Comments Posted By funny man
Displaying 51 To 60 Of 492 Comments
'IQ OF A CELERY STALK?' WHY DIDN'T I THINK OF THAT ONE?
Mick,
Comment Posted By funny man On 25.11.2009 @ 12:12
personal attacks doesn't make you conservative either. Aside from this ridiculous issue name one one where I am not conservative (or Rick) in your mind.
Mick,
Comment Posted By funny man On 24.11.2009 @ 22:43
just because you adore Palin and fish around some strange birth certificate pond doesn't make you a conservative either. I go for substance not Glenn Beck moments.
Narcisco,
Comment Posted By funny man On 22.11.2009 @ 22:58
I guess I'm too elitist to understand even a paragraph of what your saying. And the topic was...
the Dragon,
Comment Posted By funny man On 22.11.2009 @ 18:14
ok, the way I understood Rick's post is that today's debate is more about what tribe one belongs to in today's culture war not about rational debate and Palin knows how to play that fiddle. If you (and I) make an argument against Palin all hell breaks loose, why? This has nothing to do anymore with 18th century debate that was firmly on the pillar of enlightenment. Palin does play on resentment against the so called 'elites', you know that. BTW, since when do we as conservatives have a problem with there being an elite. That sounds pretty egalitarian, mind you socialist, to me. Wrong concept?
One of my favorite "arguments": our women look better than yours, that's why you hate Palin.
Comment Posted By funny man On 22.11.2009 @ 12:46
HADLEY EMAILS DON'T 'PROVE' GLOBAL WARMING A CROCK
Obamathered,
Comment Posted By funny man On 22.11.2009 @ 15:54
I'm a conservative scientist but have to tell you your assessment is wrong. People in general are resistant to a change in dogma but you portray it as if scientists were 'hounded out' That is BS. Peer reviewed is not perfect but you tell me a better way. If you can make your case you will be able to publish. Maybe not in Science or Nature but a second-tier journal. However, if you are correct people will eventually come around. Of course, if your scientific method is weak I would reject your paper too. All this talk about 'crypto socialism' in American science is BS. Yeah, right, that's why they were (are) the leaders in Natural Science for the past 50 years.
Sharpshooter,
Comment Posted By funny man On 21.11.2009 @ 21:10
if you could scientifically show where the arguments are fraudulent it would help make your case. In lieu of facts it is just hot air.
Science always has to weigh and integrate data from different sources. In that sense it cannot be an 'exact' science. Just think of meteorology, how much impact will this hurricane have on weather in Dallas, how much will the weather in Colorado impact it at the same time etc etc. You would still measure rain at different weather station, feed all this into models derived from past weather pattern and then try to make a prognosis. In spite of all, this is still a valid way of doing things but as everyone knows, the weatherman is not always right. Folks, that's not a conspiracy.
Comment Posted By funny man On 21.11.2009 @ 18:20
The problem (well illustrated in some of the comments) is that some on the right and the left have ALREADY decided the outcome of climate change come what may. That's unfortunate because it is an important topic and everyone should keep an open mind.
I think (almost) everyone agrees that climate is changing as it has over Earth's history. How much impact more than 6 billion people have is notoriously difficult to determine. However, to dismiss the possibility of a big impact by humans up front is just politics not science.
Comment Posted By funny man On 21.11.2009 @ 12:48
That said, science is also business as people compete for grants, resources, recognition. Some don't behave honorably as some do in any other field. However, this is not a conspiracy it's just human nature.
COULD WE WIN IF WE HAD TO FIGHT WORLD WAR II TODAY?
Dee,
Comment Posted By funny man On 21.11.2009 @ 22:07
I'm glad you noticed too.
