mavie

Joined

• started 142 topics
• posted 1,015 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by mavie

• 
  137

  Climate Change. Yes the science is settled.

  by mavie in

  1. social
  2. current

  the science is settled.

  special interests do not want you to think that it is.

  "in a candid memo about political strategy for republican leaders, pollster frank luntz expressed concern that voters might punish candidates who supported more pollution, but he offered advice on the key tactic for defusing the issue: "should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  mavie

  "The report was signed by nine Republican senators. The committee is dominated by 10 Democrats, including presidential candidate Hillary Clinton."
  
  -- Melbourne Herald Sun
  
  Yeah. Sounds like some Republicans want to continue to cast doubt on this subject. Why should I address an obviously partisan report? Yet I will, just to make you happy BTS.
• 
  137

  Climate Change. Yes the science is settled.

  by mavie in

  1. social
  2. current

  the science is settled.

  special interests do not want you to think that it is.

  "in a candid memo about political strategy for republican leaders, pollster frank luntz expressed concern that voters might punish candidates who supported more pollution, but he offered advice on the key tactic for defusing the issue: "should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  mavie

  Sorry, I should have said:
  
  Thank you for confirming my hypothesis...sheesh.
• 
  137

  Climate Change. Yes the science is settled.

  by mavie in

  1. social
  2. current

  the science is settled.

  special interests do not want you to think that it is.

  "in a candid memo about political strategy for republican leaders, pollster frank luntz expressed concern that voters might punish candidates who supported more pollution, but he offered advice on the key tactic for defusing the issue: "should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  mavie

  BTS wrote:
  
  "A political interest in the science not being settled is not the same as a proof that the science is settled. There is also a tremendous political interest in the "science being settled". A dismissive wave of the hand by some of the posters on this thread does not make it so. Top scientists disagree on the issue-it is definitely not settled."
  
  BTS, a dismissive wave of the hand in posting politically biased Senate committee reports does not cast doubt on the facts of climate change. Your Senate post proves my point. These politicians do not want the public to think the debate is over.
  
  Thank you once again for proving my point.
• 
  137

  Climate Change. Yes the science is settled.

  by mavie in

  1. social
  2. current

  the science is settled.

  special interests do not want you to think that it is.

  "in a candid memo about political strategy for republican leaders, pollster frank luntz expressed concern that voters might punish candidates who supported more pollution, but he offered advice on the key tactic for defusing the issue: "should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  mavie

  BTS, thank you for providing a perfect example of the type of behavior metatron described in the post above yours.
  
  Well done!
• 
  137

  Climate Change. Yes the science is settled.

  by mavie in

  1. social
  2. current

  the science is settled.

  special interests do not want you to think that it is.

  "in a candid memo about political strategy for republican leaders, pollster frank luntz expressed concern that voters might punish candidates who supported more pollution, but he offered advice on the key tactic for defusing the issue: "should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  mavie

  Carla, Gore is raising awareness. If he emits more greenhouse gas in one month than an entire American family over a year, how is that relevant? Have you considered how many people and businesses he is reaching with the facts and thereby causing them to reduce their emissions? Do you think it would add up to one American family over the course of a year?
  
  The facts are in, the science is settled. Climate change is happening now. For those that don't want to listen to 4 increasingly alarming UN reports I have a question. What is your motive?
• 
  137

  Climate Change. Yes the science is settled.

  by mavie in

  1. social
  2. current

  the science is settled.

  special interests do not want you to think that it is.

  "in a candid memo about political strategy for republican leaders, pollster frank luntz expressed concern that voters might punish candidates who supported more pollution, but he offered advice on the key tactic for defusing the issue: "should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  mavie

  The science is settled. Special interests do not want you to think that it is.
  
  "In a candid memo about political strategy for Republican leaders, pollster Frank Luntz expressed concern that voters might punish candidates who supported more pollution, but he offered advice on the key tactic for defusing the issue: "Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate..." (The Assault On Reason, Al Gore, pg 200) (Frank Luntz, as quoted by Isaac Chotiner, "Frank Luntz's Tarnished Legacy,", The New Republic, January 29, 2007.)
• 
  27

  Glowball Worming: Is the science settled?

  by BurnTheShips in

  1. social
  2. current

  it looks like the scientific "consensus" is not really there, is it?.

  .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  mavie

  BTS, the science is settled. Special interests do not want you to think that it is.
  
  "In a candid memo about political strategy for Republican leaders, pollster Frank Luntz expressed concern that voters might punish candidates who supported more pollution, but he offered advice on the key tactic for defusing the issue: "Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate..." (The Assault On Reason, Al Gore, pg 200) (Frank Luntz, as quoted by Isaac Chotiner, "Frank Luntz's Tarnished Legacy,", The New Republic, January 29, 2007.)
• 
  32

  Society's latest stance on Evolution in Jan 1, 2008 WT (bonus quote mining)

  by marmot in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  my parents gave me the latest "public edition" watchtower and it has 4-page festival of circular logic and hypocritical quote-mining entitled "is evolution compatible with the bible?

  the opening salvo is golden, because they go and shoot themselves in the foot with it later on: "is it possible that god used evolution to create men from beasts?

  did god direct bacteria to develop into fish and then to continue developing through reptiles and mammals, so that finally a race of apes became humans?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  mavie

  Thank you for the Behe link at TallkOrigins Hillary. The information will be useful.
• 
  32

  Society's latest stance on Evolution in Jan 1, 2008 WT (bonus quote mining)

  by marmot in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  my parents gave me the latest "public edition" watchtower and it has 4-page festival of circular logic and hypocritical quote-mining entitled "is evolution compatible with the bible?

  the opening salvo is golden, because they go and shoot themselves in the foot with it later on: "is it possible that god used evolution to create men from beasts?

  did god direct bacteria to develop into fish and then to continue developing through reptiles and mammals, so that finally a race of apes became humans?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  mavie

  Thank you for the Behe link at TallkOrigins Hillary. The information will be useful.
• 
  32

  Society's latest stance on Evolution in Jan 1, 2008 WT (bonus quote mining)

  by marmot in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  my parents gave me the latest "public edition" watchtower and it has 4-page festival of circular logic and hypocritical quote-mining entitled "is evolution compatible with the bible?

  the opening salvo is golden, because they go and shoot themselves in the foot with it later on: "is it possible that god used evolution to create men from beasts?

  did god direct bacteria to develop into fish and then to continue developing through reptiles and mammals, so that finally a race of apes became humans?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  mavie

  "Although evolution is usually presented in scientific language, it is really a religious doctrine. It teaches a philosophy of life and an attitude toward God. -- pg 16

  Then this:

  "The Bible stresses the importance of evidence when it defines faith." -- pg 17

  !!

  Actually WT, evolution is a theory not a religious doctrine.

  That is: "A logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in oppostion."

  Did you catch that WT? Here it is a little different.

  "Scientific theories are essentially the equivalent of what everyday speech refers to as facts."

  Sorry WT, try again.