Truth be told, I think Congress should be forced to master basic math before they even consider worrying about science.

tailgater wrote:

Don't disagree, but it goes beyond just congress. The reporters, the general public, every idiot with a blog....

There is a lack of critical thinking capability, and this leads to a demonization of concepts which require critical thinking.

victor809 wrote:

There is some truth in your comments, but for every "demonization" of a concept there are those who over-react and jump to firm conclusions too readily.

tailgater wrote:

We all know your favorite topic (apart from how gorgeous your rugby friends tell you you are) is Climate Change a.k.a. Global Warming.
You read scientific studies that show man-made influence and you extrapolate that we should therefore respond in full force immediately. I suggest that man's impact is tempered by the fact that our influence affects a relatively small percentage of greenhouse gas, and therefore the world would be best served by taking a long term approach that could help, rather than hinder, our economy.

There is a wide chasm between the likes of Rush Limbaugh and the policies of this administration. And the truth lies in the middle.

Some light reading.
http://www.justfacts.com/globalwarming.asp 

Don't care if the world lives past 50 years?
Then you are indeed an enigma.
How can one be so interested in science, and fight tooth and nail about the merits of anthropogenic global warming, yet have no worries on the long term outcome?

I don't buy it.
You can't have passion for your convictions while maintaining apathy on the results.

Unless you're engaged in some kind of bizarre experiment on these forums.
In which case, may I suggest choosing TW as your subject. Now THERE'S an enigma.

tailgater wrote:

:-k
so you're gonna sit back and judge others for ignoring things you've decided ignore...... 😟

DrafterX wrote:

I have never supported an environmental policy.

I'll fight over the merits of the science, because I find the decision making process some people use to be insultingly stupid. The scientific fact is ALWAYS important, whether it has a direct impact on you or not.

victor809 wrote:

And yet you smoke.

tailgater wrote:

](*,) 😣
While the outcomes may be the same, "ignoring" and "being willfully ignorant" are two separate actions. One is a valid value judgement which can be made and re-evaluated based on updated information. The other is just being stupid for stupid's sake. Are you telling me you are unable to tell the difference?

victor809 wrote:

I think I understand.... you don't give a sh^t but it's ok.. if we decide not to give a sh^t we're idiots.... 🤔

DrafterX wrote:

Knowingly. I understand the actual risk I undertake to myself (moderate) and to the people around me (minimal, but I don't like them anyway). I have weighted that against the value and made a conscious decision to smoke. I don't simply say "anti-smoking studies are bs!" (although the second-hand studies are bs... meta-studies performed using non statistically significant numbers of individuals in conditions well beyond that of an average second-hand smoke exposure).

victor809 wrote:

I have never supported an environmental policy.

I'll fight over the merits of the science, because I find the decision making process some people use to be insultingly stupid. The scientific fact is ALWAYS important, whether it has a direct impact on you or not.

I have said again and again that I don't personally care about the health and well-being of the planet past my life. I don't have children, I don't want children and I don't care about children. That doesn't mean I'm going to stop believing the scientific studies behind climate change. It doesn't change actual facts.

If someone managed to prove the existence of your god tomorrow, it wouldn't personally impact me (not a christian, not interested in being a christian even if the christian god exists), but if someone started saying they didn't believe in the existence of god because it was a tax scheme by the church I'd argue with them.

I get pissed off when people decide not to believe science, simply because it makes their life less convenient. Be honest, say "hey, yeah... scienctific studies are suggesting that what I'm doing is going to have a long term negative impact on the environment. But... well, my kids an **** and it's more effort for me to stop doing it than the marginal benefit he'll receive weighted by the value I associate with him.... so I'm not going to stop."

victor809 wrote:

Settle down, Poindexter!

HockeyDad wrote:

It comes with the Platnium member.

BuckyB93 wrote: