. The only thing that was not funded was embryonic stem cell research from NEW lines. Stem cell research from then existing lines of embryonic stem cells was funded.
Unfortunately, your are not the only one who is not aware of this. Since it was so popular to bash Bush, the common thought was that Bush banned all stem cell research. This is absolutely NOT true. Bush banned nothing! What Bush did by executive order dealt with federal funding only, and even then the only restriction was that it not fund research based on NEW stem cell lines from "discarded" embryos.
to keep museums afloat
He deserves it for this one.
To be fair, he was quoting the Historic Naval Ships Association.
However, you missed the symbiotic relationship.
...to keep museums afloat, survival depends on big crowds.
and the survival of big crowds depends on the museum staying afloat!
As for your quip about funding - everyone is after money. Which means that it is a completely useless metric to determine the accuracy of a scientific study.
Actually, it's a great tool to determine the accuracy of a scientific study. Let's see, a scientist writes a report that will ultimately give more power to the body that pays his salary and for his possible future grants. Combine that will all the scientists that lost grants and/or their jobs because they dared challenge the governments pre-determined conclusion. You really don't see anything wrong with that?
Former astronaut Harrison Schmitt, who walked on the moon and once served New Mexico in the U.S. Senate, doesn't believe that humans are causing global warming.
"I don't think the human effect is significant compared to the natural effect," said Schmitt, who is among 70 skeptics scheduled to speak next month at the International Conference on Climate Change in New York.
Schmitt contends that scientists "are being intimidated" if they disagree with the idea that burning fossil fuels has increased carbon dioxide levels, temperatures and sea levels.
"They've seen too many of their colleagues lose grant funding when they haven't gone along with the so-called political consensus that we're in a human-caused global warming," Schmitt said.
You may call me a kook. That's fine. I will call you a sheeple. Go ahead and give your rights to the government because they funded a study says that we will all die if you don't. Sheeple!
We are release trillions of Tons of CO2 that has not been in the Air for millions of years, and we are releasing millions of years worth of CO2.
This mean there is no naturally mechanism currently in place to deal with the volume of CO2 in the air.
Great! I'm being lectured by a guy who is using his electric powered computer to do it. You know, most electricity comes from coal right? Even if you have solar panels on your ceiling, does you ISP? How about all those routers and switches between your house and the /. servers? So, until you are willing to walk the walk and shut off your computer so you don't pollute the earth, the STFU you hypocrite!
If you are throwing your leftover waste into my yard then I do have a right to stop you.
See above. The CO2 from powering your computer is coming into my yard. I demand that you shut if off now and never turn it back on.
You our completly ignorant of what people are talking about when they say global warming. Is that willful ignorance, or are you just simple?
You are completely ignorant of English grammar. "Are" is the verb you looking for here. "Our" represents shared possession.
You are also completely ignorant of what powers your computer. Again, see the fist paragraph here and tell me again how wrong I am for using electricity. Tell me again that you can tell me what to do if I release CO2 into the atmosphere and then explain to me why your computer is still on since I told you to turn it off.
Do you not see the hypocrisy here?
The issue here is how fast it is increasing, and how much CO2 is in the air. CO2 sampling goes back 750K year, soon to be a million. There is planty of evidence to support that CO2 is causing an unprecedented change in cycle, as well as poisoning the earth.
Actually, it shows that CO2 levels rise AFTER a global warming, by 200-800 years, not before it. Let's see, what happened 200-800 years ago? Not sure, but I heard about Brits walking on the River Thames because it was frozen over. Then it warmed up. Gee, THAT couldn't be the CO2 that's in the air now, could it? But hey, don't let the facts get in the way of your conclusion. Isn't that what these guys did and the whole point of the article? If the facts don't match you conclusion, change the facts!
No, it is the government's business deciding whose affairs are more important. When two peoples' rights come into conflict, there has to be some sort of compromise. That's the entire friggen point of the legal system.
Bullshit! That's not what is going on here. You are trying to get the government to come into my home to take what is mine and tell me what I am allowed to do with the rest... all because you don't want me having it or don't like what I do with it. If I run my AC at 60 degrees all day, that doesn't conflict with your rights. You may say it does so you can try to control me, but sorry, it doesn't. As long as I pay my electric bill, it's none of your damn business!
When it is filled with fit Bikini clad women. However the truth is it will be filled with over 50 out of shape Bikini clad women.
No, the is an ECO resort. That means it will be filled with middle aged, unwashed and unshaven bikini clad hippie chicks. Expect to see lots of armpit hair at best, 70s bush at worst.
What if "your affairs" are harming other people? Should the government continue to leave you alone?
Or should it step in to protect other people's "affairs"?
The government has no business deciding whose affairs are more important. Nor does the government have the right to limit my consumption. The only things that should limit my consumption are my available resources and self control. You have no right to take something off my plate simply because YOU think that I eat too much.
Now if you can show me that the climate did not change until we started driving SUV's, then you may have a point. But the climate has always changed. It has either gotten warmer or cooler every single day since the birth of the Earth. Don't try to use it as an excuse to take stuff away from people you don't like.
Um, didn't they say that there would be NO ICE on the north pole in 2008? It's 2009 and there is still ice on the North Pole.
Actually, no. They didn't. It was people like you who said that they said that.
And congratulations on completely misrepresenting the current conclusion by the scientists, as well as the actual facts behind the conclusion. It's stupidity, ignorance and lies like this that demonstrate to me that a) global climate change is happening (otherwise there'd be better counter arguments floating around) and b) we're all doomed (you. duh.)
Actually, what they said was that an ice-free north pole was "quite possible".
Here's a quote from the National Snow and Ice Data Center:
Taken together, an assessment of the available evidence, detailed below, points to another extreme September sea ice minimum. Could the North Pole be ice free this melt season? Given that this region is currently covered with first-year ice, that seems quite possible.
The source sited by NSIDC:
"Based on the current sea ice conditions, aerospace engineering Research Professor Jim Maslanik said the Northern Sea Route -- the shipping lane from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific Ocean along the Russian coastline -- might also open up this summer. "It also is quite possible that extensive ice-free conditions could develop at or near the North Pole," said Maslanik.
I wonder why they would make such dire predictions?
CU-Boulder's Arctic Regional Ice Forecasting System group -- the only research group in the world currently making seasonal Arctic sea ice forecasts based on probability -- receives funding from the National Science Foundation, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA.
Oh, I see. They are after funding!
No, and Rupert Murdoch will head north and drown them personally if he has to.
I think you have Rupert Murdoch and Ted Turner confused.
Murdoch started Fox News. Turner started CNN.
Ted Turner:
Not doing it will be catastrophic. We'll be eight degrees hotter in ten, not ten but 30 or 40 years and basically none of the crops will grow. Most of the people will have died and the rest of us will be cannibals. Civilization will have broken down. The few people left will be living in a failed state â" like Somalia or Sudan â" and living conditions will be intolerable. The droughts will be so bad there'll be no more corn grown. Not doing it is suicide.
Rupert Murdoch:
Imagine if we succeed in inspiring our audiences to reduce their own impacts on climate change by just one percent. That would be like turning the State of California off for almost two months.