-
Trouble logging in? Send us a message with your username and/or email address for help.
America Meet Sharron Angle
- Thread starter Rita
- Start date
Lake View Too
SoWal Insider
And we're sure Sharon Angle isn't listening to the wrong number?
Climate Change Deniers
The percentage of scientists who deny that climate change is largely anthropocentric is roughly equivalent to the percentage of scientists who deny evolution.
If you're not a scientist, but feel you have to decide whether you personally think climate change is largely due to humans, why not use the "whose ox is being gored" criterion?
That is, if someone is "playing fast & loose with the truth" how would it benefit them?
Clearly, there are a lot of big corporations & big businesses who don't want to accept that their businesses are contributing to climate change, because laws might be passed to make them spend $ to mitigate such contributions.
99.9% of scientists should not care one way or the other whether humans are contributing to climate change. If they study the area, they will be looking for "the truth," since scientists make their reputations by true findings & lose their reputations via false findings.
If you say that 99% of scientists are wrong about this, either you know something they don't or you think they have some ulterior motive for falsifying their findings--a political agenda, money, power,...I can't imagine what their motivation would be for conspiring to lead us all astray on this.
It seems more likely to me that big oil, big autos, big capitalism, just doesn't like the science because Their Ox is Being Gored. Business is unfortunately more focused on near-term profits than on the long-term health of our planet.
The scientists are not engaged in an evil conspiracy--but the corporatists may be.
The percentage of scientists who deny that climate change is largely anthropocentric is roughly equivalent to the percentage of scientists who deny evolution.
If you're not a scientist, but feel you have to decide whether you personally think climate change is largely due to humans, why not use the "whose ox is being gored" criterion?
That is, if someone is "playing fast & loose with the truth" how would it benefit them?
Clearly, there are a lot of big corporations & big businesses who don't want to accept that their businesses are contributing to climate change, because laws might be passed to make them spend $ to mitigate such contributions.
99.9% of scientists should not care one way or the other whether humans are contributing to climate change. If they study the area, they will be looking for "the truth," since scientists make their reputations by true findings & lose their reputations via false findings.
If you say that 99% of scientists are wrong about this, either you know something they don't or you think they have some ulterior motive for falsifying their findings--a political agenda, money, power,...I can't imagine what their motivation would be for conspiring to lead us all astray on this.
It seems more likely to me that big oil, big autos, big capitalism, just doesn't like the science because Their Ox is Being Gored. Business is unfortunately more focused on near-term profits than on the long-term health of our planet.
The scientists are not engaged in an evil conspiracy--but the corporatists may be.
Last edited:
LuciferSam
Banned
Son of Sam has found religion in prison, and now gets lots of attention from Christian leaders. I wonder if anyone thinks he's been called by god. Yeah that's it. God wants to see him out on parole.
Lake View Too
SoWal Insider
I hear these strange beeping noises, and a general feeling that someone is "calling" me...but, most of the time, it's just my telephone.
LuciferSam
Banned
Scientists tend to police each other with a heavy dose of skepticism when it comes to just about anything. The bad ones are like bogus bills, they will be tracked down eventually, every time.
LuciferSam
Banned
I hear these strange beeping noises, and a general feeling that someone is "calling" me...but, most of the time, it's just my telephone.
I would think in this day and age you would get a texting.
Lake View Too
SoWal Insider
LuciferSam
Banned
No, but Beezelbub (sp?) does (i think).
Rita
margarita brocolia
.
The Interfaith Alliance, through its president, Rev. Dr. C. Welton Gaddy, issued a statement/warning regarding Angle?s political career being driven by religious impulse:
"Sharron Angle's recent comments on her race against Sen. Harry Reid being 'a calling,' and that she considers herself a 'faith-based politician' should be deeply troubling to anyone who cherishes religious freedom. If elected to represent the people of Nevada in the United States Senate, Ms. Angle will do so as a representative of the people of her state, not of her church. My guess is that God will be just fine without playing a role in either candidate's campaign.?
"Candidates for public office are free to talk about how their faith informs their thinking, but should not imply that policy position will be based on scripture rather than the Constitution. It has been my experience that when candidates intentionally insert faith into politics, the purpose is rarely to protect religion; rather it is done to enhance a political position."
Sharron Angle's Calling, Criticized - Politics - The Atlantic
.
The Interfaith Alliance, through its president, Rev. Dr. C. Welton Gaddy, issued a statement/warning regarding Angle?s political career being driven by religious impulse:
"Sharron Angle's recent comments on her race against Sen. Harry Reid being 'a calling,' and that she considers herself a 'faith-based politician' should be deeply troubling to anyone who cherishes religious freedom. If elected to represent the people of Nevada in the United States Senate, Ms. Angle will do so as a representative of the people of her state, not of her church. My guess is that God will be just fine without playing a role in either candidate's campaign.?
"Candidates for public office are free to talk about how their faith informs their thinking, but should not imply that policy position will be based on scripture rather than the Constitution. It has been my experience that when candidates intentionally insert faith into politics, the purpose is rarely to protect religion; rather it is done to enhance a political position."
Sharron Angle's Calling, Criticized - Politics - The Atlantic
.