The Left's War on Science

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
52,076
554
126
The 90% consensus of experts in a given field of science is not really relevant to the political implications of that consensus and what political policies are appropriate to address those implications. One could just as easily use the "90% consensus on climate change" to justify a political policy to address climate change that voters would rightly reject as monstrous, such as we should reduce the Earth's population by 99%. That would likely "fix" the problem of climate change but would be strongly objected to the voters in that 99% portion who were scheduled to be culled.

That's sorta how science would be useful here. Given a scientific consensus of "climate is changing due to greenhouse gases," the voters would first decide "is this is a problem we should address?" If they vote yes, then the scientists' expertise could be called on to say "we're thinking of implementing Policy A, how does that compare to Policy B in achieving political goal X?" Scientists and other experts could then say "A has these pros and these cons in meeting Objective X, and B has these different sets of pros and cons." The voters would then take that information and vote on A, B, some other policy C through K, or do nothing at all. That's how democracy works; not "scientists agree that Plan A is the best so screw what the voters choose because they're wrong."
Wow you have very mobile goal posts.

Meanwhile, that is what scientists have been doing for 20 years now. The problem is there has been a manufactured controversy over the consensus itself. And you know that. If corporate propaganda intended to obfuscate the very problem itself is what is standing in the way of addressing the problem, you and your mobile goal posts are moot.

But keep being obtuse as you slide your goal posts all over the field.
 

glenn1

Elite Member
Sep 6, 2000
23,663
86
126
Wow you have very mobile goal posts.

Meanwhile, that is what scientists have been doing for 20 years now. The problem is there has been a manufactured controversy over the consensus itself. And you know that. If corporate propaganda intended to obfuscate the very problem itself is what is standing in the way of addressing the problem, you and your mobile goal posts are moot.

But keep being obtuse as you slide your goal posts all over the field.
Addressing the problem of you guys losing at the ballot box?
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
52,076
554
126
Addressing the problem of you guys losing at the ballot box?
Sure, the same problem medicine had with politics for 40 years with tobacco.

But keep thinking science and policy is a pissing match or popularity contest. Congrats. You're killing people.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
43,345
971
126
Addressing the problem of you guys losing at the ballot box?
I guess you didn't notice how those guys won bigly in November, which is why you guys are desperately scrambling to reframe the narrative with utter horseshit like the OP's.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
50,818
1,319
126
That's how democracy works; not "scientists agree that Plan A is the best so screw what the voters choose because they're wrong."
That hasn't been suggested at all so you can quit pretending.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
60,185
1,435
126
Sure, the same problem medicine had with politics for 40 years with tobacco.

But keep thinking science and policy is a pissing match or popularity contest. Congrats. You're killing people.
It’s a very weird to argue in favor of pleasure island because despite the fact that all the children are turning into donkeys to be sold into slavery they seem to really like the drinking and cigars.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
52,076
554
126
Ya know...

I think the GOP is having a talking point crisis.

After losing the last elections, they are attempting to reframe the discourse from they themselves being anti-science luddite Nazis to their opposition being anti-science luddite Nazis.

Let me know how that works for y'all outside your base, cause damn. That's a bold move there skippy.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
50,818
1,319
126
Addressing the problem of you guys losing at the ballot box?
Addressing the GOP/Trump/Russia mindfuck of America is a related but entirely different topic.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
63,565
369
126
Ya know...

I think the GOP is having a talking point crisis.

After losing the last elections, they are attempting to reframe the discourse from they themselves being anti-science luddite Nazis to their opposition being anti-science luddite Nazis.

Let me know how that works for y'all outside your base, cause damn. That's a bold move there skippy.
It’s simply par for the course at the ever increasing skill intelligent rationalizing will develop to deny reality as one bubble after another is successfully challenged. The wise have been aware of this for centuries: A fool convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.

While the stupid can be too stupid to see how stupid they are, the intelligent, in an effort to deny the awareness of criminal guilt, develop sophistication In their willful blindness.

A willfully blind person, only, would not realize that when real science has been obfuscated, no rational vote by the misguided public would ever be able to decide in a rational manner the value of a range of proposed solutions. To be scientifically sufficiently illiterate to be able to shine on the catastrophe of climate change, automatically means you are also incapable of recognizing the priority of a need for change. The need to deny the reality of climate change is there precisely because of a fear of personal loss and pain any real remedy would bring.
 
Jun 4, 2004
12,464
463
146
It’s a very weird to argue in favor of pleasure island because despite the fact that all the children are turning into donkeys to be sold into slavery they seem to really like the drinking and cigars.
Meh. I’m busy. After filling up my car with Ethyl (lead) gasoline


I need to get some Dr approved Camels for my cough.



Corporate science advertising wouldn’t lie to me. Right?
 

glenn1

Elite Member
Sep 6, 2000
23,663
86
126
Sure, the same problem medicine had with politics for 40 years with tobacco.

But keep thinking science and policy is a pissing match or popularity contest. Congrats. You're killing people.
Yeah that’s an inconvenient truth eh?
 
Jun 4, 2004
12,464
463
146
Off topic

Don’t know if you played it but I’ve been playing Wolfenstein II and

While my recently beheaded character was on Venus in the 1960s pretending to be an actor trying out for the part of myself in Hitlers movie about my death a vomit and urine covered elderly demented Adolf Hitler shoots one of the other actors trying out. Turns out it was Reagan. :p
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
50,818
1,319
126
Yeah that’s an inconvenient truth eh?
Slow claims Libs are anti-science at which point Glenn tells us that science doesn't matter to conservatives, that truth isn't truth when it comes to voting.

I don't think he knows how right he is.
 

glenn1

Elite Member
Sep 6, 2000
23,663
86
126
Slow claims Libs are anti-science at which point Glenn tells us that science doesn't matter to conservatives, that truth isn't truth when it comes to voting.

I don't think he knows how right he is.
Using science to flog political policies for climate change has worked about as well as using religion to flog political policies for the right has been in stopping divorce, gays, and abortion.
 

Bitek

Diamond Member
Aug 2, 2001
7,049
285
126
If you wanted to attack people on the left for being dumb on science, you'd attack the anti-vax fools endangering their kids with measles, or anyone who buys scammy shit from Goop.

Instead you made this thread...
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
50,818
1,319
126
Using science to flog political policies for climate change has worked about as well as using religion to flog political policies for the right has been in stopping divorce, gays, and abortion.
It's led to the adoption of a lot more clean energy & growing awareness of the problem despite conservatives' innate disregard for science, something you seem to defend.
 

glenn1

Elite Member
Sep 6, 2000
23,663
86
126
It's led to the adoption of a lot more clean energy & growing awareness of the problem despite conservatives' innate disregard for science, something you seem to defend.
The answer is "growing awareness"

<beep>

What is "how much Democrats have achieved on climate change in the last 30 years"

<ding ding>

I'll close out the category with "Things political losers say" for $1,000, Alex.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
50,818
1,319
126
The answer is "growing awareness"

<beep>

What is "how much Democrats have achieved on climate change in the last 30 years"

<ding ding>

I'll close out the category with "Things political losers say" for $1,000, Alex.
Yeh, Dems were bigtime losers in 2018. The way it's shaping up under Trump's leadership you should expect more of the same in 2020.
 

Pohemi420

Platinum Member
Oct 2, 2004
2,162
31
91
Using science to flog political policies for climate change has worked about as well as using religion to flog political policies for the right has been in stopping divorce, gays, and abortion.
So the right has been trying to use "Christianity" to make policy on divorce, gays, and abortion. I guess they don't respect the separation of church and state principal that our country was founded on.

The reason that climate change policy has been so stalled is due to the intentional misinformation and corporate lies that the right has continually fed their constituents, for the sake of staying in the graces of their big oil campaign donors.

So, considering these two situations...seems like it's the right that is in the wrong in BOTH these cases...

Oh, I almost forgot: "BUT, BOTH SIDES DURRR"

Nice argument, you dishonest shithead.
 
Mar 11, 2004
17,758
280
126
The answer is "growing awareness"

<beep>

What is "how much Democrats have achieved on climate change in the last 30 years"

<ding ding>

I'll close out the category with "Things political losers say" for $1,000, Alex.
I get being a complete moron that if it wasn't for jack you'd only know shit about anything is your thing, but this is a particularly stupid argument even for you. Granted, I kinda figure you live in some bunker where you just watch Fox News all day, so you might have missed all the wind and solar infrastructure that has been built, but I'm fairly certain you've not only noticed many other environmental initiatives, you've actually raged about them. Stuff like CAFE/CARB standards. Hell, that was what you were full on bitching about in this thread earlier (that you think there's too much "political initiatives" to do something about this stuff, which is a weird thing to follow up by arguing that no such thing has even been accomplished by Democrats in the past 30 years - which shows a fundamental ignorance of the point of establishing the EPA and similar programs that are explicitly designed to permanently address such things - so as to make it unnecessary to constantly make new organizations to address issues moving forward, on top of making all the times you've raged about policies enacted by Democrats related to the environment laughable to an extreme degree). So, as usual you can't even help but show how completely full of shit you are in your own arguments.

Which we get it, you loved when you could use cigarette smoke to mask your horrible personal hygiene, and you really liked lead paint chips as a kid, and probably drank leaded gasoline regularly. And maybe you're just really mad that hair metal fell out of favor and blame it on anti-CFC movement that happened in the 80s.
 
Mar 11, 2004
17,758
280
126
Using science to flog political policies for climate change has worked about as well as using religion to flog political policies for the right has been in stopping divorce, gays, and abortion.
Haha, wait, you actually believe that don't you? Wow...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timel...ironmental_and_occupational_health_regulation

Whereas using religion has consistently flopped with setting policies with regards to divorce, gays, and abortion.

Considering that science actually helped stymie efforts by religious idiots often, that you're claiming science has been as effective/ineffective is so ridiculously laughable that you have to be ignorant to such a degree that you seemingly don't understand basic facts about most topics. Which to be fair, does perfectly explain your posts.
 
Jan 12, 2005
14,924
2,465
126
Yeh, Dems were bigtime losers in 2018. The way it's shaping up under Trump's leadership you should expect more of the same in 2020.

Won seats in the House, lost seats in the Senate. You guys try and spin 2018 as some kind of "blue wave" yet it was a mixed bag at best.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS