• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Conservatives: Why are you anti-science?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
OneOfTheseDays said:
Do you thinking dumbing down our nation, not funding public schools, disregarding the tireless efforts of thousands of scientists is going to put this country in the best position it can be going forward?

Do you think our children will be able to compete with the rest of the world if we continue to degrade their education by forcing them to learn about Creationism, intelligent design, instead of real scientific facts?

Explain yourselves. And for those that say you're not anti-science, if you've voted for Republicans in the last decade your opinion is automatically discarded IMHO.
Click to expand...

The earth is 4000 years old, global warming was made up by al gore and all terrists hate our freedom.
 
I'm just surprised at how many people try to turn this troll thread into a rational discussion! 😛

And look at what I just did!
 
Infohawk said:
If that's true then the majority of scientists would be saying CO2 is good for the planet since that's what industry would like.
Click to expand...

Well C02 is not a pollutant that is for sure. It is a green house gas and our planet according to science has seen much higher concentrations of it in the past. Science also tells us that the green house effect becomes less effective with more concentration. There is much sciences has to tell us about its effects.
 
Chaosblade02 said:
I know for a fact that the private Christian school I went to in 4th grade was substantially better than the public school system. They were teaching more advanced math and sciences.

Many kids in the 4th grade public school couldn't even multiply 8 X 4, and they were already up to working square roots of multiple digit numbers in the Christian school in 4th grade.

So I don't want to hear that bullshit about Christians and the "right wing" being to blame for the shitty education system that you Liberals control and brought down to the level it is currently at.

I think Darwin would be very disappointed to find out that in the future, the dumbest people of the human species are the ones who are having the most kids.
Click to expand...

I sent both of my kids to a NON-Christian private school and that school is one of the top rated in the State.

It isn't about religion. It's about private schools compared with public schools. Specifically, the NCLB Program has had a major effect on public schools and how their classes are taught, vs. private schools that are not required to abide by the conditions of that program. The public schools are teaching their kids to pass the test required by NCLB, which regrettably, somewhat hinders the fast learners and those students on track to acquire a college education. The public schools are rated on an aggregate scale, meaning, ALL students test scores are piled in and averaged out. What this does is force the teachers to slow things down to give the slow learners a better chance at passing the test. Public schools with large immigrant populations that have difficulty with speaking/reading english are hardest hit, with no exceptions made for that disparity, thus penalizing those schools and making it even harder for those schools to teach the way they were meant to.

And, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe it was the REPUBLICAN President George Bush who got the NCLB program established with both Houses of Congress under Repub majority control at the time.
 
Last edited:
charrison said:
Well if co2 is the problem and we are destroying our planet, it seems to be somthing that left should be embracing, rather than running away from.

The fact that the left does not embrace the solution, probably means the problem is more political than anything.
Click to expand...

That's a ridiculous conclusion. There are known short coming to Nuclear.
 
"Science also tells us that the green house effect becomes less effective with more concentration. There is much sciences has to tell us about its effects."

Um....fail
 
sandorski said:
That's a ridiculous conclusion. There are known short coming to Nuclear.
Click to expand...

There are known shortcomings to every solution. Your point?

Nuclear power does provide inexpensive base load power than can run 24/7. Most green options that liberals desire fail miserably in that dept
 
Last edited:
charrison said:
There are known shortcomings to every solution. Your point?

Nuclear power does provide inexpensive base load power than can run 24/7. Most green options that liberals desire fail miserably in that dept
Click to expand...

Nuclear's short comings are just very serious. You just can't be rushing into it willy nilly.
 
charrison said:
And not being able to reliably generate base load power is not a very serious problem? really?

Nuclear power is not without problems, but they are manageable.
Click to expand...

Like I said previously, you're fixated. Very few will join your Nuclear messiah movement, simply because the potential downside of Nuclear is worse than GW/CC itself, at least in localized settings. Some Nuclear will be built, but it will not be The Solution to the issue. Sorry.
 
sandorski said:
Like I said previously, you're fixated. Very few will join your Nuclear messiah movement, simply because the potential downside of Nuclear is worse than GW/CC itself, at least in localized settings. Some Nuclear will be built, but it will not be The Solution to the issue. Sorry.
Click to expand...

Which means, global warming will have less of impact than nuke plants being built. It is all clear now. You can try to rationalize it away, but this is the reality. Scientist know that nuke power can be safely managed and it has been over the decades.
 
charrison said:
Which means, global warming will have less of impact than nuke plants being built. It is all clear now. You can try to rationalize it away, but this is the reality. Scientist know that nuke power can be safely managed and it has been over the decades.
Click to expand...

Wut? Have you been in a Coma? Srsly.
 
charrison said:
Srsly. Have you looked at how many people the nuke plant in japan killed vs how many the tsunami killed?

How many people die every year in coal mining operations vs nuke power accidents?

think about it....
Click to expand...

So your, "Scientist know that nuke power can be safely managed and it has been over the decades." was just you knowingly spouting BS. Got it.
 
sandorski said:
So your, "Scientist know that nuke power can be safely managed and it has been over the decades." was just you knowingly spouting BS. Got it.
Click to expand...

Spouting bs? No not at all.

Nothing is perfect and there will be engineering failures no matter what we do. But we have gotten damn good at resolving/mitigating them.

These are obviously not 100% safe, we need to stop building them....

http://www.google.com/search?q=wind...3KuSfsQL144iGDA&ved=0CB4QsAQ&biw=1491&bih=881
 
Last edited:
charrison said:
Spouting bs? No not at all.

Nothing is perfect and there will be engineering failures no matter what we do. But we have gotten damn good at resolving/mitigating them.
Click to expand...

That maybe so, but the downsides to Nuclear are enormous in comparison to other Energy Sources. NIMBYism is what prevents Nuclear more than anything and when a Nuclear accident can destroy everything someone has and potentially even prevent them from setting foot on their Property again, you won't get anywhere insisting that Nuclear *must* be the solution. Sorry, it won't be.
 
sandorski said:
That maybe so, but the downsides to Nuclear are enormous in comparison to other Energy Sources. NIMBYism is what prevents Nuclear more than anything and when a Nuclear accident can destroy everything someone has and potentially even prevent them from setting foot on their Property again, you won't get anywhere insisting that Nuclear *must* be the solution. Sorry, it won't be.
Click to expand...

So what nuke plants in the western world have melted down and destroyed everything around them? The fear is irrational.
 
sandorski said:
simply because the potential downside of Nuclear is worse than GW/CC itself, at least in localized settings.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. If you believe in global warming then nuclear power is the way to go until we can really develop wide-spread solar power, which is a ways off. There are no mutants roaming the streets of Japan because of their Earthquake. Don't try to act like you're some official voice of scientific policy. You're not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top